CLB Minutes 12/16/2015 December 16,2015
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
December 16, 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
Ellie Hunt
Richard Joslin
Terry Jerulle
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
Karen Clements — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
Reggie Smith — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
1
December 16, 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.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Patrick White called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; nine (9) voting members were
present.
Ckk'
Chairman White welcomed E.lke Hunt as the newest, and first female, member of the
Contractors' Licensing Board.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Changes:
• Item VI (A), under "New Business," was moved to Item V, under "Public
Comments."
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, 9—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—NOVEMBER 18,2015:
Correction:
• Page 4— 1st Paragraph: Extraneous "t"was removed from the end of the third
sentence.
• Page 4—4' Paragraph (comment b Neftali Triana): The word"he"was
changed to "the."
• Page 11 —3rd Paragraph (motion by Chairman White): The word "nine" was
changed to "ninety" in the second sentence.
Richard Joslin moved to approve the November 18, 2015 minutes as amended.
Michael Boyd offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman -2016
Michael Ossorio noted, historically,the Vice Chair assumes the role of Chairman for
the new term.
2
December 16, 2015
Vice chairman Lykos stated he would assume the duties as Chairman unless another
member wished to serve in that capacity. There was no response from the members.
The Floor was opened to nominations.
Chairman White nominated Thomas Lykos to serve as Chairman and Richard
Joslin to serve as Vice-Chair of the Contractors'Licensing Board for the 2016
Term.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "Abstention." Mr. Lykos and Mr. Joslin abstained
from voting.
The Floor was closed.
Chairman White thanked the Board members and Staff for the support and trust
extended to him during the past two years as he served as Chairman for the Board.
Vice Chairman Lykos thanked the Chairman for his service.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. (Moved to "Public Comments" per Amended Agenda)
B. Orders of the Board
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos 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, 9—0.
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
C. Tom Frechette— Contesting Citation #09602
Citation: #09602 ("Unlicensed Electrical Contracting")
Date Issued: September 21, 2015
Fine: $1,000.00
Description of Violation:
Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or
business organization as available to engage in the business of or act in the capacity
of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified.
Tom Frechette
• Requested dismissal of the Citation
• Stated there were two versions of the proposal he had submitted: Job #973 —
Version#1 (included in the packet) and the original version for Job #973.
• He had been told there was existing wiring. When he inspected the site and
spoke with the builder, he was informed some of the wiring had been
damaged during demolition.
3
December 16,2015
• His position: Repairs to existing wiring were exempt; he cited Florida
Statutes 489, Section 503.
• An additio reason for requesting dismissal of the Citation was because his
company was had become qualified and licensed to perfoim electrical work as
a Certifie eneral Contractor.
• His intent was never to do the wiring— said he was "more of a parts and
smarts guy" and his license allowed him to install parts and do programming.
• His license as a Certified General Contractor allowed him to sub-out the
electrical portion of a job.
Chairman White stated the Board's goal was to bring Contractors into compliance.
He reviewed the documentation presented to the Board and requested clarification
regarding "Dennis Paul"who was listed as the license holder.
A. He is the Qualifier.
Q. If he is the Qualifier, how are you licensed?
A. He is the Qualifier of Collier Audio Video, LLC, the company that was cited.
Q. Is your argument that the entity you represent is now properly licensed to perform
the work that was cited because you have a CGC as the Qualifier?
A. Correct.
Michael Ossorio:
• Met with Mr. Frechette on September 21, 2015 and advised him that the
proposal required a licensed Electrical Contractor to perform the work.
• Mr. Frechette stated he understood he could not do the work and would sub it
out.
• Mr. Frechette was issued a Citation ("Unlicensed Electrical Contracting) for
putting a bid out as a "proposal." (The bid was submitted to D. Brown
Construction)
• Mark Simmons (Simmons Security and Sound, PLLC) pulled the Building
Permit for that particular Scope of Work.
• He further stated there was "an impact."
Chairman White noted the Citation was issued for contracting without a license and
not for performing work without obtaining a permit.
Michael Ossorio clarified the work was not done. The Citation was issued on the
basis of the proposal.
Chairman White restated the issue before the Board, i.e., Mr. Frechette had advertised
or contracted to do work without being properly licensed.
Kyle Lantz directed his question to Tom Frechette:
Q. What, in your mind, defines a"repair" or"replacement?" I am an Electrical
Contractor. To me, a "repair"is splicing in a piece of wire. Replacing a wire is
not a"repair"—it is doing electrical work.
A. In my mind, I would have to consider if work was done at one time and permitted
under that and if I am following the exact same pathway and doing the exact same
Scope of Work to repair—if the wire needed to be six inches or twelve feet, that
4
December 16,2015
would fall under a"repair." When I spoke to the builder, he asked if a permit was
necessary and I told him I thought it fell under "repair" and a permit was not
required.
Ellie Hunt directed a question to Tom Frechette:
Q. As a Contractor, how would you differentiate "newer" versus a"repair" work in a
quote?
A. If there was new construction ... new work, you would need to pull a permit to
put the wires in. But if there was existing work—existing wiring that was
damaged in some demo—that would be a"repair."
Q. On your quote, you don't differentiate it ... you leave it up to the interpretation of
yourself and your client to understand that as the current state? I'm trying to ...
A. I wasn't asked to differentiate—it just specifies it on my proposal after"relocate a
cable outlet and replace some speaker wires."
Terry Jerulle directed a question to Tom Frechette:
Q. What type of a structure or building is this?
A. This was a condo unit remodel. They had removed some walls and changed some
framing. The speakers and wiring were already there—they were already intact—
they were just damaged during the demolition.
Q. Who was the Contractor?
A. D. Brown.
Q. Did D. Brown pull a building permit to do the remodel work?
A. I'm not sure.
Q. This was a remodel and you gave a proposal?
A. Correct. In my original proposal when I was told the wiring existed and everything
was good—my original proposal (#973) was for just equipment which I am fully
capable of doing under my old license. It wasn't until we went out to the jobsite and
met D. Brown—the builder—and we looked at the job and we both decided that it
was a"repair"—we both were in agreement. So I went back and I added the
additional materials and costs that it would take to do that work (#973-Revision#1).
A. I agree with Mr. Lantz. If I am a homeowner and my speakers aren't working due to
a damaged wire, I can call you to come and fix the wire under a repair. But if I am a
Contractor and I am remodeling a condominium, I would think I needed a permit
and the correct license to do the work. You have over 500 lineal feet of wire that
you provided a bid for. Five hundred feet isn't a repair ...
Chairman White stated he was not sure how the documentation provided by Mr.
Frechette tied into Chapter 489 of Florida Statutes and read the following:
"Any person engaging in electrical contracting must obtain a
license from the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board."
He noted Chapter 489, Section 503 provided limited exemptions for licensure for
Electrical and Alarm System Contractors, similar to those in 489.103 for Construction
Contractors. It provided a summary of the exemptions in Sections 503 and 103.
5
December 16, 2015
Chairman White referenced 489.103(3):
"The installation, repair, alteration, addition, or design of electrical
wiring, fixtures, appliances, thermostats, apparatus, raceways, and
conduit, for the purpose of transmitting data voice communications
or demands as part of a Cable TV computer telecommunication or
community antenna TV or radio distribution system ..."
He referenced the permit ("E-16") which described the work as "... an AV system
including Cable TV, data wiring, and speaker system." He stated the Scope of Work
relates to Cable TV computer telecommunication, etc. He asked if the work pertained
to the installation, repair, or alteration of electrical wiring, fixtures, apparatus, and/or
conduit. Mr. Frechette's response was, "Yes, sir."
Chairman White concluded that, if the documentation was part of the Florida
Statutes, there may be an exemption provided for Mr. Frechette's type of work as a
licensed Electrical and Alarm Contractor. He stated he would like to see the specific
cite in Chapter 489 and asked James F. Morey, the Board's attorney, for assistance.
Mr. Frechette stated it was excerpted from The Florida Contractor's Manual.
Kyle Lantz noted many things contained in The Florida Contractor's Manual that
were out of date and no longer applicable. He described the book as the reference
manual you buy when you want to study for the exam.
Chairman White noted a copy of the license obtained by Mr. Frechette's father to
qualify the business entity was included in the packet provided to the Board. He
asked the members if it was enough to satisfy the requirement to abate and allow the
Board to dismiss the Citation. He added the other options were to uphold the Citation
or to increase the amount of the fine.
It was noted Mark Simmons was present and prepared to testify concerning the
proposal and the impact of pulling the building permit.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked why a permit would be relevant since the Citation was
issued for unlicensed advertising and contracting—whether or not a permit was
required was not relevant because Mr. Frechette did not do the work.
Chairman White explained one of Mr. Frechette's arguments for dismissal is the
documentation which he provided which indicates a separate license was not
necessary to do the work he proposed to do.
Attorney Morey noted in Chapter 489, Section 503 (14), the language tracks the
excerpt provided by Mr. Frechette. He stated it would be an exemption to the
requirement for obtaining an Electrical Contractor's license. He confirmed it was
from the 2015 Legislative version of the Florida Statutes.
6
December 16, 2015
Chairman White stated there were two basis to consider dismissing the Citation.
Richard Joslin requested to hear testimony from Mr. Simmons.
Mark Simmons:
• He is a licensed Electrical Contractor—EF Category (low voltage)
• His company submitted a proposal for the same project. The proposal had
nothing to do with "repair." The rooms —the volume of work was never
considered to be a"repair." The stuff that was torn out was torn out on
purpose because it wasn't going to be used again. The locations were
different. There were significant changes to the walls and structure.
Everything commissioned in these proposals—both his and mine—were for
new, in-wall products as was pointed out. There were hundreds of feet of
plenum wiring to be run through the walls. An licensed Electrical Contractor
was required to do the work.
• Having a General Contractor licensing the business now is whatever it is—it's
new.
• When this was going on, Collier Audio Video needed a licensed holder for
that company to serve as its Qualifier. Before I submitted this complaint, I
looked up the information—they had a Collier County Tax Collector's receipt
to install equipment—but specifically not running wires through walls. That's
what they were qualified to do at the time.
