CLB Minutes 02/20/2013 CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
Minutes
February 20 , 2013
February 20,2013
..4
MINUTES OF THE
MAR 2 0 2013 i
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSINGOARL? .e..,....
MEETING
District 1
District 2
District 3
February 20, 2013 District 4,,-
Naples, Florida District 5
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Vice Chair: Patrick White
Members: Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Thomas Lykos
� Robert Meister
Jon Walker
'
te
Misc. Corres: Excused: Richard Joslin, Chair
Date: Michael Boyd
p Ronald Donino
bait
Copies to:
A. _ e 'RESENT:
Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Jeff Wright, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Rob Ganguli — Licensing Compliance Officer
1
February 20,2013
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is
to be based.
I. ROLL CALL:
Vice Chairman Patrick White called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Six voting members were present.
Vice Chairman White noted(Chairman) Richard Joslin, Michael Boyd, and Ronald
Donino were excused.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Continuation:
• Under Item VIII, "Public Hearings:"
(B) Case#2013-03: BCC vs. Alberto L. Diaz, d/b/a"A& M Professional Home
Service, LLC"was continued to the March meeting.
(Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright requested to withdraw the item from
the Agenda.)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Kyle Lantz moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Terry Jerulle.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 16,2012:
Jon Walker moved to approve the Minutes as presented. Second by Robert Meister.
Motion carried, S— "Yes"/1 — "Abstention." Thomas Lykos abstained from voting
because he did not attend the January meeting.
(Note: The Agenda listed the date as "January 17"—the correct date of the meeting
was January 16 2013 as reflected on the Minutes.)
V. DISCUSSION:
Michael Ossorio noted a new Customer Service Agent, Samantha Roe, had begun
working for the County at the front desk.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(Note: Regarding cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who testified were
first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
2
February 20,2013
A. Richard Miller—Qualifying Second Entity
Michael Ossorio stated Robert Rosiles was noted on the Agenda as the applicant.
He explained while Mr. Rosiles wrote a letter to the Contractors' Licensing Board,
the Application to Qualify a Second Entity was completed by Richard Miller.
• Robert Rosiles is the owner of R.G.S. Electric, Inc.
• Richard Miller is the owner and qualifier of Pelican Electric of SW
Florida, Inc.
Robert Rosiles:
• A bank account for RGS Electric, Inc. was opened at the same time the
Application to Qualify a Second Entity was submitted to the Board
• He presented a copy of a Bank Statement which was reviewed by the Board
Thomas Lykos asked Rich Miller if he intended to be the primary Qualifer for
RGS Electric in addition to already qualifying Pelican Electric, and the response
was "Yes."
Rich Miller:
• Primary source of business: Condo remodels on Marco Island (90%)
• New Condo regulations have restricted the hours of operation when work
may be performed during the week and work is not permitted on Saturdays
• His business is growing
• He is the owner and sole "employee"of Pelican Electric—it is a one-man
company
• He needs someone whom he can trust to service the northern portion of
Collier County
• He has known Mr. Rosiles for 25 years
• The parties have agreed Mr. Miller will be paid a small percentage (5%) of
whatever business is generated by Pelican Electric on the north side of
Collier County but performed by RGS Electric.
Q: (TL) "Why not just expand your existing business?"
A. (RM) "I have tried to do that before."
• There were too many headaches due to problems with employees
• Not enough year-round work—work is cyclical—his "season" is during
the summer
• Snowbirds prefer work to be performed after they have returned north
• Mr. Rosiles will handle business
Terry Jerulle asked Robert Rosiles how many people would be employed by RGS
Electric and the response was "three to six."
He asked Rich Miller if he would leave Marco Island on a daily basis to check the
work being performed by RGS Electric on the north side of Collier County.
3
February 20,2013
a �
Rich Miller stated he would inspect the electric rough-ins and trim outs prior to
inspection(s)by a Collier County Inspector but not necessarily on a daily basis.
Q. (TJ) "Who will manage the bookkeeping for RGS Electric?"
A. (RM) "I have a bookkeeper for my own company.
Robert Rosiles stated he intended to hire the same bookkeeper since she was
already familiar with Pelican Electric.
Q. (TJ) "Who will write the checks?"
A. (RM) "I will have the ability to write check for both. Ultimately, I am
responsible for both businesses."
Vice Chairman White asked if the ability to write checks would be shared or
solely that of Mr. Miller and the response was, "Shared."
He asked how Mr. Miller intended to manage things on a daily basis between
the two entities.
Rich Miller replied the bookkeeper will send balance sheets on a monthly basis
as a double check. He will pay the employees and the suppliers.
Terry Jerulle asked if he had read the Code regarding qualifying a second entity
and the response was, "No."
Rich Miller stated he was aware that he was totally responsible for everything and
he was the "one they will come after" if anything goes wrong.
Mr. Jerulle pointed out the Code outlined other responsibilities: the supervision
of construction,the training and supervision of employees, the hiring/firing of
employees as necessary. He stated he would try to delegate"a lot of that"to Robert
Rosiles.
Thomas Lykos stated there were two important parts of the Statute:
• What are the Qualifier's true responsibilities when qualifying a second entity
o He was concerned that Mr. Miller was not aware of these
responsibilities.
• If a Qualifier is not managing the second entity,the Qualifier has (by default)
"sold"his license which is not permitted under the Statute.
o He stated the Board was responsible to ensure that it did not happen.
Mr. Lykos expressed concern that the Board may (inadvertently) create such a
situation because Mr. Miller was not familiar with State Statutes and did not
understand that he was required to do whatever was necessary to prevent problems
as well as manage the work, the finances, and the employees of the second entity.
He stated he was not certain Mr. Miller completely understood his responsibilities.
Rich Miller agreed, stating he was not 100%but assured the Board he would review
the Statute in depth.
4
February 20,2013
■
Vice Chairman White referred to the "Resolution of Authorization"and pointed
out an error on the document.
Michael Ossorio stated Staff was aware the form had not been completed properly
and that proof of Workers Compensation coverage had not been submitted.
Vice Chairman White suggested the Application should be "tabled"until next
month to allow the parties to correct the Resolution, read the Statutes, and submit an
amended application.
Mr. Ossorio noted the answer to "L" on Page 5 of the application should be changed
from"no"to "yes."
Thomas Lykos moved to approve tabling the application until the next meeting.
Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
B. Douglas J. Heidenreich—Waiver of Examination
Michael Ossorio stated:
• The Applicant's license was "null and void"
• He had been licensed in 1990
• The Applicant was "grandfathered" in 1990, i.e., he applied for a license as a
cabinet installer without taking any tests
• The Code requires that, since his license has lapsed,the Applicant is required
to be tested
Mr. Ossorio noted because the Applicant has never taken any exam, an Application
for a Waiver of Examination is not exactly correct but it was the only document
available.
