CLB Minutes 05/18/2016 May 18,2016
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
May 18, 2016
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Chairman Pro Tern: Patrick White
Members: Michael Boyd
Elle Hunt
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
Robert Meister
Excused: Thomas Lykos, Chair
Richard Joslin, Vice Chair
ALSO PRESENT:
Jason Bridwell — Administrative Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Kevin Noell, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
1
May 18,2016
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any Appeal is
to be based.
I. ROLL CALL:
Jason Bridwell stated that, due to the excused absences of the Chairman and Vice
Chairman, the members should elect a Chairman Pro Tern to conduct the meeting.
Gary McNally moved to approve appointing Patrick White as Chairman Pro Tem to
conduct the May 19, 2016 meeting. Elle Hunt offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously. Mr. White accepted.
Chairman Pro Tern Patrick White opened the meeting at 9:05 AM and read the
procedures to be followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; seven (7) voting members were
present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
(None)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Michael Boyd moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Gary McNally offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— APRIL 20,2016:
Gary McNally moved to approve the April 20, 2016 minutes as submitted. Terry
Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
Chairman White abstained from voting since he left the meeting at 10:10 AM.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Tom Davis
Mr. Davis stated he was concerned about"pushing the burden onto homeowners for
doing due diligence for re-screening in Collier County."
He noted:
• Currently a license is not required to re-screen an enclosure—the only
requirement is an Occupational Tax Receipt. The State of Florida does not
require any type of certification.
• The biggest problem is many of the unlicensed individuals are using different
type of screens.
2
May 18,2016
• The industry's standard has changed over the years.
• The most frequently used is a"No-See-'Em" screen which is a tighter mesh
than earlier screening products.
• Additionally, since the movement to site specific engineering, the screens are
engineered to the exact inch to be able to fit the wind codes and exposures for
each area.
• Once a screen is changed from 18 x 14 to 20 x 20, it is much more restrictive
on wind.
• Engineers have informed him that, because the pool cages are now taller, the
effect is "dramatic," i.e., structures are "damaged" since they no longer
comply with wind codes and, if the cage is over ten feet, it become is more
detrimental to the structure when compared to an eight-foot tall enclosure.
Terry Jerulle questioned Mr. Davis:
Q. When you put in a tighter screen, you are implying there is more wind resistance
upon that structure?
A. Correct.
Q. And you are saying a license is not required to re-screen?
A. Correct—nothing.
Tom Davis continued:
• The majority of screened enclosures were built for "spec"homes—they have
no footers. If there are no footers, there should be fiber mesh in the concrete.
• Data has shown the switch to "No-See-'Em" screen protection is increasing at
a rate of approximately 60%per year.
• Once the new screening product has been installed on the roof of a cage, it is
no longer compliant and there is a danger of"up-lift," i.e., the cage could
blow away. And the fiber mesh in the concrete is no longer applicable.
• His primary concern: the cages constructed in 2006 and 2007 using the fiber
mesh screening are now at the end of their life-cycle. A large portion are
being re-screened with the newer screening products which means they will
not be code compliant.
Chairman Pro Tem White questioned Tom Davis:
Q. Do you mean the wind code?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any permitting requirements to inspect or demonstrate the cage will
comply with wind load?
A. Currently? No... for re-screening. When you apply for a permit, the inspections
will make sure that the type of screen in the enclosure matches what is on the
print. But there is no regulation whatsoever. Due to Hurricane Wilma, there were
an alarming amount of cages built after 2005 using the fiber mesh screening. The
window of usefulness is between 9 to 12 years before it starts to "go bad."
He also noted the increasing use of the decorative (or patterned) screens in the
enclosures. He has had to explain to homeowners that the screening cannot be
replaced by decorative screens because the cage was not designed for them.
3
May 18,2016
Another problem is unlicensed installers will change out the screws. "You cannot
change out the screens without removing the cables and the bracing. When they
put it back, they often do not use the same sized fasteners." If the screws are too
small, they will not reach into the footer.
Mr. Davis is concerned about the magnitude of the problem in Collier County
over the next two years due to improper replacement of screens.
