CLB Minutes 03/16/2016March 16, 2016
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
March 16, 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: Elle Hunt
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
Patrick White
Robert Meister
Excused: Michael Boyd
ALSO PRESENT:
Jason Bridwell — Administrative Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Kevin Noell, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Reggie Smith — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
Ian Jackson — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
Cod ber County
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
AGENDA
MARCH 16, 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. February 17, 2016
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
VI. DISCUSSION:
VII. REPORTS:
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders Of The Board
B. Brian Quinn-Contesting Citation#09718
C. Brian Quinn-Contesting Citation#09721
D. Brian Quinn-Contesting Citation #09722
E. Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC-C25598-Request for Re-Hearing of Case#2015-09
F. Jerry Freeman-Contesting Citation #9506
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Janet Ramirez, Castaway Flooring Service, Inc.- Review of Credit
B. Jim E. Skelton, Skeltons Construction Inc— Review of Probation-Waiver of Exam(s)
C. David M Jones, Love Landscape Inc. — Review of Probation-Waiver of Exam(s)
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case: 2016-01 — Steven William Cole DBA Below Cost Flooring Inc. Cert#36257 & 36258
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2016
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS
3299 E. TAM IAM I TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
March 16, 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.
I. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Thomas Lykos called the meeting to order at 9:02 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; seven (7) voting members were
present.
H. AGENDA — ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Under Item VIII — "New Business," the following cases were Withdrawn:
• B: Brian Quinn — Contesting Citation #09718
• C: Brian Quinn — Contesting Citation #09721
• D: Brian Quinn — Contesting Citation #09712
Under Item X — "Public Hearings," the following case was Deleted:
• Case #2016 -01: Steven William Cole, d/b /a "Below Cost Flooring, Inc."
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Vice Chair Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended Gary McNally
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — FEBRUARY 17, 2016:
Gary McNally moved to approve the February 17, 2016 minutes as submitted. Vice
Chairman Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
(9:05 AM: Robert Meister arrived. Eight [81 voting members were present.)
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James F. Morey, Attorney for the Board, noted that the Board had not adopted a
particular policy or time limit with regard to public speakers. The Board has the
ability to adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing its proceedings. He
suggested that if an individual was interested in making a comment that the Board
allow the speaker three minutes for his /her comments, the typical time limit allowed
by other Committees. It is a topic for future discussion by the members.
Patrick White stated the County's Code requires speakers to "exercise decorum" —
the comments should not be rude or disrespectful - and limits their comments to
subject matter before the Board.
March 16, 2016
VI. DISCUSSION:
(None)
VII. REPORTS:
Jason Bridwell, Administrative Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office introduced
the newest Licensing Compliance Officer to the Board, Steve Kovacs.
Steve Kovacs provided the following background information:
• He had previously worked as a law enforcement officer for nine years in the
State of New Jersey;
• He transferred to the Union City Fire Department and retired as a Captain.
• After his retirement, he began a construction business in Middletown, New
Jersey.
• He moved to Florida and began working as a Security Officer for a temporary
agency. He had been assigned to Collier County.
VIII. NEw BUsiNEss:
A. Orders of the Board
Patrick White moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the
Board Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried
unanimously, 8 — 0.
B. Brian Quinn — Contesting Citation #09718
C. Brian Quinn — Contesting Citation #09721
D. Brian Quinn — Contesting Citation #09722
The above - referenced cases were "Withdrawn" by the County as noted on the
Amended Agenda.
(Note: With reference to the following cases heard under Section VIII, the individuals
who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
E. Olde Naples Tile & Marble — Request for Re- Hearing of Case #2015 -09
Patrick White: Based on the fact that the Board is a semi judicial Board and he has
previous contact with the Respondent outside the scope of the meetings, he stated he
would file "Form 8 -B" with the County to avoid the appearance of a potential conflict
of interest. He explained the substance of his conversations with Mrs. Sacacian was
limited to a discussion of her options. He further stated he agreed to meet with Mrs.
Sacacian in an effort to favorably resolve the matter for the consumer who had been
harmed. He acknowledged he had signed the Order as the Board's prior Chairman.
He stated while he will participate in discussions during the hearing, but he will not
vote on the matter.
Chairman Lykos: Did you have private meetings with the Respondent?
Patrick White: Yes. As a quasi - judicial Board, we are required to disclose our Ex-
Parte contacts. There is nothing that I am aware of that prohibits me — I don't want
March 16, 2016
there to be the appearance that, because I am an attorney, I had potentially given her
legal advice — which I did not. For example, if I sat on this Board as a Tile
Contractor and had the same meeting, I would make the same disclosure and file
"Form 8 -B." He further explained there were two levels to the Form: one is the Ex-
Parte contact (outside the scope of the Hearing). He said Ex -Parte disclosures were
routinely made by members of other County Commissions, such as the Planning
Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. Additionally, because I am an
attorney, I don't want there to be any potential for someone to conclude that I had
inappropriately provided her with legal advice. After the meeting, I sent an email to
the Respondent reminding her and specifically stating that I have not been, nor would
I be, her attorney in this matter. Since I am an attorney, I want there to be absolute
clarity for this Board and the public that I have no actual conflict of interest — I am
filing "Form 8 -13" to avoid the mere appearance of a conflict of interest. I have no
economic interest in the outcome of this matter — I have no other concerns about it
except as I have previously stated, about the process itself.
Terry Jerulle requested the definition of the term, Ex -Parte.
"[Latin: On one side only.]Done by, for, or on the application of one party alone."
"An ex -parte judicial proceedin is conducted for the benefit of only one party. Ex
parte may also describe contact with a person represented by an attorney, outside
the presence of his/her attorney. When the term ex parte is used in a case name, it
signifies that the suit was brought by the person whose name follows the term. For
example, "Ex parte Williams" means that the case was brought on Williams's
request alone."
Patrick White: "Outside the scope" of these proceedings. In a traditional judicial
context, you cannot talk to a Judge outside of your trial or hearing. But this Board is
quasi-judicial. Florida law basically says that if you do those things — and you can
choose to do them — then you are required to make an "ex -parte" disclosure.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned Patrick White:
Q. How were you approached?
A. By phone.
Q. Was the case discussed?
A. Of course — yes.
Q. So you are saying that in your discussion, you won't have any reason or there
would be no reason for you to have any type of animosity toward either side? Or
that it's not going to affect your vote or your thoughts?
A. Well, I have my individual thoughts about the matter but, the point is, that by
filing the "8 -13" I am abstaining from voting. If someone asks for my perspective,
I'll share it but I'm not going to make a point of it.
Chairman Lykos questioned Patrick White:
Q. Is there a reason why you didn't direct the Respondent to the Licensing
Supervisor to make sure that she understood her options and to have her questions
answered?
March 16, 2016
A. That discussion had already taken place.
Q. What do you mean by that?
A. She had spoken to the Licensing Supervisor and, I believe, to the current Staff as
well.
Q. Is there a reason why you met with her instead of directing her back to the
Licensing Supervisor?
A. As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, because I had been the Chair who signed the Order
and I had concerns about the Re- Hearing process — both as to what we discussed
last month about the form of the Order. I had conversations with both the Board
and the County's Attorney regarding that process. I think we're all in accord
about it and believe that we are following the best practices and current Code.
Q. I'm not sure you answered my question.
A. I'm not sure I understood your question.
Q. If you were approached by the Respondent, why didn't you just tell her to address
her questions directly to the Contractors' Licensing Office Supervisor?
A. Do you believe that I had to? Do you believe that I should have?
Q. I'm not saying that you should have or shouldn't have — I'm asking why you
didn't.
A. I'll stated for the third time and for the record, I was the Chair who signed that
Order and to the extent that there was any lack of clarity or anything that I could
do to further the Respondent's understanding concerning the options she had, and
with the hope that we might have been able to resolve the issue in favor of the
consumer, I chose to meet with her. I would say it was for all the right reasons
and by making the disclosure through Form 8 -13 of the ex -parte contact, I believe
that I am continuing to uphold the fairness and openness of our proceedings that I
believe have been part of what I have sought to do since my tenure on the Board.
It's what I hopefully will continue to do on this Board while I serve both the
public's and the consumers' interests.
Q. I am not judging your intentions.
A. Okay.
Q. I am simply asking why you didn't say to the Respondent, "You need to talk to
the Licensing Office Supervisor ?"
A. It seemed clear to me at that point — she had that conversation and did not believe
that her concerns or questions were answered.
Q. Well, then, that's your answer to my question -- she said to you she went to the
Licensing Supervisor and didn't clearly understand or didn't know her options, so
she came to you — and that was your motivation for meeting with her?
A. I'm sorry — if I hadn't been clear about that — it is one of the basis — yes,
absolutely. But it's under the umbrella of having been the Chair who signed the
Order. If I had not been the Chair, I would have refused the meeting. If I had not
signed the Order, I would have refused the meeting. In other words, I believe I
had a sense of responsibility as to the process that was somewhat different in
degree than the other Board members. That's my personal view of what a Chair's
responsibilities are in terms of offering leadership and working to improve the
process over the years as you and I and others on the Board have consistently
done as part of our public service.
March 16, 2016
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned Patrick White:
Q. I have been Chairperson many times and have been on this Board a long time but
the Chairperson chairs these meetings. That doesn't give you the ability to be
able to "chair" anyone else outside of the meeting. Now you have, in a sense,
gone over and above what the Chairperson should be doing. I don't think that is
something that should have been done. In my opinion, you should have referred
her back to the Licensing Supervisor or maybe have that person come before the
Board again to ask questions until she was clear about what she was asking — not
to take it outside and speak with her in private. Because this Board is, again, a
quasi - Judicial Board and we're here as a team or a complete Board, not as one
person whether you're the Chair or not.
A. I respect your position and the fact that you have chaired this Board for many
years. We have different styles — different approaches — different experiences in
educational backgrounds. In my experience, my goal was to problem - solve.
Q. If I went to Court and the Judge said the same situation because the Judge is a
"Chair," could I go and see that Judge in private ... would that be legal?
