CLB Minutes 04/20/2016 April 20,2016
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
April 20, 2016
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Chairman: Thomas Lykos
Vice Chair: Richard Joslin
Members: Michael Boyd
Elle Hunt
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
Patrick White
Excused: Robert Meister
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
Karen Clements — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
Ian Jackson— Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
Robin Ganguli — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
1
a ` April 20, 2016
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any Appeal is
to be based.
I. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Thomas Lykos called the meeting to order at 9:05 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; eight (8)voting members were
present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Under Item X— "Public Hearings," the following change was made:
• A. Case #2015-09: Karin R. Sacacian, d/b/a"Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC."
will be heard following "Orders of the Board" (Item VIII-A, "New Business.")
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, 8— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— MARCH 16, 2016:
Patrick White moved to approve the March 16, 2016 minutes as submitted. Vice
Chairman Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
(None)
VI. DISCUSSION:
(None)
VII. REPORTS:
(None)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Patrick White moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the
Board. Vice Chairman Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
2
April 20, 2016
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Note: With reference to the following case heard under Section X, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Case #2015-09: Board of County Commissioners vs. Karin R. Sacacian,
d/b/a "Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC" (C 25598)
James Morey, Esq., attorney for the Board, summarized the order of the proceedings
to be followed during the Public Hearing:
• The Hearing of the Complaint shall be open to the public;
• The proceedings will be recorded and may be transcribed;
• Each case shall be presented by the County Attorney or a member of the
County's Staff;
• Formal rules of evidence shall not apply but fundamental fairness and due
process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings;
• Irrelevant, immaterial, and/or cumulative material shall be excluded. All
other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent
person shall be admissible;
• Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining
any evidence but shall not be sufficient, by itself, to support a Finding unless
the hearsay would be admissible over objection(s) in a civil action in a Court;
• Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness
before the Board and each party to the proceeding shall have the right to call
and examine any witnesses;
• The Chair has the power necessary to conduct the proceedings of the Hearing
in a full, fair, and impartial manor to preserve order and decorum;
• At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall issue
Findings of Fact, based on the evidence of record, and Conclusions of Law
and may impose disciplinary Sanctions if warranted;
• The Contractors' Licensing Board shall issue whatever Orders are necessary
and proper to dispose of the Complaint in accordance with this Ordinance of
Florida law;
• Said Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and disciplinary Sanctions, if
any, and any related Order shall constitute the decision of the Board in the
case heard before the Board;
• Should the Contractors' Licensing Board be unable to issue a decision
immediately following any Hearing because of questions of law or any other
matters, the Board may withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting;
• If the Order is read, it is effective as of the reading.
Chairman Lykos:
• The County will present its "Opening Statement";
• The Respondent will present his/her"Opening Statement";
• The County will present its "Case in Chief;"
3
April 20,2016
• The Respondent will present his/her "Case in Chief;"
• The County may offer any rebuttal;
• The County and the Respondent may present their Closing Comments.
• The Public Hearing process is then closed;
• The Board will receive instruction from its Attorney which is similar to a
"charge" to a Jury and will set out the parameters upon which the members
will base their decision;
• The Board will deliberate and may ask for additional information or
clarification from both parties;
• The Board will then decide two different issues: first, whether the Respondent
is guilty of the offense as charged in the Complaint vote and a vote will be
taken. If found guilty, the Board will decide if Sanctions are to be imposed.
• The Board's attorney will again advise the Board concerning what Sanctions
may be imposed and the factors to be weighed when considering evidence.
• The Board will discuss the Sanctions and then vote.
• The Chairman will orally report the decision of the Board which will
subsequently be rendered in writing to become the official Order of the Board.
Patrick White moved to approve opening the Public Hearing. Vice Chairman
Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, 8— 0.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering the County's information packet
in Case #2015-09 into evidence. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the
motion. He further requested to also admit into evidence the County's Revised
Administrative Complaint, dated April 14, 2016, in Case #2015-09. Vice Chairman
Joslin approved Mr. White's amendment to his motion. Motion carried, 8— 0.
Point of Order:
Patrick White stated he received a document, presented by the County Attorney,
that was not signed but was dated April 20, 2016, and was entitled "Request to
Remove Mr. White." Tom Arico, the homeowner, alleged because Mr. White had
an Ex-Parte communication with the Respondent, he should be removed from the
Board. Mr. White noted his contact with Ms. Sacacian had been disclosed to the
Board prior to the Hearing on her Request for a Re-Hearing. Mr. White stated he did
not see any basis to recuse himself from participating in the Public Hearing, nor was
it was necessary for him to file a Form 8-B since there was no conflict of interest on
his part, nor did he have any bias or prejudice toward Mr. Arico, the Respondent, or
the County's case. He stated his intention was to listen to the evidence presented
during the Hearing and conduct himself in a fair, responsible manner.
He concluded by stating he acknowledged Mr. Arico's request and placed on the
record his reasons for not being willing to remove himself from the dias or file a
Form 8-B. He further stated he had no financial interest in the outcome of the matter
before the Board. He respectfully declined Mr. Arico's request.
Attorney Morey stated since Mr. White had no financial interest in either party and
had fully disclosed the Ex-Parte communication prior to the previous Hearing, he was
entitled to remain and participate in the Hearing.
4
April 20,2016
Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noe11 concurred, stating it was Mr. White's
decision to make.
Chairman Lykos stated his preference was for Mr. White to remain and participate.
Karen Clements, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's "Opening
Statement:"
• The County will show that in April 2015, Tom Arico entered into a contract
with Olde Naples Tile and Marble, LLC, (License #25598) to install tile
flooring in his residence at 4010 Ice Castle Way—Unit #5.
• Mr. Arico was given a business card (Exhibit E-17) and checks were written
to Mario Sacacian(Exhibits E-19 and E-20).
• At the completion of the installation, there was clearly faulty work, and failure
to correct the faulty work.
• Made a site visit, met with the homeowner, there was excessive lippage of the
corners of the tile—it was visible and uneven (Exhibits E-21 through E-32).
• The homeowner stated he was hitting his toes and feet on the uplifted corners
of the tiles, causing injury, which was a safety concern.
• He could not move his furniture to clean.
• His granddaughter, while visiting, had cut herself on the flooring.
• August 24, 2015: Contacted Mr. Sacacian of Olde Naples Tile & Marble
regarding the tile work done at Mr. Arico's. Mr. Sacacian stated he was
ordering more tiles to fix the problem. He was given thirty days to correct the
work.
• After several attempts to correct the work, deadlines were not met.
• October 12, 2015: Michael Ossorio called Mr. Sacacian and left two
messages. Mr. Sacacian returned the call in the afternoon from Mr. Arico's
home. When asked if the flooring would be done by Friday, Mr. Sacacian
started screaming—stating he was finished and walked off the job. He took
his tools, claiming he was going bankrupt and was going to Las Vegas. He
did not return to the jobsite.
• Mr. Arico was asked to obtain bids from licensed contractors. One bid from
41 East Flooring totaled $6,725; a bid from Floors N More Direct totaled
$7,850
• December 16, 2015: The Licensing Board heard the case. No one was
present from Olde Naples Tile & Marble. The Notice of Hearing had been
delivered to Olde Naples Tile & Marble at the business address of 280 29th
Street NW,Naples, FL, in October 2015.
• Mr. Rick Ehlers, an expert witness, was present at the hearing and gave
testimony. Olde Naples Tile & Marble was found to have performed faulty
work and had not corrected it. The Board ordered Olde Naples to pay
restitution to the homeowner, and a fine to the County for the administrative
costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter. Olde Naples was given thirty
days to pay the fine and restitution and its licensed was placed on suspension.
If payment was not made by the deadline, the license would be revoked.
5
April 20, 2016
• December 21, 2015: The Final Order of the Board was hand-delivered to 280
29th Street NW, Naples, FL, the business address listed for Olde Naples Tile
& Marble, LLC. The Order in a manila envelope was taped onto the closed
gate of the driveway at that address. Another copy of the Order was hand-
delivered to Naples Home Designs ("NHD") at 13180 Livingston Road, Unit
#105, Naples, FL. The envelope was addressed to Karin Sacacian who is a
part owner of the company.
• December 23, 2015: Received a"Claim of Lien" filed by Karin Sacacian
against the Homeowner, Tom Arico.
• December 30, 2015: Received letters sent to James Morey, Esq., and Thomas
Lykos by Karin Sacacian, the Qualifer for Olde Naples Tile & Marble,
requesting a Re-Hearing of her case by the Board (Exhibits E-45 and E-46).
• March 16, 2016: Karin Sacacian appeared before the Board to Request a Re-
Hearing of Case 2015-09. The Board granted her requested and the Re-
Hearing was scheduled for April 20, 2016.
• March 30, 2016: A Notice of Hearing for April was hand-delivered and tape
to the gate at 280 29th Street NW,Naples, FL.
• April 8, 2016: The Notice of Hearing was sent to Karin Sacacian via certified
mail.
Karin Sacacian, the Respondent, presented her "Opening Statement:"
• The reason I requested the Re-Hearing was for me to be able to come in front
of you and show you that Olde Naples did not do the job as the County is
claiming they did. I have the documentation to prove that.
The County's "Case in Chief' was presented.
Karen Clements questioned Tom Arico, Witness, who testified on behalf of the
County:
Q. When you called Olde Naples Tile & Marble, did Mario Sacacian come out to
your home?
A. Yes, I met him at a neighbor's house and he came out an hour or so later.
Q. And did he give you a business card?
A. That is correct and he was wearing an Olde Naples Tile & Marble tee shirt.
Q. Is Exhibit E-18 the contract with Olde Naples Tile & Marble which was originally
for 18 x 18 tile but then was changed -- correct?
A. Yes. I went to see Yanelis ... I went through this before because Mario told me to
go there. He told me to go to two places: Angelo's but Angelo's didn't have
good tile and then he told me to go see this other place and talk to Yanelis. She
showed me this 6 x 36 tile and when I said the contract called for 18 x 18, she said
she knew Mario very well. She called him and he said he could install the tile. I
spoke with Mario and he agreed to install the tile for the same price. He said
there was no problem to install that tile (18 x 18). SO I ordered the time from
Naples ....
Q. Naples Home Designs?
A. Yes, and I paid them the same day as I ordered the tile.
6
1 April 20, 2016
Jason Bridwell questioned the Witness:
Q. On the day that Mario Sacacian came over to your house, can you go over in
detail what happened?
A. He gave me a business card and told me that he owned the company. He said it
was licensed and insured—he said, this is my phone number.
Q. For the record, the card that was provided is County's Exhibit E-17.
A. Yes, I can see it. That's correct. He told me he owned the business.
Q. And when he came over to your house, he was wearing a shirt that said Olde
Naples Tile & Marble?
A. He came over a couple of times and he wore that shirt.
Q. Did any of his employees come over to do the work?
A. Well, he didn't do the work. His employees came over ... Sahalam and I can't
remember the other guy's name right now.
Q. Were they also wearing unifoiins or shirts that said Old Naples Tile & Marble?
A. That I don't remember. When they came over, I just left because there was
nothing for me to do there.
Q. The phone number that you used to contact Mr. Sacacian—was that the same
phone number on the business card that he provided to you?
A. Oh, yes. I have, like, five pages of text messages to that phone number and, like,
29 phone calls to that number.
Q. The phone number that's on the invoice (Exhibit E-18)— is that the same phone
number that is on the business card?
A. Yes, it is ....7061.
Q. Did Mario write that phone number on the invoice?
A. Yes, and I copied it on top because I didn't know if his "7" was a"7"—but that's
his handwriting, Mario.
Q. At any time, did Mario Sacacian tell you that he was not working for Olde Naples
Time & Marble?
A. No. He told me he owned the company from the beginning.
Karen Clements questioned the Witness:
Q. When Mario came over to correct the faulty work—he was working to take up the
old tiles and replace 7
A. Yes.
Q. It was Mario, though, doing the work?
A. Yeah, Mario was helping ... the guy's name was Carlos .... him and Carlos were
doing it, and then some guy that comes with Mario all the time— I don't know his
name ... he's a young kid and I think he's kind of handicapped. They were
tearing the tile up.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Witness:
Q. Were there any vehicles in the yard at the time when the men came to do any of
the work—any marked vehicles with Naples signs on them?
A. No. I don't think he had signs on his trucks.
Q. None?
A. Not that I know of anyway— I really didn't pay attention to that.
Patrick White questioned the Witness:
7
1 April 20,2016
Q. Mr. Arico, County's Exhibit E-18 says "Purchase Order"–were you provided
that by Mr. Sacacian?
A. Yes, the day we signed the contract.
Q. Other than the phone number at the top, "293-7061," is there anything else that
you wrote on there?
A. He told me to write my name on top and my address. He wrote his name and his
phone number.
Q. Can you help me to understand that handwriting at the bottom?
A. You'll have to ask him.
Q. That's not yours?
A. That's not mine at all, no. I write sloppy, but not that sloppy.
Q. Thank you.
Karen Clements asked Mr. Arico if he had anything to add.
A. Yes. In her discrepancy letter, she wrote: "In August of 2015, Mike Ossorio, the
licensing inspector, contacted Olde Naples Tile & Marble to see if we are
interested in reviewing on of his customers jobs that was done by an unlicensed
installer ..."—the people who installed it were licensed and it was Olde Naples
Tile & Marble. She also said that I agreed to pay $1,620.91 for the repairs which I
wouldn't do. Why would I hire this company to do repairs when they screwed up
my floors in the first place? I mean, common sense tells me not to hire the same
guy twice and I think Mike Ossorio will verify this.
(Karen Clements referenced County's Exhibits E-45 and E-46.)
And then she said I made false statements and slander. I didn't make a false
statement and didn't slander the company. I just reported the facts.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Witness:
Q. In referencing this letter, E-45 and 46, the section where it says, "... Marius
Sacacian and the customer agreed to have the repairs done by Olde Naples Tile
& Marble for the total amount of$1,620.91..." –your testimony is you never
signed any contract for any ...
A. No. Why would I? Why would I agree to it?
Q. I'm just trying to clarify.
A. I'm sorry.
Q. You didn't sign any contract or any agreements ....
A. No, I didn't.
Q. ... with that dollar amount or any ---
A. No.
Q. Please let me ....
A. I'm sorry -- I'm just upset.
Q. I want to make sure that we get the facts on the record as best that we can.
A. Okay. I'm sorry.
8
April 20, 2016
Q. I want to verify that you did not sign any contracts, any agreements that said you
were going to hire Olde Naples Tile & Marble to make any additional repairs, to
fix any of the previous work—whether there was a dollar amount included or not
—is that the fact? Is that what your testimony is?
A. That's correct. If the County told them ...
Q. And, secondarily, you did not sign anything that did have a dollar amount on it?
A. No, I did not, sir.
Q. So the only contract that you signed— and I'm using the word "signed"loosely
for our purposes—is the document on E-18 which is what we are referring to as
the "contract?"
A. Yes, contract number 640471.
Q. There's no other signed agreement ....
A. No.
Q. ... between you and Olde Naples, or between you and Mario?
A. No.
Patrick White questioned the Witness:
Q. At any time, did anyone tell you that Mr. Sacacian or the individuals who were
working on your unit were not working as part of Olde Naples Tile & Marble?
A. No. That never came up —with the employees.
Q. Okay.
A. I talked to his employees about the work and bought them lunch—that's the
extent of it. But everything I talked about that was business was to Mario —about
his company, and the work that he was doing, and how satisfied I was.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Witness:
Q. In our packet, on E-19 and E-20, which are two checks that you wrote— I'm
assuming those are the checks that you wrote to pay for the tile installation?
A. Yes.
Q. I have two questions. #1 —why are the checks not written to Olde Naples Tile &
Marble if that's who you hired?
A. Because Mario told me it didn't matter who I wrote the check out to—because it
was his company. He said it was all going to the same bank—into a different
account—but it was all going to the same company.
Q. And that didn't raise a red flag to you?
A. Yes, it did. Because I went on the internet and I checked out Mario Sacacian and
I came up with five pages ...
Chairman Lykos stated he did not want the testimony to "get off track" and
reminded Mr. Arico that was question was he wrote the check to Marius as opposed
to Olde Naples Tile & Marble.
A. Because I found this on the internet before I signed it—because I know you're
usually supposed to do that, but I took his word for it—and it says: "Registered
Agent—Karin Sacacian and Manager—Marius Sacacian." I have five pages that I
found that day and figured it was legit to do it.
(It was noted Mr. Arico was referring to the Florida Department of State Division of
Corporation's database—corporation search. County's Exhibit E-15 and E-16.)
9
• April 20, 2016
A. I got that the day I signed the check—before I signed it, I looked them up to see
that there wasn't a fraud or anything.
Q. Did you get any kind of discount or anything for writing the check to him?
A. No. If you look at the bill —the checks are the same price ... same amount.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Witness:
Q. You researched the company and Mr. Sacacian's name to verify that he was an
officer of the company and you felt comfortable writing the check in his name
because you felt like you were writing it to the company—because he was listed
as an officer?
A. Yes. I was going out and I just left the check there. I'm not going to stand there
and watch them work all day.
Q. I understand. Thank you.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Witness:
Q. Did you fill in his name or did he?
A. I printed"Mario" and he wrote in his last name. On the check for $1,450, he
wrote in his whole name—that's not my handwriting. Like I said, I write sloppy
but not that bad.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Witness:
Q. Was $1,950 the total amount that you paid on the two checks that you had
written?
A. Yes. If that's the amount that was on the bill—yes.
Q. You have one check for $1,450 and one for $500 — is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. On Exhibit E-48, there is a Claim of Lien that was filed on your home?
A. Yes.
Q. For an additional $1,620.91?
A. Yes—that's because they said that I agreed to have them re-do the tile.
Q. Okay—that was my question. You signed no other contracts or were going to
have anything else paid for ...
A. Oh, I didn't sign it ...
Q. ... or have anyone else fix the tile that was already replaced?
(Mr. Arios was again reminded to wait until the Board member finished asking the
question before responding.)
Q. I was wondering if you got infoliiiation— if you got paperwork on this Claim of
Lien that's on your property now?
A. I got—she sent it to me six times —certified mail. And that's another thing—she
said she tried contacting me. How come she can contact me for the Lien and she
can't contact me for the money I owe her?
Q. Well, the address is the same as the address of the home.
A. That's right. It's the same. All she had to do was send it certified mail or a text
message—and they didn't send me either one to inform me about the $1600. The
first time I saw it was on the letter that was sent to Mr. Lykos and Michael
Ossorio. It was the first time I saw it.
10
April 20,2016
Patrick White questioned the Witness:
Q. The Claim of Lien (E-48) seems to read that it is for the purchase of materials to
fix the floor. Were any materials provided to you or did they fix the floor?
A. The floor looks just as bad as the day they put it down the first time. No, they did
not fix the floor.
Q. Did they purchase materials to fix the floor and install them?
A. They said they did, yes.
Q. I'm not asking you what they said—I'm asking you what they did.
A. They put down about 54 square feet of tile. They needed to put down a lot more
than that.
Q. So, some tiles were taken up ....
A. Right.
Q. ... and repaired?
A. Yes.
Q. And the approximate date of that was?
A. You would have to ask Karen— she knows the date they were supposed to do the
tile. Sometime in September, I believe.
Karen Clements: I believe we starting asking in October, actually.
Q. Was that work done by Mario?
A. Yes.
Karen Clements: Oh, you know what—it was September because I remember that
just before Labor Day—we gave him until right after Labor Day, and he said he
would be done before then. And he wasn't.
Q. And the date that—as far as anyone knows—
Karen Clements: The beginning of September
Q. The date it was completed. The last day they worked. What was the last day that
they did work in an effort to complete the job? Do either of you know the last day
they provided any materials or did any work?
Karen Clements: October 12th was when he walked off the job—Mr. Sacacian
walked off the job.
Patrick White continued to question the Witness:
Q. Mr. Arico, at any point after October 12th, did anyone from Olde Naples Tile &
Marble, including Mr. Sacaian or any of the employees, ever return to your home
or provide you with materials or do work on your home?
A. No. After he walked off the job was the last time that I saw him.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
A. Another thing—this company offered me, first, $1,000 to drop my case. A
second time, $1,000 to drop my case. When I went to see Mike Ossorio and
Karen, they offered me $2,000 to drop my case plus doing some work and I said,
"No, I don't want it." And last month, both Mike Ossorio and Kevin offered me
$3,000 from Karin Sacacian to drop my case and I said, "No."
Q. The dates of the checks—#704 (E-20) and #708 (E-19) — shows that#704 was
dated April 7, 2015 in the amount of$1,450 and#704 was dated April 2, 2015 in
the amount of$500.
11
April 20, 2016
A. Yes —that's the date they started the job.
Q. And what does the statement on the memo line of check #704 mean?
A. Partial payment.
Q. And on check#708 in the lower left-hand corner, I think it says, "P-I-F for tile"—
what does that mean?
A. Paid for tile installation.
Q. Does that mean paid in full?
A. Paid-in-full for tile installation, yes.
Q. Thank you. Now, was that for the tile or the tile installation?
A. Installation. The tile was like $4,000 and something dollars.
Q. And you made those payments directly to the supplier?
A. I paid them the same day that I ordered the tile.
Q. Do you know if any of the tiles used for repairs leading up to October 12th were
newly-purchased tiles or were some of the tiles you had purchased previously?
A. I have no idea, sir.
Karin Sacacian, the Respondent, questioned Tom Arico:
Q. You are claiming the paper that Mario gave you is the contract for tile installation
that, supposedly, he did at ...
A. Not "supposedly" —he did.
Q. Okay. May I show you how an actual contract looks like from my ...?
A. I know ... he showed me a different one after he came to my house the second
time or after all the work had started—it was all typed out and he didn't type it
out. This is the original contract (E-18)—this is his signature on it—this is his
phone number on it.
Q. There is no signature on that, and it has nothing to do with Olde Naples Tile &
Marble. It says "Mario" but doesn't say anything about Olde Naples Tile &
Marble.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, if you have evidence to enter, we will do that when
it's your opportunity to present your case. What you are up here now for is if you
have any questions of Mr. Arico based on his testimony. Any specific questions of
his testimony.
Q. The two installers that did the initial job, did they ever tell you that they were
employees of Olde Naples Tile & Marble?
A. No.
Q. Because they are not.
A. They just said they worked for Mario.
Q. They did not say they worked for Olde Naples Tile & Marble —correct?
A. It never came up. I'm not going to ask them who they worked for. Mario brought
the installers in and they did the work and that was it. I didn't have a
conversation about who they worked for or what they were doing—they were
there to do a job. When they worked, I left.
