Kenny C. Guinn Governor MEMBERS KIM W. GREGORY Chairman DOUG CARSON DENNIS K. JOHNSON JOHN LINDELL DENNIS F. NELSON DEBORAH WINNINGHAM SHELTRA MICHAEL ZECH

RENO 9670 Gateway Drive, Suite 100 Reno, Nevada 89511 (702) 688-1141 Fax (702) 688-1271 Investigations (702) 688-1150 LAS VEGAS 4220 So. Maryland Parkway Building D, Suite 800 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 (702) 486-1100 Fax (702) 486-1190 Investigations (702) 486-1101

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

JUNE 11, 1998
 
 

The meeting of the State Contractors Board was called to order by Chairman Kim Gregory at 8:47 a.m., Thursday, June 11, 1998, State Contractors Board, Reno, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda and Exhibit B is the Sign In Log.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Kim Gregory - Chairman
Mr. Dennis Johnson
Mr. John Lindell
Ms. Deborah Sheltra
Mr. Michael Zech

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Doug Carson
Mr. Dennis Nelson

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Margi Grein, Executive Officer
Mr. David Reese, Legal Counsel (Cooke, Roberts & Reese)
Ms. Nancy Mathias, Licensing Administrator
Mr. Bill Rizzo, Investigations Administrator
Ms. Kathy Stewart, Licensing Supervisor
Mr. Mike Maloy, Director of Investigations
Mr. Bob Kennedy - Senior Investigator
Mr. John Sapp, Investigator
Mr. Gary Leonard, Investigator
Mr. George Lyford, Investigator, Las Vegas
Ms. Betty Wills, Recording Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Leslie Clarkson, Court Reporter, Sierra Nevada Reporters; Aaron Greenwood, Owner, Aarons Customized Painting; David Semas, Aarons Customized Painting; Garnett Sweazy, Sentinel Real Estate Corp.; Steve Larsen, Kelly-Moore Paint Co.; Jim Cathey, Homeowner; Lou Borrego, Five Star Development; Jim Barber; Alex Flangas, Legal Counsel, Pac West Construction Services Inc. & Walter James Akin DBA Pac West Construction Services; Walter James Akin, President, Pac West Construction Services & Owner, Walter James Akin DBA Pac West Construction Services; Ken Vermeys, President, Diversified Painting; James Filbin, Painters and Allied Trades, Local 567; Jerry McKissack, and Complainant; Mike Spears, Owner, Help-U-Scape.
Ms. Grein reaffirmed the agenda had been posted, in compliance with the open meeting law, on June 4, 1998, by investigator Ron Carney, at the Washoe County Court House, Washoe County Library, Reno City Hall and in each office of the Board in Las Vegas and in Reno.

There was no amended agenda but there were changes to the regular agenda. Take It For Granite had withdrawn their application and Dean Construction Corporation had requested a continuance due to a death in the family.

Ms. Grein updated the Board regarding the recruitment of investigators. The recruitment service she was working with had provided her with good, potential candidates. Only finalists would be reviewed by the Board. Thereafter, Ms. Grein reported on investigations conducted and discussed reopening previously closed complaints. Ms. Grein was directed to reopen any complaint if there was sufficient evidence to do so, but eliminating the administrative process so that the Board could immediately address the charges and take action if it was warranted. Additionally, It was suggested the Board meet with building departments to open meaningful dialogue. Thereafter, the Executive Session was continued to address the regular agenda.

AARONS CUSTOMIZED PAINTING - APPLICATION HEARING

Aaron Greenwood, Owner; David Semas, George Lyford, Investigator, Las Vegas; and Kathy Stewart were sworn in and the stipulation was signed.

Ms. Grein stated the charges were for possible violation of NRS 624.263, failure to establish financial responsibility based on all the criteria set forth in NRS 624.263 (2), in particular, the amount of liquid assets and conviction of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude; and NRS 624.265 (3), entered a plea of guilty or guilty but mentally ill to, been found guilty of or been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude.