He confirmed the Applicant had been licensed in other jurisdictions.
Douglas Heidenreich reiterated he took an exam in Lee County in 1991.
Mr. Ossorio replied documentation had not been submitted to substantiate the
Applicant's claim.
Mr. Heidenreich explained he closed his business in Collier County in 2011 due to
the down-turn in the economy. He stated his Lee County license had been inactive
during the same time as his Collier license, but the Lee County license had been
activated in January, 2013.
Kyle Lantz requested an explanation of"reciprocity."
Michael Ossorio stated if the Applicant could produce proof that he had taken and
passed the Business Procedures in Lee County, he would have been issued a license
for Collier County. He further stated the Board could issue a conditional license
until the required proof was presented.
Vice Chairman White requested confirmation from the Board's Attorney, James
Morey.
5
February 20,2013
a
Attorney Morey confirmed the Board had the authority to impose conditions
when information was lacking, i.e., proof that the Applicant had taken the Business
Procedures exam. Since the Applicant's license had been dormant for two years, it
was essentially a new application and must adhere to all requirements.
Vice Chairman White outlined the options:
• The Board could issue a conditional license;
• The Board could table further discussion until the Applicant could produce
the required proof.
Mr. Heidenreich stated his Lee County license was in his truck. He asked for time
to retrieve it.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve tabling further discussion until later in the
proceeding. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
C. Roger R. Drouin—Waiver of Examination
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• The Applicant has been licensed since 1996
• He took the Masonry and the Concrete form/place exams
• His license lapsed in 2009
• He was employed by Commercial Concrete until 2010
• He is the owner of Novelte Construction and Design, LLC
• He has applied for a Waiver of Examination
Roger Drouin:
• Applied to reinstate his license to qualify his company
• He had been licensed in Lee County but he allowed it to lapse at the same
time as the Collier license
• He will also apply for reinstatement in Lee County
• He stated he had a Qualifier for his company, "Novelte Construction and
Design, LLC," for the past three years but the Qualifier was no longer
associated with his company
• Employees: 10 to 15
• He runs 100%of the company
• He stated his test scores were in the high 80s and low 90s in 1996
• He opened his first company, "Drouin Concrete and Masonry," in 1996 and
it remained in business until the economic down-turn—he also went through
a divorce during the same time
• He started his new company in 2010 and has never left the trade
Michael Ossorio asked when the previous Qualifier left.
Mr. Drouin responded at the end of 2012 without any notice. He was unaware the
Qualifier had left until he did not show up at a jobsite. He stated he has since been
6
February 20,2013
processing all contracts through the company of a friend until his licenses are
reinstated and he becomes the Qualifier for his company.
Vice Chairman White asked how the Applicant remains current concerning
changes to the Code.
Roger Drouin stated his accountants send monthly Code updates to him as well as
alerts him to changes in the tax law. The accountants review his books on a monthly
basis. He receives notifications of Building Code changes online. He also obtains
information from other contractors and from the County's Inspectors in the field.
In response to a question from Terry Jerulle, Mr. Drouin reiterated his business is
"on hold" and the concrete division(contracts, checks, etc.) is being run through a
company owned by a friend who is also a licensed contractor. He has been doing
this since he received a Citation approximately three weeks ago.
When asked why he hadn't taken the tests since he was cited, Mr. Drouin stated
he is a single parent. He has not had the time to drive to Ocala while supervising a
crew of 15 employees. He is responsible for managing them through the other
company. He is in the field approximately ten hours per day.
Michael Ossorio confirmed it takes two days to complete the testing. He confirmed
the Applicant should take the Business Procedures test and two trades tests; i.e.,
Masonry and Concrete.
Attorney Morey referenced the Collier County Code of Ordinance:
Section 22-191 —Renewal of Certificate of Competency.
(i) Any individual who fails to renew his/her Certificate of Competency
prior to December 31 of the year following its expiration shall thereby
automatically have a Certificate of Competency that is null and void.
To acquire a valid certificate from the County,the individual must pay
the then-applicable full application fee in accordance with the Schedule
of Fees and charges adopted by Resolution pursuant to Subsection 22-
182(a)(4) herein, and must submit an entire new application.
If, as of the date of receipt by the County of said new application, three
years have passed since the date of his/her most recent examination that
the individual passed to acquire the former certificate, that individual
must pass all then applicable testing requirements.
If the request is to reactivate a dormant Certificate, the re-testing
requirement can be waived by staff if the applicant proves that he/she
has been active in the trade in another jurisdiction, or has been active as
an inspector or investigator in the trade, or for other valid reason that
would render such re-testing superfluous.
7
February 20, 2013
Mr. Morey continued if an Applicant demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that
he/she had ongoing experience in a trade,the Certificate could be reinstated. He
stated the current application before the Board is a"new" and the Board may
question any portion of the document.
Vice Chairman White asked if Staff had reviewed the credit report and if there
were any issues.
Michael Ossorio responded nothing was listed on the Business credit report. He
did have a question concerning the Applicant's personal credit report and referenced
the Civil Judgment by the Rinker Materials Corporation. He suggested a letter of
explanation should have accompanied the application.
He further explained, once an application has been forwarded to the Board for
review,the Board may examine the credit report to ensure the company pays its
obligations,verify the testing requirements, and confirm the applicant's experience
in the trade(s).
His concern: the judgment appeared to be business-related but was listed on the
Applicant's personal credit report.
Thomas Lykos noted if a business has been in existence for a minimum of one year,
the personal credit may not become an issue. He requested clarification from the
Board's attorney.
Attorney Morey referenced the Collier County Code of Ordinances:
Section 22-182—Applications —General
(c) Business organizations.
(9) A credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency [is
required] if the business organization has been in existence for
more than one year.
If the business organization has been in existence for less than
one year, a credit report on every business organization in which
the applicant/qualifier was an agent is required. If neither of the
above is applicable, a personal credit report on the applicant/qualifier
is required.
Mr. Morey confirmed the business had been in existence for more than one year
but the business credit report did not contain a credit rating. Therefore, the personal
credit can be considered.
Roger Drouin stated he has been in business for years and the credit report
contained nothing because he did not have any bad credit. He stated the business
earns approximately $100,000 per month and he pays the bills.
He stated the balance on the judgment was $24,000. He was the personal guarantor
on his company. He and several other vendors on a particular job were "burned"
and filed liens. He stated he paid the balance to Rinker but the amount shown on
8
February 20,2013
the credit report reflects what is owned in interest payments and attorneys' fees.
He further stated he is liquid—he owns everything, including the trucks for the
business. He acknowledged the small medical bill in the amount of$275 will be
paid.
