City Misleads Residents in the Connection
The March 2007 edition of the Northglenn Connection, official newsletter of the City, carried a lengthy article on the new editions of the building codes. It also described the new contractor licensing ordinance in considerable detail. I congratulate the City for devoting considerable space to the new licensing requirements. I’ll take some of the credit for that portion of the article. The three appearances before the Council, articles and posting criticizing certain provisions and the distribution of information to various businesses certainly prompted a good deal of the coverage.
While some consider my articles to be negative and slanted, the information in the Connection is often slanted with a positive spin. A positive spin means it is in keeping with the official line as defined by the City. While I am truly pleased that they have informed the residents about the licensing ordinance, I am compelled to comment about their spin, omissions and interpretations. In my previous career as a city manager I administered and dealt with contractor licensing ordinances and laws for 13 years.
If you want to grab your copy of the Connection, we’ll start with the third column on the front page. It states that the testing of contractors will be done by an arm of the International Code Council. The ordinance states, “The Chief Building Official shall establish such reasonable examining procedures for the issuance of licenses as shall, from time to time, become necessary.” There is no mention of the ICC testing in the ordinance and its use at this time is subject to change by administrative decision.
Next, we have the statement that contractors whom have tested at an ICC Center AND are licensed by another jurisdiction utilizing the same, will not be required to take the test. The ordinance states in 10-18-4 D, that applicants who hold licenses from other cities that the Building Official deems equivalent to his requirements may be licensed without an examination. The statement in the Connection makes a commitment that can be rescinded or modified administratively at any time.
In the next paragraph of the article we find a completely false statement. “As a licensing requirement contractors are required to show proof of lawful immigration under State immigration laws.” There is no such statement or anything similar to it in the ordinance. As we all know the State established such requirements. Why it was necessary to make such a claim is mysterious but not unexpected. The majority of the City Council supported the ordinance from the first day it was proposed last June because “they wanted to protect the residents”. Why the staff made this false claim is another matter.
Next we have a statement that should work on your project be delayed, the ordinance requires the contractor to protect the incomplete work from being damaged by the elements. The city neglected, probably intentionally to spin the alleged protection, to add the fact that this provision only comes into play if the work is stopped for six months.
On page three of the Connection the first column is designed to assure you that the ordinance will not be a hindrance to established contractors. I would agree only in cases where the contractor worked in Northglenn previously. When you are obtaining bids from a contractor, make sure you ask if they have a local license. If not, you will be waiting for them to become licensed. No building permits will be issued without a license per the ordinance.
I must slightly digress from the article to once again remind all that in accordance with the terms of the ordinance, (10-18-2 (A)) you are a contractor if you Build, Construct, Alter, Remodel, Repair, Move or Wreck any building of structure. Think outside of the box and what you would normally consider to be a contractor.
Starting at the bottom of the column on page three, the city refers you to www.contractorlicensing.org and then offers a quote from the site. I did check it and found something entirely different. If you check, you will not find the quote on the web site. You wouldn’t know that the quote is false unless you checked. I’m not disagreeing with much of the alleged quote. Only that it is missing and not supported in the City’s ordinance.
The spin and slant in the article becomes much more obvious in the second column when a bill under consideration in the Legislature is discussed. In discussing House Bill 1078 it is stated that, “The language of this bill is similar to the language contained in Northglenn’s ordinance, as well as those of surrounding jurisdictions.” Here is a link to the bill as passed by the House:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/845FB4E821E91DB887257251007BF071?open&file=1078_ren.pdf
Here is the Northglenn ordinance for comparison:
http://www.northglenn.org:8000/webdocs/2007/council/20070125/packet/CB-1590R.pdf
To claim that the Bill and ordinance are similar is true deceit.
The article goes on to pose and answer some questions. When will the ordinance go into effect? The staff is going to begin enforcing it April 1st. Know that the Council adopted it on January 25th and made it retroactive to the first of the year. The second question discusses what type of work requires a permit. It looks like they copied one of my previous postings on permit requirements and exemptions or they verified the information I provided in previous articles.
In the question concerning homeowners they state that a permit is not required. That is accurate only if the homeowner personally does all the labor. If one person or company is hired to do some of the work on the home, a license is required for each.
The question on apartment maintenance staff comes from my distribution of information to all the apartment complexes in the city. The City’s answer is incomplete and very misleading. The ordinance requires that when the maintenance staff conducts any activity that requires a permit, a license is required. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows for one member of the staff to become licensed and serve as an approved supervisor. All other maintenance personnel are not required to obtain a license. If an apartment manager relies on the information in the Connection, there is a sad lesson ahead.
