Loading...
CLB Minutes 04/16/2014 CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes April 16 , 2014 April 16,2014 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING April 16, 2014 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Patrick White Vice Chair: Thomas Lykos Members: Terry Jerulle Richard Joslin Kyle Lantz Gary McNally Robert Meister Excused: Michael Boyd Ronald Donino ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Colleen Greene, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noell, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Thomas Keegan —Licensing Compliance Officer 1 April 16,2014 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Patrick White called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; seven members were present. II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS,DELETIONS, OR CHANGES: The order of the Agenda Order was changed; the following will be heard after Item V, "Discussion:" • Under Item VI. (E)—"New Business:" o Russell G. Spokish, d/b/a"Alno Painting, Inc.,"—Waiver of Exams for Reinstatement; • Under Item VIII. (A)—"Public Hearing:" o Case#2014-06: Hublar Lopez Rodriguez, d/b/a"Nian Construction, Inc." 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, 7— 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—MARCH 19, 2014: Correction: • Page 26: [Sentence beginning "Attorney Morey confirmed... "] o Change the word "life" to "lift." Gary McNally moved to approve the Minutes of the March 19, 2014 meeting as amended. Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. V. DISCUSSION: (None) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) E. Russell G. Spokish—Request for Waiver of Exam(s) for Reinstatement (d/b/a"Alno Painting, Inc.") Russell G. Spokish was present and represented by his Attorney, Patrick H. Neale. 2 April 16,2014 Michael Ossorio referenced Section 22-191(i) of the Code for Renewals. • Mr. Spokish has been a cabinet installer for approximately 13 years. • He allowed his license to lapse. • He has requesting a Waiver of Testing for the Business Procedures test. • He is present to explain his experience to the Board. Attorney Neale stated: • Mr. Spokish has been a cabinet installer for over thirteen years with significant experience. • He closed his business three years ago but continued to work in the industry during that period of time. • He is requesting a Waiver of the Testing Requirement. • His intention is to go back into business again. Chairman White stated he would categorize the Affidavit of Experience as "self-certified," i.e., the Affidavit was signed by his wife,Martha. Russell Spokish stated his wife is also his business partner. He and his wife have been married for 30 years. He has been in the industry for more than 30 years and she has seen everything that he accomplished, i.e., manufacturing and installing cabinets, cabinet design, etc. Attorney Neale noted two additional Affidavits were included in the packet [from Servio Cortes and Christopher North] concerning Mr. Spokish's experience as a Cabinet and Millwork Contractor. Michael Ossorio confirmed installation of countertops was included under Cabinet and Millwork contractor. Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Applicant to explain exactly what he had been doing in the industry for the past three years while his license was null and void. Mr. Spokish explained he moved to Canton, Georgia and opened a cabinet showroom, doing sales and designs. When he moved back to Naples, he began designing kitchens and baths for other people. He has been working consistently in the industry but has not been able to install his designs because his license has lapsed. Michael Ossorio referenced Section 22-162(5) and the definition of Cabinet Installation Contractor: Cabinet Installation Contractor requires 24 months experience with passing grade on a Business and Law Test; and means any person who is qualified to manufacture, assemble, install, dismantle, maintain, adjust, alter, extend, and design cabinets and millwork. The scope of permitted work shall include, but not be limited to, kitchen cabinets, bathroom vanities, accessory cabinets, counter tops, office furniture, and millwork items which have been manufactured for installation on job site locations. 3 April 16,2014 Richard Joslin referenced the Applicant's credit application which had been impeccable until 2009. He asked what happened after 2009. Russell Spokish replied his business was "devastated" by the housing recession because approximately 90% of his business came from new construction. He paid what he could from his savings. He stated it was a"desperate"time and he let his license lapse because he couldn't afford the payments. Attorney Neale explained the civil judgment. He stated it was an incorrect entry on Mr. Spokish's credit record. He is in the process of contacting TransUnion Credit Agency to have it removed from his credit report because there is no judgment by RBC against his client. There was a Judgment of Foreclosure which was satisfied. When asked why he did not feel it was necessary to re-take the Business and Law test, the Applicant stated it contained a number of mathematical questions which were not relevant to his business. Michael Ossorio stated the County recommended reinstatement without requiring the Applicant to retake the exam. Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve granting the Applicant's request for a Waive the requirement for testing and to approve reinstatement of his license. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1 — "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed. A. Orders of the Board: Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARING: (Note: With reference to the case heard under Section VIII, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Case#2014-06: Hublar Lopez Rodriguez, d/b/a "Nian Construction, Inc." Respondent, Hublar Lopez Rodriguez, was present and represented by his Attorney, Patrick H. Neale. Richard Joslin moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case #2014- 06, Hublar Lopez Rodriguez, d/b/a "Nian Construction, Inc." Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. 4 • April 16,2014 Chairman White briefly outlined the order of the proceedings to be followed which are defined in Collier County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Chapter 49: • The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature; • The formal Rules of Evidence shall not apply but fundamental fairness and Due Process shall be observed and govern the proceedings; • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida. • Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence but shall not be sufficient by itself to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The proof required is clear and convincing evidence. • The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions. • Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness. • Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call/examine witnesses; introduce Exhibits; cross-examine witnesses; impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify; and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. • The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an"Opening Statement" followed by an"Opening Statement" by the Respondent. • Evidence that either party desires to be admitted shall be presented as part of the "Opening Statement." • The County will present its "Case in Chief' followed by the Respondent's defense. • After that, the County may offer a "Rebuttal. " • When the"Rebuttal" is concluded, each party is permitted to present a "Closing Statement." • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's "Closing Statement." • That will conclude the Public Hearing. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a"Charge" to the Board, which is similar to the Charge given to a Jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations,the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. 5 April 16,2014 o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. • After the matters are decided, the Chair will orally report the decision of the Board. • The Final Order will include the complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to submit the packet of information into evidence as County's Exhibit"A." Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve admitting the information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. Chairman White announced he was filing a Form 8-B, "Conflict of Interest." He stated he was employed by Antonio Brown, a business owner, who employs Mr. Rodriguez. He turned the gavel over to Vice Chairman Lykos and asked him to chair the balance of the proceedings. Vice Chairman Lykos asked James Morey, the Board's Attorney, for an explanation of the limited of Chairman White's participation during the hearing. Mr. Morey stated the after a disclosure had been made, the individual who made the disclosure was allowed to participate in the deliberations and offer input, but not to sway the vote one way or the other. Thomas Keegan presented the County's "Opening Statement:" • The Respondent is a Collier County registered Building Contractor, License# LCC-20120004890. • Violation: Section 22.201(6) of Ordinance#90-105, as amended: o "Disregards or violated, in the performance of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety health, insurance or Workers'; Compensation laws of the State of Ordinances of this County." • March 10, 2014: Received a call from an Investigator for the Florida Department of Financial Services, regarding Nian Construction Inc. The Investigator had been at a job site on March 7, 2014. • He met the Investigator at the jobsites on Linda Drive. The sites were permitted jobs by Nian Construction, Inc. • During her investigator, Ms. Asyia Snodgrass determined that the workers on jobsites 2837, 2785, and 2805 (all on Linda Drive) were employees of Nian Construction, Inc. • She spoke with Antonio Brown, President of Nian, who confirmed the workers were employees, not subcontractors. 6 April 16,2014 • Both Mr. Brown and the Qualifer, Hublar Lopez Rodriguez, were exempted from Workers' Compensation coverage. • Issue: Greg Roe, Rose Insurance, stated the insured neglected to send back the signed Workers Comp applications. He needed coverage ASAP. The policy was issued on March 7t at 3:02 PM. • A "Stop Work" Order was issued by Investigator Snodgrass on March 10, 2014 for failing to obtain Workers' Compensation coverage for employees on the jobsites on March 7, 2014. • A Notice of Hearing was issued to Mr. Rodriguez on March 11, 2014. • This is the second Workers' Compensation violation issued to Mr. Rodriguez. (See: County's Exhibit"E-20") Attorney Neale presented the Respondent's "Opening Statement:" • The Respondent was willing to accept the County's "Opening Statement." • The employees are covered by Workers' Compensation insurance coverage. • Steps have been taken since the violation was issued to ensure that this situation does not happen again by instituting a new policy where employees report in every day. o ADP, the payroll company, has access to the insurance provider to verify who is working that day and provide coverage for each worker. o A new manager has been hired to monitor that the company is continually in compliance. • They had Workers' Compensation coverage in the past but the leasing company declined to continue coverage because they were too small. • When they went to ADP after the leasing company but there were a clerical error and they were not picked up by ADP's Workers' Comp system to provide insurance coverage. As soon as the lack of coverage was discovered, it was immediately procured through Roe Insurance. • Mr. Rodriguez has entered into a Stipulation Agreement which was discussed with Mr. Ossorio. Mr. Neale read the terms and conditions of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Agreed Order into the record as follows: " BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD, Case Number: 2014-06 Petitioner, License No.: LCC201200004890/ vs. RB 29003585 7 April 16,2014 Hublar Lopez Rodriguez, d/b/a "Nian Construction, Inc., Respondent. STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND AGREED ORDER Hublar Lopez Rodriguez and the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractor's Licensing Board (hereafter"the BOARD"), hereby stipulate and agree: 1) Respondent admits the allegations in the Administrative Complaint for the purpose of this Stipulation and settlement of this matter. 2) Respondent and the BOARD hereby agree that he will be subject to probation for a period of twelve (12) months whereby the Respondent will perform his contracting activities under the supervision of the Board. 3) Respondent and the BOARD further agree that Respondent will personally apply for all permits and be present, either in person or telephonically, for any review or questions as to the contracting operations of the company which he qualifies during this restriction period. This includes permits issued by the Cities of Marco Island or Naples, inclusive of Fire Code Reviews. Respondent may, as necessary, respond through a translator to facilitate communication. 4) Fine of$4,200 dollars to be paid within 90 days. 5) Investigation costs of$525 dollars to be paid within 90 days. 6) This Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Order shall be forwarded to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board with a recommendation of"no further action." Executed this day of April, 2014. Is! Hublar Lopez Rodriguez Hublar Lopez Rodriguez Michael Ossorio Respondent Contractors' Licensing Supervisor ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS BOARD BEING FULLY ADVISED on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, it is hereby: 8 April 16,2014 ADJUDGED that the foregoing Stipulated Settlement Agreement is adopted in its entirety, and the parties are ordered to comply therewith. DONE AND ORDERED at the regularly set Contractor's Licensing Board hearing at Naples, Collier County, Florida, on this 16th day of April, 2014. Patrick White, Chairman Contractors' Licensing Board " Mr. Neale called Mr. Rodriguez to testify. Attorney Neale questioned the Respondent: Q. Would you state your name for the record, please? A. My name is Hublar Lopez. Q. Did you agree to this Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Agreed Order? A. Yes. Q. Do you understand the contents of that Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Agreed Order? A. Yes. Q. Do you accept the contents of the Stipulation as being a settlement in this case? A. Yes. Michael Ossorio stated the County had no further evidence to present, and agreed to the terms/conditions of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Order. He further stated the County agreed to the Stipulation because it would expedite the issue—saving the County's time and it was in the best interest of the Licensing Office. He stated the County's case was closed. Michael Osorio explained the company [Nian] paid substantial penalties to the State and was in compliance. The Respondent is a fairly new Contractor who did well on his tests. The Licensing Office wants to have the Qualifier come into the office,talk to the Building Officials and the Inspectors, pull the permits, do the revisions, and further understand the process of being a Qualifier which is important during the first twelve months of starting a business. The penalty assessed was $4,200 which is not that far off from the maximum of$5,000. Mr. Neale concurred, stating his client was willing to stipulate to the terms and conditions of the Agreement to save costs. Vice Chairman Lykos stated Workers' Compensation issues were one of his biggest concerns. While he appreciated the Stipulated Agreement and being able to expedite the process, he was concerned about not having the details of the case 9 April 16,2014 read into the record. He asked how long the Respondent's employees were without Workers' Compensation coverage before the situation was corrected. He asked where was the diligence to prevent being caught? By not having Workers' Compensation coverage, a company could compete unfairly because it was not paying that expense when bidding a job. The Respondent was called to the podium and a translator (Antonio Brown) was present to assist. Antonio Brown stated he was the President of the company. Vice Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Brown how long his workers went without Workers' Compensation insurance. Mr. Brown replied they started with a leasing company but it was very hard to obtain coverage because they had less than ten employees. They were dropped by the leasing company in January. Afterward, we didn't have any employees. We struggled to find a company to give us Workers' Compensation coverage. We worked only with subcontractors—we didn't have any employees. They signed on with ADP because they offered a package which included payroll and Workers' Comp coverage. We didn't understand that another company was doing the insurance. We sent the paperwork to ADP and thought that everything was in place. We didn't know that we hadn't authorized the other company for the coverage. When the Investigator went to the job site and called us, we said we were covered and to call ADP. They called ADP on Friday who called me on