Chairman Pro Tem White:
Q. Let me see if I can summarize: effectively, you are saying that because there are
original specifications and permitting standards, and those standards are being
violated—in a sense—by the re-screening process ... and also because no one in
that process is licensed ... there isn't yet an effective mechanism that is being
applied to assure that the original permitting standards are being followed?
A. One hundred percent accurate.
Q. That means that everybody who does what it is that you are suggesting they
should not, is subjecting homeowners to a Code Enforcement violation.
A. Yes.
Q. So the County and the Cities (Naples and Marco Island) would seem to have a
couple of options: one is to go through the Code Enforcement process and try to
use that as a mechanism for after-the-fact compliance with the prior approved
permits, OR establish—as you are suggesting—a new class of licensure for re-
screening which demonstrates a certain amount of experience including, in
particular, the code issues that you have mentioned relative to wind loads and
compliance with the prior permit specifications OR having the cage re-engineered
to make it stronger—including potentially changing the footers. Those would
have some substantial costs to the homeowner. But at least Collier County would
have a process where after the certainty of the next storm—the idea is that we will
be cleaning up a lot of cages and screening from all over the County. My concern
—having had previous experience with Emergency Response/Post-Disaster
scenarios—is that the County will be spending a lot of time clearing the roads;
taking leaves/tree limbs off the power lines; people who may be injured by flying
debris during the storm event or after ... so it seems as if there is a basis for the
government to regulate in this area, both as to licensure and potentially some
other compliance programs other than Code Enforcement.
Chairman Pro Tem White continued: I appreciate your bringing this to the Board's
attention. It may prompt conversations among the County's Staff and certainly, I
think, the Board will have some role in that responsibility to have a conversation
about it. He asked if the members of the Board had questions for Mr. Davis.
Kyle Lantz questioned Tom Davis:
Q. If a client called me to their home to re-screen their pool cage, how would I know
what type of screen should be used. Years ago, I was told you cannot install
greater than 20/20 but I am not sure if that is still ...
A. You can to whatever an engineer is willing to stamp. The real answer to your
question would be to pull the public records to see what the project was originally
stamped with and that's all that is required to be replaced with—to give you an
4
May 18,2016
idea. I mean, there are general rules of thumb. A lot of people will say you can't
put 20/20 on a roof but we do it all the time as long as we have our engineer
design pressures to meet the wind code. You can but everything has to be much
larger to able to support it.
Q. So if the homeowner wants a screen panel replaced, their best bet is to go to
through Public Records to find out what it was engineered for?
A. Yes. But if you have a licensed professional and at the AAF ("Aluminum
Association of Florida") meeting, we did get the State to approve the word, "re-
screening in the Specialty structure Scope of Work"—they will know that you
can't put a piece of Florida Glass on the roof because a homeowner wants to keep
the rain from coming in—"Florida Glass" is a solid panel—that will be in the
Scope of Work. In theory, the contractor is supposed to pick that up once it is
specified in the Scope of Work but it won't be changed for another six months.
Elle Hunt questioned Tom Davis:
Q. Do you have this documented in any way --to give your recommendations to the
County?
A. At this point, I was going to ask if there was a way to make a presentation to the
Board with much more data and maybe a proposal with a couple of different
outcomes. I would love to do that.
Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Davis who was his employer and the response was, "Gulf
Coast Aluminum."
Tom Davis reiterated that he would like to be included on a future "docket" of the
Board's to present additional data.
Chairman Pro Tern White stated the next Board meeting will be held on July 20tH
He encouraged Mr. Davis to provide the County's Staff with his contact information.
He suggested if the presentation was too long to include in a monthly meeting, a
workshop could be scheduled on an alternate date and could include representatives
from various County departments, the County Attorney's office as well as Emergency
Services.
Mr. White noted there was a potential to develop new regulations on the licensure
side or an amendment to the County's version of the Florida Building Code. He
further stated the Board is allowed to recommend modifications to it.
Tom Davis: Before 2005, we never re-painted the pool cages. Now we repaint and
restore the cages ... it's a brand new market. Because the wind codes are so stringent
now, it is no longer cost effective to tear down an existing pool cage. Now we paint
them and change all the screws with fasteners—the fastener life on screen enclosures
is about seven to ten years. If an unlicensed contractor does this, it will not be
compliant to code. It is often difficult to get an inspector back to check the
installation of fasteners,but the homeowner will know a publically licensed
Contractor did the work.
