CLB Minutes 03/19/2014 CONTRACTORS
LICENSING
BOARD
Minutes
March 19 , 2014
March 19,2014
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
MEETING
March 19, 2014
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:
Vice Chair: ' Thomas Lykos
Members: Michael Boyd
Ronald Donino
Terry Jerulle
Richard Joslin
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
Robert Meister
Excused: Patrick White, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT:
Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Colleen Greene, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
Kevin Noell, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Ian Jackson—Licensing Compliance Officer
1
March 19,2014
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is
to be based.
I. ROLL CALL:
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos called the meeting to order at 9:03 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken; a quorum was established, and eight voting members were present.
IL AGENDA—ADDITIONS,DELETIONS,OR CHANGES:
Change to Agenda Order:
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the following change:
• Case#204-04: Richard J. Ranck, d/b/a "RV Lanai of SW Florida,Inc.,"
(Item VIII—(A), "Public Hearings") will be heard following Item V, "Discussion."
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Gary McNally offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—FEBRUARY 19, 2014:
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the February 19, 2014 meeting as
submitted. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
V. DISCUSSION
(None)
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Note: With reference to the case heard under Section VIII, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Case 2014-04: Richard J. Ranck, d/b/a "RV Lanai of SW Florida,Inc."
Respondent, Richard J. Ranck, and his wife, Mary Ellen ("Molly")Ranck,
were present and were not represented by counsel.
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos briefly outlined the order of the proceedings to be
followed:
2
• March 19,2014
• Open the Public Hearing;
• Swear the witnesses;
• Accept any evidence from the parties;
• The County will present its "Opening Statement;"
• The Respondent will present his/her"Opening Statement;"
• The County will next present its"Case in Chief;"
• The Respondent will present his/her defense;
• The County may offer any rebuttal.
That concludes the Public Hearing process.
• The Board will close the Public Hearing and receive instructions from its
attorney, which is similar to a"Charge" given to a Jury, setting out the
parameters on which the Board's Members will base their decision.
• During deliberations,the Board can request additional information and
clarification(s) from the parties.
• The Board will decide two different issues:
o First, whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as
charged in the Administrative Complaint.
o A vote will be taken on the matter.
o Second, if the Respondent is found guilty,the Board will
decide the Sanctions to be imposed.
• The Board's Attorney will advise the Board of the Sanctions that may be
imposed and the factors to be considered.
• The Board will discuss Sanctions and vote.
• The Chair will orally report the decision of the Board.
Ian Jackson, Collier County License Compliance Officer,requested to enter the
packet of information provided to the Board Members for Case 2014-04 into
evidence.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case No. 2014-04:
The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Contractors'Licensing
Board vs. Richard J. Ranck, d/b/a "RV Lanai of SW Florida,Inc."License No.:
34532 (Aluminum Contractor), and entering the information packet into
evidence as County's Exhibit "1."
Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Opening Statement:"
• Collier County was prepared to show through documented facts and
sworn testimony that the Respondent violated Collier County Ordinance
#90-105, as amended, Section 4.1.18:
"Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits
or inspections from the City's Building and Zoning Division
or the County's Building Review and Permitting Department."
3
• March 19,2014
• The Respondent also violated Collier County Ordinance#90-105, as
amended, Section 4.1.2:
"Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his/her
competency as listed on his/her competency card and as defined in
this Article, or as restricted by the Contractors'Licensing Board."
Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent to present his "Opening Statement."
Mary Ellen ("Molly") Ranck replied:
• I acknowledge that we did what you said we did.
• The Permit had been applied for; however, because of various corrections
that had to be done, and things that took a great amount of time (i.e.,
surveys), there was a big delay that the customer could not stand.
• They wanted the horse shoe pits covered with a roof prior to the start of
"season," and they pushed us really, really hard to just do it—so we did.
• It was unfortunate, but that was the way it happened.
• We did dig the little footers for the posts and we're not licensed to do
concrete work.
• That's my statement.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Case in Chief"
• The case was referred on October 23, 2013 by Collier County Building
Inspector John Serenko concerning an unpermitted aluminum structure at
1000 Wiggins Pass Road.
• A site visit was conducted. Two aluminum structures were under
construction while the Permit was under review.
• Mrs. Ranck was contacted and advised of the "Stop Work" Order. She
was also advised the Permit must be issued before the work could
continue.
• October 29, 2013: A "Correction" letter was sent to the Contractor by the
Building Department
o Issue: The structure was located within the required 8-foot rear
yard setback
• November 5, 2013: Permit was rejected.
• December 3, 2013: Corrections were submitted.
• December 11, 2013: Permit was under review and a second"Correction"
letter was sent to the Contractor
• December 31, 2013: Permit remained rejected. A second rejection letter
was sent to the Contractor.
• January 13, 2014: Corrections had not been made
• January 29, 2014: Email was sent to Contractor asking to contact
Investigator
• January 31, 2014: Unable to contact Contractor
4
March 19,2014
• February 3, 2014: Met with Susan Jackson, Manager of the Lake San
Marino RV Resort,who provided contract information and payment
records. Ms. Jackson stated she had been unable to contact the Contractor.
Ms. Jackson indicated she will hire another Contractor to pull Permit and
complete construction.
• February 3, 2014: Unable to contact Contractor. No activity on Permit
application. Notice of Hearing was prepared and sent via certified mail to
RV Lanai of SW Florida, Inc.
• The contract noted RV Lanai of SW Florida, Inc. was to perform concrete
work(i.e., dig footers and install posts)which was outside the scope of the
license held by Mr. Ranck and constituted a second violation.
• As of March 19, 2014, no corrections had been submitted and there was no
activity concerning the Permit application.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked Mrs. Ranck if there were any details she wanted to
share with the Board on behalf of her husband.
Mary Ellen Ranck replied there were no details to add. She explained that, due to
her husband's illness and slow recovery, she has become his sole caregiver and
has not been involved in their aluminum business. She further stated they have
not done any business since the end of 2013 and do not intend to pursue new work
in the future.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Closing Statement:"
• The Respondent has acknowledged the violations cited in both Counts of
the Administrative Complaint; the County's case was closed.
The Respondent's "Closing Statement:"
• Mrs. Ranck asked the Board to consider that she and her husband have
been in business for over fifteen years in Collier County without an
incident and have also operated in Lee County without incident.
Richard Joslin asked if the job had been completed.
Ian Jackson responded when he spoke with the manager of the Lake San Marino
RV Resort last month, Susan Jackson said she was in the process of hiring a new
Contractor. There has been no change to the site which was photographed during
his initial visit in October, 2013.
• Contract amount: $5,972.00
• Deposit paid to RV Lanai: $3,165.16
• Balance remaining: $2,807
Investigator Jackson offered the County's services to Ms. Jackson if recovery of
funds became an issue, i.e., if the new Contractor could not complete the required
work for the remaining balance. He stated he has not heard from a representative
of the Lake San Marino RV Resort.
He noted the issue of set-back remains and the horse shoe playing field may be
relocated on the property along with the aluminum structures already in place.
5
March 19,2014
Michael Ossorio explained the State's"Aluminum Contractor's License" is a
Specialty License that allows concrete work to be performed in addition to
aluminum while Mr. Ranck's license in Collier County was limited to aluminum
work only.
In response to a question concerning the site, Mrs. Ranck explained the materials
had been delivered to the jobsite; all posts and beams had been installed and
installation of the roof was the final phase to be completed. It was at that point the
rear setback became an issue and work was halted. She stated RV Lanai exceeded
the amount of deposit for materials and labor by approximately$500. She
estimated the posts should be moved by up to nine inches from the rear fence to
comply with the existing set back.
Michael Ossorio explained since the original Contractor was not licensed to
perform the work which was done, even though there were additional expenses,
the Contractor could not place a lien against the property. The County would
object. Lien rights apply to Licensed Contractors. He stated the County is rarely
contacted in situations where a Contractor is owed money by a property owner.
Richard Joslin pointed out a contradiction with Mrs. Ranck's earlier testimony.
She stated RV Lanai had worked in Collier County"without incident." He
referred to County's Exhibit"E-28"which cited six instances of fines levied
against RV Lanai since 2006 for not obtaining permits or working outside the
scope of the license.
