CLB Minutes 01/20/2016 January 20,2016
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
January 20, 2016
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: Thomas Lykos
Vice Chair: Richard Joslin
Members: Michael Boyd
Elle Hunt
Terry Jerulle
Gary McNally
Robert Meister
Patrick White
Excused: Kyle Lantz
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
o e-r t, may
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
AGENDA
JANUARY 20, 2016
9:00 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL:
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. December 16, 2015
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
VI. DISCUSSION:
A. Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC-C25598-Request for Re-Hearing of Case#2015-09
VII. REPORTS:
A. Florida Statute 489.503 (14)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders Of The Board
B. Michael Belyea- Mike's Irrigation- Review of Credit
C. Luis Sanchez-Al Services and More, Inc.- Review of Credit/Experience
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Mikel G. Diehl- Florida Hardscapes & Pavers Maintenance, Inc.-6 mos. Review of Credit
B. Luis Escobar- Florida IB &S, LLC-9 mos. Review of Credit
C. Brian Kirwan-Kirwan Painting Inc.-3 mos. Review of Credit/Waiver of Exams
D. Marina Reyes- Reyes Tile Service-Waiver of Exams/Review of Credit
E. Garon Skender-Marco Pool Service-Review of Credit
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2016
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS
3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
January 20,2016
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 Thomas Lykos called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; seven (7)voting members were
present.
Michael Ossorio confirmed Kyle Lantz had been excused.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
(None)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
(Patrick White arrived @ 9:05 AM.)
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—DECEMBER 16,2015:
Corrections:
• Page 2: Ms. Hunt's first name is E-1-1-e.
• Page 7 (middle of page): Mark Simmons continued his testimony following
Chairman White's comments.
• Pages 10 and 11: Vice Chairman Lykos continued was inserted.
• Page 15: the word licensure was corrected
• Page 18 (Vice Chairman Lykos' comments): the sentenced was changed to
read as follows: "not the way to approach the Board."
• Page 26 (Luis Patino's statement): "a violation" was changed to "the
violations."
• Page 28 (Terry Jerulle's statement): "the" answer was changed to "Ms.
Cook's" answer.
• Page 33: Chairman White's comments were changed as follows:
Chairman White asked the participants if he needed to repeat
the order of proceedings which were the same as the previously
concluded case. All participants acknowledged he did not.
• Page 36: Karen Clements name was inserted as follows:
Rick Ehlers, 41 East Flooring,was called to testify and questioned by
Karen Clements as follows:
2
•
January 20,2016
• Page 36: Questions were attributed to the Board Members
• Page 38: Chailnian White's comments were changed as follows:
Chairman White asked the Board Members if they.needed Attorney
Morey to repeat his instruction concerning Sanctions. There was no
request from the Board Members to repeat the instruction.
Patrick White moved to approve the December 16, 2015 minutes as amended. Terry
Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
(NONE)
VI. DISCUSSION:
A. Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC—Request for Re-Hearing
(Case#2015-09; License C25598)
Michael Ossorio:
• Karen Sacacian, the Qualifier, contacted the Contractors' Licensing Office to
request a Re-Hearing. Her request was granted and the Request for a Re-
Hearing will be heard by the Board in March, 2016.
• The decision of the Contractors' Licensing Board, which is the subject of the
Re-Hearing Request, shall remain in effect throughout the rehearing procedure
unless the County's Licensing Supervisor or the Contractor's Licensing Board
orders otherwise.
• Ms. Sacasian submitted her Request for a Re-Hearing within the time frame
allowed.
• Her license will remain suspended until the Request fora Re-Hearing is heard
in March.
Elle Hunt questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. Under what conditions is she granted a re-hearing?
A. She has submitted a Request for a Re-Hearing. Attorney Morey can explain to
you the outline if the Board decides to grant a Re-Hearing. You won't have a re-
hearing that day—it's a Request that will be heard. The Board in the past has
decided to grant some requests. If the Board decides to grant her Request in
March, a date will be set and the Board will determine what the parameters of the
re-hearing will specify. If the Board does not grant a re-hearing, Mr. Morey will
present a Final Order of the Board which will be filed.
Patrick White stated he could not agree with Mr. Ossorio's statement because the
Order was final when written. He requested clarification concerning a date stamp on
the lower right-hand corner of the letter addressed to Mr. Lykos, asking if that was
when the County received her request.
Michael Ossorio stated the Order of Board is effective when signed by the Chairman
—not the date of the initial Hearing—and that is when the Appeal process begins.
3
January 20,2016
Patrick White: My point is simply whether or not the County received the request—
as the date stamp suggests — on December 29, 2015.
Michael Ossorio continued the date stamp was the County's and reflected when the
request was received.
Mr. White noted the letter from Karin Sacasian which the County had determined
was a"request" was not dated but the County had decided it was timely received.
The Order is very specific about the time frame within which to file a Notice of
Appeal.
He continued, since he conducted the Hearing and signed the Order, he was
concerned that the record— as he had done with the Minutes -- was replete.
He further stated, "In my opinion and I may be wrong—and I'm going to ask Mr.
Morey this question: Unless this Board grants a re-hearing and issues an Order and
does as you have suggested and suspends the license until the re-hearing is granted, I
think that the Notice of Appeal time period has past. Today is January 20th. The
Order was rendered on December 18th. To the best of my determination, I think the
30-day Notice of Appeal has past. The question in my mind is whether, in fact, yes—
we may choose to have a re-hearing but what's the point?
James Morey, Attorney for the Board,referenced Collier County's Code of
Ordinances, Section 22-205 —"Appellate-type Review." He agreed with Mr. White
that there is a 30-day period from the rendering of an Order to appeal. There is a
qualification in the event there is a request for a re-hearing.
(a) "Any appeal shall be filed with the Circuit Court and be served on
the parties within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the effective
Final Order of the Board. If there has been a re-hearing request, the
appeal shall be filed with the Circuit Court and be served on the parties
within thirty (30) days of the rendition of the Board's decision on re-
hearing."
Attorney Morey continued that Ms. Sacacian, by timely asking the Board to consider
granting a re-hearing and asking that the Request for a Re-hearing occur in March,
she has extended the appeal period.
Patrick White: She was able to toll the period to file an appeal ... ?
Attorney Morey: ... until the Board's rendition on her Request for a Re-hearing. If
the Request for a Re-Hearing is denied and that denial is signed, she will have thirty
days from that point to file an Appeal.
