CLB Minutes 07/20/2016 4 =maw
July 20,2016
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
\v
20, 2016
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Chairman: Thomas Lykos
Vice Chair: Richard Joslin
Members: Michael Boyd
Elle Hunt
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
Robert Meister
Patrick White
ALSO PRESENT:
Ian Jackson— Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Jason Bridwell — Administrative Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Kevin Noe11, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Joseph Nourse — Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer
1
•
July 20,2016
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any Appeal is
to be based.
I. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Thomas Lykos opened the meeting at 9:04 AM and read the procedures to be
followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established; nine (9)voting members were
present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Additions:
• Under Item VI, "Discussion,"—the topic: "Applicant's Financial Responsibility"
was added.
Deletions:
• Under Item X, "Public Hearings,"—Case #2016-04, Michael Werab, was
withdrawn by the County.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Vice Chair Richard Joslin
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— MAY 18, 2016:
Patrick White moved to approve the May 18, 2016 minutes as submitted. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(None)
VI. DISCUSSION:
A. Applicant's Financial Responsibility/Certificate of Financial Responsibility
Ian Jackson, Contractors'Licensing Office Supervisor, stated:
• The State of Florida's Construction Industry Licensing Board("CILB") is
offering a course entitled"Financial Responsibility and Stability for the
Contractor."
• The course is available online through the Cam Tech School of Construction
(Website: camtechschool.com) (Phone: 813-960-0100).
2
July 20, 2016
• Course details: "This course is intended to provide students with the skills
and concepts needed to gain financial responsibility related to business
accounting, financial planning, savings, investments, money management,
credit and debt management, risk management and investing, protecting
assets, insurances, taxes, and becoming a responsible, prosperous business
owner."
• Cost: $149.00
• Mr. Jackson stated the goal is to encourage ("strongly recommend") the
applicants with marginal credit scores to take the course and obtain
certification prior to appearing before the Board. He stated it is a tool the
Board could use in its decision-making process when contemplating whether
or not to grant a license or place an applicant on probation.
• He became aware of the course while conducting research for options to
relieve the Board of its "credit counseling" duties and in-depth review of
credit reports.
Elle Hunt was supportive of the concept, stating the course could be a valuable tool
for the Board to consider. She requested information concerning the length of the
course as well as whether it assists students in developing a business plan. She
cautioned that obtaining a Certificate of Completion would not automatically
guarantee an Applicant would receive a license—"it does not give them a pass."
• Mr. Jackson will obtain detailed information (length of the course;
passage/failure rate) and present his findings concerning this course and other
potential options to the Board at a later meeting.
Chairman Lykos noted providing the information about the course is a service
offered by the County to Applicants—he stated no one is "owed" a license.
B. Additional Topic—Discussion requested by Vice Chair Richard Joslin
Vice Chairman Joslin noted during the "Public Comment"portion of the May
meeting, Tom Davis brought the issue of re-screening to the Board's attention.
He asked if a license was required. Ian Jackson clarified a license was not required
to re-screen an enclosure.
Terry Jerulle asked if either a penult or a license was necessary. Ian Jackson replied
that neither was required.
Vice Chair Joslin: There is no "governing"behind it at the moment, correct?
Ian Jackson: Companies that only re-screen generally operate with a Business Tax
Receipt.
Vice Chair Joslin: That's my point. I think it needs to be covered—needs to be
brought up again—either through discussion or a workshop. Because this, I think, is
a license that we should have under control. If you allow a company to re-screen an
enclosure—the screened enclosures now can be two and three stories—we would be
allowing people on top of roofs with no licenses and no insurance to re-screen
something ... if someone falls and is hurt, who is responsible?
Patrick White: A bigger concern for me was the removal of the fasteners and
replacing them with those of lower quality or incorrect dimensions which may or may
3
July 20,2016
not work as they were designed to do. Additionally, there was some concern about
the guide wires—were they properly tensioned? Finally, by installing a tighter mesh
screen,the wind-load ratings could possibly no longer be met by the design of the
cage. What we could have, in a"storm event," is—due to the re-screening— is a
situation where cages that would have stayed in place would not be able to meet the
wind-loads and the entire structure could possibly come up out of the ground and fly
through the air.
Mr. White continued, stating the safe concerns should drive any investigations and
recommendations from Mr. Davis and others in the industry, as well as the County's
Staff, regarding the types of changes that should be made to current regulations—
whether it is licensure or permitting, or both.
Vice Chair Joslin stated he wanted to ensure the issue was not dropped—it was in
the May minutes—he reiterated he would not like to see an unlicensed individual
perform the work. He noted the County licenses pressure washers to allow them on
roof tops—they are required to have a license and insurance. He expressed concern
that an individual doing a re-screening job would be allowed on top of an enclosure
without a license or insurance.
Ian Jackson: The licensing position of this County is not inconsistent with other
Counties regarding re-screening or with the State, for that matter. But the matter is
being examined—it has not "gone by the wayside."
Chairman Lykos advised cautioned and to "think about what we are doing"before
making government larger and more intrusive in private enterprise.
VII. REPORTS:
(None)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Patrick White moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the
Board. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9—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. Adolfo Mayor—Credit Review
(d/b/a "Unique Tree Services, LLC")
Adolfo Mayor stated he submitted an application to obtain a Landscaping
Contractor's License.
Ian Jackson, Contractors'Licensing Office Supervisor, stated there were questions
concerning the Applicant's credit report which necessitated review by the Board,
pursuant to Collier County Ordinance, Section 22-184(b). Specifically, there are two
Federal tax liens and a collection issue.
4
op
July 20,2016
Chairman Lykos requested an explanation from the Applicant, noting his current
FICO score was not that much lower than the County's minimum.
Adolfo Mayor stated he had been released from one tax lien($18,700) and is making
monthly payments on the other lien. He stated he "had the wrong person doing my
taxes" and fell a bit behind ... when the economy dipped, it was difficult to catch up.
He provided proof of the monthly payments. He further stated he had verification of
proof of payment of the collection item ($177).
Kyle Lantz questioned Ian Jackson:
Q. Does the Landscaping License allowed the Applicant to also trim trees.
A. Yes.
Q. It covers everything?
A. All landscaping, installations, tree removal and trimming.
Adolfo Mayor stated he has also owned a landscape maintenance company for the
past fifteen years.
Terry Jerulle questioned Ian Jackson:
Q. The only reason why the Applicant is here is because of his credit report? There
were no questions on any other part of his application, as far as you were
concerned?
A. No.
Q. So, if he had better credit that met the State's minimum criteria, you would have
given the Applicant a license and he would not have been required to appear
before the Board?
A. Correct.
Patrick White noted when he read the affidavits concerning verification of
construction experience, two different names were mentioned (Adolfo Mayor and
Nelson Guerra)—he was confused as to exactly who was applying for the license.
Adolfo Mayor replied Nelson Guerra will eventually become a partner in the
business. He confirmed that his wife, Tonya Mayor, owns Mayor Lawn Care, LLC.
Patrick White stated if Adolfo Mayor is granted a license,he will be solely
responsible if there are any fiscal issues.
Chairman Lykos summarized:
• There was testimony from the Applicant that the collection item had been paid
in full;
• There was testimony and documented verification that the smaller of the two
tax liens had been paid;
• There was testimony and bank records that regular payments are being made
on the remaining tax lien.
Patrick White asked the Applicant if the lien was against his business or himself and
the response was, "It was for the business."
Michael Boyd asked about the collection issue regarding child support.
Adolfo Mayor replied the issue was payment of a remaining balance of seven cents.
5
July 20,2016
Kyle Lantz moved to approve Adolfo Mayor's application for a landscaping license.
Vice Chair Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
C. Sergio Quezada—Application to Qualify a Second Entity
(d/b/a: "QS Irrigation, Inc. "
Second Entity: "Caribbean Lawn & Garden of SW Naples, FL, Inc.")
Sergio Quezada was sworn in to testify as well as Mario Caraza and Maria
Caraza, his wife.
It was noted Mr. Quezada, the owner of QS Irrigation, Inc., had appeared before the
Board during the May meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Caraza are the owners of Caribbean
Lawn and Garden.
Chairman Lykos noted during the May meeting, the Board had questions regarding
Mr. Quezada's involvement in the management of Caribbean Lawn and Garden.
Sergio Quezada explained there were questions concerning how he would be able to
control and administer two companies doing the same job. He stated the new
application explained. He stated he will join the maintenance company (Caribbean
Lawn and Garden) as an officer and President of Human Resources which will give
him the ability to hire (new) and train qualified irrigation personnel for Caribbean as
well as supervise them at work. If he is allowed to qualify Caribbean as a Second
Entity, the company will be able to service commercial accounts which it is currently
contracting out.
Chairman Lykos questioned Mr. Quezada:
Q. You are the owner and qualifier of QS Irrigation, Inc.?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you want to qualify Caribbean—is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. In the discussion during the previous meeting, the question was about your ability
to have decision-making authority at Caribbean—correct?
A. Yes and money issues—control of the two accounts ... working under the same
name—how we wanted to control that.
Q. Tell me what has changed since the last meeting. What is your new agreement—
your new arrangement—where you now have that control?
A. We have an agreement that I will be part of the maintenance company.
Q. Can you tell me what that means—you will be "part of" the maintenance
company?
Maria Caraza explained:
A. What we have agreed is if we are granted to be qualified, then we would make
him part of the company. We would add him as an owner and he would also have
the financial ability to withdraw or do anything that has to be done with a bank.
Also he will train—he is going to be head of HR for irrigation and will have the
6
July 20,2016
decision making to either hire or not hire an employee. It would be completely
controlled by him.
Chairman Lykos questioned Mr. Quezada:
Q. Can you explain to me what your understanding is concerning how you will be
compensated or what your percentage of ownership will be?
A. I will receive 20%of the profit from the irrigation division.
Q. You will get 20% of Caribbean's profits?
A. Yes. But just in the irrigation division—not the whole company.
Q. Okay—you'll get 20% of the irrigation profits from Caribbean?
A. Yes.
Q. And how will those profits be calculated?
A. Basically by—we are doing every job—labor, material, costs, office, taxes—
whatever is left at the end of the year. We will try to not touch anything in the
first year. In the second year, we will start to get into quarters—any profit—to let
things grow.
Q. How will the financials be kept separate between the irrigation part of
Caribbean's business and the maintenance part of Caribbean's business?
A. There will be two different accounts. That's the reason we have to control—so
we don't mix it. The accounting office will have to keep it separate.
