CLB Minutes 06/18/2003 RJune 18, 2003
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
Naples, Florida
June 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
MICHAEL BARIL
ERIC GUITE'
RICHARD JOSLIN
ANN KELLER
KENNETH LLOYD
ALSO PRESENT:
Thomas Bartoe, Licensing Compliance Officer
Robert Zachary, County Attorney
Patrick Neale, Counsel to the Board
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
DATE: June 18, 2003
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING
(ADMINISTRATION BUILDING)
COURTHOUSE COMPLEX
~,NY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
DATE: May 21,2003
V. DISCUSSION:
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Jerry W. Sitzlar - Request to qualify a second company.
Clifton B, Lockhart - Request to qualify a second company and review of Credit Report.
Conan Leary - Request to have Master Plumber license reinstated without re-taking the exam.
Donald F. Belyea - Request to be allowed to take exams to reinstate license which was revoked by
the CLB on 06-16-97.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case # 2003-02 - Nancy Brown vs Julio A. Serrano D/B/A Gulfbreeze Pool Service, Inc.
IX. REPORTS:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2003
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call to order the meeting
of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board for June 18th,
2003.
I'd like to start out with roll call to my right, please.
MR. BARIL: Baril.
MR. GUITE': Guite'.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. LLOYD: Ken Lloyd.
MS. KELLER: Ann Keller.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are there 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
Compliance Officer. And staff has no additions or deletions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I need a motion to approve
the agenda as it's written.
MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, moved.
MR. LLOYD: Lloyd, second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to introduce Lisa, Lisa
Koehler. Lisa is new with the county. She is the communications --
or public relations director for the community service division of
Collier County. Thrilled to have you with us. Welcome aboard.
Approval of the minutes of the May 21st meeting.
MR. JOSLIN: I move that we approve the minutes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second?
MR. GUITE': I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion, there is none, so let's get
Page 2
June 18, 2003
right into it.
New business. Jerry Sitzlar, requesting to qualify a second
company. Are you here?
Would you come forward to the podium. I need to have you
sworn in. Sitzlar. I put my glasses on. Excuse me. (Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pronounce your last name for us.
MR. SITZLAR: Sitzlar.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sitzlar, okay.
Tell us what you want to do, why, what your purposes are.
MR. SITZLAR: The second company is a lighting
maintenance company, which we have -- or David presently has a
lot of contracts with it. And from what I understand, from-- when
he got that license, that the most that he's able to do with it is clean
the lights, change bulbs and the ballasts. If anything's damaged
with those fixtures and stuff, it takes a licensed contractor to go in
and fix them correctly. Like let's say one's shorting out at the
bottom or something like that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What type of lights are these you're
talking about?
MR. SITZLAR: Streetlights.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Streetlights, okay.
Is that correct, Mr. Bartoe?
MR. BARTOE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that correct, that they can just do
-- under their license right now they can just do replacement of
bulbs?
Are you familiar with this case?
MR. BARTOE: No, I am not.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So who owns-- who
qualifies Emergency One Electric right now?
MR. SITZLAR: I do, sir.
Page 3
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You do. And this is a second
company. Okay.
Can I give you my address?
MR. SITZLAR: Sure.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a street light that --
MR. SITZLAR: What time do you want us there?
MR. BARTOE: Mr. Dickson?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BARTOE: Yeah, I'm assuming the company he wants to
qualify is not a licensed electrical contractor; therefore, that's about
all they could do is change bulbs.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
Have we had any complaints against this company or this
license holder?
MR. BARTOE: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any comments from the board?
MR. LLOYD: You have no ownership in the new one, Buch --
in the company, Buchman Lighting, Inc.? You will have no
ownership?
MR. SITZLAR: No, sir, I will --
MR. LLOYD: Just your --
MR. SITZLAR: I will have no ownership with that, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did we have a financial
responsibility form in here?
MR. JOSLIN: I don't see one.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, it's on Page No. 8.
What we're looking for, so that you're aware of, is the financial
responsibility, being that you have some control over the company
to make sure bills are paid, customers are taken care of. And there's
a form that you've signed, it's an affidavit, saying that you are
certified-- legally qualified to act on behalf of the business
organization.
Page 4
June 18, 2003
MS. KELLER: There's a letter from the
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pardon me?
MS. KELLER: There's a letter from the
authorized signer.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
Okay.
bank.
bank saying he's an
Yeah, I see that on the next one.
Gentlemen -- ladies and gentlemen, what's your desire?
MS. KELLER: It says that he has check-writing authority for
the present entity but not for the proposed entity.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Say that again, Ann?
MS. KELLER: On Page 4, L, it says that he has check-writing
authority for the present company but not for the proposed entity.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have any check-writing
authority?
MR. SITZLAR: With Emergency One Electric only.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But not with the new company?
MR. SITZLAR: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, here's the problem, and you
understand that if this company does anything wrong and has to
come back before this board, the only person we talk to is you.
MR. SITZLAR: Yes, sir, I'm aware of that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you do put at risk both
companies.
MR. SITZLAR: Yes, sir, I'm aware of that.
What I can tell you, David is now going to school to get his
master's license. He has -- I have worked with him in the present
with two other companies prior to opening my own. I was the
supervisor of him. And he is probably one of the most confident
(sic) electricians I have had underneath me.
I didn't make this choice very lightly, because I do understand
the liability as far as what was coming on me, because someone had
done this for me whenever I opened my company. And I'm aware
Page 5
June 18, 2003
of the liability.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any legal problems here, Mr.
Neale?
MR. NEALE: None that I can see.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Just as long as you're aware.
Be careful.
MR. SITZLAR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a motion from the board, if
there's no more discussion.
MR. LLOYD: I make a motion that we accept the application.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second?
MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We have a motion and a second that
this application for a second entity be approved.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. LLOYD: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anyone opposed?
MR. BARIL: Opposed, Baril.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: By a vote of 5-1, you have been
approved.
MR. SITZLAR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now, all your paperwork is here --
this applies to every one of you in the audience -- your paperwork is
here today, you can't get this done today, it will have to be
tomorrow. See Maggie at contractor licensing and she will take it
from here.
Page 6
June 18, 2003
MR. SITZLAR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay?
Clifton Lockhart, are you present?
please.
Thank you.
If you'd come forward,
Request to qualify a second company and review the credit
report.
I need to have you sworn in, Mr. Lockhart.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, give us a brief history.
MR. LOCKHART: I got a current company, Absolute
Plastering, we do a large amount of stucco, and I'm looking to start
another company, Bonita Shores Construction, where we do drywall
and stucco.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why two companies?
MR. LOCKHART: Just to spread my interest out a little bit,
not be confined to one market, one partner.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Your ownership of both companies
is what?
MR. LOCKHART: Fifty percent.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And is it the same partners in both
companies?
MR. LOCKHART: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
Have we had any complaints on Mr. Lockhart, Mr. Bartoe?
MR. BARTOE: No, sir.
MS. KELLER: Although he had a lien.
MR. LLOYD: IRS lien, yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, and there's a release for the
tax lien in here? Or does --
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
MR. LOCKHART: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Well, you obviously got in
Page 7
June 18, 2003
some financial trouble, so why don't you explain what happened.
MR. LOCKHART: That was several years ago I got the tax
lien. That was taken care of. Then I had a roommate situation back
in 2000 where we broke a lease early and I had to pay that off. I've
got releases for that, too.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And then there's also notices
in here, family and child support. Is that -- what's the status of that?
MR. LOCKHART: The status of that is I'm still in some
arrearage on child support, but --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you guys see a credit report on
the company, Absolute Plastering, Inc.? MR. LLOYD: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, you don't have one, do
you?
MR. NEALE: There is one.
MR. BARTOE: Yeah, there is one in here.
MR. NEALE: It's right behind the tax lien.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right behind what?
MR. NEALE: The tax lien.
MR. LLOYD: Oh, in the back.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. No derogatory information.
Anybody have any questions of Mr. Lockhart?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We are quiet this morning.
MR. NEALE: Quiet group this morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, what's your pleasure? I can't
make motions.
MR. JOSLIN: I see nothing wrong with the application that's
really detectable, so I'm going to make a motion that we approve the
application.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second?
MR. GUITE': I'll second the motion.
Page 8
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. LLOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BARIL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
Any discussion?
All those in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Close. 4-2. Application has been
opposed, so keep it clean. Good luck to you.
MR. LOCKHART: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tomorrow, you heard my
announcement.
Mr. Leary, are you present?
MR. LEARY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you come forward, sir.
Request to have a master plumber license reinstated without
taking the exam.
I need to have you sworn in, sir.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. LEARY: Good morning, Board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
Tell us how you allowed your license to get in this shape.
MR. LEARY: I had left, and I called the board, and I recently
had spoke to Maggie before I come here and filed to come before the
board, and I never got a renewal. And we tried to figure out what
had happened. We had a current address, had a P.O. Box, it was
active, it was still active.
And I brought some of the paperwork in to show that I had
recently taken a test for New Mexico and -- for the same code, and
Page 9
June 18, 2003
that renewed my license and it came to that address. We were trying
to figure out why it never came.
So I asked her what alternatives could I do -- I've taken a lot of
tests, and without creating undue hardship -- asked her, you know,
what's the alternatives. So she said this was one of them.
And where I have been active constantly in the crafts and
trades, I figured I'd come to the board, if there's an open door, knock
on it and ask and see if I can get my license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How long did you have your license
here?
MR. LEARY: I think approximately about three years. I
believe two to three years here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And then you left for a period of
time?
MR. LEARY: I did.
sewers, and remodel and
I was working with the county, with the
repairs. And it kind of slowed down, it
dried
time.
jobs.
up. So it was very tough, you know, economically at that
And I went back and worked in another area and traveled on
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How long was that?
MR. LEARY: From 19 -- April of'93 until just coming back
this last three or four months.
So I traveled and gave her some areas of where I worked, who I
worked for, and gave her a resume' of my entire 30 -- I believe it
was almost 37 years of work. That was -- that took a little bit to do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I see New Mexico,
Massachusetts.
MR. LEARY: California.
MR. JOSLIN: California.
MR. LEARY: Yeah. And I was out in California, out in the
Bay area. And there was a little opportunity there, good money, so I
went there to take advantage of that and make a little retirement.
Page 10
June 18, 2003
To make -- vested for some retirement down there.
MR. BARTOE: And Mr. Dickson, his front page of his packet
indicates his license was originally issued in Collier County July
11 th, 1988 and expired September 30th, 1995.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Has anything changed significantly,
Mr. Bartoe, between the test that would have been taken in '88
versus today?
MR. BARTOE: I have no idea on the test.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We don't have a plumber on this
board.
MR. LEARY: You got one now. A little humor there.
MR. LLOYD: You were in California at the time the renewal
was sent to you?
MR. LEARY: Yes, I was. I was there gainfully employed with
a company in a union at that time. So I was -- that's what we
couldn't figure out.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
Neale?
Can you give us some direction, Mr.
MR. NEALE: Well, under the Collier County Ordinance, the
pertinent ordinance, which is Section 22-184, subsection C, the
board may consider the applicant's relevant recent experience in the
specific trade, and based upon such experience may waive testing
requirements, if convinced that the applicant is qualified by
experience, whereby such competency testing would be superfluous.
I don't know whether it's in your packet, but there is the new
findings of facts form that we're going to use at this meeting that
does s~t out that you can find that someone here, in a situation where
they've had significant current and recent experience in the directly
related trade, the testing requirement can be waived, so --
MS. KELLER: What exactly were the charges in '97?
MR. LEARY: Charges?
MR. NEALE: There are no charges.
Page 11
June 18, 2003
MS. KELLER: Section -- oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And after 12 years on this board,
I've seen numerous cases of renewal problems with people out of
state, even thinking they're inactive and they're not inactive, or
renewals. You're not the first I've seen. MR. LEARY: I've heard that.
MR. NEALE: And in this instance, it appears that from review
of the record and the testimony that this gentleman has consistently
and continuously practiced his trade without interruption; whereas,
in the past we have had cases where the person has taken off from
the business for a period of time. In this case this gentleman
appears to have continued to practice as a plumber throughout the
period.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Currently his license
Massachusetts.
MR. LEARY: Yes, and New Mexico.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also in New Mexico? Is California
still active?
MR. LEARY: California is -- the license is reciprocated that--
the ones that I had with them, so I really didn't need to have a
license, which was good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you originally are from
Massachusetts, right?
MR. LEARY: Yeah, originally.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I knew that the way you said
California.
MR. LEARY: Yeah, right. They didn't like that out there.
Where are you from?
MR. JOSLIN: Just a question: How many licenses do you
have now? How many states?
MR. LEARY: I have -- I had a license for Vermont, I had for
Maine, for New Hampshire, Massachusetts. I had a full license for
is still active in
Page 12
June 18, 2003
Massachusetts. Then I was in South Carolina. In fact, I was one of
the only Yankees, as they call it, to go into South Carolina like in
360 years, and go to South Carolina and Charleston and become a
master plumber. And they wanted to know what brought me down
there.
So I have a license there, and I got stuck with the S&L loans
when that went out. And then I came to Florida. And that was kind
of a tough time for everybody. And then I got the Florida license.
And then you kind of work-- in the trade it's not like having a
job where you're working for an insurance company or you're
working for the government or you're working where you have a
fixed position. It's like a biorhythm, and it's like a timetable of
where you stand and where you are, there's only 12 donuts in a
dozen, there's 50 people, how you're going to survive, how you
manage your money. And it's sometimes very fruitful and other
times it's a balancing act.
So what I do is I just take the opportunity and go for it and say
hey, you know, don't get mad at it, learn from it and make your
money. You've got to keep food coming in and money for bills.
And you learn to take your craft and enjoy it, and you make a lot of
people happy and you treat people right and you have friends for
life, you know.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you presently working in
Collier County? MR. LEARY:
MR. NEALE:
Not at this moment, no.
It appears this gentleman's been a licensed
master plumber since 1972.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Uh-huh.
MR. LEARY: Yeah, that's right, that's very good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How do we feel? Any other
discussion?
MR. BARIL: I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move to
Page 13
June 18, 2003
approve Mr. Leary's request to have the master plumbing license
reinstated without taking the exam.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second?
MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
afterwards, Mr. Neale. Is that
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
I'll do the findings of fact
acceptable?
All those in favor?
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You have been unanimously
approved to reinstate your license.
MR. LEARY: Wow. Thank you very much, Board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: It's very seldom we get someone that has this
much experience that we license to.
MR. LEARY: Geez, I'd like to be on the board now. Is there a
possibility of that? MR. NEALE:
MR. LLOYD:
MR. LEARY:
There are openings.
Just sign up.
I'll try it. Give me an application.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We have three openings on the
board. One as a consumer. In fact, we're advertising for people
right now.
MR. LEARY: In the paper, the local paper?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. NEALE: Actually, you can go to this office right here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right next door is where you can
pick up an application.
MR. LEARY: Super.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need to do a little legal work here,
if you all will bear with me for a minute.
Findings of fact regarding a reinstatement of a license. This
Page 14
June 18, 2003
cause came on for public hearing before the Contractor Licensing
Board, hereafter board, on June 18th, 2003, for consideration of the
application submitted to the board for review. The type of
application is set out above, which is reinstatement of license.
The board, having heard testimony under oath, received
evidence, heard arguments respective of all appropriate matters,
thereupon issues its finding of fact, conclusions of law and order of
the board as follows: That Conan A. Leary has submitted an
application to the Collier County contractor licensing supervisor for
licensure in the master plumbing trade, pursuant to Section
22-184(B), as in boy, of the Collier County Contractor Licensing
Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended. The application -- excuse me,
read and then you find you're reading the wrong thing. Scratch
you
that.
Number two, that the board has jurisdiction over this matter and
that Mr. Leary was present at the public hearing, was not
represented by counsel before the board.
All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105 were
properly issued.
The facts of this case are found to be that the applicant has met
the criteria for acceptable credit report and financial responsibility.
He does have enough revellent (sic) recent experience in the
specific trade applied for, and thus the testing requirement may be
waived, based upon the following facts: He has been a master
plumber since 1972, he has constantly been in the trade, actively
pursuing, and he has numerous licenses in states around the country.
Therefore, based upon the foregoing facts, the board concludes
that the applicant has met the standards set out in Ordinance 90-105,
as amended. The vote was 6-0 in favor, which was a majority of the
vote of the members present, that he be granted a license for the
trade of plaster plumber.
So signed Collier County Licensing Board.
Page 15
June 18, 2003
That's sufficient, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I did abridge it a little bit.
MR. NEALE: No, that's perfect.
MR. LEARY: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
MR. LEARY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You take care of that tomorrow.
MR. LEARY: All righty.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good luck to you.
MR. LEARY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Donald Belyea, are you present?
MR. BELYEA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you come forward, sir.
Belyea, right?
MR. BELYEA: Belyea, yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Belyea.
Request to be allowed to take exams to reinstate license which
was revoked by the Contractor Licensing Board on June 16th, 1997.
I need to have you sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why were you revoked?
MR. BELYEA: I did not get to a meeting here. I was at a prior
meeting. I tried to call and reschedule, but I couldn't get it
rescheduled, and ! couldn't make it to this meeting. I was in a
different section of the courthouse, and they wouldn't let me be at
both places at once.
I did call and try to reschedule, but that's the reason why they
revoked it. It was for a -- I did a job for a customer, and he was not
satisfied, and I tried to go back and do what he wanted to, but he was
so belligerent to me that I decided to go in front of the board with it,
and ! just couldn't make it to that meeting at the time.
Page 16
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I would have been on the
board back then, and you don't look familiar to me.
But at the same time, when we revoke a license, it's done as a
last resort. And just because someone doesn't show up for a
meeting, unless that's a continuous no-show meeting, after meeting,
after meeting, we don't do that. MR. BELYEA: I got--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe?
MR. BELYEA: I got one summons to be here. And I tried to
reschedule it. And the person -- I don't know who I was talking to at
the time, it was obviously six, seven years ago -- said that I had to
be there. And next thing I knew, I got something in the mail saying
my license was revoked.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, can you bring us up to
speed?
MR. NEALE: I can give you a little bit of background.
Mr. Belyea's case was scheduled on June 16th, 1997. And at
that time, the board found that he was in violation and ordered that
his license be revoked, and that a recommendation be made to the
State Construction Industry Licensing Board that state privileges be
revoked.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that all you have7
MR. NEALE: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe?
MR. BARTOE: And that was my case, and I'm sure if he
would have requested a continuance, one would have been granted.
MR. NEALE: And according to the order, Mr. Belyea was
present at the public hearing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, he was present.
MR. BELYEA: No, I wasn't here.
MR. BARTOE: I do not remember him being present.
MR. BELYEA: No, I wasn't, or else I'd have been here. That's
Page 17
June 18, 2003
-- I was at a prior commitment and I couldn't make it.
MR. JOSLIN: I think I recall this case. IfI remember correctly
MR. BARTOE: It was on County Barn Road, Mr. McCarthy.
MR. BELYEA: Yes, it was. And he has sued so many people
for so many things, it's not even funny. No one could get anything
right for that guy's house. Nobody.