Michael Ossorio explained in 2006 a determination("Finding") was made that
Aluminum Contractors could no longer perform glazing of glass and/or windows—
which was the basis for one of the fines. He stated Mrs. Ranck is in the Building
Department between two to three times per week. He was surprised this case was
brought before the Board. He noted Mrs. Ranck is a licensed Contractor while
Mr. Ranck is the Qualifier for the company.
Ian Jackson clarified only two Citations had been issued; the other items were
notes in the system concerning permitting fees.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked if his initial question regarding potential funds owed
to a Contractor should be discussed during the penalty phase of the proceeding.
Attorney James Morey, Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board, stated he
was not sure the Board had the ability to impose a fine upon a consumer. In such
cases, civil court is the usual venue.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked for a motion to close the Hearing.
Gary McNally moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8-0.
Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board:
• The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness
and due process were accorded to the Respondent.
6
March 19,2014
• That, according 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.
• 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 that 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 decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and
are effective upon being read, unless the Board should order 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"), as well as rights under Florida Statutes
in the Administrative Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative
Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in
support of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Vice Chairman Lykos outlined the Count I of the Administrative Complaint as
follows:
• Count I: Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits
or inspections from the City's Building and Zoning Division or the
County's Building Review and Permitting Department."
He noted the Respondents acknowledged guilt as to Count I.
Richard Joslin moved to approve finding the Respondent,Richard J. Ranck,
RV Lanai of SW Florida, Inc.,License Number 34532,guilty as to Count I
of the County's Administrative Complaint of violating Collier County
7
March 19,2014
Ordinance #90-105, as amended, Section 4.1.18. Terry Jerulle offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8- 0.
Vice Chairman Lykos outlined the Count II of the Administrative Complaint as
follows:
• Count II: Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his/her
competency as listed on his/her Competency Card and as defined in this
Article, or as restricted by the Contractors'Licensing Board.
He noted the Respondents also acknowledged guilt as to Count II.
Robert Meister moved to approve finding the Respondent,Richard J. Ranck,
RV Lanai of SW Florida,Inc., License Number 34532,guilty as to Count II of
the County's Administrative Complaint of violating Collier County Ordinance
#90-105, as amended, Section 4.1.12. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support
of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8- 0.
Attorney Morey noted the second phase is deliberation of possible Sanction to
be imposed.
He stated since the Contractor was licensed by Collier County, 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,
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) Restitution;
6) Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000,
7) Issuance of a public reprimand,
8) Requirement for re-examination or participation in a duly-accredited
program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's
contracting activity,
9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or
requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions, and
10) Recovery of reasonable investigative costs incurred by the County for the
prosecution of the violation.
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;
8
March 19,2014
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.
Michael Ossorio noted the County incurred$910 in investigative costs.
Recommendation:
• Reimbursement to the County for investigative costs is to be paid within
thirty days;
• Imposition of a fine of$1,000 for working outside the scope of the license;
• Imposition of a fine of$300 for working without obtaining a building
permit; and
• Revocation of the contractor's license.
Robert Meister moved to accept and approve the County's recommendation and
to also require the Respondent provide a Release of Lien.
Michael Ossorio suggested either an affidavit or an email from the Respondent
confirming that all suppliers had been paid would be sufficient. If the materials
were delivered to the property by a vendor, he would have the right to place a
material lien against it.
Ian Jackson stated he contacted the property owner's representative twice and has
not heard anything further.
Vice Chairman Lykos expressed concern that requiring the Rancks to produce
such a document could prevent them from filing a counterclaim if a civil suit were
brought against them by the property owner in the future.
Terry Jerulle stated if the Rancks accepted a deposit and delivered materials for
the deposit,there should be a release just for the materials.
Mrs. Ranck stated the materials were paid for at the time of delivery. She further
stated the labor incurred during the partial completion of the job was paid, and she
will provide a copy of the paid bill for the materials.
Mr. Ossorio asked if the materials had been dropped off at the job site by the
supplier and the response was,"Yes." He confirmed the supplier would be
entitled to a lien if he/she had not been paid for materials.
Robert Meister restated his motion: Robert Meister moved to accept and approve
the County's recommendations concerning suspension of the Respondent's
license and imposition of fines. The Respondent is to provide proof of payment
of the materials.
Michael Ossorio clarified the recommendation was to "revoke"the Respondent's
license—not suspend it.
Mr. Meister agreed to the clarification.
9
March 19,2014
Amended Motion:
Robert Meister moved to accept and approve the County's recommendations
concerning revocation of the Respondent's license and imposition offines. The
Respondent is to provide proof of payment of the materials. Kyle Lantz offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
Vice Chairman Lykos outlined the Findinj's of Fact:
• The Respondent, Richard J. Ranck, d/b/a/RV Lanai of SW Florida, Inc., is the
holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 34532
(Aluminum Contractor).
• 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, Richard J. Ranck, was present at the Public Hearing held on
March 19, 2014 and was not represented by Counsel at said Hearing.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, had
been properly issued and were personally delivered.
• Based on the evidence presented,the Respondent acted in a manner that is
in violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the
act.
• The following Allegations of Fact set forth in Administrative Complaint
were found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing:
o Count I: "Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable
permits or inspections from the City's Building and Zoning Division,
or the County's Building Review and Permitting Department."
o Count II: "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his/her
competency as listed on his/her competency card and as defined in
this Article, or as restricted by the Contractors'Licensing Board."
Conclusions of Law:
• The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative
Complaint as to Count I and Count II were approved, adopted and
incorporated herein,to wit: The Respondent violated Section 4.1.18
of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, regarding working
without the required permits, and Section 4.1.2 regarding Scope of Work.
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 are hereby imposed upon Richard J. Ranck,the holder
10
March 19,2014
of Collier County Certificate of Competency#34532 (Aluminum Contractor),
to wit:
• Investigative costs of$900 are to be reimbursed to the County within
thirty days;
• A fine of$1,000 is imposed for working outside the Scope of the
license;
• A fine of$300 is imposed for working without obtaining the required
permit;
• Mrs. Mary Ranck is to provide proof to the Contractors' Licensing
Supervisor of payment of all materials delivered to the jobsite; and
• The Respondent's license is hereby revoked.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the case was closed.
Richard Ranck asked for additional time to pay the fines since his income has
been severely limited.
Michael Ossorio stated he will meet with Mr. and Mrs. Ranck to discuss options.
Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Contractors'Licensing
Supervisor to devise a payment plan of the fines imposed in Case 20124-04, as
above noted. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
(Note: The order of the Agenda was resumed.)
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Vice Chairman to sign the
Orders of the Board. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Olaf Kuemmel—Verification of Construction Experience
(d/b/a "SW Florida Garage, LLC")
Michael Ossorio provided the following overview:
• Mr. Keummel has applied for a Specialty license as an Epoxy Stone
Contractor under Section 22-162 (17):
Epoxy Stone Contractor requires 24 months experience with a
passing grade on a Business and Law test and means those who
are qualified to batch and mix aggregates, epoxy, hardener, and
gravel to specification, or to construct forms and framework for the
casting and shaping of epoxy and aggregate, or to pour, place and
finish over a concrete base.
11
March 19,2014
•
• The Licensing Board has approved three testing companies: PTI,
Gainesville Independent, and ProMetric.
• Per the Ordinance,the minimum passing grade is a score of 75.
• The State's minimum passing grade is a score of 70.
• Mr. Olaf is a State-certified Plumbing Contractor and a Certified General
Contractor. His Scope of Work is unlimited.
• Mr. Olaf wants to open another business which will be limited to Epoxy
Stone work.
• Mr. Olaf took the Business and Law test in 2002 and scored 73.75 which
is slightly below the Collier County minimum score.
• It will be less expensive for Mr. Olaf to obtain insurance if he has a
Specialty license in the trade than to obtain additional coverage as a
General Contractor.
Mr. Ossorio reviewed the Ordinance and stated since the Applicant has been
approved by the State of Florida, has maintained his continuing education, and
the exam is superfluous to his work as an Epoxy Stone Contractor, he
recommended approval of the application as presented.
