Loading...
CLB Minutes 08/20/2014 CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes August 20 , 2014 August 20,2014 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING August 20, 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 Ian Jackson— Licensing Compliance Officer Rob Ganguli — Licensing Compliance Officer 1 August 20,2014 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: Chairman Patrick White called the meeting to order at 9:01 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: (None) III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Changes: A. Under Item VIII, "Public Hearings," • Case #2014 -09: BCC vs. John Andrew Hill, d/b/d "JAH Construction Management Corp." will be heard following Item V, "Discussion." Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JULY 16, 2014: Richard Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the July 16, 2014 meeting as submitted. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0. V. DISCUSSION: (None) 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.) A. Case #2014 -09: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. John Andrew Hill, d/b/d "JAH Construction Management Corp." Robert Meister excused himself from participating in the proceedings stating he has been acquainted with the Respondent for several years. Chairman White clarified: Mr. Meister wished to avoid the appearance of a Conflict of Interest based upon his personal relationship with the Respondent. Attorney Robert Morey, Attorney for the Board, explained Mr. Meister is required to complete and submit Form 8-B ("Conflict of Interest") which will be read into the minutes of the September 2014 meeting. 2 August 20,2014 Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos also recused himself from participating due to his previous interaction with the Respondent in a similar case, approximately four years earlier. It could be inferred that he may have a bias against the Respondent. Chairman White stated while it was unlikely that Mr. Lykos could profit or be harmed in any way from any business dealings based on his current relationship with the Respondent, it was the appearance of a Conflict of Interest(including bias or prejudice) that was to be avoided. It was noted Mr. Lykos will also complete and submit Form 8-B which will be read into the minutes of the September 2014 meeting. 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. • The Board will discuss the Sanctions and vote. • The Chair will orally report the decision of the Board. Gary McNally moved to open the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the County's case packet into evidence. Chairman White, noting there were no objections from the Board, approved entering the case packet in Case #2014-09: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. John Andrew Hill, d/b/d "JAH Construction Management Corp." into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." 3 August 20,2014 Ian Jackson presented the County's "Opening Statement:" • The County was prepared to show through documented facts and sworn testimony that by beginning construction of the project at 1041 Oriole Circle prior to making application to the Collier County Building Official to obtain the required permit and continuing construction through a Collier County "Stop Work" Order, the Respondent violated Collier County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, Section 4.2.2, i.e., "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes of laws of the State, city, or Collier County." Mr. Jackson stated the Respondent and his representative were not contesting the charge contained in the Administrative Complaint. Chairman White requested verification of the Section number for the Code of Laws. A. Section 22-201.1. Chairman White noted the section of the 2010 Florida Building Code that had been violated was Section 105.1, i.e., working without a permit. The Respondent was represented by his attorney, Alex Fugueras. Attorney Fugeras stated the Respondent would not challenge the allegations and asked the record to reflect that the entire situation was due to a misunderstanding and was not "willful." Chairman White inquired if there had been a discussion concerning the possible Sanctions to be imposed. A. There have been discussions with the County's Attorney and Mr. Ossorio. We agreed that they are in light of the circumstances. Chairman White stated it effectively appeared there was an admission of guilt by the Respondent. Kevin Noell, Assistant County Attorney, stated since the Respondent had essentially admitted the Violation, the County was prepared to present its recommendations to the Board after the Public Hearing was closed. He noted the Board received the packet that was admitted into evidence and it was not contested by the Respondent. The Respondent's attorney stated they had nothing further to present to the Board. Chairman White called for a motion for a Finding of Violation based upon the Respondent's admission of guilt. Kyle Lantz moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "Abstained." Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos and Robert Meister abstained from voting. 4 August 20,2014 Kyle Lantz moved to approve a Finding of Violation as charged in the Administrative Complaint and admitted by the Respondent. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "Abstained." Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos and Robert Meister abstained from voting. Attorney James Morey noted the Respondent held a Collier County Certificate of Competency and was also a State Certified General Contractor. He stated there was a slight distinction concerning the penalties that could be levied against the Respondent by the Board. Michael Ossorio, Supervisor—Contractors' Licensing Office, stated: • The Respondent is a Certified General Contractor, license number CGC- 1508634 • Collier County Certificate of Competency, number 27014 Chairman White noted the clarification; the Board would proceed under the State's license concerning any limitations of Sanctions. Attorney Morey noted the Contractors' Licensing Board may impose any of the following Disciplinary Sanctions, either alone or in combination: 1) To deny the issuance of Collier County building permits or require the issuance of permits under certain conditions; 2) To write a letter of reprimand; and 3) To refer the Complaint and the Board's recommendation(s) to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB") for further action. Attorney Morey advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible Disciplinary Sanctions on a Contractor, the Contractors' Licensing Board may consider 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). Terry Jerulle asked if the