Loading...
CLB Minutes 08/21/2002 RAugust 21, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, August 21, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMEN: LES DICKSON KEN DUNNE MICHAEL BARIL WALTER CRAWFORD, IV RICHARD JOSLIN KENNETH LLOYD ERIC GUITE ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale Robert Zachary Bob Nonnenmacher Thomas Bortoe Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: August 21, 2002 TIME: 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ~NY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: June 19, 2002 and July 17, 2002 V. DISCUSSION: VI. NEW BUSINESS: Milan Kamienicky - Request to waive exam for Painting license. James W. Whipple - Request to waive exam for Irrigation license. Curtis Daniel Brown - Request to reinstate Carpentry license without retaking exams. Julio Urtiaga - Request reciprocity from Dade County on Roofing license. VII. OLD BUSINESS: Gervacio J. Andrade - Re-appear before Board on temporary Floor Covering License. Sherman Ellis - Request to have Landscaping Unlimited license transferred from son's name to his without taking the exams. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case # 2002-05 - Mr. & Mrs. Smolucha vs. David James Carter D/B/A Dave Carter Roofing. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: I would like to call to order the August 21st, 2002 meeting of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceeding pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. I would like to start off with role call on my right. DUNNE: Ken Dunne. BARIL: Michael Baril. CRAWFORD: Walter Crawford. DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. JOSLIN: MR. LLOYD: MR. GUITE: MR. DICKSON: agenda? MR. BORTOE: Richard Joslin. Kenneth Lloyd. Eric Guite. Do we have any additions or deletions to the Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board members, for the record I'm Tom Bortoe, Collier County Licensing and Compliance Officer. And I would like to recognize -- we have a new board member, Mr. Eric Guite with us this morning. And we realize we still have two vacancies; they are advertised for consumers. Additions or deletions. Staff has one deletion under old business, Mr. Sherman Ellis. He was before you a month or two ago and was requested to come back with a credit report, and he advised office staff yesterday that he's not ready to come back yet. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Bortoe, in regards to Mr. Ellis, wasn't it more involved than just a credit report? I don't think we gave him any indication that we were going to approve anything. Page 2 August 21, 2002 MR. BORTOE: I don't know whether you indicated you were going to approve or not. I think you wanted to see -- out of the paperwork he had, I don't think he had a credit report on himself. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Neale, do you remember that? MR. NEALE: Yeah, I'm trying to remember the details of that one, but I believe -- MR. DICKSON: The son was leaving the business -- MR. NEALE: The son was leaving the business and the father wanted to transfer it, and the board advised him that's not the way it was going to go, and he had to go take the exam and everything else. MR. DICKSON: That's my recollection of the whole thing, and it was not a matter of getting a credit report that was going to bring him anything. Do you all remember that? MR. JOSLIN: I remember that, yes. MR. LLOYD: That was our understanding. MR. DICKSON: You guys. MR. DUNNE: I don't think I was here for that. MR. BORTOE: Staff will review the minutes. MR. DICKSON: I just don't want him to jump through some hoops for something that ain't going to do him any good. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, if I can interrupt you. You-all notice that we're work on a temporary system; the larger mikes are the mikes that are working. So if you could just bring them closer and make sure you speak into those big mikes rather than the small ones. MR. DICKSON: Do I have an approval of the agenda as amended? Motion? MR. JOSLIN: MR. LLOYD: MR. DICKSON: I make a motion we approve the agenda, Joslin. I second, Lloyd. All those in favor? Page 3 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. DUNNE: Aye. BARIL: Aye. CRAWFORD: Aye. DICKSON: Aye. JOSLIN: Aye. LLOYD: Aye. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Opposed? Gentleman, we also have to approve minutes for two months to include both the June meeting and the July meeting. We could do that with just one amendment, or one motion. MR. DUNNE: Motion to approve, Dunne. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second. MR. DICKSON: To approve minutes for both meetings of June and July, those all in favor? MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Okay. Discussions? We have none, so we'll go right now into new business. Milan Kamienicky, please excuse me, request to waive exam for painting license. I'm sure I butchered that, but if you'll come down here to this podium, please. If you would, sir, state your name and I would like to have the reporter swear you in. MR. KAMIENICKY: My name is Milan Kamienicky, I can spell that, M-I-L-A-N, last name, K-A-M-I-E-N-I-C-K-Y. Page 4 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Could you swear him in, please. Thereupon, MILAN KAMIENICKY, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. DICKSON: I understand you're here today to request to waive the exam for a painting license. Give us your reason. MR. KAMIENICKY: My reason is I was work past three and a half years for Ray Rhode Painting and Decorating, and I feel like it's stopping me for do something better for myself. And I know it's everybody when I do something better, approve something, and try always accomplish something better. So that's why I try to pass the exam, but in my situation I have a little bit language problem and some of these questions are very tricky and special technical words give me a hard time; so that's why. Actually, I'm like every single time 12, maybe 13 person away and that's probably what's stopping me. MR. DICKSON: What nationality are you? MR. KAMIENICKY: I am originally from Poland. MR. DICKSON: It was my understanding that testing facilities, don't they have -- can they not read those exams to them for language barrier? MR. BORTOE: MR. DICKSON: Either that or-- I do not know for sure. Did you ask that question? MR. KAMIENICKY: I actually after the second time I failed, I go back for the review, score, and nobody never mentioned anything like that. But even if you go back for the review they never give you the -- they show you what you answer wrong, but never show you what's supposed to be answered right. MR. DICKSON: Because my problem is, and after being on this Board for so long, usually we're confronted with someone Page 5 August 21, 2002 passing their expertise and not the business law or vice versa. In your case you haven't passed either of the two categories. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Kamienicky, do you have any experience in any other businesses, any business ownership here in town? MR. KAMIENICKY: Yes, I do. Not only painting but I can do -- I have a little bit experience with plastering and tile business, but most of it in the painting business. MR. CRAWFORD: As the owner of that business, though? As an employee or as an owner? MR. KAMIENICKY: My boss, yeah, he's owner, and he have a couple employees. He's been in the business the past 35 years. He have three painting stores in Naples and also he have big wallpaper business. MR. CRAWFORD: Like Mr. Dickson said, there's two parts to the equation; one is the technical skills, and you have the information that you've submitted that you understand how to paint and you understand that part of the business, the other half of the equation is the ability to run a business and just the business side of it. So you have not owned and operated a business of any kind? MR. KAMIENICKY: Yes, I do -- a year ago I tried to create a business for dog houses. I actually had a license a year ago for accomplish with Mr. Bortoe under Collier County licensing. But business -- I won't sell anything because it was very expensive product. MR. DICKSON: The only thing I can say is you're getting better. MR. KAMIENICKY: Yes, I know. MR. DICKSON: You have improved each time. MR. KAMIENICKY: Thank you. Page 6 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: You're not that far away. See, we could look at your experience, but the business of law is crucial. That's where your best scores are. MR. KAMIENICKY: Like I said, I don't have any problem, like, with math or stuff like that, but, like, big words, like technical words, because every single time the experience change a little bit of the questions every time. So if one word is kind of what I don't really understand, and I can't bring with me into the room any translator; nothing like that. You are only allowed references for the test. And, like I said, if it's very technical, I don't understand. I can translate in my head in my language and whole question is actually gone from me. MR. DICKSON: I mean you have a good credit report, you have the trade information. The reason I got real quiet up here is everyone is thinking along the same lines I am. You've got to pass one of these or get closer than you are. My recommendation is going to be that you call Experior and talk to a manager or supervisor there. I have been aware of language problems in the past where they have made arrangements to read a question to you and work through the language problems so that the language is not the barrier for taking the test. I really think that's the route you need to go. MR. KAMIENICKY: Okay. I'll try. MR. DICKSON: Because unless I'm reading this Board wrong, I don't feel this Board is going to waive two tests to give you a license. Do you agree? MR. LLOYD: Yes. MR. DICKSON: Let's leave it like that without a motion and you go back to Experior and talk to someone in authority there and see if they can help you because you're obviously improving. Your Page 7 August 21, 2002 last test scores, especially this 63, you're only 12 away from passing. And if you can get the business of law, I think this Board would look favorable on you, if we need to do that. You might be able to wipe out both of them and not even have to come back before this Board. MR. KAMIENICKY: Okay. MR. DICKSON: And we wish you the best of luck. MR. KAMIENICKY: Thank you. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, sir. James Whipple. Are you present? MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I am. MR. DICKSON: If you would come, please. Request to waive exam for irrigation license. MR. WHIPPLE: Yes. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Whipple, if you would state your name and then I need to have you sworn in. MR. WHIPPLE: Good morning. My name is James W. Whipple. Thereupon, JAMES W. WHIPPLE, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. DICKSON: Charmin? MR. WHIPPLE: MR. DICKSON: MR. WHIPPLE: How long have you been teased about All my life. Still get it. I still get it. Tell us why you're here, Mr. Whipple. Well, I'm here to better myself in the field of irrigation because I feel that I am ready to take on the responsibility of becoming a contractor on my own and running my own business. That's why I'm here, to better my family. MR. DICKSON: And you've taken the exam? MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I have. I have taken the irrigation exam probably three or four times, and I study. I study so hard, and every Page 8 August 21, 2002 time I go up to the board, every time I go to take the test, I'm always studying, then I just go blank. And I don't know what it is. MR. DICKSON: I mean, you nailed the business law test. MR. WHIPPLE: Yeah, I used to work for the Collier County Sheriff's Office. I'm always reading about the law. MR. DICKSON: I guess that would help. MR. WHIPPLE: I'm always reading about law. MR. CRAWFORD: Can you tell us a little bit about your experience. We have a little bit of it here. MR. WHIPPLE: Well, when I first started doing irrigation, well, I was with a guy by the name of Jim Perkin, Greener Irrigation. I didn't know from the first way to hook up a piece of pipe than to tell you my name, really. So he gave me all the experience in the world, he trusted me, he became very -- made me the foreman, made me the foreman of the job. He always sent me out to do the jobs and that's where I learned my experience from, through him. MR. CRAWFORD: How long ago was that? MR. WHIPPLE: Since 1981, I think it was. MR. CRAWFORD: So you've been in irrigation in the past 20 years. MR. WHIPPLE: I've been in irrigation for a while. And also I helped a lot of my friends with errors that I know. They call me and ask me questions, and I tell them. MR. DICKSON: Am I correct, the irrigation license also gets into potable water? MR. CRAWFORD: I don't think so. MR. NONNENMACHER: No, it does not. MR. CRAWFORD: From the standpoint you may be hooking up potable water to irrigation. MR. WHIPPLE: I beg your pardon. Page 9 August 21, 2002 MR. CRAWFORD: The question was does your license cover potable water installation, and the answer is no, with the exception that he may be using potable water to irrigate but not to run water into the house. MR. NONNENMACHER: That's correct. MR. NEALE: In fact, in the irrigation contract description it specifically excludes direct connection to potable water lines. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Whipple, I can read the Board. You got a great business in law test score. The problem everyone is fighting on this is like the last one is if you were a little bit closer with these scores; they're horrendous on the irrigation. Your highest was three years ago, four years ago, and that was a 44. Last time you took it was July of this year? MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, but I took it in between last year and this year. MR. DICKSON: Do they offer a review course for that test? MR. WHIPPLE: I went, I went to a review. I paid to have it reviewed, and all they told me was, all they sent me was a copy to the answers that I got correct and the ones I missed and they didn't tell me which ones I did miss and they didn't state to me which one I should have written correctly. And I studied and I went through the book carefully. I stayed up nights and nights and nights studying this, and then it seemed to me it's not an effort because working in the field, it's not that I don't know what I'm doing. In the field it's a whole different thing when it comes to the paperwork and looking at the paper it's a whole different story. But in the field I do it completely right, and I know and I never had no problem with helping anyone doing anything wrong. It's just that I -- the paper part of it, the application, although I study, I go to Page 10 August 21, 2002 the review boards, and I still can't get it right. But like I said, the law part, I don't have any problem with that. MR. DICKSON: No, I understand and I see that, and that's fine. The only problem is we have no way of knowing that you know that that's right except to look at these test scores and you know what they are. MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I do. I understand that. MR. CRAWFORD: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, I disagree a little bit. You know the last case kind of set us up for this, the business in law he clearly passed so we can set that issue aside and then it becomes an issue of whether or not he understands the irrigation business. He's been in the business for 20 years, he has the documentation to back that up. The test scores are not good, but he has taken it four times over the last three or four years. So I'm kind of leaning the other way. MR. DICKSON: Okay. MR. BARIL: Mr. Whipple, it says that you give instructions on irrigation for Home Depot. MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I have. MR. BARIL: So people come to you and ask a lot of questions about a lot of different -- MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, I just gave a course yesterday to a gentleman. MR. BARIL: So you hear people's questions and you provide solutions for them? MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I do. MR. BARIL: Has there ever been a complaint at Home Depot -- MR. WHIPPLE: Never. MR. BARIL: -- on any of your recommendations? Page 11 August 21, 2002 MR. WHIPPLE: I've never had a complaint from anyone, really, to be honest. I've never heard a complaint from anyone. If I go out there and show them how to do it, like, a person, I would take a customer if they come in and talk to me and want to know anything about irrigation pumps or anything, I take my time and explain it to them. I tell them exactly how to hook it up, and do it the right way and make sure it's up to code. MR. BARIL: And you've had five years of questions from people regarding irrigation? MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I have. MR. BARIL: You've seen a lot? MR. WHIPPLE: I've seen a lot. MR. BARIL: Heard a lot? MR. WHIPPLE: I've heard a lot, yes, I have. I sure have. MR. JOSLIN: I have a question for staff. In the packet there doesn't appear to be any credit report on Mr. Whipple. Am I missing that? MR. BORTOE: I know there should be one. Did you provide office staff with a credit report? MR. WHIPPLE: Yes, I did. As a matter of fact, I went in and paid to have one sent to you guys to be here on this date and also I had a copy of my own which I left in my truck. Because I did, I did get a credit report sent to you guys. Everything that was supposed to be coming before you should have been here. MR. CRAWFORD: We don't have it. How's your credit? MR. WHIPPLE: My credit is good. It's just when I got sick, I got behind on a lot of my bills because I did get sick. I had knee surgery and everything and I had a heart problem once, so I did catch it back up. But other than that, I'm doing pretty good. MR. JOSLIN: Any bankruptcies? Page 12 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: credit report. MR. BORTOE: MR. WHIPPLE: Never. MR. JOSLIN: Repossessions? MR. WHIPPLE: Never. We can still act and let County verify the We are looking through the original packet here. And also if that would be the only holdup, is it in your truck here in the parking lot? MR. WHIPPLE: Right downstairs here. MR. NEALE: Just for the Board's reference, if you wish, I can provide you with what the ordinance actually says as far as a case like this, for record purposes. It's in section 2.5.3, and it says, "Upon the evidence presented by the applicant, the contractor licensing supervisor, the Contractor Licensing Board shall determine whether the applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which application has been made. Finding of facts and conclusions of law regarding the approval or denial of the application shall be made by the Contractors' Licensing