CLB Minutes 05/21/2014 CONTRACTORS
LICENSING
BOARD
Minutes
May 21 , 2014
May 21,2014
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
May 21, 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:
Chairman: Patrick White
Vice Chair: Thomas Lykos
Members: Michael Boyd
Ronald Donino
Terry Jerulle
Richard Joslin
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
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
Reggie Smith — Licensing Compliance Officer
1
May 21,2014
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.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Patrick White called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; nine members were present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR CHANGES:
• Under Item VI. —"New Business:"
o F. Stuart Crist, Contesting Citation (#08694) has been withdrawn by the
County Attorney's Office.
• Under Item VIII. —"Public Hearing:"
o A. Case #2014-07: David Caamano, d/b/a"D. Caamano Construction, Inc."
has been dismissed.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—APRIL 16, 2014:
Gary McNally moved to approve the Minutes of the April 16, 2014 meeting as submitted.
Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Declaratory Statement
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• The State's CILB ("Construction Industry Licensing Board") has been sending
Declaratory Statements to the Board;
• In response to a question concerning the type of license required to build a
"chickee hut:"
o Seminole and Miccosukee Tribal members are exempt from license
requirements, per The Florida Building Code, if a"chickee hut" is built
within the boundaries of the reservation;
o Collier County has given building permits to Native Americans;
o If the "chickee hut" is constructed elsewhere, Tribal members must be
properly licensed through the Department of Business and Professional
Regulation;
o The State offers a Specialty license: "Chickee Hut" Certified Contractor's
license.
2
May 21,2014
B. Brenton Lee Mongan
Michael Ossorio stated:
• Benton Mongan was a State-certified Building Contractor (License # CBC-
1250145) on Marco Island who was cited for willful Building Code
violations by this Board on February 20, 2013.
• A 15-day notice was sent to the CILB in Tallahassee;
• On February 12, 2014, the CILB, through the Department of Business &
Professional Regulation, ordered Mr. Mongan to:
o surrender his license;
o pay an Administrative fine of$10,000;
o pay Investigative costs of$174.06; and
o pay restitution to William Francis Frye in the amount of$9,000.
C. Allen Gene Reeves
• Allen Gene Reeves was a State-certified Plumbing Contractor(License #
CFC-1428056) who was cited for willful Building Code violations by this
Board on April 17, 2013.
• A 15-day notice was sent to the CILB in Tallahassee;
• On February 16, 2014, the CILB, through the Department of Business &
Professional Regulation, ordered Mr. Reeves to:
o pay an Administrative fine of$3,000;
o pay Investigative costs of$170.49;
o if the fines were not paid within 30 days, Mr. Reeves' license would
be suspended until paid; and
o He was required to complete seven (7) additional credit hours of
continuing education specific to Chapter 389 and related rules within
one year;
o The seven hours were in additional to the continuing education
required by Rule 61G4-18.001, F.A.C.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of
the Board. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried
unanimously, 9—0.
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VI,Section VII, and Section
VIII, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Luis F. Escobar—Review of Credit Report
d/b/a "Florida IB&S, LLC."
Luis Escobar stated:
• He is a licensed Drywall Contractor;
• There is an issue with his credit report.
3
May 21,2014
• He did not have any problems with his credit until 2011 when the economy
declined.
• He had been working for a company that went through bankruptcy and did
not pay him.
• He lost a lot of money and was unable to make payments.
• I don't like to have debts but the economy was not in my hands.
Chairman White asked Mr. Escobar what he had done concerning the civil
judgments or any of the past-due collections listed on his credit report.
A. I am working on payroll right now and don't have money to fix them. When my
business starts, I can do something to start paying my debts. That's the plan but I
am on payroll and don't have extra money to keep paying.
Chairman White summarized for Mr. Escobar: He needs to have his application for
a license approved to earn the income necessary to pay off his debts.
A. Exactly, exactly. That's what I want to do. I am doing the right things. I am
going back into business while the economy is going up—I am not doing things
on the wrong side like some people do. I want to do the right thing. Everything is
under my name with my papers and my insurance and everything like that.
Chairman White questioned the Applicant:
Q. Are you saying that your intention is to be able to pay off these creditors?
A. Of course.
Q. How long do you think that might take you to do?
A. I think—three years.
Q. Three years?
A. Yes, sir. You see, I am trying to be honest with you. I cannot say one year
because I am not going to lie. I need to go step by step.
Q. Do you have any plan regarding which debt you will satisfy first?
A. First, after I get the jobs, I must satisfy my clients to keep going and getting more
jobs. On the way, I can start paying my debts. First, I must start to pay my
employees and the suppliers and then, of course, I will pay my debts. I am clear
about that.
Q. My question was: Which of your creditors are you going to try to pay off first?
A. What I'm going to do is to start talking with everybody. But I am going to start
with the small ones—I will not have much money to start—eliminating the small
ones ... I have not too many people to deal. I will do the calls and the big ones
are going to be after the small ones [are paid].
Q. Can you tell me about the Wells Fargo collection for over $51,000? What is that?
A. We had one credit line for the suppliers. Haas Construction Company, Richmond,
Virginia, didn't pay me—they went into bankruptcy. Actually, what I lost is almost
$400,000. So when this company stopped paying me, they didn't pay to the
supplier the material for that job ... it was one job.
Q. So that's an unsecured debt?
A. Yes.
Q. Meaning, for example, it isn't a mortgage on a home?
4
May 21,2014
A. I had a couple of homes ... I sold the houses. I paid what I had in foreclosure. I
sold one house and I paid to the bank. I need to be in touch with the bank because I
assumed this was supposed to be fixed.
Q. There are two foreclosures: One for Green Tree and one for Bank of America.
What about the judgments?
A. I need to fix. One is for the truck ($4,212) and one is for the physician ($209—
Veterinary Hospital), something like that. Is not too big a deal. The small one is
about $209 and the big one is around $5,000. So it appears I need to take care of
that.
Q. Are those some of the ones that you think are small enough that you can pay first?
A. Yes, the small one.
Q. Are you saying that the judgment for the $4,212 to Ford Motor Credit is a small
one? Or is it a big one?
A. Yes. I agree with you, not the $5,000, the small one is fine.
Q. I think I understand what may be your plan.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. What is your plan for taking deposits and setting up accounts with your
suppliers? You are applying for a Drywall Contractor's license—correct?
A Correct.
Q. Are you going to do metal framing and drywall, or just hang drywall?
A. It depends—when I will start billing for the company, I need to be honest and I
can give a fair price—not too high and not too low—but I can try to do the
labor and they can supply the material. I need to keep saving some money to
start supplying the material ... to get a name again. But I need to save money
for the small jobs. I don't want to run any big jobs yet. I can't. I need to be
step by step. I need to save the money I get from the small jobs and start
paying. But saving money is the way ... what I need to do to start buying the
material.
Q. So you are going to ask your Contractor or the homeowner to pay for the
materials?
A. Exactly ... something like that.
Richard Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. What have you been doing in the past months—years?
A. Working on the payroll with a AMA Contractor—working for a drywall
contractor. I was working for them and with another subcontractor as an
employee. Actually, this morning I was working before I come to this meeting.
I cannot lose any hours. I am working by myself My wife is not working now.
We have one child and one on the way.
