CLB Minutes 12/21/2016 December 21,2016
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
December 21, 2016
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Chairman: Thomas Lykos
Vice Chair: Richard Joslin
Members: Michael Boyd
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Gary McNally
Robert Meister
Patrick White
Excused: Elle Hunt
ALSO PRESENT:
Ian Jackson— Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
1
December 21,2016
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is
made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any Appeal is
to be based.
I. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Thomas Lykos opened the meeting at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be
followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll call was taken; a quorum was established; seven (7) voting members were present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Addition:
Under Item VI, "Discussion"—
• A. Election of Chairman and Vice Chair—2017 Term
Withdrawn:
Under Item X, "Public Hearing"—
• A. Case 2016-04: Board of County Commissioners vs. Jimmy M. Dean,
d/b/a J.D. Design Construction, Inc.
M. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Gary McNally moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Vice Chairman Richard
Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion after clarifying the cases had been
withdrawn by the County. Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—OCTOBER 19, 2016:
Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the October 19, 2016 meeting as
submitted. Gary McNally offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
V. PUBLIC COM1VIENT:
(None)
VI. DISCUSSION:
A. Election of Chairman and Vice Chair—2017 Term
Chairman Lykos opened the floor for nominations for the office of Vice Chair.
Michael Boyd was nominated to serve as Vice-Chair of the Contractors'Licensing
Board for the 2017 Term. Mr. Boyd accepted the nomination.
2
December 21,2016
Richard Joslin, the current Vice Chair, agreed to accept the nomination to serve as
Chairman of the Contractors'Licensing Board for the 2017 Term.
Motions carried, 6— "Yes"/1 — "Abstention"for each nomination. Mr. Boyd and
Mr. Joslin abstained from voting.
The Floor was closed.
VII. REPORTS:
(None)
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign
the Orders of the Board. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7— 0.
(Note: With reference to the following cases heard under Section VIII, the individuals
who testified were first sworn by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Michael P. Titus—Request for Reinstatement and Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a "Home Defense Pest Management&Irrigation, LLC.")
Ian Jackson provided background information:
• Initially tested for his Sprinkler/Irrigation Contractor's license in 2003
• His Certificate of Competency with Collier County was issued in January,
2004
• He failed to renew his license in 2013
• He is petitioning the Board to reinstate his license and also requesting a
Waiver of Examinations
Mr. Jackson confirmed the Request for Reinstatement/Waiver of Exams pertained
only to Mr. Titus' Sprinkler/Irrigation Contractor's license.
Michael Titus:
• In 2013, he relocated from Collier to Marion County, was licensed and
worked there
• He is currently licensed in Marion County
• He has returned to Naples and would like to reinstate his license in Collier
County
Chairman Lykos noted it was important for Mr. Titus to prove to the Board that
during the period of time when his license had lapsed in Collier County, he had
3
December 21, 2016
worked elsewhere and maintained any continuing education requirements that applied
to his industry.
Michael Titus explained the information packet provided to the Board contained a
copy of his Marion County license.
Chairman Lykos asked if there were any requirements for continuing education to
maintain his license and the reply was, "No, sir."
Ian Jackson noted Mr. Titus will be required to pay three years of back fees to
Collier County if the Board approves his application.
Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. What kinds of jobs did you do in Marion County?
A. Very few, actually. I have a pest control business and worked more in pest
control. My pest control license is state-wide. So I concentrated on indoor pest
control and used the irrigation as a supplement and/or a full maintenance package.
I did a lot more pest control work than I did in irrigation. That's why I decided to
relocate to the area. I had lived in Naples since 1972 and operated the business
for almost 28 years. I really like the Ocala area and own property on the river but
it has been too hard to make a living there. I have more contacts in Naples and it
will be easier to start my business back up in Naples, so that's why I made the
transition.
Q. Even though you have maintained an irrigation license up there, you haven't
really been active in the trade?
A. Yes, I have been working up there but instead of doing six jobs a week, it was six
jobs a month. That was the issue—I just couldn't stay busy enough. But since I
moved up there, I have been active in the irrigation business.
Q. What kinds of jobs are you doing—new irrigation or repairs?
A. I do new installs but, primarily, it's service work. I work for property management
companies doing evaluations, electrical, and service repair is really ninety percent
of it. Installations represent only about ten percent of it.
Q. Repairs like commercial repairs as opposed to homeowner?
A. I was working for a couple of cattle ranches and that kept me fairly busy. I was also
doing a lot of commercial turbine pump work. There are also estate homes and I
was maintaining estate homes—worked with a couple of property management
companies. Some of the commercial work up there is just small hotels and
basically just amounted to service but"season" up there is so short—it's either
"feast or famine." It was hard to regulate it and keep it running all year long.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. Did Marion County require you to secure permits before you did the work?