Board. The Board may consider the applicants relevant, recent experience in a specific trade, and based upon such experience may waive testing requirements if convinced that the applicant is qualified by experience, whereby such competency testing would be superfluous." That's the standard. MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that Mr. Whipple has been a supervisor and an installer and a troubleshooter and possesses the experience necessary to do the irrigation and is capable of running the business as shown by his business in law exam, I would like to make a motion to waive the exam for the irrigation license. MR. DUNNE: Mr. Chairman, can I make a comment? Page 13 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Yes. Let me get a second first. MR. JOSLIN: I second. MR. DICKSON: Discussion. MR. DUNNE: I think that Mr. Whipple does have the experience, but I'm a little concerned about setting a precedent that these exams don't have to be taken. We have two more coming up this morning, and I'm a little reluctant to waive any test for anyone. I believe you have the experience. MR. WHIPPLE: I do. MR. DUNNE: Okay. I don't think that. I looked at your record; you seem to be a very fine gentleman. But the next person that comes up in front of us is going to expect the same treatment. And we're getting into an area where you take the test or you don't take the test. MR. CRAWFORD: It's a good point and this would not be the precedent-setting case because we've done it in the past. The criteria in the past cases have been you need to take the test more than once, you need to make an attempt at it, which he's done, and secondly is verification of experience, and the third item is we're more reluctant to waive the technical side as opposed to the business side. So I think this is a perfect example of when we do waive testing. But I hear you loud and clear, it's not something we want to take lightly or do all the time. MR. DUNNE: Okay. MR. DICKSON: I'll echo my comments. I'll agree with you. In my 10 to 12 years on this Board, we have waived tests, but they have always been in a case when that numerous, numerous tests and one was passed and the other was close. And there's no personalities involved here, but in Mr. Whipple's case we're not close. So, yes, I do have a problem with setting the precedent. Page 14 August 21, 2002 So do I have a call for the motion? MR. CRAWFORD: Before we vote, could we add to the motion that this would be based upon review of the credit report by staff as long as there's no glaring -- MR. BORTOE: Yes, please add that because we do not find it in the original packet. MR. BARIL: I amend the motion to include the review of the credit report. MR. DICKSON: Motion is on the floor. All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Signify by saying aye. Let me see a show of hands on this, three. All those opposed, four. Mr. Whipple, unfortunately the motion has failed. You're just going to have to study, you're going to have to take a review course, and you're going to have to get close. But what will be better than that if you pass it, then you don't have to come back here. As you can tell, this Board was split on the situation, but we do have a real problem with setting a precedent of low test scores like this not meaning anything. They are important, and you know they're important. MR. WHIPPLE: Yes. MR. DICKSON: So give it another try. Take the review course again. I know from your business in law that you're totally capable of passing that test. MR. WHIPPLE: And like I said once before, and I said it to each one of you gentleman here, I studied that test. Trust me, I studied. I studied day in, day out. Every day, nights and nights and nights up until I get to the test and to the room. Page 15 August 21, 2002 And I took the review board. I keep paying money, keep paying money to take the review board, and I'm taking it. But it seems to me, the test, it seems to me it changes every time you get around. I study for one thing, then I get a different thing on the test. This is the reason I'm here today because I want my license. God knows I do. I definitely want them. It's not that I'm going to disappoint no one and try to be cheap or go around the book and try to hurt someone, no, I'm not. I'm here to make a business for myself, make a name for myself. MR. DICKSON: I understand, and the tests are hard and they're intended to be hard so that not everybody gets one. But if you can do an 82 on the business and law you can pass that irrigation test. So that's the signal from this Board is go get it again. We wish you the best of luck. MR. DUNNE: Can I make another comment? MR. DICKSON: Yes. MR. DUNNE: This is the second time that we've have heard Experior doesn't fully explain to you where you got the questions wrong. MR. WHIPPLE: They don't. MR. DUNNE: I would suggest that, Mr. Chairman, that somebody from the Board contact Experior and we need to -- I don't think it's too much to ask to tell someone where they were wrong on the test. I'm not aware of any other test that you take where you don't find out what it is you got wrong. MR. DICKSON: But that's always been the case. That's always been the case ever since day one; they do not explain it. They are a testing facility. And these review courses offer that service, where they will go through the test with you and that's their -- Page 16 August 21, 2002 MR. honestly. they do is WHIPPLE' They don't go through the test with you, Because the last one I took they do not go through. All give you a piece of paper, they give you the number you missed on there. MR. DICKSON: MR. WHIPPLE: I'm aware of that. That's all they do. They don't sit down and explain anything to you. MR. DICKSON: That's true at the State level also. MR. WHIPPLE: I beg your pardon? MR. DICKSON: That's true at the State level also, when I did my State license. But the review courses, who do the teaching, they offer that service, and those instructors will go through tests with you. MR. WHIPPLE: Well, trust me, all they did is they just gave me -- I'm being honest with you. I'm not going to sit and tell you no lie. All they do is give you the piece of paper and they say go back here and review. I did the review first and then I went back and took the test. All I did is sit back and review my test myself. They gave me an hour and a half to study it, review it. I went through the book and I checked everything off, and I sent it back in. And that's the last time, I only talk to that gentleman one time, that instructor one time, and he placed me in my chair and told me what to do. MR. DICKSON: Then you need to find another company for a review and study. We wish you the best of luck. We can sit here and talk about this until we're blue in the face, but the Board has made What do I have to do now? Go take the test. Again? their decision. MR. WHIPPLE: MR. DICKSON: MR. WHIPPLE: Page 17 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: MR. WHIPPLE: MR. DICKSON: MR. WHIPPLE: MR. DICKSON: Yes. Do I have to come before you guys again? Not if you pass it. Go pass it. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Whipple. Curtis Daniel Brown, are you present? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. MR. DICKSON: Will you please come forward. MR. BORTOE: Mr. Chairman, I might add, we forgot earlier, anyone who has a request here today before the Board, if it is granted, you will not be able to come into our office and obtain your license until tomorrow because we have your packets here with us. Thank you. MR. DICKSON: It hasn't been an issue yet. MR. BORTOE: No. MR. DICKSON: Please state your name, please, and then I need to have you sworn in. MR. BROWN: Curtis Daniel Brown. Thereupon, CURTIS DANIEL BROWN, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. DICKSON: Mr. Brown, you're here to reinstate a license? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. MR. DICKSON: Without taking the exam. Can you give us the particulars. MR. BROWN: Yes, sir. I was told at Horseshoe Drive that I filed my license dormant in 1998, and I did not know that when you filed your license dormant that you had to continue to file a dormant every year. When I got the license, the dormant, it's the same thing as the active license, it just has a dormant stamped on it. Page 18 August 21, 2002 I read the expiration date on there, but I assumed that that was the active status that would expire, you know, if it was active. So they took the same license, just stamped it with dormant. But what I assumed is when it's dormant it's dormant, you didn't have to do anything with it as far as refiling it every year. It was just a misunderstanding. I never got any paperwork from the County stating that I had to redo this. When I talked to Maggie, she said that she tries to send one out every year so that contractors are informed that they have to file their license, whether it's active or dormant. I assumed it was only for an active license that you had to do that. If it was dormant you're not using it, you don't need insurance because you're not using the license, that you would have to continue to go down and file it. I understand now that I was wrong about that, but I did not get any paperwork or anything in the mail. The lady that I dealt with when I got my license back in 1997 was fairly new and apparently did not give me all the information that I needed. I did not receive any paperwork stating that I had to do that every year. I was told by people that I know in the business that you have to file every year, but that was only if it was active. I've never dealt with anybody that had a dormant license, so I was totally unaware of that. And if I would have known that, I would have made sure that I did that every year because it's not something that I just neglected at all. The reason I haven't used my license is because I have a good paying job and my boss taking care of me. I've been doing carpentry work for 15 years. I've been his foreman for 13 years, and I have just not had to use it. MR. CRAWFORD: So you've been active in the carpentry business? Page 19 August 21, 2002 MR. BROWN: Yes, and that's solid. I haven't done anything else in Collier County. I'm familiar with all the codes, the new codes, with what the inspectors are inspecting; I know all the inspectors. MR. DICKSON: Don't feel bad. We get three or four every year with the exact same scenario that you just described. They're just not made aware that they have to refile every year. MR. BROWN: Yes. Like I said, if I was aware of it, I would have made a point without something being sent in the mail to make sure that was done. MR. BORTOE: Mr. Brown, did you move, change addresses, around '98, '99? MR. BROWN: Yes, sir, I did change addresses, and I think it was 1998 -- 1999 maybe; somewhere in that area. MR. BORTOE: It's in his packet, a letter that was mailed to him, what he has to do to keep his license dormant. And that was mailed July 30th, '99, and it was returned to staff because his forwarding order had expired, so he never received that notice. MR. DICKSON: I don't see that in the packet. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, this just appears to be a clerical error. I see no reason to withhold his license from an active status. MR. DICKSON: I agree, once County verifies that the other license was valid, no complaints. MR. BROWN: I have my test scores as well if you want to see those. I scored high on the test. MR. CRAWFORD: As long as you had the license prior. MR. DICKSON: The County can verify all of that. MR. BROWN: Yes. MR. DICKSON: That's no problem. Page 20 August 21, 2002 MR. BROWN: As well as I went to the liability insurance company that I had before and had them -- which should be in the record -- MR. DICKSON: It is. MR. BROWN: -- stating they would cover me once my license is activated. MR. DICKSON: What is the will of the Board? MR. NEALE: I'll give you a little bit of the ordinance language on this. In the ordinance it says, "If as of the date of the receipt by the County a new application, which would be this, creates a pass as of the date of the most recent examination, that the individual passed require the former certificate that individual must pass all then applicable term testing requirements. If the request is to reactivate a dormant certificate, the retesting requirement can be waived by staff if the applicant proves that he or she has been active in the trade in another jurisdiction or has been active as an inspector or investigator in the trade, or for other valid reason that would render such retesting superfluous. MR. CRAWFORD: I think that's what we have here, Mr. Chairman, I would move we reinstate Mr. Brown's license based on the fact that he has been active in the carpentry business for the last three years. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin seconds. MR. NONNENMACHER: Staff has had no complaints. MR. DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. Page 21 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. LLOYD: Aye. GUITE: Aye. BROWN: So I just need to submit an affidavit. DICKSON: Tomorrow. BROWN: Tomorrow to Horseshoe Drive, the County? DICKSON: Yeah, just go see Maggie; but not today. BROWN: Okay. Thank you, very much. DICKSON: Thank you. Julio Urtiaga, are you present? URTIAGA: Yes. MR. DICKSON: If you would state your name, please, and then I need to have you sworn in. MR. URTIAGA: Julio Urtiaga. Thereupon, JULIO URTIAGA, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. DICKSON: You're here to request reciprocity from a Dade County roofing license. Give us the particulars. MR. URTIAGA: I guess I moved here a year ago, and work is pretty bad over here. And then I work in Miami going back and forth over here to Naples. So I want to try to see if I can work over here. MR. DICKSON: MR. URTIAGA: MR. DICKSON: Roofing is? MR. URTIAGA: MR. DICKSON: MR. URTIAGA: How long have you been in the business? About 20 years. Twenty years. Is that how old Superior No, with license about four years. Four years. I was a contractor, general contractor in New York for years, and then I move here in 1996 and then I start working in the same business. And then I pull my license, like, four years ago. MR. DICKSON: That was in Dade County? Page 22 August 21, 2002 MR. URTIAGA: MR. DICKSON: MR. URTIAGA: MR. DICKSON: here now? MR. URTIAGA: MR. DICKSON: MR. URTIAGA: Dade County. That was Experior that did the testing? Block. Block at the time; that's right. Do you live Yes. Where are you working now? I'm working in Miami and on the weekends over here; whatever I can find. But I have to go back and forth from Miami. MR. DICKSON: Just don't tell me you're working here. Okay? MR. URTIAGA: Okay. Oh, no. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Nonnenmacher, what's the normal procedure for a contractor from Miami that has a license in Dade County that wants to have a license here? MR. NONNENMACHER: I'm not familiar with the procedure from Miami to here. I'm only familiar with the Block and Associates test; that's the same test that we offer here. The score was, I believe, three points below. We felt this was a case of retesting superfluous since the years of experience plus the four or five years of being licensed. We wrote to Dade County, there was only one complaint registered with Dade County, and that was failing to close out a permit, which is commonplace, I believe, in every county in the State of Florida. MR. CRAWFORD: What you're saying is if he had a higher test score in Dade County -- MR. NONNENMACHER: We would have given him a license. MR.' CRAWFORD: So he's three points short? Page 23 August 21, 2002 MR. NEALE: Basically the issue for the Board is he's got a test score that's, if having heard everything, he's got a test score that's three points below the Collier County standard. MR. CRAWFORD: We require 75 and they're 72. MR. NEALE: He scored a 72, so the Board gets to determine as of the earlier testing that the retesting would be superfluous because of the retesting experience. MR. DICKSON: I will tell you this, having had an office in Miami in Dade County in my roofing business, it is commonplace for finals not to be recorded. It's not -- the fact that he just has one is very unusual. We would average two or three a year, and we had the CO's in our files. So it's clerical in that end over there. MR. DUNNE: Mr. Chairman. MR. DICKSON: Yes. MR. DUNNE: I'm against this for two reasons: The test score being one, as I said earlier, and Dade County does not expect reciprocity from Collier County contractor's is the second reason. The third reason, actually is the change in South Florida Building Code for 2002. And given the sensitivity of roofs, I don't think that this is appropriate. MR. DICKSON: As I'm the roofing contractor on this Board, let me address that. First of all, we've said all along here that if it's close and they've got the experience, well, this is a 72 and we require a 75. The Florida Building Code that we just went under, what was it, four months ago, roofing was not changed. All of our codes were already changed over a year prior to that. So if you go through there there's no roofing issues involved in the new Florida code. Thirdly, I'll say having worked in Miami, which is like working in hell -- MR. URTIAGA: It is. Page 24 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: -- and dealing with the codes and the inspections and everything they have over there, that this gentleman could come out of Miami with one complaint for not getting a CO recorded, I welcome him. MR. NEALE: If I may make it, as I said earlier to the Board, it does not appear from my review that this is an issue of where he's asking this Board to reciprocate a Dade County license. If he were asking to reciprocate a Dade County license, there would be no question at all. We wouldn't have his test scores up here, anything, just accept license for license. What he's done is submit a whole new application with a test score that is below standard. So I think the issue of reciprocity may be one that really doesn't exist in this case. MR. DICKSON: Any other discussion? Do I have a motion? MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we waive the testing requirement of the three points that he is short to require a license here in Collier County and that we grant him a license. MR. DICKSON: Do I have a second? MR. CRAWFORD: Second, Crawford. MR. DICKSON: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Opposed? MR. DUNNE: Opposed. MR. DICKSON: You are passed. You've heard us state tomorrow. So we welcome you. Do well. Page 25 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. URTIAGA: DICKSON: URTIAGA: DICKSON: URTIAGA: DICKSON: ANDRADE: I will. And we are a little higher standard over here. I'll do my best. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Old business. Gervacio Andrade. Good morning to everyone. MR. DICKSON: Before you talk, state your name, and I need to have you sworn in. MR. ANDRADE: My name is Gervacio Andrade. Thereupon, GERVACIO ANDRADE, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. DICKSON: Your reason for coming is to talk to us about your temporary floor covering license. MR. ANDRADE: Yes, I was here a year ago and, you know, I took the test. The first time I scored a 71.6, then I took it a second time and I failed. I think I scored about 60-something, and then I came over here and you guys gave me a temporary license for one year. And you guys told me to go and take the test one more time, and, you know, I studied hard and I took the test and I scored I think about 40-something. You know, I tried hard but I have some problems, you know, understanding the reading and I failed the test. I'm being -- because I don't want to open my own business I just work for a company on Marco Island. I do all their installation for floor covering, and I just want to be legal. I mean, I don't want to be working without a license, and I'm trying to do my best. MR. DICKSON: You've been working for someone else here in Collier for three years? MR. ANDRADE: I've been doing the carpet installation for like eight years, yeah. I work -- I used to work for a guy, he's Florida Page 26 August 21, 2002 contractor. He used to do all the Sears, Home Depot, and I used to work for him about six years ago, and then I moved to Marco. So I've been working down there for, like, six years, with the same company. MR. DICKSON: So basically we're just looking at, again, a three-point spread on the business in law that he was short. Have there been any complaints? MR. BORTOE: No complaints. To clarify, September 19th the last year the Board approved a temporary license for him for one year and if the test is passed, no need to reappear before the Board. And the test has not been passed, his license will expire September 30th, and staff has required him to appear back before you because of your order a year ago. MR. LLOYD: But the most recent score is 46 as oppose to 71 ? MR. BORTOE: That's what it appears, yes. MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. If he works for a company and he drives a company truck and wears company uniforms and goes where he is directed to go and works for exclusively one person, is he, in fact, an independent contractor or is he an employee? MR. BORTOE: It depends on how they pay him. Most of your carpet installation companies like all their, quote, employees to have their own license, that way they don't have to withhold taxes, workers comp, et cetera. That's the way the majority of them operate. MR. DICKSON: Yeah, and I'm not aware of any floor covering company in this town who has their own installers on hourly payroll; they all use independents. MR. GUITE: Yeah, all my employees are on hourly. MR. BARIL: But are they driving company vehicles? MR. GUITE: Yes. Page 27 August 21, 2002 MR. NONNENMACHER: I know for a fact that a floor covering company on Marco does have a crew of that I know, their own employees. I believe it's a crew of about 18 to 20 men that are employed regularly on a daily basis. And I believe Mr. Esorio checked this out in the beginning and there are W4's on the gentleman. He is an hourly employee. But like Tom said, most of the companies prefer that their carpet installers be licensed. It's a lot easier, paperwork, so on and so forth. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Bortoe, why did we give him a temporary license back in September of last year? Do you recall? MR. BORTOE: I think he came before you because he had not passed -- he had not got a passing grade on the test. MR. NONNENMACHER: I think another reason, points were brought out that Collier County is one of the few counties, if not the only county, that requires a license for floor covering and it's just a matter of a business and law test. And I think that was a little bit put before the Board that they give him a temporary. MR. DICKSON: Any other discussion? What's the pleasure of the Board? MR. LLOYD: I'm going to recommend that we do not grant the temporary license renewal until another attempt is made at the exam - - of the business and law test --'exam, I'm sorry. And the score -- his last two tests were 32 and 46; it needs to be closer. Three years ago he did better, so my recommendation is that we would not grant temporary flooring license until another attempt has been made. Some tutoring or something. MR. DICKSON: What do we want to do? Do we want to address the fact that his temporary license expires the end of September? MR. LLOYD: I am not concerned about that. Page 28 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: MR. BARIL: Second, Baril. MR. DICKSON: Any discussion? MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. We have a motion. Do we have a second? No one? All those in favor? MR. DICKSON: All those opposed? Unfortunately, you need to go take a review course, and you need to do it quickly because your license is going to expire at the end of September. And I know you're capable because you got real close once before. I think the attitude of this Board is had you not had such a bad test since we granted you a temporary that maybe you didn't prepare for it or maybe -- MR. ANDRADE: a problem reading. MR. DICKSON: Oh, yes, I did, I studied. I studied, but I have I understand. MR. ANDRADE: They don't have a, you know, a Spanish -- MR. DICKSON: Before you take a review course, talk to the review course people, ask them about the language barrier. You know Spanish is very common here as it is all over south Florida. They are prepared to handle that and work with you, but you need to take a test between now and the end of September. But you need to really prepare for it first and then pass that test so you don't have to come back here. Page 29 August 21, 2002 I do believe, if I'm correct in reading the Board, that if you get 71 or something above 70 again, this Board may look favorably. But they're not going to when you took it this year already and got a 46. MR. LLOYD: Mr. Chairman, you also said there's a possibility that they would read it orally or there's an oral presentation of the test. I don't know if he used that last time or if it is available. Is there an oral presentation of the test available? I don't know. MR. DICKSON: I've heard that in the past. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, I believe there is. It's done in Gainesville, not at the local level. MR. DICKSON: All right. It's a three-hour drive. MR. LLOYD: The only reason is because possibly an oral test would help you rather than reading English, translating it into your language, and reapplying it back in English on paper is difficult. See if there is some oral assistance that you can get when you take it believe you have the knowledge it's just it may be the because I language. MR. DICKSON: MR. ANDRADE: MR. DICKSON: back here. Okay. Your license is worth that drive. Okay? Okay. So go get it done and you don't have to come MR. ANDRADE: Okay. MR. DICKSON: We wish you luck. Good luck. MR. ANDRADE: Thank you. Have a good day. MR. DICKSON: No more old business. I'm not going to break; we're going to move on. Public hearing. Mr. and Mrs. Smolucha versus David James Carter. Are both parties here? MS. SMOLUCHA: Yes. MR. CARTER: Yes. 'Page 30 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Can you both come forward. Is the County ready to present? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, sir, we are. MR. DICKSON: What I'm going to ask both of you to do is if the Smolucha's, if you could sit over here on this front row, and Mr. Carter, if you would sit over here, and then let me explain to you how this procedure will be handled. What we will do first of all is we will make opening comments. The County is presenting the case for you, so the County will make their opening comments. And then, Mr. Carter, I will have you make opening comments. After that the County will present their evidence. Once their evidence is presented, Mr. Carter, you can ask questions of the County or any of their witnesses. That's a time for questioning, but not presenting your case. Then you will present your case. MR. CARTER: What if we don't need to make a comment? MR. DICKSON: I'm just telling you what's available to you, and then if it doesn't flow that way I will control it. MR. CARTER: Okay. MR. DICKSON: Then after that there will be a rebuttal from the County, a rebuttal from you, then we will close the hearings. At that point we will review it on this Board by ourselves, maybe ask some of you questions, and then we will make a rendering. So you're pretty well clear how it's going to go? Okay. With that, Mr. Nonnenmacher, if you would make your opening comments. MR. NONNENMACHER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Bob Nonnenmacher, contracting licensing supervisor. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Dave Carter Roofing is a licensed contractor, license number 10274 doing business as Dave Page 31 August 21, 2002 Carter Roofing. On June 1 st, 1999, Mr. and Mrs. Smolucha went into contract with Dave Carter Roofing to have a reroof done. Part of that contract -- there's a list of ten things that were supposed to be done: Remove the bare wood; replace rotted wood; install 30-pound approved base sheet; install new vent, stacks, valleys, and drip metal; 90-pound tile underlayment with certain nails; new ridge vents; one by two battens using ring shank nails; install 50-year Lifetile Santa Fe, using the nailing method; five-year warranty on workmanship and labor; and all permits, dump fees, and clean up. MR. CARTER: Wasn't that five year warranty changed to ten year warranty? MR. DICKSON: Let's hold questions. This is not the time. MR. CARTER: Sorry. MR. DICKSON: Make notes. MR. NONNENMACHER: We will present evidence to you that most of this contract was not completed as to plans and specification, and we will also present evidence that the roof was never repaired; it is still in a leaking condition. And we will also prove that the total roof has more code violations than things right with it. At this time I would ask the Board to take Composite Exhibit A and move it into evidence. MR. DICKSON: Gentlemen, I need a motion to admit Exhibit A, Composite Exhibit A into evidence. MR. CRAWFORD: So moved, Crawford. MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. MR. DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. Page 32 August 21, 2002 MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: So moved. Proceed. MR. NONNENMACHER: Also I would like to present to the Board the Respondent and Complainant Composite Exhibit B, and we ask this be marked into evidence. MR. DICKSON: Gentlemen, this letter has been given to everybody. I need a motion to admit this into evidence as Composite Exhibit B. MR. CRAWFORD: So moved, Crawford. MR. BARIL: Second, Baril. MR. DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: So moved. Mr. Nonnenmacher. MR. NONNENMACHER: That concludes my opening statement. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Carter, would you come to the podium, please, sir. I need for you to state your full name and have you sworn in, please. MR. CARTER: David Carter. Thereupon, DAVID CARTER, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: Page 33 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Just an opening statement, and we'll present the case later, Mr. Carter. MR. CARTER: Have you ever had a roof from hell? Well, this is mine. I've been in business in this County for 12, 13, 14, 15 years, working under my own license. I was in business previously with Bob Court Roofing and Bruce Dally Roofing and George Greenling Roofing for years. I've been a roofer a long time. This is the first time -- I can fill this room up with satisfied customers. This is the first time I have ever, ever been in front of the Board. Can I say what I want to say here, I mean, about an opening statement? MRi DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. CARTER: The customer was entirely difficult to get along with from jump street. I was sick at the time. I've had five hip replacements, colon cancer, I'm still under chemotherapy treatment, and I was sick during the entire time that they put their roof on. I never saw the roof go on. Okay? My foreman did. Okay? There's some mistakes made. It's a tough roof. It's in Oakmont in Pelican Bay. It was put on originally by Wallen Roofing (phonetic), and they did some of the worst roofing I've ever seen in my life, but it was a subdivision. We went in originally called for a leak, and we went through leak after leak after leak. And finally we decided, me and he had an in-between man because they didn't live here yet, called a guardian out of Fort Myers -- or Bonita. So we all got around to making a deal, and I was very sick. I bid this roof at $20,000; it's a $50,000 roof. Okay? It's a big house, it's about 60 squares, and it's a 9/12, and it's cut up to beat the band. I mean, it's really -- you're a roofing contractor, yoU know what I mean when I say it's cut up. This has been a Page 34 August 21, 2002 nightmare for me. Okay? I have never in my life -- you know, it's just been a nightmare. Okay? And then they keep calling me for leaks for leaks for leaks. The biggest leak that they had was their own fault -- it was the builder's fault; it wasn't their fault. They had a huge thing in front of their house and siding that the water just gushed down. It had nothing to do with roofing. Okay? And then this report that John Blackburn wrote, he said, "Could not see any vented area for roof." Hell, the whole front of the house is vented. I mean, it's huge. I mean, it's a third of the front of the house, if anything. So this report, and I'll go over in great detail with you, is wrong. I mean, I'm wrong on the roof and on responding to leaks, and maybe I'm wrong in my attitude towards the customer. The customer was a little rough with me. We didn't get along. But you go back over my record and I have never, never been in front of you guys. I couldn't even dream I'm coming here today. But we'll get into all of this. I just think that there's other ways to do this. I'm really upset that I'm called in front of the Board. I thought Paul and I were doing fine with it until he called John Blackburn, and then they made crazy cases that the right nails and duh, duh, duh, duh, duh, but we'll go through all of that. That's it. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Mr. Nonnenmacher, if you would like to present your case, sir. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, staff would like to call Mr. Smolucha to the podium, please. MR. DICKSON: I need to have you state your full name and then also have you sworn in, please. MR. SMOLUCHA: My full name is Richard Joslin Smolucha. Thereupon, RICHARD SMOLUCHA, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: Page 35 August 21, 2002 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NONNENMACHER: Good morning, Mr. Smolucha. A. Good morning. Q. Do you have a residence at 805 Pine Creek Lane? A. Yes, I do. Q. And did there come a time in June of 1999 that you contracted with Dave Carter to reroof that home? A. That's right. Q. And I refer you to -- do you have your packet with you, sir? A. I do. Yes, sir. Q. I refer you to page E-7; they're numbered on the bottom. A. Yes. Q. Is this the contract you entered into with Mr. Carter? A. Yes, it is. Q. And I notice there's a double contract in here. I would imagine a reason for that is that the contractor is paid in full, on the right-hand side? A. I'm not sure what you're asking me. Q. Okay. On page E-8- A. Yes. Q. -- is more or less a duplicate of the contract? A. It is. The only one difference is the annotation about the ten year. Ae And plus the fact in the right-hand margin it's paid in full? Paid in full; that's correct. So you owe Mr. Carter nothing? Certainly not. Do you know for a fact that Dave Carter Roofing did your roof?. I know for a fact that there were people that Dave Carter Page 36 August 21, 2002 me had working on my roof. Who gave you this estimate? Mr. Carter himself?. Yes, he did. Do you see Mr. Carter in the room today? He's right here. Request that the identification has been made of Mr. Carter. Could you please tell the Board in your own words your experience from just before June 1 st the reason that you called in a roofing company up until present, please. Sure. So my wife and I bought the home in 1998 in the summertime and as I think Mr. Carter even mentioned we were not living here at the time, so it was more of a visit to the house. So we weren't aware of some of the problems. We had many problems with the house, one of which was the roof. And we found that the roof was leaking and also noticed ceiling leaks or at least one ceiling leak. And we worked through our house watcher at the time to get some work done or an estimate at least to get done to fix that particular problem. Our house watcher recommended Mr. Carter, and we went with that recommendation and had him fix one leak. Subsequently, we determined because Mr. Carter told us we would have other leaks that the roof was in need of bigger repair; he recommended a whole reroof of the house. And we met with Mr. Carter in May, time frame, he came to our home. He had his foreman come, walk the roof, came back, and said, "You need a whole new roof," gave us a price, which we did negotiate, came to the conclusion that it be $20,000 with a credit for the prior work that was done for the first leak. So it was effectively, $20,500 for a new roof. That's it. Is that sufficient? Page 37 August 21, 2002 Q. I would like to refer you to page E-11, all the way through and including page E-26. Do you recognize those pictures that are in there? A. Absolutely. I took those pictures. Q. You took the pictures? A. (Witness nodded head.) Q. Okay. As we go over the contract on E-7, was the tile removed to bare wood? A. No, it was not. Q. It was not. Do you know if you had any rotted wood on that roof?. A. Absolutely. I have actually other pictures today. Q. So there is rotted wood and the wood was never replaced? A. There's sections that were replaced and those sections are now rerotted and are now sagging. MR. CARTER: There's a time frame difference. I mean this is - MR. DICKSON: You'll have a chance. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NONNENMACHER: Q. Number three, install new 30-pound UL base sheet. Was that done? A. Yeah, I think that's in the pictures, what you see I think that's 30 pound. I don't know; I'm not a roofer. Q. In Mr. Carter's opening statement he said that John Blackburn's report was wrong; there are vents all over. Install all new vents, stacks, valley, and drip metal. Was new vents installed at all? A. So there are, for the caps on the vents for things like a dryer, that is new. But I understood there would be new air vents for the roof. Page 38 August 21, 2002 MR. CARTER: Q. Were new air vents installed? A. No, they were not. Q. To your knowledge, do you know if there were any new valleys installed? A. So in the valley area there was material put in the valleys. I wasn't -- you see from the pictures I caught this work in progress. I don't know exactly what is underneath that valley. Q. Were you able to witness any 90-pound tile underlayment? A. I don't see that on the roof. Q. I would like to bring to your attention this piece of wood. Do you recognize this piece of wood? A. Yes, I do. Q. I'm going to give it to you and ask you to identify some different objects on the wood. Could you please tell the Board where that wood came from. A. This came off of my roof. Q. And who took it off of your roof?. A. One of the people that was doing the inspection. I'm not exactly who precisely took it off, but one of the folks. Q. And you were present when it was removed? A. My wife was present. Q. I would like you to take a look at that piece of wood and describe -- I notice there are three nails in that wood. Could you tell- A. Yes, it's my understanding the two nails coming off the bottom here are the ones that are going into the sheaving or whatever the technical term for the wood that's the roof. The deck. Page 39 August 21, 2002 THE WITNESS: The deck, thank you. And this nail coming off the top is the one that would hold the tile, the top. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NONNENMACHER: Q. In your layman's opinion, what type of nails are they? A. So they appear to me to be just regular, common nails. Q. Do you see any rust or anything on those nails? A. Yes, these two are rusted pretty significantly. Actually, all three of them have rust on them. MR. DICKSON: I would like to see that. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Nonnenmacher, could you have that marked and entered into evidence. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. Staff now requests that that piece of wood, including the three nails, be entered into evidence and marked by the court clerk, the Board clerk, sorry. MR. DICKSON: I need a motion to admit this. MR. CRAWFORD: Motion. MR. DICKSON: All those in favor. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. then MR. DICKSON: Since it's up here, I'll let the Board look at it I'll let you mark it. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NONNENMACHER: Page 40 August 21, 2002 Q. Mr. Smolucha, if you know, and if you don't just say you don't know, would you say that is a one by two batten? A. It looks like a one by two. I do a little bit of carpentry. Q. And you recognize the nails, is that a ring shank nail? A. It looks like just a common -- I think it's just called common nails. Q. Do you know what a ring shank nail is? A. I don't think I do, no. Q. Okay. Neither do I. And you know we're in our rainy season now. Are your leaks continuing? A. So some of the leaks have been tarred at this point. It's a little difficult to see what is the extent of repair. Some areas on the fascia, in particular, you can still see the water running down behind the metal, so it's running over the wood portion. It is my understanding it's not suppoSed to do that. I do, in my garage, still hear, there's definitely a leak there in the garage area. Q. As to the damage only, not the repair of the roof, have you ever had an estimate on the damage that occurred through the leaks? A. To the interior of the home? Q. Interior of the home, exterior? A. Never had an estimate. We've just had our home repainted now. At least three of the rooms, the ceiling have to be painted because they're all water-stained. In my office the ceiling is now sagging. You can see the nails popping. I think the sheetrock probably needs to be replaced at this point. And the garage is absolutely pathetic. So it's a lot of work, I just never had an estimate. Q. Have you had any estimates on the repair of the roof?. Page 41 August 21, 2002 A. Yes, we have. Q. Those estimates, how many estimates did you get? A. We have four. Q. Four estimates. Those four estimates, what was the conclusion as to how to repair that roof?. A. Everyone tells us that that roof has to be taken to bare wood, whatever wood is rotted, replaced, and then new put on. Q. And the estimates range from the low figure of what? A. I think it's $33,000 up to a high of $50,000. Q. Which sort of goes along with what Mr. Carter said in his opening statement; it's a $50,000 roof?. A. Sure, it's somewhere in there, probably like 40, we're believing at this point. Q. And at this point no attempt has been made to strip that roof and redo it by Mr. Carter? A. We've been waiting to go through this process. MR. NONNENMACHER: I have no further questions of Mr. Smolucha. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Carter, it is now your opportunity to question the witness that the County brought forward, if you would like to do so, if you would go to that podium. And since you're already sworn in, that's not necessary again. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. On the nails and the piece of wood, they're up to code. When I said ring shank nails on the proposal, I was thinking about something else. It's not necessary. According to Southwest Standard Building, it's not necessary. We do not have to put ring shank nails in your battens. You do not have to put as -- Page 42 August 21, 2002 MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman this is argument. This is his opportunity to ask questions of the witness. MR. CARTER: I'm sorry. I thought I could say anything I could during the testimony. MR. DICKSON: No, you can do that when you present your case; it's just the opportunity to ask the homeowner questions. CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. Where was your biggest leak, Richard, of the whole deal? Wasn't it in the vented area in front of your house? A. No, I wouldn't say so. I would say the garage is clearly the biggest area. Q. Okay. Let's say the garage. How much water came down through -- you know where the vented area is? A. Yes. Q. It came right down and you fussed at me numerous times where I had worked up along your entryway, and it looked like it was coming down hitting that wall and comes straight down; right? A. I hear what you're saying. We did have the wall totally replaced in January, I think, or February. Q. Not by me. A. Not by you. I had someone else do it, it cost me $2400. We had new gable vents put on, new stucco. But after the fact, that area still leaks. Q. Where did it leak from? A. From the roof. Q. No? A. There was an additional leak at times when there was windy conditions through the gable vents. Q. It ran like a water faucet? Page 43 August 21, 2002 A. The roof still does. Q. In other words, through the vented area -- the house has only got one vent in it, huge. Okay? MS. SMOLUCHA: Two. THE WITNESS: You're talking about the gable vent; there's two of those. CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. But where else would I vent the roof and why else would I vent the roof?. This is a 9/12 roof. A. So you had -- well, you had described to me the need for added ventilation. I'm not a roof expert. Q. Okay. But you had adequate ventilation. You had a huge damn thing? MS. SMOLUCHA: But your contract said you were going to put vents in. MR. DICKSON: No. MR. LLOYD: No, ma'am. MR. DICKSON: If you want to make a comment, you come up here and get sworn in. MS. SMOLUCHA: Can I stand up there? MR. SMOLUCHA: Just relax. I don't want to upset her. CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. All I am saying to you, on this vented area, you didn't need any more vents. Every home in Oakmont has the same amount of vents as your home does; is that true? A.I don't know. I haven't looked at every home in Oakmont. Q. What would you say? A. I would say there are some homes that have what appear to be- Q. Some homes are different designs? Page 44 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Mr. Carter, the issue is not the vent. MR. CARTER: Okay. MR. DICKSON: Let's get to the issue. vent. if I can direct you a little bit here, We don't care about the MR. CARTER: What do you care about? MR. DICKSON: The installation of the roof and the leaks that they've experienced. MR. CARTER: The leaks that they've experienced have all come because of flashing on the modified hips. MR. NEALE: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Where we are right now in the procedure, unless the Board votes to change the procedure that they had adopted, is Mr. Carter is to cross-examine this witness. Period. MR. DICKSON: And only to the testimony that -- MR. NEALE: That was previously given. MR. DICKSON: Right. So if-- MR. NEALE: Anything further is a departure from the Board's procedure. MR. DICKSON: MR. CARTER: Thank you, Mr. Neale. I don't remember what-all he said was wrong. MR. DICKSON: You can only cross what he testified to. We can't bring up something else. MR. CARTER: The vented area was what he testified to; right? MR. DICKSON: Yeah, but I wouldn't base my case on that. MR. CARTER: I'm not basing -- that's mine. MR. LLOYD: If I may, on E-7, the ten items listed on E-7 were the topics presented and commented on those items, and then he elaborated on the board with the nails. So if you would like to address those ten items, but to him, please. Page 45 August 21, 2002 MR. CARTER: Yes, sir. MR. DICKSON: Thank you. That's a good clarification. CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. Richard, did I remove the tile to the bare wood, line one? A. No. Q. What did I not do? A. You took it only down to what looked like the asphalt. I think that's called 90 pound. At this point I'm learning a lot about roofs. You took it down to that level. In areas, just to be clear, in areas where I understand from you where your workers fell through the roof, you actually took in those areas, and in those areas alone, the plywood out and put it in. I think there was two areas of that. Q. Replace all rotted wood. Did I do that? A. I don't know. I do know you replaced a couple of areas. Honestly, at this point- Q. An eight-year-old house- A. -- it's now rotten again. Q. On an eight-year-old house, just a statement, it's difficult to have a lot of rotted wood on a 9/12 pitch because the water just runs off. A. I think the house is 11 years old. And I don't know; I just don't know the answer. Q. Say ten. · A. Was all the rotted wood, I don't know- Q. Install new 30-pound UL approved drop base sheet. Did I do that? A. As I said earlier, I think that's what I see in the picture. Q. It's black? A. It's black. It looks like- Page 46 August 21, 2002 Qm mo They don't make 15 anymore. -- I don't know if it's called 30-pound. On E-12, on picture E-12, at the top of the roof you see the 30 pound and then we're mopping the 90 pound on top of it. No. You're talking about the green stuff?. Yeah, that's the 90-pound. That's the roof that was there before you started the work. No. Absolutely. No. Absolutely. That's not the 90-pound mopped on 30-pound? That was the original roof. No. Okay. Well, I mean this is the point we're debating. All right. On E-13 -- MR. DICKSON: Mr. Carter, let's just settle this right now. can sit here and look at photographs that are in the packet, I specifically starting at E-33, E-32, E-34, E-35, E-36, E-37, where they've taken out tiles that were installed. That's 30-pound felt under there. MR. CARTER: Yeah. MR. DICKSON: Okay. Enough said. MR. CARTER: But that's flashing felt. Look where it's at. It's MR. NONNENMACHER: MR. DICKSON: Proceed. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Carter is being argumentative. If he doesn't want to cross-examine Page 47 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. DICKSON: Proceed. CARTER: Well, I mean you asked. DICKSON: Proceed. CARTER: I have nothing else to say. LLOYD: Item four, do you want to go down the ten items? CARTER: I wanted to but they don't want me to be argumentative. MR. LLOYD: No, just go ahead and ask questions of the items on there. Whatever you have questions on, you had questions, did you install vents, stacks, valleys? MR. CARTER: What page was that, sir? MR. LLOYD: Page seven, we want to give you an opportunity to address your concerns. MR. DICKSON: You can still present your case; just ask him the questions. MR. NEALE: Just following the procedure at this point, this is cross-examination of this witness, the County can wrap up their case. MR. CARTER: Well, I shouldn't go to E-7 because E-7 hasn't come up, I don't think. But anyway, I will do it real quick. Install all new vents, stacks, valley, and drip metal. That was all done. Every bit of that was all done. MR. LLOYD: You need to ask this gentleman questions. CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. Was that done, Richard? A. So some, as I said, the caps where the vent for the- Q. Your oven and- A. Excuse me. For the dryer was put on. The valley metal, I'm not aware. And I don't actually believe there -- is some other experts have been on the roof have told me there is no metal on the valley- Page 48 August 21, 2002 Q. That's bullshit. A. -- the metal for the drip is new. MR. DICKSON: Say that again, and I'll sit you down. MR. CARTER: I'm sorry. THE WITNESS: Frankly the drip, what's called the drip molding, is put on in a very shoddy way. There's a photo on E-19, for example, you'll see there that drip metal goes for a stretch then there's about a six-inch or eight-inch piece, and then it continues. I mean, this is supposed-- MR. CARTER: That's at a hip. THE WITNESS: This is new drip molding. new, but it looks terrible. left? You can call it CONTINUED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. CARTER: Q. That's at a hip. Tough working at a hip. Okay. Install new off-- install 90-pound underlayment using back nail method with trowel grad adhesive. I did it. Install new off ridge vents, as many as possible. None were installed because none were possible. In the back you've got skylights. We had no place to put the vents. I'm just going through this quick. Install one by two baton using ring shank; that's where I used the word ring shank. There's no ring shank galvanized nail -- MR. LLOYD: He's presenting again. MR. DICKSON: Let's end this. You got any specific questions MR. CARTER: No. MR. DICKSON: Let's end it. Please sit down, Mr. Carter. MR. CARTER: Yes, sir. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Nonnenmacher, do you have a readdress? Page 49 August 21, 2002 MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. At this time we would like to call Mr. Robert Doll to the podium. Thank you, Mr. Smolucha. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Doll, if you would state your full name and then I need to have you sworn in. MR. DOLL: Robert Douglas Doll. Thereupon, ROBERT DOLL, the Witness herein, having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: COURT REPORTER: And can you spell your last name for me, please. THE WITNESS: D-O-L-L. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NONNENMACHER: Q. Mr. Doll, are you vice president of Collier Roofing? A. Collier County Roofing, yes. Q. How long have you been in the roofing business? A. About 30 years. Q. Do you hold the license, sir? A. No, sir. Q. And you've actually worked out in the field in the roofing business? A. Yes. Q. Did there come a time that you looked at Mr. Smolucha's house at 805 Pine Creek Lane in Naples? A. Yes, Mr. Bolzano from your office called me, asked me if I could meet him out there -- this is probably about three months ago, two months ago -- to look at some problems and give me opinion. MR. NONNENMACHER: At this time, I would like the Board to take notice that Mr. Doll has been in the roofing business for 30 Page 50 August 21, 2002 years. He is the vice president of Collier County Roofing, Incorporated, and is qualified as an expert to testify. MR. DICKSON: So noted, Mr. Nonnenmacher. CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. NONNENMACHER: Q. Mr. Doll, do you have a packet with you? A. Q. mo Qe Ae Yes, sir. Can I refer you to page E-29 and E-30. Is this a report made by you? Yes. Did you do the actual inspection of the roof?. My service manager and myself went out on the -- this was written after our second trip out, July 24th of this year. And if you would turn to page E-7. And in an effort to save time, could you go over the ten items that are there - naturally disregard nine on the warranty -- could you tell us which were done and were not? Well, item number one, remove tile to the bare wood, it wasn't done. The photographs the Smolucha's took particularly on E-16, clearly shows the battens applied over 30-pound felt. If you look at earlier photos, you can see where the 30-pound felt was installed over the original 90- pound without removing it. Item number two, replacing all rotted wood. That's anyone's guess. If you don't remove the underlayments down to the wood, you may or may not replace it all. And that underlayment was not removed all the way down to the wood in places? No. There may have been areas there was. Every area that we looked at it was not. 30-pound UL approved base sheet Page 51 August 21, 2002 was installed over the old roof. Item four, new vents, stacks, valley, and drip metal. Drip metal seems to be new. The vents and the stacks were replaced incorrectly. Q. Incorrectly, you say? A. Incorrectly. Valley metal. It's hard to determine whether that valley metal was the original metal from the old roof or if that was put it. At any rate, it's not in the right spot in the system. Q. Okay. If I could just bring you back to the stacks. Could you tell the Board exactly why they're not installed correctly. A. Yeah, your plumbing stacks, PVC pipes that come through the roof deck, have a lead boot installed on those, a mechanically fastened roof on battens. That stack is required to be installed so that when the water leaves the lead flashing it's on top of the tile. The water stays on the surface of the tile roof. These are installed under the tile allowing any water that hits the stack goes down to the underlayment and starts heading towards the bottom of the roof, going past all the fasteners from the tile and the battens. Q. Just to make- A. -- installed in the same manner. Q. Just to make it clear to the Board, would you please tell them what the code is for roofing? A. In a general sense, the national roof tile manufactures have written criteria for installing their tiles under various systems. This mechanically fastened system over battens requires a particular method of flashing a roof, and this was not done. Page 52 August21,2002 Qe me Qe So basically the building code calls for manufacturers spec's for roofs to be installed, and it's adopted by Collier County that that will be the building code? Correct. So when you talk about the stacks incorrectly, is it safe to say that we're in violation of building code, manufacturers spec's? It's not in strict accordance with the