Attorney Morey noted the application was referred to the Board due to the
language in the Ordinance. He stated the Board may consider the applicant's
relevant experience in his trade and may waive testing requirements.
Vice Chairman Lykos confirmed the sole issue before the Board was the test
score.
Mr. Ossorio stated Mr. Olaf has been a licensed Certified General Contractor
since 2002 and was also a Plumber in Germany. He personally attested to the
craftsmanship of the Applicant. He noted if the score had been 75, Mr. Olaf
would have been approved for the Specialty Contractor license.
Olaf Kuemmel stated:
• He has been a Certified General Contractor since 2002;
• His test score was 73.75;
• The requirements for the Specialty license for the County is a score of 75;
• The difference of 1.25 points is less than one question on the test;
• He requested the Board grant his application for the Specialty license
without requiring him to take the test again;
• He has over 30 years of experience in the construction industry.
• For the new business,he stated he knows what to do and how to do it. He
will specialize in installing garage floor coatings.
• He will keep the new business separate from his SWF Construction
business.
Richard Joslin moved to approve the application of Olaf Kuemmel for a Specialty
License as an Epoxy Stone Contractor without requiring an examination.
Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
12
March 19,2014
C. Veronica A. Compean—Verification of Experience
(d/b/a "Compean Maintenance, Inc.")
Michael Ossorio:
• Mrs. Compean has applied to obtain a license as a Landscaping
Contractor—Restricted under Section 22-162 (25):
Landscaping Contractor requires 12 months experience and a
passing grade on a Business and Law test and means any person
who is qualified to install and/or remove trees, shrubs, sod, decorative
stone and/or rocks, timber and plant materials, and concrete paving
units for sidewalks, patios and decks only, whether or not incidental
to landscaping; and pre-packaged fountains, or waterfalls, provided
same does not include connection to a sanitary sewer system, portable
water line, or to any electrical installation, which tasks must be
performed by tradesmen licensed in the relevant trade. Landscape
Contractors may contract only for removal and/or trimming of trees
and/or other combination(s) of the authorized services.
All new applicants applying for a Landscaping license are required
to obtain a passing grade on an approved exam pertaining to pruning
and safety, in addition to the Business and Law exam.
• Mrs. Compean took the Tree Contractor test(score: 77%) as well as the
Business and Law exam (score: 82%).
• She did not include any affidavits to verify her experience for the past
twelve months because she worked with her husband who is employed by
a licensed company. She only worked part-time.
Veronica Compean:
• She and her husband, Alfonso, were before the Board because she does
not possess the "hands on" experience required to obtain a Landscaping
license.
• Her husband has the required experience; he has worked in the trade for
fifteen years but is hampered by his inability to read/write in English.
• They are currently working in the field of lawn maintenance (mowing,
edging, etc.) and their customers have asked for more services.
• Advancement in the field will benefit their family of seven.
• She stated it does not make sense to work for another company to gain the
required experience when she can do so by working with her husband.
• She has worked with her husband since 2002.
• "Compean Maintenance, Inc." was incorporated in March, 2009.
Alfonso Compean confirmed his wife has worked with him; first, she began in
2002 when he was employed by a landscaping company and since he opened his
company in 2009. He has a total of 30 years working in the Naples area.
Working in landscape maintenance does not generate enough money to support
his family. He stated his wife passed the tests because he cannot. She will hold
the license but he will perform the majority of the work.
13
March 19,2014
Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Compean has been in business for 15 years and has
never received a Citation for working without a license. Mr. Compean has been
in the landscaping business for 15 years prior to opening his own company.
Recommendation:
• Approve the application but impose a twelve-month probationary period
to be supervised by the Contractors' Licensing Office;
• After one year,the Applicant will appear before the Board to review the
business plan, and how the business has been operated.
• Any complaints filed against the company will be reviewed by the Board.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked Veronica Compean to explain the difference
between lawn maintenance and a Landscaping license.
Q. What are you allowed to do as Landscaper that you could not do in your lawn
maintenance business?
A. (Veronica Compean) Right now,we only mow the lawn. We can blow
away clippings, we can edge, we can clean debris from plant beds. We want
to be able to hedge—nothing big or huge. Customers want beautiful lawns
with beautiful plants. We cannot replace a plant. Will we be commercial,
`Yes.' But not a big or huge business. It will be the two of us. When we
work with our customers, we want to give them the best service we can
together. He [her husband] has all the knowledge and he has done it. He
understands if it goes well or not.
AIfonso Campean stated when a customer wants to change bushes,he must
explain that he cannot and they must hire someone else. But I'm there and I
could it if I had the license.
Veronica Campeon continued she will be allowed to bring plants and flowers
and plant them.
Vice Chairman Lykos continued questioning Mrs. Campean.
Q. Will you be allowed to trim trees?
A. If it's in my path—I passed the tree trimming exam. I will do it when I am
licensed. Not big or huge trees but medium trees as long as they are not near
wires,yes.
Q. Does the license allow you to plant new trees?
A. I think so; yes.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated it was important that the Applicant understand to
avoid doing work that is outside the scope of the license.
Q. Are you allowed to trim bushes?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you allowed to plant new grass and new sod?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're also allowed to maintain those as well?
14
•
March 19,2014
A. Correct.
Q. What happens if a tree has to be taken down? Are you allowed to remove a
diseased tree?
A. We can take down the tree but we cannot treat the disease.
Q. Do either one of you have the experience to take down a tree that is near a
house so that it does not fall and damage the house?
A. Yes. He does.
Vice Chairman Lykos questioned Alfonso Campean.
Q. What do you understand the license will allow you to do?
A. I can take bushes out and plant new bushes. I can trim trees. I can please my
customers. If I have a license, I will be happy to do it.
Terry Jerulle asked who Mr. Campean worked for in Naples for the 15 years
prior to starting his own company.
A. Sunshine Landscape. I was the Crew Leader. I drove Bobcats and did
installations—everything.
Q. New construction,too?
A. Yes.
Terry Jerulle moved to accept the County's recommendation and approve the
application to grant a restricted license as a Landscape Contractor. The
Applicant will be placed on probation for a one-year period. Richard Joslin
offered a Second in support of the motion.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/l — "Opposed." Vice Chairman Lykos was opposed.
Vice Chairman Lykos explained to Mr. and Mrs. Campean they should take the
time during the year to understand the restrictions under the license, and work
within the scope of the license.
D. Robert A. Zielinski—Second Entity Application
(d/b/a "RAZ Construction,LLC")
It was noted the Applicant was not present.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the following case was taken out of order;he assured
Doug Nettles that his case would be heard next.
F. Seth B. Hollander—Motion for Re-Hearing of Case#2014-02
(d/b/a "Hollander Construction Company, Inc.")
The Applicant was present and represented by his attorney, Henry Johnson.
Attorney Johnson explained the Motion for Re-Hearing was requested due to an
Order entered against Seth B. Hollander and Hollander Construction Company,
Inc., resulting from a Hearing held on January 15, 2014.
15
March 19,2014
Mr. Johnson stated:
• We ask the Board to reconsider the penalties imposed by the Board
against Mr. Hollander and Hollander Construction which were the subject
of the January, 2014 Order.
• The Order found Mr. Hollander and his company in violation of a section
of the Code and Ordinance of Collier County relating to providing
Workers' Compensation Insurance at a particular jobsite on a particular
date.
• The penalties imposed:
o Suspension of Mr. Hollander's license for a period of 21 months to
run concurrently with a previously imposed probationary period;
o Imposition of a fine in the amount of$5,000;
o The Respondent was also required to reimburse the County in the
amount of$525 for administrative/investigative costs;
o The Respondent was to be publically reprimanded.
• We are asking the Board to reconsider the following:
o To contemplate a lower suspension period. His license has been
suspended for two months and that period may be appropriate
given the facts and circumstances of this case.
o To reduce the amount of the fine from $5,000 to $1,000.
o We understand the reimbursement to the County of the costs
incurred is appropriate.
o To rescind the public reprimand.
Mr. Johnson presented an update to the Board of events that happened since the
Hearing:
• Mr. Hollander was previously ordered to pay, on a monthly basis, $500 to
the Contractors' Licensing Office as part of the previous probation; and
he has been diligent in making the required payments.
