Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-22-91 Residential Neighborhoods & Public Works Q timm1ttrt Spurt JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEES cQIu tie Tlnntnwn &Iountil of Up ((City of if+nutli send: The April 22, 1991 Joint Committee Meeting of the Residential Neighborhoods Committee and the Public Works Committee was called to order by its respective Chairpersons Council Member Tom Zakrzewski and Council Member Loretta Duda at 4:33 p.m. in the Council Informal Meeting Room. Persons in attendance included Council Members Zakrzewski, Duda, Ladewski, Puzzello, Niezgodski, Duda, Slavinskas, Luecke, and Coleman; Richard Nussbuam, Patricia DeClercq, Donald Fozo, Jim Fershin of the St. Joe Valley Home Builders Association, Al Gostola of Grand Valley Development Corporation, Ray Milliken of Milliken Construction, Thomas Burnett of Roofers Local No. 23, David Adams, a local roofer, Don Porter, and Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand. Council Member Duda noted that the purpose of the meeting was to continue the discussion on Bill No. 21-91 which proposes building contractor registration requirements. She noted that the Council had distributed to them on Friday, the proposed Substitute Bill. Following a letter received by the Council Attorney over the weekend from the City Attorney, changes were made to pages 3 and pages 5. She then summarized the proposed changes as addressed in Council Attorney's letter of April 22nd to the City Attorney (copy attached) . Council Member Slavinskas questioned those present as to how Worker's Compensation is calculated, and it was confirmed that it is based on the amount of payroll. He also questioned how the cost of insurance was calculated, and was advised that it was directly based on costs of construction. Council Member Niezgodski suggested an amendment on page 5, Section 6-50 paragraph (a) 4th line, should read "This Article, shall be filed" . Council Member Luecke questioned the fee amounts. Mr. Nussbaum, the City Attorney, noted that there are overall philosophical problems with the proposed Bill, and that the fee amounts is a minor problem at this stage. He noted that the Bill would call for a great deal of work in the Controller's Office, the Code Enforcement Office, and the City Attorney's Office. He noted that the fees as proposed now, would not be high enough in light of the review and recommendation process. Mr. Milliken stated that he believes that the fees should be constant for all categories. Mr. Dave Adams, a roofer for six years, stated that he was a member of Union Local 23 for seventeen years. He noted that Joint Committee Meeting April 22, 1991 Page 2 he is concerned with regard to telephone advertisements, and that he believes that the large contractors will run the smaller ones out of business. He stressed the need for education, and he stated that landscaping contractors, siding and gutter installation contractors, should also be addressed. He objected to the Ordinance, since he believes that it does not protect the consumer. Council Member Duda noted that several communities have an Ordinance similar to the one in question, and that it is working. She also noted that the individuals who contacted her are not just roofers but are representative of all types of contractors and the building trades in general. Mr. Tom Burnett then spoke against the Bill, primarily because he sees it is imposing a tax on the individual. Council Member Ladewski questioned what taxes have driven businesses out of South Bend, and wanted to correct the situation in light of Mr. Burnett's remarks. Council Member Slavinskas stated that he sees the intent of the Bill as not determining who is doing a good or bad job. Rather he sees it as providing a "level playing field", whereby both the employee would be protected as well as the consumer, in the event of an accident. Mr. Milliken noted that the Home Builders Association should have been contacted. He also questioned what happened in Fort Wayne, and noted that LaPorte's situation is considerably smaller. He stated that there should be a test and a license if the City wants a good Bill. He said if licensing is pursued that all current contractors should then be grandfathered. Council Member Duda noted with regard to an update on Fort Wayne, that originally they had been advised by the City Administration that there was a challenge to their Ordinance and that it was struck down. She noted that now they have been advised that it was a bond requirement at issue, but was never subject to a court challenge. Mr. Nussbaum noted that the original contact person was the Building Commissioner of Fort Wayne. He stated that a challenge was raised by the local building contractors, and that the portion of the Ordinance addressing bonding or insurance was then withdrawn. He noted that he has used the terms "bonding" and "public liability insurance" as interchangeable. Joint Committee Meeting April 22, 1991 Page 3 Council President Niezgodski stated that at previous Joint Committee Meetings, Mrs. DeClercq and Ms. Manier advised the Council that the Court had struck down insurance provisions of the Ordinance. He also clarified that this is a permit process through registration, and that the City would not determine whether individuals are qualified. He also stated that he does not see any additional work load being placed on the Building Department. Mr. Al Gostola spoke against the Bill. He noted that the average home