Loading...
CLB Minutes 07/17/2013 CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes July 17 , 2013 July 17,2013 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD July 17, 2013 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Richard Joslin Vice Chair: Patrick White Members: Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Robert Meister Excused: Ronald Donino Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Kevin Noell, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Karen Clements —Licensing Compliance Officer 1 July 17,2013 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. ROLL CALL: Chairman Richard Joslin called the meeting to order at 9:16 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Five voting members were present. II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Additions: • Under Item V, "Discussion" o (A) Work Shop Review from July 8, 2013 - ADD (Pages 38 and 39) • Under Item IX, "Reports" o ADD: (A) Senate Bill #50 (effective date: October 1, 2013) (Summary provided by James Morey, Esq., Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC) Rescheduled: • Under Item VIII, "Public Hearings" o Case.#2013- 07,; Albert J. Scott, d/b/a Beaumont Communications, LLC was withdrawn. It will be heard at the next Board meeting. Chairman Joslin requested to hear Item V, "Discussion" following Item IX, "Reports." Vice Chairman Patrick White moved to approve the changes to the Agenda as noted. Second in support from Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, S—0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Vice Chairman White moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second in support from Chairman Richard Joslin. Carried unanimously, 5—0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JUNE 19, 2013: Vice Chairman White moved to approve the Minutes of the June 19, 2013 meeting as submitted. Second in support from Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, 5—0. 2 July 17,2013 VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: Regarding cases heard under Section VI and Section VIII, respectively, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Andrew Seijas - Qualify Second Entity • Mr. Seijas is the owner of"Gulf Coast Home Services, Inc." (GCHS). • He is a partner in and the qualifier for"Southwest Floor Design, Inc." (SWFD). Andrew Seijas stated: • He was the initial qualifier for Gulf Coast Home Services, Inc., which is an installation company. • He became a partner in Southwest Floor Design, Inc., which is a flooring dealership • He transferred his license from OCHS to SWFD. • He has petitioned to qualify GCHS as a Second Entity. • The purpose is to keep his businesses separate since GCHS does installations for SWFD. Michael Ossorio stated he has not received any complaints against Gulf Coast Home Services, Inc. He recommended approving the application to Qualify Gulf Coast Home Services, Inc. as a Second Entity. Vice Chairman White moved to approve the application of Andrew Seijas to qualify Gulf Coast Home Services,Inc. as a "Second Entity." Second in support from Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, S—0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Michael Boyd moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second in support from Vice Chairman White. Carried unanimously, S—0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Case#2013-07: BCC vs. Albert J. Scott, d/b/a "Beaumont Communications, LLC" • To be heard at the August meeting (per amended Agenda) (B) Case#2013-08: Misena Spahiu, d/b/a "Naples Expert Flooring, Inc." Chairman Joslin outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: 3 July 17,2013 • Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII, "Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489. • The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. • Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply. • Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida. • Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions. • Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness before the Board. • Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses; to introduce Exhibits; to cross-examine witnesses; to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify; and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. • The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an"Opening Statement"to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her"Opening Statement" setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross-examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense as described previously, i.e.,to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case,the County will present a rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement, 4 July 17,2013 • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a"charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. • After the matters are decided, the Chair/Vice Chair will read a Summary of the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order. • The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Vice Chairman Patrick White moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case No. 2013-08: Board of County Commissioners vs. Misena Spahiu, d/b/a "Naples Expert Flooring, Inc.,"License No.: 28588, and to enter the information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Second in support from Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 5—0. Karen Clements,Licensing Compliance Officer,presented the County's "Opening Statement. " • The County was prepared to show that the Respondent violated Ordinance #90-105, as amended, Section 22.201(6)by violating Florida State Insurance Statutes 440.10(1)(a)by not providing Workers' Compensation insurance coverage to employees Renaldo Frasheri and Alex Galarza on June 14, 2013. Respondent, Misena Spahiu, presented her "Opening Statement. " • Naples Expert Flooring, Inc. is a family-owned business. • Ms. Spahiu's husband, her brother, and her cousin are employed by Naples Expert Flooring. • They began working in flooring installation in Michigan. The family moved to Naples. • They opened Naples Expert Flooring in 2006 with four owners/officers. • They worked primarily as subcontractors to Hadinger Flooring. • In 2006, up to five officers could be listed as "exempt" from Workers' Compensation insurance coverage. 