HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06.21.2001 Building Trade & Fire Code Board of Appeals
Minutes
For
June 21 2001
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Ricky Mason, Co- Chairman, Roger Dowdy, Lynn
Davis, Chris LaFevre,
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Zielinski, Code Enforcement Officer, Larry
Gould, Chief Building Inspector, and Katy Seals, Secretary
VISITORS PRESENT: Ron Roberts, Richard Pirkle, Ramon Luevano, Rick Villarreal,
Manuel Gonzales, Travis Thornton
Meeting called to order by Ricky Mason.
First item on the agenda: swearing in of new board members: none to be sworn in
Second item on the agenda: approval of April 29, 2001 Minutes. Chris LaFevre made
motion to accept and Roger Dowdy seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
Third item on the agenda: Discuss registering of contractors with the city. Greg
Zielinski said the Board had asked at the previous meeting to see some type of ordinance
and to see what the penalties would be. He added that any time you write something in
the building ordinance there is one penalty for violating any provision of the building
code or the ordinance that is part of it and it is the same way for the electrical and the
plumbing code. The maximum fine is $2000. Only health and safety issues would be
assessed a penalty that high and the rest of them would be assessed a maximum fine of
$200. The Municipal Court Judge is responsible for setting and levying those fines
against those who violate the ordinances and are cited. We have no control over how
much the fine is set. We can request repeat offenders be assessed the maximum fine.
Greg then referred to the hand -out provided for all present in which he put the language
for the building code; the next page, the electrical code; and the next page, the plumbing
code. Speaking of the building code section, he went on to say that in our building code
now, the only person required to register as a contractor is a roofer. There is no permit
fee for a roofer to install a roofing system. That has been repealed by the City Council.
When that was repealed, this section was changed so there wasn't a fee for registering,
but all roofers had to register with the city. The proposed language states:
"No person engaged as a building contractor shall enlarge, alter, repair, improve, or
convert any building or structure for which a building permit is required within the
corporate limits of the city until such person has registered as a contractor with the
building official. Such person shall register annually on a form provided by the
building official. The fee for registration shall be $10.00.
10 11
Exceptions:
(1) A property owner for work to be done on his property when the property
owner is acting as his own building contractor.
(2) Employees of a person licensed in accordance with this section when they
are working under the direction of that person."
So, if you have a contractor and he has five guys working under him, those people
working under him, as long as they're doing the job for that contractor, then they don't
have to register themselves unless they are the person who is being the general
contractor. Those two exceptions are so we won't need to register all the property
owners every time they pull a permit to build a carport or something of that nature.
Found in the next section is the requirement for roofers to pay the $10 fee since the code
already requires them to register.
On electrical work, the following is stated:
"(a) A person shall not engage in the business of electrical contracting without
being licensed, bonded and registered in the manner required by this section as a
master electrician or employing a master electrician in accordance with subsection
(d) below"
Greg Zielinski added that this information is currently in the code and is not a change —
when we switched to PRELA, we basically stopped doing that with all of our electricians
that are licensed with PRELA. Each year we send electricians a form and they would pay
the fees for their master license, their journeyman license, their apprentice license and on
the form it asks for basic name, company name, address and a list of their employees — so
we have a general idea of who is working for which electrician.
"(b) Any person desiring to engage in the business of electrical contracting shall
make application for registration at the office of the chief electrical inspector. This
registration must include the name of the person holding the master electrician's
license, the name of the business under which work is to be performed, the street
address, mailing address and permanent telephone number of the place of business,
and the names of all journeymen and apprentice electricians employed by the firm."
Greg Zielinski went on to add that in the electrical code is the requirement for an
electrician to be bonded, but the language stating the type of bond has been repealed, so
basically, they don't have to have a bond. — this language was repealed in 1995. This is
true for electrical, building and plumbing and we are not sure the reason for the repealing
of the language, other than to cut down on the paperwork of the building official, the cut
down on the postage for that office, to cut down on the time of the secretaries to keep up
with the bonds — these being listed in the "whereas's ". In the proposed language the
following is the wording:
"(C) Any person desiring to engage in the business of electrical contracting shall
make application for registration at the office of the chief electrical inspector. This
Such person shall register annually on a form provided by the building official. The
fee for registration shall be $10.00. In addition each electrical contractor shall
supply the names of all journeymen and apprentice electricians employed by the
firm.