A. Only for new installations.
Q. And how many permits have you pulled?
A. I didn't pull any up there. The only two or three installations that I did were on
private properties and didn't require any permitting. There wasn't any commercial
work in town—it was actually adding on or revamping an existing system. As far
as brand-new construction installations, I didn't do any while I was up there.
4
December 21, 2016
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. Did they require permits?
A. They did on brand new construction.
Terry Jerulle asked Staff if Marion County had been contacted to deteaniine if any
complaints had been filed. The response was, "I did not."
Michael Titus: There weren't. I had a pretty good record. I am on the record as
stating, under oath, that I haven't had one complaint filed against me.
Patrick White questioned the Applicant:
Q. I saw the "Qualifier Certification Information from Marion County— I'm guessing
it was just a print-out and not the actual license that they issued you?
A It was a copy of my license renewal—a copy of the last renewal that I had on file. I
renewed it every year— I believe that was what the qualification was ... or was it
the initial reinstatement?
Q. It doesn't say "renewal," but it does say that is expired in September, 2017. Your
testimony is that you were licensed as an irrigation contractor and that this qualifier
certification reflects that licensure?
A. That's correct.
Q. Thank you.
(Robert Meister arrived at 9:12 AM; quorum increased to eight voting members.)
Kyle Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. Can I ask why you don't want to take the test?
A. Actually, I thought it would be easier to reinstate the license—that's the only
reason. If I do take the test again, I'm going to go for the State test ... and there
are different requirements—a different protocol. I'd like to get working here as
soon as possible—I thought this would be a way to fast-track it so I could get on
the ground and start making some money. I am eventually going to go ahead and
take that State test just to have it under my belt so if I decide to branch into Lee
County or Charlotte County, I won't have to go in front of their Boards—it will
be a State license like my pest control license is.
Gary McNally moved to approve granting the application of Michael Titus for
reinstatement of his Irrigation/Sprinkler Contractor's License without requiring
additional testing. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 8—0.
C. Jack R. Lewis—Request for Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a "LJI Construction, LLC.")
Chairman Lykos noted Mr. Lewis was not present when his case was initially called,
and stated it would be recalled later in the proceedings.
5
December 21,2016
D. Licia L. Rivera—Request for Reinstatement and Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a "Rivers and Company Corp.")
Ian Jackson provided background information:
• Took the Business/Law exam in 1999 and the plaster/stucco trades test in
2000
• She was initially licensed in Collier County in 2000
• Failed to renew her license in 2006
• She has petitioned the Board to reinstate her license and waive the testing
requirement
Licia Rivera:
• Also licensed in Lee County (2012), Cape Coral (2013), and Charlotte County
(2016) (North Port, Port Charlotte, and Venice )
• Moved to Texas in 2006 and worked in the industry (roof repairs, remodeling,
framing and drywall repairs) until 2011
• Returned to Florida in 2011 due to the ill health of their daughter
• Currently working for DR Horton in the Bonita area and on a project called
"Collier Preserve"
Chairman Lykos asked Ms. Rivera if her other licenses have been continually active
and her response was, "Yes."
Patrick White noted her application was not only to reinstate her license but also to
transfer from one business to another.
Licia Rivera explained she originally did business in Florida under the name of
Rivera and Company of South West Florida, Inc. When she returned, the company
name was shortened to Rivera & Company Corp.
Mr. White also noted the company has been active since 2012.
Ms. Rivera confirmed the original company became inactive in 2006.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Applicant:
Q. What did you do between 2006 and 2012?
A. I was living in Texas. I was working on doing remodels, mainly; some roofing—
a lot of roof repairs—and a lot of drywall repairs—leaks in the drywall; and some
bathroom remodels. I continuously worked in the same field.
Q. Did you have to hold a license in Texas to do that work?
A. Yes, I did have a license—discount roofing. But it is a right-to-work state and
you don't really have much licensing unless you are in a city. I was right outside
of Dallas. It was more residential.
Q. The licensing requirements are less demanding outside of a city?
A. Yes.
Vice Chair Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. When you changed the name of the company in 2011, is that when you went
before all these other jurisdictions and got the current licenses you have now? Or
6
December 21,2016
is that like a brand new license that you went in an applied for, or did you take the
license that you had and reinstate it?
A. I was reinstated.
Chairman Lykos questioned the Applicant:
Q. Was continuing education required for the plaster and stucco license?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. So, since you took the tests, what have you done for"continuing education?"
A. I've just been working in the field. I don't know that I have "continuing
education" other than working. I have taken estimating classes—that's a lot of
what I concentrate on ... estimating and blueprint reading. That was in 2004, I
think, that I took that. Mainly just working—every day is an education, I believe.
Chairman Lykos asked the County for a recommendation.
Ian Jackson: Considering the licensure in the adjacent municipalities, I would
recommend to approve her application.