Comment: Once an ordinance is adopted it is up to the staff to implement it. I do not disagree with some of their decisions. My concern is that the article is misleading substantially and not a public service. Residents should be able to rely on the information they receive from their elected officials.
While some consider my articles to be negative and slanted, the information in the Connection is often slanted with a positive spin. A positive spin means it is in keeping with the official line as defined by the City. While I am truly pleased that they have informed the residents about the licensing ordinance, I am compelled to comment about their spin, omissions and interpretations. In my previous career as a city manager I administered and dealt with contractor licensing ordinances and laws for 13 years.
If you want to grab your copy of the Connection, we’ll start with the third column on the front page. It states that the testing of contractors will be done by an arm of the International Code Council. The ordinance states, “The Chief Building Official shall establish such reasonable examining procedures for the issuance of licenses as shall, from time to time, become necessary.” There is no mention of the ICC testing in the ordinance and its use at this time is subject to change by administrative decision.
Next, we have the statement that contractors whom have tested at an ICC Center AND are licensed by another jurisdiction utilizing the same, will not be required to take the test. The ordinance states in 10-18-4 D, that applicants who hold licenses from other cities that the Building Official deems equivalent to his requirements may be licensed without an examination. The statement in the Connection makes a commitment that can be rescinded or modified administratively at any time.
In the next paragraph of the article we find a completely false statement. “As a licensing requirement contractors are required to show proof of lawful immigration under State immigration laws.” There is no such statement or anything similar to it in the ordinance. As we all know the State established such requirements. Why it was necessary to make such a claim is mysterious but not unexpected. The majority of the City Council supported the ordinance from the first day it was proposed last June because “they wanted to protect the residents”. Why the staff made this false claim is another matter.
Next we have a statement that should work on your project be delayed, the ordinance requires the contractor to protect the incomplete work from being damaged by the elements. The city neglected, probably intentionally to spin the alleged protection, to add the fact that this provision only comes into play if the work is stopped for six months.
On page three of the Connection the first column is designed to assure you that the ordinance will not be a hindrance to established contractors. I would agree only in cases where the contractor worked in Northglenn previously. When you are obtaining bids from a contractor, make sure you ask if they have a local license. If not, you will be waiting for them to become licensed. No building permits will be issued without a license per the ordinance.
I must slightly digress from the article to once again remind all that in accordance with the terms of the ordinance, (10-18-2 (A)) you are a contractor if you Build, Construct, Alter, Remodel, Repair, Move or Wreck any building of structure. Think outside of the box and what you would normally consider to be a contractor.
Starting at the bottom of the column on page three, the city refers you to www.contractorlicensing.org and then offers a quote from the site. I did check it and found something entirely different. If you check, you will not find the quote on the web site. You wouldn’t know that the quote is false unless you checked. I’m not disagreeing with much of the alleged quote. Only that it is missing and not supported in the City’s ordinance.
The spin and slant in the article becomes much more obvious in the second column when a bill under consideration in the Legislature is discussed. In discussing House Bill 1078 it is stated that, “The language of this bill is similar to the language contained in Northglenn’s ordinance, as well as those of surrounding jurisdictions.” Here is a link to the bill as passed by the House:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/845FB4E821E91DB887257251007BF071?open&file=1078_ren.pdf
Here is the Northglenn ordinance for comparison:
http://www.northglenn.org:8000/webdocs/2007/council/20070125/packet/CB-1590R.pdf
To claim that the Bill and ordinance are similar is true deceit.
The article goes on to pose and answer some questions. When will the ordinance go into effect? The staff is going to begin enforcing it April 1st. Know that the Council adopted it on January 25th and made it retroactive to the first of the year. The second question discusses what type of work requires a permit. It looks like they copied one of my previous postings on permit requirements and exemptions or they verified the information I provided in previous articles.
In the question concerning homeowners they state that a permit is not required. That is accurate only if the homeowner personally does all the labor. If one person or company is hired to do some of the work on the home, a license is required for each.
The question on apartment maintenance staff comes from my distribution of information to all the apartment complexes in the city. The City’s answer is incomplete and very misleading. The ordinance requires that when the maintenance staff conducts any activity that requires a permit, a license is required. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows for one member of the staff to become licensed and serve as an approved supervisor. All other maintenance personnel are not required to obtain a license. If an apartment manager relies on the information in the Connection, there is a sad lesson ahead.
Comment: Once an ordinance is adopted it is up to the staff to implement it. I do not disagree with some of their decisions. My concern is that the article is misleading substantially and not a public service. Residents should be able to rely on the information they receive from their elected officials.
posted by Gene Wieneke at
1:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home