Patrick White: Are we being asked to make a determination today about the
Request for a Re-Hearing or not?
Attorney Morey: No—because she is not here to ask for it. She is asking for you to
consider her Request at the March meeting.
Patrick White: Let's go to the substance of the Request itself because—certainly the
form of it isn't one that I am comfortable with, but I am willing to accept that the
County wants to construe it as a"Request for a Re-Hearing"—that's fine with me.
The timing seems to be appropriate but the idea that we are going to be asked to toll
the Order and the imposition of the Sanctions for another two months?
Elle Hunt: Why?
4
January 20,2016
Michael Ossorio: I am not asking the Board to toll the Order-I am letting you
know that I decided to keep the license suspended ...
Patrick White: Unless or until?
Michael Ossorio: ... until March when the Request will be heard. I didn't have to
bring this to the Board but I wanted to bring it to the Board to let the Board know that
I decided to go ahead and keep the license suspended because if I didn't do this, her
license would be null and void. You suspended her license the day of the hearing.
You gave her some options ... this has to be done and if not, the license would be null
and void. She requested a re-hearing. I didn't want to go ahead and revoke—or null
and void—her license ... I wanted to keep it suspended. Same procedure ... they
can't work ... they know they can't work—so it's just to infoini the Board of the
decision of the Office to say `we are going to keep it suspended under the Re-Hearing
Request. And the Request will be heard in March. Very simple.
Vice Chairman Joslin: What happens in March if we deny it?
Michael Ossorio: We've done that before—we've had many Requests—what
happens is there will be a Final Order of the Board and that's when the Applicant will
have an opportunity to appeal to the Circuit Court.
Thomas Lykos: The Request for a Re-Hearing will occur in March. If we decide
not to have a re-hearing of her case, then would the license automatically become null
and void at that point? Or will there then be a 30-day suspension with the null and
void becoming 30 days after that?
Attorney Morey: Essentially, right now, the part of the Order which ordered the
suspension is being enforced. The suspension is there. But the payment—the timing
of the payment has been stayed.
Elle Hunt: We are giving her a three-month loan? If the Board chooses in March
not to re-hear, our consumer is waiting an additional three months. Did she not find it
important enough to come and speak with us today on this and be on today's Agenda?
Patrick White: Similar to last month when there was no appearance.
Elle Hunt: Yes. My concern is we should have either put it on today's Agenda or
had her here today. He putting it off three additional months—it waters down the
power that the Board has in looking at these things and adjudicating them and giving
some relief to the consumer.
Patrick White: That's valid set of concerns. I would add to that the procedural
precedent that appears to be being set here that will allow a Respondent who has been
found in violation and ordered to take action—simply by requesting a re-hearing—to
toll the time to appeal and, by choosing not to appear today, caused additional harm
to the homeowner.
Attorney Morey: I understand the Board's sentiments and you are all making
excellent points. We have this constant balancing act with the enforcement but also
due process. I suspect one of the concerns that will be raised is the due process
concern and to not have to participate a second time—it's going to continue to
compound that due process. I think the Licensing Supervisor thought it would be best
to have her here and be present at the time. Apparently, she had a reason for not
being present here today.
5
January 20,2016
Patrick White: There is nothing in any of the materials that we have received or
anything that we've heard from the County that suggests that.
Michael Ossorio: This is only a discussion to let the Board know what the Licensing
Supervisor has done—we are not arguing her Request for a Re-Hearing. I'm just
letting the Board know ....
Patrick White: I would like to know why we are not.
Michael Ossorio: My email correspondence to the Qualifier that she is in the—her
full-time job is as a nurse or some kind of nurse regulator. She has huge meetings on
the third Wednesday of every month—it is imperative that she attend—it is
considered as "life and death" between her clients and her patients. Her thought
process was ....
Patrick White: Are you under oath at the moment, Mr. Ossorio?
Michael Ossorio: No, but I'm telling you the truth. If you want me to go under oath ...
Patrick White: I wasn't questioning the veracity of your comments ... I was simply
indicating for the purposes of the record of whether or not you were under oath. And
you were relating a statement that was someone else's comment to you—correct?
Michael Ossorio: That's fine. So my thought process is—and I'm going to leave it
at this—this is a discussion ... we are going to have a re-hearing in March and the
Licensing Supervisor is going to keep her license suspended. That's all I'm going to
say.
Kevin Noell, Assistant County Attorney: The other issue that we have—and I
understand the Board's frustration—the other issue that we have is, if this is a case
that's posturing for appeal with the Circuit Court, we would much rather—from a
County position—err on the side of giving an extra thirty days as opposed to going
through the Appellate process which can be several months and then—on a
technicality— get it sent back down to start this process all over again. So ...
Patrick White: But the substance of the process ...
Attorney Noell: So, I guess my position is—understanding it might be "belt and
suspenders"—we would rather err on the side of a thirty-day ...
Chairman Lykos: Sixty days.
Attorney Noell: Sixty-day delay as opposed to potentially six or nine months down
the road. With all those considerations, we made the decision.
Chairman Lykos: What about consideration for the consumer?
Attorney Noell: And I would assert that if she hasn't paid now, I don't know if the
consumer is going to see any of that or realize any of that. But again, and part of
what Mr. Morey had mentioned, part of the issue here is there are rights and things
like that, that she also has and from the County—our position is, we want to err on
the side of getting that out and putting that before the Board for full consideration as
opposed to due process already mentioned or right to be heard or notice—even
though their position is notice was proper—I don't feel it was things like that. So
that's—whether you agree with it or not—that's kind of where the County's position
is.
Patrick White: So, effectively, under Item VI—basically, this is an information
item. And we do not effectively have before us an opportunity to evaluate her
Request for a Re-Hearing. You are simply saying, `we've received what we construe
to be a timely request for a re-hearing.' And you are not going to schedule it until
March.
6
January 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos: The letter from the Respondent doesn't have any date in it.
Patrick White: Nor was there any information that Mr. Ossorio added regarding
why there's a sixty day delay.
Attorney Noell: If the Board would like to put him under oath, that's fine. We've
certainly done everything that we can to balance the competing interests to make sure
that she has due process because if, later on down the road, there's the time and
expense involved in the Appellate process, we don't want to be faced with an
argument based on technicalities so this would drag on even further. I understand it is
not a perfect resolution, but it is a balance between the two interests.
