IDAHO CONTRACTORS BOARD

Bureau of Occupational Licenses

700 West State Street, P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720-0063 

 

Board Meeting Minutes of 10/12/2010

 

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:†† Anthony J. Hughes - Chair

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Timothy R Timmins

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† John Robert Pilote

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Pamela Prather

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Steve Pinther

 

BUREAU STAFF: †††††††††††††††††††††† Tana Cory, Bureau Chief

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Dawn Hall, Administrative Support Manager

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Lori Peel, Investigative Unit Manager

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Karl Klein, Administrative Attorney

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Erin Anderson, Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:†††††††††††††††††† Eric Nelson, Naylor & Hales

                           

The meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM MDT by Anthony J. Hughes.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

A motion was made by Mr. Timmins to approve the minutes of 9/7/2010.Seconded by Mr. Pinther, motion carried.

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORT

 

Ms. Cory presented Mr. Eric Nelson from the Law Firm of Naylor and Hales as the Boardís new prosecuting attorney.She also discussed the move to the new offices, stating that there will be a 27% savings for rental space fees.Ms. Cory told the Board that Ms. Anderson has been able to begin serving another Board for the Bureau.Ms. Cory stated that the Contractors Board administrative costs could decrease because of this.

 

FINANCIAL REPORT

 

Ms. Hall reported the Boardís current cash balance at $388,340.77.She stated that its budget was $5000.00 more than the 2010 budget.Ms. Hall presented the 2011 contract renewal.A motion was made by Ms. Prather to allow the Chairman to sign the fiscal year 2011 Service Agreement Renewal between the Board and the Bureau.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

 

Ms. Peel presented the following investigative report:

 

Ms. Peel discussed with the Board the 125 no insurance complaints received for fiscal year 2010.It was determined that this large number of cases was due to the Boardís new annual insurance audit.

 

Insurance Cases:

 

I-CON-2010-127, I-CON-2010-143, I-CON-2010-160, I-CON-2010-227, I-CON-2011-44Rís failed to provide proof of liability insurance after IBOL received cancellation notices from Rís insurance companies.Rís registrations subsequently expired and have not been renewed.IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure.

 

I-CON-2010-270, I-CON-2010-281, I-CON-2010-296, I-CON-2010-298, I-CON-2010-318, I-CON-2010-319, I-CON-2011-14, I-CON-2011-15, I-CON-2011-18, I-CON-2011-24, I-CON-2011-25, I-CON-2011-41, I-CON-2011-46Rís failed to provide proof of liability insurance after IBOL received cancellation notices from Rís insurance companies.Rís subsequently provided statements informing IBOL that Rís are out of business and requesting that Rís registrations be cancelled.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

I-CON-2010-295, I-CON-2010-316, I-CON-2011-7, I-CON-2011-26, I-CON-2011-27, I-CON-2011-42Rís failed to provide proof of liability insurance after IBOL received cancellation notices from Rís insurance companies.Rís subsequently provided documentation verifying current insurance coverage.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.

 

A motion was made by Mr. Timmins to close all above mentioned cases.Motion seconded by Ms. Prather, motion carried.

 

Non-Insurance Cases:

 

