CLB Minutes 01/17/2018 January 17,2018
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
January 17, 2018
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Chairman: Michael Boyd
Vice Chair: Kyle Lantz
Members: Terry Jerulle
Richard Joslin
Robert Meister
Matthew Nolton
Patrick White
ALSO PRESENT:
Everildo Ybaceta— Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Kevin Noell,Esq. —Assistant Collier County Attorney
Jed Schenck, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Joseph Nourse -Licensing Compliance Officer
Karen Clements —Licensing Compliance Officer
1
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
AGENDA
January 17, 2018
9:00 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS
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:
A. DECEMBER 20, 2017
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A.
VI. DISCUSSION:
A. TOM DAVIS WITH GULF COAST ALUMINUM-SCOPE OF WORK FOR SCREENERS & RESCREENERS
VII. REPORTS:
A.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. ORDERS OF THE BOARD
B. 2018-01 - JON MOHRBACHER - MOHRBACHER, JON GLENN (INDIVIDUAL) - EXPIRED PERMITS
C. 2018-02 - RAMIRO PALMA- FEARLESS CONSTRUCTION CO- EXPIRED PERMITS
D. ROBERT ABNEY-CONTECTING CITATION(S) 11072, 11073, & 11074
E. STEVEN A. GRILLO-CONTESTING CIATION(S) 11067
F. ERIN LEBORGNE-ALUMIN X, LLC-APPLICATION FOR SECOND ENTITY
G. PEDRO J. LICOURT- PL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, LLC-APPLICATION FOR SECOND ENTITY
H. WILL O. HAMMOND-WAIVER OF BUSINESS & LAW EXAM - INCLUDED IN TRADE TEST
I. MARK SMITH -ALAMAR ALUMINUM SYSTEMS INC- REINSTATEMENT APPROVAL WITH WAIVER OF
EXAMS AND REVIEW OF CREDIT
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
A.
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
B.
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2018
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS
3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
January 17,2018
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any Appeal is to be made.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Michael Boyd opened the meeting at 9:01 AM and read the procedures to be
followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll Call was taken; a quorum was established; six(6)voting members were present.
II. AGENDA-ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Deletions:
Under Item VIII—"New Business," the County WITHDREW the following cases:
• "C. Ramiro Palma, d/b/a Fearless Construction Co. —Expired Permits" due
to abatement of the violation.
• "D. Robert Abney—Contesting Citations 11072, 11073, and 11074"will be
continued to another date.
Patrick White suggested that "B" under Item VIII should be moved to Item X, "Public
Hearings" since it is an Administrative Complaint.
Patrick White moved to approve amending the Agenda to move "Case #2018-01:Board
of County Commissioners vs. John Mohrbacher—Expired Permits"to Item X, "Public
Hearings." Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried
unanimously, 6—0.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Patrick White offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—DECEMBER 20,2017:
Correction:
• The signature page was changed to reflect that (former) Chairman Joslin approved
the minutes.
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the December 20, 2017 Meeting as
amended. Chairman Michael Boyd offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(None)
2
, a
January 17,2018
VI. DISCUSSION:
A. Tom Davis—Gulf Coast Aluminum: Scope of Work for Screening/Re-Screening
(Note: Mr. Davis was not present. The item was tabled.)
(Robert Meisner arrived at 9:06 AM. Quorum was increased to seven[7]voting members.)
VII. REPORTS:
• Patrick White requested a status report concerning the Board's previous direction to
make changes to portions to the County's Code of Laws. He asked if the County
Attorney's Office had taken any action. Mr. White clarified the item was on the
Board of County Commissioner's Consent Agenda, i.e., to modify some portions of
the County's Code of Laws relating to Contractor Licensing. He asked if Staff could
provide an update at the February meeting.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board:
Vice Chairman Kyle Lantz moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the
Orders of the Board. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
B. (see revisions to Agenda for disposition)
C. (see revisions to Agenda for disposition)
D. (see revisions to Agenda for disposition)
(Note: The individuals who testified in the following cases under Item VIII, "New
Business,"were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
E. Steven A. Grillo—Contesting Citation#110672
(d/b/a "Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete,LLC.")
Citation: #11067
Cited for: Unlicensed Contracting-Roofing
Date Issued: October 24, 2017
Amount of Fine: $1,000
Violation:
Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or
business organization as available to engage in the business or act in the capacity
of a Contractor without being duly registered or certified.
3
January 17,2018
Peter Fisher, Attorney for Mr. Grillo, explained that his client was having difficulty
locating the County's Administrative Building and requested a postponing the hearing
until the end of the meeting.
Patrick White moved to approve tabling the Case. Richard Joslin offered a Second in
support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
F. Erin LeBorgne—Application to Qualify Second Entity
(Currently Qualifies: "Alumin X,LLC."
Second Entity: "Wicked One Aluminum,LLC.")
Erin LeBorgne stated:
• She and her brother, Terry Romak, co-own"Wicked One Aluminum, LLC.
• She has applied to Qualify the second company until her brother is licensed.
• Her brother was the holder of a State license we well as a Collier County
Certificate of Competency but allowed them to lapse. He is in the process of
retesting for Collier County only.
• She confirmed her brother was not a partner in her existing business.
• Her brother applied to the State to reinstate his license but has not received a
reply.
• Her involvement in the new business will be similar to her responsibilities in her
current business, i.e., overseeing obtaining permits, tracking the jobs. Her
brother will be the on-site supervisor for each job.
Vice Chairman Kyle Lantz asked why she and her brother needed two separate
businesses.
A. Eventually, he will take over his business and I will continue to have my own
company.
Q. What happens if he doesn't pass the test or is not reinstated?
A. If it doesn't happen,then I guess I will own two businesses.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. So, you could possibly have two businesses doing the same thing?
