Loading...
CLB Minutes 07/16/2003 RJuly 16, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida July 16, 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 RICHARD JOSLIN ANN KELLER KENNETH LLOYD ALSO PRESENT: Bob Nonnenmacher, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Robert Zachary, County Attorney Patrick Neale, Counsel to the Board Page AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: July 16, 2003 TIME: 9:00 A.M. W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING (ADMINISTRATION BUILDING) COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: June 18, 2003 V. DISCUSSION: VI. NEW BUSINESS: Richard L Matthews - Request to qualify a second company. Jean-Marc Katzeff - Contesting Citation #1528 issued for no license. VII. OLD BUSINESS: Donald F. Belyea - Request to be allowed to take exams to reinstate license which was revoked by the CLB on 06-16-97. VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS: IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 July 16, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call to order the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board meeting, July 16th, 2003. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. I'd like to start off with roll call on my right, please. MR. BARIL: Michael Baril. MS. KF. LLER: Ann Keller. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. LLOYD: Ken Lloyd. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We do have a quorum of five. We've been told that there have been two people -- new people either appointed to the board or will be this week, so we still have one vacancy, correct, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: these are, do you? MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, that's correct. You don't know what categories No, I don't. Okay. Next I need additions or deletions to the minutes (sic). Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: There are no additions or deletions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I need a motion to approve the agenda as you have in front of you, with no changes. MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. MR. BARIL: Second, Baril. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Page 2 July 16, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Approval of last month's minutes. I assume everyone's had a chance to look at it. Any additions or deletions to the minutes from last month? MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion we approve the minutes. Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a second. MR. LLOYD: Second, Lloyd. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those to approve the minutes of last month? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. No discussion, so immediately we are into new business. Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Bob Nonnenmacher, contractor licensing supervisor. We have a request to qualify a second entity by a Mr. Richard L. Matthews. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Matthews, are you present? MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you come forward at this podium, please. And I do need to have you sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We do have a packet on you in front of us, but tell us what you're doing now, what company you want to qualify and why. MR. MATTHEWS: Currently I own Professional Pool Subcontractors and we do subcontracting for builders and our own renovation work to commercial and residential pools, and I'd like to qualify a second entity, All Star Pools of Southwest Florida, for maintenance and repairs. Page July 16, 2OO3 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Similar work but different, just maintenance and repair, weekly service? MR. MATTHEWS: A weekly service, right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Got you. And your ownership in this repair service, or maintenance service? MR. MATTHEWS: That would be 100 percent. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. For those of you that may have come in late and don't have a copy of his, your packet includes a credit report on him personally but not his company. I have that in front of me. It's totally clean. There's no negative reports anywhere on it. You're welcome to look at it, if anyone wants it. MR. NONNENMACHER: They were issued to everyone, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, were they? Okay. MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Matthews, what license do you hold right now? MR. MATTHEWS: I have a B residential license and a C service license. MR. JOSLIN: Just a question, what's the -- you have two licenses under the same entity, under the same corporation. What's the reason for wanting to kind of split them up? MR. MATTHEWS: Well, the reason is, is, you know, just to make the service its own independent company. If-- you know, if in the future it gets big enough to sell, maybe I could sell it, or just to make it its own entity so it doesn't conflict with any subcontracting business that I may be doing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Or if it loses money it doesn't -- I've been there. Excuse me, I wasn't implying you were going to do that. I just -- I did that, okay? MR. MATTHEWS: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: A related business, and didn't do Page July 16, 2003 very well. MR. MATTHEWS: Well, initially it's not going to be highly profitable, I'm aware of that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else have any questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Nice credit report. MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wish mine looked that good. MR. JOSLIN: One other question. Are you doing any work for any contractors which would be considered new construction on commercial pools? MR. MATTHEWS: No. No, everything I -- any subcontracting work I do for builders is all residential work. MR. JOSLIN: All residential work. MR. MATTHEWS: The only commercial work I do is renovations to existing commercial pools. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the All Star Pools, you're going to have employees? MR. MATTHEWS: I'll probably have one initially to do the service work. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so right now you're -- the reason I'm asking, I'm looking at your insurance certificate, there's no workers' comp. MR. MATTHEWS: Right, I'd be exempt. And if I get employees, I'll have to, you know, get the workers' comp. on them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You understand that? MR. MATTHEWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. All right. Anybody else? MR. JOSLIN: You answered the questions I need to know. I'll make a motion that we approve the license. Page 5 July 16, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Motion to approve. I need a second. MR. BARIL: Second, Baril. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous. You got it. All of your file is here, so don't try to complete this today, because the paperwork won't be back. But you can go see Maggie tomorrow and get this taken care of. MR. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Congratulations. MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, next is Jean-Marc Katzeff, contesting Citation No. 1528 issued for no license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Katzef~ Not present. MR. HOOPINGARNER: No, he's not here, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let the record note that Mr. Katzeff was on the agenda to contest Citation 1528, working with no license, and he did not appear. Moving on to old business. MR. NONNENMACHER: Old business, Donald F. Belyea, request to be allowed to take exams to reinstate license which was revoked by the CLB on 6-16-97. