Loading...
CLB Minutes 04/17/2013 CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes April 17 , 2013 Aril 17,013 MINUMS y OF TC C(UXRCOUNW(DONRACTORS' LKESNGB j01P oo �G 'iA ��'yl4rs y 4� Q /� 0 © R , iper MEEIING 00 April 17, 2013 o Naples, Florida 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: Chairman: Richard Joslin Vice Chair: Patrick White Members: Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Excuse& Ronald Donino Jon Walker ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Jeff Wright, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Ian Jackson — Licensing Compliance Officer 1 CNia ,ivrt Co eT County COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD AGENDA APRIL 17, 2013 9:00 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: March 20, 2013 V. DISCUSSION: VI. NEW BUSINESS: (A) Joseph Epifanio —Waiver of Examination(s) VII. OLD BUSINESS: (A) Orders of the Board VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Case#2013-06—Alberto L. Diaz— D/B/A A & M Professional Home Services, LLC (B) Case#2013-04 —Allen G. Reeves— D/B/A-A G Reeves, LLC IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS 3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 April 17, 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: Chairman Richard Joslin 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. II. AGENDA — ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Michael Ossorio requested to reverse the order of the cases to be heard under Item VIII, "Public Hearings." III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Vice Chairman Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second in support by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 6 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 20, 2012: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second in support by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 6 - 0. V. DISCUSSION: (None) (Lyle Lantz arrived at 9:05 AM.) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: Regarding cases heard under Section VI and Section VIII, respectively, the individuals who testified were first first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Joseph Epifanio — Waiver of Examination(s) Mr. Eipfanio was not present, Chairman Joslin decided to "table" the Item, to be heard later during the proceeding. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second by Vice Chairman White. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. April 17, 2013 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Case 42013 -04: BCC vs. Allen G. Reeves, d/b /a "A G Reeves, LLC." Chairman Joslin 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. • 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. 3 April 17, 2013 • 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. Vice Chairman Patrick Wliite moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case No. 2013 -04: Board of County Commissioners vs. Allen Gene Reeves, d/b /a "A. G. Reeves, LLC, "License No.: 3444001CPC 1428056. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the information packet into evidence. Vice Chairman White moved to approve entering Case No. 2013 -04: Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs. Allen Gene Reeves, d/b /a "A. G. Reeves, LLC, "License Number 34400 1CPC 1428056, consisting of the Administrative Complaint and Exhibits into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. (tarried unanimously, 7 — 0. • The information packet, consisting of 21 pages, was entered into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Kyle Lantz stated Mr. Reeves lived across the street from him several years ago for a period of approximately five years. Mr. Lantz stated he did not have a relationship with the Respondent and his voting would not be effected. 4 April 17, 2013 Ian Jackson presented the County's Opening Statement: The County was prepared to show, through sworn testimony and documented fact, that Allen Reeves willfully violated Section 105.1 of the 2010 Florida Building Code by contracting with the owners of 37 condominium units at the Nevis and Montego Buildings on Cove Tower Drive to replace their water heaters, none of which had been issued permits at the time of said installations. Said action constitutes a violation of Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, under Section 22- 102.1(2), "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. " The Respondent stated he had not prepared an Opening Statement and admitted to replacing 37 water heaters without first obtaining permits for each. Chairman Joslin noted Mr. Reeves had admitted he was guilty of the charges. Allen Reeves: "Sure — it's a water heater." County's Case in Chief: Ian Jackson stated: • February 11, 2013: The County received information that 37 water heaters may have been installed during 2012 at 445 and 455 Cove Tower Drive without permits. • Obtained a list of units where A. G. Reeves, LLC replaced the water heaters; • Conducted research; • Unable to locate permits issued to replace any of the water heaters. • February 19.2013: Met with Allen G. Reeves. Mr. Reeves acknowledged that lie replaced the equipment in 2012 and understood permits were required. o A Notice of Hearing was issued for the March, 2013 Contractors' Licensing Board. • February 20, 2013: "Convenience" permits were issued for all 37 installations • March 4, 2013: Mr. Reeves requested a Continuance of the Hearing scheduled for March 17th • March 8, 2013: Notice of Hearing was issued — April 17th Hearing Date • March 19, 2013: Inspections were conducted • March 20, 2013: All inspections passed. Mr. Jackson noted the following exhibits: • E 10: Copy of Contract signed by Thomas J. Kirsch (Owner — Unit # 1104) on March 26, 2013 o Contract was signed after the most recent violation was abated • E -20 and E -21: Code Case Details — February 28, 2012 o Installation of a hot water heater in multi - family home without a permit o Case was closed on March 2, 2012 April 17, 2013 Direct Examination of