Board could impose any fines and the response was, "No." Chairman White requested the County present its recommendations concerning appropriate Sanctions. Michael Ossorio stated: • Suspend the Respondent's ability to obtain new building permits for a period of six months; 5 August 20,2014 • Voluntary reimbursement to the County for investigative costs incurred prosecution of the matter in the sum of$1,000; • No recommendation to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB") at this time. Chairman White asked Mr. Ossorio to explain the time frame to make the voluntary payment and any consequences if the investigative costs were not reimbursed to the County in a timely manner. A. The costs are to be paid within fifteen days or we will send a recommendation to the State of Florida for a full investigation and reimbursement of the investigative costs. When asked about other violations, Mr. Ossorio stated a Notice of Noncompliance had been issued in November, 2010. It was noted the matter did not come before the Board. A fine was not issued, but the City of Naples' permitting fees were doubled per the City's policy. The Respondent's attorney confirmed the recommendations were in line with the discussions previously held between the parties. He stated they were in agreed with the proposed Sanctions. He further stated this was the first violation to come before the Board. Terry Jerulle asked Michael Ossorio if the Respondent had any existing permits. A. He might have two or three. The County's recommendation was concerning the issuance of any new Building permits. Q. So he'll be allowed to work on any new permits and just not pull any new permits for six months? A. Correct. Q. I'm trying to get my mind around what type of"penalty" that is. He can still continue to work—he just can't pull a new permit for six months while he finishes his other work. A. I was told by the Qualifier that he has only one building permit out there—maybe two. We have not received a complaint on that permit and he wants to finish the job. We have to be fair to that homeowner. If he's not pulling building permits, what kind of work is he going to do? Chairman White concurred stating that completing the work was in the homeowner's best interests. The adequate Sanction is the length of time and inability to pull new permits. Terry Jerulle asked if a permit was pulled for the home that was being remodeled. Michael Ossorio confirmed a permit has been applied for—it has been red-tagged and is somewhere in "Review" status. Ian Jackson explained the permit has not been issued. Correction letter have been provided to the Contractor. There are issues between the homeowner and the Contractor that could possibly prohibit the issuance of a permit at this time. 6 August 20,2014 Terry Jerulle asked Ian Jackson if JAH Construction Management Corp. was the Contractor of record on that permit. A. Yes, but I am working with the homeowner to provide direction regarding how to proceed after this Hearing—possibly with a new Contractor. Q. If we suspend his permit pulling privileges and he has an application in for this home, will he be able to pull the permit for this home? A. (Michael Ossorio) If the homeowner decided to continue the services this Contractor, the permit will be issued. Chairman White: I do not see how that would be possible without some modification of what you have recommended to us and has been agreed to by the Respondent. I believe Mr. Jerulle is correct. There should be no new permits pulled. You are making a distinction that there an existing permit application pending. I want that clarified. Michael Ossorio asked the Building Official to clarify what he considers to be an issued building permit—the recommendation was for"new" building permits. John Walsh, Chief Building Official, Collier County, stated: • The Respondent made an application for a permit. The recommendation could be worded to state "no new applications." • The permit has not been issued for the property. It is in process. A third "correction letter"has been issued. • The permit was applied for on December 6, 2013. • We were brought into the case on December 11th or 18th • He inspected the job site several months later. • The project is approximately 90% completed. • There were questions when the application was through Permit Review and it was rejected. Work continued. • On a subsequent submission to address the correction comments, it came in as a"Permit by Affidavit"because the County's Inspectors could no longer perform inspections. Mr. Walsh explained since the walls had been sealed,the Contractor was required to employ the services of an Engineer for a"Permit by Affidavit"which is allowed by Code. The Engineer of Record signed off on everything. However, when Mr. Walsh inspected the job site, he knew `everything' wasn't done. The County "commented" again—which is the third correction letter. The County is waiting for the corrections to be submitted. Mr. Walsh detailed the additional work that will be performed by the subcontractors working for JAH. When asked if he considered the additional work as "minor"to obtain the permit issued, the response was "Yes." He clarified there was a distinction between an application for a permit and an issued permit. Because an application is accepted does not mean a permit is issued. A permit number is assigned when an application is submitted to the County. Kyle Lantz asked if a recommendation will be sent to the State's CILB. 7 August 20,2014 Michael Ossorio stated if the Board imposes Sanctions on a State-certified Contractor, a letter is sent to the Executive Director of the CILB notifying him that we would like the State to intervene to perform their own independent investigation or that we chose to handle the matter locally and further action by the CILB is not necessary. Kyle Lantz stated the "penalty" did not appear to be sufficient. The investigative cost was not a fine. Not being allowed to pull a permit for six months is not a"penalty." And a"no recommendation" to the State is not a penalty. He further stated from his reading of the submitted materials, the Contractor merits punishment. He did things wrong and lied about it. He continued"in my opinion, this is a guy who should be punished ... not the guy who bounced a check five years ago." Chairman White concurred that there was a "willful" violation in, at least, two of the steps—first as to the permit; second as to the "Stop Work" Order, and third, continuing to work even though there were corrections to be made. Kyle Lantz noted obtaining an early work permit was an option. Chairman White stated not enough information was known to determine whether not being able to pull permits for six months will substantially impact the operation