The application was for a C4A painting license. Mr. Greenwood was requesting a monetary limit of $50,000. The hearing file was entered in to the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Under questioning Mr. Lyford stated he had reviewed the conviction file of Mr. Greenwood detailing what he had learned. Mr. Greenwood had pled guilty and had been convicted of grand theft, a felony, on October 19, 1995 and was sentenced to 36 months probation, 10 days in jail, and restitution of $200. He paid the restitution and was continued on probation. On February 26, 1996, a second charge was attributed to Mr. Greenwood for statutory sexual seduction, a gross misdemeanor. Mr. Greenwood had been sentenced to one year and served that time in the Douglas County jail. The assault had taken place upon a 15 year old girl in Douglas County at a house Mr. Greenwood was painting. Because this offense had taken place prior to the first conviction in California, it was not considered a violation of probation. The parole officer in Nevada advised Mr. Lyford that Mr. Greenwood was complying with the terms of the parole and probation in Nevada; Mr. Greenwood appeared to be holding steady work; and he was a registered sex offender and a registered felon in the state of Nevada. The California parole officer stated he considered Mr. Greenwood to be complying with the terms of his probation as he had had no problems with him, adding Mr. Greenwood would be released from his probation in December, 1998.

A financial statement (FS) had been provided. When asked if he wanted to have the hearing closed to review the statement, Mr. Greenwood replied he did not wish to have it closed. When questioned about the value of the stock listed on the financial statement, Mr. Greenwood deferred to his father-in-law, David Semas to respond. Mr. Semas told the Board his business was a regulation D corporation with $25 million capitalization. The stock was privately traded at $30 per share and belonged to Mr. Greenwood's wife.

When asked what size job he planned to perform, Mr. Greenwood said $12,000 to $13,000.

Mr. Greenwood spoke in his defense, admitting what he did was wrong. He apologized, saying he had made some bad decisions. The girl had been his girlfriend and he had asked her to marry him. He was friends with her father and mother who knew about the relationship. He then detailed the events which had occurred leading up to the charge that followed. When the police had become involved and had asked him if he had had sexual relations with the girl, he freely admitted yes, indicating the girl was his fiancee. By doing so he had admitted he had broken a law although no complaint had been filed by the girl or her parents. Thereafter, the state took over because, at the time, he was 24 and the girl 15. Mr. Greenwood then submitted a letter he had written about himself as well as character references which were entered into the record as EXHIBIT 2, and Mr. Semas spoke in favor of his son-in-law.

Mr. Lyford clarified the offense in Nevada was a gross misdemeanor and required Mr. Greenwood to be a registered sex offender. The offense in California was a felony. However, upon successful completion of his probation, Mr. Greenwood had the option of petitioning the courts in California to have the felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.

The evidentiary was closed.

PAC WEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC. - HEARING

WALTER JAMES AKIN DBA PAC WEST CONSTRUCTION SERVICES - HEARING

Garnett Sweazy, Sentinel Real Estate Corp.; Steve Larsen, Kelly-Moore Paint Co.; Jim Cathey, Homeowner; Lou Borrego, Five Star Development; Jim Barber; John Sapp, Investigator; Gary Leonard, Investigator, and Walter James Akin, President, Pac West Construction Services and Owner, Walter James Akin DBA Pac West Construction Services, were sworn in and the stipulations were both signed.

The charges were for possible violation of NRS 624.230 (1) (A) (B), it is unlawful for any person or combination of persons to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor within this state or submit a bid on a job situated within this, without having a license as provided in the chapter. The notice had been hand delivered on 5/28/98. Mr. Akin had waived the 30 day notice period required by NRS 624.310. There was no objection to entering the hearing notices into the record as EXHIBIT 1 and EXHIBIT 2.

Mr. Reese explained the Board had received an application from Mr. Akin for a license but it had been tabled. What the Board was addressing was the two administrative charges. Separately they would review the application to make a decision on it.

Ms. Mathias stated the first item which was to be considered was in the matter of Pac West Construction Services Inc. Under questioning, Mr. Akin admitted he had submitted his personally signed proposal to Bufflat and Associates to remove and replace balcony, padding and walls. When asked if he had been aware a state contractors license was required for this type of work, Mr. Akin replied yes, admitting neither he nor Pac West Construction Services had held a contractor's license when the proposal was submitted. The work had not been performed although Mr. Akin planned to perform it. A second proposal, dated 5/30/95 and signed by mr. Akin as President, was referenced. It was for work on the Grant 4-plex in Reno, Nevada, which had been performed the next day and consisted of painting a 4-plex. He said he did the work but he had not been paid for it. That particular proposal referenced a Nevada license #28755, S M K Painting Company. mr. Akin told the Board he had been S M K's salesperson and representative in Nevada and several other states. He included the license number on his proposal because he had been under the impression Mr. Kabilio, the owner, had given him permission to use his license because Mr. Akin was the QE on some of Mr. Kabilio's other licenses, although not in Nevada.

