CLB Minutes 12/17/2014 CONTRACTORS
LICENSING
BOARD
Minutes
December 17 , 2014
December 17, 2014
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
December 17, 2014
D [ 4
Naples, Florida
'1; as
BY
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County ontractors' 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
Rob Ganguli — Licensing Compliance Officer
1
Co er County 11414
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
AGENDA
DECEMBER 17, 2014
9:00 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
DATE: October 15, 2014
V. DISCUSSION:
(A) Election of Chair and Vice Chair
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(A) Orders of the Board
(B) Gilbert Jules—Waiver Of Examination(s)
(C) Corner Turley III-Waiver of Examination(s)
(D) Ezequiel Camargo—Contesting citation(s) 09031, 09032
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(A) Case: 2014-10 - Michael Thomas Crothers D/B/A - Pure Air Inc.
(B) Case: 2014-11 - Michel Padron - D/B/A - M.P. Contractors Services LLC.
IX. REPORTS:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2015
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS
3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
December 17,2014
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is
to be based.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Patrick White called the meeting to order at 9:02 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 voting members were present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, OR CHANGES:
Deletions:
• Under Item VIII, "Public Hearings,"the following cases were withdrawn:
o A. Case 2014-10: Michael Thomas Crothers, d/b/a "Pure Air, Inc."
o B. Case 2014-11: Michel Padron, d/b/a "M. P. Contractors Services, LLC"
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Richard
Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— OCTOBER 15,2014:
Corrections:
• On Page 11 (Motion) —changed to read as follows:
o "Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1 — "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed."
• On Page 5, (3rd Paragraph, 2nd Line)—changed the word, "under"to
"understand"
• On Page 12, ("E. —Mr. Alvarez stated)—changed the word, "trace" to "trade"
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the October 15, 2019 meeting as amended.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair—2015 Term
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos noted that, typically, the Vice Chairman succeeds
the Chairman and holds the office for the next term. He stated he is in the process of
starting another company which has been taking more time than he anticipated and
he would not be able to fulfill his obligations as Chairman in 2015.
He recommended that Patrick White continue as Chairman of the Contractors'
Licensing Board during the next term and he offered to continue to serve as Vice
Chairman, if the Board approved.
2
December 17,2014
Chairman White stated he would accept Mr. Lykos' recommendation and remain as
Chairman with the approval of the Board.
Terry Jerulle supported the Vice Chairman's recommendation and stated he was
comfortable with the Board's current leadership.
Mr. Lykos noted if another Board member wished to serve as Vice Chair, he would
step down.
Chairman White solicited the option of Attorney James Morey, Counsel to the
Board. Attorney Morey suggested that a motion would be appropriate.
The Floor was opened to nominations.
Gary McNally nominated Patrick White to remain as Chairman and Thomas Lykos
to remain as Vice Chairman of the Contractors'Licensing Board for the 2015
Term.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "Abstention." Mr. White and Mr. Lykos abstained
from voting.
The Floor was closed.
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. Kyle Lantz 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. Gilbert Jules —Waiver of Examination(s)
Gilbert Jules stated:
• From 2003 to 2007, he was working in Collier County;
• He held a Specialty Trade License in Plastering and Stucco;
• Due to the recession, he was unable to continue operating his business and
could not afford to pay the renewal fees for his license;
• His company went out of business in mid-2007;
• He continued to work in his trade as an employee of Adeka Plastering, Inc.
and Josuleag Design Plastering;
• He had been contacted by local Contractors who have offered to hire him as a
subcontractor;
• He has requested to renew his license without requiring the examination since
he has extensive experience in his field.
3
December 17,2014
Terry Jerulle asked the Applicant if there were any requirements concerning
continuing educational courses to renew his license and the response was, "No."
Q. Do you have insurance and Workers Compensation?
A. I have general liability insurance and will obtain Workers' Compensation
insurance when I have an approved license.