Q. The corporation that you have set up ... I see that you have only a one percent
ownership in this corporation. Why? You are telling us that you want to start
to make money and pay off some debts. What it seems like you're doing is
relying on someone to run that business and you're going to make some profit
from it with the one percent ownership.
A. Yeah.
Q. Which isn't a lot.
5
May 21,2014
A. Well, the owner is my wife. Is my opinion, normally, the woman can run better
the money, you know. So she can keep the control, I don't have any worry, and
I can work. Is my opinion, you know. Is why I put everything under my wife's
name—to give her the control.
Q. How long as she been doing this?
A. Five years. ' '--- 5(!s h a-s
Q. She has been in the business the same as you have?
A. Yeah, yeah.
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos questioned the Applicant:
Q. Mr. Escobar, on the front page of your application, at the bottom of the page it
says that part of the reason for this application is to abate a Citation. Did you
receive a Citation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Can you give me the background on that Citation? Why did you receive a
Citation?
A. Because four or five months ago, when I moved to Florida—Virginia is a little
different ... you can get the license C, B &A. Ten years ago, when I started, I
had a"C." What means `.0?" It means you can make jobs under a certain
amount—not too big—$25,000 per year. "B"—jobs up to $80,000 per year.
With "A," all the way to unlimited jobs. I started with a"C"—you do not have
to have any tests—you don't need to pass any tests. With "B," you need to pass
tests and the "A," of course, you need to pass tests. So when I moved here and
was thinking to start a business again, I decided to start with the small jobs as
Class "C." That's what I was thinking but I didn't know the rules in Florida. I
was knocking on doors—business doors—asking, "How is the process for
you?" Some people said you need to contact the manager ... something like
that, or you need to go to the website. I think I gave around ten business cards.
One of the cards went to the City. One gentleman called me from the City and
asked me to come to his office. He asked if I was giving out business cards and
I said, "Yes." He said I could not do that. I was not offering to work ... asking
how was the process for you? I can start tomorrow but I need to know the
process because I am new in this area. He said one of the rules say that you
cannot do any advertising if you don't have the license. I had 45 days to have a
license and to pay the fee. The fee was $1,000. I had 45 days to pass the test—
I made by best effort and did that. I did everything I was supposed to do. I am
doing everything right.
Chairman White stated the process is intended to achieve compliance by being
properly licensed. He further stated as much as the remainder of the application
appears to be in order, there was still the issue of the credit report. It had serious
holes in it. He explained the typical process was to allow someone an opportunity,
under a probationary license, to start work and to demonstrate that they have made
the payments they said they were going to make.
He continued: "The issue for me is that we have never extended probation for
three years. I don't think it is appropriate. We would want to know much sooner
than that whether he was keeping his word and making payments."
6
May 21,2014
Mr. Escobar stated he would try to do the best that he could and pay as soon as he
could. He said he was the last wheel in the car—he stated he now knows what he is
supposed to do. He stated he knows he must pay his debts.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. You said some people who owed you money went out of business?
A. Yes, when I was in business, a couple of companies did not pay me anything.
Q. Is there any outstanding debt owed to you that you may receive?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any judgments against anyone?
A. I put some liens ... the last year when I was working, was supposed to be the
worst year in the north ... but something real happened to me. In January, I got
four big jobs ... one jail, one church, one school, one apartment building, and
seven small jobs. Three or four months later, two companies took my money. I
tried to finish as many jobs the best way that I can—I was trying to say the jobs
—I was trying to be fine with everybody ... so I put a couple of liens ... I tried
to find the money, but it was taking too much time and I needed money to pay
the lawyers, too. I didn't have money ... I was losing everything ... my houses,
my cars, everything. So I couldn't put any judgments.
Q. Do you still have the liens?
A. I put on the liens but after a certain time, they can release the lien.
Q. But you can re-do it.
A. I did not know that ... these two years ... I am trying to just survive ... survive
and don't get any debts, you know, is what I am trying to do this time, Now I
think it's time to restart. I don't have any debts—that year, was everything. I
didn't have anything before that [year] or after that. So now, I will see—with
the money I can pay a lawyer, with the money I can start fighting for my
money, okay, I can do that. But I told you, the thing is to re-start.
Chairman White asked if the liens were filed in Virginia or in Florida.
A. In Virginia. Richmond, Virginia.
Chairman White requested the County's recommendation.
Michael Ossorio stated:
• The Applicant paid the Citation fee in 2014.
• Recommendation:
o 12-month probation; and
o Within the probationary period, he is to return before the Board to
present a full credit report for review.
Chairman White suggested requesting the Applicant appear before the Board in
six months and the response was, "That's fine."
Chairman White explained the Board would not require an improved credit rating,
but for Mr. Escobar to bring the Board up-to-date concerning his activities and
what bills, if any, he had been able to pay. The Board would want him to present
evidence of his actions. The point is to give Mr. Escobar a chance to succeed.
Mr. Escobar stated he understood the Board's position.
7
May 21,2014
Gary McNally suggested keeping the one-year probation but modifying it to
include both a six-month and a one-year review of the credit report.
Vice Chairman Lykos suggested a six-month probation and review. At the time,
the Board could determine to extend the probation if necessary.
Richard Joslin expressed his concern, i.e., a"lot of red flags" based on the debts
that the Applicant has and his comments regarding the length of time to pay them.
Chairman White stated he did not understand the distinction with the licensing
being in Mr. Escobar's name as Qualifier versus his wife.
Mr. Joslin stated that her credit report might be a bit better. If she has a 99%
ownership in the company, she should know what she is doing if she is running the
company.
Chairman White stated if the Licensee is the wife, the Board would have no
controls if the situation did not improve.
It was noted Mrs. Escobar's qualifications were unknown.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated after his initial review of the paperwork submitted,
he was not inclined to approve the application for a Drywall Contractor's license.
His reservation was that Mr. Escobar had not presented a plan to move forward.
He further stated while he Applicant may have a vision for what he wants to
accomplish, a written plan was preferred—no strategy or timeframe was presented
the Board for review.
Mr. Escobar responded that his plan was to work since the market in Naples was
much better than what he had left in Virginia. He said he can't give numbers until
he has run some jobs. He stated he needs to be "in the market" because he knows
the prices and how many jobs he can get. He continued that after six months of
working, he could put a plan together.
Mr. Lykos stated: The Applicant indicated he intended to pay off his debt within
three years but he must first: (1) Establish how much debt has been incurred; (2)
Estimate how much money will be earned; (3) Indicate how he will pay off 1/3 of
the debt each year.
He continued for the Applicant to state he is at the whim of the market is not "a
plan."
He noted the Applicant claimed a foreclosure should have been listed on his credit
report. He asked Mr. Escobar what his plan was to have the item removed.
Mr. Escobar reiterated he intended to pay the small bills first.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated Mr. Escobar indicated he knocked on the doors of
various contractors in an effort to "advertise" himself. He asked how he planned to
go out and get work.
Mr. Escobar replied he would first obtain work as a subcontractor. He said he
knew he would be paid on Fridays and could begin to save money with a weekly
paycheck.
Terry Jerulle asked the Applicant what he would do if someone didn't pay him.
He stated if someone owed him $400,000, he would chase that person to the "ends
of the earth" to collect. He continued he would not"give up." The Applicant was
8
May 21,2014
left with a great deal of debt. His concern was that the Applicant's past history
would repeat itself and that he was not a good enough businessman to handle that
situation.
