PUBLIC COMMENT
CITIZEN’S COMMENTS
CONTRACTOR LICENSING DRAFT ORDINANCE
February 16, 2005
Torres called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and began with introductions. Staff present was: Melissa Mitchell, Tim Pinnick, Victor Torres, and Barry Walthall. Twenty-eight people were present.
Torres advised the objective of the meeting is to gain public comment regarding the Contractor Licensing DRAFT Ordinance and to review the changes made from January 31, 2005 public comment meeting. He briefly provided background regarding the development of the ordinance and reviewed the five license classifications. Torres noted out that the purpose of the proposed licensing is to insure the public of safe practice.
Walthall presented the Power Point presentation of the Contractor Licensing DRAFT Ordinance.
Torres opened the meeting to public comment and requested that those making comment step up to the podium and sign in.
Public Comment
Jim Slough, landlord, stated that he was concerned with landlords having to become licensed with the City. He noted that it would drive up the cost to their tenants.
Torres stated that he had recently received information concerning the Topeka ordinance and how they handle their properties. He stated that City legal staff will be requested to review the information received on Topeka ordinance.
Bob Ebey, landlord, stated that they were not asking for any more than they already have. Ebey questioned if the exemptions listed in the trades ordinances could be incorporated in the new DRAFT ordinance.
Torres recognized that the provisions in the Trades ordinances would need to be addressed in the current DRAFT ordinance.
David Reynolds noted the changes made on the proposed members for the Contractor Licensing Board (CLB). Reynolds suggested including a professional engineer for a more broad view. He stated that a civil engineer would have more of a back ground in soil and water; a structural engineer would have a background with steel and wood; and a professional engineer would be able to put a seal on any discipline one had experience in.
Torres asked Reynolds if he suggesting a professional engineer in the place of a civil engineer on the board.
Reynolds replied that he would like to see a profession engineer on the board because of the overall knowledge he/she would have.
Mike Westerhouse questioned if the DRAFT was applied toward employee licensing, such as journeyman and apprentices.
Torres replied that currently there are not any changes in the requirements for obtaining a license as a tradesman. The purpose of the DRAFT is to standardize contractor licensing.
Westerhouse inquired about the requirements needed for a license in the city.
Walthall stated the State of Kansas specifies a certification examination that must be recognized by all jurisdictions as suitable qualification for licensure. Once the test is passed, a City of Lawrence license must be obtained through the Neighborhood Resources Department.
Torres reviewed the timeline for the DRAFT ordinance. He stated the DRAFT would be submitted to the City Commission for review. Corrections and further research would be made at the request of the City Commission. The proposed implementation date is July 1, 2005. Torres then further explained the details for continuing education and fees. He stated that the contractors licensing fee would be $200. One hundred thirty-five dollars of the initial $200 would be applied toward the continuing education courses provided by Johnson County. The remainder $65 would be applied toward the City of Lawrence processing fee. The requirements for the continuing education will be 8 hours per year. In addition, one company could hold multiply licenses depending on how they file.
A member of the audience questioned if continuing education provided from some where else would be acceptable and if a rebate or deduction would be made out of the original $200 fee.
Torres replied that if the contractor is currently licensed in Johnson County, only the $65 City licensing fee will be collected. If the continuing education is provided out of state, they would be reviewed and considered by the CLB. Torres stated that in time there will be other course locations. Johnson County is established with their continuing education courses and that is beneficial to the City. The public will have time before the DRAFT is implemented to make comment and recommendations. At any time one can contact the office, Neighborhood Resources Department though email, phone, or office visit. Torres encouraged the public to become more knowledgeable about proposed ordinance.
Virgil Holding questioned how the City would notify contractors.
Torres replied the Neighborhood Resources Department has a current mailing list for contractors. He stated that when the DRAFT is approved, contractors will be notified in a timely matter.
Mike Westerhouse questioned when the continuing education requirements would begin.