Exceptions:
(1) A homeowner who is acting as his own contractor for work performed on
his homestead.
Greg Zielinski states this language changes from what the previous page stated and it
does so for a specific reason — there are only two people who can pull an electrical permit
and that is a homeowner who is doing work at his own residence and a master electrician.
According to Greg Zielinski, there is nothing in our ordinance now that requires plumbers
to be registered and the information proposed for the Plumbing information comes from
Amarillo's ordinance and states as follows:
Proposed Language:
Sec 20 -122 Contractor Registration
Any person who:
(1) Is a licensed Master Plumber in the State and performs plumbing
installations within the corporate limits of the city,
(2) Is a licensed Landscape Irrigator in the State and performs any landscape
irrigation within the corporate limits of the city,
(3) Is an individual, firm, corporation or partnership who holds a valid State air
conditioning contractors license and who performs such services within the
corporate limits of the city, shall register with the chief plumbing inspector.
Such persons shall register annually on a form provided by the building
official. The fee for registration shall be $10.00.
Exceptions:
(1) A homeowner who is acting as his own contractor on work performed on his
homestead
Greg Zielinski added the previous is the proposed language under each section and any
changes that would be made would only be word changes to take out specific gender like
"his" — changes the city attorney might want changed. He added that before the Board
would vote, they may want a hearing with the public giving them an opportunity to voice
their opinion.
Ricky Mason brought up that on nearly every one of the exceptions about the homeowner
acting as his own contractor, they can act as their own contractor and hire somebody else
— there is nothing in the wording about them having to do the work personally. He goes
on to state that if we don't say that then this person can say he's pulling an electrical
permit and being his own contractor and and then have that person go in an do the work
without a license and still be legal under this ordinance. According to Greg Zielinski, the
answer is "yes" and Larry Gould states it is a good point. Ricky then adds that somehow
it should be put in the wording that he has to personally do the work himself. Greg
Zielinski states he would have to get with the City Attorney and he would attempt to find
411.
some language that would fit what Ricky is trying to say about the homeowner
performing the work himself and not be a general contractor and subcontract all of it out.
Ricky adds the homeowner can say he's his own contractor and then he can hire just a
carpenter to do the work for him and he's not held for anything — it hurts all the trades
and that is why he is suggesting the wording for doing the work personally. Greg
Zielinski states another item not in the proposed wording; he states he didn't feel it
needed to be in there; the Amarillo ordinance was specific for residential construction.
He says he is trying to generalize it to include all construction in the city limits. Ricky
added that on the exceptions it mentions homestead and since you can't homestead a
commercial property it would be all right and Lynn Davis agreed with him. Greg then
stated about plumbing and electrical the only two people who can pull a permit is a
master plumber and a master electrician and a homeowner who owns the home and is
doing the work himself, can't do the work at any other location. Ricky Mason then
inquired if it is all right with the Board, they can open the discussion up with the audience
that has feelings to express on the matter. Ricky added what prompted this action that in
every surrounding town this registration and fee payment is required and we were also
looking for homeowners's safety sake and liabililty sake.
Manual Gonzales states he is curious about homeowners doing own work is going to
have a problem with not being able to hire anyone to help him. Ricky states that if the
homeowner cares to take care of it, for example, if they hire someone to do the building
part and then want to wire themselves, or vice versa, is where this comes from. He goes
further to say it protects the homeowner who may know nothing about an area from being
taken advantage of by someone. Greg then adds that all the registering does is gives the
city a listing of available contractors in case someone comes or calls the office and
requests prospects that we can refer them to.
Travis Thornton posed a question on pulling a permit and if he's not registered with the
city, then would he be unable to pull that permit? Greg then stated that would be correct.