of the Respondent's business operations. Kyle Lantz clarified the Sanctions were not preventing the Respondent from working ... he was only prevented from pulling permits. He could have another licensed Contractor pull the permits for him (which is allowed) while he continues to work the job. Richard Joslin pointed out the Respondent was a State-certified Contractor and the Board is only allowed to impose certain Sanctions upon him. Kyle Lantz countered instead of requesting that the State investigate, the Board will send a letter that says "no recommendation" which means don't do anything. Chairman White noted the letter would be sent only if the County was not reimbursed within fifteen days. The County would be limited to requesting that the State intervene to obtain reimbursement of its investigative costs. Kyle Lantz stated the job of the Contractors' Board is to prevent Contractors who are doing things that aren't right from doing them again. In his opinion, by not asking the State to impose Sanctions, the Board is saying (in effect) "he is good." Chairman White asked Mr. Ossorio what might happen if the Board recommends to the State to investigate the matter. Michael Ossorio cited a similar case heard by the Board approximately one year earlier. In that case, the State mandated continuing education and levied a fine of $2,000. He further noted in the Florida Building Code if a Contractor is found to have violated the permit requirements, when he is allowed to pull permits again, he will be charged twice the normal fee. Kyle Lantz stated the Respondent was guilty of(1) not obtaining a permit, (2) continuing to work through a"Stop Work" Order, and (3) falsifying his permit application, which are all willful Code violations. He further stated being charged a double permit fee was a Sanction for the first violation but what Sanctions would be 8 August 20,2014 applied to the other two violations. He stated the second and third violations were worse than the first ... yet they were being ignored. Chairman White clarified County's Plan Review requirements were not met by the Contractor, but there was no mention of falsifying the application. The application was rejected for that reason and correction letters were sent. Kyle Lantz referred to the portion of the application which stated the value of the job was $5,000 yet the homeowner had a contract for $33,000. "Change-out of cabinets and countertops—no relocation"was a lie. Chairman White agreed it was willful. His problem: nothing indicted there was an intent to falsify the record or lie. Richard Joslin pointed out the contract was signed in October but the permit was not applied for until December. He agreed a recommendation should be made to the State to investigate. Kyle Lantz stated the recommendation should also request imposition of a fine as a penalty. Attorney Fugeras stated this was the first time that his client, who has been in business since 2004, has been before the Board. It was his understand there have been no violations in any other County. He stressed this was a first violation and the goal was to help the consumer and not leave the homeowner hanging in the middle. That was the logic in attempting to complete the project. He continued there is value in working under your own name.Not being able to pull a permit in your own name for six months can be a substantial hardship. It is not insignificant. Chairman White proposed a modification to the Sanctions: the Respondent agrees voluntarily to not obtain any building permits through any other means in Collier County during the six month period. He asked if the County would accept the modification and the recommendation to be made to the CILB to conduct its own investigation. Michael Ossorio stated he will write a letter to the CILB with or without a recommendation at the pleasure of the Board. Gary McNally moved to approve accepting the County's recommendations to suspend the Respondent's ability to obtain new building permits for a period of six months; voluntary reimbursement by the Respondent to the County for investigative costs incurred prosecution of the matter in the sum of$1,000 within fifteen (15) days; with the addition of a request to the CILB to conduct a full investigation. Ronald Donino offered a Second in support of the motion. Kyle Lantz suggested amending the motion to include a letter from the Board recommending to the State to impose the maximum penalty possible. Gary McNally and Ronald Donino agreed to the modification of the motion. Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "Abstentions." Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos and Robert Meister abstained from voting. 9 August 20,2014 Chairman White stated he would orally report the decision of the Board regarding Case#2014-09: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. John Andrew Hill, d/b/d "JAH Construction Management Corp." (License number: CGC-1508634) as follows: • Under"Count I:" There is a Finding of Fact with respect to the matters set forth in the Administrative Complaint as being approved and relied upon by the Board in reaching its ultimate determination by majority vote (7—"Yes"/ 2 - Abstentions). There was a violation of the County's Code of Laws, Section 22-201.1, also known as Ordinance#90-105, as amended, Section 4.2.2, , i.e., "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes of laws of the State, city, or Collier County." • As to the Conclusions of Law, the evidence submitted in the pack entered into evidence as well as the admission by the Respondent, through his Counsel, that the finding of guilt was supported by the evidence. • As to the Sanctions imposed that the Board has approved by majority vote (7 —"Yes"/2 - Abstentions): payment of$1,000 for the investigative costs incurred by the County within fifteen days; a six-month suspension of the Respondent's building permit pulling privileges; and allowing for the issuance of a building permit for the pending item in this case. While there will be no public reprimand, a recommendation for a full investigation will be made to the State's CILB (Construction Industry Licensing Board) as well as a recommendation for the imposition of maximum penalties will be made by the Contractors' Licensing Office Supervisor within fifteen days. Chairman White stated the Hearing was concluded. VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—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. Neils S. Mierendorff—Contesting Citation(s) (d/b/a "Basic Tile & Marble, Inc.") Citation: #08855 ("False Certificate/Registration of License") Date Issued: June 24, 2014 Fine: $1,000.00 Description of Violation: Presenting as his/her own the Certificate or Registration of another. It was noted the Respondent and his Counsel, Stephen Bracci, were present. 