Patrick White: And I would simply indicate that from my perspective—"but for"
putting it on as a substantive request today because there was no justification put
forward before us—other than Mr. Ossorio's comments about what he was told—we
could have considered it. My expectation would be that when we do it in March—
had we done it today—the Request for a Re-Hearing would be denied and the
Appellate period would have run. To me—my understanding is, unless the Request
for a Re-Hearing is granted, the Notice of Appeal is not tolled.
Attorney Noell: No, it starts when the Request is made. So, until the Board—
whether that would have been today or in March—until the Board would deny that ...
if that's where the Board would go once they hear from her ...
Patrick White: You are suggesting that this Board and the County's Codes can
trump the Rules of Civil Procedure?
Attorney Noell: No, I am suggesting our Ordinance allows for the tolling of the
Appeal until the matter is disposed of by this Board. So until—and the way that the
matter is fully disposed of is before this Board as a Request for Re-Hearing which
our Rules allow for that to happen—it certainly wouldn't make sense to file an
Appeal when a Request for a Re-Hearing is still pending the Board. Once that
Request is denied and the matter is disposed of at this level, then she can take it up to
the Circuit Court. That would be the Final Order of the Board .. if the Re-Hearing is
denied.
Attorney Morey: If there is a Request for a Re-Hearing, the Board's Order is not
final until there is a rendition on the Request.
Vice Chairman Joslin: If it's granted or not.
Attorney Morey: If it's granted, we start over—"de novo"—start new. If it's
denied, the Order is Final.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Couldn't she also have just filed an Appeal after the Order
period?
Attorney Morey: Yes.
Vice Chairman Joslin: She wouldn't have to go through—but she's asking for a Re-
Hearing ... is that correct?
Patrick White: I would suggest that it would have been the more appropriate thing
to do because I'm not certain that the Board of County Commissioners' regulations
and Code can trump the Rules of Civil Procedure. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding
and I'm not aware of anything other than Statutory—in the second part of the Bert
Harris Statute—that allows for a timely, other process to intervene or toll the time for
filing a Notice of Appeal.
7
January 20,2016
Mr. White continued: Let me emphasize the point—on Page 5 of the Order, the last
sentence of the first full paragraph reads: "The decision of the Board that is the
subject of the Re-Hearing Request will remain in effect throughout the re-hearing
procedure unless the Board orders otherwise." When—is my question—during the
Re-Hearing or in the original Order? And that's the whole genesis of my set of
comments for the past forty minutes in essence.
Vice Chairman Joslin: That whole paragraph actually falls into the fact of her
asking for this Request.
Patrick White: I'm not going to touch the substance of the first sentence that sets
forth a two-part test. And the "written request" has to specify the precise reasons. I
don't know that they are there, either. I'm not going address the substance of it again
because I do, and always had throughout my tenure on this Board, have serious
concerns about procedural due process for Respondents. Here, I think they—at their
own peril—have chosen to act in a way where they have not protected them. If the
County chooses to err in a fashion that allows them the chance to "balance," I'm not
going to vote against it. But I'm raising these points because I believe we have some
internal questions that we ought to try and answer in the event that this ever comes up
again. I think the more clear language is on Page 6 at the end of the first full
paragraph where we go back to 22-205 in the Code which says:
"If there has been a Re-Hearing Request granted, the Appeal shall be filed
with the Circuit Court and served on the parties within thirty (30) days of
the mailing of the Re-Hearing decision under Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Collier County, Florida, Section 22-205."
He continued: We are not granting the Re-Hearing Request yet—which we
apparently can't or will not do until March. I suggest the statements on Pages 5 and 6
are at odds with each other.
Attorney Morey suggested considering the form of the Order and adding something
after the phrase "unless the Board orders otherwise." The language in Section 22-
204, "Rehearing," is similar but says,
"The decision of the Contractors' Licensing Board which is the subject
of the Re-hearing Request shall remain in effect throughout the rehearing
procedure unless the County's Licensing Supervisor or the Contractors'
Licensing Board orders otherwise."
Patrick White: The Ordinance affords the jurisdiction to the Supervisor—I never
challenged that.
Chairman Lykos: To make sure I understand, based on the statement that the
decision of the Board would remain in effect unless the Board orders otherwise ...
wouldn't the license become null and void for thirty days based on the original Order
of the Board, even though there's a rehearing process that may or may not be
ongoing?
Patrick White: I am not going to argue the Respondent's case for them. Trust me,
the direction you're traveling in ... that's the only outcome. I agree with Mr. Morey,
the Order should be more precise. I signed that Order. I am responsible to know
8
January 20,2016
what Sections 22-204 and 22-205 say—as we all are in a sense including the
County—and so the point of the whole discussion is that the Contractors' Licensing
Supervisor is authorized to do as he has done today. However, our Order is defective
in the sense that we can do better. I would suggest to Mr. Morey—I don't know if the
Board Members share this broader concern about the Notice of Appeal time frame—
but I would ask the Board Members to support my request to our Board attorney to
come back with some analysis and his conclusion about the Code's authorizing the
tolling of the time period for a Notice of Appeal specified in the Rules of Civil
Procedure. Apprise us of whether there is, in fact, a conflict that may need to be
addressed by an Amendment to the Code or that we're good as we stand.
Patrick White moved to approve requesting that the Board's Attorney conduct
research regarding the provisions in the Code and the Notice of Appeal to ensure
the Board's Orders correctly state the law. Chairman Lykos offered a Second in
support of the motion.
Discussion:
Michael Boyd: Did she make a written Request for a Re-Hearing because this letter
didn't state anywhere that she's requesting a re-hearing.
Patrick White: She wants a meeting with the Licensing Board.
Michael Boyd: Page 5 of the Order states a request for a re-hearing shall be in
writing. And nowhere in this letter from her do I see that she's asking for a re-
hearing. She's writing to make a formal complaint but it doesn't say anything about a
re-hearing.
Attorney Noell: Looking at this from how it could potentially go in Circuit Court,
and up from here, we want to err on the side of this being a Request for a Re-hearing.
Even though the technical words, "I request a re-hearing," aren't there, it is
substantively just that in our opinion. So, to avoid a position where a Judge would
later confirm that the substance of the letter was a Request for a Rehearing even
though the exact language was not there and a Re-Hearing should have been granted.
Patrick White: I would much rather have the County take the position that today—
this would be a consideration of that Request for a Re-Hearing because at that point—
that would be the sole issue before the Court.
Attorney Noell: I understand that and, again, when we were at the point ... and I can
appreciate ...
Patrick White: ... I'm not trying—I would have let it go but for your comment.