• Mr. Hollander's company has a fully active Workers' Compensation
Insurance policy#106531, effective December 23, 2013 through
December 23, 2014.
• At the last Hearing, it may not have been made clear that Mr. Hollander
was in the process of a Workers' Compensation audit; he met with an
auditor on December 11, 2013 which was several days before the finding
of a violation for lack of insurance coverage.
o Please consider that Mr. Hollander was not ignoring law—he was
in the middle of an audit.
o We have supplemented the record by producing an Affidavit from
Susan Weems,president of Weems Insurance of Naples, Inc. and
agent for Hollander Construction. She verified that the previous
policy expired in October, 2013 due to non-payment. A new
policy could not be issued until an audit had been completed.
o While the audit was ongoing,the violation occurred. Within two
days of the Citation,the new policy became effective.
16
March 19,2014
• Since the Hearing, Mr. Hollander has been in contact with Counsel for the
Florida Department of Financial Services to settle issues. The FDFS has
requested records from Mr. Hollander's company. To date,there has been
no Finding by the State regarding Workers' Compensation issues.
• Mr. Hollander has been proactive since December and before then.
• Mr. Hollander came to the previous Hearing and admitted his error.
• The new facts presented to the Board could give the Board cause to
modify the previously imposed penalties.
Mr. Johnson opined it would be beneficial not only for Mr. Hollander but also
for companies like his if probationary periods included a mentoring component.
He noted even attorneys can obtain help [from their peers] if they experience
issues in their practice, i.e., business problems.
He continued:
• I am respectfully asking the Board to please consider a substantial
modification of the penalty phase.
• Mr. Hollander wants to be a good Contractor.
• Our office is working with Mr. Hollander and the Department of Financial
Services to reach a resolution in the Workers Compensation matter.
• You have Ms. Weems' Affidavit, and a packet has been provided to you.
• We ask that you consider all of that in evidence as you discuss a Re-
Hearing of the penalty phase of what the Board previously examined.
• This is a Motion for Re-Hearing ... essentially a Motion for
Reconsideration. There are some new developments and facts which the
Board could consider to lessen the penalty phase.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Board's counsel if the Board's only issue was
to determine whether or not to schedule a re-hearing of the case, and the response
was, "Yes."
Attorney Morey referenced Section 22-204 of the Code, "Rehearing," (a copy of
which had been provided to the Board for their review) as follows:
• Any Request for a Rehearing must be in writing.
o Respondent's attorney submitted a Motion for Rehearing, dated
February 20, 2014, as required.
o The Board is to consider that Request.
• A Request for Rehearing shall be based only on the ground that
fundamental error occurred which resulted in a failure of due process,
the decision was contrary to the evidence, or that the hearing involved
an error in a ruling of law and/or fact which was fundamental to the
decision of the Contractors'Licensing Board.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Johnson to respond to the specific item that
was the basis for the request for a rehearing.
17
March 19,2014
Attorney Johnson replied:
• I think there has been fundamental error because you really have no
guidepost of how you are to impose penalty. And the Board made the
decision of failing to have appropriate Workers' Compensation insurance
before the State's Department of Financial Services ever made its
decision. Essentially, while Mr. Hollander was attempting to comply with
the Department of Financial Services, we respectfully state,the Board
pre-empted that process.
In other words, the Department of Financial Services has not made a
Finding. We believe that through negotiation, it is a correctable error.
The fundamental error is that the Board imposed penalties which it really
didn't have any clear guidelines for the imposing of those penalties,
respectfully, certainly to the degree that it was done.
The Board didn't consider the fact that there was, at the time, essentially a
State issue that involved the Department of Financial Services.
Kyle Lantz questioned if the Board was being asked to not pass judgment on
anyone who has a Workers' Compensation issue until after the State has
completed its investigation. What you are saying applies not only to this case
but, obviously, we will apply it in the future.
Attorney Johnson:
• Respectfully, I think when it is time for a Finding of violation you don't
need the State's input to make that Finding under your Ordinance. But
when it comes to the penalty phase, I think that's where the Board needs
to take a step back.
• Because, certainly,the issues we examined with the Department of
Financial Services would impact the penalty phase. If I were to come
before the Board and state we had reached an accord with the Department
of Financial Services—we complied with their requirements—that would
be something that would be very important for the Board to consider in
the penalty phase of anyone who violates your own Ordinance relating to
Workers' Compensation issues.
• I'm looking at it in terms of the penalty phase, and I think that would
make a difference.
He continued:
• This has been our experience in our office:
o There is an initial order that is provided on site. And it stops the
project.
o Then there is a period of time where, either through counsel or
directly through the local Investigators, we work to determine if
there is a substantial issue, a large issue, or a small issue.
18
March 19,2014
o At that point in time, Mr. Hollander began working through our
office and the Counsel for the Department of Financial Services to
determine the next step to resolve the matter, or not.
Kyle Lantz:
• My question is not at the State level but at the County level.
• Michael, if your investigators stop someone on the side of the road who
is doing work without Workers' Comp insurance, do you call the State
office and ask them to take over, or do you issue a Citation with a fine, or
... how does that work?
A. (Michael Ossorio) If the Applicant doesn't have the proper insurance, we
assess a$1,000 fine.
Q. Pretty much instantaneous?
A. Yes.
Q. You don't have the State investigate?
A. No. For the most part, we try to work with the State and in this particular
case,too, as well. There are four Workers' Comp Investigators out there in
the field, so they are not very hard to get ahold of. And we communicate
with them, probably, on a daily basis. We have Licensing and Financial
Services working together on a daily basis. But, for a practical matter, if
you are licensed and you work without insurance, it's a$1,000 fine. Now,
unfortunately, in this particular case,the Respondent was on probation so the
facts are different ... how we communicate to the Licensing Board and how
the Board communicates to someone who is on probation. I am not here to
dispute the facts. He has applied for a rehearing--- so, if you want to have a
rehearing ... I am assuming that he opens the door to have the Workers' Comp
agent bring more evidence—in good light or in bad.
Q. No. The only issue that I'm bringing up is ... the reason why we're having a
rehearing is because we didn't have all the facts ...
Richard Joslin noted the Board was not having a rehearing yet.
Q. ... a Request for a Rehearing is that the State hadn't finished its investigation ...
we did it on our end. So, if that's the case,then does that mean that anybody
who gets a$1,000 ticket in the future is going to be able to say, "Well, you let
this case get retried ...
A. That's his argument. We don't take orders from Financial Services. We
conduct our own investigation. We just did one last month [January, 2014) with
K. C. Tiles and Marble, Inc. That case has been heard, finished, completed, and
now it's going through the civil court. But I believe we can run concurrent
[investigations]. If our own investigation warrants a charge,the Licensing
Board will file with the Clerk's Office. And that is what we did.
Richard Joslin:
• In my opinion, if this is going to be a Motion for Rehearing, I think the
Motion is coming a little bit premature. Only because if there is something
19
•
March 19,2014
•
that's happening and this judgment has already been made, and the penalty
phase has already been entered into, then there's a good chance that our
ruling would stand until maybe it does go before the State Workers' Comp
Board or before his concerns with them. Then maybe would be the time to
have a Motion for Rehearing ... maybe to justify that particular phase that
we did ... give penalties.
Attorney Johnson responded:
• There was a procedural mandate ... we had only so many days following
the ruling to file our Motion or waive it for all time.
Richard Joslin:
• I understand you met the criteria of the law concerning when you can do
it, but now would be the time for the Board to decide whether or not we're
going to hear it or postpone it until you satisfy your own things through
the State of Florida's Workers' Comp insurance because it could change
our verdict as far as that ruling goes.
Terry Jerulle:
• This is Collier County. He did work—admitted working in Collier
County; he hired employees without knowingly—without having
Workers' Compensation. It's a County violation. He came before the
Board,he admitted it, we found him to be guilty, and we assessed the fine.
I do not see a"fundamental error" in that.
