Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CLB Minutes 08/19/2015
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes August 19 , 2015 August 19, 2015 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING August 19, 2015 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Patrick White Vice Chair: Thomas Lykos Members: Michael Boyd 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 — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer 1 August 19,2015 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 said proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any 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; eight (8) voting members were present. II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Deletions: Under VI, "Old Business," the following were withdrawn by the County: • B. David M Jones —Waiver of Exam(s) o Will be rescheduled. • F. Bradley G. Johnson—Review of Credit o Was granted a license due to improved credit report. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JULY 15, 2015: Corrections: • Page 6— 5th Paragraph(1st sentence): Changed "Gary McNally" to "Terry Jerulle." All other references to Gary McNally were changed to Terry Jerulle in subsequent sentences. • Page 14—last paragraph: Changed "Vice Chairman White" to "Vice Chairman Lykos." Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve the July15, 2015 minutes as amended. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. V. DISCUSSION: (NONE) VI. NEW BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. 2 August 19,2015 (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. David M. Jones —Waiver of Exam(s) — Withdrawn per amended Agenda] C. Octavio E. Calderon—Verification of Experience (d/b/a "All in 1 Drywall& Painting, Inc.") Michael Ossorio referenced the definitions under Section 22 — 162 of Collier County Ordinance #90-105, Section 6.1: General Contractor requires 48-months of experience with a passing grade on an approved test, and a Business and Law test, and means a Contractor whose services are unlimited as to the type of work which he/she may do, except as provided in this article or in the Florida Statutes. He continued: • Mr. Calderon applied for a General Contractor's license and has applied to be a State registered General Contractor; • He has a licenses for Dry-Wall and Painting; • He was referred to the Contractors' Licensing Board due to lack of affidavits regarding his previous experience. Mr. Ossorio noted the Scope of Work for a General Contractor is "unlimited" and the State of Florida expects each candidate to provide detailed proof of his/her experience in several areas: supervision, commercial/multi-story building jobs, and residential construction. Chairman White noted the materials provided by Mr. Calderon did not sufficiently detail his experience. Kyle Lantz requested specifics regarding the type of structural work experience and the time required for each component. Michael Ossorio responded the State accepts W-2s to verify employment and has become stricter on the content of the affidavits. He stated the County follows the State's lead. He reiterated to become a General Contractor, the Candidate must prove that he/she has unlimited skills and the skill level required by the County includes commercial/multi-story construction experience, residential construction experience, the ability to pull appropriate permits, and supervision experience. He confirmed both the State and the County accept payroll records as proof that a Candidate had worked for a General Contractor. Kyle Lantz noted Mr. Calderon appeared to have very limited structural experience. He asked if there was a specific requirement for structural experience, in particular. Michael Ossorio confirmed a Candidate's structural experience should be mentioned in an affidavit. He stated it was a difficult license to obtain and the County verifies the information contained in each affidavit. 3 August 19, 2015 He continued that Mr. Calderon has been a licensed Dry-Wall Contractor and a licensed Painter for several years. He will need to testify to the Board concerning the extent of his experience. Chairman White questioned the Applicant: Q. Can you tell us whether you have experience in the construction of or supervising the construction of and the permitting for buildings of three stories or more that are either of a single-family, residential-type construction or a commercial construction of a condo or something like that? A. I have worked in residential construction for a builder; I have done remodeling including a lot of experience in framing and dry-wall installation and tile. I have not been able to pull a permit because I did not have a license. Q. We understand that and we are glad to hear that you didn't try to. But the point is to be able to do that as a Registered General Contractor, we need to hear from you because it is not in the papers that you have given us that you have experience with construction of buildings of three stories or more and, in particular, the structural aspects of those. Framing is framing—but when you do commercial construction of three or more stories, there are a lot of structural plans and other kinds of reviews and construction techniques that you have to be familiar with— and because the type of license that you are asking us to give you would allow you to do those things. A. I have been working on trusses—I know how to do roofing trusses and how to read plans. Everything is in the plans when you are building houses—everything is in the plans they give you—what kind of materials you need. With the plans, you do not need to be 100% structural to be able to build. I didn't have that much experience in building but I will be learning, little by little. Q. Well, there's the thing—once you have the license, the assumption is you're not going to do on-the-job training. The assumption is that in order to get the license, you spent four years—48 months—on the job working for someone else who was a licensed General Contractor and you learned how to do those things and you were under their"umbrella" or protection so that they helped you to do those things. I would be very uncomfortable approving a license for someone who was telling me they would learn how to do the job once we give him a license. A. I have been working in construction sites for more than 15 years. I never built a house by myself because I never had an opportunity to do that. But if I do have a license, I know for sure ... Q. But here's the point I'm trying to make—you're not asking us for a type of General Contracting approval for a license that's limited to just residential construction. You're asking us for a type of Registered General Contractor's license that allows you to build anything—anything. And you haven't yet. A. I don't understand what I need. Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant: Q. You said you have done framing before? A. Yes, I have. 4 August 19, 2015 Q. Okay. But by the time you get to the framing aspect of a house, or a building, the structural aspect of it—the concrete structural aspect of it is pretty much complete, correct? A. Yes. Q. So you're not on-site observing how they do the structural concrete aspect of the building. You are coming in after that point. I'm not confident you understand what to do or how to build a structural component of the building with concrete because you haven't shown any experience. If you have experience, explain it to us but I'm not sure that you do—compared with the information that you have provided. A. No, I don't—I don't have experience with concrete. Q. So you've never installed pilings? You don't know what a deep foundation is? A. I know what it is but I've never done it. Q. You've never done it. You've never poured footings? A. No. Q. Never formed or poured footings? Never installed steel in the footings or had inspections completed with the footings? A. I've never done it but I've been in the house where ... Q. Do you know what a sheer wall is? A. Yes, I know what it is. Q. What is a sheer wall? A. Sorry—I can't explain it. Q. I'm not sure you have the structural experience with a concrete structure to give you a license, as Mr. White said, for a three-story building or more. There is a lot of difference between doing a single-family home and a three-story structure that requires a deep foundation. A. Let me explain to you the reason why I tried to do a General Contractor license is because I have many customers already who ask me to replace the front door, or to replace windows, or do tile and remodel the bathroom—things like that. I want to be able to have one license to cover me for all that. I am not planning to build a high-rise or house and that's why I decided to take that test. It is a very hard test and it took me a long time to do it but I passed. I know it's not easy to learn everything about building a high-rise or a house—nobody learns it in five years or ten years it takes longer than that. But you will get that experience everyday learning little by little in the field. In the book or if somebody else tells you, you're not learning that. You learn by practice. Q. Well, the license you are applying for is a license that gives you the authority to build a three-story building unless we restrict it somehow. A. I understand that part, but my dream was, you know—I do have a Painter's Contractor license and Dry-Wall but I was only allowed to do framing and light metal framing but I have many customers who ask if I can replace their front door. I know to replace a front door, I have to pull a permit; to replace a window, I have to pull a permit. Q. That's correct. A. You know, and I know when I need a permit or not. That is the reason—you know, I say I need each license to do carpentry or windows—it's too many licenses so I decide to take only one license to be able to cover everything. 