Q. Do you intend to hire workers?
A. There are three officers in my company. As soon as I start a job and can hire
employees, I will obtain the Workers' Comp.
Q. Have you been in trouble with the County in the past?
A. I have never been in trouble.
Q. You have never been fined?
A. Never, never.
Kyle Lantz asked the Applicant:
Q. Can you tell me a little bit about Collier County Plastering ... I see that you have
two partners?
A. Yes. I started Collier County Plastering in 2003 and it went dormant in 2007.
When I come back, I want to keep the same name but with different officers. I
have two new partners.
Q. Who is the owner?
A. I have the major shares in the company.
Q. And the three of you are going to do the work?
A. To start with ... we know we may have to start very slowly.
Q. But all three of you are field workers?
A. Yes and one of us is an Engineer. He has a Masters' Degree in Civil Engineering.
But we know we may have to start slowly. Maybe eventually we will go to a
larger scale.
Q. And you will work primarily in Collier County?
A. In Collier County. At first, I did work in Collier and Lee Counties. But I don't
know if there is any chance now.
Q. The reason why I'm asking is the two other gentlemen live in Miami. Are they
going to commute from Miami to here?
A. They will move here ... as soon as there are jobs, they will move here. That is not
an issue.
Q. The only other question I have concerns debts. (Refer to Question 3 on Page 2 of
the application.) "List all debts that you or any company associated with you
refused to pay and the reasons for the refusal to pay." Your answer was that you
had co-signed a loan for a friend to buy a cargo van but it became repossessed.
You are also held liable for the debt. The van was financed by State Farm Bank.
Can you tell me a little bit more about that situation?
A. I had a little grocery store in Collier County on 41, with the three of us. The cargo
van was purchased to help us transport merchandise for a grocery store that the
three of us ran. As a result, I had to buy the cargo van under my name. When I
left the store, I left the van with them because they were going to make the
payments. Eventually the store was sold. I didn't know I owed any money on the
van until I was contacted later. The van was sold but, due to my financial
difficulties, I could not pay the difference to the bank.
4
December 17,2014
Q. What is the status now?
A. It is no longer active ... it will take another two or three months to have it written
off my credit report.
Q. So the bank has written it off and you'll never have to pay it back?
A. I will never have to pay it because it's been longer than five years.
Q. And do you have any documentation for that?
A. No, but I spoke to the Credit Bureau and that's what they told me. I was trying to
contact the creditors and they told me it was no longer an outstanding debt. But I
don't have anything to prove it for the time being.
Q. One of the things that this Board is concerned about is your ability to pay your
debts.
A. When the company went out of business, we had so many debts. The company did
not have any money ... I took money from my own pocket to pay for the business.
The business credit is clean ... immaculate.
Q. So you backed all the debt for the contracting business but you didn't do that for the
grocery store?
A. At first ... regarding the van ... because they didn't contact me immediately. When
they finally contacted me, I didn't have the funds to pay for it. It's the same reason
that I didn't pay for my license ... I didn't have the money.
Chairman White noted the stock shares and the computation of the math. He stated he
added the shares for the three owners and the total was 100 shares but only 90 were
issued. He suggested the Applicant should review the percentages of stock.
Mr. Jules responded he did not have the Articles of Incorporation with him when he
was completing the Application.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve waiving the examination requirement for Gilbert Jules.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9—0.
C. Comer Turley, III—Waiver of Examination(s)
Comer Turley stated:
• Had been previously licensed as a Tile and Marble Contractor;
• His license expired in 2011;
• He was still working in the industry (tile, marble and floor covering
contracting ) from 2010 to 2011 with Acousti Engineering Company and
Abbey Carpet Company;
• From June, 2012 to the present, he has been with Office Furniture & Design
Concepts, Inc.
• He has applied to renew his license and become the Qualifier for Office
Furniture & Design Concepts, Inc.
Kyle Lantz requested an explanation of the difference between a tile license and a
floor covering license.