Q. I am concerned. Why did you write the check to my husband's name since,
actually, one of the documentations here said that Mario way saying—maybe on a
different job -- that all checks have to go to Olde Naples Tile & Marble?
12
April 20, 2016
A. He never told me that—he said, "I have to pay the help," — if these people can
remember the last conversation I had when I was here ....
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, I need you to ask questions. You have the
opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Arico based on his testimony. Asking questions
about what Mario might have said or not said—when Mario is not here—
Karin Sacacian: Okay.
Q. Can you please tell me how it came that you assumed that I offered $3,000 to
drop the case? Who told you that I offered you $3,000?
A. I will answer that. On December 14th, I was called to Mike Ossorio's office to
discuss the case and the people here can verify it ... they said Mario wants to
offer you $3,000 if you drop the case. I said, "No."
Q. First of all, why would he offer you $3,000 if the total job presumably was less
than $2,000?
A. Why would he offer me $1,000 the first time? And the second time?
Q. I didn't offer you anything.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, you can ask questions of Mr. Arico based on his
testimony. How can he answer questions of you about what you're thinking? He
can't possibly answer that question.
Karin Sacacian: I would just like to know what proof he has that I offered $1,000 or
$2,000 or $3,000?
Chairman Lykos: He has already given testimony that he was told by the County's
Staff that you, or somebody who represented you, made that offer. He has answered
that question. Mr. Ossorio will come up to testify and you can ask questions of Mr.
Ossorio. Okay?
Karin Sacacian: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions right now.
Michael Ossorio, Director— Code Enforcement, testified on behalf of the County:
• He is the current Director of Code Enforcement
• Previously, he was the Supervisor of the Contractors' Licensing Office
• He referenced Section 22-202(b) as follows:
"Any person who believes that a Contractor holding a Certificate
of Competency has violated this Ordinance may submit a sworn
complaint to the Contractor Licensing Supervisor, or his/her
designee. The complaint shall be in substantially the form prescribed
by the Contractor Licensing Supervisor. The complaining party shall
state with particularity which section(s) of this Ordinance he or she
believes has been violated by the Contractor and the essential facts
in support thereof."
• A preliminary complaint was received on August 10, 2015.
• He requested to enter the preliminary complaint into evidence as County's
Exhibit "A."
Patrick White moved to approve accepting the document entitled Preliminary
Complaint Form dated August 10, 2015 as County's Exhibit "A."
13
• April 20,2016
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
Michael Ossorio, Director—Code Enforcement, continued his testifimony:
• An email was sent to the Qualifier, Karin Sacacian, on August 11, 2015. She
did not reply.
• A copy of the complaint was sent to Karin Sacacian's work address.
• He stated it was common for a wife to be the Qualifier of a business that was
run by her husband.
• He also contacted Mario Sacacian since he was a Managing Member of the
company.
• Met with Mario Sacacian on the jobsite who recognized that the company did
a bad job of installing the tiles. He was there with his employees.
• Mario Sacacian stated he would take care of the issue—stated it several times.
• He requested to enter the Collier County Certificate of Competency (License
#C-25598) dated September 21, 2015 into evidence as County's Exhibit "B."
Patrick White moved to approve accepting the document entitled Collier County
Certificate of Competency, dated September 21, 2015 as County's Exhibit "B."
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8— 0.
• He noted Karin Sacacian came to the office to renew the Certificate of
Competency for Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC on September 21, 2015.
• He advised Ms. Sacacian about the complaint and that he could not read her
husband's handwriting.
• He referenced Page 3 of the Code Case Details report: "October 12, 2015 —
Mike called Mario today and left two messages. At approximately 3:10 PM,
Mario called back stating he was at Tom Arico's home. When Mario was
asked when the floor would be done, Mario screamed into the phone that he
was finished, was filing for Bankruptcy, and was going to Las Vegas."
• Contacted James Morey, Esq., attorney for the Board, who researched the
claim of bankruptcy and found no evidence of Olde Naples Tile & Marble
filing for bankruptcy.
• He attempted to call Mario the next day but Mario had blocked his phone
number.
• Asked Karin Clements to being process to bring the issue before the Board at
a Hearing.
• Was able to contact Mario by using another phone and he agreed to come to
the Contractors' Licensing office. Mario agreed there was a lippage issue
with the tiles and he wanted to solve the problem. He stated he wanted to
"somewhat mitigate it."
• Mario was infolined that Tom Arico, who filed the Complaint, did not want
him back at his home. The charge was not correcting faulty work.
• Mario's "mitigation" plan was to ask a family member to go over to Mr.
Arico's and rip out the flooring. Mario would drop off the materials needed to
14
April 20, 2016
repair the flooring. Mario called Naples Home Design to order the materials
during the meeting.
• Supplying the materials fixed one issue. Installation of the new tiles was the
other issue.
• Rick Ehlers of 41 East Flooring stated he would re-tile the floors. When
asked what he would charge for labor only, if the materials were supplied, the
response was approximately $2,000.
• Mario was infoinied of the hearing date and was asked to notify his wife,
since she was the Qualifier for the company. Michael Ossorio noted his
phone number was still blocked by Mario.
• On the Monday before the hearing, he sent a text to Mario requesting that he
call the Licensing Office as soon as possible. When he called, Mario was
asked for an update concerning the mitigation plan—Mario stated he would
call back in two hours but did not.
• The case was heard by the Board on December 16, 2015.
• Met with Karin Sacacian on February 26, 2016. Jason Bridwell was the new
Administrative Supervisor for the Licensing Office.
• Karin Sacacian was provided background information: why the Complaint
was filed by Mr. Arico and that the proposed mitigation did not go happen.
Ms. Sacacian stated she had not been notified of the December hearing.
• She further stated she gave a check to Mario in the amount of$2,000.
Michael stated he understood the check was to be payable to Rick Ehlers to
cover his labor to re-tile the floor. The point of the mitigation was to fix the
problem for the homeowner and allow Mario to continue running his business
without the necessity of appearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board.
Jason Bridwell questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. Reference was made to Ms. Sacacian's letter (E-45), specifically to the second
paragraph which acknowledged contact between you and Mario in August, 2015.
But her account of what had happened was different from what actually
happened. Was that correct?
A. That is correct. I believe Mario did call Naples Home Design to order the
materials. But in order for a Claim of Lien to be valid, the materials must be
dropped off to the jobsite or the homeowner. But the Lien is separate from what
is being discussed at this Hearing. We are here to correct faulty work which
started on October 12th when the managing member of Naples Tile & Marble
decided to walk off the job, go to Las Vegas, and change his phone number.
Chairman Lykos questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. Based on your understanding when you were directing this investigation, in all of
your interactions with Mario and with Karin, were you ever told that Olde Naples
Tile & Marble was not the contractor on this job?
A. Never.
Q. Were you ever told that this was going to be an extra bill to the homeowner?
A. Never. It was always, "Yes, this is a bad job," and "Yes, I want to fix it." Mario
has been in my (folnier) office before. As I've said, we don't live in a vacuum.
There are complaints that come through and we try to mitigate. But the notion, as
15
• April 20,2016
stated in the letter, that I received a complaint from Mr. Arico about Olde Naples
Tile & Marble, and then called Mario to ask him to go out to fix it because the
work was done by "someone" who was not licensed is absurd. It's not living on
earth.
I have nothing further to state except that we directed this investigation. We
received a preliminary complaint and conducted an investigation. We emailed
Karin Sacacian. She came to the Licensing Office after the Hearing and
acknowledged that she gave Mario a check for a certain amount of money to
mitigate the issue. She was notified on December 21St of the Board's Final
Decision. It was hand-delivered to her home address and to Naples Home Design
because she is a part-owner of that company.
Chairman Lykos: Michael, I just want to clarify your testimony for the record.
Your understanding is Tom Arico hired Olde Naples Tile & Marble, as the original
contractor, to instill tile at his condominium.
A. That is correct.
Q. You received a complaint from Mr. Arico that the tile installation was faulty.
A. That's correct.
Q. And, based on the information that you received from Mr. Arico, you contacted
Olde Naples Tile & Marble to notify them of the faulty workmanship and
requested them to return and correct the faulty workmanship.
A. That is correct.
Q. And they accepted responsibility for the poor workmanship and agreed to make
the repairs?
A. That is correct.
Q. When it was all said and done, they made some attempts but failed to complete
the repairs to the standards that Collier County has established?
A. It's not our standards—it's Olde Naples Tile & Marble's standards as well. Mario
acknowledged it was a bad job. If you looked at the pictures, you could see all
the sticky notes. We came with a game plan— a plan of action— and met on the
jobsite. The faulty tiles, identified by the sticky notes, were going to be fixed.
That was the agreement.
(Patrick White left at 10:10 AM. Seven (7) voting members remained.)
Q. I will paraphrase. The County's Ordinance states Contractors are responsible to
build to "Industry Standards."
A. When you look at the definition, it is acceptable building standards. And, yes,
one of the issues we were having was the lippage was not considered "industry
standard" or per the manufacturer's specifications. The manufacturer says you
cannot have this huge lip and have these issues. That was established at the last
Hearing. When Karin Sacacian testifies, I am sure she will confiini as the
Qualifier for a licensed tile company that lippage is not to industry standards.
Q. I just want to clarify for the record we are not here to legislate over industry
standards and what might be unacceptable workmanship. We are here to legislate
over what would be considered a failure to meet minimum industry standards.
A. I will read into the record, Count I of the Revised Complaint: from the codified
version of Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, Section 22-201(10):
16
April 20, 2016
"Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace
faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction
contract."
"Failing to correct faulty work promptly" was the day that Mario Sacacian of
Olde Naples Tile and Marble decided to go to Las Vegas— when he said, "No."
We will bend over backwards for Collier County contractors and homeowners
just so we can facilitate this. I am sure Mr. Arico doesn't want to spend his
afternoons here before the Licensing Board. That's how it started. And right
after that particular date is when we instructed Karen Clements to send legal
notice and prepare an Administrative Complaint to file with the Clerk's Office.
Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended Section 22-201(10) states:
"Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty
materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract. Faulty
workmanship means work that is not commenced, not continued, or not
completed in accordance with all specifications of the applicable written
agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any material flaw(s) in the quality
and/or quantity of the unfinished or finished work product, including any item
that does not function properly as a part of the entire project. If there is no written
agreement provision regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty
workmanship exists if the work, process, product or part thereof does not meet
generally accepted standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project.
Faulty workmanship does not include matters of esthetics unless the esthetically
related item clearly violates a written contract specification directly related
thereto."
Chairman Lykos: We have testimony, either written or from the previous hearing,
that there were problems moving furniture on the floor because the lippage was so
bad; that Mr. Arico and guests suffered injuries due to the edges of the tile sticking
up. I would say that certainly qualifies as having material that was not installed to
industry standards or not meeting the intent of the material to be installed.
Michael Ossorio: That's correct.
Vice Chairman Joslin: It appears to me also that you've done pretty much, as the
Licensing Supervisor at that time, made every effort you could to bring the two
people into mitigation together—and it was agreed upon that it was going to happen—
but it never did.
Michael Ossorio: I didn't know that Karin Sacacian knew that it was agreed upon
when Mario Sacacian came to the Licensing Office for the meeting. But it did solidify
when we had the meeting with Jason, Ms. Sacacian, and myself after the 26th of
February. Ms. Sacacian confirmed that she had been in communication with Mario
about mitigating this issue. It put it more into perspective.
Kyle Lantz questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. Mr. Arico had said that you had offered him $1,000 and then $3,000 at different
times to get him to drop the case. I was under the impression that Karin had
offered that to you and you—can you just elaborate on that?
17
• April 20, 2016
A. I'll tell you what happens in the office before we even write an Administrative
Complaint. We are in the business of obtaining compliance. We are also in the
business of solving problems. At the very beginning when Mr. Arico came into
the office with the preliminary complaint, we let him know the expectations, i.e.,
how we will proceed and what we will do. If it comes to it, we might have to
mitigate and we ask for a number. Mr. Morey will tell you that if we win our case
we will file a judgment with the Clerk's Office but that doesn't do any good for
Mr. Arico who has been sitting here. Having a piece of paper is no good if the
company is insolvent. We want to make sure that we meet Mr. Arico's
expectations. We have a game plan. We want to make sure that we know where
we are going with any case. This was not the first time that Olde Naples Tile &
Marble was in my office to mitigate. Maybe Mr. Arico was confused because I
let him know that a"bird in the hand is better than two in the bush." Let's take
the money—let's solve the problem—I know people want their day in Court but
let's think about the future. Maybe that is why he was confused because I asked
him to come up with a number. I believe the number -- Rick Ehlers, who is here
today, I believe will specify that I did reach out to him to ask what would it take
for labor costs only. Also, when Mario did call back I said this is the number and
I believe but I can't swear to it— one of the questions was, "Do you want cash?"
or"Do you want a check?" Rick Ehlers will testify that he said he did not want
cash—he wanted a check made out in the company's name. I think it's a common
practice —I'm not sure because I am not a contractor—I'm sure each and every
one has taken a personal check before. That's not unusual. It's not unusual that
the Qualifier, the brains of the operation, is the wife who works 40 hours a week
on another job while the brawn, the person who does the work, is the husband
who does the heavy lifting. That's how I see it.
Kevin Noell, Assistant County Attorney, questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. Referenced E-45, Karin Sacacian's letter which was directed to Thomas Lykos.
Paragraph 2 of the letter states you contacted Olde Naples Tile & Marble to see if
they were interested in reviewing one of your customer's job that had been done
by an unlicensed installer. Do you see that?
A. Yes, it begins, "In August of 2015, Mike Ossorio, the licensing inspector," and
that's not true.
Q. My understanding is that you had a conversation with Karin Sacacian in
September, 2015 where you mentioned the work had been performed by Naples
Tile & Marble and by her husband, Mario. Is that right?
A. That is correct and the date was September 21St because she came in to renew her
license and we did communicate.
Q. I am looking—in the same paragraph, further down, she references October 12th —
so the letter was written after October 12th— she stated, "After completing all the
repairs, we made several attempts to collect the amount due ..." Based upon your
staff's investigation, were the repairs completed?
A. No.
Q. Okay. She alleges in the letter, which we essentially treated as a Request for a
Rehearing, that you and Mr. Arico were informed by Olde Naples that it would
not fix any more tiles until it received payment for the materials and the repairs.
Is that an accurate statement based on your phone conversation with Mario?
18
• April 20, 2016
A. No, it's not.
Q. What did Mario say when you asked him about the status for completing these
repairs? What was your last phone conversation with him?
A. My last conversation with Mario was "I'm not going to fix anymore, I'm done,
I'm going bankrupt, and I'm going to Las Vegas." That was the last.
Q. I believe this may have been done during the opening but I think it is more proper
in the "Case in Chief" I wanted to ensure that the County had submitted its case
packet into evidence and that there were no objections to that.
Chairman Lykos verified the information packet had been submitted into evidence
for the County. He stated Vice Chaimian Joslin made the motion and Patrick White
amended it to include the infomiation received by the Board during the Hearing, i.e.,
the Revised Administrative Complaint.
Chairman Lykos explained to Karin Sacacian that she would have an opportunity to
present evidence later during the hearing. She was asked if she wished to ask any
rebuttal questions of Mr. Ossorio based solely on his testimony.
Karin Sacacian questioned Michael Ossorio:
Q. The first thing is—he is stating that I wrote a check—a blank or a$2,000 check. I
actually have copies of the checks—they start at September all the way through to
the end of January. There's not one check that's either blank or made out to ...
whatever that other company is.
Elle Hunt: What is your question?
A. No, I didn't—I didn't say you ...
Q. So did you receive a check from me?
A. I said that, when we had the conversation sometime in February, you told me—
I'm under oath—you told me ... I don't know if it's true or not ... you told me,
yes, that you wrote a check or you gave a check to Mario to give to Mr. Arico or
something in that nature. I am under oath and I'm telling you just what you told
me.
Q. I am under oath as well.
A. At the meeting that you and I had with Jason, you never said that to me.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, what Mr. Ossorio said was that you testified to him
that you gave Mario a check. He didn't say that you gave him a check.
Karin Sacacian: Okay, but there's no check for either ...
Chairman Lykos: He's not saying that he saw a check.
Michael Ossorio: I'm just telling you—that's what you told me on the 26th of
February—that you actually talked to Mario about it and you gave a check to him to
give to me. My thought process is—I'm just telling you what you told me.
Q. Did you actually suspend my license in September and not at the Hearing so
basically when I came or was supposed to be here in December, my license was
already suspended? It was based on false documentation that the company
provided again. I have a copy of a Notice of Suspension which says the license
19
April 20,2016
was suspended on September 30th for my not going to the County to file my
renewal. So I was in there September 21st doing all the paperwork but then, at the
same time, you sent me a Notice of Suspension.
A. There's no doubt about it—Jason will tell you—I remember talking to you. There
might have been a glitch about your license—you were suspended/you were not
suspended when you came in on September 21st. But I thought you and I had
cleared the air. The Notice was sent in error. Right after you left on the 21St, it
shows after and current.
Elle Hunt: We are digressing. Ms. Sacacian, you are cross-examining him based
on the information that he gave you. We did not hear testimony from Mr. Ossorio
regarding your license being suspended. I am unsure what question you are re-
directing here.
Karin Sacacian: I am just trying to figure out— since there seems to have been a
glitch in the camera that Ms. Clements used and a glitch in the computer that the
government has ... again, how can Mr. Mike assure that what he is presenting is
actually accurate?
Elle Hunt: You can ask questions based on the information that he just gave us.
You are giving us new information which, as we discussed earlier, is going to be a
part of your case when you give us new evidence. But right now— at this time for
you—is to question the testimony that he gave us today. Anything outside that scope,
we'll discuss soon—but not now.
Karin Sacacian: Okay. I have no questions then.
Attorney Morey: Mr. Chairman,thinking about the timing of the admission of the
packet that was done during the opening. There was a motion with a second. I think
it's the County request and position that it should more appropriately be done during
their"Case in Chief' as part of their evidence. They would like to do it one
additional time.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: And obviously, any questions of the Respondent
as far as any issue with that need to be addressed along with the opportunity to be
heard on that.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering the information packet in Case
#2015-09, Board of County Commissioners vs. Karin R. Sacacian, d/b/a "Olde
Naples Tile & Marble, LLC,"Respondent, Collier County License Number 25598,
as well as the Revised Administrative Complaint, which was provided to the Board
on April 20, 2016, into evidence on behalf of the County. Terry Jerulle offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: We need to hear from the Respondent— if she
has any objection to the County's request to enter the case packet into evidence.
Chairman Lykos asked Ms. Sacacian to return to the microphone.
Karin Sacacian: Yes, that's fine. I have no objection.
Karen Clements questioned Rick Ehlers, a witness, who testified on behalf of the
County:
Q. Mr. Ehlers, could you please state your name and the license that you hold
20
April 20, 2016
A. My name is Rick Ehlers. I hold a Building Contractor's License —CBC
#1250125.
Q. And you did go out to Mr. Arico's residence ...
A. I did.
Q. ... and you saw the tile. Can you give us a little statement on what you saw?
A. Not much to explain—you have pictures of it. It was well outside of industry
standards—there was extreme lippage ... the grade on the floor was too much,
especially when you have the 6 x 36 tiles. There is a little bit of cupping involved
in the porcelain and then when you have a change in the grade in the floor— it
exacerbates the amount of lippage that you might have.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Witness:
Q. After you looked at this job, Mr. Ehlers, is it your thought that the entire floor
needed to be taken up?
A. Actually, the beginning of the floor—closest to the kitchen—there was probably
about maybe 15 linear feet where the tile appeared to be done fairly well. As it
progressed, it seemed to go downhill.
Q. Since this is a 6 x 36 tile, is it possible that there could have been defective tiles
that were causing this due to the manufacturing?
A. It could add to that, yes. I think—what you're allowed—the industry standard
due to the amount of cupping and the amount of lippage that you're allowed just
for the floor, it exceeds those both together if the tile was faulty. I don't think
that would have been an issue in this installation.
Q. It just seems unusual that part of the floor—from the pictures, I'm looking at E-22
—part of the floor appears from the picture that where the furniture sits— it
appears to be fairly flat. I don't see as much lippage ... maybe it's because of the
picture. But from that particular area forward, it appears that a lot of the tiles are
what you would consider "lippage." I'm just wondering if those are possibly a
manufactured defect where there were boxes of tiles that weren't actually level or
flat. And the lippage —if you have lippage on one end or on both ends, you will
have a belly in the center if it's installed correctly.
A. I think the problem with this floor—it is flat from the center of the unit to the
outside of it and then it started to fall off. I think as the installer followed that
drop in the floor—that's what caused the lippage.
Q. Each one moved a little bit?
A. And because you have 36-inches to cover on the tile, when you change the
elevation you are going to have a problem with lippage.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Witness:
Q. Mr. Ehlers, how long have you been in the flooring business?
A. As long as I can remember.
Q. Can you give me a number of years?
A. Ten years.
Q. Thank you. I just wanted to have on the record that you are an expert and your
testimony can be taken as an expert's testimony.
21
April 20,2016
Terry Jerulle questioned the Witness:
Q. I just want to clarify—as a tile installer, if you do come across a tile that's not
acceptable, what do you do?
A. These new wood tiles have these great new installation assistance — you have
these wedges that you can put in—so if your tile is cupped which they often are
... and that's kind of a normal thing ... you can install this —put your wedge in
there, bring the tiles together, and then push it into your thinset so that you do get
a flat installation. It's hard—it's difficult—it's a whole new business with this
kind of tile, but it's definitely something that you are able to do to install properly.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Witness:
Q. For clarification, if I could ask you to expand on your testimony, if there are
problems with the tile, there are industry-established ways to address that? Does
that also apply when there may be problems with the substrate?
A. No. If there's a problem with the subfloor, you need to go in and level off the
subfloor. When there's a problem with the subfloor, you need to get that right
first before you install your tile if it's greater than what you can repair with a
thinset installation.
Q. For example, if the concrete slab had slopes in it— are there remedies for that?
A. Absolutely.
Karen Clements questioned the Witness:
Q. Approximately how many tile installation have you done?
A. Hundreds—maybe.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Witness:
Q. When you install this plank tile, do you typically install that for the same price
that you would charge to install an 18 x 18 tile?
A. Not even close. The typical installation for an 18 x 18 is $2.50, and for a 6 x 36 it
would be at least $5.00
Chairman Lykos questioned the Witness:
Q. So with your company, it is substantially more money to install a 6 x 36?
A. Yes.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Witness:
Q. Is this a ceramic tile or a porcelain tile?
A. I'm not sure what they installed here—I think its porcelain.
Q. I am having a hard time accepting that you can take a wedge and put it underneath
a piece of 36-inch porcelain tile and not crack it.