MR. BARTOE: And I believe the board received a letter from
Mr. McCarthy after that, stating his displeasure that there was no
fine or restitution ordered.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What is the process, Mr. Neale,
legally? Once a license is revoked, my understanding is it's dead,
it's buried, it's over with.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, and Mr. Belyea did receive a
copy of the order, and as part of the order, it specifically says that he
had a period to appeal that order. He could have appealed it within
30 days of the mailing of the decision. And it was certified as
having been mailed by the secretary of the Contractors' Licensing
Board at that time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do we aS a board have a right to
reinstate a revoked license?
MR. NEALE: You probably have the right. I imagine that's
within the board's power.
MR. LLOYD: His request is to take -- if I'm reading this
correctly, to take exams on a license because his previous license no
longer exists--
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
MR. LLOYD: -- is that correct?
So all he's asking is to be able to take tests on the irrigation,
sprinkler and landscaping restricted license. That's what we have to
decide, right?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you just want to start the process
Page 18
June 18, 2003
again to get your license? Take--
MR. BELYEA: Well, I want to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- the test only?
MR. BELYEA: -- get my license reinstated, if I can. I mean, I
was in business for so many years, and one customer didn't like what
I did, and there was no other complaints besides that, I mean, you
know. And I saw -- I truly saw no way to get out of that, because
from what I was told over the phone, that there was no way that
they could reschedule it.
And I would not come up here and say that, you know, seven,
eight years later if, you know, that's what I truly thought was going
on. I mean, I'm here to -- I want to make a living for my family.
I've worked for irrigation companies for the last six years, and I
know my business. And just because some man didn't think I did it
right -- you know, who knows nothing about irrigation; the system
ran perfect and he just didn't like the way I did it -- I don't think
that's a reason to keep my license suspended.
How many complaints do you get for other people that-- you
knOW.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
it was revoked.
MR. BELYEA: Revoked.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
don't do that lightly.
Well, your license wasn't suspended,
You know, suspended, revoked.
And I will reiterate, we do -- we
MR. LLOYD: But your request of this board was to allow you
to take exams so that you could get a license in the irrigation,
sprinkler and landscaping restriction (sic); is that correct, that's what
the purpose was for this initial approach to the board?
MR. BELYEA: I thought it was to get it reinstated and then I
would have to take the exams to get it reinstated.
MR. BARTOE: You cannot reinstate the license, because that
type of license does not exist anymore. It was called landscaping
Page 19
June 18, 2003
unlimited.
And now to do the same type of work that he did, he would
have to have the irrigation sprinkler license and landscaping
restricted license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So we have to take the test,
it's a new license.
MR. LLOYD: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: Is that something that the board needs to decide,
that he's allowed to take this test? Can we -- we can't, I don't think,
physically stop him from taking the test, can we? MS. KELLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We can't stop him from reapplying
MS. KELLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- and taking the test, can we?
MS. KELLER: Yes, because your application has to be signed
by these guys.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. It's been six years. I mean, I
don't have a problem with the guy sitting for the test and reapplying.
MR. GUITE': Are there any other complaints against him?
MR. BARTOE: He was issued a citation, I was informed, in
2001 for contracting without a license, and that citation is paid.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You've been working for like large
companies, Centex--
MR. BELYEA: Yes, Stahlman-England Irrigation, Stahlman
Landscaping. I do master's reserve right now for Stahlman
Landscaping.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. BELYEA: I've been working in irrigation for 30 years.
And I think just because one guy thought that I didn't do something
right is kind of, you know, restricting to somebody's license to -- you
know. And--
Page 20
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand.
MR. JOSLIN: I have to review the thoughts in my head as far
as the case goes, but again, I'11, you know, utter it again with the
Chairman and advise that when this board sits before you and we
make a judgment to revoke your license, that's a pretty serious thing
that we don't like to do. As a board, they don't like to do that.
MR. BELYEA: I mean, I never had one complaint against me.
And for one guy to come out and say, you know, for this, this and
this. And I was trying to get to that meeting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. BELYEA: And I would not say that they wouldn't
reschedule if they didn't say that to me.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MS. KELLER: I also --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
times. We're trying to speak.
Okay --
-- we've heard that four or five
MS. KELLER: I also have a problem that in 2001 that you
were operating without a license. Instead of coming back to the
board and trying to get us to do this for you in 2001, you went out
and practiced the --
MR. BELYEA: It was a friend who asked me to do something
for him, and the guy that was involved, you know, didn't like me or
something. So I said here, I'll give your money back, pay the ticket.
That was my fault, yes, that is. I shouldn't have done that. I mean,
it was a little job the guy wanted done on his little house there, and
that was it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How do you all feel?
MR. LLOYD: So we have to decide whether we will allow
him to take the exams or not. That's our -- that would be our motion?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He's got to take the exam, and that
includes the business and law too, doesn't it?
MR. NEALE: I would request of the board, from my point of
Page 21
June 18, 2003
view and probably Mr. Zachary's, too, is if you do choose to permit
him to retake the test, that prior to him being issued the license, that
we have the opportunity to review the law on revocation and
reinstatement so that we can more adequately advise the board on
that matter.
So that, you know, what I'm saying is basically that if he takes
the test and makes the application and that it would come back
before this board so we could properly advise you on that matter.
Because I do want to review a little bit of the law of revocation and
reinstatement.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand. At the same time, I
would like to be able to go back and review that case, because I
don't remember it.
And contrary to what you may say, there's more to it than
what's at hand.
MR. NEALE: I may have the file in my old files. If not, staff
may have it, so -- you know, all I have here is the order.
MR. BARTOE: We should be able to retrieve those minutes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Then it would be proper to
postpone this till the next meeting and include in our packet for the
next meeting the minutes of that case, and let Mr. Zachary and Mr.
Neale research the legal ramifications as well.
Therefore, what I need is a motion that this be postponed till the
next meeting.
MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to postpone
Mr. Belyea's request till the next meeting when we have a chance to
review the '97 case.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second?
MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Our next meeting is July 16th.
Page 22
June 18, 2003
MR. BELYEA: July 16th?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. BELYEA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay? And we'll go
Thank you for your time.
MR. JOSLIN: Don't miss the meeting.
MR. BARTOE: Mr. Belyea, I need a phone
address where we can get ahold of you.
MR. BELYEA: Okay. 670 14th Street
34117?
34117, yeah.
MR. BARTOE:
MR. BELYEA:
352-9851.
MR. BARTOE:
MR. BELYEA:
MR. BARTOE:
MR. BELYEA:
through it then.
number and
Northeast.
252-9851.
352.
352. Thank you.
You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Neale, Mr. Zachary. I think that was a prudent
way to go about that.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, I would like to have the opportunity to
review both the case file itself, because all I have here is the bare
order that was issued and the minutes of that case, and also the law,
as it pertains.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We have no old business, so under
public hearings, we have Case No. 2003-02.
Really? It's only the second one for the year?
MR. BARTOE: Yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, could we take a short break?
I want to have an opportunity to talk to my investigator and the
plaintiff in the case for a couple of minutes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How much time do you need?
MR. ZACHARY: Five minutes, 10 minutes.
Page 23
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. We are going to take a short
break for about five minutes. If I could get everyone just to stay in
here so that we don't delay and make this 20 minutes. We will be
adjourned.
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call back to order the meeting of the
Collier County Licensing Board.
Next case before us, Nancy Brown versus Julio Serrano.
Ms. Brown, are you with us? Okay.
And Julio?
MR. KOWALSKI: Well, I'm Attorney Frank Kowalski, and
Mr. Serrano is in the restroom.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good.
If I could have both parties come here and sit on the front row,
if you would do that. And anyone who's with you, Ms. Brown, can
come up as well.
Let me give you an idea of how this will go. First you'll be
allowed to make an introduction. The county will first present their
case. You will be sworn in, if you're going to testify, except for the
attorney, who is an officer of the court. And you will be able to
make a brief statement of-- opening statement.
Then each of you will be allowed to present your case, at which
time the other party can ask you questions. And they will present
their case, you can ask them questions. And from that point on, we'll
pretty well go through it.
At the end you'll see us close the hearing, which means the
hearing is closed, there's no more information, but you get to listen
to us deliberate. And we may ask you questions during that period
of time, but no new evidence will be opened up.
It is somewhat judicial, but it's quasi judicial. We do accept
hearsay, because it's quasi judicial.
Okay, you have an idea of how it's going to go? And then at
Page 24
June 18, 2003
the end we will issue a findings of fact and resolve the case.
All right, with that, I'll open with Mr. Zachary and the county.
MR. ZACHARY: Good morning, members of the board. I'm
Robert Zachary, with the county attorney's office. We're here today
to hear the case of Collier County versus Julio Serrano.
First let me tell the board that we have amended the complaint.
Count I is a violation that-- alleged violation of 4.1.10 of the
Contractor Licensing Board ordinance. Specifically that is failing to
properly correct faulty workmanship or properly replace faulty
materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction
contract.
Faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced, not
continued or not completed in accordance with all specifications of
the applicable written agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any
material flaws in the quality and/or quantity of the unfinished or
finished work product, including any item that does not function
properly as part of the entire project.
If there is no written agreement provision regarding the specific
faulty workmanship issue, faulty workmanship exists if the work
process, product, or part thereof does not meet generally accepted
standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project. Faulty
workmanship does not include matters of aesthetics, unless the
aesthetically related item clearly violates a written contract
specification directly related thereto.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: May I ask a question? Is that going
to be Count II or--
MR. ZACHARY: That is--
MR. NEALE: Count I.
MR. ZACHARY: That is Count I.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you're going to drop --
MR. ZACHARY: We're dropping 4.1.8.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right, sir.
Page 25
June 18, 2003
MR. ZACHARY: 4.1.8 has more to do with financial
mismanagement, and that's not part of this case.
Quick summary of the case. Mrs. Nancy Brown, who is the
complainant in this case, verbally contracted with Julio Serrano,
who's doing business as Gulfbreeze Pool Services, to service her
pool. And Mr. Serrano agreed to do that.
You have in your packet several invoices that he sent for work
that he had done.
In August and September of 2002, there was evidently a
problem with the filter or the O-rings, which Mr. Serrano had
replaced.
At some point the -- there was leakage around the filter area,
and at one -- some point there was a gusher of water, and water was
being pumped out of the pool to the point that there was only two
feet of water left in the pool.
Mrs. Brown spoke to Mr. Serrano several times about the
problem. Then she had to leave town and Mr. Serrano had assured
her that he would correct the problem. Evidently the problem was
not corrected. Mrs. Brown had expressed concern that the pool was
going to pop out of the ground. And apparently it was a fiberglass
pool.
With no water in it, it did in fact pop out of the ground. Mrs.
Serrano (sic) contends that it was the fault of the defendant here,
Mr. Serrano, that he did not correct the problem, and it caused the
water to flow out of the pool -- the pool to pop out of the ground,
and she feels that it was his responsibility, his faulty workmanship
that did not correct the problem, and that she feels that he is liable
for her pool popping out of the ground and the repairs that she had to
make to the pool.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good. Thank you, Mr.
Zachary.
At this time, Mrs. Brown, I need -- if you would come up to
Page 26
June 18, 2003
this podium.
MR. NEALE: No--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pardon me?
MR. NEALE: Mr. Dickson -- well, if she wants to make an
opening statement. But then of course the respondent gets a chance
to make an opening statement.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, you want me to go respondent
first?
MR. NEALE: Well, because it's not testimony for-- at her
point.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just an opening statement. That's
what I was going for. Is that okay? MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mrs. Brown, if you would come --
MR. NEALE: Except -- well, just let me make one point
before. The county is presenting the case, not Mrs. Brown.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, that's right. So there is your
opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Neale. I do make mistakes.
Are you going to speak for the respondent? I'm sorry, if you
would give me your name again?
MR. KOWALSKI: Frank Kowalski, with the Naples firm of
Pollack, Slack and Wolff. I'm counsel to Mr. Serrano.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you like to make an opening
statement, Mr. Kowalski?
MR. KOWALSKI: I would not like to make an opening
statement at this point, but perhaps after the -- before I present
testimony in the case, evidence in the case, I might like to reserve it
until that point --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very well.
MR. KOWALSKI: -- if that's all right. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Mr. Zachary, are you going to present the case?
Page 27
June 18, 2003
MR. ZACHARY: Yes, sir. And I'd call Mrs. Nancy Brown.
If you could step over there to that microphone.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I knew I'd eventually get you there,
Mrs. Brown.
I need to have you sworn in, please.
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you want all the witnesses
sworn in together?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, why don't we do that now?
Anybody that's going to testify -- are you going to testify, sir,
or are you just -- okay, if you'll all be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.)
MR. ZACHARY: Mrs. Brown, could you introduce yourself
for the record, please.
MRS. BROWN: Sure. I'm Nancy Brown. I've been a resident
here of Naples since 1980. I have been a realtor here for 23 years, in
the market selling an awful lot of real estate every year. That is my
business. I have a lot of homes that I care for. I own a lot of homes
that I lease to other people. And I have a lot of dealings with, I
guess, contractors of all kinds, whether it be repair people, air
conditioning people, pool people, whomever. But I have a lot of
dealings with those folks.
I have never been here before. And --
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, before I get started with any
testimony, I'd like to move county's exhibit into evidence as Exhibit
1. I think that you all have a copy of that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're talking about the packet?
MR. ZACHARY: The packet.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I need a motion -- all of you
have a packet, correct? I need a motion to accept that as Exhibit 1 in
this case.
MR. JOSLIN: I make the motion, Mr. Chairman, that we
accept this as Exhibit 1, packet.
Page 28
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MR. LLOYD: I'll second
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
(Unanimous votes of ayes
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
Second?
it.
Okay, all those in
.)
Okay, so done.
favor?
MR. ZACHARY: Mrs. Brown, do you own a house in Naples
at 741 99th Avenue?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: Please tell the board how you came to be
here. Just explain to the board the reason for your complaint and
why we're here.
MRS. BROWN: First of all, I don't want to be here. I've got a
lot of other things to do and so do you.
I think this is a nice gentleman. I've known Mr. Serrano and his
family, all of his family, for many, many years. I just think it was a
mistake on his part, and it's too bad. I'm sorry it happened to him.
But if it happened to me, I would have to restore whatever I did to
you or your family. And very simply, this has caused me an awful
lot of time and energy and--
MR. ZACHARY: Please tell the board what happened.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir. On September-- I closed on this
property in August, August 5th, I believe it was, of last year. I had
Mr. Serrano -- before I closed, the elderly couple that I purchased
the home from were not caring for the pool in that the gentleman had
gone blind suddenly, and that's why they were selling the home.
I called Mr. Serrano and I said would you please, they have
given me permission, would you please go ahead and take care of
the pool now before I close, so that we won't have a big mess, $150
or whatever, to clean up the pool when I do take residence.
MR. ZACHARY: So the pool was in the -- the pool was at the
MRS. BROWN: The pool was operational.
Page 29
June 18, 2003
MR. ZACHARY: -- operational at the time you bought the
house?
MRS. BROWN: Absolutely.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, was there any damage to the pool at
that time?
MRS. BROWN: No, sir, there was no damage to the pool.
On-- the tenants moved in, used the pool once or twice, I
guess, in the first few weeks that they were there, there's only two
people there, and on September 10th was the first time that I knew
anything was wrong in that I know he had put a new filter on it and
he had put in whatever he put in. And I was paying that all right.
But then on September 10th, I got this call that said please
come, there's an eight-foot rooster tail here, your pool has got one
foot of water in it, you need to come immediately.
So I did. I live right in the same community. I ran over,
immediately pulled all the switches, and realized there was about a
foot, maybe two feet of water left in the pool.
MR. ZACHARY: Do you recall again what date that you were
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir, that was September 10th. I have it
written in my notes here.
MR. ZACHARY: And there was no water in the pool on
September the 10th? Or the pool level was very low?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, there was a foot -- about a foot, maybe
two feet of water left in the bottom of the pool. Mr. Serrano knows,
he came over.
I called him directly, I said, gosh, you've got to come, Julio,
I've got no water. There's water shooting out of this, I don't know
what it is, a filter, I guess. And he asked if I'd turned it off. I said
yes.
He -- I had to leave, I had something to do immediately. I said,
"You will come right over, you will take care of it?" "Yes, I will."
Page 30
June 18, 2003
Within an hour or two hours, he actually came to my home,
which he services also, and he said, "I assure you, don't worry about
it, I can take care of it. I've replaced three O-rings."
And when I got there, by the way, the O-ring was sticking out
about an inch and a half off from the top of that round thing there
that's the filter. It was sticking out, and that's where the water was
shooting out.
He said, "Don't worry about it. I've got it all in hand." I said,
"You're sure now? Because I'm going away on Sunday." That was
on -- September 10th, I believe, was on a Tuesday.
And he assured me. He just was very calm about it and said not
to worry about it. I said, "Okay, all right, I won't worry about it."
Next day I looked again, I went over, because I'm on the road
all the time. I pulled in, looked at it. There was no water in the
pool. And I'm thinking, oh, gosh.
I called him again. I called him three times between Tuesday
and Sunday when I left. I saw in his remarks here that he was out of
town. Well, I'm out of town last weekend, I
can get me anywhere in the world.
I called him, I believe it was Sunday. I
have a cell phone, you
made copious notes, I
have to in my business, and I know every person I talked to and
every day that I talked to them and when I talked to them and what
we talked about.
He just assured me again, "Don't worry about it, Nan, I've got it
all in hand." I said, "It's been since Tuesday, it's five days. I don't
know if you've tried to put water in, you haven't tried to put water
in." He had one of those things that he's got right there, he had one
of those there. Either the second day, first day, second day, third
day after the thing happened he had one of those on there.
My tenant assured me that he hadn't touched it; he doesn't go
near the pool. He said, "Are you taking care of it?" I said, "Sir, I'm
doing the best I can."
Page 31
June 18, 2003
You want me to continue, or--
MR. ZACHARY: Well, what happened after that? Continue to
tell the board what happened.
MRS. BROWN: Well, I left town on Sunday. My parents are
80, I took them to Branson on a seven-day trip that I'd planned a
long time.
And very simply, I called my friend. Mr. Strang has been my
friend now for 20 years. And he assured me, he went over to take a
look at the pool on Monday, he said, "Gosh, it's the same as it was
when you left. There's no -- you know, there's only a foot." The
water now is black, murky, and you can't see the bottom. And it's --
at one time it would be a foot high, the next time it would be two
feet high. Then it would go back down. And my understanding is
that's ground water. As it swales and goes up and down, it comes
into the pool.
By brushing away the bottom, you could see there was a
beginning of a crack down on the bottom, which eventually ended
up an 18-inch crack, and it was up in the air like so.
He told me -- Mr. Serrano told-- well, we went on and on with
this. He checked it on Monday, he called our best friends, Pete and
Karen Milotti, who wanted to be here t°day, they own The Home
Team, which is an inspection team, a big inspection team here in
Naples. They're my best friends. They're delightful people, they're
very knowledgeable. He went over, he looked at the pool. Mr.
Strang had called him and said, "Gee, Pete, you want to look at it."
He looked at it on I believe he said Wednesday. We just talked
to him. He said, "I looked at the pool on Wednesday." He said,
"There's still no water in the pool." He said, "You know, this pool is
starting to come away from the sides." He said, "I talked--" he
personally talked to Mr. Serrano and expressed our concern again
that, you know, I don't know a whole lot about pools, but it just
stands to reason with a lot of that ground water and all that 36,000
Page 32
June 18, 2003
gallons of water that just got pumped into the ground, is this thing
not going to pop out of the ground? He assured us, he assured Mr.