code, no. If you could continue, please. Item five, install a 90-pound underlayment. I don't see any evidence of that. Install new off-ridge vents, as many as possible. It's a pretty vague statement. It would be possible to put vents in that roof; there are none installed. How many? You know, you could put 15 vents in the roof, if you wanted to put them in there. One by two battens using ring shank nails, whether that's a typo or not, they're definitely not ring shank nails. What is a ring shank nail? It's also known as an annular thread nail where the actual nail has rings cut in it during the manufacturing and increases the hold-down power when you drive it into the deck. If you can continue, please. Install 50 year Lifetile, Santa Fe. I'm assuming Santa Fe is the color, using nailing method. It was nailed on. Is that an acceptable procedure, nailing it on? What the building code requires is a certain uplift resistance on that tile when it's attached to the roof. And to my knowledge, on that pitch of a roof with that tile on a batten with those nails would also require storm clips on the tiles Page 53 August 21, 2002 and particularly in the perimeter areas of the roof, and there's no evidence of storm clips. Q. If I could just bring you back to number five, install 90- pound tile underlayment. I believe it was your testimony that you did not see evidence of 90 pound and that the tile were put directly over the 30 pound? A. Yes, the only 90 pound we could find was under the 30 pound; obviously, the old roof. Q. Is that in violation of building code? A. I don't think the building code disallows you from doing that. Q. In other words, is it manufacturers spec's that the tile should be laid over 90-pound- A. No, the manufacturers have a list of various underlayment systems that could be used to meet, you know, their specification. A single 30-pound could, in fact, be used. But it has to be installed correctly. One of the things it would require is for that felt to turn up the walls. Now, whether that's in the head wall of the gable, the side walls, skylights; anything comes out of that roof, the felt should be turned up the wall prior to the flashing being set. Q. Was that done? A. No, sir. Q. So the 30-pound that was installed is in violation of code? A. It's not installed correctly. Q. According to manufacturers spec's? A. Correct. Q. And we've determined that manufacturers spec's is the building code for roofing; is that correct? A. Correct. Page 54 August 21, 2002 Qe Qe me I'm sorry. If you could continue on. Well, you have sub item A, eight A, approve method of installation of South Florida Building Code. I think we just covered that. We can skip nine and ten. In the beginning of this case you were handed Composite Exhibit B which is a report from Collier County Building Inspector John Blackburn. Do you have that in your possession? Yes. Could you go over those items, number one, the nails used were not galvanized in the one by two, and especially the number one and two as far as the nails are concerned. Are you familiar with this County ordinance as far as roofs being installed west of 41 having to use a special type of nails? To be honest with you, I haven't seen that particular line- item. I mean, typically a galvanized nail would be used, or galvanized screw. The nails that are in that board, I think you would have to have tested to tell whether they're galvanized or just a bright nail. They are exhibiting quite a bit of rust for only being a couple of years old. Is this the board that you're referring to? Yes. And is there rust -- do galvanized nails rust like that within a couple of years? It's not my experience to see them rusting that bad, that quickly. Are those ring shank nails? No. If you could go over briefly the rest of the report. Are you Page 55 August 21, 2002 Ae me in agreement with what Mr. Blackburn stated here? Item three, yes; item four, yes; item five, yes; six, yes; seven, yes. Item eight, the skylights, as I looked at some of the pictures that the Smolucha's took during discussion construction, really appear to be a self-curving skylight. Once again, that's not normally used on a mechanically fastened tile roof. There were no secondary flashings that have been installed in that skylight. Again, are we speaking of building code here when you have -- I believe you stated before when things are protruding from the roof there is a code as to how they are to be flashed to prevent leaks? Yes, the manufacturer of the tile, Bone Air Lifetile, actually has an installation guide that they have printed, shows every one of those details, and how they should be installed. On Mr. Blackbum's report, the last paragraph, do you agree with that? Yes. And in your agreement with it, would it be safe to say that since the 30-pound is installed in violation of code, there really would be no other way to repair this roof except to rip it all off and start from scratch again? Yes. You know, you could go in, as I outline in the letter that I wrote, and reflash the entire roof, pull all the old flashings out, tie the felt back in, turn it up the walls, reflash it, reflash the valleys, the skylights. By the time you do that, you've got 90 percent of that roof torn apart. What's the point? And you're still back to the contract Page 56 August 21, 2002 where you don't have the 90-pound under the tile that they paid for. Q. Starting on page E-31, if you would. Are you familiar with these pictures? A. Yes, these were taken during our visit out there on the 24th of July. Q. And were you present when the pictures were taken? A. I was on the ground. My service manager was on the roof taking the pictures. Q. Are these a fair and accurate description of what was up there? A. Yes, these -- we did not remove any tile off the roof. These pictures were taken as the roof sat during the repair attempts that were going on. Q. I would like to refer you to E-35, please. And it's your testimony that you wrote this report? A. Yes. Q. And is that your writing underneath the pictures on all of these pictures? A. Yes. Q. E-35 says "typical condition of 30-pound felt." A. That's just an area where they pulled tiles out chasing these leaks. That's typical of what you see everywhere, that the tile has been pulled out on the roof. That's a single layer of 30-pound felt. The top of the photo, that little glossy area, is where someone has applied some roofing cement and some 90-pound trying to patch the holes. Q. So, again, I'll ask you if this is a typical condition of the Page 57 August 21, 2002 me Qe me Qe Am MR. NONNENMACHER: witness. felt, how do we know what's underneath the tile and how do we actually find out what's underneath the tile except for to rip the tile off to see if the felt was installed properly? That would be the only way. Okay. Mr. Doll, if you were to do this roof, what would you estimate the cost at? Well, I prepared a bid for Mrs. Smolucha, depending upon - it's a little complicated and the tile that has been installed on this roof isn't in compliance with the deed restrictions in that neighborhood. So she would have to use a more expensive tile going back than what was installed, but the prices came in around $40,000. So you more or less agree with Mr. Carter's statement that it's approximately a $50,000 roof?. We bid it for $40,000. If we could get $50,000, that would be nice. The $20,000 that was bid on this roof, could you make a comment on that. I reviewed my take-offs before I came this morning. Present day cost of the materials that we have included in our bid is around $20,000. So just to start off we're losing money because we don't have any labor or anything else included? Labor, workers comp, overhead, profit. In your estimate that Mr. Carter stated in his opening statement that there were approximately 60 squares, do you agree with that? I think it's a little bit bigger than that, maybe 62, 63; yes. I have no further questions of this Page 58 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: In the essence of time, I will let you redirect to the witness, but I'm going to let you do it after you present your case. So call your next witness. MR. NONNENMACHER: Staff has no further witnesses. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Doll, can you stay, please? THE WITNESS: Sure. MR. DICKSON: Is that your case, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: That's the case. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Carter, please come up to this podium here, if you would. It's now your time to present your case, sir. MR. CARTER: I don't have a case. I'm through. Whatever y'all want to do to me, you can do it. MR. DICKSON: What? MR. CARTER: Whatever you want to do to me, do it. I'll come here and say -- there's no way to stack it. I feel it's a stacked deck. I mean, I'm wrong. I made some mistakes on this roof. Okay? Everybody says take it off. Okay, I'll take it off. Okay? I lost my butt on it once, so I can lose my butt on it again. I don't agree, and it's just one glaring example. The nails used were not galvanized, and this is from John Blackburn, and the one by two used to anchor the tile to the roof, I can't tell you where I have ever seen a statement in Collier County in any of their books, and I have studied these books, and in all of the things that you talk to the County people about where you have to use galvanized nails close to west of 41. If that's the case, every home in the Moorings, Park Shore, all through there needs to come off. Because there's not galvanized nails, and there's not galvanized nails in Pelican Bay. When you get Page 59 August 21, 2002 close to the beach, they require an updated nail. I think it's like 500 feet from the beach. Okay. So if number one and number two were the nails and the tiles were not galvanized as per Collier County ordinance to be areas close to salt water, their home is not close to salt water. Their home is sitting on 41. There's their house, I think another house, a berm, and 41. So they're as far away as Pelican Bay gets in Oakmont from salt water. I mean, they're only four or five miles -- I don't know how far it is. Now, if those two items about the nails were true, this bottom statement, in my opinion, the correction would be to strip the entire roof and start anew. The way it should be after one by two nails are removed there would be holes in the 90-pound. That's very true; I agree. But why should these nails be removed? My question, to whomever. Because they are there, I mean, there's the proper amount of them. I just don't see any -- but I'll do whatever y'all want. Look, I'm going to be in business here for a long time. This isn't going to kill me one way or the other. But I don't think it's fair. Let me make that -- and yes, I'm very argumentative because I'm very mad. Because, you know, we're out there, we're working, you know, and we're sweating, and you got a roof that you got to be a damn -- darn monkey to climb, because it's really straight up and down. You got to walk on them one by two battens that you've put in the roof. But the nails are a serious question here. That's the reason they want to pull the whole roof up. I can fix that roof. Okay? And the reason that they see the hips are not flashed right, okay, they're just not right. I have been over there, I took every one of them apart, and I fixed every one. And then they told me don't come back on the tile. Well, that just -- then anybody that goes up there takes these awful pictures. Page 60 August21,2002 Heck, a tile roof isn't pretty underneath. The roof is under the tile. Okay? The tile is cosmetic. Now, I don't know nothing about this -- I think Mrs. Smolucha told me that they had to put flat tile on instead of the tile that I put on which was the Lifetile Capri. But you know you just -- you know when it's time to throw in the towel. MR. DICKSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Closing remarks, Mr. Nonnenmacher. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Composite Exhibit A sort of tells it all. The pictures in there as compared to the way the contract is written, you've heard expert witnesses plus the homeowner tell you exactly what was done and what wasn't done. You've heard the homeowner tell you that they've had four people go up and look at that roof, so four professional expert witnesses say the only way to repair that roof is to remove it and start from scratch. We had a very experienced County inspector go up there; John Blackburn has been in the roofing business since he's been 16 years old. He's in his late 60's now. He wrote a report for you. The roof is, first of all, not according to the specifications of the contract, but not only that, is in violation of the most basic building code and that's the underlayment. I don't know of a way that we could check that underlayment without ripping the whole roof off. We see pictures where the underlayment is destroyed. Yes, it could be destroyed from removing. We've heard testimony that the underlayment is not put on properly and according to code. Again, to superficially fix this roof, we could have problems down the line because we don't know how many code violations are underneath the existing tiles that stay on. I think staff and witnesses have proved to you that, number one, the job was not done to specifications and plans, number two, nothing Page 61 August 21, 2002 has been done to correct it, and, number three, which he wasn't even charged with but goes along with the faulty workmanship, is that the roof is loaded with code violations that must be repaired because as you all know there is no statute of limitations on code violations. We ask that you find Mr. Carter in violation of both sections, and as you know, or I hope you know, that staff is pretty reasonable in its recommendations if you should find a contractor in violation. This is quite a unique experience, this roof, being out of code so much that staff is going to ask and recommend that if you do find Mr. Carter in violation of the sections he was charged that he have one week to pay restitution in the amount of $20,000 in which the customer was charged, plus damages to the interior, plus the extra costs of doing the roof right. And the reason for that is that the right materials weren't used, and they knew they weren't used. And the reason why they weren't used, according to his own testimony, is that that is a $50,000 roof and he did it for $20,000. How could you put $50,000 into a roof and only charge $20,0007 The only way to do that is to do exactly what he did, eliminate everything so he could just about break even or lose a couple thousand. So we are asking for the restitution. Our time period, since it is the rainy season and the violations are so gross and, to me, intentional, we're asking for only one week for this to be done. If not, Mr. Carter's license be revoked. Thank you. MR. DICKSON: Does anyone on the Board have any questions of any -- MR. CARTER: Can I ask a question? MR. DICKSON: Yes, sir, come up here, please. Go ahead. MR. CARTER: You know, I can replace the roof. That is absolutely not true what you just said. I didn't know that this roof Page 62 August 21, 2002 was worth 50 grand until Paul three years later. I have never short- cutted a roof in my life. I always put on the best. No, that's not true. I did not short-cut the roof. If I had of in the last 20 years, I would have been called to the deck long before now. And to give me a week to get 20 grand out when I have been under cancer treatment and on disability for a year, over a year now when I had my cancer colon cut out, I go to chemo three times a week, I'm working part-time. I don't have $20,000. And for it to be a week and then to take my livelihood over this, I mean, can't we be reasonable about this? That's all I've got to say. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Carter. Anybody else have any questions? MR. CRAWFORD: I do. Mr. Doll, do you mind stepping back up? I just want to be able to separate the code issues from the contract issues. It's pretty clear that the contract issues were met with the 90-pound felt, and so forth. But I want to clearly understand what it takes to bring this code up to Collier County code standards. It is my understanding that 30-pound felt would meet current codes and the nailing system would not. MR. DOLL: Yeah, of course current code -- I'm not sure that the other code has changed. MR. CRAWFORD: We have to refer back to the day of installation. MR. DOLL: Right. To when this permit was pulled. As I was telling you, the installation of the felt, Lifetile probably has ten or twelve difficult underlayment systems that they approve for use under their tile. But when you put the tile up on battens and mechanically fasten it, whether it's with nails or screws, it requires a particular installation technique for the felt and flashings, neither one of which were followed here. Page 63 August 21, 2002 And Mr. Carter is correct, it is a difficult roof. This is not your everyday job; there's a lot of flashing work in it. But everywhere that that tile roof abuts any sort of a vertical surface, whether that's your skylight curves, inwalls or sidewalls in the roof, that felt on a mechanical system needs to be turned up the wall. And it's just a simple matter of folding it, turning it up the wall, and affixing it to the wall. Then your flashings have to be installed. Now, there were no flashings installed in these walls. 