A. You are crossing apples and oranges — that is a strictly Judicial process and this is
quasi - Judicial.
Q. Okay — that's my opinion.
A. And I respect it even though I don't agree with it. I obviously chose to do
something else in an effort to try to work things out and get what was, in my
opinion, the best outcome for the consumer who had to live with the circumstance
for months while we awaited today's proceedings which is why, again, for the
record, I am filing the `B -8" Form.
Chairman Lykos: You will file the "B -8" form which is appropriate under the
circumstances. What is before this Board now is the Request for a Re- Hearing. We
will move forward with the Request.
It was noted the Respondent was present.
Attorney Morey asked if the Board would like him to provide background
information concerning the Request for a Re- Hearing.
Chairman Lykos suggested the Board should be provided with a "refresher"
concerning what the case was about; then it can discuss the process for hearing the
Request, and the guidelines contained in the Ordinance to grant the Request.
Jason Bridwell stated since the Request was made by the Respondent, she would be
heard first.
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent to remind the Board of the circumstances
regarding her case.
Karin Sacacian confirmed she approached Patrick White but not for legal advice ...
only because he was the Chairman. She asked him for clarification of some issues.
She further stated she had requested a Re- Hearing because she was not "officially
notified" about the first meeting, i.e., she had not been aware of the December 16,
2015 hearing or that she was to have appeared before the Board.
March 16, 2016
Chairman Lykos asked her to explain the circumstances surrounding her case.
She replied the Licensing Department had filed complaint against Olde Naples Tile
& Marble, LLC, for what they claimed was a faulty job.
Chairman Lykos asked Ms. Sacacian if she was the Qualifier for Olde Naples Tile &
Marble, LLC, and her response was, "Yes."
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Respondent:
Q. Are you saying that because you were not given proper notice to be at the initial
meeting — that is the reason why you requested the Re- Hearing?
A. Right.
Attorney Morey:
• Under Section 22 -204 of Collier County's Code of Laws and Ordinances, any
Respondent has the ability to request a Re- Hearing.
• The Request for a Re- Hearing must be in writing and submitted in a timely
manner.
• In this case, there was a written request and it was timely.
• Today, the Board will hear Ms. Sacacian's "Request for a Re- Hearing." This
is not an actual Re- Hearing, nor is it a rehashing of the entire case.
• The information presented will be specific to the grounds that the Board will
consider to grant a new Hearing.
• The "grounds" are based on three factors:
o That a fundamental error occurred which resulted in the failure of due
process;
o The decision of the Board was contrary to the evidence;
o That the Hearing involved an error on a ruling of law or a fact which
was fundamental to the decision of the Board.
• It is the Respondent's obligation to demonstrate that one of those three factors
had occurred and would justify a full re- hearing later.
Karin Sacacian:
• Correct, and that is why I am requesting a Re- Hearing.
Chairman Lykos stated his goal was to ensure that the Board correctly followed the
requirements in the Ordinance. He noted the letter contained in the information
packet (from the Respondent to then Supervisor Michael Ossorio) was not dated. He
further stated the Board did not have the following dates at hand, i.e., the date the
Order was signed, and the date the Request for a Re- hearing was submitted. He
asked since the Board did not possess a document outlining important dates, how
would it know if the Request for a Re- Hearing was submitted in a timely manner? He
further stated the Board should have been provided documentation of the dates in
question.
Chairman Lykos continued: The Respondent testified about one reason which was
the basis for the Request for a Re- Hearing, while her letter stated a different reason,
i.e., "an unacceptable discrepancy and false claims in this case that I would like to
March 16, 2016
address." The Respondent testified she had not received proper notification of the
December 2015 hearing.
He explained to the Respondent: The Ordinance required her to provide the reason
for the Request and noted her letter stated one reason while she testified about
another. He asked the Respondent to explain which of the three factors outlined by
Attorney Morey was the basis for her Request for a Re- Hearing.
Karin Sacacian: I'm going to go with Option Two.
Chairman Lykos: The decision of the Board was contrary to the evidence?
Karin Sacacian: Right.
Chairman Lykos again asked for confirmation of the dates.
Jason Bridwell stated the Respondent's Request for a Re- Hearing was submitted on
December 29, 2015.
Chairman Lykos asked if the date fell within the timeframe specified in the
County's Ordinance and the response was, "Yes, it did."
Attorney Morey explained the Respondent was allowed twenty days from the date of
the original Order to submit her Request.
Chairman Lykos asked when the Order had been signed.
It was noted the Order was signed on December 16, 2015 by Chairman Patrick White.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted he asked Ms. Sacacian to explain the reason why she
was requesting a rehearing and she said because she had not received proper notice.
He referred to Paragraph 4 on Page 2 of the Order, which stated: "All notices
required by the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, have been
properly issued, hand - delivered and sent by Certified Mail in accordance with
Section 22 -202 of the Code of Laws and Ordinance of Collier County, Florida."
The Vice Chair continued: If her reason for requesting a Re- Hearing is because she
was not properly notified, then the Order of the Board and Findings of Fact is
incorrect or the Respondent's information is incorrect. In which case, what she is
asking now — as far as the reason — is moot.
Elle Hunt referred to Paragraph 5 of the Order and stated the Respondent was
claiming a problem with the evidence presented and the testimony given.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated the Respondent had received proper notification
concerning the December hearing but she did not attend.
Karin Sacacian asked if the Board had the photograph which showed that Karen
Clements had taped the notice to the gate of her home. The photograph was dated
November 11, 2015 which was Veterans' Day. She stated it was an example of the
false information provided to the Board.
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent to explain.
Karin Sacacian stated she was not properly notified. Ms. Clements stated she taped
the notice of the hearing to the gate of the Respondent's home on November l lth-
The Respondent contended it couldn't have happened on that specific date because
Collier County observes Veterans' Day and was closed.
March 16, 2016
Chairman Lykos asked if she was served via Certified Mail.
Karin Sacacian: I have never seen anything, no.
Chairman Lykos stated a notice had been delivered to her business as well.
Ms. Sacacian stated Olde Naples did not have an office.
He stated the notice had been signed for by someone at a business who hand -
delivered it to the Respondent's business.
Elle Hunt: An agent or employee of your's.
Karin Sacacian denied the person was employed by Olde Naples.
Chairman Lykos stated the notice had also been sent by Certified Mail and there
should be a return receipt for Certified Mail.
Gary McNally questioned Jason Bridwell:
Q. Can you verify that the documentation was, in fact, sent to her?
A. Yes. But I didn't bring it with me.
Q. You didn't bring it?
A. That would be more — if the Re- Hearing was granted.
Q. If her issue is the fact that she didn't receive notification of the December 16tH
meeting, then I think we need to see exactly what information you have on your
desk indicating that it was sent.
Elle Hunt stated the Board had received evidence during the initial Hearing — she
remembered a copy of the Certified Mail and distribution at a place of business with
an agent or an employee signing for it — there were multiple attempts.
Gary McNally noted none of that information was contained in the packet given to
the Board. He stated, "Remembering is one thing, but I want to see it in my hand for
verification purposes."
Chairman Lykos pointed out the Board was not rehearing the case and asked for
direction from the Board's attorney. He stated he would like to verify that the Board
had a legitimate reason to either re -hear the case or deny the request. He did not want
the members to become lost in the details of the case. He asked Attorney Morey if
the Board was not able to verify the point of challenge from the Respondent, did that
lead the Board to accept the Request for a Re- Hearing and then rehashing the
evidence at the Re- Hearing, or should the Board try to clarify the issue before
granting the Respondent's request.
Attorney Morey: In a Request for a Re- Hearing, the obligation is on the part of the
Respondent to address the three points previously explained. The Board heard the
evidence during the initial Hearing concerning notice and determined there had been
notice. The Board can hear what the Respondent has to say to refute any of that or to
provide some new — we are hearing for the first time about the date ... the time stamp
on the photograph. The County should have an opportunity to explain the date issue.
It is incumbent on the Respondent to offer some new information for the Board to
consider. The Board is not required to rehash all of the evidence.
Kyle Lantz: What is the County's position concerning a Re- Hearing? We could be
fighting over this all day.
Chairman Lykos: It is a good question. But before the Board hears from the
County, my primary goal is make sure we follow the Ordinance because there may be
0
March 16, 2016
another case in the future and I want to make sure that we follow the Ordinance —
follow the process as written in the Ordinance.
Terry Jerulle: I am confused. Going back to your original statement, the packet that
we received said that the Respondent wanted a Re- Hearing based upon the
information contained in it. But the Respondent testified that she wanted a Re-
Hearing based upon a different reason. I am still confused as to why we want to have
a Re- Hearing.
Kyle Lantz: The Ordinance says she has to make a Request in writing. It doesn't
say she has to explain her Request.
Chairman Lykos: She is required to explain it in writing. "The written Request for
Re- Hearing shall specify the precise issue or issues on which the Request for Re-
Hearing is based."
Patrick White: And it should, at least, touch upon any one of the three categories
that are listed for discussion. My understanding was that it is a very broad Request. I
would not come to the conclusion automatically that an issue of procedural due
process was excluded based on the way it was written. You may want to inquire of
the other legal resources that you have available to you to get their insight.
Chairman Lykos: Mr. Lantz asked the County for its position.
Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noell: I would say that the Board loses nothing
by hearing the Request — that gives finality to the Order so there is nothing in my
mind to be lost by hearing her Request. We do understand that it may mean a month
of delay in recouping of funds in this case. I had talked to the victim and he
understood that he probably wouldn't see the money at this point. Essentially, the
Board doesn't lose anything by hearing her Request and giving full due process.
There is also the consideration thought that there was evidence on the record at the
last Hearing regarding Notice and I understand Mr. Ossorio had personal
conversations well prior to the Hearing with the manager, whom I also believe is the
Respondent's husband, regarding the Hearing. So to come before the Board now and
claim there was no Notice I think is disingenuous.
Chairman Lykos: There was a person here representing the Qualifier for the
business.