Chairman White clarified the Business Tax Receipt was previously known as an
"Occupational License." He stated a Business Tax Receipt is not a substitute for, nor
does it satisfy the requirements for a Contracting license.
• It's commonly mistaken by people who have this "license"that they can do
this kind of work—they hold out an"Occupational License" so they can
advertise on their business cards and stationary that they have a"license."
The general public doesn't look into what the category what that
"Occupational License" is—nobody takes the time. They just see a cytv number and"Oh,he's licensed," and that's—it's a huge mistake made by a lot
of people—they're assuming a guy is licensed to do this particular kind of
work, as my colleague on your Board knows. There are many different
categories and, at that time, this company had no license to do this work.
What has happened since then? Obviously, he is trying to back-track and
cover what the issues are.
It id • If you don't want to handle this issue and discipline this fellow, I will take it
to the State to see if the State will enforce it. This has to stop.
� • I just want to testify that the job was in no way a repair.:
Chairman White: Would you say that it was an installation, an addition, or design?
A. Yes, it was an installation of an audio-video system.
Q. Was it an alteration to the extent that it had to be ....
A. Nothing remained ... nothing existing was used when we did this job. Everything
was new.
7
December 16, 2015
Q. So it was an installation?
A. It was a complete installation, yes.
Richard Joslin questioned Mark Simmons:
Q. Was that due to the tear down of the walls?
A. Yes. They demo-ed enough of this condo that all the stuff needed to be put in
new. There were some speakers in the previous structure but all were removed
and relocated. It was all new. Wires were run through walls and at the time, his
company did not have a license to do the work. I don't want any confusion about
that—now that they have a GC. The guy's Dad has been a GC —he should have
coached his son enough to know that he needed an electrical license to do this
work—not a GC license. There's always the excuse, "Oh, we would have hired
that out."
Chairman White: The question before the Board is whether his argument of an
exemption is one that applies or, by getting a license after-the-fact and having the
company qualified, did they cure the defect—fixed the problem? If either one of is
true, the Board can dismiss the Citation. We may not, but we can.
Mark Simmons: I have been a licensed Contractor for 30 years. Getting a General
Contractor's license is still not the license you need to do this work. It's not the
license needed to do the work. You need an Electrical License.
Vice Chairman Lykos: Part of the Board's responsibilities is disciplinary action
when it is appropriate. One of the other responsibilities is to try to bring people into
compliance when there is a violation. One of the processes that we have—the tools
that we have—is when someone is issued a Citation, there are opportunities for them
to either reduce the Citation or have the Citation dismissed because they have come
into compliance. The Board does not always use just disciplinary action as the only
tool. We try to use the other tools as well because if someone takes the steps to come
into compliance, we know that they are a lot less likely to violate the Ordinance in the
future. We prefer that someone comes into compliance. We know if they continue
on the same path, they will not appear before the Board again. It may be frustrating
as a 30-year veteran of your industry to compete against people who don't understand
the laws or purposely `nibble' around the edges of what is or is not legal. But part of
our responsibility is to bring people into compliance. We have tools for that and
that's what Mr. Joslin was referring to and I agree—it might be good to have on the
record what the abatement process is because, again, part of our responsibility is to
bring people into compliance—it isn't just disciplinary action.
Richard Joslin: Just because he has obtained a license, doesn't necessarily mean
that we have to do that. This is just the process that the Board has set up in the past
Vice Chairman Lykos: It is not a GC versus an Electrical License ...
Mark Simmons: Again, it is not the correct license needed to do the work.
Vice Chairman Lykos: But as a GC, he can sub-out that part of the work to
somebody else and still be in compliance.
8
December 16,2015
Mark Simmons: He didn't represent that he was going to sub-out the work. Yes, I
agree that you want to coach fellows into doing the right thing but that's why you are
there and I'm here. But in this case, he needs to work for an Electrical Contractor for
at least three years, learn about the laws and the work, and then he can submit and get
his license.
Terry Jerulle questioned Mark Simmons:
Q. Did you bid against Collier on this project?
A. Yes.
Q. So D. Brown solicited more than one or two subcontractors to do this work?
A. My understanding was D. Brown, the G.C., did not request a proposal from
Collier Audio. My understanding is the proposal came through the owner of the
property—either the owner or the decorator of the project brought Collier Audio
in. If D. Brown knew Collier couldn't pull a permit, D. Brown wouldn't use
Collier—but I can't speak for D. Brown.
Q. Did D. Brown solicit a proposal from you?
A. They solicited a proposal from us based on—we reviewed the project and then we
had input from the decorator but what we got was that Collier Audio had a
discussion with either the owner or the decorator and they came up with this
proposal. And we countered with ours.
Chairman White: If the proposal had been made with the current license in place,
with the CGC as the Qualifier of the company, is it your opinion—not that they could
do the work or do the work without a permit—could they write the contract and make
the proposal because they could then get a subcontractor—like you—to do the work.
Would it be lawful for them to make that contract and submit the proposal?
Mark Simmons: My understanding was if they were licensed at the time, they
would have put their license on the proposal. There is no license number on it. They
did not have one at the time. What you might encourage him to do now that he's
gone out and gotten a G.C. license—again, I point out—it is still not the license you
need to do this work.
Chairman White: We are not disputing that. I don't think anyone here is saying
that.
Richard Joslin: To do the work—No. But to contract out the work— Yes.
Chairman White: And that's the difference. That's why we are less concerned
about the permitting aspects. You have helped us to identify the issues and to bring
some light onto the process. I hope it helps us and you, as well.
Vice Chairman Lykos summarized: It sounds as if we have two issues: whether or
not the work falls under the description in F.S. 489.503 —that's one issue. The
second is whether or not the Respondent's option of having a General Contractor
qualify the business give the Board reason to dismiss the violation. Concerning the
first issue, if I understand Mr. Simmons testimony correctly, the Scope of Work was
not a repair or an addition. It may have been a design but if it's a design of an
entirely new system, then I think it does not qualify as a"repair" or even an addition
to an existing system.
9
December 16,2015
Chairman White: He did say it was an installation and that's one of the categories
of exemption as well.
Vice Chairman Lykos: Well, everything is an "installation." But that's why we are
here—to go through the grey areas and decide what the intent of this is.
Tom Frechette: What I had quoted to do was not replacing all of the speakers— it
was a direct repair of what was there. I don't know what he ended up doing as his
Scope of Work, but that was not what I proposed—what I proposed was a repair.
Mark Simmons: I would like to call out the items on the proposal because these
items are new—they are not replacing things that were there. I'm sorry, but I
disagree with his statement.
Richard Joslin: We have a list of about $20,000 worth of material that was put into
this job. And most of it, in my opinion, looks like it was new equipment.
Mark Simmons: On the last page ("E-11"), Materials - $14,513; Labor - $4,350;
Programming, $1,140. That's not a repair.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
• Bedroom#1: we have a TV, an adapter and a wall mount for the TV. I don't
have an issue with that—it is equipment.
• Bedroom#2: there's a TV, a wall bracket, an adapter, and now it looks like
we have some wire— 50 feet of plenum wire.
Chairman White commented that electrical wiring was within the Scope of the
installation.
A"
' • Master Bedroom: we have a TV, an adapter, a wall mount, a sound bar which
is typically mounted outside of the wall—it is not behind the drywall—and we
have another 50 feet of plenum wire.
• Family Room: we have a TV, don't know what the second item is, a bracket,
a wall mount, volume control, in-ceiling speakers (actually mounted into the
ceiling). They are new, recessed speakers. We also have a remote control and
75 feet of plenum wire, another 150 feet of Cat-5, and an amp. The audio-
video equipment is not an issue. We are looking at the wiring and the in-wall
items such as the recessed speakers and the volume controls.
• Grand Salon: A TV, a wall mount, a speaker bar, a bracket, two surround
speakers ...
Vice Chairman Lykos asked Tom Frechette if the speakers were surface-mount or
recessed.
A. They were recessed and speaker rings were already cut in. My first quote
reflected what the designer told me—they wanted to keep the speakers, then they
said they wanted to install new speakers which were cleaner and whiter. But the
rings already existed so it was a straight-up replacement.
Q. There was a volume control. Was this a replacement of an existing or was that
new?
A. It was a replacement of an existing. Yes, sir.
10
December 16,2015
Q. And then there was 225 feet of speaker wire and 150 feet of Cat-5 wire ...
Mark Simmons interjected: I'm sorry, he's wrong. The Grand Salon had nothing in
it. The Family Room did have a few speakers. The Grand Salon had nothing.
Vice Chairman Lykos: So now we have conflicting testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman White: We don't have a floor plan - #1. I am assuming they are different
rooms. We don't know if they were reconfigured spaces and ...
Mark Simmons: Yes, they were.
Chairman White: .... designated by new names ...
Tom Frechette: I was only on the jobsite once during my original walk-through so
AN'
not positive.
/� • Lanai: we have surface-mount speakers, a volume control and 100 feet of
plenum wire.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked if"Equipment Location"meant a room or area where
all the electrical equipment was kept.
Tom Frechette: Correct. The wiring for the Family Room and the house audio
speakers already was in a closet—so this was going back into that closet.
Q. Did you run new wires to this equipment location or did you ...
A. I didn't do ...
Q. Okay. Did your proposal include running new wires to the equipment location ..
A. It was to replace what was there—replace existing. All these rooms already had
speakers in them.
Q. I am going to use some very specific language. Would you answer my question
based on my specific language?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it your testimony that any existing equipment was in this existing location?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you installed new equipment in the same location?
A. I proposed to.
Q. Does the proposal that the Board has in its packet include running new wires to
the same location or were you connecting the equipment to existing wiring?
A. The proposal included running new wiring to replace the existing wiring that was
damaged during the demo.
Q. You have network, modem, router—all wireless. And then we have your
summary at the end.
Chairman White asked Mark Simmons if he had anything further for the Board.