A. Yes.
Q. And if I'm a homeowner and I don't know better and I call both businesses for a bid
on my house, I'm actually getting two bids from the same person?
A. Yes.
Q. And you don't see a conflict in that?
A. I do. We would have to let them know upfront.
Richard Joslin asked the Applicant about a possible time-frame.
Ms. LeBorgne replied her brother had recently decided to take the County's test. He
contacted Prometric and the next test is scheduled for February.
Matthew Nolton suggested in the alternative, her brother could work for her in her
company until passed the test and could qualify his own company.
4
January 17,2018
Ms. LeBorgne agreed.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. How would someone like Town and Country (a supplier) know when you placed an
order which company it was being placed with? The possibility is that you can place
orders under one company, collect all the revenue under the other company-one
company would have a whole bunch of profit while the other company has a whole
bunch of debt. The company with the debt could go out of business and everybody
gets screwed while you have a handful of money.
A. I understand. There are separate accounts. We have a new bank account for the new
business already. There's a separate account for Town and County and all the
suppliers as well.
Q. And he's taking the test next month?
A. Yes.
Q. Theoretically, you are going through all this work to qualify a company for a month?
A. Yes. I mean, it's going to take a little longer—once you do the testing,then you wait
for the results.
Q. I'm pretty sure you can pass the test and get a license if you have good credit within
A. ... a couple of weeks.
Terry Jerulle: Back to Mr.Nolton's comment,there's no reason why he couldn't work
for you in the meantime.
A. Yes, but then he'd be working for me.
Q. For a couple weeks until he passed the test. It's just very difficult in my mind to
give someone like yourself who already has a license,the same license because—as
I've said—if I'm a homeowner, how do I know if the two companies giving me a
proposal are owned by the same person?
A. I understand. We're not trying to rip anyone off.
Q. I'm not implying that you are. I'm just saying—how would I know that? What's
the reason for giving you two licenses if it's only going to be for a couple of weeks?
Vice Chairman Lantz: We are going under the assumption that he is going to pass the
test.
Terry Jerulle: And if he doesn't, there would be one person with two licenses.
Richard Joslin suggested giving the Applicant a probationary license for a period of
sixty days to give him time to pass the test. If he doesn't,the motion could say she
would come back before the Board.
Erin LeBorgne: That sounds fair.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I would be more likely to approve a non-renewal license.
Chairman Boyd: Would it make a difference? How long have you been licensed in
Collier County? Do you have a state license?
A. No—just Collier-since 2009.
Terry Jerulle: Have you ever been fined.
5
January 17,2018
A. No.
Q. No problems at all?
A. I try to follow the rules.
Chairman Boyd noted the Applicant has a good credit report.
Vice Chairman Lantz asked if her brother had good credit.
The Applicant indicated she was not sure.
It was noted that Terry Romak was present.
Vice Chairman Lantz asked Mr. Romak to come to the podium and be sworn.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Terry Romak:
Q. What is the ownership of the second company?
A. Right now, it's 50-50. This is kind of a temporary thing. I've been doing this for
13 years. I got sick—Type I Diabetes—and I couldn't do it for a while. I didn't
renew my license and they might make me re-test. And if the State makes me re-
test, I never really needed the State, so I was going to do the County thing. The
whole thing ... we're doing this temporarily is there's a lot of work out there that I
would be missing, you known, in the two-month period that it takes me to get and
pass the County test and everything.
Terry Jerulle questioned Terry Romak:
Q. So,you've had a State license?
A. I.had a State license.
Q. In what year did you get that license?
A. 2009.
Q. When did it expire?
A. Around 2014.
Q. So, you haven't had a license in the last three years?
A. Right.
Q. And you've asked the State ...
A. I had a County license I think in 2005 and then I took the State license. I've been
doing this for quite a while.
Q. Okay.
A. I had the dormant—I had the account as"dormant" for a while but I didn't really
need it because I had the State. Now I've got to re-test for the County, too.
Chairman Boyd questioned Terry Romak:
Q. Are you currently working now?
A. Yes, I'm doing screen repair—I'm licensed to do screen repair.
Q. Under what company—under her company?
A. Under our company, yeah.
Q. Under Wicked or Alumin X?
A. Wicked One. I have a license to do screen work.
6
January 17,2018
Everildo Ybaceta, Supervisor—Contractors Licensing Office, clarified that Mr. Romak
could do screen repair, not aluminum work.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Terry Romak:
Q. Is there a plan—when you pass the test, is she still going to be a 50% owner? Do
you have a plan for that?
A. I mean, basically—not an exact plan—but the plan is for me to take the company
over. She's basically trying to help me out so I'm not missing all this work that's
out there `because I've been doing this a long time ... I got sick ... I'm better now ... I
finally figured it out, so ...
Q. What I don't understand is why can't you just do the work under her company?
A. I mean, the money I'd make doing my own stuff—I'd basically be on her payroll ...
I'd be an employee which I haven't been in a long time.
Q. But you could be an employee and get paid just as much as you'd get paid ...
A. Well that would be ... it's kind of like taking from her ... she already said she has her
own jobs sold, I'd be like ...
Q. So,the current company, Alumin X, I'd imagine that right now is a pretty good time
to be a screen or aluminum contractor—right?
A. (Erin) Correct.
Q. I'd imagine you're booked out pretty far?
A. (Erin) Correct.
Q. Overwhelmed with work? Not able to return phone calls because ...
A. (Erin) Correct.
Q. So,how the hell are you going to now do the same thing for another company when
you're already overbooked?
A. (Erin) I won't be answering phone calls. I'll just be doing the permitting and stuff
like that.
