Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/18/2000 - CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FILED BY BOB CAMPBELL F AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 27 DATE: April 18, 2000 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Felix Lee SUBJECT: Consideration of an Appeal Filed by Bob Campbell for Andover Fossil Creek, L.L.C., Appealing the Building Review Board's Decision of February 24,2000,Denying a Variance Request from the Provisions of the City Contractor License Regulations Relating to the Licensing of Certain Contractors. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based on the record and the relevant provisions of the Code and Charter and then make a decision either to uphold the decision of, or remand the case to, the Building Review Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On February 24, 2000, the Building Review Board (BRB) denied the appellant, Andover Fossil Creek, L.L.C., a variance from the provisions in Chapter 15 of the City Code that require a contractor license to perform building construction in the City. The appellant sought a waiver to 410 allow using a single licensed structural framing contractor to oversee numerous non-licensed framing subcontractors that would build the structural frame and sheathing for all the buildings in the appellant's proposed multiple-dwelling-unit project. The BRB is authorized to approve variances in specific cases where strict application of the contractor license regulations would result in"peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated . . ." The BRB unanimously denied the request, finding that the appellant did not demonstrate such exceptional difficulties or a hardship. The appellant subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal to City Council alleging the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that it considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. BACKGROUND: BASIS OF THE APPEAL Following the Building Review Board's denial of the appellant's variance request on February 24, 2000, an insufficient Notice of Appeal from the appellant was received on March 8, 2000, by the City Clerk simply requesting an appeal of the BRB's decision denying the requested variance to allow using non-licensed framing contractors to construct the appellant's proposed project. On March 28, 2000,the City Clerk received an amended Notice of Appeal from the appellant alleging, "The Building Review Board considered substantially false or grossly misleading evidence."This Appeal to City Council is based on Sections 2-48 (2)(c) of the City Code as follows: "Except for appeals by members of the City Council,for which no grounds need be stated, the permissible grounds for appeal shall be limited to allegations that the board or commission committed one or more of the following errors: (2) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that: DATE: April 18, 2000 2 ITEM NUMBER: 27 (c) The board or commission considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. . . " ALLEGATIONS AND RESPONSES The appellant's allegations are briefly summarized below in bold font followed by a staff response Two framing contractors testified at the BRB hearing that licensed local framing contractors could successfully undertake a project of the same scale as the appellant's. The appellant states in his Notice of Appeal to City Council that after the BRB hearing the appellant's general contractor solicited qualification statements and bids from more than 100 Fort Collins licensed framing contractors on the appellant's project. The appellant states that to date, perhaps only two framing contractors with a Fort Collins license have the "ability to undertake a job of this size or complexity". The appellant further alleges that one of those two contractors with a crew of 50 workers "has had trouble trying to comply with the City Ordinance"on a current project,and as a result is supplementing his workforce with workers from another licensed framing contractor. In response to the Appellant's allegations,staff notes the Board's findings that no hardship has been demonstrated and that the appellant has other options available to retain the desired subcontracting team,including licensing the individual subcontractors affected,or by directly hiring the appellant's selected subcontractors as individual employees of the licensed contractor already chosen by the appellant. Staff believes that the appellant has not demonstrated that any evidence presented in the BRB hearing "was substantially false or grossly misleading . . .". The witnesses in opposition to the appellant's variance request cited by the appellant merely pointed out their opinions to the Board that with the combined resources of other licensed framing contractors, there is an adequate qualified licensed labor supply to construct the appellant's project. By any reasonableness standard, a disagreement between the appellant and opposing parties over the questions of qualified labor availability does not rise to the level of the BRB receiving substantially alse or grossly misleadine evidence. BRB VARIANCE REQUEST SUMMARY The appellant, Andover Fossil Creek, L.L.C., represented by Bob Campbell, one of the project owners, recently received development approval for a 224 unit multi-family project known as the Huntington Hills Apartments. On February 24, 2000, the appellant appeared before the BRB requesting a variance from City contractor licensing regulations to allow using non-licensed framing contractors under a single licensed framing contractor for this project. In his variance application, the appellant cites the following factors that precipitated the variance request: 1. The large scale of the project; 2. The specialized nature of the construction process that requires a"large-scale experienced framing contractor"; and, DATE: April 18, 2000 3 ITEM NUMBER: -.._.. 3. Licensing all framing crews will create a production"hardship"that will effect"scheduling" i and project"momentum". As an alternative to licensing all framing contractors,the appellant proposes to retain the consultari i, Terracon Engineering,to perform independent inspections in addition to standard City inspections for extra quality assurance. The appellant used the same consultant during construction of the previous Fort Collins project, the Argyle at Willow Springs two years ago. Hearing proceedings may be reviewed in an increasing level of detail by referring to the following attachments respectively: Hearing Summary, BRB Case 1-00, February 24, 2000 Minutes, BRB Hearing, Case 1-00, February 24, 2000 Transcript of the BRB Hearing, Case 1-00, February 24, 2000 BRB AUTHORITY The BRB is empowered to grant variances from the Code,prescribed under See. 15-153 as follows: "The Building Review Board is authorized, upon appeal in specific cases, to grant variances from the terms of this Article, where the strict application of any provision of this Article would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated, and provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of this Article. " BRB FINDINGS AND DECISION All six Board members present voted to pass a motion stating that an appropriate hardship had not been demonstrated and that the appellant has other options available to retain the desired subcontracting team,including licensing the individual subcontractors affected,or by directly hiring the appellant's selected subcontractors as individual employees of the licensed contractor already chosen by the appellant. ATTACHMENTS: Applicant Notice of Appeal of BRB Decision City Clerk Notice to Applicant BRB Case 1-00, Hearing Summary February 24, 2000 Minutes of BRB Hearing, Case 1-00, February 24, 2000 Transcript of the BRB Hearing, Case 1-00, February 24, 2000 Packet for the February 24, 2000 BRB Hearing Three Letters to the BRB for Case 1-00, February 24, 2000 Framing Contractor License History and Ordinance Review Task Group i • Andover Fossil Creek, L.L.C. 6307 Washington Ave. Houston,TX. 77007 PH: 713-880-5800 FAX 713-868-7945 March 27,2000 i ! MAR 13 Building Review Board and The City of Fort Collins City Clerk CITY CL�R K 300 LaPorte City Hall West Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Appeal of Building Review Board Decision Ladies and Gentlemen: On February 2e, 2000, the Building Review Board decided not to grant a variance from the Framing License Requirement for the development for Huntington Hills Filing No. 7 (a 224 unit multi-family project,together with completion of Fossil Creek Parkway and a bridge connection between Huntington Hills and Fossil Creek Meadows). The purpose of this letter is to appeal the decision to the City Council. Grounds for the Appeal: The Building Review Board considered substantially false or grossly misleading 0dence. During the course of the Building Review Meeting, it was alleged by framing contractors attending the meeting that there was ample ability on the part of local licensed framing contractors to undertake a project of the size and scope of this one. Following the meeting, our general contractor commenced soliciting qualification statements and bids from over one hundred licensed framing contractors in the City of Fort Collins (from the City's list). To date, only two of the framers perhaps have the ability to undertake a job of this size or complexity, Pacific Framers and Select Framers. Select Framers has a fifty man crew and has been on the Four Seasons project for a year and has had trouble trying to comply with the City Ordinance and is currently being supplemented by Pacific Framers. The apparent unintended consequence of the City Policy has been to grant a defacto monopoly(or duopoly) for framers capable to bid a job of this size. Included with this letter is the original variance request as submitted to the Building Review Board,reflecting that this project is not a simple home, four-plex, or six-plex. This project requires specialized crews that cannot be compiled in the Fort Collins market. While our proposed framing contractor is City of Fort Collins licensed and has built over seventy-five comparable projects throughout the Front Range (Colorado Springs, Castle Rock, Denver, Broomfield, Thornton,and previously in Fort Collins),it is his various crews that are not licensed. For example,there are separate crews to hang doors and set windows, these crews serve no other function on the job. Hence, wile they are excellent in doing their specific job (the project has over 4,000 doors and windows), they are neither trained, nor capable of undertaking other framing functions, and would not &efore, be capable of being licensed. Issue of precedence, "grand fathered"projects: This project falls within the scope the Land Development Guidance System. Under that plan, residential buildings could be substantially larger than those permitted under the LMN Zone used today. Thus, a typical building in Huntington Hills Filing No. 7 contains twenty residential units, while buildings in LMN Zone (where new multi-family projects will most probably be located) are limited to six residential units. Building complexity increases with the size of the building. Due to the limits on building size imposed in the new plan, framing contractors in Fort Collins will not need to develop the expertise to undertake complex projects,nor should the issue of precedence become foreboding. Just as the project contemplated in the filing is grandfathered under the old development guidelines,the filing process began with the first neighborhood meeting on November 9a, 1998, which was prior to the City's adoption of the licensing requirement. It is probable that there are few or no other projects remaining that were in process at the time the licensing requirement was adopted. We realize that the City of Fort Collins adopted the licensing requirement in order to insure a reasonable standard of quality in construction throughout the City. We believe we have provided an alternative means through third party professional inspections to insure both the City and our institutional partners that our construction exceeds standards set by both. Sinc rely;/ G,211W am bell Owner and Developer Attachments: pages 1-12 • February 14, 2000 REQUEST A variancti from the framing licensing requirement for subcontracted framing crews is requested.' Our framing contractor and his supervisors are City of Fort Collins licensed. PROJECT D�;3CR►P7ION This is a 224-unit multifamily project(Huntington Hills Filing No.7),located on Fossil Creek Parkway just west of the proposed Fossil Creek Community Pazk. There will be eleven buildings and a community building on 12.5 acres. This project has been designed with the intent to sell as individual condominiums at some time in the future. Material and mechanical specifications are therefore more stringent than existing multifatnity projects in the Ciry of Fort Collins,irtcluding the Argyle a[Willow Springs,our recently completed project on Timberline. THE SITUATION The frarnmg cost of our project is approximately$3.5 million. Framing is a critical path of our schedule as it dictates when all other work can start. This work will have a flow of task that will involve as many as eight buildings at one time and will coordinate as many as one hundred fifty framers on site.We use specialized separate.crews that are divided into the following areas: • -layout crew -Notalls and Components crew -Floor truss crew ;Roof truss crew. -pecking crew --Window and door crew —Siding and facia crew —Hardware The buildings themselves are complicated and the demand for the work force is huge; it is important to use experienced and specialized crews who know the multifamily industry, These men are typically multi-family framers and are familiar with the industry standard techniques of trussess,components, structural hardware and shear walls. Using a large scale,experienced regional framing contractor allows for professional co- ordination with the important interacting trades,such as plumbing,electrical, and heatingtcooling subcontractors. Typically,these trades work to jointly schedule work in buildings.weeks ahead. Unlike framing,there are professional subcontractors in these areas,which are both competent and have sufficient manpower to undertake our project. Among those are Allen Plumbing,Poudre Valley Air and Chadwick Electric. These are the team merppbers that wereused successfully in the Argyle at Willow Springs project. In the past five years our framing contractor has completed seventy-five similar projects along theiFront Range, two of these were previous projects for Andover Development,one of which is the Argyle at!Willow Springs in Fort Collins. Asking or changing the multifamily industry approach to framing is a hardship that will • have ripplithg effects to the'scheduling and momentum of our project. QUR ASst RAma TO THE CrrY We will assure quality andjsafety by providing thorough,qualified third party inspections. We use third party inspectors in order to assure both ourselves and our institutional partners 6k the standards of the construction work meets or exceeds their standards on a national basis. Simply pot;institutional investors might have an exposure to substantial liability if the work performed was not of high quality. So we are required to hue a nationally known firm to itasure quality through a rigorous inspection process. We will coptract with Terracon to perform the inspections. An 1BCO inspector or staff engineer tvill make regular!inspection as appropriate times and intervals during the construction of each buildipg. A registered professional engineer will supervise these activities and will sign atid:'stamp the letters of substantial compliance with project plans and spec4ations. A copy,of Terracons' proposal is attached. Terracon will provide all inspectidp Services required by the city. We intend,;of course, to tall for all regular city inspections during the project. We propose the city'sii4pectors willb4 provided with all of Terracon's reports as they are received and Terraconlsiinspcctions will be done prior to any city inspections. We appreciate your considerAupn of our projbot.. i i i 1 i 1 i I FT.COLUNS F"AMERS 3P28lM 'LE,A GDNSTF,Uf'TION l�ww_u 1 eN SEEMBTOSR OOM FRAMM ONLY RAS 25TO 3D MAN CREW.CURRENTLY ON®.pJ18E[H11NG18POURBURD�K�BEHN�_WENEEQ tSpMAN PFmucENd#j1 a w&TwAMILYSpr;EDOFCaNsTRucTK)K WE MOULD BP,TYiERE FOREVMWM A 2&W MAN CReW i TH181S THE k"PusHEDBY7m44mATTHECIT't.cENSEDEPARTmoff - HEE iw*OUPANoSAYSTmTHEISLSsmuNuveNa D SUBCREMSkJTlujsTHECTTS'T wAREoNHISPAYROLL.1DDNTTRUSTTHEMAN. `SQECi FRAT�fIS 011Ad.dA�l HE HAS50 ,13UTCAN NOT KEEP UP.HE HAS BEENONTHE PApPIG. HE IS M OM 44)FDRNk HE HAS HAD A LOT OFTROUBLE ,• :TAYIMG'Ib YVYITHTI$C1Ty$FIULES. rr r 1 J • I 1 Q I t,J 4tin _._ . . ,Fic- C5J �,�c✓s izE- 3,� -,-ft 37- 4,ti;6 � 75� - ce� A)t - 44A r,�5- it/r3Lv. - �� �atis " LGa UNrlS -- - , N— 152) �BitlWCl1�._4 � - 9r7a�bLe6--�Z _ oe- - now � �77" A . a it ^_�� !1'�"Gs•`�;7+� .�asTQ:. . — J��SAi��C�s - <i�9,�-�Is�/�C 4,77 _.. _.. l.� ),L4, 7 -S 1(116G.&sAeo,[T1-1_ •.—".....`mom V�'�'71�.G6�- �,�C� Cu�,•57,2''_- ,� �.�f/- P.�c?-Z�l�? yc ,f- - v • - V/va uz - .-wsdam----F - -33Pz au C 5 S � b ss M.. A: c -- -- - _ ��- j 1 �D ell _ =--EAR c�if�`- -- v `t efew e7 r� '+ !`_ 1 � :_LSD 922 - 0 ?}W S&<-C,A 4 -f l o�lt3�v AlAig i AO IU4SAA 30 f oo wy J Q//. J- i;917M l to ti5 -- /I/Q�S AI.SCcZr��'< rQQ i i City Clerk City of Fort Collins NOTICE The City Council of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, on Tuesday, April 18, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may come on for hearing in the Council Chambers in the City Hall at 300 LaPorte Avenue, will hold a public hearing on the attached appeal from the decision of the Building Review Board made on February 24, 2000 regarding its decision not to grant a variance from the Framing License Requirement for the Huntington Hills Filing No. 7, filed by Bob Campbell. You may have received previous notice on this item in connection with hearings held by the Building Review Board. If you wish to comment on this matter, you are strongly urged to attend the hearing on this appeal. If you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) or the Building Review Board (221-6760). Section 2-56 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins provides that a member of City Council may identify in writing any additional issues related to the appeal by April 11. Agenda materials provided • to the City Council,including City staff's response to the Notice of Appeal,and any additional issues identified by City Councilmembers,will be available to the public on Thursday,April 13,after 10:00 a.m. in the City Clerk's Office. The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call the City Clerk's Office (221-6515) for assistance. 11�► Wanda M. Kra'Jicek City Clerk Date Notice Mailed: Apri17, 2000 cc: City Attorney Building and Zoning Department Building Review Board Chair • Appellant/Applicant 300 LaPorte Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6515 • FAX(970) 221-6295 . BRB CASE 1-00 HEARING SUMMARY February 24, 2000 (Case Introduction by Staff) Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman advised the Board that in order to qualify as `peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated", the appellant must demonstrate that such practical difficulties or hardship are unique to the appellant and not simply a burden or inconvenience that the law imposes upon everyone. City Building and Zoning Director Felix Lee introduced the case, noting City staff identified a number of obvious deficiencies while performing requested frame inspections for the appellant's first project in the City, particularly during its early stages. Although these were eventually corrected, some of the more significant oversights by the framing crews, the general contractor and the appellant's hired consultant include framed in-place broken roof trusses and missing specified foundation-to-wall connectors. (Appellant and Supporting Variance Testimony) Bob Campbell, one of the project owners, represented the appellant. Campbell posited that multi-unit-housing construction is unlike either single-unit detached residential construction or commercial construction because the multi-unit construction sequence is more like a production line that utilizes many different types of framing crews. He told the Board that because of this specialized construction method, the framing "sets the critical path" for the entire project. The • appellant also noted that his development requires as many as 150 workers on site who have previous experience and training in the appellant's particular construction method. Campbell informed the Board that in order to complete the project on time and within budget, the project will use a contractor who is familiar with the appellant's construction system and is same primary framing contractor used on all other past Colorado projects. The appellant expressed the belief that if the project were to use only those contractors who currently bold a City license, many such contractors would not be capable of completing the work on time. He noted that framing contractor already chosen for the project is not in interested in obtaining the necessary licenses for all framing subcontractors to be involved in the project and that if a variance is not granted, another contractor would have to be selected. The appellant called other witnesses on behalf of granting the variance. Bill Attwool of Terracon addressed the Board about their proposed inspection program and the additional quality and compliance efforts that would be in place beyond the City's required inspections, amounting to five to eight visits for each building. He acknowledged that there were "hiccups" in the early stages of the appellant's previous project, but noted that the builder made all necessary corrections. A representative of United Drywall, a Denver area contractor, testified that the quality of work of the framing contractor used by the appellant is `very good" for the 20 or so drywall jobs they had done "behind" this contractor over the past five years and involving some 3,000 dwelling units. He stated further that there were very few occasions when the drywall crews experienced delays • and that most framing problems wpre quickly cgggcted. Gale Chadwick, owner of Chadwick Electric, addressed the Board saying that his company was hired for the appellant's previous Fort Collins project and that the general contractor was a very well organized operation that produces a quality project. Chadwick informed the Board that using a framing contractor other than the firm selected and previously used by the appellant could create a hardship because of a lack of availability of local skilled workers coupled with the delays resulting from the additional training time needed. He noted further that such delays create a financial hardship for Chadwick's company. The appellant responded to the Board that the intended licensed framing contractor will have two supervisors on-site to whom all of the framing crews would report and that the sole licensed framing contractor would then answer to the general contractor. He reiterated that at the peak of the construction sequence, most of the large number of framing workers (as many as 150 on the site at one time) would be "independent" workers and not employees of the licensed framing contractor. (Staff and Variance Opposition Testimony) City Building Inspector and former local builder Jon Estabrook testified that although multiple- housing-unit construction imposed some special requirements relating to fire wall separations, accessibility dimension criteria, etc., the basic framing methods are the same as those used in single-family construction. Estabrook noted that many other contractors also adopt the "fast- track" construction sequence similar to appellant has used. He believes such rapid sequencing has led to mistakes being repeated from one building to another and prompted concerns on the part of the inspection staff that the level of supervision over structural workers may not be adequate. Estabrook pointed out he was aware of several basic framing problems identified on the appellant's previous project during initial framing inspections including broken trusses in place and missing structural components like shear-wall assemblies, point load posts, fire-stops, hangers/connectors, and other similar items. Estabrook stated he recently attended a meeting with the local Home Builders Association and that the general consensus is that as framing contractors have complied with the license requirements over the past 15 months; the overall quality of wood framing has improved as a result. He noted further that several other multiple- housing-unit projects ranging from 10 to 20 buildings and 100 and 200 units have or are being constructed using licensed framing contractors. Chris O'Brien of Front Range Framing, a licensed contractor, expressed his belief that the appellant's proposal provides the appellant with a financial advantage over those contractors who have already complied with the framing license requirements by providing the appellant with the use of large imported labor force, many of whom O'Brien believes are not qualified nor can pass the City's exam. He further noted that his company is available and by combining resources with other licensed framing contractors could supply the work force needed for the appellant's project. Rick Garhart, a licensed contractor and co-owner of Bear Construction, told the Board that his company bid on the appellant's project but was not informed that the project involved eight buildings under construction simultaneously and required 150 workers. He also noted that other licensed subcontractors will be performing specialized trades like plumbing, HVAC, and electrical; and that he believes the City's framing license places the framing trade in the same category. Garhart questioned the notion that if the framing is the critical component in the construction process as affirmed by the appellant, why then would the appellant not want to hire licensed framing contractors who could assume responsibility for and guarantee the work performed. He went on to say that it is the appellant's right to use non-local framing contractors, but, that such contractors are be required to abide by the same rules as those contractors who took the time and effort to obtain a license. Otherwise, Garhart said the appellant will have an unfair advantage in the form of lower costs associated with significantly reduced payroll taxes and insurance. Garhart opined further that he believes the variance requested is essentially based on money, which should not be a sufficient basis to waive the regulation that has had a positive impact on the local construction industry and the quality of work here. He reasoned that the building codes are not varied to accommodate projects based on size or for a particular builder and concluded by opposing the variance for his stated reasons. Paul Diana of the Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters spoke to the Board about the benefits of framing being a licensed profession and that like other skilled construction trades, licensing has raised the level of work quality and professionalism in the industry. He concluded by stating that his organization supported the framing licensing program and applauded the Fort Collins community for its implementation. (Closing Arguments) The appellant concluded his case stating that because of the local labor shortage, the proposed project will be impaired if the variance is not granted. The appellant said he knew of another project in Fort Collins where "momentum suffered" because of "framing labor difficulties" and that if this happened to his project, a ripple effect would be felt throughout the other contractors. The appellant indicated he anticipates using all local mechanical, plumbing, and electrical contractors and that the framing contractor, from the Denver area, has 400 to 500 workers available who are maintained by that contractor. The appellant stated his belief that granting the variance would not set a precedent, but rather, acknowledges current industry conditions. The appellant said he was merely attempting to ensure the success of his project. Lee concluded the staff presentation and submitted three letters from interested persons who opposed the variance request. He emphasized to the Board that the City's licensing regulations were enacted to protect the health and welfare of the community and that the Board should not consider testimony relating to financial and worker pay matters. Lee closed saying that the decision before the Board is whether the appellant has sufficiently demonstrated a unique hardship upon which to base granting the variance requested. Council Liaison: Kurt Kastein Staff Liaison: Felix Lee(221-6760) Chairperson: Charles Fielder Phone: 484-0117(W),207-0505(H) A regular meeting of the Building Review Board was held on Thursday, February 24, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the Fort Collins Municipal Building, at 300 LaPorte Avenue, Ft. Collins. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Fielder,Susan Kreul-Froseth,Thomas Hartmann,Al Hauck, Gene Little,and Bradley Massey BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building&Zoning . Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board AGENDA: 1. ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Fielder and roll taken. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Board Member Hauck made a motion to approve the Minutes. Board Member Massey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and the Minutes from the January 27, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. CONTRACTOR HEARING—RANDY RICHARDSON,d/b/a RICHARDSON CONSTRUCTION: Chairperson Fielder reviewed the procedures that would be used for this hearing. Applicant, Randy Richardson, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had an opportunity to work on a structure that is outside of the parameters of his residential license,and would like the opportunity to do so in an effort to regain his Class C1 license. • The proposed project was for the Diamond Crest Assisted Living Center located at 1225 Redwood Drive. The scope of the work included removing a portion of existing offices and changing the vacated space into apartments. Approximately 4,500 square feet of the existing structure would be remodeled. The building is one story, and made of brick frame construction. No structural work outside of the current building footprint would be required. Applicant was BRB February 24, 2000 Page 2 requesting that the Board grant him a one-time exemption from his current Class DI license to allow him complete this project. Felix Lee asked Richardson if he would characterize the work to be done as essentially the same as residential-type work. Richardson confirmed this. He mentioned that the construction would be done with 2 x 4 studs,drywall,etc. An electrician and plumber would be retained to take care of those portions of the project. Board Member Little asked applicant if he had taken the City's C 1 exam. Richardson answered that he had not and stated that it was his understanding that he needed to gain the experience in order to receive approval to take the test. Massey asked Richardson if he understood that this project falls within the scope of the City's Class E license,and not a Class Cl. Richardson stated that his previously held Cl license permitted him to do this type of project. Massey asked for clarification on whether this project would work toward fulfilling the requirements of the Class C 1 license. Lee confirmed that this project would not work towards fulfilling that qualification. Richardson stated that the project entailed more than simply tearing out walls and doing demo work. He mentioned that this was a sizable project and included all general contractor responsibilities and delegations, coordination of subs, drywall, painting, floor covering, mechanical,plumbing and electrical duties. He was unsure of whether or not an E license allowed someone to actually act as the general contractor for a project. Richardson added that even if the project did not fulfill the qualifications towards the C 1 license, it is a type of project that is allowable under the C 1 license and the experience could not hurt. Massey stated that he was not disputing that the experience would be good, etc., he simply wanted applicant to be aware that this project, if granted,would not work towards fulfilling the requirements of the C 1 license. There was some discussion regarding when the applicant could take the exam. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification from Lee. Lee answered that there is no pre-qualification experience needed prior to taking an exam; the applicant could take the exam at any time. Richardson stated that it was his understanding that even if he took the exam, but did not have the necessary experience, he would not be able to qualify for the C 1 license. Lee confirmed that both the exam and experience are required; however,there are no pre-conditions on when an exam can be taken. Hauck made a motion to grant applicant a one time exemption that would allow him to complete the proposed project that was referenced in applicant's letter dated February 24,2000. Little seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann,Little, Fielder, Hauck,Kreul-Froseth,Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Richardson asked if it would be beneficial for him to have completed the City's exam prior to coming to the Board for further approval requests. Board Members confirmed this. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 3 • Richardson asked for clarification on the requirements of the Class C 1 license. Lee answered that at least two projects sufficient in scope for the Class C 1 license and at least one project sufficient in scope for the Class D1 license are required. Fielder asked for clarification on whether there is a time limit between when an individual takes an exam and when they submit all other necessary documentation. Lee stated that there is no time limit. Richardson asked if the test results would expire after a year or so. Lee answered that this would not necessarily be the case. Massey added that at this point the test must have covered the 1991 or a newer version of the UBC to be accepted. At some point,this range might change and then test results falling outside of the new range could be considered as having expired. Lee confirmed this. Applicant stated that he understood this information. 4. LICENSE HEARING—DENNIS SYTSMA,d/b/a CREATIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Lee stated that in this case, the applicant inadvertently let his license lapse. The license expired in May, 1999, well beyond the 90 day grace period given to contractors within which they must renew, or their license is expired. Once a license expires, the contractor is required to submit a new application and is subject to all current license application requirements. • The applicant in this case had a B license for a number of years and has submitted all of the necessary project documentation. However,applicant tested over the 1979 UBC and, as Massey previously mentioned, the current testing criteria requires that the exam cover the 1991 or newer version of the UBC. Applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. Applicant, Dennis Sytsma, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he held his City license for 15+ years. He had not done any construction in the City of Ft. Collins for the past five years, and when he recently obtained a demolition job in the City,he found out that his license had expired. Applicant stated that it was not City staff that caused his license to expire. He had done some switching around in his office and, for some reason or other, his staff did not follow through and renew his license. Applicant mentioned that he currently holds a Class A license in the City of Loveland and in the City of Longmont. Sytsma stated that he served on a Construction Advisory Board in the City of Loveland for four years and is very familiar with the building codes. He mentioned that he would take the City's exam, if necessary,but was hoping that he could bypass this requirement this time around due to time constraints. Fielder asked applicant about the codes that are currently being used by Loveland and Longmont. Applicant answered that he did not believe that either of the Cities had adopted the 1997 UBC, PP P and thought that they were using the 1991 UBC. Sytsma stated that he took a class given by Bryce Miller approximately five years ago that covered the 1991 UBC. • BRB February 24, 2000 Page 4 Applicant mentioned that he uses building codes daily. However, according to applicant,when he gets a project all of the code requirements are drawn out on the plans. The engineers, architects and building departments assure that the codes are enforced 100%. If a problem arises, applicant stated that he is able to find the necessary information in the code book in a timely fashion. However,as a general contractor,applicant said that he does not have any power to change anything that has been approved in the plans. The project has to be built according to the plans that have been drawn up. It was his opinion that the code test was a good thing when a contractor is just starting out; however,applicant mentioned that he has used his code book probably only 10 times over the past 18 years because all of the relevant information that he needs is already included in the plans. Fielder mentioned that he is an architect and that he relies on the contractors in the field to help catch things on plans that are not in compliance with building codes. Hauck asked applicant about the last exam he took on the building code. Applicant mentioned that the one taken over the 1979 UBC was the last exam he took. Hauck asked if he had taken tests in any other jurisdictions. Applicant stated that he had not. Hauck asked if applicant had any verification showing that he took the class with Bryce Miller that covered the 1991 UBC. Applicant stated that he could obtain this. Little asked for clarification on the differences between the Class B and Class A licenses and on whether or not the Board could grant a waiver of the exam based on an applicant holding an equal or greater license with another jurisdiction. Lee provided clarification on the differences between the Class B and Class A Ft. Collins' licenses. He stated that he could not speak to the differences between license classes in other jurisdictions because they are all different and in many instances there are no direct correlations between Ft. Collins' license classes and license classes from other jurisdictions. Lee also stated that an applicant holding an equal or greater license with another jurisdiction was a criteria that the Board could use in determining whether an exam waiver should be granted. Applicant mentioned that the Loveland Class A license allows for unlimited construction; however, the City has building height restrictions so no construction can go over 5 stories. The Longmont license is unlimited,with no height restrictions. Kreul-Froseth asked for clarification on the grace period given to contractors and on whether or not reminder notices are sent. Lee answered that as a general practice,reminder notices are sent. Contractors are given 90 days after their expiration date within which time they must renew, or the license becomes defunct. Applicant verified that the City had been very good about sending out renewal letters. He stated that he took full responsibility for his license not getting renewed. Hauck asked applicant if he had work pending in Ft.Collins. Applicant answered that he did not. Massey asked applicant for some recent examples of work in Loveland and Longmont that would qualify for the Ft. Collins Class B license. Applicant answered that his company completed a couple of restaurants in Loveland. One was more of a remodel, but the existing structure was barely a shell when they started to covert it into a restaurant. His company has also completed an automotive building, a vet clinic,and other small commercial projects. Applicant mentioned that his company does not get involved with commercial high-rise buildings. His company performs a lot of commercial and residential additions. BRB February 24,2000 Page 5 • Little made a motion to grant the requested exam waiver based on the fact that applicant held his Ft. Collins license for 15 years,that he currently holds existing licenses in Loveland and Longmont equivalent to at least a Class B license in Ft. Collins,and,based on applicant's testimony,that he has been in business for approximately 18 years and has an experienced track record of operating this type of license. Massey seconded the motion. Massey asked if it had been confirmed that applicant currently holds Class A licenses in Loveland and Longmont. Lee stated that there was no confirmation of this in the file. Massey stated that he would like to add a friendly amendment to the motion that the applicant be required to show verification that his license is current and in good standing in both Loveland and Longmont and that a letter be placed in the file covering the Board's actions, making it clear that this exam waiver was a one-time exemption. Fielder asked Little if he was amenable to the proposed amendment. Little confirmed this. Deputy City Attorney Paul Eckman asked Massey if the waiver was conditioned upon the applicant first producing the requested documentation. Massey confirmed this. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little,Fielder, Hauck, Kreul-Froseth,Massey Nays: None The motion carried. • 5. BOB CAMPBELL, representing CECO CONSTRUCTORS: Lee outlined the hearing procedures that would be used in this case. Lee clarified that Bob Campbell,the appellant in this case, is actually one of the owners of the project in question and not merely a representative of CECO Constructors. Campbell is proposing a 224 unit multi-family project and is asking that a waiver be granted around the City's framing contractor license requirements. It is Campbell's intent to use a single licensed framing contractor and non-licensed framing subcontractors who would be responsible to that licensed framing contractor. Lee referred Board Members to the information submitted by Campbell that was included in Board packets. In that information,appellant listed several factors that contributed to the need for the variance requested, including: the large scale of the project;the specialized nature of the construction process in that they use very systematized and modular sequential framing that requires specialized crews and an experienced large-scale framing contractor that is familiar with this production method; and that a hardship is created if the waiver is not granted since production and project momentum would be adversely affected if all independent framing crews are required to be licensed. Lee stated that the appellant has proposed an alternative for quality control that includes the hiring of a engineering firm that would perform independent inspections in addition to the standard City inspections in an effort to provide an extra measure of quality assurance. Lee noted that at least in the beginning stages of a previous project that appellant and CECO Constructors . were involved in,there were some problems in terms of deficiencies that were observed by City inspectors who performed framing inspections. The deficiencies included damaged and broken truss members that were in place and specified connector systems that were not installed. Lee BRB February 24, 2000 Page 6 stated that eventually the issues were resolved and that when the hired quality control agency issued their final report, it verified that these items had been corrected. Lee provided a brief overview of the City's framing license requirements and reviewed the authority given to Board Members related to this hearing. Eckman provided some additional clarification on the definition of hardship. He stated that a hardship is not just an inconvenience that the operation of a law imposes upon everyone. It has to be unique to the appellant. Appellant, Bob Campbell, addressed the Board. He mentioned that he is proposing a 224 unit multi-family project located between Huntington Hills and Miramont. He stated that this is a project that has been going through the City's process for two years. It was very difficult to obtain Planning&Zoning approval, but that has now been obtained. He is currently in the process of submitting a development agreement and mylars. Campbell presented some slides of the previous project that was done. He 'stated that his company builds a high-end product and that they plan to take what they learned from the first project and do an even better job on the project that has currently been proposed. Appellant stated that multi-family construction is an industry of its own,and is not like residential or commercial construction. He mentioned that he is asking for this variance because the framer sets the critical path of the project. His particular framer will not come on-site until seven slabs have been poured. The framing contractor will come on-site,will start the job with a layout crew and then, within a week,will increase to approximately 50 workers. The framing contractor that appellant intends to use has been used for all of his Colorado projects. It is a large framing company in the Colorado area. This contractor breaks his employees into specialized crews because the volume of the job is so large, i.e., layout crews,walls&component crews, etc. The reason so many slabs are required is because the layout crew will do their part of the work on all of the slabs, and then are followed by the framing crew who will frame one story on all of the slabs,who, in turn,are followed by the truss crew who will lay the trusses on all of the slabs, etc. The crews start to develop a rhythm. According to the appellant,these crews have been used by the contractor many times over and are specific to the industry. They are not home framers, but framers who have found a niche, have learned the construction, and perform only that construction. Campbell stated that one thing he is very proud of in his projects is the use of components. The doors,windows,etc.,are all preset which aids in accuracy so that doors and windows all fit properly and are square. He has found the use of components to increase production and feels that it is a premium to use them. Another thing, according to appellant,that differs on multi- family projects from typical residential construction is the size of the buildings and the differences in the design and engineering that is required due to the size difference. Campbell referred Board Members to some drawings that were provided. He drew their attention to hardware requirements and shear wall components. It was his opinion that these items were very complicated,but designed this way to handle the wind speed requirements of Ft. Collins. The framing contractor that Campbell uses is very familiar with these items. Campbell stated that he believed he could provide the quality and safety required by the City,but wanted the flexibility to utilize the team that he is familiar with and that he knows can provide the production that is needed to get the project completed in a timely fashion. Appellant mentioned that the cost of the project is approximately$21 million dollars. The framing aspect of the project equates to approximately$3.5 to$4 million dollars,and is an essential piece of the project. BRB February 24,2000 Page 7 . Campbell stated that he uses Terracon as a third party inspection agency because he wants to build a good project and because it is a requirement of his lenders. Using Terracon for the proposed project was offered by Campbell as a way to provide an additional level of quality assurance if the framing license requirements were waived in this case. Campbell briefly reviewed some of the framing problems that occurred in his first project and stated that he believed he was now meeting all of the City's requirements related to providing a quality project. The appellant stated that he began working on the proposed development two years ago, and has diligently worked to get the project off the ground. In those two years, governmental fees have greatly increased. For his first project, Campbell mentioned that he paid$1.7 million dollars for 280 units and that the fees for the proposed project(224 units)have risen to$3.3 million dollars. This increase was something that appellant could not have anticipated,but he has chosen to move forward in good faith because he believes in the project. Campbell reiterated that the framing portion of this project,due to the size of the project and the amount of lumber that is used, is a critical portion of the project and stated that it sets the tone for the remainder of the subcontractors. Campbell was concerned that if he were required to use already licensed Ft. Collins framers the majority of the companies would not be able to complete the project in a timely fashion. He stated that there would be a percentage that could do it, but that those framing crews are unknown to him and he was unsure whether the type of construction that would be used on the project would be a normal type of construction for them. Campbell stated that the subcontract crews that he intends to use that are not licensed with Ft. Collins have worked with his framing contractor for years. This type of construction is the only type of work they do. He mentioned that his framing contractor had completed at least 75 similar projects along the front range over the past five years. The framing contractor came from Houston, Texas, but has not gone back for five years because the work in Colorado is so good. This contractor has informed Campbell that he is not interested in getting himself and all of his subcontractors licensed in the City to enable them to do this project. According to Campbell, if he is not granted a variance to the license regulations, he will have to choose another framer. Campbell introduced Bill Attwooll from Terracon and provided Board Members with copies of the inspection reports that were generated on his first project. Mr. Attwooll addressed the Board. He stated that he is the manager of Terracon consultants in Ft.Collins and a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado. Attwooll verified that Terracon provided the services that had been previously discussed, including shear wall,building,concrete and other inspections. Attwooll stated that the primary inspector that was used on the project was ICBO certified and that registered professional engineers from Terracon staff also assisted with inspections and signed off on the individual buildings. The manner in which the buildings were constructed, where one crew followed right behind another, required that an adjustment be made to increase the number of times Terracon performed on-site inspections. A log and spreadsheet were set up for each building noting the inspections that had been done,the issues that needed to be resolved, and the subsequent inspections that were done to assure that the issues were corrected. It took between 5 and 8 visits to each building to accomplish the inspections. Attwooll stated that there were a few hiccups in the early stages of the project. Before actually signing off on the buildings,there were some instances where the contractor was required to open up finished walls so that Terracon could view the work that had been done. Attwooll mentioned that their inspections showed that everything was appropriately and correctly done. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 8 Campbell stated that his initial agreement with Terracon had a set number of inspections per building. They found that the number listed in the contract was not sufficient and renegotiated the number of inspections that were needed for each building. Campbell mentioned that this explains some of the deficiencies that were found early on in the project. Hauck asked Attwooll for clarification on the extent of their inspections for the proposed project and if they would be primarily limited to shear walls. Campbell answered that the inspections would not be related only to shear walls and that a variety of inspections would be scheduled including a framing inspection. Hauck asked for clarification on the proposal from Terracon that was included in Board packets. Attwooll stated that the proposal that was included in Board packets was only for shear wall inspections. A separate proposal would be done for framing inspections, etc. Hauck asked Attwooll about pricing for framing inspections. Attwooll was unsure and mentioned that he would have to sit down with the framing contractor and work through the level of effort that would be required to perform all of the necessary framing inspections. They have not done this yet, but plan to. Campbell mentioned that at this point he anticipated contracting with Attwooll for an approximate amount of$45,000 and planned to have them visit the site on a regular basis throughout the duration of the project. Campbell introduced Steve Cohera with United Builders, a drywall subcontractor he used for his first project. Steve addressed the Board. He mentioned that his company had done three projects with Mr. Campbell. His company is based out of the Denver area and they do a lot of work in Colorado and the front range area. He stated that eighty percent of the work they do is multi- family work. Cohera stated that he has an opportunity to see many different contractors. According to Cohera, his experiences with Campbell have been very successful due primarily to the extent of coordination between the hired general contractor and the various subcontractors. Cohera mentioned that the variance that Campbell is asking for would enable him to use a specific framing contractor who is well-known to Cohera. According to Cohera,his company follows behind this framing contractor on approximately ninety percent of their multi-family work. Cohera stated that the quality of the framing contractor that Campbell is intending to use is very good. There are not a lot of corrections needed which is important to Cohera since the success of his company is based on production. It was his opinion that having one framing contractor in control would be very positive for the overall coordination of the project. Cohera reiterated that the framer sets the pace of the project and stressed the importance of avoiding hiccups due to the time and effort that are required to fix the issues. Cohera was very complimentary of Campbell's company and his general contractor. Little asked Cohera how many projects his company had completed behind Campbell's framing contractor. Cohera answered that they had completed approximately 20 jobs behind this framing contractor over the past five years,equating to about 3,000 multi-family units. Little stated that he was aware of the importance of having the framing done correctly prior to installing the drywall and asked Cohera what his experience had been regarding the quality of framing work done by Campbell's contractor. Cohera answered that generally when there had BRB February 24, 2000 Page 9 been problems in the past,the problems were detected early and corrected quickly and that there have been very few times when his crews' work has been delayed due to outstanding problems. Gale Chadwick, owner of Chadwick Electric, addressed the Board. He stated that requiring Campbell to use a different framing contractor could create a hardship for the project by creating delays. According to Chadwick, it is currently impossible to find skilled labor in the Ft. Collins and Denver areas. The only way to get skilled labor is to train them,which takes time, or to take already trained employees from someone else. Chadwick mentioned that his labor costs are increasing at a rate of thirty percent per year since he is forced to continually increase wages in order to keep trained employees. If projects become delayed, it creates a financial hardship for his company. Chadwick stated that he has done one job for Campbell and, at the present time, is involved in eight projects that are very similar to the project that has been proposed. He added that Davis Brothers,the general contractor hired by Campbell,constructs a quality product, is well organized, and he appreciates working for them. Chadwick mentioned that quality is not of any concern with this contractor. Massey mentioned that one of the charges the Board has is to find that a hardship is exceptional or peculiar to a specific project. He asked Chadwick how the labor cost increase was special to this project versus any other project. Chadwick answered that he would have more of a problem with a Ft. Collins contractor because of the delays that would occur due to the reduced speed of construction. Instead of a seven or eight month project,Chadwick stated that it could easily become a twelve or thirteen month project. According to Chadwick, in this particular case,the proposed framing contractor would be able to come in and get the job done in a timeframe that a local framing company probably could not do. Chadwick mentioned several other multi-family projects in Ft. Collins that his company is working on and stated that he could compare the speed of those,which have been done by local framing contractors,to what is anticipated for the proposed project. He stated that the local framing contractors are slower and it costs his company more when they work on those jobs. Campbell mentioned that his hardship is created by the specific nature in which his projects are built. He did not believe that this type of construction was typical or that the licensed framers in Ft. Collins were the best framing contractors to hire for his project. He stated that the components,the shear walls,the hardware, etc.,are extensive and the framer that he wants to use is extremely educated in this type of construction. Lee asked Campbell to elaborate on the nature of the relationship between the licensed framer and the structure under which the non-licensed crews would work,together with the number of workers that would be present on-site. Campbell mentioned that the framer he is proposing to use holds a City framing license and has two on-site hourly supervisors together with some hourly employees. Outside crews are hired to construct specific items, i.e., a crew for wall erection, a separate crew for floor trusses,another crew for roof trusses,etc. A crew may consist of three to eight men and there could be multiple crews for each specific item. All of the crews would report directly to the supervisors of the framing contractor who would then report to the superintendent of the general contractor. According to Campbell,when the project is in full momentum, there could be up to 150 men on-site. This number of workers would be maintained for approximately . three months and would then start to scale back down. BRB February 24,2000 Page 10 Lee asked for additional clarification on the crews that are hired. Campbell stated that each crew has its own foreman who reports directly to the supervisor of the framing contractor. For more complicated construction,i.e.,shear wall placement,the licensed framing contractor would utilize hourly employees from his company. He would also use his employees to resolve small issues or to"catch up"an area that is behind. Hauck asked for clarification on the number of licensed people that would be on site. Campbell answered that the general contractor's superintendent would be licensed and on the site full-time. The framing contractor would have a license,but would not be on-site full-time. The framing contractor would also have two to three supervisors who would have a license and would be on- site. Campbell added that there might be some chance that one or more of the framing subcontractors that are used may also have a license. Hauck asked if the foreman of the subcontractor crews would generally not have a license. Campbell confirmed this. Hauck asked about the nature of reimbursement for the crews. Campbell stated that they are paid by piece work. Hauck asked if the crew members were direct employees of the subcontractor. Campbell answered that they are not direct employees. Lee asked Campbell if City staff would receive all of the reports done by Terracon and if inspections would be done prior to the time City staff performed inspections. Campbell confirmed this. Jon Estabrook, and City building inspector,addressed the Board. He stated that his comments are not addressed against any of the contractors or developers, but are comments in favor of the City's framing license. Estabrook mentioned that three to five years ago,multi-family construction virtually did not exist in Ft. Collins. However,the real estate industry has predicted that multi-family permits will out pace single family permits in the near future. Estabrook stated that multi-family construction does have some special requirements, but those requirements are in addition to basic framing requirements that are the same as those required for single-family construction. According to Estabrook, some of those specifics include one-hour occupancy separation of units,draftstop construction,three story construction techniques, certain commercial requirements that do not apply to residential, accessibility clearances,etc. Estabrook mentioned that typically with multi-family construction,contractors come from out of town and may not be familiar with our local codes and amendments. Part of the testing requirements for the framing license address those specifics and are directly applicable to framing. After reviewing the City's exam, Estabrook stated that twenty-five percent of the test dealt directly with multi-family construction. Another item,according to Estabrook,that is particular to multi-family construction which has already been addressed is the fast-track construction schedule,meaning that there are multiple buildings on a job site that are in various stages of progress. City inspectors have found that this type of construction has lead to mistakes being repeated from one building to another, and have had trouble on numerous occasions with inspections being scheduled prior to the time the work is actually complete and ready for an inspection. Estabrook stated that another item particular to multi-family construction is the larger workforce which, based on experience from previous projects, has led to some concerns among the inspection staff that the amount of supervision for these work groups has not been adequate. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 1 I Estabrook mentioned that the common problems that were found on Campbell's first project included basic framing issues,truss bracing issues,broken trusses, structural shear wall assemblies, pull-down components, point load posting, firestopping and structural truss hangers that were either missing, modified or improper hangers used. Estabrook commented that he was unaware of any multi-family contractors and/or developers that are immune to these types of problems. Estabrook reiterated the fact that there is a thriving market in Ft. Collins and that there is a shortage of skilled labor. It was his opinion that this was an overall industry problem. He also mentioned that the increase in framing wages was specific to the industry as a whole and not related to one specific contractor more than any other. City inspection staff addressed the Home Builders Association earlier in the month and specifically asked them about Ft. Collins' framing license requirements and about the impacts it has had on the industry. Estabrook was informed at that meeting that this had been a somewhat heated issue and that it caused problems and concerns for many contractors when the license was initially implemented. However,the consensus at the meeting was that the problems have now been resolved, that contractors have caught up with the licensing requirements,and that the quality of framing is at a higher level than prior to the time the license was required. Estabrook stated that there are several multi-family projects being constructed in Ft. Collins and that those contractors have been able to comply with the licensing requirements. He thought it would be competitively unfair to those contractors who are complying if a variance was granted . in this case, and that granting a variance would set a negative precedent in the framing industry in Ft. Collins. If one variance is granted, it would be difficult not to apply the same variance to all framing contractors. Little asked Estabrook if he saw the validity of Campbell's request from the standpoint of continuity. Estabrook answered that he did not think there were any residential contractors that were not doing the same type of work that Campbell has proposed. He stated that single-family, as well as multi-family contractors are now using component systems. Little asked if Estabrook could comment on Campbell's issue of hardship as it related to needing multiple, specific crews to complete the project. Estabrook answered that he did not believe that this was a hardship. Other multi-family projects are able to perform the same type of construction and still adhere to the City's licensing requirements. According to Estabrook, it would be hard to say that this was a hardship specific to Campbell that does not apply to any of the other contractors. Little asked for clarification on the numbers of buildings and units that were represented in other multi-family projects currently being constructed in the City. Estabrook answered that the projects range from 10 to 20 buildings, representing 100 to 200 units. Eckman discussed with the Board the terminology from Section 15-153 of the City's licensing regulations. He mentioned that the first part of the Section that deals with hardship is applicable to this issue. However, it was his opinion that the second part dealing with qualifications did not. He read a portion of the regulations, as follows: "or when such applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this article, such as specialized training, education or additional experience which the Board has determined qualifies the applicant to perform, in a confident manner, any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought..." BRB February 24,2000 Page 12 Eckman mentioned that as he read this, it became apparent that Council intended this language to apply to individuals seeking licenses under Section 15-156(d). He stated that this language is not applicable to a variance application. Fielder asked for clarification on whether the additional inspections were of any relevance in this issue. Eckman answered that if the additional inspections were intended to show that this gave them additional qualifications,based on what the language of the regulations states, it was his opinion that this would not be something the Board should consider in the variance request. Eckman stated that the Board should consider all of the arguments made regarding hardship,to see if a peculiar or unique hardship could be found relative to the proposed project. Eckman instructed the Board to also consider any items that might constitute exceptional practical difficulties or an exceptional undue hardship relative to the proposed project. Chris O'Brien, President of Front Range Framing Contractors,addressed the Board. He mentioned that his company is locally owned and operated. He has personally been involved in the construction industry for over 18 years, has worked in the New England area, in California and, for the last six years, in Colorado. He studied architecture for five years at the University of Southern California and has worked for architects, engineers,contractors,etc. It was O'Brien's opinion that the real issue in this case was money. He stated that the appellant's proposal works well to his advantage since it allows him to bring in large groups of piece workers from out-of state who, often times, are minorities who do not read,write or understand English. O'Brien mentioned that this is not unique to appellant, it happens a lot. O'Brien stated that a lot had been said about needing professional carpenters and specific crews, etc. However, it was O'Brien's opinion that the caliber of workers that are actually used in the field precludes them from being able to take the City's exam since many of them could not read the test to begin with,and most of them would not come close to passing the test. As far as local availability, O'Brien stated that his company is available to work on these types of projects. There are other local contractors that O'Brien knows of that would be able to assist. O'Brien mentioned that although none of the local companies operate with 150 workers, if they were given the opportunity to band together, similar to what is being done by the framing contractor appellant is proposing to use,they could supply 60-100 workers, six fork lifts,etc.,and probably do a much nicer job than what would be done otherwise. O'Brien stated that he holds a City Class B license. He mentioned that he chooses to operate as a framing company because that is the work he likes to do. According to O'Brien, his company has been hurt time and time again by outfits who come from out of town and don't pay for compensation insurance,don't pay employment taxes,don't contribute to social security,don't have safety programs,etc. O'Brien mentioned that his employees are individuals who live in the community,pay taxes,own homes,many have families,etc. They are hard working citizens that care about what they do and build good products. As far as the complexity of the buildings that are proposed, O'Brien stated that he has built numerous buildings that have similar construction,as well as large commercial buildings that ranged anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 square feet and as high as four stories. He mentioned that shear walls, hardware,etc.,are standard items in construction. It was his opinion that components were being used in an effort to make the construction as simple as possible for the inexperienced workers that would be obtained so they could complete the project. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 13 • O'Brien stated that there was no hardship in this case and that the appellant was simply trying to have workers come in from out of town who would work below cost compared to a competitive bid from other contractors who are licensed. By hiring piece workers,the employer is not required to pay for worker's compensation, employment taxes, etc. O'Brien stated that this is a "slap in the face"to those employers in town who do pay for worker's compensation and all other employee-related expenses. O'Brien mentioned that he was never given opportunity to bid on the project. He said that appellant's statement that there were no local framing contractors who could do the project was not true. According to O'Brien, on large projects similar to the one being proposed,his crews pre-fabricate items. When the first hole is being dug for a foundation,O'Brien said his crews will begin pre- fabricating the walls for the buildings. This gives O'Brien's crews better quality control, added precision in the work being done, and increased efficiency. O'Brien stated that he operates similar to appellant in that he separates his employees into wall crews, floor crews, roof crews, etc. O'Brien agreed that this process works better in production framing situations so that the learning curve does not have to be repeated. O'Brien stated that if the Board grants this variance,then the licensing might as well be dropped altogether. It was his opinion that rules should be adhered to or abandoned. From a financial standpoint,O'Brien stated that it would be advantageous for him not to have to purchase worker's comp, pay FICA, etc. However, he mentioned that his employees are not unknown piece workers, but rather employees that he knows and cares for, so he does it. O'Brien thought that this was a chance for the Board to do the right thing and give those contractors who are trying to operate legitimately a boost and a reason to band together to make Ft. Collins a better place. Rick Garhart, President and Co-Owner of Bear Construction, addressed the Board. He stated that he was a local contractor that was able to bid on the proposed project. According to Garhart, in appellant's request, Campbell was not being completely truthful because none of the bidding contractors were informed that the project needed to have 150 workers,that there would be eight buildings under construction at the same time,etc. Garhart stated that when he asked for this type of information, he was told that the framing contractor would be given 18 days per building, that two to three buildings would be going at a time,and that the first building would need to be constructed by itself. Garhart mentioned that in the appellant's request it stated that he needed experienced, specialized crews and then later on mentioned that unlike framing,there are professional subcontractors being utilized in the areas of mechanical,plumbing and electrical. Garhart stated that these trades are licensed and appellant will be using them and paying them accordingly. It was Garhart's opinion that the City of Ft.Collins' framing license made framing a professional subcontractor. Garhart stated that all contractors have to coordinate with other subcontractors on a daily basis to make projects go well,to ensure the quality of a project,etc. This is not new to them. He also mentioned that appellant has stated that framing is critical. Garhart questioned why, if the framing was critical, appellant would not want to use a professional framing subcontractor who • would be the sole contact point and would guarantee the work that was performed. BRB February 24,2000 Page 14 Garhart clarified that he was not in attendance at this hearing because he was trying to obtain this job, but that he was at the hearing because he has worked for nine years in the Ft. Collins community to build a professional subcontracting business and to provide customers with the stability and security that a professional subcontractor should provide. Garhart added that if the appellant did not want to use a local contractor that is okay—it is his business,his money,etc. However, if that framer is not required to abide by the same regulations as other local framing contractors, according to Garhart,an unfair advantage is created. Garhart stated that the appellant's proposal in this case makes him a labor broker. It was Garhart's opinion that the appellant would not know the workers who were hired,would subcontract the work at a price that is based on quantity and not quality, and would not care if a worker was sick, injured or left the company. Garhart continued that this arrangement would allow the appellant to cut his costs by 30%--20% for costs associated with carrying worker's compensation and another 10%for costs associated with payroll expenses, and would enable him to underbid other contractors. It was Garhart's opinion that this variance was requested for no other reason than money and that that reason should not be sufficient to change a rule which has already shown a positive impact on the quality of work being done in Ft. Collins. Garhart stated that the local building code does not change for projects based on size, type, or who is performing the work. He questioned why the local regulations should be changed for any of those reasons. Paul Diana from the Rocky Mountain Regional Council of Carpenters addressed the Board. He mentioned that he had just recently been assigned the Ft. Collins' area and that one of the first things he found out about was the City's framing license requirement. Diana stated that he found this requirement refreshing because it showed that there was some thought about protecting the City's taxpayers and consumers who would be purchasing homes. He mentioned that this type of regulation has been lacking in the country for more than 20 years now. Diana stated that he has watched, over the past 31 years,the decimation of workers who were, at one time, a very proud group of individuals. He continued that these workers perform a very important job—building the infrastructure of our country. According to Diana,the construction industry is the most highly skilled industry in America. Diana thanked the Board for the framing license regulation. He stated that he was encouraged by this and that the union was in support of it. He continued by saying that it is the position of the union that the construction industry is responsible to the community and if workers are unskilled and uneducated then the education should be provided to them. It was Diana's opinion that the City's framing license is a way of providing that education. Diana pointed out that one of the reasons that electricians and plumbers have a better industry is due to the control and regulations that are provided through licensing. Diana closed by stating that he was encouraged by the City's licensing efforts and applauded the Board's efforts related to this. Campbell provided a closing statement to the Board. He mentioned that the City inspector verified by his remarks that multi-family construction had experienced recent growth in the City of Ft. Collins and that there was a labor shortage. Campbell stated that he was glad to hear that Bear Construction had had the opportunity to bid on his project and did not believe that the project was misrepresented to him. He encouraged Front Range Framing to bid on his project and stated that this contractor would need to prove that he had the ability to staff the job appropriately for the schedule that is needed. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 15 • Campbell was concerned, due to the labor shortage,that his job would be handicapped if he were not granted this variance. He referenced another framing company in town that he had knowledge of that had framing labor difficulties and stated that project momentum suffered because of this. With the shortage of labor, if this were to happen on the proposed project, Campbell feared that it would have a rippling effect throughout the balance of his contractors. Campbell also confirmed that he would not be using all out-of-town contractors. His mechanical, electrical and plumbing contractors that he anticipates using are all local. His proposed framing contractor is from the Denver area,has knowledge of the front range and, on a regular basis,has 400 to 500 workers available to him at any time. Campbell stated that these are not workers that this contractor simply digs up,but rather workers that are maintained by the company due to the volume of business they have. Campbell closed by stating that he did not believe that granting a variance in this case would set a precedent. Based on the current labor shortage,Campbell was concerned about the development of his project and he stated that he was simply trying to do proactive things to ensure the success of his project. According to Campbell,any developer would be able to come before the Board and ask for the same thing. It was his opinion that the Board granting this variance would not be setting a precedent, but simply acknowledging current industry conditions. Lee referred Board Members to the three letters that were received by staff in support of the City's framing licensing regulations. He closed by stating that the City's licensing regulations are in place to help assure the health and welfare of the community at large. He added that the Board should not consider any of the testimony that related to the financial arrangements between workers and employers,worker's compensation costs,payroll taxes,etc. The issue before the Board is whether or not the appellant had demonstrated sufficiently that a unique hardship exists. Fielder asked for clarification on the amount of time the proposed project had been in the planning process. Campbell answered that the project had been going through the planning process for approximately two years. There was brief discussion regarding the cost of worker's compensation, payroll taxes, etc., that are required as part of the framing license if the contractor has employees. Lee stated that these items are not germane to this case since the appellant was not requesting a variance due to a financial hardship. Hauck stated that for the last fourteen months the framing contractors have been treated as a licensed trade. It was his opinion that once the City made the determination that framing contractors were a licensed trade,the same set rules should be used for all framing contractors. Hauck mentioned that there were only two ways to adhere to the City's licensing requirements— to utilize subcontractors who hold a valid City license,or for a licensed subcontractor to be in the direct supervision of an employee that meets all of the regulations of being an employee including worker's compensation,tax benefits, etc. Hauck continued by stating that if a similar proposal came before the Board from an electrical trade the Board would have no trouble denying the variance. It was his opinion that none of the Board Members would support having unlicensed electricians or electricians that were not in the direct employ and supervision of a license holder on a project. Hauck stated that since it was determined fourteen months ago to treat the framing trade the same as the electrical trade,he thought it was extremely clear that this variance should not be supported. • Little mentioned that after being a developer of multi-family units for more than twenty years,he was aware of the difficultyof scheduling, and was sensitive to the a ellant s request. S PP 9 However,he was concerned that there had not been enough supporting evidence presented that BRB February 24, 2000 Page 16 demonstrated that a production hardship existed. Little stated that it would have been helpful if the appellant had gone out to the licensed framing contractors and asked for bids and had he not received any acceptable bids back,then possibly a hardship would have existed. As much as Little was sensitive to appellant's situation, he did not think, in fairness to other contractors in the community that had been subject to the City's licensing requirements,that an issue of hardship had been proven. Kreul-Froseth stated that she agreed that no hardship had been proven in this case. It was her opinion that all contractors should be treated the same despite the size of the company or the project. Massey stated that although the labor shortage may be hardship, he did not believe it was a hardship that was peculiar or exceptional to only the appellant. On the issue of project fees doubling, Massey mentioned that he had a client relate this exact same thing to him on a project that he was working on. It was Massey's opinion that this,too,was not a peculiar or exceptional hardship specific only to appellant. Hauck stated that he wanted to make it clear that no one was saying that appellant could not hire the contractor he wanted to use --this was not a local hiring issue. He said the issue is an insistence that if an outside contractor is used,they meet the same requirements as all other contractors. Hartmann asked for clarification on why the proposed framing contractor was not interested in obtaining a license in the community. Campbell stated that this contractor works all along the front range and has an abundance of work. Whether or not he does this project is of no consequence to him. He is not willing to make the effort to obtain the necessary licenses. Campbell mentioned that he heard what the Board was saying regarding the increase in fees not being a unique hardship to him. However,he continued,that whenever a project goes from $1.7 million to $3.3 million, this chokes a project. According to Campbell, because the project has been in process for two years and he has so much money invested in it,he almost has to go forward with it. Adhering to the licensing criteria is yet another layer of difficulty that Campbell will be forced to deal with if the variance is not granted. Campbell stated that although you can get through difficulties,the project suffers. He reiterated the fact that he can provide the quality of product and safety that the City requires,he just wants to do this in a manner that will work for him. Campbell stated that his general contractor had obtained bids from some local framing contractors and had talked with dozens of them. However, it was his opinion that it takes a certain type of contractor to have the ability to oversee a$3.5 to$4 million dollar contract. Hauck made a motion,based on the reasons outlined in the discussion of the Board,that appellant's request for variance be denied. Lee stated that the Board might want to identify some findings of fact with respect to the appellant's variance request. Eckman mentioned that it might be acceptable to find that there was a failure to show an appropriate hardship. Hauck amended his motion to read that due to the fact that an appropriate hardship had not been demonstrated and due to the fact that the appellant had other options available that would allow him to keep the same subcontracting team by either licensing the subcontractors if they are acting BRB February 24,2000 Page 17 . as subcontractors, or hiring them as direct employees if they are going to act as employees,he made a motion to deny the appellant's variance request. Kreul-Froseth seconded the motion. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann, Little, Fielder, Hauck,Kreul-Froseth, Massey Nays: None The motion carried. Fielder reminded appellant that he had fourteen days within which to appeal the Board's decision to City Council. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: A. Contractor License Regulation Revisions: Lee referred Board Members to the information in their packets regarding this issue. He mentioned that for the past couple of years he had intended on revisiting the contractor licensing ordinance and making necessary revisions. One primary impetus for revising the licensing regulations was to clarify that framing is a licensed trade,rather than relying on the broad language of the current ordinance under which we now operate. In addition, some housekeeping items will be proposed that would create the same requirements for virtually all of the contractors, i.e., equalizing fees, requiring the same application/approval process for specialty trades as currently • exists for general contractors,and requiring that the specialty trades have certified supervisors as currently exists for general contractors. Other housekeeping items will include clarifying definitions and exemptions. Additional specialty trades including wood frame construction,wireless telecommunications systems, structural concrete/masonry, elevators, insulation, fire protection materials, solid fuel appliances and radon systems are also being proposed. Lee stated that he will be enlisting a task team to work on the proposed revisions. He anticipates that this group will be a cross-section representing some of the proposed specialty trades,the framing industry,general contractors,and a non-professional citizen constituent. Lee welcomed any direct participation from Board Members who were interested. Lee anticipated that this group would meet during evening hours in two to three fairly concentrated meetings. The group will work through the licensing issues and come up with an agreeable form that will be presented to the public at large through an open house,and then to the Board for further action. The last step will be to forward a final proposal to City Council along with a recommendation from the Board. Hauck asked for clarification on the time span. Lee answered that he hoped to have something finalized by May, 2000. Fielder asked for clarification on how this project fits into the work proposed for the 2000 code. Lee answered that the licensing revision project is of higher priority at this point since the City is working under a fairly new building code. It is anticipated that work on . the 2000 code will start later this year. Eckman provided some clarification on changes he is proposing to the draft license regulation revisions. BRB February 24, 2000 Page 18 Little asked for clarification on where the volunteers would come from. Lee answered that he hoped to get volunteers directly from the building industry and the homebuilders association. Little expressed an interest in participating on the task team. B. Board Member Attendance: Fielder stated that Board Member Hansch had been absent regularly. Fielder had tried on numerous occasions to contact him, but had not received any response. Fielder stated that Hansch had been a real contributor to the Board in the past and that it was with reluctance that he brought up the idea of entertaining the thought of replacing him with another board member. Eckman provided clarification on the process. He stated that only City Council has the authority to replace a board member. According to Eckman, the board chair could discuss the situation with the Council liaison and let him forward the issue to Council, or the Board could pass a motion recommending to Council that the board member be replaced, or both. Fielder stated that he would be more comfortable if the Board would vote on this issue. He made a motion that, due to excessive absences,the Board make a recommendation to City Council that Board Member Hansch be replaced. Hauck seconded the motion. Massey mentioned that it appeared that Hansch had already made the decision for the Board by not showing up. He was in support of the motion. Board members discussed whether or not there had been any communication with Hansch,verbally or in writing,and whether it made sense to communicate with him again in writing asking for his resignation. Fielder was concerned with timing since Hansch had already been absent from four or five meetings. It was suggested that this be done concurrently with the recommendation to Council. Eckman stated that no letter of resignation was required. Lee mentioned that Board Members were given the option of submitting a letter of resignation due to conflicts, etc., in the letter that was sent out a couple of months ago. VOTE: Yeas: Hartmann,Little, Fielder,Hauck,Kreul-Froseth,Massey Nays: None The motion carried. A memorandum outlining the Board's action will be forward to Council Liaison Kastein for further action. Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. Felix Leese,birt5 r of Building&Zoning • ATTACHMENT BUILDING REVIEW BOARD February 24, 2000 Council Chambers — 1:00 p.m. — 3:00 p.m. TRANSCRIPT OF ITEM#5 Bob Campbell (waiver from framing licensing requirements) BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Hartmann Gene Little Charles Fielder Al Hauck Susan Kreul-Froseth Bradley Massey • BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Rudy Hansch STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Felix Lee, Director of Building&Zoning Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney Delynn Coldiron, staff support to Board APPELLANT: Bob Campbell, CECO Constructors BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 2 1 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Felix, I don't know how brief this introduction's 2 going to be, but I think we need one from you on the Bob Campbell representing CECO 3 Constructors. 4 FELIX LEE: Okay. We'll be, uh, for the benefit of, uh,Mr.Campbell and his, um, um, 5 representatives we'll be following the hearing procedures for the appeals. I think you were just given that 6 and,the first step is, is, uh, a brief overview on my part and then you will have the opportunity to present 7 your case. And I should point out, uh, an error on my part, uh, uh Bob Campbell is, is here and he is an 8 owner. He is one of the owners, he is not, uh,merely a representative, uh, for CECO Constructors. In 9 any case, uh, Mr. Campbell is,uh, proposing a project, uh,a 224 unit multi-family project,I believe it's 10 11 buildings, uh, and the heart of the request is that, uh, uh,a waiver be granted around the City's framing 11 contractor license requirements and Mr. Campbell is proposing to use a single framing contractor and 12 non-licensed subs,uh,responsible to that,uh, licensed framing contractor. Uh,Mr.Campbell states that 13 several factors contribute to the need for the variance requested and in your packet I think there's,uh,you 14 should have, uh,received, uh,materials that Mr.Campbell supplied with the packet, his application. 15 Among these factors,Mr.Campbell sites,um,the large scale of the project,the specialized nature of the 16 construction process in that it,they use very sys-, systematized and modular sequential framing and 17 specialized crews and requires an experienced large-scale framing contractor that's familiar with this 18 production method; and that the,uh,the hardship presented in the,uh, documents is that,uh,the 19 production will be affected and that project momentum,um, will also be,uh, adversely affected if all 20 crews,all framing, independent framing contractors, are licensed. The alternative,uh,the appellant is, 21 uh, proposing is a quality control firm,uh,uh, engineering f-, firm that would perform independent 22 inspections in addition to the standard City inspections to provide an extra measure of quality assurance. 23 And I should note,uh,for the benefit of the Board,and I'm sure Mr. Campbell probably will address this, 24 uh, as well,at least in the beginning stage of the previous project,uh,Mr. Campbell and, uh, CECO, 25 CECO was involved in,the,uh,Willow Springs Argyle project,there were some problems, uh,at least in 26 the very beginning, in terms of deficiencies that were,were,uh, observed when we performed the framing 27 inspections as called by the contractor. And I, um,I'll be,I'm prepared to,uh,I have a,an inspector that BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 3 1 was on-site that can attest to those. He's here today. Uh, generally those involved, um,and there,there • 2 could be more, but specifically the ones that were, uh, I mentioned,are damaged and broken truss 3 members that were in place when we came for the framing inspection and, uh, specified connector 4 systems that were not, uh, installed. Uh,I should point out though that, uh, eventually these were 5 resolved and the, uh, when the independent, uh,I shouldn't say independent,the hired agency, quality 6 control agency, uh, issued their final report those,those items were all corrected. And, uh,without 7 getting into, um, I'm not sure we need to do that at this point, but I just included some history about the 8 framing license that's been in effect,uh, about 14 months and it's, uh, it's, uh,based on the language in 9 our ordinance. Uh, we elected to institute it as a,a modified version of the Class D license. The language 10 in the ordinance is very broad and includes basically any work on a building, and that's the genesis of the 1 l framing license. And, I'll be happy to touch on those points, uh, as you wish. And, I'd like to remind the 12 Board in terms of the, uh, authority that you have on this case and I may, uh,defer to Paul on this,I'm, 13 I'm glad he's with us today, and that is that the,uh,you have,you have the authority under, uh,upon • 14 appeal on a specific case,to grant variances from this Article and that includes anything in this Article, 15 which includes the licensing provisions, uh, under this hardship provision. And, that is that, uh, if it 16 would result in a peculiar or exceptional practical diffi-, difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship 17 upon the person or applicant regulated. And,I guess I'd ask Paul for his clarification on this point, um, 18 and whether this would apply as well,this, uh, second piece to this, your authority for granting variances, 19 and that is when such applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant 20 possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in the article such as specialized training, education 21 and additional experience, which the Board has determined qualifies the applicant to perform, in a 22 competent manner,any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought. And,that's where 23 1 have some question whether this would apply but,uh, it seems to me it's, it's related. And, provided 24 that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially 25 impairing the intent and purposes of the article. Paul,any clarification on the Board's authority that you • 26 could embellish? BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 4 1 PAUL ECKMAN: No,I agree with you that,uh,under either the hardship clause or the, uh, subs, 2 uh, other qualifications clause, either of those can be applied by the Board to this situation. On the topic 3 of the hardship,though, I think it's important to note that a hardship is not just an inconvenience that the 4 operation of the law, uh, uh, po-, imposes upon everyone. It has to be a unique hardship that's,that's not, 5 uh,the kind of, of inconvenience that all persons who have to,to comply with the law, uh, have to deal 6 with. So, it's something that's very unique. It has to be something very unique to this particular 7 applicant. 8 FELIX LEE: With that I will,uh,turn it over to Mr. Bob Campbell,the appellant. 9 BOB CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. My name is Bob Campbell. Um, I came before this Board 10 probably two years ago with our project Argyle at Willow Springs and I see a lot of new faces, I think I 11 recognize Susan, and that was to do with the, uh,the number of handicap units on the project at Argyle. 12 Um, the project that we're discussing is 224 units. It's located, uh, between Huntington Hills and 13 Miramont. It's a project that we've had in the City process,uh, for two years. It's been very dif-, 14 difficult to get our P &Z final approval,which we have. Uh,we're in the process of submitting our 15 development agreement and the mylars,and,we've, uh,the mylars we've probably resubmitted,I think 16 we're on our fifth submitted. It's a very complicated, uh, piece of land. Uh, I wanted, uh,I, I brought 17 some visual aides of, I have some slides of our project at Argyle. I want to show it to you. I don't know 18 how to turn that on. It's,uh,we build a high end product,or we believe it to be a high-end product and 19 this, um, Huntington Hills project I'm discussing today is the third project we've developed in Colorado. 20 Uh,our first project was in Colorado Springs that we did maybe five years ago. Most recent project was 21 the Argyle. Um,Felix, how do you shift? 22 FELIX LEE: Forward? 23 BOB CAMPBELL: Forward or backwards,how do we get 24 CHARLES FIELDER: Felix,can the,uh, florescents be tumed off? 25 FELIX LEE: Uh, yes. 26 CHARLES FIELDER: Great,thanks. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 5 1 BOB CAMPBELL: Yeah. This,this is a good picture, uh,that large area is a detention pond and • 2 our pool is built up around a retaining wall and that's the clubhouse in the middle. We spent quite a bit of 3 money on the clubhouse and the buildings. Uh,part of what makes them, um,complex, my engineer tells 4 me, are the ins and outs of the fagade and the roof lines. They're not, it's not simply a rectangular box. 5 Uh, it'd be much easier to design and build if it was. The building to the right is a three story building 6 with a two story on either side. And,and, uh,this will come into play later `cause I'm gonna show you a 7 plan. And,the rest of um are just for look, uh, a visual that you can page through, Felix. Uh,just an-, 8 another view showing the pool and buildings beyond. And, this proj, excuse me,th-, this project is, uh, 9 280 units, 16 buildings. The Huntington Hills project is 224 units, 11 building, uh, 12 buildings. The,we 10 intend to do a better job from the standpoint of, uh,things we learned. Uh, I, you know, I, I think the l 1 stone would look nicer carried up and so we are going to put a little more stone on it. Um,we,we have, 12 try to have a lot of windows because openness is nice. In this particular project we were fortunate 13 enough, uh, to, uh, own it. I mean we got a permanent loan on it and we own it, and the only reason we • 14 were able to do that is interest rates were down to about a 7 '/4%. If it were to be in front of us now we 15 couldn't do it because interest rates for this project would be 8 %:%, 8 %%, and this small margin makes a 16 total difference whether you own it or whether you sell it. So,we fully intend to own this for twenty or 17 thirty years. 