Attorney Noell: I appreciate your position on it. When we were looking at this—
again—it is a weighing of the interests involved. We are looking at a Respondent
who is not doing business right now. I understand the Board's concern of wanting to
have the person who is affected by this reimbursed. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
I don't know that it's ever going to happen. I think the Board had alluded to that
during the Hearing when we were here the first time. So I appreciate the Board's
position but I just want to make known that—in trying to weigh these interests—she's
not doing any work right now. And we're talking about the extension of the 60 days.
9
January 20, 2016
Patrick White: Have the repairs been made—other than the ones that were initially
attempted and not found sufficient?
Attorney Noell: I would expect nothing has been done at this point since ...
Patrick White: So it's not just the interests of the Respondent in the procedural due
process, it's to Ms. Hunt's and my point that you continue to have an individual who
is residing in unsafe conditions pertaining to the tile.
Attorney Noell: And my interest is in getting this sealed in sixty days as opposed to
it potentially coming back in nine months.
Terry Jerulle: I think Mr. White made a very good point but given the point from
where we are right now, I agree with the County about moving forward.
Elle Hunt: Considering that we're concerned about the possibility of an Appeal, can
I assume the County is taking diligent notes on all of these communications that it's
having with the Respondent?
Attorney Noell: That would be correct.
Patrick White: I would actually construe the letter as well as a public records
request—in the last paragraph. But that's not this Board's concern.
Chairman Lykos: This might be a moot point based on the direction it seems that
we are going but, in the last paragraph of her letter, she requested a meeting to take
place as soon as possible but now it seems to be on her calendar and not on the
County's calendar. I don't think that is the type of precedent we want to set—the
next possible meeting was today. It can't be at the Respondent's convenience—that
puts the whole process on hold and defeats the purpose of what we did last month.
Terry Jerulle: Mr. Chairnian, we have a motion and a second—are we discussing
that or something else?
Chairman Lykos: Good point. We have a motion and a second.
Vice Chairman Joslin: And the motion is?
Patrick White: The motion is as stated before regarding a request for legal research
on the Notice of Appeal provisions in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure versus the
re-hearing and appeal process which appears to be tolled based on the County's Code
of Ordinances.
Chairman Lykos: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor?
Motion carried unanimously, 8— 0.
VII. REPORTS:
A. Florida Statutes 489.503(14)
Michael Ossorio:
• Mr. Frechette, the last person who appeared before the Board to contest a
Citation, argued his point until this Statute.
• A copy of Paragraph 14 under F.S. 489.503 had been distributed to the Board
Members.
• The sale of, installation of, repair of, alteration of, addition to, or design of
electrical wiring, fixtures, appliances, thermostats, apparatus, raceways,
computers, etc., reflects Chapter 364 which is telecommunications and
10
January 20, 2016
Chapter 610 which is the cable franchise. Neither one supported Mr.
Frechette's defense which is why he paid the Citation.
• More importantly, I wanted to talk about the verbiage about"abatement."
• The Board had some missed notions about the abatement of the Citation since
Mr. Frechette did come in and got his license abated by getting a license from
the State.
• "In the event of the first uncontested violation ... the penalty shall be abated
from $1,000 to $300 if the violator submits a complete application in
accordance with Sections 2.1 and 2.2 ..."
• Basically, it's the application process for the County's license and register for
a specialty license —not through the Department of Business/Professional
Regulations or through Tallahassee.
• That's why the abatement process did not work with Mr. Frechette.
• The Board does have an opportunity to go ahead and dismiss the violation—
which I have no issue with. I just wanted to make sure the teini, "abatement,"
was mentioned by the Board.
• Mr. Frechette was unable to abate the Citation.
Patrick White: If we had the document at that hearing, which stated, "The Scope of
the Exemption is limited to electrical circuits and equipment governed by the
applicable provisions of Articles 725, 770,800, 810, and 820 of the National
Electrical Code ..."—we could have disposed of it immediately.
Attorney Morey: And what was presented was only an excerpt from a manual ...
Patrick White: Mr. Ossorio, thank you for bringing it back ... I appreciate the
opportunity for things to come full circle and for this Board to be fully infoinied.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Patrick White moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the
Board. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried
unanimously, 8— 0.
Discussion:
Vice Chairman Joslin: The election was last month. Mr. White chaired the Board
last month and Mr. Lykos is now the Chair as of January. Who should be signing the
Orders of the Board from last month—Mr. White or Mr. Lykos?
Attorney Morey: The current Chair has the authority to sign the Orders.
Patrick White: The Orders are dated using today's date.
Chairman Lykos: Good to clarify. Thank you.
(Note: With reference to the cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
11
January 20, 2016
B. Michael Belyea—Review of Credit
(d/b/a "Mike's Irrigation")
Michael Belyea:
• He is again before the Board to present his current financial history: how
much he owes; to whom the debt is owed; and how much will be repaid each
month.
• He has been contacted by additional creditors since he was before the Board
last month.
• He presented an updated document to the Board (replacing the page in the
packet) outlining the amount of debt as noted on his credit report. It detailed
the payment plans agreed to by each creditor and also the civil judgments
pending.
• Asset Acceptance allowed him to pay $15 beginning January 31, 2016 and
$30 for each successive month until paid in full.
Elle Hunt asked if the balance of the civil judgment for Branch Banking ("BB&T")
was still $97,000.
Michael Belyea: That is correct, Ma'am. This debt was moved from Colonial to
BB&T. Colonial is no longer open.
Elle Hunt: Did Branch Banking accept the $50? The document only says "offered
$50."
Michael Belyea: Yes, they did accept it.
Mr. Belyea explained the payment plans will begin January 31, 2016, because he did
not have enough cash on hand to make the payments.
Patrick White thanked Mr. Belyea for following the Board's direction and also
presenting detailed infolination concerning his financial status. He asked Mr. Belyea
what would he do differently this time around if the Board grants a license to him—
especially if the economy were to "tank" in the future?
A. Absolutely. What I would do differently is not put myself out there financially
because I absolutely was not liquid enough at the time the economy collapsed. I
certainly would not allow myself to become in debt to each distributor or any of
the institutions that I became indebted to. Currently, I don't have any credit cards
and don't intend to obtain any. I intend to pay as I go.
Chairman Lykos asked the Board Members if they had any additional questions for
the Respondent. There were none.