5 July 17,2013 • As the company grew, she obtained Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for a period of two years. Chairman Joslin explained the purpose of the "Opening Statement" was to answer the charges against the company, i.e., to admit or deny same. Ms. Spahiu stated the charges were admitted. She further stated the workers in question were not scheduled to work at the job site because she was in the process of securing insurance coverage for them. • She began trying to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for the business since May, 2013. • Obtaining the insurance coverage in 2013 was more complicated than when she obtained it initially—there was an underwriting process that she was not aware of previously which took longer than anticipated. • She obtained a quote from the insurance company on June 14, 2013. • She was unable to sign the papers on June 14th due to errors contained in the documents, i.e., the company installs carpeting as well as hardwood flooring. • She obtained insurance coverage on June 18, 2013. • She apologized, stating the workers were not to have been at the job site. Karen Clements referenced the following pages within County's Exhibit"A:" • E 1 through E-3: Code Case detail sheets; • E-4: "Stop Work" Order; E-5: Photo of Renaldo Frasheri and Alex Galarza who initially provided false names to her at the job site; • E-12: Notification of Complaint sent to Ms. Spahiu via certified mail; • E-14: Verification of delivery by USPS of certified mail; • E-17: Workers' Compensation exemption listing; • E-24: Copies of drivers' licenses correctly identifying Bernard Spahiu and Edrit Frasheri (the names previously given by Renaldo Frasheri and Alex Galarza); • E-28: Quote for insurance coverage; Ms. Clements verified insurance coverage was current for Naples Expert Flooring, Inc. as of June 18, 2013. • E-37: Copy of Citation#4226, issued by Ian Jackson on October 1, 2008, for the same violation; • E-41: Copy of Citation#6790, issued by Karen Clements on March 16, 2012, for the same violation. Ms. Clements noted the company has been issued a total of three Citations for the same Workers' Compensation violation. She further stated: • On June 14, 2013, she observed men working at 238 Stanhope Circle. 6 July 17,2013 • She spoke with Mark Mazoni from J. L. Bruce Contracting who verified that a carpet installation was taking place. • Two workers identified themselves as Eddie Frasheri and Bernard Frasheri. They stated they were officers of Naples Flooring, Inc. and exempted from Workers' Compensation requirements. • They stated the job had been subbed out through Hadinger Flooring. • She contacted Hadinger who verified the job had been subbed out to Naples Flooring. • She found only two Workers' Compensation exemptions: Edrit Frasheri and Misena Spahiu who is the Qualifer for the company. • The two workers could not provide identification and claimed to have been dropped off at the job site by a van. • They did try to call the driver to return to the job site with the identification. • She called Misena who stated only Bernard Spahiu and Edrit Frasheri should be at the job site. • When she went to speak to the workers, they had walked off the job site. • The "Stop Work" Order was posted. • She contacted Misena Spahiu to request that she accompany Bernard and Edrit to the Contractors' Licensing Office with their identification. • Ms. Spahiu brought the identification for Bernard and Edrit to the Office. • Neither had been present at the job site during the site inspection. • Misena presented a quote for the Workers' Compensation coverage (E-28) and was informed it was not acceptable because it was not proof of coverage. • Bernard Spahiu and Edrit Frasheri appeared at the Contractors' Licensing Office to explain they had taken the two men to the job site to "try them out." • The workers were identified as Renaldo Frasheri and Alex Galarza. • Renaldo Frasheri was also identified as an "Assistant Secretary/Director" on the Annual Report of Naples Expert Flooring, Inc. at Sunbiz.org website (Florida Department of State—Division of Corporations). • Alex Galarza is a friend. • Ms. Spahiu was notified of the Hearing by personal delivery and via certified mail. Chairman Joslin noted there appeared to be a pattern of repeat behavior. Ms. Spahiu explained her brother left the country for a period of one year. Since only Edrit and Bernard were working, continuing the Workers' Compensation insurance coverage was not necessary and she cancelled the policy. After her brother returned and business picked up again, she began the process to obtain a new policy since she knew additional workers would be hired. • Renaldo Frasheri is Edrit's brother. He was hired and made a director so he could work. • Since the incident, he has moved to New York City and no longer works for the company. • His name will be removed from the paperwork as an officer of the company. • Alex will be hired as an employee. IIe is covered under the new policy. 