Loading...
CLB Minutes 03/18/2003 RMarch 18, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida March 18, 2003 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: CHAIRMAN: LES DICKSON WALTER CRAWFORD, IV ERIC GUITE' RICHARD JOSLIN ANN KELLER KENNETH LLOYD MARGARET RODGERS ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Bartoe, Licensing Compliance Officer Robert Zachary, County Attorney Patrick Neale, Counsel to the Board Page 1 09/20/2015 22:46 FAX ~002 COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSII~G BOARFT DATE; TUESDAY MARCH 18, 2003 TIME: 9:00 A.M_ W. HARMON TURNER~ (ADMINISTRATION BIJE. DfN~) .COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO'APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEi31NGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL !I, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: ill. APPROVAL' OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: January 15, 2003 V. DISCUSSION: VI: NEW BUSINES-S~, VII. Jaco~ L. *Mu~ge .~ Request to qualify a 2"eentity. Al~rova~ of new form far Finding of Fact on applications submitted to l~oard for review. OLD BU~INES~ Daniel Malinowski 4"~ review of credit rel~ort for Paving license. Vl~l PUBLIC HEARING'S:' Case #2003,01 'Coltier Counly vs. Kyte Wilson D/B/A Dock Masters IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday-May 21, 2003 March 18, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board of March 18th, 2003. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. I'd like to start roll call to my right, if you would, please. MS. KELLER: Ann Keller. MR. CRAWFORD: Walter Crawford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. LLOYD: Ken Lloyd. MR. GUITE': Eric Guite'. MS. RODGERS: Margaret Rodgers. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any additions or deletions to the agenda, Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. For the record, I'm Tom Bartoe, Collier County licensing investigator. Staff has, under discussion, one addition. We would like to discuss the possibility of having a low voltage license. And I believe all members have received a copy of a page from old Ordinance 85-42, I believe it is, where we used to have that license, and it was deleted in the 1990 ordinance. Staff also has a deletion, and it's a gentleman under old business, that will not come before you at this time. And staff also may want to, after approval of minutes, may want to change the order in which we take up some of these issues on here. And that is all staff has. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If there's no objection, I would like to move the discussion down to after the public hearings, so that Page 2 March 18, 2003 these people that are present can go about their day. MR. BARTOE: Yes, I think staff wants to get into the public hearing first thing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Do I have a motion to approve the additions and deletions? MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. MR. CRAWFORD: Second, Crawford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also need an approval of the minutes of the last meeting, January 15th, 2003. There was no February meeting. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the February meeting. MR. LLOYD: Lloyd, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So approved. Therefore, next we'll go to new business. MR. BARTOE: First I'd like you to look at the next meeting date, which will be scheduled May 21, 2003. We got bumped from our April date and we decided to not have a meeting in April. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so no meeting in April. Any objections from anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, May 21st. Why do we keep losing the room? Who are we losing it to? MR. NEALE: County Commission. MR. BARTOE: Guess. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: County Commission? MR. NEALE: Yep. Page 3 March 18, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, no recourse there. Okay. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, good morning, members of the board. For the record, my name is Bob Nonnenmacher, contractor licensing supervisor. At this time, with your approval, I'd like to have Mr. Kyle Wilson come up to the podium. He's listed under public hearings. He would like to make a statement before we actually go into any kind of public hearing on this. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Wilson? MR. NONNENMACHER: I believe he should be sworn in for his statement that he wants to make to you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right there. I need to have you sworn in, Mr. Wilson. MR. WILSON: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. WILSON: My name's Kyle Wilson, president of Dockmaster's. Pretty simple. I have plenty of stuff we could talk about, I guess, but bottom line is I didn't have the insurance, these guys informed me that I needed the insurance, so I took the proper steps and got the insurance. And here we are a month and a half later. I just finally got the insurance, but they've got copies of it. I guess I'm at your mercy as to, you know, what to do. I was the first person to get caught in the net. I mean, there's been a bunch of controversy. I'm sure you guys have heard about that; I mean, we came and talked to you guys first. But anyway, that's the bottom line. But it is -- I guess stuff's starting to straighten up out there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are we talking about the longshoremen -- MR. WILSON: Yes, sir. Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Longshoremen insurance? So you went and got that? Page 4 March 18, 2003 MR. WILSON: Yes, sir. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, at this time with those facts revealed to you, staff would recommend a maximum of a verbal reprimand with possibly a dismissal, at your pleasure, if you'd like to dismiss the charges. He did immediately comply, got his insurance, but staff would not recommend anything more than a verbal reprimand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, will you guide us? MR. NEALE: You can certainly -- it's at the pleasure of the board -- dismiss it. I mean, one of the considerations the board has to make when it's reviewing any case such as this is the respondent's compliance with the order and with their stopping what they were doing that was wrong, frankly, putting it in simple terms as possible. So certainly, if the board sees fit, this gentleman appears to, as soon as he received notice comply, the board could dismiss this matter out of hand, or the other option is the county could withdraw the matter so that either one is -- either one is something that could be done. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me bring up to speed three board members that weren't here when this happened, so -- you have no idea what we're talking about, do you? All of the dock contractors in Collier County -- and correct -- you help me here, okay? MR. WILSON: Okay, I'll try. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There is a federal law that in any navigable waterway, that they must carry longshoremen insurance. Longshoremen insurance is outrageously expensive. Whereas, before all of the dock companies had been carrying normal liability -- MR. WILSON: Regular workers' comp. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- and workers' comp., which come to find out was not good if they were working in a navigable waterway; is that correct? MR. WILSON: Yeah, according to the way the county Page 5 March 18, 2003 attorneys are interpreting the law. I mean, I've got a claim with a guy that had two broken ribs less than a year ago. Workers' comp. paid it, no questions asked. And that's kind of why I'm under the assumption that we really don't need it, but, you know, it was brought to the attention of this county. So anyway that's -- like I said, that's a big other whole can of worms. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we did have at one time 40 or so dock contractors up here. There are two or three companies that did have the longshoremen insurance. This was heard by the county commissioners. They tabled it for a period of time to investigate it, and now they've come out with a ruling, the county has? MR. ZACHARY: We amended the ordinance to state that if you were required to have it, you needed to have that insurance. And that was -- our office was informed by the state and federal people that workers' comp. wouldn't cover unnavigable waters. So, you know, that's -- we relied on the information that we got from the state workers' comp. people. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I understand it is very difficult to get. MR. WILSON: Yeah, it took me a month and a half to get a quote back. There's one company writing it, so you're at their mercy. It's a pretty sad situation there, but -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that was the crux of the case? MR. NONNENMACHER: Basically, yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I've known Dockmaster's for years. It cost you a fortune to get it, didn't it? MR. WILSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Basically I would-- I don't even think a reprimand if he got the insurance, given the past history. MR. NONNENMACHER: As I said, Mr. Chairman-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm assuming -- Page 6 March 18, 2003 MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: case. -- staff would have no objection -- I'd just as soon -- -- dismissing -- -- entertain a motion to dismiss the MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we dismiss the case, as recommended by staff. Crawford. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion, questions what we're doing? MR. CRAWFORD: I'd be curious just to know, if you don't mind sharing with us, how much the insurance cost. MR. WILSON: See, that's the tough part. They've got a minimum $25,000 premium. So if you're a guy with two employees, with workers' comp., you were probably paying somewhere around 18,000, 20,000 before. Now they've got a bare minimum of 25, and that would probably cover one employee. So it's pretty tough for a one- or two-man operation to get out there and do anything. You've got to have three or four guys. And that's where it gets really grey. Because the other companies that have nine employees, they can pay for three people, and the insurance company doesn't need to know who's covered, they don't need names. MR. NONNENMACHER: And Mr. Wilson, if I'm not mistaken, you can't drop your workers' comp., because when they're on the land, then the longshoremen's won't pay for that; is that correct? MR. WILSON: I'm not an expert on this stuff yet, either, because it's still confusing. You've got the Jones Act thrown in there also. So you've got workers' comp./Jones Act when you're on the barge, workers' comp. when you're on the land. And I don't know, I believe the insurance we're paying for-- and again, I might be in front of you again because I didn't have workers' comp. I believe Page 7 March 18, 2003 we're covered for everything, whether we're working on land or on the barge or on the water. But again, like I said, we had to purchase Jones Act for the barge when you're on it and longshore when you're over the water. So I can't answer that question, I guess. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got a motion and a second. All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Case has been dismissed. MR. WILSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hope you do well. MR. WILSON: Thank you. MR. NEALE: There is one other issue on this. And actually, Mr. Zachary and I have talked about this a little bit is -- and it has nothing to do with this case, frankly, but it may have to do with others in the future, is there is some thought -- and we need to do a little bit more research on it, probably -- that even if an electrician is wiring lights on a dock or a lift on a dock, that the electrician may need longshoremen's insurance. And frankly, Condee Electric, I was speaking to one of the people at Condee recently about it, they do carry longshoremen's, because it's their attorney's opinion that they need it. MS. KELLER: Who does? MR. NEALE: Condee Electric does. But, you know, it's their opinion that they need it. And it may be that every electrician that works on docks, potentially every plumber that works on putting a spigot out there needs to have longshoremen's insurance. MR. WILSON: Well, the way the-- MR. for every MR. MR. NONNENMACHER: And, sir, respectfully, that would go trade. NEALE: Every trade -- NONNENMACHER: If they're building a bar out there Page 8 March 18, 2003 and they want it tiled, the tile contractor would have to have it, carpenter, any person. MR. NEALE: As I say, I know that Condee Electric does carry longshoremen's insurance just for that purpose. Because their attorney's opinion was that they needed to have it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Jiminy Christmas. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Dickson, any roofer that is building a boathouse and puts a roof on it will need it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I just caught that. MR. WILSON: Anybody that side of the seawall is the way it really reads. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What side? MR. WILSON: You can build a seawall from land, but once you get beyond the property line of that seawall, everybody needs it beyond that line. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's federal law? MR. WILSON: That's the way they're interpreting it, yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ouch. MR. LLOYD: Good lobbying. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, and it became such -- of course, I get nervous every time I see one of these dock cases because of what we had happen in Marco Island. MR. WILSON: Well, actually, that seems to be what's happening now, with the coverage being so expensive, you're getting more outlaws in the business is what's happening. You're getting people out there that can't afford it so you're getting the little one-man-band-fly-by-nighters, and they actually can, because right now you can still exempt yourself. Where there -- in longshore, there is -- exempt is a moot point. There is no -- MR. NEALE: There is no exemption-- MR. WILSON: -- exemption. MR. NEALE: -- in longshore. Page 9 March 18, 2003 MR. WILSON: You can't sue yourself. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hallelujah. MR. WILSON: So actually, the thing that should be helping, I've already seen it hinder. I have ABC boatlifts also and had an electrician looking for wire yesterday, and I didn't know what to do with him, because I know he doesn't have insurance. And the wire he was looking for is obviously something that is definitely going over water. And I don't know whether to mm him in. I told him he needed longshore insurance and that was it. But it's a big can of WOrlTISo CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, we're finished. MR. WILSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you. Appreciate you working with us. Back on the agenda under new business, Jacob Mudge, would you come to the podium, please, I need to have you sworn in. Mr. Mudge is here to request a second entity. If you would raise your right hand. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who, what, why and what for? MR. MUDGE: I do custom metal work, have been doing custom metal work in this area for, I don't know, 25 years. Some of the past jobs is Philharmonic, Gulf Coast -- or the mall up here. Collier family. I just finished up McCreedy residence, doing McCurry residence, did Lund residence. Do pretty much custom blacksmithing. And some of these people have me going out of state to their houses. Out of state. I'm just a four-, five-man operation. And a gentleman who had used to be under me for 10 years, we got together. And I do very high-end stuff. And this other company is going to do the spiral stairs, railings, not so high end, not so much blacksmith or bronze or high-end metal work. He was with me -- I formerly was with Florida Aluminum Steel, Raber Industries for 22 Page 10 March 18, 2003 years before I started my business three years ago. Pretty much know a lot of people around here, and I just went out on my own. Three years ago I was in light (Lex)(phonetic) metal craft. But last month I was out of state four times on different jobs for some of my clients. And pretty much this other company, I think, is doing a service of not very high-end -- and there's very, very few blacksmiths out there that can do some of this top-end stuff. And this other company is going to do the medium and like again, spiral stairs, railings. We don't do any pool enclosure, we just want to do the -- you know, the medium to low end. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. How's the credit report look? MR. CRAWFORD: Credit report looks fine. It looks like a pretty simple second qualification to me. He will be the sole proprietor of both organizations, and it appears that there's two different types of businesses, although they're both ironwork companies. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any complaints with the county, Mr. Mudge? MR. NONNENMACHER: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. BARTOE: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. MUDGE: (Shakes head negatively.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move that we provide Mr. Mudge with the second qualification for Gulf Coast Metal Works, Inc. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second? MR. LLOYD: Lloyd, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous. Page 11 March 18, 2003 MR. MUDGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Mudge, you will not be able to come into our office and get that second license until tomorrow, because I have your packet with me here today, and the office staff needs it to issue your new license. MR. MUDGE: Is that something that will happen right away, or MR. BARTOE: Tomorrow morning when we open the front doors at 8:00 you can -- MR. MUDGE: So there's no waiting period then? MR. BARTOE: Should not be, that I can foresee. MR. MUDGE: Great. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Once this board approves it, it's done. MR. MUDGE: Thanks. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Flying through the agenda. MR. BARTOE: I might point out that I noticed on his application that office staff did not collect the $50 fee, and they were under the assumption that they should not do it until it's approved. And I've discussed it with Mr. Neale, and it should be paid when you apply as part of the processing fee, so I believe we have that straightened out with the office staff now. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. CRAWFORD: And just for my understanding, if they are not accepted, approved by the board, do we keep the money? MR. BARTOE: No. MR. NEALE: No. MR. BARTOE: That's part of the processing fee. MR. NEALE: Yeah, we keep the money. MR. MUDGE: It is not returned. MR. CRAWFORD: Correct, nonrefundable. Page 12 March 18, 2003 MR. NEALE: It's a nonrefundable processing thing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's nothing compared to what-- MR. NEALE: A mortgage processing fee or anything else. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Low voltage under discussion. And we do need to talk about this. Who wants to present this? Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, members of the board, there has been a change in the electrical code which now requires low voltage to be inspected. As we all know -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: State change. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, the new building code, the electrical part has been changed. As we all know, in order to get it inspected, you need a permit. In order to get a permit, you have to be licensed. We have a numerous amount of companies out there that are working on an occupational license, which is perfectly legal to do. Unfortunately, now with the new changes in the code, they cannot come in and pull a permit, because they are not a licensed contractor. We have been in touch with Information Technologies. Unfortunately we have a program in there now, Seeking Plus, which is not very cooperative. Our licensing trades are cast in stone. We cannot delete them, we cannot add to them. So the county is in the process of getting a new program because it's so far outdated. What we're trying to do staff-wise is to enter a category in the computer that will allow these people to get a permit with an occupational license. Again, IT's having trouble with that because it's not compatible with CD-plus. So when they go up to the front counter, it's almost impossible for them to get a permit. They have an option of getting a state license. As Mr. Bartoe explained, the state decided they wanted to license these low voltage people. We ended up keeping the alarm section anything 5,000 Page 13 March 18, 2003 square feet or under we could license. Anything over, the state took over. What we need, really, is a discussion on whether we want to amend our ordinance and put the low voltage section back in, or require these businesses to go get a state license now. Again, technically we have put many businesses out of business, due to the fact they can't come in and pull permits. Now, this is a problem only on retrofits. It's not a problem on new construction, because the permit covers all the wiring in the house on new construction. But if you should call and want a stereo system or room wired for your computer or four or five more telephone jacks put in your house, it requires a permit now so it can be inspected by the electrical inspector. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And also landscape lighting, which has become -- MR. NONNENMACHER: All low voltage. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- quite popular. MR. NONNENMACHER: Satellite dishes, cable television. MR. JOSLIN: More controls. MR. NONNENMACHER: That's the problem we have. We have many businesses that can't pull permits now, and after being in business since 1990, 13 years, now they can't come in and pull permits. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, and I know -- MR. NONNENMACHER: We're trying -- like I said, we're trying to correct that staff-wise until we could come up with something -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's no danger to low voltage. You can't get hurt by low voltage. We have to inspect it because the state now mandates it, which I question if that was necessary, but -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, apparently it's the grounding of it. Page 14 March 18, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but I know so many businesses, specially audio-visual, that are doing sound systems: Home theatres, speakers, surround sound. Just -- I mean, just a computer, to go high speed on your computer, no one could come in and do it. But it's not a risk to the public. MR. NONNENMACHER: No. In fact, one solution we gave the contractors is have the owner of the home pull an owner/builder permit. And they -- since they're not required to have a license to do this, they wouldn't be illegal to go into the home and do it, and it still could be inspected that way. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, what if we grandfathered in the current contractors -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, that would be a fact. Once we amend our ordinance, we have nothing to grandfather them into. We would have to amend the ordinance and put the low voltage back into the ordinance, and then anyone that had an occupational license for this type of work would have a 90-day window to grandfather. MR. NEALE: We've done it in all kinds of different time windows. We've given them as much as a year in the past for-- MR. CRAWFORD: Well, within that time period they would have to do what? Take the test -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Just come in and see us, produce their occupational license, you know, fill out a full application so we'd have all records -- MR. CRAWFORD: And after that time period -- MR. NONNENMACHER: -- and they'd be issued-- MR. CRAWFORD: -- we would set up testing requirements and they would-- MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, but new -- new companies, they would have to take the test then. MR. NEALE: Is -- two questions, I guess, from a procedural point of view, is there a state licensed category for low voltage, or Page 15 March 18, 2003 does it just fall under electrical contractor? MR. NONNENMACHER: I believe it falls under the low voltage, and it includes the alarms, alarm systems -- MR. NEALE: It goes under alarm system contracting? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah. But again -- MR. NEALE: Is there a separate test for it that you know of from -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Block & Associates -- MR. NEALE: -- Experior-- Block & Associates? MR. NONNENMACHER: -- does offer a test -- Experior does offer a test for it. And the state came down with the opinion that the counties really didn't have to license them if they didn't want to. MR. NEALE: Okay, but the state has no problem with us licensing them as a specialty contractor, as opposed to the state licensing them alone? MR. NONNENMACHER: No. MR. NEALE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But if we amend the ordinance, we're looking at a minimum of six months. MR. NEALE: I think that's why in the past we've -- you know, we can make a recommendation to the county commission. In the past the time period has been pretty long, as much as a year, to allow grandfathering -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And then the county will contact every one of the contractors -- MR. NONNENMACHER: They'll-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- for this category? MR. NONNENMACHER: They will contact every contractor with an occupational license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any questions, discussions? MR. CRAWFORD: I think we have to do it, if the state requires Page 16 March 18, 2003 an inspection and-- MR. NONNENMACHER: And again, staff is not going to enforce this, because there's really nothing to enforce. What we're trying to do is work with these people the best way we can. Once we get our CD-plus out and a new program in, at that time we can add a category that will allow an occupational license to pull a permit. Then once the ordinance is amended, then we'll just take that and put it right into the competency card and eliminate that part of the program that lets occupational license-- MR. LLOYD: What's your time line on upgrading your software? MR. NONNENMACHER: They've been working on it for over a year, so I really don't know, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So if we make this motion and we give the proper time, which would probably be a year for this to happen, what do we do in the interim? Are those people going to come in and pull a permit? I don't want homeowners being forced to pull an owner/build to upgrade a stereo system or a computer system. MR. NONNENMACHER: Unfortunately we don't have a mechanism right now to let them pull a permit. The system, the CD-plus system, will not accept it. I looked at our alarm system and I looked at our satellite section, figuring that I could, according to the ordinance, have the authority to add a restricted license. And each one of those are very specific as to a satellite dish and a fire, burglar or medical alarm. So anything I would do, if I put them all in one of those categories, I wouldn't restrict it, I'd be adding to the category, which I don't think I have the authority to do. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So my question being in our motion that we need to make, we're going to grandfather these people in, all future people from the date of the change of the ordinance will take the state license. Secondly, we're going to create a category, but are Page 17 March 18, 2003 we basically going to not have inspections until one, we get the ordinance changed and two, you get the software? Are we going to ignore inspections and permits? MR. NONNENMACHER: I doubt if the building department would ignore inspections. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But what can they inspect that they don't have a permit on? MR. NONNENMACHER: If they don't have a permit and they're doing it inside a home and we don't know about it, that happens all the time. They renovate inside, they add plumbing, electrical inside without permits and we just don't know unless there's a complaint. So the answer, if we don't know what's happening, naturally then we can't enforce it and inspect it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, and there's always been an unwritten rule about dollar limits, too. I mean, we don't pull a permit for a $140 repair. MR. NONNENMACHER: Electrical is different. Electrical is $200 to start off with. And now with the mandatory inspection of grounding of low voltage, it seems to me that every time it's added, no matter what the cost, the state wants the grounding inspected. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What do you want in this motion, Mr. Neale? MR. CRAWFORD: Can we even make a motion today? Should we have staff prepare a proposal to insert in our ordinance? MR. NEALE: I think so. Because unfortunately no matter -- the way it sounds, because of the software problem, it sounds like no matter what this board does, it doesn't solve the problem. MR. NONNENMACHER: Correct. MR. NEALE: Until they fix the software. You can create a new license category, but until it goes to the county commission and they're able to enter a new -- but you said you can't even enter a new Page 18 March 18, 2003 license category. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, we're having trouble with the hurricane shutter license. We can't get it into CD-plus. MR. NEALE: I mean, what it sounds like is yes, it's something this board probably needs to take action on. But no matter what action you take isn't going to solve the software problem. MR. LLOYD: What are you doing with the shutter contractors now if you can't get them in the computer? How are you handling them, manually? MR. NONNENMACHER: We -- I believe they're in the aluminum restricted to shutters only. So we -- the problem is -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, we did create the new category for them. That was created in the past ordinance amendment. MR. BARTOE: The system is so bad that there was a -- I can remember a time when a carpenter, licensed carpenter come in to get a permit to build a fence, and which a carpenter can build a wooden fence, and the system's so bad, it wouldn't give him a permit. A carpenter's not in the system to be issued a permit. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So basically for someone who hears of this discussion or is watching this meeting who's in this business, we're just going to table this discussion and everything is going to continue as it is right now, not requiring a permit and not requiring an inspection until the county resolves the software problem. MR. BARTOE: Well, it is requiring a permit and an inspection, but if we don't know about it, we don't know about it. MR. NEALE: We are in a classic governmental -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but we're also public record right here. MR. NEALE: We're in a classic governmental Catch-22. We're requiring someone to get a permit who can't get a permit because we can't give a permit because we can't get it in the software. Even though they should be able to get a permit. Page 19 March 18, 2003 MR. LLOYD: Can the permit be issued outside the software? Can it be done manually? I mean, can we do it by hand? Are we talking about something that's possible that you don't have to log into a computer, you're going to have to keep -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Not really -- MR. LLOYD: -- a separate record? MR. NONNENMACHER: -- because the computers are hooked up with airs (phonetic) that controls the inspections which are done by computer now out on a road. MR. LLOYD: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But our intention is going to be that we're going to grandfather these low voltage contractors in so that -- MR. NEALE: And create a new category. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- they can -- and create a category for them and grandfather them so that they can get a permit and call for inspections. But the county has procedures that they need to rectify before that can happen. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. And I hope I have an answer for that within the next week or two. I have one gentleman in IT strictly working on trying to do something with the computer that it will accept it and continue on through the inspection phase. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So basically we have a state unfunded mandate -- boy, I've been hearing that word a lot lately -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, I was in Tallahassee yesterday. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- that we can't comply with presently because we have computer problems within the county. So, therefore, the discussion ends, right? MR. NEALE: Well, what I would say, just in the interest of moving things forward, since we're not going to have another meeting of this board for two months, is that we do draft some language for an ordinance amendment between now and then to bring back to the board, so that at least this board can approve it and Page 20 March 18, 2003 move it up to the county commission, so that hopefully by the time the IT department gets their act together, we can have an ordinance amendment done, so I would propose that we do that. MS. KELLER: Is this software Out Source who provided the software for you? MR. NONNENMACHER: I really don't know. MS. KELLER: Do you have an agreement -- MR. NONNENMACHER: This is county-wide -- MS. KFJLLER: -- for maintenance? MR. NONNENMACHER: -- CD-plus. It's not just the building department that has it. MS. KELLER: Because they must have a maintenance agreement for the provider. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But everything's on hard drive and they can't change anything. MS. KELLER: But whoever provided the software -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, that's unique -- MS. KELLER: -- should have a maintenance agreement. MR. NONNENMACHER: -- to the licensing for some reason, and IT can't figure it out how it just got locked in there. MR. LLOYD: I'm sure IT has addressed this fact, but is there a field maybe under an existing category like electrical, if there's a blank field that could be added or you could tag in there low voltage -- a letter that would say okay, this particular permit is electrical, but it's -- this field would designate it as low voltage. IT's probably investigated that, right? MR. NONNENMACHER: Again, I think it would -- Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. NONNENMACHER: If you were to take a look at the alarm system contractor or the satellite dish contractor, installation contractor, and then look at my authority under restricted licenses, Page 21 March 18, 2003 and would it be stretching to put them under one of those categories, restricted to low voltage only? Or am I adding rather than restricting? MR. NEALE: I would think that simply because we're sort of jamming a square peg in a round hole, we're probably better to go into satellite dish, because it's a more limited category. Alarm systems allows people to do -- it's a state licensure, so there's more restrictions on that. And I would think that under -- it could be a restricted license under satellite dish. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, I can take care of that tomorrow. I can have the letters typed up, sent out to all the occupational licenses, and as they come in, issue them a satellite dish contractor license restricted to low voltage only. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: changed -- MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. NONNENMACHER: But we have to get the ordinance. Yeah, it would be best to get -- We have to get the ordinance -- the proper category. -- before we can do that. For a fast quick this could be done -- I could start on it this afternoon when I got (sic) back. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think at this point we really just need a motion for the county to draft up a new specialty license that we're going to grandfather in. At the same time, I would tell each of those people in that letter that this is going to grandfather them in Collier County only, and they may want to look at getting a state license, if they go into Lee or other counties. But at least we've covered them for Collier County. And then address this -- because you'll have IT questions answered by the April meeting -- or not April but May meeting. And we can address this in May. I don't want to start issuing satellite permits to a guy who's doing a computer audio-visual, because that's Page 22 March 18, 2003 just total confusion. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I think you're probably right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's -- anybody got a motion? MR. CRAWFORD: I'll make the motion that this board requests staff to prepare a low voltage license to be added to our ordinance that would include a grandfathering notice to the existing occupational license holders that allows them up to 12 months to be grandfathered into this license without the testing requirements that will be included in the draft. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second? MR. JOSLIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion? Everybody clear? All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So moved. We'll address that in May, include that on the agenda. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Neale and Mr. Zachary, I believe I provided you with a copy of how low voltage read in the 85 ordinance. MR. NEALE: I don't have a copy of it. We do have one other thing on the agenda, is -- and it's actually from the February agenda -- is we had proposed a new form -- I don't know if everybody has one -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, we do. MR. NEALE: -- for a findings of fact on some of the more prevalent kinds of applications that we receive here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you'll look in your February packet, what he's talking about is the findings of fact, conclusions of law that I guess we should have used this morning. MR. NEALE: Well, we hadn't approved it yet, so you really couldn't. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But you're wanting this for every Page 23 March 18, 2003 second entity or every action of this board? MR. NEALE: Basically the ordinance says that we are to -- the board is to make findings of fact on every second entity qualification and licensure review. The board typically does that verbally. But in that we've had a couple of contentious matters recently on these kinds of issues, I've prepared this where it's a-- fairly much of a boilerplate fill-in-the-blanks kind of form. But this is for a credit report review, waiver of testing requirements and reinstatement of license. Not so much for second entity. Second entity is pretty much wide open, and we've already got a new form for that. That already lists all the criteria. And so that's a fairly straightforward one. What this one is for is to set a standard format for doing things that directly affect someone's licensure, when someone's applying for a new license or a reinstatement license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can we -- do we have to read this in its entirety each time? MR. NEALE: No, all that has to be done is it can be put into the record. What you can say is pursuant to this, we've got the findings of fact, conclusions of law as per the form adopted by board procedures. Then you would go to Page 2 and under the appropriate one, number 5-A, say it was a credit report one, you can say the applicant has met or has not met the applicable credit report criteria as set out. And then you just list one or two relevant facts in there. Same thing for experience in the trade, waiver of testing, and same thing for reinstatement. Then you'd just say based on those facts, the board concludes the applicant has met the standard or has not met the standard. And then you would -- the order would be they're either granted or not granted the license. So you wouldn't have to read the whole thing, you could read it in just making sure that those areas are covered. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so the person making the motion to approve any of these items are going to have to read that. Page 24 March 18, 2003 MR. NEALE: MR. LLOYD: 2002. MR. NEALE: MR. LLOYD: MR. NEALE: MR. LLOYD: MR. BARTOE: MR. NEALE: MR. LLOYD: MR. NEALE: there. MR. areas that MR. MR. MR. Are you all clear on it? MR. NEALE: You wouldn't have to read the whole thing. MS. KELLER: Just the relevant section. MR. NEALE: Yeah, just the relevant sections. And then we would fill in the blanks. What we would do is make sure that one of these is attached to every one of these applications. And then we would get them all filed so that the staff would -- in case down the road someone has a complaint, they could-- MR. LLOYD: Is this the template for it? That's the template, yeah. The date on the very last page, minor thing, out? Yeah, it'll get corrected. Okay, I got it. Yeah, this is just literally a template, that's all. Okay. Page 3, I believe, the 7-0 vote is a minor thing. Yeah, a 7-0 vote is a minor-- Yeah, I saw that, too. I was just making the presumption of correctness CRAWFORD: As a detail, could we underline all the say has or has not, meets or does not meet -- NEALE: Sure. CRAWFORD: -- just to make it easier to read and fill out? JOSLIN: What's going to happen to this after it's filled MR. NEALE: What I would propose is it would go into the contractor licensing file of that applicant. MR. JOSLIN: For that applicant? MR. NEALE: So that it would become part of the licensure record. Page 25 March 18, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are they going to mail this to the applicant? MR. NEALE: I would say that would probably be a good idea. It will get mailed out to them, or they can pick it up when they pick up their license. Because typically it's one of those things, it would get mailed to someone who gets denied, probably. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but I have to -- every -- I have to go down and sign these things once they get them prepared, so -- MR. NEALE: Maybe it'll work a way around that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Which I don't mind doing, but all orders of the board have to be signed. MR. NEALE: And so what we're trying to do here, though, is one of the things the board strives for is consistency and constancy in making these kinds of decisions and making sure that you're not veering from a previously set standard. And so this will allow -- if someone says well, you gave so-and-so a license but you didn't give me one, you can say well, the reason we gave so-and-so a license is right here in writing, and the reason we didn't give you one is because you didn't meet those kinds of criteria. So it gives you that ability to refer back to those areas and be constant in your decision. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does anybody remember the name of the painting contractor from Poland who spent almost two years to pass his license and he studied questions every night? And do you remember -- MR. CRAWFORD: I don't remember his name, I remember him. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I remember him well. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd love to remember the name. I'm going to refer to that in the future. It was a wonderful case. MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: When people say they can't pass or they don't need to take the test, here's a guy from Poland, if you Page 26 March 18, 2003 weren't on the board, for two years he was coming to us, and he had a language problem, and every night he would study questions after dinner. And he did it for two years, and he finally passed. And he got his business and law and he got a 72 on his trade. And we approved him at that point. MR. CRAWFORD: My only concem, and I respect Mr. Neale's opinion, but it seems like a little bit of overkill to me. Do we get a lot of calls and conflicts from people that are frustrated with our decisions? Because I just -- I'm not a big fan of extra paperwork. MR. NEALE: Well, I'm not a fan of extra paperwork, except that we do say in our ordinance that we make findings of fact and conclusions of law on each one of these kinds of cases. While it's done verbally on the record, there is the possibility that if someone came back and said well, you didn't make findings of fact and conclusions of law, so therefore I'm going to appeal the board's decision, this would give us the ability to say well, yes, the board did. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can see it happening, because there's one on our agenda today that we didn't hear that could very easily end up where he's thinking it may end up. MR. NEALE: That was really one of the ones that caught my eye. MR. to when a MR. MR. MR. BARTOE: And Mr. Neale, this new form does not apply board has a regular hearing; is that -- NEALE: No. BARTOE: -- correct, you already have those forms? NEALE: Those are -- the regular hearing form stays the same and the second entity form stays the same. So we now have -- this will be for licensure matters. The second entity form is what they fill out for second entities, and then we've got the standard findings of fact, conclusions of law forms for public hearings. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And don't be afraid to make a motion just because of this thing. I mean, no one's going to chastise you or Page 27 March 18, 2003 -- we all make mistakes up here, so don't be afraid of it. I can't make a motion, nor can I make a second, so that's why I need you guys. Anybody else? Do note that we received a letter from Kenneth Dunne. MR. CRAWFORD: I'm sorry, do we need to put this into place? MR. NEALE: Yeah-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I forgot about that. MR. CRAWFORD: I'll make a motion -- that's okay. After your motion speech, I thought that was the forum for that. I would like to make a motion that we accept the findings of fact, conclusions of law, et cetera, et cetera form, and that we implement this at our next May meeting. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So done. Kenneth Dunne, who was a member of this board, has had to resign because of business obligations that he's out of town a great deal. Something this board doesn't do in the past like it should, but one, I'd like to thank him for his service to the county. He was a good member of this board and we do appreciate his efforts that he spent here. We will advertise. We are looking -- he's shown on the list as a general contractor, but he was filling the position of an engineer, correct? MR. BARTOE: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we will advertise for an engineer. MR. BARTOE: I believe Sue Filson will. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Will take care of that, okay. MR. CRAWFORD: And as I understand it, if we cannot find an Page 28 March 18, 2003 engineer, then we'll take any and all other categories. MR. BARTOE: I believe so, sir. MR. CRAWFORD: That may be why. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, anybody have anything else? Next meeting is May 21st. Anybody know of a conflict? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjoum. MR. CRAWFORD: Motion to adjourn, Crawford. MS. RODGERS: Second, Rodgers. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 9:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD LES DICKSON, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 29