Q. So, you're not overwhelmed?
A. (Erin) I mean, I am but I can handle the permitting. We're not talking about ... I
mean, in a two months span that he's going to ... he doesn't even have advertising.
Terry Jerulle questioned Terry Romak:
Q. You had a license from 2009 to 2014. You got sick. The question earlier was your
credit rating because that's how we determine what—one of the determining factors
of whether we give you a license or not if you do pass the test. Do you know what
your credit rating is?
A. I don't know exactly—it's not the greatest in the world and it's not the worst in the
world also. By me being sick, it did affect ...
Q. I can imagine that and understand that. But we're just trying to figure out how to
handle this and if you knew what your credit rating was. Are you going to pass the
test again?
A. I passed the State test, I passed the County test before. I'm not worried about that—
it's more the time issue of, you know, getting time to take the test—getting it set up.
I probably would have had it set up for this month,but we were at the County and
7
January 17,2018
they didn't know when the test was this month—I didn't have the paper yet—so I
didn't know when the cut-off date was and, basically, missed it by a couple of days.
Q. And your testimony is that when he does get his license, you want to give him the
other ownership so that, if he does make a mistake, you're not going to be
responsible for his mistakes.
A. (Erin) I mean, I'm just trying to help him out right now—I don't need to do this
forever.
Q. So, if we did give you a temporary license,that would probably work.
A. (Erin and Terry)Yes.
Vice Chairman Lantz: If somebody wants to take the Aluminum test and they don't
want to wait until it's offered next month in Collier County or Lee County, isn't there a
place where it's offered every day?
Everildo Ybaceta: I believe so, yes.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Where might that be?
Everildo Ybaceta: I believe one of them [testing sites] is in Gainesville. I'm not sure
exactly where it is. I do know there is ... a site that does ... you can take it multiple
times.
Vice Chairman Lantz: He could get in his car tonight and drive to Gainesville, get a
hotel room, and take the test tomorrow. Theoretically,pass the test tomorrow, come
back, get the paperwork and if his credit is good, have a license issued on Friday?
Everildo Ybaceta: Theoretically.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Or he could fail the test tomorrow, stay there, take the test on
Friday, fail and take the test on Monday ... forever ... until he passes the test ....
Everildo Ybaceta: Not forever. There is a time span there. Yes, theoretically.
Richard Joslin: Three times I believe it is.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Do you have a car?
Terry Romak: Yes, I have a vehicle.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Can you afford a Budget hotel?
Terry Romak: Yes. As far as I know, Prometric is what I'm ... the test I'm used to
taking and I believe they only test every few weeks or ... and I'm not sure what test
you're talking about in Gainesville. And I'd have to order the books for it, obviously for
that specific test. I don't know how long that takes.
Vice Chairman Lantz: So, it's not a simple process like I'm taking the test in a couple
of weeks because I have all my ducks in a row. You are kind of working on it but
you're not there yet.
Terry Romak: I mean, basically, if I don't make it through this next test,then it will be
the test in March for sure. I think sixty days would get us, like you said, either I pass it
and I'm good—or I come back before you.
Chairman Boyd: What we have before us is an application to Qualify a Second Entity.
Does anybody else have any questions?
Patrick White: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Patrick White questioned the Applicant:
8
January 17,2018
Q. Ms. LeBorgne, with respect to the documentation provided—for example, on Page
40 of the packet,First Florida Integrity Bank's statement and other similar pages,
there are amounts transferred to personal checking, to personal savings, and to
Alumin X savings. Can you explain those typically were for and used for?
A. It's an LLC so that's how I pay myself.
Q. Okay. Which of the three is ...
A. The Alumin X savings is the business savings. I just figured since I was making
money, it would be a good time to put [away] some savings for the business for a
rainy day.
Q. Okay. So, effectively the transfers to the personal saving and personal checking are
your form of compensation from profit margin from operating the LLC?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Richard Joslin: I'm seeing insurance certificates, but I'm not seeing Workers' Comp.
Am I missing something?
Erin LeBorgne: As for which one?
Richard Joslin: For the new entity, Wicked One.
Erin LeBorgne: There should be Workers' Comp exemptions—there are no employees
yet.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Is there an exemption for him as well?
Erin LeBorgne: Yes.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I think I only saw yours.
Erin LeBorgne: I think I brought it—just in case.
Richard Joslin: How are you doing the screen enclosures with nobody working?
Erin LeBorgne: He's not doing screen enclosures—he's just doing screen ...
Richard Joslin: ... screen repairs ... I see.
Erin LeBorgne: Yes.
It was noted the exemption for Terry Romak was on Page 61 of the packet.
Chairman Boyd: Anybody else?
Richard Joslin: I'm not adverse to allowing a sixty-day probationary period for the
license.
Patrick White moved to approve granting a probationary sixty-day license to qualify
the second entity to Erin LeBorgne. Chairman Boyd offered a Second in support of
the motion.
Discussion:
• Vice Chairman Lantz: At the sixty-day mark, what happens? Does license
automatically expire and does she have to re-apply, or does she wait until the
next Board meeting to come here? How does that work?
• Patrick White: My assumption is he's going to pass, and they will come in with
an application for him as the Qualifier and she'll withdraw as the Qualifier
within the sixty days and we won't be seeing them again.
9
January 17,2018
• Vice Chairman Lantz: And if he doesn't?
• Patrick White: We'll cross that bridge aluminum bridge when we get there.
• Vice Chairman Lantz: Here is my issue ...
• Terry Jerulle: Does it come before us or before Staff?
• Patrick White: My understanding is they would have to come back ...
• Vice Chairman Lantz: So he would have to ....
• Patrick White: ... because she would no longer be qualifying the Second Entity
after the 60th day.
• Vice Chairman Lantz: So, after the 60th day the Second Entity is not qualified
by her period?