10 August 20,2014 Chairman White identified Attorney Morey, Attorney Noell, and Michael Ossorio as requested by the Respondent's Counsel. Attorney Bracci stated the Respondent's position: • There was a misunderstanding by Mr. Mierendorff concerning how to properly word a business card. He further stated: • Mr. Mierendorff should have been issued a Notice of Noncompliance as allowed by Florida Statues and the County's Ordinance. • His client should have been given an opportunity to correct the issue. • He was not operating without a license. • There was a"switch over" in how Mr. Mierendorff handled his business in the months preceding the situation. • A Notice of Noncompliance should have been issued prior to the issuance of a Citation. Chairman White stated the Citation was issued because Mr. Mierendorff presented as his own the Certificate or Registration of another. Attorney Bracci stated, concerning the issue of"Due Process," it was their position the case did not fit with the noticed Violation because no certificate or registration was presented by Mr. Mierendorff to anyone. The Notice was insufficient resulting in an issue of Procedural Due Process. Chairman White explained it was not a"Public Hearing"but a different type of proceeding the scope of which was for the Board to consider what information and evidence Mr. Mierendorff may have which would support the position that his contesting of the Citation should be upheld -- and that the Board should take some action to either void the Citation; enhance the penalty, or leave it as it is. Those were the Board's only options. He further stated it would be rare for the Board to conclude that a Citation had been inappropriately issued. On occasion, the Board had enhanced the penalty to the maximum but in most instances, it is upheld as is. Attorney Bracci stated the Respondent objected to the proceeding and was presumed to be essentially guilty without any evidence presented by the Petitioner, he would proceed to show his client's innocence. He stated the Petitioner has not produced any evidence in the case. He reiterated his standing objection to the proceeding going forward. Chairman White asked if he objected to the form of the packet provided to the Board for review. Mr. Bracci stated no packet had been submitted unless it was done "on the record." Chairman White showed the information that had been provided to the Board as well as to Mr. Mierendorff. 11 August 20,2014 Mr. Bracci stated he had only received a copy, at his request, from the Licensing Officer prior to the start of the proceeding. He stated his client had not received any packet prior to the proceeding. Chairman White asked Mr. Bosci if he would like to request a Continuance to allow for an opportunity to review the packet and determine whether the evidence that had been submitted was considered to be sufficient for his purposes. Mr. Bracci briefly conferred with his client and stated they would proceed. Mr. Bracci referenced the Citation ("E-1:). • There was a question concerning the authority of the Investigator to issue the Citation because it referenced Florida Statutes, Section 489.127(3)(a) as giving him reasonable and probable grounds to proceed. • He stated Section 489.127(3)(a) says "nothing of the sort" and he did not know by what authority the Investigator brought the Citation because the Section of the Statutes was erroneous. • The Citation fails to sufficiently identify to Mr. Mierendorff what it was that he was being charged. The checked box stated he"presented as his or her own the certificate or registration of another." Mr. Mierendorff presented no such certificate or registration to anyone. • The evidence packet does not show any certificate or registration. • The packet does not indicate to whom the certificate or registration was presented. • The definition of a"certificate" is set forth in Florida Statutes, Section 49.105(7) and the definition of a"registration" is set forth in Section 49.105(9). Chairman White asked Mr. Bracci to explain the relevance on the business card ("E-4") of the words "State License#CGC-1512513." A. I would presume that it is a State license number but it is neither a certificate nor a registration that is being presented to anyone. It is not Subsection C that was checked on the face of the Citation. Q. And would your position be the same with respect to County license number C31097. A. I don't believe that it constitutes the presentation of either a registration or a certificate. Q. If I understand your argument, it would be only if he were to take the actual piece of paper that is a license for either the State or Collier County purposes and show that to someone, then there would be a rightful issuance of a Citation because that would be a violation? A. That would appear to be what the logical language of the Citation which tracks Section 489.127(1)(c) of the Florida Statutes. Yes. There are other things which might come into play but I believe on the face of what has been noticed procedurally for the Hearing, that is not what the evidence shows in this case. Q. So your objection under Procedural Due Process is the grounds as to the form and sufficiency of the Citation itself as to the cited Statute that is relied upon for 12 • August 20,2014 authority and that the checked box which describes the violation. You maintain that your client did not present a certificate or registration of someone else. A. That is correct. Attorney Bracci: • Secondly, the charge—again, my client does not understand the charge because of how this thing is procedurally laid out ... Chairman White: He does not understand that he should not have business cards with a State license number on it that, as I understand it, is not his? Attorney Bracci referenced the business card where it stated a"Sterlingworth Development, LLC partner." He further referenced "E-8" of the evidence packet which was a printout from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, for Sterlingworth Development, LLC. "E-9" indicated the Manager was Neils Mierendorff. He further referenced "E-10" which was the State's printout which indicated the license type was "Certified General Contractor" and the license number was CGC 1512513 for Sterlingworth Development, LLC. Chairman White: Is it your position that the business card is not inaccurate and, therefore, unlawful because it states the words, "a Sterlingworth Development, LLC partner"? A. That is correct. Attorney Bracci referenced "E-12." He stated on June 23, 2014 there was a reference to a delinquency in the licensing. It appeared that the license of Basic Tile & Marble, Inc. may have been delinquent. The second box indicated that the County met with