Michael Ossorio asked Mr. Drouin to describe the types of job his company does
Roger Drouin stated he works on high-end and custom homes (5 to 15,000 square
feet) with custom builders.
Michael Ossorio stated the testing would not be necessary for the Applicant. He
confirmed his only concern regarding the credit report had been satisfied. He stated
the County recommended approval.
Thomas Lykos objected to the County's recommendation stating the Applicant
could have found some way to satisfy the requirement since he has not held a
license for the past two to three years. The updates the Applicant obtained
concerning revision to the Code were "third party." He noted a new Code went
into effect in March, 2012.
He recommended issuing a license contingent upon the Applicant completing
testing within one year. He reminded the Board the Applicant was not the Qualifier
of his company.
Mr. Drouin stated he would comply especially if he was granted one year to study
and take the tests.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve granting a probationary Certificate of
Competency to the Applicant provided proof is submitted within 12 months that
the Applicant had taken and passed the Business Procedures test and the trade
tests for Masonry and Concrete. If the Applicant fails to do so, his license will
be suspended until he appears before the Board. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Discussion:
• Kyle Lantz asked if the Applicant took and passed the tests the following
day, would he still be on probation.
Thomas Lykos stated the probation would end with the successful
completion of the tests.
• Kyle Lantz asked if the Applicant did not pass the three tests within the time
frame allotted, was his license automatically suspended.
Thomas Lykos explained if the tests were not passed as ordered, the license
would be suspended and the Applicant could not perform any work until he
appeared before the Board.
Mr. Lykos asked if Roger Drouin if he understood the terms and conditions and the
response was, "Yes."
Vice Chairman White called for a vote. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
9
February 20,2013
.
(The proceedings were paused briefly while Mr. Heidenreich conferred with Mr. Ossorio.)
B. Douglas J. Heidenreich—Waiver of Examination (Re-opened)
Michael Ossorio informed the Board the County would withdraw the Application
for a Waiver of Examination since Mr. Heidenreich had submitted proof of his
previous testing. He stated the license would be issued administratively.
D. MMC of Marco Island, LLC d/b/a Marco Marine Construction—Review of
Application Question #3 (on Page 2) (Eric Karlson)
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• Eric Karlson was the Qualifer of "MMC of Marco Island, LLC d/b/a Marco
Marine Construction"but his license lapsed and became "null and void"
• Mr. Karlson chose to take the Business Procedure exam and the Marine
Contractor test which he passed
• He completed and submitted a full application
• Staff had questions concerning the application and forwarded it to the
Board for a full review
• "New"application criteria applies
• Mr. Karlson had been the Qualifier for"Imperial Marine Construction;"
there were no complaints on file for that company
• The status of Mr. Karlson's current Certificate with the County is null
and void.
Mr. Ossorio noted there was a question on the application concerning the LLC's
ability to pay its bills.
He stated a representative of the company was present along with three public
speakers.
Eric Neil Karlson stated he applied to reinstate his license and qualify Marco
Marine Construction.
Donald Ricci,Jr., stated he was the managing member of MMC of Marco Island,
LLC, d/b/a Marco Marine Construction. He further stated he owned 55% of the
Limited Liability Company and confirmed that he was the CFO.
Mr. Ricci also stated he held a State CGC ("Certified General Contractor") license
at one time, but it was null and void. He will apply to reinstate it.
Robert Meister stated,for the record,that he has known the Ricci family for the
past 25 to 30 years.
He further stated he was not currently doing business with Mr. Ricci nor had he
conducted business with Mr. Ricci's company since becoming a member of the
Board. He noted he does very little, if any, marine dock building.
Attorney Morey asked Mr. Meister if any action taken by the Board would result
in a financial benefit for him or anyone associated with him.
Mr. Meister responded, "No."
10
February 20, 2013
Thomas Lykos directed a question to Robert Meister:
Q. "Will your relationship with the Ricci family impact your ability to remain
impartial?
A. "No. The relationship has been primarily between my parents and Mr. and Mrs.
Ricci (Sr.). I haven't seen any of the Ricci family for 5 to 10 years."
Attorney Morey stated it would not be necessary for Mr. Meister to abstain from
discussion or voting.
Donald Ricci stated he was before the Board because his license has lapsed and he
had applied for reinstatement in order to qualify Marco Marine.
Vice Chairman White referred to Question 3 on Page 2 of the application:
#3. List all debts you or any company(s) associated with you
refused to pay and the reasons for the refusal to pay.
Answer: None—will bring current debt records to meeting."
Donald Ricci stated he had a P/L statement.
Michael Ossorio stated the County did not object to Mr. Karlson distributing copies
of the document. He requested to mark the document as Respondent's Exhibit"A."
(Scrivener's Note: the P/L "Statement" consisted of two amounts hand-written on
company letterhead:
• Accounts Payable - $135,000
• Accounts Receivable - $186,000
The document was not dated nor signed.) [attached]
Donald Ricci distributed copies of the document to the Board and stated it listed the
current payables and receivables. He stated since the business is "on hold,"he has
not be able to enter into any contracts or complete any contracts.
• A contract with"BCB Homes"was abandoned due to timing. He could not
perform the work and the LLC lost a great deal of money.
• A contact in the Isles of Capri involving a new dock was abandoned and he
received only $28,000. The LLC lost $27,000.
Mr. Ricci provided 14 letters of reference and noted the first four individuals chose
to wait for him to complete their projects. He stated the reason why he was before
the Board was to rectify the issue in order to satisfy his customer and his suppliers,
and to continue to do business. He further stated he was "willing to do whatever it
takes and answer any questions you have."
Vice Chairman White indicated the Board's preference was to receive all material
in the packet sent to the members in advance of the meeting. He asked why the
information was not made available previously.
11
February 20,2013
Donald Ricci stated obtaining letters of reference took more time that he expected
and the statement was prepared at the last minute. He claimed the previous Qualifier
did not keep accurate records. He reviewed the records to provide as much detail as
possible.
Terry Jerulle noted the question on the application required a"list all the debts you
or any company(s) associated with you refused to pay"—what did he bring to
answer the question.
Eric Karlson stated he did not refuse to pay any debts.
Mr. Jerulle stated the only document produced was a piece of Marco Marine
letterhead containing hand-written notations for"Accounts Payable" and"Accounts
Receivable"which was not signed. It did not address Question#3.
He asked who completed the application.
Eric Karlson confirmed he had completed the document and stated there was some
confusion when he initially completed the application regarding the "refusal to pay"
debts. He stated Mr. Ossorio told him to provide an updated list of all of Marco
Marine's debts to provide to the Board. The paperwork was delayed while the
information was obtained. He claimed Mr. Ricci was not refusing to pay any debts—
the document showed that debts exist.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Karlson if his testimony was that he did not have any debts
and was not refusing to pay any debts.
