0:00The board’s evaluation of Brian Ward’s request to qualify MV All Type Construction LLC, alongside his current business, EV Quality Construction LLC, drew discussion. Ward, holding a state-certified license under Quality Roofing, aimed to establish MV as a standalone entity to enhance subcontracting compliance. The board debated the financial responsibilities and potential risks of operating multiple entities, emphasizing concerns about historical issues with contractors evading accountability.

Ward’s assurance of financial oversight, including holding the only permit for MV’s work, met with skepticism. Concerns arose around whether his W2 employment status might allow him to distance himself from the entity if issues emerged. The discussion also touched on insurance coverage for subcontracted work, with Ward affirming that each entity would maintain its insurance and workers’ compensation coverage. Despite his assurances, the board scrutinized the structure of the business arrangement, highlighting the need for tighter controls to prevent misuse of the licensing system.

Ultimately, the decision regarding Ward’s application remained pending as the board awaited additional documentation.

1:07:25Parallel to this, the board engaged in restitution hearings involving contractor Wade L. Hunter II, operating as Lee Hunter Construction LLC, and the Hedenbergs. Their testimony revealed significant dissatisfaction with the contractor’s progress and communication. After initial payments totaling $83,000, including $14,000 out-of-pocket for the roof, the contractor ceased communication, leaving substantial work unfinished.

The Hedenbergs, who relied on retirement funds for the project, detailed ongoing issues, including incomplete flooring and electrical tasks. Despite attempts to communicate with the contractor, efforts to send a termination letter were unsuccessful. Their situation mirrored prior issues with another contractor, prompting the board to consider potential restitution or civil action.

The board faced challenges in assessing the extent of completed work, as the Hedenbergs had yet to hire a new contractor due to the prior contractor’s reputation. Photographs provided by the homeowners highlighted issues such as improperly installed electrical fixtures and non-waterproof bathroom materials. While sympathetic to the Hedenbergs’ plight, the board clarified that their role was limited to assessing safety and compliance, not valuing incomplete work.

1:44:30During the meeting, discrepancies in financial figures were noted, leading to discussions about the correct amounts owed. The board emphasized the need for professional assessments before awarding restitution, expressing caution about providing a full refund without clearer evidence. Legal counsel advised that the board’s focus should be on determining damages caused by the contractor, complicating the ability to make a definitive ruling without further evidence.

A motion was eventually made to approve restitution of $13,687.74 for out-of-pocket expenses, with the stipulation that the complainant could present further evidence of damages in the future. This motion passed with majority approval, allowing for potential future adjustments based on new findings.