OCEAN PINES – With agreement from the board, officials say it will be up to the administration to implement a feeless, voluntary registry for contractors.
Late last month, members of the Ocean Pines Board of Directors discussed the proposed implementation of a fee-based licensed contractor registry. After a lengthy discussion, however, the board agreed to support a registry that did not require contractors to pay a processing or renewal fee to participate.
“I think there are a lot of misconceptions about this …,” said Director Colette Horn, liaison for the association’s architectural review committee. “It’s just a service. And if people have a problem with the fee, I would imagine CPI (Compliance, Permits and Inspections) would probably still want to do this without a fee.”
In a presentation, Horn noted there had been discussion among representatives of the CPI department and members of the architectural review committee (ARC) regarding the problem of work being done within the Ocean Pines Association (OPA) by contractors who are not licensed. She noted that while the association has applied the county’s licensing requirements when reviewing permit requests, it did not require the contractor to provide licensing and insurance documents with permit applications.
“The major concerns shared by CPI and ARC are that OPA may be unknowingly issuing permits to non-credentialed contractors who don’t meet Maryland state and Worcester County licensing and doing work in a way that does not meet prescribed and nationally recognized regional codes or standards for the trades,” she said, “leaving homeowners with inferior work that needs to be corrected at their own expense, without the assistance of the Maryland Home Improvement Commission Guaranty Fund.”
To that end, Horn said she wanted to discuss the implementation of a fee-based system in which contractors wishing to be on the association’s licensed contractor registry can submit a copy of their license and insurance certificate and pay a processing fee of $75 the first year and a $50 fee for each annual renewal. She said the registry would not only streamline the permit process, but would ensure that permit applications complied with county licensing requirements.
“There was a lot of discussion in the community about this being a license,” she said. “That is not at all what this is about. This is about volunteer registration.”
Horn said an additional proposal would require contractors applying for permits to submit a copy of their license and insurance certificate if they are not already on the registry. For those who are, residents will be able to search the list of contractors.
“The idea here is to determine support from the board before the CPI department can move forward on this,” she said.
Horn said the association projects the registry to general roughly $1,800 in additional revenue for the CPI department. Director Stuart Lakernick, however, said he did not support a fee-based registry.
“I’m okay with a free list,” he said. “I’m not okay with charging.”
Director Monica Rakowski said she viewed it as an additional service to association members.
“I don’t even think it’s a dollar and cents kind of thing,” she said. “It’s a service. As long as we’re not legally bound, and it’s voluntary, I don’t have a problem with it.”
When asked about the permitting process, Senior Executive Office Manager Linda Martin said contractors must first secure a county permit before they secure an Ocean Pines permit. She noted that the county also checks to ensure a contractors are licensed and insured.
While he understood the concept, Parks said he was concerned the registry would open the association to risk.
“One could argue if a name is on this registry, whether they paid for it or not, is that an implied endorsement? People will think that,” he said. “Secondly, if they are on the registry and they do substandard work, how do we enforce it, and what risk do we incur? I don’t know the answer to that.”
He added that the county already had a licensing requirement for those that apply for a county permit.
“The idea that a county permit, where the county has already verified that they have the appropriate licensing at the state and county level, is good enough for me,” he said. “I think that’s where that decision point lies.”
Parks ultimately argued against a fee-based registry.
“I don’t want to see us be involved in people’s decisions, who they want to use for the work they want done,” he said.
Director Steve Jacobs argued that the registry only created more problems.
“I think you can accomplish a lot by providing a level of consumer education,” he said. “But I do have a problem with setting up this registry.”
Horn ultimately argued that the registry was not an endorsement of contractors, but simply a voluntary list of credentialed contractors.
“There’s no recommendation, there’s no endorsement, and there’s a disclaimer of responsibility for us because we’re not warranting the work,” she explained.
While they shared their support for a fee-free registry, Parks said it was ultimately up to the administration.
“We’re not in operations,” he said. “We’ve given them our opinion. It’s up to them how they want to handle it.”