Maria Caraza explained:
A. Whatever we do in irrigation will be put aside in a different account. That's the
account that he's going to be able to financially withdraw or put in—whatever he
wants—because it's going to be a completely different bank account. Since he is
part of the business, he would be able to see what is going on. He will go and
visit customers. We currently have commercial and residential accounts and they
already have trust in us. We have talked—if we do have an irrigation license,
then they would give us the irrigation business that they currently give to
someone else. That's where he would come—he would meet with them and give
the proposals—he would do all of that stuff. He would be very involved in that.
Elle Hunt questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Do you have a contract in regard to the terms between the current company and
what the new organization is going to look like?
ry A. No, we do not have a contract right now because we are waiting to see if we get
the license first. Then, yes, obviously, there would be a contract.
Q. But you are asking us to grant you a license today on something you don't have a
contract for—that you would only create a contract for afterwards?
A. Well, if we don't have the license—if he cannot
qualify us if you don't grant us
the license,then I can't put him in the business until that happens.
Q. I understand. Not a completed contract—I was wondering if you have your draft
contract ready to sign?
A. I don't have it with me, no.
Vice Chair Joslin stated it was more along the lines of financial responsibility,that
the Board was asking for a business plan.
7
July 20, 2016
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Are you going to use the same employees for QS and Caribbean? Are the
employees going to be under the same umbrella and for which company?
A. No, Caribbean is going to have the same employees but those employees will not
do any landscaping. They would be under his supervision.
Q. So the payroll and the amounts that are being paid, and the insurance will be
under QS with those employees working for Caribbean?
A. No, no—they will be under Caribbean—they will be employees of Caribbean
Lawn but he will supervise them and they will only do irrigation. They won't do
the landscaping but they will still be under my company because Caribbean Lawn
will have the license also. But he would come in—he's the one who will train
them—they are not going to do anything else that has to do with landscaping.
They would be just an irrigation crew.
• Q. I'm confused. Why would you need two companies to do that? Why doesn't he
just license you or become, for example, a vice-president in your company and
use his license to do the irrigation portion and just have one company?
Elle Hunt: Right—a subcontractor.
A. Because most people [customers] don't want a subcontractor—they want the
person that they trust—the company that they trust—to do the work for them.
Q. Well, they will still be under your umbrella—your company—and he would just
work for your company but with an irrigation license ... so you could do the
whole package under one roof
Terry Jerulle questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. What you are asking us to do is—at least in my mind—is to grant you a license
under the assumption that you will do a contract with Sergio that will hold up
under the Florida Lien Laws—under Florida's Contractor Licensing Laws. And
we don't know what that contract is. If we had something to read, to understand
how you are going to run your business, we would be more comfortable. Right
now, we are concerned for the public. We are concerned that you may contract
with an individual and maybe a bill doesn't get paid and a lien goes against that
individual—who are they going to go after? Who is financially responsible?
Does Sergio have the power to make sure the bills get paid?
A. Of course.
Q. But how?
Elle Hunt: As of today, there is no guarantee that he has that control because you
have no contract in place and no contract to show us.
Patrick White: Assuming for the sake of discussion that the Board approves the
license application today, how long will it take to enter into the contract with Sergio
for him to have check-writing authority for the bank account that you will establish?
How long?
Maria Caraza: Right now. Once we leave here, we can go to the bank. We can
sign the contract and go to the bank and open the new account.
Patrick White: You are saying, within the same business day?
Maria Caraza: Yes. All it takes to go to .....
8
July 20,2016
Patrick White: I am aware of what it takes. The question was "how long."
Maria Caraza: I'm sorry.
Patrick White: And the answer is—today.
Maria Caraza: Yes.
Kyle Lantz: I'm just a little bit confused by the Board's response. In my experience
in the past, we've never asked—we've had plenty of people working for a company
they don't own that they have qualified and, as long as they sign something that says
they have check-writing authority, we've been"good." The Board has never asked
for an employment contract or any of that. I am curious as to why the Board wants
one now when we have never done it in the past.
Terry Jerulle: It's financial responsibility. It's not just check-writing authority ...
the State says you have to be financially responsible.
Kyle Lantz: This has nothing to do with the State—this is just the County.
Terry Jerulle: I think the County is in the State ... right?
Kyle Lantz: Well, hasn't he signed in his application that he is financially
responsible. Hadinger Flooring—they have a qualifier who is probably not the owner
and we didn't have an employment contract. We just had our application that said
whoever is the Qualifier is also financially responsible. So, why now do we need a
contract when we've never needed one in the past?
Patrick White: The reason why I asked the question about the timing was if it was
to occur on the same day as the licensure,when the Qualifier status is provided. I am
less concerned because it seems they are prepared to implement what would be
appropriate and they have testified as to what they are going to do. Now if we wanted
to issue the license in a way where proof is required to be provided to Staff—and add
that on as a new layer of assurance to protect the public, it's the only way I think we
would potentially be able to do it. At this point, I am satisfied with maintaining the
prior practice.
Chairman Lykos: Well, I have a lot of questions.
Chairman Lykos questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. When Caribbean has a client that wants irrigation work done—and in the past,
Caribbean has hired QS to do the irrigation work. What you want to do is to have
Mr. Quezada qualify Caribbean to do its own irrigation work. And Mr. Quezada
is going to maintain QS irrigation, is that correct? And when Caribbean does
irrigation work, Mr. Quezada will oversee the irrigation work being performed by
Caribbean. Let me ask you—why are you not just maintaining your current
process where you hire QS to do that work?
A. Most of our customers are not willing to use subcontractors due to insurance
issues and due to—and the County is one of them. Caribbean does work for the
County and it is getting tighter and tighter in letting subcontractors do their work.
Our company subcontracts to someone else and that is a big issue for us because
since we don't have the license, we cannot bid on a lot of work that we would be
able to do, and that's where the idea came from. We've known each other for
years and we've done work. We each know what we're capable of doing and
we're good at what we're doing. So that's how the idea came—to get qualified so
we can get other accounts that we currently don't have, and do the business
together.
9
July 20,2016
Kyle Lantz asked if Caribbean Lawn and Garden, under the license it currently has,
is it allowed to subcontract irrigation jobs or is it forced to give a recommendation for
the homeowners/customers to hire a contractor by themselves?
Ian Jackson: If a company is not qualified for a trade, it is unable to contract for
work or subcontract jobs out. The company could be in a position to refer a qualified
irrigation company to a customer and the customer would pay the company directly.
But if a company is contracting or subcontracting, it could be a violation.
Kyle Lantz: As it stands right now, Caribbean doesn't have the ability to be a"one-
stop shop" even if it was to subcontract to QS. But if it is qualified, it could now be a
"one-stop shop"—do it in-house or subcontract to QS or another Contractor.
Ian Jackson: Correct.
Kyle Lantz: So the benefit of this—the reason why they want to do it—is to allow
them to pursue other jobs because their customers don't want to have two different
vendors, and they want someone to oversee it.
Vice Chair Joslin questioned Sergio Quezada:
Q. How do you get paid now? Do you [QS] have working employees now in your
company?
A. Yes.
Q. You have your own employees—other than Caribbean?
A. Yes.
Chair Lykos questioned Sergio Quezada and Maria Caraza:
Q. How many employees do you have?
A. Seven.
Q. How many employees does Caribbean have?
A. (Maria Caraza) Nine.
Vice Chair Joslin: I don't quite get opening up another business to do the same
business. I understand the situation—that Caribbean can't subcontract irrigation
work because it is not licensed for the trade. And QS can't subcontract lawn work
because it is only licensed for irrigation work? Is that correct? So you're trying to
put together under one umbrella so you can do the whole package, as Mr. Lantz said.
It seems to me that there could be a smarter way and be done with it.
Kyle Lantz: You are still going to have the QS employees and that's going to run on
its own—you are not donating the QS business to Caribbean. Correct?
Vice Chair Joslin: Oh, I see.
Chairman Lykos questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Can you tell me who prepared the profit and loss statement that is included in our
package? There's one from Caribbean for the first quarter and for the year ending
2015.
A. That was our accountant.
Q. Your accountant prepared the profit and loss statement?
A. That's what he sent me by email.
Q. Have you reviewed this profit and loss statement?
A. No, I'm sorry—I have not.
10
July 20,2016
Patrick White questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Do you routinely review the profit and loss statements on some regular basis?
A. No.
Q. You don't review any of the financial documents 7
A. Oh, yes, Ido.
Q. That was the question.
A. I'm sorry—yes, I do. I do the accounting for ....
Chairman Lykos questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Can you please open the packet to the profit and loss statement? I am looking at
the statement for the year ending December 31, 2015. There are payroll expenses
of just under $138,000. You have nine employees. Does that include yourself?
A. No.
Q. How are you and your husband compensated if that [figure] does not include your
compensation?
A. Well, it does. We're not in that amount—well, we are ... but we're not park of
the nine employees.
Q. So you have nine employees plus yourselves.
A. Yes.
Q. And you run the company? You are involved in the day-to-day operation s?
A. Yes.
Q. So the payroll number that is in here is inclusive of your pay—correct?
A. Yes.
Q. How do your payroll taxes get paid?
A. What do you mean?
Q. Do you have a payroll company or do you write the checks to ... ?
A. We have a payroll company—a leasing payroll company.
Q. How does your Workers' Compensation insurance get paid?
A. Through the employee leasing company.
Q. Thank you.
Vice Chair Joslin questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. How is the new gentleman going to get paid—the same way? Is he going to draw
any wage from Caribbean since he will be the license holder for Caribbean? Is he
going to draw a paycheck per week or is he going to get paid once a year when
the profits come in ... or how?
A. No, no. He's going to be paid on a monthly basis depending on the profits.
Q. A monthly basis?
A. Yes.
_ Chairman Lykos questioned Sergio Quezada:
Q. Mr. Quezada, have you reviewed the company financials for Caribbean Lawn and
Garden?
A. Basically, no. We have been talking about the money situation in both companies
—I don't really sit and read it, or look at the numbers.
11
•
• July 20,2016
Chairman Lykos questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Have you reviewed the company financials for QS Irrigation?
A. Yes. I just looked over it.
Q. I believe in the packet we have the profit and loss statement for QS Irrigation for
the first quarter (January through March 2016). Have you reviewed that
documentation?
A. This was done two months ago. But yes, it was reviewed.
Q. Do you understand how QS Irrigation pays their taxes—payroll taxes?
A. I don't know how they do it in their company.
Q. Do you know how their Workers' Compensation insurance is paid?
A. I'm sorry, no.
Q. Do you know who prepared this profit and loss statement for QS Irrigation?
A. I believe his accountant.
Q. Do you know his accountant?
A. No, I do not.
Chairman Lykos questioned Sergio Quezada:
Q. Mr. Quezada, can you give testimony as to who prepared your profit and loss
statement?
