Loading...
CLB Minutes 05/15/2002 RMay 15, 2002 Contractor's Licensing Board County Commissioners Boardroom Building F, 3ra Floor 3301 Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34104 MINUTES May 15, 2002 Chairmen Gary Hayes called meeting to order at 9:00 A.M. ATTENDANCE Members: Gary Hayes, Les Dickson, Michael Baril, Walter Crawford, IV, Richard Joslin, Sara Beth White, Kenneth Lloyd, Leonard Cutler (9:45 A.M.) Council to the Board: Patrick Neale Collier County: Robert Zachary, Thomas Bartoe, Paul Balzano, Bob Nonnenmacher, Michael Ossorio Others: Russell Garwood, Karey Hensley, Richard D. McCash, Alan Surloff, Stephen Sutter, Sherman and Mary Ellis, Daniel Malinowski represented by Mary Rutherford, Nikita Kravcik II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA Tom Bartoe, Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer, stated that Lela Hill ("New Business") would be a deletion from the agenda. She took exams and was waiting for the ordinance to be amended and he just received word from Tallahassee that has occurred. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Les Dickson approved the agenda as amended, Richard Joslin seconded. Passed unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 20, 2002 The minutes were reviewed. Walter Crawford moved to approve, seconded by Michael Baril. Passed unanimously. Vo DISCUSSION There are no items of discussion at this time. VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Russell Garwood - Request to qualify a 2nd entity Gary Hayes called Russell Garwood up to the podium. Mr. Garwood stated that he was there to qualify a 2nd entity. There was a brief discussion as to who should swear in Mr. Garwood upon realizing the lack ora court reporter. Patrick Neale informed that the chairman is able to perform the swearing in, and Mr. Hayes does so. Mr. Neale then questioned the issue of the lack ora court reporter. Robert Zachary was also surprised to see no court reporter at the meeting. He felt this could be problematic and was concerned with how to properly handle documents and exhibits. Mr. Dickson suggested they AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: May 15, 2002 TIME: 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ~,NY 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: DATE: February 20, 2002 DISCUSSION: NEW BUSINESS: Russell Garwood - Req. to qualify a 2nd entity. Karey Hensley - Req. to qualify a 2nd entity. Richard D. McCash - Req. to qualify a 2nd entity. Alan N. Surloff - Req. to qualify a 2nd entity. Stephen F. Sutter - Req. to have license reinstated without retaking exams for Residential Contr. Sherman Ellis - Req. to have Landscaping Unlimited license transferred from son's name to his without taking the exams. Lela A. Hill - Req. to be granted an Aluminum license based on Hurricane Shutter Contractor exam. OLD BUSINESS: Daniel Malinowski - 2nd Review of credit report for Paving license. Nikita Kravcik - 2nd Request to be granted Painting license without exams. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Peter Davidson - Contesting Citation #1234 issued for no license. John James Cronen - Contesting Citation #1741 issued for no license. VII. Page 2 - CLB meeting May 15, 2002 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS- CONT'D Case # 2002-02 - Mark J. Semeraro vs. Roland Rodriguez D/B/A On The Level Builders, Inc. Case # 2002-03 - Tara Bajaj Crosby vs. Anthony Lentini D/B/A/Anthony Lentini Tile & Marble. Case # 2002-04 - Maria Ottenstein vs. Mihai G. Popa D/B/A Artistic Floor Design, Inc. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: JUNE 19, 2002 May 15, 2002 should move forward with the 2nd entities and then find out about the court reporter. Mr. Neale agreed to move forward and then contact the clerk's office. Mr. Hayes asked if everyone was satisfactory with this and there were no rejections. Mr. Garwood stated he has an electrical contractor's license and that he was the sole proprietor. Mr. Hayes asked if he wanted to qualify Marco Dock & Lift under electric and Mr. Garwood responded affirmatively. Mr. Garwood explained his reasons for this were to make an in-house customer service with a customer so they have one place ~vhere they get their docks wired and be able to service the customers. Mr. Hayes questioned whether the company ever had a qualifier before and Mr. Garwood responded that no, the company normally subs out their electrical work. There was a question raised about Mr. Garwood's check-writing authority and he informed that he will have the authority when a third company is established and becomes a division of Marco Dock & Lift, which will handle the electrical work. In response to Mr. Garwood's credit report, Mr. Dickson inquired why it was so poor. Mr. Garwood answered that it was due to a divorce and he assured that the problems with his credit were not his fault, but they have yet to be removed from his record. He does not have the court records with him at this time. Mr. Dickson stated that at this time he didn't feel he could vote for the 2nd entity. Mr. Hayes asked about a lean on his record, and Mr. Garwood did not have knowledge of what this was regarding. Mr. Dickson asked whether he would be the sole proprietor of