5 August 19,2015 Chairman White asked Mr. Calderon why if the things that he wanted to do were limited to residential buildings he asked for a Registered General Contractor's license as opposed to a Residential Contractor's license. Octavio Calderon replied when he read the book, he thought he should go for the bigger license rather than the Residential Contractor's license. It took him two years of studying to be able to pass that test. He stated he knew his language was "not that good" and he had to translate everything but he did it. He further stated it was a good challenge for him. Chairman White: We are certainly pleased that you have the desire to do these things—we're confident that what you have shown us, you probably would be very good at doing a single-family residence. But the point is, you are the one who has chosen to be in a place where you are asking to build, essentially, anything. And we're hearing from your testimony— at least I am—that you do not have any experience in one aspect of that which is very critical ... in particular, the structural components. And so, given that you are supposed to have forty-eight months of that type of experience, I'm not sure how you can expect us to approve considering the amount of experience you do have is enough. It's certainly not enough for an unlimited Registered General Contractor's license. That's why we're asking if all you are intending to do is residential work, why didn't you just ask for that license? Mr. Calderon: The thing is with residential, I cannot be able to work on high-rise buildings or condominiums —most of my customers live in high rises or condominiums. That is the reason. If I go residential, I can only go two-stories high to work. Chairman White stated he understood Mr. Calderon's reasoning. He further stated it seemed clear that Mr. Calderon understood the differences in the various license categories. Terry Jerulle stated what Mr. Calderon wanted was a Residential General Contractor's license and a Carpentry license which would allow him to replace windows and doors, and build single-family homes. The Carpentry license would allow him to work in the high-rises as opposed to a Building Contractor's license. He could work up to three stories. Kyle Lantz stated he would be reluctant to approve that since Mr. Calderon does not have the structural component. Vice Chairman Lykos agreed, stating you must be able to understand wind loads when installing windows in high rises. There is a lot of structural—even just doing windows and doors. When you enclose a lanai in a condo, you must know the Fire Codes and sprinkler systems. There is a reason a General Contractor's license is hard to get—a more broad-based amount of information is needed. Kyle Lantz stated he appreciated Mr. Calderon's efforts to study and take the test. He recognized Mr. Calderon seemed to know a great deal about the administrative portions of the test. He suggested Mr. Calderon work for a licensed General Contractor, even if it is just part-time, to obtain the experience he needs. He acknowledged Mr. Calderon would not make as much money working for someone else versus what he could make on his own, but it is part of his educational program. 6 August 19, 2015 Kyle Lantz moved to deny Octavio Calderon's application to obtain a Registered General Contractor's license. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Chairman White asked Mr. Calderon if he wanted one last opportunity to convince the Board to grant his application. Octavio Calderon replied he knew he could not prove his experience to become a General Contractor. He asked what he should do next. He stated he passed the test and had his own business which would make it difficult for him to work on a part-time basis for a General Contractor. Chairman White concurred that working for a General Contractor was a helpful suggestion and stated Mr. Calderon should confer with the Licensing Office to discuss what other options he may have for a different type of license. He concluded although the Board admired what he did, they could not get him to the place he wanted to be yet. He stated just passing the test was not enough—Mr. Calderon needed to demonstrate good credit and 48 months of experience. The Board was not convinced that the amount of experience or the type of experience that Mr. Calderon possesses was enough. He must either obtain the required experience or apply for a different type of license. He reiterated Mr. Calderon should speak with the Contractors' Licensing Office to discuss his options. Chairman White called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. D. William Orr- Contesting Citation #09365 Citation: #09365 ("Unlicensed Advertising") Date Issued: July 15, 2015 Fine: $2,000.00 (2❑d 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. Chairman White asked Mr. On to explain why the Board should consider not upholding the Citation. William Orr stated: • He never intended to do anything illegal and it was not willful; • He met with the two Licensing Compliance officers, Joe Nurse and Reggie Smith; • He stated he only received the packet of infoimation prior to the meeting; • He referenced the Verona Walk website which he stated was a private website; • He maintained he never received a call from the website for his services, never had any business or inquiries 7 August 19,2015 Chairman White reminded Mr. On the Citation was issued for unlicensed advertising which did not require anyone to enter into a contract, or give him money. It was the simple act of advertising to provide a scope of services for which he was not licensed. Mr. Orr responded that he understood the charge. Chairman White noted it was reminiscent of a situation which occurred in 2012 when a Citation was issued. William Orr explained the previous situation was about an unlicensed contractor who claimed he had a license to do work he was doing—and he was only there to stop a fight. He stated the Licensing Compliance Officer asked his name and decided to also issue a Citation to him. He stated everything was on record. The peintits had been pulled by an electrical contractor—he only supplied the fixtures, wiring, and the conduit to the electrical contractor. He further stated he spoke to Michael Ossorio at that time because he wanted to oppose the Citation but, since he didn't want to get other people into trouble, he was advised to pay the fine. He decided to pay the fine since it was "the easy way out," and concluded by stating the Board could check the record. Chairman White advised Mr. On the record presented to the Board was contained in the information packet. Mr. Orr reiterated he was working for a different company in 2012 and he explained the only reason why he paid the fine was to not get people into trouble and to stop a fight that was going on within the Association. Chairman White stated the previous Citation was issued for unlicensed electrical contracting. William Orr stated there was a record in the County's office which shows that the electrical contractor was licensed and the only thing he did was to supply the wiring, the conduit and the boxes to the contractor. He further stated he happened to be on the job site when the Citation was issued. Richard Joslin asked Mr. On why he furnished the materials for the job—if the electrical contractor was licensed, why didn't the contractor buy the materials. Mr. Orr replied, "That's what I was doing." Richard Joslin: You were acting as a contractor. William Orr: Na, I'm entitled to sell fixtures. I am entitled to sell things. I don't do any work. He's the one who permitted the job; he was paid for the job —I was paid for supplying the wiring. I didn't do any labor on that job at all. Chairman White: Okay—that goes more toward the idea that we might—we are permitted to do any one of three things: • If you have abated a violation before appearing before the Board, we can dismiss the Citation. • Our second option is to uphold the Citation at the dollar amount that was issued. • The third option we have is to increase the amount of the fine for the Citation. William Orr: I did abate it. Chairman White: In working through any one of those three outcomes, understanding what the prior violation was and the facts related to that Citation, is 8 August 19,2015 important to ensure that — as far as the second and third options are concerned—those things don't happen. William Orr: What I wanted to say was—when you addressed what happened on the first violation—I don't know if it was abated or corrected ... it went through the peimitting process and it was fine—it was not an issue after that. Chairman White: The verb we have in our files is "Cited." It doesn't tell us necessarily what the disposition of the matter was —it may have been abated. It may have been paid. All it says is that you were cited. William Orr asked the Chairman if he could address the current citation and the response was, "I certainly do." William Orr explained: • He met with both Compliance Officers. He was informed the low-voltage outside lighting which was required to be plugged-in was acceptable but interior low-voltage lighting was "not okay." • He immediately removed the advertising after meeting with the Officers on July 15th • He spoke with a woman in the office who was in charge of posting— she was not in but he left a message for her to call him. • Regarding the reference to ecofriendlyelectric.us was also removed. • There is nothing on the website. • He sent a letter to a Mr. Norris explaining that both situations had been resolved. • Everything was accomplished within 24 hours of receiving the Citation. • He is retired and lives on a restricted income. • He was trying to supplement his income by selling the fixtures. • He stated he did not realize he was doing anything wrong. • He stated he did not receive a call from anyone regarding purchasing the fixtures so there was nothing to reverse concerning a consumer. Chairman White asked if he was claiming that no one (i.e., a consumer) was harmed and Mr. Orr's response was, "Yes." Richard Joslin asked William On if he had applied for an Electrical Contractor's license. A. I have the packet to review and apply; as soon as I accumulate some money, I will decide but currently, I am looking for work. Chairman White reminded Mr. On the nature of the violation was the advertising— it was not the performance of any work. In order to abate that type of violation, it would not be necessary for him to apply for a license. He noted the penalty had been increased from $1,000 to $2,000. He asked Michael Ossorio for confirmation. Michael Ossorio stated it was only valid for a first offense. Mr. On had applied at the State level to take the exam. Mr. Orr confirmed the application was "in process" because he had not completed the paperwork. 