Mark Simmons: I will reiterate that this was a new installation. New wires were put
in. Calling it a"repair" instead of a new installation is up to you—because it was not.
There is no repair when you are running new wires. Yes, there was existing wiring
and it was damaged during the demo. But at no time was there a proposal to say that
it was going to be repaired. You wouldn't even waste your time thinking about trying
11
December 16, 2015
to repair damaged wires like that. It was a new installation to new locations and to
new speakers.
Chairman White: Did it require some degree of design?
A. Yes, of course. I wonder about the Statute—he dug up something about where
you don't need a license to install, repair, or design. I'll just turn my license in
and won't worry about— and just keep going.
Vice Chairman Lykos: It actually is in our Ordinance. We have an Ordinance and
that is verbatim from the Ordinance.
Mark Simmons: Well, I guess I don't need an Electrical License and I don't need to
pull permits anymore.
Richard Joslin:
Q. Regarding the demolition—what was the extent of demolition to this condo?
A. The back bedroom and the two guest bedrooms were spared that I am aware of.
Walls that had speakers and speaker controls on them were re-vamped and moved
and demo-ed. The "Grand Salon" is new—I think that was a dining room before.
Q. Was a permit pulled for this?
A. I had to pull a petinit to do this work and that's my point. My point was you have
to be a licensed electrical contractor to do this work and you have to pull a penult
to do it. His proposal for repairs was over $20,000. If you want to look at the
repair issue—repairs are good for up to $2,500 or maybe $5,000 now. But this
volume of work needs a peitnit and a licensed Contractor to do it.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. Mr. Ossorio, did you not testify in the beginning that the County looked at this
work and decided that it did need a permit?
A. We took this proposal to Chief Richard Long and he verified that this particular
work did require a building permit and a licensed contractor.
Q. So Mr. Long who know all the Codes that we have, still decided that it needed a
permit and a licensed Contractor?
A. Correct.
Q. The bid that I see here does not have a license number on it. And I have yet to see
any letterhead or documentation that they that license.
Chairman White: We are talking about a set of facts where the County said he went
ahead and contracted without obtaining a license. Now if he goes out the next time
and does exactly the same time with the licensed Qualified that they have, and then
the work is done without a permit or without a subcontractor who is properly
licensed, then he is going to be back here again. That's different.
Terry Jerulle: But we have the option and I know what my option is.
Chairman White: But the difference is—just so we are clear whether it has been
abated or not, that is the only issue I consider to be key in determining whether this is
something that can be dismissed or not. If he could have written the contract the way
that it is, we have to assume that everything else would have complied with the law
downstream in a hypothetical because it never happened.
12
December 16,2015
Terry Jerulle: "Abatement" to me is a Contractor getting the proper license and
proper permit which he cannot do with his current license.
Chairman White: Agreed and understood. But that's not the set of facts that led to
this Citation.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked Attorney Morey to read the requirements to contest a
Citation.
Attorney Morey cited from the Ordinance:
"If a person who was issued a Citation or his/her designated representative,
shows the Citation was invalid or that the violation had been corrected prior
to appearing before the enforcement or Licensing Board, the enforcement or
Licensing Board may dismiss the Citation unless the violation is irreparable
or irreversible."
Kyle Lantz questioned Tom Frechette:
Q. I want to ask you some questions about before your company was qualified and
after you qualified your company. There will be two different scenarios. I don't
know if your business practices have changed or not but I am curious.
Q. In the past, before you were qualified, if you wrote a contract for a job similar to
this—how did that work? The people who did the work—were they your
employees or did you subcontract the work out to an electrical contractor?
A. No, what I was doing was basically two proposals—I've got an electrician who I
work with who provides a proposal for the wiring and I provide a proposal for the
other portion. The client needed to know he would write two separate checks for
the work.
Q. And for this job in particular, you didn't go that route?
A. I was under the impression, number one, that it was a repair because it was
existing—what was there and even meeting with the builder—he agreed.
Q. Your intent on this job was to have an electrician do the wiring or have your staff
do the wiring?
A. It was my understanding on this job that I could do the wiring.
Q. Okay. In the future, now that your company has been qualified as a licensed
General Contractor, if you were to sell this exact same job-would you do the
wiring yourself or ...?
A. Absolutely not. I'm not qualified.
Q. Okay. But you thought you were qualified before and now that you're qualified
you realize that ...
A. The exemption for this particular work—I understood that I did not need a license
and I was qualified to do the work.
Q. So—I'm confused. You just told me that you were qualified to do this exact job—
you felt you were qualified to do it under the exemption and you would do it
yourself.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now that you're licensed, if you got the same job—now you feel you're not
qualified to do it and you have to sub it out?
13
December 16, 2015
A. I'm saying the new construction that's not a repair, so if I went in and provided a
new quote ...
Q. I'm only talking about this particular job that you bid.
A. In this one, I still see no reason why I cannot do it as a repair with my own men.
Chairman White: That's fine. You can choose to have that discussion with the
County in the future as to whether you need a permit and get clarification on it.
That's something you are certainly free to do. We are here to talk about this specific
Citation only.
Chairman White continued: Mr. Lantz, if Mr. Frechette qualified for the exemption
under the Statutes, then the question is: Does the County's Code should parallel the
Florida Statutes today. It may be that the County is more strict than the State—the
State has an exemption. Is the County allowed to be more strict than the State? If it
is, then you are at a point where it doesn't matter what this (the documentation) says,
okay, because that's the State's law.
He continued: Mr. Frechette's intent on a future job is relevant to you and you're
giving weight to that in determining whether you would vote on a motion to dismiss.
Tom Frechette: What is clear after this much debate is that my answer in the future
would be "no"—I'll just let the electricians do it. According to what I read, I was
under the impression that I could do it. Would I do it again? I think there's so much
debate out there—it's not worth it. I'll have the electricians do it.
Kyle Lantz: Can you tell me who you use as an electrician?
A. Starlight Electric.
Q. And do they charge you by the hour or give you a flat rate? •
A. By the hour.
Q. And do you pay them directly or does the homeowner pay them?
A. Now I can pay them directly because I am a G.C. Prior to this, they were writing
their own separate quote.
Vice Chairman Lykos: As a residential Contractor who does work similar to D.
Brown, if this was my project, there is no way I would recommend to a client to
repair their existing wiring. It would be to rip out the old system. The wiring is the
cheap part of the job—it's the equipment. If you put brand new high-definition
equipment with old wiring, you are doing a dis-service to the client and to the
equipment. For me, it is a"no-brainer"—you rip everything out and start from scratch
—especially with a$20,000 audio-video package. My other thought is in reference to
a comment that Mr. Jerulle made, we actually "tweaked"the Ordinance
approximately two years ago when we changed the Citation structure. Our intent was
for anyone who was in violation to become compliant and the intent was, in my
opinion, for someone who was doing electrical work to go and get a G.C. license
because they would still not be qualified to do electrical work. 'It was not for a
plumber to get a GC license so he could hire plumbers, it was for someone who was
in violation of the plumbing code to go and get a plumber's license. Those are the
issues that have become critical to me over the course of this discussion. Does
someone with a GC license technically qualify your business? It was not the intent of
how we re-wrote the Ordinance. The reason why we created the tiered penalties in
14
December 16,2015
the Citation portion of the Ordinance was to bring people into compliance for the
trade that they were cited for. So if you were cited for carpentry or doing
construction without a license, then you would go and get a carpentry license. Our
intent was not for a guy who was doing plumbing illegally to go and get a GC license
and then hire a plumber. It doesn't mean that you can't do that but that's not what
the intent of the re-written Citations section was for.
Attorney Morey clarified: If someone is issued a Citation and they do not contest it,
they have 45 days to make a full application for the proper licensing. If they do that,
the fine would be reduced from $1,000 down to $300. The other category is if
someone contests the Citation. And if the person who was issued showed that the
Citation was invalid or that the violation had been corrected prior to appearing, then
the Board may dismiss the Citation if the violation was not irreparable or irreversible.
Chairman White: I am comfortable that we are satisfying the intent—and you being
in compliance so that, in the future, if your write one of these contracts with the
licensure now have as a Contractor, that you will be able to lawfully do that. If
you took •`1".ext step and the County required a penult and an Electrical Contractor
to do the work and you didn't hire one, I suspect you would be back here again.
Richard Joslin stated he was not in favor of dismissing the Citation. He felt that due
to the amount of demolition involved, the project should have been treated as new
construction and not just a repair.
Chairman White: What the Respondent has said—based on what he has learned—
in the future, he would get a sub and that, to me, means we have done our jobs. There
is nothing inappropriate about dismissing the Citation.
Richard Joslin moved to approve upholding Citation #09602 which was issued to
Thomas Frechette. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Michael Boyd: I have been an Electrical Contractor for 30+ years and agree with
Mr. Simmons. This job obviously required a permit and the work should have been
done by an Electrical Contractor. As much as I agree with that—he didn't do any
work. He just provided a proposal. He was cited for unlicensed contracting. He
went and got a G.C. license. Whether or not, in the future, he will use an Electrical
Contractor—he either will or he won't. He has met the criteria we set—he got a
license and abated the violation. He didn't do any work. I don't know whether it was
going to be a repair or what it was going to be, but he didn't do any of the work. As
much as I would like to agree with keeping the fine, to some degree it is not right.
Chairman White: If we go ahead and don't dismiss the Citation after this guy has
gone ahead and done all the steps we asked someone to do to be in a position of
compliance, what is the next guy or gal going to do?
Terry Jerulle: Mr. Boyd, how would you feel if you were bidding a project and the
proposal being entertained was from an unlicensed contractor.
Michael Boyd: It happens to me all the time.
Terry Jerulle: We are trying to stop it or bring them into compliance.
15
December 16, 2015
Michael Boyd: We are trying to stop it—and this gentleman went and got a G.C.
license. With a G.C. license he cannot go ahead and do electrical work but he didn't
do anything wrong ... other than bidding the work.