A. That's the Cap Company—that's the name of the company. They do all my
financials and(directing his comments to Maria) you know him. That's the same
guy ... we have accounts to do all of this.
Chairman Lykos questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. If we can go back to your profit and loss statement. You have nine employees.
Can you tell me what their average compensation is? How much do they make an
hour ... how much do they make in a week?
A. They make about$14.50 to $15.50 [per hour] —the normal laborers. And then we
have two supervisors—they are on salary and make about$900 a week.
Q. So you have roughly seven employees at $600 per week and two employees at
$900 a week.
A. Yes.
Q. So,that's approximately$5,400 a week in payroll. Correct? And I'm at the low
end of the range. So what's $5400 per week times 52 weeks? $270,000 per year.
According to the profit and loss statement, there is $138,000 of payroll which
includes the two owners.
Chairman Lykos asked Mrs. Caraza to explain the line item on the profit and loss
statement for"repairs/maintenance" in the amount of$51,045. He asked what the
expenses were for.
A. (Pablo Caraza) For all kinds of mechanical repair—tires—oil and gas—lathe for
the machinery.
Q. The more information you can give me,the better I will understand.
A. Weed-eater lines—sharpening the equipment—broken heads. There's-a lot that
gets broken.
Q. I understand it can be hard on the equipment. Can you also explain the vehicle
allowance in the amount of$24,138. What is that for?
A. (Maria Caraza) That's for our vehicles—we have two company cars.
12
iirmimemer
. July 20,2016
Patrick White questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Are they leased?
A. No,they are owned.
Q. So those are the payments on ... ?
A. Yes.
Chairman Lykos questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. Under"meals and entertainment"—that's $43,961 —that's roughly about $800
each week. Can you explain those expenses?
A. He (indicating Pablo Caraza) draws from that—his meals during the day come
from there. Also for the employees' water and ice—anything that has to do with
the employees. Sometimes we take them out for pizza or we buy lunch for them—
a number of things.
Q. That's Eight Hundred Dollars each week! Explain to me how you can spend $800
a week on water and ice and pizza.
A. Not only that—we also have—when we do the company parties—we do
barbeques for them—all of that comes from there.
Chairman Lykos asked Sergio Quezada if he understood those types of expenses
reduced the amount of profit for the company he has requested to qualify.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And by reducing the profitability of the business, it limits that you are going to
make for the work that you do?
A. The profit I will collect will be based directly on the irrigation.
Q. I understand. But if they [Mr. and Mrs. Caraza] are making the decisions about
the expenses for the company that are not directly related to the cost of doing the
work—but are related to the costs of running the business—that is going to reduce
the amount of the profits generated by the irrigation work.
Maria Caraza explained: This is why we want to separate and this is why we want a
different bank account— everything separate. We are together as a company but
separate in the financials. I don't want my part of doing my work with my employees
to—the employees with him will be my employees also. But it doesn't have to do
with him. He will supervise—he will do everything with those employees. I am not
going to take from what I do here with my husband's car allowance, with all of that,
and have it interfere with the employees who are the irrigation crew.
Chairman Lykos: I understand that you want to maintain separate accounting for
the irrigation side of your business. However, Mr. Quezada's compensation will be
based on the profits of Caribbean.
A. No.
Q. Then why is he qualifying your business?
A. We're going back to the same thing. The profits are based on Caribbean but not
on Caribbean as a whole. It will be based on Caribbean but only for the irrigation
crew.
Q. How are you managing the irrigation side of the business? Who is doing the
bookkeeping for that? Who is doing the payroll for that? Who is paying for the
tools and equipment to perform the work?
A. We both will.
13
• July 20,2016
Q. And how are you going to keep track of that? Who does the bookkeeping for
Caribbean?
A. Ido.
Q. And are you going to charge the irrigation side of the business for part of your
time?
A. In that part—yes.
Q. And THAT is an expense!
A. But it has nothing to do with going out and buying pizza for them and doing that.
It is something that I have to account with him [Sergio] for. If he is not in
agreement that—on a Friday—buying pizza for the irrigation crew ... because
they are not going to be working with my crew. You know,they are set for
irrigation alone. If I go to him and I ask him if he wants a Pizza Friday for them
and he says, "no,"then I have to respect that. But that's between him and myself.
I am not going to buy pizza for the irrigation crew if he's not okay with it.
Elle Hunt questioned Maria Caraza:
Q. So what expenses are going to be mirrored in the irrigation accounting?
A. The expenses that will be mirrored in the irrigation will be part of my salary and
whatever needs to be bought for that specific job—for that specific project that we
are going at that time. That is it ... and his time.
Q. No advertising, no discounts, no equipment, no maintenance of the equipment, no
fuel, no gifts, no insurance, no ....
A. Well, we've got to do that part but until we have the size of the crew that we will
have, we don't have a project, we can't go ahead and calculate that because every
project will be different. It could be a big project or it could be a small project. It
will depend on the project that we will do and the costs involved ... the gas that is
involved ... the equipment that is involved ... all that will depend on the size of
the project.
Terry Jerulle questioned Sergio Quezada:
Q. Sergio, do you have Workers' Compensation insurance for your employees?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how do you provide that?
A. Cypress is my Workers' Compensation insurance company and it is monthly
payments.
Q. Do you lease your employees?
A. No.
Q. So your employees work directly for you?
A. Yes.
Q. When you work for Caribbean Gardens, who will pay the Workers'
Compensation insurance?
Maria Caraza clarified the insurance coverage for the irrigation division would be
paid for by Caribbean Lawn because the irrigation division employees would be
covered under the same policy as the other employees of Caribbean Lawn.
Mr. Jerulle asked if Caribbean Lawn would be using the existing employees of QS
Irrigation and Mrs. Caraza replied, "no."
14
July 20, 2016
Sergio Quezada: Let me explain something. The maintenance that they are doing —
I trained two or three guys to work in maintenance. The new projects we will follow
with my guys. I will oversee maintenance and train the new guys but that will be for
Caribbean. My QS will do specific jobs out of the maintenance. It is completely
different.
Chairman Lykos questioned Sergio Quezada:
Q. Mr. Quezada, I would like to ask you some questions about your profit and loss.
Have you reviewed your profit and loss statement that is part of this packet?
A. No, sir.
Q. You are the Qualifier for QS Irrigation—correct.
A. Yes.
Q. You have said that you have seven employees.
A. Yes.
Q. How much do you pay your employees?
A. Between$13.50 and $15.00 an hour.
Q. At $15.00 an hour,that's $600 per week.
A. Yes.
Q. If you have seven employees, that's $4,200 per week for payroll. You have
provided us a profit and loss statement for the first quarter of 2016.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. This says that you have $19,229 of payroll. That would represent about five
weeks of payroll for a 13-week span. It also says that you have $1,146 for
Workers' Compensation insurance which represents about 6% of the payroll
shown on this profit and loss statement. Do you know what the Workers' Comp
rate is for irrigation?
A. Workers' Comp is based on the weekly payroll and then, at the end of the year,
like this year—I had to pay $1,000 to keep it balanced. And it's not an exact
number because it's a percentage of the salary. I don't have that number. But it
goes from three to four—last year it was $7,000.
Q. So ... $4,200 a week of payroll times thirteen weeks is $54,600 but the profit and
loss statement shows $19,229 in payroll.
Patrick White questioned Sergio Quezada:
Q. Did your employees work a full week, every week, during the first quarter of
2016? All seven were fully employed for 40-hours per week for all three months
of the first quarter of 2016?
A. No. We have ups and downs—you know,the rainy season—but ...
Q. We're talking between January and March of this year. Yes, there were rains ...
A. I can say, probably Mondays through Thursdays ... half a day on Fridays
sometimes. I would try to give at least 40 hours a week. But I don't have exactly
average numbers, you know. But it's probably around 36 or 34—sometimes 40.
Q. You said you have seven employees but it's listed under the heading, "Outside
Contractors Payroll," and it has only six employees but it does include you.
A. My wife does the paperwork at home,myself as the crew leader, and I have five
guys in the field.
Q. Your wife is Martha?
A. Yes.
15
July 20,2016
Chairman Lykos noted "Outside Contractors" was an individual line item on the
statement and "Payroll" was a separate account.
Patrick White: "Outside Contractors" is $2,102.
Chairman Lykos: I don't like getting into this much detail. I think whenever a
Qualifier is going to qualify a second business, it is critically important that the
person asking to qualify the second business has a thorough understanding of the
operation of the other business. You operate differently—you pay your payroll
differently, you pay your Workers' Comp insurance differently and you have one
business that will be doing some of the work that the other business already does. I
have always been uncomfortable with that relationship because Mr. Quezada's
business is going to be buying irrigation parts and Caribbean will be buying irrigation
parts and the invoices are going to come into the office and someone will have to
decide if it was really a"Caribbean" expense or was it a"QS Irrigation" expense.
You [Mr. and Mrs. Caraza] will have to trust Mr. Quezada to make decisions in
Caribbean's best interests—which is, of course, everybody's intention when they
start. Mr. Quezada will have to trust you to make decisions that are not in your own
self-interests but are in the company's best interests because that's how Mr. Quezada
will be compensated. Yet, you don't understand each other's business. I understand
that in order to work for the County and for other clients, it's more convenient when
Caribbean can offer a collection of services under one roof But I am uncomfortable
that you understand each other's business and understand exactly how this is going to
work. I understand y our intentions but if you can't answer questions about how the
other does business—and you're going to be relying on each other's expertise,
financial management, and business management—how is this relationship going to
work? And if it doesn't work, by allowing you to qualify a second entity and if the
business fails or the customers suffer, then we are allowing that to happen.
Maria Caraza: The idea of doing this together has been because of the years that we
have been together as friends, as colleagues, as people who have done business with
each other. And we, my husband and I,know the way that he [Sergio Quezada]
works, know that he is trustworthy. I wouldn't recommend someone that I do not
trust to one of my accounts to do the work—who has the work ethic that I have with
the work that I do myself. And that is the reason why we're trying to come together.
Because he has the same work ethic. Maybe we run the businesses differently in
accounting and other ways but in the work ethic, we're the same. And that's why this
was brought up and why we are trying to get together. That's why I want to separate
the irrigation part from the business that we currently have. Because everything that
is going to go through there has to be e approved by the three of us—especially by both
of us [Sergio and Maria]. I am the one who takes care of the financial part—more
than my husband does.