the 2nd entity. Mr. Garwood clarified that it would be a corporation with Blake Wisher and Dwayne Thomas who have been in business for three years. With this information, Les Dickson was concerned about denying since there were two other people involved in the corporation and he is not necessarily in charge of the finances. Mr. Neale advised they should have gotten a credit report from the 2nd entities. Mr. Hayes informed that in item F, Mr. Garwood has had three open accounts with principle suppliers for over a year. Tom Bartoe stated that there weren't any county complaints against Mr. Garwood. Les Dickson stated that based on the recent discussions, he saw no reason to deny the 2nd entity. Mr. Dickson moved to accept and Mr. Baril seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Crawford warned that his license was at stake when he qualifies this 2nd entity and Mr. Dickson warned about past problems with Marco Dock & Lift. Mr. Garwood was aware of these problems. Karey Hensley - Request to qualify a 2na entity Karey Hensley was called to the podium and was sworn in by Mr. Hayes. She stated that she was there to qualify a 2nd entity. She is currently the Vice President of GMT Tile Corporation and she wants to qualify First Petri Corporation. She stated she would be involved in daily operations of both companies. Mr. Hayes wondered if the two companies were competitors, and she believed they would be considered competitors. Mr. Crawford wondered how this would work with the two companies being competitors. Mr. Hayes stated he didn't see a reason why they couldn't allow her to qualify due to this. At this point, Mr. Zachary returned from talking with the county attorney. This began a lengthy discussion concerning the lack of a court reporter. Mr. Zachary felt there would be a problem for anyone wanting to make an appeal if there wasn't a verbatim record and proper handling of documents. He felt the 2nd entities and hearings should not take place even if a waiver was signed. Mr. Neale seconded his statements and stated that he felt extremely uncomfortable dealing with quasi-judicial matters without a court reporter. He felt that at the very least, the parties involved need to be given adequate notice. Gary Hayes agreed with Mr. Zachary and Mr. Neale regarding the public hearings, but not the 2 May15,2002 2nd entities. Mr. Hayes suggested that for the rest of the 2nd entities, it should be mentioned that there is only a recorded record. Mr. Dickson agreed with Mr. Hayes and stated it is not fair to make the 2nd entities wait due to a county error. Mr. Neale recommended that the remaining 2nd entities be sworn in that they are aware they have the opportunity to have a court reporter present and they are waiving that right. Mr. Hayes recommended that they proceed with the 2nd entities and mention the recorded record during the swearing-in process. Walter Crawford stated that he disagreed with the 4 others since he felt by postponing the hearings they would be holding up people's businesses. He felt they should proceed with the entire agenda without a court reporter. Mr. Dickson agreed they should proceed with 2nd entities, but he was concerned what would happen if there were to be an appeal with one of the hearings. Mr. Neale believed that both parties would have big problems, especially with the recording and marking of documents and exhibits. Tom Bartoe stated that staff did not want to be the depository of the records. Mr. Crawford made a motion to proceed with the full agenda, Mr. Dickson seconded. Sara Beth White expressed her disagreement, as did Richard Joslin. Mr. Neale reminded the board that they were appointed as a sub-entity to the County Commissioners and felt they needed to keep this in mind when making their decision. Gary Hayes expressed that he also didn't feel they should proceed with the public hearings and possibly jeopardize themselves. Mr. Hayes called for a vote on whether to proceed with the full agenda. Mr. Dickson and Mr. Crawford voted for the motion, Mr. Baril, Ms. White, Mr. Joslin, Mr. Lloyd, and Mr. Hayes voted against the motion. The motion was rejected 5 to 2. Mr. Neale suggested that the board proceed with the contra-motion that they are going to continue those public hearings due to a lack ora court reporter until a time at which this issue can be resolved, hopefully by the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Lloyd moved to proceed with the second entitie.s, but not with the public hearings, Mr. Joslin seconded. Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Joslin voted to proceed, Ms. White, Mr. Baril and Mr. Dickson voted against the motion. The motion passed 4 to 3. Mr. Hayes apologized to the public about this confusion, but stated that the board has the public's best interest in mind. He stated that the public hearings would not be heard today due to the lack of a court reporter and those who were in attendance for those hearings were free to leave. Mr. Dickson assured that all the 2nd entities and old business would be heard. (New board member Mr. Cutler arrived at 9:45 A.M.) Mark Semeraro questioned the board whether he should come back next month. Mr. Hayes informed that he would be notified when the board will resume the hearings, but they will definitely hear his case at some time. Mr. Hayes returned to Ms. Hensley. Mr. Hayes asked again whether there would be a conflict of interest in issuing a 2na entity for two companies who were competitors. Mr. Neale stated that deciding on conflict of interest was out of the scope of the board. He also noted that she had a signed resolution of authorization by the principle of the First Petri Corporation, therefore, he must be aware of her involvement with the other company. Ms. Hensley clarified that the intention was for the two entities to work together since the two principles are old friends and business associates. Mr. Joslin moved to approve, Mr. Dickson seconded. Passed unanimously. Richard D. McCash - Request to qualify a 2na entity Richard McCash was called to the podium and was sworn in by Mr. Hayes. He stated that he was aware of the lack of a verbatim record and he was there to qualify a 2nd entity. His 3 May 15, 2002 e reasons for this were that he had been using Renaissance Glass as a subcontractor doing custom glass and mirror work. The owner of Renaissance recently passed away and he wanted to qualify so that he could continue on with the business. Mr. Crawford asked what was the nature of the two companies. Mr. McCash answered that his company was primarily commercial and Renaissance Glass deals with custom glass and mirrors. Mr. Crawford moved to approve, Mr. Baril seconded. Passed unanimously. Alan N. Surloff- Request to qualify a 2nd entity Alan Surloff was called to the podium and was sworn in by Mr. Hayes. He stated that he was aware of the lack of a verbatim record and he was there to qualify a 2nd entity. His reasons were to expand their drywall contracting and to add acoustical ceilings to Lee Drywall. Mr. Crawford asked how he would be doing this and Mr. Surloff explained that he would eventually be closing down Ceiling Crafters, Inc. and joining Lee Drywall's acoustical ceiling division. Mr. Dickson asked how many years he had been in the business and Mr. Surloffresponded 25 years. Mr. Dickson moved to approve, Mr. Joslin seconded. Passed unanimously. Mr. Crawford also warned Mr. Surloff that when he joins this other company, his license is on the line if they were to encounter any problems. Stephen F. Sutter - Request to have license reinstated without taking exams for Residential Contractor Stephen SuRer was called to the podium and was sworn in by Mr. Hayes. He stated that he was aware of the lack of a verbatim record and he was there to have his license reinstated without taking the exams. Mr. SuRer explained that he thought his county license was set to inactive, but when he went to reactivate it, he found out it had been cancelled. He added he has been in the business for 23 years and has stayed current with the stated and has taken continuing education. Mr. Hayes asked if Mr. Sutter had passed the test the first time, and he answered that he had passed it previously. Mr. Sutter did not have any records of this with him. Mr. Crawford noted that he did have his license at one time, so it must be a clerical issue. Mr. Dickson stated that it looked like Mr. Sutter had followed proper procedures. Mr. Bartoe explained the problem could be that the last five years, the county has changed the status of inactive and dormant licenses. Mr. Sutter showed proof of his state license. Mr. Neale clarified that Mr. Sutter has a current registered residential state license. Mr. Sutter added that it is currently inactive. Mr. Neale felt it would be difficult for the board to not recommend a county license when he currently holds a registered state residential contractor's license that falls under the categories A - O in 489-131. Mr. Nonnenmacher, Contracting Licensing Supervisor, noted that the county had no issues against issuing a license to Mr. Sutter. The county just needs to board to recommend reactivation and waive the testing before they can proceed. There was some discussion on what was needed to reactivate Mr. Sutter's license. Mr. Sutter informed that in order to reactivate his inactive state license, he needed to obtain his county license. Mr. Dickson made a motion to reactivate his Collier County license without the exam, Mr. Joslin seconded. Mr. Dickson, Mr. Joslin, Mr. Baril, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Lloyd, Ms. White, and Mr. Cutler voted for the motion, Mr. Hayes voted against. The motion carried 7 to 1. Sherman Ellis - Request to have Landscaping Unlimited license transferred from son's name to his without taking exams 4 May 15, 2002 Stephen Sutter was called to the podium and was sworn in by Mr. Hayes. He stated that he was aware of the lack of a verbatim record. His wife, Mary Ellis, also came to the stand and she was sworn in. Mr. Ellis stated he was there to have his license transferred from his son' s name to his. Mr. Hayes didn't think there was anything in the statutes or ordinances regarding the transfer of a license. Mr. Crawford summarized Mr. Ellis' story. Mr. Ellis and his son have been in business together for over 12 years. His son is now moving on to another business and Mr. Ellis wants to continue the business, but he has never taken the exams. Mr. Crawford stated that he was leaning