I-CON-2008-133 C alleged Rís work on two homes was substandard, including bad siding, linoleum and carpet flaws, and cracked concrete.Investigation revealed that the siding issue was resolved and the flooring company replaced the flooring.As to the concrete cracks, the investigation revealed that narrow cracks developed in the driveway that were repaired by R with caulking.In addition, the warranty on the homes advised C that cracks may develop in the concrete.A pro review was conducted on the file, and the pro reviewer stated that after reviewing the investigative file and conducting a physical inspection on the properties, it was the pro reviewerís opinion that the concrete work was within acceptable building standards.Based on the pro reviewerís opinion, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-201 C alleged that R failed to meet the standard of construction when building an addition to an existing 70+ year-old commercial building, and that there are leaks on the roof, depressions in concrete flooring and uneven doors.Investigation revealed that R built the 25í X 30í addition that passed all inspections.Two months after completion of the addition, C called R and informed R that there was water damage in the new addition.R inspected the area and found that the leak was coming from an area of the original existing buildingís tar roofing and running down to the area of the new addition.R advised C that he needed a new roof over the original building and offered to place some tar to patch until C could get a new roof.According to R, C never discussed any other complaints, and R stated he has no knowledge of the other allegations.R stated that he never heard from anyone regarding this project again until he was contacted by the investigator.A pro review was conducted on the file, and the pro reviewer stated that at no time did C make R aware of any issues let alone give R proper opportunity to rectify the issues, and C should have had the roof inspected by a professional roofer to determine the extent of the repairs.The pro reviewer stated that no evidence was presented to support the allegations against R; therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pinther, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-223 C alleged R refused to fix issues on a new construction house while the house was still under warranty.Investigation revealed that all major construction on the house (foundation, framing, roofing, concrete, siding) was completed in 2005 and the only work completed in 2006 before closing on 2/24/06 was interior work, such as carpet and cabinets.Investigation revealed that the house passed all inspections, and that R addressed items on Cís punch list while the house was still under its one-year warranty.Because the structural work was completed in 2005, and R addressed issues while the house was under the one-year warranty, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Ms. Prather.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-262 C alleged that Rís work failed to meet the standard of care in the practice of construction. Investigation revealed that R was not allowed to complete the job or given an opportunity to address Cís concerns. Based on Board action in previous similar cases, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pinther.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-285 C alleged that C and R entered into a joint venture where C agreed to serve as a general contractor and building construction manager for several residential homes.C alleged that R improperly ceased performing the duties and submitted demands for payment of construction manager fees and other construction cost.C alleged that he later found out that R did not complete numerous items within four of the homes.Investigation revealed that two court cases were filed as a result of the dispute between the parties, and both cases were dismissed.On 6/4/10 C withdrew his complaint and stated that R has resolved all issues concerning the complaint to Cís satisfaction.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Ms. Prather.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-346 C alleged that R, a multi-state company, failed to display Rís registration number in television advertisements.Shortly after being contacted by the investigator, Rís company president informed the investigator that he contacted the companyís teleproduction company to correct the oversight and that it will not happen again.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Timmins.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-361 C (a subcontractor) alleged that R acted as the general contractor on a project without being registered.Investigation revealed that R was hired by the homeowner to assist with interior decorating.C was hired by the homeowner, and R assisted the homeowner with resolving an issue with C when the homeowner was unhappy with Cís work.Investigation revealed that the general contractor for the project was registered, and according to the general contractor, R stepped away from the project when the homeowner decided that she wanted a ďcomplete remodel.ĒThe general contractor stated that he obtained the building permits and worked with the architect.The investigation did not reveal any evidence to support the allegation that R was working as a contractor; therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Ms. Prather.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2008-387 C alleged that R was hired to put shingles on a patio roof but the shingles started falling off 9 months later and R refused to return.Investigation revealed that R is not registered but works at a building supply store.R stated that he felt sorry for C because she indicated that she didnít have very much money, so he decided he would try and help her out.R stated that C purchased the supplies and he did put the shingles on the patio roof.R stated that he tried to explain to C that placing the shingles that she had chosen was not a good idea, but that C insisted.R stated that he received approximately $300 from C for his work.C informed the investigator that the total amount of supplies that she purchased was approximately $1,000 (neither party has any records of the project).Because the total amount on this project was under $2,000, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Timmins.Motion was seconded by Ms. Prather, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-81 C alleged that R was practicing without registration.During the investigation, C was unable to provide any documentation to support the allegation, and the investigator was unable to locate R.Rís father informed the investigator that R now lives out of state and that R had done a few small jobs for extra money.Because C is unable to verify that the job was over $2,000, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Ms. Prather.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-82 C alleged that R was practicing without registration.Investigation revealed that R had completed a few small jobs under $2,000 and, when R obtained a larger contract job, R registered with the Board.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pinther, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-159 C alleged that R failed to comply with a warranty by replacing a concrete patio that had cracked and fixing leaking windows in a new home construction.Investigation revealed that C purchased the home from the original buyer before the house was completed, and the patio cracks were discovered before C bought the house.According to R, C bought the house ďas isĒ well below market value because of the cracks.R stated that if C had paid market value, R would have re-done the patio.(The asking price on the home and acreage was $599,000; C purchased it for $450,000.)R stated that there was talk of a warranty if C had paid the full price, but because C purchased the home ďas isĒ there was no warranty.As to the windows leaking, C informed the investigator that when she called R, R came to the home and put flashing around the windows.R informed the investigator that he was not aware that his crew had cut some corners on the work, and when he found out that there were leaks around the windows he corrected the problem.The investigator was unable to obtain copies of any purchase agreement or contract between R and the original buyer, and C could not provide any documentation verifying the existence of a warranty.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Timmins.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pinther, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-190 C alleged that R failed to comply with instructions from county inspectors during the construction of a pole building and that R failed to obtain a final inspection.Investigation revealed that during construction, there was a question regarding the depth of the post holes but because an engineer signed off on the depth of the holes, the county approved the plans.In addition, investigation revealed that a final inspection did occur.During the course of the investigation, however, the investigator noticed that Rís registration number was not displayed on all advertising.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure with an advisory letter to R regarding its display of the registration number on advertising.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-206 C alleged that R failed to pay C for subcontracted work.During the course of the investigation, C informed the investigator that C has now received payment and considers the claim closed.In addition, Bureau records show that Rís registration has expired and Secretary of State records reflect that R, a corporation, has been dissolved.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pinther, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-230 C alleged R was practicing as a contractor without registration.Investigation revealed that the project for which C hired R was $1,000 and was minor.Because R appears to be exempt from registration requirements, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Timmins.Motion was seconded by Ms. Prather, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2009-237 C alleged R failed to pay a supplier.During the course of the investigation, C informed the investigator that all accounts have been settled and that C wished to dismiss the complaint.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2010-84 C alleged R failed to fix items on the punch list after building a home for C.When contacted by the investigator, C stated that he had rushed to judgment when filing the complaint and that he wished to withdraw the complaint because all items have been addressed and resolved to his satisfaction.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Ms. Prather, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2010-92 C alleged R failed to complete a job to replace windows.Investigation revealed that C is not the homeowner but stated that he was ďacting on behalf ofĒ the homeowner.The homeowner informed the investigator that she has no complaints with Rís work.Although the investigator could not reveal Cís identity to the homeowner, the homeowner stated that she knew who filed the complaint and it ďwasnít any of his business.ĒR informed the investigator that the biggest obstacle to completing the job is an upstairs tenant who rents from the homeowner.R stated he has made arrangements with the tenant several times to get inside to complete the work but the tenant always changes her mind at the last minute.Based on the fact that R is attempting to finish the job and the homeowner has no complaints, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Timmins.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2010-210 C, a city clerk, alleged that R had obtained a business license from the city as a contractor but was not registered with the Board.R informed the investigator that he began forming his own business in February 2010 but had not done any contracting work.R stated that he purchased the city business license in anticipation of doing work.IBOL records show that R registered with the Board on 7/2/10.The investigation did not reveal any evidence that R performed any contracting work prior to registration; therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Ms. Prather.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2010-211 C, a city employee, informed the investigator that R, who lives in a border state, obtained a business license from the city as a painting contractor but was not registered with the Board.R informed the investigator that he has a contractor license in his home state and was not aware that he needed to be registered with the Board to do contracting business in Idaho.R subsequently submitted an application and obtained an Idaho registration.IBOL recommends the Board authorize closure with a warning letter to R.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pilote.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pinther, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2010-275 C alleged that a toilet that was improperly installed developed a leak and caused thousands of dollars in damage, and R refuses to address it.C also stated that her homeownerís insurance refuses to cover the cost of repairs because the insurance company claims that the damage was due to faulty installation.Investigation revealed that C bought the new construction house from R in January 2007.In April 2010, C noticed a water leak in the ceiling of the laundry room below the master bath.C called a plumber, and the plumber found water damage in the ceiling and black mold under the linoleum in the master bath. The plumber stated that there was a bad seal with the flange on the toilet, which caused a ďlong termĒ slow leak.(When questioned by the investigator about ďlong term,Ē the owner of the plumbing company stated that it was impossible to put a date on when the leak would have started.)R informed the investigator that C had 1-year builder, 2-year delivery system, and 10-year structural warranties on the house.R stated that it believes the problem was not due to faulty installation, and that if it was faulty installation the problem would have surfaced sooner than over 3 years later.R stated that if the toilet had been leaking even the slightest bit at any time during the warranty period there would have been evidence of the water in the ceiling of the laundry room.A pro reviewer found that R acted in accordance with industry standards, that R should not be held liable for issues that arose after the 1-year warranty period, and that the issue is with the insurance company in this case.IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Mr. Pinther.Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