Chairman White: I think the question is if he had the G.C. license and did the same
exact thing, would he get a Citation? I think the answer is he would not. Now if he
went to the next step and did the work and did not get a permit and didn't hire a sub,
then we would have a whole new kettle of fish.
Chairman White called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried, 5— "Yes,"4— "No."
Chairman White suggested to Mr. Frechette that he pay the fine as soon as possible.
D. Troy McNabb —Review of Credit
(d/b/a"APEX Site and Demolition Corp."
Troy McNabb stated the Licensing Board office did not like my credit score.
Chairman White explained the minimum credit score allowed is 660 and if his score
was lower, the Licensing Board Supervisor made an evaluation based on that score to
not issue a license administratively. He asked Mr. McNabb to explain what was on
his credit history and what he has done about them and what he intends to do.
Troy McNabb:
• Lost two houses due to the economic down-turn—he has two ex-wives
• One foreclosure is over 100 points on a credit score
• Has been working diligently to bring his score back up—he has only small
credit card and continues to pay them every month
Chairman White noted there were two civil judgments: one for $9,300 (Dan Morris)
and $9,800+ (Mitchell International).
A. I am attempting to dispute them—I don't believe either one of them is valid.
Q. The judgments have been issued—your time to dispute and make arguments has
passed. You have lost. What are you doing about the judgments?
A. I will pay them eventually.
Q. What have you done to pay them?
A. Honestly, nothing.
Q. There were paid Federal tax liens of$11,000 and a small one for just over $100.
Chairman White noted there were several items that had been placed for collection
and some of them you have disputed.
A. Correct and some of them have been paid as well but they are not on here and I
don't understand why.
Q. Which ones have you paid?
A. First Premiere Bank - $478 was paid about eight months ago. Everything else is
closed or disputed.
Q. What about Comcast Cable?
16
December 16,2015
A. It is not my debt—it belongs to my ex-wife.
Q. If your marital settlement agreement did not assign it to her, it is yours and it is on
your credit report. There is a General Insurance for $212 and a medical for
$1,166. Those are on there for collection along with Progressive Insurance for
$271. They have not been disputed and are out for collection. What have you
done about any of those?
A. I haven't done anything about the ones that are not disputed. I have made
payment arrangements with some that are still on here. It's a process and you
can't cure your credit overnight. Some of these things have been sold by the
original creditors.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. Can you tell us which ones have payment plans in place?
A. Matco Tools is paid every week via credit card. It's an account that I have had for
15 years. My dealer who gets the payment every week wasn't applying the
correct amount to the corporate account—he put more on the truck side—and,
over a period of time, it became delinquent. I handled that personally with him.
Q. Any other payment plans?
A. I should have re-run this credit report because one has been disputed and closed
and should not be on the report.
Chairman White explained the codes that he considers to be "red flags"—something
that hasn't been addressed, is still open and negatively affects the credit history.
Richard Joslin noted there was a General Insurance item among others and asked
how he was going to pay for them—if he had a plan.
Mr. McNabb indicated any item with a small balance would not be on his credit
report and estimated it would take 24 months.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the Board members were not there to serve as credit
counselors. He stated he did not mind listening to someone who had a written plan to
overcome credit challenges and could provide the Board with details. He strongly
recommended to Mr. McNabb that he prepare a written plan to address his credit
issues.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to deny approving the license application. Richard
Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Troy McNabb stated:
• He has lived in the area for 28 years and has raised his children here
• He had two other businesses which did not require licenses through the
County
• His partner who has an 800 credit score is not the license holder or the
applicant
• He understood the Board's position that he might not pay his subs or his
suppliers but he is a demolition contractor -- he does not have any subs and
brought his supplier with him to the Hearing
17
December 16,2015
• The Board is placing too much emphasis on his personal credit and not on his
business ethics and the recommendations that are part of his application.
• He further stated denying a license will put him out of business.
• He stated Collier County contacted him to knock down a building but he
cannot proceed because of his personal credit situation.
Ellie Hunt noted the Applicant had been advised of the meeting and could have come
in with a documented plan but instead gave vague responses. While the Board could
appreciate the hardship situation, the County wants to see his attempt to rectify it
before moving forward. She asked why he had not prepared for the meeting.
Troy McNabb replied he had been told to simply write a hardship letter. He made
17 copies as requested; he bought the Workers' Comp insurance and the General
Liability insurance as required. "I've jumped through all the County's hoops. I've
been doing business in Collier County my entire life." He further stated he should
have been advised that a credit repair plan was necessary.
Chairman White suggested that before a vote was taken on the motion, Mr. McNabb
consider withdrawing his application. He could return before the Board at another
time after he had prepared a written plan that detailed who he had contacted and what
arrangements have been made, as well as what bills had been paid. He advised the
Applicant to also include documentation, i.e., copies of cancelled checks as proof of
payment. He noted the next Board meeting was scheduled for January 20, 2016.
Troy McNabb requested to withdraw his application.
Chairman White asked the motion maker and the second to agree to withdraw the
motion to allow the Board to consider Mr. McNabb's request.
Richard Joslin moved to approve Mr. McNabb's request to withdraw his
application for a license. Gary McNally offered a second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Chairman White noted if Mr. McNabb had additional information to add to the
packet, the sooner he gave it to the Licensing Board Office, the sooner it would
trigger considering him for placement on the next agenda.
Vice Chairman Lykos advised Mr. McNabb to become proactive concerning what
he wanted to accomplish and to adjust hi itude—blaming the Board or other
people for his situation was not the wa the approach the Board. It was suggested
that he hire a company to help him prep.', - his paperwork and documentation for the
next hearing.
(Note: A comment was made from the gallery. Chairman White advised the individual he could
not address the Board since he was not an applicant or a witness but he make a statement as part
of the "Public Comments"portion of the meeting at the end of the Agenda.)
BREAK: 10:36 AM
RECONVENED: 10:45 AM
18
December 16,2015
E. Bradford Trubet—Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a "MAC Irrigation")
Bradford Trubet:
• He had been licensed in Collier County as of 2010
• The renewal notice was sent to the Corporate office and"fell through the
cracks" due to the non-action of a disgruntled employee who had been the
Qualifier for the company
• He has applied to renew his license
• When the company attempted to active his license, he became aware of the
problem with his license
• He is actively licensed in Martin County, St. Lucie County, Palm Beach
County, Broward County, Hillsborough County, and Lee County
• He became a Certified HDPE Installer in 2015 —he is qualified to the 12-inch
diameter pipe
Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Trubet why he did not want to take the exam.
A. I took it 20 years ago and have kept my licenses in other jurisdictions. I was self-
employed but have not been since about 1994 or 1995. I have worked for
corporations. My HDPE class was a three-day class and I did well on the test. I
am a Regional Manager for my company and manage the Treasure Coast Region.
I direct 25 men on a daily basis. If I were required to take the test again, I would
probably study and take the State exam.
Michael Ossorio stated the County would have no problem if the Board decided to
grant a waiver.
Vice Chairman Lykos asked the Applicant if he remained active in his industry
since his license expired in Collier County.
A. I have been working in the industry since my license expired in Collier County.
Richard Joslin clarified that if the application was approved, Mr. Trubey would
become his company's Qualifier.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve granting Bradford Trubey's Request for a Waiver of
Examination and approving his application for a license. Chairman White offered
a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
F. David W. Smith—Waiver of Exams
(Journeyman Electrician)
David Smith requested a waiver for the Journeyman Electrical Licensing Exam.
Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Smith's request for a Waiver was the first presented to
the County. Mr. Smith took the Master Exam and wished to use that to obtain a
Journeyman's Card. He stated the County had no objection.
19
December 16,2015
David Smith:
• Wants to make himself more employable
• Due to his age, he does not want to be an Electrical Contractor
• When applying for a position, having a Journeyman Card is very helpful
• He exceeded the requirements to obtain a Journeyman Card
Michael Ossorio confirmed that David Smith has taken the necessary exams and has
the required credentials to be a Journeyman and obtain his card.
Kyle Lantz noted when he took the State's exam, there was a trade/technical portion
and the Business/Law portion. He stated Mr. Smith has passed the Business/Law
portion and asked if he took the trade/technical portion.
A. Yes, I did. I did not pass it but I didn't prep for it either. After reviewing it, I
decided it was more than I wanted to get into—as far as becoming a Contractor and
starting a business and having employees—I don't want that.
Mr. Lantz noted the Business/Law portion did not take into consideration wire size,
conduits, wire types, etc, which is what a Journeyman is. He stated the business
portion doesn't necessarily apply as much as the technical portion. It is not the same
test. "To hear that he had difficulty with the technical portion makes me think that he
needs to take the test." He further stated he went the State route directly to his
Master's and has met only four Journeymen—it is not a common thing in the area to
go the Journeyman route.
David Smith: Not in this part of the country.
Kyle Lantz: Not in this part of the State at least—it is more prevalent on the east
coast. He continued he heard that the Journeyman's Trade test is more difficult than
the State's test.
Chairman White asked Mr. Smith if he recalled his score and the response was, "I
think it was a 68." It was noted that 70 was the minimum passing grade.
David Smith pointed out that he had achieved Journeyman status—he went through a
four-year apprentice program (1988 through 1992) sponsored by the Department of
Labor. It was a full-time apprenticeship working in the trades on a daily basis. After
completion of the program, he obtained his Journeyman's card from the Department
of Labor. The type of work he wants to do is industrial work—he will not perform
residential or commercial work. He stated he studied automation; ac/dc theory;
Circuits I, Circuits II, industrial controls, etc, and none of which is on either the
Journeyman's or the Electrical Contractor's test.
Kyle Lantz stated his personal reservation was because the Journeyman's Card states
the holder has expertise and experience in the entire trade but Mr. Smith developed an
expertise in a very specific area of the trade. And there have been many changes to
the Code since 1992.
David Smith explained the apprenticeship program addressed facilities work as well
which included building construction within the plant where he was working and he
continued working through 2008. He moved to Florida in 2009 and worked for a
local company for 4-V2 years and his employment ended one year ago.