Milotti, it's not going to happen, you know, don't worry about it,
we've got it all in hand.
Well, now we're into -- you can see it's been a week and one
day, so it's now been about nine days.
I came home -- my son called me, I think it was on Friday
before I got back, and he says, "Well, mom," he says, "I think it's too
late."
I got home on Sunday. I immediately went over to take a look
at it. And it was cracked, it was away from the sides. And it
continued to -- it just progressed. As the month went on, it just
progressed more and more.
I called him and asked him, what are you doing with this? And
his reaction, his comment to, "Well, why didn't you fill it? Why
aren't we taking care of this? It's going to pop out of the ground, it's
going to cost a lot of money." And he said to me -- well, I've got it
written here as I wrote it to you here in the remarks. I'm just trying
to think what you said to me, Julio. I can't remember at this
moment.
Oh, I know what it was. He told the same to Mr. Jim
Hoopinger (sic), that very simply there was a threat of a hurricane
and very simply, with a lot of water going into the pool he didn't
want excess water going into the pool. And I said, "Well, I've got a
pool out here that's full of water. If the hurricane came, it would
have just up and overflowed. I don't understand that reasoning. But
anyway, if you say so. You are handling this. Now, you are going
to keep that pool in the ground, you are going to take care of it."
"Not a worry, Mrs. Brown. I've got it in hand."
So at that point I guess you can read in my notes there that it
progressed along. He called Dr. Spa. You can see his invoice here,
Dr. Spa's invoice of 9-30. This came in from the attorney over here.
Page 33
June 18, 2003
Very simply, apparently he did come in, he gave him an
estimate at that time, it's about $8,500 to fix it at that time.
He didn't proceed to fix it. He told me that he called him, but
he didn't proceed to fix it. I asked him for his insurance company. I
said, "Well, if you're not going to do it, then let me have your
insurance company's number. Let's call him." No, he wasn't going
to give me that at all. He said, "You call your insurance company."
I did call my insurance company. The gentleman came down.
Now remember, they've only had this house insured for the last
what, 10 days, 12 days or whatever, but that's insurance.
So they came all the way from Tampa. I spent a half a day with
the gentleman. He did a deposition with me. And you can see their
letter in here. He gave me indication that maybe there was a chance
they were going to cover it.
He got back home, back to his office, and I got this letter that
said I'm sorry, we don't cover this with ground water. And whatever
-- we do not cover it.
I called Mr. Serrano and I told him, "Sir, my company is not"--
''Well, then you've got to call Hayward, because it's their problem,
it's their filter. You've got to call them."
! said, "Look, this pool is getting worse and worse as we stand
here and talk. I don't -- you know, it's a lot of money to replace a
pool."
"Well," he said, "get some estimates as to what it will be." By
then it had popped-- it come around, you can see the photographs
that I took. It popped out of the ground, and it was -- I'm faced with
now bringing a cement truck in to fill it in, tear the cage down, put
grass in. I really didn't know what to do at that point.
It continued. I mean, I would call him and talk to him, "Julio,
help me out here. Come on." And he wouldn't help out. He just
walked away. And I thought that was not very professional. I'm
sorry, just not very professional. He had plenty of opportunity,
Page 34
June 18, 2003
MRS. BROWN:
believe. I wrote it on
took the pictures.
when I was away for that entire week, to take care of this pool.
In the meantime, I've incurred a great deal of expenses over the
pool replacement here, as you can see. I just paid the county over
$280 for water that was lost in all of this. It emptied out twice,
64,000 gallons. I've paid all of my water and sewer bill for my
gentleman that's there, over $400 I've paid for him that I don't
ordinarily pay for the tenants. I've paid his lawn service $250, just
to keep the man content to stay in my home without a pool. He pays
for a pool home and doesn't have a'pool. And that man has been
there since August of last year. So needless to say, I've paid extra so
that he would stay and be comfortable without the pool.
So I don't know what more you want me to say, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: I want to show you the photographs.
Are these the photographs that you took?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: They reflect how the pool has popped out of
the ground.
MRS. BROWN: Right.
MR. ZACHARY: And I believe that those are in your packet.
Yeah. I took them on September 19th, I
there. September 19th is when I wrote the --
I want to thank Jim also over here. This gentleman has been
very kind. I had no other alternative, I didn't know where to go,
other than to go to the courts. I asked my attorney if he'd write him
a letter, because he was no longer responding. And that didn't
produce anything. And then a good friend of mine said why don't
you talk to the Collier County -- the board, perhaps they could help
you. And when I called the gentleman, he said, "I wish you had
called a long time ago, it maybe would have alleviated a lot of this."
So I do appreciate--
MR. ZACHARY: Mrs. Brown, one more thing. Mr. Serrano,
Page 35
June 18, 2003
the gentleman that you've been talking about, is he here in the
courtroom today?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, right here.
MR. ZACHARY: Could you point to --
MRS. BROWN: This is Mr. --
MR. ZACHARY: Let the record reflect that she's identified the
-- Mr. Serrano, the defendant in this case.
County doesn't have anything further at this point. Thank you,
Mrs. Brown.
MRS. BROWN: Okay, am I all set?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Kowalski, would you like to
present -- like to redirect now?
MR. NEALE: He does get a chance to cross-examine her.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Cross-examine.
MR. KOWALSKI: I would like to do that, please. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is always awkward. Sometimes
I -- if you want to cross-examine or present your case and reserve
cross-examination?
MR. KOWALSKI: I would just as soon proceed to
cross-examine. I guess that's what we lawyers are accustomed too.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good. Go right ahead, Mr.
Kowalski.
MR. KOWALSKI: Mrs. Brown, you said that you did not want
to have a big bill in connection with the repair of this pool, like
$150, and that is why you retained Gulfbreeze Pools to service your
pool. What $150 repair was concerning you?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, when you let a pool go and you don't
clean it, it takes a very short time before you have to have it -- well,
I mean, you can do it at your own home. I've done it at my own
home.
Very simply, if it's not been cleaned for two or three weeks or
whatever, it can get the algae and whatever. And a lot of times they
Page 36
June 18, 2003
come in, they'll charge $150 to shock the pool and take care of the
pool. I didn't want that to happen to the pool. It looked nice at that
time. But the gentleman had stopped cleaning the pool, and I was
concerned that at the end of when I bought the home, two or three
weeks later, that very simply had been done.
They agreed to let Mr. Serrano come and clean the pool -- at
my expense, clean the pool before I actually closed on the property.
MR. KOWALSKI: So that would enable you, you thought, to
avoid a major expense like $150; is that right? MRS. BROWN: Absolutely.
MR. KOWALSKI: You also said in your direct examination
that the O-ring that had been put in was sticking out of the pool
filter. Can you describe that?
MRS. BROWN: Sure. I don't know if the picture that you
have of the filter shows it sticking out. But very simply, that is the
filter that I'm talking about. I believe that's called a filter, the round
top.
Mr. Serrano had told me that is an O-ring that has to be seated,
I think you call it -- seated or seeded, I'm not sure -- but seated
when you take the top off and put in a new filter. You have to seat
that. The gentleman that owned the home before I bought it told me
that that has to be seated properly. I don't do anything with that, I
hire pool people to take care of that.
Very simply, he informed me that it needed a new filter. Right
after I bought the home he said it needs a new filter. They put in the
new filter. It made sense to me that if the O-ring was not proper
and he had to replace it once, he had to replace it twice, when I
talked to him after the gusher, he said, well, we had to put in three
O-rings. And I have three plastic bags that were left right there with
three O-rings. So the O-ring was actually -- I can only do it with
my finger, it was sticking out about an inch or two like this. So the
top was on and squeezed on. And this O-ring was sticking out of
Page 37
June 18, 2003
the top of it.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. You said that he put
Who are you referring to?
MRS. BROWN: Mr. Serrano and his company.
he did it personally, but he has a lot of people.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did he bill you--
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. KOWALSKI: -- invoice you for a new filter?
MRS. BROWN: Sure did.
MR. KOWALSKI: Do you have that invoice with you?
MRS. BROWN: Sure. And it's in their files also.
MR. KOWALSKI: Would you take a look at your materials
and would you point that out to me, please? MRS. BROWN: Sure.
MR. ZACHARY: That would be exhibit -- or Page E-6 of the
exhibit.
MRS. BROWN:
time he put in the new
MR. KOWALSKI: Are you referring to the filter element?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, I don't know all the workings of this. I'm
just telling you that it is a cylinder, it holds the filter. When you
drop it down inside, it holds the filter. And this is the top that seats
down on top of it.
MR. KOWALSKI: So is it fair to say that
parts if any Mr. Serrano replaced in your pool?
replaced an O-ring. Do you know of any other
in your pool?
MRS. BROWN: He told me that he put in a new filter and he
told me he put in three O-rings.
MR. KOWALSKI: Do you have any personal knowledge
about the age of the pool filter when you purchased the home?
MRS. BROWN: I was told that the pool was -- well, I think
in a new filter.
I don't know if
It's on E-6. Replace an O-ring, 12.95. Same
filter for 79.95.
you don't know what
You know that he
part that he replaced
Page 38
June 18, 2003
you've got it in -- again, it's in these remarks here how old it was.
It's 10 years old, 12 years old, something to that effect.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you replace the filter -- first of all, has
your pool in fact been repaired as we speak today?
MRS. BROWN: Now has it been repaired?
MR. KOWALSKI: Has it been repaired?
MRS. BROWN: Absolutely.
MR. KOWALSKI: And who performed those repairs?
MRS. BROWN: Dr. Spa.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did you pay --
MRS. BROWN: Tim Cook.
MR. KOWALSKI: Pardon me?
MRS. BROWN: Mr. Tim Cook is the owner.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you pay Dr. Spa for those repairs?
MRS. BROWN: Certainly.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you bring a canceled
to show that you paid those repairs?
MRS. BROWN: On E-15. I paid him $2,000, check 5293,
from AmSouth Bank.
MR. KOWALSKI: E-15 in my packet is an estimate. I asked
you if you have any documents --
MRS. BROWN: The signature, sir, is on the bottom. He asked
me to sign the bottom if I wanted the work done. I put my signature
on the bottom. He signed it on the very bottom, okay?
MR. KOWALSKI: I'm sorry that I'm not communicating
effectively with you, but I asked you if you have any evidence to
show that you paid him for these services.
MRS. BROWN: Well, I think those two bills on the end.
There was a bill on the very back page. If you'll see that, it says Dr.
Spa on E-16. I paid him the balance of $10,204.53. That is his bill.
I paid it. Check No. 5324.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did that repair include the replacement
check or a receipt
Page 39
June 18, 2003
of the filter? Did he give you a new filter in connection with these
repairs?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir, everything is down over there.
MR. KOWALSKI: Why did you need a new filter?
MRS. BROWN: I contracted him -- well, you can read the top
part of it. I assumed he did the filter. I have no idea. You read what
he put in, that's what I paid him for. He told me the pool would be
perfectly operable, which it is. It's a fine operating pool today.
MR. KOWALSKI: Are you sure that the complaint that you
have filed is accurate in all respects, or are there some portions of
the complaint that you're uncertain about?
MRS. BROWN: I put it together to the best of my knowledge.
MR. KOWALSKI: Are you sure of the chronology?
MRS. BROWN: I believe so, yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: All right, let's take a look at paragraph five
where you refer to an August 8th, 2003 invoice. MRS. BROWN: Uh-huh.
MR. KOWALSKI: That would be two months from now?
MRS. BROWN: Right. I'm sorry, sir.
MR. KOWALSKI: So that's not correct.
MRS. BROWN: All right, so it was '02.
MR. KOWALSKI: Are you sure that you telephoned Mr.
Serrano on September the 15th?
MRS. BROWN: I know what you're driving at, sir. He
supposedly is out of town, doesn't come back into town until 4:30 in
the afternoon.
Sir, as I said, I have a cell phone that's 24 hours a day. I don't
know where he was. I called him and he assured me on the 15th,
Sunday before I left town, I called one more time and said, "Are you
sure you've got this taken care of?." And he assured me that we had
it taken care of.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Did Mr. Serrano tell you that you
Page 40
June 18, 2003
needed a new filter?
MRS. BROWN: He said that there was a -- he said that there
was a probability that the filter was the problem and that maybe
Hayward should be called.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you authorize him to put in a new
filter?
MRS. BROWN: He had every opportunity to put in a filter,
whatever it needed to correct the situation.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you--
MRS. BROWN: He did not do that.
MR. KOWALSKI: No, if he put in a new filter, he could only
do that if you agreed to pay and instructed him to do that upon his
advice, correct?
MRS. BROWN: I instructed him to take care of--
MR. KOWALSKI: No, that's not my question. Do you agree
with me that Mr. Serrano could not have installed a new filter unless
you agreed to pay for it and ordered one? He couldn't do it on his
own unless you said do it.
MRS. BROWN: He could have done it on his own. I told him
to take care of my pool. He told me, he assured me that he would
take care of my pool. Whatever it needed, he knew I would pay
him to take care of it, like I have over the last five years. Anytime
I've needed anything done, he has told me what it needed and he did
it, I paid him.
MR. KOWALSKI: Well, let's -- it's interesting that you would
make that statement, because as you know, we have submitted into
evidence documentation that shows that you in fact did not pay.
And I'm referring to the document in my packet which is a statement
dated December of 2002, in which you -- I don't believe that the
board has that.
MR. BARTOE: I don't believe that packet has been introduced
yet.
Page 41
June 18, 2003
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We need to get that done.
MR. KOWALSKI: May I do that then? I would --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. KOWALSKI: -- move to introduce the packet that's been
previously provided. And we can do that as a composite exhibit.
Thank you.
May I approach?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, please.
MR. NEALE: Do we have a copy for the reporter?
MR. KOWALSKI: There's an extra copy there.
MR. NEALE: Mr. Bartoe, we need a copy for the reporter and
I need a copy.
I'm marking them as we go. We'll go over them after we're
done.
MR. KOWALSKI: I move for the admission of the composite
exhibit.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does everybody have a copy of
this?
Mrs. Smith (sic), do you have a copy of this.
MRS. BROWN: Mrs. Brown.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Brown, I'm sorry.
MRS. BROWN: You're talking about the statement of 12-27
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I'm just asking -- listen to
what I ask you.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I asked if you have a copy of this
packet.
MRS. BROWN: Yes.
MR. ZACHARY: Yes, she does.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a motion to introduce this as
Exhibit No. 2.
Page 42
June 18, 2003
MR. NEALE: It's respondent's composite Exhibit 1.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Respondent's composite Exhibit 2 --
MR. NEALE: 1.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 1, that's right. I'm sorry.
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. BARIL: Second, Baril.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, proceed, Mr. Kowalski.
MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Brown, would you take a look at the statement dated
December, 2002?
MRS. BROWN: I have it.
MR. KOWALSKI: That is for services rendered beginning
July 31, services rendered by Mr. Serrano to you at your home; is
that correct?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir, there's two homes on here.
MR. KOWALSKI: And as of December, 2002, you had not
paid for that service from July forward, had you?
MRS. BROWN: May I mention that the first two, 17566 and
17889 was for 741 99th Avenue. That's the home in question here
with the pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: And you didn't pay those invoices, did
you?
MRS. BROWN: I did not pay them. I pay at the end of the
month, like I always do.
MR. KOWALSKI: But you in fact wrote Mr. Serrano a note,
mailed it to him, and said that you would pay for the service, only if
Mr. Serrano would pay for your pool repair, didn't you?
MRS. BROWN: Absolutely.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. So your statement a couple minutes
ago under oath that you always paid your invoices, your pool
Page 43
June 18, 2003
invoices, was not accurate, was it?
MRS. BROWN: It is accurate.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay.
Do you know what an automatic fill is?
MRS. BROWN: An automatic fill? I would assume you're
talking about -- I believe he described this contraption down here,
that that is an automatic fill.
MR. KOWALSKI: Yes, and was that automatic fill attached by
Gulfbreeze Pools--
MRS. BROWN: Yes, it was.
MR. KOWALSKI: -- Mr. Serrano, to your pool?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, it was.
MR. KOWALSKI: And when was that done?
MRS. BROWN: It was either the day after, which would have
been the 1 lth of September. I called him on the 10th to tell him
about the tragedy. On the 1 lth or the 12th, I believe Mr. Serrano
had that put on my pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: And at that point, was there water in the
pool?
MRS. BROWN: There was one to two feet of water in the
bottom of the pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did Mr. Serrano direct you to fill the
pool?
MRS. BROWN: He did not direct me to fill that pool, not at
all.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you fill the pool?
MRS. BROWN: I don't fill the pool, I don't live there. He's
taking care of that pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And did he tell you what the
automatic fill would do?
MRS. BROWN: He said it would get it up to a certain level, I
believe, or if it goes down below a certain level, once it was up and
Page 44
June 18, 2003
over
MR. KOWALSKI: And did you leave that
that level, that it would not let it go down again.
automatic fill in the
That automatic fill stayed
pool?
MRS. BROWN:
right there. I never
MR. KOWALSKI: That's right.
MRS. BROWN: -- touched what he put there.
MR. KOWALSKI: And do you know why the water drained
out of the pool, notwithstanding the fact that the automatic fill had
been placed in the pool?
MRS. BROWN: Do you know, sir, that I never saw water
coming out of it? There is a hose attached from my home to that fill
that goes into the pool.
times a day, I never saw
MR. KOWALSKI:
And every time I went over, two and three
water coming out of that.
Did you turn the spigot on?
him.
MRS. BROWN: Sir, I'm not to turn the spigot on. I called
been -- that the -- Mr.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you turn the spigot off?.
MRS. BROWN: I never touched the spigot, sir.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did your tenant turn the spigot off?.
MRS. BROWN: Never went back out there.
MR. KOWALSKI: You don't know, do you?
MRS. BROWN: I do know.
MR. KOWALSKI: How do you know?
(No response.)
MR. KOWALSKI: Just one second.
I have no more questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good.
Any redirect, Mr. Zachary?
MR. ZACHARY: Short redirect, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Brown, when -- you say that you realized that there had
Serrano had come over and put some sort of
Page 45
June 18, 2003
contraption on the side of your pool. Was this after it had already
popped out of the ground?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir -- oh, no, sir. No, not after it had
popped. No, it did not pop out of the pool -- excuse me, the pool did
not pop out of the ground until after I got home from my vacation,
which was that following Sunday.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And you saw this -- the automatic fill
on the side of the pool, but you never saw any water coming out of
it?
MRS. BROWN: Never saw any water. I called him, he
explained to me what it was, and he said we will be filling the pool.
I said that will be fine, we won't touch it. And we didn't touch it.
MR. ZACHARY: And at the time he put this automatic fill in
the side of the pool, the water level was down to one or two feet?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir. It varied between one and two feet
at that time. It was very murky.
MR. ZACHARY: And you never saw it get any higher than
that?
MRS. BROWN:
that.
No, sir, I never saw it get up any higher than
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, I think that --
MRS. BROWN: I have one other -- if I'm not going to be able
to say anymore, that he has one thing on the back of his packet here
that has my tenant's name on the top, and I would assume this is
what he has his people bring to him when they service a pool. We
all get these little cards out by our pool when the people have been
there to service.