I-CON-2010-303 C alleged that R, a roofer, failed to properly install roofing materials and failed to honor the warranty.Investigation revealed that R completed the roofing work in 2005, and on 5/5/10 C contacted R regarding some shingles that were loose on the roof.According to R, C lives in a very windy area near sand, and some shingles rose up during a high wind.R stated that he scheduled a time on 5/10/10 to check on the roof, but it was raining that day and R failed to notify C that he would not be at Cís house that day.R stated that it was wrong of him not to call C.C subsequently hired another roofer to perform a minimal fix to the shingles.R stated that he has a one-year labor warranty and there had not been any issues with the shingles in five years.R stated that the shingles have a longer warranty, but there was not a defect in the shingles.The investigation did not reveal any evidence to support Cís claim that Rís work failed to meet construction standards or that R failed to honor a warranty; therefore, IBOL recommends that the Board authorize closure.A motion to close this case was made by Ms. Prather.Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

Ms. Peel presented the following final orders for the Boardís consideration:

 

CON-2010-101 A motion was made by Ms. Prather approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Discipline includes a $1000 fine, recovery of costs and attorney fees, and revocation of renewal rights for 5 years.Seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

CON-2011-26 A motion was made by Ms. Prather to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Discipline includes a $1000 fine, recovery of costs and attorney fees, and revocation of renewal rights.Seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