7 July 17,2013 Ms. Spahiu apologized again for the behavior of the men. She admitted that her husband and cousin should not have brought Renaldo and Alex to the job site. The purpose was to assess their skill levels. She stated she has applied for a tile and marble license and she will ensure that they have the proper insurance in the future. It was noted the County had concluded its case. Vice Chairman White asked for an explanation of the March 16, 2012 violation. Ms. Spahiu stated she misunderstood because she thought all five officers were exempt and didn't require insurance coverage. Nigret Brace was an officer. She understands now that only three officers are allowed to be exempt. He asked her to explain why it took so long to obtain coverage. She stated she was not sure if whether or not Nigert Brace was going to work for the company on a permanent basis. Edrit had been working for a company on Marco Island. After it closed, he began to work with Bernard on the Hadinger jobs. Edrit and Bernard were exempt, but Nigert Bruce should not have been working, Vice Chairman White observed two problems: (1)there may not be sufficient communication within management, and (2) there is a pattern and practice of disregarding the law. He staled the Respondent appeared to have the process backwards. In other words, potential employees are not evaluated before they are placed on Workers' Comp—it is the other way around. First, they are covered and then you decide. You pay the premium or you pay the penalty. He further stated he appreciated that the Respondent accepted responsibility and admitting that she understood a violation had been committed. The problem is the number of times the same violation was committed. He asked why this was the third violation. Respondent Spahiu replied that perhaps she had not managed the process correctly, i.e., to insure first and then hire. She admitted she did not understand how serious the requirement was to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for the employees. Vice Chairman White noted the penalties on both the State and County levels could be severe. The "Stop Work" Order prevented the men from working. If they could not perform the work, the contract could not be fulfilled. He stated he was trying to understand the Respondent's thought process and her ability to effectively communicate within the company, and what was her intent. He further stated if the intent was to follow the law, the penalties might be less but, considering it was the third offense, it was difficult to reach that conclusion. Chairman Joslin stated he was disturbed by the behavior of the two men at the job site who lied to the Licensing Compliance Officer to conceal their identities. He questioned whether they had been instructed to do so if they were ever questioned by an authority. Respondent Spahiu stated Renaldo is Edrit's brother. She stated, "We have had 8 July 17,2013 this conversation before that we couldn't have them on the job because only Edrit, Bernard and I were insured. So they had heard that from us before—they heard our conversation —and also that we were trying to get Workers' Comp and that's where the lying came from." She further stated while she could not control the fact that he lied, she will remove his name as an officer from the Annual Report on the Sunbiz website, and confirmed Renaldo no longer works for Naples Expert Flooring, Inc. Chairman Joslin asked why the Respondent had not initially contacted a leasing company to insure the company's employees until she was able to secure Workers' Comp. coverage. Ms. Spahiu replied she had not thought of it at the time. She stated she began the process in May and did not receive an answer until June. She further stated she has emails with other companies which prove that she was trying to obtain Workers' Comp. coverage. She questioned the delay and was informed that Underwriting was the problem. Chairman Joslin again asked why she had not obtained Workers' Comp insurance since the March, 2012 violation. She stated it was not required because only Bernard and Edrit were working on the Hadinger jobs. They were exempt. There were no employees from March, 2012 until April, 2013 when business began to improve and we thought about hiring new employees. Vice Chairman White stated it was a rather expensive way to learn about the opportunity to use a"temp" leasing service and be covered for Workers' Comp. to `try out' potential employees. He continued the reality was—even if they were not supposed to—the men were on the job site. He noted the better business practice, for the future, would be to use a temp leasing service to evaluate the skill level of an individual before actually hiring him/her as an employee. Ms. Spahiu agreed. Terry Jerulle asked the Respondent if she was the Qualifer of the company and she replied, "Yes." When asked if she could control her brother, Ms. Spahiu responded she could control him and he knew the two men should not have been at the job site, but it was her husband and her cousin who brought the men to the job site. Ms. Spahiu acquiesced to his point, i.e., that she had not been able to control her employees in the past but reiterated she would control them in the future. He noted the Respondent stated she was not aware of the consequences of not having Workers' Compensation, i.e., penalties, even though she was the Qualifier for her company. She responded she was not aware of how long the process took and how difficult it would be to obtain the policy. She said she thought the process would have been similar to obtaining general liability insurance. i.e., make a phone call—obtain a quote —pay the premium. 