And I think you should note that on -- you can see all the times
that the gentleman was there -- someone was there taking care of
that particular pool. On 9-16, if you'll look down there, supposedly
they vacuumed, brushed and skimmed the pool on 9-16.
I tell you that on 9-10 the pool emptied. And I don't know what
Page 46
June 18, 2003
he brushed and vacuumed and skimmed on 9-16. And I can't read
the Spanish writing on the next line, and obviously there's a
notation of an --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's wait and see what they do with
that piece of evidence.
MRS. BROWN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You'll have another opportunity,
okay?
MRS. BROWN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions, Mr. Zachary?
MR. ZACHARY: Nothing further at this time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right. At this time, I'm going to
save questions on -- and let Mr. Kowalski go ahead and present his
case. If you'll come forward, sir.
Because some of my questions may be answered by your
presentation.
MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would make a
very brief statement, opening statement, if-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Be my guest.
MR. KOWALSKI: Our evidence, we believe, will establish
that Mrs. Brown is incorrect in some of the relatively insignificant
details, and some of the cross-examination was intended to try to
show that.
We think the evidence already establishes that Mrs. Brown was
absent from the property at material times and doesn't have personal
knowledge as to everything that was going on at the site.
But our evidence will be to the effect that Mr. Serrano did two
things: When he realized very obviously that the replacement of the
O-ring did not solve the leak and examined the filter, he determined
that the filter needed to be replaced. Now, it is obvious that at some
point early on, before these problems arose, the filter element was
replaced, but Mr. Serrano will testify that he said that the filter
Page 47
June 18, 2003
needs to be replaced in order to solve the leak and that Mrs. Brown
never would authorize him to do that.
And that he filled the pool and placed the automatic fill device
in the pool to make sure that until those repairs were authorized and
made, the pool would not empty, but that notwithstanding the
automatic fill device, the pool emptied and the only explanation that
we can derive is that someone must have turned the spigot off at the
house and that water was not flowing from the house to the pool, and
obviously that overrode the automatic fill device.
And that whether Mrs. Brown simply didn't understand or --
what the problem was or wasn't responsive, that it really is not Mr.
Serrano's fault that this unfortunate incident occurred.
We also have -- would produce a little bit of evidence on the
issue of what's an appropriate damage or repair amount.
So that ought to just give you a context so that you can look for
what we think are the key elements in the evidence we'll present,
okay?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good.
MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Serrano, if you would take the stand
over by the microphone on the other side and speak into the
microphone. You are under oath, you have been sworn in. May I proceed?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good, go ahead.
MR. KOWALSKI: What license do you hold?
MR. SERRANO: Maintenance -- pool maintenance license.
MR. KOWALSKI: How long have you held that license in
Collier County?
MR. SERRANO: Eight years.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
KOWALSKI: Eight years?
SERRANO: About eight years.
KOWALSKI: Have you had any
SERRANO: Never.
complaints?
Page 48
June 18, 2003
MR.
MR.
MR.
with Mrs.
MR.
MR.
MR.
houses.
KOWALSKI: Until this one, obviously?
SERRANO: Yes.
KOWALSKI: Had you had a professional
Brown for some period of time?
SERRANO: Yes, I did.
KOWALSKI: And was that servicing her
SERRANO:
relationship
pool?
Servicing her pool. She also sold one of my
MR. KOWALSKI: For approximately how long
service her pool?
MR. SERRANO: Five years.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did she appear to be
service you were providing? MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: And then did she ask you to
did you
satisfied with the
provide
services to another pool at a residence she had purchased as a rental?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: And you agreed to do that?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: Was that about August of last year that you
began to service that property?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, it was.
MR. KOWALSKI: What was the condition of the pool when
you arrived?
MR. SERRANO: It was nice and blue, nice and clean.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you replace the filter element to the
pool?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: What is the element?
MR. SERRANO: Can I show?
MR. KOWALSKI: Sure.
MR. SERRANO: Can I show you?
Page 49
June 18, 2003
MR. KOWALSKI: I don't think that's in evidence, so I don't
know if the board would have a problem with that. I'm sure the
board knows what the element -- what an element is.
MR. SERRANO: It's a paper filter, cylinder filter that goes
into the filter unit.
MR. KOWALSKI: And is that something that can be cleaned
but after a while it will wear out and you just need to replace it from
time to time?
MR. SERRANO: We clean it once a month, but after a year,
they deteriorate and it needs to be changed.
MR. KOWALSKI: And that's standard pool maintenance, is it?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Is the pool filter element the same
thing as the pool filter?
MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. KOWALSKI: What is the filter?
MR. SERRANO: The whole complete unit.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did there come a time in August or
September of last year that your office received a call to come and
take a look at the pool, that it appeared to be leaking? MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: Do you remember approximately when that
would have been?
MR. SERRANO: Can I look on my records?
MR. KOWALSKI: Please.
Well, that's all right, Mr. Serrano.
When do you think it would have been, approximately?
MR. SERRANO: August.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay.
MR. SERRANO: It was at the end of August.
MR. KOWALSKI: And at that time, was there anyone residing
in the unit, if you know?
Page 50
June 18, 2003
MR. SERRANO:
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay.
time?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
The house I think was rented already.
And was Mrs. Brown in town at that
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Did you or someone from your
business go on-site to look at that situation?
MR. SERRANO: I always did myself. I did all the repairs
myself.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And did you see that there was a
SERRANO: No, not then.
KOWALSKI: Did you make any repairs at
SERRANO: Let's go back a little bit more.
KOWALSKI: Okay.
SERRANO: What was the first question
KOWALSKI: The first question is when
in connection with a
that point?
you asked me?
were you first
possible leak or a need to repair the
leak?
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
called out
pool?
Okay, that was around September the 8th,
KOWALSKI: Okay. And had you replaced any -- at that
had replaced the filter element?
SERRANO: Correct.
KOWALSKI: Had you replaced the O-rings?
SERRANO: Yes, I did.
KOWALSKI: How many times?
MR. SERRANO:
around there.
MR.
point you
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR. SERRANO: That first time, only once. Then it happened
again, and I replaced it three times in total.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Now Mrs. Brown in her testimony
described the O-ring sticking out of the top of the filter. MR. SERRANO: Correct.
MR. KOWALSKI: Is that accurate?
Page 51
June 18, 2003
MR. SERRANO: No -- it is accurate.
MR. KOWALSKI: It is an accurate description of what
happened?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: And is that normal?
MR. SERRANO: No, it's not normal.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And what did that indicate to you?
Why that was happening?
MR. SERRANO: Well, now that the O-ring was not seated the
right way, it can only go one way. It has a channel where the O-ring
goes. And by the O-ring popping up like that, it means that the
filter is defective; the filter unit is defective itself. And that's when
I recommended to her that she needed to --
needs to be replaced.
MR. KOWALSKI: Are you sure you
it's a faulty filter, that it
recommended to Mrs.
Brown that the filter needed to be replaced? MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you do that on just one occasion?
MR. SERRANO: I probably mentioned it one occasion, but I
did mention it to her.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And did you have -- did you
indicate to her why it needed to be replaced?
MR. SERR~NO: Because the problem was that the filter was
popping -- it was shooting water because of the O-ring. That means
that -- the filter raises by pressure. That means it's a defective filter.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And did Mrs. Brown authorize you
to replace the filter?
MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did she call you folks back out for any
additional work in connection with a leak at her pool from the filter?
MR. SERRANO: Additional water from replacing the filters,
all of--
Page 52
June 18, 2003
MR.
water and
do that?
MR.
KOWALSKI: Just a concern that the pool was losing
asking you to come out and take a look at it, did she ever
SERRANO: No.
MR. KOWALSKI: Well, she called you. She testified that she
called you and asked you to help because she was having a problem
with the pool losing water. Tell me about that.
MR. SERRANO: About the filter losing --
MR. KOWALSKI: No, did Mrs. Brown ever call you and tell
you that?
MR. SERRANO: Well, she has called me, yes, and I did talk to
her about the pool losing water.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And did you go out and look at the
pool and try to address that situation? MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And what did you find when you
went out on-site?
MR. SERRANO: That the pool has lost two feet of water, and
that's when I changed the third O-ring.
MR. KOWALSKI: And when would that have been?
MR. SERRANO: Oh, boy, let's see. I think it was around
September the 20th.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Did there come a
water in the pool?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: When was that?
MR. SERRANO:
time when you put
Every time the pool was low, I put water in
the pool.
Only the last time that I knew that the
she didn't want to do anything about that.
hurricane scare, it was going to hit Naples.
was a wrong judgment, but --
filter was defective and
And then I heard that
I don't know, probably
Page 53
June 18, 2003
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you put an automatic fill device on the
pool?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: When you put that device on the pool, did
you fill the pool to the proper level --
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: -- with water?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: And when was that?
MR. SERRANO: I can't remember. It says Monday,
September 23rd I went and I replaced an automatic fill in the pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay, on the 23rd of September.
At that point, had the pool separated from its casing?
MR. SERRANO: Not yet.
MR. KOWALSKI: No.
Tell us what an automatic fill device is intended to do and how
it works.
MR. SERRANO: At automatic fill is a unit connected with a
water hose --
MR. KOWALSKI: If you would show us here, please. And go
back to the microphone.
MR. SERRANO: It's a unit that works like a toilet. It has a
float. A water hose is connected here to the spigot of the house and
it goes on the deck area in the pool. This is the pool here. And it
fills the pool until it gets to the right level and it stops. If the pool
loses water, that will activate again and still puts water in the pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: And in fact, was that device -- did that
device remain in the pool, and is it visible on some of the
photographs that are in evidence? MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. Was there a time that you came
back and found that the pool had been drained and yet the automatic
Page 54
June 18, 2003
fill device was still situated at the top of the pool?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: How could that be?
MR. SERRANO: Because the water-mounted
water, it was shut off.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
Brown or
MR.
MR.
advice and authorized you to replace the filter--
MR. SERRANO: None of this would have
MR. KOWALSKI: Why not? Real briefly.
MR. SERRANO: Because it's a brand new
fill was off. The
KOWALSKI: How was that shut off?. Where?
SERRANO: In the house, in the side of the house.
KOWALSKI: At the spigot?
SERRANO: Yes.
KOWALSKI: And if the spigot had been left on by Mrs.
the tenant, would the pool have retained water?
SERRANO: Yes.
KOWALSKI: Okay. If Mrs. Brown had taken your
happened.
filter. It don't have
any problems with it. I knew I had a problem with the filter, and
that was the solution right there, and if we had that changed, we
wouldn't have this problems right now.
MR. KOWALSKI: Where were you on September 15th of last
year?
MR. SERRANO: I was out of town. I was in New York City
for my brother's wedding.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did you speak with Mrs. Brown over
the telephone while you were away?
MR. SERRANO: Not that I recall.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did you bring an airline receipt?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And that's in the packet.
The second page of the composite exhibit shows that on the
23rd of September there was some water in the pool; is that accurate
Page 55
June 18, 2003
or not accurate?
MR. SERRANO: What section is it?
MR. KOWALSKI: I'm looking at your maintenance log and
I'm looking at the entry for the 23rd of September. Does that
indicate that there was any water in the pool?
MR. SERRANO: Just a minute, please.
MR. KOWALSKI: Sure.
MR. SERRANO: Yes -- no, no, no. The 23rd, there was no
water in the pool.
What it says here in Spanish is I didn't recognize it. It's empty.
That's what it says in Spanish.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. And what was done at that point?
MR. SERRANO: Nothing.
MR. KOWALSKI: Was water put in the pool?
MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. KOWALSKI: Was the automatic fill device in the pool at
that time?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did you continue to have discussions
with Mrs. Brown regarding the problems at the pool?
MR. SERRANO: Back and forth with the -- who she should
call, who should be blamed for the problem. And I just
recommended like Hayward Company. The filter is -- it goes by
the name of Leslie's, but it's manufactured by Hayward Company.
And I did try to get in touch with Hayward. The salesman was on
vacation back then, I could not get in touch with him, and it was
left.
MR. KOWALSKI: But was the reason that you were
recommending that Hayward be contacted, because you believed
that the Hayward filter was defective? MR. SERRANO: Defective, yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: I'd also like for you to look at the estimate
Page 56
June 18, 2003
or invoice of September 30th from Dr. Spa. That's at the top --
that's at the top of my packet. Do you see it? MR. SERRANO: Yes, I have it.
MR. KOWALSKI: All right. Does -- on September 30th, did
Dr. Spa recommend that a new filter be installed? MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did he provide an estimate ranging from
6,400 to $8,200 for the total repair? MR. SERRANO: Correct.
MR. KOWALSKI: I'll invite the board to do the arithmetic. I
won't even call it math.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, let me ask you a question
while you're doing it. Would you produce something on this
estimate that shows me that that's for Mrs. Brown's pool, because I
see no address or anything on there.
MR. KOWALSKI: It was taken from Mrs. Brown's packet. I
believe it's in--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Job location says Gulfbreeze Pool
Service.
MR. KOWALSKI: I believe that it is in her packet, but let me
confirm that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Otherwise, I'm going to totally
discount it.
MR. KOWALSKI: Let me -- right. Let me confirm that, but I
believe it was in her complaint.
MRS. BROWN: He's referring to E-157 That was on --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mrs. Brown.
MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much. It is -- no.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's not the same thing.
MR. KOWALSKI: Not the same thing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's not in our packet.
MR. KOWALSKI: It's not in your packets?
Page 57
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
document.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay.
witness then.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
I personally think it's
Well, let me address
All right, sir.
a worthless
it with my
MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Serrano, would you take a look at the
invoice dated 9-30-2002.
How did you come by this? How did you acquire this?
MR. SERRANO: I -- the same day when I got there that the
water -- when my serviceman called me, which was stated in the
service card, which is the -- September 23rd. I called Dr. Spa,
which is a company that sell and build fiberglass pools. And I did
contact them. They said okay, we'll go there and see what's wrong.
I didn't know what was wrong. It had dark water in the bottom of
the pool.
And they call me and all send me this -- ask for this invoice that
says -- the description that it says in here.
MR. KOWALSKI: And are you testifying that this invoice
relates to the property which is the subject of this complaint? MR. SERRANO: Yes. 741 100 and whatever.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did Dr. Spa indicate to you that that is
what it would have taken on September 30th to correct the problem?
MR. SERRANO: Correct.
MR. KOWALSKI: Mrs. Brown has testified about the capacity
of the pool as being 32,000 gallons, I believe. Do you know the
dimensions of the pool?
MR. SERRANO: It's 14 by 28.
MR. KOWALSKI: And did you -- is there a standard way to
compute the capacity of a pool, if you know those dimensions?
MR. SERRANO: There's a formula that we do.
MR. KOWALSKI: Did you also know the depth?
MR. SERRANO: Yes. It's actually an average. You take the
Page 58
June 18, 2003
length by the width and in the shallow end is three feet and the
deepest end is six, that's equal nine, divided by two is 4.5 feet. And
that is multiplied and you get to a balance times 7.33, I believe it is,
is the cubic feet in water, and it tells you the amount of water in the
pool.
MR. KOWALSKI: And what is the capacity of the pool by this
computation?
MR. SERRANO: It's about 14,000 gallons. Just about.
MR. KOWALSKI: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Serrano.
There may be some other questions of you.
MR. ZACHARY: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Serrano.
Mr. Serrano, you testified that you replaced the O-rings three
times? MR. SERRANO:
MR. ZACHARY:
MR. SERRANO:
Yes, I did.
Was there anything wrong with the O-rings?
Well, being that I -- the first O-ring, it could
be defective. I'm not sure. I don't -- you know, we just buy them
and they come in an Oriental package, put it in. They could be a
defective O-ring, so I just did it three times, thinking that was the
problem, until I come to realize it was not.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And the last time you replaced an
O-ring was on September 20th. You testified to that; is that correct?
MR. SERRANO: (Witness nods head affirmatively.)
MR. ZACHARY: Was the pool emptied of water on
September 20th when you went there?
MR. SERRANO: May I?
MR. ZACHARY: Certainly.
MR. SERRANO: So many things.
Well, according to my service card -- see, I wasn't there myself
doing the service, I had one of my servicemen, and he's the one who
calls me with this problems.
Okay, September 20, you said?
Page 59
June 18, 2003
MR. ZACHARY: You testified that September 20th was the
last time you changed the O-ring.
MR. SERRANO: Yes, I did.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, would that be on your service --
where you made a record of your service calls, would it be on there?
MR. SERRANO: Well, we serviced the pool September 16th,
that's a Monday.
MR. ZACHARY:
MR. SERRANO:
some water.
MR. ZACHARY:
MR. SERRANO:
ZACHARY:
MR.
you went
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
Was there water in the pool on September --
Yes, there was water, but not -- it had lost
Okay. Were you out there,
I was there myself.
Okay. And on September
back and changed
SERRANO:
ZACHARY:
SERRANO:
ZACHARY:
MR. SERRANO:
an O-ring?
Yes, I did.
But that's not reflected on
No.
-- service card.
No, this is our service card
or someone --
20th, you testified
your --
that's inside of a
book, which is a raw (phonetic) book.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And on September 23rd, you said
you went back and there was no water in the pool; is that correct?
Correct.
Okay. When did you install the auto fill
I have that in here someplace. It's in one of
MR. SERRANO:
MR. ZACHARY:
device?
MR. SERRANO:
these statements in here. I don't want to give you the wrong
information without looking at it. But it says in here the date that I
put the automatic fill. I just got to look for it.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, we've got plenty of time.
MR. SERRANO: September 23rd I went and placed my
automatic fill in the pool. That was the day that the pool was empty.
Page 60
June 18, 2003
MR. ZACHARY:
23rd --
MR. SERRANO:
MR. ZACHARY:
Okay, the pool was empty on
Right.
-- right?
September
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you going to be able to answer
this question?
MR. SERRANO: Are you still waiting for me to answer? I
gave you an answer, I think.
MR. ZACHARY: What was your answer, September 23rd?
MR. SERRANO: September 23rd, like I --
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, I thought you were still looking.
All right. And you testified that you came back and the auto
fill was off. But what date was that?
MR. SERRANO: The next service day was September 30, and
the pool was empty and the automatic fill was off.
MR. ZACHARY:
yourself2.
MR. SERRANO'
MR. ZACHARY:
SERRANO:
ZACHARY:
SERRANO:
ZACHARY:
SERRANO:
ZACHARY:
SERRANO:
was going to
ZACHARY:
Did you go back on September the 30th
I went back, called by my serviceman.
And you went over there on September
Yes, I did.
And the auto fill was off?.
Yes, I --
Did you mm it back on?
No.
Why not?
Because back then we had the
hit Naples.
Okay. So you went back over
hurricane
there, knew
30th?
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
scare that
MR.
that the water was pumped out of the pool --MR. SERRANO: It was already damaged. The pool was
already damaged, already had the crack in the bottom of the pool.
Page 61
June 18, 2003
didn't know what to do then.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, nothing further.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Kowalski?
MR. KOWALSKI: Quick redirect.
You may be mistaken, Mr. Serrano. Are you sure about the
September 23 date being the date you put the automatic fill in the
pool?
MR. SERRANO: I could probably be mistaken.
MR. KOWALSKI: Because Mrs. Brown testified that she took
photos on September 19th. And do those photos not show the
automatic fill being in the pool?
MR. SERRANO: Yes. I could probably be mistaken.