Michael Ossorio, Director of Code Enforcement — formerly Supervisor of the
Contractors' Licensing Office, was sworn in and stated: Karen Clement wrote the
following in her notes which were admitted into evidence at the last Hearing:
• October 14, 2015 — a Notice of Hearing was drafted and emailed to Karin
Sacacian, the Qualifier for Olde Naples Tile and Marble, LLC, at
KSacacian@seniorhomecare.net
• I delivered the Notice of Hearing to the Sacacian residence at 280 29th Street
NW, Naples, FL. Saw Mario in the driveway with another person. He would
not acknowledge me. He was in the yard with two dogs so I taped it to the
front gate where it was clearly visible.
• October 14, 2015 — sent Notice via Certified Mail
• November 13, 2015 — hand delivered a copy of the Notice of Hearing to
Naples Home Design. Karin Sacacian is a representative of this company.
10
March 16, 2016
Mr. Ossorio continued: I did have some conversation with Mario Sacacian on the
morning of December 9"' to go over some issues that could have been mitigated
before the Board's meeting. Unfortunately, we didn't receive that information and I
advised him to make sure he was present on the following Wednesday.
Chairman Lykos questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. Is it your testimony that the Certified Mail was registered and the County has the
return receipt for the Certified Mail?
A. It was sent via Certified Mail but we did not get the green card (receipt) back.
But we have the tracking number, yes. It was sent as Certified Mail as prescribed
by the Ordinance. We had many conversations with Mario Sacacian on
December 9th
Chairman Lykos asked if Mr. Sacacian attended the Hearing.
Karin Sacacian responded that he did not attend.
Michael Ossorio: To get back on point, on November 14, 2015 — there may have
been a discrepancy with the camera equipment but I can assure you that Karen
Clements posted the property well before the Hearing and sent a Certified Mail. We
notified Mario Sacacian who is the husband of the Qualifier and talked to him
personally on December 91h. It should be on the record that, after December 9th, he
blocked me when I tried to call him again.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, there are three reasons that would allow the Board
to grant your request. Your letter vaguely references some discrepancies. Before the
Board this morning, you testified there was a photograph with the date of a holiday
when the packet was hand- delivered to your home. Am I remembering that
correctly?
Karin Sacacian: Right.
Chairman Lykos: We have testimony from the County that delivery was made by
several different methods — not just to your home where the photograph was taken.
The County is recommending that we re -hear your case because we have nothing to
lose. However, I would like to have a legitimate reason so that whenever we have a
case — and the Board adjudicates a case —that people can't request a Hearing without
a valid reason and, fortunately, the County's Ordinance actually spells out what a
valid reason is. So we need you to convince the Board that you have a valid reason,
based on the Ordinance, for us to re -hear your case.
Karin Sacacian: Okay. I think that if I do get the Re- Hearing granted that I can
provide enough documentation saying that the claim was not appropriate against my
company.
Chairman Lykos: What do you mean by "... the claim was not appropriate "?
Karin Sacacian: They claim that Olde Naples Tile & Marble did the faulty job and I
have enough I think evidence to prove otherwise.
Elle Hunt: But that is not grounds for a re- hearing.
Karin Sacacian: That is under Option 92.
Elle Hunt: No. Option #2 is that our decision was contrary to the evidence
presented during that Hearing — the Hearing in December. Your bringing new
evidence is not grounds for a re- hearing.
11
March 16, 2016
Karin Sacacian: It would be the same evidence with my explanation to it that I think
would change the decision.
Elle Hunt: That still wouldn't be grounds for a re- hearing. What the grounds would
be is despite the evidence that we heard on December 161h, we ruled in contrary to
that evidence. So that evidence equaled "A," but we chose "Z." So you are telling us
that of all the evidence we had on December 16th, we chose the wrong thing based on
that evidence. You are telling us, though, today that there is new and different
evidence that would have changed our opinion.
Karin Sacacian: A couple of documentations, yes.
Elle Hunt: Right. But that isn't grounds for a re- hearing. Again, we have failure for
due process which we were given contrary evidence to. The County told us that on
several occasions they have both served you and spoken to your husband. The
evidence that we based our decision on was given to us on December 16th and unless
you tell us we ruled contrary to that evidence, it would not apply. And the third
option that you have is there was an error in the Findings of Facts that changed our
decision — that we ruled contrary to the laws of Collier County or the State of Florida.
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Elle Hunt: No, what I am saying is that you would have to show us how we ruled
contrary to the law. So which of those three are you coming to us today because we
have kind of ruled out "due process" or a decision based on the evidence.
Karin Sacacian: I still think that — in my opinion — it makes sense, Option 42 just
because I think it was a wrong decision based on the evidence you were presented.
So I'm not sure why — and this is the whole point of me requesting a Re- Hearing — so
I can show you that with the evidence you had in front of you — I don't think it was
explained properly with me not being there to defend myself which is why it resulted
in the decision that you made.
Chairman Lykos: There are some nuances here that we need to be careful of. One
way of looking at this is we made a decision based on the evidence that was
presented. In that regard, you are correct. If there is new evidence or contradictory
evidence, then is it appropriate in regard to due process to hear the new or
contradictory evidence? Or because we have — on the record and in the Order — that
we heard the evidence at the time of the Public Hearing and that was the time to bring
the evidence, does the due process argument fail because there was a time to bring the
evidence and it wasn't brought at that time? To me, there are some nuances there.
Attorney Morey noted the Chairman had spoken to the exact nuances and succinctly
described the struggle of the Board. In his opinion, it would be in the "best interests
of the process" if the Respondent could — with some specificity — explain what the
evidence was that the Board didn't understand or if there was something completely
new. He suggested the Respondent should be as specific as possible — more than only
saying she thought the Board had made the wrong decision. Why was it wrong?
What was overlooked or not brought forward? The Board needs to assess — "if we
had known that" or "no, we heard that before and we considered it." If the
Respondent could elaborate a bit more, it would help the process and make it work.
Elle Hunt: Regarding "new" information — should we focus on what the Respondent
can tell us? Based on the evidence that we heard on December 16th, I think what
12
March 16, 2016
we're saying is the "grey area" is between what we heard on the 16th and the
Respondent's version of that versus new evidence that the Respondent says is
missing. Missing information goes back to due process.
Attorney Morey: The folks who come before the Board are not necessarily trained
legal thinkers or trained in explaining or adhering to the exact Code. Was the letter
specific ... no. Was it enough to come before the Board and have the opportunity to
be heard ... I think so. If there were some fact that would completely change
something, could that have been — is that an error in fact? Were we considering the
wrong facts or not all of the facts?
Elle Hunt: But it clears states evidence for the Hearing involved. I'm concerned that
we may be broadening or we're being asked to broaden Section 22 -204.
Patrick White: I would suggest there may be a third leg to this stool. And that is in
the third bucket or mode where something that was found as "fact" may not have
been accurate from the perspective of the Respondent ...
Elle Hunt: Right.
Patrick White:... based on either the absence of evidence they may have to bring
forward or the Board's understanding of the evidence it already had before it. And as
perhaps inartfully as the Respondent is attempting to express it, when I get to the end
of the day — I have less concerns given that this is the first of these that we have seen,
at least during my tenure on the Board, and we've had discussions about what can be
done better relative to the Order and clarifying the process that — consistent with the
perspective of the Assistant County Attorney and our own Board's attorney — in an
abundance of caution, we are looking to not necessarily "open the door" wider but to
recognize that there is some wobble in that door's arc of opening. And in an effort to
assure every aspect of procedural due process is afforded, we are looking to lean
toward the Respondent's perspective. That's how I understand things.
Elle Hunt: We are being asked to create a precedence that goes against the specific
verbiage of Section 22 -204 and I am cautionary when we create a wider interpretation
of current law. That's my concern.
Patrick White: I distinguish between an application of law under a particular set of
facts and an interpretation. I don't think we are interpreting it ... I think we are
applying it. I think for those reasons, there is no precedential value. I have made this
point repeatedly to any number of applicants when I represented the County in a
variety of quasi - Judicial matters and I continue to do so to my client base. I don't
think we're doing anything more than applying the law here — I don't believe we're
being asked to interpret it. That's why there is a judicial process — an Appellate
judicial process — there are two options that I think the Respondent has after this ... if
the Request for a Re- Hearing is denied, they have an opportunity to go to Court. If
the Judge agrees, it's under a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Review and they get a
"do- over." They get to come back to us and in however many months it takes, we'll
be sitting down having another conversation about this particular matter. In that
instance, my concern is we may have a consumer who has been waiting all that time.
So, the second option is that we have the Re- Hearing and then we can say that we did
the right thing ... we didn't get it wrong ... everything that was presented newly
doesn't change our outcome. It's done. The Respondent, then again, has the
opportunity to go to Court and if the Judge agrees that we got it wrong, we get a
"do- over" and ... it comes back to us again ... it is remanded. To me, the shortest
13
March 16, 2016
distance between where we are today and where the consumer has tile that isn't going
to cause harm to them, their family or guests, is to grant the Request as much as it
rubs against my grain. I believe to error on the side of granting more procedural due
process is the wiser choice than doing less which compels the Respondent to take a
course of action that isn't in the favor of the consumer. Those are my collateral
reasons for some of the thinking here and I share it with the Board members because
it is a tough question — a tough balancing act.
Terry Jerulle: Not that I disagree with Mr. White and, in fact, in many ways, I do
agree with him ... but if I am called before the Board, all I have to do is not show up?
And if I don't like the ruling against me, I can petition the Board for a new hearing.
Vice Chairman Joslin: If there were extenuating circumstances as to why she didn't
show up, then I would understand and maybe we should re -open the case and rehear it
but I don't think there were any circumstances ...
Terry Jerulle: Sometimes in life, things are what they are. We heard testimony that
she was notified. She came up here and said she wasn't notified, and we heard
testimony that she was. I'm ready to vote.
Elle Hunt: I am, too.