Eric Karlson: "That's correct."
Terry Jerulle: "To the best of your knowledge, Marco Marine does not have any
debts?
Eric Karlson: "That they are refusing to pay, no."
Vice Chairman White confirmed the only documentation provided beyond the
hand-written statement were letters of recommendation but no debt records.
Terry Jerulle asked for assistance from the Board's Attorney concerning how
Question#3 should have been answered.
Attorney Morey replied the difference, for discussion purposes, was between
"refusal"and "inability"to pay. If an individual has the ability to pay but does not
for whatever reasons, i.e., contesting/challenging the debt or in the middle of some
type of controversy, it is "refusal to pay." If an individual is unable to pay, the issue
was why (the cause) and how the debt would be paid.
Thomas Lykos asked if James Schuck who was listed as the other managing
member on the application held 45% of the company and the response was, "Yes."
He asked if either Mr. Ricci, Jr. or Mr. Schuck had appeared before the Board for
any disciplinary actions.
Michael Ossorio confirmed James Schuck was the previous Qualifier for MMC of
Marco Island, LLC and that his license had been suspended for an indefinite period
of time.
He explained the first two pages of the application were designed to obtain
information about the company. Mr. Ricci was responsible to complete the first
12
.
February 20,2013
two pages since he owns 55%of the LLC. His signature was notarized.
Pages 3 and 4 of the document were completed by the Qualifier, i.e.,
Eric Karlson.
Thomas Lykos reiterated that James Schuck had been before the Board on more
than one occasion and, most recently, the Board suspended his license. He cited
Florida Statutes, Section 489.119, as follows:
Business organizations;qualifying agents.
3. (c) The Board may deny an application for registration or certification
to qualify a business organization if the applicant, or any person
listed in paragraph (a), has been involved in past disciplinary actions
or on any grounds for which an individual registration or
certification may be denied.
He stated based on Marco Marine Construction's history with the Board, and on
the Statute, he recommended denial of the application. Another reason was that
Mr. Schuck still retained 45% ownership in Marco Marine.
Michael Ossorio clarified the"Board" referred to in Florida Statutes was the State
of Florida's Construction Industry Licensing Board("CILB"). A Marine Contractor
license is not usually registered with the State since it is a local, County license.
If Mr. Ricci applies again for his CGC ("Certified General Contractor") license,
there may be some issues due to Mr. Schuck's ownership in the company.
Attorney Morey explained the interplay between the State Statutes, local County
Ordinances and the Municipal Code. He noted the application itself was missing a
few words that were contained in the Municipal Code.
Donald Ricci stated he knew James Schuck received a letter from Mr. Ossorio
notifying him of a Board hearing but he resigned as Qualifer for MMC of Marco
Island, LLC shortly after receiving the letter. Since the LLC has been unable to
conduct business, no one has been paid but James Schuck began cashing checks
without prior notification to the company.
He continued, stating he did not know if Mr. Schuck appeared before the Board,
and noted James Schuck was currently employed by Collier Dock and Seawall.
He further stated giving ownership in Marco Marine to Mr. Schuck was the "biggest
mistake"he has made.
Terry Jerulle asked if Marco Marine contained a clause in its By-Laws that would
prevent Mr. Schuck from working for a direct competitor.
Donald Ricci was not sure if the company's contract with Mr. Schuck contained a
non-compete clause. He intends to hire an attorney to deal with that issue.
Vice Chairman White asked if the LLC's documents allowed the managing
member to retain absolute control of the LLC.
Donald Ricci replied that he was able to sign checks and make decisions, as was
James Schuck. He stated Mr. Schuck did not understand the business.
13
February 20,2013
Donald Ricci further stated that after the first Citation was issued, he returned to
Marco Marine to "get the company back on track." When asked if James Schuck
has the ability to sign checks, Mr. Ricci replied that he has been removed as an
authorized signer.
Mr. Morey cited Collier County's Code of Ordinances:
Section 22-182: Applications—General
(c) Business organizations
(10) A complete list of all outstanding debts related to the business
organization's contracting business which the business
organization has not paid or refuses to pay, and a statement
of the reasons for non-payment;
Vice Chairman White asked Mr. Ricci to explain what was included under the
categories of"Accounts Payable" and "Accounts Receivable"by identifying
individuals and amounts, as well as identifying whether any of the individuals
who provided letters of recommendation were owed money by Marco Marine.
Thomas Lykos pointed out the document was an un-audited"statement"and
the dollar amounts noted were not verified. He suggested rejecting the application
as "incomplete" since the credit information had not been supplied rather than
denying the application in total. He stated Mr. Ricci failed to complete the
application by supplying full disclosure and supporting documentation as well as
an updated credit report.
He noted a public record cited a lien–possibly by the IRS–without any follow-up
documentation.
He continued, at best, the application could be considered simply"incomplete,"
But, at worst, there was enough information for the Board to deny it outright.
Terry Jerulle agreed, stating it was a waste of time for the Board to review an
incomplete application.
Vice Chairman White noted while some of the letters of recommendation may
have been signed by individuals to protect their self-interest,the letters also
indicated there were individuals who wanted the business to be licensed again.
There may be speakers as well as members of the Board who feel the business
should not be licensed. He stated it was the Board's responsibility to balance
everything. There are individuals who want the opportunity for their work to be
completed.
He concluded Mr. Ricci has the right to state for the record who the company owes
and the amount of the debt.
Discussion:
• The information provided was not audited.
14
February 20,2013
Discussion:
• There is no current requirement to provide a statement from a CPA.
• The Board may wish to change the requirement for future applications.
• The application refers to "debts"and"refusal to pay."
• Mr. Ricci's sworn testimony: There was no refusal to pay.
• Issue: Does the company have the capacity to pay the outstanding debts.
Terry Jerulle noted that Mr. Ricci stated, on the application, he would provide
information. But the information was incomplete.
Vice Chairman White stated in order to allow the individuals who were present
to speak,the Board could not consider a motion on the application under after they
were able to present their points of view.
Mr. Jerulle stated he did not want to discontinue the hearing; he acknowledged
the answer to Question#3 was not complete and suggested moving forward rather
than spending more time on this particular point.
Mr. Ricci provided the following information:
• Golden Boat Lifts: $32,000
• Shoreline Lumber: $64.000 (He stated both entities were willing to wait
until the business was operational.)
• Preferred Material: $12,000 (original balance was $15,000)
• Construction Materials— Steel: $9,000 (original balance was $12,000)
• Industrial Marine Hardware: $6,000 (provided a letter of recommendation)
Mr. Ricci noted there are also some smaller bills—"various small stuff."