The Applicant indicated he would research any company offering to hire him to
ensure the reputation was good and will only work for reputable companies. He
stated he has worked with AMA and knows their clients. They have offered him a
job. He will also check references and ask people how other companies pay
because he cannot afford any risk.
Terry Jerulle asked the Applicant if he knew the meaning of"NTO;" the response
was, "No." He explained it meant "Notice to Owner" and should be one of the first
things that the Applicant files when someone owes money to him. It is part of the
Florida Lien law.
Mr. Jerulle stated: "When you lien a project, it ensures that you are paid so you
can pay your employees and your suppliers."
Mr. Escobar reiterated that he needs to work for regular Contractors first ... he
needs to work to be sure money is coming every week to pay his bills.
Chairman White suggested issuing a probationary license for three months with
very specific conditions to report back to the Board at the end of the three-month
period. The Applicant will not need to provide a credit report but a specific list of
which creditors had been contacted, the nature of the discussions, any payment
plans that had been agreed upon. Additionally, he is to provide a list of jobs that he
has obtained, the value of the job, whether materials were paid for by the G.C. or
by the customer. He is to demonstrate that he is trying to come into compliance.
Richard Joslin thought three months may not be enough time.
Chairman White explained if, after the three months, the Applicant had
demonstrated compliance with the specific requirements he suggested, he would be
in a position to provide a "plan." At that time, the Board might consider giving
him a six-month probationary license to further demonstrate improvement in his
credit report based on payments made to some of his creditors.
Mr. Joslin admitted the Chairman's suggestions sounded like a good idea but not
enough to justify what the Board was trying to do, i.e., allowing the Applicant to
have a license. He asked what would the Board do at the end of the three month
period if the Applicant returned and nothing had changed and he had no work. It
could happen because "you just don't start a business one day and the next day, you
have work." With a brand-new business, it is difficult to find jobs and start making
money.
Kyle Lantz stated his impression was the Applicant was not going to talk to metal
framers and drywall contractors until he had a license, especially because he had
been cited. He further stated the Applicant was smart enough to realize he did not
want to make the same mistake again. He supported giving the Applicant a short-
term license in order to make contacts in the industry. He stated if the Board
extended its good faith to the Applicant, it would expect in return a well-thought
out, written document from him at the end of that time. He continued that as a
metal-framing, drywall subcontractor, the Applicant could find work as soon as he
had his license. He stated the Applicant should be able to line up some work.
9
May 21,2014
Kyle Lantz concluded that three months should be sufficient for the Applicant to
provide a plan and six months later, he could produce an updated credit report for
the Board to review to provide he was moving forward.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve the application of Luis Escobar for a Drywall
Contractor's license and issue a probationary license with the stipulation that
within three months, he is to provide the Board with a detailed, written plan
concerning how he is going to pay his debts. After an additional six months,
Mr. Escobar is to appear before the Board and provide updated credit reports for
the Board's review.
Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Chairman White suggested amending the motion to include if after the three month
period, the Board determines that the plan is not adequate, the probationary license
could be revoked.
Kyle Lantz agreed to the amendment and accepted the language as stated by the
Chair. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
Terry Jerulle strongly suggested to Luis Escobar that he investigate the "Notice to
Owners."
C. Osvaldo E. Gonzalez Gutierrez—Review of Credit Report
d/b/a "Calimete Premium Quality, Inc."
Chairman White noted Mr. Gonzalez had applied for a Specialty license as a
Cabinet Installation Contractor.
Osvaldo Gonzalez was present and assisted by an interpreter, Geraldo ("Gerry")
Chavez.
Chairman White queried Mr. Chavez who testified that he would accurately
translate questions/comments from the Board to Mr. Gonzalez, and his responses
to the Board.
Chairman White asked the Applicant to explain his credit situation.
A. (Chavez on behalf of Gonzalez)
He said he has some credit problems that he hasn't paid. He is trying to get a
license to pay them.
Chairman White asked the translator if he had been able to explain the previous
case to Mr. Gonzalez as well as the Board's decision, and the response was "Yes."
Mr. Chavez stated that Mr. Gonzalez's debts were not as bad as the previous case
and he would accept the same terms, i.e., three-month probation.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. What is your plan to pay off your some of your debts?
A. If he gets his license then he can start working and pay off the creditors.
Q. Can he be more specific?
A. He is saying he needs the license in order to get more jobs and pay his creditors.
10
May 21, 2014
Q. Is there any order in which he will pay them? Has he contacted any of them?
Does he have a time frame to pay them off?
A. He is stating now—first he needs to get the license ... he doesn't know how
many until he works.
Vice Chairman Lykos questioned the Applicant:
Q. Are you working now?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you work for someone else?
A. For himself He is cleaning houses now.
Q. So you have a job working for somebody else now?
A. He is a handyman.
Richard Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. Does he have a handyman's license?
A. Yes. He has it.
Vice Chairman Lykos questioned the Applicant:
Q. So you are working and you have some income now in your current work?
A. He says a little. He is working for himself as a handyman.
Chairman White noted there were six items listed on the Applicant's credit report
that were problematic; five of the six (when added together) totaled approximately
$4,300. The final item (#6) is for over$16,500. He asked the Applicant to explain
the debt to HSBC.
A. The bank gave him a line of$16,000 for a job and that's when the economy
crashed. He didn't get the jobs. They all walked out on him.
Q. Did he buy the materials?
A. Personal credit line, he says.
Q. Was it a personal credit line that he used for the business?
A. No.
Q. So he used the money from the personal credit line to pay his vendors and
employees, and other creditors?
A. No, to pay his bills.
Q. Personal bills or business bills?
A. Personal bills.
Q. The point to stating there are 5 bills for approximately $4,300 and one that is
for over $16,000 is that he will need a plan to decide which to pay first.
A. The small ones first.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. What is your relationship to Leobardo Gutierrez of"Mudslingers, Inc.?"
A. He used to work for him.
Q. Is "Mudslingers" a drywall and stucco company?
A. They are a remodeling company and they did kitchen cabinets—installing them.
Q. Did the Applicant install cabinets for"Mudslingers?"
A. Yes.
11
May 21,2014
Chairman White requested the County's recommendation.
Michael Ossorio stated:
• The Applicant's business is less than 12 month's old—the Board can only
review his personal credit report;
• Recommendation: To not issue a license and defer the matter for three
months until the Applicant can prepare a plan concerning payment to his
creditors to present to the Board for review.
• When he returns to appear before the Board, he must bring an updated
credit report for review, i.e., have his numbers gone up at all or down.
• He must contact his creditors, especially the bank.
Richard Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. Is there anything available on the credit line that was originally $16,500 or is it
gone?
A. It's gone.
Q. When he obtained the credit line, wasn't there some type of payment plan or
did he borrow the full $16,500 all at once?
A. He said he had planned to pay but he had no work. The economy went bad.
Q. What was used for collateral?
A. He said it was personal.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. Do you have plans to develop a business?
A. Yes,
Q. Can you explain?
A. He said he has talked to a Contractor about finishing cabinets and he needs a
license to do that.
Q. And this will be for one Contractor? It will keep him busy full-time?
A. He thinks so.
Q. How is he going to be paid—by the hour, the day, or by the box?
A. By contract.
Q. So somebody will give him a layout and say give me a price?
A. No. He will measure the kitchen, have them made, and then install them.
Q. He will manufacture and install cabinets?
A. Yes ... No. He is not going to manufacture them—he will have somebody do it
for him. He will do all the measurements and then install the cabinets.