Patrick White moved to approve granting a probationary license to Michael Belyea
(Specialty Trade:Irrigation)for a period of six months. Mr. Belyea will appear
before the Board at the end of the probationary period and provide a personal as
well as a business credit report to show continued improvement as well as an
update on the status of the items provided to the Board in January. Michael Boyd
offered a Second in support of the motion.
12
January 20,2016
Discussion:
• Vice Chairman Joslin noted there were fees to be paid before a license
would be issued. He asked Mr. Belyea if he could pay the required fees and
his response was, "Yes."
Chairman Lykos asked if six months would be enough time to provide an improved
credit report. He suggested twelve months would be more appropriate.
Patrick White stated six months provided enough balance to see if any progress had
been made. His concern was not having contact with the Applicant for an entire year
who could return at the end of that time, having accomplished very little or nothing at
all. Six months would allow the Board to monitor his progress and determine
whether to continue the probationary period or end it.
Chairman Lykos expressed his concern that the Licensing Board was becoming a
credit counseling agency and he wished to halt that trend. He stated people would
either perform or they wouldn't. He preferred to set a time line to determine whether
or not a diligent effort had been made and the Board could make a decision at the end
of the assigned probationary period.
Patrick White noted the five items listed on the Agenda under "Old Business" were
all reviews of credit. Some of the cases are six-month reviews-some are nine—
some are three months—in each case, the Board must evaluate the particular facts for
each case.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted that in the thirty days since the Applicant last appeared
before the Board, he contacted his creditors and set up payment plans for each debt.
He further stated he agreed with Chairman Lykos' position. It was his opinion that
the Applicant would continue making payments and at the end of the year, would
have substantial progress to show the Board. He noted the Applicant had shown good
faith.
Patrick White stated at the end of six months, the Board would have a good
barometer concerning whether or not the Applicant kept his commitments. But things
can change.
Vice Chairman Joslin agreed with the Chair's contention that the Board was not
"here" to follow someone's credit.
Patrick White disagreed that the Board was not "here" to evaluate credit.
Vice Chairman Joslin: "Evaluate"—yes but"monitor"—no.
Elle Hunt agreed with Mr. White stating the Board should monitor credit because
one of the primary reasons why applicants appear before the Board is because they
are not meeting licensing criteria. The Board is put in a position of reviewing and
determining what it is going to do on a case-by-case basis.
She suggested that, at a future meeting, the Board could discuss some parameters so
it could become more objective vs. the case-by-case basis. She noted while Mr.
Belyea had done an exceptional job during the past 30 days contacting his creditors
and had shown due diligence, his report was still short concerning what the County
required for its Contractors. Even if the Board gives him six months to rectify his
credit issues, we know he won't because of the substantial debt.
She continued: We are not going to see improvement at the end of six months. The
Board needs to decide at what point that any of the Contractors;who appear before the
Board are worthy of an exemption.
13
January 20,2016
Elle Hunt agreed the subject was probably a bigger topic than could be discussed at
the Hearing. The Board does some level of credit "counseling"because it is a factor
for licensing consideration. A six-month review would be a checkpoint to see if the
Applicant was moving forward while a twelve-month review would allow the Board
to determine if good habits had been established.
Patrick White asked Michael Ossorio if the Applicant was required to provide a
business credit report at the six-month review. Could the Board request that he do
so?
Michael Ossorio confirmed if an applicant is placed on probation, he is required to
provide both a business and a personal credit report at the six-month review.
Patrick White noted if the Board can deter nine at the six-month review that the
Applicant's business credit report is acceptable and progress has been made on his
personal credit—that would strike the right balance.
Chairman Lykos noted a motion had been made, with a second in support. He noted
the topic would require further discussion at a later date to develop a more objective
plan of attack.
Terry Jerulle noted the Board "brings this upon ourselves"—we could stick to the
County's Ordinance in every case and say, denied until you meet the requirements—
correct? We choose to take it case-by-case in order to try to help each individual.
Attorney Morey stated the Board does not see every license application that Mr.
Ossorio grants— only if the application or the credit score is not sufficient—which
means the Board must consider applications on a case-by-case basis. However, that
does not mean the Board applies a certain standard or process to each case because
the facts and circumstances of each case will be different. But there is no reason why
the Board cannot establish a set of guidelines concerning how to approach the cases.
Patrick White stated the Board has over the past months effectively established a
"bar"that was higher than when he first became a Member in tee ns of the detail—
"business plan." The Board has asked each Applicant to do his/her own due
diligence, analyze their own credit report item by item, and return to demonstrate:
(a) creditors were contacted; (b)the outcome of such contact, and (c) what was
required to comply with the agreement made with the creditor(s). He reiterated his
position that six months was a sufficient period of time but agreed it could be
extended to twelve or reduced to three—his point was, some general guidelines could
be helpful. He was not sure it was necessary to quantify criteria, as the State and
Florida Administrative Code have done, i.e., the FICO score must be 660. He noted
the Board has not been as absolute. He agreed more discussion was necessary.
Michael Ossorio referenced Section 22-184 of the Code of Ordinances as follows:
"(c). When an application is referred to the Contractors'Licensing Board, the
Board shall take testimony from the Applicant and shall consider other relevant
evidence regarding whether the application meets the requirements of this
division. Upon the evidence presented by the Applicant and the Contractor
Licensing Supervisor, the Contractors'Licensing Board shall determine whether
the Applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which application has
been made."
14
January 20,2016
Michael Ossorio noted the Board did have some "leeway" and flexibility.
Chairman Lykos asked for the motion to be restated.
Patrick White moved to approve granting a probationary license to Michael Belyea
(Specialty Trade:Irrigation)for a period of six months. Mr. Belyea will appear
before the Board at the end of the probationary period and provide a personal as
well as a business credit report to show continued improvement as well as an
update on the status of the items provided to the Board in January. Michael Boyd
offered a Second in support of the motion.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Michael Ossorio for the guidelines concerning when
the Board should review a personal credit report versus the business credit report.
How long must a business be open?
Michael Ossorio stated it was typically one year. He noted sometimes Contractors
use their personal accounts to pay bills for the business—it can be intertwined. He
further stated if a company had been in business for less than one year, the personal
credit report was more important. If a company had been in business for over one
year, the reliance was more on the business credit report.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion before the Board.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/1 — "No." Chairman Lykos was opposed.
BREAK: 10:18 AM
RECONVENED: 10:25 AM
C. Luis Sanchez—Review of Credit/Experience
(d/b/a"A-1 Services and More,Inc.")