MR. KOWALSKI: And does the estimate from Dr. Spa on
September 30th reflect that the substantial damage which had been
done to the pool had been done by -- as of September 30th? MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. KOWALSKI: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Serrano.
MR. SERRANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mrs. Brown, if you would come
back up to the podium, now we're going to ask you our questions.
MR. NEALE: Just procedurally, then when you're done with
these questions, then they both get to make closing statements.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir.
Mrs. Brown, I've got a few questions here for you, and then I'm
sure there will be others that will have them as well.
On your rental lease, who pays water and sewer when you rent
a house?
MRS. BROWN: When I rent a house, sir, the new tenant pays
the water and sewer.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So if the automatic fill was hooked
up, the tenant could have had incentive to turn it off, correct?
Page 62
June 18, 2003
MRS. BROWN: He could have. However, I already told him
whatever they do to the pool, let it go, I'm taking care of the bill.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand, but you weren't there
at the house either.
MRS. BROWN: I wasn't there, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. You bought the house
8-1-02. Did you have an inspection on the house? MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did they inspect the pool?
MRS. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And they found no deficiencies?
MRS. BROWN: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. September 10th, again, there
was two feet of water, and your son was watching the pool. The
tenant was living there full time, I assume?
MR. SERRANO: The tenant is living there full time. I didn't
leave town until the 15th, which is the following Sunday. It was five
days later.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. But at this time, why was
nobody filling the pool back up? The hurricane --
MRS. BROWN: I had called --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The bad advice on the hurricane
came after this.
MRS. BROWN: The hurricane came the next week.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but it was after this bad
advice.
MRS. BROWN: That's right.
What was your question again?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: My question is --
MRS. BROWN: Why was someone not looking.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why didn't your son fill the pool
backup?
Page 63
June 18, 2003
MRS. BROWN: No, my son only went there one time when I
was away the following week. I was there the whole week that the
pool had emptied. I was there on September 10th when I got the
call. The pool was already down to two feet on the bottom. That's
when I called this gentleman and asked him if he'd please take care
of the pool. "Are you going to watch it? Can you come over?" He
said, "Yes, I can come right over." And at that point he came over --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MRS. BROWN: -- he said, "I can fix it."
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Moot point.
Why was the skimmer turned off?.
MRS. BROWN: Sir, I don't know anything about the pools.
The skimmer was not to be turned off. I have a letter in there from a
pool person. I called many, many pool people to come over and
give me estimates to put that pool back together, and I have a lot of
letters from all of them, but I put in the one that was just -- they
were all pretty much the same. I'd have to look, see where his letter
is in here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's okay, you don't need to look,
I've read the whole packet.
But I mean, I'm not in the pool business, but --
MRS. BROWN: I'm not in the pool business either.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- you never, never, never turn off
the skimmer.
MRS. BROWN: Ever.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because this would not --
MRS. BROWN: I didn't service the pool.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- have happened if the skimmer --
MRS. BROWN: This gentleman's family --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- had been on.
MRS. BROWN: -- serviced the pool; the people he has and
himself serviced the pool. I don't know anything about a skimmer,
Page 64
June 18, 2003
all -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can't imagine someone passing a
pool maintenance test that would turn off a skimmer.
MRS. BROWN: Well, the skimmer wasn't off when I bought
the pool.
MS. KELLER: I've had it happen to me.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Really?
MS. KELLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MS. KELLER: And that the water was gone in my pool. And I
know nothing about pools.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's all the questions I have. I'll
let --
MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mrs. Brown.
Mrs. Brown--
MRS. BROWN: I'm sorry, sir?
MR. BARIL: -- you testified that you took the pictures on
September 19th, but your package says that you were out of town --
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. BARIL: -- until the 23rd.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. BARIL: Could you clarify when the pictures were taken
or if they were taken by somebody other than yourselF?.
MRS. BROWN: The pictures were -- and that is wrong, and I
see that. I was gone at that time. I was gone.
He's just testified that this is what the pool looked like on the
30th. It looked like this just about the 30th, there's no question
about it. This is what the pool looked like. So that is wrong, and I
can see where that's written on. But that is my writing, okay? That's
when -- that was the worst that it looked. I mean, that was the end
of it. He never did anything after that. This is how it looked.
MR. BARIL: So you're saying that these photographs couldn't
Page 65
June 18, 2003
have been taken before--
MRS. BROWN: Couldn't have been on the 19th, sir, because it
hadn't popped out of the ground at that time.
MR. BARIL: It couldn't have been taken before the 23rd?
They were taken after you returned to Naples from Branson?
MRS. BROWN: They were taken after I got back from
Branson, you're right.
MR. BARIL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You should be an attorney.
I'm kind of saving Mr. Joslin for last, because he's our resident
pool contractor.
The rest of you have questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Joslin?
MR. JOSLIN: Well, you're in luck today, I guess. I'm a
commercial pool contractor.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll just ask you a few questions. First of all, is it
normal, when you rent a home, that somebody, a tenant, that they
are in charge of certain things at that home? MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: Would it be honest to say that a tenant that's
renting a home from you should have responsibility to at least accept
due care of a product they're being able to use, which is a
swimming pool, when the pool should be low or out of water, were
they ever advised by you that this is something that they need to
kind of keep an eye on?
MRS. BROWN: Always.
MR. JOSLIN: How many hours a day that the pump should
run?
MRS. BROWN: That's right.
MR. JOSLIN: Just normal maintenance,
which I'm assuming
Page 66
June 18, 2003
that Mr. Serrano, when he took your contract to maintain your pool
at your home and also on this home, that the service that he
performed was probably to do chemicals on the pool? MRS. BROWN: Chemicals.
MR. JOSLIN: Keep the water balanced?
MRS. BROWN: Wash, clean.
MR. JOSLIN: Probably clean the pool out --
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: -- vacuum it?
Is it normal for the pool then to -- not the pool, but to hold a
maintenance company responsible to continually add water to a pool
that could possibly have maybe been leaking?
MRS. BROWN: Is it normal? Is that what you're asking me, is
it normal?
MR. JOSLIN: Is it normal for that to happen?
MRS. BROWN: I guess I'll answer that with this: I take care
of 33 homes for other people; I have quite a few of them that have
pools. And very simply, along with my -- this is the only home that
I own, other than my own personal residence, that has a pool.
I took full responsibility for this pool. When the tenant moved
in, I told them I would take care of the pool, I would take full
responsibility for it. And the bill, as you see, Mr. Serrano sent me
the bill on this pool. I didn't want them to have anything to do with
this pool. All I wanted him to do was just enjoy it, make sure that it
was always filled above what he told me it had to be above the
skimmer. So that's all I asked him to do with that pool was just to
make sure the water is above the skimmer.
MR. JOSLIN: Now, you're speaking about the tenant or Mr.
Serrano?
MRS. BROWN: The tenant, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: So the tenant was instructed to keep the pool --
MRS. BROWN: That's right.
Page 67
June 18, 2003'
MR. JOSLIN: -- pretty much basically full of water.
MRS. BROWN: Sure.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, then I have another question. How did the
pool get low on water? If the tenants were instructed to do this and
the tenants knew this had to be done, then how is it that Mr. Serrano
had to come and put an automatic fill on the pool to keep the pool
full of water?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, as we've all testified here and we've got
our dates just about coordinating, other than the pool fill that I
honestly believe that pool fill was on my pool before I left on the
15th, he said he didn't put it on until the 23rd. I honestly saw-- I
felt that I saw that pool fill on my pool, which I thought, he's taking
care of the pool. I really felt that he was taking care of the pool.
Now, direct that again to me, please? I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Answer the question. Next time you
won't get lost.
MR. JOSLIN: Right. Let's see if I can redirect it another --
MRS. BROWN: You asked me how did he have to fill the
pool.
MR. JOSLIN: How did he -- right, how did he --
MRS. BROWN: How did he get down--
MR. JOSLIN: -- become responsible to --
MRS. BROWN: On the 10th, sir--
MR. JOSLIN: -- fill the pool up?
MRS. BROWN: -- the pool was up, the pool was fine. On the
10th I got the call from my tenant, he would come home, he works
here, I believe. He came home after work and he said, "You've got
to come right away, the pool is empty." It wasn't empty, it had two
feet of water in it. But the water was shooting out, gushing. It was
six, eight feet high coming out of that filter area. It was coming out
by that O-ring, and it was just gushing out of there on the 10th.
That's when the water went down.
Page 68
June 18, 2003
Now, from then on, it's been a struggle, obviously. He couldn't
use the pool anymore. He never went near it, other than to say to me,
"How are we coming?" I mean, the pool is still empty. "How are
we coming?"
So I've had a lot to tend to, to try and keep this tenant,
obviously, because he had no pool to use.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, I'm having to understand -- I'm having to
really -- I have a hard time understanding that this water is being
fed to this pool, knowing, like Mr. Dickson said, that this tenant
knows that he's going to have to pay for this water and the pool is
losing water every day. He constantly would be putting water in this
pool all the time where that hose would run all the time, or this
automatic fill would run all the time, depending on which was on it
what particular moment.
I'm just having a hard time trying to understand of whose
responsibility that would fall under.
MRS. BROWN: Well, the pool had no water, sir, from the 10th
on. That pool had only two to three feet; whatever the ground fill
water was, that was what seeping in. And it seeps in. He didn't tell
you, but it has an 18-inch hole in the bottom of the pool. It just
ripped wide open, the sides caved in. All of that happened within
14 days of this.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I'm going to have to disagree with that a
little bit, as far as what I can see on the pictures and what I can see
being -- over the years in the pool business I've been into, that
problem probably happened -- let me ask you a question first.
When you went there the first time the pool was drained down,
you said the pool was empty?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, I can't hear you, I'm sorry.
MR. JOSLIN: When you went to the home the first time that
you saw the pool was empty --
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
Page 69
June 18, 2003
MR. JOSLIN: -- you say empty or very low.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: How long had this been since Mr. Serrano
changed the O-ring? The next day? Was it a week? Was it --
MRS. BROWN: I would have to look and see when he
changed the O-ring. I wasn't aware of any O-ring problems at all
until I got there, saw the water shooting out of that particular area,
that's when I saw the O-ring sticking out. That's when I called him,
and that's when he said I've replaced three O-rings. It's not holding
for some reason. Maybe that's a faulty thing, maybe this, but don't
worry about it, I'll take care of it.
MR. JOSLIN: The O-ring --
MRS. BROWN: The pool, from that moment on, had never
gone up again. You could never have used that pool. MR. JOSLIN: From that point on?
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir, from the 10th on.
MR. JOSLIN: So is it safe, kind of, to say then -- what color
was the water?
MRS. BROWN: The water on the 10th--
MR. JOSLIN: Brown?
MRS. BROWN: -- was blue, nice.
MR. JOSLIN: On the 10th. And it was full of water?
MRS. BROWN: No, when I got there it had two feet of water.
MR. JOSLIN: Two feet of water.
MRS. BROWN: Yeah, it pumped it out that day. I don't know
how long it takes to pump out that water. But very simply, it was
pumped out. When he got home from work that day, he said the
water's out of the pool. And that water was good water. From then
on that water got continually murky, murky, murky, and finally it
was black water. And it would go up and down two and three feet a
day.
He testified he put the pool fill on on the 23rd. If he put it on
Page 70
June 18, 2003
on the 23rd, why didn't he put it on that same week to keep that
water up?
Water was coming from somewhere, sir, because I paid to fill
the pool twice. And it was the Collier County that told me that the
pool held 34,000 gallons. They're the ones that told me. I told them
how big it was and they told me how much it was. And that's why
the bill was so high. So he put water somewhere.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Serrano was correct about his determination
of how to calculate the gallonage of the pool --
MRS. BROWN:
MR. JOSLIN: --
8.33, not 7.33.
Absolutely.
except for the number that he used, which is
But yes, there's probably about a 14,000 gallon pool you have
full of water --
MRS. BROWN: Right, and they --
MR. JOSLIN: -- not 34,000.
MRS. BROWN: -- told me at the county that I probably was
paying for around 64,000 gallons of water is what they told me.
That would calculate out two or three times that water was just
leaking out. So there was some water going into that pool. Nobody
turned off his water. He didn't do that until the 23rd.
What did he do from the 10th to the 23rd? I guess that's my
whole case is what did he do from the 10th to the 23rd, other than
say to me maybe it's the pool filter. Call Hayward. I don't know
Hayward. How do I get ahold of Hayward? MR. JOSLIN: Okay, I understand that.
I'm going to hold my questions for the moment.
MR. BARIL: Could I have one more?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. BARIL: Mrs. Brown, you just stated that the -- when you
spoke to Mr. Serrano on the 10th that he had informed you that he
had already replaced three O-rings; is that correct?
Page 71
June 18, 2003
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. BARIL: On the 10th.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir. By the 10th.
MR. BARIL: By the 10th.
And you stated that he said it could be the O-rings. Did he ever
at that point on the 10th tell you that your filter was bad and it
should be replaced?
MRS. BROWN: Not at that time, sir, no. He was trying to
surmise why the pool was doing what it was doing. MR. BARIL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Take it one step further. You say
not at that time. Did he ever advise you that your filter needs to be
replaced?
MRS. BROWN: He never said it needed to be replaced, it
might need to be. It might be the filter that's the problem. Maybe
we should call Hayward. Are you going to call Hayward? Mr.
Serrano, are you going to call Hayward?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He never gave you a price?
MRS. BROWN: No, absolutely not. When I called Hayward
and told him the situation, they just laughed at me. They hung up.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Any other questions of Mrs. Brown?
MR. BARIL: One more.
Mrs. Brown, when you did have your pool rebuilt, did you
think it was safe to say that it would be a wise and prudent move to
replace the filter at that time?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, he's replaced everything there. He's
replaced everything. From -- I don't know what it's all called, but all
that stuff that's out there, it's all brand new.
MR. BARIL: But given the problems that you have had, you
decided that it would -- it needed to be replaced?
MRS. BROWN: Sir, we had to replace the entire pool, you
Page 72
June 18, 2003
know, the whole pool and the works. Everything that came out, it
all had to be replaced. So he replaced everything. I said -- now, he
suggested it's a possibility, maybe we've got a pool problem -- a
filter problem, and he said, "Not a problem. When I do this, I do it
all."
MR. BARIL: Thank you.
MR. LLOYD: I have one question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oo ahead.
MR. LLOYD: On the -- on looking at your comment here, and
on Monday -- Tuesday, the 17th -- MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. LLOYD: -- you were gone.
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. LLOYD: Do you know the status of the water in the pool
on that date?
MRS. BROWN: It was still down at two feet.
MR. LLOYD: Two feet?
MRS. BROWN: Mr. Strang looked at it for me on the previous
date. I was gone on the 16th, I believe, or is it the -- whatever day
that Sunday is. Is that the 15th? I have a calendar. Just a second.
MR. LLOYD: That's all right. Monday was the 17th, so the
16th was a--
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir, he looked at it Monday the 17th, he
can tell you that, and he made the phone call to the inspection
people.
MR. LLOYD: So there was just two feet of dirty water in the
pool --
MRS. BROWN: Yes, sir.
MR. LLOYD:
MR. JOSLIN:
MR. LLOYD:
-- on the 17th?
17th.
Yeah, on the 17th. Because
can we talk now, or are we -- we have to wait?
I'm looking at this
Page 73
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, what --
MR. LLOYD: We have to wait?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Our discussion --
MR. LLOYD: I wanted to make an observation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Save it till we close the hearing.
Any other questions for Mrs. Brown?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, Mrs. Brown. If you
would have a seat, please.
Mr. Serrano? I'm probably saying that wrong. No?
Right there's fine, it's closest to home.
Anybody have any questions for Mr. Serrano?
MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, I have questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. BARIL: Good morning, Mr. Serrano.
MR. SERRANO: Good morning.
MR. BARIL: When you worked on the filter, can you explain
the procedure to change the cartridge? Do you shut the skimmer
valve off when you do that?
MR. SERRANO: No, you turn the clock off--
MR. BARIL: Turn the clock--
MR. SERRANO: -- the power. You open the filter, remove
the lid, remove the filter element, the paper filter element, put the
new one in. And in the bottom of the lid there's a lip that has a--
where the O-ring sits.
MR. BARIL: Yes.
MR. SERRANO: We'd remove that and put a new one in. It
can only go one way.
MR. BARIL: Okay.
MR. SERRANO:
we set the lid back and
MR. BARIL:
It has a channel that goes into it, okay?
close the nap (phonetic) and that's it.
Either one.
And
When you testified earlier, you said that once a
Page 74
June 18, 2003
month you clean the filter?
MR. SERRANO: Yes, we do.
MR. BARIL: So the first time that you put the filter in was in
August. Was there a filter cleaning in September?
MR. SERRANO: We started the pool, I believe was in August.
And around September is when we started -- actually, when I
replace the filter, I think. I'm not sure now. I'll look at the service
card.
This is back on August 8th I replaced the filter element and the
filter O-ring.
MR. BARIL: Okay, does it show on here when you cleaned
the filter cartridge?
MR. SERRANO: When it says here, it says 8-5, and it says
BW, means bad wash, and circled it. That means that we clean or
replace.
MR. BARIL: So on September 2nd, where it says BW, was the
filter removed and was the O-ring removed to clean the filter and
then replaced after the filter was cleaned?
MR. SERRANO: No, no, no, no, no. The thing with the
swimming pools and filters, we clean filters once a month. This
particular filter element I replaced, I put a new one in place.
MR BARIL: On 8-5?
SERRANO: Yes.
BARIL: Okay.
SERRANO: And BW means is that it's
BARIL: Okay.
SERRANO: So it takes another four or
That's why we do that.
So when was the next time that
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
clean it next time.
MR. BARIL:
filter?
MR. SERRANO: Back in -- that was -- wait,
dates and the months wrong. 9-2 --
clean.
five weeks to
you cleaned the
I might get the
Page 75
June 18, 2003
9-6?
MR. BARIL: 9-2.
MR. SERRANO: -- was the next time.
MR. BARIL: And the first time that the
MR. SERRANO: Yeah.
MR. BARIL: And then--
MR. SERRANO: It's not here.
shows it in the other papers.
It doesn't
O-ring leaked was on
show it here. It
MR. BARIL: And then the next -- you came
yourself to work on the O-ring?
third
first
out on the 8th
MR. SERRANO: Correct. I replaced the O-ring.
MR. BARIL: And then on the 10th there was another leak?
MR. SERRANO: Right. I replace the other
O-ring.
MR. BARIL: Okay. So you stated that you
O-ring could be defective?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. BARIL:
O-ring. That's the
thought that the
And you replaced it because you thought it could
be the problem?
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. BARIL: But you didn't think it was
MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. BARIL: -- you thought it was the
MR. SERRANO: Not then.
The problem I think where everything
MR. BARIL: Yes.
the filter itself--
O-ring?
started-- may I?
MR. SERRANO: -- is that the pool, when we took over the
pool, it was only running for three hours a day, and we set it up to
run eight hours a day, because it gets better circulation. By the pool
working three hours a day, I guess it doesn't get enough pressure to
pop the filter lid. And by doing the eight hours, it did.
And it took three O-rings for me to realize that the filter was
Page 76
June 18, 2003
defected. I did mention to her that it was a faulty filter, that it
needed to be replaced.
MR. BARIL: What is the charge for-- to replace a filter?