20
December 16,2015
Kyle Lantz stated while Mr. Smith was qualified to be a Journeyman, he still wanted
to see him pass the test.
David Smith stated he understood the Journeyman's test to be a tier below the
Master's exam.
Gary McNally:
Q. In the past three years, have your worked in any part of the electrical trade.
A. I worked for VIOX Services, Inc. from 2010 to December, 2014 and I was their
"electrical guy." I took care of the "5/3" Bank buildings in Collier, Lee and
Charlotte Counties.
Q. Have you done any of the educational updates—the CEUs recently?
A. Not since 2008. I haven't held a license in Florida so there was no reason to do
any updates. The only thing I have done in the trade since I moved to Florida has
been to work.
Michael Boyd stated he had the same reservations as Mr. Lantz. The Applicant had
taken courses although it was 15 years ago. He further stated he did not doubt that
the Applicant was knowledgeable and well qualified, especially if he was the
electrician for VIOX Services, Inc. He asked the Applicant if he was able to verify
his score from the Master's exam.
A. I do not have anything with me and I am not sure if I have it at home. I just want
to work for somebody and I was trying to enhance my employability with the
experience and training that I've already got.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to deny the Applicant's request for a Waiver of
Examination and his application for a Journeyman Card. Kyle Lantz offered a
Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/2— "No." Robert
Meister and Chairman White were opposed.
G. Michael Belyea—Review of Credit
(d/b/a"Mike's Irrigation')
Michael Belyea:
• In 2008, I was licensed as an Irrigation Contractor in Collier County
• Worked for 12 years in Lee County, Port Charlotte, Sarasota County
• I installed big irrigation systems for communities
• When the economy tanked, I was not liquid enough and many of the
developers who owed me money just walked away. I did not have the funds
to keep the Florida liens active.
• I defaulted on much of the equipment that I owed money for.
• I did not file for bankruptcy protection which was a bad decision on my part.
• I reviewed my credit report and found where my debts were sold and have
contacted my creditors by phone and by mail. I have had one response to
date.
• My five-year goal is to get this credit under control and pay things off.
21
December 16,2015
Chairman White stated the best the Board could do would be to place him on
probation for two years. He asked the Applicant to explain who he had contacted at
BB&T and American Express regarding the civil judgments.
A. American Express is now NCC Business. I contacted them and submitted a
payment plan to them ($200/month) and am waiting to hear back from them. I
have not contacted BB&T yet. I contacted GMAC Financial which was bought
out by CCB Credit Service and sent them a request for a payment plan. Golden
Gate Well Drilling is a local company and Bob, the owner, is willing to allow me
to pay them back with a payment program. I originally owed $13,742. The debts
that I owe are a large hurdle to overcome but I am being realistic about it. I could
not pay them off in two years.
Chairman White stated from the Board's perspective it's the preparation, the action
taken, and the effort over time that matters most.
Gary McNally asked the Applicant if he was doing anything concerning the civil
judgments.
Chairman White noted they were for Springleaf Financial in the amount of$725 and
Naser Mahoud Nakler in the amount of$5,000.
A. I have not contacted them yet, but they are on my list. Yes, sir.
Richard Joslin asked about the responses the Applicant has received from the
creditors.
A. They are happy that I actually called them. Of course, they want me to pay more
money but I am the single breadwinner in my family and I have two kids so I
have to be realistic with them. Three or four have been fine with my payments.
But I haven't gotten everything back so I have to go by my financial plan of five
years if they approve what I have sent them. They may not approve it.
Q. You may fall into the same category as another gentleman who previously
appeared with the amount of debt that is owed and the plan that you have. You
don't have anything to show us how you are going to do this. I would ask you to
do that and come back before us in another month—pup some kind of plan
together so when you talk to these people you can come up with an arrangement
for how much you can pay and when you can pay it.
Chairman White noted the current Applicant had a more pro-active attitude, better
preparation, and provided actual information in response to the questions asked
concerning what actions had been taken. It is possible to consider a period of
probation to see what progress he can make.
Chairman White questioned the Applicant about his business credit.
A. My business credit? There were a number of individuals that I purchased
materials from, i.e, John Deere Landscaping, FIS Outdoors—I have a good
working relationship with those guys and I am paying the money back.
I pay everything via a debit card now—no credit.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. Are you in business now?
A. Yes, sir.
22
December 16,2015
Q. Are you licensed somewhere else?
A. No, I am not. I have liability insurance and Workers' Comp insurance but I am
not doing anything at this point. I was in business and received a violation
because I was actually qualifying a company with my business and that was
Green Spire and Associates. Those guys were paying for the license at that point
and I didn't realize that they had stopped paying for it. It was absolutely may
fault.
Q. I like that you are taking ownership of your debts and issues. I see you have some
type of report or plan in your hand, and when I examine the dates on your credit
report—nothing is current. There is one debt incurred in 2013. It gives me the
impression that the last few years have been better for you-you have been
paying off the older debts and not digging your hole deeper.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated he had an issue with the dollar amounts and the
quantity of accounts. Even though they date back to 2009 and 2010, it also indicated
that they have not been resolved. The debts may be old but he has had three to five
years to resolve some of the small ones but they have not been resolved. If the
Applicant came back in thirty days, he would have an opportunity to put together a
written plan and maybe pay off some of the smaller debts. The fact that he is further
along in the process the than previous Applicant does not me that he has crossed the
threshold and I am willing to grant a probationary license. There is a lot of old debt,
some high dollar amounts, and to have those high dollar amounts and not have them
addressed already ...
Chairman White noted the response of previous Applicants had been that they
needed the income in order to pay the higher dollar amounts. He further stated given
that there have not been any issues or concerns about his business credit, he was
comfortable with considering a three-month probation to see what progress could be
made.
Terry Jerulle expressed concern that this Applicant should be treated in the same
manner as the previous Applicant and stated he agreed that the Board should request a
written plan in order to grant probation.
Vice Chairman Lykos was concerned that the Board was continually lowering the
thresholds—the first was the Applicant's credit score of 481when the State's
threshold was 660; the next was requiring him to put a written plan together while
still granting him three months to see how he might perform based on the plan he
presented.
Chairman White explained that Mr. Belyea would take the plan that he articulate
under oath and adding to it—the "bones" were there. He stated the Board has asked
other people who were less prepared to develop a written plan.
Vice Chairman Lykos countered that only one of the civil judgments had been
contacted—he believed the "plan"began only when the Applicant received a Citation
for not having a license.
Richard Joslin suggested the Applicant should withdraw his application and return
in thirty days to show the Board exactly what he had been able to accomplish. There
were several small debts ($90, $233, $350) which had not been addressed.
Chairman White stated he was not lowering the threshold but identifying how to
fairly and consistently allow individuals to gain licensure and be in compliance. The
Applicant has made some contacts. How can he tell creditors he wants to work out a
23
December 16,2015
payment plan with them unless he has the ability to earn the income necessary to
make the payments.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted there were other ways to operate a business—he could
have someone else serve as the Qualifier which would allow him to work and earn a
larger income to pay his debts. The Board is not stopping the Applicant from
working or owning a company or operating a company.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to deny Michael Belyea's application to obtain an
irrigation license. Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Michael Belyea addressed the Board:
• I understand your looking at what my past has been and what I had done
recently;
• You are correct—I had not done anything until I had a problem with my
license
• I am struggling with how to pay everyone back with a regular labor job or
another job working at night
• It would take me a long time to find somebody to qualify my business
• I do have contracts in place which will depend upon if I am licensed in Collier
County
• To let you know, I will do what I say and I will stand up for the debts
• I understand it is not a right to have a license in Collier County—it is a
privilege
• I beg the Board to allow me a probationary period—I will not let you down,
When asked why it took him so long to begin, Mr. Belyea stated the amount of debt
was overwhelming, he did not have the financial means to begin to pay it, and he was
struggling to feed his family.
Chairman White asked Mr. Belyea if he would prefer to withdraw his request and
potentially return in January with a more formalized written plan and evidence of
payment of some of the minor debt.
Michael Belyea agreed to withdraw his application.
Vice Chairman Lykos withdrew his motion.
Chairman White moved to allow the Applicant to withdraw his application. Terry
Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
(None)
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VIII, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
24
December 16, 2015
A. Case #2015-08: Board of County Commissioners vs. Luis G. Patino,
d/b/a "Oasis Pools of SW Florida" (C 35630)
Chairman White stated he would briefly outline the order of the proceedings for the
Administrative Complaint with a Public Hearing.
The order of the proceedings:
• Open the Public Hearing;
• The Witnesses are sworn in and accept any evidence from the parties;
• The County presents its "Opening Statement";
• The Respondent presents his/her"Opening Statement";
• The County presents its "Case in Chief'—the details;
• Followed by the Respondent's defense;
• The County may offer any rebuttal.
• The Public Hearing process is then closed;
• The Board will receive instruction from its Attorney which is similar to a
"charge"to a Jury and will set out the parameters upon which the members
will base their decision;
• The Board will deliberate and may ask for additional infounation or
clarification from both parties;
• The Board will then decide two different issues: first, whether the Respondent
is guilty of the offense as charged in the Complaint vote and a vote will be
taken. If found guilty, the Board will decide if Sanctions are to be imposed.
• The Board's attorney will again advise the Board concerning what Sanctions
may be imposed and the factors to be weighed when considering evidence.
• The Board will discuss the Sanctions and then vote.
• The Chairnuan will orally report the decision of the Board which will
subsequently be rendered in writing to become the official Order of the Board.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to open the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin offered a
Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 9— 0.
Reggie Smith, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the County's
information packet in Case #201 5-08 into evidence.
Chairman White moved to approve accepting the information packet for
Case #2015-08: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. Luis G. Patino, d/b/a
"Oasis Pools of SW Florida"(C 35630) into evidence as County's Exhibit #1.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
Reggie Smith presented the County's "Opening Statement:"
• Received a complaint on August 28, 2015 and began an investigation of Louis
G. Patino, d/b/a Oasis Pools of South West Florida, Inc.
• The complaint was submitted by the Florida Department of Health.