Luis Sanchez:
• Produced a recent credit report (January, 2016) which includes payments he
made to creditors
• Distributed copies to the Members, replacing the October, 2015 report
contained in the Board's information packet
Michael Ossorio stated he did not have a"huge issue" with the credit report and
referenced the definitions of Contractor/General Contractor contained in Section 22-
184 as follows:
"Contractor means the person who is qualified for and responsible for the entire
project contracted for and, except for those herein exempted, the person who, for
compensation, undertakes to, or submits a bid to, or does himself or by others, any
or all of the following: construct, repair, alter, remodel, add to, demolish, subtract
from, or improve any building or structure, including related improvements to real
estate, for others, or for resale to others, as hereinafter defined in this Section.
(1) General Contractor requires 48 months experience with a passing grade on
an approved test and a business and law test and means a Contractor whose
services are unlimited as to the type of work which he/she may do ....
15
January 20,2016
He further cited from Section 22-183, "Experience Requirements," as follows:
(a) As a prerequisite to, and as a requirement for, the issuance of a Collier County
or city Certificate of Competency, an Applicant shall submit satisfactory
evidence of experience in the trade for which he/she desires certification.
(1) Contractors' experience shall be in that particular trade, with at least one
year of said experience being as a supervisor.
(b) To deteiinine if the Applicant possesses the experience required by this
section,the Contractor Licensing Supervisor or his/her designee shall consider
the following forms of proof of experience:
(1) Affidavits from former employers with specifics as to the number of
years of experience, work performed, and any other relevant
information;
(2) Copies of other Certificates of Competency, if any, held by the
Applicant in other counties or cities;
(3) Affidavits from any Building Director in locations where the Applicant
has worked;
(4) Affidavits from any union organization of which the Applicant has been
a member relating to the trade for which the Applicant has made
application;
(5) Affidavits from any other source within the trade applied for."
He continued, stating Luis Sanchez produced only one affidavit but it was from a
CGC for whom he never worked. His Business Tax Receipt is for "maintenance
service"—basically that he is a handyman. He was not able to provide written
documentation that he worked as a General Contractor. The Affidavit from the CGC,
Edgar Pedreros, states from 2011 to 2015, Mr. Sanchez "supervised and organized
general construction jobs and remodeling projects"but does not provide any details.
There are two other Affidavits which attest to his integrity and good character.
Mr. Ossorio concluded Mr. Sanchez was before the Board to discuss his experience
and the Board will determine whether or not to grant a General Contractors' License
to him.
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Sanchez' FICO score was 641 which was not that much
below the minimum standard(660) and was an improvement over his previous credit
score.
Luis Sanchez asked why his previous documents had been rejected.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted the problem was his lack of experience to qualify to
apply for a General Contractor's license. The deteiniining factor was if Mr. Sanchez
had enough experience to hold a General Contractor's license.
Luis Sanchez explained there was a mistake in his first letter but the subsequent
letters that he submitted were also rejected which he did not understand. He stated he
did have knowledge—experience. He stated he tried to do his best to present his
experience in his letters to the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor and he didn't know
16
January 20,2016
what to do. He stated he was not going to lie to get a license. He stated he did have
knowledge and contracting experience—just not in this country—his experience was
acquired in Columbia. He knew the Codes—he had a friend who was a contractor
and he worked for him (and others) for free to try to gain more knowledge. He stated
he was confused by Mr. Ossorio's comments and did not know what to do.
Patrick White explained to Mr. Sanchez that it was his responsibility to provide the
information that was required. He asked Michael Ossorio to explain why one of the
two affidavits was apparently not sufficient.
Michael Ossorio acknowledged there was only one affidavit. He stated the
Contractors' Licensing Office takes Division One contracting very seriously. The
accepted proof consists of affidavits on letterheads, W-2s, W-4s, as required by
Florida Statutes. When he met with Mr. Sanchez, he tried to instruct him concerning
to the required documentation—confirmation that he had worked for someone. It is
difficult for Mr. Sanchez because he has not really worked for a Contractor in the
Naples area. Mr. Sanchez admitted he had never worked for Edgar Pedreros—was
never paid—he did not work under Mr. Pedreros and did not have any experience
pulling permits, working as a supervisor on a construction site. It is not a tile or floor
covering license. He continued by stating Mr. Sanchez could verbally explain that he
worked for his father and other individuals but he could not show written proof that
he had the necessary 48-months of experience—additionally, his Business Tax
Receipt was for a handyman. He further stated the Contractors' Licensing Office
would not issue a Contractor's license to anyone who was just performing handyman
items for three or four years. The affidavit from Mr. Pedreros basically stated Luis
Sanchez had never worked for him. He reiterated he told Mr. Sanchez he could
verbally explain his experience to the Board—the members could hear his testimony
and could either grant a license or not.
Luis Sanchez stated he understood Mr. Ossorio's explanation but claimed he was
never told he would need more documents to support his contracting experience. He
stated when he met with Mr. Ossorio, he was more concerned with Mr. Sanchez'
credit score which is why he obtained the new credit report for the Board.
Patrick White stated with regard to Mr. Sanchez request for more information—it
was asked and answered by Mr. Ossorio. He stated he wanted to obtain more
information from Mr. Sanchez concerning his construction experience and the one
Affidavit of Construction Experience that was provided.
Luis Sanchez stated he had the other Affidavit which had been rejected by Michael
Ossorio.
Patrick White questioned Luis Sanchez:
Q. How long have you known Edgar Pedreros?
A. Six years.
Q. Were you ever employed by him?
A. I was not an employee—he is like my trainer—my teacher. I worked for free for
so many years training to gain knowledge and I never received any payment.
That's probably the confusion and ...
Q. I can accept that. This is Mr. Pedreros' statement under oath—he says that you
supervised and organized jobs on remodeling projects. What we need to know is
17
January 20,2016
the scope of what those responsibilities were and for how long did you perform
them. Can you tell us what you did from 2011 to 2015 for Accuracy General
Contracting regardless of whether you were compensated for your time or not?
Even if you were not paid, what were you doing?
A. I met Edgar on a church project. He helped me and taught me stuff when I did
jobs for my church.
Q. What did he teach you? What specifically were you supervising and doing in
these jobs for the past four years?
A. Trying to replace dry wall, tiles, replace toilets and put in new flange—more
knowledge than labor.
Chairman Lykos questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. What do you mean"more knowledge than labor"?
A. How to do the jobs. For example, if I need to remove a toilet—how to get a
permit—that kind of stuff—more knowledge.