Attorney Morey: I think it would be very important for the Respondent to articulate
to you what error of law or fact concerns her. What error of fact did we consider —
either omitted or that we heard but wasn't fully explained or fully addressed — what is
it? Because unless we can get to that point, some specific error in law or fact, I think
then it is all you will be able to consider.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, the Ordinance is clear that you need to provide
very specific information, very specific details, as to why you think a Re- Hearing is
appropriate. I personally feel that, #l, this is about personal responsibility. Even if
we don't know the exact date when Ms. Clements personally delivered and taped the
Notice to your gate, we heard testimony that your husband was aware of the fact that
paperwork was taped to your gate. Out of pure curiosity, someone should have read
the paperwork. It is incumbent upon you to tell us today the very specific reasons
why we should grant you a Re- Hearing. Second to that, I will tell you that if the
Board votes to grant you a Re- Hearing, you should come prepared to prove your case
and all of that responsibility is on you as the Qualifier for your business. Step One:
you need to give us very specific reason as to why we should re -hear your case.
Karin Sacacian: Two reasons — first of all, contrary to what Mr. Ossorio said, I was
not aware of the Hearing on December 16th. I don't think my husband stated that he
actually received papers on the gate. He stated that Ms. Clements taped it — doesn't
mean that we actually had it. Second of all, I think the documentation that was
presented to you in that case was not appropriate and there was some false
information in the documentation that was presented to you in regard to my company.
Chairman Lykos: What information was false? Tell us what information was ...
Karin Sacacian: I don't have the packet with me. I wasn't prepared for the whole
explanation ... I thought I was just to tell you why the reason is that I think I need a
re- hearing.
Chairman Lykos: The Board is hearing recommendations that we grant the Request
for a Re- Hearing.
14
March 16, 2016
Karin Sacacian: I would like to present everything ... everything that was presented
to you on December 16th — I would use all that information and, if needed, additional
information to prove my case.
Chairman Lykos: We need specific information now. In order to grant your
Request for a Re- Hearing, we need specific information now. That's what the
Ordinance says.
Patrick White: I understand that there's a nuance here. And, again, it's the idea of
bridging or walking along the edge of the knife of how much does she have to proffer
versus what does she actually have to prove? It's a tough question — I'm just pointing
out the distinction and I don't know that she to "prove her case" today.
Chairman Lykos: We have agreed to ... listened this long, and the Ordinance says
there are three reasons to grant a Request for a Re- Hearing. It also says that the
Respondent has to provide specific details. All I'm asking is for the Respondent to
comply with the Ordinance so that we can give her a Re- Hearing if her details
warrant it. To say that she doesn't have to provide details to place the Request — you
are right ... she doesn't have to provide details to make the Request but, in order for
us to grant her Request, we do need the details.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Furthermore, in the letter that she sent to Mr. Ossorio, she
found "an unacceptable discrepancy and false claims." Well, what are they?
Karin Sacacian: Okay. The discrepancy ... Ms. Clements stated that she was at my
house and she saw my husband in the yard — that was actually not true and I do have
proof from my travel agency that we were out of town. That is false - 41. The
second one is the picture and I don't think it's acceptable for the County — for a
government department to have faulty cameras or faulty dates because that's where,
in a criminal case, a falsity can either free someone or jail someone for life. I think
those are, but maybe in your opinion they are not, significant. But they are in my
opinion. Also, they did include in one of the packets a Certified Mail receipt that just
has my name on it — there's no date, there's no stamp, it's not paid or anything — they
presented this to you as evidence that they mailed something to me which I also do
not think is acceptable. These are just a couple of the items that I found —just in the
beginning.
Chairman Lykos: Those are very specific details, thank you.
Vice Chairman Joslin requested direction from Attorney Morey.
Patrick White: I would like to point out the specific language in the Ordinance so we
are all clear. The Ordinance says, "... shall specify the precise issues." An issue is
not necessarily a fact or a law. It's kind of a blending and can be either, or both. It's
an issue.
Vice Chairman Joslin: I am just trying to make sure that we're doing the correct
item — I have a question with hearing the case again but I'm going back to Ms. Hunt's
comments about setting a precedent to any other person or party who comes in here —
doesn't show up for a hearing — and then comes back for a re- hearing. How are we
going to handle it in the future? And if we break this Ordinance, we are opening a
can of worms.
Karin Sacacian: If I can just clarify something ...
15
March 16, 2016
Kyle Lantz: I see the danger of everybody appealing a case of ours in the future —
this is the first time that I've been on the Board that there's been an appeal ... a re-
hearing ... but I don't foresee that as a big thing that's going to happen in the future
... that all of a sudden, we will have Requests for Re- Hearings all the time. I err on
the side of "Well, let's make damn sure we got it right." And that's what my concern
is — to make sure that the case was heard correctly — I want to make sure that we got
our decision,right. I will err on the side of "Let's re -hear it." And then I get back to
the Notice ... no one has ever said that they notified her. They notified her husband.
They sent something via Certified Mail but they don't have a signature or got the
signature card back saying she signed for it. So, on that, I err on the side of her
saying, "Well, gee, maybe she didn't get the Notice." Just because you tell my wife
something, doesn't mean it gets back to me because there are an awful lot of things
that somebody tells my wife that I don't hear about. And there are an awful lot of
things that I hear about, unfortunately. To me, it's a grey area and I would err on the
side of — you know, I'd rather make sure that what we did — the decision we made
was right. Maybe we'll agree with the decision we made before ... maybe not. I just
want to make sure that we have the right decision. That's my opinion.
Karin Sacacian: And to clarify ... if I had known about the meeting, I would have
been there ... if that helps at all. Otherwise, I wouldn't be standing here today.
Elle Hunt: When you heard about it, though, on December 29th or when you filed
your Request, why didn't you come to us in January or February?
Karin Sacacian: Because I wasn't able to take time off from work.
Chairman White asked if there were any other questions from the Board, the
attorneys or representatives from the County.
Patrick White reminded the members that he would not vote.
Jason Bridwell: I don't know if the members have read this part or not
[Section 22- 204(1)] and to make sure you are clear on this:
"If the Contractors' Licensing Board determines it will grant a rehearing, it
shall:
a. Conduct a hearing where the parties will be given the opportunity of
presenting evidence and /or argument which may be limited by the
Board to the specific issues for which the rehearing was granted."
Jason Bridwell: It is up to you, but the re- hearing can be specific to those issues.
Vice Chairman Joslin: And that would specify any new evidence that we did not
hear already?
Chairman Lykos: We don't want to rehash the whole case, so if there is very
specific information that the Respondent wants us to hear, the re- hearing will be for
that information only.
Terry Jerulle: Just for my clarification, Mr. Bridwell, the license is still suspended?
Jason Bridwell: Yes. It stays in the same suspended status, I believe.
Attorney Morey: It does. It is in the same suspended status as it was before and the
remaining parts of the Order are, essentially, stayed in terms of the money issue.
16
March 16, 2016
Terry Jerulle asked the Respondent if she was working and she replied that she was
not working at Olde Naples Tile & Marble.
Mr. Jerulle asked the Respondent if Olde Naples Tile & Marble was performing any
work and her response was, "No."
He asked if the consumer was still unpaid or not reimbursed and Jason Bridwell
replied, "Correct." When questioned whether any work had been done to fix the
issue, Mr. Bridwell stated he was not sure.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve the Respondent's Request for a Re- Hearing. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Point of Order:
Patrick White referenced Section 22- 204(1)(a) of the Code and suggested there may
be a need for some guidance as to what should be stated in the Order.
Attorney Morey noted Mr. Bridwell had just read that Section to the members. He
confirmed the Board had the ability to limit the presentation of evidence. He noted
the language of the Code was "may" be limited ... not shall be limited.
He continued: Essentially we have heard several arguments today. We have heard
lack of Notice and concerns that the party may not have received the Notice. We also
have heard other facts. If the Board is considering the Notice issue, he was not sure
that it should be limited. He further stated if the Board grants a Re- Hearing, he was
not sure there should be any limitations.
Chairman Lykos asked if a separate motion could be made to deal with the issue of
evidence and Attorney Morey responded, "Yes."
Terry Jerulle asked Kyle Lantz what was the basis for his motion. He noted there
were three options, per Code.
Kyle Lantz: I am going on the Notice. I am saying she was not duly noticed. There
was no proof that anyone signed for it [Certified Mail], and there were conversations
with her husband but not with her.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked if Mr. Sacacian was a part of the company.
Elle Hunt: He is an agent or employee.
Kyle Lantz: We don't have to agree on everything.
Terry Jerulle: No — I am not arguing ...
Kyle Lantz: I want to make sure we get the right answer.
Terry Jerulle: I want to vote on the motion, so I want to know what the motion is.
Kyle Lantz: I want to make sure that we hear it — I feel she wasn't properly notified.
And I want to make sure that we get the truth. That's what I'm here for — to make
sure that every case gets ... I don't want some super procedural issue to be the reason
why we didn't find the right answer.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion. He noted only seven members
would vote.
Motion carried, 4— "Yes " /3— "No " /1— "Abstention." Vice Chairman Joslin, Elle
Hunt, and Robert Meister were opposed. Mr. White abstained from voting.
Chairman Lykos stated the second item for discussion was whether or not to limit
the items to be discussed at the Re- Hearing.
17
March 16, 2016
Elle Hunt noted Attorney Morey had mentioned evidence and she did not think the
Board should limit— she thought the Board should re-hear all of the evidence.
Terry Jerulle asked if the Respondent was able to prove her case that she was not
properly notified—would her license would come out of suspension and would she
still be obligated to reimburse the consumer.
Chairman Lykos stated the Board will re-hear the case and, if the evidence changes,
the Board may change its original conclusion. If the evidence dictates that the Board
change its conclusion, it will. If the evidence doesn't then ...
Terry Jerulle: Then we can't limit it.
Chairman Lykos noted the Board could come to the same conclusion—the
difference is that the Respondent will have been given proper notice whereas there is
some concern that we may not have.