He verified the"Accounts Receivable"referred to work in progress.
Mr. Lycos noted the statement provided was not a true completed and invoiced
receivable. It is an asset-work in place, but it is not a"receivable."
He asked Mr. Ricci why he needed audited receivable. There is a difference
between a true receivable and an"asset"which is the value of the work in place.
Vice Chairman White pointed out the Code of Ordinances refers to "debts."
He noted the Board has not previously imposed a requirement for audited
financials or balance sheets.
Mr. Lycos noted"Accounts Payable"is typically a short-term or current debt.
He stated Marco Marine may have outstanding loans; it did not provide a
balance sheet to confirm the true debt of the company. "Accounts Payable"
is only one of several debts included on a balance sheet.
Mr. White reiterated the County has not instructed the Board to require audited
financials for consideration. He stated if an Applicant could not provide a good
answer concerning the company's debt load, the lack of information would be
weighed accordingly.
15
February 20,2013
Mr. Lykos maintained his position that the application was incomplete and did not
warrant further consideration by the Board.
Donald Ricci stated he worked with a consultant to complete the form. The answer
was based on"refusal to pay"—the consultant suggested"none"was the correct
answer. He stated he is making installment payments on a back hoe.
Donald Ricci reiterated he was not trying to hide from any debts but can only pay
so much at a time. He noted only one of the letters of recommendation was from an
individual whose work is pending. The contract was for$20K; the work is 60%
completed.
Terry Jerulle asked if Marco Marine was active and performing any work and the
response was, "No."
He asked if Marco Marine was moving their barges.
Mr. Ricci replied that"Dock Savers"was employing some of his crew and using his
equipment.
Discussion ensued concerning the working relationship between Marco Marine and
Dock Savers.
• Marco Marine still maintains insurance on its barges
• Marco Marine's equipment is owned outright
• Marco Marine gave contracts to Dock Savers to re-negotiate with customers
to complete the work begun by Marco Marine
• Dock Savers has hired the crew from Marco Marine on an interim basis
• Dock Savers also maintains liability insurance on the equipment borrowed
from Marco Marine
• There was no financial reimbursement to Marco Marine by Dock Savers for
use of the equipment
• Mr. Ricci understood he is allowed to repair and maintain the equipment
Terry Jerulle asked if the application contained a"Resolution of Authorization."
Attorney Morey noted the Affidavit on Page 4 which affirmed that Eric Karlson
was qualified to act on behalf of the business organization in all matters connected
with its contracting business and to supervise construction. He stated it was the
same language used in the Statute and the application required the Affidavit.
Kyle Lantz asked Eric Karlson to describe his relationship to MMC of Marco
Island, LLC.
Eric Karlson replied that he has known Don Ricci, Sr., for thirty years and
Marco Marine since he entered the construction business over twenty-five years
ago. He stated he let his license lapse while he was working for Thomas Marine
Construction. He regarded his relationship with Marco Marine as an opportunity
to return to the business that he enjoys. He admitted it was too difficult start a new
business from a financial standpoint.
Q. "This is a new relationship?"
A. "Yes, it is. I know them—I know the employees who worked there—but
I've never been in a relationship with them. No."
16
February 20, 2013
Mr. Karlson stated he understood what has to be done as a Qualifer for the
company including weekly meetings with accountants. He further stated he was
confident he could work together with Don Ricci, Jr. and discuss whatever issues
arose at the time. He clarified he will meet, on a bi-monthly basis, with the
accountant for Marco Marine to review the business' books.
Mr. Lantz asked if there had been meetings previously.
Eric Karlson stated there had not. He stated it was difficult to "get into"the
business until he knew whether or not he would be the Qualifier for the company.
Donald Ricci admitted a number of managerial issues were not addressed by the
previous Qualifier. He stated his intention was to provide audited statements which
is required to obtain municipal work. He confirmed the policy was to hold bi-
weekly construction meetings as well as bi-monthly meetings with the accountant.
He stated the company previously lacked structure.
Terry Jerulle inquired about Eric Karlson's ownership in the company.
Eric Karlson stated he had no ownership.
Mr.Jerulle clarified that Mr. Karlson had not yet met with the company's
accountant even though he wished to form a business relationship with the company
and serve as its Qualifier.
He asked if Mr. Karlson had read the Codes to understand his responsibilities as a
Qualifying Agent.
Mr. Karlson stated he has reviewed the Codes but not committed all to memory.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Karlson if he had the ability to hire and/or fire employees
and how would he demonstrate that ability.
Eric Karlson replied he would meet with"DJ" and would have the authority on
the job site.
Mr. Jerulle asked if there was any supporting documentation to verify his authority
and the response was, "No, there isn't."
Eric Karlson stated he knew he had the ability to write checks but the document
did not state what type of checks he was allowed to write, i.e., to purchase supplies
or pay a subcontractor.
Terry Jerulle stated the information was required under the Code and noted the
County's application form is incomplete on its face.
Q. "Are you aware of the number of times this Board has fined Marco Marine?"
A. "I understand that they have been fined several times."
Q. "Can you demonstrate how you will prevent that from happening in the
future?"
A. "Other than just developing a good business plan and being able keep our
meetings and ..."
Terry Jerulle cautioned Eric Karlson: "I really don't think you know what you
are getting into. Everything seems to come back to a meeting. You will be meeting
with your employer who owns a majority of the company. I don't see anything
that demonstrates to the Board,per the Code,that you have any authority at all."
He further noted financial repercussions were not demonstrated.
17
February 20,2013
Kyle Lantz requested a detailed description of their proposed business plan.
Eric Karlson stated sales and bidding would be Don's responsibility,while he
would be responsible for construction and permitting. In the final stages of the
permitting process, when money is collected, they would meet with the accountant
to review the financials, i.e., how much was spent versus how much was made.
Kyle Lantz asked who would write the checks.
Eric Karlson stated Don Ricci would be primarily responsible for writing checks
but the entries would be reviewed by the accountant.
Thomas Lykos stated the information provided indicated Mr. Ricci should be
registered with the State of Florida as the financial responsible officer for the
Company to remove Mr. Karlson from that responsibility. If not, Mr. Karlson
should write the checks to ensure the bills are paid.
He explained if Mr. Karlson relinquishes the responsibility to Donald. Ricci, he
should insist that Mr. Ricci is registered with the State for his own protection.
If not, Eric Karlson will remain responsible.
Attorney Morey stated it would be in a Qualifier's best interest to have the authority
to write checks.
Donald Ricci confirmed Eric Karlson will be able to write checks for the company.
Michael Ossorio stated he gave Mr. Karlson a booklet that outlined the
responsibilities of a Primary Qualifier and suggested that he not just read,but study
the document. He explained the Board has mandated, even though an individual
may not have a financial interest in a company, the Primary Qualifier must
demonstrate financial responsibility by writing checks on a day-to-day basis.