Chairman Lykos: Again, I understand your intention. I reviewed this packet—I
reviewed your financials and your monthly bank statements. I know more about your
financial statements than you do. You're asking me to allow this business entity to
alter the way it does business. But neither of you have reviewed your own financial
statements—not only that,but the numbers don't add up. I am not comfortable with
this arrangement. You don't understand each other's business and you don't have a
good answer for how your arrangement is going to work. I understand your
16
• II
• July 20,2016
intentions and understand that they are good intentions. Do you trust each other
enough to just merge your businesses into one business?
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, they want to create a new division
under Caribbean. And that the Qualifier for that division is going to be Sergio. That
is the relationship and a set of agreements as they have been articulated that I am
comfortable with at this point. The things that I would have potential concerns about
are ones that are more between the parties than they are relative to any of their
customer bases, at least as I understand the potential for harm in the "economy" and
the operation of the business. Since they are largely going to be working with
commercial and institutional customers as I understand it, and don't appear to have
very many individual residential customers, I am very comfortable and less concerned
about harm to the consumer.
Robert Meister: Let me ask a question and excuse me if this was already answered
because I am so thoroughly annoyed with this whole thing—
(directed to Maria Caraza) Do you do his books from his other company?
Maria Caraza: No, I do not.
Robert Meister: Then how the hell are they going to intermingle? Basically, Sergio
is going to join the Caraza's company but he still has his own company. So his stuff
is separate from their's so I don't know how his pipe is going to be mixed up with
their pipe. (laughing)
Maria Caraza: That's why I'm trying to explain. Let's say we do a project and this
commercial customer of ours ....
Robert Meister: I get it.
Maria Caraza: ... has a project and we need to do this irrigation. Obviously,he's
going to go with Pablo. And Pablo and them are going to get to an agreement of the
price and whatever needs to be done for that project.
Robert Meister: I get it. I am just trying to bring that to light because I don't know
if this will turn into an IRS audit or an insurance audit.
Maria Caraza: When we get back ...
Robert Meister: This is ridiculous.
Maria Caraza: ... the gas,the fuel, everything in that
will be for those employees ... it has nothing to do with my business and it has
nothing to do with his separate business.
Robert Meister: I get it. I get it.
Vice Chairman Joslin: If you look at the financial statement—the December 31,
2015 financial statement—you are showing a total income ... a gross profit of
$475,000 yet your total income is $13,207.
Michael Boyd: We have two long-time companies that seem to be financially stable.
What they are trying to do is to be legal in how they conduct their business, which I
appreciate. I'm going to go off on a limb here—we just approved a license for a guy
that owes $30,000 to the IRS—we approved it! He's paying $700 a month—I think
because it wasn't verified—at$30,000,he'll never pay that off. I just want to have a
vote and approve them.
17
Imo
• July 20,2016
Michael Boyd moved to approve Sergio Quezada's Application to Qualify a Second
Entity. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Kyle Lantz stated he understood the idea but expressed concern about the
financial statements—he agreed the numbers didn't add up. He was most
concerned about the payroll expenses—"there's something going on here."
Even though both companies have paid their bills and are not in trouble,they
are headed down the wrong path. There is a lot of monkey business going on
in these financials—either someone made it up one night or there is a lot of
conniving going on because there's no damn way you can have that many
employees working so many hours and have so little payroll. I understand
Workers' Comp insurance is based on the payroll. It leads me to the
conclusion—from the appearance on the statement—that the business is not
being run the way I would want it to be run, and I'm paying a higher Workers'
Comp rate because of businesses that are run like that.
• Terry Jerulle: He agreed the financials didn't make sense. They are long-
time companies and are good people why want to do the right thing—and I
agree with that. My only concern is that in my mind, Sergio needs to be
financially responsible. I don't have any proof or documentation that he's
going to be financially responsible. If I had that, I would vote to approve it.
But right now, without having that, I am not going to vote to approve—just
based upon that one single fact.
Sergio Quezada: Let me explain how we are going to operate. Maybe that will help
you. I will help their employees who are working with me already on repairs to be
more irrigation. The way we work—if they have a customer who needs irrigation,
there is a budget for that job. We buy the materials and install it and then we do the
profit. We don't work on a daily basis—it is individual projects. It's probably once a
month or twice a month depending on how many customers he can bring. It's easy to
control the in and out money. I agree when you say the business report is not clear—
I've got to go back to my accounting office and say, "hey!" This is very important.
The money we have and I agree with you that is it not clear. I have to fix that. But I
don't see money going in different ways because we don't work jobs on a daily basis
—its one project or two projects per month. And my support will be for the
maintenance that they do in irrigation. That's just my time.
Maria Caraza: That's one of the reasons why we want this to go through—so we
can get more projects—so we can get that irrigation crew going because right now we
can't dothatunless we are licensed.
Robert Meister: Is there a possibility that we could let them have a six-month
probationary license and requiring him to come back with the contract showing that
he will have some financial say in the business?
Patrick White: I would be happy to agree to amendment of that nature.
Michael Boyd: I would agree to amend my motion.
18
July 20,2016
Patrick White: The form of the motion would be that Sergio Quezada will provide a
copy of the employment agreement evidencing his check writing authority for the
bank account being separately opened from Caribbean's current account to the
Contractors' Licensing Supervisor within thirty days.
Michael Boyd: I will agree to that language.
Patrick White: The motion is to approve Sergio Quezada's application but grant a
probationary license for thirty days requiring them to provide documentation of the
agreement between the entities, QS and Caribbean,for the Qualifier as well as
copies of documentation evidencing that the Qualifier for Caribbean has check-
writing and fiscal control over a newly created account separate from Caribbean's
existing account. The documentation will be provided to the Contractors'
Licensing Supervisor and he will determine whether or not to forward it to the
Board.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion. The vote: 4— "Yes"/5— "No."
The motion failed. Hunt, Jerulle, Lantz, Lykos and Joslin were opposed.
Maria Caraza asked if the vote meant they could "not get a license at all," Chaiiman
Lykos explained they could not obtain a license under the current application.
Patrick White noted the Board needed a motion to deny the application if that was
the Board's intention.
Chairman Lykos stated one option was the motion to deny the application and the
other would be for one of the approving members to propose another motion,
differently phrase that might pass.
Patrick White asked Terry Jerulle what type of documentation he would need to vote
in favor of a motion.
Terry Jerulle: Proof that Sergio will be a financially responsible Officer of the
company that he is qualifying.
Patrick White suggested one of the terms of the employment agreement between
Sergio and Caribbean should clearly state that he will have financial control and
responsibility over the irrigation division.
Chairman Lykos suggested the agreement should be an"operating" agreement.
Patrick White asked the parties if they understood the additional requirement that
was being proposed.
Maria Caraza: What we need is an agreement—the business agreement—that
Sergio is going to be part of Caribbean Lawn and also the new bank account—that is
what is needed?
Patrick White: Correct and showing his signature authority. If we approve this
today, you are going to have a relationship where he becomes an owner of the
Caribbean corporation and as part of that ownership, he will be a member of your
Board of Directors, he may or may not be an officer of the corporation itself. You
have indicated he will be the President of the irrigation division of the corporation.
Maria Caraza: Yes. -
Patrick White: In the agreement, there must be specific statements regarding that
Sergio has financial responsibility of the corporation—not just the irrigation division.
19
4
• July 20, 2016
Maria Caraza: Okay. The reason why I haven't added him to the Corporation is
because if we don't have the license, there's no reason to add him to the company.
Terry Jerulle: The agreement can be contingent.
Patrick White moved to approve Sergio Quezada's Application to Qualify a Second
Entity on a probationary basis for a thirty-day period. The license will become
effective upon providing a copy of an operating or employment agreement between
the parties which provides for Mr. Quezada to be financially responsible and have
fiscal control over the corporation, Caribbean Lawn, and documented evidence
provided of signature authority on an account, separate from the existing
Caribbean account. The documentation will be delivered to the Contractors'
Licensing Office Supervisor who is authorized to lift the probation if he is satisfied
with the documentation. If not, the matter will be reviewed by the Board at the next
available hearing.
Michael Boyd offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Elle Hunt stated she did not see how the new motion was different from the
previous motion that was voted down and requested an explanation.
• Patrick White explained there was a specific requirement in the agreement
between the parties that provides for Mr. Quezada to have fiscal control and
financial responsibility for the corporation.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried: 5— "Yes"/4— "No." Hunt, Lantz, Lykos, and Joslin were opposed.
Chairman Lykos explained to the parties they had thirty days to provide Ian Jackson
with the verification and the proof that the Board has requested.
Patrick White confirmed if the Contractors' Licensing Office Supervisor is satisfied
with the documentation, the probation will be lifted. If they have not complied within
the thirty day period, they will have nothing. He suggested to Maria Caraza that it
could be beneficial to take and complete the online financial responsibility course
Jason Bridwell had presented.
Maria Caraza indicated she had paid attention to Mr. Bridwell and intended to take
the course. She stated, "Just to let you know. We've been in business for ten years
and he's been in business for a long time also. We're just people trying to make
better business."
BREAK: 10:45 AM
RECONVENED: 11:00 AM
D. Jonathan Mosso —Credit Review
(d/b/a "K.E.A Tile and Marble, Inc.")
Ian Jackson stated Mr. Mosso was applying for a Tile and Marble Contractor's
License. His application was referred to the Board due to questions about his credit
report,pursuant to Collier County Ordinance, Section 22-184(b).
20
July 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Mosso was required to appear before the Board because
his credit score fell below the State's minimum threshold.
Patrick White stated Mr. Mosso's FICO score is 507 while the State's minimum is
660.
Chairman Lykos: Typically, what we ask of an Applicant is that they understand
their credit report and know what has kept them from meeting the minimum
requirement. They either have a plan to present to us or they have already
implemented a plan to address the negative comments in the credit report. He asked
the Applicant if he had reviewed his credit report and understood the negative
comments. Mr. Mosso replied, "Yes, I have and yes, I do."
Jonathan Mosso explained:
• The items presented to him on his credit report were: Snap-On, Summit
Financial, and an issue with child support payments.
• He fell behind on his payments to Snap-On and returned the tools. He has
begun a payment plan with them and has a letter from Snap-on verifying the
payment plan. A copy of the letter is in the packet.
• The Summit Financial issue was due to a car purchased by his ex-wife in
2006. He has no idea if his ex-wife still has the car. The loan is on his credit
report. He stated he has begun a payment plan and has a letter of verification.
A copy of the letter is included in the packet.