Q. Will he get a deposit upfront to cover the cost of the cabinets or does he have to
float that money?
A. Half.
Q. And that will cover the expense of the cabinets?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is all set? You have already planned this with a Contractor?
A. He can do nothing without a license.
Q. No, I understand. The license is not the "golden ticket"to becoming a rich
Contractor. That reason the Contractor is rich is not because he's lucky or he is
a good test taker—it's because he had a plan to get business. Getting the
license is just one step. Nobody got rich by just getting a license. It's not that
12
May 21,2014
hard to pass the test and have good credit. That's the easy part. The hard part
is developing a business and having a plan to get there.
A. He drives an old car ... an old van.
Q. You're here because your credit is not great—that's the reason.
A. Yes.
Q. The credit is not great—not by accident—it's not great because there was no
plan to do it. He said he got a loan and planned to make payments but the
economy tanked—he didn't get work and he didn't make payments. Now he's
saying, `I plan on getting work from a General Contractor.' Is that the plan?
That's where our issue is. A plan in his head and a real plan are two different
things. It's kind of the same thing with the license. He has the option to take
deposits from other Contractors or homeowners ... he "plans" on paying ...
planning on and knowing exactly how are two different things. That's where
we are stuck. At least, I am.
Richard Joslin asked how the Applicant was making a living—cleaning houses
and handyman work did not bring in very much.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked if the Applicant understood the County's
recommendation to deny the license application; he could return in three months
with a written plan to pay his debt and run his business.
A. He needs the license to earn more—to pay
Kyle Lantz:
Q. We're not saying we want him to come back in three months with all of his
bills paid. We want him to come back in three months—or whenever—with a
plan of how he is going to pay his bills.
A. How I pay my bills—if no jobs. If you say, no license—I can't work for
making more money.
Chairman White:
Q. Have you called Verizon Wireless about paying back the $141.00?
A. Yes.
Q. What did they say?
A. I don't have too much money ... Metro PCS is not cheap—I can't ...no.
(Translator) He will pay Verizon when he has money.
Q. There are two others: HSBC - one is for$716 and the other is for$920. Has he
contacted either of those creditors? What is he going to do about that?
A. No.
Q. He's not talked to them.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. What we would like to see is not that you paid the $700 bill, but that you called
the company to tell them that you want to set up a plan to pay them ... $100 a
month or $50 a month ... whatever that is. We want you to take control. Call
those people—it might not start tomorrow ... it might not start on June 1st
but you want to make a plan ... then come back to say `I have six bills to pay, I
13
May 21,2014
talked to the six people and my plan to pay is $10 a week/$10 a month ... so
now when I get a license, I will have the money to pay this agreement.'
Do you have tools to install the cabinets? You have all the tools?
A. Yes.
The Applicant again indicated without the license, he could not work.
Vice Chairman Lykos again explained the point was not to have the bills paid but
to create a plan for payment with each of his creditors.
A. I know, I know. I can contact ... for the company ... I say I want pay ... I talk
to now ... maybe no understand ... for the translate ... this is my plan. I want
pay ... I need the credit ... I have a daughter to go to the university ... I need
the credit good, you know. I need work. I need work. I need work for pay.
You say the license ... not yet ... wait for three months more ... how? For
what? Talking for the company? I had my plan ... but I stopped because I
cannot work.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. One of the issues that I have is: If you're going to do a cabinet job and you're
going to get a contract for half down, you have to supply the materials and
you're not going to get paid until the job is done. What happens if you get a job
for $20,000 but the materials cost $11,000—there is $1,000 that has to be paid
out of your pocket ... if you can't pay the $700 Verizon bill ... how can you
pay the extra$1,000 for the materials and then you still have the work to
complete. We want to make sure you're not going to take someone's deposit
and pay off your Verizon bill or car loan or whatever. We want to make sure
you are financially responsible. I have a hard time granting someone a license
when they are going to take a deposit—I don't want the consumer or another
Contractor to give a deposit and not get a completed product. We want to know
that you are financially responsible enough to be able to do that. There are a lot
of cabinet companies out there who could hire you—you may not make quite as
much money—it's not that you can't work—plenty of companies are hiring.
You have to plan to get the license and show that you are responsible and have
a history of paying bills before you can start taking big deposits.
A. You can't see the plan—I show the plan ... but I no understand. It's my
opinion. Too much plan ... to much plan ... but no job. It's the license.
Chairman White stated he understood the Applicant's perspective. He stated he
had a problem understanding the difference between the present case and the one
immediately before it.
Richard Joslin agreed.
A. I need work.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. It would be very easy for us to say, `no—we're not going to give you a license'
and move on. We have been debating back and forth and asking you questions
to try to figure out a way to give you a license. I hope you understand that. If
14
May 21,2014
you can explain that to him—we are here trying to help him to become a
businessman. Part of being a businessman is coming up with a business plan.
That's what we asked the previous Applicant and that's what we're asking him.
If you can convince us you can do it in two months, instead of three months,
but you still need to have a business plan to move forward or you will be in the
same position next year that you are now—if not worse with more debt.
Kyle Lantz stated he saw a huge difference between the current case and the
previous case. Neither had a "big"plan but the previous Applicant wanted to do
only labor and not take deposits for materials. He hires a guy for a week and at the
end of the week, he pays the guy. That's a big difference between taking a $10,000
deposit check for cabinets that are not going to be in for four or five weeks before
they can be installed.
Chairman White: "The risk is higher."
Kyle Lantz: "Yes. We are nowhere near an `apples to apples' comparison. The
risk is to the consumer when someone who doesn't have an established history of
paying bills on time suddenly gets a big, fat check."
Chairman White stated the Applicant can come back in 30 or 90 days with a plan.
He asked Mr. Lantz what can be done to address his concerns which were derived
more from the method of operation of the Applicant's business than his lack of a
plan to pay his creditors.
Richard Joslin stated the Applicant would be better off by having his customers
pick out and buy their own cabinets which he could then install,
A. My plan about the cabinets ...I make the 50 percent ...
(Translator) The fifty percent down allows him to pay the Contractor to make
the cabinets. Then he can install them and get paid the other 50%. Everything
is already in the works.
There was further discussion.
The Applicant indicated that he would make sure that the 10% deposit would cover
the cost of purchasing the cabinets. That was his plan.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve denying the application of Osvaldo E. Gonzalez for
a Cabinet Installation License. Ronald Donino offered a Second in support of
the motion.
Discussion:
Chairman White stated he would not support the motion. He stated if the Board
set the same standard as in the prior case, the Applicant would return in 3 months
with a written plan.
Richard Joslin agreed with the Chairman stating, he did not see a distinction
between the two cases.
Gary McNally stated he agreed with the Chairman but stated he would require the
Applicant to return in 30 days with a written plan. If the Board approved, the
Applicant could be granted a 90-day license. The Applicant would appear before
15
May 21,2014
the Board at the end of the 90-day period and provide an updated credit report. At
that point, the Board would have a clear picture of the Applicant's ability to pay his
bills and manage his business.
Kyle Lantz reiterated his position: The Applicant may come back before the
Board whenever he is ready—but he should not be granted a License until he can
prove that he has a plan.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated if the motion passes and the license is denied, the
Applicant could return before the Board at its next meeting. He asked if the motion
does not pass, is the Board approving the application for a license by default.