A. No. This is great—it's all over. They have about five different kinds—they have
a turn-style with a screw and they have the wedge system—all that does is to
bring the tile ... your lippage is only going to be maximum of 118th ... so you
bring that together and put this ... there is a piece underneath that goes through the
tile and then you put the wedge and it brings all the tile together. Then you push
it into the thinset. It's really kind of a genius invention.
22
April 20, 2016
Terry Jerulle: In my experience, even if the tile was defective, it's the contractor's
responsibility not to set it.
Vice Chairman Joslin concurred. "Making sure we're on the same page as far as
the installation goes."
Chairman Lykos: I also heard from tile installers that I work with on a regular basis
that when you have this long, narrow tile, you can use different offset patterns to
alleviate some of the bowing in the tile. You can also do a mud-set installation.
There are several ways to remediate the problems if you have a bad tile. But to Mr.
Jerulle's point, if the tile is that bad—you don't install it. There are some industry
standards for dealing with this kind of tile.
Karin Sacacian questioned the Witness:
Q. Are you a General Contractor or a Tile Contractor?
A. I am a General Contractor.
Q. So, basically when you go to a job, you have to hire licensed tile installers —
correct?
A. I can install it myself just as well.
Q. But if you go to a different job that is not yours, you have to have someone who
has a license—correct?
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. So you're not actually the one who is doing the installation?
A. Sometimes. Not always.
Q. What I am trying to figure out—if you look at a job and since you're a Contractor
and you have to hire someone with a license, you aren't necessarily 100%
experienced?
A. I have installed my share of tile, yes.
Q. I have, too.
A. Personally. Yes, I qualify for that.
Q. But you don't have a license to install tile—correct?
A. I think with a CBC license, you are allowed to install tile.
Q. I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
Chairman Lykos: Yes.
Q. I'm sorry—what is the name of your company?
A. Ehlers Contracting Services or 4lEast Corp. I own two.
Q. That's all—that's all the questions.
Jason Bridwell questioned the Witness:
Q. What is the quote that you have provided to fix this?
A. I don't really remember it—it was a while ago —but it should be on record.
Q. It is - $6,725.25.
Chairman Lykos: In our packet it says $4,470 for labor to remove and install new
tile, and $2,255.25 plus tax for the material costs of the new tile.
A. Yes, and I believe we had spoken about the percentage of the floor that was about
to come up. Again, the beginning area being acceptable and from then on, being
ripped out and put in new.
23
•
• April 20,2016
Vice Chairman Joslin: You are quoting from the good section back?
A. Yes, sir.
The County concluded its "Case in Chief."
Karin Sacacian, the Respondent, presented her"Case in Chief"
Karin Sacacian: First of all, I have documentation stating that Olde Naples Tile &
Marble did not do the job. If you look at the packet that you had before you at the
December hearing, at Page 35 where I think Ms. Clements is asking Tom Arico if he
has a contract with the company. Mr. Arico said, "Yes. It does not state the name of
the company—only the phone." So there's not one piece of evidence that was
provided to you at the December hearing that states that Olde Naples Tile & Marble
did the initial job in Mr. Tom's house.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, we are actually having a new hearing so you are
free to present any evidence ... we're working off of a new packet. For example, the
contract that we have been talking about in the Hearing is Page E-18.
Karin Sacacian: Okay. I'm going to go back to Page E-6 where Ms. Clements
stated, "The tiles have been marked that need to be replaced." So there were marks
on it. Based on Mr. Tom's testimony, Olde Naples went in there and changed about
50 tiles for repairs. On the estimate that he [Rick Ehlers] gave for the six thousand
and something dollars, it said that tiles had to be removed in the living room, dining
room, and the bedroom. On Page E-8, although Ms. Karen said that the bedrooms
were not done properly,there were no problems in the bedroom and there were just a
couple of problems in the living area. Supposedly, there's conflicting documentation
stating the amount that needed to be replaced in the apartment [condo].
Chairman Lykos: If you would—you are referencing, on Page E-33, Mr. Ehler's
email which describes in general the scope of work. Correct?
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Chairman Lykos: And you have that page—Page E-33?
Karin Sacacian: I do.
Chairman Lykos: If I'm correct, it says "... upon inspection of the tile, the tile in
the living room and dining room needs to be completely removed and replaced as this
cannot be repaired. There are some tiles in the bedrooms that can be replaced."
Karin Sacacian: Correct. And then on Page E-5, Ms. Clements said, "Two
bedrooms were tiled with no problems. Another installer did the living room and
dining room, which is where the problem is." Based on her expertise, the bedrooms
were perfectly installed.
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Clements is not an expert in tile installation. She is a
Licensing Compliance Officer.
Karin Sacacian: So when she goes to a site, she needs to inspect to make sure that
the people who are there actually have a license, not to actually look at the floor and
say that it's a faulty job—correct?
24
• April 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos: She was charged by the Licensing Supervisor to investigate the
case. Her summary ("Code Case Details" report) is in her words the facts of the case
as she perceived them. If you're questioning the expertise of the evaluation of the
existing conditions, then we would refer to the expert, Mr. Ehlers, for example, which
is why he is here. If you've noticed in our discussion, we have not asked for Ms.
Clements expert opinion about the quality of the work. We have asked Mr. Ehlers
about that.
Karin Sacacian: But she is actually writing in her statement that the bedrooms were
done fine, so she ...
Elle Hunt: That was her initial assessment—initial investigative assessment.
Karin Sacacian: But with her having no experience in tile installation, she would
not know if it was a faulty job or not—correct?
Elle Hunt: Which is why there was an expert brought in to the case to evaluate and
then give us his expert opinion. So, his expert opinion is the one that the Board
considers to be relevant versus just an initial investigative finding of preliminary
information.
Chairman Lykos directed his comments to James Morey, the Board's attorney.
He stated: I think the Board does a great job of giving everyone who comes before
the Board the leeway to present their case and to make their arguments. But, because
this is a Re-Hearing, I want to make sure that we stick to the Code and to the Rules
with regard to a Re-Hearing and the facts that we are supposed to hear. We did vote
to re-hear the case in its entirety.
Attorney Morey: Correct.
Chairman Lykos: But I want to stick to the facts —I want to make sure that we stick
to what is pertinent. The scope of the work that needs to be corrected, to me, is not
relevant. But I am going to ask you for guidance because what we are here to decide
is whether or not there was faulty work done; who the Qualifier is; and whether or not
the Qualifier is responsible for that. The scope of that work is not relevant. In the
Complaint, it does not say one room or ten rooms —one hundred thousand dollars or
three hundred dollars—the Complaint was in regard to faulty work. I don't want to
limit the Respondent's ability to present her "Case in Chief," but I also don't want to
get side-tracked.
Attorney Morey: When we voted to hear this, we voted to hear it without any
restrictions in terms of the issues that she can raise. You very succinctly brought us
to the point here: what was the Complaint for? The Complaint was failing to correct
faulty work. That's the basis of the Complaint. It doesn't specifically say—we've
hear some testimony as to what the faulty work may have been or what it may have
looked like. I don't think we're limited to hear whatever evidence the Respondent
wants to put in. We didn't limit ourselves to any particular issues when we voted to
re-hear the case.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Furthermore, in our packet we have several pictures of what
the County has considered as faulty workmanship. If there's more or less, I don't
think it matters as to which room it is in at this point—it could be in any or all of
them. Karen Clements is not a professional—she is making an overall investigation
... and she wrote what she saw into her report.
Attorney Morey: And you will recall when we finish the Hearing and it is closed,
the Board will be given some instruction as to what to weigh and what not to weigh.
And then, I think, the facts will align themselves.
25
April 20, 2016
Karin Sacacian: What I have—and actually I had a folder with me back in February
when I met with Mr. Jason and Mr. Mike— and I was going to present to Mr. Mike
documentation saying that Olde Naples did not do the tile installation. He kept
saying, "No Marius is the Qualifier of the company." So just because he is, he
automatically is considered involved and demonstrates that Olde Naples did the tile
and marble. I actually opened the folder for him and he refused to look at it. He
closed it and he basically shoved it back—if you remember, Mr. Jason, you were
there. He was actually very upset and angry, and he was calling my husband several
names. But that doesn't really matter. But here's documentation showing that
actually as of January 2015, my husband was no longer the Managing Agent of the
company. She offered the document of proof that Marius had sold 20 units to her.
I did actually make a mistake, as I am not in business—when I did my 2015 Annual
Renewal, I did not remove him but I did correct this. On my 2015 Employer Annual
Federal Unemployment ("FUTA") Tax Return, it shows that I am the sole member of
the company.
Respondent's Exhibits:
• #1: "Certificate of Membership - Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC, dated
January 1, 2015")
• #2: "Record of Certificates Issued and Transferred"
• #3: "IRS Form 940 for 2015: Employer's Annual Federal Unemployment
(FUTA) Tax Return" (6 pages)
Elle Hunt asked if the document [Certificate of Membership] had been notarized;
Ms. Sacacian's response was, "No."
Elle Hunt asked if there was anything the Respondent could produce to validate that
it was an accurate representation of the document or the date.
Karin Sacacian replied the second document [Record of Certificates Issued and
Transferred] recorded the transfer of Marius' units to her.
Elle Hunt asked if the second document had been notarized or had any type of
validated dates other than Ms. Sacacian's hearsay.
Karin Sacacian: No, but I think Exhibit 3 which actually is from a paycheck
company—which is official ... it's a tax documentation—and shows me as the sole
member of the company.
She explained the FUTA showed her husband and her daughter as employees of the
company and herself as the sole member.
In response to Chaiiman Lykos' question, Karin Sacacian identified Exhibit #1 as a
Certificate of Membership in Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC. It was significant
because it showed she purchased 20 units of membership from Marius. She
explained when she started the company, Marius owned 40% and she owned 60%.
She purchased 20% from him a few years ago and the remaining 20% in January.
Kyle Lantz asked if Marius was an employee of the company.
26
April 20, 2016
Karin Sacacian responded Marius was employed by the company but he was not a
representative of the company.
Chairman Lykos: He is an employee of the company but you are the sole owner.
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Elle Hunt: You mentioned that in you 2015 filings, you neglected to make that
change.
Karin Sacacian: I didn't realize that I actually had to remove him. The person who
does my taxes told me that I had failed to remove him but I did correct it this year
when I filed in March.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Are you talking about your Annual Report with the State?
Karin Sacacian: Yes.
Respondent's Exhibit:
• #4: "Florida Department of State—Division of Corporations—Entity Search"
updated on March 15, 2016 (2 pages)
Chairman Lykos examined the Certificate of Membership; he observed the
handwritten notes on the corner which were the dates when the transaction occurred
and stated, "But this could have been done yesterday."
Elle Hunt: That was my initial question—there's no validation of the date or
authenticity of these first two documents.
Karin Sacacian: But that's why I brought the tax documentation from the company
that ...
Elle Hunt: We're just talking about Exhibit#1 and Exhibit#2.
Chairman Lykos: My question to Mr. Morey and Mr. Noell is: When there is some
kind of ownership change—and I don't know if that is even relevant to the case—
including stock ownership, there has to be a proper way to record it. It can't just be
hand-written.
Attorney Morey: When there is an assignment of interest in an LLC or an
assignment of stock in a corporation, there is ordinarily some transfer document. You
can do that by a separate document or you can endorse the back of the certificate and
sign it over. If it's a public company, it has to be Medallion-sealed, which is more
than just notarized, to have it be transferred through the proper agent. With private
companies, often times will do this on the back or by a separate certificate. I have not
seen it hand-written on the front of a certificate too often, but I suppose if it was
validated as to date and time, it would be effective between the parties. Ordinarily, it
is dated and validated in some shape or fashion.
Karin Sacacian: It does have the corporate seal— it's a copy so you can't feel it but
it does actually have the seal if you look at it.
Vice Chairman Lykos: I can see that—but it's not an original.
Elle Hunt: There's no third-party validation.
Chairman Lykos: There's no validation. That literally could have been done
yesterday—you could have put your corporate seal on it yesterday and copied it.
There is no validation of when that occurred.
Elle Hunt: I think you've agreed to that—there is no validation for Exhibit #1 or
Exhibit#2. You are hoping that Exhibit#3 or Exhibit#4 will help validate those.
27
April 20, 2016
Karin Sacacian: Right.
Chairman Lykos: However, it is your testimony.
Elle Hunt: Agreed.
Chairman Lykos: Your testimony which is taken on the record except that there's
no way to verify it.
Karin Sacacian: But what I'm trying to say is that I brought additional
documentation to make sure that they all tie together. So you know that it's an
accurate documentation that I am presenting to you.
Attorney Morey: Respondent's Exhibit#4, as Ms. Sacacian had mentioned, is a
more current print-out— it appears based on address changes that were done as of
March 2016.
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Attorney Morey: The print-out is from the Secretary of State's website.
Elle Hunt: I have Exhibit#3 here and I want to ask a question. You submitted
Exhibit #3 which is your 2015 FUTA Tax Return. You said that this document was
to validate that your husband, Marius, and your daughter, Doris, are not officers.
Karin Sacacian: Correct. They are just employees of the company. On all the
pages where you see my name, it actually says that I am the sole member of the
company.
Elle Hunt: Sole member?
Karin Sacacian: It's an LLC and I'm the Managing Agent. I'm not the owner.
When I opened the business, I was advised to do so as an"LLC." I was told I would
be called the "Managing Agent" and not an owner or President, which is the way the
other companies work.
Elle Hunt: On Exhibit#4, an address change was recorded on April 6, 2015. You
did a Registered Agent change on March 15, 2016.
Karin Sacacian: Correct. Like I said, I failed to correct it when I did my Annual
Report last year. And the tax documentation is to show—since it is a government
paperwork that goes to the IRS —I think it's pretty accurate.
Elle Hunt: Do you happen to have your actual Annual Report? Right now, this just
says that the address was changed on March 15, 2016 for the Registered Agent. It
doesn't show any officer changes.
Karin Sacacian: But it doesn't list my husband which means that he is not an agent.
I can show you the one that is wrong—that shows him as a member ....
Vice Chairman Joslin: What you are basically saying though, with your testimony
now and the paperwork you are providing—you are trying to convince us that your
husband was no longer a Managing Member of your company as of the dates of these
letters?
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Vice Chairman Joslin: And he was just an employee of the company?
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Elle Hunt: Do you have any expectation that a consumer would somehow know this
with your husband carrying around a business card with your license on it?
Karin Sacacian: I'm sorry?
Elle Hunt: Do you have an expectation that a consumer would believe your opinion
that your husband does not represent you when he is handing a business card with
28
April 20,2016
your license number on it? He had been a previous officer of the company—that
somehow a consumer would have the opinion that he does not represent your
company?
Karin Sacacian: I think any time you go to a jobsite, I don't think a consumer would
actually ask you, "Are you the owner," or"Are you the installer"—I don't think they
would ask you what your position with the company would be.
Elle Hunt: Correct. And we heard testimony that the consumer did ask and your
husband responded that he was the owner of the company. He handed a business card
—what is your expectation on how the consumer would have known that your
husband does not represent your company?
Karin Sacacian: Well, the first question would have been why are there two
different installers that did the job, and not the actual person that handed him the card
if that's the case. So based on this documentation here, it is stating that two different
installers did the tile job. So it wasn't Marius Sacacian that actually did the
installation.
Elle Hunt: We heard testimony that Mario and other did. So your expectation is that
there is somehow—that once they appeared onsite, there should have been questions?
Is that it? Is that the time period? So the consumer could have the opinion that your
husband represented the company on the day that he met him—the day that he handed
him a card—and the day that he handed him this work order.
Karin Sacacian: He could but at the same time, there was not a the
company did the job. As Mr. Arico said, the checks were written to Marius Sacacian
and not Olde Naples Tile & Marble.
Chairman Lykos: As I said before, I am giving you a lot of leeway to present your
case. I want to make sure the information is pertinent. At this point, I think we have
gone past"pertinent." You have already testified that Mario was no longer an officer
or an owner—that he was an employee. You don't dispute that—it's fine. This
infoiination, whether it's verified or not, it's your testimony. But the fact that he was
your employee means that your company was hired to do this work. So if your
testimony is that your company was not hired, then we need to see evidence that your
company was not hired. What we've heard is testimony that your husband provided a
business card to the homeowner with—have you seen E-17 which is a copy of the
business card?
Karin Sacacian: Yes.
Chairman Lykos: So it's a business card with your company's name on it, with
your husband's name on it, with your license number and with a phone number, and
with your husband's cell phone number.
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Chairman Lykos: And we know that your husband filled out the document on Page
E-18.
Karin Sacacian: Part of it—not the whole ...
Chairman Lykos: That's correct. We had testimony that Mr. Arico did fill out part
of that. So if you have evidence that contradicts that Mr. Arico hired Olde Naples
Tile & Marble, then please present evidence that he did not hire your company.
Karin Sacacian: I think the evidence is stating that two installers—and as you see, I
only have two employees in my company, my husband and my daughter—and
supposedly, there are two different gentlemen who did the installation in the house
29
April 20, 2016
who have nothing to do with Olde Naples Tile & Marble. Mr. Arico stated they had
no tee shirts or any kind of evidence to say that they are part of my company or that
they are employees hired by my company.
Chairman Lykos: In my opinion, Mr. Arico hired Olde Naples Tile & Marble. He
has a business card, he has a contract where he filled out part of it and your husband
filled out part of it. There were people wearing tee shirts that said Olde Naples Tile
& Marble and there were some people that came who didn't have tee shirts. But Mr.
Arico was never told that some different guys showed up and they were not part of
the company. He was never told that your husband was not an owner of the
company. I am looking for you to present evidence that just because Karen's report
says "other installers," you need to show evidence that backs up your claim that your
company was not hired to do this job.
Karin Sacacian: Well, on the contract—there's no signature—there's 18 x 18 tile, it
doesn't have the company, and the checks that Mr. Arico wrote were personal checks
—were not written to the company. And I think that's the evidence that my company
did not do the job.
Chairman Lykos: I understand. But, to your testimony, your husband is an
employee of the company. An employee of your company met with the homeowner,
presented his business card with your company name on it, we have testimony that he
filled out the majority of this document, and responded to the homeowner and to Mr.
Ossorio, attended meetings at the site, acknowledged responsibility for the work,
made attempts to correct the work—that's all the testimony that we heard today. So
you need to provide evidence that your company was not hired and saying that
Karen's report which mentions another installer, to me, is not evidence that your
company was not hired to do this work. You need to provide evidence that supports
your claim that your company was not hired to do this job.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Respondent:
Q. Does Mario still work for Olde Naples Tile & Marble?
A. Well, our license has been suspended which, actually, is another paper ...
Q. This is a yes or no ...
A. He's an employee, yes.
Q. What I have to ask as a small business owner is if one of my employees went to
meet a potential customer and what I'm hearing from you is somehow he
basically said is, "Don't hire Olde Naples Tile & Marble—hire me directly." Is
that what you are telling us? Right?
A. Correct.
Q. Write a check to me—hire me directly—keep Olde Naples out of that job?
A. Correct.
Q. If one of my employees did that— and I found out about it—that would be his last
damned day on the job. Period—end of discussion—no questions. Now he's
putting you through all these problems—you lost your damn license over it and
he's still an employee of the company! So, are you just that crappy of a business
owner that you are allowing this to happen or is that really not what happened?
A. Well, since he is my husband, I don't think I'm such a crappy of a business ...
Q. If my wife did it, we would ...
A. ...divorce my husband ....
30
• April 20,2016
Chairman Lykos: Ms. Sacacian, you are starting to hear some frustration on the
Board. You are the one who requested a re-hearing.
Karin Sacacian: Correct.
Chairman Lykos: I am asking you to provide evidence that your company was not
hired to do the job. To Mr. Lantz's point, if your employee provided a business card
to a homeowner and then asked that the checks be written to him personally then, to
me, that sounds like your employee might be misdirecting funds. But it does not
mean that your company was not hired. What it means is that your employee was
keeping the revenue. So, to this point, you have not shown me evidence that your
company was not hired. I am asking you, based on your claim that your company
was not hired, to please continue with any other evidence that you have supporting
your claim that your company, Olde Naples Tile & Marble, was not hired by Mr.
Arico.
Karin Sacacian: I don't think I have any further—I just want to show you the way
an estimate from my company actually looks like versus what my husband
presumably gave to Mr. Arico. Which would be evidence that what he gave was not
a representative of my company so when the contract was written, it had nothing to
do with Olde Naples Tile & Marble. And I have several ....
Terry Jerulle questioned the Respondent:
Q. You had copies of checks earlier?
A. I have from my company—is that what you are stating?
Q. I'm just asking. So the copies of checks are ...
A. Yes.
Q. ... from your company. On the checking account for your company, who are the
signatures?
A. On this one ... mine. On the company, I am the only one who is allowed to sign
checks.
Q. As of when?
A. Since 2004 when I opened the business.
Q. Your husband was never a signer ...
A. No.
Q. ... on the accounts? Do you have a joint checking account with your husband?
A. Checking—yes. Personal, not business.
Q. So the check that was written by Mr. Arico—that went into your joint account?
A. Correct.
Q. So you benefitted from the funds from Mr. Arico?
A. Yes.
Chairman Lykos: Mr. Arico testified earlier with the names of some of the
Employees that were onsite during the installation. Are they employees of Olde
Naples Tile & Marble?
A. No. As I have showed you on the tax form, the only employees of the company
are my husband, my daughter, and myself.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. Does Olde Naples Tile & Marble sub out any of its installations or is it all done in
house?
31
April 20,2016
A. Most of the time, it's in-house. Sometimes we do get a recommendation to do
like Lee County or something and then he contacts companies that actually do
have a license for Lee County. Or if a job is too big, he doesn't do a lot of large
jobs since he ....
Chairman Lykos:
Q. Who provides the installation labor on your projects?
A. Most of the time, it's my husband and, actually, contrary to some belief, I do, too.
Q. I understand. So, if your husband deposited money into your personal checking
account and the installers had to get paid somehow, how would they have gotten
paid?
A. A different company? They would have written a business check.
Q. Or with money from your personal account?
A. No.
Q. Well, how would they have gotten paid?
A. Who?
Q. The installers?
A. There are no installers of Olde Naples Tile & Marble. And I'm not sure, but I
don't know who those people are.
Q. I understand.
Vice Chairman Joslin: I think I'm going to cut to the chase here— I think we're
going around in circles because ...