• The child support is up to date. He has signed a written agreement to pay
$362.00 per month. He is required to make payments to the Child Support
office on the 15th and the 30th of each month. He was unable to obtain a letter
from the Child Support office.
When asked if the County had a recommendation, Ian Jackson said the County would
defer to the Board's discretion.
Patrick White asked Mr. Jackson if the County would be uncomfortable with a
period of probation and his response was, "no."
Patrick White noted the Snap-On"letter"was in the form of an invoice.
Jonathan Mosso: That's correct. It was all I was able to get to show that I have
started and will continue to make payments—and the same for Summit Financial.
Patrick White: The document indicated that of July 8th,there was a total amount
due of$4,214.30.
Jonathan Mosso: Correct. That was the left-over from when the re-sold all the tools
that were returned. I believe it was a_short-sale and that's the balance that I am now
in the process of paying.
Patrick White: Is it"past due?"
Jonathan Mosso: I don't know—but that's the amount that the person handling my
account told me was what I have to pay. That's the balance that was left after the
short sale. When I bought the tools, I was making a$50 a week payment.
Patrick White: You have a prior agreement and you are making monthly payments
to pay down the $4,214.30.
Jonathan Mosso: Correct.
21
July 20,2016
Patrick White: And you are not currently "past due" on those payments?
Jonathan Mosso: No.
Patrick White: And is your monthly payment $100?
Jonathan Mosso: That is correct. If I can pay more, I can but for now I can do $100
per month—just like with the Summit Financial.
Terry Jerulle: What type of tools were they?
Jonathan Mosso: They were body shop tools—for auto-body and collision work.
Terry Jerulle: They have nothing to do with tile and marble.
Jonathan Mosso: No. I was doing the body and collision work from home. It was
something that I did on my own. I was looking to get extra side work, but I was
helping family and friends more.
Patrick White moved to approve Jonathan Mosso's application for a Tile and
Marble Contractor's License but on a six-month probationary basis. He is to
return to present an updated credit report including providing copies of proof of
payments and/or the payment agreements with Snap-On, Summit Financial, and
Child Support Office.
Vice Chair Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Kyle Lantz suggested amending the motion to include that the documentation could
be presented to the Contractors' Licensing Office Supervisor who will decide if a
hearing before the Board is required.
Patrick White stated he would feel more comfortable about amending the motion if
it included a provision for the Applicant to take and complete the State's course
entitled"Financial Responsibility and Stability for the Contractor," as described by
Mr. Bridwell. However, knowing that Mr. Mosso will be making payments for the
next three years, he would prefer to hear from him and reviewing his updated credit
report in six months. While he appreciated the suggestion, he would not amend his
motion.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the motion as stated by Mr. White.
Motion carried, 8— "Yes"/1 — "No." Mr. Jerulle was opposed.
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
(Note: With reference to the following case heard under Section IX, the individuals
who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Michael Belyea—Review of Credit
(d/b/a "Mike's Irrigation")
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Belyea was currently on probation and was appearing
before the Board for a review of his updated credit report.
Michael Belyea stated his goal was to have his credit score, by the end of the year, at
the State's minimum, if not better.
22
• July 20, 2016
Chairman Lykos confirmed Mr. Belyea's credit score had improved. He requested
information concerning the four judgments.
Michael Belyea explained:
• The American Express amount of$52,000 was incorrect. He challenged it
with the help of a credit counselor. The correct amount is $25,227.
• The Calvery Port (Wells Fargo) amount was listed as $35,322 but the actual
amount is $6,322. He will make payments of$263.42 for the next 12 months.
Elle Hunt inquired about the $97,000 judgment in favor of Branch Banking &
Trust.
Mr. Belyea replied he was in the process of working out an agreement with the Bank.
The debt was originally a loan on his home. The property later went into foreclosure
when he couldn't make the payments.
Chairman Lykos requested a status on the following items:
• Springleaf Financial—$725. Mr. Belyea stated he offered$325 to settle the
account and is waiting for a response.
• Civil Judgment(Naser Mahmoud) —$5,000. He contacted Mr. Mahmoud
several times but has not received a response. Mr. Mahmoud owned a
clothing store in Immokalee and he also cashed payroll checks. Mr. Belyea
did not have funds in his account when some of his employees cashed their
checks there. Apparently Mr. Mahmoud is no longer doing business in
Immokalee and does not reside in Collier County.
• American Express has accepted a payment plan of$1,051.14 per month.
• He stated he offered to make monthly payments to Branch Banking& Trust
of$50 and is waiting for a response.
• He referred to a document he prepared which indicated payment plans with a
number of creditors which were not included on his credit report.
Chairman Lykos stated he was not prepared to end the probation as long as the civil
judgments were still open.
Mr. Belyea acknowledged he created this situation and it took him ten years to get
into the woods—"I've got to beat the bushes to get out."
Vice Chair Joslin noted some of the items were minor amounts (Midland Fund -
$180) and asked Mr. Belyea if he could pay those in full.
Michael Belyea stated since obtaining his license, he was beginning to see his head
above the water. He projected that, at the end of six months,he will meet the State's
minimum credit score. He further stated, after meeting with a credit counselor,he and
his family moved into a less expensive apartment, at a saving of$200 per month.
Chairman Lykos directed his question to Ian Jackson:
Q. If Mr. Belyea's credit score meets the State's minimum but there are still civil
judgments open, would he still be required to appear before the Board?
A. The County's Ordinance references the Florida Administrative Code for issues
concerning financial responsibility. I look at the number as well as the credit
23
July 20, 2016
report. Someone could have a high FICO but items on the credit report might still
necessitate an appearance before the Board.
Kyle Lantz noted Mr. Belyea certainly dug himself into a big hole, but was
impressed by the improved credit score. He stated Mr. Belyea had made "incredible
strides" in a six-month period despite the open civil judgments.
Vice Chair Joslin stated it would have been good if Mr. Belyea had paid the civil
judgment of$725 in full. He stated civil judgments are very detrimental to an
individual's credit rating.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to extend Michael Belyea's probation by an
additional six months. At that time, he is to return to the Board and provide an
updated credit as well as verification of payment of the $725 civil judgment to
Springleaf Financial or documentation of a payment arrangement and payment of
the smaller debts currently listed on his credit report. Gary McNally offered a
Second in support of the motion.
Motion carried, 8— "Yes"/1 — "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed.
Vice Chair Joslin summarized the terms of the motion for Mr. Belyea:
• He will remain on probation for an additional six months;
• At the end of the telin, he provide an updated credit report for the Board's
review;
• He will pay the Springleaf Financial civil judgment ($725) in full;
• He will pay in full as many payments as possible of the smaller items listed on
his current credit report.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Note: With reference to the following case heard under Section X, the individuals who
testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Case #2016-03: Board of County Commissioners vs. Roger L. Rutter, d/b/a
"RL Tile & Marble, LLC." (LCC 201500002076)
Chairman Thomas Lykos summarized the order of the proceedings to be followed
during the Public Hearing:
• The Hearings of the Complaint shall be open to the public and will be
conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance,
Section 22-202, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Chapter 49;
• The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature and formal Rules of Evidence shall
not apply. Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall
govern the proceedings;
• The proceedings will be recorded and may be transcribed;
• Each case shall be presented by the County Attorney or a member of the
County's Staff;
24
July 20,2016
•
• Irrelevant, immaterial, and/or cumulative material shall be excluded. All
other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent
person shall be admissible;
• Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining
any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient, by itself, to support a Finding
unless the hearsay would be admissible over objection(s) in a civil action in a
Court;
• Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness
before the Board.
• Each party to the proceeding shall have the right to call or examine witnesses;
to introduce exhibits; to cross-examine witnesses; to impeach any witness
regardless of which party called the witness to testify; and to rebut any
evidence presented against the party.
• The Chair(or Vice Chair) shall have all power necessary to conduct the
proceedings of the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manor to preserve
order and decorum;
• The County will present an"Opening Statement," then the Respondent will
present his/her"Opening Statement." The County will present its "Case in
Chief" and after the County has closed its "Case in Chief,"the Respondent
may present his/her defense to the County's charges. After the County's
rebuttal is concluded, each party is allowed to present a"Closing Statement."
• The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin its deliberations.
• The Board's attorney shall give a Charge to the Board setting out the
parameters upon which the decision will be based.
• The Board will decide whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as
charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if guilty,the Sanctions to be
imposed.
• At the conclusion of the Hearing,the Contractors' Licensing Board shall issue
Findings of Fact,based on the evidence of record, and Conclusions of Law
and may impose disciplinary Sanctions if warranted;
• The Board will discuss the Sanctions and then vote.
• The Chairman will orally report the decision of the Board which will
subsequently be rendered in writing to become the official Order of the Board.
Chairman Lykos opened the Public Hearing.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering into evidence the County's
information packet in Case #2016-03— The Board of County Commissioners vs. Roger
L. Rutter,Respondent, d/b/a "RL Tile & Marble, LLC." (License #2015-00002076).
Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion but amended it to include the
two items distributed by the County, i.e., Tile One, Inc. —Scope of Work (2 pages), and
Abbey Carpet of Naples'Estimate (2 pages).
Vice Chair Joslin accepted the amended language.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
25
• July 20,2016
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent if he objected to the information packet
being entered into evidence and his reply was "no,"but he indicated he "had a
problem" with the Abbey Carpet estimate.
Attorney James Morey, the Board's attorney, suggested the packet, including the
estimate, should be allowed into evidence and Mr. Rutter would have an opportunity
to discuss and challenge the estimate during his defense.
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent if he objected to admitting the estimate as a
whole or only to certain information contained in it.
Mr. Rutter stated it was the information.
Chairman Lykos confirmed the estimate would be admitted into evidence.
When asked if he understood the process, the Respondent replied, "not really."
Chairman Lykos explained:
• The County will give an"Opening Statement" of what it is trying to
accomplish today.
• You will be given an opportunity to provide an"Opening Statement" in
defense of the charges.
• The County will provide its evidence to convince the Board that its case is
legitimate.
• You will be able to rebut the County's evidence and present any evidence of
your own.
• Both the County and you will be allowed to provide a"Closing Statement."
• The County can rebut your"Closing Statement" if it chooses.
• The Public Hearing will be closed and the Board will discuss whether or not
you are guilty of the charge and, if guilty, what Sanctions should be imposed
against you.
• During the process,the Board members can question the County and its
witnesses, and can also question you and your witnesses.
Chairman Lykos concluded by advising the Respondent if he didn't understand, he
could ask questions.