Attention then focused on the second notice of hearing regarding Walter James Akin DBA Pac West Construction Services. Mr. Akin said he did not submit the proposal to Designer Builder Construction which was on page 3 of the hearing notice. When asked if he or any of his employees had performed any work at 4595 Mountain Gate, he replied yes. He said they installed a stucco-plex system on a home. When asked if he had received the amount invoiced as shown on page 5, Mr. Akin said he had but added it had not been for the work performed but for materials and materials only. Two additional proposals were referenced and Mr. Akin confirmed the signatures on both were his.

He said he had performed partial work on the Meadowwood Apts. but had been stopped by John Sapp, Board Investigator, who had notified Mr. Akin S M K no longer had a license. He said he packed up that day and had not been back to the job since. He said he, not S M K, had received payment for that job.

Mr. Flangas, Legal Counsel, answered the charges indicating the proposals had /S M K painting following Pac West Construction Services, right above the signature line. He said Mr. Akin testified his understanding was he was working with S M K and was authorized to utilize their license for the work. When he was informed by Mr. Sapp S M K had allowed their license to lapse, Mr. Akin immediately stopped work. Mr. Flangas then informed the Board Mr. Sweazy was present. He had worked with Mr. Akin, and on behalf of Sentinel, would testify they were very comfortable with Mr. Akin's work. Upon learning S M K no longer had a license, Mr. Akin immediately applied for his own Nevada contractor's license on behalf of Pac West.

dialogue ensued regarding the various proposals and the work which had been performed prior to the evidentiary being closed.

DIVERSIFIED PAINTING #24603A - HEARING

Ken Vermeys, President; James Filbin, Painters and Allied Trades, Local 567; and Mike Maloy were sworn in. Mr. Lindell abstained because he had bid the job and had asked staff to investigate the over bidding.

The stipulation was signed and the hearing file was presented. The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3015 (3), knowingly entering into a contract with a contractor while that contractor is not licensed, or bidding to contract or entering into a contract with a contractor for work in excess of his limit or beyond the scope of his license. there was no objection to entering the notice of hearing into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Mr. Maloy stated a complaint had been received from the local painting union regarding a bid Diversified Painting had submitted to H & M Construction on a cubicle job in Fernley. Mr. Vermeys confirmed he had submitted a bid to H & M Construction. The amount on the proposal was for a total of $311,240. Mr. Vermey's bid limit was $250,000. H & M Construction did not accept the bid as totaled. They did subsequently issue a contract to Diversified Painting without the material, labor only, in the amount of $216,000. On page 13 of the hearing file there was a purchase order to Sherwin Williams from H & M Construction for the material in the amount of some $100,000. Mr. Maloy said the reason for the hearing was because one year ago Diversified Painting had bid in excess of their license limit, they had been investigated by staff and given a staff warning. Mr. Vermeys had submitted his application for a permanent raise in limit but had been denied.

Mr. Vermeys said he was guilty, explaining why.

Mr. Gregory explained the Board's position was if a contractor wanted to bid labor only, the contractor must bid labor only. To include the cost of materials in a proposal was to offer a bid. It indicated that one was offering to buy the materials for the amount stated. If materials needed to be purchased by others, those others could figure out what the materials cost. He added that when someone bid over their limit, they were exposing themselves and the parties involved to a contract which was not enforceable in a court of law in Nevada. The one time raise in limit was then explained to Mr. Vermeys.

Mr. Maloy indicated H & M Construction was not cited because they did not accept the bid. Thereafter, Mr. Maloy spoke of Mr. Vermeys cooperation in both investigations.

Mr. Filbin said he had contacted three other contractors who had bid the same job. They all agreed they did not have the option to bid the job, labor only.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. Rizzo and Ms. Grein reported on what they had looked into in the area of formalized training and the initialization of in-house training with different associations. Further dialogue occurred regarding investigative procedures. Lastly, Ms. Grein notified the Board a location had been found to relocate the Reno office. She had prepared the necessary paperwork for the Board of Examiners who was meeting on Monday, June 15, 1998, and had the item placed on their agenda. She then detailed both the Reno and Las Vegas' need for additional space and presented her proposal to resolve those issues.