Terry Jerulle: Let her finish her testimony. Let her finish presenting her case and
then we can discuss ...
Q. So one of your defenses is that your company was not hired to do the work?
A. Correct. What I'm trying to do is to separate what Mr. Arico had discussed or
whatever contract they had on a personal level versus my company. Because here
it's my company that's in front of the Board—it has nothing to do with my
husband or whatever he does on his free time or whatever he does on a personal
level.
Q. I understand but the problem is—he is an employee and he was distributing
business cards with your name on it.
A. If you go to a business, they can give you several business cards—it doesn't mean
that you are entering into a contract with them just because they show up at your
house. There was not a signed contract—what I'm trying to say is—I'm trying to
separate that this, based on all the evidence that shows maybe there was a contract
with Mario Sacacian that has nothing to do with a contract with Olde Naples Tile
& Marble. This is my point.
Michael Boyd asked the Respondent if she keeps a monthly sales ledger.
A. Like an estimate? I keep all the estimates—yes.
Q. Was Mr. Arico's job on your sales ledger?
A. No—just the repairs.
Q, Just the repairs?
A. Yes.
32
• April 20,2016
Q. Okay. And you testified earlier that the checks he [Mr. Arico] wrote went
through your personal checking account.
A. Right.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Not through the business account—that's what I'm trying to say ... all the
documentation ...
Q. You were aware that the job was going on. You didn't question your husband on
where the money was or what the money was ...
A. I did question him after because I wasn't aware until actually we got all this
documentation.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. So, moving forward, one of the issues that we have when we do a case like this ...
first, we determine if we feel you are guilty or not guilty. And then assuming that
we—I know in my mind as of this point, if we were to vote right now, I would
vote that you were guilty. But I don't speak for anybody else —I'm just trying to
move my mind forward. So after we determine if you are guilty or not guilty, we
work on the penalty/reimbursement phase. What I want to know, moving
forward, for me to determine what I feel a penalty or reimbursement should be is
—have you done any—do you have any plan or anyway to prevent something like
this from happening again of your husband representing your company— giving
somebody a business card? I don't care if he's your husband, your employee,
managing member—whatever it is—preventing a homeowner from feeling part of
your company, representing you—in the future so we are not in this situation
again. What steps have you done to ensure that this will never happen again?
A. I don't really have anything specific or a plan other than having regular
discussions and making sure that I do not get put back in this situation.
Q. In my mind as a contractor and as someone who hires tile installers, I don't feel
you deserve to have a license, moving forward, because I don't want this to
happen. If you had said to me, I fired him ...
A. The only step ...
Q. ... separated ties ...
A. ... the only step that I can do actually is to eliminate him completely from the
company and then he would have absolutely no say. That's the only thing.
Q. But you haven't done it?
A. No.
Chairman Lykos:
Q. One of your defenses is that Mr. Arico did not contract with your company.
A. Right.
Q. Do you have any other defense or why this is an inappropriate disciplinary action
taken against your license?
A. I'm contemplating to see if this is maybe more of a personal versus a business
conflict between myself and Mr. Ossorio, unfortunately. But I will leave it out of
this. And actually my last piece of documentation and I know it was mentioned
before, like Mr. Ossorio said that I went an filed my renewal for the license on
September 21' and then it's actually suspended as of September 30th. So when he
came to present my case in front of you asking for my license to be suspended,
33
April 20, 2016
because it was already suspended, and again it's false documentation saying that I
did not pay my fee and did not go in to renew my license—and I actually have a
copy of the license, the Certificate of Competency, and the receipt that I actually
paid. So, it seems that a lot of the paper that was presented to you was actually
inaccurate. There was a"glitch" with the camera—the wrong date, wrong time—
and there was a "glitch" in the computers so I'm not sure there is not another
"glitch" in the whole system that the County is using when they make certain
claims.
Q. This is why we have these Public Hearings so evidence can be presented and
testimony can be taken, and we've now gotten testimony from several people
from the County's side, we've gotten your testimony, we've seen evidence that
you presented which has been entered into evidence. We've had evidence
presented from the County. You referenced the camera that had an inappropriate
date on it which was brought up at the previous Hearing. That evidence has not
been presented today.
A. And I do have a copy if that needs to be presented.
Q. I understand. I asked you about what your defense was—that this was an
inappropriate action taken against your license. So far, your comments have been
focused on the fact that your company was not hired. You have commented about
meetings with Mr. Ossorio and what he may or may not have said. If you have—
I'm not sure what the date on the camera—how that is relevant to the Hearing
today. If you think that is relevant to the Hearing today, based on the testimony
we've had today, then you are free to make—present any evidence with regard to
that, but it needs to be relevant to the case.
A. I don't think I have any other infoiniation to provide.
Q. Okay. I want to make sure that you feel you've had the opportunity to present all
the evidence in your defense completely.
A. Okay.
Q. Is that the fact?
A. Yes.
Chairman Lykos: We are going to go into the summary phase and hopefully close
this Public Hearing soon .
Elle Hunt: Did the County have any questions, though?
Assistant County Attorney Noell: We do.
The County questioned the Respondent:
Q. Good morning, Ma'am. My name is Kevin Noell and I'm an Assistant County
Attorney. Mario —back when this tile work was perfoinied—what were Mario's
job responsibilities for Naples Tile & Marble?
A. To go out— give estimates. Usually what he does when he has an estimate, he
comes in and I type out the estimate or proposal. Once that is presented to the
customer, he agrees to that and then he proceeds with the installation.
Q. So Mario would be the liaison so to speak between you and the customers —is that
correct?
A. Yes.
34
April 20, 2016
Q. So those job responsibilities that Mario had back in 2015 during the subject time
frame of this tile install would have been, in part, doing estimates—correct?
A. Um-hmrn.
Q. Is that a"yes"?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Doing installations ...
A. Well, he usually does the estimates—like I said, he actually gives me the
information, I type up the proposal. Once it is finalized, he presents it to the
customer. If the customer agrees to it, he proceeds with the installation. Correct.
Q. Doing installations—correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Also contracting with the customer—correct?
A. That's the invoice that I print, yes.
Q. Right, and he is the liaison—he would take that to the customer and enter into an
agreement—correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to draw your attention to Exhibit E-15 and E-16 in the packet. It is the
Florida Department of State Division of Corporations. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. At the bottom of the document, it shows it was printed on November 13, 2015 —
correct?
A. Right.
Q. On that date, the Florida Department of State's Division of Corporations —what
does that show as Marius' title with your company?
A. It shows him as a managing agent but like I had mentioned before, I had the
documentation, and when I filed this I failed to actually remove him. And I have
stated that before.
Q. And you didn't remove him, in fact, until March of this year. Correct?
A. Correct. But legally on the documentation, based on the tax papers and the
Certificate from the company, he was no longer a managing agent as of January 1,
2015.
Q. In your opinion.
A. In the facts.
Q. Right.
A. Correct.
Q. Did you at any time speak to either Mr. Bridwell, Mr. Ossorio, or any of the folks
involved in this investigation and tell them that Mario was performing this work
on his own, apart from Naples Tile & Marble?
A. No. I said that my company with my husband as the employee was willing to do
—was actually doing a repair at Mr. Tom's house.
Q. You first learned that your husband, Mario, had perfolnted this work back in
September with Mr. Ossorio's conversation. Correct?
A. I never said that he actually perfotiued the installation.
Q. You heard Mr. Ossorio ...
A. I heard them, yes.
Q. Let me finish so we don't talk over each other—okay? You heard Mr. Ossorio's
testimony today, right?
A. Correct.
35
April 20,2016
Q. You heard him state on the record that he spoke to you back in September. 2015
that Mario perfoiuled this work. Correct?
A. That's what he stated, yes.
Q. Is that correct? Did you have a conversation with Mr. Ossorio back in September
2015?
A. Yes. I was in his office.
Q. And at no time after that—either in your letter that you sent to Mr. Lykos or in the
motion where you were present last month—did you ever bring before the Board
or anyone else the allegation that Mario was doing this work on the side? Is that
right?
A. As I stated in the letter, it says that, you know, it doesn't say that he did the job.
Q. Right. In fact, it said an unlicensed contractor performed the work—right?
A. Correct, because it was not my company.
Q. By "unlicensed contractor," you meant your husband, Mario?
A. No. I would like to ask Mr. Tom how many pieces of tile did my husband
actually lay in his house.
Q. I understand and you might get a chance to that in rebuttal but, right now, I'm
asking you the question. Who did you mean, then, in your letter to Mr. Lykos that
an unlicensed installer performed the work?
A. That's the gentleman that was installing the tile installation.
Q. And your husband had nothing to do with that?
A. As far as I know, no.
Q. Okay. But Mr. Ossorio told you that he did—correct?
A. That's what he believes, yes.
Q. Okay. I don't have any other questions.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. Your husband is Mario or Marius?
A. It's Marius.
Q. Why is he not here supporting your statement?
A. I didn't think that he needed to be here.
Q. Oh. All it would take would be for him to testify that he didn't do this work
under the company.
A. I wasn't aware that he can even come. He would have come, but I didn't know
that he needed to be here to present the case. I thought that since it is my license
that is being questioned—that since I am the representative, I needed to be here.
Assistant County Attorney Noell:
Q. Your husband met with Mr. Bridwell last week, correct, where he received the
packet?
A. Yes.
Q. And at that time, your husband and Mr. Bridwell had a conversation about the
position—that it was him doing the work on his own. Is that your understanding
from the conversation with your husband?
A. He just gave me the packet. I'm not sure what they discussed.
Q. Okay.
36
4 April 20. 2016
Terry Jerulle:
Q. And just one more follow-up question. The money that went into your account in
April of 2015, what you are saying is for work that was unlicensed work, correct?
A. That's what I am assuming. I'm not sure if it actually had to do with materials
since it says 18 x 18 —it doesn't specify installation or anything— it just says 18 x
18 tile. So I'm not sure if it was actually a product or if it's actually labor. It
could be one or the other. At the same time, even though it said that Mr. Tom
changed his mind, the original so-to-say contract mentioned 18 x 18 tiles, the tile
that actually is in Mr. Tom's house is 6 x 36.
Q. But at that time, you didn't know anything about that?
A. No.
Q. So at that time, he had money go into your account that you benefitted from?
A. Correct.
Chairman Lykos:
Q. What's your—we heard testimony earlier today from Mr. Arico that he purchased
tile at Naples Home Designs and we have a receipt in our packet (E-42).
A. Correct.
Q. And what's your affiliation with Naples Home Designs?
A. I am a part owner of Naples Home Designs.
Q. Mr. Arico bought his material from the company that you are a part owner of?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Thank you.
Assistant County Attorney Noell stated he had no further questions and the County
would rest.
Chairman Lykos asked Karen Clements to present a summary closing.
Karen Clements:
• Take into account that Mr. Arico has lived with this tile for a year now being
this way.
• And we're just hoping that the charges of faulty workmanship will be
charged.
Chairman Lykos asked Karin Sacacian if she had a Closing Statement to present.
Karin Sacacian: I am reiterating what I said before. I that that, you know, it was a
misunderstanding maybe on Mr. Arico as to who was actually contracted and who did
the installation and Olde Naples Tile & Marble had nothing to do with that job.
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. I have one last question— on the Claim of Lien that was filed for the $1,620.91,
what confirmation or what proposal or how did you come up with this $1,620.91
that you claimed for repairs? Do you have a repair order or a contract to repair?
Chairman Lykos:
Q. Do you have a signed contract from Mr. Arico for that?
37
April 20, 2016
A. No, it's an estimate. You asked me for signed ... the original that he's presenting
to you is not signed by either my husband or him.
Q. I am asking if you have a signed contract for $1,620.91 which you felt was
legitimate and filed a Lien on this gentleman's house?
A. If I can find the copy, yes. I do have it. It's not signed as I mentioned but it is a
contract.
Vice Chairman Lykos:
Q. A contract or a proposal?
A. An estimate, I'm sorry.
Q. Does an estimate qualify—there was no agreement, no meeting of the minds that
said that Mr. Arico was going to accept that contract or that proposal for you to do
the work.
A. Well, he did have my husband go in and replace—like he said—about 50 tiles that
I actually purchased to be replaced. Yes.
Chairman Lykos:
Q. In that situation, it was as a representative of Olde Naples Tile & Marble,but the
• main job wasn't.
A. He was sent by me to do it, yes.
Q. I understand. But from Mr. Arico's standpoint, how was he supposed to know the
difference between the two? You are the license holder, your husband is the
representative of your company and Mr. Arico was supposed to know the
difference? That's a"yes" or "no" question.
A. The people that did ...
Q. That was a "yes" or"no" question.
A. No. The installers that did the initial ...
Q. Thank you.
A. ... were not my husband as he can attest.
Q. Thank you.
Chairman Lykos: We have had Closing Statements from the County and from the
Respondent.
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing in
Case #2015-09. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Attorney Morey: As you enter into your deliberations in the First Phase, the Board
shall ascertain that:
• Fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent;
• The formal Rules of Evidence shall not apply;
• The Board will consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its
deliberation on the matter;
• The Board shall exclude from its deliberation irrelevant, immaterial, and
cumulative testimony;
38
April 20, 2016
• The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of the type commonly
relied upon by reasonably prudent persons, whether or not the evidence so
admitted would be admissible in a Court of law.
• Hearsay evidence may be used explain or supplement any other evidence but
hearsay, by itself, is not sufficient to support a Finding unless such hearsay
would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court.
• The standard of proof in actions where the Respondent may lose his/her
privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the
Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing
manner.
• The burden of proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the
preponderance of the evidence standard set in civil cases.
• The standard of evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in
the Complaint. The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones for
which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense.
• The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges.
• The decision made by the Board must be stated orally at the Hearing and is
effective upon being read unless the Board orders otherwise.
• The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors'
Licensing Board, the Court, the State of Florida's Construction Industry
Licensing Board ("CILB") if applicable, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the
Florida Administrative Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and, if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support
of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Chairman Lykos suggested taking a short break in the proceedings.
BREAK: 11:29 AM
RECONVENED: 11:40 AM
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (CONTINUED)
(Note: With reference to the following case heard under Section X, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Case #2015-09: Board of County Commissioners vs. Karin R. Sacacian,
d/b/a "Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC" (C 25598)
Chairman Lykos noted Attorney Morey read the directions to the Board. The first
step for the Board is to decide guilt or innocence. Then we can discuss any
disciplinary action. All of the parties are still present so if we have any questions, we
can ask them.
Elle Hunt noted the Respondent was not present.
39
April 20, 2016
Attorney Morey confirmed the Respondent had indicated she might not be present
for the remaining portion of the Hearing. She was attempting to reschedule a
previous appointment. She may, or may not, return.
Chairman Lykos stated Mr. Arico and Ms. Clements were present but Mr. Ehlers
was not.
Chairman Lykos: The first question before the Board is the question of guilt or
innocence with regard to the charge. There is just one Count.
Kyle Lantz: There is no question in my mind— she is guilty.
Gary McNally and Elle Hunt agreed, as well as Vice Chairman Joslin and Michael
Boyd.
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin moved to approve finding Karin R. Sacacian, d/b/a
Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC(C#25598) was guilty as charged in Court I of the
Administrative Complaint. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Attorney Morey advised the Board of possible Sanctions that it may impose, either
alone or in combination, if it found there was misconduct on the part of the
Respondent:
1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City)
Certificate of Competency,
4) Imposition of a period of probation, not to exceed two years in length,
during which time the Contractor's contracting activity shall be under the
supervision of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, and/or
participation duly accredited program of continuing education directly related to
the contracting activities. Any period of probation or continuing education may
be revoked for cause;
5) Restitution;
6) Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000,
7) Issuance of a public reprimand,
8) Require re-examination of applicable tests related to the contracting activities;
9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring the
issuance of such permits with specific conditions, and
10)Recovery of reasonable investigative and legal costs incurred by the County for
the prosecution of the violation.
He further advised when imposing any of the possible Sanctions on a Contractor, the
Contractors' Licensing Board may consider all the evidence presented during the
Public Hearing as well as:
1) The gravity of the violation;
2) The impact of the violation on Public Health/Safety or Welfare;
3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s);
4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and
40
April 20, 2016
5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the
Sanction(s) appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation(s) or the
violator.
Chairman Lykos asked if the County had a recommendation.
Jason Bridwell:
• The County recommends a $2,000 fine;
• Reimbursement to the County of$1,100 for investigative costs;
• Restitution to the homeowner to correct the faulty work in the amount of
$6,725.
• The Respondent is to pay the fine and reimburse the County within thirty days
or her license will be revoked.
Michael Boyd asked if the penalties imposed during the December 2015 Hearing
were still applicable.
Attorney Morey explained the Board granted the Respondent's Request for a Re-
Hearing and could impose whatever Sanction it deemed appropriate.
Terry Jerulle asked to review the initial penalties that were imposed.
[Excerpt from the minutes of the Board's December 16, 2015 meeting:
"Vice Chairman Lykos moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions on
the Respondent, Karin R. Sacacian:
• Immediate suspension the Respondent's license (#25598) until
restitution in the amount of$6,860.55 including sales tax is made to
the Homeowner plus reimbursement to the County in the amount of
$550 for investigative costs incurred. These amounts are to be paid
within thirty days.
• Assessment of a fine in the amount of$2,000 to be paid within thirty days.
• Immediate revocation of the Respondent's license if the payments are not
timely made.
• If the payments are not made as ordered and the Respondent's license
is revoked, an additional fine of$3,000 will be assessed"J
Jason Bridwell noted the investigative costs had increased and the restitution was a
fair amount. He stated the amount of the penalty was a suggestion.
Chairman Lykos asked if Ms. Sacacian's license would remain suspended until the
fine, restitution, and investigative costs were paid.
Jason Bridwell: Correct.
Chairman Lykos: And then it would come off suspension?
Jason Bridwell: She would have to apply for reinstatement. She would have to
complete an application and provide an updated business credit report.
Chairman Lykos: We could make it part of the Order—to require reinstatement.
Jason Bridwell: That is the County's procedure for a suspended license—when a
contractor comes off suspension, he/she must apply for reinstatement.
Terry Jerulle asked if the County incurs a cost to publish a public reprimand, and
Jason Bridwell responded, "Yes."
41
April 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos stated he was in favor of publishing a public reprimand. He further
stated if Mr. Sacacian was out selling either for his wife's company or for himself, the
public should be aware of the reprimand.
Elle Hunt asked how much it would cost the County to publish a reprimand.
While an exact amount was not readily available, Assistant County Attorney Noell
stated the Board could add reimbursement of that cost as part of its Order.
Chairman Lykos stated his concern was the cost of restitution because the quote was
"old." The cost of the tile could have increased by as much as 20% or it could have
been discontinued. He noted Mr. Ehlers had testified he felt the number was a true
representation of the cost.
Elle Hunt: We also assumed that would have been done within thirty days of the
December Hearing. It has been four months.
Attorney Morey reviewed the Sanctions imposed by the Board at the December
Hearing.
• The investigative costs were $550 at that time;
• Restitution up to $6,860.62 —the quote had been adjusted by the Board;
• License was suspended until payment was made;
• Imposition a fine of$2,000 but if not paid within 30 days, the amount was
increased to $3,000
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he was in favor of placing the company on probation
for a period of time, even if the fines and restitution were paid within the 30-day time
limit.
Kyle Lantz: I personally do not feel they deserve to be in business. As far as I am
concerned, she has made it very clear there is an issue with her husband selling jobs
under his name and under her name—it's a grey area—it's been a year and she hasn't
addressed it and she has no intention of addressing it. I am sorry that Mr. Arico got
screwed but, to me, it means other will be, too. I don't feel comfortable putting the
company on probation until there is a plan of action that shows this will not happen
again. The biggest thing for me is the action taken—but no action has been taken. It
is upsetting that after all this time, no action has been taken. She has shown that she
has no business management skills and she doesn't deserve to run a business. From
what I have gathered, she has a 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM "real"job. She does the
paperwork at night. Her husband does whatever he wants to do with the business and
she has no control over it. If something goes good, she collects the money. If
something goes bad, she says he was acting under another business. And she still
collects the money. I support Contractors more than I support the County, typically,
but 100%, I don't think this company deserves to be in business tomorrow.
Vice Chairman Joslin: I think there's an underlying reason for this—it could be a
marital situation. It sounds like something else is going on that we may not know
about. That's how it appears.
Kyle Lantz: Either way, it's still going on.
42
April 20,2016
Chairman Lykos: My biggest issue since the first time we heard this case—now a
Lien has been filed and it was okay for her to file a Lien without a signature on a
contract but that was also her defense for why it wasn't her company that did the job.
You cannot have that both ways. It is one thing to come here with that defense, but
it's another thing altogether to file a lien on someone's house. To me, that is so far
over the line. I agree with Kyle that these people need to be put out of business.
He continued: The one issue, Mr. Arico, that we deal with in these types of
situations is if we take away their license permanently, you are less likely to receive
restitution.
Tom Arico: These people did business with a friend of mine and they charged him
$250. Then Karin Sacacian put a lien on this property for $1,200. They told these
people to come and talk to me to offer me $1,000 to drop the charges. A week later,
they came back again and I refused. These people are sneaky. I had three other
offers— $3,000 —and now she's denying that her company did this business. She's a
liar.
Vice Chairman Joslin: I totally agree with both of you. But if the Board decides to
leave her with a license, she should be monitored on probation.
Elle Hunt: I would agree as well.
Vice Chairman Joslin: The problem will be if she pays the fines and restitution—
then she can come back for reinstatement.
Chairman Lykos: Mr. Arico also has the option of filing a civil case to obtain
reimbursement. Just because the Board orders it—doesn't mean it will happen. It is
not as if we would be leaving Mr. Arico without options. I am more concerned about
the rest of the community. If they paid this off within thirty days, we would be
setting up the next homeowner for the same thing.
Elle Hunt: Agreed, agreed.
Chairman Lykos: I don't like that we may be limiting Mr. Arico's options but I
think for the greater good, these people can't be allowed to operate a business
anymore.
Jason Bridwell: If the Board decides to suspend her license, any application for
reinstatement will come before the Licensing Board and not administratively.
Elle Hunt: That's good to know if her license is revoked.
Chairman Lykos: Can the Board revoke her license and still require restitution?
Once a license is revoked, there is no incentive.
Attorney Morey: The Board may do any of the things enumerated—may impose
Sanctions either individually or in concert.
Elle Hunt: So we can include other fines—up to $5,000.
Vice Chairman Joslin: How many times has she been in trouble? Were there other
cases?
Karen Clements: I brought another case before the Board in 2014 and they actually
settled out in the hall. The couple was from Canada. And Carlos who she claims
doesn't work with her husband was the employee at that time and he was here with
them, with them, before you.
