Loading...
Construction Board of Adjustment Minutes - 07/20/1989 MINUTES OF THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Thursday, July 20, 1989 Board Members Present: Staff & Visitors: Ralph Perkins Earl Potts Randall Poteet Nick Merriman Bill Duke Charles Moose. Ted Litteken Don Johnston Board Members Absent: John Glover James Foster The meeting was called to order 9:30 A. M. by Co-Chairman Ralph Perkins. Board Business Agenda included one item, and this was a general discussion of the Building Contractor Licensing Law. Building & Code Administrator Earl Potts had requested that a review of the present local licensing laws be made and suggestions presented for improvement of such law. Chairman Perkins asked that the two contractors that were present introduce themselves. Mr. Charles Moose stated that he represented himself and Moose Construction Co. , and Kr. Nick Merriman introduced himself as representing Lydick Roofing Company. Mr. Potts briefly reviewed the present city law and stated that although our requirements were very weak, a survey of other cities laws indicated that only three of thirteen cities surveyed had licensing requirements. Mr. Perkins asked for comments from the two contractors present. Mr. Moose stated that the city does not need "fly by night" contractors and was generally for a licensing program. However, he didn't want to make requirements so rigid so as to restrict smaller contractors. He wants smaller contractors to continue to do small jobs. Moose feels that the present $5,000 Bond was sufficient, and suggested that the annual license renewal be expanded to allow a two-year license. Mr. Merriman stated that prior to the 1988 hail storm there were forty (40) roofing contractors, however, following the storm, over 250 people got licenses in the city. In order to provide public protection the city should require general liability insurance. He feels that the licensing laws should be strengthened. Mr. Merriman noted that as of March 1, his company had received 1,100 calls to repair jobs that had been done by contractors. Several suggestions were made that could be used to strengthen laws. 1. Require general liability insurance. 2. Issue licenses by category, based on type of work. 3. Review and approval of license applications by the Board, similar to the Electrical licensing program. 4. Require testing of applicants. 5. Increase Bond requirements. 6. Include provisions for suspension or revocation of licenses by the Board. Page 2 Mr. Perkins questioned each Board Member on their position on the several suggestions that had been proposed. Mr. Poteet stated that he was • 1. In favor of a license. • 2. In favor of the present annual renewal. ' 3. In favor of categorizing licenses. 4. In favor of the Bond requirements. 5. In favor of General liability insurance. 6. Opposed to testing. 7. In favor of rejection or suspension of licenses. Mr. Litteken was; 1. In favor of licensing. 2. In favor of present annual license renewal. 3. In favor of categorizing licenses. 4. In favor of bond requirements. 5. In favor of General liability insurance. 6. Opposed to testing. 7. In favor of rejection or suspension of licenses. Mr. Duke was; 1. In favor of licensing. 2. In favor of present annual license renewals. 3. In favor of categorizing licenses. 4. In favor of bond requirements. 5. In favor of General liability Insurance. 6. Opposed to testing. 7. In favor of rejection or suspension of licenses. Mr. Johnston was: 1. In favor of license. 2. In favor of present annual renewal. 3. Had some reservations concerning categorizing licenses. 4. Opposed to Bond requirements. 5. In favor of general liability insurance. 6. Opposed to testing. 7. Had some reservations concerning rejection and suspension of licenses. Mr. Perkins was; 1. In favor of license. 2. In favor of present annual renewal. 3. In favor of categorizing licenses. 4. In favor of Bond requirements. 5. In favor of General liabiltiy insurance. 6. Opposed to testing. 7. In favor of rejection or suspension of licenses. • Page 3 It was noted that Board members were not opposed to the concept of testing for licenses, however a comprehensive testing program would probably not be practical due to the administration of such program. - Mr. Potts stated that staff would review the recommendations of the Board and would prepare a draft ordinance and provide the information to the Board for further review. There was no additional agenda items or Board Business. Mr. Perkins adjourned the meeting at 10:45 A. M. Ralph Perkins, Co-Chairman Earl Potts, Secretary