Loading...
CLB Minutes 07/18/2001 RJuly 18,2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, July 18,2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:02 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: GARY HAYES LES DICKSON CAROL PAHL SARA BETH WHITE WALTER CRAWFORD, IV ABSENT: DANIEL GONZALEZ RICHARD JOSLIN ARTHUR SCHOENFUSS BOB LAIRD ALSO PRESENT: PATRICK NEALE, Attorney for the Board ROBERT ZACHARY,Assistant County Attorney THOMAS BARTOE, License Compliance Officer Page 1 ~/li/zs~i ~8:13 9~14032395 CO~HUNITY DEVELOPHEN P~E 82 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LIC~ENSING BOARD DATE; July 18. 2001 TIME: 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CQyRTHOUSE COMPLEX ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL I1. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES; DATE: June 20, 2001 V. NEW BUSINESS: David J. Redshaw - Req. Io qualify a 2~ entlly. William D. Bennett. Jr. - Req. to qualify a 2~ enlJty. Joseph P. Blasucci - Req. to qualify a 2'~ entity. Constantin Verdes - Req. to waive exam for lile & marble license. OLD BUSINESS: Approve ordinance amendments, 2'~ Entity Form - use of revised state form. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VIII. REPORTS: IX. DISCUSSION: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: August 15. 2001 July 18,2001 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I want to call this meeting to order, July the 18th, 2001, nine o'clock a.m., Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board. Any person who decides that -- to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which an appeal is to be based. I'd like to start roll call to my right. MR. CRAWFORD: Walter Crawford. MR. DICKSON: Les Dickson. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Gary Hayes. MS. PAHL: Carol Pahl. MS. WHITE: Sara Beth White. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda? Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Staff has none. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anyone else? I need a motion to approve the agenda. MR. DICKSON: Dickson, so moved. MS. PAHL: Pahl, second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor? Opposed? Very well. New business: David J. Redshaw, request to qualify a second entity. Are you here, sir? MR. REDSHAW: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Would you come up to the podium, please. I'm going to ask that you be sworn in, if you would, talk to the court reporter. Page 3 July 18,2001 (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir, for the record? MR. REDSHAW: David James Redshaw. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here this morning? MR. REDSHAW: Is to qualify a second company, Collier County licensing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What company do you qualify now? MR. REDSHAW: Macon, Incorporated, of Southwest Florida. MR. DICKSON: He does get an A. He got No. 9 correct. MS. PAHL: I just looked at that. MR. DICKSON: Inside joke. MR. REDSHAW: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What does Macon do? MR. REDSHAW: Macon is a structural contractor. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And this second entity you're talking about ... MR. REDSHAW: -- is a concrete placement company. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is it your company? MR. REDSHAW: It's -- will be. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. CRAWFORD: The reason for the second company is because placement of concrete is kind of a different trade -- MR. REDSHAW: We -- we do the same with our company, but this is just additional manpower -- MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. MR. REDSHAW: -- for the amount of work going on in Collier County, more qualified personnel. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. -- Chairman Hayes, for the record, Macon is a subcontractor on one of my projects. I don't know if that is a disclosure issue or not, but they are the subcontractor on the Bay Page 4 July 18, 2001 Colony maintenance facility. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think just mentioning it is good enough. MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Redshaw, your credit report is good. However, there are some tax liens that are way back there. And my understanding is that's supposed to be purged from a credit report after seven years? MR. REDSHAW: Yeah. Yeah. MR. DICKSON: You may -- you may want to follow up with these people. MR. REDSHAW: it's -- MR. DICKSON: Yeah. We try all the time to get that stuff-- They're all over seven years old. MR. REDSHAW: Yeah. They're all -- they're all taken care of too. They've been paid. It's federal, and everything has all been -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: They're quick to put them on but not so quick to take them off. MR. REDSHAW: Terrible. Terrible. We talked to a number of companies to take care of it for us, pay, you know, and it's still ... MR. DICKSON: If I'm not mistaken, there's some legal liability for them to not take it off but -- Mr. Chairman, the packet's in order. I mean, we -- everything -- the first packet I've seen that's been absolutely perfect in a long time. I move that the request be approved. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Dickson, make a motion. I need a second. MS. PAHL: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Pahl, second. MS. PAHL: Pahl, second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor? Page 5 July 18, 2001 (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, Mr. Redshaw, your paperwork is all down here right now, so you're not going to be able to finalize your paperwork today. It will have to be tomorrow when the paperwork's back up at the county on Horseshoe Drive. Then you can go in there and take care of business. MR. REDSHAW: ! appreciate that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. William D. Bennett, Jr., request to qualify a second entity. Mr. Bennett, are you here? MR. STOKES: He's tied up. He got stopped. He's -- he's getting a ticket right now. He should be here any second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Legitimate excuse. Okay. We'll go on to the next one; come back to him. Joseph Blassarie, Blazzarie (phonetic)? MR. BLASUCCI: Blasucci. CHAIRMAN HAYES: B lasucci. You are here. MR. BLASUCCI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Blasucci. I'm going to ask you to get sworn in, Mr. Blasucci. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir. MR. BLASUCCI: Joseph Blasucci. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here? MR. BLASUCCI: I want to qualify a second company. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What company do you qualify right now? MR. BLASUCCI: Five Star Construction Company, Incorporated. Page 6 July 18,2001 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Once again, on Line Item 9, all businesses -- list all businesses, firms, entities, or contracting businesses you have been associated with during the last ten years. I see Aries Aluminum and W. D. Bennett, Jr., but I don't see that business. MR. BLASUCCI: No, sir. None of those companies are mine. MR. DICKSON: Five Star. He got his right too. MS. PAHL: Yeah. MR. BARTOE: I think you're looking at the wrong packet, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Got W. D. Bennett, Jr. MR. BARTOE: That's the wrong packet. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I know that. MR. CRAWFORD: He actually got the question right. What does Five Star Construction do? MR. BLASUCCI: I'm a building contractor. MR. CRAWFORD: Building contractor. MR. BLASUCCI: I do residential remodels and light commercial. MR. DICKSON: Why the carpentry request? MR. BLASUCCI: Well, basically, there's a need for it, and I can't find carpenters out there. I know it's very hard for a lot of people to find carpenters out there. And I had a guy that used to work for another company and worked on a lot of my projects when I was with BCB as a super for them, and he was free-lancing. He wanted to leave the guy he was with, so I hired him. He has a whole bunch of guys, and so we're ready to go. There's no other owners. MR. DICKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: This packet also seems to be in order. MR. DICKSON: So far it's a good credit report. CHAIRMAN HAYES: On the final page of the packet, a letter dating June 29th stating that the worker's comp. Liability insurance Page 7 July 18, 2001 has been applied for and should be in your possession as of July the 2nd. MR. BLASUCCI: Actually, the payroll company just started -- just -- I signed up with them, and they'll give it to me when I call in. CHAIRMAN HAYES: They won't give you your liability certificate. MR. BLASUCCI: No. The liability I have -- it's through Zurich. I'm getting it from Weems (phonetic) Insurance. It wasn't bound on the 2nd. It was bound two days ago. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. That will have to be added to the packet, I guess, Mr. Bartoe. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Elite Carpentry for a second qualification. MR. DICKSON: Dickson, I'll second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, Mr. Bennett, you, too -- like Mr. Redshaw ahead of you, your paper won't be at the county until tomorrow, but I am going to tell you you're -- you're going to have to have that certificate when you go down there. MR. BLASUCCI: I'm picking it up right now after I leave here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Excellent. MR. BLASUCCI: Thank you, sir. MR. BARTOE: Usually, Mr. Chairman, when insurance companies insure a company such as his, a copy of it gets faxed over to our office staff, and they may already have it on file. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Gotcha. Thank you, sir. MR. BLASUCCI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Constantin Verdes, request to waive Page 8 July 18,2001 exam of-- for tile and marble license. Mr. Verdes, are you here? MR. BARTOE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, he is not present. We did not get his test scores until yesterday from the only time he did take the test, and he took it July 7th. And he's -- he's attempting to get a tile/marble license, but staff does not have a complete application for him. And office staff has been attempting to contact him for over months now with the only phone number he provided, and it's coming up that it's no longer in service. And -- and his test scores for the one time he did take them on July 7th were a 36 for business and law and a 50 for tile/marble. CHAIRMAN HAYES: When did he take it? MR. BARTOE: July 7th. I don't think the board can take any action because of him being absent. But should he get ahold of staff, I -- I think we should have a complete application. Does the board agree? CHAIRMAN HAYES: No question about it, even before he comes in here. MR. BARTOE: Does the board feel he should take it at least one more time before appearing here? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I would make a recommendation, just being one member of the board. MR. DICKSON: Thirty-six and a fifty is not going to fly. CHAIRMAN HAYES: There is going to have to be some serious extenuating circumstances and affidavits of experience all over the place. MR. DICKSON: We all had to pass ours. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So, as far as I'm concerned, we can't take any action on it today then. Mr. Bennett, are you here? MR. BENNETT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Would you come up to the podium, Page 9 July 18, 2001 please, sir, without your ticket. MR. BENNETT: Sorry about that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm going to ask you to get sworn in, if you would, by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name for the record. MR. BENNETT: William D. Bennett, Jr. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bennett -- and your reason for being here this morning. MR. BENNETT: We were looking to qualify Seminole Wind on my aluminum specialty and concrete license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: This is a second entity. What entity do MR. BENNETT: I currently work on doing screen enclosures down on Marco Island; that -- that is under William D. Bennett, Jr. MR. DICKSON: So you don't qualify Aries Aluminum? MR. BENNETT: That was before the hurricane or af-- as the hurricane took place down on Marco, for a couple years we were pretty busy, as you can imagine. But soon thereafter we worked ourselves out of a job. So after two years or so of putting things back together, we basically ran out of work. And if we didn't have anything new, we didn't have anything on the books. So we ended up closing Aries Aluminum, basically came up to Naples and worked for a couple of years subcontracting for miscellaneous people. One day the phone rang on Marco, and we've been back at it full time since. MR. DICKSON: My reason for asking is you can only qualify one second entity, so Aries is gone. MR. BENNETT: Aries is gone. It has been now since, I believe, '93 1/2, '94, something like that. MR. DICKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. So you're currently qualifying Page 10 July 18, 2001 W. D. Bennett? MR. BENNETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you want to add Seminole Wind Hurricane? MR. BENNETT: Correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is this your other business or --. MR. BENNETT: Actually, Tom Stokes and I have been friends for about 15 years now. We've worked on a couple of different projects together over the years. But basically I was trying to keep the screen and the shutters separate, and Tom has something going that he was looking for some help on, and that's where I became available. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So you guys are going to be competitors? MR. BENNETT: MR. DICKSON: No. Basically, partners. He's got the resolution. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Uh-huh. You still working at Aluminum Specialties? MR. BENNETT: Uh-huh, sure. Yeah, we do a lot of new construction, screen enclosures, soffit, siding, fascias down on Marco. I don't do a whole lot up in Naples, but mainly on Marco. I live down there, so we've concentrated on the island over the years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is Seminole Wind Hurricane Shutters a new business? MR. BENNETT: I believe they've been together about a year now and lost a qualifier along the way and was looking for someone new. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Sounds reasonable to me. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Chairman, the packet's in perfect order. That's three in a row. I move that the request be approved. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Dickson, motion. Page 11 July 18, 2001 MS. PAHL: CHAIRMAN HAYES: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Pahl, second. Pahl, second. All in favor? Any other discussion? Opposed? Very well, Mr. Bennett, in spite of your ticket. MR. BENNETT: That was the last thing you want to start your day with. He wasn't receptive to the idea that I was running late. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your -- your paperwork is here, and so you're not going to be able to settle this issue at the county today. It will be tomorrow. MR. BENNETT: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The paperwork will be back, and you can go in there and see Mr. Bartoe, I guess, and he'll have it all in order for you. MR. BENNETT: Sounds real good. Thank you. Bye. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Under old business, approval of the ordinance amendments. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Chairman, I think we -- we approved ordinance amendments, but we want -- staff wants the board to look at one more possible amendment of-- an addition to our ordinance of -- that we can bring before this board state-certified contractors and registered and local contractors for all the same violations. And this morning I passed out a packet to you containing the wording in Charlotte County's ordinance and Cape Coral's ordinance on how they handle that situation. As you know, at the present time, the way our ordinance reads, for state-certified contractors, the only violations are fraud, willful code violations, not having proper Page 12 July 18, 2001 insurance. MR. NEALE: Since Tom passed this along, I did take a quick look at the state statute. Obviously, I want to see if this is actually the case, so I want to talk to the folks in Talla -- in Jacksonville about what their opinion is. But in 489.131, which is the section of the statute on accli -- applicability of the ordinance, in there it says that nothing in this subsection shall be construed to allow local jurisdictions to exercise disciplinary authority over certified contractors. My reading of that -- and I think the reason our ordinance was amended the way it was back a number of years ago was because this was passed by the state legislature, my memory is, about six or seven years ago. And when that was done, our ordinance was amended to change the language that had formerly been similar to the Charlotte County language to the language that we currently have. Now, as I say, I haven't had a chance to look back in our legislative history nor in the state's, make sure that's the case. But just the -- the immediate reading of what 489 says is that this board has no authority over state-certified contractors. MR. CRAWFORD: So Charlotte County is doing it, but we don't know if that's -- MR. NEALE: My impression of the Charlotte County ordinance is that it's one that was passed -- it was amended in 2000 apparently, but I don't know whether they caught that then, okay? And