Kyle Lantz stated he was ready to propose a motion.
43
April 20,2016
Kyle Lantz moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions on Karin R.
Sacacian, d/b/a Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC:
• Reimbursement to the County of$1,100 for investigative and administrative
costs incurred;
• Payment of$6,725 to the homeowner as restitution;
• Imposition of a fine in the sum of$2,000;
• Publication of a Public Reprimand in the form of a Press Release detailing
the Sanctions that were imposed;
• Revocation of the Qualifier's license;
• All fines and fees are to be paid within thirty days;
• Any payments made will first be applied to restitution to the homeowner
before reimbursement to the County.
Elle Hunt offered a Second in support of the motion and suggested amending the
motion to include payment of any costs incurred to publish the Public Reprimand.
Kyle Lantz approved the suggested amendment to his motion.
Discussion:
• Terry Jerulle suggested increasing the fine to $2,500.
• Kyle Lantz did not object but noted the "crime" was the same as heard in
December, and the amount of the administrative costs had been increased to
cover the County's time.
• Chairman Lykos asked Attorney Morey what was the maximum fine the
Board could charge. The reply was, "$5,000."
Comment by Chairman Lykos: The Board should not send a message that if a
Contractor challenges an Order of the Board, the level of punishment would
automatically be increased. Individuals would be dis-incentivized from employing
their right to so do. In other words, we don't want to send the message, "if you
challenge us, we will make you pay."
Elle Hunt noted, in December, the Board assessed a fine of$2,000 and cautioned the
Respondent that if it wasn't paid within thirty days, it would be increased to $3,000.
Four months have elapsed and the Board has come to the same conclusion. In theory,
it would not be seen as punitive to impose a fine of$3,000.
Attorney Morey confirmed the original Order assessed a fine of$2,000 to be paid
within thirty days or it would be increased to $3,000.
Chairman Lykos agreed that increasing the amount of the fine was appropriate in
this situation, especially when considering the lien situation.
Assistant County Attorney Noell reminded the Board the prior Order was not in
effect because everything was "stayed" once the Board granted Ms. Sacacian's
Request for a Re-Hearing. He noted at the December hearing, the Board was not able
to hear the Respondent's explanations. After hearing her comments, the Board may
decide to impose a more significant penalty.
Chairman Lykos concurred, stating the Board did not necessarily have to restrict
itself due to a prior Order and could impose a fine up to $5,000 if it chose.
44
April 20, 2016
Terry Jerulle explained his comment was not based upon punishing anyone. It was
based upon testimony that, as a Contractor in Collier County, her husband took a
check and deposited it into a joint account. Either she knowingly did that or found
out about it and didn't do anything.
Chairman Lykos added the Respondent's other company provided the tile —more
than once. Her husband was the one who ordered it— send Mr. Arico to the other
company to buy the tile.
Terry Jerulle agreed noting she had benefitted personally from this, which is why he
suggested increasing the amount of the fine.
Vice Chairman Joslin cautioned if Ms. Sacacian's license was revoked, he did not
think she would pay anything. If the license is suspended and she does pay the fines
and make restitution, she would be placed on probation where she could be
monitored. He questioned does that "open the door" for her to do it again— it also
guarantees that Mr. Arico will receive at least some of the money due him. If her
license is revoked, why would she pay—why would she bother?
Elle Hunt: Mr. Arico might have to go to Court anyway. She filed a Lien two days
after the Board's original Order was decided. It does not sound as if she has any
intent to comply with anything the Board might order.
Chairman Lykos noted if she wants to run her business, she will pay—whether it's
$8,000 or $10,000. Whether it's a suspension or revocation, she will have to go
through the process. He again stated he thought the amount of the fine should be
increased.
Gary McNally supported Mr. Lantz's motion. He noted Kyle suggested a$2,000
fine; Terry suggested $2,500 but he agreed $3,000 would be more appropriate.
Terry Jerulle suggested staying with $2,000 but increasing if payment is not made
within 30 days to $3,000.
Kyle Lantz explained the Respondent will be ordered to make restitution to Mr.
Arico, reimburse the County for its administrative/investigative costs, and pay a fine
of$2,000 —all within thirty days. Any payments she makes will be applied to the
money owed to Mr. Arico first.
Chairman Lykos noted if she does apply for a new license, she will be required to
appear before the Board. She is the Qualifier and holds the license.
Kyle Lantz asked Elle Hunt if she agreed to the final amendment of the motion:
The Respondent will be fined$2,000 to be paid within thirty days. If the fine,
reimbursement to the County, and restitution to Mr.Arico are not paid within
thirty days, the fine will be increased to $3,000.
Ms. Hunt agreed.
Chairman Lykos noted the motion had been amended by the motion maker and the
maker of the Second agreed. He called for a vote on the amended motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
45
April 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos outlined the Board's Order:
• This Cause came on for Public Hearing before the Contractors' Licensing
Board on April 20, 2016 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in
Case #2015-09—Board of County Commissioners vs. Karin R. Sacacian,
d/b/a Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC (C#25598).
• Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County
Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
• The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received
evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, and
thereupon issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows.
Findings of Fact:
• The Respondent,Karin R. Sacacian, d/b/a/ Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC,
is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number
25598 (Tile & Marble Installer).
• The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors'
Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter.
• The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent.
• Respondent, Karin R. Sacacian, was present at the Public Hearing held on
April 20, 2016 and was not represented by Counsel at said Hearing.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, had
been properly issued and were personally delivered.
• Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent acted in a manner that is in
violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the act.
• The following Allegations of Fact set forth in Administrative Complaint were
found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing:
o Count I: Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended,
Section 22-201(10) states:
"Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace
faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction
contract. Faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced, not
continued, or not completed in accordance with all specifications of
the applicable written agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any
material flaw(s) in the quality and/or quantity of the unfinished or
finished work product, including any item that does not function
properly as a part of the entire project. If there is no written agreement
provision regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty
workmanship exists if the work, process, product or part thereof does
not meet generally accepted standards in Collier County in relation to
the entire project. Faulty workmanship does not include matters of
esthetics unless the esthetically related item clearly violates a written
contract specification directly related thereto."
46
April 20,2016
Conclusions of Law:
o The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative
Complaint as to Count I was approved, adopted and incorporated herein,
to wit:
The Respondent violated Section 22-201(10) of Collier County
Ordinance 90-105, as amended, regarding failing to promptly correct
faulty workmanship or failing to promptly replace faulty materials.
Order of the Board:
• Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of seven (7) in
favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members
present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
• Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of seven (7) in favor, and none (0)
in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the
following disciplinary Sanctions are hereby imposed upon Karin R.
Sacacian, the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency#25598,
to wit:
o Revocation of the Qualifier's license.
o Reimbursement to the County of$1,100 for investigative and
administrative costs incurred, to be paid within 30 days;
o Payment of$6,725 to the homeowner as restitution;
o Imposition of a fine in the sum of$2,000 to be paid within thirty
days or the fine will be increased to $3,000;
o Publication of a Public Reprimand in the form of a Press Release
detailing the Sanctions that were imposed;
o Reimbursement to the County of any costs associated with the
publication of the Public Reprimand;
o Any payments made will first be applied to restitution to the
homeowner before reimbursement to the County.
o Any future application for reinstatement by Ms. Sacacian will be
brought before the Board for a Hearing rather than
administratively issued by the Licensing Supervisor.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing Case #2015-09. Gary McNally
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Chairman Lykos noted the case was closed.
Kyle Lantz commented that, when hiring a Contractor, checks should be written
to the business, not to the Contractor, as a safeguard to prevent problems.
47
April 20, 2016
XIII. NEW BUSINESS:
(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.)
B. Manuel Orosa—Review of Experience
(d/b/a"Orosa Custom Renovations, Inc.")
Chairman Lykos explained to Mr. Orosa that because the information he provided
did not automatically verify enough experience, he was referred to the Board to
explain his experience. The Board will determine if he has the appropriate experience
to issue a General Contractor's license to him.
Chairman Lykos noted there was only one letter of verification of experience in Mr.
Orosa's application packet.
Jason Bridwell confirmed the letter was from Terra Home Builders, Inc.
Chairman Lykos asked what license was held by Luis Gomez since he did not
provide his license number is in the letter.
Manuel Orosa stated Mr. Gomez was a General Contractor.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Applicant:
Q. You worked for Mr. Gomez—correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of work did Mr. Gomez do?
A. New construction, renovation— all of it.
Q. When he did new construction, what kind of buildings did he build?
A. Houses.
Q. And when he did renovations, what kind of renovations?
A. Everything—kitchens, cabinets, tile, additions.
Q. The renovations were on houses, as well?
A. Houses and commercial.
Q. What kind of commercial buildings?
A. One time, he did a chicken restaurant in Cape Coral and some restaurant here in
Naples. Not too much commercial—he do some.
Q. Are you aware of the requirements to earn a General Contractor's License? The
State of Florida and Collier County have minimum requirements for each level of
contractors' licenses that you can obtain. There are certain requirements for a
Builder, for a General Contractor. Do you know what the requirements are to
earn a General Contractor's License?
Katie Guererro introduced herself, stating she would serve as Mr. Orosa's translator.
She was sworn in and asked to testify that she would accurately translate the Board's
questions to Mr. Orosa and his responses to the Board. Ms. Guererro agreed.
Chairman Lykos asked Ms. Guererro to translate specifically because many of the
questions would be technical in nature and it was important that the Board's questions
were answered.
48
April 20, 2016
Q. One of the other letters submitted, Mr. Orosa, was with regard to stonework that
you did.
A. He owns Orosa Custom Renovations, Inc. and he does countertops.
Q. Okay.
A. That's his business right now and he's trying to expand into general contracting.
Q. So the business that you have now does countertops?
A. Countertops and cabinet installation.
Q. How long have you been doing that?
A. Three years.
Q. When you asked the young lady to translate for you, we were talking about the
requirements to become a General Contractor. One of the requirements is for
you to spend a certain number of years performing the work and supervising
the work to become a G.C. What we need to verify is that you have actually
had the experience doing that.
A. Supposed to be—is two years for a builder—for working for a builder. I work
more than that—I started with Gomez and supervised new construction.
Q. According to Mr. Gomez, you spent—you started as a foreman in 2009 and
worked for him until 2011. You spent two years as a foreman?
A. Before that, I was a supervisor for him. He would go to vacation or go to — was
not here in Naples, I run the company for him. I call everybody—I call for him.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. You are doing granite countertops now?
A. Yes.
Q. And you want to become a General Contractor?
A. Why? Because Naples—you do kitchen renovations in condominium—you can't
do the permit. The owner can do the peimit—go to GC license—G.C. license
costs me more -- for the peiuiit for the client. Is one reason I want my G.C.
license.
Q. But with a G.C. license, you can go out and build a house.
A. Yeah, I can build a house.
Q. Have you ever built a three-story house?
A. Yes.
Q. You have?
A. No—no, me. Gomez—he's built houses.
Q. The renovation company?
A. Yes.
Q. He's built houses?
A. Yes.
Q. Like I said, there was no designation in the letter what his license is—so I don't
know that. You are saying as you worked for him, you built homes?
A. He built some—yes.
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. Did you help Mr. Gomez build homes?
A. I help him. I worked for him—he paid to me to work when he built a house, or
renovation, or commercial.
49
April 20,2016
Q. For two years?
A. No, more —2005 to 2011. I supervisor for two years. Before that, I worked for
him. I do painting, cabinetry, demolition—everything.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. In those two years as a supervisor, what did you do?
A. I was running the job. I called everybody—I called to permit—to the
subcontractors ... electrical, plumbing, air conditioning—everybody, and take
care of the house to finish.
Q. I have several supervisors who work for me. They are very good supervisors but
probably do not have the experience to have a General Contractors license.
A. But I passed my test. There is a reason—I go to a school to Miami for one year.
Q. That's part of it. You are absolutely right. Taking the test and passing it is part of
the qualifications. But having the experience is also very important.
A. I know, I know. I'm ready—I have experience. The reason I come here — I pass
my test—I do everything. I working for the construction— I have my company
and I have five people working for me.
Q. And you may have it—but the burden that you have is trying to convey that to us.
I know there is a language barrier and I don't want to prevent you from doing it.
You have the burden of convincing us—by documentation or through telling us—
that you have the experience to build a house.
Mr. Jerulle directed his question to Staff:
Q. This is a Collier County General Contractor's license—correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What can he build in the County? Is it restricted?
A. He can build a high-rise.
Q. So it's not restricted?
Manuel Orosa: No restriction— it's only Collier County and Marco Island.
Elle Hunt: He could build a Hyatt with a G.C. license—add on, and build a Hyatt.
Elle Hunt:
Q. What kind of experience do you have with plumbing and electrical?
A. I no have experience in plumbing or electrical. I know I do know something but I
no have experience. I know what the people do, but I don't do plumbing or
electrical.
Q. A General Contractor may supervise and hire-out subcontractors so if you know
nothing ...
A. I know the plumbing—I know some Codes for plumbing—I know some Code for
electrical but I no work in electrical—I no work in plumbing. I contract the
plumbing company and the electrical company to do the job. That's what I do
when I do the supervise. I call the company to do that.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. When I got my license years ago, you had to prove that you were competent in
certain areas of structural work. What a G.C. license allows you to do is not only
50
April 20,2016
build a house, but to build a high-rise. You have to convey to use that you are
competent to do that. Have you done footings?
A. I supervised that work. Yeah, I do it.
Q. Footings? Can you tell me what you did besides schedule somebody to show up
and do it?
A. (Translator) He says he just supervised the work.
Q. Can you define what"supervising the work" means?
A. (Translator) He says he makes sure there was a plan and the Code. I don't know
much about construction ... just trying to explain what he is saying. He says he
worked by the plan and the Code. Blueprint—the blueprint.
Q. So you read the blueprint and you make sure whoever is doing the footing follows
the plan?
A. That's the architect and engineer. I follow the instructions to do everything with
construction.
Q. It's a guideline but—okay. How about a structural slab? Have you done any
work on a structural slab?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain what you have done?
A. (Translator) He made sure the partition was placed correctly. Pre-made, right? A
pre-made slab? Or concrete?
Q. No—like a structural slab.
A. The slab for a house?
Q. Or a building—correct.
A. What do you need to know—how to make that?
Terry Jerulle:
Q. Have you done post-tension slabs? Do you know what a post-tension slab is?
A. No.
Q. Do you know what an ipe-pour slab is?
A. I know more about a house.
Q. Yes—those are two slabs that go into homes and into commercial buildings that
we would be giving you a license for, and you do not have that experience.
A. I no have experience but I know the Code, the book. I would contract the right
company to do that.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. How would you ensure that what has been done is correct?
A. When it pass inspection—everything needs to pass inspection.
Q. What is the point of being a contractor and having a contractor's license if we
have building inspectors?
Chairman Lykos:
Q. One of the reasons why the County and the State want you to have experience is—
when you get a license like this, you will be exposed to things that you have not
been exposed to because you don't have the experience. For example, if you are
working on a post-tension cable slab and you drill into it, you will blow out the
side of a building and cause tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage in
a condo building. Or injure somebody— severely injure somebody. A simple
51
April 20,2016
thing like drilling a hole in a bathroom floor because you are removing a toilet—
okay— a simple bathroom renovation could do hundreds of thousands of dollars
of damage to a building or severely hurt somebody. You mentioned kitchen
renovations in condominium buildings. There are fire walls. You would be
allowed to do structural work inside a condominium building. There are air-
conditioning requirements that are different in a condo building. Fire sprinklers,
even running cable TV wire in a condo building is different than running it in a
home.
If you had come in here and said you spent four years doing or performing the
work on commercial buildings and condominiums, then it would be very easy for
the Board to say you deserved to have a license. But when you can't explain to us
that you know what a post-tension cable slab is—that gives us the infonuation we
need that you don't understand that kind of work.
A. Because I'm working everything to the blueprint of the house, you know?
Q. I understand.
Terry Jerulle: Because when you do renovations, there are not always blueprints.
A. Depends, you know. Because Gomez—every time he brings the blueprint to
Collier County. Whatever he do —remove partition, bathrooms, on the
commercial, on everything—he gets the blueprint. He follows ...
Terry Jerulle: You can get a blueprint to do the work. But what I'm saying is ...
Manuel Orosa: No—renovate.
Terry Jerulle: When you are doing a renovation, there's an existing building. There
are not always blueprints of the existing building. You may have new blueprints that
you are permitting but you need to look at the existing blueprints or be aware of—like
what we were saying—having a post-tension slab. You just can't drill into a post-
tension slab without causing severe damage and/or injury.
Manuel Orosa: Before you build, you have the blueprint with all the information.
Kyle Lantz: I've done jobs before in a simple residential house where the blueprint
called for us to remove a wall and the architect had written it was a non-structural
wall. Guess what? The architect didn't actually know that it wasn't a non-structural
wall—just went on the assumption that it was—and once we torn down the drywall,
we realized it was a structural wall—we knew we couldn't just pick it up and move it.
But if you don't have the experience to recognize a structural wall and you take it
down, you are in for a world of problems. I don't think we're telling you to not
continue your career. I think it's great that you took the test and passed it. That's
awesome. Half the people who come before the Board can't pass the test. But you
also need to have the experience portion of it. And I think that everyone here is
trying to tell you—you haven't shown to us ... maybe you have it, but you haven't
conveyed it. What you have conveyed to us is that you don't have the experience.
You need to get more structural experience—not granite work and small residential
remodels—you need to get commercial, structural type of work which is what we
need to be convinced that you understand how all the components of a house go
together.
52
April 20, 2016
Chairman White asked the Board's attorney to explain the Code's different levels of
license, i.e, general, building and residential contractor. I think there is probably a
license we can issue—I just want to make sure we issue, if we do issue one, that it has
the appropriate limitations.
Attorney Morey:
• General Contractor—a contractor whose services are unlimited as to the type
of work which he/she may do.
• Building Contractor—a contractor whose services are limited to construction
of commercial buildings and single-dwelling or multiple-dwelling residential
buildings, which commercial or residential buildings do not exceed three
stories in height, and accessory-use structures in connection therewith; OR a
contractor whose services are limited to remodeling, repair, or improvement
of any size building if the services do not affect the structural members of
the building.
• Residential Contractor - a contractor whose services are limited to
construction, remodeling, repair, or improvement of one-family, two-family,
or three-family residences not exceeding two stories in height and accessory
use structures in connection therewith.
Chairman Lykos: A Building Contractor can work in a condo as long as the work is
not structural. A residential is limited to two stories; three-stories if the first floor is
parking. It could be three stories if the first floor is not habitable.
Kyle Lantz stated Mr. Orosa needs structural experience to do any of them and he
did not think Mr. Orosa has any.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted there are houses on Marco Island that are built on stilts.
Chairman Lykos: You need to have the commercial experience to work in a condo.
A condo is considered a commercial building. You have different kinds of electrical
systems, air-conditioning systems are completely different ...
Terry Jerulle: There is of experience that I don't think you have and I am not
comfortable giving you a General Contractor's license today.
Manuel Orosa: But I know a lot of General Contractors who contract me to do
work. I don't know. Everybody in this situation follows the paper, the blueprint to
do -- I have the book, the Code. I don't understand why people have experience
because 2 years or 4 years to supervise in residential house— 1 or 2 years experience
in commercial—how many years to experience to do my license? I don't know why.
You go to a school, you pass the test, you have your book— in the book, you follow
everything—the Code. Everything is in the book.
(Translator) He is trying to say that whatever instruction he has to follow will be in
the books that he has.
Chairman Lykos: What we are trying to tell him is—there are three General
Contractors on the Board who have been doing this for a long time —it is not all in the
books. It is not all in the books. And it is not all in the plans. An experienced person
would know better than to say that.
53
April 20, 2016
(Translator) He is asking how many years of experience you have before you had
your license.
Terry Jerulle: I have had over 20 years. 20 years before I got my license. I worked
on high-rises, large commercial projects, residential projects—yes, 20 years of
experience. And I still learn a lot.
Manuel Orosa said he was told to go for a State license which is easier to get than a
Collier County license. "On the State license, anybody question nothing. Also have
the letter to have experience—that's it— give you the license."
Terry Jerulle: When I took my test, you needed to have a Structural Engineer
certify that you had four years of experience. When I took my General Contractor's
exam, I had to provide a letter from a Structural Engineer proving that I had four
years of structural experience.
Kyle Lantz: We are not telling you that you can't apply for a State license.
Jason Bridwell: The minimum requirement for a General Contractor is forty-eight
months of experience.
Mr. Orosa reiterated he had a letter verifying he had worked for four years in
construction and remodeling, and had been a supervisor for two years. He stated all
the work he has done since he came to the United States has been in construction.
Chairman Lykos: You know there are three licenses. What we are saying is we
don't think you have the experience to get a General Contractor's license but the
Board has a couple of options. One is to just say no to your request. You leave
without getting a license. The other thing we could do is give you a license, but we
could limit your license.
You also have some options. One is to say you want a General Contractor's license—
you want a"yes" or "no" answer or you're done. The other thing you could do is to
take your application back and you could return later with an application for a lesser
license. Or, today you can ask us for a lesser license and we can decide whether or
not we will give you a lesser license.
Manuel Orosa: No, I want my G.C. license. That's what I want—I want the high
one because I dream big.
Chairman Lykos: I think you are a hard worker and I think you want to do the right
thing. If we give you a lesser license today, it does not mean you can't get your G.C.
license later. It gives you a place to start. If you say you only want the G.C. license,
you probably will not get it today.
(Translator) If he gets a lesser license today, will that work towards his future
license, which is the G.C. Once he starts working— if he gets any license—is that
going to count as work ...
Kyle Lantz: Experience?
(Translator) Yes.
Chairman Lykos: He still has to get experience working on commercial buildings
and high-rises—he still needs to get that experience.
(Translator) Construction experience—right.
Chairman Lykos: Right.
Terry Jerulle: As a Contractor who builds homes in Collier County and the City of
Naples, a two-story house over parking, does have either post-tension or epi-core or
54
April 20,2016
structural slabs. I just don't feel that he has that experience. Not to say that he is
going to go out and do that work, but we would be giving him a license to do that
work. Just because you know how to drive a car doesn't mean you know how to race
in the Daytona 500.
Vice Chairman Joslin: With the complexity of the homes that are being built in
Naples today, I ...
Manuel Orosa: How many General Contractors do a high building in Naples?