18 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Where is this one? 19 BOB CAMPBELL: This is at Battle Creek in Timberline. It's on the,uh,right off Harmony. 20 Harmony and Timberline. Just a little bit south. It's in Willow Springs development. Um,the, uh, multi- 21 family, is an industry of its own. It's not like commercial; it's not like residential. Um,the,the reason 22 I'm asking f-, for the variance that I'm asking today is that our framer on the project in the beginning sets 23 the critical path. He will not come onto the project until we have seven slabs down. He,he won't even 24 arrive. And,th-, th-,th-,this is our industry as I know it. Uh,m-,maybe things that,that you all aren't 25 exposed to,but,he won't come on,he doesn't want to come on-site until there's seven building slabs • 26 poured. Um, he will man the job at that point, uh, with a,with a layout crew, and then within a week he'll 27 layer on fifty men. And I say specialized crews, they truly are. Uh,the framing contractor that I'm using BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 6 1 I've used on all three projects in Colorado that I've developed. And I'm, I'm a developer, not a general 2 contractor. Uh,the,the framing contractor is a large framer in the Colorado area. He, uh, he is, he breaks 3 it down into crews because the volume of the job is so large that he develops specialized crews, and I 4 truly mean that,and I broke `em down in the letter from, from layouts to walls and components. And,the 5 reason he has so many slabs out is because,uh,the layout guy will go forward with seven slabs,the 6 framing guy will frame one story, seven slabs,the truss crew will come in and lay the trusses,and then 7 the deck crew, and then they begin to go back where they started and come again. So,you can see how 8 they can develop a strong rhythm. And the,the specialized crews that he uses are crews that he has used, 9 um, many,many times over and are specific to the industry. They're not residential framers. I mean 10 they're not home framers. They, they, uh,they learn a trade,they learn a niche and they do it. Uh,some 11 of the things that are specific about our project which I am proud of are, uh, the use of components. And, 12 1 don't know if you all are familiar with components,but what we do,you know,we,we develop the, the 13 doors and the windows are all pre-sets and the corners and it, and it, it, it aids in accuracy so that your 14 doors and windows all fit correctly and don't leak and are square. And it aids in production. It is a 15 premium to provide components and, and,but we do so for the benefits out of it. Um,the other things 16 that,on the project that are, uh,different than residential const-,construction is the, uh,the size of the 17 buildings and because the size of the buildings,the design and engineering of those buildings. And, what 18 I do, is I have another visual aide,the, uh,overhead,and, I didn't think it'd be very well so I brought 19 some drawings. What I wanted to point out with those drawings are the little squares and the little 20 octagons or hexagons. And,those, uh,those mark the hardware in the shear walls. And, if you'll notice 21 they'll have a 1,2 or 3 in the bottom corner of`em. And then the second thing, if you'll notice, is just 22 about every other wall in the building has a piece of structural hardware that's described by the letter or 23 the number or a shear wall component. And this aspect,I believe, is very complicated and it, it's, it's 24 designed this way that goes back, it's designed this way by,uh, SCA which is a pretty much largely 25 multi-family engineer that's nationwide. Uh,I think they cost me a lot of money in the hardware and I'd 26 probably would entertain using a Colorado engineer,uh,but what drives this is the wind speed that the 27 City is designed under which is 100 mile an hour winds. And,the framing contractor that we use is very BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 7 1 familiar with these concepts. And,the basis of what I'm asking for is that I believe I can provide the • 2 quality and safety and I, I want the ability to develop a team that we're familiar with that is a known to us, 3 uh,that can provide the production we need. Because,true enough,the,the project is probably, uh,our 4 cost on it is probably a twenty-one million dollar development. The framing aspect of it is 3 %2 to 4 5 million dollars. It's an essential piece of our project and, uh, I'm a firm believer that,you know, if your 6 project starts out good, it will go good. If your project starts out with some hiccups, it's hard to overcome 7 those. And, um, I, I've, we,we utilized Terracon as a third party inspection. We did that for a lot of 8 reasons. We did that, uh, for one reason that we've pointed out that,that we're gonna build a good 9 project and if we didn't believe in what we were building we wouldn't own the Argyle at Willow Springs. 10 Uh, but, secondly, it's, it's a requirement of our lenders. And,they, they,they,they have a level of 11 inspections that they will require,uh,and, and we tend to go more than that level. Uh, and we, and that's 12 what I was offering to you from the standpoint of quality assurance is the overview by Terracon from the, 13 and, and, and as Felix pointed out,there were some hiccups on the front end. And, the reason for the • 14 hiccups on the front end, if you'll look at the locations of those hardwares,and you ask yourself well, how 15 do you get a cover up?, I mean, `cause you,you put in the hardware which needs a cover up inspection 16 and then you put in,the shear walls are normally plywood, you put in the plywood, which is another 17 inspection, b-, before it's covered up with sheetrock. And, something that the City doesn't do is,drywall 18 is utilized as shear walls,too, and you all don't require any inspection of the drywall after I put my shear 19 wall connections in those, but that's what Terracon provided for us. So, I believe I'm meeting your, uh, 20 requirements of providing a quality project. Um,I, uh,I want to introduce, um, Bill Attwooll with 21 Terracon and I want to introduce a couple of my subcontractors that made up the team for the Argyle. 22 And, and again, um, I, I, I believe that you can appreciate that a team is a very important concept because 23 a known is easier to work with than an unknown. And,the, uh, uh, I,I understand the concept for 24 insuring the quality and safety of the project and I feel that I can do that for you. And,I, uh, and,uh,this 25 is distantly related,but if you could maybe appreciate the position I'm in. I,uh,I began this development 1026 two years ago and I've spent nothing but due diligence to this point of trying to get this project off the 27 ground. And in that two year period my governmental fees for the Argyle, uh,was 1.7 million for 280 BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 8 1 units. And,this project is 224 units and my governmental fees were 3.3 million. That's not something 1 2 could have anticipated but still in good faith going forward because I believe in my business and the 3 project. Um,the, uh, if, hmm, if you could appreciate the aspect of the project from the size that it is,the 4 amount of lumber that we put up and the,the criticalness that the framing portion of it is to me because 5 that literally unravels the rest of the project for all the other subcontractors and my perception of having to 6 utilize the,the framing contractors that the City has a list of, my concerns are the majority of them 7 probably aren't able to approach this project. The majority of them are probably slow. There would be a 8 percent that would, but those guys are an unknown to me and, and I don't know that this type of 9 construction would be their normal and, so those are the aspects that I come to you with. I'm not,the,the, 10 the,the,the subcontract crews that are not licensed,uh,have been working with my framer for years. 1 l And, and it's all they do is this type of project and, and I made mention in my letter that, or in my request 12 that, uh,to acknowledge that my framing contractor probably has done at least 75 projects in the front 13 range over the past five years. He came from Houston but he hasn't been back in five years because the 14 work here is so good. And it's not an opportunity of making him licensed for the City. If that's the case, 15 I'll have to choose someone else because he is not interested in doing that with the City. He's obtained a 16 license, his supervisors have obtained the license from our experience at the Argyle. But,the difficulty of 17 each of his subcrews that he knows of having to obtain a license is not something that he would challenge 18 or try to accomplish for me. Um,so I'm really doing this for myself,not for him because he's rather 19 indifferent. Uh,and if I could,um, let me let Mr.Attwooll tell his role and I,I, 1 want to give you all, as 20 well,the,uh,the inspections reports that were generated on the Argyle. And th-,this is full blown. It's, 21 it's the earthwork,the concrete, the pavement, it's the full, but this is the level of what we try to 22 accomplish. 23 BILL ATTWOOLL: Thank you,Bob. My name is Bill Attwooll. I'm the manager of Terracon 24 Consultants in Ft. Collins. I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of Colorado. We've 25 provided the services that were mentioned on the Argyle. We provided the shear wall inspections in the 26 buildings and, uh,of course the other,uh,concrete and the other, uh, inspections that we're,uh,that we're 27 not referring to, here to today. It was an interesting project and it was a good one for us. Our primary BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 9 • 1 inspector that we used on the project is ICBO, uh, licensed,certified,and, uh,registered professional 2 engineers have signed the individual, uh, buildings. I signed,I believe,most of them. And, uh,we have 3 other graduate and professional, registered professional engineers on the staff as backup support as 4 needed. Uh, one of the things that, uh, Mr. Campbell mentioned that was definitely a factor in the Argyle 5 is the manner in which these buildings are constructed with the various crews that exist that come one 6 behind the other. And, initially, uh,we had anticipated a certain number of visits to the buildings, uh,just 7 based on the discussions we had beforehand. We found that the number of visits that we had originally 8 agreed to perform were not enough. Uh, because th-,the sequence involved, uh, several stages in the 9 construction of the building,there were times when we'd come to inspect say a, a, a tiedown or some 10 other component, and it would be already sheathed within the walls,therefore,we couldn't see it. So, uh, 11 we regrouped,we came back, uh, uh, renegotiated and, uh, provided additional inspections so that, uh, 12 what I did was I set up a log in the office for each building. And, I had uh, uh, a, a spreadsheet for each 13 building that listed the various inspections that we did and if there were items to be resolved,what they 014 were, and then subsequent visits to con-,concur that those things had been checked out. And, so,with 15 that spreadsheet I can see that it took us between five and eight,uh,typically, uh,visits to the, uh,to, to 16 each building, uh,to accomplish the inspections. And, once that got going, uh, after we had the initial 17 hiccups, it went pretty well. I will say there were a few things we, that we didn't see, like I said, up front. 18 And, uh, before we could sign the letter saying that they were in substantial compliance we wanted to 19 know those things were correct. So,we had Argyle come back in on some finished buildings and actually 20 open up, uh, some of the walls to where we could look at some of the features and everything we went 21 back to look at, we selected the locations,they opened them up, and everything that we looked at was 22 appropriately and correctly done when it was opened up. So,uh,again,the uh,relationship was a good 23 one. After some initial hiccups,uh,we had continuity of people, we had good coordination with the 24 contractor and, uh,we were able to provide that level of service and we look forward to doing the same 25 thing here on this particular structure. 026 BOB CAMPBELL: S-, something that I wanted to say that Bill moved past quite for-, quite 27 quickly is that our initial agreement had a set number of inspections per building. And,what we BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 10 1 determined, or what we found is that that wasn't sufficient,that it needed to be more than that. And, 2 that's when Bill talked about we renegotiated and, you know,we were looking at two inspections per 3 building that went up to five to eight. But what we did is I, I said Bill,you,you keep up with the project 4 and you go when you think you need to go and we'll work out the money afterwards. And,that's what 5 we did and that's,that's the reason he set up this spreadsheet. So, it was something that we developed. It 6 wasn't something that we did correctly the first time. And, and this explains some of the deficiencies that 7 were seen on the beginning of the project. Uh, and,uh, I was thankful that Bill had a working relation, 8 that we had a working relationship that we could do that as opposed to pointing fingers. 9 ALLAN HAUCK: Mr. Attwooll,may I have a quick, got a question for you. 10 BILL ATTWOOLL: Sure. I I ALLAN HAUCK: The,uh,the extent of your,your inspections on this project is proposed to be 12 primarily shear walls is that correct? 13 BOB CAMPBELL: Uh,ac,actually no. It's a full blown, if you'll go, if you'll, if you look at 14 ALLAN HAUCK: I've got it in front of me. 15 BOB CAMPBELL: right. Each one of those categories would be the same inspections that he 16 would reproduce. And, something that was brought to light between Bill and I that we didn't realize is 17 that he didn't provide a framing inspection and that he needs to provide a framing inspection on 18 Huntington Hills. 19 ALLAN HAUCK: Okay. My,my question's for Mr. Attwooll. The proposal that I'm reading, 20 uh, 21 BILL ATTWOOLL: That's for the 22 ALLAN HAUCK: describes the shear walls. 23 BILL ATTWOOLL: that's for the shear walls. 24 ALLAN HAUCK: Correct. 25 BILL ATTWOOLL: And,and the fee that,I believe that you have the fee and all that there. 26 ALLAN HAUCK: Yes. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 11 1 BILL ATTWOOLL: Uh,that fee is based on our experience for the shear wall inspections at the • 2 Argyle. Uh, with the addition of framing inspections,we'd have to have a separate, uh, proposal for those 3 costs in addition to what are there. 4 ALLAN HAUCK: So, we're not looking at a proposal here for your framing inspections? 5 BILL ATTWOOLL: You do not have a proposal for framing inspections. 6 ALLAN HAUCK: What would be the cost of that framing proposal would you think? 7 BILL ATTWOOLL: Oh, gee, uh, uh 8 BOB CAMPBELL: That's probably not fair. 9 BILL ATTWOOLL: I guess 10 ALLAN HAUCK: I'm, I'm trying, Mr. Attwooll,I'm, I'm trying to determine the extent of the 11 inspections that are going to be defined. 12 BILL ATTWOOLL: Well, I think what we'll have to do is sit down with the framing contractor 13 and go through and work out the level of effort that it will take and provide a,a responsive proposal to 014 Mr. Campbell to accomplish that, and we are, we propose to, we will,we will do that. 15 ALLAN HAUCK: Okay. That answered the question,thanks. 16 BILL ATTWOOLL: Thank you. 17 BOB CAMPBELL: But, but if you notice the extent that I probably,at this point, will contract 18 with Mr. Attwooll is in the neighborhood of$45,000. It is a$37,000 base and then$700 per building 19 which is another$7,000. Uh,so,they would visit the site on a regular basis throughout the duration. Uh, 20 if I could, I'd, I, um, Steve is with United Builders who did our drywall for this project and he did our 21 drywall for the past three projects and he's a contractor out of Denver. And, if he could, uh, 22 STEVEN COHERA: Hi. My name is Steven Cohera with United Builders Service. We are 23 based in, in the Denver area. I was asked by Mr. Campbell to speak today on his behalf. We've, uh, it's 24 our third project with Mr. Campbell. We do a lot of work in Colorado, front range,we actually do work 25 out of state as well. 80% of our work is multi-family. Uh, an advantage as a subcontractor, as I'm sure •26 all of you realize,we get to see all different types of contractors. And,uh, so we kn-, know which ones to 27 work for and which ones to try not to work for. Um,the success that,uh,uh,that we experience on all, BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 12 1 all of Mr. Campbell's projects are primarily caused by several things. One is their extent,the extent of 2 their coordination with all their subcontractors. Their,their general contractor,actually, like Mr. 3 Campbell said, he's a developer, uh,the general contractor that they hire is very reputable. The extent of 4 the coordination is unbelievable and us as a subcontractor,we,we do appreciate things like that. There 5 are so many guys,or so many companies out there that will come in and start a project and just think it's 6 gonna go up by itself. And,you can ask your inspection people and they,they probably experience that 7 more than any of us. Uh,the variance that,uh,that, uh, Mr. Campbell is looking for,uh, as summarized 8 by Mr.,Mr.Lee,would enable him, as he stated,to use a specific framing contractor who I know, uh, 9 very well through our experience. We've worked,what,I'd say we've worked behind them on probably 10 90%of our multi-family projects so, therefore, you know,I know how their work is. Uh, there is not a lot 11 of corrections involved, uh, and that's important to us`cause, uh, a trade like ours, drywall, is based on 12 production. And, we, we want to get in there and get it, get it done,get it hung,get it finished and 13 textured and get out of there. The,the variance, uh,that, uh,Mr. Lee summarized, uh,would enable Mr., 14 Mr. Campbell to,to hire that specific framing contractor,or any framing contractor who will, in turn, use 15 these,these, these other, uh,these subs to do specialized areas of the project and, with my experience, uh, 16 working on projects and seeing those that aren't coordinated very well, by having a guy like one framer in 17 control, is, is very positive for the, for the overall coordination of the project. As Mr. Campbell stated, 18 the framer is probably the first guy that's gonna create your critical path. Everybody has their turn in the 19 hot seat and,generally,my day is somewhere down the line from that, then I'm in the hot seat. But,the 20 framer usually sets the pace. He allows your rough-in trades to,to come in, uh, in a productive manner 21 behind him and then it just flows. And,and that's what's real important on these large projects. On a 22 large project like this, uh, like Mr. Campbell said, if you,uh, if you have some hiccups in the beginning, 23 you can turn `em around, but it takes a lot of effort to do so. So,that's why they do put in the energy and 24 the time to,to try to get everything laid out properly,coordinated properly in,in the beginning. So,that's, 25 that's my experience with Mr. Campbell and his company,his general contractor, and it is a good one. 26 GENE LITTLE: I have a, I have a question if I could. The framing contractor that Mr. 27 Campbell's using,um,you have,you have,um,drywalled behind them on how many different projects? BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 13 over the past five ears uh twenty projects,probably 3,000 1 STEVEN COHERA: Probably ov p y ty p � ,p y , 2 multi-family units,anywhere from Ft. Collins down to the Springs. 3 GENE LITTLE: Um,I know how critical it is to have a,a straight wall to deal with your drywall 4 and also the finish,the framing being completed so that when your crew gets there they can install the, 5 STEVEN COHERA: Yes 6 GENE LITTLE: the drywall. What has your been,what has been your experience on, uh, 7 working with these crews,with your crews going in behind these framing crews and having to not be able 8 to perform their work on the site, um, because the framing may or may not have been, um,done 9 correctly? And, I know that's a tough question 10 STEVEN COHERA: Well,I,I,and that's,that's a good question,but, uh,uh,my answer to that 11 is generally if there is a problem it's detected early enough. Because a lot of these things,Argyle, some, 12 some hardware may have been missing. That's something you can correct right away. So, a lot of times 13 these things are handled, uh,the contractor that Mr. Campbell uses,they, their, uh,mode of operation, .14 they actually are gonna check it themselves first. You know,my experience is the more people you have 15 looking at these things the better off,you know, someone's gonna find something that the other 18 guys 16 missed. And, uh, and that's, you know,that's what helps a project. I've worked for contractors that just 17 calla framing inspection. They have no idea what's going on in their building. And, and that's the kind 18 of people I don't want to work for. And,that's actually probably why we,we follow,uh,contractors like 19 this around is because we know that, how they do their jobs. To answer your question specifically, it 20 doesn't hold us up very often because it's detected early enough to where it can get corrected because it 21 has to call for reframe,or,or reinspection anyway before I can start. So,therefore, it's, it's usually 22 handled as, as soon as possible. 23 GENE LITTLE: Thank you. 24 STEVEN COHERA: Okay. 25 GALE CHADWICK: Good afternoon. Uh, my name is Gale Chadwick. I, uh, am the owner of 26 Chadwick Electric,Incorporated, uh, I know Felix and I hope some of you at least know my company. • 27 Uh, I am here in a little different,uh,atmosphere today because I think I,1 feel like I'm representing,uh, BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 14 1 many of the other subcontractors. And the term hardship is an interesting tern. And,I guess I was asked 2 how, uh, having a different framing contractor could impact us as subcontractors,electricians,plumbers, 3 sheet metal people,uh,concerning a,a hardship. And I think what we need to do is we need to keep in 4 mind the critical path and the speed of these projects,uh,because, and you're all familiar with the 5 situation we have in Ft. Collins and the Denver area. At the present time, skilled labor is an impossibility. 6 There is no such thing as skilled labor hire. The only way you can get skilled labor is train them, and that 7 takes a period of time, or steal them from someone else and,uh, of course we all try to do that,that's,we 8 have various degrees of success at that. Uh,but as far as hardship,I think the hardship that would, is 9 created with us is that we bid these jobs,uh, let's just take an example. If I bid a job, like the Huntington 10 Hills job, in January, and,uh,things were delayed and framers took extra time,my cost of labor is 11 increasing at the rate of 30%per year because I have to increase my labor force and pay them more, 12 rather than lose them. So,to keep a good framing, or good electrical crew on,I have to continue raising 13 their wages to keep them. So,when you say hardship,for all of us as subcontractors, if these jobs are not 14 on their critical paths,and if they don't move,that becomes a real problem. Now,you may say, "who am 15 1 to have any kind of an expertise at this?" Uh, at this point in time,we,we have only done one job for 16 Mr. Campbell, uh,through Davis Brothers. But,at the present time,I am doing eight projects that are 17 very similar to this in the Ft. Collins area,uh, in Loveland, Windsor and Ft. Collins,uh, and I can tell you 18 that, uh, Davis Brothers, doing work for Mr. Campbell,they do a quality product,they are well organized 19 and we appreciate working for them. So,I think if you are concerned about quality,and that subject has 20 come up,I don't feel like there is any concern about quality from my perspective. And 1,uh,I'd answer 21 any questions that you may have. 22 BRAD MASSEY: Um,I have a question. You talked about the,the 30%increases over a year. 23 Um, one of the charges we have is to find that it's,uh, exceptional or, uh,peculiar to this project and, and 24 how is that labor cost increase special to this project versus the apartment complex across the street 25 GALE CHADWICK: Well,I don't know that it's 26 BRAD MASSEY: and you'd have that same hardship for whether it's a Ft. Collins framer, 27 licensed framer or an outside BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 15 1 GALE CHADWICK: I would have • 2 BRAD MASSEY: framer. 3 GALE CHADWICK: more of a problem with a Ft. Collins contractor because their speed and 4 the timeframe that the j-,job is done would be increased because instead of a,a seven months project or 5 an eight month project, that certainly could turn into a twelve or thirteen month project. And, so, uh, in 6 this particular case,yes, it would make a difference because we're talking about a framer who would be 7 able to come in and get the job done in a timeframe that probably a local framer could not. And, uh, if 8 you're familiar with Bull Run, Buffalo Run, Country Ranch,uh,those are three that just come to mind, 9 uh,]FK Senior Center, or senior housing,those are the ones we are doing. So,I can compare that with 10 those, and I can compare the speed that the jobs are done and it does cost us more,uh, when we do local, I I local framers because they're slower. 12 BOB CAMPBELL: Uh,my hardship more probably is that the specific nature in which I build 13 this project,I don't believe, is typical and I don't believe that the framing environment available with the . 14 license is the best framer to hire for my project. I mean,I, uh,the, um,the components,the shear walls, 15 the hardware, are extensive. More extensive than they probably need to be, but I can't control that, and 16 the framer that I select is extremely educated in doing those things. It's not new to him. And, and so the, 17 the hardship would be the u-,uniqueness of my construction is not typical. And,I, I,1 do that for a v-, 18 variety of reasons. I, uh, I w-, regardless that we may overlook a broken truss or, uh,may overlook some 19 things from time to time, I want my windows plumb and square. I pay more for those components, and, 20 um, because it makes my windows open and close properly,makes my doors open and close properly. 21 Um,the shear walls are something I believe is becoming more common place. But, we've been doing 22 them in the apartment industry for fifteen years. 23 GALE CHADWICK: Okay. Thank you. 24 CHARLES FIELDER: Mr. Campbell, do you have any,anybody else you wish to present? 25 BOB CAMPBELL: I don't think so. • 26 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay,um BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 16 1 FELIX LEE: Any other,I guess,any others in the audience that would wish to speak in favor of 2 the,uh, app-,the variance requested? 3 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Felix,I think it's your turn to ask questions and 4 FELIX LEE: Um,yes,I guess I would address first to,uh, Mr. Campbell. Um, could you 5 elaborate more, I think for the, uh,uh,for the benefit of the Board and myself for that matter,the,the 6 nature of the relationship and the,uh,with the,with your licensed framer and the structure under which, 7 uh,you propose the nonlicensed people working,and,and give us a feel for how that works and, and sort 8 of the numbers of people on, on the crews. 9 BOB CAMPBELL: The,um,the framer that I would propose to use is AIM Framing and I was 10 quite happy to hear that United Builders had worked behind them twenty times. I was not aware of that. I 1 Uh,he is licensed with the appropriate framings license. He has two on-site hourly supervisors that are 12 licensed. He does have hourly people. The,the crews that he hires are specific to the areas of walls, uh, 13 erecting walls,um, erecting trusses,floor,floor trusses are separate from roof trusses,decking,uh, setting 14 windows and doors, and siding and fascia. All those are separate crews, and a crew may consist of three 15 to eight men,and there'll be,there could be multiple crews. There could be as many as three fascia 16 crews,three decking crews,working as coordinated by the supervisors of the framer. Uh, because all of 17 those people report directly to the supervisors of the framing contractor,and those supervisors report 18 directly to the superintendent of the general contractor, so,there is a good structure of people. In full 19 momentum,and it, it,believe me, it takes a while to gain momentum and you need to have things in sync, 20 but in fin-,in full momentum,he could have as many as a hundred and fifty men on site,very easily, and 21 that's not uncommon. And,he would maintain that pace for the duration of three months,perhaps, 22 because it takes him a while to gain that momentum and then assuming the foundation contractor is 23 staying in front of him,which we push to see that he does,he'll maintain that momentum and then he'll 24 begin to scale it back down. Does that answer your question? 25 FELIX LEE: Um, I guess I'm,I'm also interested in, in terms of the relationship with the 26 licensed, uh,framing contractor and that contractor's legitimate,uh 27 BOB CAMPBELL: sub BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 17 1 FELIX LEE: employees, how,what's, how are these other crews, uh, 02 BOB CAMPBELL: okay 3 FELIX LEE: managed,directed,are they independent? 4 BOB CAMPBELL: Well,the,the,the other crews, if you have a crew of five people,the crew of 5 five people would have a foreman and that foreman would manage those five people, but that foreman 6 would be responsible to the superintendent of the framing contractor. And,and that would be typical of 7 any crew. On some of the items such as the shear wall placement, because that's a little bit more 8 complicated because it's a lot of screws at four inches on center, uh, he will resort to his hourly 9 employees, because he does have hourly employees to supplement. He also uses hourly employees to 10 clean up small problems or to catch up an area that's behind. So, it truly is a coordinated effort. 11 ALLAN HAUCK: I have a question. I don't know if it's ap-, appropriate for me to have a 12 question. Uh, the,just so I understand the,the arrangement, so it's possible that you could have up to a 13 hundred and fifty unlicensed employees on this project with two licensed superintendents 0 4 BOB CAMPBELL: It would be, uh 15 ALLAN HAUCK: of the framing contractor? 16 BOB CAMPBELL: They wouldn't,the,the,the frame crew would be contract labor and, if the, 17 if the framing contractor had a hundred and fifty men onsite, it, not being specific,just guessing,you'd 18 have two or three supervisors,a handful of hourly employees 19 ALLAN HAUCK: Yes,but the, but the question's going to come down to who holds the license. 20 BOB CAMPBELL: The framing contractor. 21 ALLAN HAUCK: So that you've got two licensed super,super, supervisors 22 BOB CAMPBELL: But the guy who would hold the license and be responsible would be the 23 framing contract, 24 ALLAN HAUCK: well,well let me 25 BOB CAMPBELL: contract 40 6 ALLAN HAUCK: back up even more then. Are the, are the supervisors licensed? 27 BOB CAMPBELL: Yes. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 18 1 ALLAN HAUCK: Okay. They, so they hold the supervisors license. 2 BOB CAMPBELL: They hold a framing license. They,they hold a license that 3 ALLAN HAUCK: All right. So th,there'd be two supervisors,I'm trying to figure out how 4 many total people on the job site responsible for 5 BOB CAMPBELL: W-,does my 6 ALLAN HAUCK: framing would have a license. 7 BOB CAMPBELL: Okay. 8 ALLAN HAUCK: It sounds like two. 9 BOB CAMPBELL: My superintendent would. My,my general contractor's superintendent 10 would have a contracting license which would su, be sufficient for this. Uh,the framing contractor i 1 himself would visit the job periodically. He would have a license but he's not there full-time. He would 12 have two or three supervisors that would have a license. If,by fluke,one of his fr-, framing contractors, 13 one of his subcrews may have a license because he attempted,when we were,we finished up,we finished 14 the framing of the Argyle in Spring of'99 when you all began to enforce this. They tried to conform. 15 Some of those subcrews do have the framing licenses but he got a taste of it enough to know that it wasn't 16 ALLAN HAUCK: But,the,the,the foreman of those five different carpenters 17 BOB CAMPBELL: Yeah 18 ALLAN HAUCK: he would not 19 BOB CAMPBELL: Yeah 20 ALLAN HAUCK: be a licensed contractor typically 21 BOB CAMPBELL: typically would not. 22 ALLAN HAUCK: right? 23 BOB CAMPBELL: Typically would not. 24 ALLAN HAUCK: Okay. 25 BOB CAMPBELL: But, he 26 ALLAN 14AUCK: Each, 27 BOB CAMPBELL: would BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 19 1 ALLAN HAUCK: and each one of these crews are specialized enough so that they're doing • 2 repetitive work 3 BOB CAMPBELL: that's 4 ALLAN HAUCK: and,the nature of the reimbursement is, basically, is it basically piece work? 5 It's not hourly I would assume. 6 BOB CAMPBELL: Right. He 7 ALLAN HAUCK: So, they're piece work employees. 