• Patrick White: After the 60th day, it expires.
• Vice Chairman Lantz: So, if they have contracts, whatever .... awkward.
• Terry Jerulle: Do you understand that?
• Erin LeBorgne: Yes.
• Richard Joslin: Now if by some chance he does take the test and passes it,
maybe he decides to go to Gainesville and takes the test and passes the test ...
• Patrick White: In any time less than the 60th day, the Second Entity will be
qualified by Mr. Romak and then the Qualifier, Ms. LeBorgne, will withdraw—
it's a complete and seamless transfer.
• Erin LeBorgne: And that all can be done on Horseshoe Drive?
• Patrick White: Typically, yes.
• Terry Jerulle: If his credit is bad,he may come before us. We don't know that
yet. If the motion goes through, you understand what will happen after sixty
days? In the meantime, to earlier comments, you may want to sign up for the test
now, and you may want to buy the materials you will need to study for the test
now, and you may want to check your credit rating and work on any credit—bad
credit—that you have now.
• Vice Chairman Lantz: Sixty days goes by pretty fast.
• Terry Jerulle: In addition to being out in the field and working, you have a task
in front of you.
• Terry Romak: I know it.
• Matthew Nolton: And then there's the risk that, in those sixty days, you will be
contracting and taking deposits—and if you don't achieve this within the sixty
days—you will need to get all the deposits back for the work that you can't do.
• Terry Romak: Right. Our account ... the new Wicked One account has both of
us as signers, I can't take anything on without her ... it's set up that way to
basically
• Patrick White: You're telling us that you're smart.
• Matthew Nolton: To the Board—there is that risk, right, that if he's not
communicating this to his clients, when he signs a contract and takes a deposit,
he's ....
• Richard Joslin: He could transfer it into her business, so the job could continue.
• Matthew Nolton: But it may get moved back.
• Richard Joslin: Maybe the contract would change, correct.
• Terry Jerulle: She's the Qualifier, she's financially responsible ...
10
January 17,2018
• Richard Joslin: Exactly.
• Terry Jerulle: ... for the company—correct?
• Eric LeBorgne: I understand.
• Richard Joslin: The contracts may change, but the jobs will proceed. If you go
through all the work and pass the test but your credit is not good,then when you
come back before us, you may not get the license.
• Terry Romak: Right.
Chairman Boyd: Any more discussion? [No response.] We have a motion on the
floor.
Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried unanimously, 7—0.
(Note: Mr.Grillo was present and his case was brought forward.)
E. Steven A. Grillo—Contesting Citation #110672
(d/b/a "Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete,LLC.")
Citation: #11067
Cited for: Unlicensed Contracting-Roofing
Date Issued: October 24, 2017
Amount of Fine: $1,000
Violation:
Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or
business organization as available to engage in the business or act in the capacity
of a Contractor without being duly registered or certified.
Mr. Grillo was represented by Peter Fisher, Esquire.
Mr. Grillo, Mr. Fisher and Joseph Nourse, Licensing Compliance Officer, were sworn in
by the Board's Attorney.
Attorney Fisher asked the Board to make a statement before they began questioning his
client.
Mr. Fisher stated:
• Mr. Grillo was appearing before the Board because of a Citation that he received
on October 24, 2017 from Investigator Nourse.
• Mr. Grillo is appealing the Citation because, at the time the Citation was issued,
he was an employee of and consultant to BrinMar Construction, a fully-licensed
and insured General Contractor in the State of Florida.
• BrinMar was at the time, and still is, performing roofing work pursuant to
Emergency Order#17-07396 from the Department of Business and Professional
Regulation("DBPR") in response to the Executive Order from the Governor
11
January 17,2018
(#17-235) which was issued on September 4, 2017 in the wake of Hurricane
Irma.
• For BrinMar to undertake this work, it hired Mr. Grillo as a consultant and made
him an employee.
• We have documentation that we can show you that he was made an employee on
or about October 3, 2017. There is an Employment Agreement between Mr.
Grillo and BrinMar.
• We believe what may have happened: at the time that Mr. Grillo was on-site at
the homeowner's residence, he may have had some marketing material on his
truck and some paperwork from"Gold Coast Roofing,"which is an entity
formerly owned by Mr. Grillo. It is now apparently a"d/b/a" of BrinMar, i.e.,
BrinMar is doing business as Gold Coast Roofing and Mr. Grillo is an employee
of that company.
• Mr. Grillo does not do any roofing work himself He is simply a consultant. He
has roofing experience in other states. He is sitting for the exam (Certified
Roofing Contractor). He mobilizes the workforce and simply consults with the
workers, all of whom are employees of BrinMar Construction and are covered
under BrinMar Construction's Workers' Compensation insurance and licensing.
• The Citation states that Mr. Grillo was "Engaging in the business or act in the
capacity of a Contractor"without a proper license.
• Mr. Grillo was not, in fact, doing any contracting himself
• On the day of the Citation, no roofing work was being done. They were simply
tarping the roof and discussing potential roofing work to be done with the
homeowner.
• We believe the Citation should be dismissed for two reasons. One, that no
construction work was being done and, secondarily, even if it were, Mr. Grillo
was acting in his capacity solely as an employee of BrinMar Construction and
Development Group, Ltd. CGC License#1511460.
Vice Chairman Lantz directed his question to the Board's Attorney, Jeb Schenck:
Q. Can you explain to me—I'm a little confused. What—according to Collier County
Statutes—or Florida Statutes—what the definition of a"contractor" is? Because
what I'm hearing here from an attorney is that the definition of a contractor is the
guy swinging a hammer—that's not the definition that I feel, so ....
Attorney Fisher: It's not ... no, I have the definition here as well ...