Joseph Nourse, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's "Opening
Statement:"
• The County is prepared to show through documented facts and sworn
testimony that the Respondent violated County Ordinance#95-05, as
amended, Section 22-201.10, by failing to promptly correct faulty
workmanship associated with a tile installation at 2033 Castle Garden Lane,
Naples, FL, for the homeowners Mr. and Mrs. Hauck.
The Respondent was asked to present his "Opening Statement:"
• His son made an agreement with Mr. Hauck on doing a job;
• When the tile was delivered, some of the tiles were warped.
• The tile was 3-feet long and six inches wide. He stated the longer the tile,
the worse it is."
• The owner instructed the Respondent's son to install the tile even though
some pieces were warped.
26
•
July 20,2016
• His son installed the tile but the Respondent helped him during the last week
of the installation.
• His son was not present at the Hearing.
Chairman Lykos summarized: The Respondent's defense was that he was not guilty
of poor workmanship because the tile was installed as directed by the homeowner.
Respondent: He [Mr. Hauck] said to go ahead and install it. He stated maybe his
son could have worked with it a little more and made the job a little better, but it's
"really hard when the tile is warped."
Joseph Nourse, Licensing Compliance Officer, described the various Exhibits
contained in the information packet. He pointed out Page E-15 which outlined the
explanation of the charge, "Failure to promptly correct faulty workmanship." The
photographs of the tile flooring began on Page E-16 through E-48. He noted the tile
in front of the stove presented a serious trip hazard.
Kyle Lantz asked how the County determined whether a tile was either acceptable or
unacceptable.
Joseph Nourse: If the height difference was greater than 1/8 of an inch, or if we ran
a hand across the tile and it hit a sharp edge.
Kyle Lantz: How did you come up with the number, 1/8 of an inch?
Joseph Nourse: Just ball-parked it.
Vice Chair Joslin asked if there was a minimum tolerance accepted by the industry.
Kyle Lantz:
• There are ANSI tile installation standards;
• There is one for minimum deflection for tile which varies depending on the
length of the tile;
• The other tolerance for installation considers the width of the grout joint—
different grout joint widths have a different tolerance for lippage. You add the
two differences to obtain what is considered to be "acceptable."
• He stated he questioned how members of the County Staff became authorities
concerning what is considered to be acceptable within the tile industry.
• He explained the industry standard is a dime, i.e., if you can put a dime down
and the tile is below the height of a dime, it is considered to be "good."
Officer Rouse continued:
• Pages E-38 through E-48 are photos of the home after Mr. Rutter committed
to correcting the faulty workmanship. The tile flooringwasremoved from the
entire home. The photos show removal of the installed tile that was faulty and
reflects the current state of the home.
• He referenced his "Case Detail Report"which was contained on Pages E-11
through E-14. Highlights are as follows:
o The initial complaint was received on February 22, 2016.
o Met with the Respondent on March 15, 2016.
o March 18, 2016: Met at the site. The homeowners, the Respondent,
Jason Bridwell, and I were present.
27
• July 20,2016
o March 18, 2016: The flooring was inspected by all parties and a
determination of faulty workmanship was made. The Respondent
agreed the installation was faulty.
o March 30, 2016: Met at the site. The homeowners, the Respondent,
Jason Bridwell, and I were present. Mr. Bridwell marked the
unacceptable floor tiles. The Respondent agreed the marked tiles
needed to be corrected but stated all of the tiles should be removed and
replaced. He stated he would contact his insurance company to try to
obtain a settlement for the homeowners.
o April 15, 2016: The Respondent's insurance company rejected the
claim, stating he was liable for the faulty workmanship. The
homeowners were to decide if they would allow the Respondent
correct the faulty installation.
o April 25, 2016: The Respondent was contacted and asked when he
could start correcting the tile installation. The Respondent replied he
could begin on either May 3`d or May 4th.
o May 5, 2016: Met the homeowners at the site. The Respondent failed
to show and was not answering his telephone.
o May 6, 2016: Met with the Respondent at the Contractors' Licensing
Office and issued a Notice of Order to Correct Faulty Workmanship
and a Notice of Hearing. Documents were signed for by the
Respondent.
o May 11, 2016: Respondent began removing the floor tiles.
o May 31, 2016: Homeowners called, stating the tile has been removed
and they had waited two weeks for the Respondent to return to
complete the job. When contacted, the Respondent stated he did not
have the funds necessary to order the replacement materials.
o June 1, 2016: Received a phone message from the Respondent. He
was still unable to order the materials due to lack of funds. He stated
he hoped he would have the money in approximately two weeks.
o June 2, 2016: Met at the site. The homeowners were present and
photographs of the home were taken.
o June 15, 2016: Contacted the Respondent who stated he did not have
the funds to order the materials. Contacted the property owners and
informed them.
o To date,no correction action has taken place.
Elle Hunt noticed a discrepancy in the February 22nd comments and asked if the
square footage of the home was 13,000 square feet.
Joseph Nourse replied the correct figure was approximately 1,300 square feet.
Elle Hunt asked if the homeowners made a decision on March 28th, as noted in
the March 18th comments, and asked what was their decision.
Mr. Nourse stated their decision was to "move forward"but were undecided
whether to allow the Respondent to correct the tile flooring. They eventually
decided to allow the Respondent to make the corrections.
Vice Chair Joslin questioned Exhibits E-8 through E-10 and asked for an
explanation.
28
• July 20,2016
Officer Nourse stated it was the "contract" between the homeowners and RL Tile
& Marble. E-9 was, essentially, a register of payments made. Each entry was
initialed by Mr. Rutter's son, "Lee,"indicating acceptance of the payment.
Terry Jerulle requested confirmation that RL Tile & Marble was hired to furnish
and install the tile, and Officer Nourse's response was, "Yes."
Roger Rutter stated he son was asked to obtain the tile for the homeowners
because it was cheaper for him to buy it. "We didn't make no money on the tile."
Patrick White reiterated Lee Rutter was able to purchase the tile at a wholesale
price and saved the homeowners the difference between what they would have
paid at a tile store and the discounted price offered to tile contractors.
A. Yes.
Chairman Lykos asked the Board if they had any other questions for the County.
There were none.
Ian Jackson questioned the Respondent:
Q. On March 18th at the onsite meeting with you, Jason Bridwell, the
homeowners, and Officer Nourse, did you agree to attempt to correct the
faulty workmanship in a timely manner? Is that accurate?
A. That's accurate.
Michael Boyd noted the job was completed in December (Exhibit E-9)but the
County did not receive a complaint until February?
Officer Nourse: Yes, sir.
Michael Boyd: Do you know if the homeowners tried to contact the Respondent
to try to work it out?
A. I do not know.
Patrick White: Do you know if the home was occupied by the owners during
that time period?
Officer Nourse: Yes, it was.
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent to present his "Case in Chief"
Roger Rutter: Yes, there is some faulty work there. We agreed to bring up the
edges as much as possible to meet. But, like I said earlier, with three-foot long
tile that was warped and everything ... now I find out they have a deal or clips or
something that brings it up. But my problem with that is it would be hollow
underneath it. My son did show them that it was warped and they even showed
Joe that it was warped. If I had been there from the word"go," I guess maybe I
would have just walked off. I don't know that I would have but ...
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Respondent:
Q. Does your son work with you all the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he set the tile?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he work with you all the time?
29
. July 20,2016
A. Well, he does it mostly all the time—I don't do it much anymore.
Q. Does he do it by himself?
A. Yes. He's been working with me ever since he was fourteen years old. He's
forty-four now.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Respondent:
Q. You said earlier that your son explained to the homeowners that the tile was
warped.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if your son explained the consequences of installing the tile to
the homeowners?
A. Yes,he said he did. And another thing ... even he up there [indicating Kyle
Lantz] said the grout joint does determine some things ... they should have
been a little wider and the grout would have took and made it smoother.
Q. Do you know if your son got anything in writing from the homeowners
acknowledging the condition of the tile?
A. (response was not audible)
Terry Jerulle questioned the Respondent:
Q. Why didn't he take the tile back?
A. The customer said to put it in.
Q. In my experience ...
A. He should have ... yes.
Q. ... with ceramic tile is that some pieces are warped more than others, some are
perfectly fine. You call out the ones that are bad, you take them back and get
new tiles.
A. He would have had to take the whole 1,300 and some odd square feet back.
Q. Then you take it all back.
A. That's what should have been done—you're right. But, then again, Mr.
Hauck said to go ahead and put it in.
Q. As a contractor with a license, it's up to you to take the material and do it so
that it's not faulty.
A. Right.
Q. You are in this position now because you installed material that was faulty.
A. Yes, sir.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Respondent:
Q. How did you break the joints?
A. It was supposed to look like wood, so we just go off...
Q. Did you do random breaks? Did you do thirds or halves?
A. Thirds and random ... random,more.
Q. I heard you mention that you have heard about the clip system. You are not
the first person who has come before this Board because of problem that
they've had with plank tile. Plank tile is very difficult to work with. It is not
for the inexperienced tile setter. A lot of people have gone to the clip system
which adds a lot of money—you will spend $2 to $3 per square foot just
buying clips. There is an argument about the void underneath it. A lot of the
old-timers refuse to use the clips. I've seen jobs with and without the clips. I
30
• July 20,2016
use the clips because you can get a smooth floor and it will bend the tile out.
It has burned an awful lot of tile installers in this area. If you want to get paid,
you might want to think about buying into the clip system.
A. If I never put another plank one in, that would be fme with me.
Chairman Lykos asked the Respondent when he obtained his tile license.
A. In Collier County--- last year.
Q. Were you licensed in any other County?
A. I have a license in Lee County.
Q. Is your office in Lee County and you are doing work in Collier County?
A. Yes. Well, now we are since we got licensed.
Q. And you don't have a written contract with the client?
A. No, sir, he did not have a written contract.
Q. Do you have a copy of the same packet that the Board has—all the documents
that are in this packet?
A. All except for the pictures and that's in my van.
Q. There are some documents in here that are supposed to imply a contract.
There are some dates written—on 11/07, money was paid. On 11/05, a
drawing was done and other money was paid and there were some initials.
A Yeah,they're my son's initials.
Q. Can you give us any more of a definitive date of when an agreement was
made?
A. No, sir, because I wasn't there. And, like I said, I hadn't been doing work
hardly any ...just some maybe on the weekends because I'm kind of,
hopefully, retired and have to go back and make a little bit of money here and
there. But as far as the initial contract, no, sir, I don't know.
Q. On Page E-10,there is a small drawing which says "$1,300 paid in cash,"
there's an initial and it's dated 11/5/15. Do you know whose initials those
are?