Mr. Mierendorff who stated he was working under the license of Sterlingworth Development, LLC. There was a discussion and it was determined that Basic Tile & Marble, Inc. should not be on the business card. "Abatements" were discussed including Basic Tile & Marble, Inc. as a fictitious d/b/a. He continued the case was about a Contractor having switched from one company to another in terms of how he was operating and should have switched his name to Basic Tile & Marble as a d/b/a for Sterlingworth. The Sterlingworth license number is on the business card. This is excusable—it has not created an economic or physical harm to the public. It has not risen to the level where there was a public health/safety or welfare issue. This should have been the subject of a Notice of Noncompliance. • Florida Statutes, Section 489.113 and Collier County's Ordinance 2006-46 both state that a Notice of Noncompliance should be issued. Attorney James Morey noted the Ordinance had been amended. Attorney Bracci stated the Citation referenced Section 489.127(3)(a) as the authority and also referenced the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Ordinance No. 2006-46. If the Ordinance has been amended, the Citation should state that. 13 August 20,2014 Chairman White noted the document stated "as amended" which is considered to be record notice of a duty to inquire. Mr. Bracci stated the County has an obligation to update its Citation form if the Ordinance has been amended and should be on the face of the Citation so the public has access to the validated Ordinance. Chairman White stated the Board uses the Code of Laws sections. Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos: On Page "E-12" you referenced the abatement options stated in the spreadsheet. Has the Respondent acted on any of the abatement options? A. Immediately upon receiving the Citation, he took action and has continued to take actions to clarify the situation. Vice Chairman Lykos: Did the Respondent pursue any of the abatement options and, if so, which option was chosen and what is the status of that option? Attorney Bracci: • Mr. Mierendorff has changed his letterhead and his business card. Michael Ossorio asked what Basic Tile & Marble was ... an installation company or a supplier? Mr. Mierendorff replied it was for sales. Vice Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Mierendorff if he had chosen to register Basic Tile & Marble as a d/b/a of Sterlingworth. A. Yes, we are currently working on that option. Q. Does your letterhead or your card list Basic Tile as a d/b/a of Sterlingworth? A. Not at this particular point because we have not had the chance to register it in the State of Florida. Right now, we are Sterlingworth Development, LLC and I am an owner and officer of the company. That's it. There is no Basic Tile, Inc. We do basic tile and marble but there is no Basic Tile, Inc.,there is no representation of any sort having somebody believe that they are doing business with Basic Tile which was the confusion that we had earlier. It was just a misunderstanding on how I represented myself. I have been in business in Naples since 1984. I switched over to Sterlingworth Development because, in my mind, it was still a Florida corporation and I thought it was okay to keep that. When it was brought to my attention that I should change that to a d/b/a— I have changed my website and the logos on my vehicles—I don't want any misunderstanding with anyone. Chairman White asked Mr. Mierendorff when he enters into a contract with consumer, what was the name of the entity? A. It's Sterlingworth Development on all of my contracts. It states on the bottom that all work and installation is done by Sterlingworth Development. 14 August 20,2014 Kyle Lantz: Q. If I had hired you in 1984, would I have written a check to Naples Tile, Inc.? A. That is correct, yes. Q. At some point, you changed from Naples Tile to Basic Tile, Inc. to Sterlingworth Development. A. That is correct. Q. When was that? A. In 1996—approximately '94, '96. Then we added the "Marble"because we started doing more marble installation in 2004. Q. In 1986, I would have written a check to "Naples Tile?" A. In 1984 you would have written a check to Naples Tile. Q. And in 1996? A. In '96, it was Basic Tile and in 2006, we added the Marble—it was Basic Tile & Marble, Inc. Q. If I wrote a check to you today, would I write it to Basic Tile &Marble? A. You would write it to Sterlingworth Development, LLC. Q. When did that change occur? A. After I was notified that the way I represented myself was confusing and it could be a conflict which I needed to correct. Q. So the day the Citation was issued, a check would be written to Basic Tile & Marble and not to Sterlingworth? A. That is correct. That was my mistake. It was something that I didn't do intentionally until it was brought to my attention that I couldn't operate like that. It needed to be clear that it was Sterlingworth Development. Basic Tile should be a fictitious name or d/b/a and that I needed to receive payment as Sterlingworth Development. Chairman White stated it should not be referred to as a fictitious name because it is a formed, viable entity that is recognized by the State of Florida. The correct reference was as a d/b/a. Attorney Bracci asked Mr. Mierendorff to explain the history of his licensing up to September 2013 and the recent change over. A. This has been a family-owned and operated business. My father passed away two years ago. With Sterlingworth and Basic Tile, I operate on a very small scale—approximately one job, on average, per month. I work by myself. Sometimes Richard Dodd helps. We are the only two people involved in this business. I never wanted to have a lapse in my license. I joined Sterlingworth which gave me an opportunity to do some of the things that I wouldn't have been licensed to do ... like installing a shower door or resetting a toilet that a tile contractor is not licensed to do. I thought it was a good way to handle my situation. Basic Tile is the name I have been known in locally here. But it was brought to my attention that I can no longer do it like that and I took the course of action to change this. Richard Joslin questioned Mr. Mierendorff: Q. If you could review Page "E-5." It lists a reinstatement of that company in June,2014. 