Michael Ossorio explained that the Applicant previously had two licenses: one for
tile and marble installation, and the other for floorcovering. While the floor covering
license has remained current, the tile and marble license lapsed. He clarified that a
5
December 17,2014
floor covering license allows a Contractor to install carpeting, vinyl, and wood
flooring.
Mr. Turley noted there was no exam requirement to obtain a floor covering
Contractor's license.
Michael Ossorio clarified there was an exam—the Business & Procedures test which
the Applicant had previously taken. He stated Lee County may have an exam for
vinyl and carpet installation.
Kyle Lantz asked the Applicant:
Q. Do you work for Office Furniture and Design? You are not an owner?
A. I am the Vice President but I do not have ownership in the company.
Q. How many people are employed by the company?
A. I think we have 24 employees.
Q. So it's relatively large. Do you have control over writing checks and making sure
that everyone is paid?
A. We have a CFO. There are four officers: there's the owner, the CFO, the Vice
President of Operations, and I am the Vice President of the Flooring Division.
We do office furniture and commercial floor covering for office buildings and
hospitals, etc. We do not do domestic floor covering.
Terry Jerulle asked the Applicant:
Q. You were previously asked if you had control over the check book and I'm not
certain what your answer was.
A. No, I don't have control over the check book—our CFO does. I am an Officer
and can make decisions as far as the money goes, but I don't control the
checkbook.
Chairman White asked the Applicant if he was a signatory on the checking account and
the answer was, "No."
Q. Do you routinely review any of the financial documents?
A. Monthly—the four officers sit down and review all the financials every month.
Q. Do you have any role in the Annual Report that's filed for the corporation?
A. I do. When it's prepared, again, we review it together ... the four of us.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. What control do you have over paying suppliers for materials and paying your
workers? Are they subcontracted out or ...?
A. We have both.
Q. What control do you have paying them and what control do you have paying the
suppliers?
A. I approve their time cards or invoicing—I sign off on that and then I turn it into
our CFO who writes the checks.
Chairman White:
Q. So in the next month, when you review the financials, you will confirm that things
went as they were supposed to?
A. Yes.
6
December 17,2014
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve granting the application to issue a license
to the Applicant, Comer Turley, III, without requiring an examination.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Discussion:
Terry Jerulle: "What is the requirement for individuals who request a Waiver of
Examination? My understanding is that we have rules in place that, if your license
expires, you have to renew it by taking the test.
So, what we are doing is giving people exceptions to that rule by coming here? Is
that correct?"
Chairman White: "I believe there is a time period that ... I think it's up to two years
or ... is it?"
Michael Ossorio: "He just missed the cut-off for 2011. Typically, a Contractor
renews his/her license or it becomes delinquent. After becoming delinquent, your
license is suspended; then becomes null and void. It usually takes between 18 months
to two years. After that, if a Contractor has not taken the exam within three years of
when their license became active, the Contractor must sit for another exam to obtain
his/her license unless the Contractor can prove the exam is superfluous to his/her
ability to do the work. This is where the Licensing Board comes in ... to hear direct
testimony from the Contractor that he/she has continued working in their trade and
taking the exam would not be necessary.
Mr. Ossorio noted the majority of individuals re-take the exam. He stated the Board
is not aware of them because their applications are handled administratively ... but
there are a few individuals who feel their experience is sufficient and wait until the
Licensing Board has its hearing. He stated he has no issue with that as long as there
is direct testimony from the Applicant that he/she has continued with his/her trade
during the period when the license had lapsed. If the Board wishes to waive the
examination requirement, he again stated he would not have an issue with the Board's
decision.
Terry Jerulle asked Michael Ossorio if he saw a need to change the rule and the
response was, "Absolutely not."