MR. SERRANO: I never talked to her about prices, she's right
about that. I never -- but I did mention to her a new -- the price for
replacing that type of filter is around $305, plus labor, which is
$385, around there.
MR. BARIL: That's a little high, don't you think?
MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. BARIL: How long does it take to fill a 14,000 gallon
pool?
MR. SERRANO: One day.
MR. BARIL: One day?
MR. SERRANO: I'd like to say it could take 24 hours.
MR. BARIL: 24 hours.
So you could actually put the water hose
auto fill for the first 20 hours, for one entire day? MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. BARIL: When you put the auto fill on, did you come
back and check the level of the pool?
MR. SERRANO: You don't have to. It's set. It's --
MR. BARIL: When you got a call that the pool wasn't filling
up, did you come right over to check it that day?
MR. SERRANO: What day are we talking about?
MR. BARIL: The-- right before you left on the 13th.
MR. SERRANO: The automatic fill was connected or installed
in the pool on 9-23rd.
MR. BARIL: Didn't you get a call on the
a leak and--
MR. SERRANO: There was a leak in the
the pool. I was there myself.
not with the automatic fill.
in the pool without the
10th saying there was
pool. And we did fill
I did fill the pool myself with a hose,
Page 77
June 18, 2003
MR. BARIL: Okay. So you filled the pool and the pool leaked
again. Do you know where the pool leaked from after that -- after
the 10th, while you were away? Was it coming from the filter?
MR. SERRANO: From the filter. From the O-ring and the
filter. See, the lid pops and it pushes the O-ring out, and that's how
it happened.
MR. BARIL: Okay. Now, you also stated that your -- that
your thinking was on the 20th. And I remember the 20th of
September last year, and indeed there was a hurricane that was
forecast possibly to come to this area. And I remember that -- those
dates very well. I was making preparations for that storm myself.
But you stated that on the 30th you still hadn't filled the pool
because of the hurricane, the imminent threat of a hurricane. But at
that time the hurricane had already moved west of Naples.
MR. SERRANO: We had two hurricanes possible that were
going to hit Naples.
MR. BARIL: I don't remember the second one. And I thought
you were talking about the same hurricane, okay.
The next thing I'd like to ask you is, in the event of a hurricane
MR. SERRANO: Let's go back there for a moment. You said
September the 30th. That was -- I didn't do anything about it,
putting any more water in the pool, because the pool had already
moved and had the crack in the bottom of the pool. Before that,
that's when the hurricane scare.
MR. BARIL: Now, your testimony was on September 30th that
you didn't put water in the pool because of a hurricane. MR. SERRANO: Okay, my mistake.
MR. BARIL: Now, the -- in the event of a hurricane, there is a
tremendous amount of rain water, and the ground water level
actually rises. So why were you thinking that there would be a
benefit to --
Page 78
June 18, 2003
MR. SERRANO: My mistake.
MR. BARIL: -- keeping no water in a swimming pool --
MR. SERRANO: That was my mistake.
MR. BARIL: -- when the ground water level is going to be
saturated?
MR. SERRANO: I understand that. I realized after I said it,
after I did it, it was my mistake. I -- that I take as --
MR. BARIL: Your-- you got an invoice or an estimate from
Dr. Spa. And can you point to the amount to replace -- this is an
invoice -- or an estimate to replace all of the faulty problems with
this pool; is that correct? To repair the problems at this address.
MR. SERRANO: Yes, to repair the problems in the pool.
MR. BARIL: Can you show me on here where they say that
the filter is a problem and it needs to be replaced?
MR. SERRANO: It's not shown here. It doesn't -- see, what
this is, is how to fix the crack in the bottom of the pool and the deck
area where the pool moved. It doesn't say anything about the filter
there.
MR. BARIL: Wouldn't it -- wouldn't that also be part of the
repair of this pool --
MR. SERRANO: Right. And I never--
MR. BARIL: -- because if you didn't replace --
MR. SERRANO: -- heard that.
MR. BARIL: -- the --
MR. SERRANO: No.
MR. BARIL: -- filter when you did all this work, it would just
pop out again.
MR. SERRANO: Right. And what she says to -- what they
told her, that when they fix a pool, that the filter has to be replaced.
The filter has nothing to do with the pool. The pool's over there, the
pool equipment is away from the pool. Why change the filter if it
wasn't defective? I mean, if it was not defected, why change it?
Page 79
June 18, 2003
MR. BARIL: Well, if the filter wasn't defective, why was there
water coming out of the --
MR. SERRANO: The O-ring.
MR. BARIL: -- the O-ring?
MR. SERRANO: That's what I say.
MR. BARIL: So I'm just -- you know, I'm kind of at a loss
here. You have a quote to your company, but it doesn't include any
problems associated with the filter. MR. SERRANO: Right.
MR. BARIL: Do you have an explanation for that?
MR. SERRANO: Well, this invoice that is here, it was for -- to
check why the pool pop and how to fix it. Okay, it tells you what it
-- not why did it pop, how to fix the problem in the pool. And for
nothing about the filter. I never said to them come and check the
filter. I do that myself. I know what's wrong with the filter, I know
that the filter is defective. But I don't know anything how to -- I'm
not in construction, I don't have a license for that, okay, so that's
where I called them to come and tell me what's wrong with it.
MR. BARIL: How much did you tell Mrs. Brown that it would
cost for a new filter?
MR. SERRANO: I never told her the price was $385. We
never went there. I did say to her that the filter was faulty, it needed
to be replaced.
MR. BARIL: Prior to the -- this episode at this location, she
employed
payments
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
you for a number of years. Did she ever not make any
to you?
SERRANO: Not until this last pool.
BARIL: Do you have general liability insurance?
SERRANO: Yes, I do.
BARIL: Thank you.
MR. GUITE': I have one question.
Before the hurricane, you decided not to
fill up the pool with
Page 80
June 18, 2003
water?
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
pool, was
SERRANO: Before the hurricane, no. I filled up the pool.
GUITE': No, when there was a threat --
SERRANO: Right.
GUITE': -- and you decided not to put any water in the
the crack in the bottom of the pool at that point?
MR. SERRANO: I think it was probably was already there.
Because the color of the water was murky, it was black.
MR. GUITE': So if you'd have put water in the pool --
MR. SERRANO: It was --
MR. GUITE': -- it would have been -- eventually find its own
water level with the --
MR. SERRANO: It was --
MR. GUITE': -- with the water table.
MR. SERRANO: -- I think it was going to make the problem
worse. Because if the crack was already there, that water was going
to sift into the ground and it was going to raise it to even higher.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Question for you. The first time the
pool was down to two or three feet -- and I don't care about the
dates, okay, I'm sick of dates.
MR. SERRANO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The first time the pool was down
low, you refilled it, right --
MR. SERRANO: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- and everything was fine?
Okay, how's the pool get that low if only the main drain is on?
You're the pool expert --
MR. SERRANO: The pool gets that low because --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- why was the skimmer turned off?.
MR. SERRANO: I didn't know anything about the skimmer
until I saw it in the pages. It's one of those things that I do go and
check problems in pools, but I don't go and check everything that is
Page 81
June 18, 2003
in front of the pump, for example, like the skimmer. I didn't realize
about the skimmer being closed. It should not be closed. The
reason that the pool emptied, because the skimmer was closed. Of
course the pump is going to keep on pumping water because it's
sucking from the bottom of the pool and now the top of the pool. I
understand about that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You do now.
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You just told me you didn't then.
MR. SERRANO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
MR. LLOYD: I have a question. Or do you
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No.
MR. LLOYD: I have a couple. What prompted the changing
of the O-ring the first time?
MR. SERRANO: Excuse me?
MR. LLOYD: When you replaced the O-ring the first time,
you took the old one out and put the new one in, what -- why did
you do that?
MR. SERRANO: Why? Because the pool has lost about two
feet of water and it went through the O-ring, you can see it in the
filter.
MR. LLOYD: So there wasn't a gushing, it was just water in
that area and you opted to change it?
MR. SERRANO: Right. What it is, is the filter lid is what
holds the--
MR. LLOYD: Right, and I -- okay. So there was a leak, you
replaced the water in the pool, you replaced the O-ring. MR. SERRANO: Yes.
MR. LLOYD: What prompted the change to the O-ring the
second time?
MR. SERRANO: It did the same thing.
want to go ahead?
Page 82
June 18, 2003
MR. LLOYD: So water was coming out of the lid, you
replaced the water in the pool, replaced the O-ring?
MR. SERRANO: Actually, that's the third time. The first time
was when I replaced the filter element.
MR. LLOYD: So there was no six-foot spout of water going
out any of those times?
MR. SERRANO: I didn't see that. She saw that when she got
to the house.
MR. LLOYD: On the 10th?
MR. SERRANO: Whenever she puts in here. I'm not sure what
date was that.
MR. LLOYD: The 10th. Okay.
And then on the -- she stated also on the 17th that there was just
two foot of dirty water in the bottom of the pool. Is that -- would
you pretty much agree with that?
MR. SERRANO: Well, that's -- according to my service card
here, that -- we were on September 23rd when the pool was empty.
This says I can't recognize the pool, the pool's empty.
MR. LLOYD: And if the pool was in fact, according to her
testimony, down to two feet of dirty water on the 17th, on your
service record on the 16th you did a full service on that pool,
brushed it, skimmed it, vacuumed it, so
MR. SERRANO:
MR. LLOYD: --
MR. SERRANO:
the service, a Monday. MR. LLOYD: Right.
MR. SERRANO: The pool was fine. It
17th.
MR. LLOYD:
date that bothers me
MR. SERRANO:
you did that--
It was not --
for two feet of dirty
No, no, no, no, no.
It doesn't-- that's not--
because -- What was your first
water?
On the 16th is the day of
happened probably the
okay. And that's the
question? What was
Page 83
June 18, 2003
your dates?
MR. LLOYD: I had asked her specifically, on the 17th, the
Tuesday after the three O-rings had been replaced, whether the water
had been replaced in the pool, and she said no, that there was two
feet of dirty water. Yet the previous day your service ledger here
states that you did a full service on the pool. Well, if there's two feet
of dirty water, then you vacuumed, brushed it and skimmed it, of
two feet of dirty water.
MR. SERRANO: No, no, no. On the full pool. On a full pool.
Because it even says here that he added chemicals, he added a
gallon of chlorine to the pool.
MR. LLOYD: But there was no gushing through the O-ring on
those dates, the pool was already down.
MR. SERRANO: I'm just telling you what happened here in
the service card. Whatever--
MR. LLOYD: I'm trying to get a feel for whether this card is
accurate or not.
MR. SERRANO: I know, I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
MR. JOSLIN: What was the language, Mr. Serrano, for this
entry that is on this service card? You said it was in Spanish? That
was made on 9-23.
MR. SERRANO: It says no conocido, didn't recognize. Estar
vaciar means it's empty.
MR. JOSLIN: The pool's empty.
MR. SERRANO: It says estar vaciar, that means empty.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. We have a Spanish person on the board
MS. KELLER: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: -- is that correct?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ann is.
MR. JOSLIN:
That is correct. Just checking.
Page 84
June 18, 2003
MS. KELLER: I'm not Spanish, but I speak Spanish.
MR. JOSLIN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
MR. JOSLIN: Julio. I'm prompted to say Julio, only because I
have to admit that I do know this gentleman. I've never done work
with him or for him, but I do know his service.
What do you suppose would have been a really good cure for
this problem? I mean, well, let's just go back in time. MR. SERRANO: The best--
MR. JOSLIN: You go to a pool. Now you're a pool man, you
go to a pool and you find that the pool is losing water through an
O-ring. Does it once. A couple of days later you go back and you
get a call saying that the same pool that you just got done replacing
an O-ring on has done it again. The light should have come on, I
think. What should you have done?
MR. SERRANO: That's when I recommended to her that the
filter was faulty. I should have replaced the filter. MR. JOSLIN: What should you have done?
MR. SERRANO: What should I done (sic)? I'm not following
you.
MR. JOSLIN: Turned the time clock off, maybe?
MR. SERRANO: Maybe, yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: Shut the power off on the system? Then the
water's not going to pump out of that filter--
MR. SERRANO: I understand. I understand.
MR. JOSLIN: And you didn't do that.
MR. SERRANO: I didn't do that.
MR. JOSLIN: You continually tried to fix the problem and
then went back and had Mrs. Brown try to understand that it's her
filter problem, and then testify that you didn't even give her a price
on the filter to remedy the problem and let the pool run anyway.
MR. SERRANO: Okay.
Page 85
June 18, 2003
MR. JOSLIN: That's where I'm at. That's the -- dates, forget
dates, forget times. The problem could have been solved very
simply, and this problem would have never occurred if you had
turned the pump off.
MR. SERRANO: Well, that's you. I'm not saying that -- you
know, respect -- whatever, that's your way of thinking. Everybody's
not the same. I don't think about shutting off the clock at all, I'm
thinking just to keep the pool in operation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll keep that for closing
discussions. Let's don't go there. MR. LLOYD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Serrano. If you'll
have a seat.
Mr. Zachary, closing statement?
MR. ZACHARY: Short one. Members of the Board, just
simply, I want to say that Mrs. Brown hired Mr. Serrano to do the
maintenance and to look after her pool. She made it clear that, and
her testimony was, that she didn't know how to do that, that she
entrusted him to do that.
Well, as a result of his maintenance and his care and his
caretakership (sic) of that pool, it popped out of the ground and she
was caused thousands of dollars in expenses to repair something
that should have never happened, because he undertook some stop
gap measures, but they continually did not work. And if he had
simply done certain things, the pool would still be in the ground, we
wouldn't be here today, and he's responsible for that. And he
undertook that responsibility and he didn't live up to it.
So simply I'd ask the board to find that he was -- he's
committed the offense set out in the complaint, 4.1.10.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you define for us -- the
Page 86
June 18, 2003
actual cost is only $10,000 outlaid; is that correct?
MR. ZACHARY: I believe the cost -- by the invoice that you
have in your packet, that is the cost.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's just -- that's it, okay. I know
there may be others, but it's not in the packet.
Mr. Kowalski, closing statement, please?
MR. KOWALSKI: Yes. I think there's really three issues in
this case. One is did Mr. Serrano's activities fall below the
minimum level that's required of the contractor. Number two, if so,
was that the proximate cause of the damage to the pool. And
number three, if so, what is the appropriate compensation to Mrs.
Brown for those damages.
First of all, I think we'll take the first two together and that is
whether Mr. Serrano's conduct was negligent; and secondly, if so,
was that the proximate cause of the damages.
I think that you all have pointed out that perhaps there are steps
that could have been taken by Mr. Serrano to have prevented the loss
of water and the substantial damage.
I don't think there's been any evidence to indicate, though, that
the actions that Mr. Serrano took were less than satisfactory or
below a level of minimum competence, nor that the actions that
could have been taken in shutting off the clock were something that
Mr. Serrano should have done.
I think that the evidence is pretty clear that the proximate cause
of the damage to the pool, i.e., the loss of the water, was
precipitated not by Mr. Serrano, but in fact by Mrs. Brown and the
tenant for the following reasons: Fist of all, Mr. Serrano did take
reasonable measures to ensure that the water-- that the pool would
have sufficient water to avoid this problem. Number one, he turned
the spigot on and he put water in the pool. And number two, he put
an automatic fill in to ensure that that would continue.
What did Mrs. Brown and the tenant fail to do, or do? First of
Page 87
June 18, 2003
all, they obviously turned off the spigot so that water did not go in
the pool. Secondly, they failed to take the obvious action of putting
water in the pool before that crack would develop and were
negligent themselves. They were the ones who were on-site. Mrs.
Brown even testified that her tenant was told to make sure that the
water level was up above the skimmer at the top of the pool. That's
basic. They didn't do that. It's their fault.
And lastly, Mr. Serrano identified what needed to be done to
cure the problem. Nothing that anyone else has suggested here
changes the fact that there was only one thing that was going to
remedy this problem and that was a new filter.
It's obvious from Mrs. Brown's testimony that she doesn't
understand the difference between a filter and a filter element, or
perhaps possibly didn't even understand what Mr. Serrano was
talking about when he told her that they needed a new filter.
And that is corroborated, first of all, by paragraph seven of the
complaint where Mrs. Brown acknowledges that she was told the
filter was defective, paragraph seven. And secondly, by the
testimony that she needed to contact Hayward because the filter is
the problem.
But Mrs. Brown perhaps was so concerned about the $150
charge at the outset, didn't pay this bill, for whatever reason, she
didn't want to hear about I need a new filter. She just bought this
house and she didn't want to put that money into it.
Mr. Serrano is between a rock and a hard place. He couldn't fix
the pool unless she authorized him to put in the new part and make
that repair, and she never did it.
And it was inevitable that these problems would have festered,
regardless of what other actions were taken, unless that defect was
remedied. And that's not Mr. Serrano's problem.
Oh, he didn't hound her about it, no question about that. But he
did tell her that's what it would take to fix the problem, and she
Page 88
June 18, 2003
wouldn't do it.
MR. NEALE: Mr. Zachary does have the
further comments --
MR. ZACHARY: Nothing further.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a motion to
hearing?
MR. BARIL: Can I ask the counselor one
close?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can ask after we
MR. BARIL: After we close?
MR. NEALE: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a motion to
hearing. MR. LLOYD:
MR. JOSLIN:
opportunity for
close the public
question before we
close.
close the public
I make a motion we close the public hearing.
Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
MR. NEALE: Before we --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What we do at this phase is you all
will hear our deliberations. We may ask you a question, but it is not
a time for you to get involved, it is only our deliberations. I usually
-- the chairman does have some privileges, so I start this out.
MR. NEALE: Before, let me go through the rules --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, yeah, give us our legal rules.
MR. NEALE: Give you your rules and regs on how to do this,
make sure all of this is on the record.
In reviewing this matter, the board shall ascertain in its
deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process have been
afforded to the respondent. However, pursuant to Section 22-202 of
the Collier County Ordinances, the formal Rules of Evidence as set
out in Florida Statutes shall not apply.
The board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant,
Page 89
June 18, 2003
immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider
all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably
prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. That is whether or
not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a court of law
or equity.
Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other
evidence. Hearsay by itself, however, is not sufficient to support a
finding in this or in any other case before this board unless it would
be admissible over objection in civil court.
The standard of proof in this type case, wherein the respondent
may lose his privileges to practice his profession, is that the
evidence presented by the complainant must prove the complainant's
case in a clear and convincing manner. This burden of proof on the
complainant is a larger burden than the preponderance of evidence
standard set for normal civil cases.
The standard established for sanctions, other than those
affecting the license, however, is that of a preponderance of the
evidence. So note that the burden of proof, clear and convincing is
only if you are considering removing the respondent's license.
The standard and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the
charges set out in the complaint as -- under Ordinance 90-105,
Section 4.1.10, as amended, and Section 22-201, subsection 10 of
the Collier County Code of Ordinances.
I'd like to read that into the record and for the board's review.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Question for you as you're doing
that. Since we're going to have to read that as well in our
administrative complaint counts, can we automatically just defer to
your reading right now?
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Because we don't have that.
MR. NEALE: Right. It's -- the relevant section is failing to
promptly correct faulty workmanship, or promptly replace faulty
Page 90
June 18, 2003
materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction
contract. Faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced,
not continued or not completed in accordance with all specifications
of the applicable written agreement.
