The URL can be used to link to this page

CLB Minutes 07/17/2002 RTRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, July 17, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor's Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., at County Commission Meeting Room, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT' CHAIRMAN: LES DICKSON WALTER CRAWFORD, IV KENNETH DUNNE MICHAEL BARIL RICHARD JOSLIN KENNETH LLOYD Patrick Neale Robert Zachary Tom Barto Paul Balzano Bob Nonnenmacher Michael Ossorio AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: July 17, 2002 TIME: 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: June 19, 2002 DISCUSSION: NEW BUSINESS: Richard W. Maki - Request to qualify a 2nd entity. William Pascale - Request to qualify a 2nd entity. OLD BUSINESS: Duane E. Blake - Review of New Credit Report for Concrete Placing & Finishing license. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case # 2002-04 - Maria Ottenstein vs. Mihai G. Popa D/B/A Artistic Floor Design, Inc. - Continued from June 19th meeting. Donald M. Farlow- Contesting Citation #1253 issued 6-26-02 for no license. REPORTS: NEXT MEETING DATE: AUGUST 21,2002 Mo VII. THE COURT: I'd like to call to order the July 17th, 2002 meeting of the Contractor's Licensing Board of Collier County. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings obtained thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim of the record is made, which record includes testimony in evidence upon which the appeal is based. I'd like to have a role call starting from my right. MR. DUNNE: Ken Dunne, President. MR. BARIL: Michael Baril. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. LLOYD: Ken Lloyd. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Dickson? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We have this on, but nothing's working. We don't know if it's working. MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay. Let me go across the hall. She's there. I saw her this morning. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any decision or change? MR. BARTO: I'm Tom Barto, Collier County License's Investigator. I have a number of changes to the agenda. The first one will be to delete the approval of the June 19th minutes, because they are not ready yet. Next under discussion, Item Number 1, staff wants to discuss unpaid citations. Is that the one you're talking about with the County Attorney? Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEALE: And also, under discussion Item Number 2, I believe we have a number of marine contractors present who wanted to discuss Longshoremen and Harbor Compensation Act, which is in our new ordinance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BARTO: And the last change is under public hearings, Donald Farlow contesting Citation Number 1253. Delete that item. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have two changes also when you're finished. MR. BARTO: Staff's finished with their changes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: First thing under discussion, we need to elect a new Chairman and Vice Chairman and also discuss Board vacancies. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended. MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. MR. CRAWFORD: Second, Crawford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? Very well. The first thing, I am acting as Vice Chairman. Our previous Chairman, Gary Hayes, fulfilled his tenure on this Board as of the last meeting. So the very first thing we need to do is elect a new Chairman for this board. That will be done by a nomination from the Board and to be voted on. Do we have any nominations? MR. CRAWFORD: I'd like to nominate Les Dickson for the Chairman of the Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board based on his experience in the industry and his second term on the Board; fourth, fifth? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Fourth, fifth. MR. CRAWFORD: Fourth term on the Board. MR. LLOYD: I second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. All those in favor? MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL.' Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Vice Chairman, do I hear any nominations? MR. DUNNE: I'd like to nominate Walter Crawford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Dickson, I second. Any other nomination? All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So moved. First up, there are a group of marine contractors here. Do you have a spokesman for the group? I'm trying to get you guys back to work real quick. Is there someone who can act as a spokesman? MR. WIERBACK: Yeah, I will speak. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Will you come up here to the podium, please. Would you give your name, please. MR. WIERBACK: My name's Edward Wierback, Sr. I'm a retired marine contractor. I wasn't aware that I would be speaking here this morning. I wasn't prepared for it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's okay. We'll make it easy on you. MR. WIERBACK: But you guys went ahead and voted in, not you, but the Commission on the May 14th meeting, a new ordinance telling all the marine contractors to have Longshoremen Workmen's Act and give them five days, five-work days to enact it. And that's not enough time. It's impossible for them to get all their work records together for three years, their payroll records, submit it to an insurance agent, if you can even find an insurance agent who knows what they're talking about with this kind of insurance. I know my daughter-in-law called 34 people before she found somebody, 34 agencies before she could find somebody that had any idea ~vhat she was talking about, this kind of insurance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me explain something to all of you. First of all, this Board did not do that. MR. WIERBACK: We realize that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That was a change that happened after we approved the amendments. It was added at the Commission level. We, as a Board, have no authority to rescind that or reverse it. But we can make a recommendation to the Collier County Commissioners. And that's where your battle is. But we will make a recommendation. Mr. Neale, have you found the page on ordinance? MR. NEALE: Yes. It's Section 2.8 of the new ordinance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 2.8? MR. NEALE: Right. Which is page 30. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Give us just a minute. So the phrase that we're looking at, is that next to the last sentence, "Longshoremen and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act"? MR. WlERBACK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And what does that entail? MR. WIERBACK: You know about as much about it as I do and everybody else. I've been on the computer and so has all these fellas and so has our attorney, which couldn't be here this morning. He had a previous engagement. But I've got 35 pages of it that one sentence just contradicts the next sentence. So nobody, not even the attorneys, can tell us that we need to have this Workmen's Comp coverage. We had an investigation done a little more than two years ago from the Federal Government-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Um-hum. MR. WIERBACK: -- going through our industry, checking to see if we were working properly with the proper Workmen's Comp. And we all went through it with flying colors. There was one discrepancy, that was Custom Docks down on Marco Island, but somehow that got passed by and dropped. But everybody else up here was okay with the Government. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And my understanding is there are two contractors that do have it; is that correct? MR. WIERBACK: I don't know. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the rest don't? MR. WIERBACK: I don't know. I don't try and mind other people's business. I like to have mine left alone, too. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Wierback, is it a financial concern? MR. WIERBACK: MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, sir. Is it too expensive? MR. WIERBACK: Definitely. Just to put three employees on, there are no exception for, as I understand it anyway, for CEO's or owners or partners. Everybody involved has to covered by it. But for just three employees you've got to be prepared to write a check for $48,000. MR. CRAWFORD: MR. WIERBACK: MR. CRAWFORD: MR. WIERBACK: Junior? $48,000 per -- Yes. -- year? No. That's -- well, would that be a year, MR. CRAWFORD: A year's coverage, $48,0007 MISCELANEOUS SPEAKER: It depends on your volume and your payroll. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well -- I don't understand. Does anyone in here understand Longshoremen Harbor? MR. DUNNE: Yeah, I have some experience with this. It's also commonly referred to as the Jone's Act. MR. WIERBACK: That's different. That's included in it. But that's not the same. MR. DUNNE' Yeah. Okay. This goes back about 12 years ago to my time in New York. And premiums can reach up to a hundred percent of payroll. I attempted to get some myself about 12 years ago and it was next to impossible, just like this gentleman is telling. It's not something -- it's required to work on federal projects in a marine environment, bridges, piers. That's where it comes from. And from my time at the Port Authority in New York is where I'm familiar with this from. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is it necessary for a dock contractor? MR. DUNNE: If you're -- the way I remember it, if you're working on the water on a federally funded project, you have to have it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Federally? MR. DUNNE: Right. Now there could be other instances. It is extremely expensive. Premiums at the time were a hundred percent of payroll as the premium. If you pay someone, a marine worker $30 an hour, you're going to have to pay $30 an hour for the premium for the insurance policy. It's very difficult to get. I'm not surprised that your daughter-in-law called 34 people. MR. WIERBACK: That's right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. WIERBACK: This act was put in place in 1927. It was mainly -- it's mainly built for the shipping industry. If I was to go off in a ship, I would be covered with this act and the Jone's Act. I am a previous merchant seaman, so I'm aware of that. If I was to bid for a contract with the County, I would have to have this insurance in force. What these fellas here that I'm representing at this moment, none of them bid County work or municipal work. I can see this kind of insurance be enforced for a big operation, large barges, push boats, friction cranes on it. But these fellas here build residential docks, recreational docks behind people's homes. They're not after the commercial work or the municipal work where you -- I would say you would need to have this kind of insurance. I wouldn't try and bid any municipal work or commercial work without this insurance. I know I used to go around putting up signs and whatnot on the waterway for the County. I had this insurance enforced. But I think it's unfair. And the premiums today could reach the 248 percent. So every $100 worth of payroll, you've got to pay them $248. Now, that's going to be a big impact on the people out there. But before you get to that point, there's fellas here that have contracts out for nine months a year in advance. Now, how are they going to go back to those people and say, "Oh, I've got to raise your price on this job." CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Um-hum. MR. WIERBACK: Because we weren't prepared to pay all this extra revenue to an insurance company. It's just, it's not a fair thing to do. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is there any comments from County or Staff?. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Dickson, we talked extensively with Worker's Comp and the problem there. And I'd like to state for the record, I'm totally on their side. I've never seen a place where a certain group of contractors have to pay so much money. But Worker's Comp said if any employee or anyone is hurt while working on the waterway, they will not cover it. It has to be on land. That's -- I don't know -- I know as much about it as this gentleman here. Like I said, we talked to Robin Home on the Worker's Comp end and he says, "No." They will not cover them if they are on the water. So, actually, when they're on the water, they don't have any kind of protection for them or their employees. I would like -- Mr. Dunne's statement about it had to be a federal job or a municipal job, that would work out great if that's a fact, because like I said, I'm on their side. That insurance is totally ridiculous and probably put half of them out of business. If there is -- your attorney should do some research and come in with that and, you know, present it to this Board or the Board of Commissioners. And the ordinance just says, "You must have all insurances required by County, State and Federal Government." If you're not required to have that, then you don't have to, you know, you don't have to get it. If you don't fit into the category, that's all it's stating. And what we were told when that came out, through the County Attorney's Office, that we should notify everyone that this was put into the ordinance and it does affect your trade. And that's why we did it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me make a recommendation to you, because we can't, even though we sympathize with you. MR. WlERBACK: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I'm a roofing contractor, and I thought I had high rates. MR. WIERBACK: That's right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: They don't compare to what you're telling me. MR. WlERBACK: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I would suggest that as a group, either your attorney or a spokesman, contact Jim Coletta who -- am I correct, he is presently the Chairman of the Commissioners? MR. CRAWFORD: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. What you -- and contact him directly. He will meet with you. You'll find that he's very responsive. And I would talk this week to him about that on one-on-one and let him guide you as to your procedure, and then bring it before the County Commission. This Board can't do you any good except sit here and sympathize with you. MR. WlERBACK: Let me just add one thing in reference to Bob over there. What you said about Workman's Comp not covering these fellas on a barge, that's not so, because there's proof right here that Dock Masters had one fella get hurt, banged himself on the pile, wood pile. And they stepped in, took care of all his needs, medical needs, follow-up with phone calls to make sure that everything was okay with the fella. So, I mean, they are paying the claims on the people that are injured. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, that's good news. The only thing I can tell you is what I was told directly from Workmen's Comp. MR. WIERBACK: The only thing I can tell you is what -- MR. NONNENMACHER: But at this point, I would like some direction from the Board. And I think you have the authority to do it. We would like you to tell us not to enforce this until it can be straightened out and run through the courts, because it is in your ordinance. And it wasn't five days. We weren't going to start enforcing this until August 1st. But that doesn't even seem like enough time now. MR. CRAWFORD: Well, the next Commissioner's meeting is July 30th. Is it still -- can we still get that on the agenda for the Commissioner's meeting? MR. ZACHARY: Today's the 17th. I think so. MR. NEALE: Possibly. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't believe this Board has the authority to stop enforcement. This is an order from the County Commission. MR. NEALE: I mean, the only thing that could be done is County Attorney's Office could find that it doesn't necessarily apply or research the issue as to whether it's required in certain instances. And Mr. Zachary's got some information. And apparently another member of the County Attorney's Office also has some additional information. MR. ZACHARY: Well, I think at this point it's going to be just an interpretation problem, whether or not, as Mr. Nonnenmacher said, it applies to a specific group of workers or not. And I'll do the research to find out what categories of marine workers it applies to and if it doesn't apply to it. And that's the way the ordinance was amended. If it applies and you have to have it, then we're going to require it. MR. CRAWFORD: Right. You hit the nail on the head. It's really up to the individual insurance companies whether or not they will insure the work they're performing. MR. ZACHARY: And I think you're right. MR. NEALE: I mean if their current Worker's Comp carrier would give them a letter certifying that they are covered for the work that they're performing within the boundaries of their trade under that Worker's Comp policy, then I would say that they are covered under our ordinance. MR. ZACHARY: And I think that's what the Commission, they're -- the problem that they saw was if these worker's are not covered by Worker's Comp, then they're not covered at all. So that's the reason that they put this -- they wanted us to put this amendment in there was to cover those people that are not covered by Worker's Comp and they would have to have this other insurance. And I think this was -- MR. JOSLIN: Has anyone out of the marine contractors that are here now, checked with any other insurance companies or their insurance company to see if they are covered? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You need to come up. MR. JOSLIN: If someone gets hurt on the job is what I'm speaking of. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, give us your name, please. Step up to the microphone. MR. WISHART: My name is Blake Wishart with Marco Dock & Lift. Let me address some of the issues on insurance. We do have it, and there are a number of contractors in this County that have it. This is not a new law. This is finally a situation where the County Attorney's Office, through Mr. Mumford, started researching this and certainly determined that this was a requirement. USL&H is a Federal requirement and jurisdiction under the Department of Labor. And once he researched it, he realized that the County was remiss in not enforcing the rule that says you have to have USL&H. And he also addressed the Jone's Act, which is separate insurance; a number of us have had it. It puts us at a very great disadvantage to those people that don't carry it and are basically doing business illegally. I opened up our business about three and a half years ago, expected standard Workmen's Comp. I've been in the construction industry for about 25 years. And we opened up the business. I went to our insurance carrier. He started quoting me on policies. And I looked at the premiums and I said, you know, "I don't understand. What is this?" Well, this is a requirement for USL&H." Three and a half years ago we started being educated. We almost did not open the business because of the cost. It cost us in excess of $200,000 a year. The premiums, USL&H has a premium on insurance, is 3.98 times your normal rate. So as a carpenter, if your rate is $35 per hundred or 35 percent, you're going to pay 3.98 times that. That's what's in the NCI codes. So this is not anything new. This is just something that the County has finally determined that they should have been working with and are now starting to enforce or should be enforcing it. And we've been one of the companies that have been out there pushing for this. I'm tired of competing with people that do not have the insurance. They're leaving their workers and the homeowners and whoever their general contract is totally uncovered. As a business owner, USL&H Insurance, if I have a worker that gets hurt, the veil of my corporation doesn't protect, every officer, owner of the corporation is fully exposed. We can certainly be sued by that worker if he's injured. I mean, it's a very serious matter, and that's why we pay the premiums. I mean, I certainly consider doing it like other people do. The City of Marco -- MR. CRAWFORD: Is it -- I'm sorry. Is it your understanding that that additional insurance is required for a simple residential dock? MR. WISHART: It's required for any work over navigable water. There isn't any restriction as to whether it's federally funded, county project. It's navigable water, which means that every dock built in this County is virtually over navigable water. If you're on an inland lake that is not connected to the ocean, you don't need USL&H Insurance. That's the only requirement anywhere in the Country. So it's -- there's a lot of sort of supplemental issues around this. But the basic requirement is that USL&H is a requirement for us to be doing business. The City of Marco about a year and a half ago changed their permit on the back of the permit on the affidavit that we all sign, that says that we have to have all the applicable insurances, including USL&H. Virtually almost all of the companies have been signing that permit application and to my understanding, talking to our attorney, are committing insurance fraud every time they do if they don't have USL&H. So this thing has been going on for a long time. It's not new. It's just now the County at the Commission level has decided that it's time to start reacting to the law properly. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, we appreciate your time. And we appreciate everyone's time. But unless someone tells me otherwise from the County or staff this is the inappropriate Board to bring this issue to, because we don't make law. We just enforce what the County Commission does. So that is your avenue. That's who you need to talk to. I would start first with the meeting with Mr. Coletta and see where you go from there. But unfortunately we can't make a decision like that on this Board. So it's really just -- besides an education for us, it serves no other purpose for you to be here. Okay. MR. TOWNSEND: I have a statement. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You have to come up, sir. MR. JOSLIN: Please. 'MR. ZACHARY: At this point, let me just interject here, Mr. Chairman, that it looks like the impetus for this amendment was a direction or a letter to Mr. Perico back a year or so ago or a year and a half. And it references Mr. Charles Lee who was the director of the United States Department of Labor, USL&H Office in Jacksonville had advised Mr. Perico that -- well, through this attorney from Roetzel & Andress that sent the letter that, "Dock builders around the state where they are working on docks within navigable waters must have insurance under the H -- or LHWCA. So that's where this all started a year and a half ago was somebody from the Department of Labor advising people that they needed to carry this if they were working on navigable waters in the state. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. WISHART: So that's where they came from. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Your name, sir? MR. TOWNSEND: Joseph Townsend. I'm a sole proprietor. And the County, the State and I believe the Federal Government, when you're a sole proprietor, you do not have to carry Workmen's Comp unless you have employees. But if you go down to the County now and try to get a permit, they ask you for your Workmen's Comp. I don't carry Workmen's Comp. I'm a sole proprietor and I work all by myself. MR. CRAWFORD: Are we mixing State and Federal laws, Mr. Zachary; is that what we're doing? MR. ZACHARY: It appears that we're doing that. Yeah. MR. CRAWFORD: See, I think your point is valid for State Worker's Compensation. But apparently, there's a federal LNH requirement that overrides that, is the way I see it. MR. ZACHARY: And I think your perception is correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think what you're going to see in the next 12 months to the next 18 months is that exception's going to be gone. There is a movement within the State and I think it's-- MR. TOWNSEND: Well, the Governor's already sent a letter to GC's -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Um-hum. MR. TOWNSEND: -- stating that if you work on a project that has totaled $250 -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Commercial. MR. TOWNSEND. No matter what part of that contract you're working on that you have to carry Workmen's Comp and that the exception no longer applies to it. You can still have an exemption, but on that particular job, you have to have Workmen's Comp. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: True. MR. TOWNSEND: Now, I'm a CGC. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Um-hum. MR. TOWNSEND: And I do marine construction. And so, I mean -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Look for changes. It's coming. That's the beginning. MR. TOWNSEND: On Workmen's Comp? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: On the exemption, yes, sir. It's been going on for several years. That's the start. Gentlemen, we appreciate you coming to us, and I apologize that we can't do anything for you. If we could, we would pursue it. But as it stands right now, I really don't need any other comments, because we can't do anything for you. We have cases here that we're supposed to hear and those people are prepared and waiting. So I thank you for your time, and I wish you the best of luck but I would follow my recommendation. Okay. Thanks for coming in. MR, WIERBACK: Thank you. MR. WISHART: Thank you. MR. TOWNSEND. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you. Also under discussion, unpaid citations, Mr. Barto? You wanted to discuss a form that we had? MR. BARTO: Mr. Ossorio wanted to discuss it. I believe in your packet we put in there a memorandum from County Attorney Tom Palmer with drafts. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Here he comes. MR. BARTO: Okay. They were not in your packet. MR. LLOYD: They are now. MR. OSSORIO: Good morning. For the record, Michael Ossorio, Collier County Contract Licensing Investigator. We've been getting an influx of citations, probably within 150 to 200 almost nonpaid as of 2001. And we just need some direction of how we're going to collect. We have a couple of memorandums here back in 1999 from Mr. Barber, and they're stamped "draft". We would like some direction. Is this draft going to be something we can use, or has it been approved by the Board? Have we had any discussion with Pat Neale or Mr. Robert Zachary? If we can get it on the record today, it would be great. MR. CRAWFORD: What kind of tracking mechanism do we have for unpaid? Obviously, the license holders that pull permits, they cannot pull a permit if they have an outstanding citation; correct? MR. OSSORIO: Most of the contractor's that get citations pay. MR. CRAWFORD: Don't pull permits. Most of them pay. MR. OSSORIO: There's-- MR. CRAWFORD: But 200 are not currently so. MR. OSSORIO: But they're unlicensed. So in other words -- MR. BARTO: Probably 99 percent of citations issued are issued to unlicensed. MR. CRAWFORD: Unlicensed. Okay. Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does the County have a response? Have you looked at this before? MR. ZACHARY: I got it about ten minutes ago. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: It appears that Tom Palmer had drafted these proposed orders and notice and order about four years ago. And it appears to me that this is what we need to do. If people don't pay their citations we got to give them a notice. I don't know what Staff does now as far as if people don't pay their citations. What procedure do you have at this point for trying to prod them into paying? MR. NONNENMACHER: Just calling them up. MR. OSSORIO: Just calling them up. MR. ZACHARY: Well, this seems it would be more formal and more in line with a formal notice that they haven't paid and let the Board take action. MR. CRAWFORD: On the threat to impose a lien upon property, and that's pretty strong. That's how the Code Enforcement Board does it. MR. NEALE: In 489.127 provides some very specific ways. And that's what Mr. Palmer based his memo on. 489.127, the procedure, and I think it's outlined in Mr. Palmer's memo, is that the code enforcement officer, i.e., Mr. Nonnenmacher, notifies that the violator did not pay the civil penalty within the time frame allowed on the citation. The enforcement or licensing board shall enter an order ordering the violator to pay the penalty set forth and a hearing is not necessary for such an order. So it really could be a summary procedure at each month's meeting that these could be brought forward and just, you know, here's the ones that haven't been paid. This Board could issue an order requiring such payment. A certified copy of that order may be recorded in the public record. And once it's recorded, it constitutes a lien against any'real or personal property owned by the violator. So that puts the lien on. And then upon petition to the Circuit Court, the order may be enforced in the same manner as a court judgement by the Sheriff including a levy. And after three months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, this Board may authorize the local governing body's attorney, i.e., the County Attorney's Office, to foreclose on the lien. So the only thing that's not subject to these liens is Homestead. So there is a procedure set out in 127, which I think is what Mr. Palmer outlined in this. And really all that I would say this Board would need to do is authorize the County Attorney's Office and Staff to proceed to enforce these pursuant to 489.127. And the mechanism could be set up, frankly, as early as next month's meeting. You could get a pile of these. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 489.1277 MR. NEALE: Um-hum. MR. ZACHARY: And I think on the last page of Mr. Ossorio's hand-out is the executive summary that -- I mean, the Board can follow the recommendation in that executive summary they have, that you have in front of you. MR. NONNENMACHER: On that first page, "Draft code enforcement officer." Can that be changed to contractor licensing officer? MR. NEALE: Um-hum. Yeah. You're specifically, and strangely enough, in the 489, you're called code enforcement officers, but it's, I think, a hangover from the code enforcement statute that never got cleaned up in any of the amendments to the 489. But it's clear from the contacts of the statute that it does involve contractor licensing officers, too. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does anyone on the Board have a motion to approve collection procedures as outlined in 49.127 of the code? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Neale, these forms are acceptable to you? MR. NEALE: I haven't reviewed them, but I certainly think if the Board authorizes us to go forward, Mr. Zachary and I and Staff can come up with forms that can conform between now and next month's meeting. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make that motion we accept the order to pay the civil penalty as drafted. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Based on? MR. JOSLIN: Based on ordinance 49-127. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. LLOYD: 489. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 489.127. 489.127. Okay. Do I have a second? MR. CRAWFORD: Second, Crawford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. MR. MR. MR. MR. DUNNE: Aye. BARIL: Aye. CRAWFORD: Aye. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? Unanimously passed, Mr. Ossorio and the County Staff. MR. OSSORIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And so what we will see in the future is a list of these that we will do a summary approval; correct? MR. NEALE: Um-hum. Right. Because there's specifically in the statute, there is no requirement for a hearing on these unpaid citations. All literally the Board needs to do is do it as a summary procedure where you get the list. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So that will become a new line item on the agenda. MR. NEALE: I think that would probably be an appropriate way to handle it is put it in as a new line item on page citations. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. If we put that up in the beginning like at the same place of approval of agenda, then we can just take care of that as we start the meeting. MR. NEALE: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Correct? MR. NEALE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BARTO: And probably the first time it will come before you, there will probably be well over a hundred on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. We don't want to look at all those. MR. JOSLIN: I have one quick question for you: What paperwork is going to be involved in doing all this to file these liens to the owners, to find the owners or the citations.'? MR. NEALE: The way it works actually is what will happen is this order will be issued requiring payment. It can then be certified copies of those orders and can be recorded in the records of the County to constitute a lien. They have to be provided notice of this lien on their property. Most people tend to respond when they get a lien on their property. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: After three months after the recording of that lien, then staff can bring them back to here and the Board can look at whether to authorize the County Attorney's Office to go forward and foreclose on these liens. It has to be, I would suggest, a business decision of the County Administration and County Attorney's Office whether it's worthwhile to spend County Attorney's time foreclosing on $300 liens. It may be that some of these liens that are recorded will only be satisfied at the time someone sells a piece of property or something like that. MR. CRAWFORD: Which is fine. MR. NEALE: But it's -- MR. JOSLIN: Is there any other avenue that can be discussed or put on discussion that we could -- MR. NEALE: This is all that's permitted under 489, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's fine. MR. ZACHARY: And the order that will be signed by the Chairman if these liens aren't paid, has a notice that if they're not, it will be recorded in the public records and it will constitute a lien upon the property so that notice is incorporated in the order that will go out to the violators. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One last item under-- MR. NEALE: Excuse me, just if I may? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm sorry. MR. NEALE: To answer the question -- to answer the crux of the question, yes, this will create a mountain of paperwork. MR. JOSLIN: You answered the question before. MR. LLOYD: Initially? MR. NEALE: And forever, basically. As long as Mr. Ossorio keeps doing the great job he's doing, we're going to have a whole lot of these, probably. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One last item on discussion. We'll get into new business. I want to mention Board vacancies. This Board is made up of nine members. All of the current members are present. We have three empty seats on this Board. I'm asking Staff, two of them are consumers; is that correct? MR. BARTO: I believe so. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What is the third one? What contractor? MR. BARTO: The one you had here was a plumber, but it does not have to be a plumber. It can be any contractor. MR. JOSLIN: Specialty, wasn't it? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Specialty contractor. Okay. So we do need two consumers and we need a specialty contractor. My understanding was that the City had appointed a tile installer to take the specialty slot. MR. BARTO: And I was informed yesterday that all positions have been advertised applications and have to be received by Friday, and they have one application, an electrician. MR. NEALE: Um-hum. Yeah. I stopped into the Commissioner's office yesterday and spoke with the coordinator and she told me that they have one application, the same information as Mr. Barto got. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If the electrician meets all the other qualifications, an electrician in the past has been very invaluable on this Board. MR. NEALE: What it appears that County Staff is going to do is, Commission Staff is they're going to extend the -- readvertise and extend the date. But certainly this Board could recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they take action to at least fill a vacancy. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: May I ask a question on clarification of consumer? If we have an individual that is not a licensed contractor, holds no license of any kind that is somewhat or somehow involved in the construction industry, say he's a salesperson or a representative, does that still fit a consumer qualification? MR. BARTO: I believe he can have no association with the industry. I don't know whether we have it in our ordinance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Board now? MR. LLOYD: Me. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: contractor. MR. LLOYD: MR. BARTO: Who is the one consumer on the Oh, okay. I thought you were a No, I'm the consumer. If I may, three members of the CLB shall be consumer representative members. No such member shall be or shall have ever been a member or practitioner of any profession regulated by the CLB or any profession closely related to any such profession regulated by the CLB. MR. CRAWFORD: That's everybody. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's very restrictive. Okay. We just need to find two consumers then. Okay. Moving on. New business. Anything else in discussion? We have with us a request for a qualified second entity, Richard W. Maki. Would you come forward, please, to that podium. I need for you to state your whole name and need to have you sworn in, please. MR. MAKI: Richard William Maki. Thereupon, RICHARD WILLIAM MAKI, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, tell us why you're here, what you're doing and what your purpose of doing it is? MR. MAKI: Currently qualifying Knox Tile and have joined forces with Hadingers building a builder division. He currently does real well with his retail end of it, trying to get into the builder market and kicking that off for him, kind of. Knox Tile will be supplying the labor for the tile and marble installation. And this will qualify Hadingers to be out there and be legal. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So Hadinger will sell the jobs under a license that you're contracting? MR. MAKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which gets us right back to one of the cases we have today. So your license will cover them selling and having someone else do the installation? MR. MAKI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. MAKI: The actual labor will be through Knox Tile. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gotcha. MR. MAKI: For probably eight percent of the work. MR. LLOYD: Will there be a contractural connection to Hadingers as well, because that's where we're at today on this. If a customer has a complaint against Knox Tile and it's actually Hadinger's error, the customer has no way to recoup the loss from Hadinger. MR. CRAWFORD: If ! understand this right -- excuse me -- you're qualifying Knox Tile? MR. MAKI: Yes. MR. CRAWFORD: And you're also qualifying Hadinger? I don't think we have the same condition. MR. NEALE: No. MR. CRAWFORD: We got them wrapped up in both. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He's qualifying Hadinger, Inc. MR. MAKI: Yeah. MR. Actually, MR. MR. MR. MR. were. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good credit report. on this individual to the County? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. MR. CRAWFORD: You had checked the bankruptcy box. you explain that to us. MR. MAKI: Yes, sir. Four years ago I went through an ugly divorce and ended up smacking up on a motorcycle is what happened. I ended up in a wheelchair for almost six months. The only disability I received was $135 a week of which $450 a month NEALE: It's not distinguishable from the other end. Hadinger is doing right what the other party didn't do right. CRAWFORD: It's actually the way we prefer it. LLOYD: Okay. I'm sorry. I missed-- CRAWFORD: So it's all good. LLOYD: Thank you. I didn't want to get into where we Any complaints Can went to child support. funds quickly. MR. CRAWFORD: reading this right? MR. BARTO: Mr. Ossorio? It didn't leave a whole lot left. It used up the Your credit appears okay now, right, if I'm Mr. Maki, did you ever receive a citation from We wish you the best of luck. finalized. MR. MAKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: will taken care of. MR. MAKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go there tomorrow, and everything MR. MAKI: No, sir, I haven't as of yet. Knox Tile received one, and that's when I got involved with Knox Tile. We paid the fine, became qualified at that point under any license. The only citation issued to Knox Tile was before I qualified to come. MR. NONNENMACHER: That citation is paid? MR. MAKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gentlemen? MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this application. MR. LLOYD: I second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All opposed? You have been approved. Let me tell you and the other individual who is here today, your packets are here. You can't go to the County today and get this MR. CRAWFORD: And if I could just say a word and I didn't get a chance to put in, it appears he has zero percent ownership in both companies, which is fine. But I just warn you to make sure you have a hold on what's going on out there because it's your license and you're the one that will come back if there's any problems. MR. MAKI: Yes, sir. MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. MAKI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do well. Next we have William Pascale to request to qualify a second entity. Are you here? MR. PASCALE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you please come forward. Is it Pascale? MR. PASCALE: Pascale, yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pascale. If you'd state your name, please. And then I'll have you sworn in. MR. PASCALE: William Michael Pascale. Thereupon, WILLIAM MICHAEL PASCALE, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And your purpose here and what you're doing and why? MR. PASCALE: We're expanding into a second corporation. Actually, we had done that about four years ago; Bonita Springs Floor Covering up in Lee County. And now we're opening an office on Domestic as well, finding ourselves, that company, doing more work in Collier County so we wanted to qualify the Bonita store in Collier. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It seems to be the day for floor covering. MR. LLOYD: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Excuse us just a minute. We just got this information this morning. So let us review it real quick. MR. PASCALE: Certainly. MR. LLOYD: Will Marco Floor Covering and Bonita Springs Floor Covering be competing against one another? MR. PASCALE: We could be. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, but, you know. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think it's the best of both worlds. His credit's clean. MR. DUNNE: I have a question. Since you presently own a hundred percent of neither floor covering -- MR. PASCALE: A hundred percent of Marco Floor Covering. MR. DUNNE: Okay. My real question is, it says you attempt 51 percent of the company you're attempting to qualify, but you don't have check-writing ability? MR. PASCALE: No, I don't. MR. DUNNE: And who does? MR. PASCALE: My brother and my partner. MR. DUNNE: Okay. MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to approve Bill Pascale's application to qualify a second entity. MR. CRAWFORD: Second, Crawford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? Done. Get it done tomorrow. Wish you the best of luck. MR. PASCALE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Old business, Duane Blake, are you here, please? Review of a new credit report. You all remember Mr. Blake was here before and we requested this information. If you would, state your name and I'll have you sworn in again. MR. BLAKE: Duane Edward Blake. Thereupon, DUANE EDWARD BLAKE, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Blake, when you were here before, we did ask you to satisfy the Hughes Supply judgement, which apparently you have done, and we also got Sandra's credit report. MR. BLAKE: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sandra, you may as well come up and get sworn in, because if I remember last time, you're going to be talking, too. If you'd come up and state your name and I'll have you sworn in as well. MS. METZGER: Sandra Ann Metzger. Thereupon, SANDRA ANN METZGER, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Fill us in. Just give a brief history of what we did last -- it was last month; right? MS. METZGER: Yes. We were here last month to get approval for Duane's contracting license. He had a judgement against him, and I believe that's why we were referred to the Board. We were requested to satisfy that judgement from Hughes Supply. We -- the Board asked for some sort of evidence of making regular payments or doing something that was positive on his credit. And we requested the mortgage payment history and you'll -- it shows after the divorce that he has been making regular payments. He had to catch up on the payments and has done that. And my role in the company, being 50 percent ownership, we have provided that I am 50 percent ownership and that I do have an outstanding credit report with no liens or judgements and no late payments ever and that I'm investing a lot of money in this business. And we plan on being credible and -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Does everybody remember this case? MR. DUNNE: Yes. MR. LLOYD: Um-hum. MR. CRAWFORD: I think they've done everything we've asked them to do. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, that has to be a first, especially by the time of the next meeting. I am impressed. And the license is for Concrete Connection? MS. METZGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Concrete finishing? MS. METZGER: Concrete Connection is the name of the business, Concrete Connection and it's for concrete placing and finishing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I'm going back to my old packet. MR. CRAWFORD: You did take and pass the County test? I think I asked you that last time. MR. BLAKE: Yeah. January 5th I passed that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And County just brought this to us because of the credit report, is that correct; that the only issue? MR. NONNENMACHER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And we were prevented by State and County law from issuing the license to anyone who had an outstanding judgement. MR. CRAWFORD: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which has been satisfied. MR. NEALE: And just to review since you don't have minutes, but I got my notes from the last meeting, is there were four items that you had requested, positive credit information on Mr. Blake, positive credit report on Ms. Metzger, corporate documents showing that she was a part owner of the company and the satisfaction of the judgement. Those were the four items that you requested to be returned today. MR. CRAWFORD: It's all here. MR. LLOYD: And they're all here. MR. CRAWFORD: Based on that, Chairman, I make a motion that we approve a license for Concrete Connection & More Inc. MR. JOSLIN: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Been moved and a second. All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? We wish you well. MR. BLAKE: Thank you very much. MR. LLOYD: Thank you. MR. BARTO: And, Mr. Blake, as Mr. Dickson advised, you will not be able to come into the office and obtain that until tomorrow, because your packet's here. MR. BLAKF~: That's fine. All right. Thank you. You all have a good day. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Under public hearings, we have a case that we started on last month, Case Number 2002-04. Are we going to hear that, or what is the status? MR. NEALE: I guess the question that we had at the end of the last meeting was whether this Board had jurisdiction to be able to hear the matter because of the lack of direct contractual relationship between Ms. Ottenstein and the licensed contractor. Mr. Zachary and I spent several hours actually researching this matter. We ran ourselves into a few corners, but have come to the conclusion, or at least I've come to the conclusion, I think Mr. Zachary is of the same mind that her lack-- apparent lack of direct contractual relationship with a licensed contractor is irrelevant as to the jurisdiction of this Board over that person's license and his performance of his duties as a contractor under Florida law. So while it may have some impact on any civil action that she might take against Mr. Popa, this Board, based on my research, has full authority to enforce our -- the Contractor Licensing Ordinance of Collier County against the contracting, because -- and frankly the reason for that is that while the complaint was filed by Mr. Ottenstein, the actual complainant in these matters is the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County or Collier County Government is the complainant. And they are the issuer of the license to the licensed contractor. Therefore, they have the authority over the license. And the way the ordinance is written, the way the Collier County Ordinance is written, is, frankly, anyone could be a complainant in one of these matters. Then it is -- it's very analogous, I would suggest, to someone filing a criminal complaint, making a criminal complaint to a police officer against someone. The State Attorney's Office proceeds to investigate it, determine if there is probable cause. And then an action is brought by the State. So it's analogous to some extent to that in that the complainant is actually the person who issues the license, i.e., Collier County. And therefore, Collier County has the ability to proceed against that license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEALE: Regardless of any contractual response -- relationship between the person damaged and the one who damaged them. It's the performance of the duty of contracting as defined in the Collier County Ordinance and as defined in the Florida Statutes that is the crux. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: or I'm sorry. Go ahead. MR. ZACHARY: that a hundred percent. Okay. I have one question for you -- Well, I was just going to add that I agree with And I think as well, we could find in this situation that this is an implied contract between the installer and the complainant in this case. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do -- as a matter of procedure we heard the case last month, but we just withheld taking any action? MR. NEALE: The case was heard up through the respondent's case in chief, Mr. Popa's case in chief. What would be remaining in the case would be any rebuttal and then closing arguments in the matter so. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we heard all of the County's presentation and we saw the exhibits. MR. NEALE: And you heard all of Mr. Popa's direct presentation. Now the County has an opportunity to respond. And then they both have an opportunity to make closing arguments and then the Board would -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Popa or Popa? MR. POPA: Popa. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you come forward, please. I need for you, if you would, state your name and be sworn in, please. MR. POPA: Mihai Popa. Thereupon, MIHAI POPA, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you understand what was just said? MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you're aware. And you remember how far we got last month? MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the County was finished, Mr. Nonnenmacher, with their presentation; is that correct? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah. At this time I have no further questions. I was in the middle of questioning Mr. Popa at the last meeting. I have no further questions for him at this time. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does anyone on this Board need to be reviewed? We had all the pictures. Those are available to you that were introduced as evidence. We have the tiles that were introduced. MR. DUNNE: I have one question, Mr. Chairman. I seem to remember that last month the tiles were coming up and that you had said that he took them out with a chipping hammer. MR. POPA: Yes. MR. DUNNE: There's a big difference. I would just like some clarification on that. MR. CRAWFORD: Good question. MR. DUNNE: I would just like some clarification on that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I do -- MR. NONNENMACHER: I would like to clarify that. It was a matter of economics at that point. When the tiles come up, as you see in the evidence, the only amount of glue is there. At that point to stay there and individually pull each tile up would be economically unfeasible to do. You can't expect a new contractor to come in and, you know, it would be outrageous, the price. So what it was it was just a clean sweep of the tiles that had to come out and brushed away and then the new tiles put down. But as you can see by the evidence introduced, this is the amount of set that stuck to the tiles. There was nothing holding this tile to the floor except for the grout. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Popa, is that a typical installation? Should there be grout? MR. POPA: It's possible to make some mistake, but Marla Ottenstein said the contractor pick up 125 tiles. Maybe I don't make mistake because it's no job affected. One, two, three tiles from five hundred tiles maybe is possible. But she make, Marla make a mistake, because she check herself. Not with somebody who is tile installer, who is specialized in tile installation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Please stay close -- excuse me just a minute. MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Please stay close to the microphone. MR. POPA: Sorry. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And speak up a little bit if you can. MR. POPA: Yes. And she doesn't have any experience with tile installation. But she take some wrong advice from somebody to check the tiles with the golf ball. This is very bad, because it's not it's not -- it's entirely wrong, because it's not right. Because the tile installation over the cork, everybody knows the floor is not even. It's like up and down. When the floor is like that, the tile heats up on top of that bump. Is very small, the thin set. Cork the same thickness everywhere. And at that point that something different like that, you know, what I mean. And for that reason, for people to do the installation a long time, it's hard to check everywhere where is from installation. MR. DUNNE: Mr. Chairman, I have one other question that he mentioned something to me. Am I correct in understanding that this tile was installed over cork? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. DUNNE: So there was cork on the floor? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. DUNNE: The complete floor? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. DUNNE: And rather than take the cork up -- MR. CRAWFORD: No. No. That's a very typical way to install it. Cork is a sound underlayment, but the cork is not an issue. MR. DUNNE: Okay. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to remind this Board of a comment on Mr. Popa's summation that we did have an expert witness here with 25 years experience that was qualified as an expert. And on page E-14, the expert did check the whole floor. Yes, it's true that Mr. Ottenstein checked it with a golf ball, but this floor was checked by a professional and qualified as an expert. MR. CRAWFORD: And I would also say that the $3100 to, you know, replace the tile is probably in line. I'm still not comfortable that it all had to be replaced. I don't know how we get that answer. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The question I have is in looking at the photographs. I've always understood tile should have full adhesion and not spot patties, but yet most of those tiles that I see loose, which are around walls or protrusions or cabinets, they have the spot patties. Would you explain that for me? MR. POPA: Yes. Basically we do the installation like spots, like we set point. Where the area is not -- it's not enough space to put the right tools. But if the floor is up and down, you can use that installation, that kind of installation. Because if you use the regular trowel for installation, maybe the tiles is not in right position. Maybe it's up or down. And for that reason, we have to pour some point. And our experience, it's we consider the -- basically the area where is the cabinets, hard to reach with regular tools. And we make it easy to put the same -- the installation in a point. And this is not wrong, because in marble, we use it like that installation. And there's nothing wrong with that. MR. LLOYD: In the pictures on E-11, I was looking at that, it looks as though some of the tiles came up easily where you had troweled it properly with the proper groves on E-! 1, because the thin set is not disturbed as if it had been chipped away. You see that7 MR. POPA: Yes. MR. LLOYD: E- 11.9 MR. POPA: I see the -- MR. LLOYD: And look at the places that are not dabbed but the other ones that are troweled properly. disturbed when the tiles were popped up. with the thin set underneath. MR. POPA: Yeah. I see the picture. That thin set was not So something was wrong But I saw the job when the tile was taken out by chipper hammer. And that picture doesn't look -- doesn't show the piece of tiles stick in that thin set, you know. When you take the tiles out with a chipper tiles -- MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. POPA: -- the tiles, if it's wrong installation, the tiles is coming out almost in big pieces, not small pieces like that. MR. LLOYD: Urn-hum. MR. POPA: And that picture doesn't show the amount of the tiles stick with that thin set. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to remind the Board that we did have, at last meeting, quite a few bags of tiles in the comer. And we asked the Board if we presented enough, rather than to bore the Board with 20 different tiles coming up. Also, I know you don't have the minutes, but testimony was given by the expert that that was the whole problem, exactly what Mr. Lloyd said, the thin set hardened before the tile was put down. MR. LLOYD: That's what it looks like. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, the issue I have and Mr. Popa, maybe you can answer it, but in July Ms. Ottenstein started calling you, had problems getting ahold of you through August. You made several appointments, some of which you apparently couldn't make. You know, in September it sounds like you had agreed, based on her notes, that you had agreed to do some form of work. So through the months of October she tried to schedule your people out there. And it looks like she got the runaround a little bit from different companies and different named tile installers. And the notes go on through November. And it sounds like she just kind of got fed up with it and went and got her tile replaced somewhere else. MR. POPA: Yes. Just a moment. Let me find. MR. CRAWFORD: What attempt did you -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Again, Mr. Crawford, Ms. Ottenstein had those tiles replaced by another contractor on my direction -- MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. MR. NONNENMACHER: -- because I had trouble getting ahold of him too to repair the work. And then when we finally did, he said the job was perfect and he wasn't going to do anything. MR. CRAWFORD: Right. If you would have said that on day one, your case would be a little stronger to me. But for a good six- month period you looked at it. Apparently you told her that you would try to fix it. There was some acknowledgement of bad installation from the notes I'm reading. MR. POPA: I -- after I did the job, I finish almost, I finish the job, Marla was complaining about the grout was cracked around the base. MR. CRAWFORD: Which is common. MR. POPA: Yes. I told you last time, because I spoke with one of the owner of the model house to give me some corking to put around. Doesn't solve the problem, but it says -- they said, "I don't want to spend any penny on that job." What can I tell the customer? I have to give them what he says, keep in mind, you know. MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah. I think you're getting a bad rap, because whoever you're working for doesn't want to front the bill to make the job right. However, it's your license that we're here to talk about. And it's the consumer that we're here to protect. And I think perhaps you're caught in the middle, and perhaps you don't understand the extent of the license that you hold and the obligation you have to the projects that you work on. I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but-- MR. LLOYD: It's your license. MR. CRAWFORD: It's your license. MR. POPA: But let me finish. MR. CRAWFORD: Yeah, please. Please. MR. POPA: After a couple of calls, I meet with Alberto, I was in the model house over there after I fix everything and me, Marla and Alberto, we make the inspection of the house and Marla said, "Now it's okay." After that, I don't know how, another guy, I forget his name, work with Alberto. MR. LLOYD: Luigi? MR. POPA: Luigi. Exactly. Yes. It's the first job -- I mean the second job when I work with that guy, but after that I didn't care anything about that company. MR. CRAWFORD: Albert and Luigi are other tile contractors that work for the -- who are Albert and Luigi? MR. POPA: Alberto and Luigi are owner of the European House -- MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. MR. POPA: -- who contract the job with Marla. MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. MR. POPA: So after I go everywhere in the house with Marla together and Marla said, "Okay. Now, it's okay. Now it's perfect." But after that I hear something, because Marla give some complaint. After that, I spoke with Luigi, not with Alberto, Luigi, I spoke three times. And first he wanted an appointment with me and to go to the job. And I said, "Okay." I have to go. I make an appointment with Luigi to go to see Marla, but one or two hours before that meeting he called me. He can't come with me because he's in Miami. And after that just the one or two calls I spoke with him, but just one was about that job, nothing else. MR. CRAWFORD: Why didn't you return the phone calls to the Licensing Board? Why did you not return the phone calls to the licensing Board? MR. POPA: Was maybe my mistake, because the telephone I -- the telephone that he, Collier County called me, was the fax. And that was have own answering machine. And I didn't look at that time for a long time. And something that my telephone -- at this time, my telephone, I changed the company. And my telephone number was changed. And nobody can contact me to do that. I'm not bad guy, "When Bob contacted me, I say, "Okay. I and I told, "I can come to. have to go there to see the job and I have to fix the job, you know." But second day after that, Bob said I spoke with the lady and she said already contact somebody else to do the job, was too late for me to repair. CHAIRMAN DICKSON' MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me ask you a question. Mr. Nonnenmacher testified that he finally found you at a job in Naples. MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And he went to talk to you about it and your comment was, "There's nothing wrong with that job. I'm not going back." Is that correct? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah. He was asked to come over and take a look at the job. And when he went over there, he said there was nothing wrong -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, he did go? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He did go to the job? Okay. I stand corrected. MR. JOSLIN: How long after you had found out the problem did it take to get him to go and look at that job? MR. NONNENMACHER: Had to be a couple months for the simple reason I kept calling, got no answer, sent certified mail; it was sent back to me. And then we were informed that he was on a job in the City of Naples on Gulf Shore Boulevard. And we went there and there he was. And that's when we finally got in touch with him. And that's when he signed for his notification. MR. JOSLIN: And up until then he hadn't shown up to look at the job or contact the owner to make any kind of adjustments at all? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. And while we were attempting to find him, Ms. Ottenstein asked can she do something about it because the tiles were popping up. It was a matter of a safety issue at this time. And her whole house was in disarray. And as you can see, it started in July, and we're still going with this. MR. LLOYD: Was the majority of the conversations that Ms. Ottenstein had, was that with Alberto and Luigi? MS. OTTENSTEIN: May I answer or-- MR. LLOYD: I just thought maybe he would know. If you -- we're going to have to swear her in if she comes up. MR. NEALE: Um-hum. MR. LLOYD: Do you know that if the dialogue was with Luigi? MR. NONNENMACHER: I only know what's in your packet. MR. LLOYD: Okay. MR. CRAWFORD: That appears to be the case, too, this Luigi Saches (phonetic) and Alberto Lavis (phonetic) seem to be the chief communicators in this. MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. CRAWFORD: And I think Mr. Popa is just caught in the middle. But on the other hand, I don't think Ms. Ottenstein should have to pay this bill. MR. JOSLIN: Correct. MR. CRAWFORD: And I think our only jurisdiction is with the license holder, who happens to be Mr. Popa. And if I was Mr. Popa, I would go straight to the American House of Tile or whatever it is -- MR. LLOYD: European. MR. CRAWFORD: -- and explain to them the situation you're in. But I -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are they still in business? MR. LLOYD: I wanted to clarify that because my concern was that it seemed to be, in my opinion, that the European House was the person at fault here. And Mr. Popa has the license. So we're going to have to deal with his role in this. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is European House Materials still in operation? MR. NONNENMACHER: If it is, it is not in Naples anymore. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: I did a corporate check and they're not in business anymore. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Do you know what happened to them, Mr. Popa? MR. POPA: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. POPA: I tried to call him maybe last November, October, November, but somebody else answered the telephone. His telephone he said doesn't work over there and he got his telephone number and everything. And I said maybe he's out of it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you remember how much you were paid by European House Materials to install the tile on this job? MR. CRAWFORD: Total contract was 11,320. MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. CRAWFORD: So I assume-- MR. POPA: I have roughly, this was my invoice. And this was my invoice. This is just a copy, but -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you'll just tell me that figure. I don't need to see it because then -- MR. POPA: Yeah. I make here an invoice about the job. But when Alberto saw that invoice, he said, "Man, it's you have to -- it's too high. You have to keep it lower for me, because Marla give a potential customer to give another job." And I said, "Okay," you know. And I said, "Okay." I don't remember exactly, because I don't have any paper with -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's it say on your invoice? MR. POPA: That one my -- it's 4,235, include the -- MR. CRAWFORD: It's labor only? MR. POPA: No, I include the cork. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You supplied the cork? MR. POPA: I include everything here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You installed the cork. MR. POPA: Installed the cork and everything, every materials here. But after I spoke with him he said, "Okay. Let me buy materials, and you take just the labor." I said "Okay." This is just what I talk with Alberto and I have any other. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So your invoice was $4,235? MR. POPA: Include all materials. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Before you got beat up? MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. POPA: But after that he said, "Okay. I'll buy all materials and you just do the labor." Maybe it was around 3,000; something like that. MR. NONNENMACHER: And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, on the notification of hearing on E-5, the respondent is notified that he can present evidence, present a defense packet so on and so forth. And as far as his last restitution on what Luigi and Alberto told Ms. Ottenstein and the fact that he got beat up, other than what's on his invoice is hearsay and has not been corroborated whatsoever with witnesses that he had available to him and other paperwork that he could have presented to you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand. But, of course, we do accept hearsay. And, unfortunately, Luigi and Alberto are in parts unknown. And it was just mitigating factor. It had no -- MR. NEALE: And the respondent's testifying under oath. So he's testifying as to his own invoices -- MR. DUNNE: I had a question. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead. MR. DUNNE: Do you still live in Sunrise? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. DUNNE: So you travel over here to work and you traveled over here for this meeting? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. DUNNE: And then how did you get involved with Alberto and Luigi? MR. POPA: Really, I don't know when Luigi contact me and ask me if I want to do a job in western part, about two hundred square feet; something like that or less. MR. DUNNE: How did Luigi know you? How did he get your phone number to begin with? MR. POPA: I don't know. Just he called me and said, "You are installer? Yes. Can you do a job in western? Yeah, sure. I have to see the job." And we talking after that. I didn't ask from where he know my number, my telephone number. MR. DUNNE: Okay. So how long ago -- how long before that did you do the job for Ms. Ottenstein? MR. POPA: Three, four months after that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Any other questions, gentlemen? Mr. Popa-- MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- do you have anything else that you want to present in your defense? MR. POPA: Yeah. I -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just let me explain here. MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And then what will happen next after you do this is Mr. Nonnenmacher will make a closing statement, and then I will ask you to make a closing statement. But we're still basically at the defense or presentation level of your case. MR. POPA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So that's what I'm really after. MR. POPA: I was very concerned about that Exhibit A, because his exhibit doesn't show what I -- what we talking about today. I mean, the big piles of the tiles with the small, small chips of tiles. Or if I did a bad job, the tiles popping up, different tiles, not 125 but maybe 100 or something like that if I do the bad job. But in place of that contractor who take that job, maybe I do same. Yeah. But it's not -- yeah. That one is not special, the Marla make a mark with the blue tape every tiles she doesn't like. She said maybe this is not include installation because sound different like another one. And she make with a tape, blue tape, every tiles where she think about this is not good installation. But she's not a tile installer, you know. So that Exhibit A doesn't have a picture from the tiles, because of parts of the tiles or the floor tiles or the little pieces stick in a thin set. I don't have any worth for my defense. This is just what I can report of myself. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Nonnenmacher, would you like to make a closing statement? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. What I would like to do, sir, if possible, is call a rebuttal witness to his complaint about the chipper and so on and so forth. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That would be fine. Go ahead. MR. NONNENMACHER: I would like to call Paul Balzano. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. have a seat for just a minute, Mr. Popa. Why don't-- yeah. If you'll And if you'll state your name, Mr. Balzano. MR. BALZANO: Paul Balzano, Licensing Compliance Investigator. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And be sworn in, please. Thereupon, PAUL BALZANO, the Witness herein, been duly sworn, testified as follows: having first MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Balzano, did there come a time when you became involved with Ms. Ottenstein and the problems she was having with the tile on her floor? MR. BALZANO: Yes. MR. NONNENMACHER: Could you, in narrative form, tell this Board exactly what you did, when you did it and how it turned out? MR. BALZANO: I believe you were on vacation. And Ms. Ottenstein had a worker at her home removing the tile and asked if we could come over. I went over and I observed. What the man had was a chipper. And the piles that he is speaking about, yes, there was a pile of tiles and pieces. Because rather than pull them up one at a time, he had a long-handled tool, which he went along and just went like that to get them to come up. And they came up very rapidly. Yes, there were pieces of tape on the floor throughout the house, which I observed. I, myself, took one tile up with a screwdriver that had blue tape, and it did not break. It came up in a whole piece. And after I removed that one tile, I took up six more with my hands. I didn't need the screwdriver. After one was up, I just went along and kept popping them with my hands. They didn't come up in pieces. They came up in whole tiles. And they did not have any thin set on them. MR. LLOYD: The chipper-- MR. NONNENMACHER: I have no further questions. MR. LLOYD: The chipper then was used to help expedite the removal of the tiles, not so much that they were adhered to the floor? MR. BALZANO: Correct. MR. LLOYD: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: One question, if they weren't adhered to the floor, why did they come off in pieces? MR. BALZANO: What's that? MR. JOSLIN: If they were not adhered to the floor, what you're testifying to -- MR. BALZANO: In my experience, and I've been doing this for about eight years and I've seen many tile jobs, they'll stay down for three, four years just with the grout. And then she could be -- any home. I know we've had them where they'll be sitting there watching television and they think it's an earthquake and they've had 50, 60 tiles come up at one time. After a while, the grout will just give and they'll come up. We've had many cases with that and the tiles that popped up didn't have any thin set on them. And they were down four, five, six years. MR. JOSLIN: What I was driving at, was there a thin set on the pieces that were coming up in small pieces? MR. BALZANO: No. MR. JOSLIN: I see the large pieces here which has no thin set on the bottom which means it wasn't adhered at all. MR. BALZANO: Like I said, the reason for the small pieces they had started popping them, they used this tool. JOSLIN: Got it. BALZANO: Instead of a man bending over and popping was after MR. MR. them one at a time. MR. CRAWFORD: them out in full pieces? In other words, there's no reason to take MR. MR. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: of this witness? MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: BALZANO' Right. JOSLIN: Okay. That was the reason for my question. Mr. Popa, do you have any questions Mr. Nonnenmacher, if you'll let him use that location. MR. POPA: When I was in Maria house together, you saw the piles together. I -- you told me first time when I go there. And, I mean, you didn't know the location. You didn't know the popping. You didn't see the job. Together we see the piles, big piles. And Marla have just one piece of tiles, four tiles. And I asked Marla, "How many pieces you take off with the chipper hammer?" She said "100 pieces." Is true? I mean, you remember that one? Sorry. MR. BALZANO: Well, first off, the statement you made prior to that was I'd only been there one time with you? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. BALZANO: No. That's incorrect. I met you there after Bob, Mr. Nonnenmacher, and I hunted you down at another job, because you weren't signing for your mail that was sent to you. And we made an appointment to meet you there, which he couldn't go. I did. But I had been at her house prior to meeting there with you and saw the tiles coming up. MR. POPA: Before the tiles was coming-- MR. BALZANO: I didn't see all 150 tiles coming up. I saw the man working and I, myself, took up seven tiles with my fingers. MR. POPA: After I leaving? MR. BALZANO: No. Before I met you there. MR. POPA: Yeah. But in one day before, the guy -- I mean, you and Bob was -- one day before, before we go in Marla house, you and Bob asked me why didn't pay attention to letter; why didn't care of Marla house, the job; why I'm still working in Naples; something like that. And I said, "Marla house, it's good installation because I know what I did it. And everything in Marla house was on cork." And maybe was my impression, but was both of you was surprised because the job was over the cork. This is my impression. Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you ask -- I need to clarify here, this is not a time for a statement. Do you have a question of the witness? MR. POPA: Yeah. MR. BALZANO: I think his question was, was I surprised there was cork? MR. POPA: I believe -- MR. BALZANO: Is that what you asked me? MR. POPA: No. In that day, you told me, "We have to go -- I have to go to the Marla house and to make repairs." But second day when I meet at 8:00 o'clock, you call -- I mean, Bob call Marla house. And she said over the telephone, she's already done with the job, because somebody take already the -- somebody else, another contractor, take the tiles out. MR. BALZANO: When ! met you at the house, were the tiles still in a pile? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. BALZANO: And it couldn't be finished, could it? MR. POPA: No, was not finished. MR. BALZANO: Okay. MR. POPA: And after that, I said, "I see what's going on here." And I spoke with Bob and explained what is here. And you called Bob later and you see what happened. Okay. I don't have anymore questions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No further questions? Okay. I'll let you sit down again, Mr. Popa. Do you have any further questions of Mr -- of your witness? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Closing statement, Mr. Nonnenmacher. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, we presented you Composite Exhibit A, showing you pictures. We presented an expert witness who came in here and told you that it did not meet industry standards. We brought in the evidence, and quite a bit of evidence, only introduced two pieces into where you can see there is no thin set whatsoever on the tile. We have shown you how we have tried to get in touch with Mr. Popa to try to get this corrected. It was quite a long time. The ordinance reads "promptly". When we did get ahold of him, he claimed the job was perfect. I, like you, feel Mr. Popa was a victim also. But that's something that a civil court should take into consideration when he sues European Tile. Our main concern is that a taxpaying citizen of Collier County was done wrong and it cost over $3,000 to repair, due to the fact it was faulty workmanship. We feel we have proved it was faulty workmanship. We feel we've proved that corrections were not made promptly and were never going to be made, because the job in his mind was perfect. We ask that you find Mr. Popa in violation of County ordinance. If you should, in fact, do that, we don't want to see Mr. Popa get hurt. We would recommend a three month probation with restitution of the $3100. And at the end of three months, if this was not paid, an automatic suspension of the license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Mr. Popa, would you like to make a closing statement, sir? MR. POPA: I know my English is very bad. I mean, it's good for my job, but it's not for a meeting like that. And I'm very -- I'm not prepared for meeting like that. But what I can do is I have a lot of experience in that kind ofjob. And a lot of people, my people, is coming to ask me a lot of things about to resolve technical problem. And right now, I'm in default with some false accusation. This is my opinion. I don't have anything to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have one question for you, Mr. Popa. MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you do anything wrong? MR. POPA: At that job? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. MR. POPA: Maybe. I told you, one, two, three, ten tiles maybe wrong from 500. I can go -- not somebody who doesn't know nothing about tile installation make mark on the tiles and said this is wrong installation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me ask you one further question on that point. I know Mr. Balzano. I've known him for a long time. Should a person be able to pick up six, seven tiles right in a row with their fingers? MR. POPA: When I was over there, I didn't see anything. Just I talk with Marla. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're not answering my question. Should a person be able to pick up -- MR. POPA: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- six or seven tiles just with their fingers? MR. POPA: Yes. And I understand. I understand, and I agree with that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Should they be able to do that? MR. POPA: Maybe. I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Anybody? Do I hear a motion to close public hearing? MR. JOSLIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. LLOYD: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. Second? All those in favor? Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? What we're doing here, Mr. Popa, so that you know, we have closed public hearings. And we're going to deliberate or discuss it among ourselves. And being a public hearing, you're allowed to hear that. But all testimony and questions at this point have stopped unless a Board member needs to ask a specific question, and then we'll call upon you. Gentlemen? MR. NEALE: At this point, I'll do my thing -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. NEALE: -- and let the Board -- the charge that we normally do in this case, the Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to the respondent. However, pursuant to Section 22-202-G5 of the Collier County Ordinance, the formal rules of evidence as set out in Florida Statutes do not apply to these type of hearings. However, the Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the contact of their affairs. This is whether or not that evidence would be admissible in a court of law or in equity. As noted to this Board in the past, hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence. Hearsay, by itself, is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil court. The standard of proof in this type of case, where the respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession, is that the evidence presented by complainant must prove the complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. This burden of proof on the complainant is a larger burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard set in civil cases. The standard set for establishing sanctions and other matters other than those affecting the actual license to practice the trade is that of a preponderance of the evidence. The standards of evidence are to be weighed solely as to charges set out in the complaint in Composite Exhibit A. The charges as set out are under 4.1.10 of the ordinance amended on May 14th, 2002, that being failure to -- failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract. In order to support a finding that respondent is in violation of ordinance, the Board must find facts that show the violations were actually committed by this respondent. The facts must show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of relevant sections of the ordinance. These changes are the -- these charges -- excuse me -- are the only ones that the Board may decide upon, as these are the only ones to which the respondent has had the opportunity to prepare a defense. The decision made by the Board in this matter shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective upon being read by the Board. The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this Board, the Courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, as set out in the ordinance and in Florida Statutes and Rules of Administrative procedure. If the Board is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the Board may withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting. The Board shall vote based upon the evidence presented and on all areas and if it finds the respondent in violation, 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 administrative code if it does find the respondent in violation. The Board, at the same time, is voting upon these should it find the violator -- the respondent in violation shall consider and order sanctions under parameters as set out in Collier County Ordinance 90-105 as amended. I'll get onto the sanctions once the Board has completed its deliberations on the liability of the respondent. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very well. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BARIL: May I see one of the tiles, please. MR. DUNNE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. MR. DUNNE: Frankly, I'm troubled by two things, the absence of the thin set grout on the tile and, particularly, the lack of Mr. Popa's attention to when the gentlemen from the building industry called, the Licensing Department calls. It's important I think for-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me see the front. MR. DUNNE: I think every licensed contractor should understand that when the Board or when the building authority body calls, you must call back. I think we all recognize that. I mean, if you were not a licensed contractor, you shouldn't be doing the work, but holding people to a higher standard of professionalism. Which brings me to the comments in the notes that I saw that troubles me in the fact that on Wednesday, September 5th, Alberto and Luigi were called to confirm that the work would be done as soon as possible. They had to -- they agreed, but told Ms. Ottenstein that they had to coordinate with you. There's a back charge here, which this is where I get into some trouble, there's a back charge for drinking soda and beer at the client's house. It might not be my call to make, but I consider that to be extremely inappropriate. MR. POPA: Can I say? MR. DUNNE: No. That's all I have. MR. LLOYD: My observation on this too is we actually have another victim here. And I think Mr. Popa is part of it. Most of the dialogue, in looking at the same E-7 and E-8, dealt with promises made by Luigi Saches and Alberto Lavis. And I'm sure that we don't know that they communicated anything to Mr. Popa. The problem is he has the license. So that's -- I have a concern there. And I think he needs to find someone to assist him to pursue these two gentlemen if we act, you know, if we go with the recommendation by -- that was made to us. So do you understand all -- can we ask him a question? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sure. MR. LLOYD: Do you understand everything that's been said by the attorney and by us so far? MR. POPA: Yes. I understand maybe 99 percent, but I don't have experience to talk. MR. LLOYD: Right. Okay. So you understand a lot more than you can present? MR. POPA: Yes. MR. LLOYD: Okay. That's fine. We just want to make sure that everything is clear. MR. JOSLIN: I have a problem with Mr. Popa's method of installation only in the fact that he -- it sounds like he's coming up with a defense for the people that set the tile in that he mentioned that it's okay to put patties in the back of tiles and set them because of space difference. When I see tiles that are 18 inches wide square, most notch tiles that are used in the tile industry are normally 12. So you would leave ample room to get a trowel in there to put a complete bed down to set tile on. MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. JOSLIN: So I don't think I can quite buy the answer that he gave as far as his method of installation of putting patties down is okay. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Neale, is this a two-step process where we act on the count and then we -- MR. NEALE: Right. It's a two-step process where you would act on the -- on whether he is found in violation. And I'll explain the sanctions to the Board, and then the Board would act on sanction. So at this point -- do you have a copy of the proposed order up there? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, I do. MR. NEALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right here. MR. NEALE: What you would do is get up through findings of fact and conclusions of law, wherein you -- and that would be as far as you would go, take a vote on that. Then you would review sanctions and take a vote on sanctions. So it's really, as you say, a two-step process. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That is the motion. MR. CRAWFORD: That is the motion? MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, one observation. In examining the tile it's clear to see that there are marks left where the tile was placed over thin set. And also from the Exhibit A shows the thin set left down on the cork. However, the adhesion process should take place immediately after the thin set is applied to the cork. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Um-hum. MR. BARIL: And if that thin set is left uncovered and it goes off, the adhesion process doesn't take place. So it seems to be the root cause of the problem to me would indicate that it was shoddy workmanship from the start that caused all the problems. It's good quality tile, but I think that the installation method, if there was uneven floors, that if you were putting cork down you had an opportunity to flash the floor and even out as a good quality installation should have done. Unfortunately, I think that European House, no longer in business, adds to the problem where they should have stood by their product. And you're left, because you're the license holder as the only one before us today, it's unfortunate, but I think the root cause of the problem is shoddy workmanship. That's all. MR. CRAWFORD: Okay. Based on that, I'd like to make a motion, I guess, in the form of this order. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Um-hum. MR. CRAWFORD: This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractor's Licensing Board on July 15th for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Mr. Popa. Service of the complaint was made by certified mail in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105 as amended. The Board, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments in respect to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its finding of fact, conclusions of law and order of the Board as follows: That Mr. Popa is the holder of record of Certificate of Competency Number 22201; that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant in this matter; that the Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent; and that Mr. Popa was present at the public hearings and was not represented by counsel. For all notices required by Collier County Ordinance, Number 90-105 as amended have been properly issued; five, the allegations of fact as set forth in the administrative complaint are approved, adopted and incorporated herein by reference as findings of fact, conclusions of law and conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the administrative complaint are approved, adopted and incorporated herein. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Gentlemen, now at this point, he has been found to be at fault and failing to promptly repair, correct faulty workmanship and promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract. Now, we need to discuss the penalty phase. And Mr. Neale will give you guidelines. MR. NEALE: Right. In the -- since the Board has found the respondent in violation, in the imposition of sanctions, the Board shall consider five factors: Number one being the gravity of the violation; number two, the impact of the violation, number three; any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; four, any previous violations committed; and five, any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as the sanction which is appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation. The disciplinary sanctions that are available to the Board are set out in the ordinance in Section 4.3.5. And they include revocation of the respondent's certificate of competency, suspension of that certificate, denial of issuance or renewal of the certificate, probation of a reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision for this Board and/or participation in a duly accredited program of continuing education. Probation may be revoked for cause by the Board at a hearing notice to consider such purpose. Restitution is available. Fine not to exceed $5,000, a public reprimand, a reexamination requirement imposed on the respondent, denial of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with conditions and the wording of reasonable legal and investigative costs. This Board also shall issue on registered contractors a recommended penalty for the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, which may include a recommendation for no further action; a recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration or a fine to be levied by the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. I don't know. Is this a registered licensed? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is registered. So there will be no recommendation to the State. How do you feel? MR. LLOYD: Go ahead. I was going to say I would go along with the recommendation of three months probation and restitution. Because, again, I think that European House was at fault. But I think he, Mr. Popa, needed to take things into his own hands and try to correct the problems as early as possible. And I'm not sure that was done. MR. CRAWFORD: I agree exactly. I think restitution in the full amount Ms. Ottenstein had to pay is where my head is. MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. CRAWFORD: And a fine, I think, is meaningless. That's enough money to act as a fine. That's money he doesn't have and -- or didn't plan to spend on this project. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What about-- MR. CRAWFORD: There were no -- I don't think there were any malintentions or misintentions. MR. LLOYD: Because most of the dialogue was with European House. MR. CRAWFORD: That's true, too. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: With a catcher at the end of 90 days if restitution is not made -- MR. LLOYD: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- that the license be suspended at that point. MR. CRAWFORD: Is 90 days the right amount of time? I'm thinking 120 days; maybe a little longer. He's a small contractor. That's a lot of money for most of us. MR. JOSLIN: Maybe go to six months. MR. CRAWFORD: On the other hand, Ms. Ottenstein has paid the bill. MR. LLOYD: Correct. She's out the money. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ninety days, if we break it down, that's $1,000 a month. I think most people in business can manage that. MR. LLOYD: Worst case scenario he can put it on a business card or something. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. There's always a credit card. MR. LLOYD: Okay. Want a motion? Is that what -- any other discussion? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other discussion? MR. DUNNE: Is there any -- I don't know. I mean, are there any other active jobs that are being performed now by this contractor that we should take a look at? MR. CRAWFORD: Well, that is the other side of the puzzle. That's a good point is Mr. Popa's clearly an experienced tile contractor. But it looks like a problem that could potentially happen again. MR. NEALE: By putting him, just the business, by putting him under probation for a fixed period of time, he's then operating directly under the supervision of this Board and, by extension, by staff. So for 90 days, he's under a microscope. MR. LLOYD: And have we had other-- MR. DUNNE: I don't think that there's a question as to Mr. Popa's ability to install tile generally in the big picture. This project with Luigi and Alberto with a company that's out of business is another issue. And there's no real need to penalize this gentlemen. However, if you're conducting your business with tile stores, and we're going to have the same runaround again that I don't want to pay for the adhesive and I don't want to pay for this, there's a time to walk away from a project. There's a time to say, you keep it and you do it yourself. And-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think we can send our notice. Number one, I remember the testimony of the other expert. Basically he put down the thin set in too large an area and it dried before he got the tile down. MR. LLOYD: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's why he didn't get adhesion. Also, it also sends a message that in Collier County we're not going to tolerate this. I know you work on the East Coast. I do know Miami is something like 1500 cases behind on their Licensing Board. So, no, it isn't going to happen here, and I think that pretty well sends a clear message. MR. DUNNE: Right. And I agree completely, Mr. Chairman, with the building boom that's coming, has been here and then East Coast contractors that come to Collier County. It looks like they think we're the bank and we're not. If this happens again, you're not going to have a license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Take care of the people. Take care of your warranties, and you'll be fine in this County. It's all as simple as that. You're welcome as long as you're going to do that. MR. NEALE: Okay. All we need is a motion on sanctions then. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. MR. LLOYD: I make a motion that we put Mr. Popa on probation for 90 days. And in that time, he has to pay full restitution of $3,139.31. And if that is not done at the end ofthe 90 days, that his license be suspended. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Prior to that time, probation? MR. LLOYD: During the 90 days, he has to make restitution. He's on probation for that 90-day period. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? MR. JOSLIN: Second. MR. DUNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gentlemen, let me put it in the form of the 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 Collier County Ordinance 90-105 as amended by a vote of-- excuse me. All those in favor? Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? A vote of six in favor and zero opposed, it is hereby ordered that the following disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Contractor's Certificate of Competency Number 22201. And that order is the motion that his license will be on probation for 90 days, full restitution of $3,139.31 within that 90 day period and if restitution is not made, the license will be suspended. No recommendation to the State as this is not a State license. Mr. Popa, will you come to the podium, please. Let me explain just so you understand. You do need to make arrangements to pay Ms -- I'm sorry for the name -- Ottenstein, Ms. Ottenstein the $3,139.31. That can be done in payments, or it can be done as a one-lump payment as long as that amount is completed within 90 days from today's date. You will receive an order from this Board; correct? MR. NONNENMACHER: (Nodding in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Spelling that out to you. During that 90-day period your license will be under probation which will allow you to work. We'll just be watching you. If at the end of that 90 days that restitution is not made, your license will be automatically suspended in Collier County and further action will be taken at that point. I apologize that we don't have European Materials here with us. I do agree that you probably would want to talk to legal counsel about an action against them. But the case remains, we do have a Collier County citizen that was harmed, and it's our position to make that right. Okay. MR. POPA: Okay? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any comments? MR. POPA: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, very much, sir. We wish you the best. That case is closed. We have no further cases. Are there any reports? No reports. Are we going to have an August meeting? MR. LLOYD: Is there a need? MR. BARTO: I'm not a hundred percent sure at this time, but the amount of second entity requests we get to Mr. Ossorio, we probably will. MR. NONNENMACHER: I believe Mr. Balzano has a case for August. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you? Okay. So there will be an August meeting. Gentlemen, because -- does anyone know that date? I've got it here somewhere. MR. BARTO: 21st. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 21st. Is anyone aware of their inability to be here? Good. You know how important you are. We have to have five here or we walk out the door. Mr. Ossorio, I love -- this contractor said, "No. He hasn't given me a citation yet." You're becoming well known. We will entertain a motion to adjourn. MR. LLOYD: So moved. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. DUNNE: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second? All those in favor? Aye. Thank you, gentlemen. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 11:00 A.M. CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Gary Hayes, Chairman STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Brenda Grimes, Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Brenda Grimes Contract Court Reporter