Terry Jerulle: We are not the ones to answer that question because if you had the
experience and had proven your experience to Jason, you would not be here. You are
here because it was doubtful that you had the experience and we gave you the
opportunity to prove to us that you have the experience. The other contractors who
have licenses must have proved their experience. Or have a State license.
Manuel Orosa: The General Contractor [who wrote the letter] —he don't do nothing
big on Naples --just houses and some commercial and renovations.
Kyle Lantz: I have a General Contractor's license. Currently, I don't build new
construction commercial buildings. I don't even build new construction houses. I do
strictly remodels. However, when I go into a 15-story high-rise, I can look around
and I know damned well what is structural and what is not structural—what my
limitations are. I learned that because at a time, years ago, I built them and did some
design work on them. I have the experience that pays off now. Somebody who
works for me —a guy who has worked for me for five years—works for a G.C. —runs
jobs for me but doesn't have the experience to become a General Contractor even
though he has worked for a G.C. because he hasn't done the structural work. That's
kind of the position you are in. You have a lot of experience doing construction work
but not necessarily doing the structural portion of it.
Manuel Orosa: That's why I do my license because I want to make a house—I want
to do custom renovations, new houses, remodeling, everything.
Terry Jerulle moved to deny Manuel Orosa's application for a General
Contractor's license. Vice Chairman Joslin offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Chairman Lykos: Mr. Orosa, I strongly recommend that you sit with Jason and talk
about the restrictions for each license and that you start at a lower level and work
your way up. You are a young man and have a lot of time ahead of you. You can
achieve all the things that you want but you have to start at an appropriate level.
C. Luis Ambriz—Review of Credit
(d/b/a"LA Tree Trimming &Removal, Inc.")
Chairman Lykos advised Mr. Ambriz the State had established a minimum credit
rating which he has not met; his score is lower. He was asked to explain his credit
rating and what he can do to improve it.
Luis Ambriz:
• Has set up payments plans for his Comcast bill and his credit cards through
Wells Fargo Bank;
55
April 20, 2016
• Is beginning to make payments;
• He bought a car two years ago and the loan will be paid shortly.
Chairman Lykos suggested going through the credit report item by item with Mr.
Ambriz explaining each item and how he will pay it.
• There were several medical bills that occurred when Mr. Ambriz was sixteen
and in high school. He thought they had been paid by the high school since
they were sports injuries and he was a member of a team. He was advised to
contact the school since he was 16 years old at the time and it was a school
sanctioned sports activity.
• Comcast - balance due is $248
o Mr. Ambriz contacted the cable company approximately two months
ago and was told if he paid $200, it would be removed from his credit
report. He stated he will pay the $200 within thirty days.
o He was advised to obtain a written agreement from Comcast before
making the payment and to obtain a receipt.
• Medical bill—balance due $1,736
o Bill for surgery
• Credit Card bills - $1,111
o Has set up a payment plan through Wells Fargo Bank
Luis Ambriz stated as soon as he receives his license (tree trimming and removal) he
will be financially able to pay his creditors. He stated he didn't realize how important
his credit rating was in the application process. He is currently unemployed.
Chairman Lykos explained it was important for Mr. Ambriz to have presented a
written payment plan. Since his credit score was below the State's threshold, the
Board would take his payment plan into consideration while deciding whether or not
to grant his application for a license. He noted in addition to not presenting a written
plan, the Applicant was not regularly employed. If he had been employed on a
regular basis, he could have made minimum payments to his creditors as evidence of
his intention to pay the debts in full.
Luis Ambriz stated he had customers who were waiting for him to obtain his tree
trimming license.
Elle Hunt asked Luiz Ambriz if he could estimate a date when he would begin
making payments to Wells Fargo and on medical bill. She expressed her concerns
regarding his commitment to rectify the debts.
Kyle Lantz stated he was impressed that the Applicant had prepared his business
plan by himself using his own thoughts. He noted the amount of indebtedness was
under $4,000 and was relatively manageable.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked the Applicant if he currently had funds in a bank
account to pay his bills. He asked if the reason why Mr. Ambriz had not made any
payments was because he was reluctant to drain his account since he did not have a
regular income. The response to both questions was, "Yes."
56
April 20, 2016
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve granting a probationary license to Luis
Ambriz, conditioned upon his returning to the Contractors'Licensing Office within
thirty days to provide proof of payment of the Comcast and Wells Fargo bills.
If payments are made within the time limit, Mr.Ambriz will receive a full license
and will not be required to appear before the Board. Kyle Lantz offered a Second
in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
BREAK: 1:10 PM
RECONVENED: 1:25 PM
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. Matthew R. Rambo —Review of Credit (Six months)
(d/b/a"Neapolitan Tree Service, Inc.")
Matthew Rambo:
• Everything has been settled—there are no open collection accounts, and his
debts have been paid in full
• Progressive Insurance claim was paid during April, 2015; however it still
shows on the Merit credit report
• He contacted the credit reporting agency; he obtained proof of payment from
Credit Collection Services and was infotilled the item should be removed
from his credit report in approximately 4 to 6 weeks
Chairman Lykos stated Mr. Rambo had fulfilled the Board's previous Order.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve terminating the probationary period and granting a
full license to Matthew R. Rambo. Vice Chairman Joslin offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
B. Teodor Danilov—Review of Credit
(d/b/a"Custom Floor Design, Inc.")
Teodor Danilov:
• Previous credit scores have been 509 and 535
• Current credit score is 564
• He is working but still needs a little more time
• He purchased a car on credit ($35,000) —monthly payments are $647. He
purchased the car to help increase his credit score
• Lexington Law has been working with him to remove items non-applicable
items from his credit report
• He holds a Floor and Marble Tile license
57
April 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos agreed Mr. Danilov's credit score has shown improvement each
time he has appeared before the Board with an increase of approximately 60 points
since the September hearing. He noted Mr. Danilov's probation was extended and he
was requested to provide a revised credit report as well as an update from Lexington
Law concerning the status of the items remaining on his credit report. He further
stated Lexington's letter in the packet was not dated, but had been date-stamped by
the County as received on April 4, 2016.
Chairman Lykos asked Jason Bridwell for a status report on Mr. Danilov's license
issue.
Jason Bridwell:
• There was a miscommunication and Mr. Danilov missed his six-month review
• His license was suspended but it was reinstated; his status is currently
"active/probation"
Teodor Danilov stated he received five "alerts" form Lexington Law during the past
week. He stated he has at least one more year before his credit will be clear. He
explained the Best Buy charge: He purchased a laptop in 2007 at Best Buy. He
opened a charge account with the store and made monthly payments. After seven
months, he told his wife to pay the balance. He later received a statement from Best
Buy claiming he owed them $1,600. When he contacted Best Buy, he was told he did
not sign a contract with them and had to pay the $1,600 within three months. When
he tried to pay Capitol One, he was referred to Best Buy. Best Buy said he was not in
the system and could not find a bill. Lexington Law advised him to stop all contact
with Best Buy.
Elle Hunt stated she did not see the items on the current credit report that Lexington
Law had referred to—neither Capitol One or Best Buy was noted on the credit report.
Chairman Lykos noted there were only two items on his credit report, i.e., the car
loan for his new car, and an account that has been closed.
Michael Boyd thought the original problem was not that Mr. Danilov owed a great
deal of money, but that he had no credit history.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve terminating the probationary period and grant a full
license to Teodor Danilov. Michael Boyd offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Note: With reference to the following cases heard under Section X, the individuals
who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Case#2016-01: Board of County Commissioners vs. Steven William Cole, d/b/a
"Below Cost Flooring, Inc." (License #36257 and #36258)
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Cole was not present and asked Staff if the Board should
proceed. His concern was the issue of notice to the Respondent.
58
April 20, 2016
Jason Bridwell and Ian Jackson confirmed that notice had been given; proof of
delivery was in the file.
Chairman Lykos outlined the procedures to be followed:
• The Public Hearing will be opened;
• Witnesses will be sworn in;
• Evidence from the parties will be accepted;
• The County will present its "Opening Statement;"
• The Respondent will present his/her"Opening Statement;"
• The County will next present its "Case in Chief;"
• The Respondent will present his/her Defense and the County may offer any
rebuttal;
• At that point, the Board will conclude the "Public Hearing" process;
• The Board will close the "Public Hearing" and receive instructions from its
Attorney which is similar to the "charge" given to a Jury setting out the
parameters on which the Board members will base their decision;
• During deliberations, the Board members may request additional information
or verifications from the parties;
o The Board will then decide two different issues: first, whether the
Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Complaint and a
vote will be taken. If found guilty, the Board will decide if Sanctions
are to be imposed.
o The Board's attorney will again advise the Board concerning what
Sanctions may be imposed and the factors to be weighed when
considering evidence.
o The Board will discuss the Sanctions and vote.
o The Chairman will orally report the decision of the Board which will
subsequently be rendered in writing to become the official Order of the
Board.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to open the Public Hearing in Case #2016-01: Board
of County Commissioners vs. Steven William Cole, d/b/a "Below Cost Flooring,
Inc." (License #36257 and#36258). Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of
the motion. Motion carried, 7— 0.
Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, referenced Page E-53 of the information
packet which was a Notice of Hearing, dated March 23, 2016, that had been signed by
Steven William Cole indicating it had been hand-delivered.
Ian Jackson requested to enter the County's information packet in Case #2016-01 into
evidence.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve accepting the information packet in
Case #2016-01: Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. Steven William Cole,
d/b/a "Below Cost Flooring, Inc."(C#36257 and#36258) into evidence as County's
Exhibit "A." Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
59
April 20, 2016
Ian Jackson noted for the record that he spoke with Mr. Cole on Tuesday, April 12th,
by telephone to remind him of today's hearing.
Mr. Jackson stated there were a number of documents in the packet. He suggested
going through each Count individually and he would point out the relevant documents
by page number.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Opening Statement:"
• The County is prepared to show through sworn testimony and documented
facts that the Respondent, Steven W. Cole, violated Collier County Ordinance
#90-105, as amended,
o Section 22-201(2)— Contracting with homeowner, Barbara Lewis, for
trades outside the scope of his tile, marble, and floor covering
Certificate of Competency;
o Section 22-201(6) —Failing to secure and maintain Workers'
Compensation for his employees and/or subcontractors as required by
Florida Statutes 440.10(1)(b) and (c), and
o Section 22-201(8)(a)(3)—The Contractor's job has been completed
and the homeowner had to pay more for the contracted job than the
original contracted price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders.
Elle Hunt asked if the County had been notified by the Respondent that he was
unable to attend the Hearing.
Ian Jackson stated he spoke with Mr. Cole by telephone on Tuesday, April 12th, to
remind him of the hearing. He said Mr. Cole did not indicate whether he would or
would not attend.
Exhibits:
• Count I - "Operating outside of his scope of competency as listed on his
competency card and defined in this Ordinance or restricted by the
Contractors' Licensing Board."
o E-19: Licensee Information for C 26258 from County's database
o E-22 through E-27: Contract documents with Barbara Lewis —it was
noted that E-24 and E-25 (Invoice from Below Cost Flooring, Inc.)
were the most legible and clear to read
■ Line items on the Invoice referenced baseboard installation,
removal of textured ceilings, walls, and painting—all of which
are outside the scope of a tile, marble or flooring certificate
■ E-23 references painting and millwork which is under a cabinet
installation license
Chairman Lykos: There would be one license, in theory, for the trim work, the
baseboard, and another license for the painting.
Ian Jackson: Correct. And a third license for the plastering and re-texturing of the
walls which would be a plaster and stucco license.
Chairman Lykos: You received these copies from the homeowner?
Ian Jackson: Yes.
60
April 20, 2016
Elle Hunt: Were any permits pulled for any if this?
Ian Jackson: Peunits were not required for the work that took place.
• Count I(continued):
o E-42 and E-43: Definition of a Cabinet Installation Contractor (begins
at last line of E-42)
o E-44: Definitions of Painting Contractor and Plastering/Stucco
Contractor
■ Both are separate license categories from the Respondent's
license as a Tile, Marble and Floor Covering Contractor
o E-45 and E-46: Definition of Misconduct (Section 22-201(2)
"Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his competency as
listed on his competency card and as defined in this Article, or as
restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board."
• Count II: "Disregards or violates in the performance of his contracting
business in Collier County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance or
Workers' Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinance of this
County."
o E-6: At the 08/31/15 meeting, Mr. Cole identified "Emire" as the tile
subcontractor, "Lubo" as the painting subcontractor, as Lubo's friend
as the plaster subcontractor
o E-39: Email from Below Cost Flooring providing telephone numbers
for the subcontractors, i.e., "Emire," "Lubo," and "Chico," who were
working at the jobsite
o #E-47: Florida Statutes 440.10 (1):
■ (a) —"Any contractor or subcontractor who engages in any
public or private construction in the State shall secure and
maintain compensation for his/her employees under this
Chapter ...."
••
(b) "A contractor shall require a subcontractor to provide
(c)— q
evidence of Workers' Compensation insurance." It was noted
the County's position was that Mr. Cole did not secure proof of
insurance prior to the subcontractors beginning work
• Count III: "The Contractor's job has been completed and it is shown that the
customer had has to pay more for the contracted job that the original contract
price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost
was the result of circumstances beyond the control of the Contractor, was the
result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by
the terms of the contract between the Contractor and the customer."
o E-6: At the 08/31/15 meeting, Mr. Cole stated he had pulled off the
job due to non-payment and would not continue until further payment
was made. He claimed he didn't trust the homeowner.
61
April 20,2016
o E-28 through E-31: Payment history showing the Respondent had
been paid $13,235 or approximately 67% of the total contract price of
$19,651.23 (E-25)
o E-32 through E-35: Proposal of Secondary contractor, Dorian
Construction, hired by Ms. Lewis to finish the project with the initial
cost of$10, 250. There was a change order; the final cost was
$10,500.
o E-48: Email from Kenneth Dorian, Dorian Construction, stating the
project has been approximately 50% completed when he was hired and
verifying the final cost of$10,500.
■ Email indicates contract prices were reasonable. Original
contract was for $19,651 with the secondary contract amount
of$10,500.
■ By subtracting the balance due on the original contract ($6,416)
(E-25) from the initial price of the secondary contract ($10,250)
and adjusting for subsequent change orders per the Code, it was
determined that Ms. Lewis paid $3,408.77 above the amount of
the original contact with the Respondent
• It was noted the amount of$3,408.77 was still outstanding
o E-9: At the 02/11/16 meeting, Mr. Cole agreed to pay $3,408.77 by the
end of February.
o E-10: On March 15, 2016, Mr. Cole called to ask if Tyler Morgan (his
associate) could deliver the check for $3,408.77 to the County. The
check was hand-delivered to Ms. Lewis on March 16, 2016. Since
reimbursement had been made, the case was not heard by the Board.
• The check was not negotiable due to non-sufficient funds (E-51).
• A Hearing was scheduled for April 20, 2016 to address the
violations.
• The Notice of Hearing was hand-delivered to Mr. Cole (E-53)
on March 23, 2016.
Presentation of the County's "Opening Statement"/"Case in Chief' was concluded.
Michael Boyd asked if Dorian Construction, the secondary Contractor, had been paid
in full.
Ian Jackson replied he was not aware of any issues between the homeowner and
Kenneth Dorian.
Ian Jackson presented the County's "Closing Statement:"
• The County has shown through the sworn testimony and documented facts
that the Respondent violated the charges set forth in Counts I, II, and III of the
Administrative Complaint dated March 4, 2016.
Gary McNally moved to approve closing the Public Hearing in Case #2016-01. Elle
Hunt offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
62
April 20, 2016
Attorney Morey: As the Board enters into its deliberations, the Board shall ascertain
that:
• Fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent;
• The foimal Rules of Evidence shall not apply;
• The Board will consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its
deliberation on the matter;
• The Board shall exclude from its deliberation all irrelevant, immaterial, and
cumulative testimony;
• The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly
relied upon by reasonably prudent persons, whether or not the evidence so
admitted would be admissible in a Court of law.
• Hearsay evidence may be used explain or supplement any other evidence but
hearsay, by itself, is not sufficient to support a Finding unless such hearsay
would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court.
• The standard of proof in actions where the Respondent may lose his/her
privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the
Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing
manner.
• The burden of proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the
preponderance of the evidence standard set in civil cases.
• The standard of evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in
the Complaint. The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones for
which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense.
• The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges.
• The decision made by the Board must be stated orally at the Hearing and is
effective upon being read unless the Board orders otherwise.
• The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors'
Licensing Board, the Court, the State of Florida's Construction Industry
Licensing Board ("CILB"), if applicable, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the
Florida Administrative Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and, if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support
of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Chairman Lykos referenced Count I of the Administrative Complaint and stated the
packet contained the Qualifying statement for the Certificate of Competency, a copy
of the contract, and testimony that the work done was outside the scope of the
Respondent's license.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve finding the Respondent, Steven W. Cole,
guilty of the charges contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Terry
Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Chairman Lykos referenced Count II of the Administrative Complaint. He noted
the Board heard testimony concerning people working onsite doing other trades who
were identified as "workers" and not as separate businesses. No one was present to
63
April 20, 2016
testify on Mr. Cole's behalf that they were separate subcontractors, nor was
information provided by Mr. Cole to verify that they were licensed and insured, or
documented as separate businesses.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve finding the Respondent, Steven W. Cole,
guilty of the charges contained in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Gary
McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Chairman Lykos referenced Count III of the Administrative Complaint. He noted
the packet contained evidence the job cost approximately $3,400 more than initially
agreed, an acknowledgement from the Respondent and a copy of the check returned
for non-sufficient funds which is, basically, an acknowledgement from the
Respondent of the additional cost and attempted refund.
Gary McNally moved to approve finding the Respondent, Steven W Cole,guilty of
the charges contained in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
Attorney Morey advised the Board of possible Sanctions that it may impose, either
alone or in combination, if it found there was misconduct on the part of the
Respondent:
1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City)
Certificate of Competency,
4) Imposition of a period of probation, not to exceed two years in length,
during which time the Contractor's contracting activity shall be under the
supervision of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, and/or
participation duly accredited program of continuing education directly related to
the contracting activities. Any period of probation or continuing education may
be revoked for cause,
5) Restitution;
6) Imposition of a fine not to exceed$5,000,
7) Issuance of a public reprimand,
8) Require re-examination of applicable tests related to the contracting activities;
9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring the
issuance of such permits with specific conditions, and
10)Recovery of reasonable investigative and legal costs incurred by the County for
the prosecution of the violation.
He further advised when imposing any of the possible Sanctions on a Contractor,
the Contractors' Licensing Board may consider all the evidence presented during the
Public Hearing as well as:
1) The gravity of the violation;
2) The impact of the violation on Public Health/Safety or Welfare;
3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s);
64
April 20,2016
4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and
5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the
Sanction(s) appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation(s) or the
violator.
Chairman Lykos asked if previous complaints had been filed against the
Respondent.
Ian Jackson replied, "No."
It was noted Mr. Cole became licensed in 2011.
Elle Hunt: What are the County's costs?
Jason Bridwell: $1,000.
Chairman Lykos asked Mr. Bridwell if the County had a recommendation.
Jason Bridwell:
• Fines of$1,000 for Count I and Count II;
• Reimbursement of the County's administrative/investigation costs of$1,000;
• Restitution to the homeowner in the amount of$3,408.77
Kyle Lantz asked if the County discovered an unlicensed contractor performing work
at someone's house, how much would that individual be fined?
Jason Bridwell stated the fine for a first offense would be $1,000. He explained the
Counts were considered to be a first offense in each category.
Chairman Lykos stated he thought Count II was worse because it was a Workers'
Compensation issue, placing the homeowner and the workers at risk. He suggested
the fine should be increased to the maximum amount allowed ($5,000) due to
increased risk. He further stated not paying for Workers' Compensation insurance
coverage was a business decision—don't pay and hope not to be caught—to save
some money. Imposing a nominal fine would not be punitive enough. In his opinion,
sometimes imposing a severe penalty was the only way to bring someone into
compliance.
Elle Hunt agreed the lack of Workers' Comp was a significant risk both to the
homeowner and the subcontractors.
Chairman Lykos stated the amount for Count III, restitution to the homeowner, had
been fixed at $3,408.77. He asked if the Board wished to discuss the amount of
Count I.
Gary McNally agreed with the County's recommendation, stating the amount was
adequate and he supported the Chairman's suggestion to increase Count II's fine to
$5,000.
Terry Jerulle asked if information was available concerning fines imposed by
Worker's Compensation.
Ian Jackson stated when the State's Worker's Compensation Agency establishes a
violation, the corporation is issued a state-wide "Stop Work" Order and a request to
65
April 20, 2016
produce its business records. The State may review three years of the corporation's
books and assess a penalty equal to 1.5 times of the cost of the Workers'
Compensation.
Chairman Lykos asked the members for recommendations regarding the
Respondent's license, i.e., suspend or revoke.
Gary McNally recommended suspending the license until all fees were paid and to
require payment/reimbursement/restitution be made within thirty days.
Jason Bridwell confirmed the Respondent's license was currently in suspension
because he did not renew it. It has been suspended since January 1, 2016.
Mr. McNally revised his recommendation to add that if the Respondent applies for
reinstatement of his suspended license, he will be required to appear before the Board
at a Hearing.
Chairman Lykos summarized the recommendations:
• Restitution to the homeowner in the amount of$3,408.77;
• Reimbursement to the County of investigative costs incurred in the amount of
$1,000;
• Imposition of a fine of$1,000 in Count I;
• Imposition of a fine of$5,000 in Count II;
• Payments of fines/restitution/reimbursement is to be made within thirty days;
• If payment is not made within the time limit, the Respondent's license will be
revoked;
• Continuing suspension of the Respondent's license. If the Respondent applies
for reinstatement, he will be required to appear before the Board at a Hearing.
Discussion ensued concerning whether or not revoking the Respondent's license was
"aggressive." It was pointed out that Mr. Cole had lied throughout the investigation,
wrote a bad check to the homeowner, was abusive of the homeowner's property, and
was neglectful, and refused to appear before the Board.
The homeowner was invited to speak to the Board and was sworn in.