Terry Jerulle: I have a question for myself and the Board—why do we still have a
test? If we are going to continue to approve people for extensions—I'm just a little
confused, and maybe I am looking for some direction.
Patrick White: My view would be because people are coming in for new licenses or
they have not been active in their trade for a period of time and they are—depending
on the specialty or trade, what we call "continuing education" requirements. For me,
someone who has not been able to demonstrate a track record or is coming in for a
new license—that is someone who needs to take the exam, in particular, the
Business/Law. Someone who is operating a business and has been doing so without
complaints and whose business credit report is good—I'm pretty comfortable,
especially in so many jurisdictions where they are doing work—as this Applicant is
doing—and there are no complaints that we are aware. From a "trade" perspective
and a business perspective, I think it's superfluous to ask someone to take an exam
when they have already demonstrated that they have passed it and they continue to be
able to provide the type of quality work in a business operation that has no liens,
judgments, complaints, or disciplinary actions.
Terry Jerulle: But in this case, she is asking us to qualify a new entity, is she not,
from the previously licensed entity?
Patrick White: I think it's a transfer, if you will, of the license to a different
business name. I've not heard that it is a different business model; not heard there
were any other partners or things like that. I think, essentially, her testimony was it's
just less to write on a check.
Terry Jerulle: Thank you.
Patrick White: I understand your concern, believe me. There are circumstances
where not only the application package but the sense you get from the testimony of
someone is that they may have been marginal in passing the exam in the first place.
The gentleman we just approved—it was the third try for him on both the trade and
business exams. Yet in listening to his testimony, I had the sense that he was not only
competent but had maintained that competency, and was continuing to maintain a
business in a responsible and respectable manner. Those are the folks, I think, we
want working here. If there's a justification to have the bar a little higher for
December 21, 2016
individuals who don't pass that test, if you will, I'm okay with requiring people to
take exams. I think we've all voted to do that.
Terry Jerulle: Thank you.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve granting the application of Licia L. Rivera
to reinstate her Plaster/Stucco Contractor's License without requiring re-testing
and to transfer her qualification to her new company. Patrick White offered a
Second in support of the motion.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/1 — "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed.
E. Andrew L. Nichols—Request for Reinstatement and Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a "Airport Flooring& Cabinets, LLC. ')
Chairman Lykos stated that he thought he knew Mr. Nichols and perhaps did some
work with him "a long time ago." He further stated he wasn't sure when he read Mr.
Nichols' application but, after having seen him in person, he wished to make a full
disclosure to the Board.
Andrew Nichols concurred it was "years ago."
Chairman Lykos continued when his father ran the company, he had met the
Applicant and they worked on a few jobs together.
Patrick White stated while he appreciated the Chairman's comments, he did not "
view it as a full disclosure—it was certainly nothing that would prevent the Chair
from participating in any discussion or voting.
Andrew Nichols stated he remembered the Chairman and noted he sold his previous
company that had done business with the Chair's company "years ago."
Chairman Lykos: For the record: We knew each other a long time ago—that's
really the best way to say it.
Ian Jackson provided background information:
• License was initially granted in 1992 for Tile/Marble Flooring Installation
Contractor's license
• He was "grandfathered" from the requirement to take the Business and Law
exam but he did take/pass the Trades test for tile and marble in 1992
• He operated a tile and marble flooring installation business from 1992 to 2002
• In 2002, he failed to renew his license
• He has applied to reinstate his tile/marble flooring installation license and to
waive the requirement to re-test
Andrew Nichols:
• He sold his business in 2002
• In 2008, he opened a business on Airport Road, "Marc's Flooring"
• When he opened the business, he had a Qualifier but the individual no longer
qualifies "Marc's Flooring"
• He has several good employees but his company is losing business because it
cannot sell installation along with the product
8
December 21, 2016
• Consumers are not interested in buying just the product—they want a
complete package that includes installation
• He was scheduled to take the test but was prevented from doing so due to
back-to-back surgeries.
• He is still recuperating and is physically unable to either sit or stand for long
periods of time
• He has never had a complaint made against his company
• He stated if his license is not reinstated, he will lose several good employees
which will jeopardize his business
Patrick White questioned Ian Jackson:
Q. The application showed an "x"through the category, "Copy of Citation." Does
that mean there was none?
A. That's correct—no citation was issued—there was nothing to be included or
abated.
Chairman Lykos: When was the last time the Applicant's license was active?
Ian Jackson: 2002.
Andrew Nichols: But since 2008, I had a Qualifier.
Chairman Lykos: But you sold your business in 2002?
Andrew Nichols: Right.
Chairman Lykos: You've had a Qualifier since 2008?
Andrew Nichols: Until the last year and a half—and I quit selling installations. The
Qualifier just didn't work out. They want to run your business for you.