Patrick White stated that Foul" "8-B" was limited to the granting or denying the
Respondent's Request for a Re-Hearing. He abstained from voting on that motion.
Since the second motion was about what the scope of the re-hearing should be, he
didn't believe he had any appearance of a conflict of interest and would participate in
the discussion as well as the vote.
Mr. White further stated he didn't know how the Board could "unwind the clock,
separate the threads, or split the baby." He supported a full-on re-hearing—he did not
think Notice would be an issue at the re-hearing unless the Respondent does not
attend. "As long as she shows up, all of the issues about fundamental due process—
as far as Notice—will be effectively waived. They're done."
Elle Hunt: Unless we decide. Our motion, per discussion, was solely based on due
process. If we limit the re-hearing to due process ...
Patrick White: Like I said, I don't know how you unwind that. I heard what Mr.
Lantz, said but I also heard him talk about some other aspects of the evidence. I am
not trying to make our job harder but if you accept the proposition—which apparently
a majority of the Board has—and as we have heard from the County's legal
representative, I don't know how you would do it. My point is—we have a re-
hearing. We can come to the conclusion at that Hearing—all day long, they can talk
about how she didn't know this or that ... it's irrelevant to because they are there. If
you've got other"stuff'that you want us to know that you think is contrary to the
evidence—that there was some type of fundamental error that led to some Finding of
Fact or Conclusion of Law that we got wrong in the Order, then God bless and go
ahead and have at it. I don't know that it's going to change the outcome unless
there's something that comes forward in my mind about how the consumer was
treated.
Chairman Lykos: If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is the question
of due process with regard to whether or not she was served will be irrelevant due to
the granting of the Re-Hearing. The Re-Hearing is going to be strictly about the
evidence in the case. Am I interpreting what you said correctly?
Patrick White: Yes. And it's for that reason that I think it's appropriate for me to
participate in the vote.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Would that specify new evidence or a rehash of the whole
case?
18
March 16,2016
Patrick White: I don't think there's a difference. If there is something the
Respondent would have produced [at the December hearing] but for not having
proper notice, the Board should hear it.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve not placing any restrictions on the Re-Hearing. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
Vice Chairman Joslin: That means we are going to hear the case completely over
again with all new evidence and whatever she brings before us—one more time.
Attorney Morey: That's correct.
Terry Jerulle: We are also here for the consumer. We haven't heard from the
consumer. And the last time the consumer brought in a witness to testify. Now it's
incumbent upon the consumer to be here again? And to bring in that witness again?
Patrick White: I think we're entitled because it's part of"the record"to review that
material and to be, in a sense, reminded about what it is. It's not like we forget it and
it's not like it can't be considered. In my opinion, it's within the scope of the record.
Elle Hunt: But we won't be able to discount any new information that the
Respondent ...
Patrick White: Unless he chooses to be here or the other contractor or some other
contractor chooses to be here.
Elle Hunt: So we're subjecting him to that additional time as well.
Attorney Morey: It is also incumbent on the County, as well, as it is presenting their
case and to have their witnesses here.
Chairman Lykos: If the homeowner does not participate, can the homeowner's
testimony from the previous hearing be read into the record again?
Patrick White: The minutes are the minutes.
Vice Chairman Joslin: It's in the Order, right.
Attorney Morey: I don't see why not. I give the Board a lot of credit—this is very
difficult—it's a difficult decision. It's a complicated set of facts and I agree with
some of the comments—it's something that is probably not going to happen a lot
because it was—we had kind of the "perfect storm" if you will with this particular
case. The Respondent wasn't there. If a Respondent is present at a hearing and is
given every opportunity to speak, it's going to be rare that there would be cause for a
re-hearing. It's new territory as well.
Terry Jerulle asked if the minutes from the December meeting could be included in
the next packet.
Attorney Morey: I think the entire prior packet should be included as part of the
evidence.
Chairman Lykos: Do we need to make that part of the motion?
Kyle Lantz amended his motion to approve requesting that the County include the
entire packet from the December l6t"Hearing as part of the new evidence packet.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the amended motion.
Patrick White suggested the County also include the portion of the minutes from the
December 16th meeting that pertained to the Respondent's case in the new evidence
packet, along with anything else such as affidavits and/or statements from the
19
March 16, 2016
consumer or other contractors if there isn't going to be an opportunity for live
testimony.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked if the penalty phase contained in the Order would
remain or would it go away after the Re-Hearing.
Attorney Morey: It is a re-hearing and you will consider all of the factors. If at the
end of the re-hearing the Board finds that there was a violation, the Board can
consider ...
Vice Chairman Joslin: I want the Respondent to know that, too. It could go either
way. Do you understand that?
Karin Sacacian: Yes, I do.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the amended motion.
Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
Chairman Lykos stated he wanted the Re-Hearing to be included in the Agenda for
the April meeting.
Attorney Morey agreed.
The Respondent was informed the Re-Hearing was scheduled for April 20tH
Chairman Lykos asked Ms. Sacacian if she would be present for the April 20th
hearing and her response was, "Yes, I will be here."
F. Jerry Freeman— Contesting Citation #09506
(d/b /a"Southeastern Seating, Inc./Southeastern Bleacher, Inc.")
Citation: #09506 ("Unlicensed Aluminum Contracting")
Date Issued: January 20, 2016
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.
(Mr. Freeman distributed documens to the Board.)
Jerry Freeman stated he understood he received a Citation for not having a license
to do the work in Collier County. He stated the type of license that he is supposed to
have does not make any sense to him.
Chairman Lykos questioned Jerry Freeman:
Q. You were issued a Citation for constructing aluminum bleachers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The County determined that you need to obtain an Aluminum Contractor's
License to perform that work in Collier County?
A. Yes, sir.
20
March 16, 2016
Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer:
• On January 20, 2016, I was contacted by a representative of the First Baptist
Church of Naples concerning a construction project: installation of a concrete
slab and electrical service, and construction of a new scaffold-type bleacher
system and press box.
• There was a specific inquiry concerning the licensing of Mr. Freeman's
company by a representative of the Church.
• I made a visit to the site and met Mr. Freeman. Established that the company
was not licensed—there was no construction qualification.
• Mr. Freeman provided a Hillsborough County Business Tax Receipt (See: E-
19) which indicated his company, Southeastern Seating, Inc., manufactured
aluminum bleachers.
• A Citation was issued to Mr. Freeman for unlicensed aluminum contracting on
January 20, 2016, as well as a"Stop Work" Order.
Elle Hunt asked what the Respondent was doing that the County deteinuined required
an Aluminum Contractor's license.
Ian Jackson: He was installing and erecting aluminum bleachers.
Elle Hunt: Where within the license does it specify that erecting and constructing
bleachers requires a contractor's license?
Jason Bridwell referenced Section 22-162 of the County's Coded entitled
"Definitions and Contractor Qualifications" as follows:
Specialty Contractor means any person who assumes responsible charge and
direction in the performance of construction work requiring special skills, and
whose principle contracting business involves the use of specialized building
trades and crafts usually a minor part of a complete structure. Available
categories of specialty contractors and their requirements are:
(2) Aluminum Contractor, including concrete: requires 24 months experience
with a passing grade on an approved Trade test and a passing grade on a
Business and Law test, and means those who are qualified to fabricate,
install, maintain, repair, alter, or extend accessories such as metal and vinyl
siding, awnings, security shutters, gutters, soffits and prefabricated rooms
and portable metal or vinyl partitions. These Contractors may form, place on
grade reinforcing steel and miscellaneous steel, and pour, place, and finish
nonstructural concrete on grade only, incidental to an aluminum accessory
structure and/or screen enclosures.
(3) Aluminum Contractor requires 24 months experience with a passing grade
on an approved Trade test, and a passing grade on a Business and Law test,
and means those who are qualified to fabricate, install, maintain, repair,
alter, or extend accessories such as metal and vinyl siding, awnings, security
shutters, gutters, soffits and prefabricated rooms, screen enclosures, and
portable metal or vinyl partitions.
Elle Hunt: Are you aware of any exclusion regarding bleachers?
Jason Bridwell: I am not aware of any exclusion.
21
March 16, 2016
Terry Jerulle: Was a permit required for this work?
Ian Jackson: Yes.
Terry Jerulle: Was a permit pulled?
Ian Jackson: First Baptist Church of Naples contracted with a General Contractor
for the entire project. A permit was issued to CGC Jay Wright of Prime Resources
for the prescribed work. The Church then contracted directly with Mr. Freeman for
his aspect of the project.
Patrick White: As I understand the County's position, even though there was a
CGC who pulled a permit and a peiiuit was obtained, that the scope of work
performed by Southeastern was under a separate contract and not part of the permit
obtained by the CGC.
Ian Jackson: Regardless of who Mr. Freeman contracted with—had it been with the
Certified General Contractor or First Baptist Church—the violation is still there.
Chairman Lykos: If I am building a house—I'm the General Contractor and I pull
the permit for the house. But the plumber has to be licensed, the electrician has to be
licensed, the roofer has to be licensed ...just because a G.C. pulls the permit, it does
not mean the individual trades which require licensing are not required to have it.
Jerry Freeman: I agree with everything that you just said.
Terry Jerulle: I'm confused. If Jay Wright pulled the permit and the owner, First
Baptist Church, hired a different contractor to do different work, are you saying that
work is under the permit pulled by Jay Wright?
Ian Jackson: Yes.
Terry Jerulle: And the only thing you fined him for was working without a license?
Ian Jackson: Yes.
Terry Jerulle: Was the press box there?
Ian Jackson: No. The work that had taken place at the time the "Stop Work" Order
was issued is depicted on E-24, E-25, and E-26.
Terry Jerulle: If the press box had been there, would you have given him additional
fines?
Ian Jackson: If the press box was included in Mr. Freeman's contract?
Chairman Lykos: It is in his contract.
Terry Jerulle: It is in his contract but it wasn't on site.
Kyle Lantz: It was still pettuitted.
Terry Jerulle: But the press box, per his specifications, shows electrical and
windows. He doesn't have a license for electrical or carpentry. Why wouldn't there
be additional fines?
