Loading...
CLB Minutes 10/16/2013 CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes October 16 , 2013 October 16, 2013 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD 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 Ronald Donino Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Kevin Noell, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Ian Jackson — Licensing Compliance Officer Rob Ganguli — Licensing Compliance Officer rn October 16, 2013 ry rn Naples, Florida ° °° - :0 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' 4 L1`cens9qg n o 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 Ronald Donino Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Kevin Noell, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Ian Jackson — Licensing Compliance Officer Rob Ganguli — Licensing Compliance Officer Co*e6r County COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD AGENDA NOVEMBER 20, 2013 9:00 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ROLL CALL ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: October 16, 2013 V. DISCUSSION: VI. NEW BUSINESS: (A) Herman Rudolph- Waiver of Examination(s) (B) Brian J. Cleary- Waiver of Examination(s) VII. OLD BUSINESS: (A) Orders Of The Board VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Case 2013 -11- Eusebio Verrier (DBA) Tiki Huts Inc. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2013 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS 3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 October 16, 2013 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Richard Joslin called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Seven voting members were present. II. AGENDA — ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR CHANGES: Change: • Under Item VIII, "Public Hearings" o Case 2013 -09 will be heard following Item V, "Discussion." III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Vice Chairman Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — AUGUST 219 2013: Correction: • Under Item VII -B, "Old Business," 2nd Paragraph: o Chairman "Jerulle" was changed to Chairman "Joslin." Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes of the August 21, 2013 meeting as amended. Vice Chairman Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. V. DISCUSSION Michael Ossorio, Supervisor — Contractors' Licensing Office, suggested scheduling the next meeting in either November or December and asked the members for their preference. Chairman Joslin stated he would not be available in December. Consensus: The Board will meet in November, but not in December. Mr. Ossorio noted the County Attorney's Office provided a copy of the Executive Summary which is included on the Agenda for the December 22nd meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. The changes to the Ordinance will be presented at the meeting and will be advertised prior to the meeting. The advertising will run for ten (10) days. 2 October 16, 2013 VIII. PUBLIC HEARING: (Note: Regarding case heard under Section VIII, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Case #2013 -09: BCC vs. Seth B. Hollander, d/b /a "Hollander Construction Company, Inc., LLC" Respondent Seth B. Hollander was present and represented by Henry Johnson, Esq. Chairman Joslin outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • The 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 /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 by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. October 4, 2013 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay Operational Costs in the amount of $112.20 incurred in the prosecution of the case by November 4, 2013. 2. Abate all violations by storing all commercial vehicle(s) /equipment in rear yard and concealing from view, or storing all commercial vehicle(s) /equipment within a completely enclosed structure, or remove offending vehicles from residentially zoned area by October 18, 2013 or a fine of $100.00 a day that the violation remains unabated, thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 3. Notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance 24 hours. Notice shall be by phone and made during the work week. If the violation is abated 24 hours prior to a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, then the notification must be made on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. 4. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation using any method to bring the violation into compliance and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff s Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.20 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. Emergency Cases: 1. CASE NO: CEPM20130013841 OWNER: DORIS LEE STATON ROSO AND SHEILA JAMESON VIOLATIONS: COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE VI, , SECTION 22 -231 (121) AND 22 -242 CONDEMMED STRUCTURE THAT IS UNSECURE DUE TO REAR SLIDERS REMOVED FOLIO NO: 65671240001 VIOLATION ADDRESS: 696 PINE VALE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL Supervisor Mucha represented the County. Robert Harris and Peter Flood, Attorney represented the Respondent. Respondent Evidence entered: Exhibit A: Power of Attorney issued to Robert Harris. Mr. Flood reported the property has been subject to a mortgage foreclosure action for a period of 2 years, including allegations of forgery. There is a final hearing scheduled for October 9, 2013 at which time it is expected the case will resolved and the Respondent will be able to take the necessary steps to abate all violations on the property. As an immediate step, Mr. Harris intends to secure opening in question by October 7, 2013. Supervisor Mucha confirmed a meeting is scheduled on site for October 7, 2013 so the County may inspect the property. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate found the Respondent GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Pay the Operational Costs of $112.03 incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case on or before November 4, 2013. 2. Abate the violation by obtaining required Collier County Building Permits inspections and a Certificate of Completion /Occupancy on or before October 7, 4 October 4, 2013 2013 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate or, 3. Obtain a Collier County Boarding Certificate and board the structure to the required specifications by October 7, 2013 and obtain all required Collier County permitslinspections and Certificate of Completion /Occupancy by April 4, 2014 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 4. In the event the property is secured by boarding, any unauthorized entry into the premises shall constitute a violation of this order. In the event of an unauthorized entry onto the premises after the property is secured by boarding the penalty provisions in Section 22 -247 of the Collier County Laws and Ordinances shall apply. 