Chairman Lykos: We like those kinds of Qualifiers. We like Qualifiers who
understand what their responsibilities are and who live up to those responsibilities.
Andrew Nichols: As I business person, I think I do that. I have lots of happy
customers in town. There have been no complaints filed against me. We do a big
business —I'll do about $5M out of the store this year. It's not like I don't know what
I'm doing.
Kyle Lantz: So you've never taken the Business and Law exam?
Andrew Nichols: I thought I did take it. We found it— (directing his comment to
Ian Jackson) —you didn't find it at first, but then you found it.
Ian Jackson: It was the Tile and Marble [trade test] that I had trouble finding, which
I did find. You were "grandfathered" for the Business and Law exam.
Vice Chairman Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. In the packet there is an entry in November, 2016 for a judgment against you.
A. What?
Q. From Northern Leasing Systems?
A. Yes—a credit card machine. There's a letter from my attorney. We've already
had that taken—I've got it off now. Northern Leasing leased a credit card
machine to me. I wanted to change some things but they didn't have any
representation in the area. I waited and waited. You can't run a business without
a credit card machine. Finally, I called them and told them to come and pick up
the machine and I leased another one from Iberia Bank. The credit card machine
9
December 21, 2016
costs about $300 but they filed a judgment against me in upstate New York— or in
New York City or somewhere — and I didn't even know about it—for $3,000. So
I went to Woodward, Piers & Lombardo, P.A., and they had it taken off my credit
report.
Q. It doesn't indicate that.
A. Well, there's the letter from Woodward, Piers & Lombardo, P.A. — at the time I
turned this packet in, we were in the process of negotiating.
Chairman Lykos: The letter states that at the time, you were in the process of
resolving the dispute. Your testimony now is the dispute has been resolved?
Andrew Nichols: Yes.
Kyle Lantz: Have you talked to the testing facility about accommodations for you—
to be able to test? You said you can't sit, but ...
Andrew Nichols: Well, it's not just that. I'm on about 60 different medications, too.
I don't know how well I would do. I won't lie to you. Normally, I wouldn't have a
problem at all—I know how to run a business.
Terry Jerulle: If we were to grant you a license contingent upon your taking the test
in the future, how long ... how many months do you think it would take you to ... ?
Andrew Nichols: You would have to ask my doctor. I don't know. I'm not going to
tell you I can take it in a month or six months or a year because I don't know. I'm not
even supposed to be walking, so I'm doing very well for everything I've been
through.
Terry Jerulle: One of the requirements of a Qualifier is to be able to go to the
project and check the work.
Andrew Nichols: Correct.
Terry Jerulle: Will you be able to do that?
Andrew Nichols: Of course. I have people who work for me who have 20+to 30
years of experience. They would not be working for me if they weren't
knowledgeable. They are professional people who have been in the business for a
long, long time.
Terry Jerulle: But we're not asking them to go and check. They ae not the Qualifier
—you are the Qualifier and you need to verify certain things.
Andrew Nichols: I don't have a problem at all. If for some reason—if I was ill or
something—I have a store manager who is very capable.
Chairman Lykos: For me, the issue is that you have never taken the Business and
Law exam.
Andrew Nichols: I thought I had.
Chairman Lykos: So you have never taken it?
Andrew Nichols: I don't know. I am being honest. I thought I had.
Chairman Lykos: I thought what Mr. Jerulle asked was a great compromise—if...
and this is very hypothetical ... if we were to issue some type of a contingent license
or temporary or probationary license, where you would be required to take the
Business and Law exam and pass it within a certain time, then we could be more
confident that—because you have never taken it—
10
December 21, 2016
Andrew Nichols: I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is I don't
know when I can do that. I physically cannot go up there.
Patrick White: Let me suggest this, if I may.
Andrew Nichols: I mean, I don't have a problem taking it.
Patrick White: You may know better—let's say, within six months —than you do
today. Is that a fair question?
Andrew Nichols: I would say within a year. I only go to the Moffitt Cancer Center
for backup, right now. They don't know if my cancer will come back or if I will have
to go through chemotherapy—these are all the things that I am facing.
Patrick White: I think we understand that.
Andrew Nichols: Once I get through all these medical issues, I won't have a
problem ...
Patrick White: Let me re-state it. Will you know better in six months from now
when you may be able to take the exam or will potentially take the exam than today?
Andrew Nichols: I hope so.
Patrick White: I think it's a"yes" or "no" question.
Andrew Nichols: Well, I think it's a"yes" but I don't know ... I don't know when I
can tell you if it will be in six months or another six months after that.
Patrick White: I would suggest, if this Board is inclined to do so, that we cross that
bridge in whatever that time frame is in the future. My point is, I think you will know
better at that point in time than any of us knows today—including your own doctors.
Is that a fair statement?
Andrew Nichols: That is a fair statement.