Donald Ricci stated it would be a team effort between Eric Karlson and himself,
along with the accountant.
Mr. Lykos noted there application did not contain a credit report that provided the
credit history of the company. He stated the Merit Credit Report indicated"no
information was found" after checking several sources including trade payment
data, banking information, and public records.
Donald Ricci stated since the company was changed to an LLC, bills have been
paid. The only outstanding loan was for the back hoe.
Thomas Lykos stated Marco Marine has a history of moving from one problem to
another problem to another. The company has a history of mismanagement.
Donald Ricci stated he has been fixing the problems and wants to move forward
even if it is on a probationary basis. He stated previously he had not been in full
ownership but that has changed and he has taken on the responsibilities to pay the
company's debts.
18
February 20, 2013
Public Speakers:
(1) E. Sharon Headley stated she is Mr. Ricci's mother and was the primary owner
of the company. She provided a history of the company and its missteps.
• In 2008, Mr. Ricci was asked to come back into the company to straighten
things out—he has paid off back debts.
• She admitted full responsibility for the current situation because she"put the
wrong people in the wrong place."
• She concluded her son has worked hard to put the company back together the
way it should have been in the first place.
(2) John Hooley,Duane Thomas Marine Construction.
• Marco Marine is a competitor.
• Marco Marine submitted bids when they were not insured, was cited by the
Board and placed on probation from 12/2007 through 12/2008.
• In 2009, Marco Marine was cited for over-charging clients for permit fees.
• The company's insurance coverage lapsed from August through October,
2012. Without the expense of paying insurance premiums, Marco Marine
was able to under-cut its competition by underbidding jobs.
(3) Toni Jessen
• The company had been a good company years ago.
• The company refuses to follow rules, i.e., is still advertising even though
it is not licensed and not allowed to conduct business.
• Marco Marine has been cited within the last 45 days for working without a
permit.
• She stated enough evidence has been presented to convince the Board that
the company should not be allowed to go back into business.
• She strongly advised the Board to "watch them like a hawk."
• She noted: Imperial Marine Construction does not have an active license
Terry Jerulle requested to review the newspaper in which an advertisement
appeared for Marco Marine.
Ms. Jessen replied the newspaper, "The Coastal Breeze," was dated February 8
through February 21, 2013.
(The document was reviewed by the Board members.)
Response from Donald Ricci:
• He stated he cancelled the advertising but the publishers decided to continue
"to help him out." He considered it to be a donation.
• Ms. Jessen was paid and her attorneys' fees were paid. He stated he would
have fought the case and insisted on a full gag order.
• He admitted Dwayne Thomas did sue him. The cost to have fought the law
suit would have been significantly higher than the $75,000 he paid to settle it.
• He noted Dwayne Thomas is not certified by the State of Florida.
19
February 20,2013
He reiterated his goal was to get back the company back on track to business and
would do whatever it took even if it meant being on probation.
Jon Walker: "Do you dispute Mr. Thomas' representative who stated that your
company was operating without insurance on the occasions he mentioned?
A. "On the first occasion, it did happen. That's when I came back. It took me four
months to fix it. It was a nightmare. It's very difficult to pay the insurance.
I do it legally. I can prove it. I just don't have the means and the money to sue
people."
Mr. Ricci asked the Board to give him an unbiased opinion and to let him move
forward.
Vice Chairman White requested that Mr. Ricci provide assurance to the Board
concerning the number of issues that had been discussed.
Mr. Ricci replied:
• Mr. Karlson would be the Primary Qualifier
• He (Ricci)would bid on jobs
• Karlson would pull permits and oversee work
• There would be at least 2 to 3 company meetings per week
• Karlson would be authorized to write checks and would coordinate with
Ricci and the accountant
• Ricci will be in the field also
• He has seven primary employees who are willing to return even though it
means accepting a pay cut
He stated he "got into a fight"with his insurance company concerning an audit; he
disputed the bill. It took two months to become re-insured.
Vice Chairman White asked what specific types of documents could be provided to
the Board concerning Marco Marine's financials.
A. "I could provide a monthly report showing the accounts payable and receivable,
making sure that I do the reports for the accountant and making sure that
everything is accurate."
Michael Ossorio stated the County would not give a recommendation to the Board.
He continued he reviews each application with every applicant prior to submission.
An application is referred to the Board only if incomplete or if Staff has questions
concerning the information. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide a complete
application to the Licensing Board. He stated he advised the Applicants to consult
with a professional to review the application and to provide documentation. He
further stated he was very disappointed with the lack of detail of the application
before the Board.
Comments from the Board:
• Question 3 required a list of debts but none were listed. Yet there was a note
at"current debt records" would be brought. None were presented.
20
February 20, 2013
• I do not believe Eric Karlson really understands his duties and responsibility
as Primary Qualifier.
• It has not been sufficiently demonstrated exactly what Mr. Karlson's duties
and responsibilities will be.
• It is more of the same unorganized—"Trust me, I'm going to make it right"—
but he (Ricci) will be back before the Board again.
• A professional should help the Applicants complete the application properly
and the necessary documentation should be provided.
• Mr. Karlson should provide a written agreement detailing his job description
and confirming he has the authority to write checks.
• Things should have been"figured out" already—cannot move forward until
all issues are settled.
• They have put the cart before the horse.
Terry Jerulle asked if it was against the regulations for a company to advertise if it
was inactive.
Michael Ossorio: "That is correct."
Thomas Lykos noted the advertisement did not contain the license number, as
required.
Michael Ossorio reminded the Board Mr. Ricci testified he had nothing to do with
the advertising. He stated if an investigation is warranted, one issue will be to
determine whether or not he contracted or outsourced his company to bid, as well
as to verify whether or not he authorized any advertisement.
Kyle Lantz stated Donald Ricci did not get his business affairs in order before
submitting the application.
Jon Walker agreed the information provided was not sufficient to approve the
application.
Terry Jerulle moved to deny approving the application. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Motion carried, S— "Yes"/1 — "No." Vice Chairman White was opposed.
Closing Comment— Thomas Lykos:
• He received an anonymous fax that asked the Board to deny the Applicant
the right to appear before the Board.
• Everyone has a right to appear before the Board, under the current laws of
the County and the State, and to file an application or present an Appeal, if
applicable.
• The Board cannot deny an Applicant the opportunity for a Hearing or to
request an Appeal.
• The Board's responsibility is to review the application; consider the
company's history, and make a decision based upon the information
submitted with the application or the Appeal.