Chairman Pro Tem White asked if the work fell under the category of the license of
an aluminum fabricator and installer and Mr. Davis' response was, "Yes."
5
May 18,2016
VI. DISCUSSION:
(None)
VII. REPORTS:
A. Closed Captioning—Speaking into Microphones
Jason Bridwell stated a closed captioning program is being installed and should be
operable for the July Board meeting. The captioning will assist for those viewing the
proceedings on the County's Cable TV channel. He reminded the Board members to
speak clearly into the microphones—comments that are not"caught" by the
microphone will not translate to the closed captioning. It is a new problem that is
currently under development.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Terry Jerulle moved to approve authorizing the Chairman Pro Tern to sign the
Orders of the Board. Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
(Note: With reference to the following cases heard under Section VIII, the individuals
who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Frank Polara—Contesting Citation #9749 (Unlicensed General Contracting)
C. Frank Polara—Contesting Citation #9839 (Working without a Building Permit)
It was noted Frank Polara was not present.
Jason Bridwell stated Mr. Polara came to the Contractors' Licensing Office to
provide a letter advising of his intention to contest the Citations. At that time, he was
given a letter of notification of the hearing date by Mr. Bridwell.
Mr. Bridwell noted he had not received further communication from Mr. Polara.
Chairman Pro Tem White suggesting tabling both cases stating they could be heard
at the end of the Agenda items. He requested a motion.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve moving Item VIII— "B"and Item VIII—"C"to
the end of the Agenda. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
D. Kirk Bunch—Contesting Citation #10080 (Unlicensed Carpentry)
It was noted that Mr. Bunch was also not present.
Jason Bridwell stated Mr. Bunch came to the Contractors' Licensing Office to
provide a letter advising of his intention to contest the Citation issued to him. At that
time, he was given a letter of notification of the hearing date by Mr. Bridwell.
Mr. Bridwell noted he had not received further communication from Mr. Bunch.
6
May 18,2016
Chairman Pro Tem White suggesting tabling the case stating it could be heard at
the end of the Agenda items following the previous cases. He requested a motion.
Gary McNally moved to approve moving Item VIII— "D"to the end of the Agenda
following the disposition of Item VIII— "B"and Item VIII—"C." Kyle Lantz
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
E. Sergio Quezada—Application to Qualify a 2"d Entity
(d/b/a: "QS Irrigation, Inc. "
Second Entity: "Caribbean Lawn & Garden of SW Naples, FL, Inc.")
Sergio Quezada stated the reason he applied to qualify a Second Entity was to
expand his own business ("QS Irrigation, Inc."). He stated the lawn service business
that he wants to qualify is owned by a friend of his (Pablo Caraza) and they have
worked together for six or seven years. He will help the second entity give even
better service to existing clients.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. You currently do irrigation work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they (2nd entity) currently do irrigation work?
A. No.
Q. What do they do now?
A. Lawn maintenance.
Q. And they want to expand into irrigation work?
A. What happened: they had a bunch of equipment running through the heads of the
sprinkler and they had to replace the broken ones. When you hire a company to
fix those little jobs, it is so expensive. We tried to combine, but I can't be there
all the time next to his crews. And for logic, if I can give them the opportunity to
carry my license, they can do their own repairs plus any other business they can
bring to the table.
Q. So, right now, if they run over a sprinkler head and they break it—they call you to
repair it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you repair it alongside them or you just show up and ...?
A. We created—like a ... they are helping me ... they get it prepared and then I show
up and help them fix it. We try to help each other in that way.
Q. If you weren't there, would they know how to—would they be able to do it by
themselves?
A. Yes.
Q. And they've learned this from working with you?
A. Yes. We try to get a couple of guys always on every crew—they have at least
minimum experience to cut and glue pipe ... that's a minor repair ... nothing big.
If something that's not in his knowledge, then I send one of my crew.
Q. So, in the future, if you qualify this company ... if they damage a sprinkler head
or whatever, they will fix it themselves.