Respondent by Ian Jackson: Q. Mr. Reeves, did the installation of the 37 water heaters take place in July, 2012? A. Somewhere around there, yes. Mr. Jackson noted the Contract (letter) was dated January 31, 2012. The installation did not take place until July, 2012 — there had been ample time for Mr. Reeves to obtain permits before the water heaters were installed. Thomas L. DeGram, Chief Building Official, was called to testify as a Witness on behalf of the County. Direct Examination of Witness by Ian Jackson: Q. Mr. DeGram, what is your position with Collier County? A. I am the Interim Chief Building Official for Collier County. Q. What is your license number as a Building Code administrator? A. It is U -1611. Q. Does the replacement of a water heater in this type of building require that a permit is to be issued? A. Yes, it does. Q. In this case, does the installation of water heaters prior to obtaining permits constitute a violation of the 2010 Florida Building Code, Section 105.1? A. Yes, it does. Q. With the installation of the 37 water heaters in approximately July, 2012, and the after - the -fact permitting of the units in February/March, 2013, is it your opinion that Mr. Reeves violated the applicable Building Codes and the laws of Collier County? A. Yes, it is. Examination of JVitness by Contractors' Licensing Board: Q. Approximately how many permits does Collier County issue each year for water heaters? A. (Richard Noonan, Interim Chief Inspector — Mechanical Plumbing) Collier County issues between 500 —1,000 water heater permits per year. Q. Are there contractors who are installing water heaters properly by obtaining permits first as far as you know? A. Yes, we have multiple contractors who obtain permits before installation. Q. What are the costs to obtain a permit? A. Contractors have two options: an individual permit costs $65.00 plus $4.00 for State filing fees. The total of $69 includes the inspection fee. 6 April 17, 2013 A. The Contractor can come into the office and buy "convenience" permits which are issued in advance in blocks of ten. The total cost is $79.00 each. They may be used as needed by the Contractor — it is more convenient for the Contractor and a bit more expensive. Chief Inspector Noonan explained the process: • Convenience Permits are not effective until the Contractor emails or faxes the paperwork to the County detailing the address of the installation and name of the homeowners. After the information has been logged into the system, the Contractor may call to schedule an inspection for the next day. • Stand Alone Permits: Is a "walk- through" permit ... usually the paperwork is reviewed and the permit issued on the same day Q. How long due the "Convenience" permits remain valid? A. A Contractor has six months from the date of issuance to use the permit. He cited an example: A Contractor purchased a "Convenience" permit on July 25th. On January 25h, he sent the name and address of the homeowner to the County — he would then have an additional six months to install the water heater and request an inspection. He noted the Convenience permits could be extended for an additional fee of $100. Respondent's Case in Chief: Allen Reeves confirmed the cost of the Convenience Permit is $77.26 per block. He stated his company purchases packs of ten and, since January 1, 2013, has purchased 397 permits. He noted permits purchased in 2012 were extended without payment of an additional fee, but the policy was changed in 2013. He further state three of his 2012 permits are presently "on hold" until a decisions is made by the County concerning their status. • He noted there are 107 plumbing contractors in Naples. His office contacted each one during the past month. Approximately 80% stated they are not pulling permits. • He noted the reason why the Board of Directors for the Towers preferred that permits were not pulled was due to the inclusion of the additional expense of hard -wiring the disconnect boxes for the new water heaters which added $200 to $300 to the cost of the water heaters. He protested the past violation stating he contacted Jamie French for a determination concerning whether or not a permit was necessary since the dwelling was a duplex. Mr. French told the Respondent the property was residential and a permit was not necessary. • When he was informed one week later of a different decision, he did obtain a permit. • The issue was the County insistence that the electrical wiring was to be upgraded which meant hiring an electrical contractor. He stated the County was piggy- backing on his permit to enforce the electrical upgrade. 7 April 17, 2013 He noted he argued the same point before the Board of County Commissioners two years earlier. Vice Chairman White stated he sits on a Condominium Board and could not understand how a Board would condone the installation of water heaters without obtaining the required permits. Mr. Reeves explained the decisions were usually made by the Property Manager And stated he has been turned down for jobs because he indicated he would obtain a permit as required by law. Kyle Lantz noted he has been a Plumbing Contractor for ten years and confirmed that nothing Mr. Reeves stated was incorrect. If a Contractor submits a bid to install water heaters and includes obtaining a permit in the bid, he will not be hired. It is an economy- driven decision. Terry Jerulle stated he is a Contractor who pulls permits and, while he may not like some of the things the County does, "rules are rules" and must be followed. Allen Reeves reminded the Board "we are talking about a water heater — not a new construction job. It's not a refrigerator that requires electric for ice —it's a water heater." Thomas Lykos stated he has been in too many condo units where he has observed shoddy, non - compliant workmanship concerning electrical and plumbing which could place neighboring units as risks for fire and flood. To say, "It is just a water heater" was offensive and he was disappointed in the Respondent as a professional to