for him to take the exams. Mr. Ellis expressed concern that he might not be able to pass the exam. Mr. Hayes wanted to know who conducted the business of the company, and Mr. Ellis informed that his wife handled all the business aspects. Mr. Hayes stated there was no provision statewide or countywide to allow the board to transfer a license, the only authority they had was to issue a license where the exam would be superfluous. Mr. Crawford suggested that Mr. Ellis reapply for a license and take the test. Mr. Cutler questioned what the test would prove since Mr. Ellis has been in business for 20 years. Mr. Dickson felt that they couldn't accept the "good o1' boy" method. Also, the state does not recognize medical or legal authority. He felt the board needed to make every effort to protect the public of the county and state. Mr. Cutler asked if Mr. Ellis has ever had a license in his name in Florida, and Mr. Ellis answered that it has always be in his son's name. Mr. Cutler restated that he didn't see what the test would prove in this situation. Mr. Crawford agreed, but he didn't think the board has ever given a license to someone who hasn't even attempted the exams. Mr. Neale added that Mr. Ellis does have a complete application as well as affidavits of experience. Mr. Neale suggested that his son needed to resign as the qualifier and then Mr. Ellis apply to qualify the business. Mr. Dickson stated he could just become a 2nd qualifier, since if something happened to the 1st qualifier; the 2nd qualifier automatically becomes the primary qualifier. Mr. Neale recommended that the board not look at this as a transfer of license, but rather as a 2nd qualifier. Paul Balzano noted that Mr. Ellis' son could still qualify the business, but Mr. Ellis informed that his son's wife wanted him to completely break free from the business. There was some discussion, but Mr. Hayes stated the only thing that mattered was whether the board fek he was deserving of a license other than the examination. He stated the board only has the authority to waive the exam and he must meet all other requirements by law. Sara Beth White believed that Mr. Ellis should at least attempt the exam. Mr. Crawford agreed and added that the board needed to protect the integrity of the license. Mr. Nonnenmacher questioned whether Mr. Ellis also handled sprinkler systems, and Mr. Ellis said that he did. Mr. Nonnenmacher then informed the board that he would be required to take two tests, one for landscaping and one for irrigation. Mr. Neale concurred and stated that he would need to qualify for both licenses. Mr. Hayes pointed out that the board would then need to waive exams for two licenses. Mr. Dickson expressed his concern that the irrigation license is dealing with potable and non-potable water, which could potentially be dangerous for the public. The question was raised again as to whether the board had ever granted a license when there has been no attempt at taking exams. Mr. Hayes stated that the board had done this before on a few occasions. Mr. Cutler wondered under what circumstances would the board waive the test. Mr. Neale stated that they needed to prove, trough testimonies and affidavits, they had 5 May 15, 2002 vii. extensive experience in the particular trades for which they were applying, and in most cases, the applicants were issued a restricted license. Mr. Cutler asked if Mr. Ellis could fall under this category. Mr. Neale said it was up to the board to make that decision. He read from the code which stated that under 22-184c "the board shall determine whether the applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which the application has been made, the board has to issue findings in fact the conclusions of law regarding the approval or denial of the application and the board may consider the applicants relevant recent experience in the specific trade, and based upon such experience, may waive testing requirements if convinced that the applicant is qualified by experience, whereby, such competency testing would be superfluous". Mr. Cutler made a motion to waive the testing. There was no second and the motion was dropped. Ms. White stated that Mr. Ellis needed to get his credit report straightened out. Mr. Dickson believed the problem was with the irrigation license without a test and they have never issued a license without exam when public safety was an issue. Mr. Hayes agreed but he stated that Mr. Ellis has done this for 25 years and done it quite well. He questioned what was the intent of the law. Mr. Cutler asked how passing or not passing the test is going to change his ability, and Mr. Hayes responded that is not the purpose of the test. Ms. White suggested that Mr. Ellis gets his credit report corrected and take the test. Mr. Ellis commented that they didn't have much time put their file together and there were several items on the report that were in dispute. Mr. Cutler questioned what the credit report had to do with waiving the test. Mr. Hayes answered that the board needed to be comfortable with the net result of their actions. Mr. Neale added that one requirement of the license was meeting fmancial responsibility. Mr. Ellis assured that the leans from the IRS have all been satisfied, he