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

SEPTEMBER 23, 1998
 
 

The meeting of the State Contractors Board was called to order by Chairman Kim Gregory at 8:50 a.m., Thursday, September 23, 1998, State Contractors Board, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda and Exhibit B is the Sign In Log.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Kim Gregory - Chairman (Absent from 12:10 p.m. to 2:13 p.m., Exited at 5:10 p.m.)
Mr. John Lindell
Mr. Dennis Nelson
Ms. Deborah Sheltra
Mr. Michael Zech

BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Doug Carson
Mr. Dennis Johnson

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Margi Grein, Executive Officer
Mr. Dennis Haney, Legal Counsel (Haney, Woloson & Mullins)
Mr. Robert Griffy, Legal Counsel (Haney, Woloson & Mullins)
Ms. Nancy Mathias, Licensing Administrator
Mr. Bill Rizzo, Investigations Administrator
Ms. Pat Potter, Licensing Supervisor
Mr. Tom Knapp, Director of Investigations
Mr. Carmen Caruso, Compliance Supervisor
Mr. Bob Macke, Compliance Supervisor
Mr. Linc Dante, Investigator
Mr. Bob Kennedy, Investigator, Reno
Mr. George Lyford, Investigator
Mr. Greg Mincheff, Investigator
Mr. Ron Ramsey; Investigator
Mr. Clark Thomas, Investigator
Mr. Tom Tucker, Investigator
Ms. Betty Wills, Recording Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:
 

Cari Inkenbrandt, Court Reporter, CSR Associates of Nevada; L. Raja Gandadharan, Owner, Mark C. Neuffer, President, M. C. Neuffer Company; Randy Kuckenmeister, CPA Perry Armstrong; George L. Sagen, President, Big G Const. Inc. DBA Sagen Construction; Jane A. Sagen, Secretary, Big G Const. Inc. DBA Sagen Construction; Omar E. Bocanegra, Owner, Omar's All Phase Construction; John Ramirez, President, Savant Design Illustrations Inc. DBA SDI; Matt Whitaker, President; Whitaker Enterprises Inc.; David Spurlock, Legal Counsel, GJ's General Contractors; Gregory Dean Jeffreys, President, G J S General Contractors Inc.; William Stokes, Owner, Stokes Underground Consulting; Walt Follmer, President, Follmer Contracting Inc.; Russ Ricciardelli, Complainant; Jerry Oliva, Lakewood Cove Apartments; Owen C. Palmer, Owner, Palmer & Sons Inc.; Paul Enck, Complainant; Jim Smyth, Legal Counsel for Palmer & Sons Inc.; Richard King, President, King Concrete; Eddie and Maureen Dearborne, Complainants; Mark Scarborough, Complainant; Dale McDaniel, Owner, Rockies Concrete; John Badger, President; Amy Scholes, Credit Manager, Desert Lumber Company; Darcy Coss, Corporate Counsel, A. C. Houston Lumber Company; Kurt Faux, Legal Counsel representing Nacole Construction; Jeffrey Talley, President, Ace Signs Inc.; Cheryl Fretwell, Bridal Elegance; Brandon Elby; Sam Maragos, American Sign Co.; Frank Queroga, The Perfect Body; Dan Snyder, Metcalf Builders Inc.; Curtis Watson, Complainant; Pat Watson, Complainant; Janet Koenigsdorf; Norman Springer, Legal Counsel for Pacific Pools, Tim McDougal, New Stockholder, Pacific Ocean Pools; Frank McCullough, Owner, The Pool Connection and Secretary, T & M Excavating; Tom Tucker, Investigator; Clark Thomas, Investigator; Jerry McCullough, Secretary, The Pool Connection; Bob Macke, Compliance Supervisor; and Donald and Carol Eby, Complainants.

Ms. Grein stated the agenda had been posted, in compliance with the open meeting law, on September 17, 1998, by Runners, Inc., at the Sawyer State Building, Clark County Library, Las Vegas City Hall and in each office of the Board in Las Vegas and in Reno.

It was learned there were 31 items on the amended agenda, each of an emergency nature.
MR. NELSON MOVED TO HEAR THE AMENDED AGENDA.

MR. LINDELL SECONDED THE MOTION

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
 

MR. LINDELL MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 9, 1998 BOARD MEETING.
 

MR. NELSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.

New investigators were introduced to the Board and welcomed as staff members.

The following motion closed the meeting to the public.
MR. ZECH MOVED TO CLOSE THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC.

MR. LINDELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
 

The meeting was then closed to the public pursuant to NRS 241.030 to discuss financial and other data, which is confidential under NRS 624.110 (2).

APPLICATIONS

L RAJA GANDADHARAN (B2 - Residential & Small Commercial) NEW APPLICATION, RECONSIDERATION,

BOARD DECISION

L. Raja Gandadharan, Owner, was notified the reason the license had previously been denied was for financial responsibility. Mr. Gandadharan said he made a mistake in requesting a million dollar limit and he was agreeable to reducing the limit. When asked what type of work he intended to do, Mr. Gandadharan explained he was only interested in working on his own projects. In 20 years, he had only contracted with someone else on one house. He was only interested in developing one house for himself.
MR. NELSON MOVED TO TABLE THE APPLICATION FOR FURTHER FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
 

MR. LINDELL SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Gandadharan was told the B2 license may not be the correct license classification for him. It was explained to him that the B3, the speculative building license, was more appropriate as it would allow him to build his own projects.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY ALL PRESENT.
 