Chairman White: "No."
Motion failed due to lack of support. Six members were opposed.
Richard Joslin moved to approve the application of Osvaldo E. Gonzalez for a
Cabinet Installation License by granting a 3-month probationary license. At the
end of the probationary period, Mr. Gonzalez must appear before the Board and
present his business plan containing a list of the Contractors with whom he is
working, a plan detailing how he will pay his creditors, and an updated personal
credit report. Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "No." Lyle Lantz and Terry Jerulle were opposed.
Michael Ossorio announced:
• Under"New Business," the County had withdrawn Item 1), Cheryl
Haskins—Contesting Citation (#08694)
BREAK: 10:33 AM
RECONVENED: 10:45 AM
VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
D. (Withdrawn by the County)
E. Bradley Garrod—Reinstatement of Waiver of Examination(s)
d/b/a "Garrod Painting, Inc."
Bradley John Garrod, Jr., stated he was requesting reinstatement of his Collier
County license as a Painting Contractor as well as a waiver of the testing
requirement.
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• Mr. Garrod's license had lapsed after three years.
• The Ordinance requires that he submit a complete application and complete
testing unless the testing is superfluous and he has other licenses in other
jurisdictions.
Bradley Garrod confirmed that he is licensed as a Painting Contractor in Lee
16
May 21,2014
County, Charlotte County, Hillsborough County, the City of Punta Gorda.
Vice Chairman Lykos requested verification from the Applicant that he remained
active in his trade during the time his license had lapsed in Collier County.
Mr. Garrod replied:
• Shortly after obtaining his license in Collier County in 2003, he moved to
Charlotte County.
• Within 2 to 3 years, his company grew and has had sales of$1.5 to $2M on
a yearly basis.
• His company is currently the largest painting company in Charlotte County
by volume.
• There were several reasons why he allowed the license to lapse: his father
passed away in 2003; his uncle owns a successful drywall company in
Charlotte County; there were more opportunities to grow his business in
Charlotte County.
• He has upcoming projects in Palm Beach County and the potential for
additional business in Collier County.
• He stated there is no continuing education requirement for painters.
• He confirmed he has been actively operating his painting company for the
past three years as the sole owner.
Michael Ossorio stated the County recommended approval of the application.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve Bradley Garrod's application for reinstatement
as a Painting Contractor license and to waive the testing requirement. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
F. (Withdrawn —per amended Agenda)
G. Henry Sorensen, Ph.D. —Examination Services by "Prof,Inc."
Michael Ossorio stated:
• Prov, Inc. has been in business for several years.
• He has been in contact with the company regarding their providing testing
services in Collier County.
• Since Collier reciprocates with Lee County, he verified that the test has
been accepted in Lee County as well as in other jurisdictions.
• He referenced Section 22-185 of the Municipal Code entitled "Approved
Examiners" as follows:
The approved examiners for the purpose of administering
proctored exams as required by this Ordinance are any
testing agency with testing standards recognized and approved
throughout the State of Florida and also approved by the Collier
County Contractors'Licensing Board.
• There has not been a local testing facility in several years.
• There are two testing companies in the State: Prometric and Gainesville
Independent.
17
May 21,2014
Mr. Ossorio concluded by stating if the Board was so inclined, after the
presentation, it could approve Prov, Inc. for testing.
Attorney James Morey, Counsel to the Board, confirmed as long as the company
has been approved by the State, the Board may consider approving it for local
testing of applicants.
Henry Sorenson, President of Prov, Inc., gave a Powerpoint presentation.
• Was organized ten years ago;
• Service: provides Construction Industry testing;
• Test developers: former Building, Mechanical, and Plumbing Inspectors;
and Contractors—General, Residential, Electrical;
• Provides examination services for the following Florida Counties: Orange,
Osceola, Duval, Lee, Pinellas, St. John, and Hillsboroughl
• Testing of Contractors (all trades) for Miami-Dade County for the past year;
• Provides approximately 60,000 exams per year;
• Proposal: Seeking to be approved as a Testing Vendor for Collier County
o Full service testing program
o Paperless eligibility system
• Candidates qualified to sit for the exam have been designated
by each County
• Faster process
o Computer delivery of examinations
• Test sites: Edison State College campus (14 throughout the
State)
• Available: 5 days per week
o "Real Time" scoring
o Online reporting of results for Board Staff(local County)
• Test Fees: $80 (all inclusive);
• Reference Books: targeted compilations—reduced costs;
• Candidates are provided with a testing package;
• Score results can be released (per Board's direction), i.e., to State;
• Tests are developed for each trade; questions are based on Florida Code
and general knowledge information (from textbooks; vendor publications);
• Tests can be customized to relate to each County's Ordinances;
• Exam questions are updated to conform with Code revisions/updates;
• Tests are "open book"
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve Prov,Inc. as a testing facility for Collier
County pursuant to the Ordinance.
Chairman White offered a Second in support with the following amendment:
that approval is subject to the Contractors'Licensing Office reviewing and
approving the specific tests for Specialty Contractors.
Vice Chairman Lykos accepted the amendment to his motion.
Carried unanimously, 9—0.
18
May 21,2014
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Seth Hollender—Violation of Board's Order
Michael Ossorio:
• April 23, 2014—Letter to Mr. Hollender from Licensing Operations
• Board's Order dated March 19, 2014 denying the Respondent's Motion for
a Rehearing
• Reference was made to Page 36 of the January 15, 2014 Minutes of the
Board's meeting, specifically the restatement of the motion by Chairman
White, i.e., "If reimbursement to the County is not made within the 90-day
period, the Respondent must appear before the Board at a Hearing."
• Mr. Hollender was late making the payment to reimburse the County for
administrative costs incurred by the County in the amount of$525.00.
Seth Hollender was present and was represented by his Attorney, Jeffrey Sam, of
Henry Johnson & Associates.
Attorney Sam stated:
• Payment in full was made on May 7, 2014.
• Re: October, 2013 Order—Mr. Hollender has paid the full amount of the
$2,500 fine.
• He is still subject to the remainder of the 21-month suspension and the
$5,000 fine imposed under the January order which is not due until the end
of 2014.
Attorney Sam requested that, since the full payment was made, that the Board not
impose further sanctions.
Chairman White asked when the payment was due.
Attorney Sam: "The Final Order was signed on January 31, 2014 -- 90-days
would be approximately April 31St. And the payment was made on May 7th
approximately a week late."
Chairman White asked if the Respondent had received any past-due notice from
the County.
Attorney Sam: "The only notice he received was letter dated April 23rd to appear
at a Hearing as a consequence of not paying the administrative costs within the 90-
day period."
Michael Ossorio stated he called the Respondent two days prior to the deadline to
remind him to pay the costs.
Chairman White asked if January 31St was the date the 90-day period began to
run.
Michael Ossorio stated the Hearing was held on January 15th and the Board ordered
payment during the Hearing.
Attorney Sam stated his calculations were based on the Certificate of Service of the
Board's signed Order which was January 31, 2014. He agreed if the time began to
run as of the Hearing date of January 15th, the payment would have been made on
April 15th
19
May 21,2014
Chairman White stated notice was given by Mr. Ossorio via a telephone call to the
Respondent on April 11th and the letter issued on April 23`d was timely.