A. My son's.
Q. And do you know—is this related to the agreement with the homeowners or
do you know what this is for?
A. Yes, this is what they had. Yes.
Q. This is what who had?
A. This is what Joe showed me at the office where Mr. Hauck had all the
paperwork—he had my son sign it each time he gave him money.
Chairman Lykos questioned Licensing Compliance Officer Joseph Nourse:
Q. Joe, can you explain a bit better what these documents are?
A. This particular document, E-10, as it was explained to me ... they drew out on
the piece of paper how the tile was to be laid and the down-payment($1,300).
Q. So this is the first payment?
A. Yes.
Patrick White questioned Licensing Compliance Officer Joseph Nourse:
Q. Is it fair to say there was a contract between the parties on November 5, 2015?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was the license issued?
31
July 20,2016
Chairman Lykos responded: November 6, 2015.
Patrick White: It is not one of the "counts" in the Complaint but it is a concern.
Chairman Lykos: The concern is what happens when you have a contract with
an unlicensed contractor?
Vice Chair Joslin: There is no contract.
Chairman Lykos: There is no contract.
Elle Hunt: To clarify—he was not a licensed contractor on November 5th?
Chairman Lykos: Correct. The contract is unenforceable.
Elle Hunt: By us.
Chairman Lykos: By the unlicensed contractor.
Vice Chair Joslin: So when does our jurisdiction start because, technically, he is
an unlicensed contractor and we're trying to enforce the contract he made ...
Attorney Morey: That is not one of the counts presented by the County today.
Chairman Lykos: We understand that but what is our jurisdiction if the contract
is with an unlicensed contractor ... ?
Patrick White: ... where the contracting party—the homeowner—is seeking to
enforce it. We're now looking to enforce it against a licensed contractor. He is
under our jurisdiction.
Kyle Lantz: It is only unenforceable by the unlicensed party, so if he were to file
a lien or go after the homeowners for money ...
Chairman Lykos: But I think it's enforceable from the homeowners point--
civilly --but not with the Licensing Board because the "contract" is with an
unlicensed contractor. That's why—what's our jurisdiction if the contract was
signed before there was a license? The contract can be upheld in a Civil court—it
can't from the builder's side or from the contractor's side ... but it can be from
the homeowner's side. What is our jurisdiction if the agreement was made prior
to there being a license?
Attorney Morey: It's a good question. It seems to me—I'll weigh in and the
County is certainly allowed to weigh in also—the gentleman was a licensed
contractor when the work was ultimately performed. He was a licensed
contractor,he accepted money, did the work, and then a complaint was issued
against him as a licensed contract. I believe the Board has jurisdiction over the
Administrative Complaint. But I will certainly allow the County to weigh in.
Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noell: I will, of course, defer to the Board's
attorney to give legal advice to the Board. It is the County's position,though,
concerning E-10—I don't know the extent that would make it a binding contract
but certainly when the work was performed and the germane facts that give rise to
why we are here today—that was performed when he was licensed. From a Staff
position, we have no issue with it being before the Board.
Vice Chair Joslin: From the other side of the coin,though, we have another
entry on Exhibit E-9 that shows a date of November 7 when$9,000 was paid in
cash for tile. Because he bought tile for the homeowner, does not indicate there
was a contract—he just purchased tile someplace.
Attorney Morey: And he was a licensed contractor at that time and at the time
the work was done, and the time when the complaint was made. I believe the
Board has jurisdiction.
32
July 20,2016
Terry Jerulle questioned the Respondent:
Q. Why is your son not here today?
A. He is working.
Q. He is a co-owner in the company. He performed this work.
A. Yes.
Q. It's a major problem for your company.
A. Yes. But I was told since I was the license holder that I was the one who was
supposed to be here.
Chairman Lykos concurred: That's true—you need to be here. It wouldn't do
any good if your son was here and you weren't.
Roger Rutter: Yes, sir.
Terry Jerulle: But it would have really helped if your son was here.
Roger Rutter: Was here, too.
Chairman Lykos: We can't ask you questions about what—if he were here to
testify, he could answer questions about what was discussed with the home
owners, what agreements they might have had—but we don't have him here to
testify on your behalf.
Roger Rutter: Yes, sir.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Respondent:
Q. I am just curious as to what your position is from here forward. The County
has stated that they feel you are guilty of failing to properly correct faulty
workmanship. You have enlightened us and given us more of the history of
that project, but(a) do you feel that you've done faulty workmanship; and(b)
do you feel that you didn't correct it? I want to know what you feel—to hear
what you want us to think your side is, i.e.., you didn't do anything wrong and
bent over backwards by tearing the tile up to help them out or ...
A. Really, they are pleasant people. The week I was there with my son, we joked
around and everybody was happy, and all. I feel that a lot of it is due to the
tile but—like you said—I should have sent it back or my son should have sent
it back. There were some issues there that I think could have been better—on
the corners if I could have got it up using the clip thing. But they didn't say
anything to us about the clip deal where we bought the tile. I've always just
used the Thinset mud (mortar) to put the tile in. I've been working at this
since I was 19 years old and this is the first time I've had to come in front of
anybody. It puzzles me.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Respondent:
Q. In addition to what Kyle said, what are you going to do about it? You are
refusing to go back
A. I don't have money to buy the material with and I don't feel like ... if they get
the same material, I afraid it's going to do the same thing. And, of course,
using the clips like he said, adds a lot of money to the job. I don't know if it
would be any better because of the void that's going to be up underneath and
then they're going to hear the hollow, and will want you to come back and fix
the hollow.
33
July 20,2016
Kyle Lantz questioned the Respondent:
Q. So where do you want to go from here? In a perfect world and you were the
decision-maker, where do you want to go from here?
A. I can't do nothing—I don't have the funds to furnish the materials. I would do
the work but I don't have no funds. I, myself, I live off my Social Security.
But that's neither here nor there, except I don't have funds to do anything else.
Chairman Lykos: Is there anything else you want to say about your position on
this so we can move this along?
Roger Rutter: No, sir. I mean—they showed Joe also just how the tile was—I
mean, that's all I can say. I don't know no more.
Audrey Hauck testified as a witness for the County:
• Mr. Rutter's son, Lee, said he didn't make a contract;
• He just rattled off and I wrote down what he would do and how much he
would charge;
• After he started the job, he said—to begin with—that he doesn't do the
clip system;
• He said it was a 16th of an inch that he made the grout and I wasn't too
happy about that but then as he started the job—and the job was pretty
much ... maybe half-way through our family room ... we were saying
about how the tiles were lifted, and he said, "well, they should have shown
you when you bought the tile that it would lift a little bit." It wasn't a
whole lot.
• But he also didn't use a certain kind of a base so that the tile would lay
flat. And the clip system would have brought it in better.
• We bought the tile from Abbey Carpet and they were very upset. In fact,
they even came and looked at the tile and said it should not have been.
Joseph Nourse questioned the witness:
Q. At what point did Mr. Rutter's son show you that the tiles were uneven?
A. I would say he was at least half-way through the family room.
Q. Half-way through?
A. Yes. I would say just about half-way through.
William Hauck testified as a witness for the County:
• He had started from the lanai side in the family room and he had three
rows of tile done. He was staggering them. And I said to him, "They're
kind of like this [indicating uneven]."
• And he was kneeling on the tiles that he had just put down. He picked up
two pieces of tile,turned them face to face, and held one tight and it was
just a smidge on the other end of the face tile. He said, "See this—that's
why it's like that."
• And I said, "That little tiny bit?" It's nothing, you know."
• But he went on and did the whole house that way.
34
July 20,2016
•
Joseph Nourse questioned the witness:
Q. When he continued to lay the rest of the tile in the house, did he continue to
work off the tile that he just laid—the wet tile?
A. He did when he first started because there was a step.
Q. And that was in the living room area?
A. The family room by the fireplace.
Q. Where the tile was really bad?
A. That's where he first started—in that corner.
Audrey Hauck:
• The first week, he worked by himself. His father didn't come to help him
until the second week.
Exhibit E-26—a photograph of the flooring—was referenced.
Vice Chair Joslin questioned the witnesses:
Q. And the tiles you were speaking of were against the sliding doors?
A. Yes.
Q. You said he laid two or three pieces of tile—rows—that doesn't depict that
area I am seeing that is really indented.
Joseph Nourse questioned William Hauck:
Q. Did you tell him to keep going and keep laying the tile after ... ?
A. He said it would be fine. We never told him to keep going, never.
Q. Did you ever tell him to stop?
A. We asked him a couple of times about how it was all going to even out—like
through the hallway going out to the garage. If you didn't have a pair of shoes
on, you would have cut the bottom of your feet—that's how bad it was going
out to the garage. The rest of the house was the same way. And he just kept
right on going.
Q. Have you ever tripped or ... ?
A. Oh, God, yeah. And we knew it was there. In fact, one of our neighbors who
had work done by the son—two doors away—the day after we had a
Christmas party at our house, she came over and said she was embarrassed to
ask us this but what's wrong with your tile? I said it was the way he did it.
And he even messed up her tile job also.
Chairman Lykos questioned the witnesses:
Q. The job was done in December. It looks like you paid for everything on or
about December 11th but you didn't call to file a complaint until February.
A. We did call them and they kept saying, "we'll come down,"but they never
called or came back.
Q. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. When you say you called "them," did
you mean Mr. Rutter and his son?
A. We called Lee.
Q. He would tell you he was coming down and didn't?
A. Right.
35
July 20,2016
Q. What prompted you to call the County?
A. We couldn't get anywhere with them.
Vice Chair Joslin questioned the witnesses:
Q. When you paid the son, did you make cash payments every time?
A. Yes.
Q. No checks?
A. No.
Q. You paid $22,000 in cash?
A. Yes.
Patrick White questioned William Hauck:
Q. Are you familiar with the two additional proposals that were handed out today
for work by other ... ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is the tile the same?
A. Yes.
Q. The same as what was originally installed and then removed?
A. Yes. I have one box that they left—he only showed us from that box when he
first started the job and the difference is just a tiny bit—a whisper. We told
him ... if you would stand there and look out to the slider, it looked like the
Gulf... the whole house was that way ... at the ends and the centers. They
tried to get somebody new to install the new tile and they didn't want to get
involved with them either. Davis Tile. They kept telling us someone else
would do it. They [Davis Tile] never came around or heard anything about it.
Then we ripped the tile up. And they got their license, I think,two days
before they started the job. He showed me a piece of paper that he had a
license and insurance.