Faulty workmanship includes any material flaws in the quality
and/or quantity of the unfinished work product, including any item
that does not function properly as a part of the entire project.
If there is no written agreement provision regarding the specific
faulty workmanship issue, faulty workmanship exists if the work,
process, product or part thereof does not meet generally accepted
standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project.
Faulty workmanship does not include matters of aesthetics,
unless the aesthetically related item clearly violates a written
contract specification directly related thereto.
In order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation
of this section of the ordinance, the board must find facts that show
the violations were actually committed by the respondent. The facts
must show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion
that the respondent was in violation of the relevant sections of
90-105, as amended.
The charges are specific and these are the ones to which the
respondent has replied, and they are as previously read, 4.1.10.
These charges are the only ones that the board may decide
upon, as these are the only ones to which the respondent has had the
opportunity to prepare a defense.
The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this
hearing, and is effective upon being read by the board.
The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights
to this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry
Licensing Board, as set out in the Collier County ordinances and
Florida statutes and rules.
If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following
Page 91
June 18, 2003
the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a
nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the board
may withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting.
The board shall vote upon the evidence presented on all areas,
and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the administrative
complaint. The board shall also make findings of fact and
conclusion of law in support of the charges set out in the
administrative complaint.
If the respondent is found in violation of the ordinance, the
board shall consider and order sanctions under certain parameters as
set out in Collier County Ordinance 91-105, as amended. And I
will read those after the board has deliberated on the liability of the
respondent.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good.
Board members, we will discuss this just in an effort -- one
person has not been through this. This is deliberations between us,
and you can't ask questions.
Comment on overall view of the case. When I first read this
case, I'll be honest with you, I saw fault with the tenant, I saw fault
with the homeowner. But now that I've heard the case, there's
enough negligence and neglect to go around the whole room.
My feelings, after I heard the case, is go back to proximate
cause of Mr. Kowalski's closing arguments, but proximate cause is,
number one, why anyone who especially is an expert in the field
would empty a pool before a hurricane. I think even most common
people know better than that.
Number two, doesn't have any idea about the skimmer or the
main drain. And number three, he doesn't even cut the power. Now,
who I'm talking about right now, and yes, the other parties are in
neglect, and they're -- and we probably had a homeowner that turned
off the water because he was paying a water bill.
And had I been Mrs. Brown, I mean, do you still keep calling
Page 92
June 18, 2003
the incompetent person or do you call someone who is competent?
And if I had a problem like -- I mean, you just give up -- there's
some diligence that should be part of the homeowner's as well --
when you know you're dealing with an incompetent person.
But I go back to the person who's licensed, and now I question
how he got his license. Because all three of those elements, using
Mr. Kowalski's closing argument, they're basic. And by his
testimony, Mr. Serrano's testimony, he has admitted that he doesn't
know what he's talking about in these three elements.
So my opinion is yes, Mr. Serrano is fully responsible, and
that's how I feel on the case.
MR. LLOYD: From the consumer's perspective, I have a
problem with the procedure Mr. Serrano employed. I hire
contractors to do things. And you all are hired with the confidence
that you know what you're doing. When Mr. Serrano identified the
O-ring being bad and identified the O-ring being bad and then
finally realized the filter casing was in fact flawed, that should have
been a time to give a price and/or replace the filter, charge it to the
consumer, or remove himself from the element and just say well,
okay, I divest myself of this pool. Because you're not going to
accept my recommendation as a contractor.
I think the consumer was not treated fairly in this, and Mr.
Serrano has in fact violated Ordinance 4.1.10 by not replacing the
flawed materials. That's my opinion from the consumer perspective.
MR. GUITE': But with the failing to correct faulty
workmanship, which workmanship did he fail to --
MR. LLOYD: No, he failed to replace the flawed materials,
which was the filter. He identified the flaw --
MR. GUITE':
MR. LLOYD:
MR. GUITE':
MR. LLOYD:
But he did not install
He didn't replace it.
-- filter to begin with.
It was his to address.
that --
Page 93
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let him read it, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, let me reread one portion of this. This is
the if there's no written agreement provision.
Faulty workmanship exists if the work, process, product or part
does not -- thereof does not meet generally accepted standards in
Collier County in relation to the entire project. So it includes all
elements, not just physical parts.
MR. LLOYD: The process of assessment. He assessed, he
realized that the part was flawed, didn't take action to fix it, and
consequently the pool ended up getting emptied.
MR. GUITE': That's not his responsibility to change the filter.
It's the homeowner's responsibility to pay him to change the filter.
MR. LLOYD: He is the contractor assigned to care of that pool
on the consumer's side. In other words, a consumer goes to that
person --
MR. GUITE': But he's not liable to keep that pool full of water.
If that water somehow leaks out, it's not his fault that that --
MR. LLOYD: If he is a contractor hired to oversee that by the
consumer and he's identified a problem and has not taken action to
correct it, under the hiring of the consumer, he's at fault. My
opinion. That's my opinion.
MR. GUITE': I don't think he is. I really -- I don't think he is.
MR. LLOYD: That's why we're talking about it.
GUITE': Not without her approval. He needs her
MR.
approval.
MR.
BARIL: Once a contractor starts to work on something,
he owns it. I mean, you bought it. Once you begin to work on a
pool or a house or whatever, you're -- you accept the liability.
MR. GUITE': But if you find a problem with a job and that
homeowner's not willing to give you the go-ahead to fix that
problem or hire somebody else to fix that problem, then it shouldn't
be his problem, because of her negligence of getting that filter
Page 94
June 18, 2003
replaced.
MS. KELLER:
actually replace the
MR. GUITE':
the filter.
But he didn't make a recommendation that she
filter, so --
Well, he did. He recommended that she replace
MS. KELLER: Well, I see that as a consumer as getting a
price. You know, we think this is the problem, this is how much it's
going to cost, you know, can you give me approval to go ahead.
And that conversation--
MR. GUITE': He didn't do all that he could have done,
obviously, which is reach over and turn the time clock off, said I'm
sorry, I can't take care of your pool any longer, get somebody else.
But I really don't think it's all his fault. I think there's blame to go
around.
MR. BARIL:
replace this filter,
happens?
MR. GUITE':
Shouldn't he at that point have said if you don't
then I can't assume liability for anything that
He should have. Yes, he should have. That's
what I said. He did not do everything that he should have done.
MR. JOSLIN: I think there was a whole lot of things in this
particular situation that could have been done. As I stated to Mr.
Serrano earlier, a quick fix would have been to turn the time clock
off, and if someone turned the water off, it wouldn't have mattered.
But on the other side of the coin, we still have a homeowner
that rents the house to a tenant and advised the tenant to keep the
pool full of water. So does the blame really lie all on one contractor
that agrees to take care and maintain a pool, being a pool
contractor?
Now, gentlemen, I'm going to tell you that I'm not always in the
same side you guys are (sic), but I do know that I've been through
this before, never popped a pool out of the ground, but have been in
a situation where I do maintain pools, I do go to that home once a
Page 95
June 18, 2003
week, and I'm only there once a week for 20 minutes. I cannot be at
that home 24 hours a day. Things happen. Just like they happen
inside a home if a hot water tank breaks and it floods your house.
Who are you going to blame, the service guy because he came in
and put in a new element? You don't know.
There's a lot of variables in this case, where I don't really know
that I could come up and say that there's any one particular person
to blame. Whether or not Mr. Serrano was -- falls under faulty
workmanship, I can't say that I agree with that, because he did all he
could do, in a sense, to try to alleviate the problem by putting in not
one, not two but three O-rings.
If the water had been left on a particular time and it could have
run all night long, if the O-ring would have still broken, the pool
would have just kept turning over water. Water would have run in
when it got pumped back out again.
Fortunately someone turned off the water. So now there's no
responsibility of who turned off the water or whose O-ring failed.
It's -- this is going to be, I think, something that I'm going to have to
really consider. Maybe there is -- maybe there's -- some of the
blame lies in both. Maybe more so in the negligence of neither one
communicating with each other or the tenant not communicating
with the pool person, the pool person not really communicating
with the homeowner, and both of them not communicating with each
other, other than you take care of the problem, it's not mine. This is
what I've heard from them. He takes care of the problem the best
that he can, knowing that he doesn't give her a price for a filter.
Well, he's trying to do the best he can by putting in a product or a
part that he buys from the manufacturer, puts it on and if it fails,
well, he's got to look deeper and find out what maybe the problem is
in a deeper method of finding it out. That wasn't done. Some of it
was, some of it wasn't.
So that's my deal. I mean, I'm just kind of in a situation where I
Page 96
June 18, 2003
think that the blame actually lies in both parties, not just in one.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I wish he had mined it in to his
liability insurance. I think that was a major mistake. Well, there's a
lot of major mistakes there. But that's the fourth one, because now
we're looking at a charge of faulty workmanship, and I'm not aware
of any insurance company on the face of the planet that will cover
faulty workmanship. So he's not going to be able to go back to his
insurance company at this time. Any other discussion?
MR. BARIL: Yeah, I just would like to also point out that the
counselor alluded to chapter-- I mean paragraph seven on the
plaintiffs letter. But also at the end of that paragraph, and paragraph
six and eight also, the defendant assured the owner that he would
take care of it and to go on vacation, it will be fine, don't worry
about it, I'll take care of it. Several times assuring that the problem
would be taken care of.
Identifying a problem is one thing. He didn't know to shut off
the clock, he didn't know to shut off the valve. I mean, how hard is
it to mm a valve off and the water level would be guaranteed to stay
at, you know, one foot or so below the top of the pool deck. And
obviously he didn't know to replace the filter. I mean, even --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But when you say that, we've got a
guy who had the main drain running and every bit of water that went
in that automatic fill is going to go right out the top of that drain
over at the side of the house. So if that automatic fill came on -- put
yourself in the homeowner's situation, it's going in here, it's going
out there, what's the point? Am I going to let this go all night long?
MR. GUITE': But did he know that the skimmer -- was the
skimmer valve shut off when he was there and did that? Or did
somebody come along and mm it off?.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, then of course the --
MR. GUITE': He said he didn't know.
Page 97
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- license holder said he didn't know
that he should have both running.
MR. BARIL: Right, which--
MR. GUITE': I don't think he said that. He said he didn't know
-- he didn't look and check to make sure that it was on or off. Which
is easibly (sic) understandable. I've filled pools --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, if it was on, there would be no
need for that automatic fill.
MR. GUITE': Well, yes, there still would be. Because you
don't want the filter to --
MR. BARIL: Once you--
MR. GUITE': -- burn out -- water to go down and you burn
your pump out and cause more problems.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I wish they had burned the pump up.
MS. KELLER: I just want to bring up a point. What if there
was nobody there, nobody was living there? You're saying that the
tenant or the owner did something to change the situation so that the
servicer of the pool couldn't do his job.
MR. GUITE': That's what it sounds like to me.
Okay. So that's where the blame comes on
MS. KELLER:
their side.
MR. JOSLIN:
MS. KELLER:
his job.
MR. JOSLIN:
MR. GUITE':
the right thing.
MR. JOSLIN:
MR. GUITE':
Right.
Is they prohibited him from
In a sense, yes.
I mean, maybe what he was
being able to do
trying to do wasn't
Not totally.
Not totally.
MS. KELLER: See, I think that in this situation --
MR. GUITE': But it still wouldn't have --
MS. KELLER: -- they weren't present.
Page 98
June 18, 2003
MR. GUITE': -- caused the problems that they had if
somebody went to turn the water off.
MR. BARIL: How can you assure somebody that you're going
to correct the problem if you're not allowed to spend the money for a
new filter? If that --
MS. KELLER: We don't know. She never said that he couldn't
spend the money.
MR. LLOYD: But you as the contractor --
MR. BARIL: That's his point.
MR. LLOYD: -- if you say you're going to handle it for me
and I can head out to vacation for eight days, I would assume that if
a filter needed to be replaced, it would have been replaced and I
would have gotten a bill for 3 50 bucks when I got back and an
explanation as to why. That never happened.
MR. GUITE': Well, usually I -- if it was me, I would have at
least tried to contact you or told you ahead of time that this might
happen and this -- it might cost you this. That way I could have
gotten an approval ahead of time. Which I'm sure he didn't want to
go out and put good money out on the job and then not get the
money back, which obviously it would have been a good investment
right now.
MR. LLOYD: Yeah, it would have been a good investment,
and it would have served the consumer. Because we as consumers
rely heavily on you as contractors to -- if we hire you, to do what's
appropriate.
MR. GUITE': I realize that. And that's how I try to run my
business is -- you know, is like that. But, I mean, it's --
MS. KELLER: And I don't understand, if you put more water
into the pool, it still
on the water--
MR. GUITE':
wouldn't have drained
would have had a problem. So them not turning
It would have kept it at a
completely and--
certain level where it
Page 99
June 18, 2003
MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.
MR.
MS.
MR.
KELLER: But it still --
GUITE': -- and then cracked.
KELLER: -- would have gone out the filter.
JOSLIN: Yes.
GUITE': Exactly.
KELLER: It would have gone right back out again.
GUITE': Yes. But it would have maintained that level.
MS. KELLER: You know, I don't think as a consumer that I
would have kept putting water in the pool. I'd call the guy back and
say, you know, it's still not working, what's going on, you know. So
I just -- I have a hard time understanding that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Here's what we're going to do, so
that I can make it easier for you. Because I'm listening to your
discussions.
The first thing we're going to do is the count. Was he guilt of
faulty workmanship, that's yes or no, okay. Then we're going to
have this same discussion again on what degree of guilt, okay?
MR. NEALE: At that point.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So don't mix up the two.
MR. LLOYD: No.
MR. NEALE: Yes, because as Mr. Dickson correctly says,
what you're deliberating on now is whether this constituted faulty
workmanship under the definition in the ordinance. Once you're
completed with that deliberation, I'll then give you further advice on
how to determine -- if you find him in violation at that point, I will
give you further information on how to determine sanctions and
what the relevant aspects are to consider when you consider
sanctions.
So as Mr. Dickson correctly says, analogize this to a trial.
What you're doing now is determining liability, and then once you
determine liability, you'll go into another phase where you'll
determine penalty, if you determine that he is liable.
Page 100
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And at that time, we'll consider
mitigating factors like negligence on both parties, shared negligence,
something of that.
So based on the fact was he negligent or was he not, any more
discussion? I'm not trying to cut you off.
MR. GUITE': I can't see where he'd be negligent, because he
put the right part -- I'm obviously assuming that he bought the right
O-ring for that filter, because I know they make different O-rings for
different filters. So where is the workmanship -- you know, the
defect in the workmanship? When he replaced the part with the
right part, it didn't work. Maybe the manufacturer is at --
MR. JOSLIN: A defect would actually -- or the faulty portion
of the workmanship would have been in the actual portion of the
filter that was replaced, which was the whole cartridge -- I mean the
whole filter assembly itself.
Obviously if the whole system or the whole filter assembly was
bad, putting an O-ring into something that's already bad, he did the
best he could do with the part he had in front of him. MR. GUITE': Right.
MR. JOSLIN: So I can't--
MR. GUITE': Is he liable to change that filter?
MR. JOSLIN: -- see where there would be-- is he liable to--
MS. KELLER: He's liable to --
MR. JOSLIN: -- cut that filter out and put in a new one just
because he knows that one's bad?
MR. GUITE': That's where I'm coming from.
MR. JOSL1N:
MR. GUITE':
MR. JOSLIN:
MR. GUITE':
MS. KELLER:
MR. LLOYD:
Without authorization from the homeowner?
I mean, it doesn't make sense.
I don't think I would do that.
No, I don't think he's liable -- But he's liable to fix the problem.
But he's liable because he has since now
Page 101
June 18, 2003
identified that the filter, the casing, the housing, and obviously the
screw on top that secures the O-ring in place, is defective and has
not taken action with the homeowner to replace it.
He's the professional. She isn't. He's the one that's at -- he can't
-- wait a minute. If it isn't the O-ring, it's something other than the
O-ring, I've done it three times, I'm the professional, I should say to
her here's what I need to do, and you go off on your vacation,
because you're not going to be here when this problem reoccurs. I'll
replace it. And he's worked with her for five years, knows that she
pays the bills, she pays her bills. Until this one time. So he should
have taken the action. It wasn't the first time they had worked
together. He knew her, he knew whether she would pay for it or not,
he knew whether she would accept his decision on items. He let it
go.
MR. BARIL: How about an analogy like this: What happens if
your car was overheating and you brought it in and they put in a
radiator, and then it was still overheating and they put in another
radiator, and then you let somebody else use the car and it
overheated and blew the engine, while all the time it was the water
pump. Well, what do you say to the guy who replaced the radiators?
You know, why replace a radiator when it's the water pump?
I mean, you've got to identify the problem and you're not going
to solve a problem by putting in an O-ring when the O-ring isn't the
problem.
MR. LLOYD: And you've identified--
MR. GUITE': I don't think that analogy's right, though.
MR. LLOYD: And you've identified the problem.
MR. JOSLIN: It's a good analogy, but in this particular case, I
think the swimming pool's a little different only because of the
pictures that I've looked at and the system that I've looked at inside
the pictures here, how it's plumbed in. There's something--
everybody's failed to even notice, which I probably should have
Page 102
June 18, 2003
brought up earlier, but there's a solar system connected to the system
which forces the water up on the roof.
Again, not knowing who is -- has full use of that pool, tenants
have use of that pool. There's nothing to stop them from going out
there and trying to heat that pool up in September and closing a
valve and left it closed and realized what they've done and maybe
blew the filter apart and then just put it back in place, walked in the
house and said see ya. I didn't touch it, and they're gone.
So there's things that we don't know happened at that home that
possibly could have caused this problem to happen to begin with.
I've seen it happen many times where it will blow a filter apart by
closing a valve in a solar system. All it takes is one time, and it will
crack the housing.
MS. KELLER: But when you call your service person to come
in and look at it, they're looking to solve the problem and identify
the problems, and they're experts in that, and that's why you pay
them a servicing fee for five years, because you're paying them
more than the chemicals going into the pool and the cleaning of it,
you're paying for that confidence that someone can help you to
manage problems with your pool.
And so I think there's more of a service responsibility than if
you called someone out and got an estimate and they said you
should fix this and the person goes away and you decide not to do
it. Whereas you have a relationship with this person and you're
paying them to come and service your pool and to be your pool
person that can help you solve your problems.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who wants to make a motion?
That's how we resolve it.
MR. LLOYD: All right, I'll start.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The motion would be
of--
MR. LLOYD: Right, I make a motion --
that he's guilty
Page 103
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- 4.1 --
MR. LLOYD: -- that we find Julio Serrano guilty of violating
Ordinance 4.1.10. And that's it. The motion, that he violated
Ordinance 4.1.10.
MS. KELLER: Second, Keller.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I have a motion and a second.
Is there discussion? Or I should say more discussion. (No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, call for the vote. All those in
favor?
MR. BARIL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. LLOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those opposed?
MR. GUITE': Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Two. On each side of me opposed.
The vote was 4-2.
Mr. Neale, I should read this at this point, should I not?
MR. NEALE: Right. Up to the penalty portion of it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Board of County Commissioners,
Collier County, Florida, Contractor Licensing Board, Nancy Brown
versus Julio A. Serrano, d/b/a Gulfbreeze Pool Service,
Incorporated, Case No. 2003-02. License No. 13626.