21
February 20, 2013
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Kyle Lantz moved to approve authorizing the Vice Chairman to sign the Orders of
the Board. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
B. Darleen Rowe—Review Credit Report(6-month)
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• Ms. Rowe was placed on probation six months earlier due to credit issues
• She has provided a current credit report as well as her past credit report
• No complaints have been filed against the company, "Dazzling Floors, Inc."
• The County recommends terminating the probation
Darlene Rowe:
• Since the credit report that was provided to the Board,three items were
removed
o Some items were listed in error
o Other items were paid
Thomas Lykos noted current report has improved and past due amounts were
reduced but the outstanding debt had increased.
Ms. Rowe explained she financed a vehicle for work.
Thomas Lykos stated the original Order of the Board imposed a 12-month
probationary period. While there has been progress, it was not substantial enough
to terminate probation earlier than initially ordered. He recommended adhering to
the original Order and reviewing her progress in six months.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve accepting the current credit reports and to
adhere to the original probationary period. The applicant is ordered to appear
before the Board in six months to present a current, updated credit report.
Second by Vice Chairman White. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
BREAK: 12:00 Noon
RESUMED: 12:07 PM
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case#2013-01: BCC vs. Brenton L. Mongan, d/b/a "Naples Property Pros"
Respondent, Brenton L. Mongan,was not present and was not represented by
Counsel.
Thomas Lykos stated, in the interests of full disclosure to the Board,that he knows
Brent Mongan through the Collier Building Industry Association("CBIA"), but
has never conducted business with Mr. Mongan's company. He further stated his
objectivity will not be affected.
22
February 20,2013
Michael Ossorio noted the case before the Board had been continued several times
and the Respondent had been served twice. He stated Mr. Mongan called the
Licensing Board Office three weeks earlier to request another Continuation which
he was informed would not be granted.
Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated:
• He spoke with Mr. Mongan on February 19, 2013, and advised him
the hearing would take place
• Mr. Ossorio would not grant another extension
• He was advised that he or a representative was required to appear at
the Hearing to request a Continuance from the Board
• Mr. Mongan replied that"someone"would attend
Vice Chairman White outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be
conducted:
• Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier
County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII,
"Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489.
• The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature.
• Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply.
• Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the
proceedings.
• Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded.
• All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent
persons shall be admissible,whether or not such evidence would be admissible
in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida.
• Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining
any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding,
unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in
Court.
• The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules
are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions.
• Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness
before the Board.
• Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine
witnesses, to introduce Exhibits,to cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any
witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut
any evidence presented against the party.
• The Chairperson or, in his/her absence,the Vice Chair, shall have all powers
necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and
impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum.
• The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening
Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County
intends to prove the charges.
23
February 20,2013
• The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in
general terms, defenses to the charges.
• The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting
evidence.
• The Respondent may cross-examine the witnesses.
• After the County has closed its Case in Chief the Respondent may present
his/her defense as described previously, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, to
introduce Exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses,to impeach any witness
regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut
any evidence presented against the party.
• After the Respondent has presented his/her case,the County will present a
rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation.
• When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing
Statement.
• The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing
Statement.
• The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations.
• Prior to beginning deliberations,the Board's Attorney will give a"charge"
to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters
on which the decision will be based.
• During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and
clarification from the parties.
• The Board will decide two different issues:
o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the
Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter.
o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions
to be imposed.
• The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the
factors to be considered.
• The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote.
• After the matters are decided,the Chair/Vice Chair will read a Summary of
the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the
Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order.
• The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and
procedures.
Mr. Ganguli requested to have the information packet placed into evidence.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve entering Case No. 2013-01, Collier County
Board of County Commissioners vs. Brenton L. Mongan, d/b/a "Naples
Property Pros,"License Number CBC 1250145/CC#34641, consisting of the
Administrative Complaint and Exhibits into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
Vice Chairman White entered the information packet into evidence as County's
Exhibit "A."
24
February 20,2013
•
Mr. Ganguli noted the Notice of Hearing (letter) dated January 10, 2013, attached
to the information packet was to be substituted for E-6. The letter contained in the
packet referred to the prior hearing that was continued.
Rob Ganguli presented the County's Opening Statement:
• The Respondent is Brenton L. Mongan, d/b/a"Naples Property Pros"
• The Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida as a Certified Building
Contractor, License No. CBC-12505145
• The Respondent is also licensed by Collier County: CC #34641
Case in Chief
In October,2011, a complaint was made by a former employee of Certified
Building Contractor,Naples Property Pros (State License No: CBC1250145),
who stated an interior remodel had been performed without a obtaining building
permit at condominium jobsite on Marco Island. The address was 690 Club Marco
Circle, Building 19, Unit #201. The City of Marco Island Building Services
verified that a permit application did not exist in their database for this location.
Brenton L. Mongan, the Qualifier of Naples Property Pros, was contacted.
Mr. Mongan confirmed he had contracted with the property owners, Steve
and Maria Mazza, to remodel their kitchen and bathroom at the Condominium.
Thomas Lykos asked, at the time the complaint was received, if the work was in
progress or completed.
Mr. Ganguli replied the work had been completed.
Mr. Mongan was advised of the permitting requirement for this type of work
and stated he intended to abate the violation. Mr. Mongan further stated he would
obtain the services of an engineering firm to submit a "Permit by Affidavit" for
the completed project.
In November, 2011, Mr. Mongan advised he had acquired an Engineer's affidavit
to submit to the City of Marco Island to obtain the required after-the-fact
permitting for the jobsite.
During periodic checks on the status of the permit application, Mr. Mongan
advised of a long-running disagreement between himself and the City of Marco
Island Building Services regarding the Department's policy concerning accepting
"Permits by Affidavit."
In May, 2012, a meeting was arranged between Lisa Lee Loewer, Marco Island
Permitting Supervisor, Mr. Mongan and myself. At the meeting Ms. Loewer
provided explicit instructions concerning the corrections required to facilitate the
issuance of a permit. The directives outlined during the meeting were reiterated
in a formal letter sent to Mr. Mongan by Robert Mahar, Marco Island Building
Official.
25
February 20,2013
r1 �
Mr. Mongan has advised that he is still disputing Marco Island's permitting
policies.
It was suggested to Mr. Mongan an alternative would be for him to appear before
the Board of Adjustments and Appeals for a hearing.
• June, 2012: Mr. Mongan advised he had requested a hearing before the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals with the City of Marco Island Building
Services and was awaiting a response.
• August, 2012: Mr. Mongan sent an email outlining certain medical issues
and stating he would be willing to face legal action to resolve the matter
rather than the requested BOAA hearing.
• December, 2012: Mr. Mongan was released from hospital. A final meeting
was held with Mr. Mongan to discuss his intentions. He advised he was no
longer financially solvent enough to request a BOAA hearing or to re-hire an
Engineer to amend the "Permit by Affidavit" application.