8 BOB CAMPBELL: They're piece work employees but they,they may do nothing but lay down 9 decking whether it's on floors or roofs. But,they do nothing but lay down decking on our project or one 10 of other five or six projects that the contractor may have in another city. And, uh, it's people that he 11 maintains. It, it, it's not like somebody working out of the back of the truck that they need an extra hand 12 and that's who they hire. The,the,the,that person has no value to `em. 13 ALLAN HAUCK: But they're not direct employees of the subcontractor? . 14 BOB CAMPBELL: No,sir,they're not direct employees. 15 ALLAN HAUCK: Thank you. 16 CHARLES FIELDER: Any more questions,Felix? 17 FELIX LEE: Um, at this point I don't have specific questions. I guess I just want to verify, um, 18 in terms of the commitment on the part of the third party quality assurance,um,provider, and I just want 19 to verify,you, um, Mr. Campbell,state that you propose that the,we will receive all those reports 20 BOB CAMPBELL: Yes, sir 21 FELIX LEE: and that, and that the inspections by the, uh,uh,third party will be done prior to our 22 inspections. 23 BOB CAMPBELL: Yes, sir. And,as I noted to you before, it came to light to me this morning 24 that the City provides a framing inspection. That's not an inspection that Terracon had included, but it's 25 something that I would include. Because, what I, what I want to assure you is I want to canvass it with •26 enough of Terracon's eyes, or,and in enough areas that you have a comfort level that we're trying to do 27 what's right and accomplish a common goal. And, if it, if I haven't got `em with what I've proposed, I've BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 20 1 left one out, I'm,I'm more than willing to say,"yeah,that's great,that's fine",I have no problem with 2 that. But,yes, sir,uh, Terracon would inspect `em prior to,and the City, all those inspection reports, uh, 3 would be available to the City. I could either do `em individually as we've got `em. I could do it in a 4 binder as I've shown the Board. Um, it, it's our objective to do good, do the right thing. 5 FELIX LEE: Thank you. I appreciate that. 6 CHARLES FIELDER: Felix,do you have any witnesses that you wanted to call? 7 FELIX LEE: Yes. I think it might be helpful,I have Jon Estabrook here,um,from staff. Jon, 8 you can s-, sit, sit at the counter there if it's more comfortable. He's had,uh, considerable experience on- 9 site with the,uh,Willow Springs Argyle project and probably can elaborate on that. If you wouldn't 10 mind,Jon,just kind of give,uh,give the Board sort of an overview of your experience with their project 11 and any issues that,uh,you found. 12 JON ESTABROOK: Certainly. Uh, first of all,I feel a little overwhelmed with the numbers that 13 came up before me. I looked behind me and nobody,nobody was there, so,so I guess it's me. Um, what 14 I'd like to do is, is prevent,present some information,um,to consider in making your decision on this 15 appeal. Um, and I want to be specific that this is,this is not addressed,um,against any of the contractors 16 or developers,um,but it's information in favor of the,the contractor licensing specifically. Um, 17 something to consider,three to five years ago,multi-family,uh,virtually didn't exist in Ft. Collins. But, 18 as recently as the last couple of months in The Group's, Group Realtors annual forecast, um,they predict 19 that multi-family permits will outpace single family permits. Um,multi-family pre-,does present special 20 construction requirements,but that's in, in addition to basic framing requirements,uh,that are the same as 21 single family. Some of the specifics are one hour occupancy separation of units,draftstop construction, 22 three story construction techniques, certain commercial requirements that don't apply to residential, uh, 23 accessibility clearances. Uh,something else to consider, an 8-plex at, at one permit, actually represents 24 eight individual units,uh,so from a framing,installation, or inspection standpoint, it means we're looking 25 at eight separate systems under one permit. Um,typically,with multi-family,contractors, uh, come from 26 out of town,may not be familiar with the local codes,uh,with our local snow loads or wind loading, or 27 local amendments. Part of our testing requirements for the framing license addresses those specifics. Uh, BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 21 1 and is directly a,applicable, uh,to framing. And, also, applicable to multi-family framing. I reviewed . 2 our test this morning. Twenty, or, I'm sorry,twelve to thirteen questions on the test,which represents 3 twenty-five percent of the test,uh,directly, uh, is in regards to multi-family construction. Something else 4 that's particular to multi-family and, and has been, uh,addressed today, is the fast track construction uh which means multiple buildings in some stage of progress. What this can lead to is 5 schedules, p g g p gr 6 mistakes being repeated from one building to another. Um, something else that it does is it leads to 7 inspections called for repeatedly before the work is complete and actually ready for inspection. And, 8 also,typically, uh,which also has been indicated,uh,there's usually a large labor force, um, under 9 supervision. And,the question is, is the amount of the supervision. Some of the common problems in 10 multi-family in general,and applied to the previous, uh,Argyle project, uh,were truss bracing issues, 11 broken trusses, excuse me, structural shear wall assemblies, pull down components,point load posting, 12 fire stopping,and hanger, structural truss hangers that were either missing, modified or the improper 13 hangers used. Um, and I don't know of any multi-family contractors or developers that are immune to . 14 this. As, as far as the market-conditions, it is a thriving market,uh,there is a labor shortage, and there is a 15 lack of skilled labor. Uh, but that's,that's an industry problem. Uh, it has,the,the cost of framers has 16 raised, but, uh,when I was building,uh,within the last ten years framers,the price of framing per square 17 foot has doubled. Um, but I don't know that that's affecting any one individual more than any others. 18 Um, I addressed the Homebuilders Association of Northern Colorado this month and specifically asked 19 them about the framing license requirements and how that affected them. And, it's, it's been a hot issue. 20 I, I had comment from Terry with Progressive Living and also Kimberly Stenburg. They both,they both 21 expressed major initial problems when the licensing was initiated. Uh, some of'ern had to get rid of their 22 normal framers that they had used because they had to use a licensed framer. Uh, but the consensus was 23 that, that that's worked its way out now that people have caught up with the licensing. Uh,they both 24 agreed that the, a,framing is better than it was and are happy with the current situation. There are several 25 multi-family projects in town,right now,that are under construction that are able to comply with the . 26 licensing requirements and I don't think it is competitively fair to those folks if, if they can comply. 27 Some examples are the Hamlet on Boardwalk Drive, Saddle Ridge on West Elizabeth,Martinez,Martinez BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 22 1 Co-, Co-housing on North Sherwood,and the Four Seasons multi-family project on Wabash. Um, I think 2 that if, if this gets waived, it, it, it's, it's gonna set a negative precedent in, in the, in the framing industry 3 in Ft. Collins. Um, because I don't know how we can waive one without applying it across the board to 4 all the framers. Uh,the issue of quality control. I don't think I need to rehash,uh,the initial what's been 5 termed as hiccups in the Argyle project. There were. We all agreed on it. There was some question,uh, 6 whether the, uh,three party,third party inspections were being done either in a timely manner,um,and I 7 don't know that. I do know that at the time we were doing inspections,things were being missed. The 8 deficiencies themselves besides the structural items mentioned were also basic framing issues, uh,that are 9 no different than what we see in single family houses. Again, the, the whole reason for our test on the 10 framing license addresses the basis framing issues and the, uh, framing chapter of the Uniform Building 11 code. So,I think that the key to consider is an undue hardship, um. There are framers complying, uh,not 12 only multi-family projects,but all framing aspects in Ft. Collins. 13 GENE LITTLE: Um,from your own professional position, 14 JON ESTABROOK: Uh-hum 15 GENE LITTLE: Uh,do you see the validity of their request from the standpoint of the continuity 16 of framing,where you would bring in,possibly, uh,unex-,inexperienced licensed framing contractors, 17 um,to plug into a system that requires them to move through a development of this size,uh,effectively, 18 uh,I'd like to have your personal opinion as an inspector on,on what you see comparatively between 19 their request and what you see in the field. 20 JON ESTABROOK: If I understand the question,uh,I don't think any framers that are doing 21 work in Ft. Collins, uh, are not, uh,doing that now,whether it's single family or multi-family,uh, even, 22 even single family is component systems. Uh, it's roof truss systems, it's floor framing,1-joist systems, 23 uh,the nature of stick built has changed dramatically and is not what it was. Um,as far as other multi- 24 family projects,I see the same type of construction in those that I do,uh, in this project. 25 GENE LITTLE: And on the question of validity of their request for hardship,do you see, uh,I'd 26 like to see you respond to, um,what they're asking for here as it relates to,um,the, um,factor of, um, of, BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 23 1 of multiple crew responsibilities moving forward together to accomplish that, uh,that task so that it be, • 2 doesn't become a hardship. 3 JON ESTABROOK: Uh,I don't see that as valid that,uh, as I mentioned, other multi-family 4 project, projects are able to do that. Um, I don't see,uh, a specific hardship that applies to them that 5 doesn't apply to any of the other projects. 6 GENE LITTLE: Um,the number of, uh, of units that you have given as examples, um, can you 7 give me a rough idea of how many buildings are represented in those examples and how many units each 8 one of those might be? 9 JON ESTABROOK: Um,ten to twenty buildings, one hundred to two hundred units, more or 10 less, depending on the project specifically. 11 CHARLES FIELDER: Any more questions of Jon? Okay. Thank you,Jon. 12 FELIX LEE: Let me, um,I would, uh, 13 PAUL ECKMAN: Before we go to public,further public input,I would like to discuss with you •14 the terminology of Section 15-153 again,because I think, uh, at the outset Felix had a view of that and I 15 agreed with it, and now I, this term hiccup has come up a couple times,I think I had a little bit of a hiccup 16 in a, in agreeing with that interpretation,and,and have had a chance to read it some more and, and now 17 disagree. 18 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. 19 PAUL ECKMAN; That is that the,the second part,the first part dealing with hardship is 20 certainly applicable today. But, as I read that second part again about qualifications, it says,"or when 21 such applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant",first of all the 22 applicant, "possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this article, such as specialized training, 23 education, or additional experience,which the Board has determined qualifies the applicant to perform, in 24 a competent manner, any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought." And,I kept 25 reading"under the license or certificate sought"and"other qualifications"and, now it seems to me that �26 that,those terms "other qualifications"and "under the license or certificate sought"that the Council must 27 have intended that to apply to persons seeking licenses under 15-156,which is, under paragraph (d)of BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 24 1 that Section you have all of the qualifications that a person must show. So,I don't think that's applicable 2 now, in retrospect,to a variance application. I think that was intended to be applicable to a license 3 application to see if they possessed other qualifications that might justify the license. So,I think that you 4 should look at the hardship arguments that the applicant has presented and the,of course,the last,the 5 third part of this test, or the last clause is,"and provided that such relief may be granted without 6 substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of the 7 article",those general public health,safety and welfare concerns are applicable to you,either,but I don't 8 think that this other qualifications,and,uh,under the license or certificate sought, is applicable to this 9 variance application now and,I'm sorry to have,uh,perhaps mislead you at the outset. 10 CHARLES FIELDER: Paul,can I,can I sort of interpolate that a little bit? Are you saying that 11 the issue of the additional inspections may not actually be an issue here? 12 PAUL ECKMAN: I don't,I think if that was intended to show that they had these other 13 qualifications,the more I read this,the more I believe that that is not something for you to consider in, in, 14 uh, in this application for a variance,but you should consider all of the arguments made to you about 15 hardship 16 CHARLES FIELDER: All right. 17 PAUL ECKMAN: to see if you think there's a unique, it,it says peculiar hardship,that means to 18 me,I'll try to think of some synonyms,unique hardship to this project. It's not,doesn't, doesn't have to 19 be. The word following is the word"or"so then you can look at exceptional practical difficulties. Are 20 there some exceptional,you know,really out of the ordinary practical difficulties, 21 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. 22 PAUL ECKMAN: or exceptional or undue hardship, again,out of the ordinary hardship, or 23 unreasonable,uh,too much,hardship, undue. 24 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Thank you,Paul. Um,Felix did you have anymore witnesses? 25 FELIX LEE: No,I don't. I was just going to invite, uh,the next step. 26 CHARLES FIELDER: Yes. Please. Yeah. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 25 1 FELIX LEE: Any, uh,any, first of all, any questions, uh,of the witness or myself, uh,from the . 2 appellant or the appellant's representatives,and then we'll hear from anybody opposing the appeal. 3 CHARLES FIELDER: No questions? Okay. Um, please step forward and state your name. 4 CHRIS O'BRIEN: Uh,my name is Chris O'Brien. I'm president of Front Range Framing 5 Contractors, a locally owned and operated framing outfit here in Ft. Collins. Uh,I've personally been 6 involved in the construction industry for over eighteen years. I've worked in the New England area,I've 7 worked in California and, now that I've been living in Ft. Collins the last six years, of course, I've been 8 working here in Colorado. Um,I also studied architecture for five years,University of Southern 9 California in Los Angeles. I've worked for architects, engineers,contractors. I've done everything from 10 set concrete forms and foundations,all the way through this,to roof file and so on, so forth. Uh,I passed 11 up a career in architecture because I love being a carpenter. Um, I guess before I get started, uh, and I,I 12 say all this because I just wanted to qualify, um,where I'm coming from here, and, basically,what I'm 13 gonna do right now is educate you because you don't work out where we work in the real world day in &4 and day out,um, and I wanted you to understand that, um,I didn't just buy a set of bags and a hammer 15 last year and suddenly call myself a carpenter. Uh, I think the real issue here is, uh, is money, as, as you 16 can all well imagine. Uh, what these gentlemen are proposing here,um,of course works well to their 17 advantage. Um,what they do is they come in from out of state with a large group of piece workers,often 18 times minorities that don't read,write or understand English. Um,and it's,and it,they're not, it's not u, 19 u, unique to them and their situation. I mean,this happens a lot. I mean,Buffalo Run was mentioned as a 20 project and that's the same thing that happened there. I think the real issue,therefore, is the fact that the 21 people that are doing,they'll talk about,you know, professional carpenters and, and, and their I 22 qualifications and how each crew knows what they're doing and blab, blab, blab, but,the real bottom line 23 here is that the caliber of the people that they use out in the field precludes them from allowing these 24 people to take the test because many of`em probably couldn't read the test to begin with and most of 25 them wouldn't, wouldn't even come close to passing the test. In fact, I would,you know,just as an aside �6 here, say why not let your hundred and fifty guys take the test and let's see how many of'ern actually 27 ass it because I can guarantee you it'd be an appallingly low ercenta e. Um as far as local you know, P g Y P , g Y BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 26 1 availability, uh,you know, my company is, is available to work on projects like this. There's some 2 gentlemen from some actual competitors, but friends of mine that are local owned framing operations. I 3 don't know that it's been done before or not,we've often talked about it,uh, you know,certainly nobody 4 operates a hundred and fifty man operation in this town. They don't operate a hundred and fifty man 5 operation in their town because there's just not enough work going on consistently to keep a hundred and 6 fifty guys working all the time. So,what do they do? They band `em all together and they run around the 7 country doing these projects. Well,we could get together,as well,with three or four local framing 8 companies and put sixty to a hundred guys together and six fork lifts,and,then, actually probably do a lot 9 nicer job than would,they typically would be doing out there. Um,we're licensed. I actually have a B 10 license as a general contractor,um,and,again,I choose to operate as a framing outfit`cause it's just what 11 I like to do. In the future we may do more generating. But,I know that we've been hurt time and time 12 again by these outfits that come in town like that,they don't have comp,they don't pay taxes,they don't 13 contribute to social security,they don't do matching Medicare,uh, all the employees' contributions,the 14 employers' contributions to the employees' welfare,they don't have safety programs. I mean, bottom 15 line is the people out there are out there to make whatever they're getting paid an hour or, in this case, 16 piece work. They're out there to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can, get their 17 paycheck on Friday and go to the bar. And,that's just the way it is. My employees, as a,as, as a, as an 18 opposite,you know, example are,you know,people that live in town here,that pay taxes and own homes 19 in town here,that have families. Most of my guys are twenty-five to thirty-five years old and yet,out of 20 the eighteen to twenty guys on my payroll, half of them have families here in town. I mean,they're, 21 they're,they're hardworking citizens that care about what they're doing. We're trying to put out a good 22 product. We have a safety program,we have the license that we,we,uh, utilize,um,as, as required. As 23 far as the complexity of these buildings,I don't,you know,I,I could sit here for hours and tell you how 24 many buildings like this I've built. I mean, you know,building out at Rock Bridge,the Preserve, 25 Martinez Park. I've built Motel 6's in the Denver area and north. I mean,I've built large,you know, 26 twenty to sixty thousand square foot buildings,up to four stories high. Um,yeah they're complicated. 27 But, if you know what you're doing,they're not. I mean, it's just like anything. If you've no, have no BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 27 1 prior mechanical experience and you tried to pull the engine apart in your car and put it back together 02 you'd probably not be able to do it. But,that doesn't mean that it's an insurmmountable task. You go to 3 a mechanic who knows what he's doing and he puts it back together for you. It's just that simple. Um, 4 you know, shear walls, hardware,I mean,that's standard stuff. There's,you know, it's not smoke and 5 mirrors that, you know, shears walls are some amazing new thing that just got developed. I mean,fifteen 6 years ago I was nailing shear walls off in California. I mean it's just,you know,that's,th-,that's a con-, 7 you,you know, Type V construction standard is you gotta have shear walls. Uh, so,I mean,there,there's 8 absolutely no hardship here. I mean,what they're talking about is they want to get somebody that can 9 come in and do it for below cost compared to a competitive bid from other people that are licensed and 10 are operating above board. And,what they are doing by going with piece workers is getting out of comp I 1 and getting out of all those other matching things. And,personally, as somebody that is a business owner 12 that pays that,you know,the forty or fifty thousand dollars a year that I pay in comp, I mean,I think it's 13 outrageous that they would even come in here and ask to do what they're doing. Uh,you,you know it's a 0 4 slap in the face. Not to mention from Mr. Campbell's standpoint,our company is listed in the phone 15 book. I never got a call from him to get a bid on this project. In fact,I'd be hard pressed to imagine that 16 anyone else has bid this project. So,for him to say that,you know,there's nobody else out there that can 17 do that is hogwash. I mean,basically,um, and,you know,complexity,yeah, it's complicated. Why do 18 they use components like premanufactured headers and things like that? To make it as simple as they 19 possibly can for these inexperienced people out there to nail the stuff together. What we do on large 20 projects like this is something called prefabricating. We will come in,he talks about,you know, getting 21 seven foundations ahead,what we do is we come in before they even,when, when they start digging the 22 first hole for the first foundation and we start prefabricating the walls for these buildings. What that does 23 is it gives us better quality control, it gives us more precision in what we are doing because we, because 24 the quality control is higher, therefore,the product is more precise. Things fit together better. And what 25 we actually do is we prebuild these walls while they're putting those foundations down. Uh,then, as soon 6 as the first one's ready, boom,those parts start going up. We operate the same way. We have wall crews, 27 we have floor crews,we have roof crews,uh,you know, there's no magic to that. Uh, it, it works better BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 28 1 in a production framing situation like this to have guys doing the same process over and over so that the 2 learning curve is not needing to be repeated every single time. Um, so,what they're doing,again,just, 3 I'm just pointing out,you know, is coming in and planning ahead and all that waiting for seven 4 foundations. Again,these buildings are complicated. If you ever could imagine trying to build all the 5 walls for one of these buildings off the set of plans,you'd understand that it's not something that 6 everyone can do. And, it's certainly not something that an inexperienced carpenter could ever even 7 imagine doing. And,yet,we do it every day. I'm doing a building for Drahota right now out at the 8 Preserve that we recently took over from another framing outfit that couldn't perform properly. And that, 9 you know,that happens all the time. Yes,there are plenty of framing companies out there that can't 10 perform. But,by golly,there's certainly plenty of them that can. Um, so,I guess what I would say is, 11 you know, if you obviously grant them this variance,you know,the floodgates open. I mean,then, we 12 might as,why do we have licenses for anything. Um,I think it's pretty much,you know you either stick 13 by the rules or you get rid of the rules,one or the other. And,certainly, I'd be, I've, sure,on one hand, 14 from a financial standpoint,I'd love to not have to pay comp and FICA and all that stuff that I have to pay 15 on my employees. But,on the other hand,I really care about the guys that work with me. Many of`em 16 are friends of mine and, even the ones that aren't,they're valuable to me. There as valuable to me as one 17 my forklifts or my saws or my guns. I mean,because without them,all the tools in the world are nothing. 18 And,what I think happens here is,you know, it's just a vagrant sort of,you know,people coming 19 through. I mean,many of the guys that worked on their Argyle project I hired last year when they got 20 shut down for not having framing licenses. And,quite frankly,I mean,they work,you know, seven and 21 eight dollar an hour guys who had no idea what the hell they were doing. I mean, it's not like they were 22 these,you know, band of roving experienced master carpenters that,you know, so,you know,you know. 23 You asked the drywaller if they do a good job. Well,of course he's not going to come in here an say, 24 "no,you know what,they're framing is horrible. We,we can't even,you know,we have to cut our sheets 25 `cause their stuffs not square." You know, he's gonna tell you what you wanna hear. Uh, you know, any 26 sub working for them,of course. I mean,they're all sitting on multi-million dollar contracts. They're not 27 gonna come in here and say these guys do horrible work. So,you know,I'm,I'm sure they think most of BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 29 1 you probably even realize that yourselves. Anyway,I,I think this is a chance here,you know,to make • 2 the right vote,to do the right thing,to,to give all of us,you know,that are trying to operate legitimately, 3 a little bit of a boost, which then we can go out and,and give us a little more,you know, reason to band 4 together and say,"hey let's, you know, let's make this a better place", you know? These guys will come 5 in, they slap this thing up, it even says it here they are going to sell it at some point in the future. Well, 6 you know why,they're going to hold onto it for ten years and make as much money as they can off rental 7 and then as soon as the thing starts to fall apart, boom,they are going to sell it. Well, why is it going to 8 fall apart? Well, it's gonna fall apart because it's slopped together. You go look at a lot of these multi- 9 unit projects. Bull,Buffalo Run, classic example. It's not even a year old, it's some of the most shoddy 10 workmanship I've ever seen in my life. Is that what we want in our community is a bunch of puked out 11 buildings that are gonna fall down in twenty years? No,of course not. I mean, it detracts aesthetically 12 from there, it, it, it causes problems with,you know, living conditions and health and safety of the people 13 that live in those buildings twenty years later when things are falling, literally falling off the building. 14 Um, so,anyway,I would just caution you,you know, to use common sense in this. I think it's a 15 common sense issue. I don't think it's anything other. There is no hardship out there. You know, 16 hardship is working outside like we do when it's twenty below zero. 'Thank you. 17 CHARLES FIELDER: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to address us? Please state 18 your name for the record. 19 RICK GARHART: Uh, my name's Rick Garhart. Um,president and co-owner of Bear 20 Construction and Design Incorporated,a local framing contractor. And I don't know, Chris did a pretty 21 good job there, so. Um, but,unlike Chris,I will have to say we were one of the local contractors able to 22 bid on this project. Um,one of the points I had to make is in his request,he's not being completely 23 truthful. None of the bidders were told that this needed to be manned with a hundred and fifty guys, that 24 there was eight buildings under construction at one time, it wasn't part of the request. I asked for those 25 numbers. We were told eighteen days per building,two to three buildings at a time and they wanted us to 026 do the first one by itself. And so, not that that has anything to do with the licensing, but it kind of upset 27 me. Um, I would like to address,well I already addressed that point about the hundred and fifty framers. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 30 1 Um, second, in his request he stated the need for experienced specialized crews and that,and then later in 2 that same page he said,"unlike framing,there are professional subcontractors in the other areas, 3 mechanical, plumbing and electrical",which we all know are license trades. So he's using them and 4 they're licensed and he has to pay that cost. What the City of Fort Collins' licensing did,was make 5 framing a professional contract,professional subcontractor. So we're legitimate. You know,he think,he, 6 you know,I'm offended by him saying we don't know what we're doing. We can do it twice as good as 7 his guys,twice as fast,with less guys. And, um,we all have to coordinate with subcontractors every day 8 to make our projects go well,to ensure the quality of it,so that's nothing new. I mean, if we don't 9 coordinate with the plumber and the mechanical and the electrician,the job goes terrible for me and for 10 them. So,there's no,that's not magic, either. Um,he also said framing was critical. So,why would he I I not want a professional contractor who, by with one phone call I'll stand by all my work. If I have fifty 12 guys on there,the only guy he has to call is me. When he has a hundred and fifty guys,he has to call his 13 framing contractor,his supervisor,his supervisor has to contact the subcontractor who may have to 14 contact another subcontractor in order to get that fixed. It, it makes no sense,um,because we'll provide 15 ongoing support through the project and we'll stand behind our work. And I don't want to make this 16 sound like, I want,I want to first state that I'm also doing this for all of the local framing contractors, not, 17 we're not here because we're trying to get this job. Because,what we are here is because we've worked 18 nine years in this community to build a professional subcontracting business, and to provide our 19 customers with the stability and security that a professional subcontractor should provide,just like Poudre 20 Valley Air does,just like Allen Plumbing&Heating does. And, if Bob Campbell doesn't want to use a 21 local contractor,that's fine. It's his business, it's his money,he can do whatever he wants to. But, if that 22 framer is allowed, if that framer doesn't have to abide by the same rules I do,then he's created an unfair 23 advantage for me to get the work,or Chris to get the work or for anybody else who would if he would 24 actually look into the framers in town,would be able to man this project,would be able to complete it, 25 and that advantage,just like Chris stated,he has licensed supervisors. And,what he is,he's a labor 26 broker. He doesn't know these guys. He brings 'ern out, he subcontracts the work at a price that's only 27 based on quantity,not quality. If you're not in there putting sheets down,you're not in there framing BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 31 1 floor, you're going broke. He does,you know, if the employee doesn't show up to work or he's sick or • 2 he gets injured,he doesn't care. He walks free and clear because what he's done, he's cut his costs by 3 thirty percent,twenty percent for, uh,workman's comp and the other ten percent for payroll expenses, 4 and he's able to underbid in here and then pay a dirt ball price to these guys and take his cut off the top. 5 That framing contractor,all he's doing is walking around pocketing money off the top of jobs. Um, so, in 6 my opinion,this variance is requested for no other point than money. And, it's also in my opin,opinion 7 that that is not a reason to change a rule which has already shown a positive impact on the quality of work 8 in Ft. Collins. And, in closing,I'd just like to ask the Board to remember the local building code doesn't 9 change for projects based on size or type or who's doing it, so why should your local regulations change? 10 Thank you. 11 CHARLES FIELDER: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to address the Board? Please state 12 your name. 13 PAUL DIANA: Yeah. My name's, uh,Paul Diana. I'm with the Rocky Mountain Regional • 14 Council of Carpenters,the Carpenter's Union,and I've been assigned this area, uh,about a month ago, 15 out of Denver, and, uh,the first thing I found out about was,uh,the licensing here in Ft. Collins. Found it 16 quite interesting. I found it quite refreshing,to say the least,because,uh,what it shows me that,uh,there 17 was some thought here about protecting the taxpayers and those consumers who are gonna live in those 18 homes. I think that's really important. I think that's what's been lacking in American for about twenty 19 years now. Uh, working in the Carpenter's Union now for thirty-one years,I've watched the decimation 20 of workers and which were a really proud group, `cause they work very hard,they do a job that's very 21 important for America,they build the infrastructure,which this building wouldn't be here,we wouldn't 22 be standing in it. We wouldn't be able to drive our cars `cause we build the highways,the manufacturing 23 plants,the schools for our education of our children,ourselves. This is a very important industry. It is 24 the most highly skilled industry in America. Believe it or not, it takes more skilled people in construction 25 to do what we do than any other industry. Um,I,I just want to thank you for this. I,I, I'm really 26 encouraged by what I see. This is wonderful. We totally agree with this. And I'm glad to see the process 27 going on right now. Uh,I, I think this needs to be encouraged more and more because this is how we are BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 32 1 gonna have a better America. Uh,all these issues are really important. Uh,all these issues that have been 2 spoken here,there is no sense of going over `em over and over and over again. But,I think Chadwick 3 Electric said it the best. I mean,this proves the point. We don't have the skilled workers. The only way 4 you're gonna get `em is to steal `em. The Carpenter's Union looks at it a little differently. We're 5 responsible to our community,just like these contractors right here, and we believe if the workers aren't 6 educated and they aren't skilled,they need to be educated,they need to be skilled, and this licensing is the 7 road,the,the door that's opening for that to happen. We need to be training these people. Carpenters 8 train people all the time. We are BAT certified,federally,federally certifications, federal certifications of 9 our training. We need more and more certifications in our training. I mean, licensing makes total sense. 