25
December 16,2015
• Count I: "Contracting to do any work outside of the Scope of Competency as
listed on his/her competency card and as defined in this Article or as restricted
by the Contractors' Licensing Board."
• Count II: "Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or
inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division or the County
Building Review and Permitting Department."
• On October 6, 2015, Mr. Patino was personally served with a Notice of
Hearing for December 16, 2015 for violation of Collier County Ordinance
#90-105, as amended, Sections 22-201(2) and (18).
• The County will show that Luis Patino entered into a written contract for a
commercial pool renovation without obtaining the required permitting.
Luis Patino presented his "Opening Statement:"
• He admitted he was guilty of committing a violationk
Reggie Smith presented the County's "Case in Chief."
• Read his two-page Case Summary into the record.
• A copy of the document is included in the information packet admitted into
evidence as County's Exhibit"#1."
• Highlights of the Summary:
o August 28th—received complaint and began investigation
o August 31'—conducted a site visit and met with Tim Kragh,
General Manager, Forest Glen Country Club. Obtained copies of
the detailed estimate submitted by Oasis Pools, dated May 13, 2015,
and of Checks #28542 and#29017, totaling $22,600 in payment for
work performed. Photographed the completed pool renovation
work.
o Research revealed Mr. Patino did not hold the proper license to
allow him to contract for or perform the work. Met with Michael
Ossorio, Licensing Supervisor, who review the case information.
o September 1St—met with Luis Patino to review the case and serve a
Notice of Hearing
o September 5, 2015 —Mr. Patino's case was rescheduled to
December 16, 2015 due to scheduling conflicts
o October 6th—prepared a new Notice of Hearing for the rescheduled
date
o October 14th—Mr. Patino signed for and accepted the new Notice of
Hearing for the December 16th date.
Mr. Smith called two witnesses to testify on behalf of the County:
• Jamie Cook, Interim Pool Supervisor- Department of Health in Collier
County
• Susan Klavinger, Environmental Specialist- Department of Health in Collier
County
Reggie Smith asked Ms. Klavinger if she was the investigator at the property in
question, Forest Glen Country Club, and her response was, "Yes."
26
December 16,2015
He asked Ms. Klavinger to provide a brief summary of her site visit.
Susan Klavinger stated she is employed as a Field Inspector by the Department of
Health in Collier County and inspects public commercial pools and spas. She
conducted a site visit to Forest Glen Country Club pool on August 20, 2015.
• She observed the pool has been recently refinished
• There were concerns regarding the work that had been performed since it did
not meet Code requirements for a public pool
o There was a very large logo on the bottom of the pool
o To install this type of logo, it was necessary to obtain either prior
approval or a variance from the State Department of Health
• She was infornied that Oasis Pools had perfornued the work
• Oasis Pools is not a licensed Contractor and is not allowed to perform
refinishing work on commercial or public pools
Reggie Smith asked Jamie Cook if she is the Departmental Supervisor and if Ms.
Klavinger reports to her, and the response was "Yes." He asked her if she had filed a
complaint with the Contractors' Licensing Board Office and her response was, "Yes."
Jamie Cook:
• When Susan returned to the office, she showed pictures of the pool and the
work to my supervisor and myself
• Discussions were held with the Department's Administrator, Rachel Van
Blaire, and a decision was made to file a complaint to the Contractors'
Licensing Board office
Chairman White questioned Susan Klavinger:
Q. The proposal indicated the Department of Health's Environmental Engineering
Department was to have been notified in May of the commencement of work on
the pool. Did that take place?
A. No, it did not.
Q. I assume there were no other inspections—other than your general field
inspection?
A. That's correct.
Richard Joslin:
Q. Isn't it normal now—if there is a commercial pool that is to be renovated or
modified—that a permit is obtained through Collier County Building
Department?
A. Yes.
Susan Klavinger clarified that she and Ms. Cook are employed by the State of
Florida Department of Health and are assigned to Collier County.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. Can you explain what the problem was with the logo?
27
December 16, 2015
A. (Susan) The reason behind having to obtain prior approval for something in the
bottom of the pool is for safety. Is it an inappropriate color or inappropriate size
to restrict vision in darkness or in dusk, i.e., preventing you from seeing a body on
the bottom of a pool. If someone were in distress the large logo could impede
vision of a body that may need to be rescued. The current Code prohibits
anything larger than 8" by 8" in the bottom of the pool without obtaining prior
approval or a variance.
Q. And the Department of Health would approve the request?
A. Yes, it goes through the Department of Health. There is a Variance Board. All
requests are assessed and evaluated and a decision is made. There is a process.
Jamie Cook:
• When Susan brought the photos to the office, we contacted the State's
Administrator, Bob Minson, in Tallahassee and requested his opinion as
concerning whether the logo could receive a variance. His answer was,
"Absolutely not."
Terry Jerulle asked if Forest Glen was required to change the pool's logo and the
e answer was, "Yes." He noted there was an additional financial impact.
Richard Joslin:
Q. Is the pool still closed?
A. (Susan) I stopped by there yesterday. The logo has been removed and the pool
has been refinished to meet Code. There are some concerns about opening in the
walls that need the proper devices that are still not in place for whatever reason.
We did not receive a phone call upon completion of the new refinish. We knew
the pool was being refinished again by a Contractor and we requested to be
notified upon completion prior to opening. That did not occur. Our options when
we inspect or re-inspect are "satisfactory," "unsatisfactory," "incomplete," or
"close." It was given an "unsatisfactory" rating due to the lack of safety devices
in the walls of the pool. Forest Glen was given one month to complete the
installation and will be inspected again to confirm that it has been completed.
Q. Was the second refinish permitted?
A. I do not know that.
A. (Jamie) The Contractor did apply to the Building Department for the second
refinish. The work was done by Colonial Pools.
Ellie Hunt:
Q. Other than the logo, were there other issues that gave you concern regarding the
work that had been done?
A. (Susan) One other unusual item: there were some tiles featuring turtles, sea
horses and other figures which were located on the steps as you walk up and out
of the pool. It was unusual to see something like that on the steps but we received
a letter from the manufacturer confirming the tiles met the required slip-resistance
so the tiles were allowed to remain in place. The steps were fully compliant at the
initial refinish. The big concern was the huge logo and not being notified of the
process.
28
December 16, 2015
Richard Joslin asked if a full inspection has been conducted of the pool after the
second refinish and if every component was up to Code.
Susan Klavinger replied that everything was compliant except for the openings in
the walls.
Reggie Smith referenced Exhibit E-23, i.e., the estimate which was dated May 13,
2015 and also reflects the letterhead for the company, Oasis Pools of Southwest
Florida, Inc. He also referenced Exhibit E-25 which was a payment made to Oasis
Pools in the amount of$12,600 by Forest Glen Golf& Country Club Master
Association on May 28, 2015. He stated he has not found any license for Oasis Pools
or qualification of Luis Patina that would have allowed the type of work done on the
Forest Glen pool.
It was noted the Respondent already admitted his guilt.
Kyle Lantz asked who paid to have the Forest Glen pool refinished for the second
time.
Luis Patina: Oasis paid for it.
Luis Patina presented his defense:
• He admitted he was not a Contractor who could refinish pools.
• Oasis Pools was in the process of merging with Florida Pool Professionals to
take over the company. He stated he did not want to assume their debts.
• He decided to form two corporations—one for the finishing work and the
other for cleaning.
• He admitted the estimate was written on the wrong letterhead—it should have
been written under the other corporation.
• He accepted full responsibility for the entire situation.
• He started a website for Oasis Pool Builders which was incorporated and
Premiere Pool and Spa Finishes for the finishing guys.
• We all had a vested interest but there was a problem with the website and we
were red-flagged.
• They were also required to appear before the Board in Fort Lauderdale.
• Mr. Patina stated he was being pressured to purchase Florida Pool
Professionals directly but was unable to obtain information concerning that
company's liabilities. There were nine liens against the company as well as
over $100,000 in debts.
• He decided not to go forward with purchasing the company but was left with
the commitment that has been made to refinish the pool at Forest Glen.
• He stated he wished to rectify the situation, own up to his mistake and hoped
to go forward.
The County's Case in Chief was concluded.
Chairman White asked Mr. Patina to explain what he was doing differently.
A. Two years ago, my intention was to obtain a Contractor's license to refinish pools
and building pools. There were some serious health issues in my family. I had to
29
December 16,2015
financially support my parents. He decided to avoid resurfacing and just do pool
repair work and service. We made a family decision to avoid anything to do with
the construction of pools or resurfacing of pools.
Chairman White asked Mr. Patina if he intended to obtain a different class of license
and his answer was, "Yes."
Richard Joslin stated he was shocked to learn that someone with a pool cleaning
license attempted to renovate a pool. He asked Mr. Patina who resurfaced the pool in
the first instance.
A. There was a team who worked for Classic Pools. The leader was Jose Perez.
Q. Is he a licensed Contractor?
A. He is the individual who was carried on Classic Pools and then when we decided
on—he decided that he needed help to transfer his crew and that's when we got in
line with the Ryans who committed to doing all sorts of things. At the end of the
day, that fell through because of the numbers. I told Jose who contacted Colonial
Pools who rectified the situation with the Forest Glen pool and now Colonial
Pools pretty much owns the crew through Elite Pool and Spa Finishes. And I
decided to step away from the whole thing.
Terry Jerulle stated it appear that Mr. Patina was trying to do the right thing but did
it the wrong way.
Richard Joslin noted the proposal was prepared correctly—all the right steps were
there—but he was doing it without the proper credentials and then hiring people who
were not licensed or under someone's supervision who was not licensed.
Kyle Lantz asked what the cost was to fix the pool, i.e., resurface it for the second
time.
A. Approximately another$12,000 which came from my pocket.
Q. So the contract that you had originally for was $22,600 ...
A. We were paid $20,000 or $22,000 and we had to collect an extra $4,000 which we
forfeited. In the end, I paid $12,000 to rectify the pool situation. It was a bad
situation all around.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. Your total contract was for how much money?