Barbara Lewis was asked to explain her previous comments concerning the
condition of her home:
• When she returned to her home, the entire house was "in shambles;"
• Part of the work in three bedrooms had been completed, but all the furniture
and personal items, including fixtures, clothing, electronics, computers, had
been relocated to the center of her home and "piled in stacks" on the base
floors
• Very little work had been done in any one area—there was no safe place to
store her belongings;
• She had been given a completion date for the work and had arranged with a
moving company for delivery of her remaining furniture from her Las Vegas
home to coincide with the completion date;
• She made installment payments to the Respondent based on his sending her
photographs of the work;
66
April 20,2016
• The photographs appears to be the same in each email she received and she
requested updated photos of each room—which she did not receive;
• She was not advised the work could not be completed by the deadline;
• She was forced to place her personal items into her garage for storage; the
garage was not air-conditioned;
• She was forced to find temporary housing since her home was not habitable—
it appeared as if work on the property had just begun;
• At that point, the Respondent had been paid $12,500;
• She asked a family friend who was in construction to talk to the Respondent to
ascertain how much longer the project would take to complete and terms of
payment on the balance of the contract;
• The Respondent threatened on a daily basis to "walk off the job" unless the
homeowner continued to make payments;
• A new payment scheduled was negotiated—a commercial contactor evaluated
amount of work completed and detelinined the percentage she had paid; there
were no materials visible at the jobsite —the contract included costs for
materials;
• There was "tremendous damage everyone";
• The meeting with the homeowner's family friend was postponed three times
due to the Respondent's refusal to meet with him;
• An agreement was reach and a further payment was made;
• The Respondent prepared a 10-day work schedule—it was agreed no
additional payments would be made until the work was completed;
• Two days later, she found the Respondent's crew hauling equipment and
materials from her house —they were not authorized to be on the property;
• It was suggested that she contact the Collier County Building Department;
• She hired Dorian Construction to finish the job and learned that the
Respondent contacted Dorian Construction claiming to have been hired for
the job prior to the homeowner making her final decision. Dorian
Construction was one of the contractors who bid on the project.
• Ian Jackson inspected her property before she finalized negotiations with
Dorian Construction
• She stated the original project was an"aesthetic" remodel: consisting of
removal of wallpaper and popcorn ceiling, painting, installation of new
woodwork and flooring.
• The damages she sustained were "well beyond" the scope of the amount of
restitution— she has had to replace light fixtures, ceiling fans, toilets,
electronics, furnishings, and furniture had to be repaired
• Additional repairs are needed to make the home habitable but she cannot
afford to do so at this time
Elle Hunt: Did you contact law enforcement regarding the damages?
Barbara Lewis: Yes, I did.
Elle Hunt: Do you have a police report or ...
Barbara Lewis: Yes, I have a police report. (The subject of the police report was
her attack on the premises by Tyler Morgan) She noted the police report did not
67
April 20, 2016
contain details of the property damage because she was informed it was a civil matter
and to seek remedy through the Court.
Ms. Lewis stated after Dorian Construction had been hired, the Respondent's crew
unlawfully attempted to enter her home. (They had keys.) Members of Dorian's crew
contacted the police.
She further stated she filed an action against the Respondent—through the police—
for insufficient funds after she tried to deposit the check given to her by the
Respondent on March 16, 2016.
Elle Hunt asked Ms. Lewis if she had any evidence of the damage to her property
caused by the Respondent and his crew while they were onsite.
Barbara Lewis replied she had a detailed photo summary as well as detailed time
line; a copy of the claim filed against the Respondent's insurance company for
damages. She stated she met with the adjuster for the Respondent's insurance
company approximately two weeks earlier. The insurance company is investigating
her claim.
Additionally, when Ms. Lewis hired Below Cost Flooring, Inc., she requested they
provide proof of liability insurance coverage, a couple of his license, and Worker's
Compensation policy.
There was a discussion concerning whether or not the Board could amend the amount
of restitution due to the homeowner to include damages. It was noted the County had
been advised by the homeowner of the property damages caused by the Respondent
and evidence was contained in the packet which had been admitted into evidence. It
was further noted the County had recommended an amount for restitution for the
Board's consideration based solely on the difference in the contracts.
Attorney Morey noted there were parallel tracks for this case, i.e, the Board's
disciplinary proceedings; a potential civil matter to be brought before the Court; and
administrative insurance issues. He agreed the Board was allowed to order restitution
but advised caution so as not to over-compensate the homeowner. The Board's focus
should be the misconduct of the Contractor. He was not sure how much leeway the
Board was allowed concerning restitution and asked the Assistant County Attorney
for his impressions.
Assistant County Attorney Noell agreed there were cases where individuals had
obtained a civil judgment which ordered additional restitution. He stated damages
were an element but consideration of the amount of damages would open up new
evidence. Evidence in the form of testimony and photographs had already been
admitted. Procedurally, he was not sure if the Public Hearing should be re-opened to
consider the amount of damages. Since there had been a finding of guilt, if the
Hearing were re-opened, it would need to be continued in order to assess the amount
of property damage. He was not sure if Ms. Lewis could calculate "to a reasonable
degree of certainty" a dollar amount for compensation. He stated the potential civil
suit in a Court and negotiations with the insurance company should be pursued since
those options have more weight than the Order of a quasi-judicial Board as far as
recovery was concerned.
Chairman Lykos noted it was one thing for the Board to consider construction
damages which had previously been defined versus personal property damages which
68
April 20, 2016
had not been quantified. There were other factors: the non-appearance of the
Respondent at the Hearing, and the lack of the Board's ability to assign a dollar
amount to the personal damages. He suggested the Board avoid the issue at this time.
Elle Hunt replied that "restitution" was not limited to just the construction damages.
She understood the Chairman's concern especially since the Respondent had not
renewed his license.
Jason Bridwell stated since the Respondent's license was already suspended, if he
did nothing, the license would be automatically revoked in January, 2017.
Chairman Lykos explained the Board did not want the Respondent to comply with
the payments which would technically activate his license—by revoking the license,
the Respondent would be forced to complete a new application and appear before the
Board. The process could not be handled administratively. He reiterated the status of
the Respondent's license: it was suspended during 2015; it became null and voice as
of January 1, 2016; and will be revoked as of January 1, 2017.
Michael Boyd suggestion included a Public Reprimand and the Chaiinian agreed.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions on Steven W. Cole,
d/b/a "Below Cost Flooring, Inc.,"(C#36257 and#36258):
• Reimbursement to the County of investigative costs incurred in the amount
of$1,000;
• Restitution to the homeowner in the amount of$3,408.77;
• Imposition of a fine of$1,000 in Count I;
• Imposition of a fine of$5,000 in Count II;
• Publication of a Public Reprimand/Press Release, the costs for which will
be paid by the Respondent;
• Payments of fines/restitution/reimbursement are to be made within thirty
days;
• The Respondent's license is suspended until all
fines/restitution/reimbursement are paid;
• Any payments made will applied first to the homeowner;
• If the Respondent applies for reinstatement of his license, he will be
required to appear before the Board at a Hearing.
Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Findings of Fact:
• The Respondent, Steven W. Cole, d/b/a/ "Below Cost Flooring, Inc.," is the
holder of record of Collier County Certificates of Competency Numbers 35267
and 35268.
• The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors'
Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter.
• The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent.
• Respondent, Steven W. Cole, was not present at the Public Hearing held on
April 20, 2016, and was not represented by Counsel at said Hearing.
69
April 20,2016
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, had
been properly issued and were personally delivered.
• Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent acted in a manner that is in
violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the acts.
• The following Allegations of Fact set forth in the Administrative Complaint
were found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing:
o Count I: Violation of Section 22-201(2) of Ordinance #90-105, as
amended—"Operating outside of his scope of competency as listed on
his competency card and defined in this Ordinance or restricted by the
Contractors' Licensing Board."
o Count II: Violation of Section 22-201(6) of Ordinance#90-105, as
amended—"Disregards or violates in the performance of his
contracting business in Collier County, any of the building, safety,
health, insurance or Workers' Compensation laws of the State of
Florida or ordinance of this County."
o Count III: Violation of Section 22-201(8)(a)(3) of Ordinance #90-105,
as amended—"The Contractor's job has been completed and it is
shown that the customer had has to pay more for the contracted job
that the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change
orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances
beyond the control of the Contractor, or was the result of
circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by
the telnis of the contract between the Contractor and the customer."
Conclusions of Law:
o The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint
as to Counts I, II, and III were approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to
wit:
The Respondent violated Sections 22-201(2), (6), and (8)(a)(c) of Collier
County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, as stated above.
Order of the Board:
• Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of seven (7) in
favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members
present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
• Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of seven (7) in favor, and none (0) in
opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following
disciplinary Sanctions are hereby imposed upon Steven W. Cole, the holder of
Collier County Certificates of Competency #36257 and#36258, to wit:
o Reimbursement to the County of investigative costs incurred in the
amount of$1,000;
o Restitution to the homeowner in the amount of$3,408.77;
o Imposition of a fine of$1,000 in Count I;
o Imposition of a fine of$5,000 in Count II;
70
April 20,2016
o Publication of a Public Reprimand/Press Release, the costs for which
will be paid by the Respondent;
o Payments offines/restitution/reimbursement are to be made within thirty
days;
o The Respondent's license is suspended until fines/restitution/reimbursement
are paid;
o Any payments made will applied first to the homeowner;
o If the Respondent applies for reinstatement of his license, he will be
required to appear before the Board at a Hearing.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing Case #2016-01. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Chairman Lykos noted the case was closed.
C. Case#2016-02: Board of County Commissioners vs. Dennis Tome, d/b/a
"D & V Customs, LLC." (C—26673)
Chairman Lykos outlined the procedures to be followed:
• The Public Hearing will be opened;
• Witnesses will be sworn in;
• Evidence from the parties will be accepted;
• The County will present its "Opening Statement;"
• The Respondent will present his/her"Opening Statement;"
• The County will next present its "Case in Chief;"
• The Respondent will present his Defense, and the County may offer any
rebuttal;
• At that point, the Board will conclude the "Public Hearing" process;
• The Board will close the "Public Hearing" and receive instructions from its
Attorney which is similar to the "charge" given to a Jury setting out the
parameters on which the Board members will base their decision;
• During deliberations, the Board members may request additional information
or verifications from the parties;
o The Board will then decide two different issues: first, whether the
Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Complaint and a
vote will be taken. If found guilty, the Board will decide if Sanctions
are to be imposed.
o The Board's attorney will again advise the Board concerning what
Sanctions may be imposed and the factors to be weighed when
considering evidence.
o The Board will discuss the Sanctions and vote.
o The Chairnuan will orally report the decision of the Board which will
subsequently be rendered in writing to become the official Order of the
Board.
71
April 20, 2016
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to open the Public Hearing in Case #2016-02:
Board of County Commissioners vs. Dennis Tome, d/b/a "D & V Customs, LLC,"
(License #26673). Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Motion carried, 7— 0.
Rob Ganguli, Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to enter the
County's information packet in Case #2016-02 into evidence.
Elle Hunt moved to approve accepting the information packet in Case #2016-02:
Board of Collier County Commissioners vs. Dennis Tome, d/b/a "D & V Customs,
LLC,"(License #26673) into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Kyle Lantz offered
a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Rob Ganguli presented the County's "Opening Statement:"
• Dennis Tome is the Qualifier of"D & V Customs, LLC," and holder of
License #26673 for Carpentry
• Mr. Tome appears before the Contractors' Licensing Board to face three
counts of misconduct:
o Count I: "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his
competency as listed on his competency card, and as defined in the
Ordinance, or as restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board."
o Count II: "Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice
of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer."
o Count III: "Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable
permits or inspection from the City Building and Zoning Division, or
the County Building Review and Permitting Department."
Dennis Tome, as his "Opening Statement," stated he did not wish to dispute any of
the charges.
• He apologized for his behavior
• He asked the Board to give him an opportunity to resolve the situation and to
give him an opportunity to work as a licensed carpenter
Rob Ganguli referenced the County's Exhibit E-5, "Notice of Hearing," which had
been hand delivered to Mr. Tome on March 2, 2016.
Rob Ganguli presented the County's "Case in Chief"
• On February 5, 2016, the County received a Preliminary Company filed by
Thomas Lee, owner of 471 Palo Verde Drive, Naples, FL, concerning an
unfulfilled contract for bathroom renovation by Trinity Carpentry, LLC,
qualified by Dennis Tome, License #26673.
• He referenced Exhibits E-17 through E-19 indicating a change of corporate
name from "Trinity Carpentry, LLC"to "D & V Customs, LLC"
• Mr. Lee stated he paid $12,500 in deposits on a contract totaling $29,500 for
bathroom renovations which were never completed by the contractor
• He referenced Exhibits E-19 and 11 which are copies of payment checks
72
. r April 20,2016
• After numerous, unsuccessful attempts to have Mr. Tome complete the job,
Mr. Lee sought the return of$6,000, calculated by him based on the amount
of contracted work that had actually been completed (E-14)
• Due to non-response by Mr. Tome, Mr. Lee filed a petition in Small Claims
Court; he was awarded a default judgment of$5,000 (E-15 and 16)
• Mr. Lee has advised Mr. Tome has not satisfied the judgment to date —which
is in violation of Count II
• In addition to providing a breakdown of expenses for completion of the
project, a copy of the Trinity Carpentry, LLC, contract provided by the
Complainant, depicts work outside the scope of a carpentry license (E-7 and
E8)
• The work in question includes plumbing, electrical, painting, tile work, as
well as glass and glazing—which is a violation of Count I
• E-41- definition of the scope of work permitted for a carpentry contractor
• Collier County Chief Building Official, Jonathan Walsh, reviewed the scope
of work contained in the contract and determined that a building permit was
required (E-9)
• Lack of a building permit is a violation of Count III
Elle Hunt asked what type of permit was required.
Chairman Lykos explained a building permit would be required in addition to one
for each trade, i.e., electrical permit and a plumbing permit.
• Mr. Tome has been cited in five previous misconduct cases for acting in the
capacity of a General Contractor (E-23 through E-36), in violation of
Ordinance #90-105, as amended, Section 22-201(2)—Contracting outside the
Scope of his licensure; Section 22-201(8)(a)(3)—Causing financial harm to a
customer; Section 220-201(18) —Proceeding on a job without obtaining a
required building permit
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent if he wished to respond and present his
Defense.
Dennis Tome stated he had no defense and was not going to dispute any of the
charges or offer any excuses for his behavior. He did ask for the Board's
consideration.
Rob Ganguli presented the County's "Closing Statement:"
• The County rests.
Dennis Tome presented his "Closing Statement:"
• I have never been through anything like this. I have been in the carpentry
trade for almost forty years. I have never experienced anything like this.
• I am here to try to get this resolved.
Chairman Lykos explained to the Respondent that he had the right to ask questions
at any time. The Board will follow due process and give him the opportunity to make
comments, as well as to ask questions.
73
April 20, 2016
Michael Boyd questioned Rob Ganguli:
Q. It appeared that the fees most of the previous Citations have never been paid. Is
that a fact?
A. (Jason Bridwell) It is correct that there have been multiple violations during the
past 2-1/2 years. A partial payment of$100 was made in the very first Citation.
The remaining Citations have either had a lien filed or are in the lien process. The
fees for four Citations remain unpaid.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Respondent:
Q. What is your relationship with Elite Contracting Group?
A. Have done just a few jobs with him.
Q. You sold a job to a homeowner. And somehow Elite Contracting pulled the
permit for the job. How did that happen?
A. I met him through somebody else that I knew and asked him if he would be
willing to do that.
Q. This is the third time that you have been"busted"—where you sold the job and
Elite Contracting has pulled the permit. Are you paying him a percentage of the
job or are you paying him a flat rate? Are they part of the job?
A. They are just pulling the petmit. He perfolined some of the work on the jobs but
typically, not.
Q. So —typically, you're just paying him to pull a permit for you?
A. Yes.
Kyle Lantz directed his question to Staff: This is the third time this [permit pulling]
has been documented with this one gentleman. I understand Elite is a State contractor,
but how the hell can they still pull permits in Collier County? There is no reason that
they should be able to pull permits in Collier County. There's no reason why they
should not be standing here in front of the Board. As far as I am concerned, Elite is
more guilty than the Respondent is. And they are not here.
Jason Bridwell: I agree. This is a complaint against this particular contractor who is
licensed as a Carpentry Contractor. The permitting part would be a different case. I
will look into it.
Kyle Lantz: That's the same answer I've gotten every time.
Jason Bridwell: It's a first time from me.
Kyle Lantz: I have been told that over and over again. I have never been told one of
a case where the guy who just pulled the peiniit has gotten into trouble. I could make
a lot of money pulling permits, but I don't because I choose to do the right thing. We
can stop the permit pulling privileges of a State-certified contractor.
Jason Bridwell: We have had those issues come up and we do address them. We
will look into this one.
Rob Ganguli: This particular case did not involve Elite Contracting or any permit.
In a previous one ...
Kyle Lantz: It was a previous case ... okay ... I stand corrected.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing in
Case #2016-02. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
74
♦ -
April 20,2016
Attorney Morey: As the Board enters into its deliberations, the Board shall ascertain
that:
• Fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent;
• The formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply;
• The Board will consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its
deliberation on the matter;
• The Board shall exclude from its deliberation irrelevant, immaterial, and
cumulative testimony;
• The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly
relied upon by reasonably prudent persons, whether or not the evidence so
admitted would be admissible in a Court of law.
• Hearsay evidence may be used explain or supplement any other evidence but
hearsay, by itself, is not sufficient to support a Finding unless such hearsay
would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court.
• The standard of proof in actions where the Respondent may lose his/her
privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the
Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing
manner.
• The burden of proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the
preponderance of the evidence standard set in civil cases.
• The standard of evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in
the Complaint. The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones for
which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense.
• The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges.
• The decision made by the Board must be stated orally at the Hearing and is
effective upon being read unless the Board orders otherwise.
• The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors'
Licensing Board, the Courts, the State of Florida's Construction Industry
Licensing Board ("CILB"), if applicable, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the
Florida Administrative Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and, if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support
of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Chairman Lykos stated the Respondent has admitted his guilt for all three Counts.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve finding the Respondent, Dennis Tome,
d/b/a "D & V Customs, LLC,"guilty of the charges contained in Counts I, II, and
III of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2016-2. Gary McNally offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Attorney Morey advised the Board of the possible Sanctions that it may impose,
either alone or in combination, if it found there was misconduct on the part of the
Respondent:
1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
75
April 20,2016
3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City)
Certificate of Competency,
4) Imposition of a period of probation, not to exceed two years in length,
during which time the Contractor's contracting activity shall be under the
supervision of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, and/or
participation duly accredited program of continuing education directly related to
the contracting activities. Any period of probation or continuing education may
be revoked for cause,
5) Restitution;
6) Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000,
7) Issuance of a public reprimand,
8) Require re-examination of applicable tests related to the contracting activities;
9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring
the issuance of such permits with specific conditions, and
10) Reimbursement of reasonable investigative and legal costs incurred by the
County in the prosecution of the violation.
He further advised when imposing any of the possible Sanctions on a Contractor,
the Contractors' Licensing Board may consider all the evidence presented during
the Public Hearing as well as:
1) The gravity of the violation;
2) The impact of the violation on Public Health/Safety or Welfare;
3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s);
4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and
5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the
Sanction(s) appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation(s) or
the violator.
Chairman Lykos asked if the County had a recommendation.
Jason Bridwell replied:
• Reimbursement to the County of investigative costs incurred in the amount
of$500;
• Imposition of a fine of$2,000 in Count I;
• Imposition of a fine of$1,000 in Court II;
• Restitution to the homeowner of$1,000 due to the adjudication of a civil
judgment in the amount of$5,000;
• Imposition of a probationary period to continue until all fines/reimbursement
and restitution and the civil judgment have been paid;
There was a discussion concerning whether or not the Board could order payment of
the past fines.
Assistant County Attorney Noell stated liens had been filed against the fines.
Terry Jerulle asked how the Respondent could have renewed his license when he
had not paid the fines imposed in previous cases.
Jason Bridwell stated the issue was being reviewed; he was aware that the County's
database did not "red flag" delinquent cases and explained there was no direct link
between the Code Enforcement and Contractors' Licensing modules.
76
April 20,2016
Gary McNally asked exactly how much in Citation fees was outstanding from the
Respondent's past cases, and the response was $3,200.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked the Board's attorney if the Board was pellnitted to
enforce payment of the Small Claims Court's default judgment of$5,000.
Attorney Morey stated the Board could not enforce a civil judgment but did have the
leeway to order conditions for a probationary period, for example, to satisfy any
outstanding judgments.
Chairman Lykos stated he was more concerned about keeping the Respondent's
license suspended until all fines were paid than he was about the amount of the fines
recommended by the County, which he considered to be too low. He stated the
Respondent has approximately $12,700 in fines and judgements against him. His
personal opinion was if the Respondent was allowed to keep working, the situation
would become worse. He noted the Respondent has been working and instead of
paying the liens filed against him from previous Citations, he got into more trouble.
The Respondent's claim that he needed to work to pay the bills was not convincing
since he did not have a history of paying his debts. He further stated the greatest
predictor of future performance is past performance. He reiterated the Respondent's
license should remain suspended until everything is paid.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Respondent:
Q. The new corporate name, "D & V Customs, LLC," sounds as if the Respondent
does custom bathroom and kitchens.
A. We do custom carpentry. My son is involved in the business now—he's the "V"
in"D & V Customs, LLC."
Q. As the Chairman has stated, you have a history of past violations. What are you
doing—what can you tell us —that you're doing to ensure it does not happen
again?
A. You have my word—that's all I can tell you. If you give me the opportunity to
continue working, I will pay these things off in whatever reasonable time frame
that you allow me. You have my word on that.
When asked what the Respondent considered to be "reasonable," his Response was,
"six months."
When the Respondent was asked if he could pay the entire amount within six months,
his response was, "Yes." He further stated, "Whatever I need to do to make this
work, I will do that."
Q. What is the date of the default judgment of$5,000?
A. I believe September or October.
Q. And you haven't paid it. Coming here and apologizing was great but it would
have been just as great—if not better—if this had been paid.
A. You are right, sir. I ignored it. Again, all I can do is to offer an apology.
Q, I agree with the Chaitnian. I don't think you will pay anyone. I am not getting
that feeling. I think your license should be suspended until things are caught up.
A. You have my word that I will pay them.
77
April 20,2016
Chairman Lykos suggested the Respondent could work for someone else and get a
paycheck—pay the debts— and then ...
Dennis Tome: My son is involved in the business now ... he would need to find a
job— I would never be able to make enough if I worked for someone else to pay the
debts and continue with living.
Chairman Lykos: You are the one who created this situation.
A. I understand that and I am trying to resolve this. I am giving you my word that if
you give me—six months might be a little excessive, but if you give me three
months—I will take care of this.
Elle Hunt:
Q. When you say that you're trying to resolve this—by doing what?
A. Well, I would like to pay these fines and fees ...
Q. You are not"trying" to resolve it—you are promising to resolve it in the future if
the Board extends the generosity of the County.