display that type of attitude and to speak so flippantly about his responsibility to follow the rules and do the right thing for his clients. He further stated if Mr. Reeves knew the names of contractors who were working without pulling proper permits, he should alert the County's Building Department. Mr. Reeves countered stating he accepted blame and admitted he did not pull the permits initially, but he did obtain them after -the -fact and paid an additional $55.00 fine for each permit. He also stated the requirement to obtain a permit was instituted only three years ago. Chairman Joslin asked the Respondent if he understood why a permit and inspection were required and to explain his understanding of the reasons for same. Allen Reeves responded it was for the safety of the people involved to have the work inspected. Chairman Joslin cited other examples of water heaters exploding, or leaking and flooding the units below. He stated not obtaining a permit and not having the work inspected placed other owners at risk. After a Contractor obtained a permit and had the work inspected, the issue of liability was no longer his. If a problem occurred, it became the manufacturer's issue to resolve. He cautioned the Respondent that trying to justify his action was not "going to work with this Board." April 17, 2013 Vice Chairman White stated there appeared to be an enforcement issue as well as an equity issue with respect to the extension of time for some of the older permits. He encouraged the County to strategize about how to address the two sets of issues presented. "There is a more systemic set of issues." He admitted the issue of water heater permitting has been one of controversy over the past three years. The way out of the controversy is not by ignoring the law. Chairman Joslin stated to extend a permit that cost $79.00 by charging an additional $100 seemed a bit excessive. He continued if a Contractor buys a block of permits, he should be allowed to use them without paying an additional fee because he did not sell them within a certain period of time. Vice Chairman White noted one of the benefits of purchasing in bulk was to minimize the County's administrative costs. Thomas Lykos stated if he had a job to install 37 water heaters, he would purchase 40 permits and pro -rate cost of the 3 permits which would not be used, Le, charge each customer an extra $6.00. He further stated the Board's purpose was not to solve the County's problem on how to manage water heater permits. Vice Chairman White stated one of the issues has been that if a Contractor does not include the costs of obtaining a permit as part of his bid, he placed himself in a more advantageous position. "The playing field was not level." He questioned what could the Board do, from an enforcement perspective, to send a message to the 80% of Contractors who do not obtain permits that the practice is not acceptable. The County must enforce its rules in a fair and even handed way so that everyone understands the cost of doing business. That is the responsibility for the public health, safety and welfare. Ian Jackson presented the County's Closing Statement: The County, through the documents contained in Exhibit "A," the sworn testimony of the Chief Building Official, and the sworn testimony of Allen G. Reeves admitting he deliberately did not obtain permits, has shown that Mr. Reeves willfully violated Section 105.1 of the 2010 Florida Building Code which, in turn, is a violation of 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." Thomas Lykos pointed out the "contract" (E -10) was not a contract but a proposal addressed to Cove Towers Preserve, dated January 31, 2012. The document was signed by Thomas J. Kirsch on March 26, 2012 but the identity of Mr. Kirsch as the president or a member of the Board of Directors was not confirmed. Mr. Reeves explained he sent to a proposal to Michelle King - Terrell, as the Property Manager. He did not provide individual contracts to be signed by each homeowner. He did not meet any board member or specific homeowners — the maintenance man provided access to the water heaters located in (outside) mechanical rooms. 0 April 17, 2013 Michael Ossorio stated he was contacted by a unit owner who asked when the County was going to conduct an inspection of her new water heater. She stated the Association did not give her any choice in the selection of a Contractor. Mr. Reeves stated he intends to contact every Condominium Association and the Property Managers for each Association to inform them that permits are now required for the installation of new water heaters. He stated he will also contact the Naples Daily News because the public is not aware of the new requirement. Vice Chairman White noted the Respondent's Proposal did not contact a reference to obtaining a permit. Ian Jackson stated the County had completed its case. Allen Reeves confirmed he did not prepare a Closing Statement. Vice Chairman Patrick White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 7— 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 the matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably pilident persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law. • 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/her privileges to practice his/her 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 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. 