SUNCREST LANDSCAPE INC. (C10 - Landscape Contracting) - NEW APPLICATION, RECONSIDERATION,

BOARD DECISION

Richard DeWitte, Qualified Officer, was present and notified the license had been approved for a $20,000 limit with a $10,000 bond for class C10.

TERRA WEST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT (B2 - Residential & Small Commercial) - CHANGE IN QUALIFIER

Mark Schnippel, Secretary, was present and notified the change in qualifier application had been approved.

WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (B - General Building) - RAISE IN LIMIT

WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (C3 - Carpentry) - RAISE IN LIMIT

WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION CORP. (C3 - Carpentry) - RAISE IN LIMIT

John Williams, Owner and President, was present and notified each license had been approved for a license limit of $750,000, no bond required.

M. C. NEUFFER COMPANY #36842 (B - General Building) RAISE IN LIMIT, BOARD DECISION

Mark C. Neuffer, President, was present, along with Randy Kuckenmeister, CPA, Perry Armstrong. When asked where he was building, Mr. Neuffer said he was building in the Reno area.

MR. LINDELL MOVED TO REOPEN THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC.

BIG G CONST. INC. DBA SAGEN CONSTRUCTION (B2 - Residential and Small Commercial) APPLICATION

HEARING

George L. Sagen, President, and Jane A. Sagen, Secretary, were sworn in and the stipulation was signed. The hearing file was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1. The hearing was for denial of the application based on NRS 624.263, financial responsibility of applicant or licensee.

Mr. Gregory explained the application had been denied on the grounds of financial responsibility due to a recent bankruptcy involving a trucking company the Sagens had owned, as well as a personal bankruptcy. Additionally, the Sagens were asking for a $1 million limit, which was not supported by their current financial statement..

Mr. Sagen countered he had only wanted a $100,000 limit to start. The $1 million limit was in error. He then explained he only wanted to perform projects up to a $100,000: remodel, slabs, patios, small roofs, etc. That was all he had in mind. He then explained what had occurred in the trucking company business, which had led to his filing bankruptcys.

When asked if he intended to perform work himself or if he intended to hire employees and subcontract the work out, Mr. Sagen responded he did not intend to do much himself. Most of it would be contracted and he would supervise and ensure the work was being performed properly. Mr. Sagen then presented documents for the Board to review from the Contractors' Board, State of Hawaii, where he had previously been a contractor. He added he had also been a general contractor in the state of California prior to that. He said he also had two letters from people who were willing to bond his projects up to $250,000. Mr. Gregory then told the other members of the Board that the documentation Mr. Sagen had presented included a letter dated August 28, 1998 from the Hawaii State Contractors' Board wherein it was said they had no complaints pending or during the course of Mr. Sagen's license history.

A motion was then made, seconded, and carried to close the meeting to the public to review financial data. The meeting was then closed to the public pursuant to NRS 241.030 to discuss financial and other data, which is confidential under NRS 624.110 (2). When completed, a motion was made, seconded, and carried to open the meeting to the public.

OMAR'S ALL PHASE CONSTRUCTION (B2 - Residential & Small Commercial) - APPLICATION HEARING

Omar E. Bocanegra, Owner, was sworn in and Mr. Bocanegra signed the stipulation. The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.263, financial responsibility of applicant or licensee. The hearing file was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

The application had been presented to the Board on May 13, 1998 and was made an intent to deny for financial responsibility based on the financial statement dated August 20, 1997. A new financial statement, dated August 31, 1998 had since been provided.

Mr. Bocanegra was asked if he was still a resident of California. He replied yes. When asked about child support, Mr. Bocanegra said he was caught up. He had a statement to that effect. A motion was made, discussed and amended to reflect the following:

SAVANT DESIGN ILLUSTRATIONS INC. DBA SDI - INTERVIEW

John Ramirez, President, was present for the interview. Mr. Ramirez was informed the Board had tabled the formal review of the application to discuss financial information. A financial review was then entered into. Upon conclusion of the financial review, Mr. Ramirez was asked about the different names social security had him listed as. He explained he had given social security proof he had not been known as their records indicated. He had been known by his mother's maiden name Gonzales, but he legally changed his name to Ramirez when he received his birth certificate indicating his name was Ramirez.

When asked what type of work he had been doing, Mr. Ramirez said he had been working with A. G. Spanos, doing coordination services, designing, putting together product and selling it to them. The product was built in Los Angeles, and when shipped and delivered, A. G. Spanos installed it. Mr. Ramirez admitted he had contracted without a license to do a billboard sign but, since then, he had been trying to take the proper steps to acquire a license. Mr. Ramirez said he was an architectural artist and he intended to fashion the company to do electric signs and architectural sandblasting. He also hoped to focus on architectural illustrations, models, and graphic art design as well. The corporation had already been formed.

Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Ramirez if he had a background in designing the structural poles, doing the wind load calculations, doing the concrete for the structural steel, the rebar and everything that was involved. It was pointed out Mr. Ramirez had passed the test.