Michael Ossorio stated he sent an email to the office of Henry Johnson and
Associates on April 23rd attaching a copy of the correspondence which notified the
Respondent of the Hearing. He also sent a letter to the Respondent, via certified
mail, which was signed for on April 30th
Attorney Sam stated his client was not disputing that the payment was late. He
was asking the Board to not impose further sanctions since the amount had been
paid in full as well as paying the prior fine of$2,500.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated he was trying to determine exactly how late the
payment was—7 days or three weeks' late.
Chairman White reiterated the County was using January 15th, the Hearing date,
as the date the deadline began to run.
Attorney Sam summarized:
• Under the January 15th Order, there is the balance of the suspension still in
effect
• The Respondent is to pay a fine of$5,000 on or before December 31, 2014.
• The Respondent is requesting that the Board not impose additional sanctions
due to the late payment because, even though it was late, the amount was paid
in full.
Chairman White stated the Respondent is requesting, in effect, that the Board not
revoke his license.
He asked the Respondent if the delay in making payment was due to personal financial
challenges and the response was, "That's correct."
Seth Hollender: "I was not timely in my payment of the Board's original January 15th
Order because of finances ... money is an issue at the moment."
Vice Chairman Lykos asked when the suspension ends in October, 2015, will the
Board have the opportunity to reinstate the license, extend the suspension, or invoke
a revocation—it is automatic or is the Respondent required to appear before the
Board?
Attorney Morey stated the Respondent's license has been suspended and the
suspension is running concurrent with the probationary period. The Respondent
would be required to come before the Board to be removed from probation after the
period ended.
Richard Joslin moved to approve that the Board take no further action
regarding the Respondent, Seth Hollender. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in
support of the motion.
20
May 21,2014
Discussion:
Board members expressed their disappointment that Mr. Hollender, in his 4th
appearance before the Board, had not expressed any remorse for his lateness,
or shown that he had accepted responsibility for his actions or had learned
anything concerning the expectations of the Board. The experience has been
painful for the Board since Mr. Hollender's pattern of behavior had not changed.
Chairman White called for a vote. Motion carried, 8- "Yes"/1 - "No."
Chairman White was opposed.
Vice Chairman Lykos cautioned the Respondent noting there were two
previous cases where the Applicants were, in effect, begging for licenses and
the ability to provide for their families and their futures. The Respondent had
a license. Even after he made mistakes, the Board gave him a chance to keep
his license. But he "screwed up"while on probation.
Richard Joslin advised the Respondent to proceed cautiously.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
B. Case 2014-08: Board of County Commissioners,vs. Samuelito Greenwood,
d/b/a "Greenwood, Inc."
Samuel Greenwood was present and was not represented by Counsel.
Chairman White briefly outlined the order of the proceedings to be followed:
• Open the Public Hearing, swear in witnesses and accept any evidence from
the parties.
• The County will present its Opening Statement.
• The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement.
• The County will present its "Case in Chief" followed by the Respondent's
defense.
• The County may offer any "Rebuttal. "
• Each party is permitted to present a "Closing Statement."
• That will conclude the Public Hearing.
• The Board will close the Public Hearing and receive instructions from the
Board's Attorney which is similar to the Charge given to a Jury, setting out
the parameters on which the decision will be based.
• During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and
clarification from the parties.
• The Board will decide two different issues:
o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the
Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter.
o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the Sanctions
to be imposed.
• The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the Sanctions that
may be imposed and the factors to be considered.
21
May 21,2014
• The Board will discuss the Sanctions and vote.
• The Chair will orally report the decision of the Board.
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos moved to open the Public Hearing. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Richard Joslin moved to approve admitting the information packet in Case
#2014-08, Samuelito Greenwood, License Number 27223, d/b/a "Greenwood,Inc."
into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Gary McNally offered a Second in support
of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Reggie Smith, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's "Opening
Statement:"
• On April 24, 2014, he responded to a complaint at 351 Gumbo Limo Lane
on Marco Island, Florida, concerning a Workers' Compensation violation
by Samuelito Greenwood, owner and Qualifier of Greenwood, Inc.,
License #27223.
• A site inspection was conducted at the jobsite with Workers' Compensation
Investigator Aysia Snodgrass.
• At the site, employees for Mr. Greenwood were witnessed working. The
company had been hired as a painting contractor for homebuilder Ross
Tackett of Ross Tackett Custom Homes, Inc.
• Mr. Tackett advised he currently had a contract with Mr. Greenwood to
paint the interior and exterior of the home.
• At the time of the investigation, Mr. Greenwood was under an active,
previously issued "Stop Work" Order (#07-132-D7).
• Investigator Snodgrass interviewed the homebuilder and Mr. Greenwood's
two employees to confirm the contract and the violation.
• Mr. Greenwood was not present at the jobsite. He met Investigator
Snodgrass at the jobsite later that day. She delivered an updated version of
"Stop Work" Order#07-132-D7 to Mr. Greenwood.
Chairman White instructed the Investigator that an"Opening Statement" consists
of the charge and brief description of what the evidence will show.
• On April 25, 2014, Mr. Smith met with Mr. Greenwood and served him the
Notice of Hearing for the May 21st Contractors' Licensing Board meeting.
• Violation: Section 22.201(6) of Ordinance #90-105, as amended:
o "Disregards or violated, in the performance of his contracting
business in the County, any of the building, safety health, insurance
or Workers' Compensation laws of the State or Ordinances of this
County."
Chairman White explained the County's position is that by violating the State
law, there was a violation of the County's Code which is the nature of the
Complaint.
22
May 21,2014
Samuel Greenwood:
• Two or three years ago, he had received a "Stop Work" Order from
Workers' Compensation. He described the process of obtaining coverage
from a new company because his previous payroll had been cancelled, as
well as a litany of personal problems, i.e., death in his family, divorce,
bankruptcy, caring for his children.
• After some financial setbacks, he was able to renew his licenses and pay his
taxes and his insurance was current because he began working.
• He stated he was not aware that there was a State's "Stop Work" Order in
effect. He claimed he had not received any notification from the State.
• He attempted to make payments to Workers' Compensation but his account
was sent to collection because he was unable to pay the $25,000 fine in full.
• He admitted there had been a short lapse in coverage from the time he was
notified his insurance had been cancelled to the time he obtained coverage
through a new leasing company.
Mr. Greenwood stated he did not receive any information from the State. He said
he was not aware of the anything until the County informed him of the previous
"Stop Work" Order. He stated he hoped the Board would give him an opportunity
to do the right thing.
Chairman White summarized because Mr. Greenwood violated the Workers'
Comp "Stop Work" Order, he disregarded the County's rule that states he must
comply with the law.
Richard Joslin asked the Respondent if he was challenging the violation or if he
was admitting his guilt.
Mr. Greenwood responded he did not know about the "Stop Work" Order which is
why he continued working. He stated the job with Mr. Tackett was the first new
construction work he had done in years.
Reggie Smith presented the County's "Case in Chief."
• History of prior violation:
o April 7, 2014: Compliance Officer Smith investigated a complaint
at 164 Balfour Drive on Marco Island concerning the hiring of
Greenwood, Inc. to paint the exterior of the home.
o A site inspection was conducted; while no work was being
performed, he did speak to the homeowners who confirmed that Mr.