'And because the old ones weren't pulled out, obviously the felts weren't turned up the walls either. MR. CRAWFORD: So the real issue is flashings, like you said earlier. MR. DOLL: I think that's where the majority of the problems are arising from a lack of flashings. But flashings that are in the roof are directing all the water underneath the tiles. So you have these batten strips every 15, 16 inches nailed vertically across the roofings, the water goes under that tile at the walls or any penetration, and it's rolling down under the tiles against all these battens. Now, the battens have the nails in them as well as the tile, you know, nails. Underneath that single 30-pound felt you've got the old roof that's just punched full of holes because the original roof was nailed on. So as the water is slowly working its way downhill through all these fasteners it's coming in here, there, and everywhere. MR. CRAWFORD: I got it. MR. DICKSON: Can I add one thing, if you don't mind, since it's my trade. If you go through Collier County codes or you go through the new Florida Building Code or at the time when this job was done the Southern Building Code Congress, you will not find any specifications or codes for tile roofing. They do have them for wood, they do have them for metal, built up. But in all cases in all Page 64 August 21, 2002 three of those codes, including South Florida Building Code, it says per manufacturers specifications. So the manufacturers specifications are the codes that we are driven by. At the time this roof was put on, one-year Lifetile, the minimum underlayment that they would accept in their many, many underlayments that they approve, the minimum was a single layer of 43-pound base sheet; 30-pound felt, one layer, would not fly. Two layers of 30-pound layer would fly. MR. CARTER: Yes. MR. DICKSON: So there is an issue here of more than flashing. We also get into the nails and the ring shanks and the screws, and so it's not just a flashing issue. Do you agree, Phil? MR. DOLL: Bob. Yes. At one time they did have the single, but-- the tile manufacturers are in the business to sell tile. So they made enough spec's that a roofing can go out there, virtually use just about any underlayment he can come up with and he can match it into their spec's somewhere. But the actual technique of installing felt, they do spell out in their manual. MR. BARIL: Mr. Doll, when you have a roof that is abutting a vertical surface such as a gable wall or exterior wall, flashing is behind the stucco, isn't it? MR. DOLL: The existing flashing in that roof is behind the stucco. MR. BARIL: So when you do a reroof, most of the times the old flashing is reused. MR. DOLL: No, typically not. MR. BARIL: Typically you strip the stucco down to bare wood and attach the flashing down to the sheathing on the gables? MR. DOLL: We typically give the homeowners the option of either doing that, which of course drives the cost of the job up -- Page 65 August 21, 2002 MR. BARIL: And it is the proper way to do it to ensure that it's not going to be any leaks whatsoever. MR. DOLL: They can be done properly without that. You can do what they call surface mounting where you would put your base flashing against the stucco and then run a subber piece, a metal that's called a counterflashing. And that flashing is mechanically fastened or MR. BARIL: glued to the -- MR. DOLL: MR. MR. DOLL: MR. BARIL: MR. DOLL: MR. BARIL: That would be mechanically fastened. BARIL: -- to the stucco? Correct. So it would actually be double-flashed? Flashed and counterflashed. Counterflashed. MR. DOLL: Whereas the original scenario you were talking about your stucco would act as the counterflashing. If you apply flashing to the outside of the wall then you need a separate piece of metal to counterflash. MR. BARIL: Would there be any way to know if the existing flashing which is behind the stucco had been penetrated, maybe the guys putting the wire lath on had nailed down too low? MR. DOLL: It's entirely possible, I mean you see that. It's not unheard of. They try to keep the nails up. How old is the house; do you know? Do you MR. BARIL: have any idea? MR. DOLL: That's what I've heard. I really don't have knowledge of when it was built. MR. BARIL: And you said that the tile is not up to the deed restrictions for that community. Is the tile that would be acceptable Page 66 August 21, 2002 to that neighborhood, would that be an upgrade from the tile that was installed? MR. DOLL: Yes, the Capri tile that was installed is one of the most economical tiles you can buy, the flat tiles, unless you use just a plain gray cement tile. The flat tiles cost more. MR. BARIL: What would be the difference per square foot for that including installation? MR. DOLL: Well, the installation cost remains pretty constant. At the retail basis, you're probably at $40 a square. MR. BARIL: $40 a square on a 60-square roof?. MR. DOLL: On the cost of the tile alone, yeah. MR. BARIL: Plus markup? MR. DOLL: No, that's retail cost. MR. BARIL: That's retail, $40 a square? MR. DOLL: Somewhere in that neighborhood. MR. BARIL: Okay. MR. DOLL: See, with flat tile they only really make the very cheapest, which is natural gray cement, no coloring whatsoever. Everything else that's available in flat tiles is termed a premium product. MR. BARIL: MR. DOLL: Color through? Right. MR. DICKSON: Any other questions of Mr. Doll? MR. DUNNE: I have a question. Based on your knowledge of the homeowner's deed restrictions, does it have to be flat tile? MR. DOLL: It could be cedar shakes. MR. DUNNE: But not round? MR. DOLL: Yes, apparently they don't want any curves. No barrel tile no S-tile. Page 67 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Anybody else? Mr. Doll, on behalf of this Board and the County and the Commissioners, everyone, I just want to thank you for getting involved. It's a difficult situation, I've done it in the past myself, to testify against a fellow competitor, and I think you handled yourself remarkably well and professional and we appreciate you doing it. And at this time you are free to go. MR. DOLL: Thank you. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Anybody else have any other questions? MR. BARIL: I had some questions for staff. Was there an in- progress roofing inspection conducted? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, there was. MR. BARIL: Was there also a 107? I'm not sure on reroofing if you have a 107, which is a flashing inspection. MR. NONNENMACHER: No, we don't. It's just an in-progress and final roof and, again, the contractor is held liable to code. I don't know if they're going to change it, but the way our inspection system works now it's that two ride-by inspections where they see the men working, they stop, if it's a shingled roof, for example, they'll listen for the six nails going on; and then the one where no one is on the roof at all and they say, yes, the roof is done. And the obligation and responsibility is left on the roofing contractor for that roof to be installed as per code, which is manufacturers spec's. When we come across a case like this and we find out that through an inspection and it's not to code, we notify the contractor, tell them it's not to code it must be repaired, and if not we end up here. MR. CARTER: May I ask one thing? MR. DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. CARTER: I was signed off for an in-progress; right? Page 68 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. hearing. MR. DICKSON: Right. We have your permit card. CARTER: But it was approved for in-progress? DICKSON: Yes. CARTER: Just thought I would ask. DICKSON: Gentlemen, I need a motion to close the public MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. DUNNE: Motion to close the public hearing, Dunne. LLOYD: Second, Lloyd. DICKSON: All those in favor, aye. DUNNE: Aye. BARIL: Aye. CRAWFORD: Aye. DICKSON: Aye. JOSLIN: Aye. LLOYD: Aye. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: For your information, you people can stay here to listen to what we're going to say, you're welcome to. We're still on public record. Or you can go outside, but at this point all testimony is finished with, all comments are finished with, and it's between us. So you just basically, in a nutshell, are hearing our deliberations. MR. NEALE: The Board can still ask questions at this point. MR. DICKSON: Correct. Mr. Neale, do you want to say anything first? MR. NEALE: I've got my normal comments here. In reviewing this case, this Board shall ascertain its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process have been afforded to the Respondent. However, pursuant to section 22-202 G5 of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Ordinance, the formal rules of evidence that's Page 69 August 21, 2002 set out in Florida statutes shall not apply. The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial, and cumulative testimony. It shall consider all other testimony of a type commonly relied on by a reasonably prudent person in their affairs. This is not admissible in the Court or law or equity. Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement other evidence in a case such as this. However, hearsay by itself is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil court. The standard approved in this type of case wherein the respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing matter. This burden of proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the preponderance and the evidence standards set for civil cases. The standards established for sanctions other than those affecting the license is that of a preponderance of the evidence, however. The standards of evidence are to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90-105 as amended sections 4.1.5 and 4.1.10. These are not yet codified based on new evidence that was adopted 8/14/2002. The full text of the charges are under 4.1.10, Count One, failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty terms installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract, and, Count Two, under Section 4.1.5, departing from or disregarding any material with respect to the plans or specifications of a construction job without the consent of the owner or his duly authorized representative. In order to support a finding that the Respondent is in violation of the ordinance, the Board must find facts that show the violations Page 70 August 21, 2002 were actually committed by the Respondent. The facts must also show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the Respondent was in violation of the relevant sections in Ordinance 90- 105 as amended. The charges as set out are the only ones the Board may decide upon as those are the only ones the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective by being read by the Board. The Respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this Board, the Courts, and the State. The State Construction Licensing Board is set out in the Collier County ordinance and in Florida Statutes and Rules. If the Board is unable to reach a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the Board may withhold its decision until a subsequent hearing. The Board shall then vote based upon the evidence presented and on all areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the administrative complaint. The Board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the charges set out in the administrative complaint. The Board, at the same time it is voting upon these, shall consider and order sanctions under the following parameters as set out in 90.105 as amended. In determining sanctions, the Board shall consider the gravity of the violation, the impact of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator, and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction as appropriate for the case, given the nature of the offense. And that is all we have right now. However, I will go over briefly what the potential sanctions are under the ordinance, and there are ten different possible sanctions that the Board can impose. The Page 71 August 21, 2002 first one is revocation of the Respondent's certificate of competency, second is suspension of the certificate of competency, third is denial of issuance or renewal of the certificate of competency, fourth is a probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years during which the contractors licensing -- contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the Contracting Licensing Board, and/or may require participation in a duly accredited program of continuing education. Probation, if imposed, may be revoked but for cause by the Board at a hearing noticed to consider said purpose. Restitution may be imposed. A fine not to exceed $5,000 may be imposed, a public reprimand may be issued, the Board may require re-examination, the Board may deny the issuance of permits or deny issuance of permits with conditions, and may charge legal and investigative costs. The Board must also issue a recommended penalty for the State Construction Licensing Board. Those recommendations may include no further action, a recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the regular station, or a fine to be levied by the State Contractors Licensing Board. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Neale. anything? MR. ZACHARY: MR. DICKSON: Mr. Zachary, Nothing further. Let me give you my take, since talking to you Board members, since I'm the roofing contractor. The roof is a disgrace, in a nutshell. I don't think I have to tell you that. It does break just about every code that we're required to have. And the pictures show that. At the same time, in Mr. Carter's defense, he's trying to defend a dead horse because he was sick and he had no control over this job. Mr. Carter knows this is a terrible roof. It doesn't meet the underlayment requirements, it doesn't meet flashing requirements, it Page 72 August 21, 2002 doesn't meet fastening requirements, vents, skylights are all wrong; everything on this roof is wrong, valleys are wrong. Even defended it to the point there's no room for defense because the back of the house is full of skylights, well, there's three of them on the back, but anyway. At the same time what's going on in Oakmont right now is a lot of those roofs in Pelican Bay are having to be replaced; they're cut up gables. Most of them are 8/12 pitches, and a lot of people are stuck with it. There's a lot of roofing contractors in there, including my company. I have never been to this couple and I have never looked at this roof before, but I know they got other bids. So they latched on to low bid. They're also in a jam because I thought everyone in that addition was aware that these small barrel tiles are not acceptable, but apparently we have a couple that isn't. But the roof is not salvageable. It has to be torn off. It has to be torn off all the way to the deck, and Mr. Carter knows that it's not salvageable. It is 30- pound felt and that doesn't meet codes. My recommendation when we get to that point is as soon as the tile roof can be done is eight to ten weeks because it takes that long to get the tile. So nothing is going to happen in a week, so I don't agree with restitution in a seven-day period. Also, the fact the homeowners are faced with a real problem. If this wasn't a bad roof they would be tearing it off and replacing it at their own cost anyway, because it doesn't meet codes and in there they will file a lawsuit against you. So as far as punitive for interior and all of that, I think they're probably fortunate it was a bad roof. That's my take on the case. Now, your discussion. MR. BARIL: I would like to make a comment that the workers fell through the roof; we heard testimony on that. There had to be Page 73 August 21, 2002 some significant problems with this roof. The house is not old enough to have that substantial damage in that amount of time. The other quotes had to come in higher, and like you say, they latched on to the low bid. But it is a complete breach of contract to remove the tile to bare wood, which is the proper method here, was obviously not done. And as a remodeling contractor, I reroof quite extensively and whenever you put 30-pound over the 90-pound and even with the 90 pound on top of that, I've tore off many, many roofs with that system, and it's not the preferred method. What the preferred method was what was contracted, which is removing to bare wood. And I feel like the owners have been -- have a contract issue here where they should have had their roof tile removed and the underlayment removed and all of the wood replaced and all of the flashings replaced, except for where the flashing meets the gable walls. I don't see anything in here where you were required to chip stucco out. We do it all the time because I won't stand behind a roof that isn't my flashings. I don't know what was leaking and where it was leaking from. But there should be some relief, I think, but staffs recommendation is excessive and the fact that the roof tile was much more inexpensive than what would be permissible in that subdivision. MR. CARTER: That's not true. MR. BARIL: And I do feel that we should find Mr. Carter liable here, but not to the extent recommended. MR. DICKSON: Anybody else? MR. JOSLIN: I have to agree with you, and agree with Mr. Dickson. This is a clear contract breach for sure. I mean, everything on here has not been done. I haven't found anything in this packet yet that says that anything there that you contracted to do -- MR. CARTER: I can't hear, sir. Page 74 August 21, 2002 MR. JOSLIN: Was taken care of. As I said, I have found nothing in this packet that wants me to believe that anything that you've contracted with these homeowners to do was done. None of the pictures show it, none of the testimony shows it, some of the evidence that was brought in here clearly shows it. MR. CARTER: They've got a new roof. MR. DICKSON: No addressing. MR. JOSLIN: I hate to be the bearer of bad news and start the ball rolling with what's going to happen in this case, I'm sure. MR. CRAWFORD: Are we in agreement then? It sounds like we're headed towards the restitution of something closer to $20,000 as opposed to the newer bids of 23, 40, 50. That's kind of where my head is. And I've always used the phrase that you kind of get what you pay for in this business, and sometimes you buy the low bid, it's not always the best bid. And again we're talking amongst ourselves here. MR. DICKSON: Well, see what's happening right here in Oakmont is every one of these houses are steep and they have flashing problems all over the place, and all of these Oakmont places are getting three and four bids and there's a $20,000 spread because some people -- please stay out of this. MR. CARTER: I didn't say nothing; he did. MR. DICKSON: There's a $20,000 spread, whether or not you got other bids or not, but I'm seeing this on a regular basis. People are coming back to us and saying so and so is $15,000 cheaper than yOU. MR. JOSLIN: Is this something normal in Oakmont that's going on? I mean, we're talking a 10- or 12-year-old roof has this much severe water damage. Page 75 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: Well, there were some contractors in there that were using Duntex (phonetic) tiles on an 8/12 pitch, that can't even be mudded much less nailed, and they were nailed and you can stand in the street and see the heads of the nails. And they've been that way since the house was built. Never should have been approved, never should have gotten done, but it's just a bad addition for roofing in that development. MR. LLOYD: I'm coming at it from the consumer; I'm the consumer rep. And as my concern as a consumer I would rely on the professionalism of the people offering the bids and, sure, I would love to go with a low bid, but I also would assume that the job would be done professionally at that price, not knowing whether it could be or not, I'm just assuming that. MR. CRAWFORD: I would agree in a perfect world that's the way it should be, unfortunately that's not the way it works. MR. LLOYD: And the dilemma you run into is you're gambling with a low bid. But I don't know that we should -- My opinion is I don't want to give just $20,000. I think there needs to be some allowance because they're going to have to absorb the difference over and above the 20 to get the roof done. MR. CRAWFORD: That's a good point. My only point is if they would have hired