Chairman Lykos: Let me put a different spin on this. I think I can appreciate the
health issues that you are trying to overcome. I am happy for you that you seem to be
moving in a positive direction. That's great. But let me help you to think about this
differently. If your health challenges are so difficult to overcome, then maybe the
best thing for you is to have a Qualifier. If you are trying to convince us that it is not
in your best interest, then you need to work with us on the other side of this a little
bit. Okay? You can't have it where you don't have any idea of how your health is
going to affect your ability to run a company, but also not want to have a Qualifier
when you tell us you don't how your health issues will affect you and your ability to
run your company. What we're trying to do is to find a path here for you where you
don't need to have a Qualifier but we also must be confident that you can overcome
your challenges and get where you need to be to operate your company without a
Qualifier. So, if you can understand our perspective on this—where we want to be
sure that your company will be run properly and still give you the opportunity to do
this on your own and not need to bring in a Qualifier—then you need to let us ask the
questions we need to ask ... okay? .... and answer our questions understanding what
our perspective it.
Andrew Nichols: Okay. And I totally appreciate that you want me to take the
Business and Law but until I get myself physically able to do that, I think my years of
running a business in this County—on and off for thirty-something years—has got to
have some ... background to say I can do this until I can get to take the test.
Patrick White: That's exactly, in my mind, why allowing you to be reinstated and
waive the exam for a period of time is warranted. And if your response to that is,
11
December 21,2016
"No, I don't want to do that,"—then the alternative that you are looking at is that we
will deny your request and you will have to sit for the exam. Is that clear?
Andrew Nichols: I understand.
Patrick White: Okay.
Andrew Nichols: I was scheduled to go take the test until all this came up.
Patrick White: I appreciate that.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he had taken the test, then he
wouldn't have had to come before us.
Patrick White: Probably not.
Chairman Lykos: That's correct.
Andrew Nichols: Well, I'll just stick with Mr. Jackson and just schedule the test and
go take it—is that okay with you guys?
Patrick White moved to approve waiving the testing requirement and reinstating
the license of Andrew Nichols with the condition that he is to take and pass the
Business and Law exam within six months.
Patrick White: Regarding the motion, my understanding is if, during that six-month
period of time, Mr. Nichols is able to sit for and pass the exam, then he is done.
Andrew Nichols asked what would happen if he needed an extension of time.
Patrick White: What I think will happen is, in approximately six months from now
—hopefully—your medical condition will have improved and your doctors will have a
better estimate of when it may be possible for you to sit for the exam or they may tell
you that you are ready. If you have not passed the exam, you will come back before
us and we'll talk about it then.
Andrew Nichols: Okay—that's more than fair. Thank you.
Patrick White: That's what I have been trying to say.
Vice Chairman Joslin pointed out if Mr. Nichols felt better within the next month or
two and was able to pass the test, then "all of this would be a mute." Mr. Nichols
would just go to Staff and they would issue a license. But he has to take the test
within the six months.
Chairman Lykos noted a motion was on the floor.
Vice Chairman Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Kyle Lantz asked if the motion was to waive the trades test because Mr.
Nichols took twenty years ago? Technically, he would need to pass the trades
test and the Business and Law exam to qualify for a license. Correct? So
what your motion is saying is that you want to waive taking the trades test
permanently and give him a temporary, six-month license which will give him
six months to pass the Business exam?
• Patrick White: Yes.
12
•
December 21, 2016
• Kyle Lantz: Personally, I have no problem waiving the trades test. But I will
vote against the motion—I feel that he needs to take the Business exam before
he gets a license. I feel he has so much on his "plate" now and he will have so
much more work trying to set up a business installation and that type of stuff.
What I am doing is looking into the future and I foresee in six months from
now, that he will come to say he couldn't do it. Then we will look like the
"bad guys." Instead we should say now, "Gee, you shouldn't have started this
business because you don't have the ability to do it." Because we're never
going to say we will take his license away. I've been on this Board for ten
years and I'll bet my paycheck that it won't happen. It depends on the
situation but I totally understand ... no matter what the physical situation is ...
we all have hearts and it's much harder to be put in that situation when he's
already put forth all of his effort to set up the business and if something goes
wrong—meaning, he didn't pass the test. It's much more difficult. So why
don't we wait until he passes the Business and Law exam and then go that
route?
• Patrick White: He stopped operating the installation portion of his business
less than two years ago. I don't believe it's going to be that hard to set up the
qualifying side or the installing side of the business. Their Qualifier was
previously licensed so they could operate it.
• Kyle Lantz: But one of the reasons why was because the Qualifier wanted to
run the business.
• Patrick White: No, I think it was because he didn't want to pay him. He had
no problem with his running the business—Mr. Nichols just didn't want to
pay him to do it.