A. The initial total contract was $22,648. There were additional charges of
approximately $4,000 —the repairs were made but the money was not collected.
Plus an additional $12,000 ...
Q. So the original contract was for$22,648 plus a change order in the amount of
$4,000 for repairs to the beam which brought the total amount to $26,648. Of that
amount, how much did you collect?
A. We collected the $22,648 but forfeited the remaining balance of$4,000.
Q. So the original contract was fulfilled. You did not collect the additional $4,000
for the beam.
A. Correct. On top of that, one of the guys hit a light post and I ended up paying for
that, too.
Q. Why did you not receive the $4,000 for the repairs to the beam?
30
December 16, 2015
A. I put everything on hold—no license. I didn't want to carry on more trouble by
collecting more money. I just wanted to make the pool right and get away from
some of those people. We did the work and we took the hit.
Q. So your out-of-pocket included the $12,000 to resurface the pool for the second
time and you had a $4,000 write-off
A. Yes, sir.
Terry Jerulle moved to close the Public Hearing. Gary McNally offered a second
in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Chairman White declared the Public Hearing was closed.
Chairman White noted there were two Counts in the Administrative Complaint.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve finding the Respondent guilty on Count I
and Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Richard Joslin offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
Attorney Morey referenced Section 22-203 of the Code of Ordinances and noted the
Respondent is the holder of a Collier County Certificate of Competency.
The Contractors' Licensing Board found that there was misconduct on the part of the
Respondent. 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,
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);
31
December 16, 2015
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.
Michael Ossorio noted there were previous violations:
• 2013 —Unlicensed Electrical Contracting—Citation paid - $300
• 2013 —No building permit—Citation paid - $300 (two different occasions)
• 2013 —Unlicensed pool contracting—$500 fine was voided
• 2013 —Unlicensed residential pool contracting - $500 fine was paid
• 2013 —Kirkland—Unlicensed residential pool contracting - $500 fine paid
• 2013 —No building permit—Citation paid - $500 fine
• 2015 —Unlicensed Internet advertising—Citation issued - $2,000 fine paid
Mr. Ossorio explained the 2013 Citations were issued over a two-day period.
Luis Patino:
• In 2013, I decided to open up a retail store and hired a Manager to work under
my license. He was hired because he had a number of accounts on Marco and
I thought he could help me grow my business but he did things without my
knowledge. I had to let him go because he caused the violations. Then I
closed the retail store. The money that I put into the retail store was lost
because it didn't pass a fire inspection—didn't have enough alley in back.
Michael Ossorio noted the County incurred $1,050 in investigation costs.
The Board members discussed various options regarding sanctions:
• Include the County's costs - $1,050
• Fine of$5,000 per Count
• Probation for two years for the current license and any future licenses
There was debate about the amount of the fines. It was noted the Respondent had
taken a$16,000 "hit." It was noted the Respondent did admit his guilt and had made
restitution to Forest Glen.
Terry Jerulle moved to impose the following Sanctions:
• A two-year probation;
• Fines of$2,000 per Count to be paid within ninety days;
• Restitution to the County for investigation costs incurred in the amount of
$1,050 to be paid within thirty days;
• Passing grade on the County's test to obtain his pool servicing license
within the next six months.
Vice Chairman Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
32
December 16,2015
BREAK: 12:40 PM
RECONVENED: 1:00 PM
(Note:With reference to the cases heard under Section VIII, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Case#2015-09: Board of County Commissioners vs. Karin R. Sacacian,
d/b/a "Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC" (C 25598)
Chairman White asked if he needed to repeat the order of proceedings which were
the same as the previously concluded case.
AAA_ 9k 4 0 1N4 040 FOf
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to open the Public Hearing. Gary McNally offered a
Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 9— 0.
Karen Clements, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the County's
information packet in Case #2015-09 into evidence.
Richard Joslin moved to approve accepting the information packet for
Case #2015-09: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. Karin R. Sacacin,
d/b/a "Olde Naples Tile & Marble, Inc."(C 25598) into evidence as County's
Exhibit#1.
Vice Chairman Thomas Lykos offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
Karen Clements presented the County's "Opening Statement:"
• The County will show that in April, 2015, Tom Arico entered into a contract
with Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC, to install tile flooring in his condo
located at 4010 Ice Castle Way - #5,Naples, Florida.
• The work was completed and at the time of the installation, clearly there was
faulty work and failure to correct work.
• Count I: Violation of Collier County Ordinance#90-105, as amended,
Section 22-201(10) as follows: "Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship
or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the
construction contract. Faulty workmanship means work that is not
commenced, not continued, or not completed in accordance with all
specification of the applicable written agreement. Faulty workmanship
includes any material flaw(s) in the quality and/or quantity of the unfinished
or finished work product, including any item that does not function properly
as a part of the entire project. If there is no written agreement provision
regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty workmanship exists if
the work, process, product, or part thereof does not meet generally accepted
standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project. Faulty
workmanship does not include matters of esthetics unless the esthetically-
related item clearly violates a written contract specification directly related
thereto."
33
December 16, 2015
Karen Clements presented the County's "Case in Chief."
• Read her four-page Case Summary into the record.
• A copy of the document is included in the information packet admitted into
evidence as County's Exhibit"#1."
• Highlights of the Summary:
o August 10, 2015 —received a complaint regarding faulty work and
began investigation
o Conducted a site visit and met with the homeowner, Tom Arico.
o Excessive lippage of the corner of the time was clearly visible.
o August 24, 2015 —called Mario Sacacian of Olde Naples Tile &
Marble concerning the tile issue. Mr. Sacacian stated more tiles were
on order and the problem would be corrected within thirty days.
o The deadline was not met. The homeowner complained of injury to
his feet and expressed concern for his safety.
o October 2, 2015 —Mario Sacacian was still replacing tiles.
o October 5, 2015 —met with Mario, Mr. Arico, Michael Ossorio and
myself to inspect the work. It was not completed. Michael Ossorio
gave Mr. Sacacian until October 16th to complete the job and resolve
the issues for the homeowner.
o October 12, 2015 —Michael Ossorio called Mario and left two
messages. When asked about the status of the floor and the deadline,
Mario Sacacian became upset, claimed he was finished, gathered his
tools and walked off the job. He did not return.
o October 13, 2015 —met with Michael Ossorio and Tom Arico. Mr.
Arico was advised to obtain bids to correct and complete the job from
various tile contractors. Mr. Ossorio stated Olde Naples Tile and
Marble would be brought before the Contractors' Licensing Board for
a hearing.
o Michael Ossorio contacted Mario Sacacian to inform him that he
would be brought before the Contractors' Licensing Board. He
claimed the job was not his.
o October 14, 2015 —a Notice of Hearing was drafted and emailed to
Karin Sacacian, the Qualifier for Olde Naples Tile and Marble. I
delivered the Notice of Hearing to the Sacacian home at 280 29th
Street NW,Naples, FL. Mr. Sacacian was in the yard with two dogs so
I taped it to the front gate where it was clearly visible.
o November 13, 2015 —hand delivered a copy of the Notice of Hearing
to Naples Home Design. Karin Sacacian is a representative of this
company.
o Bids:
• 41 East Flooring: total cost - $6,725
• Floors N More Direct: total cost- $7,850.30
Tom Arico was called to testify and was questioned by Karen Clements:
Q. Please state your name and address for the record.
A. Tom Arico. 4010 Ice Castle Way- #5,Naples, Florida 34112
Q. On Page E-16 is a copy of a business card. You received it from whom?
34
December 16,2015
• A. Mario at Old Naples Tile & Marble.
Q. On Page E-17 is a copy of the contract that he gave you?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. It does not state a company name anywhere.
A. No, it doesn't.
Q. Only his name and phone number?
A. Yes, the company's phone number. It lists 18 x 18 tiles but that was changed?
A. That's correct. I went to Naples Home Design to pick out the tile. I spoke
with Yanelis who showed me a 6 x 36 tile. I spoke with Mario who said he
could install it for the same price. Mario picked up the tiles and delivered
them to my condo. He knew what the material was and I had his "okay"to
buy the tile.
Q. Mario told you to go to Naples Home Design.
A. Yes, he did. He said he does business with them and they have very good tile.
Q. Did you know that his wife was an owner of the company?
A. I didn't know anything about it. I was told the owners were out of Miami.
Q. Karen Sacacian is also the Qualifier for Olde Naples Tile and Marble.
Michael Ossorio asked Mr. Arico if the card on Page E-16 was given to him by
Mario Sacacian and his response was, "Yes, it was."
Mr. Ossorio referenced Pages E-18 and 19. He asked Mr. Arco why the checks
pictured on those pages were made out to Mario Sacacian.
Mr. Arico stated Mr. Sacacian told him to make the checks payable to him since
he owned the company. He noted the check was marked "Paid in Full" for the tile
installation. He further stated he bought the tile from Naples Home Design and
paid for it himself.
• Exhibit E-19 is a copy of a check to Mario Sacacian in the amount of$500
as a partial payment—confluned by Thomas Arico.
• Exhibit E-15, the Florida Division of Corporations lists Marius Sacacian
as a Managing Member of the Company— confirmed by Thomas Arico.
Michael Ossorio questioned the witness:
Q. Did you have an occasion to talk with Mr. Sacacian at your home concerning
the faulty workmanship? Did he say anything?
A. Many times.
Q. What did he say about the work that was done?
A. First he said it wasn't that bad—it didn't look that bad to him. I told him I
couldn't move the furniture on the floor (because the tiles curled up at the
edges).
Q. Did he say to you he knew it was faulty work and he wanted to fix it?
A. Not originally.
Q. After you filed the complaint, did he ....
A. Yes. I received two emails saying that he was going to fix the tiles. But he
never did.
Ellie Hunt noted Mr. Sacacian has been referred to as "Mario" and"Marius."
She asked Michael Ossorio if the County verified that Mario and Marius were one
35
December 16,2015
in the same person and how the verification was done.