Then Travis asked, "If I am registered and I get my building permit and my electrician
comes in to get his permit to do work on his job and he's not registered, then can he not
do anything on my job ?" Greg again replies that is correct. Travis asked if any
contractor that is going to work on his job, unless he's registered, can't do anything for
him? Greg says that what the ordinance is saying is that if you're going to be a
contractor, plumber, electrician, licensed irrigator, person who installs drinking water
systems, or building contractor, then you must register with the city. Travis asked why
did we pick out just those specific ones? Greg replied he left out HV /AC contractor, but
the other trades aren't required to pull any permits with the city so we have no authority
to require them to register. Travis stated that if you're going to do it for some
contractors, you should do it for all contractors, whether they're independent or sub-
contractors or not because there are fence builders, tile layers, and they are contractors
just like those mentioned to have to register and he wants to know why are they exempt
and the others are not. Greg states it is because they are not required to get permits in the
building code — there is not a code for laying carpet, there is not a code for doing painting
inside a building. Travis then asked if it is just for those contractors who have to have
inspections and Greg says right, licensed and items we inspect. On fences, the only thing
we inspect are masonry fences to inspect the footing. Greg states that typically if a
permit were needed to be pulled, then registering would be required. Travis asked how
would we go about locating every contractor that is in Plainview and make them register
with the city. Larry Gould stated it would be done at the time they pull a permit. Greg
added information could be obtained from lumber companies and such places and look at
business cards and mail out the foams and there would be newspaper articles, after two
readings of the city council. Ricky Mason stated this is a way to get a handle on people
who aren't pulling permits and doing work that is not ever getting inspected. He added it
will not happen over night — it would take approximately a year and a little grace period
would be implemented. Lynn Davis asked Travis if the non - conformity of contractors
registering or the generalality of contractors as such and Travis told him "not
really... four or five years ago we got into this bond deal." He went on to say he and a
few other contractors went to an insurance agency to get this $5,000 bond and it was
stuck in a file and then 3 -4 months later it was decided they did not need it anymore and
it was done away with. He adds he doesn't have a problem with the registration fee in
order for the city to have a listing of contractors, "but who is to keep a roofer from
coming in here from Lubbock and tearing a roof off one day and putting it back on the
next and boom, he's gone back to Lubbock. He never registered, never did anything,
he's been here and he's gone." And even the guys that do build and don't pull permits, is
that going to keep them from building ?" Greg and Larry both replied "no" and Larry
replied how "you'd be surprised how many inspectors we have who are not employed by
the city" — stating the general public calls us everyday reporting to the inspectors. Travis
asked who the bond is going to benefit? He says he has been carpentering in this town
for thirty (30) years and he has never had one person ask him if he was bonded or
insured. He adds he takes out insurance when he does a big job, in case something blows
over or falls on their car, but he doesn't know what purpose the bonding does unless
someone comes into town and says they won't use a contractor unless he's bonded. He
reiterates that he doesn't have a problem with the registering but again feels if it is
required of one contractor then it should be required of all contractors. Larry Gould
states the intent of what is trying to be accomplished is anything that is covered by code
and that has to have inspections, this is a way for us to keep track of contractors and for
the homeowner to come back and say this guy did work for me, took my money and I am
unsatisfied with the work and now he is gone. With the listing, we would have a way to
assist in tracking the contractor down. On the bonding side of the issue, if a contractor
doesn't finish the job or doesn't do the job up to code, that gives the city or the
homeowner a tool to come back on the contractor and file on the bond. Greg states that
as far as the painters and tile layers and such, legally he doesn't think the Board/City can
make them register. Larry says it is because we don't have a code for cosmetics. Ricky
Mason says unless there is a license like a dry- waller's license in New Mexico he too
feels we cannot legally require that type contractor to register. Greg states the only four
trades requiring licensing is plumbing, electrical, HV /AC, and irrigation in the city.