Monday to say that we were not covered. I called the company that was to have provided the coverage and was told that we never authorized them to provide coverage but it was done the same day—a couple of hours later. The applications were in place—the paperwork was corrected and submitted. That's why we had the insurance the same day. If we had applied just because we got caught, it would have taken three or four days. We had everything in place and thought that everything was done. Vice Chairman Lykos again asked how long his employees were without coverage. Mr. Brown responded,"less than 30 days. It was 20 days." Michael Ossorio asked about the penalty assessed by the State. Mr. Brown stated his firm paid $14,000 to the State. Attorney Neale noted the fine paid to Workers' Compensation plus the $4,700 paid to the County was significantly more than a"slap on the wrist." Vice Chairman Lykos asked Investigator Keegan if Nian had been cited for any other violations and his response was, "No." Richard Joslin asked about the first citation issued in July, 2013 for not having Workers' Compensation coverage and the penalty that was assessed. Antonio Brown stated it was approximately $4,000. Thomas Keegan noted Ian Jackson had issued a Citation for $300 to that jobsite in July, 2013. (See: County's Exhibit"E-23") Investigator Ian Jackson was called to testify and was sworn in. 10 April 16,2014 Ian Jackson identified the Citation issued in July, 2013 which coincided with the "Stop Work" Order issued by the Department of Financial Services. Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Brown if he understood that he is required to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance and his response was, "Yes." Mr. Jerulle expressed his concern that if the President and the Qualifier understood this responsibility, why was there a second Citation issue for the same violation. Mr. Brown stated there error on their part was not following up with ADP because they thought ADP was handling everything—they did not understand that another company would provide the Workers' Compensation coverage. Now they understand the entire process. They have hired a Superintendent who will verify who is working on which jobsite and will ensure they have coverage. He stated they are very serious about improving their business and are taking the steps necessary. Mr. Neale stated if the Board is not going to accept the Stipulation, he would request a Continuance in order to prepare for a trial. Richard Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the Motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. (Chairman White did not vote.) Vice Chairman Lykos stated the Respondent admitted his guilt. He stated the question before the Board was whether or not to accept the Stipulated Agreement, and if the Agreement was not accepted, would the Board grant a Continuance. Attorney Morey explained the maximum penalties that could be assessed were a fine of$5,000, reimbursement to the County of investigative costs, and a probationary period of two years. He suggested the Board consider its past decisions where second violations were involved. Richard Joslin stated he would like to amend the Stipulation to reflect assessment of the maximum the fine to $5,000 and place probation at 24 months. He further stated payment of the investigative costs would remain the same as would the 90 day timeframe to pay the fines. Gary McNally stated he agreed with extending the probationary period to 24 months although he did not think the $4,200 needed to be changed. It was noted increasing the time period in Item 2 also extended to Item 3. Michael Ossorio noted the company had pulled several permits for single family homes in the past year (approximatelyl0). He stated he would like to see both Mr. Brown and Mr. Lopez in the office, pulling permits for the next 12 months. 11 April 16,2014 Mr. Brown stated the company's attorney, Mr. Neale, will help them to ensure that all paperwork is completed and filed correctly. We are spending our resources to make sure that this never happens again. Vice Chairman Lykos recognized that the company has taken serious corrective active prior to the hearing. After further discussion, it was determined the Board supported amending the Stipulated Agreement to reflect the additional time for probation. Mr. Neale stated his client would be agreeable to extending the probation to twenty-four months. Richard Joslin moved to approve accepting the Stipulated Agreement as amended to extend the probation in Item #2 from twelve to twenty-four months and also extends Item #3 to twenty-four months. The fine of$4,200 and the reimbursement to the County of investigative costs of$525 would remain as stipulated. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1 — "Abstention." Chairman White abstained from voting. (Note: The Stipulation was amended to conform with the Motion and signed by all parties. A copy of the signed Agreement is attached to the Minutes.) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Continued) (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. Terry L. Curtis—Verification of Experience (d/b/a "AAA Eagle Plumbing, Inc.") Michael Ossorio provided background information: • Mr. Curtis is a licensed, registered Plumbing Contractor and has been for several years; • He took the exam for"Class B" Air Conditioning (under 25-tons; under 500,000 BTU); • There are questions concerning his Credit Report; • He lacks the paperwork that verifies his experience. Mr. Ossorio stated, according to the Code, a"Class B" Air-Conditioning Contractor requires 36 months of experience as a licensed Journeyman, or equivalent, with a passing grade on the Business Procedures test. He noted there is a Journeyman test. He stated it typically takes five to six years before a Contractor can take the test as a Journeyman. First, he would work as an apprentice for four years and then, if he passed the required tests, would become a Journeyman. He explained the County accepts Affidavits from previous employers concerning verification of employment and experience. Paul Jackson had an in-house program to teach their apprentices to become Journeymen. The County also 12 April 16,2014 accepts Affidavits from other jurisdictions concerning Journeymen experience— throughout the State as well as from other states. Chairman White asked if the County had verification from other jurisdictions. Mr. Ossorio replied, "No." Mr. White asked if Mr. Curtis was a licensed Journeyman and the response was, "No." Mr. Ossorio noted taking the Journeyman's test was not required; the work experience, or its equivalent, was sufficient. He stated Mr. Curtis chose to take the "Class B"Master Exam which he passed with a score of 75% in June, 2013. Chairman White stated there was essentially nothing in the record that spoke to the Applicant's experience. He asked Mr. Curtis to explain his experience. Terry Curtis stated: • He is the owner of AAA Eagle Plumbing, Inc. • He took the A/C Exam because he was asked if he had construction experience. He stated he has been in construction since 1986. His company been in business since 2004. • He has worked for A/C companies over the years. • He stated he was unable to obtain a letter from Paul Jackson because he was initially hired as a plumber but he was trained during the summers when plumbing work was slow to perform a/c work. • He stated he was confused as to why Mr. Jackson would not give him a letter verifying his a/c experience since he was trained by Mr. Jackson and did a/c work as he was instructed. • He decided to take the "Class B" exam to add the a/c license to his Plumbing Contractor license and better serve his customers. • He is originally from Kentucky and his father and uncles are involved in a/c work. In Kentucky, plumbers are allowed to perform a/c work in addition to plumbing. • When he moved to Naples, he worked in Bentley Village in maintenance. He said he rode with the "a/c guys, watched them, and learned." Chairman White asked the Applicant how many months or years of Journeyman-level technical experience he had. Mr. Curtis stated he worked for Jackson for only one year and was at Bentley Village for two years in the 1980s. Michael Ossorio outlined the criteria for a Journeyman in air-conditioning: • Four years of apprenticeship; a passing grade on an approved test; means any person who is qualified while employed or supervised by an air- conditioning or mechanical contractor. • Afterward, the individual could take the Journeyman test and become a licensed Journeyman after thirty-six months of experience. Chairman White stated he was not convinced the Applicant had the necessary experience. 