7
May 18,2016
A. Exactly.
Q. And also they will now start to sell irrigation jobs to other customers?
A. Yes.
Q. So you, as the Qualifier, will be responsible for their irrigation work?
A. Yes.
Q. I saw in our packet that you do not have check writing authority so you are not
available to make sure that they pay their bills. Do you have any controls in
place to make sure that their bills get paid—their suppliers get paid ... stuff like
that?
A. They have to open a joint account. They have to be responsible for the materials
they are getting from the suppliers.
Q. I know. It's the same thing with me ... the same thing with my kids ... but are
you responsible for it? So how do you know that they actually did it? I know
they have to do it but what if they don't?
Chairman Pro Tem White: I think considering what your answer might be—you
should appreciate that, as you are with your existing business, you are financially
responsible in the sense that you—as the Qualifier—have the fiscal responsibility for
oversight. And if things go badly—it's your license ... so think about that in
answering Mr. Lantz's question.
Sergio Quezada: Well, the only way is that I have to be in control of the account—I
have to overview what they are taking from a store and making like the access to see
how they take care of his credit. That's the only way that I can protect myself.
Kyle Lantz continued:
Q. But as of now, you don't have that power—right?
A. No.
Q. So you are saying if you qualify them, you would like to get that power?
A. Yes.
Q. But you are not positive you will get that power?
A. I don't see a problem with that.
Q. Okay. And then—what about—what you have said ... you have been slowly
training their staff so they can do the small repairs because they are very simple?
A. Yes.
Q. What happens when they sell a big irrigation job? Is their staff trained to do it?
Are you going to come in and design it? How is that going to work?
A. I have to design and install it.
Q. You will install it as well?
A. Yes.
Q. So you are qualifying them—you are getting 20% of it but they are subcontracting
to you? How does that work?
A. The way we try to do it is—they have to work independently. If they get
something that is so big—we have to make arrangements how to perform that ...
and the money and the physical installing. And the 20% is just for supervising
and training his people. But if we're talking a big job—we're talking about
commercial ... and then they have to have four or five people and equipment. It's
something that I don't see they will be able to do it. And then, there has to be
8
May 18,2016
another arrangement about the profit and how we getting the profit between the
two companies.
Q. But you haven't discussed that or ... ?
A. No—not yet.
Q. They haven't sold any jobs so there's no need yet?
A. Actually, I saw this that like I'm a salesman and a 20% commission just to tell
them how to do—get the right material and the way to perform it. If I got the
power to see the accounts, too, like you recommended—that can be working like
that.
Q. You are like their salesman or they are like your salesman?
A. I see it as they are selling for me. Or we can do vice versa. We can work it both
ways, you know.
Q. So if they're selling for you, they go out and sell the irrigation job and then ... QS
Irrigation is your current company—right?
A. Yes.
Q. So they go out and sell the irrigation job and QS Irrigation does the install?
A. Yes—we can work it like that. Actually we don't go that deep because we don't
see like a big job—we try to get like a maintenance—more the kind of job they do
on a daily basis and have little repairs ... making QS like a maintenance
company, too. I want to handle installation separately from this deal. He will just
do the maintenance—what is basically a repair, pipes and replacement, broken
spray heads or rotors—the small operation, you know.
Q. But you're asking to qualify them so they will be allowed to do the bigger jobs as
well?
A. If we can get a bigger job—that is hard because the bigger companies are fighting
each other for the big jobs and we are just a little company.
Q. What does QS Irrigation do now ... mostly maintenance and repairs?
A. New installation.
Q. And Caribbean Lawn and Garden will do just maintenance and repair—not
installation?
A. Yes ... yes.
Q. In theory?
A. Yes.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. It appears to me that you've had a lot of conversation with the person you want to
qualify about how you are going to be reimbursed. It doesn't seem as if you have
had a lot of conversation with him—you haven't convinced me—that you have
the controls in place, if you're going to qualify that company, to make sure that
the bills are going to get paid and the customers are going to get taken care of.
You are just qualifying the company and worrying about getting paid. You are
not qualifying the company and concerned about the controls in making sure that
the suppliers get paid and that the people get taken care of
A. I didn't until he mentioned it, honestly.
Q. I understand. But that's my issue with ...
A. I understand what he said—it's my license ...that's what it is.
Q. That's exactly right. That license is your livelihood.
9
May 18,2016
Chairman Pro Tem White: Just so you know—we are recording the proceedings
and we have a minute taker who keeps track of the dialogue that's going on. So it's
important that we speak one at a time and take turns.