Richard Joslin:
• And it would be different if it were only a few days—but this went on
from October to December—that's two months with no insurance. If
there was a problem, then maybe Weems should have contacted him and
said, "Hey your policy has run out and what's up with that? Why don't
you have a new policy?" But it took him two months to get it done. We
made the ruling and I think the ruling will stand.
Terry Jerulle:
• I'm not going to discuss the case. What I believe we should be discussing
is whether we made a fundamental error in our ruling. And I've yet to be
convinced by the [Respondent's] attorney that we made a fundamental
error.
Attorney Morey:
• There are several possibilities that someone could put forth as a reason for
the rehearing:
o that a fundamental error occurred which resulted in the failure of
due process; inadequate Notice; wasn't allowed to present a case;
was cut off—wasn't afforded due process;
20
•
• March 19,2014
•
o the decision was contrary to the evidence. We can consider only
the penalty phase or we can narrow it down to an issue on that
point;
o if there was a fact in the Hearing or pleading that the Board relied
upon to make a decision and then later learned that the fact was
incorrect, i.e., said it happened on a Thursday when it happened on
a Friday;
o If we found out that something was a real crux of the decision—
that's a significant error.
He continued those are the limited reasons to grant a rehearing if the Board
decides to grant a rehearing. If a rehearing is granted, it is conducted as a new
Hearing and both sides will be given an opportunity to present new evidence or
argument. It can be limited by the Board to a specific issue or it can be all over
again.
He explained if a rehearing is allowed, the Board could affirm,modify, or
reverse its initial ruling.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated he wrote in his notes that there were three reasons
for a rehearing: (1) "A fundamental error occurred which resulted in a failure of
due process."
• He asked the Board members if they thought a fundamental error had
occurred.
o [No response]
He continued, Item#2 is "the decision was contrary to the evidence."
• He asked the Board members if they thought the decision reached was
contrary to the evidence.
o [No response]
He continued,the third Item is "there was an error on a ruling of law and/or a
fact which was fundamental to the decision of the Licensing Board."
• He asked the Board members if they thought an error was made on a
ruling or on a fact that affected our decision making.
o [No response]
Terry Jerulle: "No. And I haven't heard testimony otherwise."
Vice Chairman Lykos asked,based on the three criteria,the question for the
Board to answer, "Does the case as presented by the Respondent dictate us to
schedule it for a rehearing?"
Richard Joslin: "I would say not at this time."
Attorney Morey stated Mr. Johnson should be allowed to make a Closing
Statement to support his motion. The Respondent's request is, "Grant a
rehearing." The Board's motion is, essentially, "Yes" or"No."
21
March 19,2014
Attorney Johnson presented the"Closing Statement" for the Respondent:
• We provided a packet which we respectfully contend is our lawful basis
for a rehearing.
• Again, we would emphasize that, while I'm sensitive to Mr. Jerulle's
comments, at this point in time,there are no established, clear criteria for
how you handle the penalty phase of a matter such as this.
• You have broad criteria but they can be applied a lot of different ways.
• Given the affidavit of Ms. Weems; given the fact that there is a separate
investigation by the State which I think could impact this Board's ultimate
decision making power ...
• I think there are two things here:
o (1) If there's been a violation: We are in the process of attempting
to mitigate damages and issues with the Florida Department of
Financial Services. We think that if a resolution were provided to
the Board, it could impact that Board's decision relating to the
penalty phase.
o (2) The affidavit of Ms. Weems supports the fact that there can be
reconsideration of the penalty phase.
• That's what we're looking for. Your Findings can stand as to your
decision concerning guilt or innocence. But we think there's enough for
you to be able to rehear the penalty phase.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve denying the Motion for a Rehearing. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
[Note: There was no additional discussion by the Board members.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
BREAK: 10:45 AM
RECONVENED: 10:57 AM
VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
D. Robert A. Zielinski—Second Entity Application
(d/b/a "RAZ Construction,LLC")
Vice Chairman Lykos again asked if Mr. Zielinski was present.
It was noted the Applicant was not present.
E. Doug Nettles—Verification of Experience
(d/b/a"Marco Island Home Services, LLC")
Doug Nettles stated he was appearing before the Board because he lacked
verification of experience concerning the pressure washing of roofs.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked which license had he applied to obtain.
Doug Nettles responded, "Roof coat,roof paint, roof clean."
22
• March 19,2014
Michael Ossorio referenced Section 22 -162(35) as follows:
Roof Coating, Roof Painting, and Roof Cleaning Contractor requires
24-months experience, a passing grade on a Business and Law test,
and means any person who is qualified to clean,paint, or coat a roof
by means of pressure-operated equipment, hand application, or
otherwise. This category does not include roof repair.
Criteria:
• The Applicant did take/pass the Business and Law test(Score: 78);
• Credit score must meet the threshold of the Administrative approval
process;
• Demonstrated experience.
Mr. Ossorio continued:
• Mr.Nettles owns and operates a pressure-washing business and has
operated it on Marco Island for many years
o Pressure washing pool decks and pool cages
• His Business Tax Receipt restricts his work to maintenance service
only/no contracting.
• He is before the Board to obtain a license for roof coating and roof
cleaning—he is to clarify the type of work he does.
Doug Nettles:
• He has been licensed since 2008 to work as a pressure washer.
• His roofing experience is limited—he worked for Dally Roofing until the
Board pulled the license in 2008. He attempted to contact Bruce Dally
but has been unable to find a phone number for him.
• His brother has over 35 year roofing experience who will vouch that he
worked with him at Dally Roofing and his other experience in Oklahoma
for Eagle Roofing.
• He stated he has both pressure washing and roofing experience. His
specific roof pressure washing experience that cannot be verified because
his former employer(in Naples) is no longer in business and he not
received a response from his former employer in Oklahoma.
• He stated he has no experience with roof coating or roof painting.
• He is limiting his scope of work to roof washing.
• He currently performs all aspects of pressure washing from the eaves of
the roof down to ground level.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the license includes roof coating and roof painting
and stated if the Board issued the license to him, the Applicant would be allowed
to do coating and painting.
Mr. Nettles replied that his brother's experience would apply; his business is a
family owned company and he has been part of the company for the past seven
years. His brother is experienced in roof coating and roof painting.
23
March 19,2014
•
Michael Ossorio stated he can(and does) restrict this type of license and modify
it to a particular category, i.e., roof cleaning.
David Nettles:
• He thirty-five years of roofing experience ranging from residential to
commercial building
• He does not believe a coating should be applied to a roof and would not
be involved in roof coating
• He knows how to paint and clean roofs safely; he has never been hurt on a
job site
• He wants to make his living washing roofs
• He will be working with his brother
Doug Nettles stated other employees include his nephews. He stated his brother
will be responsible for training employees. He explained he has been on roofs
when necessary to wash windows. He stated he is comfortable on roofs and very
comfortable using the pressure washer.
Michael Ossorio noted the application stated Doug Nettles owns 100% of the
company and asked if his brother was an employee, and the response was, "Yes."
Mr. Nettles stated his brother could be own 10% of the company if that would
help to obtain the license.
Mr. Ossorio explained if David Nettles is working for the company, he would
feel more comfortable knowing that Mr.Nettles would a certain percentage of it.
Recommendation:
• David Nettles is to own 10% of Marco Island Homes Services, LLC
• The license will be restricted to roof cleaning only
Kyle Lantz asked the Applicant to explain how he cleans roofs.
Doug Nettles relied he will pressure wash tile roofs; while bleach can be used to
treat mold/mildew, in his experience 3800 pounds of pressure is sufficient to
remove mold.
Q. What do you use to protect yourselves—safety equipment?
A. Safety shoes or rubberized soles work very well. We don't use harnesses or
ropes or work when there is lightning.
Richard Joslin moved to approve the application of Doug Nettles for a
restricted license for roof washing/cleaning provided his brother has a 10%
ownership in the company. Robert Meister offered a second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
G. Christopher L. Adams—Waiver of Examination (Reinstatement)
(d/b/a "Crescent Beach Custom Homes,LLC")
24
March 19,2014
• Michael Ossorio stated:
• The Applicant is a Registered General Contractor who allowed his
Certificate to lapse;
• His State registration is"current/inactive"which means it is in dormant
status;
• He has kept his Continuing Education requirements; and
• Taking the exam would be superfluous.