Greenwood's company had been hired.
o He asked Workers' Comp Investigator Jack Gumpf to research any
findings concerning Greenwood, Inc. Mr. Gumpf notified Mr.
Smith about the active "Stop Work" which had been issued on May
3, 2007. He referenced County's Exhibit E-18 which is a copy of
the "Order Assessing Penalty for Working in Violation of a
Reinstated Stop-Work Order." Mr. Greenwood received a copy of
the document on April 24, 2014 via hand-delivery.
• Initial "Stop Work" Order was issued on May 3, 2007;
23
May 21,2014
• A Payment Agreement was entered into on October 9, 2007
by the State and Mr. Greenwood for periodic payments to be
made;
• Mr. Greenwood was unable to adhere to the terms and
conditions of the Agreement and payments ceased.
o On April 27, 2011, the "Stop Work" Order was reinstated due to non-
payment of the Payment Agreement Schedule by Mr. Greenwood.
o On April 7, 2014, Mr. Smith met Mr. Greenwood at the jobsite and a
Citation was issued. The accompanying fine was for $1,000.
• During the meeting, Mr. Greenwood was advised to pay the fine
and to contact the State's Workers' Compensation Office directly
to settle the issue of the "Stop Work" Order.
o On April 24, 2014, the Division observed Mr. Greenwood conducting
business operations on 361 Gumbo Limbo Lane in Florida in violation
of Section 440.107(7)(c), Florida Statutes. An additional $1,000 in
penalty was issued by the State.
Vice Chairman Lykos reviewed the chronology of the violations.
• In May, 2007, there was a Workers' Comp violation and the State issued a
"Stop Work" Order along with penalties and fines.
• In October, 2007, the "Stop Work" Order was released because the State
and Mr. Greenwood entered into a payment agreement.
• In April, 2011, the "Stop Work" Order was reinstated due to non-payment
of the Agreement and it remains in effect.
• There have been a total of three Workers' Comp violations: one from the
State and two from Collier County.
Kyle Lantz asked if the Respondent had obtained Workers' Comp coverage for his
employees at the Gumbo Limbo jobsite and the response was, "Yes."
It was noted the investigation did not determine whether or not Mr. Greenwood's
employees at the Balfour Drive jobsite were covered by Workers' Comp insurance.
Workers' Compensation Investigator Aysia Snodgrass was called as a witness
for the County and sworn in.
Testimony of Investigator Aysia Snodgrass:
Q. Ms. Snodgrass, Please advise the Board of your title or position with the State
of Florida.
A. I am a Compliance Investigator with the State of Florida, Bureau of
Compliance for the Division of Workers' Compensation.
Q. How long have you held this position?
A. One year.
Q. Did you personally issue the updated "Stop Work" Order#07-132-D7 to
Samuelito Greenwood?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at that time, did you explain the violation to Mr. Greenwood?
24
May 21,2014
A. Yes, I did. I explained that he was found working in violation of a reinstated
"Stop Work" Order that was issued in 2007 and reinstated in 2011.
Chairman White: "What was the date that this took place?"
A. April 24, 2014.
Q. Explain your knowledge concerning the contact made between Mr. Greenwood
and the State of Florida, Division of Workers' Compensation, on April 7, 2014.
A. On April 7, 2014, an entry was made into the case file for Greenwood, Inc.
regarding "Stop Work" Order#07-132-D7. Mr. Greenwood had called
Tallahassee and spoke to someone in the office regarding payment of his
penalty and what he would need to do to be released from the "Stop Work"
Order to return to work. Mr. Greenwood was referred to a Collections
Department on behalf of the State of Florida to satisfy the penalty requirement.
Chairman White: "On April 7th, the State's records indicate that a phone call was
made on that date?"
A. Correct.
Q. Do you know what the anticipated or pending fines and penalties may be for the
most recent violation of the continuing "Stop Work" Order from the State's
perspective?
A. When an employer is found working in violation of a"Stop Work" Order, it is
an additional $1,000 [fine] per occurrence. We were only able to penalize for
the date of the site visit when the employer was found working.
Richard Joslin requested an explanation of the original "Stop Work" Order.
A. From my research of the original case, when the penalty was initially assessed
against the employer, the employer then entered into a Penalty Agreement with
the State of Florida and was issued a Conditional Order of Release from his
"Stop Work" Order, allowing him to return to work on the basis that he would
make his payments every month and keep his insurance up-to-date if he were to
have any employees.
Chairman White: "Do you know what the amount of the penalty was; how much
he paid; and how much is still owed?"
A. Unfortunately, I don't have that information but the information is available if
the County would like to do a Public Records request. I believe all of that
would be included.
Chairman White: "Did the County make the request?"
Reggie White: "No, sir."
Terry Jerulle: "Have you checked to see if he has any Workers' Compensation
coverage currently for any employees?"
A. Yes. On April 24, 2014, I did a compliance check at the jobsite and it was
verified that Greenwood, Inc. at that time did have coverage in place for
Workers' Compensation. In the event of an injury, that coverage would have
covered an injury. However, because the "Stop Work" Order had been
reinstated, that's where my violation occurred.
25
May 21,2014
Chairman White asked the Respondent if he had any questions for either
Investigator and the response was, "No."
The County concluded the presentation of its "Case in Chief"
Chairman White asked the Respondent to present his "Case in Chief. "
Samuel Greenwood stated:
• I have been struggling and I'm trying to do the best here.
• I thought I had everything in order.
• The only thing that I do not have steady right now is the payment which is
around $22 —23,000 to pay off the State of Florida.
• I am willing to pay it off but I can't just pay $23,000 like that. I tried to go
back to see if I could go back on payments like they had me before, but they
said, `no.' It was in Collections and there was nothing they could do until I
pay it off
• I don't know—I don't have another option how to do it and I'm not really
generating a lot of work at this time to come up with $23,000.
• I can say in my defense, I hope to find between a couple of friends who
could lend me a couple of thousand dollars here or there, and during the
time I am working ... it's hard to save $2,000 in order to pay Workers'
Comp.
• But I can't come up with $22,000 if I'm just sitting at home and can't work.
Basically, that's what it comes down to. I know some people offered ...
who can lend me $3,000 each but it's still not enough.
• I called the office and was told, `even if you pay $10,000, we are not going
to release you.'
• I have a lot of bills to pay and I just can't give them $10,000 and I don't
know when I would give them the other$12,000 ... I am not trying to
justify myself here or blame anyone ... it's basically my fault. I'm
responsible for everything that happened. But I'm just trying to do my best.
Chairman White: "How much was the original penalty and did you pay anything
on it?
A. Yes. It was around $47,000.
Q. $47,000?
A. Yes.
Q. So you paid approximately $24,000?
A. Right.
Q. You're half-way through?
A. Right. I stopped paying because, like I stated before, because of going through
the divorce and everything.
Q. And business issues ... understood.
A. I did have Workers' Comp insurance when the "Stop Work" Order was issued.
But they didn't inform me because I didn't run payroll for two weeks, it was
cancelled. So the week I did run payroll, I got a letter and I went to another
26
May 21,2014
leasing company and I had to wait for seven days. So eventually I got stopped
working on Thursday and by Monday, it was reinstated again.
Chairman White: "The point is that he made the effort to obtain the coverage but
the problem was that he didn't stop working."
Investigator Aysia Snodgrass was recalled to the witness stand.