Gary McNally questioned the Applicant:
Q. In the packet that we received, I saw there was a Small Claims Court judgment
against you—filed on 09/21/2009 for $3,568.00. Has that been paid?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was paid?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. The other item I have is—and I agree with both of my colleagues here—I
think you really,truly need a Business Plan between yourself and Caribbean.
There's too much ambiguity here—there isn't anything on paper that guides
anybody ... what they're going to do and how they are going do it. I'd like to see
a true Business Plan as these two gentlemen have already addressed—to make it
so everybody is covered.
A. I understand.
Mr. McNally addressed a comment to Jason Bridwell concerning the USAA Credit
Bureau Report: I noticed the full Social Security numbers are there. I thought we
weren't putting the full Social Security numbers in. There are two of them here.
Jason Bridwell: There shouldn't be.
Chairman Pro Tem White: We have asked Staff to be a bit more diligent about
complying with those requirements. And for those reasons, I am assuming
everyone's copies of these will be properly disposed of.
Chairman Pro Tem White questioned the Applicant:
Q. From my perspective, Mr. Quezada, it's more than just a Business Plan. We
have, in the packet, the Articles of Incorporation of each of the two entities.
Those are very generic. They are very general. What I think you need and what I
would look for in a packet—I have a sense that the Board is either going to deny
your request or you will consider the opportunity to withdraw it today and come
back with a fuller, more complete packet. My suggestion to you is to talk to
someone about how you can put into place—either in a set of By-Laws that will
be binding on the new entity that will give you specifically as Qualifier the
authority and responsibility we are talking about today.
A. We don't have that ready.
Q. I understand you don't have anything today, so it starts ....
A. No, but the company managing my business—they are preparing something but
we are waiting for your approval to do ... you know, it's working the opposite
way, actually.
Q. Well, the best we would ever be able to do would be to approve the Second Entity
subject to some condition you will need to meet afterward which, more likely than
not, would require you to come back here anyway. So I'm sensing that all of the
other aspects as far as the credit of both entities, prior work, and public record
histories are fine. It seems that certainly you are qualified in terms of having the
type of experience that is necessary—I'm not trying to pre-judge that—but the
10
May 18,2016
thing that's missing is what you seem to have in the works, and have had some
limited conversations about, but you need to fill out the other face of the coin for
us and show us where those things are in a writing that is binding. A Business
Plan alone is just a conversation. We need something that, in a sense, if it isn't
being followed—you would have the right or an ability to enforce it. More
importantly, we can then look at that and say, "Yes, this is appropriate to grant a
Second Entity," because you have it documented and you have the authority. My
recommendation is for you to consider withdrawing your request today, having
further conversations not only with Staff but with the owners of your new entity
and whoever it is who is helping them manager their business, and to put the stuff
down in writing.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. I have a couple of questions. Caribbean Lawn and Garden now—are they a
licensed contractor?
A. Yes.
Q. It's not like a ... so they have a contractor's license that has to be renewed and
regulated by Jason?
A. Yes—it is ... they have to renew every year.
Mr. Lantz directed his question to Jason Bridwell: On the State licenses, I could
qualify Terry Jerulle's company, for example, and have Terry designated as the
responsible financial officer. Do we have that option with the County's licenses?
Jason Bridwell: The only thing the local Ordinance states is, "A Qualifying Agent
may qualify no more than one firm practicing the same trade without prior approval
from the Contractors' Licensing Board. And in no event, no more than two firms at
the same time."
Kyle Lantz: So we can't have a Qualifying Agent in charge of the technical and a
financial officer in charge of the finances like they do on the State level?
Jason Bridwell: Correct. The Ordinance doesn't go that deeply into it. It's just
what's based on the application.
Kyle Lantz: In my mind, if we had that ability—and I'm not saying we need to do it
—that would have solved part of my reservations for his company ... if he could have
appointed someone else as the responsible financial officer. But (a): we don't have
that, and (b) that's only 50% of my reservations ... not all of them.