Richard Pirkle inquires about other cities such as Abilene, Sweetwater, Lubbock,
Memphis, Childres — do they have to have a license there? Are they required to register
in those cities? Greg states they are required to register in Lubbock, Amarillo, Wichita
Falls, and Friona. In some bigger cities they require contractors to have a contractor's
license — it is a form of registration and being called a license where the insurance
requirements are looked at and then the contractor's license is issued. The fee in
Lubbock and Amarillo is $25 and in Wichita Falls or Abilene the fee is $50. In some
M
smaller cities, it is up to the building official. Richard Pirkle then asked about the
bonding information — if the type of insurance company and bond is verified by the city
and Larry Gould stated a certificate must be submitted to the city annually if insurance or
bond required. Greg stated that if the city council passes the bonding, then at the time of
registration, the contractor would have to give us a copy of the bond receipt that would
come from an insurance company. Richard then stated that his business has changed in
the past and in the last 2 -3 years he has just worked on his personal properties and that he
has pulled 2 -3 permits in those years. He asks if he wants to build a house, is he going to
have to be permitted as far as the bond? Greg states he doesn't think he would have to
register or have a bond if he owns the property and is doing work at that property. Ricky
then states he wouldn't have to register if he didn't need to pull a permit but Greg says
there is confusion with electrical work. Richard states that he has been buying houses
and doing renovations on those houses and all subcontractors (plumbers, electricians,
etc.) pull their own permits for those houses. Greg then points out a statement on
contractor registration in the exceptions, "a property owner for work to be done on his
property when the property owner is acting as his own building contractor." What we're
trying to do is get those who hire themselves out as contractors to the general public to
register with the city. Richard then asked if he went out and built a new home to put on
the market for sale would he need to register. Greg stated he would not need to register
but Larry Gould stated we needed clarification on that since he feels in that situation the
contractor would have to register. Greg states the way it is currently written then no
registration would be required. Larry again stated clarification is needed.
It was stated that the people who are in attendance are not the problem, it is those who do
not pull permits and don't register who are the problem. Roger Dowdy made a comment
about those who do not have to register and what is to stop them from pulling a wall
down after they are on a job. Larry told him if we discover it, they will be cited. Roger
then asked what was the penalty for those who are caught without permit — Larry told
him they could be cited for no building permit, cite for not registering, just all depending
on what all is being done. Each separate offense can be cited. Greg stated that if this
bonding issue passes through the city council and we go out and find a contractor who
hasn't pulled a permit, hasn't registered with us and doesn't have a bond, then that would
be three citations whereas at this time we would only be able to issue one citation. Roger
asked if the person would have to be caught or simply prove they did the work. Larry
said we either have to catch the person or have someone willing to testify they saw the
person doing the work. Ricky asked if the homeowner could be made to testify since
people are made to testify every day whether they want to or not. Larry stated that would
have to be discussed with the City Attorney. Ricky added how do you go about citing a
contractor that has done unsafe work since often he finds work done previously by
another contractor that is unsafe and he calls the city with the information. Larry states
that if it is to a point of life safety and we can point that out to the home/business owner,
he thinks they will be willing to testify. Ricky says that the homeowner can go back and
file on the contractor's bond and it gets taken care of. Larry states the bonding company
will most likely not want to issue another bond to that contractor. Roger asked if there
was anyone present who is opposed to what is being proposed. Greg stated that we
should keep the registration and the bonding separate. Ricky stated the administration
cost of the registration would not make the city any money and Chris LaFevre mentioned
1110 410
that if it gets you just one job from being part of the list then it is pretty cheap advertising.
Chris asked about the registration form and Larry stated it is open for discussion if
anything was being requested to be changed. Ricky asked if putting tax number on the
form would be wise and Greg stated there is no reason the city would need that
information. Richard Pirkle asked why we would need the driver's license and social
security on the form and Larry stated that if a citation is issued, then we have the
necessary information in order to issue the citation if the contractor disappears. Travis
asked if the proposal would go to the city council for approval and Greg stated there
would be two readings and depending on the action of city council, there would more
than likely be an article in the newspaper and we would send a letter to all contractors
along with an application for registration. Greg stated if passed we would start
registering contractors and have them pay the $10 fee and it would be effective until the
end of 2002 — with the first year a kind of overlap and then in the first part of December
we would begin seeking renewal. Chris asked if it is annual registration on calendar date
or anniversary date and Greg stated it is for calendar date — December 31 of each year.