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Belyea, would you come forward, please. I need to have you sworn in also. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Belyea was before us -- this is more for the record, everyone who's on this board or here today was here last month. But for the record, he came before us last month to reinstate his license. We postponed it so that we could take a look at the minutes back in June of 1997 to familiarize ourself with the case in which his license was revoked. Mr. Belyea, we do have the minutes of that meeting. Just to Page July 16, 2003 refresh, you had four charges against you in a case on June 16th, 1997: One was abandonment, one was departing from specifications, third charge was mismanagement for two liens filed on the property, and the fourth charge was faulty workmanship. One charge was dropped, which was departing from specs. And you were found in violation of the abandonment, mismanagement and faulty workmanship, which was three charges. You did not show for that hearing, although Mr. Bartoe did talk to you the morning of that hearing. You told him that you had a court date and could not be here. The investigator did go over to the courthouse, check every one of the dockets, trying to see if we could get your case postponed, but we did not find your name anywhere on the docket. It was also noted in the hearing that you had previous complaints prior to this one. Although you did satisfy those, they were complaints. And this job was done without a permit. The board did approve unanimously -- I take that back, there was one dissension -- that your license be revoked. Now you're here before us today requesting to initiate testing and the relicensing procedures to get a license. Now, it would not be anything to do with restoring this license, it would be getting a new license. MR. BELYEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Am I pretty much correct on that? MR. BELYEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And since that time, you've been working where? MR. BELYEA: Stahlman Landscape, Stahlman-England Irrigation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you been working, contracting directly yourself individually? MR. BELYEA: No, I've been working for them. Page July 16, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: work? MR. BELYEA: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: working without a license. Okay, you haven't done any outside Okay, but you did have a citation for MR. BELYEA: Yeah, I was helping a friend and shouldn't have. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, what happened to that citation? MR. BELYEA: I just paid it and they dismissed it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. LLOYD: When was the citation? MR. BELYEA: 2001. MR. LLOYD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So basically what he wants to do is start the process to take his license. And essentially, and I got to thinking about this, Mr. Neale, we're not reinstating a license, that license is dead and gone with. Can we prevent -- once an individual's license is revoked, can we legally prevent an individual from taking the test over and going through the process again? MR. NEALE: I think it would be a difficult hurdle for the board to get over to prevent someone from reapplying for the license. Now, it may be that staff, at the time he comes back with the application, decides to refer that application to the board for reasons that-- you know, because of the previous disciplinary action. But I think, after looking at this and thinking about it since -- you know, since the last hearing, I think the -- probably the methodology would be more appropriate that you can't prevent him from applying for the license and taking the test; however, it is then in the purview of staff to refer that application, if they wish, to the board for review as to whether the applicant is qualified to practice his craft. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's what I got to thinking about, Page July 16, 2003 Mr. Nonnenmacher. We took his license and that's all we have control over. He still has his personal rights as a citizen. You follow me? MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, I agree with that. I would request that you make some kind of decision that if he goes through all the trouble and spends all the money, that you will approve it for him, rather than come back before this board again. Because it's quite expensive to take tests and take time off from work and so on and so forth. I think it would only be fair -- naturally if you're going to deny it, then he's going to have to come back before you after he spends all the money. If you feel that you are going to approve it, then just let him take the test. If he passes it and has a good credit report, meets all the other qualifications, that we just license him. MR. NEALE: And what I would say to the board is that that's a decision that you can't make until you have a full application in front of you. You know, you'd have to have credit report references and everything. And if staff decides -- because I think at this point, and I don't know if Mr. Zachary agrees with me, but I would say that you can't make a decision on whether he's to be relicensed or not until you have a full packet in front of you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But the only reason he would come back before this board-- MR. NEALE: Is if staff referred it to you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, or if he didn't meet all the criteria. MR. NEALE: Precisely. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So I think what we should address -- and I agree with you in this respect, I'm just trying to set a parameter here. We don't have a right to keep you from going and taking that test, okay? MR. BELYEA: Yeah, I understand that, but what Mr. Page July 16, 2003 Nonnenmacher is saying is, you know, for me to do all that over again and then waste time, if you're not even going to consider it, you know, is -- I can understand what he's saying. And that's basically what I really wanted to know. You know, I could go take this test anytime I want, but I'm coming in front of you guys to make sure -- you know, I did make a mistake six, seven years ago. But before then my record was pretty clean. You can't please everybody, and I tried to. But the gentleman, Mr. McCarthy, was -- I tried to go back and do the work. He was very belligerent to me. I mean, saying things that I would never say to anybody, you know, just because he didn't approve of the way I did it. And from what I gather is they did dismiss the one section of not -- the workmanship was fine, he just didn't like it the way that I did it. And that's what it was all about. And when I did try to go back and do it his way, I could -- me and my men could not even get onto the premises without him screaming at us and calling us names that I will not say, you know. And -- but just to get with it, I agree with Mr. Nonnenmacher about whether -- you know, if I'm going to do it -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, Mr. Belyea, remember, I'm not an attorney, and now my position has to change a little bit, because the attorney did say that the board cannot judge on something they don't have in front of them. And I agree with that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I do think we can take it a step to where -- whether this is going to affect him. We're not going to do away with anything else. I just felt it was important for this board to set a precedent that we don't have control over who takes tests, who makes applications, we only control the license. MR. NEALE: Right. And the license was revoked almost exactly six years ago. I think if-- and it's in staffs purview to -- well, it's in the board's purview to say if this gentleman goes through Page xo July 16, 2003 and takes the test and reapplies, to have his application referred back to the board for review. You can make that imposition on staff. Or staff can, in the alternative if you don't do that, refer the license -- refer the application to the board for review. So you really -- you have a couple of choices that you can make in this case. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But we can say that this case is not going to keep him from getting the license if he meets all other requirements. MR. NEALE: The board can certainly make that determination, if the board so determines that that past six-year-old case will not affect the licensure application, absent other information that may come forward in the application, then the board can do that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. How do you -- board members, how do you feel about it? MR. LLOYD: Mr. Belyea? MR. BELYEA: Yes, sir. MR. LLOYD: Do you understand that as of right now, all you have to do is reflect on all the components in the application, and if you think and feel that they were valid and legitimate and up to what the standards need to be, you can go take the test. MR. BELYEA: Yes, I do understand that. MR. LLOYD: If you pass the test, then there would be no reason for Mr. Nonnenmacher to submit the application to us, if everything's valid. Is that correct? MR. NONNENMACHER: Unless you request that you want him in front of you to review the application yourself. MR. NEALE: That's the only reason that -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And normal procedure would be that if someone -- say he never came before us and he took this test, met all the other requirements, staff would probably send this to us if we hadn't seen it before. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, staff's recommendation would Page ~-~- July 16, 2003 be that you do request us to bring it before the board again, since the board itself revoked the first license. MR. NEALE: And I would say that that is probably appropriate is that the board direct staff to bring the applicant -- you know, assuming Mr. Belyea takes the test, passes it and the application's in order, that the board still should have a last look at this application, because of the fact that it had -- he did have a revoked license. I would suggest that the board probably, because of the board's duty to protect the public, et cetera, review his history over the last six years. I would assume that Mr. Belyea's history has been clean over the last six years, but that's staffs responsibility to look at, bring it back before you, and should it be clean, then the board could make that determination at that time that he could be granted the license. But I agree with Mr. Nonnenmacher that I think because of the caution that this board has always shown towards protecting the public, I think it would be appropriate to refer it back once again. But, you know, certainly as you correctly state, Mr. Chairman, that having this application go forward is something the board cannot stop. MR. JOSLIN: I think I would feel comfortable also, if it does come back before the board, that even though these items happened six years ago, I know of other cases we've had in here where contractors have gone bankrupt and the five-year bankruptcy entity falls into place where we can't really look at that and say that that deters him from keeping his license. I mean, we're talking about now a six-year contractor that's had problems, so I think it would probably fall under the same gist of the matter. But I still think that probably we could put limitations on him if he did bring this and we did feel as though we could give him -- grant him a temporary license or something that would allow him to work and then let him prove himself over a period of time. MR. NEALE: And certainly, you know, Mr. Joslin makes the Page July 16, 2003 correct observation that the board does have the power and ability to issue a license with restrictions, i.e., that the licensee would then operate under the supervision of the Contractor Licensing Board, and when he comes up for renewal after his first year of having, for lack of a better term, probationary license, if he's operated clean for that year then you could issue him a full license. So those are the kind of options that the board has in its hand. But as I say, I agree with Mr. Nonnenmacher, that having this applicant come back again once he's completed the application, completed the test, is probably an appropriate step for the board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. NONNENMACHER: I may. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay. I have a question for Mr. Belyea, if Yeah. Your license, when it was revoked, was landscaping unrestricted, wasn't it? MS. BELPEDIO: Yeah, landscape unlimited. MR. NONNENMACHER: Unlimited. Do you realize that we no longer have that category, and if you want to do the exact same things you were doing, you have to take two tests, one for irrigation and one for landscaping? MR. BELYEA: Yeah, I do know that. Yeah, you told me that on the phone. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so for the board-- MS. KELLER: The other thing that I just want to point out is that we're getting two new people, so if he's going to be coming in the future in front of the board, what we're saying today could be totally different if there are other people on the board, so -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, and certainly-- MS. KELLER: -- it's difficult to make -- MR. NEALE: -- when he comes -- when he comes back before the board, it would be appropriate for the new board, or the board as Page July 16, 2003 then constituted, to have all the previous information to review, as well as the current application. Because I think that would be an appropriate manner in which to operate. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And if we all agree, we're constituted a quorum anyway. Okay, for the board's purposes, let's define ourselves today just on this case. It's six years ago. How do you feel about it, would-- in your opinion, would you have a problem issuing a license if this individual met every other criteria? Current day license. MR. JOSLIN: I wouldn't have a problem with issuing a license, as long as possibly there's some restrictions on it for a period of time; a probationary license to allow the man to work. MR. NEALE: As I said, I think it would be appropriate, though, that -- for the board to say -- I mean, I would suggest that the board at this point find that he can go forward and take the test and request that staff refer it back to the board -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'll get there. MR. NEALE: -- for further consideration. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I'll get there. I just want to -- as a courtesy to him, I want to deal with this one issue right here, this six-year-old case, see if anyone has a problem with it. And then he's going to have to meet -- you're going to have to meet all other requirements. MR. BELYEA: I've already taken the test. Should I have to take that again? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. MR. BELYEA: I've taken the test for irrigation and business and law. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You passed them both? MS. BELPEDIO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's good enough. MR. JOSLIN: As' far as the request here that we have in front of Page July 16, 2003 us to reinstate his license, we'd have to eliminate this. This has to be gone. Because we're not going to reinstate this license, so -- MR. NEALE: You can't reinstate a license category that no longer exists. MR. JOSLIN: Right. So I'll make a motion that we deny this reinstatement of his license. MR. NEALE: That's perfect. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's the way it got on the agenda. That wasn't the way it was on the agenda last month. It was request to go forward and -- MR. LLOYD: Take exams. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- take the exams and make application. MR. NEALE: Well, but I agree with Mr. Joslin that you have to dispose of the issue if that's there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I agree -- MR. LLOYD: I second Mr. Joslin's -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, all we're doing here -- don't get upset. It made it on the agenda that we were -- it was a request to reinstate your license which was revoked on June 16th, 1997. You know we're not doing that. And I have a motion to deny that request, only because it's on the agenda. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: reinstating. MR. BELYEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: floor and I don't have a motion. Opposed? Okay. You know we're not Okay. Now, I have discussion on the If this gentleman comes back, which he will come back once he takes -- he's taken the test, but he gets a Page ~.5 July 16, 2003 full application packet, is this going to inhibit any of you from issuing a license, just this one issue? MR. NEALE: I hate to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Don't like the way I said that? MR. NEALE: Yeah, I have trouble with that because I think when it comes back before the board, I would suggest that it would be more appropriate for the board at that time to look at the licensure application in total, including this, as opposed to excluding any particular piece of evidence. Because, you know, that will be what the board is reviewing at that time is the total licensure application. So what I would suggest is the -- and I think Mr. Nonnenmacher would agree -- is the appropriate action for the board to take at this point is agree that this gentleman can take the test, can reapply, and that the application will be referred back to the board for action at that point in time. Not saying that he won't get the license, but that the board at that point has to consider the totality of the application. I think that would be the more appropriate motion, rather than excluding a particular piece of evidence. MR. LLOYD: Mr. Neale, we don't have to make a motion to that effect, because we have no control over-- MR. NEALE: The only motion that I would suggest that the board should -- could make at this point is to direct staff that when this application comes back, that it be referred to the board automatically, as opposed to a staff discretion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think you've gotten a feeling from the board-- MR. BELYEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- haven't you? I apologize for all the -- MR. BELYEA: That's okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- that we have to be careful of here. But if you come back with a clean application and everything Page July 16, 2003 else is in order, you've already taken the test, I think you've got a feeling that this one item is not going to -- MR. BELYEA: Yeah, and I've lived here for 43 years and I know everybody in this town. You know, I did make a mistake. And, you know, I worked for the biggest companies in this town and they know I know what I'm doing, so I really don't -- you know, I get the feeling. I know what you're talking about. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and you've taken the test, so you're really -- all you need to do now is fill out the application, get the credit reports in. We know his experience, although that's still a requirement of the application, so let's do the whole thing. MR. NEALE: And, you know, I would suggest to the applicant that the more reference letters and those kind of things -- MR. BELYEA: Yeah, I've got-- MR. NEALE: -- would be better. MR. BELYEA: -- a stack full of reference letters. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you in a bind-- well, see, here's the problem, there will not be a meeting next month, because this room's going to be gutted. So the earliest we can deal with this is the September meeting, which is -- you're still employed with Stahlman, aren't you? MR. BELYEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. September meeting is September the 17th. MR. BELYEA: That's fine. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay? MR. BELYEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what I do need is a motion that his application is -- assuming it gets completed, that it be included on the agenda for the September 17th meeting to approve his license, if he meets all requirements. Page July 16, 2003 MR. LLOYD: I'll make a motion that staff present to the board for review the application of Mr. Belyea for the September 17th meeting. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second the motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We will see you in September. MR. BELYEA: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, thank you. MR. BELYEA: Have a nice day. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You, too. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, under new business again, Mr. Katzeff is present, contesting Citation No. 1528, issued for no license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Katzeff, will you come forward, please. I need you at this podium right here. I'll also need to have you sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning, Mr. Katzeff. MR. KATZEFF: Good morning. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Am I saying that correctly? MR. KATZEFF: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. We have before us a copy of the citation that you were issued on June 27th in Longshore Way -- or Longshore Lakes. And you were roof cleaning. And the citation is engaging in active capacity of a contractor without a license. Paraphrased. And you wish to contest that, correct? MR. KATZEFF: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tell us why. MR. KATZEFF: You want me to explain the situation? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. KATZEFF: Yes, okay. I just recently moved into the Page July 16, 2003 State of Florida, so I've been here for a little less than a year. Previously I'd been living in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area. When I came into Florida, I was looking for work and a way to make a livelihood, so the first thing that I did was come here to apply for an occupational business license, which is what I've done in the past. When I came in, I had indicated that I would be doing some consulting, and I wasn't really quite sure what I was going to be doing but I would be doing a variety of issues. I believe on the day that I came in it was sort of busy and there might have been multiple people there. And I was not aware of that fact that I needed to get a separate individual contractor's license for doing something such as roof cleaning or power washing. I have had experience in the past doing that. I've operated a separate business in the Washington D.C. area where I was doing the same thing, painting, power washing, cleaning, doing some light work. Had I known that I just needed to go down the hall and apply for that particular license' to be issued to be able to do that sort of work, I would have just gone down the hall and done that and taken the business and law exam. I was not aware that in Collier County it was one of the five counties that I think in the State of Florida that requires a separate individual license for cleaning a roof or cleaning pavers. So I was under the assumption that when I had taken the business license, that I was going through the motions that I have gone through in the past: Gotten insurance, gotten a business occupational license as an umbrella to be able to operate and, you know, receive monies and then put them into a business account and then get insurance. So when I was up on the roof, I had no idea. My intent was not to defraud or to do something intentionally to either hurt the public or to defraud the public. MS. KELLER: Have you registered to take the exam? Page July 16, 2003 MR. KATZEFF: I have -- since I've gotten the citation, yes, I have gotten the information for the business/law exam, and I've gotten the information for the separate individual licenses that are required to do various types of work. Now, my -- I didn't want to be a contractor and I don't want to be a contractor, I was just looking to do, you know -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Odd jobs. MR. KATZEFF: -- odd jobs, not contracting work. And really, I had no idea that in the State of Florida in Collier County that was a requirement. Had I known, like I said, I would have just gone down the hall had I gotten -- been given the proper information. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What is your profession? MR. KATZEFF: Originally, by academic training I'm a physiologist. I'm an exercise physiologist. But I have extensive experience in Europe remodeling, doing homes. I worked for one of the top three roofing companies in Belgium for a number of years, so MR. JOSLIN: A physiologist? MR. KATZEFF: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: To a roof cleaner. MR. KATZEFF: But I have extensive -- because we owned a lot of property in Washington D.C., so I worked in Belgium for a number of years with, like I said, one of the largest roofing companies there. And in Washington D.C. when we were out running our business, like I said, these requirements were not necessary. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And I've worked all over the United States as well, and every state, Florida has the reputation of being heavily licensed. MR. KATZEFF: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And everyone pretty well knows that around the country as well. Page 2 0 July 16, 2003 MR. KATZEFF: Well, I didn't, I'm sorry. You know, I lived in the Washington D.C. area for 30 years and I've been in Europe for the last six years working, and when I came back I just immediately came down, got an occupational license so that if things were to come up, I could run it through a business. Because I went through all the steps: I got the fictitious name, I checked with my insurance; my insurance didn't have a problem with it. The insurance is based here in Florida. Nobody mentioned anything, so -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, feedback? MR. NEALE: Well, this falls under both the Collier County Code and 489.127, which is the citation section that was adopted a few years ago. And the relevant paragraph states that if the enforcement or licensing board or designated special master finds that a violation exists, the enforcement or licensing board or designated special master may order the violator to pay a civil penalty of not less than the amount set forth in the citation, but not more than $1,000 per day for each violation. In determining the amount of the penalty, the enforcement or licensing board or designated special master shall consider the following factors: No. 1, the gravity of the violation; No. 2, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, and No. 3, any previous violations committed by the violator. MR. NONNENMACHER: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Nonnenmacher. MR. NONNENMACHER: I have one question, if I may. I wanted your feedback anyway, Mr. Mr. Katzeff, when you were up washing this roof, did you in any way feel this was part of being a professional consultant? MR. KATZEFF: Well, yeah, because previously under the umbrella of consultant, I had used that terminology to cover a number of different things that I was doing. So absolutely. MR. NONNENMACHER: So cleaning a roof you feel is Page July 16, 2003 consulting? MR. KATZEFF: Yeah. I mean, under the umbrella that I had used it in the past, absolutely, sir. MR. NONNENMACHER: I have no more questions. MR. JOSLIN: I don't know what Webster's definition of consulting is, but that doesn't really sound right to me. I mean, that doesn't relate to contractors. You're consulting. That sounds like a terminology -- MR. KATZEFF: Right, but my intent wasn't to be a contractor. I -- when I came into the office -- the office, the -- wherever we get the licenses here, they said well, you know, what's the name of your company? And I didn't have a clue, I just, well, I'll just put that down because that's what I've used in the past. I wasn't intentionally trying to subvert anything, I just hadn't come up with a name yet, and I thought we were going to handle that here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, intent holds well in a criminal case, but you also know what we're faced with up here, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And that's basically what you're saying, you were ignorant of the law, but you admit that you committed the infraction. MR. KATZEFF: Yes, I was on the roof and I was doing the work, absolutely. My un -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Were you getting paid for it, sir? MR. KATZEFF: Excuse me? MR. NONNENMACHER: Were you getting paid for it? MR. KATZEFF: Yes, sir. Yeah. I mean, that's why I got the occupational business license, that's why I got the fictitious name, and that's why I also got the insurance, so that I'd be covered. And that I had the liability insurance. MR. JOSLIN: The name on the ticket, Professional Excellence, is that what I'm reading right? It's under the auto section, but is this the name of the business that was cited? Page 22 July 16, 2003 MR. HOOPINGARNER: MR. JOSLIN: This is? MR. HOOPINGARNER: this case. Yes, sir, it is. Yes, I am the investigating officer on MR. JOSLIN: So the business had a name and -- MR. HOOPINGARNER: But the Professional Excellence was for professional consultant, not professionally cleaning a roof. It was his occupational license for professional consultant. He does not have an occupational license for pressure cleaning, which is required. MR. BARIL: Is the pressure cleaning license, is it an occupational license or is the roof cleaning license a license that you have to sit and taken an exam? MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, if this gentleman would have applied for an occupational license for pressure cleaning, they would have given it to him and he would not be required to get a contractor's license. But on that occupational license, since it was a service, they would have put right on his license no contracting areas, and they would explain to him that this license does not allow you to clean roofs. MR. BARIL: Roof cleaning is a separate license? You have to take a test? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, it's a roof cleaning and painting license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and being -- I'm a roofing contractor. And being in this business, I do know of two people in the last year and a half that were killed cleaning roofs. It's extremely hazardous. You know what it's like walking on wet tile roofs and then you make a bad move and you step on that hose. In both cases people stepped on the hose, they went head first through the screen enclosure into the pool deck and were killed instantly. So it is extremely dangerous. Even though you see it all the time, there's serious injuries that come out of that. So that's why it is a license Page 2 3 July 16, 2003 issue. And those usually result in lawsuits that involve the homeowners, especially when someone doesn't have insurance, they're personally responsible because their homeowners insurance will not cover an activity such as that because it's not a normal everyday activity. The company should have been licensed. You see all the ramifications? MR. KATZEFF: Yes, I understand. That's why I also had liability insurance for a million dollars. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I question that your liability coverage would have covered that. MR. KATZEFF: It would. Because I specifically asked what I was and wasn't covered for with my insurance company. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NONNENMACHER: Was this a tile roof you were cleaning? MR. MR. MR. MR. KATZEFF: No, sir. NONNENMACHER: KATZEFF: Yes, sir. NONNENMACHER: MR. KATZEFF: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, gosh. MR. KATZEFF: Oh, I'm sorry -- It was asphalt shingle? And you were pressure washing it? MR. NONNENMACHER: I had to ask that question, Mr. Dickson. MR. KATZEFF: I'm sorry, it was a tiled roof, but it was the And do you do asphalt shingles, Please don't ever pressure clean cement block. Correction on that. MR. NONNENMACHER: too? MR. KATZEFF: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: asphalt shingles. MR. KATZEFF: No. No, it was cement block, and I had Page 24 July 16, 2003 misunderstood your question, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Longshore Lake has all concrete tile. Yeah, there's no asphalt in there, but good point, Mr. Nonnenmacher. I die when I get on these roofs that they're chewed to pieces by pressure cleaners, asphalt shingles. MR. JOSLIN: And they wonder why it leaks, right? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. MR. BARIL: Mr. Katzeff, did you -- over here. MR. KATZEFF: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. BARIL: You said earlier that you were looking into applying for a license. Is a roof cleaning license what you were referring to? Are you currently actively pursuing obtaining the license for the work that you were doing? MR. KATZEFF: Yes. As soon as I found out when the officer indicated to me that I needed a separate license for that, I indicated to him I was unaware. So I came immediately here and acquired the appropriate paperwork, and I'm in the process of doing that. So I'm now aware of the fact that there's a separate business and law exam for two hours and there's a separate license that needs to be had for that. Now, I've gone through the list, and apparently you need a separate license for each item, unless you have a special contractor's license or a general contractor's license; there's three categories there. So I've looked into all of those. Although I don't wish to be a contractor to build a home, I'm aware now that I'm going to need separate individual licenses for whatever items I'll need to be doing. So yes, I've gone through the appropriate steps. MR. BARIL: Even being a handyman, you-- MR. KATZEFF: Yes. MR. BARIL: -- have to have a general contractor's license. MR. KATZEFF: Yeah. And I wasn't aware of that, so I'Ve got the paperwork and I'm going through the motions to do that now. Page 2 5 July 16, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What are our options, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Well, should the board find that the violation existed, as set out in the citation, the board may order the violator to pay a civil penalty of not less than the amount set forth on the citation, but not more than $1,000 per day for each violation. And I do have an order form here, if the board wants to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That was my next question. Do we need a findings of fact? I've got it. MR. NEALE: You've got an order form? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, the whole thing. Conclusions of law, the whole bit. MR. NEALE: This is the citation form. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, that one I don't have. Thank yOU. MR. NEALE: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's for the other ones. Yeah, that's for cases. So our option is only -- by statute our option is only to have the fine no less than the amount that was originally imposed, or-- MR. NEALE: Should the board find the violation exists, then the board has -- really is essentially required to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So the original fine was $300. If we find that the violation exists, that's it, we can't do anything else. MR. NEALE: You can go higher, you can't go lower. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you catch that? The only thing we can do is make the fine more expensive, because it's been proven that the fine existed. So I think -- MR. KATZEFF: There's no issue for an order of non-compliance or a reprimand? I mean, it seems there's no grace in it whatsoever. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There is no grace. Page July 16, 2003 MR. NEALE: The only grace would have been if the staffhad cited it as being a minor violation pursuant to the statute. At that point the minor violation would not necessarily carry the penalty. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we are regretful of that as well. Of all the protested citations, you're the first one that admitted to it, you're the first one that spelled everything out to where there's no disagreement. You just weren't aware of it. But you understand, by statute, if the violation occurred, there's no waiver of what we can do. Of course, at the same time I have to agree with that. Because this is televised, as it is being right now, and it is replayed. And I could see the line if we overruled this citation and said because you weren't aware of it, we're going to let this one go. Well, the September 17th meeting, which is our next one, would probably have a line out that door and every one of them would go, I didn't know. You follow us? Set -- MR. KATZEFF: I understand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- the precedent, we're dead. So, I mean, I appreciate your candor and your honesty, but we're in a position as well that we can't do much about it. Okay? Does anybody else have any questions, knowing the options? MR. JOSLIN: No questions. MR. LLOYD: No questions. MR. JOSLIN: I think we just have to make a motion to uphold the citation that was issued. And I will make a motion that we do keep the fine to $300. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a motion, I need a second. No second, it will die. MS. KELLER: Second, Keller. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second, Keller. Okay, I have a motion that the citation stand as issued, and the fine stand as it was originally imposed, which is $300. All those in favor? Page July 16, 2003 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need to read this. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Jean-Marc Katzeff, final order on Citation No. 1528. Cause came before public hearing on the board on July 16th -- 17th; where are we today, 16th -- 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, section 489.127, Florida Statutes regarding citations issued for violations of section-- I love this, Mr. Neale. What is the section on this one? MR. NEALE: Just go -- because it is Florida Statutes and it's not referred to a specific section. MS. KELLER: On the very bottom underneath his name. Pursuant to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, I was looking for the exact charge. The charge of working without a license. Necessary notice having been issued, respondent was present. The board, having heard, under oath, heard arguments with respect to the appropriate relevant matters in this case, the board finds that the respondent -- that the citation is valid (sic). Respondent -- order of the board in determining administrative penalty be imposed: It was considered the gravity of the violation. Evidence presented to the board: Impose the penalty of the original $300 and the citation remain as originally issued. Done and ordered this day of March (sic) 16th, 2003. Sufficient, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yeah. THE COURT REPORTER: MR. LLOYD: Not March. MR. NEALE: July 16th. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Excuse me -- You said March. I'm sorry, I'm looking at an old one. Page July 16, 2003 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need to read this. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, versus Jean-Marc Katzeff, final order on Citation No. 1528. Cause came before public hearing on the board on July 16th -- 17th; where are we today, 16th -- 2003, pursuant to the provisions of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, section 489.127, Florida Statutes regarding citations issued for violations of section-- I love this, Mr. Neale. What is the section on this one? MR. NEALE: Just go -- because it is Florida Statutes and it's not referred to a specific section. MS. KELLER: On the very bottom underneath his name. Pursuant to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, I was looking for the exact charge. The charge of working without a license. Necessary notice having been issued, respondent was present. The board, having heard, under oath, heard arguments with respect to the appropriate relevant matters in this case, the board finds that the respondent -- that the citation is valid (sic). Respondent -- order of the board in determining administrative penalty be imposed: It was considered the gravity of the violation. Evidence presented to the board: Impose the penalty of the original $300 and the citation remain as originally issued. Done and ordered this day of March (sic) 16th, 2003. Sufficient, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yeah. THE COURT REPORTER: MR. LLOYD: Not March. MR. NEALE: July 16th. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Excuse me -- You said March. I'm sorry, I'm looking at an old one. Page July 16, 2003 Forgive me. July 16th 2003. I apologize we couldn't do anything else. I hope you understand how our hands were tied. MR. KATZEFF: Understood. I just find it a little disheartening, because there's -- you know, there's really no room. And I understand that there can't be any division on that. But I don't so much as even have a parking ticket, not even a driver's license record. So, you know, under those circumstances, I think there should be some review to the case history and at least the individual's credibility and history in a matter such as this, because I think some of those are not weighed in and it should be weighed in. I mean, there's some times there are extenuating circumstances or pieces of information that could be used to relieve an individual under such circumstances. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And whether I agree or disagree doesn't matter. MR. KATZEFF: I understand that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because we serve at the pleasure of the county commission, and we can only do what that gentleman reads to us over there as to our options in the way the law is written. MR. KATZEFF: Understood. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm sorry it started out that way, but I hope you do very well here. Best of luck to you. MR. KATZEFF: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. MR. KATZEFF: Oh, I do have a question as to how far this goes in terms of the citation, because I take that pretty hard. I mean, you know, I've never even gotten a fine, so -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's not a criminal record. MR. NONNENMACHER: No, it's not. MR. KATZEFF: I don't even know if it -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Pay a fine and it's gone. Page July 16, 2003 MR. NEALE: It won't even go into the county records, unless you don't pay it. MR. KATZEFF: Oh, okay. All right, thanks. MR. NEALE: It doesn't go into the county records. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This isn't going to show up on a check anywhere, okay? That ends our new business. Any discussions? Or old business as well. Any discussions? MR. NONNENMACHER: I just have one question for Mr. Neale. He mentioned during this past case, if staff had issued a minor violation. What exactly would that be? MR. NEALE: Under Florida Statutes and also under our Ordinance, Section 22-202, subsection two, there's a provision called a minor violation, which the contractor licensing supervisor or designee shall issue a notice of non-compliance as the county's first response to a minor violation of any provision of any regulatory law, including this section, when it is reasonable for the staff to assume that the violator at the time of the violation was not aware of the provision that was violated, or it can be assumed that it was not clear to the violator how to comply with the violated provision, and the violation does not then result in economic or physical harm, and the violation has neither adversely affected the public health, safety or welfare, nor created any significant threat of any such adverse effect. The notice of non-compliance should identify the specific provision that was violated, should provide information on how to comply with that provision, and should specify a reasonable time for full compliance. The notice of non-compliance shall not be accompanied with any immediate threat of any monetary fine or any other disciplinary penalty, but may specify that failure of the violator to correct the violation within the time specified in the notice for compliance may result in disciplinary proceedings. Page 3 0 July 16, 2003 Each violation that is not a minor violation is a major violation. MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay, so in other words, any time a citation is issued, it automatically is a major vio -- MR. NEALE: It is automatically -- MR. NONNENMACHER: -- lation, not a minor. MR. NEALE: -- a major violation. So you do have the regulatory option of issuing a minor violation, if it meets all of those tests. And Mr. Dickson brought up a point that potentially in this circumstance, it did not meet those tests because of the third provision which is does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety or welfare. It's a dangerous thing for somebody to be working on a roof without adequate knowledge so he could have, you know, caused himself or others damage. So, you know, in this case it may not have been appropriate, but it's something that staff does have the option of doing. Probably it would be appropriate that we'd work with staff, Mr. Zachary and I work with staff, to come up with a notice of non-compliance form that you could then hand out. Because it does have -- as you heard in there, it has some very specific tenets to it that you have to put in there that, you know, you've got a time to comply, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But, you know, it's a fairly high finding that, you know, it really has to be something that's very minor that doesn't constitute any threat to anything. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah. Well, unlicensed contractor would never fit in that category then, because it always is a danger to the public, whether it be financial or-- MR. NEALE: Yeah, I mean, the -- MR. NONNENMACHER: -- liability-wise. MR. NEALE: -- only circumstance you can probably look at is, you know, if somebody is supposed to be a landscape contractor changing a sprinkler head and they don't do it where, you know, there's really very minimal threat or something like that. But, you Page July 16, 2003 know, it has to meet all three of those tests. MR. JOSLIN: Just a question. If that were issued, if a citation like that was issued, would that come before the board? MR. NEALE: No. That's completely -- all it is truly a -- it's like a warning ticket that a police officer would give out. You know, you were speeding, you know you were speeding, but I'm going to let you go this time, but here's a warning. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So when you all write a ticket, there are no warnings. You've never done a warning, have you? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. MR. NEALE: But it is something staff could do. MR. BARIL: But it sounds like a slap on the wrist, and I -- MR. NEALE: That's exactly what it is. MR. BARIL: -- don't -- and I don't feel as though it would really be a deterrent to stop an unlicensed contractor. If somebody gets one of those, they're going to -- MR. NEALE: They're just going to be more careful next time. MR. BARIL: I mean, as evidenced today, the gentleman was issued a citation, and he's now studying and taking exams, which is our goal. I think that's -- you know, I really feel that we've served a purpose in that, well, you know, we've provided the public a safety net, knowing that the contractors that they hire are licensed. MR. NONNENMACHER: And on a level playing field for other contractors. MR. BARIL: Yeah, exactly. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Most people outside of contracting don't understand how serious licensing is and permits are. There's not a month goes by that I don't have an acquaintance or a friend ask me to pull a permit for their house to reroof it because he and a bunch of his buddies are going to do the work. And they're somewhat upset and put out when I tell them I wouldn't even consider it, because I could lose my license over something like that. Page 32 July 16, 2003 And the liability aspects involved. But that seems to be the perception in the public. I don't know if there's some way we could change that. The commercials they put out about licensed contractors seemed to help for a while. But some people don't understand the gravity of the license. MR. JOSLIN: The owner/builder aspect behind these licenses is a real kicker. The owner/builder thinks he can just do anything he wants to do anytime he wants to. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's what they say, well, they'll go pull a permit themselves as an owner/builder. MR. JOSLIN: Right. And they'll go hire anybody off the road. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I said, well, you still have to hire a licensed contractor in the five specific trades. MR. NEALE: And this board, particularly the members that have been on it for a significant period of time remember the serial owner/builders that we've seen here before. The fellow that -- the one that he was on his fourth owner/builder permit in two years or something like that? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and he was selling houses. MR. NEALE: Yeah, and he was selling -- yeah, I think it was Mr. Nonnenmacher who prosecuted that case and brought in the picture of the fellow standing in front of the house with his for sale sign next to it. It specifically says in the code that you can't do that, so-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the code also says you can only do one every three years. MR. NEALE: Yeah. As opposed to serial owner/builder. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Prima facie evidence -- MR. NONNENMACHER: And you have to live in it for one year before you can sell it. One year after CO. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any -- I do have one item of new business, or discussion, whatever you want to throw it in. Page 33 July 16, 2003 Walter Crawford, his term expired June 30th of this year. He did not reapply. And he was the vice-chairman. So right now we do not have a vice-chairman. I personally think we ought to take care of that now. It doesn't matter that two new members are going to be coming on next month. They wouldn't be a part of it anyway. But basically what I need is between the five of us, we decide who's going to be the vice-chairman. MR. BARIL: Mr. Chairman, I move for Ann Keller to be the vice-chairman. MS. KELLER: I'm just learning. MR. LLOYD: Actually, I think you're the second most veteran person on this board, aren't you? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. MR. LLOYD: Would you be receptive to that? MR. JOSLIN: Well, I've got to be here for another two years, three years, I guess I might as well. MR. BARIL: I withdraw my motion. MS. KELLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Didn't want it anyway, did you? MR. LLOYD: I make a motion that Richard Joslin be -- I nominate Mr. Richard Joslin as vice-chair. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'll second that, Dickson. Richard Joslin's been nominated as vice-chairman. All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So done. Thank you. It's important, because-- MR. NONNENMACHER: How come you didn't ask for any discussion? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He's been here long enough to where if I'm not here, he can just -- he makes it flow. He understands the Page 34 July 16, 2003 procedures and how to go about it. MR. NEALE: Experience does count on the job. MR. LLOYD: We're all rookies. At least I am. MR. BARIL: Well, you've been here for almost two years, too, right? It's almost two? Almost two years? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other discussion? New business? Next meeting is September 17th. Please be here. We'll have our two new members by then, possibly three. I need a motion to adjourn. MR. BARIL: So moved. Baril. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We're done. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:00 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD LES DICKSON, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 35