Elle Hunt questioned the Applicant:
Q. He could execute something like that—beyond the County—by either his
business documents or, better yet, some type of contractual obligation where he
would put things like the risk management into it. They have been talking about
quality, responsibility, and compliance—and Mr. Quezada needs to address those
because he wants to keep not only his license but probably his house and other
assets.
A. Yes.
Q. As you goes back and as you discuss this, think in your head that the County
allows you to qualify for up to two companies and this would be the Second
Entity you are qualifying for—how might that affect you in the worst case
scenario? What is the worst that can happen and how can you manage that?
11
May 18,2016
A. No, I agree— 100%. I have to prepare something. We were talking—just lightly
because we never imagined we needed it. But I am asking you a big favor ... you
help me by approving this and I will bring my contract in a week.
Terry Jerulle: What Mr. White is saying—if you withdraw this application and
bring us the paperwork ...
Sergio Quezada: I would have to come back in July?
Chairman Pro Tem White: I appreciate your position but I hope you can appreciate
that it is not the Board's responsibility to make sure that your application is complete
and that all of the things that you want us to consider—that's your responsibility to
put in there.
Sergio Quezada: What you are saying, I appreciate it because I didn't look at it from
that point.
Chairman Pro Tem White: Our other choice— given that your testimony is sworn
and on the record—would be to go ahead and approve the license where we already
know the stuff is already not in place. What I said before is the only way we could be
assured that what would potentially come into place would be to come back at
another hearing to approve the condition. So, there really isn't any point to approving
a license with a condition that would not allow you to work anyway. The easier and
simpler thing would be to withdraw it and have the proper conversations, get the
proper documents drafted and signed as may be necessary, put them into the packet
then come back and make a more complete presentation of that application. That's
what I think I'm hearing the rest of the Board members say. I understand your
position that you might have to wait a couple of months but there may be any number
of things that would compel us to have a meeting in June. I don't know. But at this
point in time, it's looking like July.
Sergio Quezada: Oh, I agree— 100% -- because we need to put the way we want to
work it out—the responsibility. I don't prepare that because I'm assuming ...
Chairman Pro Tem White: You didn't want to spend the money until you knew
you were going to have the chickens ... I got it.
Sergio Quezada: Well, to be sure we got the license for him.
Chairman Pro Tern White: What I think you should take away from today is that
there's a high probability that it would happen the next time assuming we have the
other documents. So you shouldn't feel like you're going to spend money foolishly
to get that done. Ultimately, right now, it's up to you to ask the Board to withdraw
your application. We can't make you withdraw it but, if you don't withdraw it, I'm
pretty sure what you're going to get is a motion to deny. It may be easier for you to
come back the next time without a denial.
Sergio Quezada: I withdraw—I will follow your recommendation.
Terry Jerulle moved to approve the withdrawal of Sergio Quezada's Application to
Qualify a Second Entity. Elle Hunt offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
12
May 18,2016
F. Patrick Skehan—Reinstatement of License/Waiver of Exam
(d/b/a"Coastal Staircase & Trim, Inc.")
Patrick J. Skehan stated he applied to reinstate his Carpentry Contractor's License
to build staircase stringers. He stated his license had lapsed due to lack of work in
2004.
Chairman Pro Tem White asked the County for a recommendation.
Jason Bridwell: The County did not object. Mr. Skehan applied to obtain a
carpentry license. He had previously been issued a floor covering license based on
the same test he was asking to be waived. As far as the Business and Law, it would
almost be redundant to not accept it when we did accept it for the Floor Covering
license.
Chairman Pro Tem White: Is the application to reinstate his Carpentry
Contractor's license and to waive taking additional tests?
Jason Bridwell: Yes.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. Do you have a current license in another county?
A. In Lee County.
Q. And you are active?
A. Yes—I have a carpentry license in Lee.
Q. How long have you maintained that license?
A. I just got it back in April. (April 26, 2016)
Q. Same idea—you had a license, you let it lapse, then applied to reinstate it?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I have no problems reinstating it.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. What have you been doing since your license lapsed?