Ricky asked if on registration we were simply going to allow the contractor to write
down the drivers license number since that license could have been suspended for several
months and what is to say they will write down the correct number in the first place.
Greg stated we typically look at and make a copy of the drivers license and also copy
whatever trade license they possess.
Manuel Gonzales suggests we make a list of everything that needs a permit to do a
particular job because he feels there are a lot of contractors that do not have the
information as to what needs a permit and what does not. He suggests giving this
information when a contractor registers.
Ramon Luevano asks if he is pulling a permit for two different locations and if he is at
location A and his workers are at location B, do his workers need yo be licensed, and
Greg states no, they don't have to. He then asked if he carries general contractor's
liability year round and Greg stated that would take the place of the bond.. Ramon also
stated he liked Manuel's idea on the list of what needs a permit.
Ricky asked if we changed the wording does it need to come back to the Board before
being submitted to the city council — the "homeowner" word for example — Larry told the
Board it is up to the Board. Chris asked if the Board needed to make a motion to accept
this with the changes to be made. Ricky asked if the Board needs to see the changes
before it is submitted to the city council. Chris LaFevre made motion to go forward to
taking the information submitted to the city council with the word changes that will be
made considering the homeowner doing work for himself. Roger Dowdy seconded the
motion. Ricky stated he has a motion and a second with changes of doing the work
personally in their homestead (Greg asks if Section 6 -3 of Exception number 1 is where
the correction is needed) and Ricky states that Section 10 -72 (1C) Exception, nearly
every exception would be the same about having it written it in about performing the
work personally. Greg states no, the only place the question is brought up is on Section
6 -3 on the first page under exception number 1 seeking more specific language about a
homeowner being a general contractor and then hiring sub - contactors and those not
having to register. Greg adds: "They can't do that on electrical or plumbing permit — it is
against the law anyway." Ricky states but it is not written that way on the other two and
Greg states that on the other two, the only two people who can pull a electrical permit is a
• i
master electrician and a homeowner. The homeowner doesn't have to get a license to do
electrical work in his own home. Chris asked if a person besides the electrician or the
plumber pulls a permit out to do the work, they must perform the work themselves and
not subcontract it out and Larry stated that is correct — permits are not transferable.
Roger states homeowners are often doing the work after pulling the permit and then
calling plumbers for a test. Larry states testing is not a problem since there is no
verification of the work, only a test on the line.
Ricky states he had a motion and second of accepting with changes and motion passed
unanimously.
Fourth item on the agenda: discuss contractors bonding and insurance. Greg states
bonding was repealed for all trades that are in the building code in 1995. The proposed
language (taken from the old plumbing ordinance and reviewed by the City Attorney,
Wally Hatch) states as follows:
Before any person, firm or corporation shall engage in the business of (building
contractor) (Master electrician) (Licensed Irrigator) (Master Plumber) in the City,
they shall first obtain the proper license, register with the Building Official and
deposit with the City a good and sufficient surety bond in the sum of ten thousand
dollars ($10,000) conditioned that the person, firm, or corporation engaged in the
(above trades) business will faithfully observe all the laws pertaining to (above
trades); further, that the City shall be indemnified and saved harmless from all
claims arising from accidents and damage of any character whatsoever caused by
the negligence of such person, firm or corporation engaged in the (above trades)
business, or any other unfaithful, inadequate work done wither by themselves or
their agents or employees.
Exceptions:
Building Code
(1) A property owner who is acting as their own building contractor
(The following is not in the code: If a contractor has general liability insurance, it will
take the place of the bond.)