Terry Jerulle: I think he asked the question to ...
Attorney Fisher: ... I—I thought you were done.
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman—point of order—and Mr. Lantz, as well. I believe the
testimony from Mr. Fisher was that there was, at the time of the Citation being issued,
a discussion ongoing relative to and prior to obtaining an answer ... I think it may be
beneficial for us—from an evidentiary point—to understand some of the more specific
details of what those discussions were at that time.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I was under the impression—maybe I ...
Patrick White: The point ...
12
January 17,2018
Vice Chairman Lantz: ... something that ... I was under the impression that they were
Patrick White: ... the point ....
Vice Chairman Lantz: .... working on giving a proposal—and they had given a
proposal—under the ... possibly one company, possibly another company,but no
contracting was done. They were just giving a proposal.
Patrick White: The specifics of that I think are relevant to what answer we all, I think,
anticipate hearing from the Board's attorney. And for those reasons, I believe it would
be more beneficial for the Board to hear the specifics of the facts before we hear the
scope of the ....
Vice Chairman Lantz: Okay.
Patrick White: So, could we please have either yourself or Mr. Grillo inform us further
about what the nature and scope of those discussions were on the date of the Citation,
please.
Mr. Fisher: In specific, which discussions are you referring to?
Patrick White: Your words were that they were discussing. I want to know what they
were discussing. Who was discussing.
Steven Grillo: There was really no discussion. There was really no discussion between
myself and the client. There was an assignment to put a 10 x 10 tarp over a hole in the
tile [roof] and sandbags. That was it. There was no discussion so ...
Patrick White: Were there any then pending proposals ....
Steven Grillo: Not at that time.
Patrick White: There weren't?
Steven Grillo: Not at that time.
Richard Joslin: What date was that on?
Patrick White: It looks like October 24th based on the date of the Citation. Is that your
recollection, Mr. Grillo?
Steven Grillo: It sounds correct.
Patrick White: One other question, Mr. Fisher, if I may? You mentioned that there
was a"d/b/a" assignment made?
Peter Fisher: Correct.
Patrick White: What was the date of filing and effectiveness for that d/b/a?
Peter Fisher: I believe it was shortly after ... (examining documents) ... I think it was
October 26, 2017. The filing ... that was the filing of the d/b/a, however Mr. Grillo was
made an employee on or about October 3rd, I believe. We have meeting minutes
showing BrinMar making him an officer of the company and discussing his
compensation as an employee.
Richard Joslin: What date was that on?
Patrick White: October 3rd. Is that reflected in any regard in the Department of State's
Division of Corporations' database?
Peter Fisher: I'm not sure. I don't know about that.
Patrick White: Do you know the title of the office or position he was given?
Steven Grill: It should be in there.
Patrick White: Do you know, Mr. Grillo, what officer or position you were made?
Steven Grillo: I want to get it correct ... because I think of myself as a Managing
Partner ... or Operations Manager ...?
13
January 17,2018
Peter Fisher: He was made an Operations Manager for BrinMar Construction and
Development, Ltd.
Patrick White: Okay, thank you.
Richard Joslin: You just stated that on October 3rd you became a partner in BrinMar?
Steven Grillo: Yes.
Richard Joslin: In our packet, I'm showing that on October 1st, a Michael Cavellone,
owner, was issued a proposal and a contract from Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete,
LLC.
Steven Grillo: Yes.
Richard Joslin: With costs involved ... estimated costs involved?
Steven Grillo: Yes, I see that.
Richard Joslin: This was before the date that he was a partner in the BrinMar
company.
Steven Grillo: This was ... this was, I'm sorry—where were you looking?
Richard Joslin: I'm looking at a Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete proposal and
contract ... it's on Page ...
Vice Chairman Lantz: It's E-12 in our packet.
Peter Fisher: If you look on the bottom, it says that all work and materials involved ...
it states that all work is to be done by BrinMar Construction. Didn't it say that?
Richard Joslin: I'm not seeing that.
Steven Grillo: This is before she had made the change ... because at that time, it was
right after the Hurricane.
Richard Joslin: I'm not asking about the Hurricane. I'm asking if this is ...
Steven Grillo: No, I understand the question.
Richard Joslin: Someone was given a contract from Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete.
Steven Grillo: Right, I understand the question.
Richard Joslin: That was before you were a part of any other company or partner or
whatever your title ...
Steven Grillo: Correct. At the time, BrinMar was misinterpreting how things needed to
be marketed.
Richard Joslin: I'm not taking about BrinMar. I'm talking about you as Gold Coast
Roofing ... correct?
Steven Grillo: Right.
Richard Joslin: You owned Gold Coast Roofing, correct?
Steven Grillo: As a"d/b/a"under BrinMar.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Mr. Grillo:
Q. What is "Florida State Reg. 1500051848"—what is that?
A. That is the registration number under National Catastrophe Insurance Claim Experts.
Q. What is that?
A. National Catastrophe Insurance Claim Experts? What is that?
Q. Yes.
A. That is the registration number for that company. It's under my name.
Q. So,National Catastrophe Insurance Claim ... that's a company?
A. Yes.
Q. And it that still your company?
14
January 17,2018
A. Yes, it's still my company?
Q. And is it part of... and so, what is it licensed to do?
A. We just provide estimating services under this. I don't think we need a license.
Q. Do you do insurance claim estimates?
A. Yes,through"Xactimate" and Xactimate to re-certify.
Q. Yes.
A. So, what we do is—for contractors who do not understand—which goes on a lot
right now-they do not understand the build scopes in accordance with Code, and
how to get their proper pricing. So, you plug it into an Xactimate and the Xactimate
will spit out a Code and a price correlation. So, basically, a take-off service.