Chairman Lykos: The peiinit included electrical and the press box.
Jerry Freeman: I can help explain that to you.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Those items would be under inspection purposes. The
permit would not include the aluminum portion of the inspection process if it wasn't
on the permit.
Ian Jackson: The description of work on the penuiit is: "Installation of concrete
slab, electrical service, construction of new scaffold-type bleacher system, and press
box." That's what is permitted. Portions of that are under the contract with Prime
Resources —everything except the bleachers is contracted through Prime Resources
22
March 16,2016
as the permit holder. What he did not contract for was the bleacher system. The
Church contracted directly with Mr. Freeman for the bleacher system.
Elle Hunt: And you're claiming that Mr. Freeman does not own a license or owns a
license for something different?
Ian Jackson: Mr. Freeman's company has no construction qualification. He is not a
state-certified building contractor or state-certified general contractor, or Collier
County Aluminum Contractor's License.
Elle Hunt: He does not have any of them -- in anything, including aluminum?
Jerry Freeman: I do not have a license, no.
Chairman Lykos questioned Jerry Freeman:
Q. Why do you think the Citation was issued in error?
A. I am a rare bird—I manufacture, install, and repair grandstands and bleachers. In
the United States, there are twelve other companies that I know of that do this. I
have been doing this for thirty years. I have worked in Collier County many
times and as he will tell you, 85% of the bleachers are owned by a municipality or
school board. Only 15% of the bleachers are owned by somebody who is not a
government agency. The State of Florida does not require me to have any kind of
license to work on bleachers. I understand that just because the State doesn't, it
does not mean that Collier County can't request that I have a license. Your basic
job is to protect the public. That's why you are here—to make sure that you don't
have people out there doing improper work for the public and they would have no
real recourse. I agree with all of that. But in this particular case—for what I
manufacture and for what I do —it's my job to make sure that they have all the
life/safety codes on the bleachers and that they are installed properly. I
manufacture them. The reason why I install the product that I make ...
Q. Mr. Freeman, why is it that you think the Citation was issued in error?
A. There is no way to comply—you're asking me—the aluminum is a specialty
license and the gentleman asked me to look into it.
Q. We have a determination from our Building Official who said that, based on the
scope of work, he feels the work you were doing requires an Aluminum
Contractor's License. So I need you to tell us why you feel the determination is
in error.
A. You are asking me to take a test and if there was a test on competency for
bleachers I would have already taken it. I would love to have it. But the test you
are asking me to take deals with screened rooms and windows. It has absolutely
nothing to do with bleachers in any shape or form. Now they may have a related
metal product being aluminum, but there is no competency test and in Collier
County—the first thing I would have to do obtain a license is to take a test, but
there is no test for bleacher work. The State of Florida does not require that I
have a test—which would be the license I need to get. I can't get a license for
every County—I need a State license but the State says I don't need a license to
work on grandstands and bleachers. The test you are asking me to take has
absolutely nothing to do with what I do. So you are testing me on something
that's unrelated to anything I'm doing and far below my responsibility level.
23
March 16,2016
Vice Chairman Joslin: You passed around some literature to us and one of the
pamphlets notes "FDOT Pedestrian Guide Railing" and"Qualified FDOT Metals
Products." Do you install these?
Jerry Freeman: We manufacture and install them, yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Does that say aluminum on it?
Jerry Freeman: Yes, sir.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Okay. If you are putting the fences up or railings up—that's
why you need a license. They are aluminum. And that's part of the aluminum test.
Jerry Freeman: No, sir. The number on there is my welding certificate number.
Vice Chairman Joslin: It shows a fence to me.
Jerry Freeman: It's a railing. We manufacture railings. To install the DOT railings
or County road railings—you don't need a license. The State does an inspection on
your facility and inspects all of your welders to make sure they are certified and that
the welding that you're doing meets their specifications. That number on the
brochure was to show you all of the qualifications that I went through to be able to
weld for the State of Florida. The test in that particular situation was given directly to
us by the State of Florida so we could get our Q.C. number and could bid on their
work. They know that my company does proper work.
Chairman Lykos: I understand your point. Mr. Jackson, when I read E-9—the
Ordinance lists several specific items: metal and vinyl siding, awnings, security
shutters, gutters, soffits, pre-fabricated rooms, and portable metal or vinyl partitions.
It does not list bleachers.
Patrick White: It also says aluminum accessory structure and/or screen enclosures.
Chairman Lykos: Because you did not see bleachers specifically, how did you
know that this was an issue that required a special license?
Ian Jackson: It was determined to be an accessory.
Chairman Lykos: Who deteiuiined that?
Ian Jackson: I determined in the field by reading the Code and the Building Official,
Jonathan Walsh, determined it afterward. We can provide direct testimony from the
Building Code Administrator if you need to verify again that the County determined
that these bleachers are an accessory.
Patrick White: Accessory to what? What is the principal structure if this is an
accessory structure? A structure has to be 30-inches in height. Are you saying the
goal posts on a football field qualify the football field as a structure?
Ian Jackson: An accessory to the Church property.
Elle Hunt: If these bleachers were made out of PVC, would we be having this
discussion?
Patrick White: Or steel or platinum?
Ian Jackson: We might be having the discussion for a different type of violation. If
it were steel, we would not be talking about aluminum.
Jerry Freeman: If there were a test that was provided that I could take that was
related to bleachers so that I could prove to you and the people of Collier County that
I am worthy of a license, I would have already had it after 30 years. But the test you
are asking me to take—the license you're asking me to get—the one I'm being held
24
March 16,2016
to—has to do with windows and screened rooms. It doesn't test anything to do with
the installation of my product, bleachers.
Chairman Lykos: We understand. What we're trying to do, Mr. Freeman, is to
figure out between what the Ordinance says and what our Building Official has
commented on—we're trying to come to a conclusion based on the guidelines in front
of us. We're going to talk this through for a little bit so everybody on the Board can
understand the circumstances, understand what the State and County have put before
us to work with, so each of us can individually come to a decision as to whether or
not to grant your request to waive the Citation. If you'll bear with us and let us ask
our questions—allow our Board members to ask our questions and get a better
understanding of how to apply the Ordinance. Stay with us so we can ask you
questions if we need to.
Kyle Lantz questioned Jerry Freeman:
Q. Can you tell me when you are assembling these onsite - what are you doing? Are
you welding; are you putting nuts and bolts in—what exactly is involved in the
installation of these?
A. The product is—we bring in the aluminum in Tampa—we cut it up and punch the
holes in it—weld it and take it to the job site and then assemble it. On this
particular job, we requested and advised them to get their own G.C. for the
concrete work. I had been told I could install the concrete that would be directly
under the bleachers,but I don't do that—it's better to get a local contractor. All I
do is manufacture and install my own product. When we get there, we bolt it all
together. We have already submitted six sets of drawings through the G.C. or the
owner who sends them to the building people. The drawings are reviewed—they
are marked up for any explanations they may want and we change them and have
them stamped by a Florida Certified Structural Engineer and then submitted to the
County for approval. Because our product is aluminum, all sides are able to be
inspected—nothing is hidden and the inspector has the ability to check to make
sure we have done the work properly.
Q. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it's an engineered structure and you
are following the engineering codes, but my concern is physically what you are
doing ...
A. We bolt the component parts together.
Q. Everything gets bolted together?
A. Yes, sir. It's like a big tinker toy set—you take the components, stand them up,
bolt the braces, it all bolts together. We have to chalk a line to make sure they are
all spaced properly—chalk them out—and then we assemble the planking and put
the clips in. That's what we do.
Q. So you're putting in a million bolts and making sure everything lines up
correctly?
A. Exactly.
Q. What about the press box?
A. We have a license from the State of Florida that falls under Modular Buildings.
We have to be approved by the State to make a modular building—which a press
box is. We have a third party inspection company—as required by the State—that
comes during the manufacturing and checks to make sure that everything is done.
25
March 16, 2016
At the end of the manufacturing, the third party then sends it and we get a sticker
that goes in the window to prove that everything that was done inside the press
box met with the required Codes. That's how we produce a press box. Now,
bringing it down here—we have a crane company that secures it up onto the
tower. After that, an electrician can run the power source and hook up the press
box. We don't do that. It will be inspected to make sure all of the electrical lines
have been hooked up properly. There is no plumbing in a press box.
Q. As a manufacturer of a press box, as a certificate holder of a modular building
manufacturer, does the State of Florida allow you to install it or are you allowed
to construct it?
A. As far as I know, it's both. What we can't do is any of the local work required ...
we can't do any electrical work because we're not electrical contractors. So
running from the power source to the press box and actually hooking the press
box up onsite—we can't do that. As far as putting things that are already pre-
fabricated in place, putting the bolts in and tightening them according to the
engineer, is basically the same as installing the bleachers. So we are capsulized in
what we exactly do and sell. There is no required permit for flying a press box
that I know of.
Kyle Lantz: Ian—maybe you can answer this. If I buy a modular home, I buy it
from a modular home manufacturer. Does the manufacturer install it or do I have to
get a local G.C. or someone will a modular home installation license to install it? I
know there are certifications for modular home installation—is that part of his license
to allow him to install a press box?
Ian Jackson: I have no knowledge of any other licenses that Mr. Freeman may have.
I found that he operates with the Hillsborough Tax Receipt which is in his packet. I
don't know of any other certifications that Mr. Freeman may have.
Kyle Lantz: But if I—my question isn't about what he has. My question is—is a
modular home installed by the manufacturer or does someone need a separate license
to install the modular home?
Ian Jackson: There is licensing required for the installation of a modular home.
Patrick White: And I believe a tie-down permit, depending upon what modular
versus manufactured—what mobile homes are.
Kyle Lantz: But that is not done by the manufacturer—it is done by an installer—
separate license?
Ian Jackson: There are installation licenses as Mr. White was saying—different
applications ... modular, manufacturer, mobile—we're calling them a lot of different
things.