A. I've been building stairs for other contractors and whatever work I could find.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve reinstating the Carpentry Contractor's License of
Patrick.I. Skehan and waive the requirement for testing. Gary McNally offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
(Note: With reference to the following cases heard under Section IX, the individuals
who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Benjamin T. Mading—Review of Probation and Credit
(d/b/a"Adria Group, Inc.")
It was noted that Benjamin T. Mading was not present.
13
May 18,2016
Jason Bridwell stated he spoke with Mr. Mading via telephone. He was aware he
was required to provide an updated credit report prior to the hearing and he was
advised of the date of the hearing. He did not provide the credit report.
Mr. Bridwell continued, one of the reasons why Mr. Mading was on probation was
due to some issues in his life. He was on probation to put things together. Since
then, there has been another major incident in Mr. Mading's life and he has not
remained in contact with the Contractors' Licensing Office.
Chairman Pro Tem White asked the County for a recommendation.
Jason Bridwell: Mr. Mading was given notice and has not contacted the
Contractor's Licensing Office. The Orders of the Board were not followed and the
County will abide by the Board's decision.
Kyle Lantz: You know my opinion—if you don't comply with the Orders, then you
don't want to have a license.
Chairman Pro Tem White: If you know when the meeting has been scheduled and
you can't provide the documentation or make an effort to show, but there may be
circumstances—and we all have, from time to time, experienced them I'm sure—
Gary McNally: Mr. Mading didn't even submit his second credit report to show if
there was any improvement. I agree with Mr. Lantz.
James Morey,Attorney for the Board: We had a similar situation—probably last
Fall—where the Board was to review a credit report but the individual did not show.
We have a precedent. At the time, the license was suspended and the individual was
given an opportunity to return and lift the suspension. It is fairly recent history.
Chairman Pro Tem White: Appreciate the reminder and, by inference,
recommendation.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve suspending the license of Benjamin T. Mading until
he appears before the Board. Chairman Pro Tern White amended the motion to
include that Mr. Mading is required to present an updated credit report and offered
a Second in support. Mr. Lantz accepted the amendment.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
Jason Bridwell noted if Mr. Mading does not comply before January 1, 2017, his
suspended license will automatically become null and void.
B. David M. Jones—Review of Probation/Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a"Love Landscape, Inc.")
It was noted David M. Jones was not present.
Jason Bridwell provided background information:
• This case was presented to the Board on March 16, 2016.
• Mr. Jones had requested a waiver of exams. He was on probation at that time
and unable to appear due to health issues. Dixie Jane Hardaway appeared on
14
May 18,2016
his behalf, stating she was running the company in his absence. Although Ms.
Hardaway was unable to produce documentation to verify that she had been
authorized by Mr. Jones to represent him, she stated it was her intention to
take the required exams to become the Qualifier for the business.
The following is an excerpt from the March 16, 2016 minutes:
"Patrick White moved to approve extending the probationary period for
sixty days to allow Ms. Hardaway to provide verification that she was
authorized by David Jones to represent him before the Board. Kyle Lantz
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 8—0."
• Mr. Bridwell stated he did speak with David Jones who indicated he would
be present at today's meeting to ask for a further extension. Mr. Jones has
not provided a letter or explanation as to why he could not attend.
Attorney Morey noted this case was similar to the previous case, i.e., Mr. Jones
would have the ability to produce his exam scores and ask to have his license
reinstated.
Chairman Pro Tem White: If the Board's direction and order is that his license is
to be suspended, we understand if Mr. Jones does not appear before the Board within
the allotted timeframe, the license will—through the administrative process and
operation of law—disappear.
Jason Bridwell: Because Mr. Jones' license is suspended, he will be required to
appear before the Board and provide proof of his passing exam scores.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve suspending the license of David M. Jones until he
appears before the Board and presents proof that he passed the required exams.
Elle Hunt offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
Chairman Pro Tern White noted the Board could hear the previously "tabled" cases
of Frank Polara and Kirk Bunch under Item VIII, "New Business."
VIII. NEW BUSINESS: (CONTINUED)
B. Frank Polara—Contesting Citation #9749 (Unlicensed General Contracting)
C. Frank Polara—Contesting Citation #9839 (Working without a Building Permit)
Attorney Morey explained:
• It is the responsibility of a Petitioner who wishes to contest a Citation to be
present at the hearing.
• The County issued the Citation.
