Laserfiche WebLink
Joint Committee Meeting <br /> April 22, 1991 <br /> Page 2 <br /> he is concerned with regard to telephone advertisements, and <br /> that he believes that the large contractors will run the <br /> smaller ones out of business. He stressed the need for <br /> education, and he stated that landscaping contractors, <br /> siding and gutter installation contractors, should also be <br /> addressed. He objected to the Ordinance, since he believes <br /> that it does not protect the consumer. <br /> Council Member Duda noted that several communities have an <br /> Ordinance similar to the one in question, and that it is <br /> working. She also noted that the individuals who contacted <br /> her are not just roofers but are representative of all types <br /> of contractors and the building trades in general. <br /> Mr. Tom Burnett then spoke against the Bill, primarily <br /> because he sees it is imposing a tax on the individual. <br /> Council Member Ladewski questioned what taxes have driven <br /> businesses out of South Bend, and wanted to correct the <br /> situation in light of Mr. Burnett's remarks. <br /> Council Member Slavinskas stated that he sees the intent of <br /> the Bill as not determining who is doing a good or bad job. <br /> Rather he sees it as providing a "level playing field", <br /> whereby both the employee would be protected as well as the <br /> consumer, in the event of an accident. <br /> Mr. Milliken noted that the Home Builders Association should <br /> have been contacted. He also questioned what happened in <br /> Fort Wayne, and noted that LaPorte's situation is <br /> considerably smaller. He stated that there should be a test <br /> and a license if the City wants a good Bill. He said if <br /> licensing is pursued that all current contractors should <br /> then be grandfathered. <br /> Council Member Duda noted with regard to an update on Fort <br /> Wayne, that originally they had been advised by the City <br /> Administration that there was a challenge to their Ordinance <br /> and that it was struck down. She noted that now they have <br /> been advised that it was a bond requirement at issue, but <br /> was never subject to a court challenge. <br /> Mr. Nussbaum noted that the original contact person was the <br /> Building Commissioner of Fort Wayne. He stated that a <br /> challenge was raised by the local building contractors, and <br /> that the portion of the Ordinance addressing bonding or <br /> insurance was then withdrawn. He noted that he has used the <br /> terms "bonding" and "public liability insurance" as <br /> interchangeable. <br />