• Andrew Nichols: If I made $100, he wanted $75 of it. You can't run a
business like that.
• Patrick White: I understand the economics of it. I believe the oversight of
the business—regardless of what the Qualifier did as part of the installations
for tile, marble, and for flooring—the business model, the operation, the
accounting, paying vendors, making sure the customers are protected—I think
all of that "stuff' comes under the same system, if you will.
• Andrew Nichols: I still deal with installers because I give the names of
installers to customers. I will give them a list of two or three installers and all
of the installers are licensed with Workers' Comp and liability insurance. I
make sure that I use no one but licensed installers. The only difference is we
don't write the installation because I don't have the right sell installations.
There is really no difference but we don't write the installation. I tell my
customers if they have a problem with the installation to call me and I'll call
the installers.
• Terry Jerulle: What I think I'm hearing is we may give you a six-month
extension to take the test or for you to find a Qualifier. I think—from what
I'm gathering—if you don't come back in six months because you are too ill
in six months to take the test, we will consider you to be too ill to run the
company. From what I understand it to be, in six months—you come either
back having taken the test or having found a Qualifier—or there may not be a
license.
13
December 21,2016
• Chairman Lykos: You can ask the motion maker to add that to his motion—
at the end of the six months, if the Applicant comes back before the Board that
those are the two options— either the test has been passed or there is a
Qualifier. You can ask him to add that to his motion.
• Patrick White: I think there is a third and it is consistent with what I
suggested earlier when I made the motion which was —the third thing is, six
months from now his doctors may tell him that he has made tremendous
progress and he should be able to take the test within thirty days. To me, I
would be willing to consider it at that time. That would be the only reason
now I wouldn't want to put a firewall that says, "In six months, you're either
in or you're done."
• Chairman Lykos: You might not get support for your motion if you don't
build a firewall and that firewall may be a bridge that gets support for your
motion. I can't speak for everybody, but I'm saying sometimes there's a
compromise that as Reagan said, "I'd rather have 70% of what I want than 0%
of what I want." So, maybe sometimes getting a compromise that puts the
Applicant's future in his own hands is better than taking it away.
• Vice Chairman Joslin: As a Second to the motion, I am going to say the
same thing because I would not support something that doesn't have a firewall
in it. If the man can't do it within six months, then it's done—it's over—and
that's how it is. I would prefer that he have fewer months to tell you the truth
only because of the fact that we're letting a six-month span go where his
business is going to run for six months and maybe this man is not going to be
well.
• Kyle Lantz: Don't forget—his license expired in 2002. That's fourteen
years ago. That's older than my kids. Fourteen years ago, I don't remember
what I was doing. Even though he had a Qualifier for a little while, he was
not the Qualifier. There's an awful lot of stuff that can change in fourteen
years, let alone thirty years ago when he grandfathered in and didn't even take
the test.
• Vice Chairman Joslin: I'd like to work out a way to let the man be licensed
but there are so many hoops there to try to get through—to do it the correct
way where we feel comfortable.
• Chairman Lykos: Patrick, you're not going to change your motion?
• Patrick White: I was attempting to, Mr. Chairman, but I was hoping to
articulate it in a way that could actually be understood by the County and the
Board. I've never put a motion in place where, in a sense, we are pre-
determining what we're going to do six months from now.
Patrick White: If I may, I guess the form of the motion is that we will grant a
temporary license for six months, reinstating his license without requiring him to
take any of the exams and that the license will expire six months from issuance. It
is up to Mr. Nichols—if he takes the exam and passes it, then he is done—he will
have a permanent license. We will issue him a temporary one.
Andrew Nichols: I have such an investment here—I think you guys know, I've got
to go take this. I have my life savings in my business.
14
December 21, 2016
Vice Chairman Joslin: How soon could you take the test?
Andrew Nichols: If I were physically able, I would take it today.
Vice Chairman Joslin: I'm not talking about physically able—I'm taking about
right now. How soon could you take this test because this is where you are. The
Board is trying to help but it doesn't appear that—what we're saying to you is ... as
soon as you take ,..
Andrew Nichols: I don't have ... I know probably ... I could review the books but I
know probably 80% of the laws and stuff that will be asked on the test.
Vice Chairman Joslin: Okay— so isn't it possible that you could just plan a day or
plan a weekend or plan next week or whenever and go take this test and be done with
it and have a license in your hand? You may suffer—I understand—you may not feel
like it but I think, over all, it's the best way to do it.
Andrew Nichols: I just got out of the Moffitt Cancer Center and I'm on a lot of pain
pills and I'm afraid it may affect my judgment on the test until I get off them.
Vice Chairman Joslin: You can take it as many times as you want.
Chairman Lykos: We have not heard from the other three members of the Board. I
would like their input.
Patrick White: As a point of order, if I may, I have amended my motion and I
believe ...