Mr. Lyford then described the background check he had performed involving the name Gonzales. Under the name Ramirez, there had been a citation issued for contracting without a license. Mr. Ramirez had pled guilty in July of 1997 and had been sentenced to pay a $500 fine. It had never been paid. Bench warrants had been issued and identified through the licensing process. The case was now pending. Mr. Ramirez was to go back to court 10/21/98. Mr. Ramirez countered the issue had been on-going with the understanding that upon approval of a contractor's license, the charges would be dropped. He then described what he had been caught doing but said he did not want to do billboard signs. He had performed the job as a favor, under a time restraint, but added he did not do billboard signs. Mr. Haney asked Mr. Ramirez if he understood billboard signs were not permitted under the license he had applied for. Mr. Ramirez said he did not understand that as he thought it was all encompassing, but, nonetheless, it was fine with him. Mr. Gregory explained the two tests he took did not include painted signs or outdoor advertising and Mr. Haney asked Mr. Ramirez if he understood the electrical which was pulled from the box to the sign had to be done by another properly licensed contractor. Mr. Ramirez said yes. More dialogue ensued wherein a motion was made, discussed and amended to reflect the following:

WHITAKER ENTERPRISES INC. #31695A - HEARING (Continued from August 27, 1998)

Matt Whitaker, President, and Linc Dante, Investigator, were present. Mr. Dante stated he and Carmen Caruso had been to the Vaughan's residence on September 16, 1998 to check the work Mr. Whitaker had claimed he had completed. The autofill had been repaired but the discolored tile problem had not been satisfactorily corrected. Mr. Dante referenced photographs he had taken indicating the discoloration in the grout. Mr. Dante said he had checked the site again the previous day and found it in the same condition even though Mr. Whitaker had said he would regrout and replace the tile.

Mr. Whitaker said he had tried to acid wash the pool. He contended it was not his fault. The pool had been fine for a long time before it became discolored. He said it was not discolored all the way through, it was spotty. On top of the dam wall, it was crystal clear white. He said he tried to clean it and it wasn't there when he put it in. He asked the Board what it wanted him to do. If it wanted him to tear it out and replace it, he would. He asked if the claimant would be happy with that because the tile would have to be cut. Mr. Whitaker said he would have new tile on the pool within five days. Matching tile if it was still available, otherwise the householder would have to pick another tile.

For the record, Mr. Nelson said the householder would have a clean white grout line at the bottom of the tile, one at the top, and one at each joint. Mr. Haney clarified the homeowner had indicated that was acceptable. Mr. Whitaker added, the pool was a deeper pool, so scaffolding would have to be set. There would be about five holes at the bottom of the pool which would be whiter than the rest of the pool. It would ultimately blend in.

Mr. Gregory then suggested giving Mr. Whitaker ten days to accomplish the work. The matter was to be held open until the next Board meeting in Las Vegas on October 8, 1998.

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS

STOKES UNDERGROUND CONSULTING LLC #43592 - HEARING (Continued from August 27, 1998)

G J'S GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC. #45114 - HEARING (Continued from August 27, 1998)

David Spurlock, Legal Counsel, G J's General Contractors; Gregory Dean Jeffreys, President, G J's General Contractors Inc.; and William Stokes, Owner, Stokes Underground Consulting, LLC. were present for the hearing, and the Board was updated as to what had occurred in the last meeting. Mr. Haney clarified Mr. Spurlock, on behalf of Mr. Jeffreys, had pled guilty to the charges. Thereafter, it had been suggested Mr. Jeffreys be present to explain any mitigating circumstances when the Board took action upon the license. Additionally, Mr. Stokes had been charged on charges relating to G J's and Mr. Stokes was contesting those charges.

Mr. Spurlock said, in talking to Mr. Knapp, there had been a request for Tony Brooks to appear at the meeting. He said neither he nor Mr. Jeffreys had been made aware of that. Mr. Brooks was in California. However, whatever had been done by Mr. Brooks had been done under the direction and control of Mr. Jeffreys.

Mr. Stokes said he had reviewed the proposal after the fact and learned the original estimator had been Bob Meinhart. an 80 year old employee who Mr. Stokes had retired. Mr. Meinhart had written the proposal to G J's after he, himself, had reviewed it. Mr. Stokes then apologized to Mr. Zech and the other Board members for the way he had acted in the last hearing. He continued by saying the proposal had been presented to Tony Brooks of G J's. He said he had talked to Mr. Jeffreys one time, he had never met him. All of his dealings had been with Tony Brooks. Mr. Stokes said he had been under the impression G J's was going to use his license for all the mass excavation, the water and sewer, the on-site utilities, the off-site curb and gutter, and the street work, items all covered by his A, General license. It allowed the project to get started without a 90 or 120 day delay. Thereafter, it was his understanding G J's did get their builders license but their bond limit was incorrect causing them to enter into a joint venture or a partnership with another local contractor who had an adequate bond. He had then been directed by Mr. Macke to remove his signs, himself, and his equipment from the project. He left the job, but since he had subcontracted a contractor to do the dirt work, G J's hired the subcontractor to complete the job. Pipe's Paving completed the dirt work and was compensated for it. The money Mr. Stokes had not been paid ended up going to Pipe's Paving to complete the contract. Mr. Stokes said he ended up losing $6,000.

