Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Renewal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee board conditionally renews Boas Construction license after flagged civil judgment
Summary
The Board for Licensing Contractors approved a two-year renewal for Boas Construction Inc., contingent on $100 monthly payments toward a $140,000 civil judgment, monthly proof of payment and a temporary reduction of its monetary limit to $1,000,000, with a review at the next renewal.
The Board for Licensing Contractors on July 29 approved a conditional renewal for Boas Construction Inc., after staff flagged a civil judgment tied to a prior corporate entity.
The board approved the renewal on the condition the company resume monthly payments of $100 toward the roughly $140,000 judgment, provide monthly proof of payment to the board, and accept a temporary reduction of its monetary limit from $3,000,000 to $1,000,000. The board will reevaluate the license at the next renewal cycle in two years.
The matter was raised during license-renewal review. Board staff reported that the civil judgment was entered in 2018 against a prior entity; the current license has been held by the present entity since roughly 2017 and the judgment resurfaced during the current renewal screening. Kyle (staff) told the board that staff reached out to confirm whether payments on the judgment were continuing and that it appeared payments had lapsed, prompting the board review. Kyle said a closed complaint had been flagged because payments had stopped.
Mark Broad, a board member, summarized the company’s financial posture from the interview: “They did agree to start making payments toward this judgment of a $100 a month, which they owe a $140,000.” Broad said the company reports large accounts receivable and some liens on projects and described the firm as “cash poor.”
Kyle recommended that the board could approve renewal provided the company resumed payments and supplied proof each month. He told the board the agency treats continued payments as a path to compliance: “If they are willing to resume the payments at a $100 a month … technically [they are] still in compliance with the rule.”
Board members discussed consumer protection concerns and whether to reduce the firm’s monetary limit while the judgment remained outstanding. A motion to approve the renewal contingent on resumed $100 monthly payments, monthly proof to the board, lowering the monetary limit to $1,000,000 and review at the next renewal carried.
The board did not provide a roll-call vote tally in the record; the action was approved by voice vote. The board also left the complaint flagged pending proof of the required payments.
The board’s action distinguished between discussion and formal direction: staff will require monthly proof of payments (direction) and the formal renewal (decision) was approved with the listed conditions. The board noted that if the firm is no longer operating at the next renewal, a license would not be necessary.
Clarifying details recorded during the discussion showed the company reported roughly $1.6 million in assets, with about $1.45 million of that listed as accounts receivable and approximately $133,000 in cash; board members questioned the extent to which doubtful receivables should be counted as liquid assets.
The board did not adopt a specific statutory citation on the record for refusal-to-renew standards beyond referencing its rules that failure to pay a civil judgment can constitute misconduct.