10 April 17, 2013 • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ( "CILB "), if applicable, 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. Chairman Joslin reminded the Board that Allen G. Reeves is a State - certified Contractor. Thomas Lykos moved to approve finding the Respondent, Allen G. Reeves, guilty of Count I of the Complaint based upon the testimony and evidence presented. Second by Vice Chairman Patrick White. Discussion: Vice Chairman White stated proving intent has always been a key element for him. In the case before the Board, the Respondent admitted his guilt and provided a copy of a proposal which did not mention obtaining a permit as required before proceeding with the installation of 37 water heaters for a condo development. He stated that evidence allowed him to make a finding of "willful." Chairman Joslin called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously, 7— 0. Attorney Morey noted when a State - certified Contractor has been found to be guilty of misconduct under Section 22 -203 of the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board may impose any of the following Sanctions: (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) Recovery of investigative costs incurred by the County for the prosecution of the violation. (5) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions. Attorney Morey further advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible Disciplinary Sanctions on a State - Certified Contractor who has been found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) The gravity of the violation; (2) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); (4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and 11 April 17, 2013 (5) 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(s) or the violator. Michael Ossorio confirmed the investigative costs totaled $325.00. Vice Chairman White requested the information regarding the County's costs should be presented during the public hearing. Vice Chairman White noted the violation regarding the permits had been corrected prior to Hearing. He stated he did not give much "weight" to be prior violation due to the differing /changing opinions concerning whether it was or was not a residential dwelling unit. He would support any penalty that included reimbursement to the County of investigative costs. Attorney Morey reminded the Committee that since the Respondent is a State - certified Contractor, the Board may make recommendations to the State. The Board may impose restrictions or special conditions on the issuance of permits. Vice Chairman Patrick White moved to approve re- opening the public hearing. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Thomas L. DeGram, Chief Building Official: Thomas Lykos stated he was trying to remember the circumstances surrounding a request by the County to the State Attorney General for opinion concerning the application of the Building Code to the subject of water heaters. He remembered the final determination which was in multi - family or commercial, a permit would be required but not for single - family residences. Q. Didn't the County specifically request an opinion from the State on how to apply the Code under these circumstances. A. That is my understanding. Q. You weren't part of that? A. I was not part of that. Mr. Lykos stated he mentioned the opinion because it was due to Mr. Reeves appearance before the Board of County Commissioners and the public conversation concerning whether or not permits were required, what were the benefits to the community, the burden placed on the County to administer water heater permits. He continued in consideration of the penalty phase of the case before the Board, Mr. Reeves was active in the public discourse concerning how the Code was to be applied and the final decision made by the County concerning what would and would not require a permit. There were extensive conversations between plumbers and the County, and the County with the State concerning exactly what the State would hold the County liable for with regard to permits for water heaters. 12 April 17, 2013 He further stated the charge is a "willful violation" but because of Mr. Reeves involvement with the State's opinion on this issue, the violation goes beyond just "willful" since he was part of the conversation that led to the County's opinion concerning exactly how permits for water heaters would be handled. His actions were in defiance of the County's regulations. Chairman Joslin stated it was his understanding that because Mr. Reeves appeared before the Board of County Commissioners that the Board asked the County to obtain an opinion from the State for clarification. He noted until that time, it was not clear whether or not a permit was required. Afterward, the decision was made. Chairman Joslin confirmed he agreed with Mr. Lykos position because Mr. Reeves opened the "can of worms" and his current violation was more than just willful. Allen Reeves stated neither the City of Naples (which is in Collier County) nor Marco Island requires permits to install water heaters. Lee County does not require permits. He noted if it was not a state -wide determination — the problem was with Collier County and the complaint that was presented to the Board of County Commissioners was why not all or none. Chairman Joslin pointed out while the City of Naples and Marco Island may make different decisions Collier County's determination was that permits are required. Michael Ossorio provided background information on the decision process, Le, input was obtained from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals (`BOAA ") before soliciting an opinion from the State. Vice Chairman White concurred there may have been some grey areas concerning the issue of multi - family duplex versus residential, but there was no grey area regarding the case before the Board. Permits were required for the 37 units. Discussion ensued concerning the appropriate penalty, i.e., whether probation should be added; whether permit pulling privileges should be suspended for a period of time. Vice Chairman White noted the Respondent has tried to work in concert with the County even though he also appeared, at times, to be at odds with the County's decisions. He stated he was trying to find a balance between no penalty and being too harsh. Attorney Moray reminded the members what the Board is allowed to do with reference to a State - certified Contractor. • The Board may deny the issuance of Collier County or City Building Permits or require the issuance of Permits with specific conditions. • The Board may send a recommendation to the State's Contractors' Licensing Board to assess penalties and further action(s) such as revocation, restriction, imposition of fines, and to levy investigative costs. 