15 August 20,2014 A. Yes. Q. On Page "E-7"there is a n expiration of your license as a Tile Contractor on September, 2013. A. That is correct because the Certificate holder who was my father had passed away. Q. Who is Richard Dodd? A. The reason why I switched over is because Richard Dodd is a friend of mine and we joined together in his business. He does cabinet work and I do tile. This happened because my Dad passed away and everything is still in the probate stage. This is a business that I continue to pay my taxes on and keep active until I have a chance to obtain my own tile and marble license. I made the changes to my business card once I was told it was confusing and misleading. I don't want to confuse or mislead anybody. I have been in town for a long time. I just want to have the opportunity to set it right. Mr. Mierendorff stated when he was called to come to the County because there was an issue with his business card, it was mentioned that the license number that is on the card was for Basic Tile which was inactive or expired. He stated he told the Investigator that the license number displayed on the card was for Sterlingworth Development. The Investigator left the room and when he came back a few minutes later, he apologized for having made a mistake. He said the license number was correct but way the name was displayed on the card was the issue. Mr. Bracci asked his client if he ever presented a certificate or registration to anyone and the response was, "No." Mr. Mierendorff stated he did not have a problem with removing Basic Tile completely from his business card and operating under Sterlingworth Development. His partner is the Qualifier and he is an owner and officer as well. Chairman White suggested taking a brief recess. Break: 10:48 AM Reconvened: 11:00 AM Attorney Bracci stated Mr. Mierendorff is in compliance with any issues relating to the Citation. He requested that the Board consider dismissal the Citation. Chairman White stated when the Ordinance was amended, the term "minor violation" was deleted and the text was changed to allow discretion on the part of the Contractors' Licensing Office Supervisor in how the matters are addressed. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Mierendorff is in compliance. There was further discussion concerning the content of the letterhead and business card. Mr. Mierendorff clarified that his letterhead, business cards, envelopes, and contracts were changed after he received the Citation in June. Everything is in the name of Sterlingworth Development, LLC. 16 August 20,2014 Chairman White stated he was leaning toward dismissal of the Citation as being in the best interests of all parties. It was noted that the website has not yet been changed—it was still under the name of Basic Tile & Marble, Inc. Mr. Mierendorff stated he was under contract with a company to develop a new website for Sterlingworth Development, LLC. The developer, RGB, has informed him that the old website will no longer be operational. Vice Chairman Lykos noted the "new" letterhead and business card still reference Basic Tile & Marble, Inc. and its logo. He asked if the references to Basic Tile & Marble and its logo could be eliminated, as well as the website. He asked for a commitment on the record by Mr. Mierendorff to do that. A. We certainly can make all of those changes. Chairman White moved to approve dismissing the Citation. Michael Boyd offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 8— "Yes"/1— "No." Richard Joslin was opposed. C. Dariusz Klentak—Contesting Citations(s) (Handyman) Citation: #08749 ("Unlicensed Advertising/Flyer") Date Issued: April 23, 2014 Fine: $1,000.00 Description of Violation: Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business of or act in the capacity of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified. Dariusz Klentak stated he had very little to add beyond what was contained in his letter. • He never represented himself as a General Contractor. • He offers services as a handyman and works less than part time. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, referenced item"E-2." He asked for clarification concerning whether he should respond to Mr.Klentak's statement, "I have never offer anybody services as a General Contractor,"or his request for a reduction of the fine. Mr. Klentak requested a dismissal of the charge stating it was a very touch penalty for"something like this." Chairman White asked if he had changed the way that he has been advertising. A. I have not because I was out of the country. I am doing physical therapy right now and cannot work. This was in my spare time from the business I am doing. 17 August 20,2014 Rob Ganguli requested that the Citation be upheld as issued. He stated the first meeting with Mr. Klentak concluded before the business was concluded and he enlisted the assistance of the Collier County Sheriff's Office to arrange a second meeting. He stated when he and Cpl. Capizzi arrived at the address listed for Mr. Klentak as his business address, they were informed that he only collects mail there. They subsequently met at the Golden Gate Substation; they tried to explain the due process of the Citation. He further stated while the Citation was signed, there was a disclaimer on the Citation—Mr. Klentak claimed he could not read the Citation correctly because he did not have his eyeglasses. Mr. Klentak stated he was not able to read the Citation until after he signed it. He further stated the Citation claimed he was acting as a General Contractor which he was not. His flyer is full errors and spelling mistakes. He claimed he did not understand that "mechanical"meant air-conditioning. He stated he could never do any a/c work. He thought "mechanical"meant fixing someone's door lock. He reiterated that he was not a General Contractor and never claimed to be a General Contractor. Chairman White referenced the flyer and stated it was advertising because it was distributed to the general public. He asked Mr. Klentak if he knew he needed a special license to perform mechanical work. He advised Mr. Klentak that all of the "services" listed on his flyer required a specialty contractor's license from Collier County. Mr. Klentak admitted he did not hold any licenses. He claimed he only acted as a handyman when he had the spare time to do it. He stated"handyman"work was helping someone around their house. He cited an example of fixing someone's broken chair. He claimed he has always stated he will not do anything which is beyond the handyman Scope of Work. "Very little ... touch up painting ... but only handyman scope of work." It is not a General Contractor for which he was cited. He stated his next flyer will only state "Handyman"work with no details provided. Mr. Klentak reiterated he was not a General Contractor and would never perform General Contractor work. He further stated that his flyer had been done by others. Rob Ganguli noted the first sentence in Mr. Kltentak's letter was "Recently I received a Citation from Collier County regarding a leaflet that I have distributed around Collier County." Chairman White noted "E-4"was a copy of the advertising flyer. Mr. Klentak stated it was done months ago and asked why they were talking about it during the hearing. Chairman White asked him why he hadn't changed it since he had months to do so. He stated no evidence had been provided to confirm that Mr. Klentak came into compliance prior to the Hearing and he testified that he has done nothing to change his current advertising. 