9 July 17,2013 Mr. Jerulle reminded the Respondent that her company had been cited for two previous violations, i.e., in 2008 and 2012. She replied she obtained a policy in 2008 and it remained active for one and one- half years. She stated obtaining coverage in 2013 was more difficult because she had cancelled the previous policy in 2012. Vice Chairman White stated while the Respondent's explanations sounded rational, some of the facts were troubling. He continued as a Qualifier, Respondent should have a firm grasp of the financial and operational management of the company. He asked if she understood the two methods of obtaining Workers' Compensation insurance for employees: (a) to cover them under her company's policy, or(b) to use the coverage provided by a leasing company until the workers were hired. The point was to break the pattern. He stated, "This should be the last time anyone has a conversation about Workers' Compensation and your business." Chairman Joslin reiterated the Respondent's testimony was the she was guilty of the charge. The County did not present a "Closing Statement." The Respondent stated she will have Workers' Compensation coverage "going forward" and, in the future, she will use a leasing company to"try out"employees until they are permanently hired. She asked the Board to allow her company to remain open and to obtain the tile and marble license. Vice Chairman White explained that the application for a tile and marble license was not part of the current proceeding before the Board. Vice Chairman White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second in support from Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, S—0. Chairman Joslin asked the Board's Attorney to present the Charge. Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board: • The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent. • Pursuant to Section 22-203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of the matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial, and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a Court of Law. 10 July 17, 2013 • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay, by itself, is not be sufficient to support a Finding unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his/her privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard set in civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB"), if applicable. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. Chairman Joslin opened the floor to discussion. Chairman Joslin stated the Respondent admitted, through her testimony, that she was guilty of the violation. IIe further stated the fact that there have been a total of three citations for the same violation indicates a definite pattern. He expressed concern regarding the conduct of the men at the job site, i.e., lying to hide their identify and employer. Vice Chairman Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent, Misena Spahiu, d/b/a "Naples Expert Flooring, Inc.,"License Number 28588,guilty of Count I of the Administrative Complaint based upon the testimony and evidence presented. Second in support from Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, 5—0. Attorney Morey noted the Respondent is a Collier County licensed Contractor. With respect to holders of Collier County Certificates of Competency Contractor who have been found to be guilty of misconduct under Section 22-203 of the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board may, but is not required to, impose any of the following Sanctions: (1) Revocation of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (2) Suspension of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, 11 July 17,2013 (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (4) Imposition of a period of probation,not to exceed two years in length, during which time the Contractor's contracting activity shall be under the supervision of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, (5) Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000, (6) Issuance of a public reprimand, (7) Requirement for re-examination or participation in a duly-accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity, (8) Recovery of investigative costs incurred by the County for the prosecution of the violation, and (9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions. Attorney Morey further advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible Disciplinary Sanctions on a Contractor, the Contractors' Licensing Board may consider all the evidence presented during the Public Hearing as well as: (1) The gravity of the violation; (2) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); (4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and (5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the Sanction which is appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation(s) or the violator. Chairman Joslin requested the County's recommendations. Michael Ossorio stated the case paralleled the Irene Lee case, previously heard by the Board, and the same penalties would be applied. • Imposition of a$5,000 fine, to be paid within thirty (30) days; • Requirement to take and pass the Business Procedures test within