5. Notify the Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 6. If the Respondent fails to abate the violation the County may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. Total Amount Due: $112.03 B. Hearings 2. CASE NO: S0180476- CEEX20130007905 OWNER: JEFFREY GARGIULO OFFICER: DEPUTY ROGER HILL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: VANDERBILT BEACH TURN AROUND, NAPLES Deputy Hill represented the County. Evidence Entered: 1 photo taken May 26, 2013 of the vehicle located in the restricted parking area. Jeffrey Gargiulo was present. Mr. Gargiulo testified: • On the day of the incident (May 26, 2013) he was traveling in the vicinity of the Vanderbilt Beach turn around when his infant became in distressed in the back seat. • He pulled off the road into the striped lane reserved for the adjacent handicap parking space to momentarily attend to the child. • While he was attending to the child, Deputy Hill approached the vehicle and issued the citation. • He did not exit the vehicle until after the officer approached and was not intending to park in the space. • He requested the citation be dismissed given the circumstances. Officer Hill testified: • On the day of the incident he was on routine patrol when he observed the vehicle parked in the restricted area. October 4, 2013 • He observed Mr. Gargiulo's wife walking up from the beach area with the child. • Mr. Gargiulo stated to him he was there to pick up his wife and child as his child had become ill at the beach. • Neither party was in the vehicle when he approached. • Accordingly, he issued the citation for parking in a handicap space without the proper authorization. Mr. Gargiulo questioned Deputy Hill if he was certain neither party was in the vehicle when he approached. Deputy Hill reported he was not certain if Mr. Gargiulo's was inside or outside the vehicle when he approached. Hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the Special Magistrate took the case UNDER ADVISEMENT. CASE NO: S0180382- CEEX20130011889 OWNER: LEONARD CAPALDI OFFICER: DEPUTY ROGER HILL VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -67 HANDICAPPED SPACE VIOLATION ADDRESS: VANDERBILT BEACH TURN AROUND, NAPLES Deputy Hill represented the County. Evidence Entered: 3 photos dated 8/11/13 showing the vehicle parked in the restricted area. Leonard Capaldi was present. Mr. Capaldi testified: • On August 11, 2013 he entered the turn around area and was parking his vehicle in a handicap parking space. • The area was crowded with vehicles and pedestrians and on his first attempt to park his vehicle, for safety purposes, he temporarily backed into the restricted striped area adjacent to the handicap space. • Before he could maneuver his vehicle out of the space to realign it into the parking space, Deputy Hill approached the car and issued a citation. • He possesses a handicap parking placard authorizing him to utilize a handicap space. Deputy Hill testified: • On August 11, 2013, he was on routine patrol when he observed Mr. Capaldi's vehicle parked in a restricted area. • He approached the vehicle and no one was present. • When Mr. Capaldi arrived, he could not produce backup documentation proving the handicap parking placard was issued for his use. • Accordingly he issued the citation. October 4, 2013 Mr. Capaldi contested the statement by Deputy Hill, "he was not in the vehicle" when the Deputy approached and reiterated he does possesses a legally issued handicapped placard The Special Magistrate, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence ordered the Respondent to pay the $5.00 Administrative Fee for parking in the handicap parking space without backup documentation. CASE NO: S0157716- CEEX20130004436 OWNER: KIMBERLY GATES OFFICER: DEPUTY G. SCHORE VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORD., SEC. 130 -66 UNLAWFUL AREA VIOLATION ADDRESS: 5080 ANNUNCIATION CIRCLE, AVE MARIA Date of Hearing Notice by Certified Mail: 9/19/13 Deputy Schore was present. The Respondent was not present. Deputy Schore testified on the day of the incident (March 12, 2013) he was on routine patrol when he observed a vehicle parked on the side of the road in the opposite direction of traffic flow. Accordingly he issued the citation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Special Magistrate upheld issuance of the citation and ordered the Respondent to pay a $30.00 Fine, Operational Costs of $50.00 and a $5.00 Adminstrative Fee for a total amount due of $85.00 to be paid by November 4, 2013. Total Amount Due: $85.00 (Cases 6 and 7 were combined) 6. CASE NO: DAS13517- CEEX20130011780 OWNER: ANIUSKA ALMARAL OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORDINANCE 14 -34, SECTION B ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2835 31ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES CASE NO: DAS13518- CEEX20130011781 OWNER: ANIUSKA ALMARAL OFFICER: KURT ZEITLER VIOLATIONS: CODE OF LAW & ORDINANCE 14 -34, SECTION B ALLOW A DOG TO RUN AT LARGE. VIOLATION ADDRESS: 2835 31ST AVENUE NE, NAPLES Officer Zeitler represented the County. Aniuska Almaral was present with her translator. Officer Zeitler testified: • On July 3, 2013 he answered a complaint at the above address for dogs running at large. • It was the 5b visit to the site to answer a like complaint. October 16, 2013 Vice Chairman White noted there had been a "cure" which was relevant to the type of action which the Board could take. Respondent's Counsel admitted there had been a violation of a portion of the definition but due to the revisions of the contract, any of the work which the Respondent would perform in the future would be wholly within the scope of his license. Thomas Lykos noted the Respondent could be asked to provide copies of any subsequent contracts or the addendum to the original contract to confirm that the work, as it may move forward, has been contracted appropriately. He continued the issue presented by the County was whether or not the Respondent violated the Ordinance by contracting to do the work. Whether or not the work actually occurred was secondary. The issue at hand was whether or not the work was contracted outside the scope of the Respondent's license. Vice Chairman White stated there was an admission that there had been a violation to the degree that there was contracting outside the scope under the definition. Attorney Johnson questioned Ian Jackson: Q. The first contact you had with Mr. Hollander was on or about September 25, 2013, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Following your contact, Mr. Hollander was pro- active relative to making certain that certain work that was going to be performed under the original scope of the " Lutgert Contract" was removed from his contract? A. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Hollander immediately contacted his customer and advised them of the issue and took steps to rectify it so the project could continue legally. Q. I think you said you also saw the "carve -out contract" which was the contract that was entered into directly by the subcontractors, Commercial Concrete and Superior Interlocking Paving. A. I saw a contract between Commercial Concrete and The Lutgert Companies. Q. Did Mr. Hollander in any way avoid speaking with you after you contacted him? A. Mr. Hollander missed two scheduled meetings at our office for the issuance of documents relative to the Hearing. Q. Do you know how many times Mr. Hollander's Counsel contacted your office and spoke with Mr. Ossorio regarding this matter? A. I could not give you an accurate number. Q. We had not spoken. Before today, all contact between Mr. Hollander and your office had been between a representative of my office and Mr. Ossorio. A. Correct. Q. Are you aware whether or not Mr. Hollander has provided an updated credit report? A. I believe Mr. Hollander has provided the credit report. October 16, 2013 Q. To your knowledge, has he paid all license renewals and fees that are owed to Collier County at this time? A. I could not answer that. Kyle Lantz stated the initial contract has been changed and the concrete work will be done by Commercial Concrete and the paving work will be done by Superior. He asked if Mr. Hollander involved in selecting the subcontractors or if it had done by the Lutgert Companies. Terry Jerulle asked if a deposit had been paid pursuant to the terms of the initial contract. Attorney Johnson stated a deposit had been paid but he was not aware of the amount. Attorney Johnson presented the Respondent's "Case in Chief." • Mr. Hollander provided his personal information to the Board, i.e., residency status and educational background. Attorney Johnson questioned the Respondent: Q. Have you provided the updated credit report as requested to the Contractors Licensing Office which was forwarded to the Board? A. It has been. Q. Have your license renewal fees been paid and has your license been renewed? A. It has. Q. I understand that you entered into a contract, initially with The Lutgert Companies which ultimately was Village on the Bay, LLC. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. The summary that was provided by the County at Exhibit E -11 was the original scope of work. Is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. On approximately September 25, 2013, you received contact from Mr. Ian Jackson. Is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. Regarding this contract? A. Right. Q. What did Mr. Jackson indicated to you at that time? To be best of your knowledge. A. That we had a potential issue of violation of contracting and within the hour, I was in the Contractors' Licensing [office] meeting with Mr. Jackson. Q. And did Mr. Jackson indicate to you that there were features of the contract that you had entered into that the County believed was outside the scope of your particular license? A. Yes he did. Q. What did he explain to you? 21 October 16, 2013 A. That certain Line Items of the contract were outside of the scope of an Excavation [contractor]. Q. Did he go over with you any specific line items at that time? A. We did. We went through the contract line item by line item and picked out which could be in violation. Q. Did you have any specific recollection of any of the Line Items that were discussed with Mr. Jackson at that time? A. As far as ... ? Q. Which ones he thought were outside the scope of your license? A. I did. Q. Which ones were they as you look at Exhibit E -11? A. Line Item 13, Line Item 15, Line Item 16 and Line Item 17. Q. Anything else. A. Line Item 20 because I hadn't renewed the striping license. Q. As a consequence of Mr. Jackson's discussion with you, tell the members of the Board what you did, starting with the contractual arrangement between you and The Lutgert CompaniesNillage on the Bay, LLC. A. As far as ... ? Q. Did you discuss the fact that we need to modify this contract? A. Of course. Q. Was the contract modified? A. The contract was modified. Q. You then requested that Counsel prepare an Addendum to the contract, is that correct? A. That is correct. Mr. Johnson noted there was a policy in practice and acknowledged that the Respondent's documents should have been sent to the Contractors' Licensing Office last week. He stated an Addendum was prepared on or about September 28th and he would provide copies to the Board for their review. Seth Hollander concurred stating it was prepared on the "following Monday." Q. What did you do with the standard form of agreement between owner and contractor? A. I went to Lutgert and presented it to them and, at that time, they wanted revise their contract with a Change Order. Q. At that time, you presented an addendum to the standard form of agreement between owner and contractor that you had prepared by your Counsel, correct? A. Correct. Q. The Lutgert Companies indicated they wanted to modify the agreement but wanted to use their form of agreement. A. That is correct. Q. And did they present their form to you? A. They did but the total amount was incorrect. Q. So with The Lutgert Companies right now you have an understanding that there are certain scopes of the work that you are not to perform, is that correct? 10 October 16, 2013 A. That is correct. Q. At this point in time, it is just a matter of resolving the couple of dollars difference that you have with them? A. Yes. Q. As I understand it, there were two proposal agreements that were sent directly to The Lutgert Companies by Commercial Concrete Systems, is that correct? A. That is correct. Q. And by Superior Interlocking Paving, Incorporated? A. Also correct. Q. Do you have multiple copies of these [documents]? A. Those are the only two copies. Mr. Johnson stated he would share the copy with the Board. He showed a document to the Respondent and marked it as Respondent's Exhibit #1. Q. Do you recognize this document entitled, "Commercial Concrete Systems, Inc." and dated September 27, 2013? A. I do. Q. And what is that? A. That's a proposal to The Lutgert Companies from Commercial Concrete for the ribbons curb and the valley gutter. Q. And do you understand that this has been accepted by The Lutgert Companies? A. It has been accepted. Q. And since it has been accepted by The Lutgert Companies and it has excepted or taken out the scope of your work, correct? A. That is correct. Attorney Johnson asked to admit the document into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit # 1. Vice Chairman White moved to accept Respondent's Exhibit #1 into evidence. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Vice Chairman White asked if there were other documents. Mr. Johnson requested to admit the following documents into evidence: • Superior Interlocking Paving proposal, dated 10- 03 -13, as Respondent's Exhibit #2; • Addendum to the Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Contractor as Respondent's Exhibit #3. Vice Chairman White asked if the contract was between Hollander Construction Company and The Lutgert Companies or Village on the Bay, LLC. Mr. Johnson clarified the Addendum was between Hollander Construction Company, Inc. and Village on the Bay, LLC. 11 October 16, 2013 Vice Chairman White amended his previous motion to include the documents as proffered by Attorney Johnson to include the three Exhibits as noted Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the amended motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Q. Regarding Exhibit #2, to your knowledge, has the paving contractor contracted directly with The Lutgert Companies relating to the scope of the work contained in the proposal? A. To my knowledge, they have. Q. And has that specifically been taken out of any contractual arrangement which you have with The Lutgert Companies? A. Yes it has. Q. The Addendum to Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and Contractor what we discussed earlier, is that the document that you asked our office to prepare on your behalf? A. Yes. Q. And that was what was presented to The Lutgert Companies and Village on the Bay, LLC? I use them interchangeably. A. Yes. Q. And that is the agreement that we are waiting for The Lutgert Companies to come back with an appropriate, agreed upon dollar figure? A. That is correct. Q. Since being notified by Contractors' Licensing of the concerns which are the subject of this hearing, did you take any further pro- active action to attempt deal with the situation relating to licensing and testing? A. Yes, I have. Q. Can you tell the Board what you have done since September 25, 2013 in that regard. A. I had the County sponsor the licensing test for paving engineering contracting exam. I drove to Ocala and took the test. I passed. Q. Is it your desire to continue to engage in contracting under your present licensing authorization? A. Yes. Q. Would it be your desire — credit being an issue — and your ability to operate consistent with the mandates of Collier County and their licensing requirements — to be able at some time in the future to request of Collier County to have a paving engineering contracting license so you could engage in a greater scope of work consistent with what would have been the agreement between yourself and Village on the Bay, LLC? A. That is correct. Mr. Johnson stated he had no further questions for Mr. Hollander. Vice Chairman Johnson asked if the dollar amount of the Exhibits ( "carve out" contracts) would equal the adjusted price on the Addendum. Seth Hollander replied, "That is correct." 