Terry Jerulle: All I see are people coming in front of the Board and we are giving
them exceptions. I'm not being critical ... I'm just asking the question. If we're
going to give everybody an exception, then maybe we should change the rule. But
what you're saying is, behind the scenes, are other people who it affects that we don't
see.
Michael Ossorio: I think it's a great tool ... if an Applicant hasn't taken the exam
within three years of the date that he/she request to be reinstated, we need to exam the
situation to see if the Applicant meets the criteria. Probably 60 to 70% of the people
who come in, re-take the exam. The majority does ... but the people who don't wish
7
December 17,2014
to take the exam, petition the Board. This is what the Board is here for and the Board
has denied some Applicants—approximately 10%—and they must re-take the exam.
Chairman White noted there were many variables that factor into the Board's decision:
• The Trade itself;
• The period of time;
• The level of experience that was demonstrated, and
• The frequency that the Applicant has been working.
He stated those were the relevant facts that were considered in the decisions the Board
has made.
Chairman White: "I stand corrected ... it is three years for the test."
Michael Ossorio: "It can be up to three years. Typically, if a Contractor is delinquent
for three months, the license is suspended for 12 months; then it becomes null and void.
It's about thirteen to fourteen months. But it also depends upon when you initially took
your test. You could, technically, be null and void and meet the criteria but it has not
been three years since you took the test."
D. Ezequiel Camargo—Contesting Citations : #09031 and #09032
Citation: #09031 ("Unlicensed Roof Contracting")
Date Issued: September 25, 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.
Citation: #09032 ("Working without a Permit")
Date Issued: September 25, 2014
Fine: $1,000.00
Description of Violation:
Commence or perform work for which a Building Permit is required pursuant to an
adopted state minimum Building Code, or without such permit being in effect.
Manuel Roubicek stated:
• Mr. Camargo's English is very limited;
• Mr. Roubicek is the property manager of the house in question; is bilingual;
and volunteered to serve as a translator for Mr. Camargo.
Chairman White stated:
• Mr. Roubicek was to be sworn-in;
• And he was to certify, verify or affirm that he would accurately translate all
conversations between the parties.
8
December 17,2014
Mr. Roubicek was sworn in and affirmed that he would accurately translate all
conversations between the parties.
Chairman White noted two Citations were issued. He confirmed the purpose of the
hearing was to give Mr. Camargo an opportunity to state why the Board should not
uphold the Citations and, in effect, dismiss them. He explained that the amount of the
Citations ($1,000 each) could be increased by the Board. He also explained the
Board could uphold the Citations or dismiss them.
(Mr. Roubicek translated the Chairman's explanation for Mr. Camargo.)
Chairman White asked Mr. Roubicek to confirm that he translated the explanation
for Mr. Camargo.
Manuel Roubicek: "Yes, I explained to him that there are two Citations for a total of
$2,000 and that there is a possibility that it could be waived or possibly even more. I
believe the actual number could be up to $5,000."
Chairman White asked why the Citations should not be upheld.
Manuel Roubicek:
• My father, Carlos Roubicek, could not attend because he is undergoing cancer
treatments.
• I am the property manager for the house in question. I have been the property
manager for our company for several years. We have several residential houses
in Golden Gate and Golden Gate Estates.
• We have a property on 15th Avenue SW in Naples. We had a tenant who had a
leak. We did not have any options concerning a roofing company.
• Mr. Camargo is not an employee of our company. He is a family friend.
• We have used roofing companies when we have had emergencies due to leaking
roofs in the past. But we were not able to contact a roofing company to fix the
problem and we felt we had no choice but to contact Mr. Camargo and ask him
for a favor, basically, to stop the leak and fix the roof.
• There were some shingles which were to be installed (over shingles).
• My father, Carlos Roubicek who had been a contractor in the past, did not
realize a permit was needed to install shingles over shingles. We take full
responsibility for that.
• My Dad wanted to stress that this is a Code Enforcement issue. Mr. Camargo
has never been licensed nor has he ever claimed to be licensed.