Patrick White questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. What about rough carpentry?
A. Rough carpentry?
Q. Framing—roof trusses—help us to understand what it was that you were doing.
A. It was part of the experience.
Q. How many houses did you help build?
A. None.
Gary McNally questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. Did you do any concrete work yourself—where you planned it, designed it, set it
up and did it? Where you poured concrete and finished it off?
A. Not on a huge project.
Patrick White questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. What type of structures were they that you did that work for ... single family
homes, condominiums, commercial buildings?
A. Most of them under my charge were commercial—that was the place where I got
my pour experience.
Chairman Lykos questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. So most of the work that you did was on your church?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was under the direction of Edgar Pedreros?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So was that all you were doing—eight hours a day, five days a week or were you
doing other things?
A. No -- a couple hours a week.
Q. A couple hours a week?
A. Yes.
Q. For the span of 2011 through 2015?
A. (Nodded his head—yes)
Q. What else did you do with your time?
18
January 20, 2016
A. I have a janitorial business.
Q. So you have a separate—is that your own business?
A. Yes.
Q. And that work is being done under your handyman license?
A. That is my company—A-1 Services.
Q. Correct. So the janitorial services that you were perfoiniing—that's under—
that's your own company?
A. Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. What do you do in that business for janitorial?
A. We do marble restoration, carpet cleaning. In Fort Myers, we can install carpet,
replace baseboard and crown molding.
Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Sanchez was a general handyman and could provide
maintenance services but not contracting under his Business Tax Receipt.
Patrick White asked Michael Ossorio to explain the scope of contracting services
and activities that a Contractor could perfomi under a General Contractors' license.
Michael Ossorio: Basically, it's unlimited.
Chairman Lykos: He could build a high-rise on the beach.
Patrick White: In a flood zone and a high-wind category?
Patrick White questioned Mr. Sanchez:
Q. Do you understand the type of license you are asking the Board to "okay"?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the difference between what you could do and what you have told the Board
you already have some experience with? To me, your credit issues are not much
of a concern. If that were the only thing in front of us, you probably would have
had some kind of probationary license. But as far as the scope of experience you
have demonstrated, what you have told us today, and what we have on paper—
I'm not even close.
Chairman Lykos stated he doubted that Mr. Sanchez could qualify for a Residential
Contractor's license. With a Residential Contractor's license, you can build a house.
Do you know about trusses, framing, roofing, and concrete—and electrical and
plumbing—while you are not licensed to do those things but you have to be
knowledgeable about those trades.
Patrick White: Because you supervise those subs.
Chairman Lykos: You have to understand about having employees and Workers'
Compensation insurance, and all those things. You have taken some tests which
means that you have book knowledge but the reason why you are here is because the
Supervisor doesn't think that you have the construction experience to be allowed to
operate a business like that.
Terry Jerulle: And you have not proven to the Board
you have the experience by what you have submitted and by your testimony.
Patrick White: Is there anything else that you can tell us?
19
January 20,2016
Luis Sanchez: I understand everything but I know that most of you got your
experience with the time. I know I don't have experience like so many people but if I
get my license, I need to hire people with the knowledge ...
Patrick White: That's not the way it works.
Vice Chairman Joslin advised Mr. Sanchez that, in order to get the license he wants,
he should go to work for someone who is licensed and can employ him. The law says
he must have 48-months of experience first, then he could come back again and try.
Dyma Sanchez was sworn in as a witness and stated she is Mr. Sanchez wife. She
wanted to make sure each party understood the other. She stated she has seen the
work her husband has done over the past eight years and thought he may not have
been communicating as well as he should to the Board.
She further stated her husband's experience was more than just two hours a week.
Luis Sanchez was involved with other contractors besides Edgar Pedreros—and her
husband knows more than what has been portrayed to the Board. She has
accompanied her husband on jobs (to assist with translation) and she has seen him
perform the labor. She confirmed her husband knows the laws and the Codes.
She explained the church project was a large project and Luis was very involved.
She has seen her husband—"he goes and he does some hours and some days for
Edgar and others men and has learned with hands-on experience." He also brings
experience from Columbia as well.
Chairman Lykos stated the Board appreciated Mrs. Sanchez' comments and
explained the law requires someone who applies for a General Contractor's license
must work full-time under the direction of another General Contractor to learn about
the trades, how to operate a business, and doing that for 48 months as his primary
career. It isn't watching other people work and having someone tell you—it is
participating as an employee of a construction company and you must have
participated for four years—full time for four years. The reason is the authority that a
General Contractor is given affects the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
what can be millions of dollars of investments. There is a reason that the bar is set
very high to become a General Contractor—it isn't just based on how much you
really desire it. It is based on experience and business knowledge and working inside
a business entity to learn all the different aspects of the business and of the
construction.
Patrick White asked Mr. Sanchez if he had a copy of the other Affidavit that was not
accepted.
Chairman Lykos stated based upon Mr. Sanchez' testimony, he doubted whether
having an additional Affidavit would offset the testimony.
Elle Hunt: The Respondent spoke of working a few hours a week—even if it was for
four years—it was not 40 hours a week—it was not full time.
Terry Jerulle questioned whether or not Mr. Sanchez understood the comments
made about the license he applied for and stated there were other licenses that Mr.
Sanchez could apply for that might be easier to obtain. He further stated it did not
appear that Mr. Sanchez qualified for a General Contractor's license.
(Note: A document was provided to the Board and examined by each Member.)
20
January 20,2016
Patrick White: This Affidavit is with respect to Mr. Sanchez' existing business. It
did not pertain to work experience which is why it was rejected by Mr. Ossorio.
Chairman Lykos: And the scope of work described was not at the level of a General
Contractor. It was not relevant to the license applied for.
Patrick White moved to deny the application for a General Contractor's license
submitted by Luis Sanchez. Vice Chairman Richard Joslin offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
Chairman Lykos advised Mr. Sanchez that, based on his current Business Tax
Receipt, he should not be installing crown molding or remodeling kitchens or
bathrooms. He is not allowed to do that kind of work as a handyman. He advised
Mr. Sanchez to be very careful and told him to very what work he was allowed to do
under his current license. Mr. Sanchez was advised if he works outside the scope of
his license, his insurance company will not cover any liability that he could incur.
Chairman Lykos advised Mr. Sanchez to use the next four years to obtain the
experience that he needs in order to obtain his General Contractor's license.
Terry Jerulle noted he supported Chaiiinan Lykos' position concerning the credit
issue previously discussed.