another qualified roofer at the beginning they would have paid the additional amount, they wouldn't have had the aggravation and maybe there's some punitive issues but -- MR. LLOYD: But I wouldn't know that. I wouldn't know that he wasn't a good qualified roofer at 20 grand; that's my feeling. And if I'm getting what I believe is a qualified certified roofer at 20, why should he go to 40 if the job -- and this is from a consumer perspective, this is where I have a concern that we're going to say 20 Page 76 August 21, 2002 grand, and then the roof actually is going to cost 40 to redo; that means they're going to pay another 20. MR. DICKSON: They would have paid the extra 20 anyway. MR. LLOYD: Not if the roof was done correctly. MR. BARIL: No, if they chose that tile they would have to pay to have that roof tile replaced, . if this is -- MR. CRAWFORD: That's another issue. MR. LLOYD: Would they have known that tile is not allowed? MR. BARIL: It's not the roofers responsibility. The deed restrictions are set forth in a community and those are in place. That's like a grievance of the law. MR. LLOYD: Who should have known those tiles were unacceptable in the community? The homeowner or the contractor? MR. DICKSON: Most of the homeowners -- I'm going to say over half of the homeowners -- do not know or have ever read their deed restrictions, and it's only found out by a mistake. But in our trade we know that. MR. LLOYD: Would the roofer have known that prior to putting those barrel tiles on it? MR. DICKSON: I'm aware of it because of having been involved in there in the beginning. That doesn't mean that everyone would be aware of it, though. MR. LLOYD: Okay. MR. CRAWFORD: But I think-- MR. LLOYD: I'm just asking. We're just having a dialogue here. MR. CRAWFORD: I think that's a nonissue here, the type of tile. MR. LLOYD: Well, it's not acceptable in the community, so therefore you have to pull it off. Page 77 August 21, 2002 MR. CRAWFORD: True, but our take is that it's coming off because it's a bad roof, not because it was the wrong tile. MR. LLOYD: Okay. MR. DICKSON: We cannot get -- MR. NEALE: You're evaluating only the charges that were made and whether he knew or did not know the deed restrictions; that really wasn't the thing of issue. MR. DICKSON: I have a problem with the first charge, and it doesn't matter, we just need one. He did attempt to go out and make repairs, whether they were successful, whether they were timely, is a question. But I do have photographs that attempts were made, so why beat a dead horse when basically we're looking at the second charge which is 4.1.5 which is departing from or disregarding material with respect to the plan specifications of the job? And I think that's more in line with where we are is not putting it on to code. MR. LLOYD: Correct. MR. DICKSON: Are there anymore discussion, gentlemen? I've got to be careful if we ever get a woman back on this Board. MR. DUNNE: I would offer a couple of comments. I agree with much of what's been said, and I think it's the homeowner's -- it's when I go buy land it's my own responsibility to read the deed restrictions. It's not anybody else but mine; the person that buys the property. A roofer, a good roofer, who does work in that area is going to know and he's going to say, hey, by the way, they won't take this tile. Whether or not that happened is irrelevant. It's obvious that poor workmanship is the driving factor behind this roof. That's unacceptable. MR. DICKSON: Gentlemen, I need a motion on the charges. Page 78 August 21, 2002 MR. LLOYD: I make a motion we find Mr. Carter in violation of the charges as stated, violation 4.1.5, and the conversation should be discussed-- MR. DICKSON: Let's just do the charge right now. -- sorry, in violation of that. And at the same time adopt the administrative MR. LLOYD: MR. NEALE: complaint. MR. LLOYD: MR. NEALE: complaint. MR. LLOYD: Pardon? At the same time adopt the administrative Correct. I'm sorry. MR. DICKSON: Do I have a second? MR. JOSLIN: Second. MR. DICKSON: Okay. guilty of the charge of 1.4.5. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. The motion is that Mr. Carter be found All those in favor? MR. DICKSON: Opposed? Let me read this, please. Contractor Licensing Board, Collier County, Florida, Board of Collier County Commissioners, Collier County Florida is the Petitioner versus David James Carter, d/b/a Dave Carter Roofing -- excuse me for my departure right here but Mr. Nonnenmacher and Mr. Bortoe, his proposals say d/b/a AAA Roofing; there is no such license for that. MR. BORTOE: That is correct. Page 79 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: In the future, if you would advise him that that is against licensing code. MR. BORTOE: He has been advised in the past and possibly cited by Mr. Esorio. I'd have to check. MR. DICKSON: Okay. Versus David James Carter, d/b/a Dave Carter Roofing, d/b/a, for purposing of this case only, AAA Roofing, Case Number 200-05 license number 10274, RG 0059111. The administrative complaint Contractors' Licensing Board of Collier County, Florida, herein referred to as the Board files this administrative complaint against David James Carter. The order, the cause came on August 21 st for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against David James Carter. Service of the complaint was made by certified mail in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105 as amended. The Board having heard testimony under oath received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, thereupon issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the Board as follows: Findings of fact, number one, that David James Carter is the holder of record of certificate of competency number 10274 and RG0059111. Number two, that the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant in this matter. Number three, that the Board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent, and that David James Carter was present at the public hearings and was not represented by counsel. Number four, all notices required by Collier County Ordinance Number 90-105 as amended have been properly issued. Number five, the allegations of fact as set fort in the administrative complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein by reference as findings of fact. Page 80 August 21, 2002 Conclusions of law: The conclusion of law alleged and set forth in the administrative complaint are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein. I need to go on. Order of the Board: Based upon foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law in pursuance to the authority granted in Chapter 49 Florida Statutes in Collier County Ordinance Number 90-105 as amended, by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed-- I did get into the disciplinary actions -- the thing I'm questioning here, Mr. Neale, is they took out the specific charge that we spelled out that he was found guilty of. Did you notice that? MR. NEALE: Well, the way to amend that is in your findings of fact on your paragraph five adopts -- it's setting out that the allegations of fact as set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count Two are approved, and then in your conclusions of law, the conclusion of law alleged and set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count Two are approved, adopted, and incorporated herein. MR. DICKSON: Okay. Let me go back. MR. NEALE: And then when you get to this, you're at this point they're just saying by a vote of seven in favor and none opposed have found-- MR. DICKSON: Yeah, we didn't get to disciplinary. MR. NEALE: Yeah, you have found him in violation. MR. DICKSON: Yeah, we did find him in violation as a vote of seven in favor-- or six in favor-- seven we are, and zero opposed. We did find him in violation of Ordinance Number 4.1.5 departing from -- or disregarding in any material with respect to the plans or specifications of a construction job without the consent of the owner as a fully authorized representative. Page 81 August 21, 2002 Gentlemen, we have found him guilty of that charge, now what is sanctions and disciplinary actions? MR. LLOYD: I'm going -- we were just discussing this, I assume, initially. The $20,000 is obviously bottom line for me. To me it has to be $20,000 or above to the homeowners. Eight to ten weeks to put on the new roof, that's two months. MR. DICKSON: It takes that long, the tile -- nothing is sitting there ready to pick up. MR. CRAWFORD: But the issue for us is if he makes restitution, 60 days is probably right. MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. CRAWFORD: And then the other issue is damage to the interior. MR. LLOYD: Right. And cost to the -- back to the consumer record, homeowners for the -- they've made poor judgment. They don't have to suffer the whole $20,000. My recommendation is that it be closer to $30,000, and two months for restitution. MR. JOSLIN: I disagree with that. I think that's excessive. MR. LLOYD: That's why we're talking. MR. CRAWFORD: But Mr. Dickson, you said the interior work should not be compensated for. What was your thinking? MR. DICKSON: Well, there was already some interior work, admittedly. I did hear testimony they've had painters in there. They did not pay -- see, everything in part of one of these proposals also, the reason you take it down to the wood is because there's obviously rotten wood. I mean, his people fell through the roof. Well, that's never included in a proposal. That's always included in a hidden -- what we call a hidden damage clause, and it's so much per man, plus materials, plus overhead for markup and labor. Page 82 August 21, 2002 So the only extra cost they've really incurred is that the painter already did some painting and now they've got spots back in those areas and maybe some new ones. I do go back to the fact that if they had -- if this had been a perfect roof with perfect underlaying and they had to tear this tile off and go back with a flat tile to meet the spec's of the development, and that's all they would have had to do is just take the tile off, they could have kept the underlayments and the backspacing would all be the same. They would be looking at probably about a $12 to $15,000 additional cost. So that's also where we're getting to the 30 now. Capri tile, slurry-coated, which is what they got, it's not a color through, is the least expensive tile on the market next to a natural coloring. So do they have additional coming? No, that's what they should have spent to start with; not to get a correct roof but to get the correct tile. Okay? MR. JOSLIN: I think probably somewhere in the (inaudible). COURT REPORTER: Sorry. I can't hear you. MR. JOSLIN: I'm just kicking around a number here of, like, $1500 for damages inside the house, the painting that had to be done, or a little bit of-- MR. CRAWFORD: That number is probably not too far off. I'm just uncomfortable kicking around numbers for the sake of this Board. I would like to see this couple get their money back and then start the process over. And to me that's $20,000 in 60 days and hire a new roofer. MR. JOSLIN: Gives them their money back and it's their problem. MR. DICKSON: And now they don't have a crisis on their hands for a good roof with the wrong tile. MR. JOSLIN: Right. Page 83 August 21, 2002 MR. LLOYD: I can see that. At this point in time they can make a good decision about which contractor to hire. MR. DUNNE: I think that there has to be some payment made for damage to the people's property; the workers falling through the roof. MR. CARTER: Can I say something? I mean-- the foot fell through the roof. MR. DICKSON: I can imagine that. MR. DUNNE: Irrespective of that, given the fact that -- I mean, this home -- does your house have gable ceilings? MR. SMOLUCHA: Yes, it does. MR. DUNNE: So nobody could go up into the attic to look at the wood, the sheathing of the roof, and see if there's damages. MR. SMOLUCHA: In some of the areas. MR. DUNNE: So the fact there were no flashing in certain areas that I saw on this, the fact that the original roof seems to have been in question in addition to others in the development, according to our roofing contractor chairman, nonetheless I still think that these people entered into a contract with a licensed contractor, contractor did not fulfill the terms of his contract, did poor workmanship, given all the rain that we're having recently, that there has to be some -- and I agree with Mr. Crawford, we have to quantify. We can't just say $5,000. We have to quantify how much you spent repairing your house due to the leaks from his roof. That's it, not the leaks on the original roof that he had nothing to do with, but there has to be a hard number. MS. SMOLUCHA: How do we determine that? I mean, we don't know what leaks were under the old roof because it was never brought down to the bare wood. So when we do finally get it to the Page 84 August 21, 2002 bare wood and we do have damage to wood, how do we know it's from the old roof or from the new roof?. MR. SMOLUCHA: And, furthermore, there is one piece that was repaired that has subsequently totally rotted through now. MR. DUNNE: And I agree, and you should be compensated for that. MR. SMOLUCHA: So if that's the sake for a brand new piece of wood, then I would say the old wood that was possibly knocked down, the other thing just to point out I know we're not supposed to talk but we spent more than $20,000. MR. DUNNE: I was asking a question and you answered the question. So if you can't give us a hard number -- MR. DICKSON: We have to do it right now. We can't have something in the future. It's got to be settled now. MR. CARTER: Four sheets of plywood is 12 bucks. MR. NEALE: From my information the County had an opportunity to put on the case specifying damages and prove up those damages, and they didn't take that opportunity. MR. DICKSON: Thank you. MR. DUNNE: I guess that answers that question. MR. BARIL: Also during the reroofing process they're bound to have water damage and intrusions during the course of the roof replacement. It's a fact of life when you're reroofing and you're going to have some water leaks and you're going to have some water damage. They're going to have costs for that regardless. MR. DICKSON: Yeah, and I still go back, Mr. Carter could not have survived in this County if he did work like this for the last 20 years. The man was sick, some people did the job. It's a terrible job, and he knows it is. Page 85 August21,2002 But at the same time these people are getting saved, too, because now they can get a tile on there that will meet the ordinances or the covenants of the deed restrictions, so I don't look to penalize him any more than the $20,000. That's where I'm at. They don't want him back, give him time to pay him off, go find another roof, start over. MR. SMOLUCHA: We have a letter from the community saying we have the tile that we have today; they gave us an exception. MS. SMOLUCHA: They only said if more than 50 percent of the tile has to be replaced, since we're recommending the whole roof needs to be redone, that's where the flat tile is coming in. If this roof could be repaired we could be allowed to keep the tile that we have. MR. NEALE: Gentlemen, if I may, the public hearing is closed quite a while ago, all this information had -- MR. DICKSON: Let's close it now. MR. NEALE: -- the evidence at this point. MR. DUNNE: For the record, for the Board I would still like to see some compensation made for the homeowner to bring us the time and energy to bring this in front of us. You're basically sending them back to square one and yet, what, two years have elapsed since this first started. MR. DICKSON: Someone give me a motion. Let's see where we go. MR. LLOYD: Again, it comes down to what Mr. Crawford-- he's looking for a hard number, and I don't know what's appropriate. I think it should be more than $20,000 and I don't have a fixed figure. I'll make one and see how it goes. MR. CRAWFORD: I think if you're trying to pick a number for the interior work, I think $1500 is as close as we can get. MR. LLOYD: I'm not singularly looking at -- Page 86 August 21, 2002 MR. CRAWFORD: We're talking about some ceiling drywall, some paint. I think $1500 is as close as we can get. MR. LLOYD: I'm looking at more time and energy to have someone photograph the roof, go up and investigate, bring out the County, be here. MR. CRAWFORD: And that's a whole 'nother separate issue. I don't agree they should be compensated for that. MR. LLOYD: No, that was my fault. MR. DICKSON: You're the consumer. MR. LLOYD: Right. MR. DICKSON: That's why you're here. MR. LLOYD: I think it has to be -- I say it has to be more than $20,000. I don't have a figure and I apologize to the homeowners. If I was doing it I would probably say $30,000 and apparently that's not bearable, but I make a proposal that within eight to ten weeks they receive $25,000 from Mr. Carter, and that they then move forward, and that his license not be revoked unless he does not in the eight to ten weeks compensate them accordingly. MR. NEALE: We do need either eight or ten. MR. DUNNE: 60 days. MR. DICKSON: I got a motion on the floor. Do I have a second? For lack of a section, I need another motion. MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we hold Mr. Carter in contempt of this order and also to find him $21,500. $20,000 of which would be the repayment back to the homeowner for the damages of contract and the other $1500 for the minor damages in the home. MR. NEALE: Just as a point. It cannot be in the form of a fine, his maximum fine is $5,000. MR. JOSLIN: Restitution. Page 87 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. DICKSON: Payable within what period of time? CARTER: How about 90 days? JOSLIN: Since it takes four to six weeks to get the tiles. DICKSON: Eight to ten. MR. JOSLIN: Eight to ten. I'm going to go ahead and interject the 90-day period of time. The 90-day period does not happen, then your license will be revoked. MR. DICKSON: Do I have a second? I'll second it. Do I have discussion? MR. CRAWFORD: I still like the 60 days, so I'm going to vote no just to try to get it back to 60 days because I see what is happening, they're going to go hire a new tile contractor, they're going to put down some kind of a deposit, and some money is going to be due for them over the next 60 days. And I would say ahead of- - 90 days is too long for me. MR. DICKSON: I do have a motion. MR. GUITE: The only thing I'm concerned about is if he's not feeling well and he's going through his treatments and everything, is somebody going to be overseeing the work that he's doing in the future? MR. DICKSON: Well, I can't go there. You're talking about in the -- MR. GUITE: MR. LLOYD: MR. GUITE: MR. NEALE: You know as far as if we can have -- He's not going to be doing the new roof. No, not on this particular job, on other jobs. To follow up what the Board member is saying, the Board does have the