Richard Joslin: "Is this something that is written in stone ... that this gentleman
has to pay the rest of this amount off and cannot now set up another payment plan
so he can still pay the State back and go to work?"
A. That is correct. Once an employer has been sent to the Collection Agency on
behalf of the State, at that point, it is up to the Collection Agency to enter him
into any kind of a payment plan to collect the money. But, unfortunately, until
the fine has been paid in full, the "Stop Work" Order remains in effect because
he had already defaulted.
Q. You don't get a second chance?
A. Not that I am aware of... no.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
• It isn't as if Mr. Greenwood doesn't have options. He could partner with
someone who has an active painting license. He could make some money
to pay his bills. Then he can go back to operating his own business.
• It isn't as if the man is not capable of working at all.
• The Board's "job" is not to find solutions for this gentleman. We don't
know how big his company was at the time this started or how many
employees he had.
He continued if Mr. Greenwood was a"victim of circumstances," it was because
he put himself in that position.
Chairman White asked the County if there was any rebuttal to Mr. Greenwood's
testimony and the response was, "no."
Richard Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Gary McNally
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—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.
• 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.
27
May 21,2014
• 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
is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise.
• The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the
Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State's Construction
Industry Licensing Board ("CILB"), 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 i the Complaint.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve fin Respondent,Samuelito Greenwood,
License Number 27223, d/b/a " reenwood,Inc.,"guilty as to Count I of the
County's Administrative Complaint of violating Collier County Ordinance #90-
105, as amended, Section 22-201(6). Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9- 0.
Attorney Morey noted the Respondent is the holder of a Collier County Certificate
of Competency. 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,
28
May 21,2014
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;
3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s);
4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and
5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to
the Sanction which is appropriate for the case, given the nature of the
violation(s) or the violator.
Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio for the total costs incurred by the County
in the investigation of this case and his response was, "$620."
Terry Jerulle stated the Respondent owes the State approximately $24,000 plus
the additional fines, plus the investigative costs.
Samuel Greenwood stated he had been working as a subcontractor hut could not
keep the job because he had to drop his daughter at school (arrive late at work) and
leave early to pick her up from school due to lack of school bus service. He needs
a job that allows him some flexibility to care for his children. He further stated he
has been trying to borrow money to pay off the State.
Chairman White outlined the elements of a motion as suggested by the Board
members:
• Suspension of the license until the "Stop Work" Order is released by the
State; and
• Administrative costs of$620.
He asked Michael Ossorio for the County's recommendation.
Mr. Ossorio stated Mr. Greenwood had been told on April 7th to not work. He was
found to be working on April 24th which was deemed an intentional violation of the
Ordinance. His license should be suspended indefinitely and he should be fined a
penalty of$3,000 in addition to the $620 reimbursement to the County for costs.
The fines are to be paid within 90 days or the Respondent's license will be revoked.
29
May 21,2014
Richard Joslin moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions upon
Respondent Samuelito Greenwood, License Number 27223:
• Penalty of$3,000 to be paid within 90 days;
• Administrative costs of$620 to be paid within 90 days;
• Suspension of his Painting Contractor's license until such time as the
State of Florida releases the "Stop Work"Order.
• Upon satisfaction of the Sanctions, the Respondent may submit a full
application to the Board to reinstate his license.
• If the penalty and the costs are not paid by the deadline, the Respondent's
suspended license will be automatically revoked.
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Kyle Lantz did not support assessing an additional fine of$3,000 and will
vote against the motion.
• Terry Jerulle stated he agreed with Mr. Lantz. The Respondent did have
Worker's Comp insurance for his employees.
• Chairman White also agreed with Mr. Lantz and Mr. Jerulle.
Richard Joslin withdrew his motion.
Michael Boyd agreed with the reimbursement to the County of Administrative
Costs in the amount of$620 and the timeline (90 days) but suggested allowing the
Respondent more time to pay the $3,000 penalty.
Chairman White suggested reducing the penalty to $1,000 and extending the
deadline to be concurrent with the payment made to the State to release the "Stop
Work" Order.
Chairman White moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions upon
Respondent Samuelito Greenwood, License Number 27223:
• Suspension of his Painting Contractor's license until such time as the
State of Florida releases the "Stop Work"Order.
• Penalty of$1,000 to be paid no later than the date he is released from the
"Stop Work"Order;
• Administrative costs of$620 to be paid within 90 days;
• Upon satisfaction of the Sanctions, the Respondent may submit a full
application to the Board to reinstate his license.
• If the penalty and the costs are not paid by their respective deadlines, the
Respondent's suspended license will be automatically revoked.
The motion did not receive a second in support and, therefore,failed.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions upon
Respondent Samuelito Greenwood, License Number 27223:
• Suspension of his Painting Contractor's license until such time as the
State of Florida releases the "Stop Work"Order.
30
May 21,2014
• Payment of administrative costs of$620 within 90 days or his license is
revoked;
• Payment of a penalty of$1,000 within 90 days or his license is revoked;
• Upon satisfaction of the Sanctions, the Respondent may submit a full
application to the Board to reinstate his license.
Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion and called for a vote.
Motion carried, 8— "Yes"/1 — "No." Kyle Lantz was opposed.
Chairman White outlined the Board's Order:
• This Cause came on for Public Hearing before the Contractors' Licensing
Board on May 21, 2014 for consideration of the Administrative
Complaint in Case#2014-08 filed against Samuelito Greenwood, d/b/a
"Greenwood, Inc.,"the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of
Competency Number 27223.
• Mr. Greenwood is the Respondent in this case.
• Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County's
Code.
• The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received
evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, orally
issued the Decision, its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as
follows.
Findings of Fact:
• Respondent Samuelito Greenwood, d/b/a/ Greenwood, Inc., is the holder
of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 27223
(Painting Contractor).
• The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors'
Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter.
• The Contractors' Licensing Board has jurisdiction of the person of the
Respondent.
• Respondent Samuelito Greenwood was present at the Public Hearing held
on May 21, 2014 and was not represented by Counsel at said Hearing.
• All notices required by Collier County Code had been properly issued and
Respondent acknowledged receipt of same.
• 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 set forth in Administrative Complaint were 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,
to wit: The Respondent violated Section 22.201(6) as follows:
31
May 21,2014
Disregards or violated, in the performance of his contracting business
in the County, any of the building, safety health, insurance or Workers'
Compensation laws of the State or Ordinances of this County."
as set forth 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 the
Collier County code, by a vote of nine (9) in favor and none (0) in
opposition, a unanimous 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 one (1) in
opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following
disciplinary Sanctions are hereby imposed upon Samuelito Greenwood, the
holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #27223 (Painting
Contractor), to wit:
• Suspension of his license until such time as the "Stop Work" Order of
the State of Florida is released;
• Payment of a fine of$1,000 and administrative costs of$620 within
90 days or his license will be revoked.
Chairman White asked the Respondent if he understood the Board's Order.
Samuel Greenwood asked if he were able to gather the money needed, if he could
make an appointment to appear before the Board to reinstate his license.
Chairman White replied the State must be paid in full to release the "Stop Work"
Order.
IX. REPORTS:
(None)
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2014
BCC Chambers, 3` 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 1:30 PM.
32
May 21,2014
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
10), 0`4
c-114
PATRICK 'HITE, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/ ommittee Chair on ,.. 16 , 2014,
"as submitted" 1 OR "as amended" I'
33