The Reno move, if approved, could be effected by September 15.

A motion was made, seconded and carried to reopen the meeting to the public.

HEARINGS

DIAMOND ROOFING #38722 - HEARING

Francis Theodore Fischer, President, was not present for the hearing. Additionally, no complainant was present.

The notice of hearing was dated May, 1998, mailed certified, on May 9, 1998. It had been received by this office on May 13, 1998, marked "not at this address." Hand delivery had been made by Ron Carney on May 19, 1998. the hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.301 (3), willful failure or refusal without legal excuse on the part of a licensee as a contractor to prosecute a construction project; and NRS 624.3017 (1), workmanship which is not commensurate with standards of the trade in general. The hearing file was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Gary Leonard, Investigator, was sworn in. Under questioning, Mr. Leonard was asked if he had investigated a complaint received regarding an alleged contract to install a roof on a duplex at 1307 and 1309 Arosa Court. His answer was affirmative. There had been a proposal from Diamond Roofing to perform that job for $5,800. All of the amount had been paid. The work had been started July, 1997, and one side had been completed September, 1997. The other side had been left open and exposed for a period of time. When the complaint had been received, it was learned a permit had never been pulled. The building department then red tagged the project. The permit was later pulled in the latter part of September, and the roofer started working on the open side but never finished. He abandoned the job. A second roofer was hired and the certificate of occupancy was received in May, 1998. Mr. Maloy added both owners were out of state owners and that there had been interior damages on both sides as a result of the exposure.

Mr. Leonard then commented on the administrative meeting which had been held. He stated Mr. Fischer said he would go back and make all the necessary repairs. He went back but didn't complete the job. The roof was put on but it wasn't put on correctly. The ice and water shield had been omitted. When asked if the work met industry standards, Mr. Leonard said no. To date, no one knew where Mr. Fischer was.

The evidentiary was closed.

In discussion of a matter heard in the previous day's Board meeting, McMillan Construction and McMillan Homes, Mr. Reese suggested the Board invite the licensee to appear at the Las Vegas meeting to show cause why the summary suspension should not continue until the formal decision was made by the Board.

HELP-U-SCAPE #25524 - HEARING (Continuation of 4/8/98)

Mr. McKissack informed the Board the only attempt by Mr. Spears to comply had been made the day before the Board hearing. At that time Mr. Spears attempted to deliver 20 yards of top soil without the notification conditioned by the Board. Additionally, the person who attempted delivery of the top soil was not a licensed landscaper. He was a general contractor, excavating. There had been no other contact with Mr. Spears within the last 2 months.

Mr. Spears told the Board he had been trying to get with Mr. McKissack all along. He understood he had 60 days to have the work performed. (The motion stated 30 days, to be completed by the June meeting.) Mr. Spears hired Steve Kitson, a reputable contractor, to deliver and spread the dirt. He said he had left a note at the gate the day before indicating they would be delivering the dirt the next day. At that time the gate was open, but when they arrived the gate was locked. When Mr. Spears rang the doorbell, there had been no answer. When the semi pulled up to unload the dirt, Mr. McKissack came out. Mr. Spears said he had the delivery scheduled for the previous month but had to cancel when he learned Mr. McKissack was going to be out of town. Thereafter, he had to work around that schedule. Delivery had once again been scheduled for this past Monday but it had rained that day as well as the next. Wednesday, the 10th of June had been the only day he could deliver the dirt. He had not notified Mr. McKissack by phone, he had left a note on his gate indicating he would be returning the following day with the dirt. Thereafter, when Mr. Spears had not been allowed to deliver the dirt, he called Mr. Maloy. It was decided to cancel the work.

When asked if the contractor had previously notified the Board he was having difficulty making arrangements with the homeowner, both Mr. Maloy and Mr. Leonard replied they had not been contacted outside of the previous day.

The evidentiary was closed.

ANDREW R. MAYNARD - GENERAL CONTRACTOR #11437 - FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

PUBLIC COMMENT

No one from the general public was present to speak for or against any items on the agenda.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman Gregory at 12:31 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
 
 

Betty Wills, Recording Secretary
 
 
 
 

APPROVED:
 
 
 
 

Margi Grein, Executive Officer
 
 
 
 

Kim Gregory, Chairman