• Mr. Camargo just performed a service as a friend.
• We hope that we will be charged fees for an After-the-Fact Permit. A permit
was issued within days after the Citations were received.
• If there are fees to be charged, we hope they will be charged personally to Mr.
Carlos Roubicek and not to Mr. Camargo.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. You ended up re-roofing the entire roof, correct?
A. We put shingles over shingles, yes.
9
December 17,2014
Q. Over the entire roof. How did you get the materials?
A. Mr. Camargo had shingles available.
(Mr. Roubicek translated for Mr. Camargo.)
Mr. Camargo stated he did have some shingles at his disposal and that he also
purchased some shingles as well from the Home Depot.
Q. Did you reimburse him for the shingles? Or did he donate them?
A. As I mentioned before, he had done this as a service for us as a friend.
Q. So he bought, I'll say, 20 squares worth of shingles and just gave them to you
because he likes you?
Chairman White:
Q. But that's not your personal residence ... it's a tenant-occupied rental unit, is that
correct?
A. Yes. We have about 70 houses in the Golden Gate and Estates areas. As I said,
there was a tenant requesting emergency services.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. And was Mr. Camargo reimbursed for this—any money or free rent or anything for
his service or labor? He was the only one doing the work, correct?
A. Yes. He doesn't receive any free rent ... he's not a tenant of ours. As I mentioned,
he's been a friend of my father for about 20+ years.
Q. I have a lot of friends. If I "donated" a roof to somebody, I'd probably have a lot
more friends. But I don't know if that it is something I would ever do. I just find it
—it doesn't add up in my mind.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. I understood that you considered this to be an emergency situation? So rather than
make an emergency repair and follow the correct procedure to obtain a Permit and
hire a roofer, you thought you were making an emergency repair but you had
enough time to go to Home Depot and buy more shingles and then re-roof the entire
house?
A. Mr. Camargo stated that he had shingles at his disposal but when he realized that he
needed more, he went and purchased them. My thought process was if we could
take care of it right now, since we thought it was an emergency, when he realized
that he would need more shingles, that's when he purchased them.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. As a favor to you, you are saying that he did the roofing. What else does he do
for you as "favors?" Does he maintain the homes for you?
A. No. We have a maintenance man for that. Our primary maintenance guy, Mr.
Fuentes, was out of town for the week, so he was not able to do any of this normal
maintenance that we would have had and, as far as the roofing goes, we have
hired National Roofing in the past. So we have had issues with roofing before
this incident. Obviously, we would have used the appropriate companies.
Q. Did you call National Roofing in this case?
A. We called but we didn't receive any answer at that time and I didn't feel we had
any recourse—I panicked a little bit—and because I thought it was an emergency
situation, we called Mr. Camargo.
10
December 17,2014
Q. Can you ask Mr. Camargo where he learned to do roofing?
(Mr. Roubicek translated for Mr. Camargo.)
A. Mr. Camargo stated that he has worked in Miami —he has about 30 years'
experience working in the Miami area doing roofing.
Q. So he is aware of state licenses and county licenses?
A. He is aware of some of them, yes.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. You said that, eventually, there was a permit pulled for this roof replacement?
A. Yes.
Q. I'd like to see the permit,please.
Chairman White requested confirmation from Mr. Roubicek of the fee that was paid
to obtain the peiiuit.
A. For the permit—I believe it was $850.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. Has the work been completed?
A. Yes.
Chairman White asked Mr. Roubicek if the work had been inspected and had passed
and the response was, "Yes."
Chairman White summarized: The defense to Citation#09031 is the work that was
done and the materials that were used were donated by a friend and, therefore, it was
not "contracting" and a license wasn't necessary.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Chairman White again summarized: The defense to Citation#09032 is that you
immediately thereafter obtained a permit and completed the requirement for an
inspection and the work passed, prior to the hearing.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Terry Jerulle asked who was "Casablanca Homes"?