Electrical Code
(1) A homeowner who is acting as his own contractor on work performed on his
homestead
(The following is not in the code: And a Master Electrician who carries general liability
insurance)
Plumbing Code
(1) A homeowner who is acting as his own contractor on work performed on his
homestead
(2) A person licensed by the State as a heating and air conditioning contractor
The City can require an HV /AC contractor to register but we cannot require them to
have a bond. The state requires them to carry a certain amount of general liability
insurance and a city cannot require more than that.
(3) A Master Plumber who meets the following guidelines: (taken from Amarillo's
ordinance)
• •
In accordance with the State of Texas Plumbing License Laws, a Master
Plumber may submit a Certificate of Insurance in lieu of a City required
bond provided the insurance is:
a. Written by a company licensed to do business in this State,
b. Provides for commercial general liability insurance for the Master
Plumber for claims for property of bodily injury, regardless of
whether the claims arises from negligence claim or on a contract
claim; and
c. Is in a coverage amount of not less than $300,000.00 for all claims
arising in any one year period.
This basic language would be in three different ordinances, the Building Code, Electrical
Code, and Plumbing Code.
Ricky Mason stated he thought in the previous meeting it was discussed as to having
either general liability insurance or a bond. The general liability is what protects if
someone gets hurt on the site but the bond covers defective workmanship or not meeting
code — it gives the City recourse where the general liability does not. Lynn Davis states
we must keep it straight since liability insurance and surety bonds act completely
differently. At this time the meeting was again opened to discussion from the audience.
Travis Thornton asked if the City or the city attorney could find out if the general liability
insurance would actually cover what is wanted then the bond would not be necessary. He
feels one or the other should be decided on.
Manuel Gonzales wanted to know if you carry general liability would you still need a
surety bond and if a surety bond is required, what does it cover. Ricky Mason answered
that all a surety bond does is assures you perform the work up to all codes regulations.
Greg Zielinski stated that insurance representatives quoted $50 would buy a $5,000 or
$10,000 bond. It was discussed that Lubbock requires a Compliance Bond which is
different than a Surety Bond being proposed. In a Compliance Bond, it assures you abide
not only by the codes but also with the contract of what is contracted to do. A Surety
Bond is if a contractor defaults on the job then the homeowner can file on the bond
according to Lynn Davis. Greg stated, "not necessarily." Ricky states, "The principal
shall faithfully perform the duties and comply with the laws and ordinances including all
amendments pertaining to the license or permit." Chris asked if the homeowner is just
not satisfied with the work done but there are no code violations, then it is not covered.
Greg states it is not a performance type bond. Any insurance company will issue a surety
bond. Manual stated he spoke to the Mouser Insurance Agency and was told they were
unable to find anyone to carry that type of bond. Ricky stated he was told that it is hard
for some contractors to get a bond in Lubbock because it is a Compliance Bond. But we
are doing a Surety Bond and not a Compliance Bond. Greg stated Compliance Bonds
and Performance Bonds are based on the financial record of the contractor. A Surety
Bond is much easier to obtain since most anyone can get a Surety Bond.
Ricky Mason states that the Board's goal is to look after the homeowner and give him
some type of recourse if needed. Richard Pirkle asked how does the homeowner go
about getting recourse on this bond and Greg stated he thinks either the City and/or the
homeowner but it is the person who is looking to obtain the money and once a bond is
•
filed on, the contractor usually cannot obtain another bond. Ricky states his bonds are
made out to the city in which he is working so the City would have to file on the bond
and Larry states it would be a joint effort.
Larry stated the Board would be more apt to get an approval if the wording was to be
either /or for general liability or bond.
Roger Dowdy asked where the liability falls after the inspector has green tagged a site?
Larry states, "I passed what I looked at. If something rips, tears, or breaks after that
then..."
Lynn states he wants more background from the City before more is done on this area.
Lynn Davis made a motion to table the discussion to gain more information until the next
meeting. Chris LaFevre seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
Greg asked the Board if they wanted to save the Registration information and present it
along with the Bonding issue and the Board stated yes.
Motion made to adjourn meeting made by Chris LaFevre and seconded by Roger Dowdy.
Motion carried unanimously.
MEETING ADJOURNMENT
•
CHAP AN
L1/
SECRETARY