The Contractor Licensing Board of Collier County, Florida,
herein called Board, files this administrative complaint against Julio
A. Serrano, d/b/a Gulfbreeze Pool Service, Incorporated, herein
called respondent, license No. 13626 and says Count I, 4.1.10, faulty
workmanship, deferring to the definition as previously read by Mr.
Neale.
It is determined that the above stated charges are grounds for
Page 104
June 18, 2003
disciplinary action under Ordinance 90-105 of Collier County,
Florida, as amended.
You know what, I read the -- this cause came --
MR. NEALE: Findings of fact, yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
Certified mail was given to the complainant.
This is a little bit out of order. The board heard the entire
testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments
respective to all appropriate matters, issues, findings of fact,
conclusions of law, order of the board as follows: That Julio A.
Serrano is the holder of record of Certificate of Competency No.
13626; that the Board of Collier County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida is the complainant in this matter; that the board has
the jurisdiction of the respondent; and that Julio A. Serrano was
present at the public hearing and was represented by counsel.
Number 4, all notices required by Collier County Ordinance
No. 90-105, as amended, have been properly issued.
The allegations of-- number five, the allegations of fact, as set
forth in the administrative complaint, are approved, adopted and
incorporated herein by reference as findings of fact.
Conclusions of law. The conclusion of law alleged and set
forth in the administrative complaint are approved, adopted and
incorporated herein.
Based on-- order of the board. Based upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusion of law, and pursuant to the authority
granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, Collier County Ordinance
90-105, as amended, by a vote of 4-2 in favor is hereby ordered that
the following disciplinary sanctions and related orders are hereby
imposed upon the holder of contractor's Certificate of Competency
No. 13626.
MR. NEALE: We don't get to that yet, because --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which we don't do.
Page 105
June 18, 2003
MR. NEALE: -- that's the order.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: As the respondent's been found in violation of
the ordinance, the board shall consider and order sanctions under the
parameters set out in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as
amended.
In setting these sanctions, the Contractor Licensing Board shall
consider five elements: The gravity of the violation, the impact of
the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the
violation, any previous violations committed by the violator, and
any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant
as to the sanction that is appropriate to the case, given its nature.
The sanctions that the board may impose are set out in the
Collier County Ordinance Section 22-203. Those sanctions which
may be imposed include: One, the revocation of the Certificate of
Competency; two, suspension of the Certificate of Competency;
three, denial of issuance or renewal of a Certificate of Competency;
four, probation of a reasonable length, not to exceed two years,
during which the contractor's contracting activities shall be under
the supervision of the Contractor Licensing Board, and/or
participation in a duly accredited program of continuing education.
Probation, if granted, may be revoked for cause by the board at a
hearing noticed to consider such purpose. Five, restitution; six, a
fine not to exceed $5,000; seven, a public reprimand; eight, a
reexamination requirement; nine, denial of issuance of permits or
requiring issuance of permits to the respondent with conditions; 10,
reasonable legal and investigative costs.
This board shall also issue a recommended penalty for the State
Construction Industry Licensing Board, even though this is not a
state registered license.
The penalty may include a recommendation for no further
action or a recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction
Page 106
June 18, 2003
of registration. Or a fine to be levied by the state board.
At this time, in considering the sanctions, the board may take
additional testimony, if it so desires, and the -- both sides are able to
offer such testimony as to the various elements that the board is to
consider and the level of damages.
So I would say that that is the point we're at here is that, you
know, the board may desire to hear testimony and that the two
parties, the county and the respondent, may desire to offer
testimony, impacting the board's decision.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Basically we're looking at $10,000
even. Both parties have testified to that, NE 16 confirms it, so that's
the issue at hand.
Discussion?
MR. LLOYD:
other action taken.
Yes. I think there needs to be restitution, but no
I think it was poor judgment on his part, but I
think the consumer needs to be reimbursed for some amount. And
I'll hold that off for further discussion.
MS. KELLER: I agree, but I think this is more of a case of
ignorance than neglect, so I would recommend some sort of
education and continuing education or something.
MR. BARIL: I would concur with both of the other board
members. I'd just like to state that whenever there's a -- when I was
listening to your explanation of the solar panels, it really dawned on
me that there's more to it as far as the owner's liability goes. There's
a certain point when you're not getting service or you're not getting
performance that you go looking elsewhere, and that wasn't done.
And I'm kind of perplexed by that. And I see that as being some bit
of liability for the homeowner as well. And I agree that there's a
restitution amount, but not the full amount, and I agree that
continuing ed. would be wise for this particular contractor. MR. LLOYD: To get more familiar.
MR. JOSLIN: I have to agree with all of you. In the same
Page 107
June 18, 2003
idea, I believe that there's liability on both parties. I would break it
down as far as what is more or less and discuss it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now's the time.
MR. NEALE: I was going to say, both parties can offer
testimony, if they wish as to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Pardon me?
MR. NEALE: Both parties could offer
as to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Only if we ask for it. ·
MR. NEALE: Well, they do have the ability to argue it if they
do wish, so -- if they £eel there's mitigating circumstances that are
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We've never done that before. The
public hearing is closed, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: Well, it could be reopened for additional
testimony, if desired.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you telling me it's something I
have to do?
MR. NEALE: Not something you have to do, but if the board
feels that they would like to receive testimony on this matter, you
can.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MR. GUITE':
MR. NEALE:
MR. GUITE':
Anybody feel it's necessary?
testimony, if they wish,
Okay, we'll leave it closed.
I have one thing I'd like to say.
You have to talk into the mike, please.
If we didn't find him guilty of the faulty
workmanship and he turned this in to his insurance for a claim,
would that solve the problem?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We already found him guilty of--
MR. NEALE: We need you to speak into the microphone.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hold that thing up to you.
Page 108
June 18, 2003
We already have found him guilty of faulty workmanship. We
can't undo what we just did.
MR. GUITE': Can't undo what we did.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Should have though of that
beforehand. After the fact doesn't do any good.
That's my problem with this case, there's a lot of after the fact.
MR. JOSLIN: I was going there, but didn't help. But that
would have been kind of an answer, yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That would be complicity in some
degree and I'm not going to be a part of that. The public hearings are closed.
MR. JOSLIN: How much -- let's put it on a percentage basis.
If we can, on a percentage basis of how much is the contractor liable
percentage-wise versus how much do we feel that the homeowner is
liable? If there's liability on both parts.
MR. GUITE': I would imagine it would be equal. I mean, I
don't think it would be fair to say one's more liable than the other.
MR. BARIL: Well, the owner still retains a brand new pool.
There is --
MR. NEALE: Mr. Dickson?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. NEALE: If you could, counsel for the respondent has just
come up and made a point that I think would bear the board hearing
his argument on and Mr. Zachary's response to it. Because it does --
it is a -- he has brought forth a potential way in which I think some
of the desires of the board and some of the concerns of the board
that are currently being expressed could be --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, we were -- and we were just
getting there, because we're talking a depreciated pool versus --
MR. NEALE: Well, I think if you'd allow Mr. Kowalski to
make his argument and then Mr. Zachary to respond thereto, I think
it may reach some of the concerns that I've heard --
Page 109
June 18, 2003
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's go for it.
Mr. Kowalski?
MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very -- on a
very limited point, if the board wants to hear argument about how --
what the damages are or how they should be allocated, I certainly
would be pleased to do that. But that's not what I'm proposing here.
I think that procedurally, if one of the four members who voted
in favor of the motion made a motion to reopen that -- that for
another vote, that that procedurally would enable the board to
reconsider the motion that it has just adopted. And I would propose
that you might do that to enable Mr. Serrano to file a claim with his
carrier.
Now, we don't know -- I can't say for sure that that claim will
be approved. But I think that the way to handle it procedurally
would be to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only way that's going to happen
is if I resign as chairman of this board right here and now.
MR. KOWALSKI: You have a problem with that
procedurally?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a big problem with that.
MR. KOWALSKI: And could you help me to understand
what's the nature of the problem that you have with that? Do you
think that that's not an appropriate way to handle it?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think it's inappropriate. I think it
borders on being illegal.
MR. KOWALSKI: Counsel has advised me that under your
ordinances, I would be entitled to file for a rehearing. And at the
rehearing you could certainly -- you would have to reconsider all
these matters. Rather than have to go through a procedure like that
that's a bit cumbersome, boards occasionally do take advantage of
the power that they have to reconsider decisions that they make. But
the limitation on that is that someone who voted with the majority is
Page 110
June 18, 2003
the one who has to bring it up.
Now, if the board feels uncomfortable with that then don't go
that route.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I feel like I'm part of a conspiracy.
Am I wrong, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Well, it is -- and I'm shooting from the hip a
little bit here, but I've been doing this for a few years, so I think I'm
probably close to right.
If a member of the board does -- that has voted in the majority
makes a motion to reconsider the previous decision, that can be
done. And the board could then reconsider it and vote on the
previous decision once again. No guarantees that the vote would mm
out differently.
This is often done in administrative bodies and quasi judicial
matters and done also in regular legislative matters. That's totally at
the discretion of the board. It would allow the board to relook at
this.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: To relook at it for what purpose? So
that now that we've had an entire year to file with an insurance
company, that maybe we can get the insurance company to pay for
it when we just found him on faulty workmanship? MR. NEALE: Um-hum.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That borders on conspiracy. And
I've been on the -- you know how long I've been on this board. This
is the wildest, most outlandish suggestion I've ever heard in 12
years. And as chairman, I will have no part of it.
MR. NEALE: It's totally the prerogative of the board.
MR. JOSLIN: I think I would have to agree with you, Mr.
Dickson, for only the sake of saying that yes, I would have liked to
have seen something had been done differently as far as the faulty
workmanship goes in a motion. However, it's been done and now it's
-- now it is done.
Page 111
June 18, 2003
And I do feel that if we go and change now, that there may not
-- we may as well not be here, because we've made a decision that
we're going back on it. And if we've made our decision --
MR. LLOYD: We set a precedence.
MR. JOSLIN: -- that's the way it is.
MS. KELLER: I think also --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I was angered by it.
MS. KELLER: -- when you came before this board, then you
gave up that option, in a sense. You're putting us in an awkward
situation where we have to compromise our ethics for the sake of
your benefit. And that's not a position that we want to put ourselves
in.
MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Chairman, I understand how the board
feels, but I would like the opportunity to at least clarify.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding of what I was asking the
board to do. I was only asking the board to consider a motion to
reconsider that would have resulted in a motion to continue the
hearing, not to make a finding contrary to the finding you'd already
made. Apparently that won't make a difference, but from an ethical
standpoint, I felt that that was an appropriate way to go.
If it's -- I was not asking this board to make a contrary finding
of fact, okay?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. But I agree very much with
what Ann said. When you decided to bring this case before this
board, all those privileges went out the door. We're going to hear
the case, we're going to deal with it, and we're not going to break for
lunch, we're going to deal with it.
So the public hearing is closed. I don't need a motion.
Where we are is in the penalty phase, and
discussion. So let's-- Mr. Bartoe?
MR. BARTOE: Mr. Chairman, I believe
number to consider for
we were doing
someone mentioned a
restitution, $10,000. And it's on Page E- 15.
Page 112
June 18, 2003
I'm looking at $2,000 down and then another check for the balance
of 10, which would mean $12,000 instead of 10.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Am I wrong on that?
MR. BARIL: That's the correct amount, 12,000.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It is 127
MR. LLOYD: Yeah, it's 12-5. It was dated on --
MR. NEALE: Yeah, that's the arithmetic.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's 12,000 even, correct?
MR. LLOYD: Right. The case summary.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, we had a fiberglass pool that
came out of the ground, but they didn't get the new pool, they got
the fiberglass pool repaired. So is depreciation an issue? I started
to go with you there for a minute and then I thought you got it
repaired.
MR. BARIL: The pool is resurfaced. It's been refiberglassed.
The pool deck has been essentially upgraded. There was a new
filter. I would assume there's new plumbing. There are -- she does
retain the use of the pool, the benefit of it. It's not like there was a
$12,000 bill and now the house is in -- without a pool. It's still a
pool home. So there is a benefit to the homeowner to have incurred
an expense, because they still retain an asset.
MR. LLOYD: They're still out 12 grand.
MS. KELLER: Their basis is higher on their home.
MR. LLOYD: Yeah, but they're still out --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It can't be a casualty loss. Well, it
might be a casualty loss.
MR. LLOYD: But she's still out 12 grand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: She's still out 12 -- yeah, she's still
out 12 grand. There is a benefit that it is a loss or a write-off
because it's a rental property. MR. BARIL: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Someone give me a motion. How
Page 113
June 18, 2003
do you feel? That's the only way we're going to resolve this.
MR. LLOYD: I think what we need is a figure, someone to
come up with a dollar amount.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need it in the form of a motion.
MR. LLOYD: I know, I'm just--
MR. BARIL: I'll make a motion to find Julio Serrano liable for
damages of $2,500, and also order him to undergo continuing
education.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I have a motion. Do I have a
second?
MR. GUITE': I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, all those in favor--
MR. JOSLIN: Discussion? Did you ask for discussion?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, we can discuss it, yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: $2,500?
MR. BARIL: They said a number.
MR. JOSLIN: Out of a $12,000 bill?
MR. LLOYD: Yeah, I was just going to --
MS. KELLER: It's not enough.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got a problem with it, too.
MS. KELLER: Yeah, it's not enough.
MR. LLOYD: I thought you'd be closer to maybe 50 percent.
MR. BARIL: I'll withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You'll withdraw your motion.
MR. LLOYD: That was a figure. We had to start with a
number, and now we know that --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, you're withdrawing the
motion. It was going to die.
MR. LLOYD: I go back to -- I can't remember who earlier said
we have to kind of decide percentage of guilt and liability here. Was
he 60 percent at fault, was he 70 percent, was he 50 percent? And
then we could apply that percentage to the liability amount, to the
Page 114
June 18, 2003
cash amount and say okay, of the 12 grand, he's responsible for
7,000 of it. I think that's going to be the hard part of it.
I do think he was at fault. I think he was at fault to a greater
degree than the homeowner. The problem was that they were both
out of town at differing times, and if they had both been here,
probably this wouldn't -- we wouldn't be sitting here today.
But I think again, from the consumer perspective, I would
probably say of the 12 grand, you know, 8,000 of it's his. We're
discussing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm thinking on the lines of 50/50.
MR. GUITE': Yeah, that's what I would think, 50/50.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion to that effect. I think Mr.
Serrano is guilty of the offense and that his restitution shall be in the
amount of $6,000.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: To be paid when?
MR. JOSLIN: To be paid within--
MS. KELLER: I just have a question about the tax
consequences of this. If she has spent the money on the house and
when she sells it, is that part of her basis, or not?
MR. NEALE: It's really not something that's relevant for the
board to consider I think at this point.
MS. KELLER: Well, because there's a big advantage.
MR. NEALE: Sure. Yeah, I understand that.
MS. KELLER: If she can use that to her advantage then --
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, let's don't go there.
MS. KELLER: It changes the actual dollar amount.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, I don't think that's something that --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can vote down the motion, if
you want, or bring it in discussion, but we are in the process of
making a motion. Finish it, okay?
MR. JOSLIN: In the amount of $6,000 to be paid within 90
Page 115
June 18, 2003
days. And he also be required to -- MR. BARIL: Attend.
MR. JOSLIN: -- account for-- attend, there you go -- 14 hours
of continuing education. And that's all.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Within what period of time?
MR. JOSLIN: The continuing education within six months.
Because the classes they give pretty much all the time.
How about prior to our renewal in September?
Yeah, before the renewal of his new license to
September 30th.
Make it conditional, his license renewal
MR. BARIL:
MR. JOSLIN:
be renewed before
MR. BARIL:
conditional?
MR. NEALE:
MR. JOSLIN:
MR. LLOYD:
Um-hum.
Yeah.
You want to rephrase that now?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, you got it, right? She writes it
verbatim.
Okay, anybody need to hear the -- no, do I have a second?
MR. BARIL: Second, Baril.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, motion is $6,000 fine, paid
within 90 days. Not a fine, restitution, there's a big difference. And
14 hours of continuing education before his renewal in September
of next year.
MR. NEALE:
MR. LLOYD:
MR. NEALE:
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
No, this year's renewal.
September, '03.
September, '03.
Oh, this year's
renewal.
Excuse me.
Okay, 2003.
And discussion.
the tax experts.
MS. KELLER:
there, then it might change our
I know where you're going, but just we're not
No, I just thought if there was some value
distribution, or it may make us feel
Page 116
June 18, 2003
differently about how the economic impact of the decision would be
MR. NEALE: And there's really been no --
MR. JOSLIN: Whether she has a new pool or an old pool, I
think it's going to be the same as far as a tax break.
MS. KELLER: Well, because she's made an investment in the
house. So when you sell the house and you pay capital gain on it,
then you can include that cost, you can deduct that cost from your
capital gains. So it's a direct, you know, 35 percent profit.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Maybe she'll take that in
consideration, because--
MS. KELLER: Yes. Make you feel better.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- right now there's no one in this
room that likes this motion. You understand that, nobody's happy.
MR. NEALE: Well, and further, there's been no evidence
presented one way or the other, so that's really not something for the
board to consider.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I have a motion. Did I get a
second?
MR. NEALE: Um-hum.
MR. LLOYD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BARIL: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
MR. LLOYD: Aye. I'm opposed.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Vote is, got that, one
opposed.
MR. KOWALSKI: For the record, who voted against that?
Page 117
June 18, 2003
MR. LLOYD: I opposed.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Based upon the findings of fact,
conclusion of law, authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida
Statutes, by a vote of 5-1, it is hereby ordered that the following
related disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed
on holder of competency No. 13626, number one, payment of
$6,000, as partial restitution to be paid to Ms. Nancy Brown within
the next 90 days from today's date.
And number two, to obtain and supply a certificate of
completence (sic) of 14 hours of continuing education prior to
renewal of license in September of this year. And that ends the
case.
Nobody's happy with us. We're fully aware of that. We did the
best we could. We hope everybody learned something out of this.
But that's where this case goes. Thank you, gentlemen, ladies, it
was a pleasure to meet you.
Going on. Next meeting date is Wednesday, July 16th. We
have three vacancies on this board.
Also, next meeting we need to elect a vice-chairman. Walter
Crawford, who is current vice-chairman, his term expires the end of
this month. So if you'd be thinking about that and see what we can
do to help us fill these other three vacancies, one of which is a
consumer. What were the other two? Were they specific
categories?
MR. NEALE: Yeah, they were contractors.
MR. BARTOE: They were both general contractors --
MR. BARIL: Right.
MR. BARTOE: -- that were on the positions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And they don't want the subs
running the thing, do they? So the GC's need to get in gear and get
on the board, or else the subs are going to be running the show. I
hope they heard that.
Page 118
June 18, 2003
Planning your vacations?
This room is going to be remodeled.
this whole floor is, isn't it?
MR. BARTOE: I have no idea.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. So August is
and then we won't meet again until September.
Is there any new business? Anything we need to bring up?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
MR. JOSLIN: So moved.
MR. LLOYD: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON:
There will be no meeting in August.
So it will be destroyed -- or
off, July 16th,
I need a motion to adjourn.
So adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:33 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
LES DICKSON, CHAIRMAN
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting
Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 119