Recommendation:
• Reinstate the license and waive the testing requirement;
• The Applicant is required to pay all back fees for the past three years in
the amount of$1,075.
Christopher Adams stated:
• He had been a General Contractor in Collier County;
• He and his partners chose to close Marco Island Construction due to the
economic downturn;
• He waited until he was financially stable to open his own company
(without partners);
• He kept his license current with the State and remained current with the
Continuing Education requirements;
• He has applied to reinstate his license and to waive the testing
requirement.
• He stated he has remained in contact with friends in the industry and is
aware of the changes to the Building Code.
When asked about his connection to Premiere Sotheby's Realty, Mr. Adams
explained when he and his wife initially moved to Florida, they each obtained a
real estate license. When the construction company closed, he joined his wife
who is a Realtor with Premiere Sotheby's.
Richard Joslin noted for the record that he has worked with Premiere Sotheby's
and with the Applicant's wife.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve the application to reinstate Christopher Adams'
license as a General Contractor and to waive the testing requirement. Ronald
Donino offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
E. Robert A. Zielinski—Second Entity Application
(d/b/a "RAZ Construction, LLC")
Vice Chairman Lykos asked for the third time if Mr. Zielinski was present.
It was noted the Applicant was not present.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VII, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
25
March 19,2014
• A. Roger Drouin—Review of Suspension
(d/b/a "Novelte Construction and Design,LLC")
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• Mr. Drouin appeared before the Board in February, 2013;
• His licensed was renewed and he was placed on probation for a one-year
period during which time he was to take and pass
o Business and Law
o Concrete (Forming and Placement)
o Masonry
• He missed the deadline and his license was suspended.
• Mr. Drouin closed his business to concentrate on preparing for the exams.
• He has passed all three exams:
o Business and Law—score: 82
o Masonry (Forming and Placement)—score: 76
Recommendation:
• Remove the suspension;return his license to active status
Attorney Morey confirmed the Board has the authority to 1' t the suspension.
Roger Drouin stated:
• Time"got away"from him;
• Was dealing with some family issues;
• Business increased by 300% -worked 16-hour days;
• When notified of his suspension, he immediately shut down his business'
• He took and passed the required tests as well as the Marine Contractor's
exam;
• He asked the Board to lift the suspension and activate his license.
Richard Joslin moved to approve terminating the suspension of Roger Drouin.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VIII, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Case 2014-05: William B. Neuzil, d/b/a "Naples Construction Group,LLC."
The Respondent, William B.Neuzil, was present and was not represented by
counsel.
26
March 19,20
• Vice Chairman Lykos briefly outlined the order of the proceedings to be
followed:
• Open the Public Hearing;
• Swear the witnesses;
• Accept any evidence from the parties;
• The County will present its"Opening Statement;"
• The Respondent will present his/her"Opening Statement;"
• The County will next present its "Case in Chief;"
• The Respondent will present his/her defense;
• The County may offer any rebuttal.
That concludes the Public Hearing process.
• The Board will close the Public Hearing and receive instructions from its
attorney, which is similar to a"Charge" given to a Jury, setting out the
parameters on which the Board's Members will base their decision.
• During deliberations,the Board can request additional information and
clarification(s) from the parties.
• The Board will decide two different issues:
o First, whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as
charged in the Administrative Complaint.
o A vote will be taken on the matter.
o Second, if the Respondent is found guilty,the Board will
decide the Sanctions to be imposed.
• The Board's Attorney will advise the Board of the Sanctions that may be
imposed and the factors to be considered.
• The Board will discuss Sanctions and vote.
• The Chair will orally report the decision of the Board.
Ian Jackson, Collier County License Compliance Officer,requested to enter
the packet of information provided to the Board Members for Case 2014-05 into
evidence.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case No. 2014-05:
The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County Contractors'Licensing
Board vs. William B.Neuzil, d/b/a "Naples Construction Group,LLC"License
No.: CGC1508081 (Certified General Contractor), and entering the information
packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "1." Gary McNally offered a Second
in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Opening Statement:"
• The County is prepared to show through documented facts and sworn
testimony that the Respondent violated Collier County Ordinance#90-105,
as amended, Section 22-201.1(2)by"Willfully violating the 2101 Florida
Building Code, Section 105.1."
27
March 19,2014
Respondent presented his"Opening Statement:"
• I'm guilty of it.
• I started construction without the permits.
• We demoed the house and started laying up blocks and kept going without
getting the proper permits.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Case in Chief:"
• February 6, 2014: The case was referred by the City of Naples' Building
Department by Tom Szempruch, Acting Deputy Building Official,
concerning the reconstruction of a substantially demolished home which
began prior to permits being issued.
• February 7, 2014: A site visit was conducted. The Investigator met with
the Respondent and advised him of the violation. A"Stop Work" Order
was issued.
• February 11, 2014: The Investigator was contacted by the City of Naples
Building Department by Building Official, Paul Bollenback, and Tom
Szempruch. The"Stop Work" Order had been violated, i.e., masonry
construction had taken place. A second"Stop Work" Order was issued by
the City of Naples.
• The Respondent advised the Investigator that the Masonry subcontractor
had not advised his sub-subcontractor of the"Stop Work" Order. The
miscommunication was between the subcontractor and his sub.
• A Demolition Permit had been issued on/about November 13, 2013 to settle
a previous misconduct case at the same property where the Respondent
began demolition prior to having a permit issued in violation of the 2010
Florida Building Code, Section 105.1.
• The Investigator researched the Respondent's case history in the County's
database.
o May 10, 2012: The violation involved unpermitted roof repair and
a/c wrap installation at 1155 Sandpiper Road, Units G-4. E-4, B-1
and B2. The case was settled when the Contractor abated the
violations by obtaining after-the-fact permits and Certificates of
Completion for all of the unpermitted repairs and installations at the
location.
o April 10, 2012: The Respondent was issued an uncontested
Citation for engaging in the business or acting in the capacity of a
Contractor or advertising self or business organization as available
to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor
without being duly registered or certified. The Respondent, a
General Contractor,was performing roofing construction himself
and not utilizing a roofing subcontractor as required.
o The Respondent was issued a second Citation on April 10, 2012 for
commencing or performing work for which a building permit is
required pursuant to the adopted State Minimum Building Code or
without such permit being in effect.
Investigator Jackson called Paul Bollenback to testify as a Witness for the County.
28
March 19,2014
Investigator Jackson questioned the Witness as follows:
Q. Could you state your name?
A. Paul Bollenback.
Q. What is your position and how long have you had that position?
A. I am the Building Official for the City of Naples and have held that position for
approximately seven years.
Q. Do you know your Building Code Administrator License Number?
A. Yes. BU-1433.
Q. Are you familiar with the project referenced in the Administrative Complaint?
A. I am.
Q. In your opinion as the City of Naples' Building Official, has the Respondent
willfully violated the 2010 Florida Building Code Section 105.1 with the
violations established on this construction project?
A. I believe that is correct.
The County's "Case in Chief'was concluded.
Respondent,William Neuzil, presented his "Case in Chief:"
• Since the time I asked Cronin Engineering to go out there and give me a
stamped, sealed plan stating what we did is to Code. I also did a change of
contractor form because the reason all this stuff happened is because me and
the homeowner just didn't get along. It was push, push, push, push.
• I did it. I am guilty. I should have told the homeowner, "No"but I didn't.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent if he understood the charges against
him, starting work without a permit on the same project—twice.
A. Correct.
Ian Jackson stated since the Respondent acknowledged there was a violation,the
County would rest its case.
Terry Jerulle requested an explanation of when the photographs were taken.
Ian Jackson: The photos in the County's Exhibit E-34 through E-27 were taken on
February 11, 2014 after the first"Stop Work" Order was issued.
Terry Jerulle asked the Respondent if he poured tie-beams.
A. No. It was a remodeled house.
Q. There was no tie-beam support?
A. There is a tie-beam around the existing home.
[The Respondent was asked to explain what he did.]
A. Took the existing roof off.
Q. So every tie-beam I see is an existing beam?
A. What we did was to take the roof off and raise it up by two feet, and then we
poured another beam on top of it.