• The Board's options:
o To uphold the Citation as issued, unless the Board is presented with
additional information that the violation had been corrected prior to the
Hearing.
15
May 18,2016
Chairman Pro Tem White: The information provided in the packet is sufficient for
me to reach a conclusion.
Terry Jerulle: My question concerned the Board's options: We can either uphold it
or not. There are other options.
Attorney Morey: In general, when a Citation is issued, the individual who wishes to
contest it must prove that the Citation was invalid, or that the violation was corrected
prior to the Hearing.
He continued: The Board's options are to uphold the Citation or to dismiss it, unless
the original violation was irreparable or irreversible. If the Board decided to uphold
the Citation, it can order the individual to pay the civil penalty set forth in the Citation
or the Board may increase it. The Board should consider the gravity of the violation,
any actions taken by the violator to abate it, and any previous violations.
Chairman Pro Tern White: As much as I feel it might be appropriate to enhance
the penalty simply because we took our time to review the packet, then table the case,
and have a further conversation about it—I don't know that it meets any one or more
of the criteria you just read to us. I am happy to make a motion to uphold the
Citations.
Elle Hunt: Does the County have any expenses with regard to ...?
Jason Bridwell: No.
Chairman Pro Tern White: And I don't believe we have the authority to add
paying something beyond what the Citation amount is.
Elle Hunt: Okay. Even if there were costs associated?
Chairman Pro Tem White: Unlike an administrative Public Hearing where I think
we have that authority.
Terry Jerulle: Before we vote ...
Chairman Pro Tern White: There was no Second.
Terry Jerulle: I noticed a website in the packet— I went to the website and he is
advertising.
Chairman Pro Tem White: Still?
Terry Jerulle: Still advertising as a General Contractor. I don't see a Citation for
that.
Jason Bridwell: This was in response to a Complaint that was filed by a
homeowner.
Terry Jerulle: There is evidence on another web page on his website that he is
building decks and drains. I find it very egregious.
Chairman Pro Tern White: The question from Mr. Bridwell is: Are those
construction activities, from your review of the website, something that took place in
Collier County?
Terry Jerulle: It appears to be, yes.
Chairman Pro Tem White: I appreciate the additional input and ...
Jason Bridwell: I can take an anonymous complaint at any time and, if that's the
case, I will open up a complaint on that.
Terry Jerulle: Ninth Avenue South Train Station.
Jason Bridwell: For the sake of the Citation, I would like to stick to the ones ...
16
May 18,2016
Chairman Pro Tern White: My expectation was that if the Board were to uphold
either or both of these Citations, that there may be a further investigation conducted
by the County based either on what was said today or generally from other input out
in the community, and that there could be the potential for enhanced penalties under
subsequent Citations. I am hopeful that after we dispose of these two items, you will
have the opportunity to talk to Mr. Pollara and apprise him of the conversations we
have had here and what is likely the County's action. Can we expect compliance?
Jason Bridwell: Yes.
Michael Boyd: Has he ever been licensed, Jason?
Jason Bridwell: He did have a G.C. license ...
Chairman Pro Tern White: But it's not in effect—it's not active.
Jason Bridwell confirmed Mr. Pollara's license was not active and stated he did have
a Certified General Contractor's license at one point.
Chairman Pro Tem White: From my perspective—it's not before us today but,
generally speaking, that puts him in a position—like myself—that he has more
information and knowledge about what the requirements are. It's all the more
egregious to not comply with our County's requirements. So, he is on notice.
Chairman Pro Tern White: We have a motion to uphold Citation #9749
(unlicensed General Contracting) and Citation #9830 (commencing work without
obtaining a Building Permit) issued to Frank C. Pollara. Is there a second?
Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
D. Kirk Bunch—Contesting Citation#10080
Kyle Lantz moved to approve upholding Citation #10080 issued to Kirk Bunch for
unlicensed carpentry. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(None)
NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 20, 2016
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL
17
May 18,2016
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chairman Pro Tern at 10:30 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD
1 �
,,,o:,
PATRICK KITE, Chairman Pro Tem
The Minutes were/ipproved by the Chairman Pro Tern on .713 , 2016,
"as submitted" [V ] OR "as amended" [ ].
18