13 April 17, 2013 Vice Chairman White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Michael Boyd Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Terry Jerulle stated he respected "to some degree" the Respondent's intention to contact the Condominiums and Property Managers in Collier County to inform them of the requirement to pull a permit to install a water heater. However, it should have been done as soon as the County passed the regulation regarding water heater permits. The purpose of requiring a permit and inspection is to identify and prevent shoddy workmanship by Contractors. He concluded by stating, "Either you follow the rules or you change the rules. You don't ignore the rules." Kyle Lantz moved to approve requiring the Respondent to reimburse the County in the sum of $325.00 for investigative costs spent in the prosecution of the matter. Vice Chairman White stated he would offer a second in support if the Motion were amended to include notification to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ( "CILB ") of the decision as well as a recommendation for further action. Kyle Lantz amended his Motion to include Vice Chairman White's suggestions. Second by Vice Chairman White. Discussion: Terry Jerulle stated he would recommend to the State to impose a fine of $1,000 as well as issue a public reprimand. Chairman Joslin restated the Motion: • That the Respondent was found guilty of the violation; • The Respondent was ordered to reimburse the County the sum of $325.00 for investigative costs within fifteen days of receiving the Board's Order, • That a recommendation would be sent to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board to impose a fine of $1,000 and to issue a public reprimand. Chairman Joslin called for a vote. Motion carried unanimously, 7 — 0. Chairman Joslin outlined the Board's Order: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on April 17, 2013 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2013 -04 filed against Allen Gene Reeves, d/b /a "A. G. Reeves, LLC," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 34400 and State - Certified Plumbing Contractor Number CFC 1428056. Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. 14 April 17, 2013 • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, and thereupon issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact: • Allen Gene Reeves, d/b /a "A. G. Reeves, LLC," is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 34400 and State Certified Plumbing Contractor #CFC 1428056. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Allen Gene Reeves, was present at the Public Hearing but was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing held on April 17, 2013. • The Respondent had been properly noticed concerning the Hearing. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, had been properly issued and were personally delivered. • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the act. • The allegations of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint as to: o Count 1, under Section 22- 201.1(2): "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City or Collier County" has been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing. Conclusions of Law: The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count 1 has been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: "The Respondent violated Section 22- 201.1(2) of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity." Order of the Board: • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of seven (7) in favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of seven (7) in favor, and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #34400 and State Certified Plumbing Contractor Number CPC - 1428056, to wit: o The Respondent is required to reimburse the County the sum of $325.00 for investigative costs within 15 days of this Order; 15 April 17, 2013 o The State will be notified of the Board's Findings of Fact, o A recommendation will be sent to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board to impose a fine of $1,000 and to issue a public reprimand. Chairman Joslin noted the case was closed. Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright stated that County had withdrawn Item (A) under "Public Hearings." (Case #2013 -06: Albert L. Diaz, d/b /a A & M Professional Home Services, LLC. ) BREAK: 10:26 AM RECONVENED: 10:38 AM VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: Regarding cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Joseph Epifanio — Waiver of Examination(s) (d/b /a "American Pool and Fountain Service, Inc. ") Chairman Joslin requested that Mr. Epifanio explain the reasons why he had requested a Waiver. Joseph Epifanio stated he was involved in an accident 3 % years ago and has been unable to work. Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Epifanio had been licensed for swimming pool repair and maintenance; • He qualified "Tuna Fish Services, Inc." • He maintained his educational credits • He maintained his state registration as a Registered Pool and Spa Servicing Contractor (License # RP 252555083) • His Collier County certificate has lapsed (thirteen months ago) • He took his last exam three years ago. The County recommended granting Mr. Eipfanio's application for a Waiver and reinstating his license in Collier County. Chairman Joslin moved to approve granting Joseph Eipfanio's request to Waive further examination. Second by Vice Chairman Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. IX. REPORTS: (None) 16 April 17, 2013 X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, June 19, 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 Chairman at 10:48 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Richar , • irtnan The Minutes were approved by the Vice Chairman on , 2013, "as submitted" [_] OR "as amended" k:::J- 17