builder builds less than five homes per year. He believes that the overall regulations would accomplish nothing. Council Member Coleman noted that licensing only confuses the issue, since its scope is considerably greater. Mr. Donald Fozo, the County Building Commissioner, then referred to his letter of April 16th. He noted that St. Joseph County took on licensing of heating and air conditioning contractors last year. This is through a testing procedure and that current contractors were not grandfathered. He noted that plumbing contractors are State licensed. He questioned some of the names and references listed on the list of proposed endorsers of the Bill. He noted that he has fifteen years of experience in this area, and questioned why drywall contractors and steel workers are not covered. Council Member Luecke noted that on page 2 that such contractors would be incorporated at the point that they would attempt to get a building permit. Mr. Fozo also did not see a need for a difference in the fees between residential, commercial, and industrial. He did not see the proposed Bill as adding any further protections to the consumers, and believes that building departments should not be a policing arm. He believes that the overall intent of the Bill has been lost. He stated that he has worked closely with the City of Mishawaka and the City of South Bend, and that there is better enforcement of all of the State Codes now than in the past. He stressed the need for educating the public, and further noted that he respects the City Engineer of Laporte, but that that is a different type of operation than the City of South Bend. Council President Niezgodski noted that enforcement is indeed a part of the Building Department in light of the Enforcement of Codes and Stop Work Orders. Joint Committee Meeting April 22, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Jim Fershin, Vice President of St. Joe Valley Home Builders Association and President of J.F. Custom Homes, raised the question of quality of workmanship. He noted that his organization has in place their own policing powers. He does not see where the public would gain anything by the Bill, and suggested that it either be amended or it by dropped entirely. Mr. Nussbaum noted that he had just checked again with regard to the Fort Wayne situation, and that it was indeed a bonding requirement at issue. He further noted his concerns with regard to additional staffing which may be needed, that a five day turn around time from receipt of the application may not be long enough. He stated that he would like to have further discussions on the overall topic, and believes that there is a good start but more discussion should take place. Patricia DeClercq, the Director of Code Enforcement, stressed that the building permit system is currently working. She stated that the work on Saturday and Sunday would not be addressed by the Bill, and that it does not set qualifications. She sees it as an unnecessary procedure which would drive the small contractors underground. She noted that she has had at least two meetings with the electrical contractors along with members of the legal department recently. She believes the Bill should be looked at, and that full scale licensing should be considered. Council Member Zakrzewski stated that he agrees that the home owner should be protected, but as Chairperson of the Public Works Committee, he would like to see the Bill continued. Council Member Zakrzewski then made a motion seconded by Council Member Luecke, that Bill No. 21-91 be continued indefinitely. Council Member Coleman spoke in favor of the continuance and stated that as a member of the "Mayor's Rental Policy Committee", that a broader perspective should be pursued. Council Member Ladewski noted that he is neither in favor nor against the Bill at this point. He stated that he contacted several contractors other than roofers, who were split fairly evenly on the proposed Bill. He stated that the Home Builders Association should have been contacted, and that he does not see the enforcement of the Worker's Compensation law as the City's duty. He also considered as a Joint Committee Meeting April 22, 1991 Page 5 possible problem area, the enforceability of the proposed law. Council Member Puzzello also spoke in favor of the continuance and stated that she has several concerns with regard to small contractors. She noted the concern of the five day turn around time and would like to have a better idea of what type of contractors are in favor of the proposed Bill and which are not. Council Member Duda stated that she would not be opposed to the continuance, so long as the members of the public would have the opportunity to give input at the regular Common Council Meeting. Council Member Luecke stated that individuals should have the right to speak, since there may be new individuals with new ideas which have not had the opportunity to speak on the Bill in the past. He suggested that a continuance in the public portion of the public hearing, may be most appropriate. Voting on the motion to continue then took place by members of the Public Works Committee and then by members of the Residential Neighborhood Committee, resulting in all those Committee Members voting in favor of the proposed motion. Following further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Council Member Tom Zakrzewski, Chairperson Public Works Committee Council Member Loretta Duda, Chairperson Residential Neighborhoods Committee