Mr. Gregory then clarified what the Board had decided regarding the Toyota West project. It now looked as if Mr. Stokes had lent his license to G J's so that they could pull a permit because they didn't have a license. Mr. Stokes agreed, admitting there was a certificate indicating he had allowed G J's to do that. Mr. Stokes said he was changing his plea from not guilty to guilty with explanation, adding the permit which had been pulled for the building had been pulled by someone other than a representative of Stokes Underground. Erasure marks on the documentation showed the application had been changed.

The evidentiary was closed.

REVIEW OF POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Dialogue ensued focusing on the timeliness of handling new applications.

Mr. Zech assumed the chairmanship in Mr. Gregory's absence, chairing the quorum which remained. Additionally, Mr. Griffy sat as legal counsel in place of Mr. Haney, who took his leave at 1:00 p.m.

The executive session was continued until later in the day.

DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS

FOLLMER CONTRACTING INC. #40758 - DISCIPLINARY HEARING

Walt Follmer, President; Russ Ricciardelli, Complainant; Tom Tucker, Investigator; and Bob Macke, Compliance Supervisor, were sworn in and the stipulation signed.

The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3017 (1), workmanship which is not commensurate with standards of the trade in general; 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 or operation with reasonable diligence, thereby causing material injury to another; NRS 624.301 (4), willful failure or refusal without legal excuse on the part of a licensee to comply with the terms of a construction contract or written warranty, thereby causing material injury to another; NRS 624.3011, disregard of plans, specifications, laws or regulations; and NRS 624.3013 (5), failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this chapter or the regulations of the board. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Mr. Ricciardelli told the Board he had entered into a signed contract with Follmer Contracting on August 15, 1997. The scope of work was: Mr. Follmer was to redo Mr. Ricciardelli's sun deck with his product, Dec O Tex; repair the scuppers; and do the stairs. The total amount of the contract had been $3,500. Mr. Ricciardelli had paid half of the amount up front and the rest when the work had been completed. Immediately, thereafter, cracks appeared on the surface of the sun deck. Mr. Ricciardelli then spent the next three months, and 37 phone calls, attempting to get Mr. Follmer to return to correct the problem. An administrative meeting had been held wherein an agreement had been reached between Mr. Ricciardelli and Mr. Follmer. Mr. Follmer was to refund the $3,500 Mr. Ricciardelli had paid for the resurfacing work. The funds were to be reimbursed by May 15, 1998 but Mr. Ricciardelli had not received the money until September 14, 1998 and he had not yet cashed the cashier's check. Mr. Ricciardelli had gotten an estimate to correct the work Mr. Follmer had performed, it amounted to $9,925. Mr. Ricciardelli then filed a claim against Mr. Follmer's bond, settling for $7,400. The funds had not yet been received because the bonding company had advised Mr. Ricciardelli he needed to forward the $3,500 to them and they, in turn, would send him a check for $7,400. Prior to receiving the $3,500 from Mr. Follmer, Mr. Ricciardelli said he had filed a claim with small claims court and had received a judgment for the same amount.

Mr. Tucker said he had validated four items that needed to be corrected. A letter had been sent to Follmer Contracting on March 4, 1998 advising them of the items to be corrected and ten working days had been allowed for compliance. When no work had been accomplished, an administrative meeting had been scheduled.

Mr. Follmer said he had honored his contract with Mr. Ricciardelli. He did, in fact, do everything he said he was going to do. During the three months when Mr. Ricciardelli phoned him, he had responded and touched up items here and there. It was Mr. Follmer's opinion the problem was a water leak on the roof deck over the garage. The pitch of the roof over the house flowed directly into a window. Water tests from the deck did not cause it to leak. The reason it kept cracking was because of the cementitious product he had put on top. He had not used a urethane based product, which was not supposed to crack. But he had never guaranteed it wouldn't crack. He only guaranteed it wouldn't leak. He maintained his product did not leak, rather the leak was coming from the outside. He did rewaterproof the scuppers but had been unable to satisfy Mr. Ricciardelli. Mr. Follmer said he did agree to give Mr. Ricciardelli his money back at the administrative meeting but he didn't have the money. He had not gone to small claims court for the same reason. He knew Mr. Ricciardelli would win but he had no money to pay him. When he got the money, he paid Mr. Ricciardelli. He had never advised anyone he lacked the funds. Dialogue followed regarding the product and the workmanship issue.

Jerry Oliva, Lakewood Cove Apartments, was sworn in. Mr. Macke stated he had met with Lisa Roche, a representative of Lakewood Cove. In an on-site inspection, Mr. Macke had validated 9 buildings experiencing landing problems, either rotting decks with holes or delaminating and/or leaking balconies and landing surfaces. Mr. Follmer had been advised of the problem but no correction followed. Thereafter, an administrative meeting had been held. Ms. Roche attended, Mr. Follmer did not. When Mr. Follmer received the hearing notice, he had called Mr. Macke to say the repairs had been made several months earlier. Mr. Macke called Ms. Roche who said the repairs had not been made. Mr. Macke then met with Mr. Oliva on September 16, 1998 to validate the items still needing to be repaired. There were still 6 buildings which had not been completed. But the maintenance supervisor of the complex had called Mr. Macke one half hour prior to the Board meeting to inform him the work had been completed this day, to his satisfaction. Mr. Macke then explained the extent of the damage.