thirty(30) days; • Imposition of a two-year probationary period during which Ms. Spahiu is to notify the Contractors' Licensing Office of her company's jobs, via email, on a weekly basis; • If the fine is not paid or the Business Procedures test is not taken and passed within thirty days, her Certificate of Competency will be revoked; • Reimbursement to Collier County for investigative costs incurred in the prosecution of this case in the sum of$650. Discussion: Robert Meister asked if the County is automatically notified if a company's general liability insurance or Workers' Compensation coverage is no longer in effect. Michael Ossorio replied the County is notified if it is the Certificate holder. He noted the Respondent had obtained Workers' Compensation coverage and the County had a certificate on file. 12 July 17,2013 Michael Ossorio added another condition to the County's recommendation: • For any additional licenses that the Respondent wishes to acquire in the future are to be approved by the Contractors' Licensing Board. She is required to petition the Board for review. Vice Chairman White asked to Board's attorney if the Board had the authority to re-write its own rules with regard to a specific applicant. His concern: due process for the Respondent. Attorney Morey referred to the Municipal Code, Article 22-184: "Standards for the Issuance or Denial of a Certificate of Competency." b. Referral of Application to Contractor's Licensing Board for Decision. If it does not appear on the face of the application that the Applicant has complied with the requirements of this Article so as to be eligible for a Certificate of Competency, then the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor shall refer the application to the Contractors' Licensing Board for a decision regarding approval or denial of the application. Vice Chairman White suggested a better way might be to impose the County's recommendation as a condition of probation rather than a specific penalty. Michael Ossorio stated he would withdraw the condition. Mr. White suggested adding the following language: "For all pending or future ... within the two-year probationary period ..." Mr. Ossorio stated a public reprimand should also be added to the County's recommendations. Vice Chairman White moved to approve that, based on a finding of guilty, the following penalties are to be imposed: • Imposition of a two-year probationary period during which Ms. Spahiu is to notify the Contractors' Licensing Office of her company's jobs, via email, on a weekly basis; • During the probationary period, any pending or future applications for additional Certificates of Competency for other trades will be brought before the Contractor's Licensing Board; • Imposition of a$5,000 fine, to be paid within thirty (30) days; • Imposition of a requirement to take and pass the Business Procedures test within thirty (30) days; • If the fine is not paid or the Business Procedures test is not taken and passed within thirty days, her Certificate of Competency will be revoked; • Reimbursement to Collier County for investigative costs incurred in the prosecution of this case in the sum of$650 within thirty (30) days • Issuance of a public reprimand. Vice Chairman White noted the penalties will become effective as soon as approve by the Board while the appeal period begins as soon as the Order is signed. Michael Ossorio confirmed the public reprimand will not be issued until twenty 13 July 17,2013 (20) days after the Order is signed. A second in support of the motion was offered by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 5—0. Chairman Joslin outlined the Board's Order: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on July 17, 2013 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2013-08 filed against Misena Spahiu, d/b/a"Naples Expert Flooring, Inc." the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 28588. • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, and thereupon issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact: • Misena Spahiu, d/b/a"Naples Expert Flooring, Inc.," is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 28588. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner(Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Misena Spahiu, was present at the Public Hearing but was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing held on July 17, 2013. • The Respondent had been properly noticed concerning the Hearing. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, had been properly issued and were personally delivered. • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the act. • The allegations of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint as to: o Count I, under Section 22-201(6): "Disregards or violates, in the performance of his/her Contracting business in the County, any of the building, Safety, heath, insurance or Workers'Compensation laws of the State, or Ordinances of this County. " has been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing. Conclusions of Law: • The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count 1 has been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: "The Respondent violated Section 22-201(6) of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, in the performance of her contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity." 14 July 17,2013 Order of the Board: • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of five (5) in favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of five (5) in favor, and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency#28588, to