that particular section -- yeah. So my -- my sense is that that's in there, has been in there all along, and nobody ever caught it to pull it out. MR. DICKSON: But my question is, two or three years ago there was a house built that I thought had passed based on a four-year backlog of cases with the state board that all counties would have disciplinary authority over state-certified contractors, and the state Page 13 July 18, 2001 would be an appeals board. MR. NEALE: Well, the interesting thing is -- and this is Florida Statutes 2000. I haven't gotten the 2001 revisions, but I -- as far as I know, there were no revisions to this section. There is some language in here that contradicts internally the statute. Not terribly unusual. We see that fairly often in statutory construction. But the specific part in here, which is Part 7-B, specifically authorizes the local governing body of a county or municipality or its local enforcement body is authorized to enforce the provisions of this part against locally licensed or registered contractors as appropriate. So that specifically gives this board the authority to discipline locally licensed or registered contractors. Then you come back to this other section, and it says, however, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to allow local jurisdictions to exercise disciplinary authority over certified contractors. My sense may be -- and -- and, Mr. Dickson, ! have to say I had sort of the same memory of this as they got all backlogged; they needed help. They made an appeal board. That was my memory of what had happened. And it appears that this may have been put in by state-certified contractors to keep it at the state level. I -- I don't know that for sure. I don't -- I'd have to look at the legislative history to see exactly if this sentence appeared but -- MR. DICKSON: You don't know when it appeared? MR. NEALE: You know, I -- I do not have my older versions of Florida Statutes in here. MR. DICKSON: Because we've -- we've revoked licenses of state-certified contractors. MR. NEALE: Well, what we have done is we have -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Suspended. MR. NEALE: -- recommended revocation. We suspended permit-pulling privileges here in Collier County which we can do Page 14 July 18, 2001 under the -- the provision of this ordinance, and I don't have it right in front of me, that in order to protect -- oh, here we go. Under Subsection 3 of 489.131, it says nothing in this part limits the power of the municipality or county to in -- to, A, regulate the quality and character of work; B, enforce other laws for the protection of public health and safety. And it's my understanding, my -- my memory, and it's -- it's not a hundred percent good at this point, that when our ordinance was drafted, it was the public health and safety provision that allowed us the -- the county commission to go forward and adopt some level of regulation against state certifieds, which was removing permit privilege -- pulling privileges and so forth if they were found guilty of a fraud and other -- other matters, so I think that's what happened. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I was under the impression at that same timing, though -- I have the same recollection -- that it went so far as to say that we could even impose fines and retain such payments. MR. NEALE: The board can do that against the locally licensed or registered. But the best I can read it, that's not permitted against certifieds. I -- I think, frankly, the Collier County ordinance probably goes as far as -- and this is preliminary. You know, Mr. Zachary and I haven't had a chance to review it in any depth, but I think the ordinance probably goes quite a ways past what -- what even the -- the original intent was. We -- this board has taken on a fair amount of authority and over state certifieds. MR. DICKSON: Who are you -- who are you going to contact? MR. NEALE: I'm going to talk to the executive director up there in Jacksonville. Well, actually, I'll talk to the legal staff in Jacksonville, the state construction industry licensing board. MR. DICKSON: Do you realize they're no longer in Jacksonville as of July 1 ? MR. NEALE: Okay. Page 15 July 18, 2001 MR. DICKSON: Contractor licensing board moved to Tallahassee. MR. NEALE' To Tallahassee. I knew they were moving. I wasn't sure of the effective date. MR. DICKSON: There's a great deal of confusion right now. MR. NEALE: Well, then I probably will wait until August before I call them because they probably can't find each other in the first month. I knew they had a move in -- in -- afoot so -- my editorial comment on that-- my sense is if they are being moved to Tallahassee, that there's a move afoot among the legislature to somewhat reduce their power and delegate the power further out to the municipality as opposed to continue to centralize it. Typically, just from other things that I've dealt with in the state, there seems to be a motivation or a focus in state government generally to delegate things further down to the county municipalities. So I'll talk to -- I'll talk to some folks and see what the sense is on that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Again, that seems to be -- and I don't have anything in writing that I can verify on 489's revisions, but it seems to me that that was exactly the reason for allowing us the jurisdictional ability to impose fines and collect them, was for that exact reason, so that they were entertaining the single-tier licensing issue -- MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- at that time. And at that same time we -- various municipalities in Florida objected severely to it because it took all of our jurisdiction away from us to enforce licensing on a local level, period. And part of their compromise to do that was, okay, you're going to have to -- you're going to be able to impose the fines and do the collections on the local levels and still enforce 489 on a local level. Now, I was under the impression about two years ago that was brought up and discussed, and if there was an Page 16 July 18, 2001 amendment in 489 since that time, I would have thought that's what it adopted. MR. NEALE: Yeah. And-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do you remember that, Pat? MR. NEALE: Vaguely I do. I know there -- we had -- this board had a great deal of discussion about two or three years ago over the whole issue of the potential single -tier licensing removal of jurisdiction and so forth. And this amendment in here, the statute which changed the structure, was done in -- and added the consumer representatives, was done about four years ago, I believe. I think it was '98 to add that change so -- MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Neale, is this an issue because of the pool contractor we had in here last month? Was that the reason? MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. CRAWFORD: The news reported that this -- this board didn't have the jurisdiction to enforce anything with that pool contractor. MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MR. CRAWFORD: And I would assume it is the consensus of this board that we would prefer to -- to handle state contractors, if it's allowable by the -- MR. NEALE: That's -- certainly we will continue to -- I'll do some more research on the issue between now and next month and see if there is any possibility that we can do that, you know. Mr. Zachary and I will take a look at that. MR. DICKSON: In the past we have handled state contractors. And on two or three occasions we've had a state investigator present - MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MR. DICKSON: -- to see what we did to that state contractor because they were going to pursue additional charges at the state Page 17 July 18, 2001 level. MR. NEALE: Those were brought, if I remember correctly, under one of the other subsections -- MR. DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- of the ordinance, of the Collier County ordinance, because there's an -- the section is 22.201 -- 22-201.1 in our -- in the Collier County code. Subsection 2 of that provides that if someone willfully violated the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city, or Collier County, that constitutes misconduct and grounds for discipline. MR. DICKSON: Oh. MR. NEALE: And it's my recollection that the previous state- certified contractors that had been prosecuted in front of this board were prosecuted under that subsection. And that may be a -- a more easy -- not more easy, but it may be something that it's more -- the board may be more able to find proof of that someone willfully violated the bill of codes of the state, city, or county as opposed to proving fraud, which is a very clearly defined legal violation. There are certain elements of fraud that need to be proven before basic elements that need to be