Terry Jerulle requested to recall the Witness to testify.
29
March 19,2014
Terry Jerulle questioned Paul Bollenback:
Q. Paul, did you go to the jobsite?
A. I have been to the jobsite. Yes.
Q. It looks like a new tie-beam.
Vice Chairman Lykos requested Mr. Bollenback review County's Exhibit E-35 and
stated it looked as if new block was on top of old block and a new tie-beam.
A. I have not actually discussed this with Mr. Neuzil. To be honest with you,the
extent of the work—both through the photographs that were presented to me, to
the communication that I had with my own staff, and through having visited the
site myself—it was my understanding that there is new tie-beam or bond beam—
new beams were poured there from what I could tell.
The Respondent interjected, "Partial."
Mr. Bollenback continued: This was an existing concrete building that was—the
entire roof structure trusses were removed. Obviously, there was the intent to go to
a second floor here. There was obviously new block work and also tie-beam work
associated with that—it was my understanding that tie-beam work was done.
Q. That's what it appears to be in the photos—I just wanted it to be made clear.
Robert Meister: I don't know how there couldn't be new tie beams because there
are new roof truss straps.
Terry Jerulle stated he was amazed someone could get that far into construction
without a permit.
Kyle Lantz asked the Respondent if he had a permit to demo the old roof.
A. Yes.
Q. And that was issued, so ... after the fact?
A. No. I had the permit before the roof came off. We got the "Stop Work"Order
when I removed some drywall from the inside of the home. That time, we
stopped and got a permit.
Q. So you got a demo permit, took the roof off, took the drywall out, and then you
got in trouble ...?
A. No. We started taking the drywall off because it was going to be a small
remodel. We started removing the drywall by hand because it was an older
home—that's when I got the "Stop Work" Order. At that time, we stopped and
got the permit. We proceeded with removing the rest of the drywall, and then
hand removed all the trusses.
Q. The permit encompassed all that—removing the drywall and the trusses?
A. Correct.
Q. And then you started doing concrete work?
A. Started laying the block and cutting the windows open, and forming ... there's a
little ribbon beam on top of the existing beam there.
Q. And so you did all that—and you poured it without your permit?
A. Correct.
Q. You mentioned you had a stamped letter from an engineering company—did
they come out and inspect it—or look at your pictures? How did they ...?
30
•
March 19,2014
A. They came out and did a full inspection on it, after the fact. It's Cronin
Engineering—he engineered it originally and he came out as well.
Richard Joslin asked the Respondent if there were any proof in the packet.
A. No,he just finished it the other day. He didn't finish it in time to put it in the
package.
It was noted the letter should have been included with the application.
Kyle Lantz asked the Respondent if he applied for a permit.
A. No. The contracts changed on the job.
Q. Had you ever applied for a permit?
A. No—just had the demo permit.
Q. Was the beam that you were raising `engineered' at least?
A. It was all engineered with a full set of engineered plans.
Q. It was just never submitted to the County?
A. It wasn't complete—there was no drainage plan—but it was a full engineered set
of plans. It wasn't like we went out there and winged it.
Richard Joslin noted the Respondent's statement that the homeowner pressured
him to begin work right away and said he would pay for any fines.
The Respondent admitted he should have changed [jobs] a while ago.
• But I finally did. I signed the paper over about a week ago.
Vice Chairman Lycos requested to recall the Witness, Paul Bollenback,to testify.
Q. It has been my experience working in the City that, in some circumstances,
where a contractor can come to the City and apply for a demolition permit when
the rest of the project has not been engineered or the plans have not been
developed, and the Contractor can start to work. Is that correct?
A. There is a provision in The Florida Building Code, Chapter 1, for what we
call an"Early Permit Waiver"that allows a Contractor to begin work if he has
properly submitted a Permit Application to the local Building Department. I
think that's what you are referring to.
Q. Correct.
A. Such a thing does exist. That's correct.
Q. So if you're "under the gun"time-wise, you can apply for the permit ... in my
experience, I have met with you to review the plans ... and then the Contractor
takes liability for anything that may not be Code-compliant in the plans. At least
it allows you to start before the whole entire Plan Review process has been
completed.
A. The Building Code allows for such a thing at the discretion of the Building
Official and I will entertain those requests on an individual basis. I don't recall
... have I done that with you before?
Q. We've done it a couple of time ....
A. Okay.
Q. ... in condo buildings ...
A. Typically, you cannot receive an inspection ... you can go up only to the point
where you would receive your first inspection. It allows a builder to go ahead
31
March 19,2014
• and show the owner that he is starting and making an attempt. But the permit—
in order for that to be legal—the permit application must have been submitted to
the local Building Department.
Richard Joslin questioned the Witness:
Q. What's the normal time for a permit to be issued? How long does it generally
take for a permit to come out?
A. It depends upon the permit type. This is a single family addition alteration
permit and typically those are running about three weeks.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Witness:
Q. When someone such as a Contractor submits for a building permit,there's a
review process by you and your staff—correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. In a single family home like this,there is a structural review, is there not?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And, during that structural review, you review the structural drawings to see if
they comply with the Code—correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that has not been done in this process?
A. So, for someone to go out and start construction on a home that is supposed to be
Code-compliant to 2010,the review hasn't been done by the City of Naples?
Q. And the inspector—there's also a secondary check—that inspectors come out to
the jobsite to verify not only were the plans per Code but that the work is being
done per Code. Correct?
A. Per the approved plans, that's correct. Typically, a very extensive set of
structural drawings would have accompanied this permit had it been submitted
to us. The design firm is an excellent one—unfortunately they [the drawings]
never made it to our desk. We don't know what work would have gone on
without us having done our typical process, i.e., submittal,plan review,
approval, field inspection.
Q. So the work that we see here—none of that has happened through the City of
Naples to date?
A. That is correct.
Richard Joslin questioned the Respondent:
Q. Didn't you say, I believe, you had signed engineered plans to begin the
construction ...
A. Correct.
Q. ... if you had the permit, then it would have been built to those specifications—
right?
A. Correct. Plus he also—that same engineer came out and gave us a letter that I
have to give to the City saying that what's out there—he has basically, I guess,
taken liability for it ...
Q. He has signed off on it ... everything is correct, according to Code and
according to what the City of Naples would look at ...
A. Correct.
Q. ... as a finished product.
32
March 19,2014
A. Correct.
Vice Chairman Lykos questioned the Witness:
Q. Specifically in a residential addition alteration,there are other factors that come
into play with a permit application before you even get the building construction
drawings themselves—like zoning and FEMA and those types of things. Has
this project gone through that process?
A. It has not.
Q. Can you explain for our Board members what the consequences might be if the
plan fails that process?
A. The two issues that you mentioned would be floodplain ... if this property were
could be located ... actually is located in an identified flood zone—if the
property was deconstructed to the point where it might violate what is
commonly known as the "50% Rule"before the City involvement, we might
have had to require the owner to completely demolish the home and rebuild it.
Luckily,that did not happen. This home was built at an elevation that exceeds
the required flood elevation but nobody knew that—at least nobody on our staff
—knew that at the time. That was a very big risk that the owner and the builder
took.
The other thing was zoning. There are times when—any community has setback
requirements and height requirements—things of a zoning nature. To go ahead
and build in a vertical fashion, until you are sure that those zoning requirements
are compliant, is extremely risky. It's just not done. There is a review process
done by cities and counties throughout the State of Florida, and that was
bypassed in this case.
Q. There is also an architectural review because the City has requirements for the
final appearance of a home as well.
A. Well, not on a single family home. No, sir, only on commercial buildings.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Respondent:
Q. You had mentioned the homeowner was pushing you to get this done and said he
would pay any fines. Did you ask him to show up today and vouch for you?
A. No. I signed over ... no.
Richard Joslin questioned the Respondent:
Q. Obviously, there was a dispute of some sort?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it because of the ... was it that you weren't going fast enough ...or ...