Mr. Follmer explained the terms of the contract he had entered into with David Bauman, Lakewood Apartments/Stout Management. The contract was to install another deck system over the top of the existing deck system. Waterproofing had never been a part of it. He said he did not contract to waterproof anything. He wrote his proposal to replace the plywood as he saw necessary. Many had been replaced. He had then installed his diamond metal lathe with Dec O Tex, polymer modified, cement and color. No waterproof membrane, just reinforcement on top of what was there. That's what Mr. Bauman had requested. The warranty had been for the delamination. Mr. Follmer said he had been out to the job once every three months since 1995. Since then, more and more has been asked of him. He wanted to know if he was really responsible for the penetration in the plywood. Discussion then centered on the word "penetration." It was the general consensus the word applied to moisture and waterproofing. Mr. Follmer said he had used the word to mean penetration of the system he had installed, not to waterproofing.

The evidentiary was closed.

The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3017 (1), workmanship which is not commensurate with standards of the trade in general; and NRS 624.3013 (5), failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this chapter. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Owen C. Palmer, Owner; Paul Enck, Complainant; and Bob Kennedy, Senior Investigator, were sworn in and Mr. Palmer signed the stipulation. Jim Smyth, Legal Counsel for Palmer & Sons Inc., was also present.

Mr. Kennedy explained that at the last hearing both parties had agreed they could work the matter out and have it completed to everyone's satisfaction. Mr. Kennedy said he had been out to the property on the previous day and that 99% of the project was complete. It was in excellent condition. It had been redone completely. Both parties had worked well together. Photographs Investigator Mincheff had taken indicated everything Mr. Kennedy reviewed was coming together excellently. With the touch-up of a little bit of drywall interior and maybe a few small items on the exterior, the project could be completed the day after the Board meeting. Mr. Palmer concurred.

Mr. Enck said the job was excellent. He said when the concrete had been removed and the house releveled, the cabinets had gone back into place. Conversation then resulted wherein Jim Smyth commented and Mr. Enck reiterated he was pleased with the work.

The evidentiary was closed and Mr. Zech remarked he appreciated Mr. Palmer's efforts to correct the problem. At first, Mr. Lindell moved to dismiss the charges without prejudice and Mr. Nelson seconded the motion, but after some discussion, the motion was amended to reflect the following:

During the hearing, Mr. Gregory resumed the chairmanship until 5:10 p.m.

NEVADA STAR DEVELOPMENT INC. #31538 - FORMAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION

The contractor, James Jariv, President, was not present. Mr. Lindell asked if the contractor was still in the area or still doing business. Mr. Knapp replied: "Not to my knowledge, no." Their office had been vacated.

KING CONCRETE #29675 - DISCIPLINARY HEARING

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 or operation with reasonable diligence; NRS 624.3017 (1), workmanship which is not commensurate with standards of the trade in general; NRS 624.3012 (2), willful or deliberate failure by any licensee or agent or officer thereof to pay any moneys when due; and NRS 624.3013 (5), failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this chapter or the regulations of the board. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Richard King, President, Eddie and Maureen Dearborne, Complainants, and Tom Tucker, Investigator, were sworn in and the stipulation was signed. Mr. Zech disclosed he had had business dealings with King Concrete but he felt he could render a fair and impartial decision. There was no objection.

Mr. Dearborne stated he had entered into a contract with King Concrete of August 18, 1997. A backyard patio was to be put in, all debris was to be removed, footers for a future balcony were to be put in, the patio was to be extended to the west corner of the house, and wire meshing was to be placed under the west corner of the house. King Concrete had been paid $1,482. Work had been started five days after the contract had been signed. To date, the work had not been completed. Problems began to emerge approximately two to four days after the work started. There were rough edges, debris still in the yard, a hose missing, and concrete splattered onto the walls of the house. Mr. Dearborne said he had made several calls to Mr. King's house and he tried to contact him on his beeper. He had made approximately 30 to 35 phone calls; and sent 7 letters, 5 sent certified mail. There had been no response to the letters and Mr. King had returned the phone calls approximately 5 times to explain why he hadn't returned the Dearborne's property and why he was unable to meet set appointment dates. The last week Mr. King had been to the property to perform any work was the first week of June. The Dearborne's had then received one intent to lien notice, filed by Ready Mix, and they had satisfied it for $382.53. King Concrete was then asked for reimbursement, but Mr. king had indicated he would have to pay the Dearbornes back in installments. Mr. Dearborne declined as he wanted to be paid the total amount. At an administrative meeting, Mr. King had agreed to correct the validated items but, as of this date, there had been no compliance. A claim against Mr. King's bond was currently in process.

In questioning by Mr. King, it was learned Mr. King had contacted the Dearbornes to set up a reimbursement payment for the concrete after the first letter from the board had been sent; the hose had been returned; and the back of the house had been painted. Countering Mr. King, the Dearbornes said the edges had not been patched and tapered in. Lastly, Mr. King asked if an appointment had been set for Mr. Dearborne to pick-up or receive a money order in the amount of $382.53. The answer was no.

Mr. Gregory asked if a formal lien had been perfected. Mr. Dearborne said no, but he had received several letters and calls from Ready Mix indicating if the amount was not paid by a date certain, a lien would be placed on his house. The letter Mr. King had received from Ready Mix arrived after he had paid Mr. King for the concrete. It seems Mr. King's check to Ready Mix had not cleared the bank.