Chairman Lykos: You are correct.
Patrick White: ... and I believe that our Board's attorney wanted to make a
comment regarding the form of the motion.
James Morey, Esq., Attorney to the Board: The form of the motion was fine. I
wanted to check with the County as to the impact of the motion. So, it will be a
temporary license for six months. If within the six months, the gentleman takes and
passes the exam, does Ian have the authority to grant a full license at that point in
time without any further Order of the Board? That was in my mind.
Patrick White: I can reframe the motion to be absolutely precise about that but that
would be my understanding.
Attorney Morey: Ian Jackson, is that your understanding? I just would not want
some kind of lapse.
Ian Jackson: I did have questions but it's clear to me now.
Terry Jerulle: If, within the six months, Mr. Nichols does not take/pass the test or
have a Qualifier, he would not come back before the Board because he would be
done.
Patrick White: Unless he re-applies.
Chairman White again requested comments from the remaining three Board
members, Mr. Meister, Mr. McNally, and Mr. Boyd.
Michael Boyd: I have some issues with his having never taken the Business/Law
exam. I know he's been in town for a lot of years. I am willing to go along with
Patrick's motion to grant a probationary or temporary license and then the ball is in
Mr. Nichols' court. Obviously, there have been some extenuating circumstances.
But I'm willing to go along with that.
15
December 21, 2016
Richard Meister: I think we should show him a bit of compassion and go along with
Mr. White's motion.
Gary McNally: I agree ... being a little compassionate and seeing what happens in
six months because if he doesn't do it within six months, then he has to re-apply for it
or he's done.
Terry Jerulle: Ian Jackson, did you weigh in?
Ian Jackson: No.
Terry Jackson: Would you?
Ian Jackson: I would rather not.
Chairman Lykos: So there is no recommendation from the County?
Ian Jackson: No recommendation.
Patrick White: I think I heard Mr. Joslin state he agrees with the amended motion?
Vice Chairman Joslin: I will amend my Second.
Kyle Lantz: I have one more question. Assuming this motion passes, if Mr. Nichols
has not taken/passed the Business and Law exam within the six months, is he still
waived for the trades test? In six months plus one day, does he now have to take the
Business and Law exam and the trades test?
Ian Jackson: On June 22, 2017, Mr. Nichols would have to re-apply and he would
, need to meet every requirement in our Ordinance to obtain licensure.
Andrew Nichols: Or come before the Board.
Chairman Lykos: Or come before the Board because he would ask for a Waiver of
Examination.
Patrick White: Assuming he passed the Business and Law exam.
Chairman Lykos called for a vote on the amended motion.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes"/1 — "No." Kyle Lantz was opposed.
Chairman Lykos: Andy— do you understand? You have six months. If you don't
pass the test or don't have a Qualifier, you will not have a license anymore. Okay?
Andrew Nichols: I appreciate it. Thank you.
C. Jack R. Lewis—Request for Waiver of Exams
(d/b/a "LH Construction, LLC.")
Chairman Lykos again noted Mr. Lewis had not been present when his case was
initially called, and he was still not present.
Patrick White added that not only was Mr. Lewis' case a request for re-instatement,
it was also a transfer of the business from a corporation to an LLC (Limited
Liability). Mr. White suggested the case should be "tabled" until the next Board
meeting.
Ian Jackson explained Mr. Lewis would be required to re-apply unless the Board
made a detellnination concerning his case.
16
December 21, 2016
Terry Jerulle asked Ian Jackson if Mr. Lewis had indicated he would not be able to
attend the Board's meeting.
Ian Jackson stated when Mr. Lewis submitted his paperwork, he had been given a
notification letter which outlined the date, time, and location of the meeting.
Gary McNally stated during his review of the documents for the case, he noticed
there was a"high risk/fraud" alert placed on Mr. Lewis' credit report. He could not
find any documentation that removed the alert and asked Ian Jackson to check the
information.
Patrick White noted Mr. Lewis' FICO score was 704 which was disputed by the
Applicant. There was a Citibank judgment/Midland placed against him.
Chairman Lykos cautioned the Board members to refrain from adjudicating the case
since the Applicant was not present. "If he couldn't show up, there's no sense in
having a conversation."
Patrick White moved to approve tabling the Board's consideration of Jack R.
Lewis'application and request until the Board's meeting in January, 2017.
Chairman Lykos noted the motion did not receive a Second in support and,
therefore, it died.
Board members expressed varying opinions concerning the disposition of the case.
Ian Jackson stated since Mr. Lewis did not appear, he would have to re-apply and his
case would be scheduled for a later meeting.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated Mr. Lewis had asked for a hearing; to not attend the
meeting or contact the County when he was unable to attend was not acceptable. He
further stated, "I don't think there is an issue—if he comes back, then he comes
back." In his opinion, the Board was not responsible for the attendance of applicants.
