Building Code Board of Appeals Agenda and Packet 2020 10 15

Home Browse Search

Building Code Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (DATE) Page 16 of 27 asked, would you like to look at this exhibit? Berry asked Louden, if you agree and are privy to this information, I will admit this into evidence. Louden stated, all these statements made are false. Berry and Louden discussed the many numbers on the statement. Louden (inaudible). Gollin asked Root, does it matter to you how much an insurance company pays out for a roof versus the roofer repairing the roof? Root replied, no. Gollin asked, if the roofer is providing the contract to the resident, does it matter how much money insurance company is paying the roofer? Root replied, no. Gollin followed with, does is matter to you whether the roofer puts the roof on the residence? Root replied yes. Gollin stated no further questions. Berry asked Louden if he had further questions. Louden replied, no. Berry stated, there being no other objections to Exhibit 23, it is admitted as evidence. The board had no further questions for Root. Gollin stated, the city is done with its presentation of evidence. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY LICENSEE: Louden stated the Ruppert case had a lot of non -recoverable depreciation, which means he is not going to receive his money; for example, if he has $54,000 and non recoverable depreciation of 11-12,000, you only get $42,000, if you do all the work. Louden stated, he let Ruppert know you can only get additional money to apply towards siding or deck if you do an appraisal, which we did and that is where I won $34,000 for his property and plan. Louden continued, Ruppert received the money and was to pay Louden within 72 hours, according to the contract. Louden stated Ruppert did not pay him. Louden added this is because homeowners will just keep the money. Louden added, in a storm when you have a lot of costs for materials, subs, and vendors you need the money. Louden stated, Ruppert breached the contract. Louden stated, he called and called Ruppert. Louden continued, he did not authorize siding or deck repair. Louden claimed Ruppert told the subs to go ahead and do the siding and deck repair. Louden admitted to being the roof contractor, but that Ruppert had told the subs he would take over as the contractor himself. Louden repeated, he did not tell them to do it because Mr. Root wanted to revoke his license before because of the community reports ---- Louden stated he respects the community and has done things to add value to it. Louden added, Chris ----- a good friend of his knew John Ruppert. I got the deck from $2,431 to $16,500 and another $6,600 for awning. Louden confirmed he got paid for demo repairs along with ice and water shield, plus synthetic felt. Louden stated gaps in time differs depending on manufactured specs. Louden stated Ruppert is going to benefit doing good for him. Louden continued he fixed a wave in the roof. Louden stated he had great gutters installed ---all to add value. Louden stated he has not be paid for the work he has done. Louden stated this has all gone sideways and he cash flow can be a problem because all parties need their money —that is all for Ruppert. 16