10 The reasons electricians,plumbers,those groups that are licensed,that's one of the reasons they have a 11 better industry is because there is a semblance of control,there's rules to follow, and they're followed. 12 Need I say more? I don't think so. I, I think you guys are right on the ball. I mean, I am really 13 encouraged by what you're doing and I applaud you for what you're doing. Thank you. 14 CHARLES FIELDER: Thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Board? Okay. Um, at this 15 point in time,Mr. Campbell or Mr. Campbell's representatives may ask questions of City staff or City 16 witnesses. Do you wish to do that? 17 BOB CAMPBELL: I don't have any questions. 18 FELIX LEE: Do,uh, do you have any closing remarks? Anything you'd like to 19 BOB CAMPBELL: Sure. I think it was stated by your, uh, building inspector,that multi-family 20 is a recent growth in the City of Fort Collins. I think it was also stated that labor is a shortage. Uh, I'm 21 glad to hear that this gentleman did bid on the project. I don't believe it was misrepresented to him. I 22 think the concept, uh,my general contractor was using by saying your gonna finish one building is get a 23 taste of what the guy's like before you spread him out over six buildings. That's just good business. I'd 24 encourage Front Range to build it,I mean to bid on it. Uh, it's open to bid. I, uh, he would need to, he 25 would need to prove that he would have the ability to staff the job appropriately with the schedule that we 26 need. But stating that there's a labor shortage,you can see where my concern is coming from that, I don't 27 want my job to be handicapped. And,there is a particular project in town,Four Season,that I do know, BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 33 1 uh, has a framer that had some difficulties and that project has suffered and, uh,the framing problems • 2 were such that he,uh, gave the gentleman a notice to leave,he gave, he reinforced it with another 3 contractor, he did all those things that you don't want to do in a project to keep momentum going. Um, 4 and I ask this because with the,the,the shortage of labor and my concern of getting my sticks up, uh, it 5 would have a rippling effect through the balance of my contractors and I don't use all out of town 6 contractors. My mechanical,electrical, and plumbing,Poudre Valley Air,Allen Plumbing, uh,Chadwick 7 Electric,I think they all did a fantastic job, I'll use them again. JKM Framing, uh, he, he's located in 8 Denver. I mean, he, he's front range knowledgeable and he,he does employ five hundred men. Not 9 employ, does, on a regular basis,he has from four to five hundred men available to him at any time. It's 10 not people that he pulls up. It's people that he maintains because he maintains that volume of business. 11 Those are the things I look at that I know will impact my property in a positive manner. Uh, and a 12 variance does not set a precedent. What I'm telling you is that I see there's a labor shortage,I'm 13 concerned about the development of my project,and I'm doing proactive things to ensure the success,and . 14 any developer out there is able to come here and ask the same things I'm asking. You're not setting a 15 precedent,you're acknowledging the conditions. Um,that's all I have to say. Thank you. 16 CHARLES FIELDER: Thank you. Um,Felix,do you wish to make a closing statement? 17 FELIX LEE: Lee—Uh,Delynn is delivering uh,uh,uh, three letters to, uh,mister,the appellant, 18 Mr. Campbell, and I,you were just given those today at the hearing. Uh,we just received those. Um, and 19 1 won't take the time to read them. Basically,they support the concept of licensing framing crews and 20 you can decide what you will in terms of consideration. I,I guess I would just summarize by saying that, 21 uh,I think the licensing is in place for a reason and that's why it's, uh, in the ordinance. It's, uh, general 22 intent is to protect the health,welfare of the community at large and,uh, but I also want to touch on the 23 point that I,I don't think the Board should be considering any of the testimony that related to the financial 24 arrangement between workers and, um,the, and the employer in terms of compensation, uh, worker's 25 compensation, payroll taxes and so forth. The,that's a separate issue and would be appropriate in terms . 26 of a larger discussion, but not relevant with respect to the, uh,to the decision here. Uh,before you is 27 whether or not is this a hardship and,has the applicant,the appellant demonstrated sufficient, uh, BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 34 1 sufficiently to you as the,uh,as the reviewing authority. And I think that is the, is the,uh,crux of the 2 matter. 3 CHARLES FIELDER: Felix, I have a question for you if it's appropriate. Um, how long has 4 this, um,planning process for this project been going on,uh, in terms of,uh, as it relates to, uh,getting a 5 framing contractor licensed,for instance. 6 FELIX LEE: I'd have to defer to the appellant. I'm really not sure. I know, uh,from what he 7 said, it's been in, it was in process for some time. 8 BOB CAMPBELL: Over two years. 9 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. Thanks. Is it appropriate to 10 FELIX LEE: I think it's your call if you wish to recognize others in the audience for additional 11 testimony. 12 CHARLES FIELDER: Is this a question or testimony? 13 AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: Question. It is my understanding that a license requires us to have 14 worker's compensation and our insurance in place. That's the cost he's fighting here. That cost makes 15 the framing costs go up and all one hundred fifty guys would have to get that license so,which means 16 they've got to show proof of(unknown),they've got to show proof of liability,they have, it's not just the 17 two hundred and seventy-five dollars. I mean, if I was just a subcontractor,I would make that match in a 18 heartbeat. Paying for a license just to,you've gotta be licensed and you've gotta show proof of all of 19 those things before it is issued. Just passing the test,just like the gentleman said earlier,passing the test 20 doesn't directly give you the license. 21 CHARLES FIELDER: Felix, do you have a response to that? 22 FELIX LEE: Well,I would just add that,uh,and I appreciate the respondent's remark,I, and,I, 23 as I said,I think it's germane in a bigger context, but the,I don't think the appellant used that as a 24 hardship issue. 25 CHARLES FIELDER: Okay. I understand. 26 FELIX LEE: As from my recollection that,that it 27 CHARLES FIELDER: I understand what you're saying. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 35 1 FELIX LEE: that it's a financial hardship,that wasn't presented before you today. 2 C14ARLES FIELDER: Okay. I understand what you're saying. 3 BRAD MASSEY: The, uh,all a hundred and fifty people in, in the example we've been using 4 would not have to be licensed,they would have to be an employee of a licensed person. 5 CHRIS O'BRIEN: With required comp. 6 BRAD MASSEY: Right,right,under, understood. But it, it's not licensing a hundred and fifty 7 people. 8 CHRIS O'BRIEN: If it's not a financial hardship,then what is the hardship? 9 CHARLES FIELDER: I think we're ready for Board discussion. 10 ALLAN HAUCK: Um, I think it's clear, in my opinion anyway,that for the last fourteen months 11 we've treated framing contractors the same way we've treated any specialty contractor. You know, and 12 that is that it's a licensed trade. Uh,and so I think once the City has made the determined, determination 13 that framing contractors are a licensed trade like plumbers or electricians or anybody else,you have to, 014 you have to use the same,you know,the same set of rules,you know, and the set of rules for any licensed 15 subcontractor is that there's only two ways to do a licensed trade,you know, and one is to have true 16 subcontractors that carry their own license to do the work and the second one is for a licensed 17 subcontractor to be in the direct supervision of an,an employee that meets all of the regulations of being 18 an employee, including workman's compensation,tax benefits and everything else. Those are the only 19 two ways. Uh, you know, I don't think that if it was an electrical trade and the proposal was to, uh,uh,to 20 bring in somebody who was not a licensed electrician and to do work for a multi-family development for 21 one time or not to be doing work as a direct employee of a licensed electrician, or not to be doing work 22 under the direct supervision of a licensed electrician,I don't think we'd have a second thought. You 23 know, nobody would think about having unlicensed electricians or electricians that weren't in the direct 24 employ and the direct supervision of a,a licensed electrician on the project. Since we've made that 25 decision fourteen months ago to treat the framing trade the same as the electrical trade, I don't think .26 we've got any choice. I think it's extremely clear that the variance should not be supported. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 36 1 GENE LITTLE: Um,being a developer of,of, uh,multi-family, uh,units,uh, for over twenty 2 years,I know sometimes how difficult it is to get the scheduling process complete. Um,and so I'm,I'm 3 sensitive to Mr. Campbell's request. But,my concern is that,um,I,I, 1,1, don't see, based on the 4 evidence that's been presented to us today,that there's,there's actually been a production hardship 5 shown. Um,I, it would have helped if I'd, if I had seen a presentation today where Mr. Campbell's 6 company would have gone out to the licensed contracting community and, and asked for bids and had 7 those bids not come back so he couldn't have done the project,then I could have seen,possibly, a 8 hardship here. But, um, as much as I, uh,am sensitive,I'm sensitive to his need here, I just don't think 9 that in fairness to,um,the discussion of licensing and the requirements we've placed on the contracting 10 community,that,uh, that that issue of hardship has been proven here. 11 CHARLES FIELDER: Any other discussion? 12 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: I guess I have to also agree that,uh,I don't see a hardship,either. 13 It, it would seem large contractor, small contractor, large job,small job,they should be treated the same. 14 As you said,we, if, if this is indeed a problem,we probably would see more people here today and we 15 should probably revisit the issue of the license for the framer. But, in the absence of that,I, I agree. I 16 don't, I don't see the hardship in this case. 17 BRAD MASSEY: Well,I, 1 mean,we talked about labor shortage and that,that's a hardship. 18 But,I don't think it's a peculiar hardship or an exceptional hardship for this one project versus any of the 19 other projects that are out there. And I understand your,you made a comment,Mr. Campbell, about your 20 fees doubling from when you first started and,uh,I had a client tell me the exact same thing on a, on the 21 project that the inspector noted,the Hamlet. It's a hundred and ten or fifteen units,I don't remember 22 exactly now, but, uh,when he first pulled his first building permit,he,he had a, uh,the cost of that was x 23 number of dollars and,and he pulled another one just a few months ago and it was double. So, um,I 24 don't think it's anything,these labor hardships,these additional fee hardships, all that kind of stuff, 1 25 don't think it's a peculiar or exceptional hardship for this project. And, although I think you have put in 26 place the uh,the inspections and,I,I know Terracon would do a good job and provide another layer of BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 37 • 1 inspection, I don't think that, um,that can,can, uh, still be cause for a peculiar hardship versus anybody 2 else. So, I would have to agree. 3 ALLAN HAUCK: I, I think,you know,the,another point related to that is,you know,I'm sort 4 of a, a strong believer that you can inspect in quality. You know, the quality has to be provided by the 5 person doing the work. You know, so I think all the inspections in the world,you know, may catch a 6 problem after the fact. But it's, it, it's got to be done at the time. Uh, I think we need to make it clear that 7 no one is saying that, uh, uh,that the appellant can't hire the person he wants. You know,you can hire 8 any subcontractor from outside. This isn't a local, uh,a local hiring issue. It's not a, uh, insistence that 9 local trades necessarily be used. Uh, but it is an insistence that, uh,you know, if an outside contractor is 10 used, and that's fine, that they meet the same requirements. That they either carry the license themselves, 1 I or they're hired as direct employees. You know,we're not necessarily saying that we need to have a, a 12 hundred and fifty people come in here to take the fra-,the framing license exam. You know, but we are 13 saying if they don't take the framing license exam,they have to be in the direct supervision of a licensed 014 contractor,uh,who's been licensed by the City of Fort Collins. And, if,uh, if any contractor from 15 anywhere in the country can meet those requirements, uh,that that's all,that's the only requirements that 16 I see as applicable here. 17 THOMAS HARTMANN: The question that I have for Mr. Campbell, uh, and it seems that, I 18 think speaks to the whole presentation is, my questions is,why are your carpenters not interested in, in 19 obtaining licenses in the community? I don't think you've answered that one in particular. 20 BOB CAMPBELL: The, uh,as I mentioned,he works along the front range. He probably does 21 fifteen projects a year. Whether he did mine or not is not of consequence to him. Does, does that make 22 sense? 23 THOMAS HARTMANN: I understand exactly. 24 BOB CAMPBELL: Yeah. I mean, uh,you know 25 THOMAS HARTMANN: He has lots of work and 06 BOB CAMPBELL: he has lots of work and, and for the effort required to do it, he's not willing 27 to make that effort. You know,that's not a good answer, but it's the truth. BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 38 1 THOMAS HARTMANN: I,I understand. 2 BOB CAMPBELL: Yeah. And,uh,your,your comment on doubling fees,I hear ya, but from 3 1.7 to 3.3 million chokes a project as you can understand as a developer. There's no room in there. And, 4 because it's taken two years,we've got so much money into it you almost have to go forward and,you 5 know,at,at,at what point do you want to break a guy's back? I mean, it's been stated there's a labor 6 shortage and,uh,the projects,that,that,the projects that you mentioned that,uh, uh,that have,uh,that, 7 that seem to get by,well they're not us,there,there's a large group that's going through town that's from 8 Kentucky. Um,they're an out of town contractor,they're not an in town contractor. And,whose to say 9 that,uh,that,that,that my subcrews don't pay employees taxes and are employees of that guy. You 10 know, I,I guess I can see where it's hard to say, it's hard to define a hardship, um,and that's the basis of 11 you making your decisions,but it's real clear to me to get my project through under the current criteria is 12 another layer of difficulty,uh,uh,that I'm not,you know,that you've gotta have faith to go forward. 13 You can't see your way clear through it,you just,you go forward. And, uh,I,I,I,what I know,what, 14 what,what is known to me is comfortable. The framing contractor that I've utilized is a known to me. 15 Uh,that particular framing contractor has worked for my general contractor for ten years,ten,fifteen 16 years. It's a team concept that,that is important and,uh,you all may not see the hardships and yeah, 17 people can get through it, but the project suffers. I mean, it, it, it doesn't go as smoothly, it has 18 difficulties,uh,uh perhaps it is as expensive as these guys say and in order to make it work,you know as 19 a developer,you start cutting things you don't want to cut. I don't want to cut stone off my building. I 20 don't want to change the roof on my building. I,I,I,I'd like crown molding. You know,what,what you 21 do is you restrict me to,to cutting it back so thin that it's not nearly as desirable or attractive as it was to 22 begin with. I know that's not your objective, but those are the realities when,when your faced with,with 23 decisions. You know, how do you make it work. I mean,to make a job work, you cut scope. I mean, 24 that,that's extremely disheartening to me, extremely. Not what I want to do. But,uh, I, I,I believe that I 25 can provide the quality and the safety that your objectives seem to outline,I just,and, and,I just want to 26 do it in a different manner. I want to do it in a manner that I know that will work for me. There's no 27 question and I have, I have entertained framing bids that are licensed. I,I,I don't know how many `cause BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 39 1 my general contractor did it,but,but we picked up this gentleman. I mean,I know we've talked to * 2 dozens and, uh, uh,I mean, it takes a certain contractor to man a four million,I mean a three and a half, 3 four million dollar contract. That's a,that's a big deal. It doesn't happen every day. Especially in the 4 framing industry. That's an incredibly big deal. And,so, it's a lot to entrust someone with. I mean. 5 Thank you. 6 CHARLES FIELDER: Thank you. 7 ALLAN HAUCK: Based on the reasons that I,I've stated before and the other discussion of the 8 Board, uh,I would move that this request for variance not be approved. 9 FELIX LEE: I think it would be important as uh,just a process issue, to make some findings of 10 fact with respect to the,uh,appellant's request. I I ALLAN HAUCK: We have to make a finding of fact for a, a variance appeal? I don't think so. 12 PAUL ECKMAN: Finding. Perhaps we, it would be acceptable to find that there was a failure to 13 show an appropriate hardship. 14 CHARLES FIELDER: Oh,okay. Do you want to make that part of the motion? 15 ALLAN HAUCK: Okay. As, uh, um, on the basis that a,uh,appropriate hardship was, was, was 16 not demonstrated, uh, and the fact that the,uh,the appellant has other options to, uh,to keep the same 17 subcontracting team by either,uh, licensing,uh,the subcontractors if they are,uh, acting as 18 subcontractors or, uh,hiring them as direct employees if they are going to act as direct employees,um, I 19 would move that the variance request not be granted. 20 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: I'd second that. 21 CHARLES FIELDER: Any discussion? We need a roll call. 22 DELYNN COLDIRON: Hartmann 23 THOMAS HARTMANN: Aye 24 DELYNN COLDIRON: Little 25 GENE LITTLE: Aye .26 DELYNN COLDIRON: Fielder 27 CHARLES FIELDER: Aye BRB Transcript—February 24,2000—Page 40 1 DELYNN COLDIRON: Hauck 2 ALLAN HAUCK: Aye 3 DELYNN COLDIRON: Kreul-Froseth 4 SUSAN KREUL-FROSETH: Aye 5 DELYNN COLDIRON: Massey 6 BRAD MASSEY: Aye 7 CHARLES FIELDER: Thank you. And you do have fourteen days to appeal to City Council. 8 Thank you. fort collins building & zoning dept. City o(I� ��«�°1Iins 281 N.College Ave P.O. Box 580• Fort Collins CO 80522-0580: Voice: 970 221 6760 FAX: 970 224 6134 BUILDING REVIEW BOARD CODE HEARING February 24, 2000 CASE NO. 1-00 APPELLANT: Bob Campbell, representing CECO Constructors BACKGROUND: VARIANCE REQUESTED The appellant representing the owners indicates that the proposed project is a 224 unit multi-family project known as the Huntington Hills Apartments. The appellant is requesting a variance from the City's framing licensing requirements, which, if granted, would allow using non-licensed framing contractors under a single licensed framing contractor for this project. The appellant states in his request application that several factors contribute to the need for the variance requested. These include the relatively large scale of the project; the specialized nature of the construction process to be used that requires a "large-scale, experienced regional framing contractor"; and the production "hardship"that will effect"scheduling" and project"momentum" if all framing crews are licensed. As an alternative to licensing all framing subcontractors, the appellant proposes to use an engineering company to perform independent inspections in addition to standard City inspections in an extra quality-assurance effort. In this context, it is germane that during construction of the previous Fort Collins project cited by the appellant, the Argyle at Willow Springs, City staff discovered obvious deficiencies during frame inspections that were overlooked by the framing crews, the general contractor and the consultant. Some of the more significant oversights include framed in-place broken roof trusses and missing specified foundation-to-wall connectors. LICENSE HISTORY The City's framing license was implemented January 1, 1999. Until that time, the City was not specifically regulating framing contractors per se. In recent years, it became apparent that many "independent" non-licensed framing subcontractors were constructing new homes above the foundation through the sheathed open ("rough") frame stage. Under current Ft. Collins law, such construction clearly falls within the scope of Class D-1 and D-2 general contractor licenses. The Class D license covers structural alterations and construction on new and existing single and two-family residences, as well as accessory buildings. The following excerpts from the City Code formed the basis of the framing licensing requirement: "Contractor shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, other organization or any combination thereof as named in this Article for a specific trade or class that undertakes with or for another on • any property within the City to engage in any construction for which a license is required and for which said construction or demolition a fixed fee, trade-in-kind, or other compensation is normally made." "No person shall operate a business as a contractor within the City without first obtaining a license from the Building Official as specified herein. No building permits shall be issued to any contractor who has not obtained a license..." "Class D-f general contractor. The holder of this license shall be authorized to construct or demolish buildings or structures in the city classified as a Group R, Division 3, or a Group M occupancy as defined in the building code" "Class D-2 general contractor. The holder of this license shall be authorized...to perform any structural alterations, demolitions, and/or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified as a Group R, Division 3 or a Group U occupancy, as defined in the building code." The City's framing license is a limited version of the Class D-2 license that restricts the holder of the license to work involving conventional wood framing, sheathing, and general carpentry, unless the contractor qualifies for a full Class D-1 or Class D-2 license. Because the same general concepts are also applicable to conventional wood-frame multi-family construction, the current framing license includes such work as well. Individuals or firms performing such work, and who are considered "independent contractors" must have a valid City contractor's license to do so. Individual employees of a licensed contractor are generally exempt from City licensing regulations. For a person to qualify as an "employee", that person must meet the "tests" spelled out in Colorado law. Typically, an employee is someone who works for an employer that has control over and directs the employee on the job. An employee also is eligible for Colorado Worker's Compensation and unemployment insurance benefits. Another test is that an employee is someone who is personally paid an hourly wage or salary (not paid through a contract or paid under a company name). BOARD AUTHORITY The Board is empowered to grant variances from the contractor license provisions of the municipal code in this case as set forth in the following excerpt from Section 15-153: "The Building Review Board is authorized, upon appeal in specific cases, to grant variances from the terms of this Article, where the strict application of any provision of this Article would result in peculiar or exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional or undue hardship upon the person or applicant regulated; or, when such applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that the applicant possesses other qualifications not specifically listed in this Article, such as specialized training, education or additional experience, which the Board has determined qualities the applicant to perform in a competent manner any construction authorized under the license or certificate sought, and provided that such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without sub- stantially impairing the intent and purposes of this Article." £0'd -1ti101 fort colt ns building. zonin. 9 dept. r.r.c n catlaa.6X5,n O c, w M Fan 011 , W vo�•g2M V010-sm zxt arao nAX-era 84 04% REQUEST FOR HEARING BY THE BUILDING REVIEW BOARD (Code Hearing) AllettadProptrty: Huntington Hills Fjling No 7 Owner: Andover Fossil Creek L.L.�,, Address: Eer�s1d-Crr4bk Park_av Appelfant Dante Bob Campbell Addm=: 6307 Wasbingtym Ave HnuS TX 77nn7 PhonetR: 713-880-5800 ' Mabiloit 281-300-7945 Doccriplkn of ioquest and mitkjadM f 1MM(attach additional inlomlabon andlor materiato): SEE ATTACHED Applicawo ecti i _ February 14, 2000 App t SomWWDi+b Appellant may appear in poroon; in writlrt0, or p1'agent and athould be prepared to present au mlcvwt details, specitfcadaft*nd plan~.or other evldonce in support of Of*haarktg requmt at the hewing time indicated. below. Regular rthectin9rr am tchadu"for the but Thursday of each month at 1.00 p.m.in trio Counal Ch=bars at 3M t.aPand Avon= APPk4 *n3(mklt 00 Md one weak prior 10 fhe dpsiaod h^:adng date to enswt: conaide(oflat#. A dockd fee of 390A must accompany arts hearing requeat: OFFICE USE ONLY Hearing Date Hearin@ Time 126vie,ved by DbUibution: Oriymat-.Appellant.Copy—File =O'd Lt$_7)ca90t7E0_'GT 01 d3f 10011H. D 1.11Jdci ;='2i. c::: T- ' f I0 d 1tl101 ,,� f : f February 1' 2000 R A varian5 From the framing liperasing requirement for subcontracted framing crews is requesw4, ;Our framing contractor and his supervisors are City of Fort Collins licensed. PRO DESCRIPTION This is a$14-unit multifamily project(Huntington Hills Filing No.7),located on Fossil Creek PaikWay just west of the proposed Fossil Creek Community Park There will be eleven bindings and a community building on 12.5 acres. This project has been designed with the!lp4rit to sell as individual condominiums at some time in the future. Material and mechanicW!specifications are therefore more stringent than existing multifamily projects in the City q Port Collins,including the Argyle at Willow Springs,our recently completed i project o4 Timberline. wr Tl1E STFU4TION The fram. ng cost of our project is approximately$3.5 million. Framing is a critical path of our sched, , as it dictates when all other work can start. i I This wodk will have a flow Of task that will involve as many as eight buildings at one time and will_ rdinate as many as one hundred fifty framers on site.We use specialized separate�ws that are divided into the following areas: Layout crew -tWplls and Components crew 4 bor truss crew rwf truss crew ocking crew ➢Vindow and door crew S`iirtg and facia crew 41irdware The boil I'll s themselves ate complicated and the demand for the work force is huge; it is importazlq tb use experienced and specialized crews who know the multifamily industry. These mitt(ate typically multifamily framers and are familiar with the industry standard techniques of trusses,components,structural hardware and shear walls. Using a large scale,experienced regional framing contractor allows for professional co- ordinatio0 With the important atteracting trades,such as plumbing,electrical,and heating/codling subcontractors. Typically,these trades work to jointly schedule work in buildingSivleeks ahead. Unlike framing,there are professional subcontractors in these areas,which are both competent and have sufficient manpower to undertake our project. Among Oose are Allen Plumbing,Poudre Valley Air and Chadwick Electric. These are the team members that were used successfully in the Argyle at Willow Springs project. In the&Ziive years our framing contractor has completed seventy-five similar projects along tho ont Range,two ofjthese were previous projects for Andover Development, one j of which sl the Argyle at Willow Springs in Fort Collins. j Asking o changing the multifamily industry approach to framing is a hardship that V'if; have ripo ing effects to the seteduling and momentum of our project. rO'd Oe9GOO6c20L6r 01 Pd3)OQtdN.'ODEF, I•I0:3d ht-�`_'.- i I OUR ASSURANCE TO THE CITY We wiffassure quality and safety by providing thorough,qualified third party inspections. We use third party inspectors in order to assure both ourselves and our institutional partners;that the standards of the construction work meets or exceeds their standards on a nationalibasis. Simply put;institutional investors might have an exposure to substantial liability if the work performed was not of high quality. So we are required to.hire a nationally known firm to insure quality through a rigorous inspection process. We will, optract with Terracon to perform the inspections. An IBCO inspector or staff engineey w'11 make regular inspection as appropriate times and intervals during the construdtiainof each buildilig. A registered professional engineer will supervise these activities.a id will sign and stamp the letters of substantial compliance with project plans and spedifiFations. A copy of Tetracons' proposal is attached. Tenacon will provide all inspectibp services required by the city. We inte4d„of course,to call for all regular city inspections during the project. We propose the city's:inspectors will be provided with all of Terracon's reports as they are received and Terracoi's!inspections will be done prior to any city inspections. We appreciate your considetF,tibn of our project. f ! TO*d 0898WX"EE0-6T 01 lUdd .--tT-9_1-I Irerracon 301 N.Howes•P.O.Box 603 Fort Collins,Colorado 6 40503 (970)464-0359 Fax:(970)970)466-0454 February 3, 2000 Andover Development Partners, LLC 6307 Washington Avenue Houston, TX 77007 Attn: Mr. Bob Campbell Re: Proposal/Agreement for Shear Wall Inspections Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Fort Collins, Colorado Terracon Proposal No. C2000037 Terracon is pleased to submit this proposal for providing shear wall inspections at the referenced site. This proposal includes an summary of the project information provided to us, the proposed scope of services, our estimated fee, and the proposed testing schedule. PROJECT INFORMATION The project will include construction of 11 two-story apartment buildings and one clubhouse. The buildings will be wood frame on post-tensioned slabs. As part of the structure framing, certain parts of the structures will be constructed as shear walls. The shear wails include hold- downs, transfer straps, plywood nailing and drywall/shear wall nailing. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES Terracon proposes to provide: • Framing observation services, especially with respect to the proposed shear wall construction. The observations will be provided by an ICBO inspector or a staff engineer on a part-time basis. Due to the nature of the construction and the anticipated framing schedule, we anticipate it will be necessary to make several different inspections on each building during the course of the work. As observations need to be made at specific times during the construction of each building, we will endeavor to maintain close communication with your contractor so that the inspections can be made at appropriate times. The observations will be performed under the supervision of a registered professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado, who will sign and stamp the letters of substantial compliance with project plans and specifications. In order to facilitate the inspection process, we recommend a preconstruction meeting with all parties involved to review the inspection requirements and establish lines of communication. . We anticipate that this process will be facilitated by the recent experience working with you Arizona ■ Arkansas ■ Colorado ■ Georgia ■ Idaho ■ Illinois ■ Iowa ■ Kansas ■ Kentucky ■ Minnesota ■ Misacuri ■ Montana Nebraska ■ Nevada ■ New Mexico ■Oklahoma ■Tennessee ■Taxes ■ Utah ■ Wisconsin ■Wyoming 0ualily Engineering Since 1965 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 and your contractors for similar services at the Argyle at Willow Springs. Based on our experience at the Argyle,we anticipate at least 4 and up to S observations per building. COST OF SERVICES We propose to perform the shear wall inspection services for a lump sum of $700.00 per building. This fee assumes that our services can be performed on the basis of reasonable communication with contractor and that the requested services will be ready at the time of the site visits. We will keep in touch with you to assist in this process. However, if there is poor site communication, we would invoice separately for reinspections. Additional services beyond those described above would be invoiced at applicable unit rates as presented on the attached reimbursement schedule. Our estimated fees are based upon our understanding of the project based on the information provided. Additionally, the following assumptions were used in preparing our estimated fees: • We have assumed that contractors on the site will work a single-shift, five-day week schedule; • All work performed on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays will be billed at 1.3 times applicable hourly rates; • Should additional services be required beyond the scope of work outlined above, our standard unit rates will be applicable; • The client's representative will schedule testing and inspection services with 24 hours notice and inspection services with 72 hours notice (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday); • Unit rates will be applicable for on-site duration's in excess of those outlined; and • Invoices for the project will be submitted on a bi-monthly basis. 1 2 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 AUTHORIZATION We appreciate the opportunity of submitting this proposal and are available to discuss the details of this proposal with you. Our Terms and Conditions are considered a part of this proposal and have been attached for your review. To authorize us to proceed with the proposed services, please indicate by signing below and returning one executed copy of this agreement to us. Acceptance of our proposal will be considered permission by the owner to begin services on the project. We appreciate your consideration of Terracon for this work, and look forward to working as your geotechnical consultant on this and future projects. Sincerely, TERRACON G illiam J. Attwooll, P.E. Office Manager Copies to: Addressee (2) Enclosure: Terms and Conditions CMT Fee Schedule 3 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE Construction Materials Testing Services Personnel PrincipalEngineer ......................................................................................................$115.00/hr GeotechnicalEngineer ...................................................................................................70.00/hr DepartmentManager.......................................................................................................75.00/hr Reinforcing Steel & Post Tension Observation................................................................52.00/hr EngineeringTechnician...................................................................................................40.00/hr Clerical ...........................................................................................................................35.00/hr Laboratory Testing AtterbergLimits .............................................................................................................75.00/ea SieveAnalysis ...............................................................................................................85.00 ea Laboratory Moisture-Density Relationships StandardProctor...............................................................................................105.00/ea OnePoint Check ................................................................................................55.00/ea Compression testing of concrete....................................................................................13.00/ea Asphalt concrete extraction and gradation...................................................................160.00/ea Mileage.............................................................................................................................0.42/mi OutsideServices ...................................................................................................At cost+ 15% OtherServices.......................................................................................................Upon Request *Note: Items not addressed above will be invoiced per the attached Professional Construction Materials Fee Schedule. 1 4 _. TERMS AND CONDITIONS TERRACON SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK TERRACON shall perform the services defined in the contract and shall Invoice the client for those services at the fee schedule rates.Any cost estimates stated in this contract shall not be considered as a firm figure unless other- wise specifically stated in this contract. If unexpected site conditions are discovered,the scope of work may change even as the work is in progress.TERRACON will provide these additional services at the contract fee schedule rate. Rates for work beyond the scope of this contract and not covered by the contract fee schedule can be provided.TERRACON can perform additional work with prior authorization,and will provide confirmation of fees.All costs incurred because of delays in authorizing the additional work will be billed to the client. Fee schedules are valid for one year following the date of the contract unless otherwise noted. Initiation of services by TERRACON pursuant to this proposal will incorporate these terms and conditions. SECTION 2: ACCESS TO SITES,PERMITS AND APPROVALS: Unless otherwise agreed,the client will furnish TERRACON with right. of-access to the site in order to conduct the planned exploration. While TERRACON will take all reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to the property,it is understood by the client that in the normal course of work some damage may Occur,the restoration of which is not part of this agreement. Unless otherwise agreed,the client will secure all necessary approvals,permits,licenses and consents necessary to the perform- ance of the services hereunder. SECTION 3: SOIL BORING AND TEST LOCATIONS., The accuracy and proximity of provided survey control will affect the accuracy of in-situ test location and elevation determinations.Unless otherwise noted,the accuracy of test locations and elevations will be commensurate only with pacing and approximate measurements or estimates.If greater accuracy is required,the services of a pro- fessional surveyor should be obtained. The client will furnish TERRACON with a diagram Indicating the location of the site.Boring and test locations may also be indicated on the diagram.TERRACON reserves the right to deviate a reasonable distance from the boring and test locations unless this right Is specifically revoked by the client in writing at the time the diagram is supplied.TERRACON reserves the right to terminate this contract if conditions preventing drilling at the specified locations are encountered which were not made known to TERRACON prior to the date of this contract. SECTION 4: UTILITIES: In the performance of Its work,TERRACON will take all reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean structures or utilities. The client agrees to hold TERRACON harmless and indemnify TERRACON for any claims,payments or other liability,including costs and attorney fees,incurred by TERRACON for any damages to subterranean structures or utilities which are not called to TERRACON'S attention and correctly shown on the plans furnished to TERRACON. SECTION 5: UNANTICIPATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: It shall be the duty of the owner,the client,or their representative to ad. vise TERRACON of any known or suspected hazardous substances which are or may be related to the services provided;such hazard- ous substances include but are not limited to products,materials,by-products,wastes or samples of the foregoing which TERRACON may be provided or obtain performing its services or which hazardous substances exist or may exist on or near any premises upon which work is to be performed by TERRACON employees,agents or subcontractors. • If TERRACON observes or suspects the existence of unanticipated hazardous materials during the course of providing services, TERRACON may at its option terminate further work on the project and notify client of the condition.Services will be resumed only after a renegotiation of scope of services and fees.In the event that such renegotiation cannot occur to the satisfaction of TERRACON, TERRACON may at its option terminate this contract. SECTION 6: DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT. TERRACON does not create,generate or at any time own or take possession or ownership of or arrange for transport,disposal or treatment of hazardous materials as a result of its exploration services.All hazardous materials, including but not limited to samples, drilling fluids,decontamination fluids,development fluids,soil cuttings and tailings,and used disposable protective gear and equipment,are the property of the client,and responsibility for proper transportation and disposal is the client's unless prior contractual arrangements are made.All laboratory and field equipment that cannot readily and adequately be cleansed of its hazardous contaminants shall become the property and responsibility of the client.The client shall purchase all such equipment and it shall be turned over to the client for proper disposal unless prior alternate contractual arrangements are made. SECTION 7: REPORTS AND INVOICES: TERRACON will furnish two copies of the report to the client. Additional copies will be furnished at the rate specified in the fee schedule.TERRACON will submit Invoices to the client monthly and a final bill upon com- pletion of services.Payment Is due upon presentation of invoice and Is past due thirty(30)days from the invoice date.Client agrees to pay a finance charge of one and one-half percent(116%)per month,but not exceeding the maximum rate allowed by law,on past due accounts.Client also agrees to pay all costs and expenses,including reasonable attorney fees incurred by TERRACON relating to collection procedures on overdue accounts.Failure of client to abide by the provisions of this section will be considered grounds for termination of this agreement by TERRACON. SECTION 8: OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports,boring logs,field data,field notes,laboratory test data,calculations,estimates, and other documents prepared by TERRACON as instruments of service,shall remain the property of TERRACON unless there are other contractual agreements. SECTION 9: CONFIDENTIALITY: TERRACON shall hold confidential all business or technical Information obtained from the client or his affiliates or generated in the performance of services under this agreement and Identified in writing by the client as"confiden- tial"TERRACON shall not disclose such information without the client's consent except to the extent required for,1)Performance of services under this agreement;2)Compliance with professional or ethical standards of conduct for preservation of public safety, health,and welfare;3)Compliance with any court order or other governmental directive and/or,4)Protection of TERRACON against claims or liabilities arising from performance of services under this agreement.TERRACON'S obligation hereunder shall not apply to information in the public domain or lawfully acquired on a non-confidential basis from others. SECTION 10: STANDARD OF CARE Services performed by TERRACON under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner con- sistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar condi. tions in the same locale.No other warranty,express or implied,is made or intended by the proposal for consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those en- countered at the location where borings,surveys,tests or explorations are made by TERRACON and that the data, interpretations and recommendations of TERRACON are based solely upon the data available to TERRACON.TERRACON will be responsible for those data,interpretations,and recommendations,but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the Information developed. Form 169-9-M TERRACON PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TECHNICIANS AND CLERICAL Hourly Rate ENGINEERING Hourly Rate Sr.Field/Lab Technician(NICET or Slate DOT Certification)......$60 Principal(Sr.Engineer/Geologist)..........................................$120 Field Technician...................................................................... 48 Senior Project Engineer/Dept.Manager.....................................90 Laboratory Technician..............................................................45 Project Gootechnical Engineer..................................................75 Overtime surcharge(before 7 a.m.,after 5 p.m.M-F, Assistant Project Engineer.......................................................70 Saturdays,Sundays,and Holidays........................................11 Staff Field Engineer/Geologist/Suporvlsor..................................65 Masonry/Structural Steel-Weld&Rrsproofing.........................65154 Special Consultation,Expert Testimony, ClericagCADD Operator/Draftsperson........................................40 14 Court Appearance.................................................130-155 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING SOILS PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE AND MASONRY i Unit Price Unit Price Feld Density Test(Nuclear Method)........................................425 Concrete Cylinder test,Includes air,slump,compressive Field Density Test<3 testsftdp..............................................$40 strength.3 cylinders.......................................................$160 Sand Equivalent(ASTM 02419)................................................85 4-cylinders.................................................................... $175 Sieve Analysis(ASTM D422 and D1140) 6 cylinders.....................................................................$200 a. Standard Slaves 34nch through No.200.........................95 Concrete Seam lest,Includes air,slump,flexural b. No.200 to.005 mm,(ASTM 0422).................................90 strength,3-beams..........................................................$185 c. Fine No.4 to passing No.200........................................50 4 beams.........................................................................$205 d. Percent passing No.200 slave........................................40 6 beams.........................................................................$225 Specific Gravity(ASTM D854)..................................................85 Masonry block/prism unit.....................................................$105 Liquid-Flastk Limit(ASTM D4318)............................................85 Compressive Strength Test Moistura-Ds`nsity Determination a. Cylinder(ASTM C39)...................................................$14 ASTM D698 (Standard).....................................................120 b. 2 X 2 Cubes(ASTM CI09).............................................14 ASTM 01557(Modified)...................................................130 c. Grout Prism(ASTM C7019)............................................20 One Point Test...................................................................55 d. Concrete Core(ASTM C42)............................................45 R Value(ASTM D2844)..........................................................310 a. Flexural Strength(ASTM C78)........................................65 CBR Test(ASTM Of 883).......................................................310 Unit Weight of Cylinder or Core(ASTM C567)...........................13 Relative Density(ASTM D4253& D4254)...............................150 Provide 8 by 12 Cylinder Molds..............................................2.50 Concrete Mix Design(Aggregate Tests Not Included) ..............700 AGGREGATES Coring Concrete(ASTM 042).per hour incl.Operator.................60 Add Bit Charge per Inch depth...............................................5 Sieve Analysis(ASTM C136 S C117) Mortar Test,includes casting and compressive strength a. Coarse aggregate Above No.4(ASTM C136)..................45 of 6 cubes/cylinders(UBC 21-16)..........................................125 b. Fine Aggregate No.4 through No.200............................50 Grout Test,"at prisms and 4 compressive strength e. Coarse 6 Fine Aggregates through No.200.....................95 tests(UBC 21.18 or ASTM C1019).......................................155 d. Large Fit-Run Samples(+3 In.),per hour.........................45 Specific Gravity,Coarse or Fine HOT MIX ASPHALT (ASTM C127&C128)........................................................85 Unit Weight (ASTM C29)..........................................................30 Extraction of Asphait(ASTM D2172,D6307 or CR-5120).........95 Los Angeles Abrasion(ASTM C131 or C535)..........................140 Extraction and Gradation(ASTM 06307.D5444 or CPL-5120).170 Sodium or Magnesium Sulfate Soundness HMA Properties Test(3 specimens),includes extraction, (ASTM C88)Coarse or Fine;5 cycles.................................285 gradation,stability,flow,air voids Organic Impurities(ASTM C40)................................................40 and marshall unit weight(ASTM 01559)............................310 Clay Lumps and Friable particles(ASTM C142)..........................65 Coring Asphaltic Concrete(ASTM 02726) Flat and Elongates(ASTM D4791)..........................................115 a. 4' diameter cores,per each............................................60 Lightweight Particles Coarse or Fine(ASTM C123)...........quotation Bulk Specific Gravity 8 Thickness.............................................30 Fractured Faces(ASTM D5821 or applicable DOT aid.)..............85 HMA Trial Mix Design: (Aggregate Tests Not Included) Alkali Silica Reactivity(ASTM 01260) (ASTM Di 5601131561;01559 or SGC) Coarse aggregate..............................................................625 Marshall or Hvesm Method.............................................1,000 Fine aggregate..................................................................550 Superpave SHRP Gyratory..............................................3.000 Fine Aggregate Angularity,(ASTM C1252,Method C)...............50 Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity(ASTM 02041) . (Aggragete Specific Gravity Test is Not Included) per point............................................................................85 Immersion-Compression or Lottman "Rush laboratory service 6 loss than 24 hour notice for field testing (ASTM 01074 d Of 0751 AASHTO 1-283)..........................385 available at 30 percent surcharge" Design unit weight one-point verification(pro-mixed)................275 Tests not shown above................................Quotation on Request DIRECT CHARGES PerDiem and Lodging..............................:.........................................................................................................333.00/doy+ cost of lodging Automobile or Flck-u 50.45/mile or$1401week minimum 4-Wheel Drive Vehicle............................................................:........................ ........................................... 30.70/mile or 3210/week minimum All other direct project expenses,Le.special equipment rental,commercial travel,bulk reproduction,protective clothing,ate.............Cost* 15% Provide on4its field laboratory facintles and test equipment..............................................................................................Quotation on Request GEOTEEHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES.................................................................Fee Schedule Available on Request POW=IJNS OFFICE PWv Dce W 1099 1 I lrerracon- i Irerracon 301 N.Howes•F.O.Box 503 Fon Collins.Colorado 80521-0503 (970)484-0359 Fax:(970)484-0454 February 3, 2000 Andover Development Partners, LLC 6307 Washington Avenue Houston, TX 77007 Attn: Mr. Bob Campbell Re: Proposal/Agreement for Construction Materials Testing Services Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Fort Collins, Colorado Terracon Proposal No. C2600035 Terracon is pleased to submit this proposal for providing construction materials testing and engineering services for the referenced project. This proposal includes an outline of the project information provided to us, the proposed scope of services, our estimated fee, and the proposed testing schedule. PROJECT INFORMATION The project site is located on Fossil Creek Parkway in south Fort Collins, Colorado. Terracon is familiar with the project having provided geotechnical engineering reports for adjacent sites. As we understand, the project design is currently being completed for the 224- unit apartment complex development. It our understanding that the project will include construction of 11 two-story buildings, one clubhouse and 7 detached garages. The buildings have been designed for post-tensioned slab construction. The project will also include a bike path, pedestrian bridge, improvements to Mail Creek Lane and accompanying drive and parking areas. The scope of this proposal does not include framing inspection and geotechnical pavement section services. These services will be outlined in separate proposals. PROPOSED SCOPE OF SERVICES Our understanding derstandin of the required construction materials testing services for this project is based upon information provided, the project preliminary construction quantities, plans and our experience with similar projects. The following services have been estimated for the proposed construction: • Field density-compaction testing and laboratory evaluation of soils for site grading, utility trench backfill, building/garage foundations, valley pan subgrade, curb & gutter subgrade, and pavement subgrade; • Engineering observation of exposed site soils at building/garage excavations; Arizona ■ Arkansas ■ Colorado ■ Georgia ■Idaho f 19inois ■ lava ■ Kansas 0 Kentucky■ Minnesota ■ Missouri a Montana Nebraska ■ Nevada ■ New Mexico ■ Oklahoma ■Tennessee ■Tens ■ Utah ■Wisconsin ■ Wyoming Quality Engineering Since 1965 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No, C2000035 • Observation of post-tensioned tendon and reinforcing steel location, type and size prior to concrete placement; • Field and laboratory testing of concrete used for building, garage, clubhouse foundation and slab construction; • Observation for confirmation of post-tension loading; • Laboratory testing of proposed imported fill materials; • Observation of reinforcing steel placement as required (grade beams) prior to concrete placement; • Field and laboratory testing of concrete used for sidewalks, curb & gutter, and valley pan construction; and • Field and laboratory testing of asphalt concrete materials used during pavement construction. We have estimated that testing and observation services will be performed on both full-time and part-time basis. The detailed scope of services envisioned to complete the testing is as follows: Field Density-Compaction Testing: Field density-compaction testing will be performed on a part-time basis, by an Engineering Technician, during site grading operations, subgrade preparation and foundation wall backfill at the project. Additionally, we will provide part-time density-compaction testing for utility trench backfill. The field services will be supported by appropriate laboratory evaluation of soils used as fill or backfill on the site.: The laboratory testing will include laboratory moisture-density relationship (Proctor), sieve analysis and Atterberg limit determinations. Laboratory material evaluations will be conducted, at a minimum, for each type of soil encountered during fill placement. The testing will be performed to determine compliance with project specifications or recommendations contained within the geotechnical engineering report `i 2 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 The project superintendent on the site will be informed of our field observations and test results. Written reports of test results including daily observation reports (as required) will be prepared on a regular basis throughout the project duration. Concrete: An ACI Certified Engineering Technician will be provided, on a part-time basis, to sample the plastic concrete used during construction of the building and garage foundation and slabs as applicable. One sample will be obtained from each building during foundation concrete placement and a minimum of one sample will be obtained from each building and garage during slab concrete placement. Additionally, we will sample the plastic concrete used during construction of the valley pan along with curb and gutter, as required or on a 1 set per 100 cubic yards basis. The concrete will be tested for slump, air content and temperature at the time of placement. Sets of four (4) cylinders will be molded at each sampling with the exception of post-tension . slabs, which will include sets of six (6) cylinders. All samples will be field cured at the site and returned to our laboratory for moist curing prior to compressive strength testing. Compressive strength testing will be conducted at 7-day (1 cylinder) and 28-day (2 cylinders) intervals to determine compliance with project specifications. One sample from each set will be held for further evaluation in the event that the specifications were not met at the 28-day test. Additional cylinders molded for post-tension slab concrete will be tested for compressive strength at your direction. All test results will be conveyed after testing is completed. We have estimated that concrete testing at the project will be conducted on the following number of concrete samples: • Building Foundations (One Per Building).................................... 19 sets of 4 Building Post-Tension Slabs .......................................................27 sets of 6 Pedestrian Bridge and Bike Path..................................................3 sets of 4 • Miscellaneous, Walks, Curb-Gutter, Valley Pan.......................... 15 sets of 4 Asphalt Concrete Paving: Field density-compaction testing by nuclear methods will be provided by an Engineering Technician, on a part-time basis, during the placement of asphalt concrete at the project. The asphalt concrete will be sampled and submitted to our laboratory for asphalt content determination and gradation analysis for determination of aggregate compliance with project 3 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2060035 requirements. Asphalt samples will be obtained per 500 tons placed or once per day during paving. Daily verbal reports of test results will be provided and a written report will be prepared at the completion of each day's laboratory testing for the project. OBSERVATION SERVICES Reinforcing Steel Observation: Reinforcing steel observation will be provided by a staff engineer or an ICBO inspector, on a part-time basis, prior to concrete placement. Building and garage foundation reinforcing steel will be observed for conformance with the project plans and specifications and will include: • Confirmation of proper size and correct grade of steel; and Verification that reinforcing steel is placed at proper locations and in quantities specified on the approved plans. Daily reports of observations will be available in the field for your review, and written reports will be submitted on a regular basis throughout the duration of the project. Post-Tensioned Cable Observation: Post-tensioned tendon placement observation will be provided by an Engineering Technician prior to concrete placement Building and garage slab tendon placement observations will include confirmation of tendon location and tendon type for each building slab. Reports of observations will be available in the field for your review, and written reports will be submitted on a regular basis throughout the duration of the project Observation during tensioning will include confirmation of the post tension load applied and elongation resulting from the load applied at the time of tensioning. The project superintendent will be informed of our field observations and test results. Written reports of test results including daily observation reports will be prepared on a regular basis throughout the project duration. Typical Testing Frequencies: As reference, typical testing guidelines utilized by City Fort Collins Engineering Department along with Terracon recommendations we prepare an estimated cost of construction materials testing services based upon the following guidelines in addition to the specific project requirements. The following table for your review: 4 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 x Mafenal Aria LoCahon _y > �. .3�,� 'Frquenc�r,�IS V� 3 ; W ;> Soils and Fill and Embankment Material 1 fd/400 CY or per lift (Terracon) or Aggregate 1 Id for every 2 vertical feet and every 100,feet horizontally (minimum of 1/lift) Subgrade 1 fd/5000 sf or 1/200 If or per structure Pavements 1 fd/200 If/lift or per structure Structures 1 fd/200 If/lift or per structure Utility Backfill 1 fd/100 If/1.5' lift Manholes, Fire Hydrants, Inlets, etc. 1 fd/1.5' lift (minimum of 4/manhole) • Service Connections 1 fd/1.5' vertical lift Pavement Aggregate Base Course 1 fd/400 lane feet Concrete Compressive Strength (4 cylinders) 1 set/100 CY or structure Slump &Air Content 1 per set of cylinders Asphalt Densities 1/500 lane feet Extraction/Gradation 1/500 tons per lift Laboratory Unit Weight 1/HMA grading or as required Core Thickness, Unit Weight&Air 1/500 tons, or 1/day @ engineer's Voids discretion Miscellaneous Structural and Geotechnical Specifications or engineer direction Observation 5 Terracon j) • l Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES The cost for our services, including all field work, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and report preparation has been estimated on the basis of unit rates especially prepared for this project. For testing and observation services, our costs are based on the following number of trips shown below and based upon the following hours per trip: Site Grading Earthwork 35 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for density-compaction testing during site grading earthwork operations; and 1 trip at 1.5 hours per trip for overlot excavation observation prior to preparation of subgrade and placement of fill. Streets (Earthwork, Paving and Concrete Placements) • 20 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for density-compaction testing during curb and gutter subgrade preparation and during parking and drive area subgrade preparation; 15 sets of 4 concrete cylinders and testing for curb-gutter, sidewalk and valley pan concrete placement(2.5 hours/set); and • 5 trips at 1.0 hour per trip for sampling and density-compaction testing during asphalt concrete paving (5 asphalt samples). Utility Trench Backfill • 50 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for density-compaction testing during utility trench backfill. Foundation Open-Hole and Reinforcing Steel Observation 19 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for foundation excavation observation "open-hole" observation prior to placement of reinforcing steel; and • 19 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for foundation grade beam reinforcing steel observation prior to concrete placement. 6 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 Concrete Foundation Testing • 19 sets of 4 concrete cylinders and testing for building foundation (beam) concrete placement (2.5 hours/set). Concrete Foundation Backfill and Slab Preparation • 19 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for density-compaction testing for foundation beam backfill and slab-on-grade preparation prior to concrete placement. Post-Tension Slab Concrete Testing • 27 sets of 6 concrete cylinders and testing for building, clubhouse and garage post-tension • slab concrete placement (2.5 hours/set). Post-Tension Cable Placement and Verification Observation • 19 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for post-tension cable placement observation prior to slab concrete placement; and • 19 trips at 2.5 hours per trip for post-tension cable loading confirmation. Miscellaneous: Bike Path and Pedestrian Bridge Testing • 3 sets of 4 concrete cylinders and testing for bike path and bridge concrete placements (2.5 hours/set); • 6 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for density-compaction testing during subgrade preparation and backfill operations; and • 1 trip at 1.0 hours per trip for sampling and density-compaction testing during asphalt concrete paving (1 asphalt sample). Mail Creek Lane • 2 trips at 1.5 hours per trip for density-compaction testing during subgrade preparation; • 1 set of 4 concrete cylinders and testing for concrete placement (2.5 hours/set); and • 7 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 • 1 trip at 1.0 hour per trip for sampling and density-compaction testing during asphalt concrete paving (1 asphalt sample). The time required for construction materials testing on the project will be directly related to the schedule and performance of the various contractors on the site. As a result, total fees for construction materials testing services will be based on applicable unit rates. The estimated fees presented will include only those services outlined in this section of the proposal. Additional services required for testing beyond the on-site times outlined above will be invoiced at the applicable unit rates as presented on the attached reimbursement schedule. The testing outlined above includes only on-site services. The estimated fees for our services on the project are as follows: COST OF SERVICES Phase of Project: Estimated Cost: • Site Grading Earthwork...........................................................................................