Torres stated that the proposed ordinance is set up very similar to the current licensing procedure. Initially, though the proposed ordinance may start mid year, the requirement to obtain continuing education will extend through the first full year after the contractor becomes licensed with the City. After the first partial year of implementation of the program, contractors must obtain the required continuing education within the same calendar year the license is issued.
A member of the audience questioned how they would be notified of the classes and class dates.
Torres replied that contractors would be able to choose their own classes and that they would be notified of the current sessions.
Walthall stated that trade licensing of employees would continue as usual. Trade licensing of employees is not being affected by the proposed DRAFT.
A member of the audience questioned if everyone would have the same renewal date.
Torres stated that it would be the same on all trade, specialty, and contractor licensing. There would be an 18 month grace period, “grandfathering”, with the proper experience the test would not be required; after the 18 months, the test would be a requirement. Section 5-1208 further explains the requirements for obtaining a license with a Bachelor degree.
A member of the audience questioned if experience and an out of state degree would be acceptable.
Torres replied that “grandfathering” would be closed after 18 months. It does not matter where the education came from, as long as it can be confirmed, and it can be applied toward the requirements of the City.
A member of the audience questioned if fees would duplicate with renewals.
Torres replied that fees would not overlap. They would be due once a year. He announced that the department web site will host a question and answer section for frequently asked questions. The web site is accessible through he City’s web page or directly though the department’s web page.
Neil McCullogh questioned how a residential builder would become a commercial builder. Under the proposed ordinance a residential builder is not qualified experience wise, how does he step into commercial work? How does he expand?
Torres stated that the only way to go from residential to commercial is to meet the experience requirements of commercial work, take the appropriate test, and then obtain a City license.
McCullogh replied it would be impossible if one was a residential business owner. Where does that person make time to work under some one else? There should be a provision allowing residential builders to move into commercial work.
Torres stated that experience is a requirement for licensing.
McCullogh stated that without the option to test out or apply for a higher class of licensing, working under someone else for experience is setting up a road block for residential builders.
Torres stated it would be researched and addressed. It is not the City’s intention to lock any one into one field. The City wants a safe industry for Lawrence.
A member of the audience questioned if the department planned on adding staff with all the new changes taking place and what the department was doing with current personnel.
Torres replied that the department had licensing software in place. However, additional staff would be considered with the 2006 budget.
A member of the audience questioned if the cost of building permit fees would be changed.
Torres replied that building permits fees would not be addressed with the proposed ordinance.
A member of the audience questioned how the City would handle a large disaster. If local area contractors needed to hire out of area subcontractors to meet the demand of work, would the City make exceptions for the subcontractors?
Torres stated that there is not a special provision for that type of scenario. Regardless of the situation, subcontractors and tradesmen would need to abide by the City’s licensing requirements. If the City were to allow contractors to work unlicensed at any time, it would defeat the purpose of the new ordinance.
A member of the audience questioned how the proposed ordinance would reflect on contractors and subcontractors.
Torres replied that it depended on the trade; if they were in the City’s license classification types, then they would need to carry a City license.
A member of the audience asked for clarification regarding who is licensed, the individual or the company.
Torres explained that the company would be licensed, and must have a qualifying party as described in the ordinance.
Bret Groene questioned if a company hired someone for the license they carried and then fired the employee, would the company still hold the license.
Torres replied that the company must have a qualifying party working under them. The license is based on the individual and it does not stay with the hiring company.
Groene questioned if the holder of the permit would be required to “police” his employees with their licenses. If a company hired a subcontractor who is not licensed with the City, does the company loose its ability to pull permits?
Torres replied that violations are defined in the DRAFT provided to the contractors. He stated that with that scenario, the Contractor Licensing Board (CLB) would review and then take appropriate action.
Walthall noted Section 5-1218 in reference to Groene’s questions.
Torres stated that contractors would be able to track the status of the proposed ordinance on line at www.lawrenceneighres.org or at www.lawrenceks.org.
Walthall stated that the Lawrence Journal-World would continue to cover the City Commission’s agendas.
Torres closed the Public Comment meeting at 7:30 p.m.