Mr. Tucker had validated the edges of the patio slab, they were not to minimum standards. Debris had not been removed from the backyard, and there was splattered concrete on the house. Mr. Tucker had photographs of the items which needed correction. King Concrete had been notified April 9, 1998, by letter, of the items that needed to be fixed. Mr. King's response had been he would take care of the valid items. This was to be done by April 20. It was not done. An administrative meeting had then been held on May 22, 1998 wherein an agreement had been reached between the two parties whereby King Concrete would correct the validated items and the Dearbornes would be reimbursed the money they had paid out for the lien notice. It had been agreed the work was to be completed on or before June 1, 1998. When Mr. Tucker followed up on the matter, all of the work had not been done. The house had been painted but the other two items remained open. Mr. Tucker had attempted to contact Mr. King at least 2 times since the administrative meeting and had received a return call from Mr. King approximately one week before the hearing when Mr. King advised him he now had a money order for the full amount owed the Dearbornes. Mr. King questioned Mr. Tucker regarding the validated items, and discussion ensued because Mr. King believed he had performed the corrections as requested. Mr. Tucker maintained any work performed on the two remaining open items had not been performed to the standards of the industry.

Mr. Knapp asked Mr. King if he had brought a financial statement as requested. Mr. King said no, his CPA had been out of town for the last 45 days. When asked if he had brought the money order for $382.53, Mr. King, again, replied no.

The evidentiary was closed.

Mark Scarborough, Complainant; Dale McDaniel, Owner; Linc Dante, Investigator; and Clark Thomas, Investigator, were sworn in and the stipulation was signed.

The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3015 (1), acting in the capacity of a contractor beyond the scope of the license; NRS 624.3015 (2), bidding to contract or contracting for a sum for one construction contract or project in excess of the limit placed on the license by the board; NAC 624.640 (1), if a licensee bids or contracts outside the scope of his license or exceeds the monetary limit placed on the license, the bid or contract is void; NAC 624.640 (5), each licensee shall include in all bids he submits or contracts he enters into for construction work within this state, the number of his license and any monetary limit placed upon his license. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Mr. Thomas told the Board the complaint had been filed on December 20, 1996. His first visit to the job site had occurred on December 27, 1996. The complaint involved a substandard block wall on residential property. Mr. Thomas said he found a block wall which he felt was within the industry standards surrounding the entire property. He found nothing to indicate the wall was substandard. When he had attempted to acquire all of the contracts, as other trades were being performed at the property, he found that most of the agreements had been verbal. Subsequently, Mr. Thomas had acquired a contract dated October 18, 1996. It had been signed by Betty Scarborough and it indicated the contract was between her and Rockies Concrete. It was for $27,700 and it failed to reflect the license number of the contractor. Rockies Concrete had a C5 concrete license with a bid limit of $15,000. It was Mr. Thomas' opinion Rockies Concrete was out of scope. The contractor had been performing block walls and demo work of small sheds with a concrete license. Thereafter, Mr. Thomas had presented the complaint to Harry Stephey, then Director of Investigations, for an administrative meeting. It was held in January of 1997. Both Mr. Scarborough and Rockies Concrete had been present. Mr. Stephey concluded the block walls and demo work was incidental to the work being performed. Mr. Stephey then issued verbal warnings to both parties for being out of scope. Mr. Scarborough was, himself, doing work on the property involving carpentry, electrical, plumbing, landscaping, etc.

Mr. McDaniel stated the only contracts he had entered into verbally or by signature was with Mark Scarborough, but he did admit, when questioned, the signature on page 8 of the hearing notice was his. He had performed work on the property but not to completion. He had only done block work, not flat work. He maintained he was still owed money for the work he did. When asked if he knew he had bid over his limit, Mr. McDaniel said yes. He had been verbally warned and had not bid over his limit since. He also admitted he had been out of scope but added the block work had been permitted and approved by the City of Las Vegas. Permits had been pulled.

Mr. Dante said he happened to be at the site investigating an unrelated complaint when Mr. Thomas performed his initial on-site visit. He had looked at all of the block wall work and found it to be to the standard of the trade. There had been nothing to indicate excessive bowing as claimed. The walls were fine and Mr. Thomas had photographs to indicate the walls were straight. There was nothing wrong with the workmanship.

Much dialogue followed regarding: zoning; an engineer's report pertaining to the block wall; inspections which had been done on the wall; the red tagging of the building for other types of work being performed without building permits, but not by Rockies Concrete. For the record, Ms. Grein stated she had ordered the engineer's inspection to ensure the case was investigated properly.

Mr. Scarborough stated he had never attended an adminstrative meeting where verbal warnings were supposedly given. He had never been warned in any way he was doing any work outside or beyond the scope of his license. Additionally, he said he had never gotten a copy of the hearing notice everyone was referencing, he had only received a letter noticing the hearing. Mr. Scarborough then said Mr. McDaniel had signed the specification document listed on page 9 of the hearing notice. Conversation then focused on the specifications which Mr. Scarborough said Mr. McDaniel did not follow. It was determined the engineer may not have been provided the specification sheet.

MR. ZECH MOVED TO FIND ROCKIES CONCRETE IN VIOLATION OF NRS 624.3015 (1).

NACOLE CONSTRUCTION INC. #36128 - DISCIPLINARY HEARING

John Badger, President; Amy Scholes, Credit Manager, Desert Lumber Company; Darcy Coss, Corporate Counsel, A. C. Houston Lumber Company; Linc Dante, Investigator, were sworn in; Kurt Faux, Legal Counsel representing Nacole Construction, was identified; and the stipulation was signed.