9 August 19, 2015 Michael Ossorio: But the State has your information? William Orr: Yes. Michael Ossorio: And how long has that process (of applying) been in effect? When did you apply or process this application on the State level? William Orr: I guess a couple of months ago— I couldn't give you a specific date because I didn't complete the process. Richard Joslin referenced the date of 07-15-2015 on the paperwork. William Orr replied he received the Citation on that date. Kyle Lantz referenced the information packet, specifically a copy of the website Eco Friendly Electric and asked what it was. William Orr: It was a site that was supposed to have been removed two years ago. If you look on top, you will see "LLC"—that was dissolved in 2013. It was closed in 2012 but officially dissolved in 2013. It was a voluntary dissolution and I have a record of it. It was supposed to have been taken down. I didn't know until I got the Citation but if you go on the site now, you will see it's a blank page. I own the website but I didn't know there was anything left on it. It was supposed to have been removed. Chairman White summarized: • Mr. Orr's request for the Board to dismiss the Citation is based upon the fact that he had, prior to the hearing, removed any and all advertising that would be for activities which required a license. William Orr: All advertising, period. Chairman White: I'm trying to keep it specific to the license issue. William Orr: Yes. Chairman White asked the Board if anyone had any questions or concerns regarding that aspect of Mr. Orr's request. Kyle Lantz referenced Mr. Orr's business card which stated that "Maintenance contracts [were] available" and requested an explanation. William Orr: It was basically a continuation of the guarantee of the lighting fixture if I sold it. In other words, if I sold you a low-voltage lighting fixture— so I can charge you if you want me to maintain it. Meaning, if it's knocked over, I can stand it up. If it doesn't work, I can replace it because my manufacturer is guaranteeing it. I put it in terms of"maintenance." But it's not applicable because I've even thrown out my cards. I'm not doing it. Kyle Lantz: Theoretically, if I bought a fixture from you ... William Orr: I'll maintain it. Kyle Lantz: .... installed it and it was broken or defective—would you replace it by giving me a new fixture in box or would you come to my house or job site; unwire the old fixture and wire in the new fixture? William Orr: If it was a low-voltage—the intention was that if it was a low-voltage which, according to the Compliance Officers, I was legally able to do for outdoor 10 • August 19,2015 because it was a plug-in—I never even intended for indoor—for outdoor—I would then put it back in the ground for you. If I sold you a light, I would replace the fixture but you would need to have an electrician install it. I have electricians come to my house when I want something done— I don't do it myself. Terry Jerulle also referenced Mr. Orr's business cite, specifically the website: www.ecofriendlyelectrical.us. He asked if it referred back to the website. William Orr: Which is down. Terry Jerulle: It's down now, but before it was down—it went back to the website? William Orr: Yes. I didn't think it did—I thought it was down. Terry Jerulle: But it says right on the card. William Orr: No, I'm saying the website itself—there was nothing on it—that was my impression when I closed the LLC in early 2013. Chairman White: So what was your understanding of where this web URL would lead someone if you typed it in and hit "enter?" William Orr: I never went ahead—when I typed it in, it did not come up. Chairman White: It just gave you an error message—"bad URL?" William Orr: "Bad URL" or"under construction." Because now if you go into it, you'll see the flag but you'll see a blank frame. What happens with"Go Daddy," is that they give you a website with your domain. So it was never really completed because my card had the American flag and I put that on in the very beginning. But there's nothing—all advertising is down, gone, non-existent. Chairman White expressed his concern: If the Board dismissed the Citation, two months later, you are out there advertising for something you don't have a license for. Then you get a third Citation—that time, you would not come before this Board, you would appear in Court. The point is your defense would be "well, I took it down before I got here today." We have gotten into this cat and mouse game where it's up/it's down— William Orr: But it was down within 24 hours of... Chairman White: I understand your point. Do you understand mine? The concern is that you are not learning from these experiences —that you go back and repeat the behavior—you put something up and advertise for a Scope of Services that you do not have the licensure for. William Orr: Mr. White, in all due respect and I'm not trying to be argumentative, I never had any intention of doing anything wrong. You can believe me if you want. I am telling you the truth. There was no intention and as soon as I found out there was something that was wrong, I immediately took it down. Chairman White: The point I am making, Mr. On, is it is ignorance of the law. You have done what I think needs to be done in order to abate the violation. That puts you in a position where the Board should and could be able to dismiss the Citation. What I am not hearing you say is that you completely understand now what the rules are and you still have no intention of violating them in the future. That is what I am looking for. William Orr: What I am saying is I will not do it—I understand what you're saying thoroughly and I have no intention of doing anything illegal without a proper license. 11 August 19, 2015 Terry Jerulle: From the evidence in front of me: a business card that states Eco Friendly Electric and gives a website on the bottom—there's proof that there was a website—and on the website, it says that you "design and install." Chairman White: I'm not suggesting that on the date the Citation was issued, that those weren't indeed the facts—that those facts weren't correct. But we are at the point where his testimony is —and there's nothing that says otherwise—that none of that advertising remains. Since the nature of the violation was, essentially, impeiniissible advertising—he's abated the violation in my mind because he has taken it down. That's why I was concerned about his going back and putting up some advertising and taking it down—because we would be in the same situation with what he has technically complied with by abating the nature of the violation prior to the hearing. So we could dismiss. Terry Jerulle asked if Mr. On had documentation from the website that it was down permanently. He asked Mr. On if he had written a letter to "Go. William Orr: No, I went to "Go Daddy" and told they told me what I had to do —I removed every bit of advertising on that website. Terry Jerulle: You don't have any proof—whether it's down permanently or temporarily. William Orr: I don't know if I can remove it as long as I own the domain. If you can tell me how to remove it permanently, I will be more than happy to do it. Terry Jerulle: My question was—do you have documentation that you took it down the site permanently? William Orr: No. Chairman White: I don't know how anyone could provide that. Terry Jerulle: At least a letter asking them to take it down or an email. Chairman White: He owns the URL—owns the domain name—he has access to the website. He did what I believe was necessary to abate it by taking down any infoiuiation that, if you go to that URL, shows there is advertising. We have his testimony even though he may not have written documentation. Terry Jerulle: An email to "Go Daddy" asking them to take it down would suffice for me. Chairman White: But it's his. William Orr: But I've done it. Chairman White: He's not hiring somebody to do those services for him. As I understand how"Go Daddy" works, it's a very straight forward relationship—he is effectively his own contractor for the purposes of doing the web page maintenance. And his testimony is that he has taken it down. William Orr: There is no written information on that page at all. Richard Joslin: In other words, it's a blank page. William Orr: It's a blank page—the only thing that you might see is the American flag in the back. Richard Joslin: Okay. William Orr: But everything where the content was—it's blank. And it will remain blank until everything is done with the domain and then I guess they take it off. Kyle Lantz: You've testified that you never had any intention of breaking the law— it was a mistake—you were ignorant of the law and you didn't understand. My eyes 12 August 19,2015 keep going to the website where "We do design and install service maintenance." But the little words in quotations where it says "licensed electrician"—my eyes keep bringing me to that which, to me, shows —you would write "licensed electrician" if (a) you didn't think you needed it or—that leads me to intent. It makes it hard for me —it is a very good argument that you are presenting and I appreciate it. But my eyes —I don't think I can get over that one—that's like me writing "licensed doctor" next to my name. I just wouldn't do it. William Orr: Two things: there was an "s" on the electrician—it said "licensed electricians"—but the idea is that the site itself was from a site that was dissolved and I thought it was down and, based upon this Citation, I definitely—I called and found out from "Go Daddy" what to do —they told me that I could change it—and I changed all the wording to "zero" wording, so I did correct the advertising immediately. With any advertising that was out there, I eliminated or destroyed. Chairman White: The violation was for unlicensed advertisement. There were two ways he could have cured it—one was to get a license and the other was to get rid of the advertising. In my mind, I think there is sufficient evidence that he had done the latter of the two. If there are no other inquiries, I'd like to move us along. William Orr referenced Florida Statutes and said that if it was not willful or intentional, and the intent was to remove the violation—from the State Legislature versus fining people. That's what it says in the Statutes. Chairman White: I am familiar with seeking to gain compliance versus the idea of imposing a penalty. William Orr: I appreciate that. Vice Chairman Lykos referenced the web page, "Eco Friendly Electric, LLC," and noted the report from the Florida Department of State which confirmed that Eco Friendly Electric, LLC had been voluntarily dissolved in 2012. Kyle Lantz: But if you look at the business card, it refers you to that website. Vice Chairman Lykos: Mr. On dissolved Eco Friendly Electric, LLC —he wasn't maintaining that website because the LLC as a company did not exist anymore— that's his argument. Kyle Lantz: He also used that same website on his application for Verona Walk. Chairman White agreed there were other pertinent facts but asked if they were relevant as to whether or not Mr. On abated the asserted violation prior to the hearing —not what his intention was on July 14th or what the facts were on July 14th but rather what he did effective July 16th or after, up until today. And what he had basically done, as I understand it, was anything and everything he could do to remove the advertising. His only other option was to apply for the appropriate license which he made an application for but has not yet completed. And I heard him say he will not do it again. Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio if the County had a recommendation. Michael Ossorio noted on Mr. Orr's application to Verona Walk Services which he initialed on February 8, 2015 —he put his website or URL number on it. The County would not issue a Citation if it was not a valid Citation. 13 August 19,2015 Chairman White stated he did not question the validity of the Citation—rather his whole scope of inquiry was whether or not the Board was in a position to consider that Mr. On abated the Citation such that it could be dismissed. That was what Mr. On was asking the Board to do. Kyle Lantz directed his question to Michael Ossorio: Q. Mr. On read something from the State's Statutes that said the Board could dismiss the violation if it was not willful, and has been abated since. Is that "willful" because, to me, when you write "licensed electrician"makes it willful. Is that "willful" not part of the County's Ordinances or is that separate from the State's Statutes? Chairman White asked James Morey, the Board's attorney, for the precise regulation. Attorney Morey cited from Florida Statute 489, Section 127, entitled "Prohibitions and Penalties" as follows: "3. If the person who was issued the Citation, or his/her designated representative, shows that the Citation is invalid or that the violation has been corrected prior to appearing before the Enforcement or Licensing Board or designated Special Magistrate, the Enforcement or Licensing Board or designated Special Magistrate may dismiss the Citation unless the violation is irreparable or irreversible." Chairman White noted the word "willful"was not part of the Section. He stated the "willful" component usually pertained to permitting violations, i.e, a licensed contractor who knew he/she should have obtained a permit but failed to do so. Michael Ossorio stated Attorney Morey had cited the Statute which applied most often to unlicensed activity on the local level. He noted there was a difference between a local licensing board and the State's regulatory board. Attorney Morey confirmed that the advertising was the nature of the Citation. Questions from the Board to Mr O.c.cnrini Q. Do you need a license to install low-voltage landscaping lighting. A. You do. Q. You do need a license? A. You do. Q. What license is it? A. The State has a couple of difference licenses. Unless you are just going to plug it in and even then, the State is pretty stringent about plugging into a some type of a transformer ... on a local level, we will probably refer it to the State and the State does have a license for low-voltage. The answer is "Yes." William Orr: Because there's a dispute between the State and local, and what people think. The Compliance Officers here said that low-voltage landscape lighting— outside low-voltage lighting—if you plug it into an outlet, you don't need an 14 August 19, 2015 electrical license to do that. There's some conflict now with the State that even if you do that—there may be. So that's why I'm not doing any of it anymore. Because there's still an issue as to whether just to "plug and play" is legal or not ... I don't know what the answer is ... because you get different answers from different people. So I'm not doing it. It's done. Richard Joslin: What about the sale of electrical items? Retail license? William Orr: I am allowed to do that—I have a Business Tax Certificate and a fictitious name—so I can sell fixtures but I don't install them. None of that stuff— none of that. Kyle Lantz moved to approve dismissing Citation #09365 as issued. Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/1 — "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed. E. Cesar Franco—Review of Credit (d/b/a "Finishing By Franco, Inc.") Cesar Franco stated he had applied for a Carpentry license. Chairman White noted there were some concerns regarding his credit and asked Mr. Franco to explain. Cesar Franco: • In 2006, the country went into a recession due to overbuilding. • Over 7 million people have lost their houses. • He was still in the process of foreclosure. • He has been a carpenter for 30 years. • When his income started to go down, he lost his truck—and he was divorced in 2006. He is still a single father and raising his daughter. • It has been a difficult situation for him due to his finances. • He is working with the Bank of America on a modification and he is making payments to the IRS -- $100 per month for the next three years. Chairman White: Q. As far as the outstanding negative credit—the bad credit on your report—you have told the Board you are making payments to the IRS and you are trying to work through a foreclosure—was there anything else about the items on your credit report that can be shared with the Board? A. There was an another one from Rooms-to-Go from 2007—but the main one was the house which I am keeping—I have been working with the bank for seven years—made a couple of modifications and the other one was the truck that I gave up and they put a 1099-C which showed in March, 2015 ... and I talked to the IRS and made an agreement to pay $100 per month until I pay off the back taxes that I owe. They sent me a letter and I'm working on it. I have had steady work for the last two years almost for Raymond Builders. Before I worked for 15 August 19, 2015 Newberry North in the late 90s and Homes for many years until 2010. And finally the Divorce Court said "thank you for everything." Q. There were two references to Comcast on your credit report—the amount of the balance seems to be $73.00. I know it's not a huge amount, but the point is ... A. When I got all these papers put together, I didn't go through every single one but $74.00 is payable. I didn't notice. Q. You similarly have some from Wells Fargo and Citibank—they are $2,000 and $1,000 and $1,200 amount. Are those related to what you were telling us about before as part of the foreclosure? Are they credit cards? A. At that time, yes. Q. But they are still out there. They have been verified—as of a few months ago as still being ... A. They are still there ... Q. ... out for collection. Do you have any intention to contact them—to pay them— to try to work something out—to ... A. I started to work with the Bank of America which was the huge debt and with the IRS in March ... all these are small numbers which I didn't see and the others ones are workable with them. Q. I'm glad to hear that you worked things out with the IRS but it doesn't seem—at least from a credit reporting perspective—to be a concern. The IRS never filed a lien against you—you are satisfying what they have asked you to do —that's great. We are dealing with the stuff that is still on the credit report and that's why you are here. Whatever your intentions are with those things that are still on there and how you are going to conduct your personal credit going forward—that's what we need to know. A. I am going to start working on these to pay them off. Q. How long do you think it will take you to do that? A. Well, the small number—the $74.00—I can pay. I will make an agreement with Wells Fargo and Shell—both are workable. Q. How long do you think it might take you to do that—three months, six months? A. I can consolidate—put them all together in one amount and start to pay them ... but the small amounts of$74.00 and $200, I can pay off tomorrow or today. Q. Would three months be enough to clear these things up and come back before us? We may give you a probationary license but ask you to come back with an improved credit report. We want to give you enough time to do the things you need to do. A. Give me ninety days and I'll work on it. Richard Joslin said he would like to see more than just the $74.00 charge paid before Mr. Franco returned. Chairman White: You may go in and make an arrangement with them tomorrow but it may not show up on your report—if you come back within 90 days and your credit report still shows it—but if you have made a payment, you need to bring the checks to show payment. Kyle Lantz asked the Chairman if he requested Mr. Franco to set up payment plans or he pay just the four small amounts. 16 Augu Chairman White replied he wanted an improved credit report to be provided Board and a determination could be made at that time. He stated if Mr. Franc pay the small amounts, it would be the best possible scenario. Mr. Franco confirmed he could pay the small amounts. Chairman White noted every debt that was removed from the credit report increased Mr. Franco's chances to be taken off probation. Richard Joslin noted Mr. Franco did not have a Workers' Compensation insurance policy and asked if he was working alone. A. No, I am working only for Raymond Builders. Q. If your license application is approved, will you have men working for you? A. At that time, I will. I spoke to Collier County—when you hire your first employee, you must have Workers' Comp. Q. The policy you have presented has expired. A. I have to re-apply the next time. Kyle Lantz noted Mr. Franco had an exemption which was good until the following year for Workers' Compensation insurance. Kyle Lantz moved to approve Cesar Franco's application for a Carpentry License but that the Board issue a probationary license for a period of six months; he is to appear before the Board to present a new credit report verifying the payment of the following debts: Midland Fund(balance: $1,522), Portfolio RC(balance: $1,236), LTD Financial Services (balance: $1,258), Comcast ($74.00). The debts are to be removed from the new credit report or Mr. Franco is to present a letter stating each debt has been paid in full or a copy of each cancelled check. Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion. Chairman White noted the companies may decide to settle the debts for less than the amounts owed. Mr. Lantz clarified the goal was to remove the items from the new credit report. Chairman White explained to Mr. Franco that he would be issued a license but it would be probationary for a six-month period. At the end of the six months, he will ,,R + to return and provide a new credit report to the Board; the items that were mentioned \ will be reviewed to determine if they had been satisfied. Mr. Franco said he would work on them. Kyle Lantz suggested he could amend his motion to include if Mr. Franco paid off the specific debts earlier than six months, he could provide proof to the Contractors' Licensing Office and his probation could be terminated administratively. Michael Ossorio confirmed if an applicant's credit score was "close to the 660 threshold"—but noted Mr. Franco's credit score was 520. He stated even if he paid the five items mentioned, his score would improve enough. He recommended that the applicant appear before the Board at the end of the six-month probationary period. Vice Chairman Lykos requested that Mr. Franco also provide proof of his agreement with the Bank concerning his mortgage. It would be attached to the information packet that will be provided at that time. 17 August 19,2015 Cesar Franco stated he instituted an automatic payment to the bank from his checking account. Mr. Lykos reiterated the documentation could be added to the information packet to be provided when Mr. Franco returns at the end of the six-month period. Kyle Lantz amended his motion to include Vice Chairman Lykos'suggestion. Chairman White offered a Second in support of the amended motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. [F. Bradley G. Johnson—Review of Credit— Withdrawn per amended Agenda] G. Thomas Locke—Reinstatement of License (C30407) (d/b/a "L.C. Stoneworks") Thomas John Locke, Jr. presented the Board with his business credit report and a personal credit report. He stated he tried to obtain the documentation within the two- week timeframe but was unable to do so. He noted the Experian credit report noted issues with medical charges from the past. He stated he has obtained counsel to dispute some of the charges but will pay what is valid. Chairman White requested an explanation of why there were two signatures in some places on Mr. Locke's application and why they were necessary. Mr. Locke stated he had signed his application before appearing before a Notary. He was requested to re-sign the document in the presence of the Notary. Michael Ossorio: • Mr. Locke has applied to reinstate his license under a new business without being required to take an exam • He has applied for a Cabinet Installation Contractors' license which only requires taking a Business and Law test • If the Board chooses to reinstate him, the reinstatement fee will be $760 plus the renewal fee of$125 • Mr. Locke's credit score was 614 • If there are issues with medical payments, the Contractors' Licensing Office would not have a problem issuing a license to Mr. Locke • The Board must waive the exam requirement and Mr. Locke must prove that he has continued to work in his trade of cabinet and millwork. John Locke: • Has a Cabinetry and Millwork License which enables him to template, install, and do restoration work on natural stone and man-made quartz products. • Has been in this field since July, 1997 • Took a year and one-half off to become a certified Pella door and window installer (late '98 to '99); he then went back into the industry • For the past three years (since his license lapsed), he has been employed by Classic Stone 18 August 19,2015 When asked why he stopped working for Classic Stone, Mr. Locke replied that he had become ill. He took specialized OSHA training and is required to wear a respirator when he works. Kyle Lantz moved to approve both the application of Thomas John Locke, Jr. to reinstate his license and his request to waive the testing requirement. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. BREAK: 10:20 AM RECONVENED: 10:35 AM VII. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VII, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) • Teodor Danilov—6 Month Review of Credit (d/b/a "Custom Flooring Design, Inc.") Mr. Danilov was not present. The Chaiiiiian requested to continue the case and hear it later in the proceedings if Mr. Danilov returned. • Abel Arredondo—Review of Probation (d/b/a "Superior Woodworking, Inc.") Abel Arredondo requested to provide the Board with copies of a newer credit report than the one in the information packet. The new report was dated August 18, 2015. He stated it reflected the latest update on his credit and documented his progress. The credit report contained in the information packet was submitted two weeks ago. Chairman White asked Mr. Arredondo if his credit score had improved from the previous score of 633. . • • • • I • • -• -• i • - ••;- •,= .. ; . - , - his original score of 594. He stated his credit report of six months ago showed 17 accounts; 11 of the 17 were delinquent. His open accounts have been reduced to seven with only one remaining as "outstanding." He further stated there are no open collection accounts on his credit report; he paid one account in full and obtained settlements on five other collection accounts. Two other collection accounts were removed from his credit report. He stated he hired counsel to help him remove certain items from his credit report because it was very difficult to deal with the credit reporting agencies. He concluded by stating he appreciated the opportunity the Board had given him to accomplish what he had. The Board reviewed the new information provided by Mr. Arredondo. 19 August 19,2015 Mr. Arredondo stated he had copies of his transactions with two of his creditors (for Verizon - paid in full; and a collection company, "EOSCCA," also paid in full) who had yet to send letters confirming the accounts had been paid. He further stated that regarding the account with Chase Bank, he was "probably a couple of paychecks away from calling them to obtain another settlement." He stated it would leave him with six "positive" accounts on his credit report. Kyle Lantz commended Mr. Arredondo on his progress. Mr. Arredondo stated the new license will mean a better job. Kyle Lantz moved to approve removing Abel Arredondo from probation and issuing a full license to him. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Michael Ossorio and Kevin Noell, Assistant County Attorney, requested to withdraw Case 2015-05: Michael Paul Taillefer, d/b/a "Imperial Homes, Inc." (CBC-1257228) from the Agenda. He stated the Qualifier decided to come into compliance. Chairman White stated that, during his review of the information presented to the Board, his concern was that the Board may not have had jurisdiction over the matter and would have been more appropriately handled by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals due to the various rejection comments and the requirements for the permit application to come into compliance. Michael Ossorio noted the Building Official interprets the Florida Building Code and if a Contractor wishes to challenge an interpretation, the correct Advisory Board is the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. He confirmed if the Contractor did nothing,the Building Code violation would still remain. He cautioned "if you work without a building pennit, this is what happens." (Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VIII), the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Case #2015-04: Board of County Commissioners vs. Joseph Brown, d/b/a "Anything in Doors,LLC." (C-31217) Chairman White outlined the order of the proceedings: • The Public Hearing will be opened, witnesses will be sworn in, and accept any evidence from the parties; • The County will present its "Opening Statement," followed by the Respondent's "Opening Statement;" • The County will present its "Case in Chief," followed by the Respondent's defense; • The County may offer any rebuttal; • The Public Hearing process is then concluded. 20 August 19, 2015 • After closing the Public Hearing, the Board will receive instruction from its Attorney, similar to a "Charge to a Jury" in a civil trial, which sets out the parameters upon which the Board members will base their decision. • During deliberations, the Board members may ask for additional information and clarification from either of the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense(s) as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken. o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board will decide the Sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the Sanctions that may be imposed and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the Sanctions and vote. • The Chair will orally report the decision of the Board. Richard Joslin moved to open the Public Hearing. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 8— 0. Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the County's information packet in Case #201 5-04 into evidence. Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve accepting Case #2015-04: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. Joseph Brown, d/b/a "Anything in Doors, LLC" into evidence as County's Exhibit#1. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0. Rob Ganguli presented the County's "Opening Statement:" • Joseph Brown is the license holder of Collier County Certificate 31217 for Glass and Glazing. • Two Citations were issued to Mr. Brown: one for commencing work outside the scope of his licensure, and the second is for commencing work that required a Building Permit. Chairman White asked if anything had happened since the issues of the Citations that would affect the County's position. Mr. Ganguli replied Anything in Doors, LLC retained the services of a General Contractor who submitted an application for a permit for the job site in question and the permit had been issued. Respondent Joseph Brown was requested to provide his "Opening Statement" but he declined. Chairman White asked the Respondent if his position was that he was innocent or guilty of the charges. A. I am guilty of them. Yes. 21 August 19, 2015 Chairman White asked the Respondent to explain his actions since the time the Complaint had been filed. A. I immediately went down to the Building Department and had a General Contractor pull a permit and paid for it in full. Thomas Brown appeared as a witness for the Respondent and stated: • Originally with did pull a permit with the County and followed the process. • It went into review; everything was accepted and we paid for it. • Two weeks later, we were called to pick up the Permit and when I did, I was told there was a problem with the license and we should not have filed for the permit. • No one from the County had mentioned any problem when the application was filed. • On the page of the Permit when we filed, had a viewer in the door—an eye viewer which is UL-rated—and we thought that would classify as glazing in that door. • There was a technicality concerning the eye viewer in the door and the County told us that we couldn't do it. Rob Ganguli presented the County's "Case in Chief:" • In July 2015, the Contractors Licensing Office received a complaint from Marguerite Webber, the property owner of 1400 Misty Pines Circle, Unit #202,Naples, Florida 34105. • The complaint involved the unpeumitted installation of a human access door in a separate garage structure performed by Anything in Doors, LLC. • Upon investigation, it was noted that Joseph Brown, holder of Collier County License #31217 (Glass and Glazing Contractor) and Qualifier for Anything in Doors, LLC, had submitted Permit Application#PRB-0617136 for a door installation. • Initial contact was made with Mr. Brown who claimed the work was never performed, stating he had submitted a cancellation for the permit application. The cancellation, dated October 27, 2014, was discovered in the County's data - • On August 20, 2014, a"hold" had been placed on the Scope of Work applied for in the permit by the Contract Licensing Supervisor after a determination had been made of insufficient licensure by Anything in Doors, LLC. • The property owner verified that the Contractor had been paid in full and photos were taken of the completed work. • Documentation provided by the Complainant included two installment checks made payable to Anything in Doors, LLC, with the final payment check dated October 2, 2014. • The timeline indicated the work was completed while the August 20, 2014 hold on the permit was still in place. • On July 16, 2015, a meeting was held with Tom Brown, partner of Joseph Brown, and the violations were explained to him. He was requested to relay the information to Joseph Brown, his partner and son. 22 August 19,2015 • During the meeting, a Notice of Hearing to appear before the Contractors' Licensing Board on the August 19th was issued to Joseph Brown for having violated Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, Section 22-201(2) for contracting to do any work outside the scope of his competency as listed on Joseph Brown's Competency Card as defined by this Article or restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board, and for violating Section 22-201(18) by proceeding on any job without first obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City's Building and Zoning Divisions or the County's Building Review and Permitting Department. • Tom Brown received the Notice for the Qualifier and a second copy was sent via Certified Mail to the business address on record. • Tom Brown stated his intention to find a licensed Contractor to take over the job and obtain the required permitting prior to the Hearing. • Certified General Contractor, All American Impact LLC, CGC-1514255, submitted an application for and obtain a permit for the job site and the door installation. Chairman White asked if the homeowner suffered any economic hardship and Rob Ganguli stated, "None." Chairman White asked if the County had a position concerning the penult that was obtain—had the violation been abated. Rob Ganguli stated that as far as he was concerned, the violation had been abated. Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Ganguli when the pelutit had been applied for and the response was "The abating pennit was notarized on July 28, 2015." Q. No, I meant the original permit. A. June. Q. The original permit was applied for in June and the County denied it in August? A. On August 8th, it was reviewed by the Licensing Supervisor who determined that the Glass and Glazing License was insufficient to do that Scope of Work. Q. When was the work done? A. I don't know the exact date of the work, but the final installment check may payable to the Contractor was dated October 2, 2014. Chairman White asked if there was any factual evidence of whether the work had been done prior to or after the hold was placed in August. A. Not factual—just based on the payment. Chairman White asked the Respondent if he had any questions for the County. Respondent: Why wasn't I allowed to pull the peiinit when there was glass in the door? Richard Joslin referred to County Exhibit E-22 and asked if it was a photo of the door that was actually installed and the Respondent replied, "Yes." Mr. Joslin noted that he did not see any glass in this door and Rob Ganguli concurred. 23 August 19,2015 Michael Ossorio referenced Section 22-162 of the Ordinance, as follows: "Glass and Glazing Contractor requires 24-months of experience, a passing grade on an approved test, and a passing grade on a Business and Law test, and means those who are qualified to select, cut, assemble, and install all makes and kinds of glass and glass work, and execute the glazing frames, panels, sash and door and holding metal frames ..." Richard Joslin: If the door would have had glass in the panes (Exhibit E-22) ... Michael Ossorio: If the door had glass in it, then he would have been qualified to install it. He could do it. But just because a door has glass in it means he was qualified to install it. One of the things we have to deal with—the Building Official determined it was not a glass door—it was a rated door which was outside the Scope of Work. And the Respondent was notified. Questions from the Board: Q. Was this a replacement door? It was not a new installation? It was replacement of a door that was there? Respondent: Size to size, yes. Michael Ossorio: Size to size in a commercial building. I think the Association was doing all the doors—or some of the doors. Respondent: The actual doors were not part of the structural building—they were across the street—the carports were enclosed. When we applied for the permit, the fee was $150 from the Building Department, but then the Fire Department wanted another $150 but it was not a structural building, so then they resubmitted it and said it was only $50—the pricing was really bad. I don't know—still trying to figure it out. Chairman White asked the Respondent if the County had sufficiently answered his question and the response was, "Vaguely." Michael Ossorio: What was the question? Respondent: If I can install a door that has glass in it—like the peep hole. Michael Ossorio: You can install glass doors. How you want to interpret that—I just read the definitions section—you can install glass doors. Chairman White: Which is different in my mind than a door with glass in it. Kyle Lantz: In Lee County and Cape Coral where you work, can you—I know the licensing is different—but can you get permits and install doors? Respondent: As long as there is glass in it, correct. That's why I put the peep hole in there—it's glass ... but I didn't install the door. Vice Chairman Lykos: The picture doesn't show a peep hole. Respondent: Yes, that's because I didn't install the doors or supply the doors. Chairman White: It was installed under the new peiniit. Respondent: The door was under the old permit—the one I pulled. Chairman White: The photograph is of the door under the old permit or the new? Respondent: The new permit. 24 August 19,2015 Kyle Lantz: So you were contracted for a door but you hired someone else to do the install? Respondent: Correct. They hired somebody—I didn't. I supplied the door. Vice Chairman Lykos: But you were paid to install the door? Respondent: Correct. And I did not get paid for that. Richard Joslin: I'm still confused about the peep hole. The photograph is of the door that was installed under the new penult by the other Contractor? Respondent: Yes. The one I was going to install had a peep hole. Vice Chairman Lykos: Q. What do you mean, the one you were going to install? A. The door that I was going to install had a peep hole in it. The photograph shows one that did not have it. Q. Let's take a step back. Please look at Exhibit E-8 of the information packet. A. I see it. Q. Is this your contract? A. Correct. Q. Is this for providing and installing a door? A. Yes, it is. Q. The total cost is $625 —correct? A. Correct. Q. You received one check for $300 and another check for $340 ... A. Correct. Q. ... which is more than $625. A. It was for a handset—some kind of hardware issue ... maybe stainless steel hinges or something ... I don't know. Q. This says: "Balance due—after inspection" which in my mind implies that the work has been done and it has been inspected. And you received that payment. A. Correct. Q. So did you put a door in? A. No, I supplied a door. Q. You did not install a door? A. No. Q. Why did you get the second payment? A. For supplying the door to All American Impact, LLC who pulled the permit. Q. On your behalf'? A. He's the one who installed the door that I provided. Q. The payment was in October, 2014. A. Right. Q. The new peuuit was pulled this