12 October 16, 2013 Terry Jerulle asked if Mr. Hollander had taken a deposit on the initial contract with The Lutgert Companies. A. Yes, I have. Q. What was that amount? A. It was 30% of the total. Q. So you have taken .... ? A. $17,000 and change. Q. You don't know the exact amount? A. Not with me. Q. So it is a percentage of the contract total? A. A percentage of the contract total. Q. So you have taken money on all of the items? A. Correct. Vice Chairman White: Q. Where there any deposits on either of the "carve out" contracts with the other contractors, either Commercial or Superior? A. Not to my knowledge. I don't know that for certain. Kyle Lantz: Q. Did you aid The Lutgert Companies in finding a paver company and a concrete company? A. Absolutely. Q. That's someone that you may have worked with in the past? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And were these people someone that you were going to "sub" out to? A. Yes, sir. Q. They are the same people who planned to do the original job? A. Yes. Q. Now they're just doing it — they're being paid — cutting you out of the loop — directly? A. That is correct. Terry Jerulle: Q. How many employees do you have? A. I have two. Q. Equipment operators? A. Yes. Q. Laborers? A. Both. Q. I noticed in the Addendum that you did not include the Drivable Grass Pavers? A. I did not. Q. Is that still in your contract? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are Drivable Grass Pavers something you can perform under your license? A. I spoke with ... that is correct, to my knowledge. 13 October 16, 2013 Q. And who is going to be setting those pavers? A. The Grass Pavers? Q. Yes. A. They're not actually "pavers." It's a plastic sheet — a honeycomb sheet — that is filled with sand so they can sod on top of it. It acts as soil stabilization ... you see it in fire lanes. Q. I'm familiar with it. Who is going to be installing those? A. My two guys or myself ... and myself. Thomas Lykos: Q. Mr. Hollander, in reviewing the items you have in Evidence, the concrete contract is very specific in what's included and what's in the dollar amount. And the paver contract is very specific in what's included and what's in the dollar amount. In your Amendment to the agreement, the original contract has items that have been lined through along with the associated dollar amounts. But there's no revised contract amount for this Addendum. One of the requirements for the Board to is determine if there has been any financial harm to the person you have contracted with. A. I understand. Q. One of the questions is — with all these changes, what is the net change to the dollar amount of the contract to the property owner? Because your revised contract does not have a revised dollar amount, do you have somewhere a document that shows what the new dollar amount is? That's the first part of my question. The other part is this has not been executed — this is a proposed amendment to the contract. But it is not an executed contract. It is an important consideration — this does not have a dollar amount on it and it has not been executed. The document is a little bit weak for my standards. Attorney Johnson reiterated the scope of the work has been removed and as Mr. Hollander stated he is working with The Lutgert Companies so that there will be no financial harm. There will be an agreed upon amount that the parties can live with and he is waiting for word from The Lutgert Companies. Mr. Hollander is doing the math with The Lutgert Companies. The scope has been dealt with but the dollar figure has not been agreed to. Q. Is that correct? A. That's correct. Mr. Johnson continued that they cannot yet present a document with a clear dollar figure. He stated The Lutgert Companies and Village on the Bay holds the cards and will decide what they feel is comfortable in order for his contract to proceed. There will be no harm to the owner because it, ultimately, will be ... the dollar figure will be negotiated. Thomas Lykos stated he understood the intent of the agreement. He asked if Village on the Bay came back with a number that would make it financially irresponsible for Mr. Hollander to continue with the project, the result would be an owner who entered into a contract for a fixed dollar amount for a fixed amount of 14 October 16, 2013 work and because Mr. Hollander was not licensed to perform the work — once you bring in the new entities and determine a new dollar amount, Mr. Hollander may be faced with a choice of doing the work at a loss at which case you will have vendors at risk of nonpayment if he takes on the job. Or, Mr. Hollander decides not to follow through on the contract in which case the owner would be forced to contract the project a new at a potentially higher dollar amount. In that situation, the owner would be faced with financial harm because the original contract would no longer valid. Vice Chairman White noted there may not be the capacity to perform any aspect of the original contract. It is a consideration. Mr. Hollander stated with regard to the dollar amounts and the remainder of the contract that could be paid to Hollander Construction, neither company would be at a loss or at risk. A. The original deposit was $17,400 and a few dollars. Between the Superior Interlocking Paving's proposal contract and Commercial Concrete's proposal, that equates to $17,100 and there's a total of $34,000 between those two. And you would deduct that from the total — the original contract total. Thomas Lykos noted another issue, i.e., there was a dollar amount in the contract allocated to the specific work itemized in the contract. For example, a Line Item for pavers of $12,000. The cost for Superior is $10,000. If Lutgert chose to remove the entire $12,000 for pavers, that would reduce the net contract amount by $2,000. He further stated he did not have a document which stated that all parties agreed that the work would be performed by outside trades for the exact dollar amount that was in the original contract. He continued the Amendment to the contract did not specify who was responsible for supervising the outside trades; who was responsible for their work; who was warrantying their work — they would not be working underneath you as the General Contractor. He asked the following questions: • Who would be responsible for overseeing the management of how that work coordinates with each other? • Who would be responsible for warrantying the subcontractors? • Will the subcontractors have a direct warranty with the owner? • What happens when your work affects their work? Will that warranty be void? And vice versa — will your warranty be void because their work affects your work? He stated there were unintended consequences that were created because Mr. Hollander contracted for work outside of his license. There are financial