Chairman White confirmed the Administrative Complaint listed him as "Mario"
while the Division of Corporations listed him as "Marius."
Michael Ossorio replied to the best of his knowledge, Mario and Marius were the
same person.
I Rick Ehlers, 41 East Flooring, was called to testify and questioned as follows:
Q. Q. Please state your name for the record.
"A/ A. Rick Ehlers of 41 East Flooring.
Q. Do you have any licenses or qualifications?
A. I am a State-certified building contractor. I have been a Contractor for about
13 years.
Q. Did you inspect Mr. Arico's condo and provide him with an estimate?
A. I did.
Q. Please describe what you saw.
A. Excessive lippage—it was very badly done (installed). They followed the
floor line but didn't flatten the subfloor. I told him that approximately half of
his living room tiles would need to be ripped out and replaced. The bedrooms
had several tiles that were to be chipped out and replaced to minimize the
lippage. The other guy estimated for underlayment but I wasn't going to put
that because the condo is on the first floor.
Q. Has this been done yet?
A. It's not done.
Q. Was the underlayment on the other ...
A. I would doubt it because the condo was on the first floor—usually it's for
sound-proofing.
Michael Ossorio noted Mr. Ehlers' work has not been completed. Mr. Arico
wanted to come before the Licensing Board first.
<1' tP414,0 Nut,.rop.ts ((.4 m° A` frodo
Q. Have you worked with this particular flooring before?
�.. A. Yes, we have.
\LA Q. Can you explain what the standard is and how planks are to be installed?
A. They are supposed to be laid 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Because of the length of the tile,
there's an excess of warpage. They give you a 32nd of an inch for lippage and
a 32nd of an inch for warpage. He is far over one/16th with what he has now.
Q. In your professional opinion—you have been doing this for 13 years—would
you say this was the generally accepted standard of laying down this particular
kind of tile flooring?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. What are the dimensions of this tile?
A. 6x36
Q. Would you use a mud-set installation or a modified thin-set because of the
size of the tile?
A. Not necessarily but, in this case, you probably should because of the condition
of the subflooring.
Q. Would you install the tile using a mud-set or the leveling clips? What has
your experience been?
36
December 16, 2015
A. The leveling clips are great but when they pull the clips back up they can pull
the tile out of the thin-set and you will have a hollow spot unless you put a lot
of thin-set down and really push the tile in it. It could be faulty also.
Q. Would you do a mud-set tile for $2.25 a square foot?
A. No, sir.
Q. Would you do an installation with the clip system for ..
A. Yes, we can do that.
Q. You can do it with the clips for $2.25?
A. Sure. You can get the one you can re-use.
Tom Arico commented when his family visited him, his grandchildren were
playing on the floor—the tile went through my granddaughter's clothes and cut
her.
Q. In the completed job or the completed portions of the job, what was the
percentage of flooring that was bad?
A. 65 to 70% of it was bad. In the bedrooms, there was a possibility of chipping
out some of the tiles and trying to re-set them. It was beyond that in the living
room—there was too much.
Q. There was about 495 square feet that had to come up because it did not meet
your standards in the living room— correct?
A. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers was asked how he would correct the problem with the subflooring?
A. We would probably use a thin-set with perlite in it so we can build up the
subfloor. In one spot, the floor falls off about a half inch. We have to level it
off first.
Q. What are you going to do at the baseboard? Are you going to butt up to it?
A. That's what they did originally. There is nothing much that I can do because
half the floor is done.
Chairman White stated the absence of the Respondent—there was proper notice
given—the expert testimony and the testimony—it falls within the scope of faulty
workmanship. I don't think there will be an issue on finding a violation. He asked
if the County incurred any costs for investigation.
Michael Ossorio: $550.
Richard Joslin moved to close the Public Hearing portion of the proceedings.
Chairman White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Chairman White declared the Public Hearing to be closed.
Richard Joslin moved to approve finding the Respondent, Karin Sacacin,guilty
of Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Gary McNally offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
37
December 16,2015
Chairman White asked the Board if they needed Attorney Morey to repeat his
instruction concerning Sanctions.
� p &(44 1\0 X40 tiu°—'
Tereru 1e
stated he was more interested in making sure that Mr. Arico was
made whole rather than filling the County's coffers.
Michael Ossorio noted:
• It is $3.50 per square foot x 500 feet= $1750
• Plus $700 to remove the tile = $2,450
• Plus the cost for the materials
Ellie Hunt noted there was a quote for $6,725.25 which should include the
materials since it said"new tile and tax." (See: Exhibit E-32)
Rick Ehlers confirmed his bid included labor, new tile, and tax.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the cost for labor was approximately $9.00 per
square foot and there is approximately 500 square feet of tile to be removed and
replaced.
Mr. Ehlers stated the new tile would have to match the existing tile in the Great
Room and in the bedrooms.
Vice Chairman Lykos expressed his concerns:
• Will the dye lots match?
• If you take the appropriate steps to compensate for the bad subflooring and
install the new tile, how do you know that the finished height of the new
tile will match the existing tile?
Rick Ehlers explained in the portions of the flooring that had been completed, the
subflooring was in pretty good shape. He referenced Exhibit E-28 and said about
half-way down, the subflooring began to dive down to the right.
Ellie Hunt asked if the concern was that once the job was begun, the installer
might realize it was a larger job and if the Board does not take the possibility into
account, the consumer would not receive full restitution.
Vice Chairman Lykos agreed.
Gary McNally asked what could be done if the dye lot was not the same.
Rick Ehlers agreed the entire flooring would need to be replaced since the tiles
would not match.
Ellie Hunt asked if there was any logic to doubling the bid in order to ensure that
the entire flooring could be replaced if necessary.
Rick Ehlers explained there were also issues in the bedrooms that he was
addressing on a tile by tile basis. He agreed it would be fair to double his estimate
because if the dye lots do not match, the only option would be to remove the
entire flooring in the Great Room.
Chairman White suggested setting a maximum figure for restitution.
38
December 16,2015
Richard Joslin asked if the dye lots could be "that far off'?
Rick Ehlers stated he did not have any experience with the particular flooring
originally chosen by Mr. Arico. He further stated some manufacturers maintain a
pretty level dye lot. He thought the tile was probably a Chinese import.
Vice Chairman Lykos stated if the Board anticipated a worst-case scenario, there
will be 900 square feet of tile to replace at a cost of$9.00 per square foot for
labor; 900 square feet at $5.00 per square foot for materials which would put you
at $12,600.
Rick Ehlers countered a worst-case scenario would also include the master
bedroom which would increase the cost.
It was noted the quote from NHD (Naples Home Design) was for 932 square feet
of tile.
Rich Ehlers agreed the 932 would be a safe number. He also stated the
baseboard should be replaced.
Vice Chairman Lykos noted the homeowner contracted to have the job done
correctly and the Contractor knew which tile was to be installed. If he needed to
alter the installation process, and if that involved changing the installation cost,
the Contractor had every opportunity to have that conversation with the home
owner—or not install.
Tom Arico stated when he returned to NHD to purchase additional tiles, he was
informed the price had increased although the salesperson wasn't sure of the exact
amount. He said he called several times and left message but no one returned his
call with the new price.
Vice Chairman Lykos suggested factoring in a 10% increase in the price of the
tile ($4,678) plus the cost of labor ($8,388) = $13,066. He asked Mr. Arico if he
thought that number was sufficient.
Vice Chairman Lykos suggested revoking the license immediately since the
Respondent was not present at the hearing.
The Board discussed several options including suspending the Contractor's
license until restitution is made to Mr. Arico and the County is paid for its
investigative costs. Other suggestions were to suspend his permit pulling
privileges for a minimum of thirty days. If the Respondent did not make timely
payments, the license would be permanently revoked. Regarding setting a cap on
the amount of restitution, it was suggested if the dye lots match and the work can
be done satisfactorily then the original quote would be appropriate. It was
suggested to include a fine with the proviso that if restitution was made within a
certain period of time, the amount of the fine would be minimal but if not, the full
amount would be levied against the Respondent.
Michael Boyd asked if tile and marble contractors normally pull permits.
Michael Ossorio responded that they don't need permits.
Michael Boyd suggested immediately revoking the Respondent's license until the
terms of the Order were satisfied.
39
December 16,2015
Michael Boyd moved to impose the following Sanctions on the Respondent:
• He is to reimburse the County in the amount of$550 for investigative
costs incurred. Payment to the County is to be made within thirty days.
• He is to reimburse the Homeowner, Tom Arico, in the amount of$13,000
and will have sixty days to make said payment.
• The Respondent's license will be suspended until such time as the tennis of
the Board's Order have been satisfied.
• The Respondent will be fined in the amount of$2,000 but if restitution to
both the homeowner and the County has been completed within thirty
days, the amount of the fine will be reduced to $
• Of the payments are not made in a timely fashion, the Respondent's
license will be immediately revoke and the fine will be increased to
$5,000.
Debate continued among the members concerning the amounts of money.
Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions on
the Respondent, Karin R. Sacacian:
• Immediate suspension the Respondent's license (#25598) until
restitution in the amount of$6,860.55 including sales tax is made to the
Homeowner plus reimbursement to the County in the amount of$550
for investigative costs incurred. These amounts are to be paid within
thirty days.
• Assessment of a fine in the amount of$2,000 to be paid within thirty
days.
• Immediate revocation of the Respondent's license if the payments are
not timely made.
• If the payments are not made as ordered and the Respondent's license is
revoked, an additional fine of$3,000 will be assessed.
Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
IX. REPORTS:
(None)
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 20, 2016
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL
"Happy Holidays"
40
December 16,2015
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chairman at 2:20 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
• ENSIN BOARD
Mr 1 ,fit
. • ,...._.■ A i k■■
PATRICK WFII E, Ch. ' man
The Minutes were approved by the Commi Chair/Niee-ehai'on ),AAA„ • $10 , 2016,
"as submitted" 1 1 OR "as amended"
I
41