ability to require that he operate under the terms of probation for a period of time and his work is to be Page 88 August 21, 2002 supervised by the Contractor Licensing Board. That is an option, and these options are not exclusive, you can take all or none. MR. JOSLIN: I should amend the motion. MR. CARTER: Can I just say that I'm not doing any big work. MR. JOSLIN: Motion to 60 days that he pay this money. MR. DICKSON: Okay. I'm going to argue that. We're going to get out of here eventually, but I'm sitting here looking at a man that's not working, he's going through health problems, he's admitted he's doing a good job. I'd rather have the money in 90 days and not have it at all. MR. NEALE: If I can just as a parliamentary procedural matter, you have a motion, a second, you have the movant proposing a second which either has to be accepted or nonaccepted by the seconder. If the seconder does not accept it, then it reverts back to the original motion. MR. DICKSON: Is that part of law school; I reject the second? So it goes back to the original motion. The original motion is $21,500 payable within 90 days. If, in fact, that money is not paid within 90 days the license will be revoked. I now call for a vote on this motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. Two. Is that it? All those in favor signify by saying no. MR. NEALE: All opposed. You already called ayes. MR. DICKSON: Okay. All those opposed? MR. DUNNE: Opposed. MR. BARIL: Opposed. MR. CRAWFORD: Opposed. MR. LLOYD: Opposed. MR. GUITE: Opposed. Page 89 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. MR. DICKSON: Five of you. Motion failed. LLOYD: Now let's do the second one. DICKSON: Now I need another motion. BARIL: Do I have time for a question? DICKSON: Sure. BARIL: The question is in the event that no restitution is paid, Mr. Carter's license is revoked, do the Smolucha's still have the ability to proceed against him civilly? MR. NEALE: Nothing this Board does precludes any of their rights under civil lawsuit. All this Board is doing is acting on his license and restitution of his license. They still have every option in the world to go after him in the civil basis. MR. DICKSON: Your motion. MR. LLOYD: My motion is that we -- MR. NEALE: Excuse me, just clarifying that. And the County does have the ability to pursue the contractor on restitution because it's an amount owing to the County through a County order. And so therefore the County has an option to pursue him. MR. BARIL: So the sheriff has a sale or something. MR. NEALE: They can go through the legal process to enforce it. MR. CARTER: I can't do it in 60 days. I can't. MR. NEALE: Sorry, Mr. Lloyd, I just wanted to clarify that. MR. LLOYD: I'm trying to think how I'm going to phrase it. That we find Mr. Carter -- we require Mr. Carter to pay $21,500 within 60 days and during that 60-day period that his license be on probation, and if at the end of 60 days he does not provide that total amount to the homeowners that his license be revoked. MR. DICKSON: Do I have a second? Is that not where we were? Page 90 August 21, 2002 MR. LLOYD: Is that not where we were? MR. CRAWFORD: I'll second it. We can go to discussion. The probation is what threw me off. What does probation mean during 60 days? MR. LLOYD: Just that his work -- if he's doing a job to earn the $21,500 that he be monitored by the office so that we don't get him back in front of us again. I'm concerned about the quality of work since his people will be doing the work and he will probably be supervising. MR. DICKSON: I have a motion, I have a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. MR. DUNNE: Aye. MR. BARIL: Aye. MR. CRAWFORD: Aye. MR. LLOYD: Aye. MR. GUITE: Aye. MR. DICKSON: All opposed? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. DICKSON: Aye. Vote is five to two; it does pass. Therefore -- MR. CARTER: You can write me off. I can't. MR. DICKSON: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law as pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 49 Florida Statutes of Collier County Ordinance Number 90-105 as amended by a vote of five in favor and two opposed, it is hereby ordered that the following disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of contractor certificate of competency number 10274 and RG 0059111, that within 60 days he pay restitution in the amount of $21,500, during that time his work Page 91 August 21, 2002 me out of MR. hope you MS. time. shall be -- his license shall be under probation, at which time if the $21,500 is not paid, then his license will be revoked. MR. CARTER: Can I have a question? Not about that, about something else. MR. DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. CARTER: The licensing board comes up for renewal September 30th. That's going to fall within this time period. MR. DICKSON: Yeah, there's no reason you can't renew. MR. CARTER: Well, that's, like, five grand, you know, insurance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera to renew your roofing license. I think my roofing days will be over September 30th. You guys just didn't give me another 30 days; I would have worked that out. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Carter, I wish you the best. MR. CARTER: Well, if cancer don't kill me, this is just taking my lifetime profession. DICKSON: I'm sorry that you-all had the difficulty and I can go on down the road. SMOLUCHA: I just hope we pick a better one the second MR. SMOLUCHA: Yeah, just one thing to let you know, we didn't look at a second quote. MS. SMOLUCHA: That was the only bid we got. MR. SMOLUCHA: And we took it on a recommendation from our housewatcher. And Mr. Carter did the sheaving work, and he took before or after pictures and the pictures seemed to be fine. So we went on his quote. We didn't get any quotes from anybody else. I pulled out the yellow pages and I looked at his ad in the newspaper and I saw he had a big ad and it said in business for 30 years so I said he's in Collier County, he's going to be around. MR. DICKSON: Best of luck to you. Page 92 August 21, 2002 MS. SMOLUCHA: So that's why we went with him. MR. DICKSON: Thank you all very much. MR. NONNENMACHER: If I may, on Section 4.1.10 was that disposed of?. MR. DICKSON: That was disposed of. MR. NONNENMACHER: And that was dismissed? MR. DICKSON: That was dismissed. No more public hearings. Any reports? MR. BORTOE: No, sir. MR. NEALE: Excuse me, there is someone who would like to speak to the Board on an issue that the Board has talked about. MR. DICKSON: Is this the marine contractor? MR. NEALE: This is the marine contractor issue. MR. DICKSON: Which they got a stay. MR. NEALE: This is a gentleman who would like to speak. MR. DICKSON: You sat here all morning for this. MR. NEALE: He sat here the whole time. MR. WISHAR: My name is Blake Wishar with Marco Dock and Lift and at your last meeting I spoke in favor of the USLNH nation insurance because we are one of the contractors in the County that do have it. 'I understand that the County Attorney's Office has been doing some additional research and the issue will come back before the County Commissioners. I would ask if Mr. Zachary, I understand has done some research in talking to Bill Mumford, is there anything to add in reference to the USLNH? Are you prepared to offer any comments on it? MR. ZACHARY: No, I don't think it was the forum to discuss it and I wasn't prepared so I'm not going to get into any. MR. CRAWFORD: Out of curiosity, were you at the commissioners meeting when they decided that? Page 93 August 21, 2002 MR. WISHAR: No. MR. CRAWFORD: Because your words here were pretty impressive. MR. WISHAR: No, we were not informed that it was going to be brought before the Board. I'm not sure how and under what circumstances that took place. We understand there are a couple of private meetings with two commissioners and some things were arranged to bring that before the Board of Commissioners the following day. So it caught those of us who are operating within the current code and complying with being fully insured, caught us by surprise. MR. CRAWFORD: Again, I think that's a commissioner's issue. MR. DICKSON: Yeah, I wish I recognized you earlier because what I was aware that the County Commission -- they only stayed it; correct? MR. WISHAR: They have only stayed it, but they have not provided some time frame in which to relook at it, reconsider it, bring it back up. In effect, they have done nothing about it, other than to make sure that the taxpayers of this County are not being properly protected by allowing companies without USLNH to continue operating. MR. CRAWFORD: My advice to you is to take a right out the door here and talk to the Commissioners their doors are usually open and you can express your concerns. MR. WISHAR: Through our attorney we have requested meetings, so far that's been denied. MR. DICKSON: Then you need to go directly to the chairman, Mr. Coletta. MR. WISHAR: That's who we've asked for the meeting with. Page 94 August 21, 2002 MR. DICKSON: You need to because he's never denied a meeting with anyone I've ever known. He's the most accessible individual I have ever known. MR. WISHAR: I don't have knowledge he's denied the meeting; I just know he's never called my attorney back to schedule the meeting and that was about a week ago. MR. DICKSON: I apologize you sat here for three hours, but this is not a policy-making board. MR. WISHAR: We understand that. MR. DICKSON: We make no policy. And something of what you're talking about we have nothing to say about. We can't endorse you, we can't make a recommendation. We serve at the convenience of the commissioners and we do what they tell us to do. So it is definitely in their ball court and not ours. MR. WISHAR: We will definitely be back before the commission at their next meeting and hopefully have the opportunity to sit down with a number of commissioners before that to express our concerns. MR. JOSLIN: What is the concern? What is the actual concern of why you're here? MR. WISHAR: Why I'm here at this Board this morning? MR. JOSLIN: Just to put it in a nutshell. MR. WISHAR: At the last board meeting there were, we found out at the last minute, the night before, that a number of contractors without USLNH's were going to come before you and make some comments. We showed up to make sure this Board understands that there are people operating legally and being fully insured. I came here this morning to, I guess, make sure there weren't going to be some additional people here, we weren't going to be something that Page 95 August 21, 2002 was blind-sided by this here, we were blind-sided by the commission. We will not be blind-sided again. MR. BARIL: Chairman, also, if I may, in rereading the minutes in preparing for today's meetings, one of the points Mr. Wishar brought up is the subcontractors, the dock contractors who assign applications are committing insurance fraud, so it is fraud that we're talking about here. It is very serious. MR. NONNENMACHER: I would like to bring up a point, too, this doesn't only affect dockworkers. If you read the law it affects you, too, if you're going to go out and work on applicable waterways. You as a general contractor, it affects the electricians that are going to put the electricity on the dock, they have to have the insurance once they step there. The plumbers that go out there and add water to the dock, the roofer that puts the roof on the boat house, the general contractor that builds the boat house, there's not many trades there - if they want tile bar and Mr. Guite goes out on that dock he has to have that insurance. And I think the County Attorney right at this point is doing a thorough investigation and is going to be able to report back exactly what the ramifications are, what the laws are. We're getting different -- I know I am -- I'm not speaking for the County Attorney's Office now, but I'm getting different answers to the same questions from different agencies, whether it wasn't really intended to mean the guy was going to put in a residential dock and the next guy says it most certainly does. Read the law. It says anybody that works on a navigable waterway must have this insurance. So it's not a simple clear-cut thing at this point, and I don't know when the commissioners will decide on it. I'm sure they're going to want a firm legal answer on it. Page 96 August 21, 2002 MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, that's why I don't want to comment off the cuff today. Our office is working on this issue with attorneys primarily for this gentleman's firm; is it Mr. Perry? MR. WISHAR: Yes. MR. ZACHARY: And we'll come to a resolution. I'm not going to say anything premature. MR. DICKSON: Thank you for coming. Gentlemen, I have a couple of quick memos and letter to read to you. One, this is from Jim Coletta, Chairman of Collier County Commissioners. It's to Mr. Nonnenmacher and Mr. -- I'll get to her. MR. NEALE: Yeah, there's somebody here. MR. DICKSON: Okay. I'm doing something else first. I recently received a very appreciative letter from Mrs. Maria Odenstine (phonetic) regarding her satisfaction with the way her case was handled by both of you. Your professionalism resulted in her satisfaction, clear that you not only met but exceeded her expectations speaking. To both gentlemen, I commend you for this and am sending a copy of this letter, her letter, and my response to the Human Resource Department, so they can share in your good news. Thank you for taking good care of my constituents, and this says, with Collier County as a whole it's indeed gratifying to know that you are representing the County in such a professional manner, and please continue to exceed the customers expectations. As many times as you guys have gotten knocked in here, I will definitely want that in the record and read. Thank you very much. MR. NONNENMACHER: That might have looked like us, but it wasn't us. MR. DICKSON: Okay. And then there's a letter also from Mr. Coletta, the Chairman, to this Board, "I recently received correspondence from the same lady wherein she shared her recent Page 97 August 21, 2002 experience before the Contractor Compliance Board with me. She was very appreciative and extremely impressed with the professionalism and conviction of you and all the members of the Contractor Compliance Board during her hearing. I am enclosing a copy of her letter for your review" -- which I do have with me if any of you would like to read -- "please accept my appreciation. I'll pass my comments to all the Board members for a job well done and thank them on behalf of all of us for their hard work and valuable time spent on the Board. Sincerely, Jim Coletta, Chairman." I've been on this Board for 12 years, Mr. Coletta; that's the first letter this Board has gotten and we thank you very much. MR. NEALE: I've been here six years and it's the first time this Board has ever got a pat on the back and they have deserved it lot of times. MR. DICKSON: 12 years and we appreciate Mr. Coletta. And when I say he is very accessible, he is very accessible to anybody that wants to meet with him. We have something else. MR. FLORES: Good afternoon. Sorry I'm taking your time. My wife yesterday tried to get an application to come in front of the Board. And we have an urgency because we got a safety issue. And she was told that the docket was full. I know that you guys meet once a month, but I see an urgency in our case, as a safety issue. I got two neighbors. I got a dormer on my house that is actually loose, and we have winds and we have rain. And it is a safety issue. I got an engineer report issued back in July the 10th, and I haven't heard nothing from him and I'm still waiting. MR. DICKSON: That's something that we can't do. But at the same time, I'm not aware of any one at the County that wouldn't get involved with a safety issue. I would suggest at this point you either Page 98 August 21, 2002 go back to Bob Nonnenmacher, you go to Ed Perrico, or you go to Mr. Jerry Ballard. Are you familiar with all those names? MR. FLORES: I have done that already. I went to Jerry Ballard on the 12th, and I did present the same concerns to both of them at that time. MR. DICKSON: Okay. I understand, but at the same time understand that they don't work for us, this Board, so I have no control over these people. But I do know all three of them and I have known them for a long, long time, so you got to stay within the parameters of those three. MR. FLORES: But yesterday, again, my wife tried to apply and she was-- MR. DICKSON: That's not something this Board would hear. MR. FLORES: Okay. MR. DICKSON: It may be zoning might hear it, but this is not something this Board would hear. MR. NEALE: Code enforcement issue. MR. FLORES: We believe it's code enforcement. MR. NONNENMACHER: No, it's the State DBBR issue is what it is. I don't want to get into the case too much, but apparently this conflict between homeowner and the builder where the builder went inside the house and ripped down -- the homeowner went inside the house, ripped down walls, put his own wall up in the bay window which is totally out of code. It hasn't been taken down yet, Jerry Ballard and Ed Perrico are very aware of what's going on, and he's been instructed to file a complaint with the State; it's a State certified contractor. The code violation that we witnessed was done by the homeowner, not by the builder, and it's a contractual dispute. Jerry Ballard sent people out there -- I'm not going to speak for him, but the situation is not as it was explained to you. Page 99 August 21, 2002 MR. MR. MR. 20 years; MR. go through them. MR. DICKSON: issue. have now DICKSON: It's complex. NONNENMACHER: Yes. DICKSON: I know these three men. I've known them for they're good people. So you have to work with them. FLORES: I know. But what I'm trying to say is I tried to Okay. This Board has nothing to do with your MR. JOSLIN: We can't help you at this point. MR. LLOYD: We govern the contractors, the relationship you with code. MR. DICKSON: Not State certified contractors. MR. NEALE: Locally licensed contractors. MR. DICKSON: State is at a State level. COURT REPORTER: Sir, can I have your name? MR. FLORES: Enrique Flores, E-N-R-I-Q-U-E, F-L-O-R-E-S. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Lori, for keeping the straightaway. Any other new business? Any discussions? It's lunchtime and you can go eat lunch. Do I have a motion? MR. JOSLIN: So moved. MR. DICKSON: Gentlemen, September 18th is the next one. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 11:00 A.M. CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Page 100 August 21, 2002 Gary Hayes, Chairman STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Lori L. Hagedom, Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, is a tree record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 2nd day of September, 2002. Lori L. Hagedom, CCR Certified Court Reporter 20th Judicial Circuit Page 101