issues in addition to who would be ultimately responsible for the site and safety on the job site. Delays may or may not be caught because a subcontract was beyond your control and the contract may or may not have a "Time is of the Essence" Clause. The issues could arise because instead of one contractor being responsible for the entire project, it has been split up. The Amendment to the initial contract does not 15 October 16, 2013 address those issues. There is the potential for risk on the owner's part. There are a number of questions that have not been resolved. Seth Hollander stated that he understood Mr. Lykos' concerns. Vice Chairman White asked the Respondent what was his intent regarding how the items that were lined out in the Addendum would be performed and by whom. A. By the two companies that The Lutgert Companies hired directly — Superior and Commercial Concrete. Q. When you entered into the original contract, you were intending to either subcontract or to have those two entities directly contract with the owner? A. They were to be subcontractors. Q. Through you? A. Through me. Without putting words in anyone's mouth, a conclusion that could be reached by this Board is that you would have a continuing violation for acting as a General Contractor without a license. I want that to be understood by you. It is a clear point of departure for the concerns we have and how we would weigh what the disciplinary action should be in this case. From my perspective, for someone on probation to have that intent is a serious concern. Unless or until you have a General Contractor's license, it would be a situation where the County would continually find violations. I want this to be readily understood. Robert Meister directed his question to Mr. Ossorio, stating as a General Contractor when he bids on a contract knowing there were functions to be performed that were outside the scope of his license, is there any connection to what the Respondent was doing, i.e, contracting outside our scope of work? Michael Ossorio replied there is a Statute which states that a Tier -1, General Building Residential Contractor shall sub -out the electrical and mechanical work but could contract for it. It is totally separate from what the Respondent did. Vice Chairman White stated it was contemplated under the law as a standard accepted business practice. He further stated what was not contemplated was for a Specialty Contractor in one trade to contract for and subcontract to others who were outside the scope of the contractor's license. That would be a continuing violation. Mr. Ossorio noted there are some Specialty Contractors who sub within their field. For example, a licensed floor covering contractor might sub -out a job to another contractor but that's within the same scope of the license so it would not be "contracting." Chairman Joslin asked if there were additional questions and suggested presentation of Closing Statements would be the next step. Attorney Morey noted if further questioning was necessary after the Public Hearing was closed, the case could be re- opened. Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Jackson to present the County's Closing Statement. 16 October 16, 2013 Ian Jackson: • The County has shown through documented facts, sworn testimony, and the acknowledgment of the Respondent's Counsel that the Respondent violated Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 201(2), by contracting with the property owner of Venetian Village/Village on the Bay, LLC and/or The Lutgert Companies for work outside the scope of his competency as listed on his Competency Card and as defined in Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 162(18), or as restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board. Attorney Johnson presented the Respondent's Closing Statement: • The Board will make a determination as to whether in fact the actions taken by Hollander Construction, upon notification, takes us out of any disciplinary action at this point in time. • I would respectfully submit that a careful reading of the Statute may be necessary to determine whether or not "contracting" or the taking of a deposit in and of itself would constitute a prima facia violation. • If the Board finds that there is a violation, I think the evidence shows that there is the need for some guidance for Mr. Hollander so that he can become a functioning contractor in Collier County. Vice Chairman White: Q. Is it the Respondent's position that there was an admission of guilt as to that portion of the definition or is it your defense that, under the definition, that there is no violation and the Board should find there was none. Attorney Johnson: A. I think the Board should find that there was no violation in the light of the evidence that was presented. Thomas Lykos moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Chairman Joslin confirmed the Public Hearing was closed. 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. • That, 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. 17 October 16, 2013 • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a Court of Law. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay, by itself, is not be sufficient to support a Finding unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his/her privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard set in civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decisions made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and are 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. Vice Chairman White moved that the evidence presented was clear and convincing that under the County's definition of "contracting" in Section 22 -162 as set forth in Exhibit E -19 in the information packet indicates that a violation of that definition and regulation prohibiting a Contractor from operating outside the scope of his/her license has occurred. Thomas Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Attorney Morey noted the Board found the Respondent to be guilty and the Respondent is a Collier County licensed Contractor. He further stated holders of Collier County Certificates of Competency who have been found to be guilty, the Contractors' Licensing Board may, but is not required to, impose any of the following Sanctions, either alone or in combination: (1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, 18 October 16, 2013 (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 reasonable 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. Discussion: • Kyle Lantz stated Mr. Hollander has been described as "proactive" but he was actually "re- active." Had he been proactive, he would have consulted his attorney first before entering into any contract. Proactive would have been to take the test and obtain his license before entering into the contract. Vice Chairman White stated the Respondent did take corrective action. He noted the other case was not based upon probation — that probation was a follow -up compliance action to provide an improved credit report. He did not consider the requirement for an updated credit report to be a negative factor in weighing what the disciplinary action should be. Thomas Lykos commented: • It is the Board's responsibility to uphold the Ordinance. The Board previously further defined what the term "contracting" meant to clear up some vagueness. • While we need to consider the probation, had the credit report been sufficient, in theory, we could have taken the Respondent off probation in September. Then this case would