(Terry Jerulle left—seven voting members remained.)
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Mikel G. Diehl—Six-Month Credit Review
(d/b/a"Florida Hardscapes &Pavers Maintenance, Inc.")
Michael Ossorio:
• Mr. Diehl previously appeared before the Board and was represented at the
time by his attorney, Mr. Hazard
• Mr. Hazard contacted the Licensing Office; he no longer represents Mr. Diehl
• Mr. Diehl has been contacted via email, phone calls and letters but has not
responded
• Recommendation: Suspension of his license
Patrick White asked about the status if the Board approved the suspension of Mr.
Diehl's license and it is not renewed by Mr. Diehl.
Michael Ossorio confirmed the license would become null and void.
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Diehl would be suspended for the remainder of 2016 and
the license would become null and void at the end of the year.
Patrick White moved to approve the immediate suspension of the Specialty
Contractor's license (Paving Blocks) of Mikel G. Diehl. Vice Chairman Richard
Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
21
January 20,2016
Discussion:
Gary McNally questioned suspending the license instead of revoking it since Mikel
Diehl had been notified of the hearing and should have been present.
Vice Chairman Joslin pointed out there could be extenuating circumstances that
prevented Mr. Diehl from appearing, for example, he could have been hospitalized.
Patrick White noted unless Mr. Diehl contacts the Licensing Office, he will no
longer possess a license by the end of 2016.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated the Board's purpose was not to take licenses but to
bring Contractor's into compliance.
Michael Ossorio noted Mikel Diehl had renewed his license in September, 2015 so
he did intend to conduct business at that time.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion before the Board.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1 — "No." Gary McNally was opposed.
B. Luis Escobar—Nine-Month Credit Review
(d/b/a"Florida IB &S, LLC.")
Michael Ossorio:
• Luis Escobar has been on probation for approximately two years
• He has been in business for two years and there have been no complaints
made against his company
• There have been no violations cited against his company
• His credit score has improved a little bit
• Recommendation: Teiminate the probation and grant a full license to Mr.
Escobar
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Escobar was one of the few Applicants who made a
sincere effort to create a business plan to conduct business and improve his credit. He
asked Mr. Escobar how much progress had been made in paying his creditors.
Luis Escobar stated he has kept his word. His plan was to pay his debts by the end
of three years. He stated 50%had been paid after 1-1/2 years into his plan. He noted it
takes two to three months for the credit report to reflect any payments made. His
business has 20 employees—all are on payroll and he has Workers' Comp coverage
for all. He is working with several companies and has had no complaints about his
work or his employees.
Chairman Lykos asked if he was only providing labor and not materials.
Luis Escobar replied he was also providing materials.
Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Escobar if he had accounts with materials vendors and
the response was, "Yes." He then asked Mr. Escobar for a status of the accounts.
Luis Escobar stated he had a good relationship with the two vendors and the
accounts were "perfect." He further stated he has been contacted by other suppliers
offering to establish accounts with his company. He said he is "making a good name
within the community."
22
January 20,2016
Patrick White asked how the material accounts were paid— in cash or within 30
days.
Luis Escobar indicated he made payments within 30 days of being billed. He stated
he did not have problems with anyone.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve terminating the probationary status of
Luis Escobar, d/b/a IB & S, LLC and granting him a full license. Gary McNally
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
C. Brian Kirwan—Three-Month Credit Review/Waiver of Exam
(d/b/a"Kirwan Painting, Inc.")
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Kirwan had submitted a letter to the Board requesting an
extension of thirty days to appear due to a serious family illness.
Patrick White asked Michael Ossorio when the County received Mr. Kirwan's letter
since it was not dated.
Jason Bridwell replied the letter was received approximately two weeks earlier but
Mr. Kirwan spoke with him a week prior to discuss the Request for a Continuance.
Michael Ossorio stated the County had no objection.
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin moved to approve accepting Brian Kirwan's letter
and granting a 30-day extension. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
D. Marina Reyes—Waiver of Exam/Review of Credit
(d/b/a"Reyes Tile Service")
Michael Ossorio noted the Board was to review Ms. Reyes credit and her request for
a Waiver of Examination.
Marina Reyes:
• Distributed documentation: an updated credit report reflecting an
improvement of 100 points, including copies of payments made.
• She stated all the debts noted in the credit report had been paid.
• The tax lien was cancelled by the State of Florida since it had been filed in
error.
• Due to health issues of her mother and herself, she had not been able to
prepare to take the exam—she missed passing by one point.
Michael Ossorio stated the County's recommendation was to grant a one-month
extension to allow Ms. Reyes to take and pass the Business exam.
Patrick White moved to approve granting a one-month extension of the
probationary period during which time Marina Reyes is to take and pass the
Business exam. She is to report the results to the Licensing Office as well as
23
January 20,2016
provide documentation of the credit report and payments made. If she complies to
his satisfaction, the Licensing Office Supervisor may grant a license to Ms. Reyes.
Vice Chairman Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried
unanimously, 7— 0.
E. Garon Skender—Review of Credit
(d/b/a"Marco Pool Service")
Garon Skender:
• His business plan was submitted
• He stated Merchant's collection (2 medical bills) were removed from his
credit report. He stated the discrepancy was due to the insurance company.
• Midland Fund/Chase Bank ($127) charge has been removed from his credit
report.
• Payment plan on $6,500 account—he has paid$2,000 toward the balance and
he will pay $760 per month($360 + $400) until current. Plan was instituted
on January 6, 2016.
• The SunTrust entry was mislabeled on his credit report as a foreclosure when
it was a short sale. It has been removed from his credit report.
• Credit score has improved from 579 to 597. His original credit score was 780.
Elle Hunt questioned why the circled items had not been removed from the credit
report.
Garon Skender replied the credit bureau had not caught up with his payments.
Some items have been removed from TransUnion that still show on Equifax and
Experian. He was told it would take "a few months."
Vice Chairman Joslin noted Mr. Skender had complied with the Board's previous
order.
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin moved to approve terminating the probationary
period and granting a full license (Pool Cleaning Only) to Garon Skender. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Michael Ossorio stated the County had no objection.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(None)
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 17, 2016
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL
24
January 20,2016
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chairman at 11:20 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD
I
�1 IV,
THOMAS LYKOS, Om' 'Man
The Minutes were approved by the Committee Chair/Vice Chair on F ' t7 , 2016,
"as submitted" 1X'1 OR "as amended" [ 1.
25