18 August 20,2014 He asked Mr. Klentak what was different today from when he received the Citation. Mr. Klentak stated the flyer had been printed by mistake by Staples—they had not even corrected his spelling errors. He further stated he destroyed the copies. When questioned about a website, he stated it was not his website ... it was one that advertised handyman services. When asked if he was a European engineer, Mr. Klentak stated he was but he was not certified in the United States. He stated he studied engineering in Europe. Kyle Lantz moved to approve upholding the Citation as issued. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0. Chairman White explained the Citation that was issued and the penalty that was part of it stands. When asked if he could appeal, Chairman White advised Mr. Klentak to consult an attorney. D. Tomas San Juan—Application to Qualify Second Entity (d/b/a "TGS Masonry,Inc.") Michael Ossorio stated the matter had previously been before the Board. • Mr. San Juan provided information to the Contractors' Licensing Office. • After reviewing the documentation and having his questions answered, Mr. Ossorio stated he had no objection to issuing a Second Entity. Vice Chairman Lykos questioned Mr. San Juan about Workers' Compensation coverage payments. Mr. San Juan replied his accountant handled the insurance and noted that the premiums were paid each month. Mr. Lykos stated the checks issued to the employees did not appear to deduct taxes or Workers' Comp and he was concerned about how the items were paid. Mr. San Juan referred to his statements which showed deductions for Workers Comp insurance. Chairman White referred to several checks in the additional information, i.e., Check#6292, and asked if the checks reflected gross pay or net pay. Tomas San Jan replied "it was gross pay." Chairman White suggested Mr. San Juan ask for another Continuance which would allow him time for the Accountant to address their issued and to appear at the nest Contractors' Licensing meeting. What concerned the Board was the fact that Mr. San Juan did know how the corporate entity was being managed. Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Applicant if his accounting firm calculates the payroll for his employees, pays the taxes and Workers' Comp insurance, and they write the checks to the employees for the net amounts. 19 August 20,2014 The response was "Yes." Vice Chairman Lykos moved to deny approving the Applicant's request to qualify a Second Entity. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried S— "Yes"/4— "Opposed." Chairman White,Ronald Donino, Michael Boyd and Robert Meister were opposed. Chairman White suggested that he speak with Michael Ossorio concerning his options. He was encouraged to try again. VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. Osvaldo E. Gonzalez Guiterrez—Review of Credit Report(s) (d/b/a "Calimete Premium Quality, Inc.) The Applicant had previously appeared before the Board on May 21, 2014. Osvaldo Gonzalez was present and assisted by an interpreter, Geraldo ("Gerry") Chavez. Chairman White stated the Applicant had been requested to provide a written business plan and an updated personal credit report. • The credit report was supplied. • The business plan was not submitted. Mr. Gonzalez stated (through his interpreter) that he did not understand he was to have provided a business plan, he thought he only had to provide the updated credit report. Chairman White noted that Mr. Gonzalez had not provided a list of creditors that he had contacted,the creditors that he had paid, and the amount that was paid to each. He stated the credit report did not show very much improvement from the previous report reviewed in May. Mr. Gonzalez stated he did have receipts of payments that had been made. The information was not include in the packet provided to the Board. Kyle Lantz explained the Board wanted to know how Mr. Gonzalez intended to run his business and pay off his debts. He acknowledged that Mr. Gonzalez had paid approximately$350 since the previous Hearing. Mr. Gonzalez stated he paid on four accounts. Attorney Morey stated the information was in the packets. Chairman White referenced the previous Order of the Board which stated the Applicant was granted a three-month probationary license and shall appear before the Board for a review in three months with a written business plan and an updated personal credit report. He continued the Applicant had been granted a probationary license to allow him to work. Ile asked how the Applicant intended to pay the remaining creditors. 20 August 20,2014 Mr. Gonzalez replied he had paid as much as he could. Vice Chairman Lykos asked Michael Ossorio if he could work with Mr. Gonzalez to help him understand the Board wanted an organized plan concerning his payment of the remainder of the bills as well as a written business plan. Chairman White asked Mr. Gonzalez if he could provide any information concerning his credit report and business plan. The response: he understood that he was to make payments to his credits and that was what he had done. Chairman White stated the concern was the remaining debts and how they were to be paid. Mr. Gonzalez stated he paid as many as he could. He is paying $120 per month to one creditor. His plan is to pay them all but he needs a license to operate to make the money he needs. He will talk to a company to work out a payment plan but he has to know that he will be able to work to make the money necessary. Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio if the County had a recommendation. Michael Ossorio stated the County had no recommendation but acknowledged there have not been any complaints filed against him. Richard Joslin stated the Applicant had made an effort to pay off his creditors. He suggested extending the probationary period for an additional three months. Terry Jerulle: Who is the creditor who has not been paid? A. HSBC for $16,000. Q. Have you contacted that bank in the last three months? A. No. Mr. Gonzalez explained he had five negative accounts on his credit report. He has paid off four of them. He did not contact HSBC because he didn't have the money to pay the debt. He stated after he pays off the smaller accounts, he will contact the Bank. Chairman White stated the best Mr. Gonzalez may be granted another probationary license. He stated the only way he will obtain a full license is if he fully complies with the Board's order. The Board had requested that he provide a written business plan and an updated credit report. He was to have contacted the creditors and devise a payment plan. It was suggested that the interpreter should read the Order of the Board to Mr. Gonzalez again. Richard Joslin moved to approve extending the probationary period for an additional thirty (30) days. The Applicant is to provide a written business plan to be Board as well as proof that he contacted his creditor(s) to work out a payment plan of his indebtedness. If the Applicant has not complied with the Board's 21 August 20,2014 previous Order, his license will be revoked. Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 8— "Yes"/1 — "No." Kyle Lantz was opposed. B. Luis Escobar—Review of Business Plan (d/b/a "Florida IB&S, LLC.") Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Escobar would provide copies of the Business Plan during the Hearing. Chairman White noted his displeasure at receiving a last-minute document for review. (The Board reviewed the Business Plan for Florida IB&S, LLC.) Chairman White asked Mr. Escobar to provide an overview of the document that the Board had reviewed. • the Business Plan was divided into an Executive Summary and a Business Summary. • The goal was to improve business by approximately 5%per month during the next year, Chairman White asked how the Business Plan would improve his credit. He was also to have provided a summary of the jobs and a value of the jobs. He was to have contacted his creditors and to work out a Payment Plan. Mr. Escobar referenced Page 9 of the report and stated the current jobs ranged from $2,000 to $8,000. He proceeded to explain his goals and how the plan was structured. He has contacted several creditors to establish a payment plan. He explained his problems dealing with Capital One. The Wells Fargo account has a zero balance. He stated he is still investigating the short sale. He referred to Board to Page 35 of the report concerning his payment plan for the accounts not yet paid. Chairman White noted he had been released from the garnishment. He stated he was pleased that Mr. Escobar had done what was asked of him. Chairman White stated the Board decided by consensus that the plan satisfied its requirements. Probation is extended for an additional six months, at which time, Mr. Esobar is to appear before the Board and provide an updated credit report for the Board's review. Chairman White asked that the credit report be provided to the Board at least one week prior to the scheduled meeting. C. Jimmy M. Dean—Review of Credit Report(s) (d/b/a "J.D. Design Construction, Inc.") Mr. Dean stated he had documentation concerning the two judgments to distribute. 22 August 20,2014 He further stated the SLM account had been transferred to RKL Financial. The letters provided confirmation of the payment plans that each creditor had agreed to accept, i.e., RKL Financial - $3,300 and Suncoast Schools Federal - $500 per month commencing August 25, 2014. Mr. Dean confirmed he has been on probation for one year. Chairman White requested additional information concerning the Capital One account in the amount of$9,947. A. It was settled for approximately $4,400. Chairman White asked how the account was settled and noted there was another Capital One account in the amount of$973. A. The $973 was a credit card and it was paid. Vice Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Dean if it was his testimony that the account had been settled and the response was, "Yes." Chairman White stated Mr. Dean had satisfied the requirements of the previous Order. Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve terminating the probation from James M. Dean's license. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 17, 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 1:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS I 01 SING WARD ±�,, A, PATRI K WHITE, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on , 2014, "as submitted" 11e 1 OR "as amended" [ 1. 23 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE Lykos,Thomas Xenophon Collier County Contractors Licensing Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 4779 Enterprise Avenue WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY OCITY 4 COUNTY DOTHER LOCAL AGENCY Naples, FL 34104 NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Collier County DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS August 20,2014 ❑ ELECTIVE p APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain.or loss of a principal(other than a government agency)by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative;or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above,you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting;and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form(before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Thomas X. Lykos , hereby disclose that on August 20 20 14 • (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, • inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained;or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: My company had in the past completed a project originally undertaken by the Respondent and that project resulted in financial gain to my company and may result in future gain as well. - (-7 4u I % • Date Filed gnature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF.1/2000 PAGE 2 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME—FIRST NAME—MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY,OR COMMITTEE Robert Meister Collier County Contractors Licensing Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON ; L Au WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY COUNTY ❑CITY D COUNTY DOTHER LOCAL AGENCY v Y Q�i , NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: � r ` Collier County DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS August 20,2014 ❑ ELECTIVE 0 APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision,whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, n� 3 August 20 14 €-14 ;itiereby disclose that on , 20 C��La (a)A measure came .'ill cc+pabefore,pay-ageriey-which (check one) ❑ inured to my special private gain or loss; /inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, • y inured to the special gain or loss of y-fe+ative7 net V cis le- inured to the special gain or loss of I , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. c C C V3 -ti.bt (b)The measure before mi.agcrrey and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is-as-#eIlews: The Respondent is married to my sister, and as such the vote may have inured to the financial loss of my relative. 9 - 1.1 zo LI Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 1/2000 PAGE 2