The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3012 (2), willful or deliberate failure by any licensee or agent or officer thereof to pay any moneys when due; NRS 624.3013 (3), failure to establish financial responsibility at the time of renewal of the license or at any other time when required by the board; NRS 624.3013 (5), failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this chapter or the regulations of the board. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

A financial statement had been requested but not received. Mr. Badger clarified Nacole had been shut down for over a year and there was no current financial statement. The license had been suspended for no bond and the $15,000 bond had been paid out. Mr. Badger said he was not in bankruptcy and that he had applied to change the name on the license.

Mr. Dante stated he had received a money owing complaint on November 12, 1997. It had been filed by Desert lumber. An additional complaint had been received on November 18, 1997, filed by A. C. Houston Company. The amount owed A. C. Houston amounted to $33,099.95 and the amount owed to Desert Lumber Company was $260,020.97. Both were for framing materials. An administrative meeting had been held on May 15, 1998 with both complainants and Mr. Badger. Mr. Badger had not disputed either of the money owing complaints. Both were correct. Mr. Badger had indicated he would attempt to work out a payment agreement. An attempt had been made to work one out, but nothing conclusive had been arrived at with Desert Lumber. Desert Lumber had received $15,000 from the bond company. Mr. Badger had indicated there were projects for which he had not been paid, and Mr. Dante had encouraged him to file a complaint against the contractors who had not paid him but, to date, Mr. Badger had not done so.

Ms. Coss explained A. C. Houston Lumber had entered into a payment plan in lieu of the fact Mr. Badger was going to file against Durable Homes and several other people who owed him money. Thereafter, A. C. Houston Lumber would step into Mr. Badger's place and receive the funds from the arrangement. A small payment plan was entered into for $500 a month and Ms. Coss said the payments had begun July 1, 1998. The lien rights had expired. Ms. Scholes said she had two liens in place which Desert Lumber was foreclosing on.

Mr. Badger said he had not declared bankruptcy because he did not believe in it. He had no funds to pay the complainants. He said he had liens in place and his attorney, Mr.Faux, said litigation was pending on some of the major construction projects. Mr. Badger said he was owed approximately $400,000 or $500,000. Discussion next focused on why Mr. Badger had not been paid. He was encouraged to file a complaint against the contractors who had not paid him to eliminate his financial problems.

Mr. Faux explained the purpose of the license application but was informed there was no financial wherewithal for another license.

The evidentiary was closed.

Mr. Lindell and Mr. Nelson withdrew the charge of NRS 624.3012 (2) from the motion and a new motion was presented.

Greg Mincheff, Investigator; Ron Ramsey, Investigator; Jeffrey Talley, President; Cheryl Fretwell, Bridal Elegance; Brandon Elby; Sam Maragos, American Sign Co.; Frank Queroga, The Perfect Body; and Dan Snyder, Metcalf Builders Inc., were sworn in; Glen Lerner, Attorney for Ace Signs Inc. was identified; and the stipulation was signed.

The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3015 (1), acting in the capacity of a contractor beyond the scope of the license; NRS 624. 3015 (5), failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this chapter or the regulations of the board, to wit: NAC 624.640 (1), bidding or contracting outside the scope of license. Ms. Grein stated there had also been a charge of NRS 624.3016 (1), but she asked that the charges be withdrawn. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1. No financial statement had been requested.

Mr. Knapp asked Mr. Lerner if he wished to plead his client, Mr. Talley, guilty of any or all of the charges as stipulated in the hearing notice. Mr. Lerner questioned if the withdrawal of NRS 624.3016 (1) would affect charges D and E, the projects Perfect Body and Bridal Elegance. Mr. Lerner then said Mr. Talley was prepared, at this time, to enter a plea of guilty to being out of scope regarding the Bridal Elegance project. However, Mr. Lerner reminded the Board that the project had been performed prior to the last hearing. Mr. Lerner said Mr. Talley had documentation to support his contention he had not acted out of scope as to the other projects. Mr. Lerner then declared he was the owner of Budget Legal.

It was determined there was an error in how the hearing had been noticed and it was suggested the hearing be postponed, and the hearing notice corrected and renoticed.

Nicholas Allen Robb, President, was not present for the hearing. Both licenses were currently suspended.

The notice of hearing had been mailed to Nicholas Robb on August 24, 1998. No return receipt had been received from the address of record. There had been a return receipt from Victorville, California, received on September 14, 1998. The hearing was for possible violation of NRS 624.3017 (1), workmanship which is not commensurate with standards of the trade in general; NRS 624.301 (1), abandonment without legal excuse of any construction project or operation engaged in or undertaken by the licensee as a contractor; NRS 624.301 (3), willful failure or refusal without legal excuse to prosecute a construction project with reasonable diligence; NRS 624.301 (4), willful failure without legal excuse to comply with the terms of a construction contract or written warranty; NRS 624.301 (1) (c,1), willful or deliberate disregard of the building laws of the state; NRS 624.3013 (5), failure to comply with the provisions of this chapter. The hearing notice was entered into the record as EXHIBIT 1.