Q. Is that any relation to BrinMar?
A. No.
Q. Was it ever a relation to BrinMar Construction?
A. No. I wouldn't ... in my opinion, no. So, when Gold Coast had its d/b/a at BrinMar,
with the relationship, under the storm conditions and the Order—that's how the
relationship was built—through the need for contracting through the hurricane under
the Order.
Patrick White: Are you talking about the DBPR Order or the Executive Order from the
Governor?
Peter Fisher: Both. The DBPR Order is ... specifically references the Executive Order.
It was made in furtherance of the Executive Order.
Patrick White: Thank you. I think one pertinent question is: on the line on that page
that says, "Company Representative," can you tell me who DeMarcus Brown is, Mr.
Grillo?
Steve Grillo: He is an employee of BrinMar. At the time that this was assessed, he was
• very new ... very new. So, there was just a mis-assessment here.
Patrick White: Do you have a modified version of this proposal—an amended
version?
Steven Grillo: No, because no one ever moved forward with it.
Patrick White: With Mr. Cavellone?
Steven Grillo: Correct.
Patrick White: Only with the tarp to protect the home?
Steven Grillo: Not at this home.
Patrick White: At a different home?
Steven Grillo: Correct.
Patrick White: I apologize for my ignorance of those facts.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Steven Grillo:
Q. DeMarcus Brown is an employee of who?
A. (Peter Fisher) DeMarcus Brown is an employee of BrinMar—has always been. And
this is—I think this is where the confusion comes in ...this was all getting started up
BrinMar construction is ... a principal is a woman named Ladi March. She sits on
a Board, I believe, in Riviera Beach, Florida ... similar to your Board. She was
attempting to do this all under the proper way and they were making Mr. Grill an
employee. He was. Mr. Demarcus Brown, a new employee to BrinMar,mistakenly
15
January 17,2018
gave a proposal that still had Gold Coast Roofing & Concrete marketing material on
it to Mr. Cavellone. No work was done at his home ... it was simply a proposal ... it
was never signed. He filed the complaint. Mr. Nourse investigated and then on
October 24th came to the site where Mr. Grillo was.
A. (Steven Grillo)It's two different things. When approached on the jobsite, it was just
Collier County driving around in a truck—I'd seen the magnet on the truck. This—
what you're looking at here—has nothing to do with the fine. But with all due
respect, I'm here to answer any questions. This is a very early version—this
shouldn't even have gone out. Demarcus, at the time was an employee of one week,
was an Army sergeant for 27 years and he takes action quickly. He got really ahead
of himself on this and this is what you are seeing. This mistake.
Terry Jerulle: How did this happen? He is an employee of BrinMar Construction did
you say?
Steven Grillo: Right.
Terry Jerulle: And you guys didn't do a"d/b/a"until October 26th—right—and this is
October 16th. How did he even have that material?
Peter Fisher: Everything was ... where are you looking ... where are you getting the
date of October 16th?
Terry Jerulle: From an email.
Vice Chairman Lantz: He has an email, Sarge@goldcoastrc.net—we have an email
from him dated October 15th
Terry Jerulle: On Page E l 0 ...
Vice Chairman Lantz: ... "Project Manager" --he has an email that says Gold Coast
Construction ...
Terry Jerulle: ... from the homeowner. He represented that he worked for Gold Coast
Roofing.
Peter Fisher: Again, through the paperwork, it would seem like that ... however, they
were all BrinMar people.
Terry Jerulle: Exactly. Through the paperwork, it would seem that way.
Peter Fisher: Absolutely, and if you will, I have another document that was given out
by all ...this was created by BrinMar and it was given to all their employees at the time
to give to the homeowners every time that they ... if I may(indicating he wanted to bring
the document to the Board.)
Patrick White: The relevance of that, Mr. Fisher, would be-did the homeowner in
this instance have a copy of that? We don't know the answer to that yet, but I would
certainly be interested your client's perspective on whether he believes it was.
Steven Grillo: I do not believe so. And this is a case of so many things moving fast—a
homeowner needs attention—an inexperienced guy getting very ahead of himself and
not having proper documentation which should have been provided. So,this was an
error ... a clear error.
Richard Joslin: Unfortunately, it was a clear error of a ...
Patrick White: Now I think we're all the way back to where ...
Steven Grillo: This is not related to the Citation I'm here for today, gentlemen. I'm
here for an advertisement on a vehicle that states something entirely different than what
we're looking at right here.
16
January 17,2018
Peter Fisher: And I was handed this packet ... and in all fairness, Mr. Grillo and myself
have not been provided this packet. The Citation that was served upon Mr. Grillo ... is
Mr. Nourse's write-up of the Citation. The Citation I'm looking at is dated October 24,
2017. He checked the box"F"—Description of Violation: "Engage in the business or
act in the capacity of a contractor or advertise self or business organization as available
to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly
registered or certified." It says, "unlicensed roofing contractor." It says, "An
investigation has been conducted involving Mr. Steven A. Grillo,d/b/a Gold Coast
Roofing & Concrete, LLC. It has been determined that Mr. Steven A. Grillo who is the
owner and CEO of National Catastrophe Insurance Claims Experts, Inc. is business as
Gold Coast Roofing& Concrete, LLC, in Collier County and is not licensed as a roofing
contractor within Collier County or the State of Florida. Mr. Grillo has been found to be
in violation of Florida Statues 489.127—"Falsely holing himself or herself or a business
organization out as a licensee, certificate holder, or registrant" and Collier County
Contractors' License Ordinance 2006-46, as amended. "Engage in the business or act in
the capacity of a contractor or advertise self or business organization as available to
engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly
registered or certified." Those were the only two things that were provided to Mr.
Grillo. The date of the Citation does not reference this complaint from Mr. Cavellone.