Manuel Roubicek stated it was the Contractor who pulled the permit.
Terry Jerulle questioned the nature of the relationship with Mr. Roubicek's company.
A. They have done work for us and also pulled permits for roofing in the past.
Q. That's the only relationship—they've worked for you in the past?
A. Any other work—I'm not sure—I would have to ask my father.
Q. Does your father have any other relationship with Casablanca Homes?
A. I think just on a business level.
Manuel Roubicek asked to make a comment: "As I reiterated before, if there is any
need to pay any fees, we are hoping to pay the After-the-Fact Permit fees but if not,
11
•
December 17, 2014
we would like the Citation fees charged to us and not Mr. Camargo since he is a
friend of ours'."
Chairman White outlined the Board's options:
• The Board can dismiss either or both Citations;
• The Board can uphold either or both Citations;
• The Board can impose a greater penalty on either or both.
• The Board cannot reduce the penalty or change who owes the money for any
penalty or fine.
Chairman White stated he understood Mr. Roubicek's request but did not think the
Board had the authority or jurisdiction to grant the relief
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. Mr. Roubicek—just so I am clear—the property in question is a rental property
that you manage?
A. Yes.
Q. The peitnit application lists your father as the owner?
A. He is the landlord.
Q. So he owns the property and then rents it out?
A. Yes.
Q. And in your testimony earlier, you testified that your father was an experienced
Contractor or had experience in the construction industry?
A. He had been but, during the crisis around 2007 or 2008, that's when he gave up
his Contractor's license.
Q. I'm surprised with his background that he wasn't aware that a re-roof on an entire
house would require a permit or a licensed contractor.
A. He apparently was not aware that a permit was necessary for shingles over
shingles, which is the term he used.
Chairman White noted the correct term was "re-roof' which does require a permit.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated the Board's members are licensed, either as General
Contractors or in specific trades. He noted he often must refer to the Ordinances to
be sure he understands the Code correctly. He stated he would not assume that he
knew all the changes to the Ordinances even in the business that he operates. He
stated the definition of"Contracting" does not necessitate a financial transaction.
He continued: In the case before the Board, even though your testimony was that
Mr. Camargo did not receive any compensation for the work, based on the definition
of"Contracting,"there does not need to be a financial transaction for contracting to
have occurred.
Attorney Morey read the definition from Section 22-162 of the Code of Ordinances:
"Contracting means, except as exempted in this part, engaging in business as
a Contractor and includes, but is not limited to, performance of any of the acts
as set forth in subsection (3) which defines types of Contractors. The attempted
sale of contracting services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these
12
December 17,2014
services also constitutes contracting. If the services offered require licensure or
agent qualification, the offering, negotiation for a bid, or attempted sale of these
services requires the corresponding licensure. However, the term "contracting"
shall not extend to an individual, partnership, corporation, trust, or other legal
entity that offers to sell or sells completed residences on property on which the
individual or business entity has any legal or equitable interest, if the services
of a qualified Contractor certified or registered pursuant to the requirements of
this chapter have been or will be retained for the purpose of constructing such
residences."
Vice Chairman Lykos reiterated: Offering to do the work and even doing the work
constitutes "contracting."
Kyle Lantz asked who finished the work on the roof
Manuel Roubicek stated the work was completed by the company listed on the
permit.
Mr. Lantz asked Mr. Roubicek about his father's Contractor's license and the type of
contracting work he performed.
A. He was a General Contractor. He built houses from scratch.
Richard Joslin noted the inspection card presented by Mr. Roubicek was not signed
and asked if another document was available.
Chairman White stated there had been testimony that the work had been inspected
and had passed.
Kyle Lantz asked if Mr. Camargo had ever worked for either Mr. Roubicek or his
father and the response was, "No, not in a professional capacity."
Q. He's just a friend?
A. Yes. I mean, if we have a couple of screens that have torn in the past—he's been
good at that. I'm not very handy myself and he's patched a couple of walls for us
in our private residences.