A. We just didn't ....
Q. ...just didn't click? Okay.
Vice Chairman Lykos called for a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board:
33
March 19,2014
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 that
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, and pursuant to Florida
Statutes, the Florida Administrative Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative
Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in
support of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Kyle Lantz noted the Respondent had admitted his guilt.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve finding the Respondent guilty of Count I of the
County's Administrative Complaint. Richard Joslin offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
Attorney Morey noted the Board found the Respondent to be guilty. The
Respondent is a State licensed Certified General Contractor, as well as a Collier
County licensed Contractor. (CGC 1508081//Certificate 201200000637).
He stated the Disciplinary Sanctions for State-licensed Contractors are slightly
different than those that might be imposed on a County licensed Contractor.
34
•
March 19,2014
• If the Contractors' Licensing Board finds there has been misconduct by a State-
certified Contractor,the Board may:
1) Deny the issuance or renewal of Collier County or City Building Permits
or require the issuance of permits with specific conditions;
2) Notification of and information concerning permit denial will be
submitted to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board("CILB");
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.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked for a recommendation from the County.
Recommendation:
• Under 22-203, "Disciplinary Sanctions:"
Holders of State of Florida Certificates of Competency.
(2) Notification of any information concerning such permit denial
shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Business and
Professional Regulation within 15 days after the Contractors'
Licensing Board decides to deny the permit.
Michael Ossorio recommended imposing a two-year probation of the
Respondent's building permit pulling privileges concerning the issuance of any
new building permit. During the probationary period, if the Respondent is found
to have willfully violated the Code by any Building Official,his building permit
pulling privileges should automatically be revoked.
Mr. Ossorio requested that the Board authorize him to send a letter to the State
within fifteen days of its decision to notify the State that Mr.Neuzil's building
permit privileges have been denied under his license. The letter will also
recommend that the State require Mr. Neuzil to reimburse the County for
investigative costs incurred in the amount of$735.
Richard Joslin questioned the Respondent:
Q. The packet does not contain a copy of the contract or the dollar amount ... to do
all the work that you did, was money transferred to you from the homeowner?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does it stand at the moment?
35
March 19,2014
A. Right now, it's even. He has releases from everybody—he has the signed,
sealed letter from Cronin saying that everything out there is good—he's got the
signed Change of Contractor form ... it's pretty much ... it's all done.
Q. What about the building permit ... what if it isn't issued?
A. He's going in as a private provider—he hired Alpha Building Systems to do
that for him.
Michael Ossorio noted the homeowner may choose to file a formal complaint with
the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
Attorney Morey clarified:
• The Contractors' Licensing Board may impose conditions upon the
Respondent's ability to pull permits.
• The Board is not putting the Respondent's license on probation.
• The Respondent must report each time he pulls a permit during the next
two years.
• If there is another building code violation, his permit pulling privileges will
automatically be revoked.
Michael Ossorio explained the State refers building code violations to the Counties
—all Code issues are deferred to the Counties.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent if he had any open permits in the
County.
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you have any open permits within the City of Naples?
A. No.
Richard Joslin:
Q. With Marco Island?
A. Nope.
Q. Do you have any submitted?
A. Yes, I have one submitted in the City of Naples.
Terry Jerulle expressed his incredulity that a house could be built to the stage
shown in the photographs without any regard for building permits, inspections, or
the review process. He stated the Respondent either didn't understand the process
or understood the process and chose to disregard it, and did not deserve to hold a
license. He further stated to not suspend the Respondent's license will send a
message to other home builders and subcontractors.
Vice Chairman Lykos agreed. He clarified the Board could not suspend or revoke
the Respondent's license, it could only revoke his permit pulling privileges within
Collier County.
Kyle Lantz explained without permit pulling privileges,the Respondent could not
be a prime Contractor on a job—he could only work as a subcontractor in Collier
County.
36
March 19,2014
Michael Ossorio stated the letter to the Executive Director of the CILB will
contain a copy of the Findings of Fact and Order of the Board. He explained
he could send a copy of the Findings of Fact to Fort Myers and the Respondent
will not be allowed to pull permits in Lee County. The Board can impact the
Respondent's business.
Richard Joslin noted if the Engineer's letter that stated what had been done was
done incorrectly, he would support suspending or revoking the Respondent's
license.
Further discussion ensued.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated the Respondent chose to work outside the rules and
the laws rather than find out what his options were, i.e., he could have hired a
private provided to submit the proper paperwork.
Terry Jerulle noted this was not the first incident involving the Respondent who
had been fined and reprimanded in the past, but he still continued repeating the
same error, i.e.,not obtaining required permits before starting construction.
Ian Jackson referenced a previous case which began on May 10, 2012 concerning
unpermitted roof repair and a/c rack installation on Sandpiper Drive. The case was
closed on August 12, 2013.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted revoking the Respondent's permit pulling privileges
would not prevent him from working on a job that did not require a permit or
partnering with a Contractor who could pull the permits while the Respondent did
the work.
He asked Michael Ossorio if a Contractor could be changed(substituted)during
the middle of the permit review process and the response was, "Yes."
Mr. Ossorio explained if a permit had been issued, the fee to change Contractors
was approximately $50.00.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated he supported revoking the Respondent's permit
pulling privileges for a one-year period. It would not affect the Respondent's
ability to earn a living.
Gary McNally suggesting an additional penalty, i.e., a probationary period to
become effective after the revocation period ended.
Vice Chairman Lykos summarized the penalties discussed by the Board:
• A one-year revocation of permit pulling privileges;
• During the two-year period following the reinstatement of his permit
pulling privileges, if any Building Code Official determines there has been
a willful Code violation,the Respondent's permit pulling privileges will
immediately be revoked.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve imposing the following Sanction with regard
to William B. Neuzil, d/b/a Naples Construction Group,LLC: to suspend Mr.
Neuzil's permit pulling privileges for six months in Collier County, including the
City of Naples, the City of Marco Island, and unincorporated Collier County.
37
March 19,2014
Additionally, the Contractor's Licensing Board will recommend to the State of
Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board(CILB) that:
• the Respondent reimburse the County for investigative fees incurred in
the amount of$735, either voluntarily or through the State;
• the State impose a fine on the Respondent in the amount of$5,000.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/2— "Opposed."
Richard Joslin and Ronald Donino were opposed.
Vice Chairman Lykos outlined:
• This cause came on for Public Hearing before the Contractors' Licensing
Board on March 19, 2014 for consideration of the Administrative
Complaint in Case#2014-05 filed against Richard B.Neuzil, d/b/a"Naples
Construction Group, LLC." The holder of record is a State-licensed
Certified General Contractor, as well as a Collier County licensed
Contractor. (CGC 1508081//Certificate 201200000637).
• 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:
• The Respondent, William B.Neuzil, is a State-licensed Certified General
Contractor, as well as a Collier County licensed Contractor.
(CGC 1508081//Certificate 201200000637).
• 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, William B.Neuzil, was present at the Public Hearing and was
not represented by Counsel at the Hearing held on March 19, 2014.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended,had
been properly issued and were personally delivered.
• Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent acted in a manner that is
in violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the
act.
• The allegations of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint as to:
o Count 1,under Section 22-201.1(2) of Ordinance#90-105, as
amended:
"Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of
the State, City, or Collier County"
was 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 I were approved, adopted and incorporated herein,
38
March 19,2014
to wit: The Respondent violated Section 22-201.1(2) of Collier County
Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
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 nine (6) in favor, and two (2) in
opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present,that the following
disciplinary Sanctions are hereby imposed upon William B.Neuzil,
to wit:
o Revocation of Mr. Neuzil's permit pulling privileges for a period of
six months in Collier County, including the City of Naples,the City
of Marco Island, and unincorporated Collier County.
o The Contractor's Licensing Board will recommend to the State of
Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board(CILB)that:
• the Respondent reimburse the County for investigative fees
incurred in the amount of$735, either voluntarily or through
the State;
• the State impose a fine on the Respondent in the amount of
$5,000.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the case was closed.
IX. REPORTS:
(None)
X. MEMBER COMMENTS:
(None)
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, April 16, 2014
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 12:35 PM.
39
March 19,2014
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
4
All '' A. I_1IJ
omas Lykos, Vice I .irman
The Minutes were approved by the Vice Ch ' an on , 2014,
_
"as submitted" [ ' 1 OR "as amended" [ . NW
40