Mr. Gregory asked the complainants if they had all received a complete hearing notice containing all the complaints. Curtis Watson said he had received his hearing letter on September 21, 1998. Mr. Knapp stated only one witness had been present for the witness interview. Mr. Watson said that was because the letter had not been received until September 21, 1998 while the witness meeting had been held on September 18, 1998. Mr. Gregory then explained what the findings of fact and conclusions of law entailed. When asked if the information had been presented to the District Attorney regarding criminal complaints, Mr. Lyford said the material had been presented to the District Attorney's office. As of the previous day, Mr. Lyford had been advised arrest warrants would be issued September 25, 1998.

Curtis Watson, Complainant; Pat Watson, Complainant; and Janet Koenigsdorf were sworn in and the Kenyon complaint statement was entered into the record as part of the hearing notice.

Mrs. Koenigsdorf stated they had entered into a contract with Majestic Homes on April 22, 1998. The contract price had been $112,000. The project had not been completed and the last time the house had been worked on was on July 21, 1998. Majestic Homes had owed various suppliers and subcontractors $41,000 so the Koenigsdorfs had to pay that amount before the bank would proceed with the project. Majestic Homes had not responded to any of the attempts the Koenigsdorf's had made to get into contact with them. The contractor had been paid approximately $41,700. A lien by Boling Construction had been perfected in the amount of $7,522. The Koenigsdorfs had satisfied the lien. No voucher control had been used, the bank had issued joint checks.

The Watsons said they had entered into a contract with Majestic Homes on February 25, 1998. The contract had been for $128,000 and the Watsons had paid Majestic Homes $120,000. There had been one lien to Boling Construction for $700 which the Watsons satisfied. The last time Majestic Homes had been to the property to work on the home was on July 24, 1998. Mrs. Watson detailed their attempts to contact Majestic Homes. When the Watsons had gone to the office to locate anyone, they found it had been vacated.

The statement which had been entered into the hearing notice was from the Gruelings.

PACIFIC OCEAN POOLS INC. #42098 - SHOW CAUSE FOR SUMMARY SUSPENSION

T & M EXCAVATING #37025A - SHOW CAUSE FOR SUMMARY SUSPENSION

Norman Springer, Legal Counsel for Pacific Ocean Pools Inc., was identified. Tim McDougal, New Stockholder, Pacific Ocean Pools; Frank McCullough, Owner, The Pool Connection and Secretary, T & M Excavating; Tom Tucker, Investigator; Clark Thomas, Investigator; Jerry McCullough, President, The Pool Connection; Bob Macke, Compliance Supervisor; and Donald and Carol Eby, Complainants, were sworn in.

Mr. Springer stated his client had, unfortunately, purchased the stock in Pacific Ocean Pools in the middle of August, then the Board suspended the license. He said his client had not been involved with Pacific Ocean Pools for any incident which had ocurred. Again, unfortunately, the Board had not been notified by a timely change of ownership, so Mr. McCullough, the prior owner, had been notified. The only reason Pacific Ocean Pools was in attendance was to ask to have the suspension lifted. Mr. Springer said his client now owned the company and there were no complaints entered against that company. He said the complaints were relative to other companies owned by Mr. McCullough. Mr. Griffy then explained the events as they pertained to the new owner, verifying at the same time, none of the complaints were against Pacific Ocean Pools. Mr. Griffy said the new owner was in the process of acquiring a new qualifier, although Mr. McCullogh was now listed on the current application as the Qualified Employee (QE).

Mr. Gregory explained to Mr. Springer and Mr. McDougal a new application needed to be submitted with a new QE. Without a new QE, the suspension would not be lifted. Mr. Knapp added there was one complaint against Pacific Ocean Pools currently being investigated by Investigator Ramsey. Mr. Gregory said the suspension would have to stay in place until there was a bonafide, approved owner of the company, with a proper QE. Mr. McDougal was informed, since he had purchased the stock, he had also purchased the liability as well. Mr. Springer and Mr. McDougal exited the hearing.

Ms. Grein asked the Board to continue the summary suspension on license #39023, #42098, and #37025A. She said she had found some inconsistencies and legal issues within the notice of hearing. She asked counsel to re-evaluate the hearing notice in order to hold the proper hearing. It was learned proper notices had not been sent to the complainants, only hearing notice letters. Mr. Gregory stated he did not want another case to come before the Board which had inconsistencies or errors that could be picked apart at a later date by a judge. Mr. Gregory recommended the hearing be rescheduled and renoticed. Mr. McCullough was willing to waive the 30 day notice period.

Mr. Gregory had to leave and Mr. Zech chaired the quorum for the duration of the meeting.

EXECUTIVE SESSION (Continued)

DISCUSSION OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Ms. Grein explained Mr. Reese's contract was due to expire. The Attorney General was requesting that anything over $10,000, within a year's period of time, go out to bid. An RFP had been drafted for the Board's review.

DISCUSSION OF PROCEDURES FOR ADVISORY OPINIONS

Documentation was provided suggesting the manner in which advisory opinions should be discussed. Ms. Grein was asked to discuss the issue further when the Chairman was present.

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 Vice-Chairman Zech at 5:33 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
 
 
 
 

Betty Wills, Recording Secretary
 
 
 
 

APPROVED:
 
 
 
 

Margi Grein, Executive Officer
 
 
 
 

Kim Gregory, Chairman Michael Zech, Vice-Chairman