$3,450.00 • Street Earthwork, Concrete &Asphalt..................................................................... 5,380.00 • Utility Trench Backfill ................................................................................................4,280.00 • Foundation Open-Hole and Reinforcing Steel Observation......................................3,910.00 FoundationConcrete................................................................................................3,450.00 • Foundation/Slab Earthwork......................................................................................1,630.00 • Post-Tension Slab Concrete Testing........................................................................5,525.00 Post-Tension Observation........................................................................................4,590.00 • Bike Path/Bridge Asphalt Concrete & Earthwork......................................................1,335.00 • Mail Creek Lane...........................................................................................................710.00 TotalEstimated Cost..........................................................................................$34,260.00 Our estimated fees are based upon our understanding of the project based on the information provided. Additionally, the following assumptions were used in preparing our estimated fees: • We have assumed that contractors on the site will work a single-shift, five-day week schedule; • All work performed on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays will be billed at 1.3 times applicable hourly rates; g ,� t Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. - Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2060035 Should additional services be required beyond the scope of work outlined above, our standard unit rates will be applicable; The client's representative will schedule testing and inspection services with 24 hours notice and inspection services with 72 hours notice (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday); • Unit rates will be applicable for on-site duration's in excess of those outlined; and • Invoices for the project will be submitted on a bi-monthly basis. AUTHORIZATION We appreciate the opportunity of submitting this proposal and are available to discuss the details of this proposal with you. Our Terms and Conditions are considered a part of this proposal and have been attached for your review. To authorize us to proceed with the proposed services, please indicate by signing below and returning one executed copy of this agreement to us. Acceptance of our proposal will be considered permission by the owner to begin services on the project. We appreciate your consideration of Terracon for this work, and look forward to working as your geotechnical consultant on this and future projects. Sincerely, TERRACON ReVey ' Mike L. Walker, CET William J. Attwooll, P.E. Manager of Construction Services Office Manager Copies to: Addressee (2) Enclosure: Terms and Conditions CMT Fee Schedule 9 Terracon Huntington Hills P.U.D. -Filing No. 7 Andover Development Partners, LLC Terracon Proposal No. C2000035 REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE Construction Materials Testing Services Personnel PrincipalEngineer ......................................................................................................$115.00/hr GeotechnicalEngineer ...................................................................................................70.00/hr DepartmentManager.......................................................................................................75.00/hr Reinforcing Steel & Post Tension Observation................................................................52.00/hr EngineeringTechnician...................................................................................................40.00/hr Clerical ...........................................................................................................................35.00/hr Laboratory Testina AtterbergLimits .............................................................................................................75.00/ea SieveAnalysis ...............................................................................................................85.00 ea Laboratory Moisture-Density Relationships StandardProctor...............................................................................................105.00/ea . OnePoint Check ................................................................................................55.00/ea Compression testing of concrete....................................................................................13.00/ea Asphalt concrete extraction and gradation...................................................................160.00/ea Mileage.............................................................................................................................0.42/mi OutsideServices ...................................................................................................At cost+ 15% OtherServices.......................................................................................................Upon Request 'Note: Items not addressed above will be invoiced per the attached Professional Construction Materials Fee Schedule. 10 TERMS AND CONDITIONS TERRACON SECTION 1: SCOPE OF WORK: TERRACON shall perform the services defined in the contract and shall Invoice the client for those services at the fee schedule rates.Any cost estimates stated in this contract shall not be considered as a firm figure unless other- Wise specifically stated in this contract.If unexpected site conditions are discovered,the scope of work may change even as the work is in progress.TERRACON will provide these additional services at the contract fee schedule rate. Rates for work beyond the scope of this contract and not covered by the contract fee schedule can be provided.TERRACON can perform additional work with prior authorization,and will provide confirmation of fees.All costs Incurred because of delays in authorizing the additional work will be billed to the client. Fee schedules are valid for one year following the date of the contract unless otherwise noted. Initiation of services by TERRACON pursuant to this proposal Will incorporate these terms and conditions. SECTION 2: ACCESS TO SITES,PERMITS AND APPROVALS: Unless otherwise agreed,the client will furnish TERRACON with right- of-access to the site in order to conduct the planned exploration. While TERRACON will take all reasonable precautions to minimize any damage to the property,it Is understood by the client that in the normal course of work some damage may occur,the restoration of which is not part of this agreement. Unless otherwise agreed,the client will secure all necessary approvals,permits,licenses and consents necessary to the perform- ance of the services hereunder. SECTION 3: SOIL BORING AND TEST LOCATIONS: The accuracy and proximity of provided survey control will affect the accuracy of in-situ test location and elevation determinations.Unless otherwise noted,the accuracy of test locations and elevations will be commensurate only with pacing and approximate measurements or estimates.If greater accuracy is required,the services of a pro- fessional surveyor should be obtained. The client will furnish TERRACON with a diagram indicating the location of the site.Boring and test locations may also be indicated on the diagram.TERRACON reserves the right to deviate a reasonable distance from the boring and test locations unless this right is specifically revoked by the client in writing at the time the diagram is supplied.TERRACON reserves the right to terminate this contract if conditions preventing drilling at the specified locations are encountered which were not made known to TERRACON prior to the dale of this contract. SECTION 4: UTILITIES: In the performance of Its work,TERRACON will take all reasonable precautions to avoid damage or injury to subterranean structures or utilities. The client agrees to hold TERRACON harmless and Indemnify TERRACON for any claims,payments orother liability,including costs and attorney fees,incurred by TERRACON for any damages to subterranean structures or utilities which are not called to TERRACON'S attention and correctly shown on the plans furnished to TERRACON. SECTION 5: UNANTICIPATED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: It shall be the duty of the owner,the client,or their representative to ad. vise TERRACON of any known or suspected hazardous substances which are or may be related to the services provided;such hazard- ous substances include but are not limited to products,materials,by-products,wastes or samples of the foregoing which TERRACON may be provided or obtain performing its services or which hazardous substances exist or may exist on or near any premises upon which work is to be performed by TERRACON employees, agents or subcontractors. If TERRACON observes or suspects the existence of unanticipated hazardous materials during the course of providing services, TERRACON may at its option terminate further work on the project and notify client of the condition.Services will be resumed only after a renegotiation of scope of services and fees.In the event that such renegotiation cannot occur to the satisfaction of TERRACON, TERRACON may at its option terminate this contract. SECTION 6: DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND CONTAMINATED EQUIPMENT. TERRACON does not create,generate or at any time own or take possession or ownership of or arrange for transport,disposal or treatment of hazardous materials as a result of its exploration services.All hazardous materials, including but not limited to samples, drilling fluids,decontamination fluids,development fluids,soil cuttings and tailings, and used disposable protective gear and equipment,are the property of the client,and responsibility for proper transportation and disposal is the client's unless prior contractual arrangements are made.All laboratory and field equipment that cannot readily and adequately be cleansed of Its hazardous contaminants shall become the property and responsibility of the client.The client shall purchase all such equipment and It shall be turned over to the client for proper disposal unless prior alternate contractual arrangements are made. SECTION 7: REPORTS AND INVOICES: TERRACON will furnish two copies of the report to the client.Additional copies will be furnished at the rate specified in the fee schedule.TERRACON will submit Invoices to the client monthly and a final bill upon com- pletion of services.Payment is due upon presentation of Invoice and is past due thirty(30)days from the Invoice date.Client agrees to pay a finance charge of one and one-half percent(11h%)per month,but not exceeding the maximum rate allowed by law,on past due accounts.Client also agrees to pay all costs and expenses,Including reasonable attorney fees Incurred by TERRACON relating to collection procedures on overdue accounts.Failure of client to abide by the provisions of this section will be considered grounds for termination of this agreement by TERRACON. SECTION& OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All reports,boring logs,field data,field notes,laboratory test data,calculations,estimates, and other documents prepared by TERRACON as Instruments of service,shall remain the property of TERRACON unless there are other contractual agreements. SECTION 9: CONFIDENTIALITY. TERRACON shall hold confidential all business or technical Information obtained from the client or his affiliates or generated In the performance of services under this agreement and identified in writing by the client as"confiden- tial"TERRACON shall not disclose such Information without the client's consent except to the extent required for,1)Performance of services under this agreement;2)Compliance with professional or ethical standards of conduct for preservation of public safety, health,and welfare;3)Compliance with any court order or other governmental directive and/or,4)Protection of TERRACON against claims or liabilities arising from performance of services under this agreement.TERRACON'S obligation hereunder shall not apply to information in the public domain or lawfully acquired on a non-confidential basis from others. SECTION 10: STANDARD OF CARE: Services performed by TERRACON under this Agreement will be conducted in a manner con- • sistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar condi. tions in the same locale. No other warranty,express or Implied, is made or Intended by the proposal for consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made.The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those en- countered at the location where borings,surveys,tests or explorations are made by TERRACON and that the data, interpretations and recommendations of TERRACON are based solely upon the data available to TERRACON.TERRACON will be responsible for those data,interpretations,and recommendations,but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the Information developed. Form 169-9.92 a .. TERRACON PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SERVICE FEE SCHEDULE j PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Sr.TECHNICIANS AND Field/Lab Technician n((N CEr or State DOT CertificatiCAL on) Principal Rate �(Sr.Engineer/Geologist)..........................................Hourly Rate Field Technician............................. ... 48 Senior Project Engineer/Dept.Manager.....................................90 Laboratory Technician..............................................................45 Project Geoteehnieal Engineer..................................................75 Overtime surcharge(before 7 a.m.,after 5 p.m.M-F, Assistant Project Engineer.......................................................70 Saturdays,Sundays,and Holidays........................................11 Staff Field Engineer/Geologist/Supervisor..................................65 Masonry/Structural Steel-Well&Fireproofing.........................65/54 Special Consultation,Expert Testimony, CledcalICADD Operator/Draftsperson........................................40 &Court Appearance.................................................130-155 FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING SOILS PORMND CEMENT CONCRETE AND MASONRY UN Pie unit Field Density Test(Nuclear Method)........................................$25 Concrete Cylinder test,Includes air,slump,compressive Field Density Test<3 tests/trip..............................................$40 strength,3 cylinders.......................................................$160 Sand Equivalent(ASTM D2419)................................................85 4cylinders.................................................................... $175 Sieve Analysis(ASTM D422 and Of 140) 6 cylinders.....................................................................$200 a. Standard Sieves 34nch through No.200.........................95 Concrete Beam test,includes air,slump,flexural b. No.200 to.005 mm,(ASTM D422).................................90 strength,3-beams.........................................................$185 c. Fine No.4 to passing No.200........................................50 4 beams.........................................................................$205 d. Percent passing No.200 sieve........................................40 6 beams.........................................................................$225 Specific Gravity(ASTM D854)..................................................85 Masonry block prism unit.....................................................$105 Liquid-Plastic Limit(ASTM D4318)............................................85 Compressive Strength Test Moisture-Density Determination a. Cylinder(ASTM C39)...................................................$14 ASTM D698 (Standard).....................................................120 b. 2 X 2 Cubes(ASTM C109).............................................14 ASTM 01557(Modified)...................................................130 c. Grout Prism(ASTM C1019)............................................20 One Point Test...................................................................55 d. Concrete Core(ASTM C42)............................................45 R Value(ASTM 02844)..........................................................310 e. Flexural Strength(ASTM C78)........................................65 CBR Test(ASTM D1883).......................................................310 Unit Weight of Cylinder or Core(ASTM C567)...........................13 Relative Density(ASTM D4253& D4254)...............................150 Provide 6 by 12 Cylinder Molds..............................................2.50 Concrete Mix Design(Aggregate Tests Not Included) ..............700 AGGREGATES Caring Concrete(ASTM C42),per hour incl.operator.................60 Add Bit Charge per Inch depth...............................................5 Sieve Analysis(ASTM C136&Cl 17) Mortar Test,Includes casting and compressive strength a. Coarse aggregate Above No.4 (ASTM C136)..................45 of 6 cubes/cylinders(UBC 21-16)..........................................125 b. Fine Aggregate No.4 through No.200............................50 Grout Test,cast prisms and 4 compressive strength c. Coarse& Fine Aggregates through No.200.....................95 tests(UBC 21.16 or ASTM C1019).......................................155 d. Large Flf-Run Samples(+3 In.),per hour.........................45 Specific Gravity,Coarse or Fine HOT MIX ASPHALT (ASTM C127&C128)........................................................85 Unit Weight(ASTM C29)..........................................................30 Extraction of Asphalf(ASTM D2172,D6307 or CR.•5120).........95 Los Angeles Abrasion(ASTM C131 or 0535)..........................140 Extraction and Gradation(ASTM D6307,D5444 or CPL-5120).170 Sodium or Magnesium Sulfate Soundness HMA Properties Test(3 specimens),Includes extraction, (ASTM C86)Coarse or Fine;5 cycles.................................285 gradation,stability,flow,air voids Organic Impurities(ASTM C40)................................................40 and marshall unit weight(ASTM Di 559)............................310 Clay Lumps and Friable Particles(ASTM CI 42)..........................65 Coring Asphaltic Concrete(ASTM D2726) Flat and Elongates(ASTM D4791)..........................................115 a. 4' diameter cores,per each............................................60 Lightweight Particles Coarse or Fine(ASTM C123)...........quotation Bulk Specific Gravity&Thickness.............................................30 Fractured Faces(ASTM D5821 or appncable DOT aid.)..............85 HMA Trial Mix Design: (Aggregate Tests Not Included) Alkali Silica Reactivity(ASTM C1260) (ASTM DI 560/Dl561;D1559 or SGC) Coarse aggregate..............................................................625 Marshall or Hveem Method.............................................1,000 Fine aggregate..................................................................550 Superpove SHRP Gyratory..............................................3.000 Fine Aggregate Angularity,(ASTM C1252.Method C)...............50 Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity(ASTM D2041) (Aggregate Specific Gravity Test is Not Included) per point............................................................................85 Immersion-Compression or Lottman "Rush laboratory service&less than 24 Lour notice for field testing (ASTM 01074& Of 075/AASHTO T283)..........................365 available at 30 percent surcharge" Design unit weight one-point verification(pro-mbtad)................275 Tests not shown above................................Quotation on Request DIRECT CHARGES Per Diem and Lodging........................................................................................................................................333.00/day+ cost of lodging Automobileor Rck-up................................................................................................................................60.45/mile or$140/week minimum 4-Wheal Drive Vehicle................................................................................................................................60.70/mils or$210/week minimum All other direct project expenses,i.e.special equipment rental,commercial travel,bulk reproduction,protecttve clothing,*to.............Cost+ 15% Provide onoite field laboratory facilities and test equipment..............................................................................................Quotation on Request GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEEFUNG SERVICES.................................................................Fee Schedule Available on Request FOW COWNS OMCE Ps.astl tkx:ember 1DDD ` lrerracon- -� Bear Construction £r Design, Inc. 2701 Wakonda Drive Fort Collins, CO 80521 (970) 482-8048 February 16, 2000 Building Review Board c/o Building and Zoning 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80521 To Whom it May Concern: The purpose of this letter is to respond to the request that some framing companies be allowed to waive the licensing requirements instituted by the City of Fort Collins. As a local company who has been framing in Fort Collins since 1991,we oppose the consideration of this request. We legally employ 27 Fort Collins residents. All of our employees are covered under one worker's compensation policy and are registered under our license number. We have organized our business with the intent to limit turnover of employees. We offer health and life benefits, a retirement program and paid vacation for all of our employees. In 8 years we have never laid off an employee and have very little if any down time due to scheduling. Our employees are loyal and the average frame has been with us for over a year. This is a tremendous benefit to us but also offers our customer the unique benefit of consistent and conscientious carpenters who value our customer as much as v�e do. The licensing requirements recently instituted have been very significant for us. From 1992 through 1998 every bid we submitted included the costs of worker's compensation and federal payroll expenses. The 30%we were spending to hire our help leery,competing companies were pocketing as profit and they had the opportunity to underbid us significantly. When you instituted the licensing requirements you leveled the playing field Our competition had to include those expenses as well. Our business and customer base has grown significantly over time in spite of those challenges. We continue to strive to provide the best quality product in a timely manner. If you waive the requirements for framers who do not want to shoulder the expense of becoming licensed you will push those of us who do out of the running for work. Yours Truly, Krista L. Garhart Business Manager • �R- R. D. STEWART, INC. UD * GENERAL CONTRACTORS t DESIGN — BUILD P.O. Box 1957 1 1135 North Lincoln Ave.,Suite 1 1 Loveland,Colorado 80539-1957 a D TELEPHONE NUMBER 1970)669-1500 FAX NUMBER(970)669-3558 February 23,2000 City of Fort Collins Building Review Board %Building and Zoning Department 281 North College Avenue P. 0. Box 580 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 RE: Variance to the City of Ft. Collins Licensing of Framing Contractors Dear Sir or Madam, It has come to R. D. Stewart's, Inc. attention that Mr. Bob Campbell has requested a variance to the City's licensing of framing contractors for the proposed 224 unit Huntington Hills Project which involves the hiring of piecework framing crews. R. D. Stewart, Inc., a licensed General Contract in the city of Ft. Collins, believes the licensing of framing • contractors in the City of Ft. Collins implemented last year was a positive step to insure quality workmanship and integrity that is needed in this time of growth. R. D. Stewart, Inc. has completed several multi-family projects in Ft. Collins and believe we have saved time in scheduling and cost by using licensed local framing crews. In addition,by using local framing contractors, the State and City reap the tax benefit and the contractor's income is spent in the State of Colorado. Piecework crews do not have Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Insurance in place as do local licensed framing contractors. Case in point: Sub standard workmanship which occurred at the Argyle Project and overlooked by piecework framing crews which in turn created an extra burden on City Building Inspectors, who were already overworked. City Building Inspectors are familiar with local flaming contractors and can depend on them for quality workmanship and safety practices. In addition, local framing contractors are still in the area should a need arise to correct a problem on the project site. Piecework crews move onto their next location. Mr. Campbell suggests employing independent engineers and inspectors to assure quality standards and inspections. Will this off set the cost of Workman's Compensation and Unemployment Insurance? Surely, employing these independents full time will substantially increase the cost of the project. Is Terracon, a Geotechnical firm, going to expand their work force to accommodate this project? Will independent inspectors be of sufficient number to efficiently cover multiple piecework framing crews working on multiple buildings in various stages? Mr. Campbell refers to other professional contractors, such as plumbers and electricians. What does manning a project this size do to their Journeyman to Apprentice ratio?Will that ratio be what it should be taking into account the availability of skilled and licensed labor in our area? Mr. Campbell's "Fast Track Schedule"will effectively be slowed down. Local licensed framing contractors are quite capable of having multiple building stacked and ready to set well in advance of when they are needed. In addition, they can pool their manpower to complete larger projects. What if Home Office: P.O. Box 558 1 816 Lee Street I Marshalltown, Iowa 50158-0558 this kind of project had three local licensed framing contractors doing 1/3 of the building and at the same time accommodating this stepped up "Fast Track Schedule"? Is there enough room on the project to allow all this manpower to work safely and not on top of each other? The ratio of the proposed framing contractors and supervisors to the Ft. Collins licensed contractors has to be very low. How can they involve themselves with anything but meetings, scheduling, material delivery, and on site transporting of material, let alone any quality concerns. The City of Ft. Collins has made a wise choice in requiring framing contractors to be licensed. R. D. Stewart, Inc. fully supports this practice. Other cities are in favor of following Ft. Collins in their effort to curb substandard workmanship that has occurred in past years. Sincerely, Stew Segerstrom Colorado Representative for R. D. Stewart,Inc. Bill Rumley 4308 WCR 52E Laporte,CO 80535 February 23,2000 Charles Fielder Ft Collins Building Review Board PO Box Soo Ft Collins,CO 80522 To Whom It May Concern, It has been brought to my attention a Building Review Board Hearing is to be convened on February 24,2000.concerning a request for a variance from the frame-licensing requirement required by the City of Ft Collins. As I only heard of this hearing I may not be able to attend and wish to have my concerns(mown by the board After reading the application for a variance I have come to the obvious conclusion that the overriding reason for the variance request is monetary. The monies to be saved by not complying with the licensing procedures would be of a significant amount If the contractor were concerned with the momentum of the project now would be the time to start licensing applications. I am confident the city is capable of processing the necessary Paperwork enabling the framing subcontractors to be in compliance by the time the site work,utilities,and foundations are ready. In the opinion of many of the contractors I have spoken with,including several different jurisdictions,the framing licensing requirement initiated by the city of Ft Collins bas been a positive step in regulating the quality of stick built construction. The addition of outside inspectors, as suggested by the applicant,is not a reason not to comply with the licensing requirements. I am positive the State Electrical Board would not allow ton. licensed electricians on the project for the reasons expressed by the applicant,and feel strongly the city should deny the appeal. Lastly,knowing and working with several framing contractors in the Ft Collins area I feel it would be a gross injustice to require them to burden the expenses confmaing to the rules and regulations put forth by the local jurisdiction and then to issue a variance to a contractor who will be here for only a short time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, � ��^' • FRAMING CONTRACTOR LICENSE HISTORY AND CURRENT ORDINANCE REVIEW PROCESS The Building and Zoning Department implemented the "Framing" license beginning January 1, 1999. Until that time, the City was not specifically regulating framing contractors per se. In recent years, it became apparent that many "independent" non-licensed framing subcontractors were constructing the entire wood frame and exterior sheathing systems for new buildings. Under the current regulations, such significant structural work falls within the scope of Classes A through D general contractor licenses. The City's framing license is as a limited version of the Class D home building license that restricts the authorized scope to work involving conventional wood framing, sheathing, and general carpentry. The Building and Zoning Department offered this limited("Framing") license as a means to allow contractors who would not otherwise qualify for an unrestricted general contractor license the opportunity to comply with City code. Because the same general concepts are also applicable to conventional wood-frame multi-family construction, the current framing license extends to such work as well. Individuals or firms performing such work and who are independent "contractors" must have a valid City contractor's license to do so. Individual employees of a licensed contractor are generally exempt from City licensing regulations. The following excerpts from the City Code form the basis of the framing licensing requirement: Sec. 15-151 "Construction shall mean the erection, alteration, repair or remodeling of any building or • structure or portion thereof regulated by Chapter 5, Article 11, and Division 2 of the Code. " "Contractor shall mean any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, other organization or any combination thereof as named in this Article for a specific trade or class that undertakes with or for another on any property within the City to engage in any construction for which a license is required and for which said construction or demolition a fixed fee, trade-in-kind, or other compensation is normally made. " Sec. 15-154 "No person shall operate a business as a contractor within the City without first obtaining a license from the Building Official as specified herein. No building permits shall be issued to any contractor who has not obtained a license... " Sec.1.5-157 "Class D-1 general contractor. The holder of this license shall be authorized to construct or demolish buildings or structures in the city classified as a Group P, Division 3, or a Group M occupancy as defined in the building code". "Class D-2 general contractor. The holder of this license shall be authorized...to perform any structural alterations, demolitions, and/or repairs to any building or structure in the City classified as a Group 1 , Division 3 or a Group U occupancy, as defined in the building code. " CONTRACTOR LICENSE ORDINANCE REVIEW TASK GROUP A task group comprised of a representative cross section several affected building contractors (including the appellant) and City staff has begun the process of developing package of proposed ordinance revisions. This working draft will then be presented to the public for final comment before the Building Review Board makes its recommendations to City Council on the proposed draft revisions package that is scheduled to be considered on First Reading in May. In addition to numerous suggested editorial and housekeeping items, the task group will consider several new provisions, including the explicit listing of the"Framing"license under the"Specialty Contractor Trades". The framing license would then become a distinct trade in the law as a matter of public record for improved clarity, equity and consistency.