Terry Jerulle: Mr. Jackson, if I build a concrete bleacher and hire an aluminum
contractor to do the railings for that concrete bleacher, does that aluminum contractor
have to have a license?
Ian Jackson: To install the railings alone?
Terry Jerulle: Correct.
Ian Jackson: Railings fall under—I don't have the definition here.
Chairman Lykos: It's not listed in the Ordinance. Railings as a specific item are
not listed.
Ian Jackson: Anywhere or in the packet?
26
March 16, 2016
Patrick White: I think Mr. Jackson's point is that there is, outside of our packet, a
type of specialty contractor license that does specify installation of railings. Is that an
accurate statement?
Ian Jackson: Yes.
Jerry Freeman: I would like to eventually touch on the insurance.
Michael Ossorio: Mr. Chair, I would just like to make sure ... the structural
aluminum of railing is also covered under Section 489—it's called a specialty
structural aluminum as well. The State of Florida does have a specialty aluminum
license. Mr. Freeman is correct in certain aspects of his assembling these items but
there is a specialty aluminum license with the State. It's very generic. If you were to
call the State and say you want to put up bleachers, they might say you don't require a
license but if you say I'm putting up a screened room or a partition and railings with
concrete, they are going to say you need to be a licensed specialty contractor. It's an
SCC license.
Elle Hunt: Would the railings installed on the bleachers grey that area or do you
think it is within the scope of the current Citation?
Michael Ossorio: I believe that if they are aluminum, I think it's within the scope of
the Citation. I believe the testing—this information was given to Mr. Freeman as
well. One of the things that is on the aluminum construction license through the State
of Florida—not through our office—it's through Prov, a nationwide company—is
plans and reading estimating. Mr. Freeman testified to the fact that he does read plans
and does estimating. And he does aluminum closures and he does safety.
Jason Bridwell: There is another exam for an aluminum contractor that covers
concrete, carpentry framing, gutters, siding, windows, doors, estimating, safety,
earthwork, and securing. Those are the categories for the Gainesville test.
Terry Jerulle: Anything to do with insurance or Workers' Compensation?
Jason Bridwell: That falls under the Business and Law test.
Chairman Lykos: I personally have two issues. I don't like interjecting the
government where it isn't clearly stated that it needs to be. And I don't like that we
don't have anything in our Ordinance that says bleachers and calling bleachers an
"accessory structure"—I think we are stretching a little bit. I don't have to make the
determination—the Building Official does and he has commented on this case. I will
always defer to the Building Official when I'm not sure about the right direction to
go. The Building Official has commented on this case and I will defer to him.
Jerry Freeman: I would like to bring up the issue about insurance. Bleachers are
made to last one hundred years. Liability insurance—the worst thing you can do to
the public of Collier County is to get me farther away from the job. My liability
insurance is in place and I have the real stuff I don't have a little license of a guy
who puts up an occasional screened room or may repair a window. I've got the real
deal. Over 80% of people who are hurt on bleachers are when the customer puts
them together or someone without the education or experience assembles them.
There are approximately 15,000 cases of people each year who report being hurt on
bleachers. The recourse is to go back to the manufacturer. School boards through the
United States no longer assemble bleachers—they want someone like myself to do
my own work. The first question an attorney asks is, "What experience do you have
27
March 16, 2016
as the owner assembling bleachers? Tell me your insurance rating and how many
times have you done this?" 85% of my customer base is municipalities—they don't
want the responsibility of assembling—they want to say, "I hired an expert to do it—
he has the insurance and he did it." The farther you push me back from the job, the
less opportunity the people here have of being in a fall. The first thing that my
insurance carrier will say is, "Who assembled it?" In 30+ years, I have never had a
claim on anything that I have worked on—ever. I always put it together right because
since I make it, I know where it's all supposed to go. What we've got here is that
you're trying to take me, as a square peg, and stick me into a round hole by calling
grandstands that seat 1,000 an"accessory." We going to figure out how to make this
work so that I pay a$1,000 fine—and it's not the money. The customer has already
volunteered to pay it—it's the principle of the matter. I've come down here to do a
job and I just do this one job. We have a General Contractor. We hired the General
Contractor as this thing started. All the paperwork has been submitted through the
G.C. —all the permits have been—he's been out there supervising the job onsite to
make sure that everything is there.
Chairman Lykos: I resent your comment that we are trying to figure out a way to
make the $1,000 Citation stick. You don't know the history of the Board. You made
a comment in your little diatribe ...
Jerry Freeman: Yes, I did.
Chairman Lykos: ... that you accused us of finding a way to ...
Jerry Freeman: Yes, I did.
Chairman Lykos: ... make the $1,000 Citation ...
Jerry Freeman: That's what I'm hearing.
Chairman Lykos: And you do not know the history of this Board and you do not
know the opinions and the personal background of all of our Board members. You
come up here acting like you've done research and you know everything, but you
have not.
Jerry Freeman: No, I have ...
Chairman Lykos: The purpose of this Board is not to make $1,000 Citations stick.
Jerry Freeman: I've got two ears and I can hear. When you asked the question,
"Where do bleachers fall under this Citation," and his answer was, "It falls under
accessories," and you say it's not a clear answer ...
Chairman Lykos: I said I deferred to our Building Official who said that this
requires a Contractor with a license. Now if you choose to not get the license and
make your clients hire somebody else—that is on you. That is not on Collier County
or on this Board—that is your own choice.
Jerry Freeman: I am looking for a fair, impartial look at what I have been doing for
thirty years.
Elle Hunt: (directed her question to Staff) This is out of the scope of this particular
Citation. Would a contracting license be required to put up a chain-link fence or
decking using aluminum?
Ian Jackson: Yes.
Patrick White: Not necessarily an aluminum contractor's license but ...
28
March 16,2016
Elle Hunt: I'm just saying that—and I also want to reiterate the fact that I see it out
of the scope for this Citation—it was just a question based on the evidence that Mr.
Freeman gave us in regard to his business.
Patrick White: What the Building Official said is that aluminum bleachers would
fall under the definition of"accessories" as outlined by the Code. He made no
determination beyond that. Whether a contractor's license is required or not, he
simply was asked about the scope of the definition of accessories and whether or not
bleachers fall into it. In his opinion, it does. In my opinion, you are in the wrong
forum to ask us to dismiss this Citation. If you didn't agree with what the Building
Official said, my belief is that you need to talk to the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals and challenge the determination of the Building Official. Coming here ...
Jerry Freeman: This is where I was instructed to come.
Patrick White: Mr. Freeman, that's because you were given a Citation for
contracting without a license. I don't know that I necessarily agree with the Building
Official. I understand that, for the purposes of this proceeding, my hands are tied. I
do not have the experience, training, or certification to dispute what the Chief
Building Official has put into the record. Somehow, I think your position is that you
don't need a contractor's license to install the bleachers—is that true? Is that true,
sir? It's a"yes" or"no" question.
Jerry Freeman: That's a fact, yes.
Patrick White: Can I ask the County if they agree with you on that?
Jerry Freeman: Sure
Patrick White: (directed his question to Staff) Do you agree with the proposition that
if this had been an installation at the North Collier Regional Park, the County would
not expect the installer to have an Aluminum Contractor's License? Because
somehow there is an exemption because it's a public entity as opposed to a private
one?
Ian Jackson: I am not aware of any such exemption.
Patrick White: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Joslin: I still go back to the brochure that you handed us as
evidence. It's showing a railing or a fence and railing—whatever you want to call it.
But there are aluminum contractors who circle and encase for commercial pool
applications where there are health and safety issues. And this fence would apply.
This fence or railing would definitely be sufficient to do that job. It appears that you
handed this to us in good faith showing us what you manufacture but I'm sure if
someone called you and said they wanted a heavy duty railing to go up—rather than
call it a fence—that you would be there to put it up for them.
Jerry Freeman: We defer to a local contractor for anything outside of our scope of
work. We have nothing to do with pools -- we don't do anything with condominium
railings. That railing is for the DOT which is primarily what that brochure is about.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Defining it and breaking it down into what you do and your
scope of work is fine. I understand that. But according to the Ordinance and
according to what the Building Official has determined—I'm confused myself on
which way to think.
Jerry Freeman: I would like to clarify one thing. My issue here is not so much—
it's your request that I go take a test to prove that I know what I'm doing and I'm
29
• March 16,2016
worthy of working in Collier County. So I agreed. I went to Cam-Tech to buy the
books. When I went through the books and went through the experts at the State of
Florida, the license you are asking me to test out on has absolutely nothing to do with
bleachers. It is all predicated on screened rooms and windows. It's like asking a
heart doctor to take a test on how to repair the machinery in the X-ray Department.
The test doesn't expose what I do or enable me to tell you that I know. Every other
trade—every test has to do with the trade they are in—except for me. I'm in the
bleacher manufacturing business and I install my product only. But I have to take a
test on windows and screened rooms. Now that's the part I don't understand.
Patrick White: Maybe it would help you to understand if you thought about it a
little more broadly. It would be, in my opinion, the assembly of aluminum
components. If you look at it that generically, that broadly, Mr. Freeman, I hope you
can agree that there are principles, there are ideas, there are theories of construction
and installation that are subsumed within the test. It does not specifically say
"bleachers." I'm going to go back to one of the earlier points that you made—you
said that we are here to protect the public. That's true. But we are also here to ensure
compliance with the Code of Laws and Ordinances. And here, we have a
determination from an expert on the Building Code and on our County's Code
regarding the scope and the defmition of what an accessory is relative to whether one
is needed for an Aluminum Contractor to do bleachers. It's his opinion that you do.
Do you have any other expert testimony, other than yourself, to be heard to dispute
the Building Official?
Jerry Freeman: No, sir. I don't really know ...
Patrick White: I would suggest to you, then, because I heard you say "no" and I'm
not trying to cut you off—my point earlier was that there is a forum for you to go to
dispute his opinion. It's the Board of Adjustment and Appeals—the BOA.