year. A. Correct. The work was done way prior to that—when I tried to pull the permit the first time, the work was already done. We just pulled the permit within the last few months. The work was already done on behalf of All American Impact, LLC. Chairman White: Q. When was the door installed? A. Two years ago—I don't know—a year ago ... it was a long time ago. 25 August 19,2015 Q. Before or after August 20, 2014? A. After. Q. And before October 2, 2014 when the payment was made? A. Pretty sure. Q. Before? A. It was before, yes. Vice Chairman Lykos: Q. And then somebody came in and put in a different door? A. No. We pulled the permit after-the-fact because there was a complaint. Kyle Lantz: Q. Who physically removed the old door and put in the new door? A. All American did it. I just supplied the door. Q. But you were paid $640 to supply a door. Who paid All American? A. I paid All American— I cut a check to him. Vice Chairman Lykos: Q. Then you subcontracted the installation out to another company? A. Correct. Yes, correct. Vice Chairman Lykos expressed his displeasure with the Respondent's attitude and lack of forthcoming in his answers because he omitted pertinent details. The Vice Chairman stated he did not appreciate the Respondent's playing games and cautioned him to be completely honest when answering the Board's questions. Terry Jerulle: Q. When you said you didn't install the door but you hired somebody to install the door, you installed the door. A. No, I ... Q. For all practical purposes, you hired somebody to install the door— so from a Contractor's standpoint, you installed the door. That's what Mr. Lykos is getting at ... and it is frustrating because I am trying to follow this at the same time. Chairman White requested a"straight-forward" answer from the Respondent: Q. There were two doors ... two different doors? A. No. Q. Just one door? A. One door. Q. And it was a Code-compliant door from the perspective of the subcontractor who installed it. When did they install it—before October 2❑d but after August 20th? A. Right. Q. And that was after you were aware of the fact that the peep-hole door was not going to be Code-compliant or not licensure compliant in tennis of what it was that you were entitled to install? A. Correct, yes. 26 August 19, 2015 Vice Chairman Lykos: Q. So if this [photograph] is the door that you managed the installation of— where's the peep hole? A. Because I didn't install the door ... Richard Joslin: Q. But you furnished the door—didn't you furnish a door with a peep hole? A. I supplied the door ... but if he was going to install the door ... the peep hole doesn't come with the door ... you have to drill a hole to put it in. Terry Jerulle: Q. But if you're supplying it, why didn't you drill the hole, put the peep hole in and give it to him to install? A. Because it would cost more to put it in. He didn't want to pay more. Q. But you're responsible for it, though. You got paid directly from the client ... so you're responsible for a peep hole to be in that door. So what you're saying is you took money from the client the client to put in a peep hole but your subcontractor didn't put it in and you're saying it's his fault and not yours? A. Umm ... no ... Q. We're asking the question ... where's the peep hole? Kyle Lantz stated the issue was that it was not part of his contract to install the peep hole. Vice Chairman Lykos: The reason he thought his license would apply was because it had a peep hole in it. Kyle Lantz: Right. Vice Chairman Lykos: Q. So if you didn't put the peep hole in—how did you think your license was going to apply if you didn't put the peep hole in there? If you buy a door without a peep hole and you put a peep hole in it, do you know whether or not it affects the Code- compliance of that door in terms of being UL-rated? A. Umm—it shouldn't if it's a UL-rated door. Q. Do you have an NOA with you to show that it doesn't happen? A. With me ... I don't think so. It's just a UL-rated peep hole—I mean, there is no NOA for it. Q. But doors—pre-hung doors are rated as an entire system ... the jamb, the hinges, the hardware, the door ... everything. So if you alter that system, how do you know that the altered system is still Code compliant? A. Because of the size of the hole—it's not a big hole. Q. Did you engineer it? And you tested it after you cut a peep hole in it? A. Absolutely not. Chairman White: Q. I guess your position, Mr. Brown, is that from a common sense perspective—you think that it wouldn't lose the UL-rating. But you don't have any factual infoiniation to support your position? A. Yes. 27 August 19,2015 Kyle Lantz: As an aside, I failed an inspection because I put a peep hole in a door. Respondent: Really? Kyle Lantz: In Fort Myers Beach and I had to replace the door. Respondent: Wow ... that's a good reason for not putting the peep hole in it. Vice Chairman Lykos: His whole argument was that the peep hole made it comply with his license. And then he didn't put the peep hole in. Chairman White: Given that we have an admission of the violations for each of the two counts and, hopefully, we have worked through the timeline, the chronology, and the factual aspects of this. Is there a concern remaining—contrary to what the County said, and absent the consumer being present—that there was some impact or harm to the consumer? Because to me, that's the pertinent area of inquiry and relative not so much to the violations, but as we move on to the Sanctions. Michael Ossorio stated he spoke with the homeowner. He stated he knew the Building Department had taken strides in ... when a Contractor decides to cancel a permit and say, "I didn't do it— I want my money back—I want a refund and I want to cancel the permit." He further stated an inspector went out and verified the work had been done. The homeowner was notified and she came in—she was worried that she had an unpermitted door which could affect her ability to sell her place because the cancellation of the permit or the inspection of the peiiuit history on her ... so she was concerned enough to file a complaint and make sure that her door was inspected to prove it was Code compliant so she would have the ability to sell her place in the future. Chairman White: But there were no concerns about the discrepancy in dollar value? Michael Ossorio: No. Chairman White: With or without a peep hole? Michael Ossorio: No. Richard Joslin: Q. If this is the contract—nowhere in here did it say the door was to have a peep hole. A.: Right. Q: But it did say it was going to have stainless steel hinges. A. Correct. Q. But in your testimony, you said it might have been hinges that cost extra—I'm just wondering where the extra money came from? A. It probably was a hand-set. Q. You don't know? A. I don't have a recollection. It could have been a hand-set or a dead-bolt or hinges or a sweep on the bottom—I'm not sure. It was an extra something that she wanted ... maybe a hanger on the inside ... I don't know. I'm not sure. Richard Joslin asked Michael Ossorio if the door had a peep hole in it, would the case have come before the Board and his response was, "Yes." 28 August 19, 2015 Mr. Ossorio further stated it was because the door was not a glass door and that a peep hole in a door did not make it a "glass door." Chairman White asked the Respondent if he had anything to present in his defense since he admitted his guilt and the response was, "No." Terry Jerulle asked if the property was a condominium. Rob Ganguli: It is but the garage area was detached from the dwelling and that's where the human access door was installed. Mr. Jerulle noted the contract stated"Prices based on 10 or more units" and asked if the Respondent had installed doors in other units. Michael Ossorio stated the Respondent had applied for multiple permits but only one complaint was made. He further stated the Respondent was in the process of permits for those doors. Respondent: I applied for five of them and I paid for all of them—a full $150 each without getting any money back. Michael Ossorio: You applied for five and were denied for five due to the licensure issue. What is the status—have those five door been installed? A. No, only two of them are in. Chairman White: If the County has any intention in the future of bringing forward a complaint based on any of the other owners, I would suggest that the conversation should end. Chairman White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0. Chairman White declared the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman White noted there was a Finding of Guilt for both counts, based on the Respondent's admission. Attorney Morey noted the Respondent is the holder of a Collier County Certificate of Competency. If after the Hearing, the Contractors' Licensing Board finds that there has been misconduct, the Board may, but is not required to, impose any of the following Sanctions, either alone or in combination: 1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, 2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, 3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, 4) Imposition of a period of probation, not to exceed two years in length, during which time the Contractor's contracting activity shall be under the supervision of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, and may be revoked for cause; 5) Restitution; 6) Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000, 7) Issuance of a public reprimand, 29 August 19,2015 8) Requirement for re-examination or participation in a duly-accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity, 9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions, and 10) Recovery of reasonable investigative costs incurred by the County for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Morey further advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible Disciplinary Sanctions on a Contractor, the Contractors' Licensing Board may consider all the evidence presented during the Public Hearing as well as: 1) The gravity of the violation; 2) The impact of the violation on Public Health/Safety or Welfare; 3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); 4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and 5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the Sanction which is appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation(s) or the violator. Chairman White stated: • An after-the-fact permit was obtained. • There was no testimony of any prior violation. • The impact to the public's health, safety and welfare was minimal given the door that was installed was UL-rated and complied with the Permit. • The gravity of the violation is one that goes in part to the intent and the awareness that the Respondent had relative to what the Code may or may not have been. • The limited amount of testimony presented regarding the fact that there may be other similar circumstances that are in the process of being resolved that may or may come before the Board. (It was noted that Kyle Lantz left; quorum remained with seven voting members) Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio if the County had incurred any costs in the prosecution of the matter before the Board. Michael Ossorio stated the amounts of the investigative costs were $250 each for Count I and Count II, for a total of$500. Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio if the County had any recommendation concerning any Sanctions. Michael Ossorio: • Regarding Count II (lack of a building permit), the recommendation was to assess a fine of$1,000 to be paid within thirty days of the Court's Order. • Regarding Count I (working outside the scope), the recommendation was to assess a $2,500 fine to be paid within thirty days of the Court's Order. • The investigative fees incurred by the County in the total amount of$500 were to be paid within thirty days of the Board's Order. 30 August 19, 2015 • Restitution was not necessary. The homeowner was pleased that a building peiniit had been obtained and the work had passed inspection. • There was no recommendation for probation or for a public reprimand. • The Board would determine the Respondent should attend a program of continuing education. • If the fines and investigative fees were not paid within the allotted timeframe, the Respondent's license will be revoked. Discussion: Terry Jerulle stated a program of continuing education should be imposed because it appeared there was a discrepancy between what the Respondent thought he could do and what he was allowed to do, pursuant to his licensure. Gary McNally requested to add a one-year probation period which would require the Respondent's future jobs to be monitored by the Contractors' Licensing Office, i.e., he would be required to notify the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor of his jobs on a weekly basis. Michael Ossorio noted there was a new test for Glass and Glazing Contractors based on the new Florida Building Code. He was not aware of any continuing education for Glass and Glazing Contractors. He further stated the Board had recently approved the use of a new testing company for the County, i.e., "Prov." Mr. Ossorio explained any reporting of jobs would be only the jobs within Collier County since the Respondent worked primarily out of Lee County. He noted if the Respondent did not comply with the reporting requirement, he would be scheduled for a hearing before the Board and would be given legal Notice. Chairman White asked the Respondent if he understood the Sanctions that the Board had discussed. Joseph Brown stated that he did understand and thought he had done due diligence by attempting to pull the required peltnits. He further stated he tried to do what was right. Michael Ossorio stated the reason why the fine requested for Count II was $1,000 was because he knew the Respondent had already paid penalties to obtain the after- the-fact permit. Chairman White noted there were differences between the two Counties and with implementation of the new Building Code, there may be some value in requiring the Respondent to be re-take the Glass and Glazing test as administered by Prov for that license. He suggested the Respondent should be allowed three months to take and pass the test. Michael Ossorio noted a Prov testing facility was available in Lee County. He stated the passing grade for the test is 75%. There was no further discussion concerning the previously suggested Sanctions among the members of the Board. 31 August 19, 2015 Chairman White moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions upon the Respondent, Joseph Brown who is the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #31217, d/b/a "Anything in Doors, LLC,"based on the findings of guilt regarding Counts I and II of the County's Administrative Complaint in Case #2015-04: • Count I: imposition of a fine of$2,500 to be paid within thirty days of the Board's Order; • Count II: imposition of a fine of$1,000 to be paid within thirty days of the Board's Order; • The Respondent is to reimburse the County for investigative fees incurred in the prosecution of the matter in the total amount of$500 ($250 for each Count) to be paid within thirty days of the Board's Order; • If the fines and investigative fees are not paid as required, the Respondent's license will be revoked; • The Respondent is required to take and pass the Glass and Glazing test as administered by Prov Testing within ninety days of the Board's Order; • If the Respondent does not comply with the testing requirement, he will be schedule for a hearing before the Board and will receive timely Notice of the date; • The Respondent will be placed on probation for a period of one year; he is required to report all Collier County jobs to the Contractors'Licensing Office on the Monday of each week during the 12-month period; • If the Respondent fails to report his Collier County jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office, he will be scheduled for a hearing before the Board and will receive timely Notice of the date. Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the Motion. Michael Ossorio clarified: • If the fines and investigative fees were not paid within thirty days of the Board's Order, the Respondent's license would be revoked. • If the Respondent does not take and pass the Glass and Glazing test within three months of the Board's Order, he will be scheduled for a hearing before the Board. • If he does not report his Collier County jobs on a weekly basis during the probationary period, the Respondent will be scheduled for a hearing before the Board. Chairman White called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. Chairman White stated the Board's written Order would be rendered as quickly as possible. Chairman White asked Joseph Brown if he had any questions. Joseph Brown replied he did not understand why he was being required to take the test again that he had taken and passed. He understood the need for continuing education but questioned the need to retake the test. 32 August 19, 2015 Chairman White responded there appeared to be a lack of clarity either in Mr. Brown's mind or the mind of his installer concerning what is and is not permitted; and the particular scopes of work allowed under the license; and what would affect the permitting, i.e., Mr. Brown was not aware that the addition of the peep hole with glass could affect the permitting. He stated he wanted Mr. Brown to be fully aware of the requirements of the new Florida Building Code. He further stated the testing requirement was not intended to be punitive— it was intended to be helpful. Chairman White noted the final item on the Agenda was under "New Business," • Teodor Danilov—6 Month Review of Credit (d/b/a "Custom Flooring Design, Inc.") Chairman White asked Michael Ossorio if the County had a recommendation concerning how the Board should proceed. Michael Ossorio replied the recommendation was to revoke Mr. Danilov's Certificate. He stated Mr. Danilov could petition the Board if he chose. Chairman White noted there was little difference between the new credit report submitted to the Board and the prior report. There was not a great deal of change between the items specifically listed in each and there was no improvement in the FICO score. He stated there was no explanation from the license holder concerning his absence from hearing. Vice Chairman Lykos requested an explanation from Michael Ossorio of the difference between a"revocation" and a"suspension" of a Contractor's license and the requirements to reinstate in each case. Michael Ossorio: • He preferred to use the term "cancelled" in place of"revoked" • Mr. Danilov was already on probation with the Licensing Board; o He had been advised of the meeting date; o He provided a credit report that had no substance to it • The County recommended cancelling Mr. Danilov's Certificate. Vice Chairman Lykos asked if Mr. Danilov would be required to complete an entirely new application and petition the Board; the response was, "Yes." Michael Ossorio stated he and Attorney Morey had discussed the "un-revoking" of a license because once a license has been revoked. If a Contractor wanted to reinstate the license, he would be required to pay all fees owed. He stated it was a matter of semantics. The preferred term was "cancelled" instead of revoked or suspended. Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve the immediate cancellation of the probationary license that had been issued to Teodor Danilov, d/b/a "Custom Flooring Design, Inc." Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0. 33 • August 19, 2015 IX. REPORTS: • Michael Ossorio noted it was renewal time for the County. Each County licensed Contractor will receive notification of the renewal of his/her license. • Approximately 3,200 renewal notice will be sent next week. • He also noted the State instituted a"grandfathering" clause for Division 1 and Division II (Electrical) Registered Contractors. • The loss of Registered Contractor renewals should not adversely affect the Contractors' Licensing Office budget. • He stated due to the efficiency and customer service provided by the front office personnel, a number of Registered General Contractors and Registered Plumbers come through the office. X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 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 12:00 Noon. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD I I It ,A A. �►t. . PATRIC WH , Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Commit Chair/Vice Chair on /(© , 2015, "as submitted" 1 1 OR "as amended" M i. 34