proven. MR. CRAWFORD: So that was the real reason for last month's -- it wasn't a jurisdictional issue. MR. NEALE: My sense -- my -- my belief is that it truly was -- the difficulty was in proving up fraud -- MR. CRAWFORD: That was my understanding. MR. NEALE: -- as a -- as a legal concept. That was the real problem that both Mr. Zachary and I had with the -- with the issue. Possibly if it had been brought forward under willful violation of building codes, that might have been something that could have gone forward. But as this board is well aware, the charging document is the one that -- that has to be relied upon. Page 18 July 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale and Mr. Zachary, both of you, I'm going to tell you that the jurisdictional ability of this board needs to be clarified, period. And we need to do it and do it formally and do it soon so that we know just what we can act on and what we cannot because I'm sure that all of us up here thought a license was a license. We do all know the difference between registered and certified, and we do know the basic jurisdictional separations. However, when we first start to hear a case, it's not any substance to us whether it's registered or certified. It's a licensed contractor doing business in Collier County, and we are charged with somewhat of the discipline and protection and administration, if you will, on this board of some of those requirements to do it legitimately. And if we don't have any jurisdiction over a state-licensed holder, then we need to know that before we even bring up a case. MR. NEALE: And that's -- our ordinance, as it currently stands, clearly delimits the authority of this board against state-certified contractors. CHAIRMAN HAYES: In your opinion. MR. NEALE: A separate section. CHAIRMAN HAYES: As we speak, we have-- the only jurisdiction that we have on this board for a state-licensed contractor is permit-pulling privilege revocation. MR. NEALE: Well, the way our ordinance currently is written, the authority we have, the discipline that this board can impose against a state-certified contractor, and it's in Section 22-203, if after hearing the Contractors' Licensing Board finds that there has been misconduct by a state-certified contractor within the meaning of 22- 201, said board may deny the issuance of Collier County or city building permits or require the issuance of permits with specific conditions. Notification of and information concerning such permit denial shall be submitted to the state department of business and Page 19 July 18,2001 professional regulation within 15 days after the Contractors' Licensing Board decides to deny the permit. MR. CRAWFORD: Which is a pretty powerful statement to not -- to disallow permits. MR. NEALE: That's -- this board-- and it's my recollection that this board was granted that power by the county commission based upon the public health and safety abil -- provision of 489.131 so that if-- you know, if it's that egregious that it's violating -- en -- endangering public, health, safety, and welfare that this board can't stop a person from pulling permits. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have run into this ambiguity in the past before, Mr. Neale. And I am seeing it again here right now. On one hand, we can't do anything to anybody until state gives us authority, just like the -- we were speaking about even our own jurisdictional license holders. We don't have any authority to do anything over them as a county municipality unless the state said we could do it. And, on the other hand, we're going to pull the -- the county commission says we're going to pull permit-pulling privileges. Well, that's a form of discipline. How in the world can-- on one hand, we don't have any jurisdiction over anybody unless the state says so, and now we're going to make our own rules locally and enforce them. I'm confused. MR. NEALE: The way -- yeah. The way this -- it's my understanding and how the reasoning went was that the State Statute 489 permits or says that the state cannot interfere with the county or municipality protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and that it may regulate permit-pulling privileges. That's one of the other sections. That said -- and even though it does say we cannot discipline state-certified contractors, what it does -- our ordinance does say that we can go after state-certified contractors for certain very clearly defined matters that fall within the purview of Page 20 July 18, 2001 489.131 and that the -- this board may act against them in such a way to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, which is denial of permit-pulling privileges. So it's -- it's probably, frankly, a little bit of a stretch to assume that authority. But I think our county commission, when this was passed, and this board, when it recommended to the commission, took a -- took a step to protect the people of Collier County that is pretty much cutting edge and -- and does go forward to -- right to the edge of what the statute permits versus state-certified contractors. CHAIRMAN HAYES: There's going to be times in the future; there's been times in the past where there was clear evidence in this board's mind to impose everything we could impose as penalties on activities. And I just don't want us to come up here, do something like that, and all of us get sued over it. MR. NEALE: Well, the -- it's very clear in our -- in our ordinance that the only penalties that can be imposed versus State of Florida certi -- certificates of competency is to deny the issuance of Collier County or city building permits or issue permits with specific conditions. Further, if that is done, the state board must be notified within 15 days so that the contractor who has that sanction imposed against him can appeal it to the state board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bartoe, are you clear on that? MR. BARTOE: I'm clear on that, yes. MR. DICKSON: I have a question: Mr. Neale, I'm going to put you and Mr. Zachary on the spot -- MR. NEALE: Something new. MR. DICKSON: -- because I want to go on record. I started serving on this board in 1990. It hasn't been consecutive, but never before since 1990 has what you're talking about come up. We've always had full authority. Mr. Bartoe, you've been with the licensing Page 21 July 18, 2001 board that long as well. This issue has never come up before. Can we have your assurances that this will be resolved and we'll have a clear -- clear direction by next meeting? MR. NEALE: Well, the issue has come up because the ordinance was amended even in the time that I've been sitting as counsel for the board. So it's something that was amended -- amended and addressed within the past six or seven years. It's -- I think part of it is it's rare that a state-certified contractor is brought in front of this board. I think that's the big issue. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It definitely doesn't happen all the time. MR. NEALE: I -- I -- I can only remember, in the time that I've been sitting with this board, maybe twice that a state-certified contractor has been brought before the board. MR. DICKSON: I remember a couple of builders, general contractors. MR. NEALE: That I believe were-- were -- were state registered, not certified, I think. MR. DICKSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Bartoe -- MR. NEALE: That's always -- you know, that's the clear difference, is if someone is a state-certified contractor, according to statute and according to our ordinances, it's very clearly delimited what this board has the authority to do. If it's a registered or local -- state registered or locally licensed contractor, this board has a great deal more jurisdiction granted by the ordinance -- granted by the statute and interpreted by the ordinance. So it's -- and it -- you know, it's -- for a layperson sitting out there, it's -- it may be hard for them to distinguish. Fortunately, this board clearly understands, in general, the difference between state certified, state registered, locally licensed. And, you know, I think, one thing that may -- may help in the future is that when a case comes forward, staff and the county Page 22 July 18,2001 attorney's office clearly state that this is a state-registered contractor, this is a locally licensed contractor, or this is a state-certified contractor. Certainly when it gets to the penalty phase in any of these when I'm discussing the penalties available to the board, I will clearly delineate to the board, this is the kind of-- and I may have not done that in the past because, I guess, I've known and the board has known. But I'll clearly delineate; this is a locally licensed -- this is a state registered-- or this is a state certified, locally licensed stated registered. Same broad range of penalties applies. State certified, it's a fairly -- as -- as we just read, it's a very narrow range of penalties that the board can impose. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale, I completely agree with Mr. Dickson on this issue. However, I'm hearing you say -- and I'm going to ask you, are you formally going to say for the record that -- state the limits of our jurisdiction, or do you want this month to look at 489 and confirm before you make -- MR. NEALE: I want to look at it, but the limits of our jurisdiction are already in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes. But are you interpreting -- your interpretation of that is exactly as you have already spoken? MR. NEALE: Well, not -- I'm, frankly, talking about the Collier County ordinance, not 489.131. The Collier County ordinance clearly limits what the authority of this board is versus state-certified contractors. CHAIRMAN HAYES: But the -- the limits are not imposed by our ordinance. Ours is a concurrence of the state limits. MR. NEALE: That's the way it always is. We wouldn't have a Collier County ordinance if the state ordinance didn't permit us to have one. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, that's what I was getting to with Page 23 July 18, 2001 Mr. Bartoe. Then there is no -- not going to be much use in us amending our ordinance to say anything any different than 489. MR. BARTOE: Staff would like to see a recommendation from the board to do that if after Mr. Neale, Mr. Zachary's research it can be done. MR. NEALE: We -- you know, I wouldn't have any problem with the board making that recommendation. As I've said to the board, though, my first pass at this doesn't offer a lot of hope. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, exactly. MR. NEALE: That's something that certainly we'll look at and - CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I wanted to clarify today so that I can actually ask that I can charge Mr. Zachary; yourself, on behalf of Collier County Commissioners; and Mr. Neale, on behalf of the board here, that we, in fact, know exactly the limits of our limitations and whether or not we can amend our ordinance to include such disciplinary actions as we deem necessary as a board. I'd like to make that into an actual formal recommendation from the county attorney's office, ifI may, in writing, if possible, so that we-- our hands are tied by the letter of the law. Opinions, at this point, Mr. Zachary have gotten us in trouble the last few meetings. If it's not a written formal opinion, I'm not sure it's enforceable or valid. And I'm -- and the way -- I'm so dissatisfied with it as it is that I'm sure not real happy about going to that unless I have to. MR. NEALE: Well, you know the -- the issue is, this is where we currently are. The current status is, if it's a state-certified contractor, they have to commit one of four violations, and then the limits of the authority of this board is to remove permit-pulling privileges. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Period. Page 24 July 18, 2001 MR. NEALE: That's it as it stands today and the way it's been for several years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Then the recommendation of this revision that Mr. Bartoe presented is null and void. MR. NEALE: Well, not -- I mean, if-- if-- through our research we can find that there is a possible amendment to the Collier County ordinance that conforms with state law that will permit some broader range of discipline, then certainly we could do that. But, you know, just as to the current status of the law -- the current status of the law is as it is in the Collier County ordinance. MR. DICKSON: Okay. But for the record, Charlotte County and Lee County have both added this one-line phrase which states that their jurisdiction includes any violation of Section 489.129 or Section 489.533, Florida Statutes, whether by a certified, registered, or local contractor. So before next month's meeting or by next month's meeting you're going to tell us if we can add that to the Collier County ordinance. MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MR. DICKSON: Correct. That's all I'm looking for. I make that in the form of a motion. MR. NEALE: Just the -- I want to bring to your attention, the Cape Coral one is a 1990 ordinance. MR. DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEALE: Or-- yeah. So I would suggest that it -- there might have been some significant changes since the time that that was adopted that they may not have kept up with. MR. DICKSON: So my notion is that by the August meeting you will have -- you -- both of you, you and Mr. Zachary, will have researched this to see if we can add this to our Collier County ordinance. Page 25 July 18, 2001 MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MR. DICKSON: So moved. MR. CRAWFORD: Crawford, second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and I have a second. Any further discussion on the issue? (No response.) MS. PAHL: Not really, but I would just like to say that I agree there's some urgency in getting this clarified because very possibly there may be a case pending out on Marco that has been in the newspaper most recently. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Then all the more reason to make -- MS. PAHL: All the more reason. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- expedite it. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Calling for the vote. All in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, then, we'll make that an item of agenda next month's meeting then. MR. NEALE: No problem. MR. DICKSON: Just a comment for -- for the both of you, since you're not contractors like I'm a state-certified contractor. MS. PAHL: Uh-huh. MR. DICKSON: That gives us the privileges of going anywhere in the state. No county can deny me to work in their county. They have to give me permits. And my discipline, should there be any, comes from the state, does not come from the county. Having worked the entire state, I can tell you a lot of reasons why I believe it should be that way, because there -- I had an office in Page 26 July 18, 2001 Orlando. Orlando is 31 cities and four counties if you work there. And the differences between each of the cities and the counties can be absolutely mind-boggling. So I wanted the state jurisdiction and the state discipline to go to. The only problem with that is that the state, in my last conversation with them, is four years behind on cases because of the massive amount of licenses that are out there. And I've heard the figure, and I don't remember it, but it's astounding how many licenses are there. And they just meet once a month as well. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Huh. MR. DICKSON: So that's what we need to resolve. And that's the only reason that there was a window that we were going to have authority over state-certified contractors was to help out the state. Now, that's what we need to resolve. It may be the state's in a position to stay caught up. MR. NEALE: Or the alternative is the state just -- legislature has decided not to grant that authority to the local counties. MR. DICKSON: To show you how bad it can be, Dade County, which I've done work over there as well -- Dade County only takes action against local and registered contractors. Their board is 1500 cases behind. So if you put the state on top of those 1500, we're in pretty good shape here in Collier County. It ain't -- it's not that way around the rest of the state. MS. PAHL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Mr. Chairman, staff would still like to see a recommendation from the board to adopt wording similar to Charlotte County's if after research it is shown that we can legally do that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think that's exactly what's going to happen. As long as we can get a go-ahead. Page 27 July 18, 2001 MR. BARTOE: But staff would like to see that recommendation for this wording to be in there today because we've been adopting changes to our ordinance for how many months now. And if we get that okay and Mr. Neale, Mr. Zachary find out, okay, it's legal to do that, then we're one step ahead of the game. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So you're telling me that if we would make a motion that if after review of the county attorney's office the said wording be added to our ordinance -- MR. BARTOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- we can make a motion to do that today if we get the county attorney in and our attorney's approval? MR. BARTOE: Yes. If after research it's fine, we can legally add that to our ordinance. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Chairman, that was my intent. I just didn't understand the urgency. I will amend my motion to say that prior to next month's meeting, if this can be resolved and found that we are perfectly legal to add this statement which was previously read, that I move that that be added to the Collier County ordinance. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think we need to do that as a second motion. We've already approved the first motion. So your second motion will be that if after approval has been given, then we make a recommendation to add it. MR. DICKSON: Okay. Should approval be given and found to be legal to add the statement as previously mentioned, I move that that statement be added to the Collier County ordinance immediately. MR. CRAWFORD: Crawford, second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any need for clarification? (No response.) Page 28 July 18, 2001 CHAIRMAN HAYES: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: MR. BARTOE: Good. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm calling for the vote. All in favor. Opposed? How about that, Mr. Bartoe? Thank you. Good enough. MR. ZACHARY: As long as we're at it, you-all have had a chance to review the ordinance revisions, so I sort of thought of this meeting as a chance to add, subtract, clarify, or whatever you want to do. So is there anything else that you-all have noticed? CHAIRMAN HAYES: That was my next move here, Mr. Zachary, was to do that very thing. We were presented at last month's meeting sections of our licensing ordinance for our review that was previously workshopped as recommended amendments in hopes that the 30 days or so that had passed since our last meeting we've been able to review the additions and deletions of this amendment packet; that we're aware, for example, that additions to this -- these ordinances were underlined, and deletions were slashed through. It made it a little bit quicker and easier to get to the point when we reviewed it. Anybody have any discussion on them? MR. CRAWFORD: I think it's in pretty good shape. I think at this time next year when the new Florida building code goes into effect there's going to be quite a bit of changes. MR. NEALE: Big changes, yeah. MR. CRAWFORD: But I think we're prepared to make those changes now. That code will not be in effect until the first of the year. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I agree with that. MR. DICKSON: My-- my only question is -- and I will admit Page 29 July 18, 2001 that I have not studied this like I should. Has anyone looked closely at the hurricane shutter installer license? Did you find that -- MR. NEALE: If someone would look at that between now and next month, because it was -- MR. DICKSON: That was my biggest -- MR. NEALE: It was drafted as a combination of-- by several counties' ordinances and the direction of this board, and hopefully it reflects the -- the wishes of this board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What section was that? MR. DICKSON: It's on page No. 8. It's underlined. The whole thing is underlined because it's all new. If anyone's not aware of the new Florida code -- code, which now looks like it's going to go into effect January 1, 2002, will require every single-family home, multifamily home to have hurricane shutters. This is probably the -- the biggest new business to come into the State of Florida in a long, long time. MR. NEALE: And there will be people waiting around-- you know, once this is adopted, there should be people waiting around the block to obtain this license. So -- MR. DICKSON: Boy, it's the business to go into. MR. NEALE: Or if they're not waiting around the block, then some of the people from Mr. Bartoe's office will be out there with their citation book working pretty hard so -- MR. BARTOE: And, Mr. Dickson, it's my understanding the test with that new license is a much better test as far as installing shutters than your aluminum-with-concrete license. MR. DICKSON: Yeah. This -- this section just kind of scares me because I see a lot of problems initially because there are going to be a lot of people getting into it. MR. NEALE: And there is a grandfathering provision in here -- MR. DICKSON: There is. Page 30 July 18, 2001 MR. NEALE: -- for aluminum contractors, including concrete or aluminum. Please review that to make sure that's with your wishes. The other one that, at least for my point of view, I would like you to take a look at, because it involved a lot of discussion of this board, is the fire-sating and stopping issue. It's appeared in a lot of places. I know Mr. Crawford had a fair amount of input on that, and that would be -- MR. CRAWFORD: I reviewed that, and it's directly in line with what we talked about. MR. NEALE: Okay. The other one is the sealing and striping contractor. There was addition on there to allow a certain amount of patching. It sure would help if we had some -- had some feedback on that to make sure that conforms. So those are really the only areas that I had -- MR. ZACHARY: Yeah. And to add one thing, I think the glass and glazing also included the -- it was including the hurricane shutters if it was an integral system with -- with the windows, so that's another area I think we ought to be real clear on that -- that because I -- if you say that they're going to be -- that's going to be the area that -- that's of interest, then to make sure that that's correct. MR. NEALE: And that's directly below the new hurricane shutter awning contractor so -- MR. DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, are you aware if they've established a state-certified license for hurricane shutter installers? MR. BARTOE: No, I'm not aware. MR. NEALE: I did not see it come out in the 2001 legislature. MR. DICKSON: You didn't? MR. NEALE: No. MR. DICKSON: Because usually that -- those requirements are a little more stringent. MR. NEALE: Yeah. I'm still -- I'm still digging through the Page 31 July 18, 2001 legislative amendments from 2001 because, as you well know, they scatter amendments to the ordi -- to the statutes all over the place. And I was up to the point where they had all passed but now have to make sure and see what's been signed into law by the governor. But hopefully by next month I'll have had a chance to review that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What section was the fire-sating? MR. NEALE: It's scattered all through it. It's in about eight different areas, I think. MR. ZACHARY: I think the identified areas that might have put holes in anything, plumbing, electrical, so on. Anything that we - CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's right. I remember that. MR. ZACHARY: We plugged that fire safety. MR. NEALE: Then it was, you know, the scope of the contract. MR. DICKSON: Starts on page 5 -- page 4 -- page 3, and it's on every page thereafter. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. All right. So we're going to look at those particular points for you, since we don't seem to have any concerns over the rest of it, and make our final recommendation on that and on the -- and on the state-licensed jurisdictional issue at next month's meeting. We'll give you-- we'll -- we'll give you our approval or recommended final change. Is that okay, Mr. Zachary? MR. ZACHARY: That's fine. MR. DICKSON: But we may have that one-line sentence already added by next meeting; right? MR. NEALE: If that's permitted, it will go in there for your approval. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. Okay. I don't have a copy of it with me, but the second-entity form -- we were talking about revising it, the use of a revised state form. I think we wanted to adopt the state form, but we wanted to revise it, Page 32 July 18, 2001 some of the particular needs, not very much, but just like type -- title at the top and change some wording in there when it said state -- MR. NEALE: Fee -- the fee level, the bonding provisions, some of those other things that don't necessarily apply, you know. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do we have that? MR. NEALE: I don't think we have it in final form yet. MR. ZACHARY: That's a work in progress. MR. NEALE: Yeah. It's one of those that it's not as -- it's not as easy to amend as it might be because it's not as easy to get it into the word processor as it might be. The state didn't have it on an electronic format, so there's a lot of cut and paste going on. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So do we need more than this month to finish that up? MR. NEALE: We'll have it for next month when we bring the ordinance in. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So we can have that also with the amendments answer. MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So we'll just move this old business stuff, Mr. Bartoe, to next month's agenda? MR. BARTOE: I -- I have a question. Do we really need this form? We had three individuals before you today with paperwork they had filled out. We had no problem with any of them, and we recently a few months ago adopted Lee County's resolution of authorization form which was in each packet. Do we actually need this form? MR. NEALE: The -- the only reason it was recommended is it just -- it simplifies this board's life, at least from -- our view is that a lot of the questions that this board typically answers are already answered in the state form. And you have to answer yes or no and swear to it so -- Page 33 July 18, 2001 MR. NEALE: MS. WHITE: have that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think, for clarification and streamlining, Mr. Bartoe, we were looking at just adding it to the packet, is the only thing we really wanted to do. MR. NEALE: What it would -- what it would end up doing is replacing a whole lot of the front of this packet. You know, I mean, it would replace basically that much of the packet (indicating), you know. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I agree that we don't necessarily need it. Our ducks are pretty well in a row. But I believe our original intent for even looking at it was since it has to only -- all we're doing is giving it a blessing. We can't legally even approve that, that it's going to the state for approval, that we need to file it in format that the state recognizes, would streamline the whole system. MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MS. WHITE: Why can't we just change the questions and -- and the two questions we ask everybody is, No. 1, who do you presently qualify? Which company do you presently qualify? Number 2, what is the name of the new company you want to qualify now? So why don't we just change the questions on this form? CHAIRMAN HAYES: We can do that too. But, like, I'm saying the original thought when we were looking at that was simply to streamline the whole thing, and we would have the same answers that the state's going to ask already in place by the time our recommendation went to the state. The -- the state form which runs to -- Do we have a copy of the state form? We don't CHAIRMAN HAYES: We do. MR. NEALE: It's been routed around two or three times. MS. WHITE: All I have is resolution of authorization. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I know. This is a form that the board was Page 34 July 18, 2001 supplied with a while ago. It's a seven-page form, but it does answer questions -- I mean, the questions that this board always asks are answered within the form. The first question is, explain why you wish to maintain your present license while qualifying this additional business. That's the first question this board always asks. MS. WHITE: Yeah. MR. NEALE: The second question is, has the proposed entity been previously qualified? If so, explain why the previous qualifier is no longer willing to qualify the entity. Third question is, if the proposed entity has been qualified within the last 12 months, list the last three jobs completed by the proposed entity. Include dates of completion, address, description of work, name of previous qualifier, name of owner so that you can find out what this guy's been doing in the past. The other one that I think for this board provides a lot of information is, list the last three jobs completed by you under your existing license. Include date of completion, address, etc. Then does the business -- do the businesses you presently qualify and/or wish to qualify have any outstanding liens against them or against the property of consumers as a result of construction work or a contract they had with your firm? Yeah. They have to list their principal suppliers for the last six months; list, in the business they're currently qualifying, principal suppliers, businesses they're applying to qualify, list the persons authorized to pull permits on their license. The one that this board always asks, how are you being paid by the businesses you presently qualify: salary, percent of profits? How will you be paid by the business you are applying to qualify? Which gets to Mr. Dixon's issue which is the rental of license that comes up. And then the -- one of the other questions that's asked a lot, what percentage of ownership do you have in your present business? What percentage Page 35 July 18, 2001 will you have in the business you want to qualify? Do you have check-writing authority, yes or no? If so, provide a letter from the bank saying you do. List officers or partners or owners of the business you are applying to qualify. Give title or position held. List officers, partners, or owners of businesses you presently qualify and title or position held. Does the business you presently qualify and wish to qualify have any other licenses presently qualifying those businesses? Then notarized statements by the authorized agents and then a financial responsibility questionnaire that asks, have you ever undertaken construction contracts or work that a third party such as a bonding or surety company completed or made financial settlements; had claims or lawsuits filed for unpaid or past-due accounts; undertaken construction contracts or work which resulted in liens, suits or judgments; had a lien filed against you by the IRS or State of Florida, tax -- corporate tax division; made an assignment of assets in settlement of construction obligations; been charged or convicted of acting as a contractor with lie -- out a license or been subject to disciplinary action; been through bankruptcy. If you have, you have to attach a copy of the order, the discharge order, and a copy of the notice of commencement; and been convicted or found guilty of a crime. So those are all things that are asked in there. There's a very clear assignment of authority by the entity, organizational relationships. Do you qualify any other business, so forth? The reason that this was brought before the board -- and it's been, I think, quite awhile ago now, was because if all those questions are answered in this form, No. 1, it gets rid of the infamous Question 9. It actually sort of asks us in a way that most people will understand it. Number 2, it answers basically all the questions this board ever asks in one sheet of paper. So it -- and it forces them to swear to it under oath. So, you know, with that this board should be able to rip right through the second entities and have all their Page 36 July 18, 2001 questions answered. And what's more important, frankly, from my point of view, from a legal point of view, is that this board has clear -- a clear evidentiary trail other than the testimony that this person has sworn to all these things. So you say if he's ever found -- if it's ever found that that person did not tell the truth, it's not that we have to dig back through the transcripts of a hearing to find out that they hadn't, it's right there in writing. If they made a false statement, that's a clearer violation of the law, and the board can pull their license. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Neale, does that form have a space for the picture? You know we have a space for the picture, and -- MR. NEALE: I think it does actually. MR. CRAWFORD: -- I think that's kind of handy to have a picture. MR. NEALE: Yeah. It's -- it's -- it's got a space that says it's a space reserved for board use, but it's got a little square box -- MR. CRAWFORD: If we could enforce that a little bit, that's a nice detail. MR. BARTOE: I believe we have their photo on file with their existing license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You might just refer in that box in -- photo on file. That will get the job done, I guess, huh? MR. CRAWFORD: I guess. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Because you're right. If they're licensed, we definitely have that already. MS. WHITE: So this form that you just read, Mr. Neale, is that going to be in addition to the packet, or is that going to replace ? MR. NEALE: This would-- this would replace essentially everything in the front of the packet, everything up to the credit report. MS. WHITE: All right. Page 37 July 18,2001 MS. WHITE: we don't replace it CHAIRMAN copy of that form? CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I'm thinking, Mr. Bartoe, in the long run. But just the mere adding of that form at this time would start to streamline, and over a period of time some of the other forms would -- could fall by the wayside, and it would be all be in one packet then. MR. NEALE: I have to say, once the board takes another look at this form, I think you'll realize that there's no need to run parallel forms. If this one's in there -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I completely agree. MR. NEALE: -- it subs -- substitutes for everything else that's in the packet. CHAIRMAN HAYES: But I'm saying once the staff starts to use that form in conjunction with what they have, they're going to see -- make that determination theirselves. There's no sense of being redundant. We can get rid of this old -- old sheet here, exactly. MR. BARTOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. That makes sense to you? MS. WHITE: I mean, I don't think we ought to put somebody through having to fill out all this paperwork if it's not necessary -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well -- -- even from day one. So either we replace it or if it covers everything. HAYES: Let me ask, Mr. Bartoe, do you have a MR. BARTOE: Of the one Mr. Neale just read? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. BARTOE: Office staff has them because we have state- certified contractors would want to qualify a second company all the time, so we have it on file. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I'm saying. Ms. White, I would suggest you grab one of those forms and look at it first. I kind Page 38 July 18,2001 of agree. I don't want them to jump through any more hoops than they have to, but some of the things that Mr. Neale just read we ask up here on the board anyway. And if those are already answered and lined out in writing, we can -- we don't have to do anything but look at that form, I make a motion, we approve it and go. MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. MS. WHITE: Well, what does the old form -- what questions are on the old form that are not on the state form? MR. NEALE: The old form has none of those questions that I read out on it essentially. Right. But what does it have that we would -- It has them, but it has them in a much different MS. WHITE: MR. NEALE: format. Go ahead. MS. WHITE: MR. NEALE: state form. MS. WHITE: MR. NEALE: I said, what is not covered in the state form? Well, there's nothing that's not covered in the Well, then-- I agree with Ms. White that just when --. MS. WHITE: -- let's go with the state form. MR. NEALE: You know, change from one to the other. Rather than have them fill in the space for their name twice, have them fill in the space for -- you know, did you ever qualify another entity twice is CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, the original thought, Ms. White, when we first started talking about this, like Mr. Neale said, months and months ago, was to already go ahead and do that. But Mr. Neale wanted to review it and take out the sections or change the sections where it says on that state form the State of Florida, blah, blah, blah. We want to change that to the Collier County, blah, blah, blah. And there's a few other spots like that. So it was more or less technical logistical amendments to it. It wasn't anything actually to do with the Page 39 July 18, 2001 questions and the wording other than change this to where we're going through the state, go through the county; referring to the state, refer to the county and the state. MR. NEALE: And, frankly, the part of it that needed more change than anything, the form itself that they have to fill out needs relatively few changes. Where it needed changes was in the business organization guidelines which the board all -- this board also felt would be helpful because it's a very clear two-page statement of what the person has to bring in when they submit. It says that they have to bring in the notarized statement by the authorized agent, the entities, and credit report not more than six months old, proof that the licensee's been active in construction for the previous 12 months with the present entity. It just lists all of these various things, financial statements, which this board indicated that they didn't really want to bother having people bring in financial statements. Bank statements, that's something this board needs to decide, frankly, whether they want people to bring them in or not with consultation of staff, verification of bank balance. That's what the state wanted, has in their form. I don't know if that's formal as that -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: We already went through that, Mr. Neale, and I believe you probably -- if you don't have it written somewhere -- MR. NEALE: I got it somewhere. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- have it in recollection that we did not ask for -- or we did ask to delete those sections -- MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- those portions. We didn't want them to hurt any worse than they already were. MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So what I'm saying is, if he'll go ahead and make those -- like he's said, he's got a concern of getting it into Page 40 July 18, 2001 electronic format, is all he's trying to do to have that ready for us for next month. So I would like to have it issued out in our packet so we can review it whatever few days we can prior to it, and we can perhaps take action on it next month formally. MR. NEALE: We'll -- we'll get it so it's out in the packet next time. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. All right. Being no other old business, do we have any public hearings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't see anybody waiting around. How about any reports? Anybody got any reports? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Bartoe left, but did we find new members for this board? Does anyone know? MS. PAHL: Mr. Bartoe is back. CHAIRMAN HAYES: No. As a matter of fact, I don't know. I do know that I was sent some information from the county that they were advertising for those positions, but I have at this point not heard anything. Mr. Bartoe, I think you discussed earlier that you haven't heard anything from the county that they found any replacements. MR. BARTOE: No. Staffs going to check sometime this morning, see if there's been any replacements yet. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. All right. You don't have any report items, do you? MR. BARTOE: Staffhas none. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Any other discussions? MR. CRAWFORD: The same pay for the new-- newcomers? MR. BARTOE: I'm sorry? MR. CRAWFORD: Same pay schedule for the newcomers? MR. NEALE: Yeah. They don't get a new raise. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We don't get a raise. They don't either. Okay. At this point we know of two items on the agenda for Page 41 July 18, 2001 next month, that being the approval of the ordinance amendments and approval, final review, hopefully, of the second entity state form for next month. So it looks like August 15th, may be a need for a meeting at this point? You don't know of any other things coming up for next month, do you, Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Yes. I know of one contested citation. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. BARTOE: And no doubt we will have, because of the job Mr. Ossorio's done, request to qualify second entities. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. I'm going to say to the board members again, we only have -- at a full board we only have nine. So I'm going to tell you we need five, minimum of five people to show up, for a board meeting for a quorum. And if we have less than five, we cannot have that meeting. And since there are three vacancies that may or may not be filled by next month, I'm going to need your commitment until such time as we've got a full enough board that we'll have a quorum without a problem. Nothing any worse than coming in here, two or three of us, and not being able to make a quorum. Okay. So next meeting is August the 15th at this point. I need a motion for adjournment. MR. DICKSON: I have one question: Since we're all going to be here next week -- next month -- we're in this dilemma, and we were in it this month. Mr. Gonzalez said he was going to be here today. Do you want-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: His term has elapsed. MR. DICKSON: Not Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Joslin. MS. PAHL: Mr. Joslin. MR. DICKSON: Should we find out why he wasn't here? CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's not a bad idea. MR. DICKSON: Do you want us to do that, Mr. Bartoe, or do Page 42 July 18, 2001 you want to do it or -- MR. BARTOE: I can ask him or -- it's up to you. MR. DICKSON: I just -- we've had some members that have taken attendance here very lax. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Uh-huh. MR. DICKSON: And with new people coming on, as vice- chairman -- let me be parliamentarian for a minute. But I want that to stop. If they're going to serve on this board, they need to take the monthly meeting seriously and not say they're going to attend and not show up. And if that becomes a pattern, then we'll remove them and find someone else. Tough. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: I need a motion to adjourn. MS. PAHL: I move that we adjourn the meeting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor? (Unanimous response.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:14 a.m. CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD GARY HAYES, CHAIRMAN Page 43 July 18,2001 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, 1NC., BY BARBARA A. DONOVAN, RMR, CRR Page 44