Terry Jerulle: There's not going to be another Citation.
Peter Fisher: I'm saying we haven't had the chance ... this is the first time that I'm
seeing it. We were going by what Mr.Nourse investigated on October 24th. And on
October 24th, everything was in the works. Everything was in the works on October Pt
And, again, as Mr. Grillo has testified—yes, an over-eager person who wanted to get
going and wanted to get working gave a proposal to this person and it said Gold Coast
Roofing & Concrete. It should not have. But he was an employee of BrinMar.
Terry Jerulle: The Citation was ...
Peter Fisher: Right. It might be a Citation not against Mr. Grillo personally because he
was operating under BrinMar.
Steven Grillo: I would also like to point out, gentlemen ...
Vice Chairman Lantz: He's the Operations Manager of BrinMar.
Peter Fisher: The Operations Manager, yes. But he's not the owner nor does he have
any ownership in the company in terms of BrinMar—he's an employee. He is an
employee and a consultant. We have the employment agreement that they entered into
which spells that out as well.
Terry Jerulle: How does an employee from one company get ahold of literature from
another company?
Steven Grillo: At the time, BrinMar was a General Contractor. I come from a twenty-
year history as a National Catastrophe Insurance Claims Expert working around the
country. I'm highly certified. She sought out someone like this who could meet a need
in the community which still is on-going. And that's how the relationship was built. I
also want to point out here ...
Terry Jerulle: You didn't answer the question, I'm sorry. How did he get ahold of
your information from Gold Coast Roofing?
Steven Grillo: Because at the time of the storm back in September,this is what we
were going after here, not knowing,really, what needed to be done.
17
January 17,2018
Terry Jerulle: Answer my question. I cannot send an email with Gold Coast&
Concrete—okay—because I don't have that information. How did he get ahold of that
information?
Steven Grillo: This is kept—this was kept for access to the guys after the storm on the
10th. We were—at the time, unaware of how we had to conform. So, the storm comes
in on September 10th and there's things going on ... putting card services down, putting
boards up on windows,things like that.
Terry Jerulle: But somebody must have given him ...
Peter Fisher: If I may ... I have a good analogy ... I recently left my firm ... I worked
for another firm. I still have business card floating around in Fort Myers. I have new
business cards. There's a transition period until I'm able to get paperwork and
letterhead and things up. This is what—at that time, this is what ... he was providing
intellectual property from his ... from what he had so they could get things up and
running. If you look at all the paperwork now, it is changed. They didn't have the
opportunity to do that—they were going to they had an over-eager employee who was
taking bids and was using the things that he had at his disposal to try to get a proposal to
someone who needed roofing work done. That's what this is—no work was done. It
was never signed.
Terry Jerulle: Prior to working for BrinMar, he worked for Gold Coast?
Steven Grillo: We were working under BrinMar at the whole time. We were just
unaware of how things had to be marketed.
Peter Fisher: What they're asking is how did he get this?
Steven Grillo: We had these.
Peter Fisher: Was he working for Gold Coast prior to working for BrinMar? This
DeMarcus Brown?
Steven Grillo: I wouldn't say"prior"—I would say we were still working under
BrinMar—but the paperwork wasn't right to supply to a possible client or to a Board
like this. We just weren't aware of how the State wanted us to ... "x," "y," and"z" ....
Terry Jerulle: You know, you're not answering the question.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I have an issue—the owner of...
Terry Jerulle: At some point, we need to hear from Mr. Nourse because he may
answer some of our questions.
Patrick White: What I'd like to—a procedural matter, Mr. Chairman—is to certainly
give you an opportunity for rebuttal but, basically, to have you summarize your defense
as to what grounds are appropriate for us to dismiss the Citation because they are very
limited.
Peter Fisher: Yes.
Patrick White: And if you need our Board's Attorney to help you to understand that ...
Peter Fisher: Well, it should be dismissed because Mr. Grillo was not in any way at the
time on October 24th—or at any point—he was not personally, nor through any business,
engaged in any construction work, nor construction contracting. Nor was he holding
himself out or acting as a contractor as Gold Coast Roofing.
Patrick White: Your position is that the advertisement on the vehicle on the premises
observed by the County employee was not holding himself or the business out for the
purposes of contracting?
Peter Fisher: That's correct, and again, this is the document ...
18
January 17,2018
Patrick White: I don't know that it's a compelling argument.
Peter Fisher: Well, again, this is the document and Mr. Grillo can testify it that
regardless of what was on his truck, every potential customer he saw got this sheet right
here [holding document] and this is ... it basically says know your contractor who is
working for you. This is presented to the customer and basically it says, regardless of
what it says on my truck—which is in the process of being changed—BrinMar is ... you
are contracting with him and BrinMar is doing the work. And I ... this is ... so, again,
this is ... it's a confusion of... there's a transition period where they're getting ... they are
in compliance and there are things that have lingered in terms of advertising on his truck
... thatis ...
Patrick White: If I can try to crystal this: Your position, I assume, would be that since
the "d/b/a" filing and effectiveness did not occur until two days or more after the
Citation,that somehow the advertisement on the vehicle was part of a transition process?
And the only valid defense that I understand that you have, Mr. Grillo, is that somehow
since the time of your Citation, you have corrected and completely resolved all and any
aspect of"advertising and/or contracting"under the entity's name that was on the
magnetic sign on your vehicle on the 24th of October?
Steven Grillo: One hundred percent correct. All those corrections ...
Patrick White: Why am I making your legal argument for your defense?
Peter Fisher: Well,that's a factual argument.
Steven Grillo: So, one hundred percent ...