Terry Jerulle questioned the witnesses:
Q. Do you recall how much you paid him for just the tile?
A. I believe it was the largest amount that was there.
Q. $9,050?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you find RL Tile?
A. He was recommended to us by another person in our neighborhood.
Q. Who had used them?
A. Yes.
Q. For you in the future, make sure you use a licensed and insured contractor.
Make sure you ask to see the insurance and make sure you ask for a contract
in writing. And I wouldn't pay in cash. I would pay with a check to
document it.
Elle Hunt questioned the witnesses concerning the name/description of the tile
initially purchased from Abbey Tile, i.e., company name/style/color.
William Hauck noted there were approximately four bundles of left-over tiles
that Lee took and tried to sell back to Abbey Carpet. He said, "I paid for those
36
• July 20,2016
tiles and I didn't get any money back."
Roger Rutter claimed the tiles were damaged and they went "straight to the
dump
The Respondent was asked if he had any questions for the Witnesses and he said
he did not.
Joseph Nourse presented the County's "Closing Statement:"
• The County has shown through documented facts, photographs, and sworn
testimony, as well as the Respondent's admission, that the Respondent,
Roger L. Rutter, violated County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, Section
22-201(10), by failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship associated
with the installation of time at 2033 Castle Garden Lane,Naples, FL, for
the homeowners William and Audrey Hauck.
Roger Rutter presented his "Closing Statement:"
• I just know that the tile didn't go nowhere but to the dump—the tile they
were talking about that did break when he was jack-hammering it up. We
made no money on that stuff.
• When asked about the tile that was returned to Abbey Carpet, he replied,
"I don't know nothing about that. The stuff that we took off is up in Port
Charlotte in the dump."
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Terry Jerulle
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9—0.
Attorney Morey: As you enter into your deliberations in the First Phase, the Board
shall ascertain that:
• Fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent;
• The formal Rules of Evidence shall not apply;
• The Board will consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its
deliberation on the matter;
• The Board shall exclude from its deliberation irrelevant, immaterial, and
cumulative testimony;
• The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of the type commonly
relied upon by reasonably prudent persons, whether or not the evidence so
admitted would be admissible in a Court of law.
• Hearsay evidence may be used explain or supplement any other evidence but
hearsay, by itself, is not sufficient to support a Finding unless such hearsay
would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court.
• The standard of proof in actions where the Respondent may lose his/her
privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the
Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing
manner.
• The burden of proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the
preponderance of the evidence standard set in civil cases.
37
July 20, 2016
•
• The standard of evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in
the Complaint. The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones for
which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense.
• The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges.
• The decision made by the Board must be stated orally at the Hearing and is
effective upon being read unless the Board orders otherwise.
• The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors'
Licensing Board, the Court, the State of Florida's Construction Industry
Licensing Board ("CILB") if applicable, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the
Florida Administrative Code.
• The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and, if the
Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint.
• The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in support
of the charges set out in the Complaint.
Chairman Lykos: The first question before the Board is the question of guilt or
innocence with regard to the charge. There is just one Count.
Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent, Roger L. Rutter, d/b/a
"RL Tile &Marble,LLC(#201500002076) was guilty as charged in Court I of the
Administrative Complain in Case#3016-03. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
Attorney Morey advised the Board of possible Sanctions that it may impose, either
alone or in combination, if it found there was misconduct on the part of the
Respondent:
1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City)
Certificate of Competency,
4) Imposition of a period of probation, not to exceed two years in length,
during which time the Contractor's contracting activity shall be under the
supervision of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, and/or
participation duly accredited program of continuing education directly related to
the contracting activities. Any period of probation or continuing education may
be revoked for cause;
5) Restitution;
6) Imposition of a fine not to exceed $5,000, -
7) Issuance of a public reprimand,
8) Require re-examination of applicable tests related to the contracting activities;
9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring
the issuance of such permits with specific conditions, and
10) Recovery of reasonable investigative and legal costs incurred by the County for
the prosecution of the violation.
38
• July 20,2016
He further advised when imposing any of the possible Sanctions on a Contractor, the
Contractors' Licensing Board may consider all the evidence presented during the
Public Hearing as well as:
1) The gravity of the violation;
2) The impact of the violation on Public Health/Safety or Welfare;
3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s);
4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and
5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant to the
Sanction(s) appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation(s) or the
violator.
Chairman Lykos asked if the County had a recommendation.
Ian Jackson:
• Restitution to the homeowners;
• He explained the Board should only consider the second page of the Abbey
Carpet estimate because the first page included items such as the Proflex 40
for crack suppression which were not part of the original contract between the
parties. The figure to be used is $17,792.
• The total amount paid by the homeowners to Mr. Rutter-- $21,565.00—and
subtract the flooring removing (1,345 square feet @ $ .90/square foot), the
amount to be reimbursed from the original contract price is $20,354.50
• County's administrative cost: $500
• He will defer to the Board for any civil penalty.
Chairman Lykos noted the Board can order restitution but has no control over
whether payment is made without some consequences.
Attorney Morey noted the Board could have made a recommendation to the
State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB") if the Respondent was
a State-certified Contractor. The Board can order publication of a public reprimand
of a Contractor
There was a discussion of how the County determined the amount of restitution,
$20,354.50. Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noelle explained the calculations. The
square footage included both bathrooms and well as the interior rooms of the home.
Chairman White stated the Respondent testified he cannot afford to pay anything to
the homeowners.
Patrick White: It seems clear to me that if the Board orders restitution and it is not
paid,and we impose a further Sanction and it is not timely paid,the license will be
suspended and then revokes. The likelihood is that they will conclude doing business
in Collier County. The homeowners will be no better off for having gone through the
process. We don't know if the homeowners will accept installation of the same tile
with the clip system by the same contractors. There was no testimony by the
Contractor that they would be willing to do the work if somehow the cost of the tile
could be absorbed or spread over time.
Chairman Lykos stated he liked the idea that the contractor would no longer be
able to work in Collier County. If he does work in Lee County, he will have an
39
• July 20, 2016
opportunity to earn money to use for restitution.
There was further discussion concerning incentive and the contractor's ability to pay,
or the ability to install the tile using the clip system, and other options open to the
homeowners to obtain restitution, i.e., remedies through Civil court.
Ian Jackson confirmed that Mr. Rutter's license is at stake.
Discussion ensued and the following points were highlighted:
• The County could lien only for unpaid Citations.
• A fine imposed by the Board could not become a lien against the
Respondent's property.
• The Board's Order could be the basis for a suit in Civil Court by the
homeowners.
Chairman Lykos recommended:
• Restitution to the homeowners to be paid in thirty days;
• Reimbursement to the County for administrative costs—$500—to be paid in
thirty days;
• A public reprimand;
• The Respondent's license is suspended for thirty days.
• After thirty days, the license will remain suspended until all payments are
made.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve imposing the following Sanctions on Roger L. Rutter,
License #201500002076,
• Effective immediately, the Respondent is on probation for the period of one
year;
• He is to pay the County's administrative costs in the sum of$500 within
thirty days;
• If payment of the administrative costs is not made within 30 days, the
Respondent's license will be suspended.
• He is to pay the sum of$17,792.50 to the homeowners within thirty days and
if he does not pay within thirty days, the Respondent's license will be
suspended.
• There will be a public reprimand and the Respondent will be charged for the
publication costs.
Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 9— 0.
Chairman Lykos outlined the Board's Order:
• This Cause came on for Public Hearing before the Contractors' Licensing
Board on July 20, 2016 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in
Case #2016-03 —Board of County Commissioners vs. Roger L. Ruter, d/b/a
RL Tile & Marble, LLC(C#201500002076).
• Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County
Ordinance#90-105, as amended.
40
July 20,r2016
• The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received
evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, and
thereupon issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows.
Findings of Fact:
• The Respondent, Roger L. Rutter, d/b/a/RL Tile &Marble, LLC,
is the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number
201500002076 (Tile & Marble Installer).
• The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors'
Licensing Board is the Petitioner(Complainant) in this matter.
• The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent.
• Respondent, Roger L. Rutter, was present at the Public Hearing held on
July 20, 2016 and was not represented by Counsel at said Hearing.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, had
been properly issued and were personally delivered.
• Based on the evidence presented, the Respondent acted in a manner that is in
violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the act.
• The following Allegations of Fact set forth in Administrative Complaint were
found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing:
o Count I: Collier County Ordinance #90-105, as amended,
Section 22-201(10) states:
"Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace
faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction
contract. Faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced, not
continued, or not completed in accordance with all specifications of
the applicable written agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any
material flaw(s) in the quality and/or quantity of the unfmished or
finished work product, including any item that does not function
properly as a part of the entire project. If there is no written agreement
provision regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty
workmanship exists if the work, process,product or part thereof does
not meet generally accepted standards in Collier County in relation to
the entire project. Faulty workmanship does not include matters of
esthetics unless the esthetically related item clearly violates a written
contract specification directly related thereto."
Conclusions of Law:
o The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint
as to Count I was approved,adopted and incorporated herein, to wit:
The Respondent violated Section 22-201(10) of Collier County
Ordinance 90-105, as amended, regarding failing to promptly correct
faulty workmanship or failing to promptly replace faulty materials.
41
July 20,2016
Order of the Board:
• Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of nine (9) in
favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members
present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
• Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of nine (9) in favor, and none (0)
in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the
following disciplinary Sanctions are hereby imposed upon Roger L. Rutter,
the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #201500002076, to
wit:
• Effective immediately, the Respondent is on probation for the
period of one year;
• Respondent is to pay the County's administrative costs in the sum
of$500 within thirty days;
• If payment of the administrative costs is not made within 30 days,
the Respondent's license will be suspended.
• Respondent is to pay the sum of$17,792.16 to the homeowners
within thirty days and if he does not pay within thirty days, the
Respondent's license will be suspended.
• There will be a public reprimand and the Respondent will be
charged the cost for publication.
Chairman Lykos stated Mr. Rutter was advised to contact Ian Jackson regarding any
follow-up on his case.
Chairman Lykos noted the case was closed.
B. Case #2016-04: Board of County Commissioners vs. Michael Werab, d/b/a
"Tile Solutions,Inc." —This case was withdrawn by the County
(as noted on the Amended Agenda)
NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, August 17, 2016
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chairman at 1:15 PM.
42
July 20, 2016
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LIC SING BOARD
I
THOMAS LYKos, Chai man
The Minutes were approved by the Chaiiiiian on / '� , 2016,
"as submitted" [)C,] OR "as amended" [ ].
41rj-
43