requested an audit, and he had a letter from his accountant. Mr. Cutler suggested that he be given more time to correct his credit. Mr. Ellis felt he could accomplish this by June. Mr. Bartoe asked if his son cancels his license for Ellis Lawn, Inc., would Mr. Ellis be operating illegally? The board confirmed there were 60 days for Mr. Ellis to legally operate under the cancelled license. Mr. Nonnenmacher informed that he could only operate with jobs that are already in progress. Mr. Baril moved to deny the request without taking the exams, Ms. White seconded. Mr. Hayes suggested that he might be able to come back again once he fixed things. He recommended that Mr. Ellis gets his credit report corrected and if in the meantime, he took the exams, then there is no harm done. Mr. Nonnenmacher suggested that he also apply for his irrigation license. The board voted to deny the license. Passed unanimously. 7. Lela Hill - Deleted from agenda OLD BUSINESS 1. Daniel Malinowski- Second review of credit report for Paving license Daniel Malinowski was called to the podium and is sworn in by Mr. Hayes. He stated that he was aware of the lack of a verbatim record. He was represented by Mary Rutherford. Mr. Hayes stated that Mr. Malinowski was there for a second review of his credit report, he questioned what had changed. Mr. Malinowski stated that the judgment is currently being payroll deducted, he is waiting on the judgment from the sheriff's attorney, and he has been in contact with Dixie Trucking because he has three checks that have not been noted. Mr. Hayes asked what he originally appeared for, and Mr. Malinowski answered he was there to receive his Paving license. He stated he has already passed the exams, the only issue was May 15, 2002 viii. IX. with his credit. Mr. Crawford stated that he didn't see any new information on the credit report. Mr. Hayes asked about the three IRS leans and Mr. Malinowski assured that those have been satisfied. Mr. Neale informed that the credit report was over a year old. Mr. Hayes told Mr. Malinowski and council that the board needed a current credit report. Mr. Cutler suggested he could get his credit report off the intemet. Mr. Hayes stated that if Mr. Malinowski could return with a current credit report before the board adjourned, then they would review his case. Mr. Nonnenmacher notified that the board also required a citation to be paid, which has not yet been done. Mary Rutherford told the board this was supposed to have been paid by the company on his behalf. Mr. Malinowski added that he could pay the citation now and he would take it up with the company on his own time. Mr. Crawford moved to waive until they receive a current credit report, Mr. Joslin seconded. Mr. Bartoe gave directions to Mr. Malinowski where he could pay his citation. Mr. Nonnenmacher told the board that they could reinstate his license, but hold it until he paid the citation. Ms. Rutherford questioned whether Mr. Malinowski would need to come before the board again. Mr. Hayes stated that he would need to see a credit report before he could give approval. She asked to be placed on the June agenda and Mr. Hayes said absolutely. Nikita Kravcik- Second request to be granted Painting license without exams Nikita Kravcik was called to the podium and is sworn in by Mr. Hayes. He stated that he was aware of the lack of a verbatim record. He stated he was there to get a license without the exams and he added that he tried to take the exam, but he couldn't pass. Mr. Crawford informed that Mr. Kravcik passed the business and law test in 1998, but has taken the painting exam eight times without passing. Mr. Baril asked if he had his cabinetry license and Mr. Kravcik responded he did. Mr. Dickson stated that he set the record as far as effort. Mr. Cutler questioned what type of material was covered on the painting exam. Mr. Bartoe felt the test was stupid and he believed the only reason he passed was because he had a study guide. Mr. Hayes doubted there was a reading and writing problem since Mr. Kravcik passed the business and law test. He felt that Mr. Kravcik didn't know enough about painting. Mr. Crawford asked how many years he had been painting and Mr. Kravcik responded since 1974. Mr. Cutler asked what other licenses he held. Mr. Kravcik responded pressure washing, roof painting, etc. Mr. Cutler moved to waive the test, Mr. Dickson seconded. Ms. White wondered how he was able to pass the business and law test. Mr. Kravcik responded that test was easy for him. Mr. Crawford said that he didn't feel they could ask him to take the test again. Mr. Dickson added that he also has experience verifications. Mr. Bartoe noted that the county hears more complaints about the painting test than any other exam. The board voted. Passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Hayes stated that the public hearings would be postponed until the issue of the court reporter is solved. There was a brief recap on the discussion of a court reporter. REPORTS There are no reports at this time. NEXT MEETING DATE - June 19, 2002 Mr. Hayes restated that the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 19, 2002 at 9 A.M. in the boardroom. May 15, 2002 Gary Hayes called adjournment at 11:00 A.M.