have been solely about working outside the scope of his license and the probation would not have been relevant to the case. 19 October 16, 2013 • The probation was based on the credit report and not on a violation. It is not trade - related or work related. We will deal with the credit issue in another part of the meeting. • He asked what was the real gravity of the violation but the fact that Mr. Hollander was reactive and the work was not done, mitigated what could have been considered to be a grave violation. • He stated the impact on the public was not yet known because a revised contract was not presented to the Board to review. Since a safety issue was not created in this situation, there was very little impact to the public. • Regarding corrective action, the Board's responsibility is to bring people into compliance. It is a Contractor's responsibility to know the law. However, if a Contractor is made aware of the law and takes corrective action, it is an important consideration. The Respondent in reacting, did as much as he could do to correct the action that was taken. • Previous violations: since the previous probation was based on credit, there were no previous violations. • Is Mr. Hollander guilty of violating the Ordinance: Yes. • In terms of the gravity and impact on the public, it is very small and should be taken into consideration when determining disciplinary action. Terry Jerulle noted The Lutgert Companies, which is the public, still may be harmed. He stated the Respondent took $17,000 and it is not known whether or not he will be able to finish the project. If the numbers do not work, the Respondent may not go back. The Board does not know what he did with the money. Lengthy discussion continued. • Kyle Lantz pointed out the difference between contracting is not necessarily doing the work but writing the contract to do it. There was a clear consensus among the Board members. Contracting is offer, bid, contract. The Respondent pled not guilty. It is not a grey area to us. The Respondent wrote a contract that he was not licensed to do. Our job is to make sure he understands what is right and wrong — what you are allowed to do. By stating "it's a grey area" — he does not know what is right or wrong. • Chairman Joslin concurred that Mr. Lantz had clarified the gravity of the violation. Vice Chairman White asked what costs were incurred by the County. Michael Ossorio stated the total was $620. • Thomas Lykos stated while he appreciated the comments from the Board members, he believes that part of the Board's job is to remove obstacles to 20 October 16, 2013 opportunity. He stated he was still conflicted concerning the correct disciplinary action and asked for comments from each member. Vice Chairman White supported imposing probation of two years; a fine of $5,000 to be paid within thirty days; payment of costs of $620 to the County within thirty days. He continued, if necessary, Lutgert Companies is to compensated for its loss, if any, from the original contract. If the County is made aware of any future business opportunities, there will an opportunity to assist and educate. Chairman Joslin summarized Mr. White's recommendations: Probation for two years; A fine of $5,000 to be paid within in thirty days; Payment of investigative costs of $620 to be paid within thirty days. Michael Ossorio noted if The Lutgert Companies provides documentation of misconduct in the future, there is a provision in the Code to handle it. • Michael Boyd stated he agreed with Vice Chairman White's proposal. He asked why did Lutgert wait until September to call when the contract was begun in July. He asked Mr. Ossorio if a reason was provided. • Ian Jackson replied an issue of non - performance prompted the email communication from Mr. Lutgert. • Mr. Boyd stated he thought the fine was a bit high but if the complaint was due to non - performance, he would accept it. • Ron Donino stated he also supported Mr. White's proposal. Discussion continued concerning the amount of the fine, possibly extending the time to repay the fine, whether or not the deposit was verified, and the County monitoring the Respondent's future business. Terry Jerulle stated he would require the Respondent to take (and pass) the Business Law test. He would reduce the amount of the fine to ensure that the project was finished. He would require the payment to the County of $620. He also would like to see proof provided by The Lutgert Companies that there was no harm to the owner. He agreed with monitoring by the County of any future business and imposition of a two -year probation. He was not sure how much to reduce the fine. Attorney Johnson stated the Respondent would cooperate with whatever the Board decides. He requested to reduce the fine to the greatest extent possible and increase the time limit to pay it. Thomas Lykos stated if the Board eliminates Mr. Hollander's opportunity to fulfill the contract, the owner may be put in a worse position. He suggested if the Respondent presented documentation that the job was completed, the fine could be reduced to $3,000 to be paid within 90 days. 21 October 16, 2013 Chairman Joslin stated he agreed with most of the comments made by the Board members. He supported reducing the fine to ensure that the job is completed correctly by the Respondent. He would agree to a fine of $3,000 to be paid within 90 days as well as payment of the investigative costs. He stated he was disturbed that the Board had approved the Respondent's prior application for a license and waived his requirement a test and then he went out and did what he did. Kyle Lantz moved to approve the following: • Imposition of a two-year probation; • Requiring the Respondent to reimburse the County for investigative costs in the amount of $620 to be paid by November 1, 2013; • Imposition of a fine of $2,500 to be paid in five equal monthly installments commencing December 1, 2013; • Requiring the Respondent to take and pass the Business Procedures test within six months. • If any of the conditions are not met, the Respondent's license will automatically be suspended until the following Board meeting where he will be required to appear. Vice Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion and suggested the Respondent assure the Board there was no net loss to the owner under all the contracts written prior to the Hearing. Mr. Lantz restated his motion as follows: • Imposition of a two-year probation; • Requiring the Respondent to reimburse the County for investigative costs in the amount of $620 to be paid by November 1, 2013; • Imposition of a fine of $2,500 to be paid in five equal monthly installments commencing December 1, 2013, and due on the first business day of each month; • Requiring the Respondent to take and pass the Business Procedures test within six months. • The Respondent is to provide proof that there was no net loss to the owner. • If any of the above conditions are not met, the Respondent's license will automatically be suspended until the following Board meeting where he will be required to appear. Vice Chairman. White offered a Second in support of the amended motion. It was noted that payment is to be made at the Contractors' Licensing Office and checks are payable to the Board of County Commissioners. There will not be a pre- payment penalty. Vice Chairman White noted that while the motion did not require the Respondent to report all future jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office, he was certain that there would be some form of monitoring. Chairman Joslin called for the vote. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. 22 October 16, 2013 Chairman Joslin outlined the Board's Order: This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on October 16, 2013 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2013 -09 filed against Seth B. Hollander, d/b /a "Hollander Construction Company, Inc." the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 201300000579. 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: • Seth B. Hollander, d/b /a "Hollander Construction Company, Inc.," is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 201300000579. • 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, Seth B. Hollander, was present at the Public Hearing and was represented by Counsel at the Hearing held on October 16, 2013. • The Respondent had been properly noticed concerning the Hearing. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, had been properly issued and were personally delivered. • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the act. • The allegations of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint as to: o Count 1, under Section 22- 201(2) of Ordinance #90 -105, as amended: "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his competency as listed on his Competency Card and as defined defined in this Article or restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board" has been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing. • The case was referred via an email on September 25, 2013 from Erik Lutgert to Michael Ossorio concerning a contract between Hollander Construction Company, Inc. and The Lutgert Companies/Village on the Bay, LLC for a parking extension at Venetian Village. It was found that Seth Hollander /Hollander Construction Company, Inc., qualified with a Collier County Excavation Certificate, had contracted for complete construction of a parking extension at the Venetian Village. Line Items found on the contract were out of the scope of a Collier County Excavation Contractor as defined in Collier County Ordinance 2006 -46, Section 1.6.3(18). 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: 23 October 16, 2013 "The Respondent violated Section 22- 201(2) of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity." Order of the Board. • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of eight (8) 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 eight (8) 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 #201300000579, Seth B. Hollander, to wit: • Imposition of a two -year period of probation; • Reimbursement to the County for investigative costs in the amount of $620 to be paid by November 1, 2013; • Imposition of a fine of $2,500 to be paid in five equal monthly installments commencing December 1, 2013, and due on the first business day of each month; • Requiring the Respondent to take and pass the Business Procedures test within six months; and • The Respondent is to provide proof that there was no net loss to the property owner. • If any of the above conditions are not met, the Respondent's license will automatically be suspended until the following Board meeting where he will be required to appear. Chairman Joslin noted the case was closed. BREAK: 11:13 AM RECONVENED: 11:26 AM V1. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Cruz Olivarez — Review of Credit Report(s) Chairman Joslin noted Mr. Olivarez was appearing before the Board for review of his credit report. He stated Mr. Olivarez applied for a Specialty Trade License for cabinet installation. His company is "Cruz Woodworks, LLC." He further noted there were some derogatory items in the credit report. 24 October 16, 2013 Mr. Olivarez explained: • There were three items: a civil judgment and the Federal tax liens which have been paid. • The tax liens were paid in 2008 but he did not provide a copy of the Release to the Credit Bureau. • He obtained documentation of payment from the IRS. Chairman Joslin asked if the documents were to be entered into evidence. Vice Chairman White moved to approve entering the documentation, consisting of three separate exhibits, provided by Mr. Olivarez into evidence. Kyle Lantz offered a second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. Mr. Olivarez confirmed the items placed for collection have been paid. He stated he called the collection companies and paid the balance due. Thomas Lykos noted most of the verification of experience was from Pennsylvania and advised Mr. Olivarez to be sure he understood the limits of his license in Collier County and to not work outside the scope. Cruz Olivarez replied that listening to the previous case provided a great deal of information. Vice Chairman White moved to approve the application of Cruz Olivarezfor a Specialty Trade License (cabinet installation) based upon his improved credit report and documentation verifying payment of outstanding items. Thomas Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. B. Michael J. Arlett — Contesting Citation Citation: #8021 ( "Unlicensed Painting Contractor ") Date Issued: August 14, 2013 Fine: $300.00 Description of Violation: Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business of, or act in the capacity of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified. Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Arlett to explain why he was contesting the Citation issued by Rob Ganguli. Michael Arlett stated: • He is a faux artist — he faux stains woodwork in Lee County • He received an offer for work in Collier County —it was a high profile job • He was in the scope of what he recognizes as his trade — he had no fear of doing anything illegal 25 October 16, 2013 • The work consisted of four entry doors for a clubhouse which he stripped and conditioned. • During the time, he was contacted by Rob Ganguli who asked if he was a licensed painting contractor. • He responded that he was a licensed faux artist • He stated he was unaware that he was in violation of Collier County's Code • He is contesting the Citation based on the interpretation of "painting" versus "staining." • He uses specialized tints and color matches the doors. In this case, the mahogany doors were of different shades. • He completed the work within ten days. • He requested clarification of the limits of his areas of operation within Collier County. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer: • The definition of a Painting Contractor is "black and white" and was the basis for issuing the Citation. • He stated Exhibit E -11 cited the "finishing of both exterior and interior work." He referenced Exhibit E -7 which was a photograph of the door that Mr. Arlett had been hired to finish. The scope of work for one door was contractor to finish for the sum of $4,800. (See Exhibit E -6). Mr. Arlett stated he had a ten -day time frame to complete the work. He stated he observed the finishing of the door based upon the definition in the Ordinance. Michael Ossorio confirmed after the Citation was issued, the project was completed by a licensed Painting Contractor. Mr. Ganguli stated Mr. Arlett explained he had been on the payroll of Magic Touch Painting in the past and he contacted the Qualifier of the company, explained the situation and the company hired Mr. Arlett as an employee to complete the project. Vice Chairman White asked Mr. Ganguli if he knew what the scope of work was under the Lee County license for a faux painter. Mr. Ganguli referred to Exhibit E -12 which provided a definition of faux painting. He stated his previous experience with "faux painting" was when an individual stenciled a drawing onto a finish surface. He stated he did not review the Lee County provision. Michael Arlett stated faux painting encompasses a wide range of decorative painting techniques. Mr. White explained he was interested in the distinction between faux finishing as an artist and painting — whether it is "faux' or not. He stated the County's argument was whether it was faux or not, it was painting. If it's painting, you need a Painting Contractor's license. 