13 April 16,2014 Kyle Lantz asked Mr. Curtis what type of work he wanted to do, i.e., change- outs, repairs. Terry Curtis replied a/c repair along with his plumbing repair work. He wanted to give his customers an option; he could clean the coils and add Freon if their a/c unit was not running cold enough. He stated he did not want to do any major change-outs. He wanted to be able to service the equipment along with his servicing of water heaters. Kyle Lantz stated the Applicant's goal was to perform basic maintenance and simple services. Mr. Curtis noted he worked by himself. He stated he has done some new construction work but it was "very, very small." Mr. Lantz stated there was a"Class C" license which would allow him to perform simple services. Mr. Curtis reminded him that he would not be allowed to install Freon under a "Class C" license. Michael Ossorio confirmed holders of a"Class C" license could perform maintenance and service including cleaning coils and duct cleaning. He noted with a Freon card, the Applicant could install Freon. He further stated while the State does not offer a"Class C" license, Collier County still did. He explained even though Mr. Curtis took the "Class B" exam, his license could be restricted to performing"Class C"maintenance and service. He would still need four years of apprenticeship and two years as a licensed Journeyman. Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant, asking for his experience with service work. Terry Curtis replied, "That's what I was doing when I was with Jackson. The whole time I was there. That's what they were training me to do. It was all service." Mr. Lantz requested the Applicant provide details concerning the type of work that he did. A. I cleaned coils, I also made sure the drains ... the most important thing ... people would ... their a/c would stop ... so I would go there and check the flow switch, checked the drains to make sure it was not plugged with algae, change all the filters, check the batteries, the thermostat, usually checked the Freon, and checked the contacts. That's basically what I did for them all the time. Mr. Lantz stated he has been a plumber for years, as well as a"Class B" Air Conditioning Contractor. He explained he obtained his experience by doing the same as the Applicant. He further stated most A/C Contractors would consider what Mr. Curtis did as a/c maintenance work—but not really service work. He continued he considered service work to be when a customer called, saying he had no cold air. He asked the Applicant how he would fix the problem. He agreed the flow switch was a common problem—if the drain was clogged, you would have that issue. He further explained that, in his opinion, "service work" was typically a contact, fan motor, control board,thermostat—a little more 14 April 16,2014 intense "stuff." When the Applicant hadn't done any of that ... he concluded by stating it was difficult for him to grant someone a license who hadn't actually done the whole job. Chairman White asked Mr. Lantz if he would be in favor of granting a license if it were reduced to "Class C." Kyle Lantz replied he would still not be in favor of it—"there's a big difference between maintenance and service. In my opinion, his experience is in maintenance." Richard Joslin stated he was curious regarding why Jackson wouldn't give the Applicant a letter, especially if he had been doing the work for one year. A. Because he hired me as a plumber. Q. A year is better than nothing. A. He kind of got angry with me when I put my license on hold. I went to work for him under plumbing but when I re-instated my license and quit, he kind of got upset. Q. Okay, that explains it. Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve denying the Applicant's request to issue the license. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. Chairman White suggested to Mr. Curtis to consider applying for a"Class C" license and obtain other evidence to demonstrate his experience. Vice Chairman Lykos added that an important part of the Ordinance was that the Applicant work under someone else's supervision. Terry Curtis explained he could work for any a/c company but he did not want to give up his plumbing company to do so. He stated the reason why he wanted the "Class B" license was to "slowly work into it." C. Robert A. Zielinski—Second Entity Application (d/b/a "Raz Construction, LLC.") Michael Ossorio referenced Section 22-181(2): A Qualifying Agent may qualify no more than one firm, practicing the same trade, without prior approval of the Contractors' Licensing Board and, in no event, more than two firms at the same time. Mr. Ossorio stated Mr. Zielinski is the Qualifier for A —Z Masonry, Inc. and wants to qualify Raz Construction, LLC. He owns 100% of Raz Construction. Chairman White noted Raz Construction has been incorporated since last year as an LLC. Richard Joslin asked if Robert Zielinski if he had downsized to an LLC or if he had been a corporation at one point. A. A —Z Masonry is the corporation. 15 April 16,2014 Michael Ossorio asked Mr. Zielinski if he had been before the Fort Myers' Licensing Board and the response was, "Yes." Robert Zielinski explained he was licensed in Lee County, Cape Coral, Punta Gorda, and Port Charlotte. Q. For two companies? A. Yes. Q. I think we're the last one. A. Yes. Q. Can you explain to the Board why you are doing two. A. A—Z Masonry—I have done it forever. People are calling me thinking I am just a masonry company. Actually, I do concrete and masonry. But I'm losing out on some of my concrete work. Chairman White asked if a name change would work. Michael Ossorio responded the Applicant wants to keep A—Z. He indicated he had discussed the option with Mr. Zielinski. A. A lot of people know me as A —Z Masonry and I don't want to lose them because they wouldn't know I changed to Raz Construction. Vice Chairman Lykos referenced Question"K" on the application to qualify a Second Entity which asked "What percentage of ownership do you have in the present business you are qualing and what percentage of ownership will you have in the business you are attempting to qualify?" He asked if the answer [100%] meant one hundred percent of both. A. Yes. Kyle Lantz commented that one of the things that concerns him when the Second Entity is similar or close to the first company is that the companies might, in certain instances, bid against each other. In this situation, it is probably not the case and it appears the Applicant has done his homework. But the possibility still exists. This is a hurdle that you might need to overcome. A. I have been in business and having been paying bills all my life—that's not me. Vice Chairman Lykos stated one of his concerns was that one company would collect the money and the other would pay the bills. One company has the debt and while the other company has all the revenue. He stated the Applicant had an excellent credit report. Mr. Lykos noted his concern was also expressed by other members of the Board in similar hearings. If you have two business entities that do the same kind of work, you can have all of your accounts in one company that buys all the material but, somehow, that company never seems to make any money. The other company collects the money but never has any expenses. A. If I do a contract with you, you are going to do it under one company or the other, and you are going to pay me on that job. Q. I understand, but you could take A—Z Masonry and buy all the concrete and buy the block even though I've hired the other company—that's my contract 16 April 16,2014 with you and that's who I would pay the money to. But you would purchase the materials in the name of the other company. It is a concern. Chairman White stated if the Board approves the Second Entity the Applicant's intention—as indicated in his cover letter—is for the new contract work to be in Raz Construction. As the obligations that A—Z has are fulfilled, there is a potential that his license—which is dormant—would not enter into the new contracts. A. Regarding A—Z Masonry, at this point right now, I am the only employee of A—Z. I am Workers' Comp exempt. My employees are all part of Raz. What I don't want to do is to go dormant with A—Z Masonry. A—Z will be kept separate. Chairman White asked how he plans to keep the situation raised by Mr. Lykos from happening. A. I don't do business that way. When asked if there were any way to prevent A — Z Masonry from pulling a permit in Collier County, Michael Ossorio explained the company specializes in block work and Specialty licenses usually do not pull permits. It was noted A—Z Masonry, Inc. has been in business since 1988. Michael Ossorio stated the County's recommended approving the Applicant's request. He stated that Mr. Zielinski has been qualified and is conducting business in Lee County and Charlotte County. Vice Chairman Lykos asked about the current work load of A—Z Masonry. He noted the Applicant letter stated he intended to phase out the company as each job was completed. A. I have nothing in Collier County. In the other Counties, everything is almost phased completely out. Most everything has already moved over to Raz, i.e., my contracts, new construction, insurance, payroll and everything else. Michael Ossorio confirmed proof of Workers' Compensation coverage had been provided. Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve granting the Applicant's request to Qualify a Second Entity. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. RECESS: 10:31 AM RECONVENED: 10:42 AM D. Jorge Ramirez—Verification of Construction Experience (d/b/a "Jorge Ramirez Lawn Care, LLC") 17 April 16,2014 Michael Ossorio referenced to Section 22-162 (25) of the Code. Landscaping Contractor requires 12 months experience and a passing grade on a business and law test and means any person who is qualified to install and/or remove trees, shrubs, sod, decorative stone and/or rocks, timber and plant materials, and concrete paving units for sidewalks, patios and decks only, whether or not incidental to landscaping,prepackaged fountains, or waterfalls, provided same does not include connection to a sanitary sewer system, portable water line, or to any electrical installation, which tasks must be perfoiined by tradesmen licensed in the relevant trade. Landscape contractors may contract for only removal and/or trimming of trees and/or other combination of the authorized services. All new applicants applying for landscaping license are required to obtain a passing grade on an approved exam pertaining to pruning and safety, in addition to the Business and Law exam. Mr. Ossorio provided background information: • Applicant applied for a Landscaping Contractor's license; • Twelve months of experience is required; He noted Mr. Ramirez was issued a Citation for unlicensed activity and paid the fine of$300 and the violation was abated because he applied within 45 days of the Citation. Mr. Ramirez took and passed the necessary two exams, i.e., Business & Law and Tree Trimming exam. • His issue: providing documentation to support his landscaping experience Jorge Ramirez stated: • He is currently employed by a plumbing company • His goal is to open a landscaping business • His father works at a licensed landscaping company and he will join the business if the Board grants his request for a license o His father has 20+years of experience and taught the Applicant everything he knows o His brother, Ricardo,taken/passed the BMP exam and has a Limited Commercial Fertilizer Applicator Certificate and will also join the business Chairman White questioned the Applicant concerning a construction experience affidavit signed by Jesus Garcia of Golden Leaf Pest, Inc. He noted the affidavit did not contain any information about when he worked for Golden Leaf or what he did while employed there. A. I worked for Jesus Garcia and helped him out trimming hedges and ... Q. How long and what did you do? A. I trimmed the hedges in front of his Chinese restaurant, part-time on the weekends, for roughly four months. 18 April 16,2014 Q. And there's no one else that you could get any kind of an affidavit from as to your construction experience? A. No, sir, no. I haven't worked for a landscaping company. Q. You worked for Tru-Green. What was that? A. I did not work for Tru-Green. My brother ... Q. I'm sorry ... that was your brother .... A. Alfredo. Vice Chairman Lykos stated in order to get the license, you need 12 months of experience. Typically, an Applicant would provide written verification from a supervisor at the company where he/she worked. The document would state how long the applicant worked and what type of work he/she did. You don't have that. One of the other things that we can accept is your testimony. We need you to tell us that for at least twelve months, you did the kind of work that would qualify for this license. Jorge Ramirez stated: • You can ask me any questions because I feel pretty confident that I can answer them. • I worked in my parents' yard—that's where I learned. We planted coconut palms, guava, lots of foliage and plants that grow in South Florida. • My father showed me everything he knows. • My brother, who took his Fertilizer Applications test, has helped me out with any questions about fertilizers. • I've done lots of work but I can't show you physical proof • I can just explain to you what I know. That's all I have, sir. Kyle Lantz asked about the Citation for sodding. He asked if Mr. Ramirez had been doing landscaping "on the side" and the response was, "Yes." A. I have been doing this "on the side" for three years. Mr. Ramirez described the equipment he used for his work. Mr. Lantz noted the Applicant had the tools that he needed and resources in his family to help him if he encountered a problem. Michael Ossorio explained the Landscaping Contractor's license does not allow the use of fertilizers. That is a separate license. An extension course is offered and you receive a card upon completion. All employees of any company that applies fertilizer must carry the card. Pest Control is regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection. There is no license requirement for the application of fertilizers. Mr. Ramirez acknowledged that while he worked as a plumber, he would not risk receiving another Citation and $1,000 fine to correct a plumbing problem (such as a broken sprinkler head) while on a landscaping job. If he found it was necessary, he would apply for an Irrigation License. 19 April 16,2014 Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio about the fine and what would happen if Mr. Ramirez's application was denied. Michael Ossorio explained because Mr. Ramirez completed an application within 45 days of receiving the Citation,the violation was abated and noted that the fine of$300 had been paid. The case has been closed. Chairman White summarized if the application is denied, the fine will not increase for the next Citation. He stated the Board wanted to encourage people to come in and make application. Chairman White stated the average work year is approximately 2,000 hours. He asked the Applicant to estimate how many hours of work experience he had over the past three years. A. Easily over 2,000. Easily. Richard Joslin asked if the tree test that Mr. Ramirez took allowed him to trim trees and remove as well as plant them. Michael Ossorio stated he was correct. Mr.Joslin asked the Applicant to explain his experience with trees. A. I have not done any tree trimming. It was required that I take the test. I don't have the equipment to trim trees other than knocking palm fronds down and trimming lower branches and limbs. Q. It's part of the license—you're allowed to do that. A. It's a great opportunity for me but not now ... maybe in the future. Mr. Ossorio was asked for the County's recommendation. He stated a restricted license for landscaping could be issued, minus the trees. The applicant could do plants and sod. He will still be able to trim hedges. Mr. Ramirez stated if, in the future, if he acquires the equipment, he will come before the Board to have the restriction removed. Chairman White suggested that he work for someone who is licensed for trees to gain the experience he will need. Kyle Lantz moved to approve the application for a Landscaping Contractor's license, minus the trees which include palms. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. F. Bradley J. Garrod, Jr.—Request for Waiver of Exam(s) for Reinstatement (d/b/a "Garrod Painting, Inc.") It was noted that Mr. Garrod was not present. Chairman White tabled the case. G. Mikel G. Diehl—Request for Waiver of Exam(s) for Reinstatement (d/b/a "Florida Hardscapes and Paver maintenance,Inc.") Michael Ossorio provided background information: • The Applicant and his father had been licensed Paving Block Contractors for several years. 20 April 16,2014 • They chose to close their business. • He is before the Board to request a waiver of not only the Business Procedures test but also the Paving Block exam. • There are questions concerning his previous corporation. Mickel Diehl stated: • I believe I have enough experience with over 14 years in the industry. • I'm pretty knowledgeable about the paving block business. Chairman White asked Mr. Diehl to provide details about his experience. A. I started basically with cleaning up trash from job sites to getting into more of the repair aspect to full installations by myself and then into sales. Richard Joslin asked who had worked for in the past. A. I worked for my father's company,M&C Florida Pavers, Inc. and I did everything. Q. How long did you work for him? A. I started when I was in high school, about 16 years old, working during the summers. I went to school for a couple of years and then came back. I worked for him for 5 to 6 years. Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Diehl if he was the Qualifier for his father's company. A. Yes, I eventually was the Qualifier for the company. Q. And you became the Qualifier because you took the test? A. Yes. Q. When was the last time you took the test? A. I believe in 2005 or 2006. Kyle Lantz: Q. How long has your father's company been out of business? A. About two years. Q. What have you been doing since then? A. I have been working doing pressure cleaning for driveways and pool decks. But I have been getting requests to do paver installations. That's why I'm trying to reinstate my license. Q. You have been working for yourself? A. Yes, sir. Richard Joslin stated there are a lot of derogatory things in your credit history ... low scores from all over Florida. Chairman White noted the Applicant's FICO score was 674 and the minimum threshold was 660. Vice Chairman Lykos stated there was a pending lawsuit. Chairman White: Q. Can you tell us anything about the State of Florida tax lien for $1,037? A. I am not familiar with that. Is it against me? 21 April 16,2014 Q. It is against M&C Florida Pavers. It's in the commercial report. Some sort of business taxes. A. I believe so, yes, sir. I was just the Qualifier for the company. I was not the owner. Vice Chairman Lykos stated it was important that Mr. Diehl understand that as a Qualifier, he was responsible for the company. A. I do understand that. Q. It's not an excuse ... not being knowledgeable about the debt of the company. You can't tell us about the tax lien because you don't have knowledge about that? A. I was the Qualifier but I didn't work in the business end of it, I was doing more of the other jobs. Chairman White: Q. In January, 2013, were you the Qualifier? A. Yes, sir. Q. That's when the lien was filed. When did you become the Qualifier? A. I believe in 2006. Kyle Lantz: Q. When did your license become inactive? A. About two years ago or three years ago. Michael Ossorio referenced the first page of the application. The fees date back to 2011. Kyle Lantz noted the company closed in 2011 but the lien was filed in 2013. Chairman White stated one was for Florida Hardscapes and the other was for M&C Florida Pavers. A. They are two separate companies. Kyle Lantz: Q. But in 2013, you were not the Qualifier anymore, which is when the tax lien was filed. Chairman White stated the Board was talking specifically about M&C Florida Pavers—being the Qualifier for M&C. A. Yes, I was the Qualifier but when my license went dormant ... that's why I was unfamiliar with the lien. My license was dormant in 2013. This must have come up after the business was closed. Chairman White asked if Florida Hardscapes remained active after M&C Florida Pavers went dormant. A. Yes, sir. I opened Florida Hardscapes to go out on my own and into the pressure cleaning. Q. And that one lapsed and you owe back fees from 2011 to 2013. A. For the licensing. Yes, sir. 22 April 16,2014 Terry Jerulle asked why Mr. Diehl chose to appear before the Board rather than just take the test. A. To see if I could get approved without going through the testing again. I am very knowledgeable about the paving block industry. Q. The last time you took a test was in 2005? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you done any continuing education? A. I was a member through"ICPI" (Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute) and would go to meetings. Q. But not since the closing in 2011? A. No, sir. Vice Chairman Lykos: Q. Your company is Florida Hardscapes and it was incorporated in 2010? A. Yes, sir. Q. There is a creditor, Gulf Coast Pavers. Can you explain the lawsuit filed in 2012 against Florida Hardscapes from Tremron, Inc. in Duval County? A. My father and I have very similar names but my first name has a different spelling. They thought it was part of the same company. I opened my own company—it is separate and I own 100% of it. Q. What is the disposition of this case? A. Right now, I guess it's still active but they told me it was supposed to be dropped. There was confusion over the names when it was initially filed. I know they already received a letter from the acting attorney stating it was supposed to be dropped. I can provide a copy of the letter. Additional information. • Tremron was a supplier and M&C ordered materials through them. • M&C had to shut down due to the slowdown with building due to the economy. • Tremron was not paid. • The materials ordered from Tremron could not be returned because they had been installed. Q. At the time this debt was incurred with Tremron, you were the Qualifer for M&C Florida Pavers, Inc. A. Yes, sir. Kyle Lantz stated he had no problem waiving the testing requirement. He further stated he was concerned about the finances. He suggested imposing a period of probation. Chairman White stated there may be an obligation that the Applicant may have to fulfill if the suit from Tremron goes forward. Kyle Lantz stated history tends to repeat itself and if it happened in the past, it could happen again. Not everybody learns from past mistakes. If the Board puts you on probation, there is a little extra control in place to ensure it doesn't happen again. 23 April 16,2014 Terry Jerulle stated he would not support waiving the testing requirements. The Applicant has not been in the industry for several years; he has not done any continuing education. Chairman White stated if Mr. Diehl takes the test and passes, the Board will not be able to monitor him as Mr. Lantz suggested. Michael Ossorio stated if he took and passed the exam; wrote a letter explaining the pending lawsuit was actually against his father and with a credit score of 674, a license would be issued. County's Recommendation: To approve the application and waive the testing but place the Applicant on a one-year probation with new credit reports, business and personal, to be presented to the Board for review and a disposition of the pending litigation filed in 2012. Chairman White stated the Applicant must be voluntarily dismissed from the suit. Because Florida Hardscapes is one of the defendants, if the suit is ongoing it will appear on one of the credit reports. He supported probation and requirement for new credit reports. Chairman White moved to approve accepting the County's recommendation for a one-year probationary period requiring Mikel Diehl to present new personal and business[Florida HardscapesJcredit reports at the end of the probationary period. Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. H. Daniel A. Haugen—Contesting Citations #08650 and #08651 (d/b/a "Hot Concepts Fireplaces, LLC.") Citation: #08650 ("Unlicensed Residential Contractor") Date Issued: March 18, 2014 Fine: $2,000.00 (2nd Offense) 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. Vice Chairman Lykos disclosed that he hired Daniel Haugen for a project (installation of a fireplace insert) within the past 90 days but the relationship will not impact his ability to be impartial. Chairman White asked if there would be a pecuniary gain or loss. Vice Chairman Lykos responded the job was completed. It would not affect his judgment or his company. Chairman White concluded there was no conflict of interest; a Form 8B was not needed and full voting. Daniel Haugen stated there were two separate issues: (1) whether the Citation was valid; (2)the fine. • I was issued a Citation prior to this by Reggie Smith for unlicensed advertising. 