Loading...
CLB Minutes 08/16/2000 RAugust 16, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, August 16, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Gary Hayes Walter Crawford, IV Arthur Schoenfuss Carol Pahl Sara Beth White NOT PRESENT: Les Dickson Daniel Gonzalez Richard Joslin Bob Laird ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Thomas Bartoe, License Compliance Officer Bob Nonnenmacher, License Compliance Officer Paul Balzano, License Compliance Officer Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE August 16, 2000 TIME: 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COURTHOUSE COMPLEX 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: July 19, 2000 V. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Bob Dunn - request to get restricted license for General Contractor. 3. Mike Rowen - request to reinstate painting license without re-testing. 3. John Gaffney - request to qualify 2nd entity w/Tile & Marble & Floor Covering license. 4. William Alberson, Sr. - Request for approval for roof/coat/paint/clean license with a grade of 71.7% from a painting exam, business & law included. 5. Ordinance/Workshop amendments VI. OLD BUSINESS: VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VIII.REPORTS: IX. DISCUSSION: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: September 20, 2000 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'd like to call this meeting to order, Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, August the 16th at 9:00 a.m. 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 an appeal is to be based. Roll call, starting to my right. MR. CRAWFORD: Here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name? MR. CRAWFORD: Walter Crawford. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Gary Hayes. MS. PAHL: Carol Pahl. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Arthur Schoenfuss. MS. WHITE: Sara Beth White. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We have any additions or deletions to the agenda this morning? MR. BARTOE: Yes, sir. For the record, I'm Tom Bartoe, Collier County licensing compliance officer. Under new business, we have five items. If you would, I think we want the workshop last, so make it Item No. 6, and add a new item No. 5. And that will be Thomas Williams, who requests to be grandfathered as a paving blocks contractor. And he's also contesting a citation that was issued by Mr. Ossorio. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other additions or deletions to the agenda? I need a motion to approve the agenda. MR. SCHOENFUSS: I approve the agenda. MS. PAHL: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and second. All in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well. Before we go into the minutes, I want it on the record that Bob Laird called in this morning that he would not be here, and Les Dickson also called in. Okay, I have the minutes of July the 19th in front of us. We've reviewed them. I need a motion for approval. Page 2 August 16, 2000 MR. SCHOENFUSS: I approve -- I move we approve the minutes from the last meeting. MR. CRAWFORD: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and second. All in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, we can get on with our business. Under new business, Bob Dunn request to get restricted license for general contractor. Mr. Dunn, are you here this morning? MR. DUNN: I hope so. Kind of early. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I need you to come up to the podium. MR. DUNN: My name is Robert Dunn. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Sir, before you do that, I'm going to ask you to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name again, for the record. MR. DUNN: Robert Dunn. I own Bay Aluminum. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here this morning, Mr. Dunn? MR. DUNN: We have been in business now for 33 years, and now all of a sudden we're finding out that certain types of work that we have been doing in the past are now not in our category, such as working on condos, which the county is claiming now is a commercial piece of property. And that will force me out of it, and the only one that can draw a permit on it is someone with a GC license. In reading your book here, I see that there is a specialty GC license that I would be able to get with my experience and allow me to continue on to work the way we have been doing. MR. CRAWFORD: What type of license do you have now? MR. DUNN: I have a specialty aluminum license, woodworking and concrete. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is that one license? MR. DUNN: Yeah -- well, no. The woodworking is a separate license. The aluminum concrete is one license, the woodworking is another license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Aluminum concrete? Page 3 August 16, 2000 MR. DUNN.' Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale, what license -- MR. BARTOE.' There is a license -- excuse me, there is a license, aluminum with concrete, which he has, and a carpentry license he has. MR. DUNN.' The big thing with the license I have now is it doesn't allow me to work in the commercial, it does not allow me to hire subcontractors under my license there, which is quite a hindrance on our part there. We have been doing it. Not electrical and that, those have all been separate licenses that are coming in. But now we're getting in quite a conflict as far as drawing a permit and having all these different people are not allowed to work underneath me. I'm also out selling lobs, which I feel is -- I should be in front of the board for that right now, because I'm selling lobs to these people here, and my license doesn't allow me to do it. And if we continue on the way it is, we're out of business. That's all there is to it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: How long have you been doing what you're doing? MR. DUNN.' 33 years Bay Aluminum as been in business. I've had it for 20 years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And what changed -- MR. DUNN.' Almost 20 years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And what changed in this particular incidence that you're before this board? MR. DUNN.' What changed? I came in to get a permit. I drew a permit about two and a half months ago. I spent 15 hours down at the county securing this permit. Finally got it, along with a case of the shingles from the nervousness it caused me. And I got that permit. I went out, signed up another job come in, and there's no way, you can't have it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So that was the first time you'd ever even applied for a permit for your work in 33 years? MR. DUNN.' No, no, no. We've had permits, umpteen of them, for 33 years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. So you have been getting permits with multiple subcontractors for 33 years? MR. DUNN.' We have had contractors working under us for 33 years, yes. We've been able to hire them. We haven't been Page 4 August 16, 2000 able to come in -- yes, I take that back. We even drew permits back about six, eight years ago where we were allowed to list the subcontractors underneath our permit with them on it. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, we have an aluminum including concrete specialty license, and that's what this gentleman does, so I don't understand what the issue is. MR. DUNN: We have aluminum and concrete, but the aluminum does not allow us, according to the county now, to work on a condo or a commercial piece of property, which I've looked through umpteen papers for the county. I can find no description of a condo being a commercial piece of property. I just stopped down at the tax department here. Mr. Don Wiggers said to call him if there's any question. He says it's ridiculous. MR. CRAWFORD: Can you guys help us out with that one? I don't -- MR. BALZANO: An aluminum contractor can work on a condominium, but they can't put an addition on to it. He wants to put prefabricated rooms on to condominiums. Anything over a four-plex is considered commercial. So if he's -- if you have a four, six or eight-plex and he wants to go put a prefabricated aluminum room on the back of it, they just don't let them pull the permit for it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. And that's because a general contractor is required on a commercial piece of property? MR. BALZANO: One permit. And the general contractor can list the subcontractors. He wants to pull a shell permit and have each contractor pull their own permit, and the county doesn't want him to do that. MR. DUNN: I would like to make a statement that under 489 of the State Code, it does allow a specialty contractor to draw a permit and hire subcontractors under that permit if he is doing the majority of the work. Which I don't know why we don't have it in our paper here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any time that you're an individual hiring contractors, subcontractors, you either need to be an owner/builder or a general contractor, by 489. I mean, I don't think that I as a plumbing contractor can hire you as an aluminum contractor to build a room for me because I have a homeowner that wants to add a bathroom to their house. Page 5 August 16, 2000 MR. DUNN.' I have the write-up here from the state. According to this here, the state, it says that any contractor may hire subcontractors where the majority of the performance under this contract is within his license, and from subcontract to other contractors that remaining work. That's in 489. MR. NEALE.' Can I see that citation? MR. DUNN: (Handing.) MR. NEALE.' That's an owner/builder exemption there. MR. DUNN.' Did I get the wrong one? Here. MR. CRAWFORD.' Could you describe exactly what kind of work you're doing? I'm still not clear on that. MR. DUNN.' We're installing -- MR. CRAWFORD.' Aluminum enclosures? MR. DUNN.' A gentleman here suggested we were putting shells up. What we're doing is we're building a -- the particular one that we're having trouble right now is an eight-foot deep by 12-foot wide glass room that we're adding on to an existing 8 by 16 glass room. We're putting in two windows and a door in it, which are on the old addition. We're moving those out, and we're going to enclose that with a roof and walls. The contract -- this particular job, which hurts me a little bit is the electrical contractor came in, got his permit. His electrical contractor put the electric in this job. The concrete contractor came in, drew his permit, went out and did all of his work. Two individual contractors came in. I came in as an individual contractor. I've got to have a GC license to do that. Identical work we've been doing for 33 years. There's absolutely no difference in it. It's like saying that you go out in your driveway, and I live in Lakewood, you go and park a Lincoln in there, and you go down to another spot, you have to have an old Ford or something. This is ridiculous here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Balzano? MR. BALZANO.' From what I understand, when I was asked to speak with Mr. Dunn at his place of business by Mr. Perico, that in the past he had put these screen rooms on, prefabricated rooms or whatever they want to be called. In this particular instance, this is going to become part of living space. The wall is going to be removed and there going to be electric and plumbing and air conditioning put up there, correct? Page 6 August 16, 2000 MR. DUNN.' There is a permit drawn for that. And the window that is in the wall is going to be removed to allow for 50 percent of the wall space as egress area. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' I have a question. I don't completely understand where we stand. I'd like to ask our attorney. Is this a question of interpreting the county ordinance, or is it a case of interpreting the state law, or is it a question of making an exception to extend existing rules that we can understand? MR. NEALE.' I think it's a little bit of everything. Unfortunately I have to say that. But this situation, based on what little I know about it at this point, is that it's very fact based in that the rules the way they apply very much depend on what and how much Mr. Dunn does and whether it's considered to be within the scope of his license. The specific category that he operates under is aluminum contractor, including concrete, and carpentry contractor. An aluminum contractor, including concrete, which is No. 2 under specialty contractors, means those who are qualified to fabricate, install, maintain, repair, alter or extend accessories such as metal and vinyl siding, awnings, security shutters, gutters, soffits and prefabricated rooms, and portable metal or vinyl partitions. These contractors may form, place-on-grade reinforcing steel and miscellaneous steel, and pour, place and finish nonstructural concrete incidental to an aluminum accessory structure only, on grade only, and screen enclosures. Okay? So that's what he may do within the scope of that license. A carpentry contractor means those who have the knowledge and skill to install any wood and metal products, including but not limited to rough framing, wood structural, wood and metal nonstructural trusses, sheathing, paneling, trim, metal framing and cabinetry. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' But none of that says anything about hiring subcontractors for work that may be incidental to all that. MR. NEALE.' Going to the citation that Mr. Dunn put forward, it's in 489.113. And in 489.113, which is called the Qualifications For Practice And Restrictions Of Contractors, that specifically says that a contractor shall subcontract all electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool and air conditioning work, unless such contractor holds a state Page 7 August 16, 2000 certificate or registration in the respective trade category. And then it says, however, a building general or residential contractor shall be responsible for construction or alteration. And it goes through some exceptions. The exception that he pointed out to, which is in Part 9 there, says nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent any contractor from acting as a prime contractor where the majority of the work to be performed under the contract is within the scope of his or her license, and from subcontracting to other sublicensed contractors, that remaining work which is part of the project contracted. MS. WHITE: So is he asking for special permits on this one project or-- MR. DUNN: No. What you have in your bylaws here under your 99.45 is a specialty GC contractor, which allows me to do exactly what I'm doing now. Absolutely no change at all in my work, type of work, except it allows me to work on condos. MS. WHITE: Mr. Neale, is he allowed to do roofing? MR. DUNN: Yes. MR. NEALE: No. Not according to my interpretation of the statute. I don't see -- he can do prefab structures and things like that, but his licenses only permit him to work on grade. MS. WHITE: Is this aluminum roofing that you're putting on here? MR. DUNN: Yes, aluminum. MS. WHITE: Is he allowed to do aluminum roofing? MR. NEALE: He may put up prefabricated rooms. It says nothing as far as roofing. And the statute requires roofing to be subcontracted. MS. WHITE: Even if it's aluminum? MR. NEALE: Well, that's one of those I'd defer probably to someone who knows more about the construction business. MS. WHITE: Is he allowed to do demolition, as in removing this wall? MR. NEALE: Probably incident to the construction. But really, the licenses themselves that he holds, the aluminum license permits him to work on grade only, okay, as far as placing and forming steel and -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I believe that that just refers to non-second stories. MR. NEALE: Correct. Page 8 August 16, 2000 MR. CRAWFORD.' The roofing, if it's part of your prefabricated product, I think that's fine. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yeah. MR. DUNN.' And the concrete, the way I understand it, what you're reading there, the concrete is for contract -- concrete. I'm not allowed to put concrete over the grade, but I'm allowed to work, according to Judy, up to the tenth floor of a condo or fifth floor, or whatever it is, doing this work, but I cannot pour concrete off grade. If that's what you're reading there. MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. BARTOE.' If I may, as Mr. Neale read under aluminum contractor, including concrete, at the end it's nonstructural concrete incidental to an aluminum accessory structure only, on grade only. To me, that's not a room that's going to be used for a living area. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bartoe, while you've got the floor, let me ask the question. This gentleman's been doing what he's been doing, he says, for 33 years. He's been applying for permits. MR. BARTOE.' In residential, yes. Not commercial. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What is the difference between what he can do, his residential -- he doesn't have to have a license -- he doesn't have to be a general contractor or an owner/builder to do residential work either?. I'm confused. He's either-- MR. BARTOE.' He's been adding for years onto like mobile homes. And, for example, Imperial Wilderness on the East Trail, add an addition on to those. And that's residential. MR. NEALE.' You know, I guess -- and I'm just asking the question. I don't see anything in the licensure that differentiates whether he can add aluminum -- do aluminum work on residential or commercial. MR. BARTOE.' Under aluminum, no, it doesn't say that. MR. NEALE.' Right. Well, and aluminum, it includes prefabricated rooms. That's the license category. MR. BALZANO.' But not when the prefabricated room becomes a room. They're going to make it part of the living space on this particular one. MR. NEALE.' But that's specifically permitted. MR. BALZANO.' It says accessory structure. It wouldn't be accessory. It's not part of the condominium. MR. NEALE.' It says prefabricated room in the ordinance. Page 9 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: It does call it a room in the ordinance. MR. BALZANO: We don't issue the permits. All I know is that if it's other than residential, it takes a building or general contractor to pull a permit. And that's permitting that does that, not us. That's why he is here right now is because they don't allow him to pull them anymore. From what I understand, he's pulled permits in the past and said it was just a shell, and it ended up being living space. After everything was done, the owners had an electrical contractor or someone come in and pull a separate permit and finish it. MR. NEALE: I guess my question from a legal point of view, and Bob, maybe we both need to look at this, is I don't understand why permitting makes that distinction for something that's specifically permitted to be done under a license category. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's my question. MS. WHITE: He's not -- MR. ZACHARY: Let me just throw something into the mix. Mr. Dunn and I have sat down and talked for awhile. And I think part of the problem too is the distinction between residential and commercial. And I've talked with these folks at code enforcement and evidently all condominiums are classified commercial. And that's one thing that Mr. Dunn couldn't understand is why if they're, you know -- if there's say four units together and people are living in them, why those are commercial rather than residential. And I really didn't have an answer for that. But that's just I think -- MR. BALZANO: Whether he's a state licensed registered residential contractor-- I mean, a state certified residential contractor or a county, a residential contractor that can build a 20,000 square foot home cannot work in a condominium, why should he? MR. BARTOE: Mr. Hayes, maybe I can clarify the thought process behind it. I think what the county and the state are concerned with is that if you do something to a single-family residence, you're affecting one person and one family. If you start working on a condominium, you could being affecting up to t00 people by what you do and how you do it. And I think that's the main concern with the state and the county. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I can clearly understand the concern over multi-family versus single-family. That's why the licensing is Page 10 August 16, 2000 split up the way it is as well. However, I don't understand the differentiation that under a specialty license description, you can do one thing but you can't do something else. And it's exactly the same kind of work. It's just as a matter of whether it's in the same -- one building or one home, single-family dwelling or a multi-family dwelling. Where at does it say -- and the question I have here is that are you saying he can't do the work or can't pull the permit in a commercial building? MR. BALZANO: Can't pull a permit. MR. NEALE: I guess I'm coming down the same road as Mr. Hayes is. I don't see anywhere in the ordinance or in 489 where it says that someone has to be a general contractor to pull a specialty contracting permit on multi-family or commercial structures. MS. WHITE: Does it make a difference that this homeowner's requesting it be enclosed in glass and air conditioned rather than a screen enclosure? MR. DUNN: Yes, it does. A screened room is a non-inhabitable area. A glass room is an inhabitable area. MS. WHITE: I mean, is that part of the problem here as well? Wouldn't he be allowed to add a screen enclosure? MR. DUNN: He would be allowed to add a screen enclosure on to his unit. I'm not positive, it might have changed by the time I get back to the building department, but I believe I was allowed to build a screen room onto that unit there. MS. WHITE: Would he be allowed to put a screen room on a commercial structure and then the homeowner could come in later and have the -- someone else do the -- install the glass and the AC, or no? MR. DUNN: That's the biggest problem I have right now with the county. The county has people in there that want things done and they want them done right, and I'm going out and I want it done right too. And I'm not deviating from any rules. I could go in and get a permit for a screen room and we could talk on the side deal and okay, now I'll get this, and then afterwards just throw the windows in. This particular job we're working on right now has probably got 500 condos in it. I'm the first one to draw a permit in the last four years. But boy, there's a lot of new rooms up there. The county has forced these people to go underground to get their Page 11 August 16, 2000 work done, and I want to make it legal. We've had four to five calls right now in the last week, that people appreciate what we're trying to do and bring it above board and make these things legal. MR. SCHOENFUSS: I'm still -- MS. WHITE: Mr. Bartoe, would he be allowed to, with your department, do the screen enclosure on a commercial structure? I don't know where the line is drawn on commercial/residential in regards to whether it's a screen room or an enclosed glass room with AC. MR. DUNN: I think we're getting off base on the whole thing here. I'm coming and asking for a specialty general contractor's license, which will allow me to do this work, only the work that I've been doing there, and that will cover everything. I'll be able to go over, draw my permits, hire my subcontractors, put -- I've heard here too that we can't hire subcontractors. That's telling me that during Andrew, the storm, when I had 10 subcontractors working for me doing my work, I was illegal. I couldn't hire subcontractors doing aluminum work. That -- MR. BALZANO: That's not what they're saying. A subcontractor is if you hire a plumber, an electrician or an air conditioning (sic). You can hire subcontractors, if they're licensed, to help you do your aluminum work. MR. NEALE: Yeah, that's what it says. MR. BALZANO: A couple of years ago, Mr. Hayes, I remember Mr. Gonsalves, who was on the board who has a residential contractor's license, came before the board because he wanted to build horse stalls, and they wouldn't allow him to pull a permit to build a horse barn because he's a residential contractor, and they were going to rent out the stalls and that made that horse barn commercial. Now, if the residential contractor can build a house couldn't build a barn, how -- are we going to have everybody coming in here trying to get a specialty general contractor's license? MR. NEALE: Well, but see, my question on it, and I guess it's something that we probably need to have Mr. Perico or somebody come in and talk to us about, or at least talk to me about it to clarify it, is I can understand that from the general contracting point of view, if someone is going to pull a permit to do general contracting, major structure. Page 12 August 16, 2000 But the way I read our ordinance and the way I read 489 -- and Bob, you may differ with me, but the way I read it is as far as specialty operations go, as long as they're operating within the scope of the license, it's irrelevant whether they're pulling it for a residential or a commercial building. I mean, that would be like saying to Mr. Hayes that he can't go in and put toilets in a commercial building, he needs to have a general contractor go and do that. MR. BALZANO.' Two different licenses. He's not a specialty contractor. Under 489 he's one of the seven or eight licenses that the state acknowledges that he can work anywhere in the state on any piece of property. MR. NEALE.' But even if you pick any other specialty contractor, I don't see the -- why the distinction is made that a specialty contractor, under our definitions, cannot do his specialty contracting work on commercial without having a general pull the permit. MR. BALZANO.' Why can't a residential contractor go in and pull a permit? MR. NEALE: That's a completely different story. That's a completely different story. A general contractor goes in to pull a permit to do general contracting work to do major structures. If a specialty contractor comes on to the same job, say, and do -- yeah, let's pick one that only we do, brick pavers -- to do brick pavers on a commercial job, does that mean that he needs a general contractor to pull that? MR. BALZANO.' It's not -- it isn't -- brick pavers do not require an inspection. MR. NEALE.' Well, pick one that's a specialty contractor that requires an inspection. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Framing. MR. BALZANO.' There's framing. His rooms that he's going to put on require inspections. If he makes that room inhabitable, it requires inspections for the electrical and the plumbing. MR. NEALE.' Well, electrical and plumbing, I understand. But if someone -- you know, if he comes in to pull a permit solely to do an enclosed room, not put electrical or anything else in it, can he pull that permit on a commercial building? MR. BALZANO.' No. MR. NEALE: Why? Page 13 August 16, 2000 MR. BALZANO.' I don't issue permits. I just know that his license doesn't allow him to pull permits. MR. NEALE.' I guess I'm coming to the -- because this is an issue that -- MR. BALZANO.' I think Mr. Perico should be here. MR. NEALE.' -- where permitting and contractor licensing come together is I -- you know, unless somebody can explain to me and show me a statutory or regulatory citation, I have trouble advising this board that that's an appropriate thing that's being done. MR. BALZANO.' Well, I think the question here today is not whether we're going to give him a permit, it's whether we're going to make him a general contractor. MR. NEALE.' I agree, and that's the narrow issue here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And that's where I wanted to go. I wanted to back up and take this thing one step at a time, because I don't think we can settle the entire issue today. However, Mr. Dunn, you keep referring to a section in the ordinance that we have that we can license you under. And what section is that again? MR. DUNN.' Page 29. MS. PAHL.' Page 29 or Page 31. MR. CRAWFORD.' Section 2.5.3.1. MR. NEALE.' Yeah. Or codified 22-189. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The way I read that section, it doesn't say anything about specialty contractor. It says granting a license when the testing would be superfluous. That's just a plain old general contractor's license, the way I read it. It's not a specialty contractor's license. MR. DUNN.' No, this is a specialty GC license, which you can give me without a test, if you feel my experience is adequate to do that. And I'm asking for the specialty GC license, limited GC license, or whatever you want to call it, to do exactly the same type of work that I'm doing now. Nothing different at all with the exception I will be able to draw the permit and per 489 I will be able to have contractors working under me, as long as I'm doing the majority of the work. MR. CRAWFORD.' Page 30, 2.10. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' Well, that -- I think Mr. Dunn has presented his case very effectively, and he's referred to this Page 14 August 16, 2000 portion of the ordinance. But my question is, is this a special case that deserves favorable consideration, based upon its merits, or would approval of this establish a precedent? MR. CRAWFORD.' I agree. I think we're headed down the wrong road. We're going to muddy the waters. I think he's doing business with the appropriate license, is my opinion. MR. DUNN: Well, you have a bylaw in your books that says I can do this. And that will clear -- if I don't get a GC license specialty, I'm going out and ask the general contractor to pull a permit for me, to absolutely be responsible for that job, to go out and inspect the lobs periodically and make sure it's done right, and pay him roughly 20 percent of what I'm selling. And I'm not going to be able to go out and sell the lobs. I'm going to have to go get a GC and say would you please go over on my appointment here, I'm not licensed to do this job. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Mr. Dunn, I'm going to talk to Mr. Neale just a second. 2.10 doesn't answer the question either. 2.10 is a certificate for a particular trade. That's not a general contractor. A general contractor is a general contractor, not a particular trade. So you're inciting (sic) 2.5.3 is a blanket, and 2.10 is a specific trade. We don't have a specialty general contractor license that I'm aware of. Mr. Neale, Mr. Zachary, can you correct me on that? MR. NEALE: I don't believe we have a restricted general contractor's license. I don't remember in my time of representing this board, which now goes back five years almost. MR. DUNN: According to 2.10, it is available, whether anyone's read the book or not. I happened to read it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have in front of me right now, Mr. Dunn, and I'll read it for the record, if we want to do this. But it says and clearly in my words, particular trade. It doesn't say general contractor. Particular trade. Applicant for certificate in a particular trade, which certificate is restricted to certain aspects of that trade. MR. DUNN: Right. CHAIRMAN HAYES: General contractor is not that trade specifically. General contractor is general, not specific. MR. NEALE: Mr. Hayes, I think the best is to cite to the example that's even in that section. Page 15 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you very much, Mr. Neale. The example itself clarifies it as well. So this is not an ordinance that you can cite that we can invoke for you. If there is one, I'll find it and we'll do that or work toward that direction, but 2.10 is not it. MS. WHITE: Well, isn't this a list of all the contractors, subcontractors, everything that came in our packet this week? I don't see anything on here that says specialty general contractor. MR. NEALE: There isn't. What has happened with this board in the past, and the board has authorized is what is shown in the example in 2.10, which is where a specialty contractor would come in and demonstrate that they had the competence to do a certain segment of a specialty trade. And then they were issued a license to do only a certain segment of a specialty trade. The example here where the person can do carpet and tile but can't do wood floors, I think is the citation here. MS. WHITE: Yeah, I saw that. MR. NEALE: Yeah, where someone can do carpet and tile but not wood floors. They can demonstrate competence in one area but not another. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think in this particular case it would be well effected if we did have a specialty general contractor license. It would perfectly fit your needs. MR. DUNN: You have to have -- when I walk out of here this morning, I'm either going to go to work or lock the doors, because I can't operate unless I can go out -- if I was coming to your house to sell you a glass room and I told you well, yes, I can sell you a glass room but I'm going to have to get a GC, he's going to have to come over and talk to you, then we're going to have to go through all these other contractors, you'd tell me to walk the -- MR. BALZANO: How much of your business is commercial and how much is residential? MR. DUNN: I consider all of this residential. I don't consider -- when you look at 135-1, the home we're working on right now, or we're trying to get the permit for, that is a single-family home. It's got a home on each side of it, but it's a single-family home. And I interpretate (sic) everything I can read here to single-family homes. It doesn't say that single-family home has 10 more units on the side of it. It says single-family home. And that's what I Page 16 August 16, 2000 want to work on is a single -- I'm not going in to work on three units there. MR. BALZANO: It's multiple family is the way permitting's looking at it. I think if you're going to answer this question, you should have someone from permitting. And permitting and our department are two separate departments. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I agree with that, but Mr. Zachary's already clarified the statutes and ordinance's position by defining multi-family as commercial. And I think that I, myself, am clear on that issue, separation between residential and commercial and their definitions. In this particular case, I'm not even looking at that and applying that to your condition. I don't know that I would have allowed the -- from licensing to begin with would have allowed the multi-specialty trade construction and subcontracting under this gentleman's license on residential or commercial. MS. WHITE: Does the unit you're working on now share a wall with another unit? MR. DUNN: MS. WHITE: a multi-family-- MR. DUNN: I have found nothing here that -- MS. WHITE: -- than, you know, doesn't share walls. MR. DUNN: -- says that a condo is a commercial piece of property. There's absolutely nothing in your books. And in checking over here at the tax department, they tell me that somebody's idiotic over here, because there is -- a condo can be a boat slip, it can be any type of a unit and you can call it a condo. We also -- right now, you're telling me that nine RV parks, multi-family parks in Naples, are written under condo bylaws. That means I cannot go in there. Those are commercial properties. If we do not get this straightened out, I'm going to demand that all work be shut off on those. Because we've been doing that for 33 years, going into parks -- somebody brought up Imperial Wilderness. We did many units out there, and that is zoned condo. Moorhead Manor, we've been doing work over there for many years. That's condo. MR. BALZANO: You got a permit for them, though. Yes, they do. Yes, they have the firewall. That's a different kind of multi-family to me than Page 17 August 16, 2000 MS. WHITE: I think the issue here of whether it's commercial -- MR. DUNN: We were issued a permit-- MR. BALZANO: The-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: One at a time, one at a time. MR. BALZANO: Individual units, Mr. Hayes, they're not attached together. The Americans with Disability Act considers condominiums as commercial and they fall under it. When you build condominiums in the United States, they have to come out of the ADA which says that they are not residential units. They say that they are commercial. MS. WHITE: So the issue is whether or not there is an attached wall. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to tell that you we're spinning our wheels this morning at this issue. We're going to have to have a little bit more legal opinions and perhaps a little bit of more research in the permitting, Mr. Dunn, before we can render a decision for you. MR. NEALE: And I think further, Mr. Hayes, even if this board were to express and desire to consider Mr. Dunn's request, I would suggest that this board should at least get a full application from him. Because if the board were to seek to waive both testing and experience requirements for a general contractor, he would have to prove that he has experience in all the areas of general contracting and knowledge in all the areas of general contracting that would allow this board to put a finding on the record, finding of fact and conclusions of law, that would permit it to waive all of those requirements. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to tell you, Mr. Neale, in the experience that I've had on this board, I don't remember ever issuing such thing as a limited general contractor's license. MR. NEALE: It's never happened in the four and a half years that I represented this board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And my concern would be should I see fit to do it in this particular case, that 489 and Florida Statute in general my have a problem with us issuing a license on a local level of that caliber. So this is very touchy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want for to get ourselves in trouble because we sit here and agree and understand and it makes sense, and then all of a sudden we're in Page 18 August 16, 2000 violation of state statute. MR. DUNN: 489 does agree that I can get that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: 489 doesn't call it a license. You're asking for a license. 489 says, as far as we can tell, that you're allowed to do what you're doing under your license. MR. DUNN: And hire contractors under me, as long as I'm the major contractor doing that job, the major work. MR. NEALE: And just for the edification of the board, the contractor may -- the contractor may act as a prime contractor where the majority of the work to be performed on the contract is within the scope -- 489 is real specific in that it says nothing in this part shall be constructed to prevent any contractor from acting as a prime contractor where the majority of the work to be performed under the contract is within the scope of his or her license, and from said contracting to other licensed contractors, that remaining work which is part of the project contracted. So what there would have to be a finding is that the majority of the work to be performed under the contract is within the scope of one of Mr. Dunn's valid licenses. CHAIRMAN HAYES: This somewhat seems to fit. I'm not prepared to totally -- I'm not totally convinced it fits yet, because I still need some clarification, and I'm going to ask for some more of that later. But in an attempt to try to understand that more, let's assume that a tile man gets called by a homeowner, residential or commercial at this point, and says I want to retile my bathroom. And in the meantime, they open up the walls and they find out that the studs need replacing, and while they're at it, they decide to add a partition. Technically that's out of the scope of the tile setter. So now, according to 489, is the tile setter allowed to hire a carpenter to do that framing work for him and pay him legitimately and legally under his license, per 489.t t 3? That's my question. And I can't answer that, Mr. Dunn, at this point. And I don't see that Mr. Zachary or Mr. Neale is prepared to jump up and give me a definite answer either. MR. NEALE: Not this morning. MR. DUNN: In regards to that, that -- I'm -- this GC is just a way for me to operate and keep my business going. If the board Page 19 August 16, 2000 or whoever would be in charge could come down to earth and say a condo, I can work on them that it is not commercial property. A condo is a boat slip, it's a mobile home park. We're talking about units not being connected. Enchanting Acres on 481 has all mobile homes in there. They are connected by the roof and they are considered condo. That means I can't go into the park and do the work. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Bear in mind that what our decision, if we were to make a final decision today, would be a precedent. And it could be possible that every single aluminum contractor in this county would march -- parade right back into the building department and ask for that same modification. MR. DUNN.' I feel if they're qualified and have had the experience that I've had or anywheres near, they should be giving this. I don't think they should be out back-dooring all this other work that they're doing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, I agree with that as well. Now, understand something, Mr. Dunn. Our ordinances, statutes and staff are in the enforcement business of doing the best they can to work with our community as a whole and work with our subcontractors and specialty contractors, not against them. However, in an attempt to enforce those ordinances, interpretations may vary from individual to individual; hence, attorneys. We have that problem all the time. And that's about what I see happening to us right now. I don't believe that our staff people in Collier County are intentionally trying to make life complicated for an individual. I believe that they're trying in their best behavior to enforce the ordinance as they see it and as they read it. And I'm not going to beat them up for it, but what I am going to try to offer is some clarification so that they don't have this problem in the future with anyone else of your specialty trade. MR. DUNN.' And what I would like to see is a legal opinion on these. I've gone into Collier County. I watched your program on t.v. the other night where a man had run back and forth through the county building. I don't know how many months you're getting ready to fine him. He wanted to do his owner/builder on a commercial property. That was me entirely. I've been running back and forth and I can't get an answer on this here. And I've got a customer that was down in the county last night, he is fit to Page 20 August 16, 2000 be tied, because we've been on this thing since the 27th, seven weeks now, trying to get this thing clarified. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It's sad, but you may be the one to set the precedent and we end up fixing permanently for all. I mean, I'm going to tell you in the times that I've served in this position now, every time I turn around and read this ordinance, I read something I didn't read before. It is extremely hard to enforce and it's extremely hard to understand in some cases. Interpretation is required. In this particular case, it sounds to me like it's more of an area that hasn't really confronted everybody dead in the face. And sometimes when that happens it can go undetected for a long time. And that's what I see happening now. So I'm going to ask that between Mr. Zachary and Mr. Neale, our legal representatives, that we can come back with formal interpretations of the statute and ordinance so that we can administer them here at this board level and direct our staff to do the same thing, and try to settle this issue not only for you but for anyone else in the same situation. Because I completely agree, running around up and down to the county back and forth, not getting an answer, not understanding it is very, very difficult. But that should also indicate to you that they're not any more sure about it than you are. MR. DUNN.' No, they're not. And I was going to ask if we couldn't have some procedure where we would come up in writing or fax through the county the problem we're having and get a legal opinion. I have not been able to get one legal opinion out of the county. I've had a call in to Mr. Zachary's office for two weeks now trying to get where I stand here so I don't waste your time or my time if it's out of the picture there. I have not been able to get an answer out of that. But I do go to the county. And what you're saying right now is you cannot make any opinion today. By golly, I can go down to the county this afternoon, and I drew a permit yesterday on a job, and they can change their mind over night. MR. BALZANO.' Mr. Hayes? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. BALZANO.' The problem here, I believe, is not his license. The problem is he is not able to pull a permit to do the Page 21 August 16, 2000 particular job he wants to do. So the fix should be in permitting, not in licensing. And I'm sure he's been given an answer by permitting, that's why he's here, because he doesn't like the answer he got in permitting. But us trying to give him a license to do this is not solving the problem that he's complaining about in permitting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's correct, Mr. Balzano. I think I've clearly stated my opinion on it, is that we are not in a position to give a license that doesn't exist. So I don't think that's a problem either. It's a question of whether or not he can legally operate under the license he currently holds. And I think that's what I'm going to have to ask Mr. Zachary from the county attorney's office, and Mr. Neale representing this board, to be able to come together and come up with some formal written opinion that we can actually administer. Because I don't think anyone here on this board is clear enough to be able to make a decision on this for you, Mr. Dunn. MR. DUNN: And me. MR. NEALE: And I would suggest that we also get the permitting group involved in this, too. Because I know in my mind, at least, I need to have some clarification on why the distinction is made between, you know, commercial and residential for purposes of specialty licenses. I have a -- you know, I have a problem with that. Because, you know, the thing that I come to is, you know, particularly using, you know, while Mr. Hayes may be a state contractor, nonetheless, if you follow the logic forward, it still says that he would not be able to do this without a -- MR. BALZANO: He's a state licensed master plumber. The test he took tested you on whether you could work in high-rises, underground, above ground, in space. Am I correct? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. BALZANO: That's why he can do that and he can pull those permits. He was tested on that. He can work anywhere. He can do plumbing work anywhere. MR. NEALE: But according to our qualifications, theoretically a person who qualifies to do -- we don't say in our licensure that because someone qualifies to be an aluminum contractor with concrete he can only work on residential. It doesn't say that anywhere. Page 22 August 16, 2000 MR. BALZANO: He's a specialty contractor; he is not. MR. NEALE: But it still doesn't say anywhere, and it doesn't define that anywhere in the ordinance, anywhere in the statute. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I am also going to add to that work group, Mr. Zachary, Mr. Neale, that we include Mr. Perico in this as well. He is in charge of licensing. And -- MR. NEALE: And permitting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And permitting. And he may be able to add to this and be able to interpret it, or at least read and understand some of the interpretations as well made by our legal counsel. And perhaps we can clarify this. I would truly like to, for your sake and for any other futures sakes. But I also don't want to set a precedent here today on something that is not going to hold water in the long run. I don't like the idea of setting a precedent unless I'm firmly flat-footed on the ground. MR. DUNN: I'm a firm believer that your answer is right here in the attorney. If you go to Ed Perico, you go to Jerry Ballard, as you've seen in the last episode here, they have got their ideas set and they feel that's the way the ball should bounce. And that's without any legal opinion as far as I'm concerned. If they would have got legal opinion on some of these things like they should have done, we wouldn't be having the troubles we're having right now with the county. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We're going to make an attempt to do that for you at this time. What I'm going to ask is that we do this work and then come back next month with a further discussion on it. Mr. Balzano? MR. BALZANO: I think you should also involve the building directors from the City of Naples and Marco Island, because they don't allow it either and this ordinance covers them, so they should have some input into this. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We'll just get us a whole big workshop going, Mr. Dunn. MR. DUNN: Well, we have a problem right now with seven weeks, going on eight weeks, on a permit to a gentleman that just got married and his wife has got a lot of stuff she wants to put in that room and he has been after me hot and heavy. I've got a contract with him. I might be in court by that time. Page 23 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE.' I don't want to be too abrupt, but I would suggest that he hire a general contractor at this point to do the work until such time as there's been -- MR. DUNN.' This is an -- MR. NEALE.' -- debate on that. MR. DUNN.' -- 8 by 12 room, a total price of $3,900. A general contractor wants 20 percent of that. They want $750 off of that job, which there isn't even that profit in it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm aware of that, Mr. Dunn. And that's on the tenth floor and adjacent to a party wall of another individual. MR. DUNN.' That is on the first floor of a one-story building. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What happened to the tenth floor adjacent? MR. DUNN.' This is on the first floor. It's on a three-unit. It's no different than going over to Enchanting Acres right now and doing a glass room on one of those where the roofs are all connected. MR. BARTOE.' Mr. Dunn? MR. BALZANO.' They're not connected. MR. BARTOE.' Mr. Dunn, is that the one where the concrete slab's already poured? MR. DUNN.' That's one where the electrician went in and was given a permit to do his work. The concrete man went in, he was given his permit. He was inspected, he was approved, and the concrete is all ready for me to build a room on. And I came down feeling everything was all set. All I'm drawing is a permit for my room. They would not give it to me. But yet an electrician can draw a permit on a commercial property and the concrete man can draw a permit on a commercial property. Now, I don't know where I stand there, but it looks to me like I'm dragging up the tail end of this deal. MR. BARTOE.' That owner was in the office yesterday. MR. DUNN.' He was so mad that he went down -- MR. BARTOE.' Well, I just want to advise you, he did not appear that upset to me when he left, and I'm sure he's watching this program right now to see what the board's decision is. And he indicated that he'll either, according to their decision, let you do the job, get a general contractor to finish or abandon the job and end up with a slab. Page 24 August 16, 2000 MR. DUNN: My last word was that if this wasn't approved and we couldn't go forward with it, he was going to stop the job right there. I've right now got, I would say, at least $800 worth of labor into that job. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Let me clarify this once again then. This particular job under question today that we're talking about, this specific job, is this a three-unit building? MR. DUNN: It's a three-unit building with a firewall in between the units there. It's a single-story building. It's a single-family home. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. It's a three-unit building. Didn't I hear you say earlier, Mr. Zachary, that it was -- above three units was considered commercial? MR. ZACHARY: No, I think -- no, I wasn't -- we said that -- it was my understanding that any condominium is classified as commercial. CHAIRMAN HAYES: One -- or two units and above. MR. ZACHARY: Well, that was my question, too. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I apologize. I guess I got wax in my ears, because I truly thought I heard you say three units and above was considered commercial. MS. PAHL: I heard four-plex. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that does say four-plex. MS. WHITE: Well, first of all, I think, Mr. Dunn, we can't give you a restricted general contractor's license, because it doesn't exist. And number two, I'm very concerned about the homeowner and about your situation in this job. I wonder if it would be possible, since it is a three-unit and we have not gotten the legal opinion on whether this is commercial, residential, whether that makes any difference anyway, whether he could finish this particular job but not be issued any licenses to do future lobs. Can we do that? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I personally don't have a problem with finishing a job in this particular case, if it -- MR. BARTOE: Permitting does. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And-- MR. NEALE: And the problem is we can't tell permitting -- this board cannot tell permitting to issue a permit. MR. NONNENMACHER: I think you'd be setting yourself up for some liability if a legal opinion came down for the county on Page 25 August 16, 2000 this. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, the concern I have is that this gentleman's been doing this type stuff for 33 years, without permits, with permits, who knows. MR. BALZANO: We don't know that. MR. DUNN: With permits. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We don't know, that's correct. But it has been being done (sic). He's making an attempt to legitimize. MR. BALZANO: Here's the problem: From what I understand, because I've been involved with Mr. Dunn on this particular situation, in the past he has been allowed to pull what they call a shell for the rooms that he does. This particular plan that he's submitted shows the wall coming down and this shell becoming part of the living space. That's where the permitting department has a problem with him doing the work. Am I correct? Isn't that what Jerry Ballard and Ed Perico said? MS. WHITE: So as long as the wall doesn't come down, he could do it; is that correct? MR. BALZANO: In that particular building, it is just a screen room or a glass room or a Florida room. But they're going to make it part of the living space of that unit. MR. DUNN: That was upon the request of Collier County. Collier County told me that if I enclose that glass room, the only way that you could have an emergency exit is to open that into the outdoors, which because we're building a room there, the emergency exit would open out into the glass room. Then I talked to Jeff, who said that if we took the window out, and that's all it is, just take the window out and there's a little concrete ledge it sets on, that will legitimize that exit into the room. There's no structural work being done at all. All it is is doing what we always do, take a window out. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale, I for one on this board, and I can stand corrected because anyone can make a motion and we can second it and vote on anything we want to up here, I guess. But I for one am not prepared to take any action whatsoever on this issue. MR. NEALE: It is my recommendation as counsel to this board that this board take either no action or an action stating that they will take no action on this matter. Because I think what the board is being requested to do is far beyond any scope of Page 26 August 16, 2000 authority granted to it under statute or ordinance, and that -- I understand the board's desire to assist the homeowner and to assist Mr. Dunn, and I think that's a noble thing to do, but I -- unless Mr. Zachary has had a flash of lightning strike his head and come up with some brilliant solution to this, I do not feel comfortable in recommending any action to this board that would permit this gentleman to be given a type of license that would allow him to go to the permitting department and convince them to issue a permit. At this point, I don't view this, from my point of view, from a legal point of view, as being a licensure issue. I view this as being a permitting and legislative issue and regulatory issue that I would feel much more comfortable having -- spending a few hours in legal review of this and talking to the relevant departments, maybe even talking to the state about it. Because I think this is a more complex issue than let's just issue a license for this one and maybe no one will notice. Pardon me, Ms. White, but, I mean, this is a real -- I agree with Mr. Nonnenmacher, there may be significant liability to the county if -- and particularly it may set a precedent that this board has never been willing to adopt in the past. So as much as I know the board would like to go forward with this, I just would feel uncomfortable recommending us doing something. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to suggest then that we do continue this and have the research that I asked for and the cooperation and corroboration of the individuals that we spoke of in permitting and in licensing with the county attorney's office and our attorney for next month. Mr. Dunn? MR. DUNN.' I can't agree with you on this as far as opening up a can of worms or anything like that. I am asking for Robert Dunn, Bay Aluminum, to be allowed to do this. What happens if I qualify for this, I feel I should get it. When you gave out the first specialty license, boy, that was the first guy that had a specialty license. Now we're opening up a can of worms, everybody is going to want to get it. That's the board's problem there. Right now I'm looking at my own qualifications, I'm looking at the condo commercial code, and there should be some way -- if I was to go into Collier County Building Department right now, Page 27 August 16, 2000 they could give me an answer on something that I never even expected when I walked in there. It would be a total change of what you're approaching right now. And you have to have a legal opinion that I can -- I wouldn't stick my neck out either. But another 30 days on this is -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I understand and I appreciate that. I will tell you that no one on this board has seen any factual evidence whatsoever of your experience, Mr. Dunn. There's no way that I'm going to say on your word alone that you're experienced to do this anyway. So like Mr. Neale said earlier, it may be that if you were looking for a specialty license, that you need to make full application anyway, so that we could review in factual documentation your experiences. So we can't do anything as far as a license at this concern. I don't see anything we can do unless somebody on this board knows something more than I do. I'm just going to suggest that perhaps in this particular case, not to set a precedent so that you have to hire a general contractor every time, since we're not going to probably be able to act on this, I would suggest that you do find a general contractor to pull a permit to finish this particular project. And I don't believe that this town is made up of total rip-off general contractors that want 20 percent just to go in there and help the individuals out. I think that you could probably find a general contractor to help you out this particular time. MR. DUNN.' I wouldn't do it for less myself, to be honest with you, the responsibility there. And it's not only I brought forward the fact that you have more manufactured homes that are in the condo grouping. I don't feel that I can go out and sell lobs to them right now. I'm going to be -- I'm going to lock my doors up for 30 days or until I hear that we can go into these parts. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't -- Mr. Dunn, I don't believe a 30-day delay here is going to matter whether you're in or out of business for the rest of your life. You've been in business for 33 years. I think if you'll just be a little bit patient with us, we may render something in your favor. MR. DUNN.' And I've been four weeks right now not doing anything except coming to the county here and not accomplishing one job. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, we're going to hope to change that Page 28 August 16, 2000 for you. We appreciate that you've got enough confidence to come to us to begin with, and we do want to try to end this endeavor for you. MR. DUNN.' I want to make this legal. That's my whole thing. And I'm getting on in years, and I feel that at least I'll leave one thing that when you're not going out to these places and seeing 10 lobs. Which incidentally, one job on this same deal that I'm working on has been done illegal since I started all this work. There's nothing -- they're doing it. They've got to do it, because they can't go through what I'm going through. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. See, this may be just the eye-opener we need to modify the ordinance to make it work right so that we don't force these people underground. I don't want that to happen either. MR. DUNN.' I don't either. I wanted to -- I would like to see the legal opinion on it myself and go through the attorneys. I would like to see Collier County, when they have a question, you've got some pretty competent people down there, I'd like to see them fax something over to the attorney when there's a question like I've had. And like this other gentleman that ran back and forth for I don't know how many months. And the times I went in there, the last two months I went in there, I had six people climbing all over me. One, you can't put windows in, your license doesn't allow that. You can't go off the first floor. I went through six different people in the county and finally they gave me the permit. I walked out of there feeling real happy that we got it straightened out. And then I come back two weeks later and no, you can't do that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It is quite complicated. Their job really gets deep and complicated sometimes. MR. DUNN.' I think due to the frustration and also the problem they gave me and they gave me the permit on the other one, I think the building department should do like you or somebody suggested here, let's get this job done and out of the way and then let's set back and wait for the other one. They've already given me a permit to do a job twice that size. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. DUNN.' And that went through every person in Collier County in the building department. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Hayes, could I just throw in that it Page 29 August 16, 2000 appears that from an opinion that Mr. Palmer gave a couple of months ago about commercial properties that the owner himself could pull the permit and do the work up to $25,000 and supervise the job himself. So that may be a solution for Mr. Dunn. And I think that I've suggested that to him when I talked to him. And as far as not giving him a legal opinion, obviously there isn't an opinion. We don't have an answer right now for him and I didn't have an answer for him prior to today either, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: So there is some possible options. And there isn't a legal answer from us at this point, but can I count on that legal answer happening next month at our regular meeting? MR. ZACHARY: You can count on us doing some research and seeing if there is one. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Trying our best to come up with a conclusion. MR. ZACHARY: It appears that it's an interpretation now, not a legal interpretation, but the interpretation by the permitting department. So we'll certainly get with them and get with anybody that we need and try to find some solution. MR. NEALE.' As I said, the problem we have, and I prefaced this early on with that, is this is so fact based that we can give you a legal framework to hang it on, but we may not be able to give you something that says here's A and here's B. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, here's the thing, here's the thing: I do not want this board or this county staff to prevent someone from doing something that is perfectly legal. I do not want to stand in this gentleman's way. MR. DUNN.' Yes. You did have the -- or you mentioned that an owner may pull a permit up to $25,000. I went down and talked to the county in regards to that, and their interpretation of a condo is the owner does not own the land, he has no vested interest in the land. And the only one that can pull a permit is the owner of the land. I've since read up on it and the condo is an estate and it's a leased property, and that's the lowest form of ownership of a piece of property. They should be qualified. But they will not let me -- I can get the owner to pull a permit tomorrow, but they're telling me that that owner does not own anything there. And legally, I think the attorney can tell you that, that a leased property, you have a vested interest, you have an ownership in Page 30 August 16, 2000 that property and you should be able to pull a permit. If he would give me that, I could go down and get the permit with the owner tomorrow and we'd be clear on it. All he'd have to do is give us a legal definition of a condo owner as being a leased property and that they do have an ownership in it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Doesn't a condo have a condominium board? Isn't there a president of that condominium board? And can't he act on behalf the business of the condominium? MR. DUNN: No. Jerry Ballard says that guy can be here today and gone tomorrow. He has no interest in that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's right. But he -- he legally at that point in time represents the owner, and the owner is the condominium -- MR. DUNN: The owner-- owner-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- of the common area. MR. DUNN: The owner does own an interest in that property through an estate. He has ownership of that property by a lease. And there's about six different ownerships of real estate, and one of them is a lease ownership. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, now we're going to get into the interpretation of Florida Statute on condominiums, and I'm not prepared to go there. MR. NEALE: I would suggest that this board stay away from that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. I know it's not the answer you want to hear, Mr. Dunn, but I don't think you're going to hear anything that you want to hear here today. I don't know how to help you at this point without stepping on our own toes and perhaps stepping on yours any further. And I don't want to do that to you, the homeowner, to our staff, to our attorneys or to anyone on the board. I don't want to jeopardize this until we can get a little bit more clarification from all of the issues involved here. I apologize for not being able to settle this for you today. I wish we could. But it's obviously way too gray for us to make a decision here. The best I'm going to hope for is that we can put it on next month's agenda. We do the best we can to research this and have all the parties that may, licensing, permitting and the individuals in charge of those for opinions on interpretations, and then we'll have our county attorney's opinion. Page 31 August 16, 2000 And perhaps, Mr. Neale, like you said, maybe even some form of an opinion from the state on 489 regarding the specialty license that you're asking for as well. MR. DUNN: I will have to get legal help then myself. Because evidently, as working people, all of us here, we can't get an answer here. And my knowledge is not that great that I can come in here and argue any legal opinion that your attorney would give you, so -- and I don't know whether he could expedite this any more. CHAIRMAN HAYES: In this particular case, it might not be a bad idea for you to do that very thing. It could lend -- you know, any and all input at this point is welcome. So he may be able to lend a different perspective on to it as well. And again, this is not for one particular case, this is for the permanency of your business. MR. DUNN: No, this is for one case. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Pardon me? MR. DUNN: This is for one case only, and that's for myself. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Well, I'm not looking at it-- because we don't just represent one individual, we represent the entire county. So in your case this could be the future of your business. So it might not hurt to spend a few dollars for an attorney. MR. DUNN: What happens now if I go out and sell a job in Moorhead Manor?. I'm not licensed to do that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm not prepared to tell you if you can or can't. MR. DUNN: Well, I don't want to come before you again because Tom went over there and said, what are you doing here, Bob, and I'm signing up a glass room. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you very much, I don't either. But what I'm saying is this is a case in pending. And we will research it and come back with some further information and hopefully a conclusion at next month's hearing. MR. DUNN: Is there any way that I can continue on selling the way that I have been -- well, I can't do the job anyway, so there's no sense selling them. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to tell you that at this point in time I can't tell you what's legal and illegal for you to do. I don't know. Page 32 August 16, 2000 MR. DUNN: Well, I do know that I can't sell outside of my license there, and everybody knows that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, I definitely do not want you to do anything to jeopardize the legitimacy of your business. I truly don't. By the same token, the financial condition, I don't want you to jeopardize that either. So we are kind of between a rock and a hard place, Mr. Dunn. MR. DUNN: Well, I had hopes that maybe you had -- in your vast knowledge, you would have a way of settling this thing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I would have loved it. I would have felt real proud if we were able to lick this puppy today, but I can't see it happening. MR. DUNN: Well, you have had people in the county and the building department stick their neck way out in making decisions that evidently nothing's ever happened on it there. And I guess that's what I'd have to ask you to do is stick your neck out a little bit there. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, next month we'll stick it out. This month none of us have enough information -- MR. DUNN: That or cut it off, one of the two. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you, sir. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Mr. Dunn, in all the 33 years that you've been doing these varieties of work, have you thought of getting your own general contractor's license? MR. DUNN: I'm 67 years old now. I figure three years from now I'm going to be maybe sitting up in your chair or I'll be doing something else. I don't intend to be in there. But I do think that something should be straightened out on this here, and I've worked for that. I've had Tom walk away from me, because when I come in the county, I've got a problem and they know it. And I want it straightened out. And I want this straightened out for myself, so I know it is. And there's so many things. This condo deal is just eating me up here that you're saying that's commercial property. I'd like to have the attorney show me someplace where it is commercial property. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's what we're going to do next month. MR. DUNN: If he could show me that, I could go out -- if he Page 33 August 16, 2000 can't show me that, I should be able to go out and do this job right now. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I agree. MR. DUNN: If he could give us a decision that a condo is not a commercial piece of property, then I'll claim Mr. Palmer's decision, when I talked to him in error the first time, anybody's got to be a crazy idiot to say that a condo is commercial property, unless they got a ma and pa sales operation going on there. That was your attorney's opinion. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. MR. DUNN: You bet. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We can take a 10-minute break, mechanical break. We'll resume at 20 after 10:00. MR. NEALE: Before we do, Ms. Pahl, do you have to leave? MS. PAHL: I should, but we need a quorum here, and there's still more cases to be heard, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I just wonder if the 10 minutes might help you there. MR. NEALE: Can you -- MS. PAHL: Possible, yeah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, we'll return in 10 minutes. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: We're ready to continue? Okay, moving on with our new business. John P. Gaffney, request to qualify second entity with tile and marble and floor covering license. Mr. Gaffney, are you here? MR. GAFFNEY: Yes, I am. Good morning. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to have to ask you to get sworn in. Talk to Cherie' there. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir, for the record? MR. GAFFNEY: John Gaffney. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here? MR. GAFFNEY: To qualify a second entity. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What company do you qualify now? MR. GAFFNEY: Coleman Floor Company. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Coleman Floor Company. And what does Coleman Floor Company do? MR. GAFFNEY: Ceramic tile, marble and flooring. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And the company you're asking to Page 34 August 16, 2000 qualify is named? MR. GAFFNEY: CFC-Field, Inc. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's your company? MR. GAFFNEY: It's part of Coleman Floor Company, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And what are you going to do there that you can't do in -- MR. GAFFNEY: It's more for compliance with workman's compensation. We're going to create a second company and then do a leasing with it so they're all covered. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Are the workmen's compensation rates different for different classes of work that are all done by employees of your two companies? MR. GAFFNEY: Yes, they are. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Can you not get a policy under one company that covers different classifications of workers? MR. GAFFNEY: We can, but a part of it is the internal structure of the company with insurance and benefits for employees, as opposed to the people who would be with the leasing company. MS. WHITE: I have a question regarding all the different addresses in your materials. MR. GAFFNEY: Yes. MS. WHITE: CFC-Field has a Naples address. MR. GAFFNEY: Yes, ma'am. MS. WHITE: Coleman has an Illinois address. MR. GAFFNEY: That's right, corporate offices. That's still the Naples address also. MS. WHITE: I think there was one in Plantation, Florida. MR. GAFFNEY: Pompano Beach, probably. MS. WHITE: Pine Island Road, Plantation. MR. GAFFNEY: No, that's -- we're not there. MS. WHITE: It's in your Articles of Incorporation. I just had a question about all the different addresses and how that -- MR. GAFFNEY: Well, we have several offices all over the state, but our main office, the corporate office, is in Chi -- right outside Chicago, Illinois. MR. NEALE: If I can clarify. The registered office is listed in Article 5 of the Articles of Incorporation. That's CT Corporation Systems. It's a commonly used service. I've used it for clients of mine. They just act as a registered agent for literally thousands Page 35 August 16, 2000 of corporations. So that really isn't relevant or of any consideration to this board. MS. WHITE: Okay. What about the home office being in Illinois and -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: As long as there's a registered office in Collier County, it's fine. MR. NEALE: And it's a Florida corporation, so -- MR. SCHOENFUSS: Can anyone see anything wrong with all of this? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm not sure I see a need for it, but I can't see anything wrong with it either. Application seems to be in order. You are the sole stockholder of CFC-Field? MR. GAFFNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't see anything in the ordinance preventing it. I don't see any ambiguities. Credit report seems clean enough, we get a chance to review it. MS. WHITE: Is there a CFC-Field in Illinois as well? MR. GAFFNEY: No, there isn't. MS. WHITE: Because your liability insurance is hooked up to CFC-Field in Illinois, but the address is Naples, Florida. So does that matter?. MR. GAFFNEY: That's because they're corporate. MR. SCHOENFUSS: approve it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: second. MS. WHITE: I would like to ask a question to Mr. Neale, if that makes any difference about where the insurance, the liability -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to have to ask for a second first, then we can open for discussion. MS. WHITE: Sorry. MR. CRAWFORD: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. Discussion now, Ms. White. MR. NEALE: It really doesn't, as long as the insurance covers -- the insured company is CFC-Field, Inc., but that would cover their subsidiaries and so forth. I mean, it's just the actual address of the insured. There would be additional attachments If nobody has anything to say, I move we I have a motion on the floor. I need a Page 36 August 16, 2000 that would cover the locations. So this is just the corporate office of CFC-Field, Inc. Shouldn't be any difficulty there. They're covered. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is CFC-Field, Incorporated in Illinois as well? MR. GAFFNEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It is strictly a Florida corporation -- MR. GAFFNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- with an Illinois address. I have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Calling for the vote, all in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, short and sweet. MR. GAFFNEY: Thank you. Have a good day. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Gaffney, I'd like to advise you and anyone else in the audience that has a request today, if it gets approved by the board, please don't go into our office until tomorrow to get these licenses, because I have your package here and office staff won't be able to help you until I get the package back to them. MR. GAFFNEY: No problem. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, William A. Alberson, Sr., request for approval of roof/coat/paint/cleaning license with a grade of 71.7 from a painting exam, business and law. Mr. Alberson, are you here? MR. ALBERSON: I am. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to ask you to get sworn in. Everything that you say is legal testimony as far as we're concerned, so I have to ask you to get sworn in first. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir, for the record. MR. ALBERSON: William A. Alberson, Sr. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you're here because you pulled a 71.7? MR. ALBERSON: Correct. I made application to Collier County for my painting license, with the requirements of being 75 percent of my grade. When the test was taken, it was 71. So I was required to appear before this board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: This test that you received this score was done in 19 -- when was the test done? Page 37 August 16, 2000 MR. ALBERSON: March of 1991, if I'm not mistaken. MR. CRAWFORD: It says 1990. MR. ALBERSON.' Okay, 1990. I don't remember the exact date. CHAIRMAN HAYES: March of 1990. And you're just now applying for a license? MR. ALBERSON.' No, sir, not at all. Collier County. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I wanted to hear. MR. ALBERSON.' I have been in business in Pinelias, Hillsboro County and worked state-wide all the years that I've been doing this. My business has brought me to these markets as well and they require a license, for me to get a license to work here. There are counties that do not require me to get a license in every county in which I work. Collier County happens to be one of them. We find it necessary to make application in order to work here. MR. BARTOE.' And I might add, as has been brought up in the past, some counties only require a 70 grade. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Exactly right. We had -- MR. BARTOE: That's the major reason why he's here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We had discussed that and made issue of it, I believe, on our reciprocal agreements and questions on reciprocating with other counties. Is this the first time you've tried to do work in Collier County? MR. ALBERSON.' This is the first time I've made application for Collier County, that's correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you have a lot of work in Collier County, or is this just a one-job shot here? MR. ALBERSON.' Not at all. We specialize. Our business is specialized in the roof coating. We deal strictly with concrete tile, but with -- in aspect, the coating it or reglazing it, changing colors. We can do things as far as each individual tile being two or three colors and then blend it on the roof or what have you. We're sort of a one-of-a-kind company, so to speak. Because of that and changes that have been made in the manufacturing industry where tile's concerned has pulled us south as well as north. We cover the entire state, for the most part, being called in to do certain types of roofs or particular colors or custom colors are no longer made. Page 38 August 16, 2000 MR. SCHOENFUSS.' Well, this application is for Albertson's Tile Roof Glaze, Inc.; is that right? MR. ALBERSON.' That is correct, that is the company's -- MR. SCHOENFUSS.' And on this very complete packet of stuff we have, Page 10 of 11 says Alberson's Tile Roof Glaze, Inc., Fort Myers, Naples, Florida. And you list 20 or more lobs in Collier County and in Naples that was supposed to be done by that company. How did you do these? MR. ALBERSON.' It's not we did those lobs. The materials that we use are manufactured by my company as well to apply said material, or we have sold our material to a general contractor, a roofing contractor or another painting contractor to do the lobs. And because of the material being a specialized product, we're able -- personnel, including myself, are able to govern these lobs and make sure that they're supplied properly just by being present on the job. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' So these are done on other people's licenses is what you're saying? MR. ALBERSON.' Right, another contractor applied it, but we were involved because of our material. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I see in your packet a Pinelias testimony -- or documentation for a Pinelias County license. What other license did you say you hold? MR. ALBERSON.' I only hold a painting contractor's license, but I hold that license in Pinelias County, Hillsboro County, Indian River County, and working on Collier County. The other counties at this point in time that I'm able to work in do not require more of a license than I now hold. For instance, Sarasota or Manatee County doesn't require testing; therefore, I'm not required to go purchase a license in that county if I choose to work there. I am covered under law by the statutes of the state. If I'm working on a transitory basis in another county, I don't have to get a license for that county, as long as it's not more of a requirement than I now have. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Where was your license originally issued? MR. ALBERSON.' Pinelias County. And I reciprocated into Hillsboro County. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You're not licensed in Lee County then either?. Page 39 August 16, 2000 MR. ALBERSON: No, sir, I'm not. MS. WHITE: And you don't have a roof coating license in any of these other counties, it's just painting; is that right? MR. ALBERSON: The -- there is -- as far as roof coatings are concerned, it all falls under-- from what I understand, it falls under painting. I am a licensed painting contractor. And the difference in my business and that of a painter is that I specialize strictly in tile roofs. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bartoe, is there any other question from licensing, other than the 71.7 on the issuance of this license? MR. BARTOE: No, sir. Now, the license he's applied for, roof coat, roof paint and clean, that only requires the business and law test. MR. NEALE: And 24 months experience. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And 24 months experience. MR. BARTOE: It does not require the three-hour painting test, as a painting license does. MR. NEALE: Which apparently this gentleman's already passed, or admittedly -- he got a 71.7. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Exactly. So we're really just -- as far as I can see, it's just almost a normal standard reciprocation, with the exception of 75 being the minimum grade in Collier. MR. NEALE: Yeah. And if I could put on the record, at least, under Section 22-184(C) of the ordinance, in relevant point it says that the board may consider the applicant's relevant experience -- relevant recent experience in the specific trade, and based upon such experience may waive testing requirements, if convinced that the applicant is qualified by experience, whereby such competency testing would be superfluous. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Or unnecessary. MR. NEALE: That's superfluous. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any more discussion on the board? Any more questions? If not, I'd like to entertain a motion. MS. WHITE: I'll make a motion that we approve his -- MS. PAHL: And I'll second it. MS. WHITE: -- application. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any further discussion? MR. SCHOENFUSS: I have a motion and second on the floor. Yeah, what -- we had a precedent once Page 40 August 16, 2000 before, a big issue of someone that appeared otherwise to be very well qualified who had less than -- who had a score of between 70 and 75 on the exam. And in the county where the examination was taken the passing grade was 70, and in Collier County it's 75. And we had a lot of discussion about that. And I don't remember exactly what the action was and how much of a precedent it may or may not have established. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think I remember some of that, too, Mr. Schoenfuss. And I believe even last month and the month prior to that we had some discussion regarding reciprocating licenses. And we had questioned whether or not we even needed to actually put something in writing or not, to bind ourselves or to not bind ourselves, and I think we decided not to put anything in writing, to allow us the leeway to make a decision as we're making today, based on everything else in the packet, years of experience and type of license that he's carried, et cetera and so forth. So I think that what happened at that time was that we don't need to make a decision for the future, we need to make the decision as they come to us, on an individual basis. MR. NEALE.' And that's very important. And I'd like the board to make it clear that the board did find that this gentleman's experience did make the testing requirement superfluous in this instance. MR. CRAWFORD.' The issue here for me is he took the test back in 1990. If he took the test last month, he would have a chance to retake it and do better. But at the time and the location he was taking the test, he passed. And I'm sure if he had studied and took the test again today, he could get up to the 75. So the test score is not an issue for me. MS. WHITE: What were the test score requirements in 19907 MR. CRAWFORD: In Collier, probably 75. MS. WHITE: Same thing? MR. NEALE.' Probably 75 here. But the -- I think another relevant point, and I think Mr. Bartoe brought this up, is that the test that he took in 1990 was a painting test that included both painting and business and law, if I'm correct. MR. ALBERSON.' That is correct. MR. NEALE.' Whereas, the test that he would be required to Page 41 August 16, 2000 get the license that he's getting, would be getting here in this county, is only a business and law test. He would not be required to take the full painting test again -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anyway-- MR. NEALE: -- for this license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, any further discussion? I'm calling for the vote. All in favor?. Opposed? MR. SCHOENFUSS: I vote nay with comments. I'm glad the gentleman's going to get his license, and I'm glad the vote is affirmative, but I just don't want this vote to be unanimous. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thanks, Mr. Schoenfuss. Okay, we're going to accept your 7t. whatever it was. And you just need to finish up your application with Mr. Bartoe. MR. BARTOE: Tomorrow in the office. MR. ALBERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay? MR. ALBERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you, sir. Okay, moving right along. Mike Rowen, request to reinstate painting license without retesting. Mr. Rowen, are you present? MR. ROWEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Would you come up to the podium, please, sir. I'm going to also ask you to be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your name, for the record? MR. ROWEN: Mike Rowen. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And Mr. Rowen, your reason for being here this morning? MR. ROWEN: I'd like to have my license reinstated without retesting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Why should we do that? MR. ROWEN: Because I'm the best painter in Collier County? Actually, in the beginning, I was under the impression that I wasn't able to reinstate my license because of a bankruptcy. But the whole issue was that I really didn't get all the information. It was a personal bankruptcy, not a business bankruptcy. So I've been under the impression for the last few years that I was unable to redo it until my bankruptcy was dismissed. Page 42 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, I'm going to tell you that I'm unaware of a bankruptcy affecting a license renewal. Mr. Neale, is there anything in the ordinance that says if you file bankruptcy, personal bankruptcy, you can't renew your license? MR. NEALE.' No. And in fact, this board has considered in the past, there's a specific bankruptcy exception in the Florida Administrative Code, based on federal law, that bankruptcy frankly cannot be considered as a detrimental aspect, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I thought. And you'd be in violation of federal law. So at the time of your -- your license came up for renewal during the time you were going through a bankruptcy; is that correct? MR. ROWEN.' Actually, I was out of state. I paint in different states, different buildings, and what have you. And when I returned I called the office. I think there's even a note in my file that I did call. And that's when I was informed at the time that my bankruptcy would interfere with my credit report, and therefore, I wouldn't be able to re-up. And I've been under that impression for the last several years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is there a requirement that in a license renewal that we're required to apply with a current credit report? I didn't know that was part of the renewal application. MR. NONNENMACHER.' Plus the fact that there was a question, we would not make the decision anyway. It would be brought before this board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you. So he alludes to something in the record, Mr. Bartoe, that he came in and requested. Do you see that anywhere in the record? MR. BARTOE.' The last license on file expired September 30th, '92. And there is a note in here from office staff advising -- dated September 29th, '94, advising him what he needed to do to reinstate. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. So at that time in '94, he was approximately a year and a half, two years or so lapsed in his renewal grace period. So in '92 he didn't come in and do it, didn't ask any questions in '92, just in '94 he comes back and then asks about it and is told that he has to go through the process. MR. BARTOE.' That's correct. According to the note, it says first part of application, which means we would need that, a Page 43 August 16, 2000 credit report. It says I-N-C. I'm assuming if he's incorporated, they would need those papers. And occupational, and it says $79.20 fee. That's also in the -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, the way I understand it, Mr. Neale, is that he didn't apply in '94 for a renewal, he applied for a reinstatement. MR. NEALE: In '94 was the reinstatement? CHAIRMAN HAYES: You see, '92, if he applied for a renewal, he wouldn't have needed that packet. But in '94, you're not applying for a renewal any longer. It's been -- your license has been revoked at that point, or terminated. You're now asking in 1994 for a reinstatement. You would have needed in fact a credit report and -- for review, et cetera, and so forth at that point in time. MR. BARTOE: And according to what Mr. Rowen said, he did not go through with it because of someone explaining something to him about he wouldn't be able to do it with a bankruptcy. MR. NEALE: But then he's been doing something for six years. MR. BARTOE: Correct, he has been painting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: When did you go through your bankruptcy? MR. ROWEN: Oh, goodness. Seven years, eight years, nine years ago. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Rowen, seven years, eight years ago would be 1992, '93? MR. ROWEN: I honestly don't remember. It was during a divorce. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's what I questioning. I think what I'm trying to get at here is that if you were taking care of your business and your life and the conflicts and problems of a divorce and a bankruptcy, I can understand those weighing heavily on you. But if your license came up for renewal in 1992, then just because you were having problems with your marriage is no excuse not to renew the license. MR. ROWEN: Although at that point in time I was out of the state. When I returned, that's when I phoned and I was basically informed that my credit report would be bad and I wouldn't be able to re-license. And that's where I was at. CHAIRMAN HAYES: When you left the state, you didn't have Page 44 August 16, 2000 any intentions of coming back to Florida? MR. ROWEN: Oh, no, every intention. We leave the state often. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Then why didn't you go ahead and make your renewal when it was time to come up? MR. ROWEN: I felt that I couldn't until my bankruptcy was discharged and then I could start again. And then Mr. Bartoe informed me one day, he said, oh, no, it's due to personal, not business, that you can. And here I am. MR. BARTOE: And there's a possibility in '92, when the renewals went out, if he wasn't living here, he never got the mail, because it does not get forwarded. CHAIRMAN HAYES: When did you come back to Florida? MR. ROWEN: Actually, I've been here. I just leave maybe three months out of every summer. I go to different states, paint different buildings. We painted historical sites and all kinds of things. Wonderful time. And been looking forward to getting my license back. I mean, in all honesty, it's cost me a lot of money and a lot of embarrassment and so on and so on, and I'd really like to just go back to work. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So you haven't done any painting in Florida since 19927 MR. ROWEN: Oh, no, no, that's incorrect. No, I have. I worked in a paint store for a year. I paint. That's what I do. I've been painting here since I was 19 years old. CHAIRMAN HAYES: On your own or -- MR. ROWEN: Sure, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Really? You haven't -- not for a company? MR. ROWEN: No. Most people won't hire a chubby guy like myself. I've been in business for 31 years, going into my 32nd. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So I ask this obvious question then: So you since 1992 have been operating illegally-- MR. ROWEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- as a painting contractor?. MR. ROWEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And now you're asking us to ignore all that and give you your license back? MR. ROWEN: Well, not so much ignore, maybe perhaps that with the lack of information and the lack of maybe my digging Page 45 August 16, 2000 further that maybe both of us were a little bit at wrong and maybe we could sort of overlook it and get on with it? I don't know. MR. BARTOE: It didn't really get ignored. Mr. Rowen did receive a citation. So did his son. And that's the reason he's here before you, he would like to get legal again. CHAIRMAN HAYES: He's been cited for operating without a license. MR. BARTOE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We caught up with him. MR. BARTOE: Correct. MR. ROWEN: And at that point in time I was informed that in fact that I could renew because of my personal and not business bankruptcy. If I had this information originally, by all means, I would have. MR. BARTOE: I think Mr. Neale can correct me if I'm wrong, but the main reason he's here is it used to be that we did not have in the ordinance that you had to retest if it's been a certain length of time, and that's now in the ordinance, so unfortunately he had to come here before you. MR. NEALE: That was added in the '99 revision, yeah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to be honest with you, whether he had to retest or not, after eight years of non-license holder, I'd have a hard time, whether we had the testing or not, reissuing an eight-year-old expired license. MR. NEALE: Well, if I may, just for the board's information, in June of t999, M&M Painting and Pressure Cleaning was cited, Matt Rowen at the time, for advertising itself as a business organization, so -- and the board did find -- find that -- MR. SCHOENFUSS: So the question is -- question is, Mr. Rowen, have you been here before either as a witness or as a defendant or as an applicant or in any other capacity? MR. ROWEN: No, sir. MR. SCHOENFUSS: And I see on your application that name and reference of persons who have always known you, Jeff Popick. What's your relationship with him? MR. ROWEN: We're actually just very good friends. And when my son was cited for painting Mr. Popick's house, he was there as a friend. It was just a big to-do. Mr. Bartoe came along and of course saw the car and saw Page 46 August 16, 2000 Matt painting and assumed that he was working for Mr. Popick, which he wasn't. We're very good friends. We've been very good friends for years and we're still very good friends. And actually, I work for General Concrete on a part-time basis for Mr. Popick, you know, because I'm not out there illegal every day trying to, you know, cause trouble. I've been trying to -- I really want to conform with everything and really get my license and just go back to being a normal person. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Since you've been caught. MR. ROWEN: Well, no, it had nothing to do with being caught, it's that I've got -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: It has everything to do with being caught. You didn't even apply for a license -- for an insurance for your company until August of 2000. That was after the citations were written. MR. ROWEN: But it was from misinformation in the beginning, sir. Just not misinformation, let's just say lack of information, complete information. I definitely would have complied in every way. I've been losing a lot of money. I paint all the complexes and houses on Marco, and have for years and -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Illegally. MR. ROWEN: -- can't. No, no, no, no. Oh, no, I don't do any condominiums or anything anymore. They're waiting. I could go back tomorrow to work, I just need to be legal. And you know, I'm not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes and tell you oh, no, I've been really good. I have to work. That's what I do. I'm a painter, and -- MR. SCHOENFUSS: Well, if you've had time -- I see there's a lot of interesting things in here. If you've got time to paint churches free and you've had time to paint houses free for your friends, and -- MR. ROWEN: Well, actually, I had nothing to do with the Popick house. MR. SCHOENFUSS: No, for other houses for other friends and so forth. Why haven't you had time to take the exam? MR. ROWEN: Well, I didn't think I'd be able to, even if I pass the exam again, because of the bankruptcy. That was my whole thought for these last years was until this is all resolved, there's no way I'm going to get re-licensed. Page 47 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Rowen, where did you get your license at the first time? MR. ROWEN: In Collier County. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, and when did you get that; do you remember?. MR. ROWEN: Honestly, no. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Seventies-- MR. ROWEN: Muncie was still -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- eighties? MR. ROWEN: Joey Muncie was still in the office then, when it was in the little tiny office in the other building. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. At that point in time, I don't think we had any testing requirements. MR. ROWEN: Oh, yes, I wrote a test. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You had a test? MR. ROWEN: Oh, sure. I wrote an 82, I believe, or an 81, somewhere around in there. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It would be way too much to ask to produce those test results, I'm sure. MR. ROWEN: I'm sure Mr. Bartoe has them. And I have them myself. I still have-- I have it framed. MR. BARTOE: November 3rd, 1984, 81.3 percent. CHAIRMAN HAYES: To me, that's the first plus in this entire packet. MR. ROWEN: Super. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your credit report is not acceptable. It's on M&M Painting, and I need a credit report on you individually. MR. ROWEN: I was just informed that M&M was what I needed. I can sure supply the other one. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I researched it this morning before I came in here and I needed -- according to our statute, Section 2.2.1.3 requires it to be on the applicant, not on the business. So when I saw this application, of course obviously the application has absolutely -- or the report has absolutely no information on it, like it's non -- like the company's nonexistent. MR. ROWEN: That's what Ms. Puig asked me to get, the business report, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think it's the first time I've seen -- I can't remember the last time, at least, that I've seen a business report on a credit report. Don't we pretty well ask for the Page 48 August 16, 2000 applicant themselves an individual report? MR. NEALE: Well, you only need it if the business has been -- if the corporation's been in business for less than a year. But -- so I don't -- is this a corporation? MR. ROWEN: No. MR. NEALE: Okay, so it's just a d/b/a. So it should be on the person. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It should be on the person, right. MR. BARTOE: I think we would have received more information if we'd have had a Social Security number and date of birth on this credit report also. But if the board sees everything else in order and would approve a license pending a new credit report that staff could review, I see no problem with that. MS. WHITE: Is a restatement the same as starting over?. I mean, I know a renewal's not, but is a restatement he needs to provide us everything as if he's coming in here as a brand new applicant; is that correct? MR. NEALE: The way -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. MR. NEALE: Yeah, the way our ordinance, the Collier County ordinance, works in Section 22-191(I), it's -- this was just rewritten in '99, but it's somewhat clearer than it used to be -- is it says that any individual who fails to renew his or her certificate of competency prior to December 30th 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 and fees and charges adopted by resolution. They must submit an entire new application. If as of the date of the receipt by the county of the new application three years have passed since the date of his or her most recent examination that the individual pass to acquire the formal certificate, that individual must pass all then test -- applicable testing requirements. If the request is to reactivate a dormant certificate, the retesting requirement can be waived by staff if the applicant proves that he or 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 retesting superfluous. Page 49 August 16, 2000 MS. WHITE: So you're saying he has to retake the exam; is that correct? MR. NEALE: If -- this was modeled pretty extensively on 489 in their testing requirements in that it was the feeling of the board at the time and adopted by the County Commission that if someone hadn't taken the exam for three years and had also let their license lapse for a period of two years, that -- that's basically at least five years since they've taken an exam -- that the board felt pretty strongly that they need to step up to the plate and prove that they're competent again. MS. WHITE: So he needs to retake the exam, he needs to give us a personal credit report. And if the bankruptcy doesn't make any difference, why do we have that question on our application? MR. NEALE: It's one that -- the bankruptcy makes a difference in that the board can consider it but it cannot be everything that's considered. You know, the rehabilitation can be considered. But, you know, the board does have the option that it has always, which is to waive testing requirements if this person can demonstrate, through affidavits and so forth, their competency without the testing requirement. But in order to do so, the board must have -- let me find the citation. Upon evidence presented by the applicant and the contractor licensing supervisor, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall determine whether the applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which applicant has been made. Finding of facts and conclusion of law regarding the approval or denial of the application shall be made by the board. The board may consider the applicant's relevant recent experience in this specific trade. However, proof of said experience is typically evidenced as was in the previous application with affidavits on the form prescribed by the board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to suggest to you that this case fits Section 2.5.3 of our ordinance a heck of a lot better than the previous case did. And that is that we have the ability to waive the testing requirement based on experience, proving the testing superfluous. This fits it a whole lot better. He's now reapplying. So within his reapplication, if he meets all other aspects, including the experience, and can also Page 50 August 16, 2000 demonstrate enough experience to this board, we can waive the testing. But that's as far as we can go. We cannot regrant his license. MR. NEALE: No, it must be a new application. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. The best we can do is waive the testing. He still has to apply completely with everything else in the ordinance. MR. NEALE: And I would strongly suggest to the board that that include -- and I'm sure it will be no problem for Mr. Rowen to obtain this -- that Mr. Rowen get the affidavit forms from the county whereby people can certify his past experience. MR. BARTOE.' We have it, sir, in his old file. MR. ROWEN: I can get you a new, if you need them. I'd be more than glad to. MR. NEALE: I think my recommendation to be that -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: We get some current ones. MR. NEALE: -- that they be current, not six years old. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Rowen, you don't have a problem with -- MR. ROWEN: Not a bit. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- picking up some current affidavits? MR. ROWEN: Absolutely. MR. NEALE: And there's the verification of construction experience form that the county could supply. I would just suggest that to make sure that the record's in good order, that this board have that to consider when they make the decision. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's what I was going to suggest at this point, that -- not to drag things out any further than we have to. However, for to us act on Section 2.5.3, we need the physical proof in our hands. We can do this one of two ways: We can continue this until next month, review those, and make a call at that point in time, or we can give him that based on staff's approval of those affidavits. MR. NEALE: I would suggest that for something like this where you're waiving requirements, particularly the testing requirement and the experience requirement, that I would -- and it's been this long of a lapse in license, I'd suggest that this come back to the board for a finding of fact and conclusion of law. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anyone need to make a motion on that? MR. CRAWFORD.' I don't know if I agree. We have a person Page 51 August 16, 2000 here who's trying to do the right thing. He's trying to get his license and basically come clean. The issue is one of competency. And it's obvious to me that the man knows how to paint. And if we want to punish him, for lack of a better word, because he perhaps has had some unlicensed activity, then that's the issue. But the competency to me is in place. And I have no problem making a motion that we reinstate or allow him to reapply for his license and let staff approve his credit report and his -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: You are very much entitled to make your motion. And if you get a second, we'll vote on it. If it carries, it's a done deal. If it fails, then we can make another motion. You're strictly within your rights, Mr. Crawford, to do what you wish. MR. CRAWFORD: Well, let's make that motion and then maybe discuss it. I make a motion that we reinstate it or allow Mike Rowen to reapply for his painting license. MR. SCHOENFUSS: You -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think you need to reword the-- MR. SCHOENFUSS: -- one thing or another. MR. CRAWFORD: Reword it for me, please. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You need to reword it. You could perhaps make a motion that we waive the testing requirements for his renewal application, or reapplication. MR. CRAWFORD: Right. I make a motion that we waiver the testing requirements for Mike Rowen's painting license. I have a motion on the floor. I need a CHAIRMAN HAYES: second. (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other motions? No second? Then we drop the motion. MR. NEALE: I think the board by consent can continue this to next month and it can be reheard then. And it's my feeling Mr. Rowen can come back with all the relevant information at that point. CHAIRMAN HAYES: At this point in time I'm going to tell you that we're not prepared to make a decision then with today's information as a group board. If it's not a real major problem for you to-- MR. ROWEN: No problem whatsoever. Page 52 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- collect those applicants (sic) and come back in 30 days, then we'll be able to make it with a little bit more confidence. MR. ROWEN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is that fine with you, sir?. MR. ROWEN: Oh, certainly. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bartoe, from a staff's perspective, I think in pursuit of Mr. Crawford's question here, when I saw you waive that file a minute ago, apparently staff was quite convinced of his testimony or documentation for experience as it is, MR. BARTOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So that wouldn't have been a bad situation at that point. But I think that in pursuit of comfort of this board and in view of Mr. Rowen's desire to cooperate with us, I think maybe it's not a bad deal then if we do continue it to next month and we can give staff a chance to collect and review those affidavits, along with making sure his packet is full and complete, application. MR. NEALE: Because there is another credit report that needs -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Because there is another credit report to get. MR. ROWEN: And that is a personal? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Personal. You come back here next month -- or actually, you give staff your personal credit report and your letters of affidavit and complete the entire full-blown application and come back to this board, then we can act on it for you. MR. BARTOE: What's not complete in the application? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't have a clue. I didn't -- if it's already complete, then it's complete. MR. BARTOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All he needs to do then is the credit application. MR. BARTOE: Other than the credit didn't show any credit. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. Not a problem. MR. NEALE: He needs to get one pulled on him personally with the Social Security number and date of birth. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Super. Okay, then he's seven-eighths -- Page 53 August 16, 2000 MR. BARTOE: New affidavits and personal credit report. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's it. MR. BARTOE: And he'll get them to us and we'll get copies made. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. And then come back for the board next month and we'll act on it. MR. BARTOE: That will be September 20th, Mr. Rowen. MR. ROWEN: And I should return? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. ROWEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay? MR. ROWEN: Certainly. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you very much. MR. ROWEN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Next item, Thomas Williams, review citation. Request for grandfathering on painting -- as painting contractor. Mr. Williams, are you here? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to ask you to be sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, for the record? MR. WILLIAMS: Thomas R. Williams. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here this morning, Mr. Williams? MR. WILLIAMS: I received a citation for advertising paving in my weekly ad in the newspaper. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your license is a landscaper's license. MR. WILLIAMS: Unlimited landscape construction, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you've been advertising paving. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, for 31 years -- I sound like Mr. Dunn a little bit. For 31 years I've been doing a full concept landscape plan as a contractor for landscaping. And within the scope of that, I've installed driveways, sprinkler systems, gazebos, fences, irrigation, which I'm licensed for separately. Pavers. I installed the first pavers that were ever installed in Naples, Florida, and the second in the county. And I've installed hundreds of driveways, pathways, patios and other surfaces of pavers, thinking all the time and planning all the time that it was within the scope of my work, the full Page 54 August 16, 2000 concept landscape package. MR. CRAWFORD: Is the paver license, is that a new license? Is that what's going on? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes. Up until, what was it, last year's amendments, we didn't have a pavers license at all. MR. BARTOE: Years ago we did, and then sometime along the way it got eliminated. And for a while guys were doing it with masonry licenses. And we decided with the problems that we've had, that in the '99 ordinance, that we added paving blocks back into it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: At any time was it ever part of the landscape contractor's description? MR. BARTOE: No, paving blocks was years ago a separate license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Was a separate license. And it has never been a part of the landscaper's license description. And today it is not part of the landscaper license. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that idea is a little bit misconceived. There was no one to install pavers when they first came in but landscapers, and that's who builders like A. Vernon Allen and so forth called to install them. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's my question, Mr. Williams. That's why I'm concerned. If that was so obvious, then why wasn't it included at a license amendment session to include it with the landscaper's license? I mean, you know, in a plumber's license, for example, if a gas pipe wasn't part of the description but it's been done for years as a plumber, I would have thought it'd have been a natural to add it to the plumber's wordage in their license. And so for us to be confused and not have a license at all in the county, have one under paving, then dissolve it and not add it to the landscaper's if it was so obvious, and then not even do that later but to create its own license totally and separate, I was under -- MR. WILLIAMS: There was further confusion between just the name paving, because that also indicates asphalt, concrete, you know, and other sur-- bomanite (phonetic) and other surfaces, which of course we don't touch. MR. NEALE: Well, there were two -- the license category that was created in '99, I happen to have the pre-'99 and the '99 ordinances in front of me, so maybe we can get a little Page 55 August 16, 2000 clarification. The category that was added in '99 was paving blocks contractor, which was specifically for persons who are qualified to construct driveways, sidewalks, patios and decks using concrete paving units. That was added because of a problem that was going on in licensing and in permitting where when someone came in just to do pavers, not as part of a landscape design, but just to do pavers. And this is just going from memory, so it may be maybe not so clear, is that there was a difficulty in what kind of license did they have to have to be able to be able to pull the permit to put the pavers down. And there was a debate over whether it was a masonry contractor, whether it was a landscaping contractor, where that would go. The new category was created, I think, specifically for those who were just doing paving, paver stones, like Keystone and people like that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: How often do you do pavers as a landscaper?. MR. WILLIAMS: On a consistent basis. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So in 1999 you were probably doing pavers at that time? MR. WILLIAMS: Since '72 I've been doing pavers on a regular basis. MR. NEALE: Excuse me, if I may. There's something in the landscape contractor section that I'm not sure how it was ever interpreted in the past, and so this is -- is that it includes any person who is qualified to install and/or remove trees, shrubs, sod, decorative stone and/or rocks, timber and plant materials, whether or not incidental to landscaping. And possibly that was how it at one time was interpreted. And I certainly, you know, don't sit there every day, to permit it was that the decorative stone piece was the landscaper piece of it. You know, it's my memory and maybe other people who were here at the time a couple of years ago when the ordinance was being revised that this was being added specifically for those contractors who solely do paving blocks. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And the license description is solely specialty to paving blocks? Page 56 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE: That's solely pave -- there is a separate paving contractor license for, you know, if somebody's going to put down asphalt or going to do, you know, those kind of things. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's different. MR. WILLIAMS: Those two are not -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, and they're two completely separate licenses. MR. WILLIAMS: They are totally separate. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Mr. Bartoe, in the past, has there ever been that you can remember or think of, not being in permitting, I know you might not be able to answer this, but in the past in the county, has it ever been considered that since it does say stone and rock in the license, that they could do that work? MR. BARTOE: I don't consider the word decorative to fit paving blocks, because you're talking driveways, sidewalks, you know. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. So-- MR. WILLIAMS: Would you consider-- I'm sorry, go ahead. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So historically we're talking then it hasn't been looked upon by the county as, well, maybe you could do pavers with that license? MR. BARTOE: No. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Yes, sir?. MR. WILLIAMS: The thought that crossed my mind is that, you know, stepping stones have been pavers from -- for all times, whether they were carved out of stone or whether they were precast or what have you. And the original pavers were two-by-two stepping stones that were placed together to form decks and floors and walks and drives and so forth. From that evolved the brick that we're using today, manufactured and called interlocking pavers or paved stones, in particular, which are more like brick than like -- what was the word a while ago -- like stepping stones. You know, they're not huge, they're small bricks. And I think that landscapers are forever installed all of patios and walkways using stepping stones and square blocks (sic}. So I don't know whether that would be decorative stone or not, but I have always assumed that it was. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is there a test involved, Mr. Bartoe, on the exam -- I mean, on the license, the paver's license? Page 57 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. BARTOE: Business and law for sure. MR. NEALE: Yeah, it says that there's a -- it requires a passing grade on a three-hour test and a passing grade on a two-hour business and law. MR. CRAWFORD: Does that overlap the landscape license? In other words -- MR. NEALE: That, I don't know what the test -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that was my next question. Mr. Williams, did you ever take a business and law with your current license? MR. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't. I don't think it existed at the time that I started business in 1967. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's a shame. MR. WILLIAMS: I was a mere child at the time when -- I couldn't have passed the test. However, I am -- I have a Ph.D. in business finance today, after having been in that business all these years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is that from the school of hard knocks? MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. You might have known which one I'm talking about. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think a few of us have degrees from -- MR. BALZANO: Mr. Hayes? CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- that particular school. MR. WILLIAMS: This is part of it right here. MR. BALZANO: Mr. Hayes? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'd like to say -- yes, Mr. Balzano. MR. BALZANO: I was just looking at his ad here. He also does ponds and waterfalls, and his license doesn't allow him to do that. He can do prepackaged fountains, but he can't do ponds and waterfalls. His company does everything. MR. WILLIAMS: That was going to be -- once we finished this thought, I was going to bring that up. And as a matter of fact, when pavers were brought up, originally in 1974 or 5 by I think the City of Naples and their director of construction at that time, he said, well, don't worry about it, you guys have been doing it, it's just not something that's a problem. Just the other day in the office, these gentlemen's office, they said the same thing about ponds and waterfalls and fountains, that hey, don't worry about it. Well, it rings again that, Page 58 August 16, 2000 you know, this is going to come up later, and there will be specific contractors who just do that. Well, landscapers have done that forever. Along with building port-a-coves, gazebos, you know, all sorts of open air arbors and trellises of all kinds. All of these things are just kind of sidelines. Where a dinosaur like me, I do all of that stuff. If it's big, I subcontract it, but -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: That in itself, Mr. Williams, is why I'm scratching my head at this point. You're absolutely right, you've been around for a long time. You've been doing this type work for a long time. In the last two years, both of those licensing categories have come up for review, and amendments to the ordinance to include or disinclude (sic) the ponds and waterfalls, I believe was the most recent one that we had to modify or add to the ordinance, and the brick pavers prior to that. Both of those categories would have allowed for grandfathering. And I think at that time you could have grandfathered yourselves into both of those categories. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I've advertised this continually since the early Seventies in all of my ads. And I'm well known to be an extravagant advertiser. And never have I received any notification or any contact or any discussion until this time when I'm nailed with a $300 fine and no further comments or discussion or mailings or what have you regarding that. As a matter of fact, even if you request an answer to a letter within our department of licensing on Horseshoe Drive, you won't get an answer to a letter. It just doesn't -- you know, it's just you don't get it. And that information probably should go down to people who are actively in that trade. You can't find this out by osmosis, you have to participate in it. MR. BARTOE: We can't send a notice out to someone to be grandfathered if they didn't have an occupational license in that trade to begin with. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, then that's probably good that I got the citation and so forth, because it brings it up and we can deal with it as an issue. But heretofore, I have heard nothing regarding this, period. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, I don't think it's the county's responsibility to notify 7,600 different contractors every time there's an ordinance revision. However, I would have thought Page 59 August 16, 2000 that it may have rang a bell since it was at one time considered maybe to be part of your license. I mean, according to Mr. Bartoe, it doesn't sound like they've ever considered paving as part of a landscaper's description of legal work. MR. WILLIAMS: How long has Mr. Bartoe been in that job? I've been in my job for 32 years. You know, I haven't considered it. Since day one it's just been an acceptable thing for my trade. And there's several of us, by the way, who are still around who are landscapers and have been here who actively install pavers. And I have to say that I subcontract them in most cases where it's a large amount of them, and I would never bid a condo or a street or something of that large order. I simply do patios, walkways and small appointments for my residential work. I don't even like commercial. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bartoe, is this, to the best of your knowledge, the first citation that a landscaper has been cited for doing pavers? MR. BARTOE: Mr. Ossorio could probably answer that better. MR. OSSORIO: Mike Ossorio. THE COURT REPORTER: Would you like him sworn in? CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, he's an officer. MR. BARTOE: I think he should be sworn in. There's a citation issued here and Mr. Williams is contesting it. MR. NEALE: No, he needs to be sworn, because he's giving testimony. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: Yes, sir, how are we doing today? For the record, I believe we cited maybe two, three landscapers for waterfalls and ponds. Never came across one for doing brick pavers, just the waterfalls. CHAIRMAN HAYES: To the best of your knowledge, you haven't seen that being a regular feeling by the landscapers in Collier County to be part of their job description? MR. OSSORIO: Never. I never seen a landscaper do any kind of brick paving. And it should also be noted that we got this complaint from a Collier County citizen. So somebody actually did come in the office and leave it on my desk to go ahead and do a little calling. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Was it another landscaper?. Page 60 August 16, 2000 MR. OSSORIO: Could have been. Could have been a landscaper, it could have been -- MR. WILLIAMS: It was a paving contractor, I'm sure. MR. OSSORIO: It could have been a paving contractor. Could have been numerous. MR. WILLIAMS: And in most cases, the paving contractor doesn't want the work that I do. It's small, wiggly paths and round patios and butterfly shaped decks and, you know, crazy stuff that they want to lay, straight lay, like tile on a floor. MR. BALZANO: Mr. Hayes, what he's just said is true. A landscaper can do walkways and patios. We're talking about doing driveways. It's like a pool contractor can build a deck around a swimming pool and he can build a walkway to the house, but he can't do a driveway. MR. WILLIAMS: I agree. MR. BALZANO: You know, but he ends at a certain point. And the reason we did the waterfall and ponds is because years ago there was a little guy standing in the corner with water coming out of his mouth and maybe a little thing. Now they're building ponds that are 200 feet long and they've got, you know, 20-pound bass in them and they've got Japanese bridges going over them. MR. WILLIAMS: Not bass, they're illegal. You can't put them in a pond. MR. BALZANO: Well, whatever-- MR. WILLIAMS: Coy. We have coy. CHAIRMAN HAYES: A coy pond. MR. BALZANO: But that is why -- MR. WILLIAMS: $300 bass. CHAIRMAN HAYES: One at a time, please. MR. BALZANO: That is why we did the waterfalls and the recreational waterfalls and ponds, because they are now so elaborate. I mean, some of them look like you're in Disneyland when you go to some of these houses. MR. WILLIAMS: And those are mostly my yards, I might add, all the beautiful ones. I've installed rivers, ponds, paths, everything but seas in my yards. And I've done that since 19 -- probably '72. And most of them exist and operate today. And I can bring you pictures or show you or bring you articles from the owners. Page 61 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't think that -- MR. CRAWFORD: Can we do just that, define decorative stone as walkways and incidental landscaping items, and clarify pavers as full, you know, driveways and road construction? CHAIRMAN HAYES: What you're asking for is to amend the ordinance? MR. CRAWFORD: I guess I am. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We can, immediately following -- we do have a workshop to do just that. We can consider it at that point in time. MR. WILLIAMS: My work encompasses 80 percent of a job and a driveway is 20 percent. It's the finishing blow to a yard who the owner has made contract with me for the entire renovation of his property, including a driveway. Wouldn't I be the major contractor there, and couldn't I subcontract or install that myself as a contractor, with my license? That's typically what I do every day. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm not quite sure. I know that in trying to compare here, that at one time a plumber's license, we could do natural gas, bottled gas. And the state was lobbied and it was pulled out of my license. And it's just an obvious natural thing. It's called pipe -- MR. WILLIAMS: Was it something -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- and we're not allowed to do it. MR. WILLIAMS: Was it something that you did on a regular basis or-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, sir. Something we did on a regular basis and had been inclusive in our license for 20, 30 years. It was pulled out of our license. We can't no longer do it. There was clarification and reasonable conclusion on the state's part at that point to make that a separation. As ambiguous as it was to me at the time, that it's pipe, and it's sometimes the same exact pipe as a water pipe. I don't understand that I can't do it any longer. Well, it wasn't for me to understand, it was for me to comply. So in your case -- MR. WILLIAMS: Who made that ruling? And do we make the same ruling here, or do we -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's -- MR. WILLIAMS: -- grandfather me and go on about it? CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I'm questioning. Page 62 August 16, 2000 MR. WILLIAMS: It's just best to deal with a different kind of gas in the plumbing business, anyway. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. We have clear definition on that. MR. WILLIAMS: And there's a lot of that in here sometimes. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Can we put a square foot limitation on pavers, and anything under a certain area would be exempt from having to have a driveway contractor do it, and it could be done by a landscape contractor?. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, see, we do have an ordinance called a paving contractor's ordinance. I don't know if the description and definition of the paving contractor's license includes any kind of restrictions whatsoever. MR. NEALE: You mean paving blocks. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Paving -- pavers. MR. NEALE: We've got the paving blocks contractor license, yeah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. I don't know that we need to put a restriction on that. But if you're talking about modifying the landscaper's license to include a restricted amount of pavers, you may have a point there. Something also that we would need to take up in our workshop immediately following this case. But I don't know, I'm kind of at a loss from Mr. Williams' perspective. But once again, you know, as time passes and as the ordinance, statutes and laws evolve and as our world evolves, we have to do our best to try to make accommodations for the professions. If there's a profession that didn't exist, then we've got to try to fit it into a category. Logical and reasonable attempt at fitting it into a category is our first attempt, without having to modify the ordinances. The next attempt is that we now have to modify the ordinance, because this fitting didn't work. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, I understand that. I'm not pressing for CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right, now the question -- MR. WILLIAMS: -- anything other than that distinction. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The question that I have as well from the grandfathering aspect is that there is a time limit on grandfathering, and those time limits have probably both expired on both of those licenses. Page 63 August 16, 2000 Mr. Balzano? MR. BALZANO: On the paving stones, that was brought to us by the paving -- by the paver block industry, requesting that category. They were all masonry contractors before, where it handled cut stone, and it was kind of vague. The paving contractor is a five-hour exam. His license, which he was grandfathered in, if he was to get today, is a two-hour business and law. There isn't anything on his trade. So it was the industry that came here and requested the change from masonry to paving blocks, and we put it in. And it was just like the change from -- we had landscaping unlimited a few years back, which the only difference between that and a landscape contractor is he was allowed to install irrigation. And we broke that off and you just have a landscape contractor today, and he cannot do landscape -- irrigation unless he takes an irrigation exam. So his license, he -- unlimited just meant he could do irrigation and plant and trees and stones and shrubs. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think at this point I'm looking for a reason to allow this man to continue doing what he's been doing forever, but I'm not going to do it just carte blanche and wave my hand here. Mr. Neale, when we enact or invoke or create a license category in an ordinance that wasn't there before, do we have some specific wordage on the grandfathering requirements? MR. NEALE: I was just looking at that. And I've got the strike-through/underlined copy of 99-45, which actually is the one that went to the state, that shows that at one time -- that when this was originally passed there was some verbiage as to being able to grandfather in and then the -- I think the grandfathering verbiage was removed from it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think you're right. I remember with the ponds and waterfalls, that -- MR. NEALE: Ponds and waterfalls, it was eliminated. There was no grandfathering. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, I beg your pardon, I thought that there was, and that was like one paragraph on the first time that we did it. And then the next ordinance amendment, we pulled that particular-- MR. NEALE: Right. Page 64 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- paragraph out. MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. NEALE: That's what happened. Yeah. So there was -- when it was amended in '97, they had to apply for the certificate by the end of '97, and then they could have -- hardship waivers were able to be granted if the person didn't file by December 31 of '97 back when that was passed. So that was on the pool and spa, or the waterfalls. MS. WHITE: I think part of the problem here is not really Mr. Williams, it's just the progression of everything that's going on in this town. I mean, it's hilarious to say that the fountains have gone to these Disney World aquariums, you know, like that hotel in the Bahamas. I mean, this is just getting bizarre. And I hate to see somebody like Mr. Williams suffer because of this progression that we all can't keep up with. I'd like to make a suggestion that he be allowed to take the paving contractor's exam, and the amount of license that that is be applied to his fine or taken off his fine. And also -- now, does he need to take the waterfall license as well? MR. NEALE: Well, there's a couple of issues: First, the board needs to dispose of the citation that's in front of it, because that's the real reason that Mr. Williams is here. MR. WILLIAMS: All three of those are my reasons. MR. NEALE: Right. But all three are the reasons, but the primary one, the one that this board needs to consider first, is the citation issued to him on August the 7th. MS. WHITE: He was not actually caught doing anything, was he? MR. CRAWFORD: Right. MS. WHITE: It was the ad in the newspaper?. MR. NEALE: It was the ad. MR. CRAWFORD: I'd like to make a motion that we waive the $300 fine. I don't think it's applicable to his business. He -- MS. WHITE: I second it. MR. CRAWFORD: -- got caught up in the -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, I have a motion and a second that we waive the fine. I want to clarify, I'm not waiving the citation. The citation goes. It sticks. But we're just waiving the penalty of Page 65 August 16, 2000 the amount of the fine. All right? Any other discussion? MR. WILLIAMS: Can I discuss at the same time with you? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: Do I continue advertising pavers? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm not done yet. We're going to eliminate this. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, go ahead. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We're going to make action here. MR. NEALE: In order to do this, and I know this is burdensome for the board, but we want to make sure we've got everything done according to Hoyle. If this board is going to find him in violation of the citation and waive a penalty -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't think we have to find him in violation of it. It's already been written that way. MR. NEALE: No, the board must find, because he has appealed it. The board -- and this -- we haven't done one of these in a while. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You're talking finding of fact and conclusion of law here. MR. NEALE: Precisely. We haven't done one of these in about a year so, you know, bear with me a little bit. But in order to have a final order on this citation, the board must do findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board on this. So what the board can do is I've got a -- one that was issued roughly a year ago. The board can go through this, and I can assist and do this in an appropriate fashion. I apologize for making us follow the rules, but that's what they pay me the big dollars for is to do that. If you might, Mr. Crawford -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Crawford, you had no clue what you were getting us into. MR. NEALE: Since you made the motion, we can let you do this. Bob, do you agree with us? MR. ZACHARY: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, the proper procedure is that we've made a motion and a second. I think, Mr. Neale, that-- MR. NEALE: Mr. Hayes, if I may, what I would propose is the Page 66 August 16, 2000 procedure, just to simplify it and streamline it a little bit, is Mr. Crawford will reinstate his motion in the appropriate form. I'm going to give him a little bit of introduction to it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: First of all, for the record, he's going to have to withdraw his motion. MR. NEALE: Right. Do you withdraw? MR. CRAWFORD: (Nods head affirmatively.) MR. NEALE: And you'll withdraw your second? CHAIRMAN HAYES: And she'll withdraw her second. MS. WHITE: Uh-huh. MR. NEALE: All right. Mr. Crawford -- it's my understanding Mr. Crawford's going to make a motion for a final order on citation. There is certain language that I'll read into the record that will be a preamble to his motion. This cause came on for public hearing before the board on August 16th, 2000, pursuant to the provisions of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, and Section 489.127, Florida Statutes regarding citations issued for violations of Section 489.127(1) and/or 489.132(1) Florida Statutes, as adopted by Collier County, Florida. The citation being proper in form and substance, and all necessary notices having been issued to the respondent as required by Collier County ordinances and Florida Statutes. The board, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard arguments with respect to all appropriate and relevant matters as provided in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, and in Sections 162.03(2), 162.07 and 162.08 Florida Statutes, the board finds as follows: MR. CRAWFORD: Findings of fact: One, respondent is not the holder of a valid certificate of competency issued by Collier County, or one certified or registered by the State of Florida; two, the respondent has requested an administrative hearing before the board within the jurisdictional 10-day limit of the receipt of the citation; three, the violation is charged and the citation does exist; four, the violation charged in the citation has not been cured prior to the appearance of the respondent before the board; five, the citation is valid. Conclusions of law: One, the respondent has requested an administrative hearing in a timely manner and is entitled to such a hearing before the board; two, the respondent is in violation of Page 67 August 16, 2000 Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended and as charged in Citation 0203, to wit -- MR. NEALE: If you would, the correct number is the one on the citation. I apologize. MR. CRAWFORD: 0637. To wit, engaging in the business or acting in the capacity or advertising self as available to act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified. Continue? MR. NEALE: Then keep going. MR. CRAWFORD: Order of the board: In determining the amount of the administrative penalty to be imposed by the board, it is considered the gravity of the violation, the actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, plus any previous violations committed by the violator, and upon consideration of these factors and the relevant evidence presented to the board, the board hereby orders: One, imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of zero dollars. MR. NEALE: Okay, that's all you need to do. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, we have a motion, a finding of fact and conclusion of law. We need to vote on this motion, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yes, you do. You need a second and you need -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I need a-- MR. SCHOENFUSS: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- second. All in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Motion carries unanimously. All right, what we've done, as difficult as it was, Mr. Williams, obviously, is follow the letter of the law. I think that the citation has in fact been proven by all of our testimonies here today. The amount of the penalty is all we could deal with at that point. We have two issues in front of us here I see. One is the citation hearing itself, which we've just concluded. And the other is the discussion over the grandfathering situation, condition, on what to do about preventing this from occurring in the future. So I guess we can continue on with that part of the discussion. The grandfathering wordage that we spoke about prior in the ordinance, I saw -- I don't see the pavers section of the ordinance Page 68 August 16, 2000 yet but the non-recreational pond, waterfall and fountain contractor is what we dealt with prior, which is what you're going to be dealing with here as well. MR. NEALE.' The paving blocks did not have a grandfathering provision in it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It didn't have it at all? MR. NEALE: No. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Wow. MR. NEALE.' Well, I believe that the licensing/permitting people prior to this had been -- and I think that's what Mr. Balzano testified to, is they had been requiring them to be masonry contractors in order to lay pavers. Is that correct, Tom, do you think? MR. BARTOE.' Yes, in the past. MR. NEALE.' Okay, prior to creating the paving block contractor, they required them to be paving -- or to be masonry contractors. Blocks are blocks I guess was the logic. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. So if somebody wanted to come in there and apply for a -- back then just as the ordinance was approved, within a month, wanted to apply for a payer's license, he'd had to have a concrete mason's license for you to accept his application? MR. NEALE.' No. I may have been unclear. It's my understanding that prior to the passage creating the paving blocks contractor, in order for someone to pull a permit to do a job of pavers, they had to have a masonry license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So I'm going to say at this point then, Mr. Williams, that the driveways that you've done paving for in the last few years, you've done without permits. MR. WILLIAMS: Absolutely. Unless they were subcontracted, large areas. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Well, now, you -- MR. WILLIAMS: You said specifically driveways. I don't do a lot of driveways. My work primarily is walkways, patios and small decks. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Excellent. That's what I wanted to hear. MR. WILLIAMS: When I do a driveway, typically, it is subcontracted out. Not every time, but 99 out of 100 times. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All right, I understand that. MR. OSSORIO.' Mr. Hayes? It should be noted that it doesn't Page 69 August 16, 2000 require a permit unless it goes into the right-of-way, like an apron sometimes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's what I was just going to specifically lump up and down here about. I don't know of a driveway that doesn't. If it connects the private property to the street, it has to go through the right-of-way. MR. OSSORIO.' Most definitely. What you can do, you can do a driveway without going into the right-of-way, if you want to put bricks up. CHAIRMAN HAYES: How do you do that? MR. BARTOE.' The bricks stop at the -- MR. OSSORIO.' Bricks stop at the apron. MR. BARTOE.' -- sidewalk, back side of the sidewalk. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Oh. MR. NEALE.' You know, circular drives and that kind of thing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You got a two-tone driveway. MR. OSSORIO.' Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, I understand. Okay, is there some other place that we have a grandfathering clause within the ordinance now that we could review? MR. BARTOE.' I don't think we do, do we, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: No. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't remember either, that's why I'm asking you guys. MR. NEALE.' The additional categories added in '99 didn't have any grandfathering provisions at all. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. But we did have a grandfathering provision when we added the non-recreational pool and waterfall. MR. NEALE.' Right. CHAIRMAN HAYES: In my ordinance, I have it slashed. This was at the workshop for 90-45 -- or 99-45. And I'm not quite sure, I haven't been able to quiet down long enough to read the actual wordage here. But the slashings has to do with contractor who hold a current Collier County restricted license of other similar prior authorization by the county for this clarification on a effective date of this amendment are not required to pass this test, but must apply for the certificate pursuit of the section, but not later than December 31st, 1997 (sic). MR. NEALE.' Right. Page 70 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is that a grandfather clause? MR. NEALE: Yeah. And that's -- that was put in there specifically because this board had granted a number of restricted licenses. And I think you granted specific permission under certain landscaping licenses for certain landscape contractors to do waterfalls and so forth on a limited basis prior to the adoption of the ordinance. And so this was intended, it's my memory, to bring in all those people who had the restricted landscape licenses and allow them to do that. That's my memory. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. What I'm trying to do is make this as easy and painless as possible, and I'm not quite sure I can make it any less easy and painless in their actions forementioned with the finding of fact and conclusion of law. But I'm not prepared to grandfather this gentleman myself as a paving contractor. However, I'm not prepared to restrict him that he can never do paving with his license that he's done for as long as he's had his license. MR. NEALE: Well, if I may suggest, what this board discussed earlier is being that this is a specific trade, and the board does have the power to grant restricted licenses within a specific trade, the board could consider granting a restricted paving block license to this gentleman to do the type of paving blocks that he says that he does, sidewalks, walkways, things like that, not to include driveways that connect to the right-of-way. If the board finds that he -- they believe he's competent to do that. So that would be the -- a way to permit him to do that. That doesn't solve the fountain problem. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, let's take it one at a time now. MR. NEALE: But it does -- that's a possibility for this board to consider is that if the board believes that the applicant is qualified in that specific trade, using the analogy that's contained within our ordinance, you know, certificate for floor covering installation, contractor may have the required experience in carpets or tiles but not wood flooring. And in this instance it would be the relevant experience in sidewalks, walkways, pavers, but not driveways. MR. CRAWFORD: I would rather amend the ordinance, if that's an easy task, because there's 30 other landscapers out there doing exactly what you're doing and then we'd have to give Page 71 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE: The unfortunate problem we run into with that, and that's why we're having the workshop after this today, is in order to amend the ordinance, this board has to revise it, then it has to be recommended to the County Commission, and I would say it would probably be December before we would see any amendments to the ordinance, at the earliest. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It's going to be a while. MR. NEALE: Yeah, the ordinance -- and this board faced this in '99 and they faced it again in '97, at least in my recent memory, that that's why the two new categories were created. And the way the board had handled it at that time was to create the restricted licenses with the thought that those licenses would then be folded into and/or grandfathered into the new license category that was created. So, you know, that's something the board may wish to consider. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, in this particular case, I don't know that we need a new license. We've obviously already got a license. We may have to amend the ordinance to help this for the future. A temporary work competency addition, or something, a temporary amendment, if you would, to allow him to continue to do what he's done until such time as we can fix it by ordinance is one thing. Restricting -- as Mr. Schoenfuss mentioned earlier today, a restricted payer's license. If we could do that and have on the license restricted and then define what the restrictions include, so that if it comes up again with somebody else, they could even do this type of a restricted license, then we wouldn't even have to amend the ordinance at that point. I don't know if it's worth reviewing. We'll review that at our workshop after we finish with this case. But if that were being the case, then it may be the same thing would have to apply. Because like you said, you mentioned a second one, Page 2, if you will, the ponds and waterfalls, we're going to have to take some action on that as well, because it sounds to me like that if we don't, he's going to be right back in here next week with another problem. MR. NEALE: I have a feeling Mr. Ossorio has his citation pad with him and he's walking over here as soon as we get done. MS. WHITE: I have one other question. Page 72 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Wait just a minute. MS. WHITE: I have one other question. I hate to open a third can of worms, but in the middle of his ad it says yes, we have irrigation systems. So are you -- MR. NEALE: He's a licensed irrigation contractor, so that wouldn't -- MS. WHITE: Oh, sorry about that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: He's legitimate there. MR. WILLIAMS: Got to have a little legitimacy. MR. NEALE: He's not probably licensed to create privacy, beauty and joy, however. So, you know, that's -- MR. WILLIAMS: But you guys will be licensing that soon, I'm su re. MS. PAHL: Do you need a fish and game license for coy? MR. WILLIAMS: You do for bass, I can tell that. MR. NEALE: I'm sure you do, because you can't disturb the piping clover either, so that -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: As much fun as we're having, we do have to maintain one at a time. She can't -- she can't -- I know she has two ears, our court reporter, but she hears only one thing. Mr. Balzano? MR. BALZANO: The problem here right now is we don't have a problem in contractor licensing with him doing walkways that are part of his landscaping. We're just saying that his landscaping license doesn't allow him to do driveways. So all he has to do is not do driveways instead of us making up all these new ordinances and giving them special licenses. And if he's been doing waterfalls and ponds all these years and we just changed it last year, why can't he be grandfathered in to do waterfalls and ponds? MR. NEALE: Well, that could be done as an exception. And then to avoid the -- I think the reason for the driveways is because you do subcontract it and plus it is somewhat unclear in the ordinance as to what a landscape contractor can do in this area. So, you know, it might be easier for administration. But I think if he does driveways as a -- and subcontracts them pursuant to 489, that should be acceptable, you know, with the understanding that he can advertise them but he can't do them, you know, to some extent, that he can only do them as a Page 73 August 16, 2000 minor part of a larger job. Going back to the minor issue again. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Once again, you're right, I don't think I see a big problem in the fountains and waterfalls with the grandfathering issue. But as far as grandfathering him to a paver contractor I do, because he's a landscaper, and his qualifications on zoning and elevations, et cetera, for a approach at a right-of-way to a driveway would make me a little nervous. However, it may be the twofold solution here that perhaps a recommendation from this board that we grandfather him in pools and waterfalls and leave it at that, and then at our ordinance workshop create some restriction -- restricted paver wordage in his landscaper's license. Since he does do -- we have the word stone in his license as it is. And if we elaborated past that stone to include sidewalks and pathways, and even specifically wrote out not to include driveways or something, then it would take care of that for the future for every contractor that we run into. MR. NEALE: Well, except that, you know, we're again looking at the three to four-month window before the ordinance amendment -- at least before the ordinance amendment takes place. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Then I think -- as far as I'm concerned, I think we could probably make a recommendation that we issue him a temporary paver license to expire upon enactment of the ordinance amendment. MR. NEALE: I would suggest that in keeping with the structure of the ordinance is that we issue him what is called under the ordinance a restricted certificate of competency. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Exactly. MR. NEALE: That's the only thing that can be done. We only have -- the only thing this board has permission to do is under 22-189 issue a restricted certificate of competency restricting -- allowing him to do pavers, not to include driveways that -- not to include driveways, period, or not to include driveways that intersect with right-of-way or whatever. But -- and then I'd look to staff to see if that would be -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's probably the wiser thing to do in my case. MR. NEALE: Well, and the thing is it does -- it follows the ordinance precisely then, you know. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Does this board understand that? Page 74 August 16, 2000 MS. PAHL: Yes. MR. CRAWFORD: No. Sorry. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, I'm thinking that we're looking at making two actions here, taking two actions. One, review and consider the possibility of making a motion to grandfathering Mr. Williams in to the ponds and waterfall ordinance -- amendment for the ponds and waterfall license. The second action, to perhaps consider making a recommendation of a temporary restricted payer's license until such time as an amendment to our ordinance can take effect. MS. WHITE: I have a question about the ponds and waterfalls. That's not including electrical? MR. NEALE: If you look in the whatchamacallit (sic), the non-recreational pond/waterfall/fountain contractor, that specifically does not allow them to do electrical inspections. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. MS. WHITE: And it has nothing to do with the size either, so that might be a concern. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, see, it's called non-recreational. I think that limited it. MR. NEALE: Well, and the thing about it, it's a specific licensed category and the only requirements in that are the 24 months experience in doing it and a two-hour business and law test. MS. WHITE: Which he's already had, so -- MR. NEALE: And he's had at least 24 months, I think, is -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do we understand that? MS. WHITE: I believe so. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do I have any wishes of the board at this Yes· Is the wording proper?. My question that we grandfather him point to take any action? Don't everybody speak at once· MR. SCHOENFUSS: Perhaps we should make a motion on the basis of what you just said· I move that we -- the first -- let me be careful how to phrase this· The first one was including the ponds and waterfalls, with the exclusion of electrical work in the landscaping license on a grandfather basis; is that correct? MR. NEALE: No. CHAIRMAN HAYES: MR. SCHOENFUSS: CHAIRMAN HAYES: completely without a full packet of application, maybe, but we Page 75 August 16, 2000 might be able to waive the test results. MR. NEALE: MS. WHITE: MR. NEALE: here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: MR. SCHOENFUSS: MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. SCHOENFUSS: It's a bit of a stretch, but -- Let's issue the temporary. It's -- well, no, there's two different situations Not with ponds and waterfalls. We don't need an application for that. I mean, it's-- We went through this -- MR. NEALE: It's my thinking and suggestion, I'd look to staff and to Mr. Zachary about this, too, but I think that the board, because of the language that was included in the non-recreational pond/waterfall/fountain contractor, when it was originally adopted in '97, it would allow the board, within its authority, to grant Mr. Williams a non-recreational ponds/waterfall/fountain contractor license, or at least waive the testing requirements, waive the experience requirements so that he can apply for that license, which I think -- would you be agreeable to that? MR. WILLIAMS: If I have to, I have to. MR. NEALE: Yeah. That -- I mean, he would go through submitting an application packet. But if this board had --will waive those requirements at this point, then all he would have to do is submit a packet to the staff, staff could approve it, and -- MR. WILLIAMS: What does the packet consist of? MR. NEALE: Fill out an application and give them -- what's the fee schedule on that one? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your first born. MR. NEALE: Give them your first born. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your blood. MR. WILLIAMS: I don't have that much left. NEALE: How much is that, Tom? $72? PAHL: 72. NEALE: So we would require an application and -- WILLIAMS: You don't get the 300, but you get 72, is that it? MR. MS. MR. MR. MR. NEALE: Well, then there will be another 72, so don't worry about it. MR. BARTOE: If I may, we already have a complete packet on Mr. Williams. And if he's going to obtain another type license Page 76 August 16, 2000 such as this one under the same company name, we wouldn't need anything new. MR. NEALE.' Okay, so the waiver would be all that would be required by staff. MR. BARTOE.' Correct. MR. NEALE.' So if the board would waive those two requirements based on his testimony today, that they are convinced that he has 24 months relevant experience, 24 months relevant recent experience, and at least the equivalent of a two-hour business and law exam in his competency, that then staff could go ahead and grant him the non-recreational pond, waterfall and fountain contractor license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So Mr. Schoenfuss, I'm thinking your motion needs to be in effect to waive the test requirements, and if any further experience prove requirements. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' Let's starts all over again with the motion. I move that we waive any further requirements on the basis that all requirements have been satisfied, and that we grant Mr. Williams the license -- the amendment to his landscaping license to include ponds and waterfalls -- MR. NEALE.' No, that's -- MR. SCHOENFUSS.' -- with the exception of the electrical work. MR. NEALE.' No. If I may, I would suggest to the board that it would be more appropriate to -- since we don't have that in there and why muddy up that, is that we have a licensed category, non-recreation -- non-recreational pond, waterfall and fountain contractor. I'd suggest that he be permitted to have that license. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' Separate from -- MR. NEALE.' Separate. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' That we issue a second license to do ponds and waterfalls, period. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion on the floor. I need a second. MS. PAHL.' I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the board? MS. WHITE: He will pay $72, correct? Page 77 August 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. No other-- all other application requirements to be met. He's only restricted the ones he's specifically mentioned. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, that's step one. Okay, the next issue here now is that would we be interested in granting Mr. Williams a temporary restricted pavers -- brick pavers license or block pavers license until we can amend the ordinance to include those restrictions to that -- to his landscape -- to a landscaper's license? MR. SCHOENFUSS: Even at this stage, do we have to define what a restricted license is? The county has indicated that it has no objection to driveway-- to sidewalks, and -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. MR. SCHOENFUSS: -- and Mr. Williams says that he subcontracts driveways. So what are we talking about? CHAIRMAN HAYES: You're right on target, Mr. Schoenfuss. MR. ZACHARY: Yeah, let me lump in here. The paving block contractor includes driveways, sidewalks, patios, decks, using concrete paving units. So I think the restriction would be that he can only do sidewalks, patios and decks. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you. MR. ZACHARY: And not driveways. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Exactly. That's all we're looking at doing. MR. NEALE: And I would suggest that it just be a restricted license, as opposed to a restricted temporary, simply because a restricted temporary, how do we define? And if the County Commission doesn't see fit to add this to the landscape license, then he's up in the air again. So, you know, if the board feels that this gentleman is competent to do that restricted amount of work under the license, similar as they found in the non-recreational pond and waterfall, that it would be simply a restricted certificate. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale, I'm not quite sure I'm prepared to grant this gentleman carte blanche regarding pavers. Page 78 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE.' Well, I'm saying it would still be restricted. It would still be a restricted license to the limited categories that Mr. Zachary described. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Then are we not actually creating another category of license? MR. NEALE.' No, we're creating a restricted license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We've done that in the past? MR. NEALE.' Many times. And it's specifically permitted under ordinance. MR. BARTOE.' I agree with Mr. Neale, as far as staff goes. I don't believe we need the word temporary. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, so we're talking about a restricted block pavers license, to include all except driveways. MR. BARTOE.' Correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And that would be a permanent license. There's no problem with enforcing a license that's really not written on the books? MR. NEALE.' It's specifically permitted in the ordinance. We discussed it earlier today. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is there something preventing, or would it be something that we don't want the public to know that every landscape contractor in Collier County come parading in here and want one of them? MR. BARTOE.' If-- MR. NONNENMACHER.' I think that would be a decision of the board where they'd have to go case by case and determine the experience. MR. NEALE.' This is not cart blanche. The board must -- you know, I mean, it's very clear in the ordinance that the applicant has to satisfactorily demonstrate that he or she is qualified under this article in certain aspects of that trade, but lacks the required experience in other aspects of that trade. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. NEALE.' It's 22-189. You know, we discussed it earlier for other purposes that -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, Mr. Williams. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me ask you, while we're discussing this, why we're limiting it then at all? Why not just make it a paver license? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Because I don't think that your -- the Page 79 August 16, 2000 qualifications as a landscaper allows you the knowledge or skills to do driveways when you're talking about drainage, lot drainage, you're talking about lot zoning and right-of-way infringements that -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's what the word landscaping itself is, to scape the land, which is precisely what you're identifying there. Engineering, leveling, grading, pitching, water control, local zoning. It's constant compliance of something. Native trees. You know, it's a full-time education. After 30 years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Once again then, why have a paver's license at all? Just include it under your description as a license and be done with it. MR. NEALE: Well, because, Mr. Hayes, that was created specifically because we had contractors who came in who only did pavers. And they wanted a separate li -- there was a separate license category created for contractors who only do pavers, because they -- if they -- that had not been created, they would had to become masonry contractors. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So once again, getting back to our workshop, if we're going to workshop this -- and obviously at this time of day we're probably not going to be able to really break it open and do what we want to do with it unless we want to spend all day here. But if that's the case, then I would suggest instead of modifying the license to include everything but driveway, just take the brick pavers license and add it totally to the landscaper license. MR. NEALE: No, because then you would require anybody who wanted to do brick pavers to have to be a landscaper. CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, no, no, leave the landscape license -- or the paver license in there, just add the same wordage to the landscape license as well. MR. NEALE: That's the pleasure of the board and the County Commission. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You see? And then that's what -- it's going to take some discussion, because I'm still not quite sure I'm satisfied that a landscaper can do pavers carte blanche. You may be right, it may be, but at this point I'm not quite sure I'm satisfied. MR. WILLIAMS: They can't all do it. But 30 years experience will allow you to do -- Page 80 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE: And I think that-- MR. WILLIAMS: -- lots of things. MR. NEALE: -- he just brought up the issue, you know, not every landscaper necessarily can do that. MR. WILLIAMS: Or will want to. But this one will. MR. NEALE: Can I -- at this point I think that we can address his situation if the board -- if it's the board's pleasure. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, do I have a motion? MR. CRAWFORD: I make a motion that we provide a restricted paving blocks specialty license to Mr. Thomas R. Williams, exclusive of driveways. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion. I need a second. MR. SCHOENFUSS: I second the motion. But let's define restricted. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think he did. To include everything but driveways. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, so I have a motion and I have a second. Any further discussion on the board? MS. WHITE: Is he going to pay the $72? MR. NEALE: He'll be 72 dollared to death by this. MR. WILLIAMS: Money grubbers. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Make normal application for the license. MS. WHITE: He will make -- in other words, this won't be part of a landscaping license, he will have to make application -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: For a new license. MS. WHITE: -- for a new license for paving. This restricted paving, he'll pay his $72 in order to get the license, but he will not have to -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do the license -- MS. WHITE: -- do the five -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- and exam. MS. WHITE: -- five hours of exam -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Exactly. MS. WHITE: -- is that correct? MR. NEALE: Right. MS. WHITE: Okay, I'll go with that. MR. WILLIAMS: Let me ask you one more time so that I am real clear about it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'd leave it alone. Leave it alone. You Page 81 August 16, 2000 keep going there and we may change our mind up here. That may be something we can change later on. Right now we need to act on what we're acting here, or we may not get to act at all. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the board? I call for the vote. All in favor?. Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: None. Very well. So you do have that, not including a driveway at this point. I ain't saying that's permanent, and it's subject to review, according to our ordinance. But if we are allowed to make the modifications to our ordinance, Mr. Williams, as we're going to recommend, you won't have to worry about it anyway. Okay? MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Now, I just wanted to not bite off too much. Because I don't think this board is prepared to give you carte blanche pavers-- MR. WILLIAMS: The only thing I was going to question was the line that requires a permit, does the driveway start there or is the driveway the entire driveway? Does it just go down to the sidewalk? Does it include -- you know. A driveway is a driveway. MR. NEALE: I think if a car drives over it, it's a driveway. MS. WHITE: A driveway is anywhere where a car can park. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All right, you'll have to put an application in with Mr. Bartoe's office, as normal. MR. BARTOE: Tomorrow. Your folder's here, and the office staff won't be able to help you today. MR. WILLIAMS: All right. I'm supposed to be in Canada tomorrow. I might make it the first of the week, if that's all right. MR. BARTOE: Okay, or -- well, I can't give you time when I'll be back in the office this afternoon. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, that concludes our new business. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, Mr. Williams, thank you, sir. We do have this workshop. I'm -- first of all, last month's meeting, we had it in the minutes that we were to bring our ordinance and review it and do some homework so that we could discuss it at today's meeting. Page 82 August 16, 2000 Secondly, we just barely have a quorum today. Thirdly, it's noon. Do we want to perhaps carry on the ordinance workshop till next month, or come in, maybe break for lunch and come back after lunch and do this? Is there a time limit, Mr. Zachary? Are we needing to expedite this workshop? MR. ZACHARY: I don't think there's a time limit, Mr. Chairman. I think if you want to come back after lunch, that's fine. CHAIRMAN HAYES: If we came back next month, that'd be fine as well? MR. ZACHARY: Next month would be fine as well. I don't see anybody behind me that's raring to speak at the workshop or have any input, but -- MR. NEALE: Well, and further, I think that it's unlikely that this ordinance -- these ordinance amendments would be logical to submit to the County Commission until December, because we will not have a full new County Commission seated until December -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anyway. MR. NEALE: -- anyway. There's three commissioners being replaced, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: So I don't see a problem that we need to stay here the rest of the day on this. However, this being nice, fresh, cut and dried on our minds on most all of the activities today, I would almost suggest that we try to do a little bit of discussion on it so we're all are fresh with this next month when we come in here. Because if I put this away today, I won't remember diddly come next month. Cherie', do we have a problem with -- do you need to break now? THE COURT REPORTER: I'd like to, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, if we need to break, would we want to break for lunch and come back after lunch, or maybe break for t 0 minutes and come back? MR. NEALE: I'd say t0 minutes. MR. BALZANO: I can't be here after lunch. MR. NEALE: So let's just do 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So if we could do maybe a tO-minute break and then finish up? It's just a matter of discussion on Page 83 August 16, 2000 today's issues, and then we can -- we'll actually hold the workshop next month. Would that be okay, Mr. Balzano, if we -- MR. BALZANO: As long as I can get out of here by t :00. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, let's take a 10-minute break then. Let's make it t5 minutes, a quarter after. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, I want to call this meeting back to order. Following the agenda, our next item of new business is our workshop ordinance amendments. I'm going to suggest that we discuss some points of what we experienced here today, but perhaps now is not the time to actually call it a workshop, but more of a discussion and suggest that we do something further with a workshop, an actual real workshop. There's an awful lot more in that ordinance that need to be addressed besides the specific issues that we're looking at today. And I don't think anybody wants to spend all day long or are prepared to do so. And it's going to take probably a good half a day to do this thing properly when we do need to do it. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion. Prior years we included the trades into our workshops. I think it's quite necessary at this point to consider that. And the reason for that is way back when, when a lot of these categories were created, it was a lot easier to take a tradesmen and throw him into a category, rather than create a category for him. A good example, we're having a lot of trouble with now, and we even have trouble agreeing amongst ourselves, is this Spray Crete that was created, where they put a cement type material about an eighth of an inch to a quarter of an inch onto concrete, bonded onto concrete. I remember when that first came out. Our first order was to put them in the sealing and striping. And then the second order was well, put them into painting. And then it came out, well, we can put them into epoxy stone. And now we have contractors out there that are actually in all these categories, and actually no category fits what they're doing. I think the county, as Ms. White said, is growing so fast, the new materials that have come out are quite different than the materials of t 0 years ago. And a lot of our specialty trade Page 84 August 16, 2000 categories -- and keep in mind, they're the ones that we're most responsible for and probably will be the only ones we're responsible for in a couple years when the state comes with their new licensing system. I think it's going to take a lot of work to straighten those specialty trades out. And my suggestion is that the tradesmen should be brought into these workshops and we should have knowledge of exactly what they do in their trade, the new materials they're using, and just straighten that whole specialty trade licensing out so each tradesman is in the proper category now, instead of one trade being in three or four different categories. So that really is my suggestion. I appreciate a workshop amongst all of us, but I think it's time now that the tradespeople be brought in, get input from them, and try to revamp that whole specialty contractor part of our ordinance. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' Well, how about having the workshop at a separately scheduled thing, as distinct from our regular meetings? And at that point, invite the representatives from the trades that may be affected. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think that's exactly what he's talking about, Mr. Schoenfuss, and I completely agree. We're talking about an actual roll the sleeves up type of workshop to include all of the trades that -- to be advertised and exposed to all of the trade specialties at that time that we're having that ordinance workshop to come in and hear input from each and every one of those, to try to help us mold this ordinance, to eliminate some of its ambiguities. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' We had something very similar to that over on Horseshoe Drive when Lionel L'Esperance was the chairman. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We've had it once I think since then as well. MR. SCHOENFUSS.' And we've had one I think with you more recently. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes. MR. NEALE.' Yeah, we had one that was held down in the elections supervisor's office, because this room wasn't available, I remember. When you were president of specialty trades. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right, and I think that it's time probably Page 85 August 16, 2000 to do it again. As we discussed outside about it, too, it's going to take a good bit of work, Mr. Neale, on everybody's part, and that includes our part, that includes your part and staff's part. Because there's no sense in having it if we're just going to hit it a lick and a promise once again. There is -- with the renewed vigor on enforcement, we're seeing a lot of these ambiguities pop up that really were kind of dormant before. And we didn't see a need to really look at that ordinance, that specific section and stuff. But as we issue these citations and we hear reviews of the citation here, it starts to bring on an awful lot more of them. This is -- today's two reviews on citations was just two that we've seen hit one or two at a time every time we've come in for the last few months. And it's just about time we started to look at it and finally tune it a little bit more. Not to say that's an easy task by any means, as we discussed outside. There's no question that everybody will be able to interpret something a little bit different than our intent from now on. I mean, the whole world's built on laws that are all ambiguous from one time to another, so I don't think we can tie everything down. But every time something pops up, I think the general public at least deserves that we try to pop it back down, and that's what I'm trying to do. MR. NEALE: I agree. What I would suggest too is because of some of the things that came up today, is that we request someone from permitting also be involved. Because I think that's -- you know, the licensing folks are obviously -- we're running into things we're permitting and licensing are sort of going like this, and I think we need to -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, obviously this board can't be a dictator to staff. But I would strongly recommend that to Mr. Perico, that when we do have a full-blown public workshop, and two, that we have all pertinent people attend it for the workshop. It's going to be work, it's going to be some time, but how do we avoid it, when we run into what we ran into here today? I didn't like the idea that we sit here and couldn't act. And if it's not cut and died, if it's full of ambiguities not only can they not enforce it, it can't be adhered to by the public, and we can't even act on it. That's pretty bad. The ordinance needs some Page 86 August 16, 2000 work. And we just -- we're just touching the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Neale, you know that. This ordinance -- the codified version sometimes confuses me a little bit. But since the original 99-45 that's in effect right now -- and that is strictly an amendment to 90-105, is that not correct? MR. NEALE.' It always will be. It will always be kind of called 90-105 as amended, unless a whole new ordinance is created. But it will always be 90-105 as amended, 99-45 was an amendment of 97 -- or, yeah, 97 something or another. I mean, it's always an amendment. But the level of amendment can be pretty vast. I mean, this board has authorized -- has recommended to the County Commission some pretty extensive amendments in the past, so that -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: And by and large, between staff's recommendation and this board's recommendation, I know that the final rule lands on the commissioners' desk and it's their approval or denial. But they seem to have generally gone along with it pretty good, because after all, if we have workshops, we have spent time on it, we do research, it's awful hard for them to say no, this is not right. So when we were talking about the modifications of the pavers or the landscapers' ordinance, yes, it's true that the County Commission can override what our suggestions are, but by and large they don't. After we put our time and effort in it, staff has, they're endorsing it, county attorney's office endorses it, it's awful hard for the Commission to say no. So I don't know, Mr. Zachary, when we talk about this workshop, if it wouldn't be advised to include the county attorney's office in it as well. Because a lot of times you may see us as laymen in the field, seeing a real simple cut and dried solution to an amendment to an ordinance that is totally illegal. MR. ZACHARY: Well, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly want to be involved, you know, from the very start. And so we would -- I mean, we plan to be involved. I mean, there wasn't any question in my mind that we wouldn't be involved in the workshop, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: As time has passed, we have asked both county attorney's office and our attorney, Mr. Neale, to lot down specific glitches as we come in contact with them here. I don't Page 87 August 16, 2000 know how easy it is to have your own little file sitting here of all of those situations, so that when we do have a workshop, you can go through that list and say well, you know, on this date we did this and here's one of the things we need to look at and so on and so forth. MR. NEALE: I try to keep an ordinance amendment file, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: You've been working on that, excellent. MR. NEALE.' In the last year or so I've been throwing things in as they came up, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: It's one of those things that's difficult to keep track of, but it's necessary, because if we don't, we forget it. Every one of us have our work to do during the month every time from meeting to meeting and it's just not there. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Neale, when we do amend the ordinance, is there much amending to do in it in regards to falling in step with Chapter 489? MR. NEALE.' Well, that's one of the things I'm going to do between now and next month is review the 2000 revisions to 489, review -- and review the 2000 version of the 489 and compare it to our ordinance and see if there's anything that we glaringly conflict with. At this point, I don't see it. But you know, Mr. Zachary and I will certainly look at 489, look at our ordinance and see where if anywhere there's conflicts and try to ameliorate them. We've run across a few of them over the last several months. You know, certainly one of the issues that we keep banging into is the -- you know, not at least banging into, but the handyman exception. We also have the enforcement situations, what we can enforce, what this board can enforce. Qualification of a second entity, which I think will need to be clarified in the ordinance. But it's only state -- you know, that we can only do it with specialties that are not registrable with the state. Or not -- and so, you know, I think we're looking at a lot of different pieces that probably need to be clarified, as Mr. Nonnenmacher alluded to. As the state continues to change how they do this, I think you'll see more of this. But the other thing that I am seeing, at least from my experience in dealing with the legislature and what they're doing in other areas, is I think -- and I don't know if this is fact or not, some of that may be rolled back, because I get a sense that the Page 88 August 16, 2000 current administration and legislature wants to take less into the state government and kick more out into the municipalities and local areas, or privatize things. So I think the tide may not move as fast as we all thought it was going to three or four years ago. Because three or four years ago, it looked like this board might cease to exist. I think now what my sense is from the couple of years of legislative sessions is there's been a great slowing of the process to the single license system and all that. Because I really get a strong sense that the state wants to take less under its wing. I'm seeing it in a lot of other areas, too. I don't know if Mr. Nonnenmacher and Mr. Bartoe see it the same way, but they're sure not charging as hard as they were three or four years ago. I mean, three or four years ago, I figured, you know, we'd all be out of a job. But that seems to have gone the other way. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All right. So I would suggest that we try to look into convening a formal workshop, public workshop, with advertisements to the specialty trades, contractors, to anybody else that feels that they could contribute to it, along with having licensing staff, permitting staff, county attorney's presence and our presence in the near future. And we can talk about a time. Perhaps commission someone here today to look into the possibility of a particular time, maybe within the next 30, 45 days, and start to advertise and come up with that. In the meantime, like we had said last month, if you did bring your notes, some notes today on some suggestions after reviewing the ordinance, all well and good. Hold on to them. Still review it some more, give us some time to work on it. Specifically, I want to mention for the record, and so that we can make sure that we deal with the wording on landscape license to include or question them to include driveways and regular pavers or not. And the second item, for aluminum license contractors, to build rooms and to sub work or not. Those two particulars being the occurrences of today. Does anybody else on the board have an opinion on that? This is going to be a lot of work for all of us. As part of being on this board, I think we have to accept the responsibility of what this board presence demands on us. I know that staff, county employees of Collier County, they're used to getting demands put Page 89 August 16, 2000 on them, so this is not quite new for you guys. But I don't know, Mr. Bartoe, is there a possibility we could look into a room availability, perhaps like we did last time, in the library or whatever the -- what was that, the elections? MR. NEALE: It was the meeting room over at the elections office. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The elections office? MR. NEALE: But there may be a chance that, you know, this room could be scheduled for this group. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, as we discussed outside, too, you know, to roll up your sleeves and get down with a public hearing in front of television cameras is sometimes just a little bit difficult to maintain order and maintain comfort levels when it's time for discussions and things. So I think the way I see the Sunshine Law, when this group convenes, it is in a public forum, whether we do it sitting here with us up here and everybody else out there, or we do it all in a room over here. I prefer the room over there more than I do this particular environment for that kind of a workshop as well. That's a lot of work and a lot of discussion and a lot of penciling and talking and stuff. And this is so much more formal. Everybody is presenting something to us and we're not going to be the people being presented things to, we're going to be participants much more than we are at this, in this forum. So an area like that over there, and perhaps finding out a date that doesn't conflict with any more people than we can help, which is almost impossible. MR. BARTOE: I can look into the possibility of a conference room in the building on Horseshoe Drive also. MR. NEALE: Yeah, the big room. MR. BARTOE: I need to know, is there a day that's bad for anyone? And what's the best time, 9:00 in the morning, 1:00 in the afternoon? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to tell that you this -- we don't really know how long it's going to take. If we can afford to give up an entire day, start at 9:00 in the morning. If we don't think we can give up an entire day, start at 1:00 and work until as late as it happens. But I'm going to tell you, it's probably going to take the better part of a day. I would like to hear testimony not only from all of us but from Page 90 August 16, 2000 the industry as well. And there could be some issues that we don't even think about that they'll come up and say, well, what about this ordinance section here on this license, you know, we do this and we have done that, we've got us just a whole can of worms that just opened up. What does anybody else think? MS. WHITE: I wonder whether we can actually take this ordinance and revamp the whole thing. Because we're going to go through all that and there's still going to be questions that come up that we haven't thought of. I wonder if we should take the time to deal with the issues that have already come up that Mr. Neale mentioned, and that you mentioned, revise the ordinance doing that, which may take three or four hours. I just don't -- I mean, I don't think that everything you think is going to come up is going to come up to revise the entire thing. Because I don't think it comes up except over the years of experience. MR. NEALE.' What I've -- having been through the experience of the '96 revision and the '99 revision, I guess I can speak a little bit to the issue that in '99 it was a fairly closed process, where basically it was the board workshopping with itself and coming up with revisions. '96, it was the process that Mr. Hayes and Mr. Schoenfuss described, which were open workshops with extensive contributions from members of the specialty trades. And I found the '96 revision to be much more effective in getting to the issues that were of concern to the contracting community and also to the public. Because the public was also invited. It was put on notice. And there were some very significant and very interesting input that made it much easier for myself and Mr. Pettit, at the time, to go through and do some extensive rework. I mean the '96 rework of the ordinance was pretty extensive. Those of you who were here, Mr. Bartoe, Mr. Hayes and Mr. Schoenfuss remember, we took a lot of pieces out, we added a lot of pieces and it was a very extensive rework. So it's been four years. It's sort of-- I view the '99 revision as being sort of an oil change, and the '90 -- this, the 2000 revision would be -- probably be 2001 by the time it's passed, but would be sort of like the '96 revision, a real extensive full tune-up of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Overhaul. Page 91 August 16, 2000 MR. NEALE.' Not just looking at categories and minor things, but really looking at procedural matters and compliance with 489 and things like that to make the ordinance better fit the way the board operates and the way the process operates. So I tend to agree with Mr. Hayes, that it's time to spend the time to get it done. I know Mr. Zachary and myself and everybody else here has a lot on their plates. But fortunately, one thing good that did happen when it was done in '99 is it all got into Word Perfect, and it's a little easier to do the machinations with the revisions than it was. Because the '96 one somehow got lost on disk and it took a complete reconstruction. So that was not a fun time for anyone. But I would suggest that Mr. Hayes' recommendation be the one that the board follows as the best. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And I hear maybe two sessions. Maybe a primary session open to the public for workshop and input and then maybe a second session to kind of tie down the rest of the loose ends and finish it up. MR. BARTOE.' If it's like the past, then I feel sure one session won't handle it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right, exactly. So maybe we'll look at a public session and to get notice out to make people rearrange some schedules and make sure that we get enough exposure that we get the input we need. Because this is not just an opportunity for somebody to mouth off. This is ask -- we're asking for help from the public. You know, we're actually, please, come in here and give us a hand with this, because there's way too many technicalities and perspectives and points of views here that we are not going to touch on. We're going to scratch our head on it every time somebody comes in here. So I really want as much participation in maybe one meeting as we can get. And then the next meeting, we probably won't even need that much from them. They probably won't be that much interested to come in. We can work a little closer and finish up the details. So in the next 30, 45 days, perhaps, could we maybe look at a meeting there? And if we can come up with it within the next couple of weeks so that we can start getting the word out and getting prepared for it. MR. CRAWFORD.' If we could also invite the local -- the CBIA Page 92 August 16, 2000 and the American Subcontractors Association, get word out to them. MR. NEALE: I know what happened in '96. Mr. Hayes was present at the Subcontractors Association at the time. I think it went out in Building Blocks and it went out in the subcontractor's newsletter and it went out in the CBIA newsletter too that this meeting was going on, and it was a full house. It was -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: It was a good meeting. MR. NEALE: -- very good. CHAIRMAN HAYES: There was a lot of good production, a lot of clarification. Because we had some old ambiguities. I remember clearly the carpenters, whether they could do metal studs and stuff. It really worked good. So let's try to do that, Mr. Bartoe, if we can. You know, again, I don't want to fill our plates up with too much, any one of us, but this sounds to me like it's something really we need to put in the front burner and work on. If you could maybe research a meeting place and possibly a date and come up with it in the next couple of weeks or a month to month and a half from now, something like that, then I'd be more than thrilled to advertise in every forum we can do to get somebody in on it. MR. BARTOE.' Fine. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. And then like we talked today, I don't know how much more time we want to give to this. All of us have got to go somewhere. But the two specific points today regarding the landscape license and the aluminum license, if you include that with your stuff there, I think probably we can get away with it for the day. MR. CRAWFORD: I had one more. Maybe I can save it. But the last month's meeting we had a metal stud contractor in here that was doing structural exterior metal studs that is not listed under the carpenter contractor section. That somehow needs to be weaved in there. We can just put it -- we don't need to talk about it, we can put it on the list. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. CRAWFORD: And that's missing from this ordinance, as best I can tell. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Are we ready to move along? Do we have any old business? Obviously we had public Page 93 August 16, 2000 hearings, but we did it in new business. Any reports, Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other discussions? MR. CRAWFORD: I was just going to say that it looks like you guys are doing your job. your kudos on it. MR. SCHOENFUSS: CHAIRMAN HAYES: 20th. Anybody got a conflict at this point? MR. SCHOENFUSS: I shan't be here. I'll be out of the country next month. Look forward to the one after that, however. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, if we don't have any other business, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment. The cover of the Sunday paper has all That was a good article. Okay, next meeting is September the MR. SCHOENFUSS: I so move. MS. PAHL: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor?. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:00 p.m. CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD GARY HAYES, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 94