Q. Is he employed right now?
A. He is retired.
Q. From being a roofer for 30 years?
A. Yes.
Chairman White asked the County for its rebuttal or for any additional information
in the case. He explained that Mr. Roubicek and Mr. Camargo would be entitled to
ask questions of the County.
Rob Ganguli, Licensed Compliance Officer, stated Mr. Roubicek had met with
Michael Ossorio.
Michael Ossorio:
• He met with Mr. Roubicek, the homeowner, who stated he knew he was in
violation and wanted to pay the penalties but asked for a reduction.
13
December 17,2014
• He explained he could not reduce or waive a penalty. He also explained that
the Contractors' Licensing Board could not lower a fee but could dismiss it.
• Mr. Roubicek stated Mr. Camargo was being paid or compensated; he was
sorry, and would obtain a building permit.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked for clarification regarding compensation.
Michael Ossorio repeated the conversation—that Mr. Camargo was being
compensated.
He further stated he did not recall any After-the-Fact Permit fees being issued since
it was an owner/builder as an unlicensed contractor. ATF fees are issued only if a
Contractor works without obtaining a permit.
Chairman White asked Mr. Ossorio if the gentleman he referenced as "the homeowner"
was Carlos Roubicek and the response was, "I believe so, yes."
He asked Manuel Roubicek if Mr. Ossorio had described his father and the response
was "Yes."
Rob Ganguli answered Richard Joslin's question concerning the inspection status
and the permit; he confirmed the final inspection had been completed—the work did
pass and received a C/O.
• He referenced Evidence Exhibit E-2, i.e., Mr. Carlos Roubicek's commentary
about the roof repair.
• The photographs show it was more than just a"repair"—it was a complete re-
roof.
• It was not just a simple repair to fix a leak and a building permit was required.
• He referenced the Case Notes (E-15) and his conversation with Mr. Roubicek
who confirmed that Mr. Camargo was being compensated.
Mr. Ganguli asked Manuel Roubicek if their normal roofer was National Roofing.
A. I stated that we have used him in the past but he is not our normal roofer. We
don't have many roofing emergencies, but we have used them in the past.
Q. Who is the roofer that you normally use?
A. We don't have a normal roofer—I don't think my father could tell you that he has
a normal roofer.
Q. The actual work that was completed was done by Casablanca Homes, a licensed
roofing contractor.
A. Yes.
Q. Was it the intention of Mr. Carlos Roubicek to compensate them for the work?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Q. And what was the amount of the entire job that Casablanca contracted to do?
A. I am only aware of the fee of$850 ... I am not aware of the fee afterwards.
(Mr. Roubicek translated for Mr. Camargo.)
He stated Mr. Camargo reiterated the fact that he was not paid for any service and he
had not indicated at any point that he would be compensated for his work in anyway.
14
•
December 17, 2014
Chairman White: Is it fair to say that he is contradicting the statements that your
father made both to Mr. Ganguli and to Mr. Ossorio?
A. There must have been some sort of miscommunication. Mr. Camargo was not
paid and he never indicated he had been paid at any time or compensated for
anything.
Chairman White referenced Exhibit E-15 and the statement made to Mr. Ganguli:
"Mr. Camargo advised that he was being paid by the property owner, Carlos
Roubicek."
He continued: Mr. Manual Roubicek's testimony is that the statement was somehow
inaccurate and incorrect.
A. Yes.
The County's presentation was concluded.
Comments:
• Kyle Lantz: If it were a normal homeowner who hired someone to do work
on the roof and realized it was an unlicensed person and obtained an After-
the-Fact Permit, I would have no problem dismissing the second Citation
since the work had been completed and the Permit was closed out. However,
I don't consider this a"normal homeowner" who could say he didn't know the
rules and made a mistake.