• Mr. Mongan was advised he that would be scheduled to appear before the
Contractors' Licensing Board.
o Violation: Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, Section
22-201.1(2): "willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or
laws of the State, City, or Collier County. "
Michael Ossorio referred the Board to Mr. Mahar's letter(E-21). He stated the
County had no additional evidence to present and the County's Case in Chief was
concluded.
Terry Jerulle stated Mr. Mongan objected to providing subcontractor information.
Rob Ganguli replied that was the discrepancy pointed out by Marco Island.
Terry Jerulle asked even though Mr. Mongan had applied for a"Permit by
Affidavit," Marco Island was still requiring subcontractor information.
Rob Ganguli: "Yes."
Terry Jerulle: "He did not provide it and still has not provided it?"
Rob Ganguli: "That is my understanding."
Mr. Ganguli confirmed Mr. Mongan did not specify why he would not provide the
information as required. He referred to the Respondent's e-mail correspondence,
dated August 9, 2012 (E— 19 & 20).
Vice Chairman White stated the Exhibit could serve as the Respondent's rationale
as to why there should not be a Finding of guilt.
Terry Jerulle questioned the "Permit by Affidavit,"noting it does not permit
unauthorized work, i.e., unlicensed electricians and plumbers cannot perform work.
Michael Ossorio: "That's correct."
Mr. Jerulle clarified A contractor submits a"Permit by Affidavit" after hiring an
outside source to perform an inspection on a jobsite.
26
February 20,2013
v
Mr. Ossorio stated apparently Mr. Mongan's intention was the work had been
completed and an Engineer had signed off on it via Affidavit. Mr. Mongan didn't
feel it was necessary to obtain a"Page 2" signature. There was a simple solution to
the issue. But Mr. Mongan refused to obtain signatures from either a plumber or an
electrician.
Thomas Lycos outlined the permitting application process for the Board. He stated
it was standard practice to list the names and license numbers of the subcontractors
who would be working on the job. Various inspections would be conducted by the
County Inspectors during the course of work and a Certificate of Occupancy would
be issued when the work was completed.
He continued in the case before the Board, a permit was not obtained prior to
beginning work. An"after the fact"permit should have been applied for by Mr.
Mongan. The process remained the same—Inspectors would inspect the finished
work versus the work in progress to ascertain there was compliance with the
Building Codes. A penalty would be assessed for not obtaining a permit initially in
addition to the standard permit fees.
• Mr. Mongan utilized the "Permit by Affidavit"process which allows a
Contractor to hire a licensed Engineer to inspect the work completed by
the various trades and submit his report to the County.
• Mr. Mongan tried to substitute a"Permit by Affidavit" for an after-the-fact
permit.
• Marco Island required Mr. Mongan to produce the subcontractors' names
and credentials to prove they were licensed and qualified to perform the
work.
• Mr. Mongan has refused to provide the requested documentation.
Vice Chairman White noted the Marco Island Building Official's position was to
obtain compliance regarding the application of Florida Building Codes to the
situation. The Respondent refused to provide the information and did not appear to
offer a defense.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Terry
Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board:
• The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and
due process were accorded to the Respondent
• Pursuant to Section 22-203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance,the formal Rules
of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply.
• The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its
deliberation of this matter.
• The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and
cumulative testimony.
27
February 20,2013
• The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied
upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not
the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity.
• Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but
hearsay by itself is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay
would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court.
• The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to
practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must
prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner.
• The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the
"Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in civil cases.
• The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in
the Complaint.
• The only charges the Board may decide upon are the only ones to which the
Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense.
• The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges.
• The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is
effective upon being read,unless the Board orders otherwise.
• The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors'
Licensing Board,the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing
Board ("CILB"),pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative
Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in
support of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve finding the Respondent, Brenton L. Mongan,
guilty of the violation as charged and that the evidence presented demonstrated
he willfully violated the Building Codes. Second by Terry Jerulle.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
Attorney Morey noted Mr. Mongan is a State-certified Contractor and advised the
Board when a State-certified Contractor has been found to be guilty of misconduct,
the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following:
(1) The evidence presented at the Hearing;
(2) The gravity of the violation;
(3) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare;
(4) Any actions taken by the Respondent to correct the violation;
(5) Any previous violations committed by the Respondent, and
(6) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as
to the sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the
violation or the violator.
28
February 20,2013
Options:
(1) Revocation of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
(2) Suspension of the Collier County(or City) Certificate of Competency,
(3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of the Collier County(or City)
Certificate of Competency,
(4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed
two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be
under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board.
(5) Participation in a duly-accredited program of continuing education directly
related to the Contractor's contracting activity.
Michael Ossorio noted for State-certified Contractors, the Board is allowed,
pursuant to Statute 489,to:
• Deny all Building Permits pulling privileged;
• Suspend or revoke all Building Permit pulling privileges;
• Modify or impose restrictions on Building Permit privileges;
• Submit a recommendation to the State of Florida's Department of Professional
Regulations for further action;
• Recover administrative costs only.
Michael Ossorio confirmed the investigative costs totaled $750.00.
Recommendations:
• The Board shall revoke all Building Permit pulling privileges for the City
of Naples, Marco Island and Collier County;
• The Board shall authorize the Contractor Licensing Supervisor to write a
letter to the State of Florida's Construction Industry Licensing Board to
request a full investigation is conducted;
• The Board will access a fine in the amount of$750 to recover the investigative
costs incurred by the County
It was noted the Respondent's State certification expired on December 14, 2012.
Michael Ossorio confirmed Mr. Mongan's registration was not current and he was
allowed to perform work.
Thomas Lycos moved to accept the County's recommendations to revoke the
Respondent's permit pulling privileges, to impose a fine in the amount of$750 to
be paid within 90 days to recover investigative costs incurred by the County, and
to authorize the Contractor Licensing Supervisor to write a letter to the State of
Florida's Construction Industry Licensing Board to request that a full investigation
is conducted. Second by Vice Chairman White.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
Vice Chairman White stated he did not possess any instructions concerning the
Summary of the Order.
29
February 20,2013
He stated:
• There was a finding of guilt with regard to Count I as set forth in the
Administrative Complaint.
• The Sanctions, as outlined previously, were approved by the Board's
unanimous vote.
• The Final Order of the Board will contain other details as required by law.
Vice Chairman White noted the case was closed.
IX. REPORTS:
(None)
X. MEMBER COMMENTS:
(None)
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building"F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL 34112
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Vice Chairman at 11:45 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
ve,41 N Patrick ite, Vice Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Vice Chairman on VO(t,r'e") f ( , 2013,
"as submitted" 1 1 OR "as amended"-V1.
30