24 April 16,2014 • I don't think the two are completely related and to say this is a second offense—they are two seemingly separate issues. • My advertising, which was just verbiage, was corrected at the time and addressed. • When I met with Ian Jackson, he stated because of the previous Citation, the new Citation was considered as a"second" Citation. • There were no prior reports of work being done outside of the license. Chairman White noted Citation#7643, issued in June, 2013, stated the violation was that you advertised self which was four different pieces to the Citation. The Respondent was claiming the new violation was different piece of those four. Daniel Haugen stated it was not in the same category—it was not necessarily offending the same thing again. The verbiage in my advertising was corrected and I have not violated that again. Chairman White stated the first Citation was advertising-related and the second one was ... A. Unlicensed residential contractor. Q. You entered into a contract that was beyond the scope? A. That's the point ... that's my second comment. Originally when I went from working for another Contractor in the area, I was aware of what licensing that Contractor had who has been doing work in the area for fifteen years. I went to the Licensing Office to apply for a business license and whatever was required to operate as a business providing fireplaces in Collier County. I was told by the office that a license was not required, but if I wanted to do anything beyond that work, such as structural walls, framing, drywalls, that I could apply for a Residential Contractor's license but if I was just doing fireplaces, it was not required. It was later confirmed by Reggie Smith whom I met with concerning the advertising verbiage who said that he agreed with the Licensing Office that there was no specific licensed required for providing fireplaces—only if we were going to do work beyond providing fireplace systems, that we would need to have a license. He gave me the information. I have since started the process and have submitted applications for a Masonry Contractor's license as well as a Residential Building Contractor's license. Q. And the second of the two Citations was unlicensed residential contractor. A. Right. That was the question I had for Reggie Smith when I met with him ... what license do I need provide fireplaces and he said there wasn't one. And that's why I've gone forward conducting this type of business assuming I had the licenses I needed. I have an LP Appliance license from the State. The installation manual for this particular fireplace states that it is intended to be used with an LP source. Considering that, I can understand how there can be interpretation because the parts are constructed of masonry but the manual specifically states that the masonry pieces are to be glued together. It comes as a kit and it's listed as a complete kit. The fireplace itself—the piping—is all designated and outlined ... the sizing, configuration, assembly, products used by the manufacturer. They are listed and tested which is a requirement of the license that I carry. I am to use listed and tested products only. 25 April 16,2014 Q. You are referring to E-11 as the "Library Fireplace," for example? A. It refers to a certain model of the Isokern brand and all the components required to assemble it are provided by the manufacturer. It states the specific products and exactly how they are to be used. It's not like a full masonry fireplace where it's left to the interpretation of the Code or the installer to decide venting requirements or sizing. I have over 20 years of experience in building fireplaces. This is like comparing an oil change with building a car. Terry Jerulle: Q. When you said "provide"—does that mean to furnish and install? A. I guess it depends, again, on the definition of"installation" because that's one of the things I discussed with Reggie Smith. He said if you're delivering and setting up the fireplace ...installation might be considered ... if I say I'm installing a gas fireplace, he said the verbiage would include the connection to the gas line which is why I agreed to change it because we're not doing that. We don't do any of the framing and we don't do any gas line connection—no electrical. 99%of the work that we do is for General Contractors. Our Scope of Work is specific to providing a specific product with specific directions in a specific listing. Q. To answer my question, "providing"means furnishing and installing? A. I guess that would be correct. Q. I want the other members of the Board to understand that you are providing pieces and parts, and you go into the field and assembling those pieces and parts. A. Yes, sir. Q. I want to make sure some of the members of the Board understand that. A. The reason why I chose to use the word"provide" is due to the discussion I had with Reggie Smith who said if I used the word "installation" of a gas fireplace or electric fireplace, it assumes that I am doing electrical wiring or gas lines or gas connections which we do not. Q. I think it's important for the Board that when you furnish as refrigerator, you plug in the refrigerator. When you say you are providing a fireplace, people on the Board may not understand what's involved with that. I had you run through that because you are providing pieces and parts. And then you go into the field and you assemble those pieces and parts. A. Yes, sir. Chairman White requested a breakdown of the pieces in the contract that are shown on E-11, 12 and 13. • Building the Base: Is that the piece of the contract that is outside the scope of your license? A. If the base requires anything other than the parts provided by the manufacturer, then the Contractor has to do the additional work. For example, in most cases (and in this case), the fireplace was set in place— assembled—on a concrete footing foundation. We did not pour the foundation. The foundation was there, in place, by the General Contractor or whoever they subcontracted to pour the concrete floor. If there's any concrete 26 April 16,2014 block built under, on, or around the fireplace, it's done by the General Contractor or the sub. When we refer to the "base,"the fireplace has the option of using their provided base or eliminating it depending on the height they want the fireplace opening to be. For example, the base is three inches. If you set that on a concrete floor with the fire brick added, it's going to be a 4 1/2-inch height. If you remove the 3-inch base, then your total finished floor height is an inch and three-quarters to an inch and three-eighths. The Contractors like that information because they want to make sure that we understand that the fireplace ends up at the proper height according to their architect's design or design specifications. If the Contractor says we want it six feet off the floor,they have to provide something other than the three inches we provide. Q. I appreciate the detail. What I hear you saying is that as to the library, the great room and the lanai, a base was provided by someone else. A. Yes. Q. Let's jump to "B." You did the construction of the box—that's all stuff that came from the manufacturer and your job is to assemble it, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. It was the same thing for all three fireplaces. A. Yes, sir. Q. "C"—Build the Firebox. You are using fire brick. Is that within the scope of your license? A. The fire brick isn't actually built on site. It's provided as panels. We don't build brick. That might be a misunderstanding if you look at it as a masonry project. We're not individually laying bricks. We're providing a panel made up of individual bricks and they are put into the fireplace. Q. And you assemble those? A. Right. Q. What about the item for"grouting fire brick joints using mortar?" A. That's the same as ... Q. In the scope or outside the scope? A. Ummm ... Q. Your opinion. A. It's something we do ... it's within the directions for the fireplace, specifically to give guidelines of what grout has to be used and how it's to be done. It's all part of the listing instructions provided by the manufacturer. There is no room for interpretation. If I was completely ignorant of masonry ability, they are providing all of the guidelines regarding what kind of mortar is to be used and how much; how thick the mortar joints can be; how it is to be filled in; etc. Q. The only other thing that's different as to the great room and lanai is with respect to metal flue venting and the terminations thereof. Those are within or outside the scope of your license? A. I believe it's within because it's again part of the listed system. The installation manual provides guidelines and specific direction of exactly what flue needs to be used unlike a masonry fireplace where you would have to decipher and mechanically engineer the flue size. In this case, it's given to 27 April 16,2014 you exactly—the size and exact material to be used. There's no option or choice. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated the basis for the Citation is the County's position that multiple trades were contracted with in the construction or installation of these fire box/fireplace kits. Chairman White asked what were the specific trades. Mr. Jackson replied the County's position in this particular contract, at minimum, is masonry and mechanical. And with mechanical being a subcontractor trade ... not a Specialty Contractor trade, that's where the residential license and the Citation was noted as residential. Chairman White asked Mr. Jackson to address the penalty and the dollar amount, the contention by Mr. Haugen that they are essentially different violations and the penalty should not be stepped up to the higher amount. Ian Jackson responded the County's position is that it is the same Section number in Florida Statutes: "Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor or advertise self or business organization ..." Chairman White stated the County's Code, 2006-46 in 1.1.1 is the same as the Statutes? Daniel Haugen stated he had a conversation with Ian Jackson who stated there were two completely separate issues. I could not use the conversation with Reggie Smith to defend myself against the accusation of this violation. Chairman White stated what he heard Mr. Haugen say about his conversation with Reggie Smith had more to do with the scope of work and whether or not you should use some other trades license to do this. Mr. Haugen stated it seemed as if the County stated if the work is not being done by a subcontractor, it must be done by him. Richard Joslin asked if this Citation would also be listed as a Second Offense and was that the reason why the fine was so much larger. Mr. Jackson replied each of the Citations was considered to be a"Second" offense. There was a lengthy discussion during which Mr. Haugen described the installation process and what was required from the General Contractor in order to install the fireplace. Mr. Haugen summarized: "We assemble the fireplace. Whether the Contractor frames it in before or after, we have no involvement with that other than providing the Contractor with the installation manual." It was noted the manual states to assemble with epoxy—not mortar. Vice Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Haugen if he installed the pipe that carried burnt gas from the house and the response was "Yes." He then asked if Mr. Haugen had a license for HVAC and the response was "No." Michael Ossorio stated the County wished to introduce a witness. 28 April 16,2014 Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Haugen if he had any licenses. A. I have the LP Gas Appliance license. It is a State license. Mr. Haugen reiterated he asked the Contractors' Licensing Office what would be required of him to install fireplaces: Reggie Smith stated it could be considered "mechanical"but he was not required to obtain a Mechanical Contractor's license because he was not sizing ducts or installing them, or doing air-conditioning or heating systems or any of the things that fall within that license. My understanding of what I was required to obtain as a license was dictated by a person who has already been doing work in Collier County in addition to the questions I asked the Licensing Office. Vice Chairman Lykos stated part of the problem was, in his opinion, Mr. Haugen was misrepresenting was a true fireplace installation could be. He further stated that Mr. Haugen down-played what was being represented. Installing a fireplace can be comprehensive and include masonry, gas, electric, and ventilation. He continued, "What you are trying to get everybody to believe was installing a fireplace is as simple as throwing something in a hole and walking away when, in fact, it can be very comprehensive." He concluded, "Just because you have a 45-page manual doesn't mean that you have the license or qualifications to install venting for a gas fireplace in a house." Daniel Haugen stated he asked Reggie Smith and Ian Jackson what license they thought he should have and he would obtain it. He further stated he had submitted his application to obtain al Residential Contractor's license. He continued by stating, "Up to this point, I was not aware that was required of me." Chairman White asked why Mr. Haugen was not an LP Gas Installer which would allow him more options. His conclusion was that Mr. Haugen needed more such as a Masonry Contractor's or Mechanical Contractor's license. Vice Chairman Lykos supported the need for a Masonry Contractor's license. Lengthy discussion continued. Kyle Lantz moved to approve upholding Citation #8650. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. Citation: #08651 ("Unlicensed Residential Contractor") Date Issued: March 18, 2014 Fine: $2,000.00 (2' Offense) 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. Daniel Haugen: • My objection to this Citation is we are providing brick panels for the fireplace. 29 April 16,2014 • We did not build the fireplace. It was built by a Masonry Contractor who installed the flu pipe. • I was hired as a consultant. • The person who made the complaint against me once worked for the same employer that I did. This person does not have any type of license. • If I had been given clear direction from the County three or more years ago, I would have obtained by General Contractors' License and my Masonry License. • I didn't intentionally enter into a contract to do something I was not allowed to do. • I have applied for my Residential Contractor's License. Chairman White stated he objected to the County's use of a previously issued Citation to enhance the penalty. Because there is a crack in the system, this man is being nicked twice, especially since he did not do the work. He supported dismissing the Citation and the fine. Attorney James Morey advised the Board concerning its options: uphold the Citation or dismiss it. If the Citation is upheld,the fine must remain as initially assessed or it can be increased. The Board cannot reduce the fine. Michael Ossorio explained the changes in the Code. Chairman White moved to approve dismissing the Citation. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 4— "Yes"/3— "No." Terry Jerulle, Kyle Lantz, and Vice Chairman Lykos were opposed. I. Adriano Cordero—Review of Credit Report(s) (d/b/a "Eco System Paint,LLC.") Michael Ossorio offered background information: • Mr. Cordero's business is less than 12 months old. • There are some issues with his credit history. Adriano Cordero: • He was unemployed for the past 2 '/z years. • He was able to make some payments: Gulf Coast Collections; Florida Power & Light; A/R Resources • He has an affidavit of Financial Support from his brother-in-law Chairman White moved to approve tabling the Case until the next meeting. Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0. VII. OLD BUSINESS: (None) 30 April 16,2014 IX. REPORTS: (None) X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building"F," Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 1:45 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD P tt PATRIC W TE, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on 0)* , 2014, "as submitted"\\ OR "as amended" [ 1. 31 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST LE N ME OF: OU OMMISSIO TH • TT V, MAI G�Q RESS 1 , ``;,\ THE BOARD,COUNCIL,COMMISSION,AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON f./ Jf�{"`'.u,1:F1l1 WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: CITY c �y CO�UyN`T ❑CITY ❑COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY tttt t�,: � NAME C� ITUBDIVI N:i`�\ DATE ON WHIG VOTE QCCI@Rkp) i MY POSITION IS: Ir\t ` 1 ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained);to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies(CRAs)under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.A"business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner,joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder(where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who should incorporate the form in the minutes. « « « « « « APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision)with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B-EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C. APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting,who must incorporate the form in the minutes.A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. �(``��{{ DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, p> PAC^ \A 7 } , hereby disclose that on .t. )\ \4 ,20 (a)A measure came or will come before my agency which(check one or more) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, , inured to the special gain or loss of my rel tive, • inured to the special gain or loss of . ' $ i P RI , by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of ,which is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b)The measure before my agency and the naturreeoof my onflicting inter in the measure is as follows: ^ -1W CX)*ODY) V* lik\elfr R,\INk \i‘,}3,1 tk Thi -*ti\))- TA)), gibo -. If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. 1 \4Vj? 4014 4Th lb Date Filed Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED$10,000. CE FORM 8B-EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f),F.A.C.