The homeowner was a Certified Residential Contractor with the State from 1991
to 2010 and his son testified that he built over 20 homes in the area. I don't see
how someone in that position could have done so well in his trade yet not know
that a permit was required for a re-roof. A permit for a re-roof has been required
since I started in the business so it's not like it's a new Code. So I have a really
hard time dismissing that Citation.
• Vice Chairman Lykos suggested addressing the Citations individually.
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos moved to approve upholding Citation #09031. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Terry Jerulle questioned why the motion which did not contain a provision to
increase the fine. He stated the cost of the re-roof was approximately$15,000
to $20,000. If the work was done as a"favor," then the fees could be paid as a
favor. He cited the testimony that Mr. Camargo had been a roof for 30 years
in Florida and Mr. Carlos Roubicek had been a Contractor in the County for
years—they had to know the rules and regulations. He concluded by stating
the violation was almost willful.
Chairman White asked Attorney James Morey to explain the criteria that the Board
is to consider to enhance a penalty on a contested Citation.
Attorney Morey explained if the Board found that a violation existed and wished to
uphold a Citation, the Board may order the violator to pay a penalty of not less than
15
• December 17,2014
the amount set forth in the Citation, or order the violator to pay a penalty of not less
than but not more than$2,500 per violation.
He further explained in determining the amount of the penalty, the Contractors'
Licensing Board may consider the following factors:
1) The gravity of the violation;
2) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); and
3) Any previous violations committed by the violator.
Chairman White noted that no testimony had been given regarding previous
violations.
Richard Joslin reiterated the testimony was that the situation with the roof had been
an emergency. He stated a simple solution would have been to install a blue tarp over
the leaking area; that would have allowed the homeowner enough time to hire a
roofing contractor and apply for a permit. He concluded unless the entire roof had
been blown off, the severity of it could not have been that bad.
Manuel Roubicek admitted that he did panic and thought the situation was an
emergency.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted in the past a party may have been guilty of a violation,
willful or not, which had the appearance of being a business decision where the
penalties for the violation were far less than the cost of compliance.
Chairman White explained the individual who contested the Citations was Mr.
Camargo—not the homeowner or the property manager.
Vice Chairman Lykos concurred with Mr. Jerulle's opinion that ignorance of the
law was not a reason for non-compliance in the case before the Board. He stated if
Mr. Jerulle were to ask for the motion to be amended, he would be amenable to
increasing the amount of the fine.
Kyle Lantz pointed out the discrepancies in the testimony concerning whether or not
Mr. Camargo was being compensated for the work. Mr. Camargo stated during the
hearing that he had not been compensated but other statements were made by the
homeowner and Mr. Camargo to Investigator Ganguli that payment was made.
Chairman White stated he would give less weight to the testimony presented at the
hearing because it appeared to be a self-serving attempt to avoid the Citation.
Kyle Lantz supported enhancing the penalty.
Vice Chairman Lykos withdrew his motion and Gary McNally withdrew his Second
in support of the motion.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve upholding Citation #09031 (Unlicensed Contracting)
and enhancing the penalty to $2,000. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support
of the motion.
Motion carried, 8— "Yes"/1 — "No." Chairman White was opposed.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve upholding Citation #09032 as cited. Richard Joslin
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
16
• December 17, 2014
Chairman White clarified the fine for Citation#09031 was $2,000 while the fine for
Citation#09032 was $1,000.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
(None)
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(The previously scheduled Cases were withdrawn,per Amended Agenda.)
IX. REPORTS:
• Michael Ossorio stated he sent a Memorandum to the City Clerk's
Office recommending that Robert Meister serve another term on the
Board. The City Council will vote on the recommendation in January,
2015.
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 21, 2015
BCC Chambers, 3`d 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 10:30 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LENSING BOARD
1.1 0 ,fftl■,
PAT ' K HITE, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair •, I U 0 , 2015,
"as submitted" `OR "as amended" { 1.
17