Jerry Freeman: What is that? I did hear you say earlier that one of the options I
may have is to go in front of a Judge. What I'm looking for is an impartial decision.
The problem I had with this is that he [Ian Jackson] didn't come to me when I met
him and say, "Mr. Freeman, we are having issues. Do you have a license because if
you continue on with this, we are going to have to give you a Citation. You need to
comply." I was given a ticket the moment he saw me. Then when I'm trying to do
what he asked me to do, there is no way for me to comply because the test you are
asking me to take is an inferior test to what I do.
Patrick White: That's your opinion.
Kyle Lantz: We can beat this all day long. I would like to make a motion.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve upholding Citation #9576. Vice Chairman Joslin
offered a Second in support of the motion.
Patrick White: I would second with an amendment, if you agree. He has proffered
to take the test. If he takes the test, what happens if we uphold the Citation?
Jason Bridwell: At this point, it's past the 45 days.
Patrick White: Understood. It was his choice as to what remedy to seek.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0.
30
March 16,2016
Chairman Lykos: I would take Mr. White's recommendation and talk to the Board
of Adjustment and Appeals. I think you would have a good conversation with them.
Mr. Freeman requested direction from the Board on how to contact a Judge and was
told it would be inappropriate for the Board to give that guidance. It was suggested
the County would be able to advise him on other options.
BREAK: 11:14 AM
RECONVENED: 11:20 AM
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
(Note: With reference to the following cases heard under Section IX, the individuals
who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Janet Ramirez—2nd Review of Credit
(d/b/a"Castaway Flooring Service, Inc.")
Chairman Lykos: It looks like just about one year ago we granted Ms. Ramirez a
license with a one year probation.
Jason Bridwell: At first it was for six months and then it was extended for six
months.
Chairman Lykos asked Attorney Morey to explain the Board's options.
Attorney Morey: If the Board determined that her credit score is now sufficient, the
Board may remove the probation and grant her a full license. If the Board thinks she
needs more work, it can make another determination.
Gary McNally noted it was very difficult to improve a credit score to above 660
within one year. He complimented Ms. Ramirez for doing an excellent job.
Gary McNally moved to approve terminating the probation and granting Janet
Ramizez a permanent license. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the
motion.
Patrick White questioned Ms. Ramirez:
Q. You have shown substantial improvement. Your FICO score is up by 40 points.
There are three items still outstanding. What are your plans regarding payment of
those debts.
A. My plan is pretty much what it has been—putting a little bit of money away when
I'm busy and making two or three payments to get them down. I'll work with
them. I call the creditors and make a plan with them. I have made it a priority
now that work has been coming in and I have more of a financial plan to get these
eliminated from my credit score.
31
March 16, 2016
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
B. Jim E. Skelton—Review of Probation/Waiver of Exam(s)
(d/b/a"Skelton's Construction, Inc.")
Jim Skelton explained his license has been in probation on the condition of taking
the Business and Law exam. He stated he took the test yesterday but didn't pass. He
stated he is suffering from small cell lung cancer and he has undergone chemo and
radiation treatments for the past 18 months. The treatments have taken their toll on
him physically. He stated it is difficult for him to take tests because he has problems
thinking clearly. He noted at one point the Board was considering "grandfathering"
him. He requested that the Board reconsider this option which would remove the
stress of preparing to take the test.
Patrick White questioned Mr. Skelton:
Q. Do you mind sharing with the Board, have you done any preparation for the
Business and Law exam—have you done any studying?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was your score on your last attempt?
A. It was 56. I have trouble with the number part because it gets jumbled up in my
head. It takes me longer to figure out the questions.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned Mr. Skelton:
Q. This is pertaining to the math portion of the test?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're going to be a carpenter?
A. I've been a carpenter for 22 years. Right now, I haven't been working—I just
can't do it. I haven't worked for 18 months. My brother has been running my
business for me—he works for me. I'll show up on a job but my strength isn't
back to normal—there's no way I can swing a hammer.
Elle Hunt asked Mr. Skelton if he had asked for a medical accommodation in order
to take the tests.
Mr. Skelton stated he did not understand.
Ms. Hunt explained if he had a medical condition that would impact his ability to
take the test, usually an accommodation is made, for example: allowing more time to
answer the questions.
When asked if he knew of any accommodations made by the testing facilities in
Gainesville or by Prov, Jason Bridwell stated he was not aware of specifics but
suggested that Mr. Skelton contact the company for additional information.
Elle Hunt noted the Americans with Disabilities Act provides for accommodations in
a variety of circumstances.
Jim Skelton stated if the Board would not"grandfather"him in, he requested a six-
month extension to prepare for and take the exam. He stated he feels like he's
32
March 16,2016
fighting for his life as well as for his business and it takes a toll on him. He
mentioned he is often a"nervous wreck."
Chairman Lykos: Let's recap where we are—we started one year ago and granted a
six-month probation. The requirement was for you to take the Business and Law
exam. Six months ago, the Board granted a second extension. In examining the
packet, the Board's issue is not with your competency regarding your trade, it is with
the Business and Law test.
Jim Skelton: I have people in place—an accountant and my employees are run
through a leasing company. In 22 years of being in business, I never had to do any of
that.
Chairman Lykos: That statement reinforces that you need to take the test.
Jim Skelton stated he has used a leasing company throughout his 22 years of being in
business. He further stated if he had taken the exam before he became ill, he knows
he would have passed it. He explained the chemo remains in his system for a long
time and it is difficult for him to concentrate.
Chairman Lykos stated he understood Mr. Skelton's position but having a license
also brings responsibility with it. Understanding how to run a business (from
obtaining liability insurance coverage, Workers' Compensation coverage, financials)
are a legitimate part of owning a business which is why the Board required it of him
in the first place.
Mr. Skelton noted he took the test when he was initially licensed.
Patrick White: My recollection is this odyssey began because you had let your
license lapse.
Jim Skelton admitted he had made a mistake letting his license expire.
Attorney Morey noted the Board had waived the competency test but required the
Business and Law.
When asked how often the test could be taken,Jason Bridwell replied it could be
taken on a daily basis.
When asked how much more time he would need, Jim Skelton relied at least two or
three months. He stated he appreciated the information about medical
accommodations and would look into that.
Kyle Lantz stated the Board has given him a year of breaks—perhaps if he didn't
have a license, he would be motivated to pass it. He noted Mr. Skelton had waited
until the day before this meeting to take the test again. He sympathized with Mr.
Skelton's health issues but asked if his brain was "there"to take the test, was it
"there" for the day-to-day operation of his business.
Patrick White said the time constraint was the biggest problem for Mr. Skelton—in
the field he could get the answer or knew what needed to be done with a time
pressure.
Jim Skelton again requested an extension of six months to take and pass the test.
33
March 16,2016
Kyle Lantz asked how many people were employed by his company and the
response was, "My brother and one other person right now. Right now the business is
real slow and we don't have very much work."
Mr.Lantz suggested that perhaps Mr. Skelton's brother could take the Business and
Law test and the trade test. He could then qualify Mr. Skelton's company as long as
he passed both exams. He stated Mr. Skelton had already had a year to figure things
out—there were other options that should be explored
Chairman Lykos suggested granting a ninety-day extension of the probationary
period with the provision that if Mr. Skelton could not take and pass the exam, his
brother would be required to do so. He noted Mr. Skelton's probationary license was
still in effect. At the end of the ninety-day extension, Mr. Skelton must return to the
Board with a solution.
Jim Skelton confirmed if he did pass the test, he would not be required to appear
before the Board again.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve extending Jim Skelton's probationary license for a
period of ninety-days. On the day that he passes the Business and Law test, his
license will automatically become a permanent license. However, at the end of the
90-day extension, his license will be suspended. The Board will not grant another
extension for the purpose of taking the test. Patrick White offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
C. David M. Jones—Review of Probation/Waiver of Exam
(d/b/a"Love Landscape, Inc.")
Dixie Jane Hardaway appeared before the Board to present a letter and a copy of her
resume. She stated:
• David Jones has been certified in all of the required tests with the exception of
the Arborist test which did not exist when he was initially licensed.
• David Jones has been experiencing medical issues and is on a medical leave
of absence. He is not currently able to take the test.
• In January, Ms. Hardaway assumed responsibility for Love Landscape. She
had assisted David when the company was being formed.
Elle Hunt asked Ms. Hardaway if she could produce proof that she was appearing on
Mr. Jones behalf, with him consent. When Ms. Hardaway stated she did not, Ms.
Hunt asked Mr. Morey if the Board could hear her testimony. It was noted the
Board's Order dealt with Mr. Jones specifically.
Jason Bridwell noted Ms. Hardaway was listed as the President and Registered
Agent for Love Landscape, Inc. on SunBiz, the website for the Department of State's
Division of Corporations.
Attorney Morey said the corporate search was not sufficient proof since the Board's
Order had been directed to David Jones to take the Business and Law exam.
34
March 16,2016
Attorney Morey stated since the Order was directed to David Jones, the only option
was for Ms. Hardaway to return with a notarized statement or letter from Mr. Jones
verifying that she was authorized to represent him before the Board.
Chairman Lantz concurred.
There was a discussion concerning State's emergency measures to deal with the death
of a Qualifier. Collier County had followed the State's guidelines. Mr. Morey was
not aware of any provisions for a medical leave of absence of a company's Qualifier.
Dixie Hardaway stated her intention was to take the required exams to become the
Qualifier for the business.
Patrick White moved to approve extending the probationary period for sixty days to
allow Ms. Hardaway to provide verification that she was authorized by David Jones
to represent him before the Board. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case #2016-01: Steven William Cole, d/b/a"Below Cost Flooring, Inc."
The case was Deleted by the County as noted on the Amended Agenda. The matter
was resolved.
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, April 20, 2016
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chairman at 12:25 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LIC SING BOARD
f
„lum,
THOMAS LYKOS, Chai an
y_z --1b
The Minutes were approved by the Committee Chair/Vice Chair on �y.�+---14' , 2016,
"as submitted" [�j] OR "as amended" F 1.
/�' 35