26 October 16, 2013 Michael Arlett requested the definition of Painting Contractor. Vice Chairman White explained the scope of work includes "... using spray equipment as well as hand tools to finish both exterior and interior work. A painting contractor may do paperhanging, sandblasting, waterproofing, and may clean/paint roofs. " He continued that the work being done — finishing an exterior door — under the County's definition would seem to be painting. Mr. Arlett clarified that he stains and matching colors by using tints as opposed to a general painting contractor who would probably not go to that extent. Vice Chairman White concurred that Mr. Arlett may have a level of expertise that is "above and beyond" a painting contractor, Collier County does not have a license for someone who includes painting. He stated if you don't have a Painting Contractor's license, you cannot do the "stuff' that is beyond painting. The definition provided by Mr. Ganguli stated faux "painting" — not staining. Terry Jerulle noted Mr. Arlett had a business license as an artist in Lee County. He asked Mr. Ganguli if there was also a business license for an artist in Collier County. He requested the definition from Collier County. Mr. Ganguli replied there may not be a tax receipt for a faux artist. Michael Ossorio clarified a faux artist will sign an affidavit that he or she will not paint; will not use a roller or hand tools, or perform any type of finish work. They will stencil or work using a sponge. The affidavit is signed before they can obtain a faux artwork license. Mr. White reiterated the County's Ordinance did not license faux artists. Thomas Lykos noted, as a general rule, a painter applies a primer or base and final coats of paint while the faux painter applies a decorative finish. Most faux artists work for a painting companies. He stated Mr. Arlett had applied a protective coating to the doors which meant he removed the existing finish and applied a new one — that is what a painting contractor does. Vice Chairman White stated the simple answer would be for Mr. Arlett to apply for a Collier County Painting Contractor's license if he intends to seek additional work in Collier County. Kyle Lantz stated the Lee County Business Tax Receipt specifies "no base painting coat." Vice Chairman White reiterated that Mr. Arlett had no real defense. He needs a Painting Contractors license. Michael Ossorio clarified the Business Tax Receipt is not a "license" — it is a receipt for taxes paid to conduct business in a particular County. Mr. Arlett has a Lee County Business Tax Receipt. Mr. Arlett stated he wanted a definition between painting and staining. Mr. White stated if a base coat is applied, regardless of the material, it is considered to be painting in Collier County. In Mr. Arlett's case, he used hand tools, such as sand paper, to remove an old finish and apply a new protective coating — that action 27 October 16, 2013 crossed the line from faux to real painting which falls under the definition of Painting Contractor in Collier County, regardless of what Lee County allows. Michael Ossorio stated to obtain a Painting Contractor's exam an applicant must answer various questions. The scope of the test includes prep work, staining, and finishing. He further stated the Painting Contractor's test is one of the more difficult tests given. Attorney Morey outlined the Board's options when a Citation is issued for a violation: the Board may impose a penalty of up to $1,000 but not less than $300.00. The Board could also waive the penalty if the violation had been corrected prior to appearing before the Board. Vice Chairman White moved to approve upholding the Citation issued to Michael Arlett and assessing a fine of $300 to be paid on a timely basis. Thomas Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0. (Mr. White left at 12:07 PM.) C. Joseph M. Palmer — Reinstatement of License without Re- Testing Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Palmer has multiple licenses in other jurisdictions. • He has kept his continuing education requirements in other jurisdictions. • Only his Collier County license was allowed to lapse. • He recommended waiving the testing requirement. Kyle Lantz moved to approve granting Mr. Palmer's application to reinstate his Collier County license without requiring testing. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7 — 0. B. Seth Hollander — Six month Review of Credit Report Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Hollander had been placed on probation due to credit issues. He stated the updated credit report was issued on October 8, 2013. Seth Hollander explained: • He contacted Kelly Tractor and a payment arrangement is in place. • The Caterpillar equipment was repossessed and he has contacted Caterpillar Financial regarding the judgment that was filed to work out a payment plan. He stated the equipment was sold for more than what he owed 28 October 16, 2013 • The Tax Lien for sales tax has been satisfied. Michael Ossorio confirmed Mr. Hollander requested to remain on probation. Thomas Lykos stated the probation should be extended for an additional six at which time Mr. Hollander will present an updated credit report to the Board. He suggested that a written plan for payment of the civil judgment (Kelly) and payment of other debts also be provided at that time. Terry Jerulle stated while Mr. Hollander's credit has improved, good credit is necessary in order to grow a business. He agreed with Mr. Lykos' suggestions. Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Hollander took the test for a Paving Contractor's license. If he wished to submit an application for the license, he would be present an updated report. Mr. Lykos stated he would not be comfortable supporting an application for a second license while the applicant was only two months into a previous probation. He noted the more that is done to solve his financial issues will impress the Board. There was discussion concerning when Mr. Hollander could apply to the Board. Michael Ossorio explained the procedure and noted he could apply for early release of probation if all conditions had been satisfied. Thomas Lykos moved to approve extending the probation for the credit issues for an additional six month. Mr. Hollander will be required to return in six months to present an updated credit report together with a written plan to address the civil judgment (Kelly Tractor) and pay the remainder of his debts. Michael Boyd offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. IX. REPORTS: • Michael Ossorio noted the September was a renewal month for County licenses and Contractors' Licensing achieved its targeted number. X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 BCC Chambers, P 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 12:30 PM. 29 October 16, 2013 COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Richard Joslin, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Vice Co � n A , 2013, "as submitted'[ OR "as amended, lm