CON-2011-13 Ms. Peel explained that this case had 3 separate complaints included in it.It was agreed that the Board could impose 3 separate fines of $1000 each.†† A motion was made by Ms. Prather to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Discipline includes three (3) $1000 fines, recovery of costs and attorney fees, and revocation of renewal rights.Seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

CON-2011-27 A motion was made by Mr. Timmins to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.This motion included recovering the investigative costs and attorney fees only.Seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

CON-2011-10 A motion was made by Ms. Prather to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Since registrant surrendered his registration and renewal rights, there will be no fines, fees or costs assessed.Seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

DISCIPLINARY

 

Ms. Magnelli presented the following final orders for the Boardís consideration:

 

CON-2010-73 A motion was made by Mr. Pinther to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Since registrant surrendered his registration and renewal rights, there will be no fines, fees or costs assessed.Seconded by Ms. Prather, motion carried.

 

CON-2010-29 A motion was made by Ms. Prather to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Since registrant surrendered his registration and renewal rights, there will be no fines, fees or costs assessed.Seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

CON-2010-42 A motion was made by Mr. Pinther to approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order and authorize the Chair to sign.Since registrant surrendered his registration and renewal rights, there will be no fines, fees or costs assessed.Seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Klein updated the Board on Idaho Code 54-5205 (f).Mr. Klein stated that his review of this statute could qualify for changes or updates to the verbiage if the Board chose to present items to legislature for review.

 

Ms. Anderson stated that the number of applicants attempting to complete their applications per a pending termination letter that they received has dropped.Ms. Hall noted that the need for a special process for Rule 150 applications was probably not necessary.It was agreed that if any applications that were over a year old were completed and ready for issuance, that the Board would continue to review these at regularly scheduled meetings.

 

Discussion was held over the Boards process of notifying an applicant when possible discipline information was obtained on the applicant prior to the Boardís review.The Chairman directed Ms. Anderson that if the potential discipline did not meet one of the three listed discipline factors per Idaho Code 54-5210 (g) then the application is to be processed as usual.

 

EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

A motion was made by Ms. Prather that the Board go into executive session under Idaho Code ß 67-2345(1) (d) to consider records that are exempt from disclosure under the Idaho Public Records Law.  The purpose of the Executive Session was to consider registration application materials.  Motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.The vote was: Mr. Pinther, aye; Mr. Pilote, aye; Ms. Prather, aye; Mr. Timmins, aye; and Mr. Hughes, aye.

 

A motion was made by Ms. Prather to go out of executive session.  Motion was seconded by Mr. Timmins, motion carried.  Individual votes for this motion were: Mr. Pinther, aye; Mr. Timmins, aye; Mr. Pilote, aye; Ms. Prather, aye; and Mr. Hughes, aye.

 

APPLICATIONS

 

A motion was made by Mr. Pinther to deny the applications for Richard Harbour and United Flooring Contractors citing Rule 165.This motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

A motion was made by Mr. Pinther to approve all other applications.This motion was seconded by Mr. Pilote, motion carried.

 

Below are the approved applications:

 

Reg. #

Individual/Business Name

RCE-30529

A TO Z ELECTRIC AND HANDYMAN LLC

RCE-30545

PINE BLUFF LLC

RCT-30542

COLE JEFF

RCT-30596

HALL STEVE

RCE-30739

LTS MANAGED TECHNICAL SERVICES LLC

RCE-30830

CONCRETE RESTORATION INC

RCT-30820

SHAW DONALD K

RCE-15756

COLLEGE PRO PAINTERS (U.S.) LTD

RCE-30540

WEST COAST CONCRETE INC

 

OTHER

 

The Board set the following dates for future Board meetings:

 

11/9/10 at 10:00 AM

12/7/10 at 10:00 AM

1/4/11 at 10:00 AM

2/8/11 at 8:30 AM

3/8/11 at 10:00 AM

4/12/11 at 10:00 AM

 

NASCLA

 

Mr. Pinther addressed the Board with his NASCLA annual meeting update.He noted that NASCLA was attempting to maintain a more accurate database for disciplined contractors nationwide.Ms. Cory who was also in attendance at this conference noted that she enjoyed the State of the State reports from other states.It assisted her in knowing what procedures other states were using to register or license contractors in their state.

 

NEXT MEETING 11/9/10

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

A motion to adjourn was made by the Board.Individual votes for this motion were: Mr. Pinther, aye; Mr. Pilote, aye; Ms. Prather, aye; Mr. Timmins, aye; and Mr. Hughes, aye.

 

Meeting was adjourned at 12:05 PM.

 

_________________________________††††† _________________________________

Anthony J. Hughes, Chair††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Timothy R Timmins

_________________________________††††† _________________________________

John Robert Pilote†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Pamela Prather

_________________________________††††† _________________________________

Steve Pinther†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Tana Cory, Bureau Chief