Patrick White: I think we need to dispose of this case, one way or the other. He did
not think it was Staff's responsibility to do so.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve denying the Jack R. Lewis'Application for
Reinstatement and Request for a Waiver of exams. Michael Boyd offered a Second
in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Patrick White asked what the Board's grounds were to deny the application.
c/ He stated he thought the Board was required as a quasi-judicial Board to
provide some explanation in the record as to why the application was denied.
The Applicant's non-attendance at the meeting, he did not believe, was legally
sufficient. He explained the Board's action inferred something that had
nothing to do with what was the nature of the request. The request concerned
obtaining a Waiver of Exams and not whether the Applicant cared enough to
be present to obtain his license.
• Terry Jerulle requested an opinion from the Board's attorney, James Morey.
17
• December 21, 2016
• Attorney Morey: The Board members are the fact-finders. One thought was
if the record was insufficient to substantiate why the request was made to
waive the exam, the lack of facts could be a reason to deny.
• Patrick White: All I'm asking is let's not put ourselves in a position where
the Board could be sued because it didn't adequately perform its job.
• Terry Jerulle: We have a motion; we have a Second, and we have a reason.
• Patrick White questioned what was the reason?
• Kyle Lantz: Because he hasn't proven to me that he deserves to have the
requirement for retesting waived.
• Chairman Lykos suggested because Mr. Lewis was not present to answer
the Board's questions, the members did not have sufficient information to
support the request to waive the testing.
• Patrick White also suggested that the record presented was inadequate to
demonstrate a basis to waive the testing. He stated while the Board must
protect itself, it must also be fair in how it responds to each Applicant.
• Patrick White stated if Mr. Lantz would amend his motion to include the
language suggested by either the Chairman or himself, he would offer a
Second in support of the amended motion.
The motion maker agreed to include the above-referenced language in his motion.
Michael Boyd, who originally offered a Second in Support to the motion, withdrew
his support of amended motion.
Patrick White offered a Second in support of the amended motion which included
the following language: The record presented was inadequate to demonstrate a
basis to waive the testing.
Motion carried unanimously, 8— 0.
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
(None)
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Note: Case #2016-04: Board of County Commissioners vs. Jimmy M. Dean,
d/b/a J.D. Design Construction, Inc., was Withdrawn by the County,per the
Amended Agenda.)
Chairman Thomas X. Lykos, a principal in "The Lykos Group, Inc.,"
announced he would no longer serve as a member of the Contractors' Licensing
Board.
He offered his appreciation to everyone who had served on the Board since he
was appointed to be Board in 2008. He thanked the members who served as
either Chairman or Vice Chair for their leadership, stating he learned a great
deal from them, including when to be less aggressive, or more patient, or a
better listener. The lessons learned also served him in other areas of his life.
18
• December 21,2016
He extended his thanks to the County's Staff whom he said have always
worked very diligently in the County's best interests. Staff ensured the Board
members were supplied with the information necessary for them to perform
their duties.
He also thanked the Board of County Commissioners who had the confidence
in him to initially appoint him to the Contractors' Licensing Board in 2008 and
then to renew his applications year and year.
He commended Attorney James Moray for the guidance he has provided to the
Board.
He stated Ian Jackson was not the Supervisor of the Contractors' Licensing
Office when he first became a member of the Board and acknowledged that Mr.
Jackson has provided a seamless transition during a period of change.
He concluded by stating he sincerely appreciate the input and service of all of
the members of the Board that he was met throughout his eight years and
recognized that he learned a great deal during that time.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he has been a member of the Board for nineteen
years and it was a pleasure to have known and worked with Chairman Lykos.
"I've seen a lot of other Chairmen and a lot of people go through this Board,
but you have impressed me a lot."
Patrick White expressed his respect for Mr. Lykos which he stated has grown
over the years that they served together on the Board. He further stated he
would miss the Chairman, thought the members would also miss him, and
knew the community has benefited from his service. He continued he
appreciated the Chairman's decision to resign from the Board to devote more
time to his family because it was in the best interest of his family. He
commended Mr. Lykos for his wisdom in making a difficult decision.
Terry Jerulle also expressed admiration for the Chairman and agreed with the
words of his colleagues — "It has been an honor and a privilege to serve with
you on the Board." He further stated that, at the end of the day, the Board has
done more good than bad and Mr. Lykos was "one of our leaders in that effort."
Chairman Lykos again thanked the members of the Board. He wished
everyone a Very Merry Christmas and concluded the meeting for the last time.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 2017
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL
19
December 21,2016
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Chairman at 11:00 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LI . NSING BOARD
THOMAS L Os, Chairman
'5 E/1.
The Minutes were approved by the Chairmaiyon , 2017,
"as submitted" ( 1 OR "as amended" NA.
20