wit: o Imposition of a two-year probationary period during which Ms. Spahiu is to notify the Contractors' Licensing Office of her company's jobs, via email, on a weekly basis; o During the probationary period, any pending or future applications for additional Certificates of Competency for other trades will be brought before the Contractor's Licensing Board; o Imposition of a$5,000 fine, to be paid within thirty (30) days; o Imposition of a requirement to take and pass the Business Procedures test within thirty (30) days; o If the fine is not paid or the Business Procedures test is not taken and passed within thirty days, her Certificate of Competency will be revoked; o Reimbursement to Collier County for investigative costs incurred in the prosecution of this case in the sum of$650 within thirty (30) days o Issuance of a public reprimand. Chairman Joslin noted the case was closed. BREAK: 10:29 AM RECONVENED: 10:45 AM V. DISCUSSION: (A) Work Shop Review from July 8, 2013—Pages 38 and 39 Michael Ossorio stated Pages 38 and 39 of the Ordinance had been distributed to the Board members. He explained the code-key: • If a word or phrase was highlighted in red with a line through it, it was deleted. • If a word or phrase was highlighted in red and underlined, it was added. The following typographical errors were found: • On Page 38: o Under 4.3.1(a), 5th line, Deleted the word, "Mechanical" at the start of the line; 15 July 17,2013 o Under 4.3.1(a), 9th line, the phrase "three hundred dollars" should be deleted and the phrase "one thousand dollars" should be inserted; o Under 4.3.1.(a), the word "regiserted" should be changed to "registered" (31d line from the bottom) Vice Chairman White asked if the term, "License Compliance Officers" was a defined term. Michael Ossorio confirmed it was defined under"Human Resources." He will verify the location of the definition within the Ordinance. Attorney Morey stated the Contractors' Licensing Board could recommend drafting a new Ordinance for inclusion in the Code of Laws, but suggested using the current document to identify the changes. Michael Ossorio noted the Ordinance was last revised in 2006 although it was reviewed in 2010. The Board of County Commissioners elected not to amend the document at that time. He stated the reason why an amendment to the Ordinance is under consideration was to comply with the changes in the law. • Page 39: o Under subparagraph"e": Delete the word "minor" (2nd line) Terry Jerulle asked how a third offence was handled. Vice Chairman White replied if it was uncontested, it was referred to the State Attorney's Office for"criminal prosecution." There was no applicable fine. Discussion ensued concerning Section 2.1 and 2.2 of the Ordinance. Michael Ossorio explained the various items that comprised a"completed" application. Mr. Ossorio stated he was on the Agenda for last week's DSAC meeting. He provided an overview of the Workshop and noted the Development Services Advisory Committee has been very supportive. Vice Chairman White moved to approve recommending the proposed text with the changes as outlined above and to authorize the Chairman to sign a Resolution or other appropriate document to support an Executive Summary which will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Second in support from Michael Boyd. Carried unanimously, S—0. A question was raised concerning the vote to approve the minutes. Attorney Morey researched the issue as follows: "Question: Can a member vote on or second a motion to approve the minutes of a meeting that he did not attend? Answer: Yes. (RONR (10th ed.), pp. 343-344)" 16 July 17.2013 IX. REPORTS: (A) Senate Bill #50 (effective: October 1, 2013) (Summary provided by James Morey, Esq., Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC) Attorney Morey explained Senate Bill #50 will create a new Section (286.044) in Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2013. The new Section codifies and places into the FS recognition of an individual's right to be heard at a public meeting even if the individual was not a participant in the proceeding. Vice Chairman White noted the 4th bulleted point created an exception for meetings when a Board, such as the Contractors' Licensing Board, is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and stated a different set of rules apply to ex-parte proceedings. Attorney Morey stated his purpose was to bring the new Section to the attention of the Board. He suggested the item could be discussed in depth at a future meeting to develop a written policy concerning who could speak, under which circumstances, for how long, and to "carve out"the exceptions presented by Vice Chairman White. Mr. Morey cited an example of an administrative complaint being heard in a public hearing and a member of the public who is not a party to or affected by the case wishes to make a statement. The Statute would allow the Board to create a rule to prevent a casual observer from commenting during the proceeding. Vice Chairman White requested the Board's attorney consult with the County Attorney's Office for direction regarding drafting a policy or procedure. Consensus: The topic will be brought back as "Old Business"on a future Agenda. X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building"F," Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 11:36 AM. 17 July 17,2013 COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Richard Josl' , Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Chairman on )3 , 2013, "as submitted" [r/1 OR "as amended" [_ . 18