A. Yes, I am promising to do that—yes.
Vice Chairman Joslin was not totally convinced by the Respondent's promises but
stated he was willing to grant him ninety days to pay the fines and submits paid
receipts to Staff or his license would be revoked. Period.
Chairman Lykos noted he appreciated the compassion of some members but
reminded them of the Respondent's history.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he can tell from the Respondent's demeanor that
"something" happened in the Repondent's life that was "not good." Because he
has been a member of the Board for several years, he feels he has become a good
judge of character and is willing to allow him ninety days to see what happens.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions of on Dennis Tome,
d/b/a "D & V Customs, LLC." (C-26673):
• Imposition of a fine of$3,000 in Count I;
• Imposition of a fine of$1,000 in Court II;
• Payment of the civil judgment of$5,000;
• Restitution to the homeowner of$1,000;
• Reimbursement to the County of investigative costs incurred in the amount
• of$500;
• Payment of past outstanding Citation fines in the sum of$3,200 for a total of
$13,700;
• Payment schedule ($13,700):
o $5,000 is to be paid in 30 days;
o $5,000 is to be paid in 60 days;
o $3,700 is to be paid in 90 days
• The Respondent will be placed on probation for a period of two years. If any
payments are missed, the Respondent's license will be suspended until he
appears before the Board.
Vice Chairman Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
78
•
April 20, 2016
Dennis Tome asked if he should obtain a signed receipt when he pays the
homeowner and the response was, "Yes." He expressed concern that the homeowner
might not be willing to sign a receipt once he is paid.
Attorney Morey suggested the Respondent should pay the civil judgment to the
Clerk of Court who will provide a Satisfaction of Judgment.
Chairman Lykos stated the Respondent could figure out how to make payments.
Chairman Lykos noted the motion presented a 30-day risk versus immediate
suspension.
Elle Hunt noted her concern was that the Respondent had an outstanding Default
Judgment for six months in addition to outstanding payments to the County for
multiple months as well as liens filed against his property. He has done nothing in
furtherance of that. She was finding it difficult to believe his word based on his past
perfonnance. If the Respondent had extenuating circumstances, the Board was not
made aware of them. She was skeptical that he should be allowed 30 more days to
work with consumers in Collier County.
Kyle Lantz explained the reasoning for his decision: (a) he wanted to keep Tome in
business as the better way to get the homeowners paid, and (b) the $3,200 in fine has
been accumulating over several years—he said if he had received a fine and no one
did anything about it, he would consider it as the "cost of doing business," and he
would probably do the same thing again. This is his fifth Citation and now there are
repercussions—he might finally become motivated to pay because there were no
repercussions previously.
Elle Hunt asked if Mr. Lantz' motion contained any type of probation beyond the
payment.
Kyle Lantz stated the probationary period is for two years, regardless of when full
payment is made.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted if Mr. Tome wanted to keep his license, all debts must
be paid within ninety days.
Chairman Lykos asked Dennis Tome if he had an active jobs —if he were not at the
Hearing, would he be working and his response was, "Yes." He explained it was a
small carpentry job for a contractor— Sightline Construction.
When asked if a permit was required, his response was "Yes" but he was unable to
provide an address, other than, "It's on Marco Island."
Dennis Tome stated he appreciated the Board's compassion and admitted there were
extenuating circumstances. He further stated he did not want to offer excuses for his
behavior. He again reiterated he would "make this right."
Chairman Lykos cautioned the only reason why he would support the motion was
because the Respondent was present at the Hearing and did "own up" to his past
behavior.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Lykos reminded the Respondent to contact the Licensing Supervisor to
ascertain the type of proof necessary to prove the homeowner was paid ... and paid
first. The remainder of his payments would be made directly to the County.
79
April 20, 2016
Findings of Fact:
• The Respondent, Dennis Tome, d/b/a"D & V Customs, LLC.," is the holder
of record of Collier County Certificates of Competency Number 26673.
• The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors'
Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter.
• The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent.
• Respondent, Dennis Tome, was present at the Public Hearing held on
April 20, 2016, and was not represented by Counsel at said Hearing.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended, had
been properly issued and were personally delivered.
• Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent acted in a manner that is in
violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the acts.
• The following Allegations of Fact set forth in the Administrative Complaint
were found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing:
o Count I: Violation of Section 22-201(2) of Ordinance #90-105, as
amended—"Contracting to do any work outside of his scope of
competency as listed on his competency card and defined in this
Ordinance or restricted by the Contractors' Licensing Board."
o Count II: Violation of Section 22-201(8) of Ordinance #90-105, as
amended—"Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the
practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer."
o Count III: Violation of Section 22-201(18) of Ordinance #90-105, as
amended—"Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable
permits or inspection from the City Building and Zoning Division, or
the County Building Review and Permitting Department."
Conclusions of Law:
o The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint
as to Counts I, II, and III were approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to
wit:
The Respondent violated Section 4.4.18 of Collier County Ordinance
#90-105, as amended, regarding working outside the scope of his
competency card; committing mismanagement or misconduct in the
process of contracting; and proceeding on a job without obtaining
applicable permits.
Order of the Board:
• Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of seven (7) in
favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members
present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
• Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of seven (7) in favor, and none (0) in
opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following
disciplinary Sanctions are hereby imposed upon Dennis Tome, the holder of
80
April 20, 2016
Collier County Certificate of Competency #26673, to wit:
o Imposition of a fine of$3,000 in Count I;
o Imposition of a fine of$1,000 in Court II;
o Payment of the civil judgment of$5,000;
o Restitution to the homeowner of$1,000;
o Reimbursement to the County of investigative costs incurred in the
amount of$500;
o Payment of past outstanding Citation fines in the sum of$3,200 for a
total of$13,700;
o Payment schedule ($13,700):
• $5,000 is to be paid in 30 days;
• $5,000 is to be paid in 60 days;
• $3,700 is to be paid in 90 days
o The Respondent will be placed on probation for a period of two
years. If any payments are missed, the Respondent's license will be
suspended until he appears before the Board.
Chairman Lykos noted the case was closed.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, May 18, 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 4:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
CENSING BOARD
Lea
INSW kA
T : --- • , Chairman %,,,) O\^-
'k--1
The Minutes wereproved by the Commi r ee Chai i/Vice Chair on \ \ , 2016,
"as submitted" OR "as amended' . )
81
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA )
Petitioner, )
) Case No: 2015-09
vs. ) License No. 25598
)
Karin R. Sacacian )
D/b/a Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC, )
Respondent(s) )
)
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board
(hereafter Board) on April 20, 2016, for consideration of the Administrative Complaint
filed against Karin R. Sacacian dba Olde Naples Tile & Marble, LLC, the "Respondent".
Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Section 22-202 of the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The Board made a finding of fact that
the service conformed with the requirements of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida. The Board having at said hearing heard testimony under oath,
received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters,
thereupon issues its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board as
follows:
Page 1 of 6
452327.2 4/29/2016
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That Karin R. Sacacian is the holder of record of Collier County License Number
25598, as a Tile and Marble Contractor.
2. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is the
complainant in this matter.
3. That the Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent and that Karin R.
Sacacian was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the
hearing on April 20, 2016.
4. 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 Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida.
5. The evidence presented and testimony given established that the Respondent
acted in a manner that is in violation of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida, as follows: failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly
replacing faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the Construction
Contract. Faulty workmanship exists if the work, process, product or part thereof does
not meet generally accepted standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project.
(Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, Section 22-201(10)), and is
the one who committed the acts.
Page 2 of 6
452327.2 4/29/2016
6. That the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor and Staff presented sworn testimony,
and the administrative complaint and exhibits thereto were admitted into evidence. The
Respondent was afforded an opportunity to present sworn testimony, exhibits, and to
cross examine the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor and witnesses. The Board was
afforded an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. The Board determined that
the allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint are true and therefore
such facts are hereby found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as
to Counts 1 were supported by the clear and convincing evidence presented at the
hearing on April 20, 2016, and said conclusions of law are hereby approved, adopted,
and incorporated herein, to wit, the Respondent violated Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Collier County, Florida, Section 22-201(10) in the performance of her contracting
business in Collier County by acting in violation of the section set out above with
particularity.
2. Collier County has jurisdiction over this contractor.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed,
Page 3 of 6
452327.2 4/29/2016
a unanimous vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in
violation as set out above.
Further, it is hereby ORDERED, by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed, a
unanimous vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary
sanction(s) and related order are hereby imposed upon the Respondent as holder of
Contractor's License Numbers 25598:
1. The Respondent's License is hereby revoked.
2. Respondent is ordered to pay $6,725.55 as restitution to the homeowner.
3. Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of three thousand dollars
($3,000.00).
4. Respondent is ordered to pay $1,100.00 in administrative and investigative costs
to the County.
5. The Respondent shall be given a public reprimand and the cost of publication
thereof shall be borne by the Respondent.
6. Any reapplication for a license by the Respondent shall come before the Board.
7. Any amounts paid shall first apply to restitution to the homeowner, then
investigative costs, then the fines, until each category is paid in full.
The parties are further notified that upon the timely filing of a Notice of Appeal
within thirty (30) days you may have the decision of the Board reviewed pursuant to the
Page 4 of 6
452327.2 4/29/2016
procedure set out herein. The Respondent may appeal a decision of the Board to the
Collier County Circuit Court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be
limited to appellate review of the record created before the Board. Any appeal shall be
filed with the Circuit Court and served on the parties within thirty (30) days of the mailing
of the decision of the Board under the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida, Section 22-202(g)(9).
In the event that the Respondent elects to appeal, a verbatim record and
transcript of the proceedings will be necessary. It shall be the sole responsibility of said
party to ensure that a record is made from which a transcript may be prepared which
includes the testimony upon which an appeal may be taken. Neither Collier County nor
the Board has any responsibility to provide a verbatim record transcript of the
proceedings.
ORDERED by the Contractors' Licensing Board effective the 20th day of April,
201.
41
Thomas Lykos, Chair/ an
Contractors' Licensi I. Board
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board has been furnished to the
Respondent; and Mr. Michael Ossorio, Licensing Compliance Supervisor, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34103, on this 2s day of MAX , 2016.
cretary/Contractors' Licensing Board VV\n
Page 5 of 6
452327.2 4/29/2016
Page 6 of 6
452327.2 4/29/2016
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA )
Petitioner, )
) Case No: 2016-01
vs. ) License No. 36257 & 36258
Steven W. Cole )
d/b/a Below Cost Flooring, Inc. )
Respondent(s) )
)
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board
(hereafter Board) on April 20, 2016, for consideration of the Administrative Complaint
filed against Steven W. Cole dba Below Cost Flooring, Inc., the "Respondent". Service
of the Complaint was made in accordance with Section 22-202 of the Code of Laws
and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The Board made a finding of fact that the
service conformed with the requirements of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida. The Board having at said hearing heard testimony under oath,
received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters,
thereupon issues its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board as
follows:
Page 1 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That Steven W. Cole is the holder of record of Collier County License Numbers
36257 & 36258, as a tile, and marble & floor covering contractor, respectively.
2. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is the
complainant in this matter.
3. That the Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent and that Steven
W. Cole was not present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at
the hearing on April 20, 2016.
4. All notices required by the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida, have been properly issued, hand delivered and delivered by certified mail in
accordance with Section 22-202 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida.
5. The evidence presented and testimony given established that the Respondent
acted in a manner that is in violation of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida, as follows: Contracted to do work outside of the scope of his
competency as listed on his competency cards; disregarded or violated, in the
performance of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety,
health, insurance or worker's compensation laws of the state or ordinances of the
county pursuant to Section 22-201(6) of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida; and the work was completed and the customer had to pay more for the
contracted work than the original contract price, and is the one who committed the acts.
Page 2 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
6. That the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor and Staff presented sworn testimony,
and the administrative complaint and exhibits thereto were admitted into evidence. The
Respondent was afforded an opportunity to present sworn testimony, exhibits, and to
cross examine the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor and witnesses but chose not to
attend the hearing. The Board was afforded an opportunity to ask questions of the
witness. The Board determined that the allegations of fact as set forth in the
Administrative Complaint, as to Count I, Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida, Section 22-201(2); Count II, Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida, Section 22-201(6); and Count III, Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, Section 22-201(8)(a)(3), are true and therefore such facts are
hereby found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as
to Count 1, II, and III were supported by the clear and convincing evidence presented at
the hearing on April 20, 2016, and said conclusions of law are hereby approved,
adopted, and incorporated herein, to wit, the Respondent violated Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, Sections 22-201(6), Sections 22-201(2), and 22-
201(8)(a)(3) in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in
violation of the sections set out above with particularity.
2. Collier County has jurisdiction over this contractor.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
Page 3 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed,
a unanimous vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in
violations as set out above.
Further, it is hereby ORDERED, by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed, a
unimous vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanction(s)
and related order are hereby imposed upon the Respondent as holder of Contractor's
License Numbers 36257 and 36258:
1. The Respondent's Licenses are currently suspended and application for
reinstatement must come before the Board;
2. Respondent is ordered to pay a fine as to Count I in the amount of one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00) to be paid within thirty (30) days.
3. Respondent is ordered to pay a fine as to Count II in the amount of five thousand
dollars ($5,000.00) to be paid within thirty (30) days.
4. Respondent is ordered to pay restitution to the consumer in the amount of
$3,408.77 within thirty (30) days.
5. Respondent is ordered to pay $1,000.00 in administrative and investigative costs
to the County within 30 days.
Page 4 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
6. Respondent is to be subject to a public reprimend the publishing costs of which
are to be borne by the Respondent.
7. Any amounts received shall first be applied to the restitution to the consumer,
then to the $5,000 fine as to Count II, then to the fine as to Count I, then to
investigative and administrative costs.
The Respondent, any other party, the chairman of the Contractors' Licensing
Board, the Contractors' Licensing Board as a body, or the assistant county attorney who
tried the case may request a rehearing of any decision of the Contractors' Licensing
Board. A request for rehearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with staff and a copy
thereof should be delivered to all other parties within twenty (20) days from the date of
mailing or other method of delivery to the Respondent(s) of the Board's written decision.
A request for rehearing must be based only on the ground that the decision was
contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law that was
fundamental to the decision of the Board. The written request for rehearing must specify
the precise reasons therefore. The decision of the Board that is the subject of the
rehearing request will remain in effect throughout the rehearing procedure unless the
Board orders otherwise.
The Board will make a determination as to whether or not to rehear the matter
and its decision shall be made at a public meeting, which will be reduced to writing and
mailed to the interested parties within 21 days after the determination is made. If the
Contractors' Licensing Board determines it will grant a rehearing, it may:
Page 5 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
a. Schedule a hearing where the parties will be given the opportunity of
presenting evidence or argument limited by the Board to the specific reasons for which
the rehearing was granted; or
b. Modify or reverse its prior decision, without receiving further evidence,
providing that the change is based on a finding that the prior decision of the Board
resulted from a ruling on a question of law that the Board had been informed by its
counsel was an erroneous ruling and which ruling could affect the substantive decision.
The parties are further notified that upon the timely filing of a Notice of Appeal
within thirty (30) days you may have the decision of the Board reviewed pursuant to the
procedure set out herein. The Respondent may appeal a decision of the Board to the
Collier County Circuit Court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be
limited to appellate review of the record created before the Board. Any appeal shall be
filed with the Circuit Court and served on the parties within thirty (30) days of the mailing
of the decision of the Board under the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida, Section 22-202(g)(9). If there has been a re-hearing request granted, the
appeal shall be filed with the Circuit Court and served on the parties within thirty (30)
days of the mailing of the re-hearing decision under Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, Section 22-205.
In the event that the Respondent elects to appeal, a verbatim record and
transcript of the proceedings will be necessary. It shall be the sole responsibility of said
party to ensure that a record is made from which a transcript may be prepared which
includes the testimony upon which an appeal may be taken. Neither Collier County nor
Page 6 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
the Board has any responsibility to provide a verbatim record transcript of the
proceedings.
ORDERED by the Contractors' Licensing Board effective the 20th day of April,
2016.
Thomas Lykos, Chair an
Contractors' Licensin% Board
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board has been furnished to the
Respondent; and the Licensing Compliance Supervisor, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, FL 34103, on this 7 day of 'AA'1/4t , 2016.
illifLretary/Contractors' Licensing Board
Page 7 of 7
452346.2 4/29/2016
CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS )
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA )
)
Petitioner, )
) Case No: 2016-02
vs. ) License No. 26673
)
Dennis Tome' )
d/b/a D. & V. Customs, L.L.C. )
)
Respondent(s) )
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board
(hereafter Board) on April 20, 2016, for consideration of the Administrative Complaint
filed against Dennis Tome' dba D & V Customs LLC, the "Respondent". Service of the
Complaint was made in accordance with Section 22-202 of the Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida. The Board made a finding of fact that the service
conformed with the requirements of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida. The Board having at said hearing heard testimony under oath,
received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters,
thereupon issues its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board as
follows:
Page 1 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That Dennis Tome' is the holder of record of Collier County License Number
26673, as a carpentry contractor.
2. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is the
complainant in this matter.
3. That the Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent and that Dennis
Tome' was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the
hearing on April 20, 2016.
4. All notices required by the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida, have been properly issued, hand delivered and or delivered by certified mail in
accordance with Section 22-202 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida.
5. The evidence presented and testimony given established that the Respondent
acted in a manner that is in violation of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County, Florida, as follows: Contracted to do work outside of the scope of his
competency as listed on his competency cards; commited mismanagement or
misconduct in the practice of his contracting business that causes financial harm to a
customer, and proceeding on a job without obtaind the applicable permits or
inspections, and is the one who committed the acts.
6. That the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor and Staff presented sworn testimony,
and the administrative complaint and exhibits thereto were admitted into evidence.
Page 2 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016
The Respondent was given an opportunity present testimony and submit evidence and
to cross examine the County and witnesses. The Board was afforded an opportunity to
ask questions of the witness. The Board determined that the allegations of fact as set
forth in the Administrative Complaint, as to Count I, Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, Section 22-201(2); Count II, Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, Section 22-201(8); and Count III, Code of Laws and Ordinances
of Collier County, Florida, Section 22-201(18), are true and therefore such facts are
hereby found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as
to Count 1, II, and III were supported by the clear and convincing evidence presented at
the hearing on April 20, 2016, and said conclusions of law are hereby approved,
adopted, and incorporated herein, to wit, the Respondent violated Code of Laws and
Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, Sections 22-201(2), Sections 22-201(8), and 22-
201(18) in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in
violation of the sections set out above with particularity.
2. Collier County has jurisdiction over this contractor.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and the Code of
Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed,
Page 3 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016
a unanimous vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in
violations as set out above.
Further, it is hereby ORDERED, by a vote of 7 in favor and 0 opposed, a
unimous vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanction(s)
and related order are hereby imposed upon the Respondent as holder of Contractor's
License Number 26673:
1. The Respondent is hereby placed on probation for a period of two years;
2. Respondent is ordered to pay a fine as to Count I in the amount of three
thousand dollars ($3,000.00).
3. Respondent is ordered to pay a fine as to Count II in the amount of one thousand
dollars ($1,000.00) to be paid within thirty (30) days.
4. Respondent is ordered to pay restitution to the consumer in the amount of
$1,000.
5. Respondent is ordered to pay the judgment rendered in the Small Claims
Division of the Collier County Court in favor of the consumer in the amount of
$5,000.
6. Respondent is ordered to pay $500.00 in administrative and investigative costs to
the County.
7. Respondent is to pay all past due citations in the amount of $3,200 to the
County.
Page 4 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016
8. The Respondent shall pay $5,000 to the total amount due within 30 days; $5,000
toward the total due on or before 60 days, and the balance on or before 90 days
from the date of the Order.
9. If any payments are missed the Respondent's license shall be suspended and he
will need to appear before the Board for reinstatement.
The Respondent, any other party, the chairman of the Contractors' Licensing
Board, the Contractors' Licensing Board as a body, or the assistant county attorney who
tried the case may request a rehearing of any decision of the Contractors' Licensing
Board. A request for rehearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with staff and a copy
thereof should be delivered to all other parties within twenty (20) days from the date of
mailing or other method of delivery to the Respondent(s) of the Board's written decision.
A request for rehearing must be based only on the ground that the decision was
contrary to the evidence or that the hearing involved an error on a ruling of law that was
fundamental to the decision of the Board. The written request for rehearing must specify
the precise reasons therefore. The decision of the Board that is the subject of the
rehearing request will remain in effect throughout the rehearing procedure unless the
Board orders otherwise.
The Board will make a determination as to whether or not to rehear the matter
and its decision shall be made at a public meeting, which will be reduced to writing and
mailed to the interested parties within 21 days after the determination is made. If the
Contractors' Licensing Board determines it will grant a rehearing, it may:
Page 5 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016
a. Schedule a hearing where the parties will be given the opportunity of
presenting evidence or argument limited by the Board to the specific reasons for which
the rehearing was granted; or
b. Modify or reverse its prior decision, without receiving further evidence,
providing that the change is based on a finding that the prior decision of the Board
resulted from a ruling on a question of law that the Board had been informed by its
counsel was an erroneous ruling and which ruling could affect the substantive decision.
The parties are further notified that upon the timely filing of a Notice of Appeal
within thirty (30) days you may have the decision of the Board reviewed pursuant to the
procedure set out herein. The Respondent may appeal a decision of the Board to the
Collier County Circuit Court. Such an appeal shall not be a hearing de novo but shall be
limited to appellate review of the record created before the Board. Any appeal shall be
filed with the Circuit Court and served on the parties within thirty (30) days of the mailing
of the decision of the Board under the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County,
Florida, Section 22-202(g)(9). If there has been a re-hearing request granted, the
appeal shall be filed with the Circuit Court and served on the parties within thirty (30)
days of the mailing of the re-hearing decision under Code of Laws and Ordinances of
Collier County, Florida, Section 22-205.
In the event that the Respondent elects to appeal, a verbatim record and
transcript of the proceedings will be necessary. It shall be the sole responsibility of said
party to ensure that a record is made from which a transcript may be prepared which
includes the testimony upon which an appeal may be taken. Neither Collier County nor
Page 6 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016
the Board has any responsibility to provide a verbatim record transcript of the
proceedings.
ORDERED by the Contractors' Licensing Board effective the 20th day of April,
20 0.
Thomas Lykos, Cha' man
Contractors' Licensi g Board
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Board has been furnished to the
Respondent; and the Licensing Compliance Supervisor, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,
Naples, FL 34103, on this ) day of P e%.+ , 2016.
S retary/Contractors' Licensing Board
Page 7 of 7
452357.1 4/29/2016