Patrick White: I want a legal argument that says that you only have two grounds that
we can dismiss is that he didn't factually violate—which is part of what you're saying—
the other part is that you have corrected it since the date of the Citation and are
appearing here today saying legally everything is in order, which is consistent with what
I've heard you say which was the process that began shortly after the storm and was in
process as early as October 3rd relative to the relationship between the two entities and it
was finalized sometime after the "d/b/a" filing so that all the marketing materials and
other advertisements,proposals and contracts, would then be in order prior to today.
Peter Fisher: That is correct. The second ... the second ...
Patrick White: Again, why am I making your legal argument?
Peter Fisher: No, that's ... that's the legal argument that I believe I made. You had to,
maybe, crystalize it for me ...
Steven Grillo: To crystalize this even further, gentlemen, when it wasn't Mr. Nourse
who showed up on-site ... when the ...
Patrick White: On what date?
Steven Grillo: The day of the Citation when he saw the magnet on the truck because it
was a magnet, I gave the gentleman there BrinMar's license and"Know Your
Contractor"—he had these in his hand. Not only did he have these in his hand from me,
I said here is our license and I gave him the Order. I'm not an attorney—I'm not a
stupid guy—but I'm not an attorney. I gave him the Executive Order and I said, "we're
working under the Executive Order—here is BrinMar's license," and I'm putting up a
tarp. Also, the County had issued a permit to BrinMar to do roofing previously to this.
So there is a miss ...
Patrick White: To this property?
19
January 17,2018
Steven Grillo: No. So,there was a miscommunication somewhere along the
breakdown of... at the top to ...
Patrick White: I fail to see the relevance of a permit that's for some other structure at a
different location.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I don't think anybody is debating that General Contractors
were allowed to do roofing work. I think everybody accepts that Order. Everybody
here on the Board understands that Order. I don't think that's the ...
Steven Grillo: I'm here for false advertising not acting under an unlicensed contractor.
Richard Joslin: The false advertising was because you had the magnetic signs on your
truck, which was seen. And there was a contract seen, in which it was a proposal and a
contract, and ...
Steven Grillo: Nope ... this is not ...
Richard Joslin: ... whether it was completed or not it, still ... these are the items that ...
Steven Grillo: I think that probably ...
Peter Fisher: If I may ... if I may ...the legal argument is not that he was falsely
advertising, and it's been corrected-the legal argument is that he was not falsely
advertising himself at all. Because, even though he was driving around with ... like I
said, the analogy of the lingering business card, he was presenting the clients and the
potential customers always knew who was doing the roofing work, despite what was
wrong in the paperwork. That is the ...
Patrick White: Thank you for that. And I think, Mr. Chairman,to the point of some of
the other Board members—we've heard the defense and perhaps you would like to
reserve some time for a rebuttal?
Peter Fisher: Yes.
Chairman Boyd: Thank you. Thank you.
Patrick White: I think you must speak up—we're not hearing you.
Jeb Schenck,Attorney for the Board: Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, I
would like to give Mr. Fisher and Mr. Grillo an opportunity to present any evidence that
you have there.
Patrick White: If it is provided to us, they will not be returned.
Peter Fisher: That is fine—I have copies.
(Note: Documentation was provided to Attorney Schenck by Attorney Fisher.)
Peter Fisher: Do you need an explanation of what I've handed you or is that sufficient?
Chairman Boyd: That should be sufficient ...
Peter Fisher: Okay.
Chairman Boyd: ... I think we're all aware of what you know. We could move on to
the County's Staff. Mr. Nourse?
Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noell: Good Morning. I have a few questions for
the witness, if I may? In the packet that your attorney has, if you could just turn to
Exhibit E-10 please.
Peter Fisher: E-10 is an email?
Assistant County Attorney Noell questioned Steven Grillo:
Q. I'm sorry—it's E-12. Do you see that Exhibit, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
20
January 17,2018
A. This is an older proposal.
Q. Okay. And that's from a company that you own, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then the company's representative's name is DeMarcus Brown. He was a
former employee of Gold Coast Roofing, is that correct?
A. Still is.
Q. Okay. And then your testimony to the Board—if I understood it correctly—is that
now he is also an employee for BrinMar—is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. At the time, October 1, 2017,the date of this proposal, what work was being
proposed to them under this proposal?
A. This is a take-off. This is an estimate to perform a service.
Q. What service?
A. A roofing service.
Q. To fix and repair a roof?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete at the time—I'm not talking about BrinMar,
I'm talking about Gold Coast Roofing and Concrete—at the time, was it licensed to
do roofmg work?
A. No. But we were not performing a roofing action. This action would be performed
as an estimating service in the National Catastrophe Insurance Claim Experts with
the registration there which clearly states NCICE. This gets handed over to a
licensed roofer like BrinMar.
Q. Okay. And you guys went and provided the proposed scope of work that needed to
be done and the cost of that work—is that correct?
A. Correct. But with his being so new, it was way off.
Q. Sir,just to make sure that I understand your testimony—you agree with me that—at
the time, October 1, 2017—Gold Coast Roofing, as it is on the proposal,should not
have submitted a proposal or a bid to do work to this homeowner, is that right?
A. I disagree.
Q. Okay. Why is that?
A. Because at the time we were acting in conjunction with BrinMar and things were
moving so quickly, we were just not-again, everything 100%where it needed to be
-- starting at the top—I would assume, I don't know, I'm not BrinMar—where
things needed to be with BrinMar in order to provide something like this to make it
what the community needs to see and a Board like this would need to see.
Q. Were you ... did you have any conversations with the owner, Mark Cavellone?
A. Never.
Q. I'm assuming you weren't actually there at the time that DeMarcus Brown was
giving this ...
A. No, I would never allow this to happen. I've been in this for twenty years ... I come
with probably more certifications than anybody you're going to see.
Q. I understand. So just so I understand your response, so at the time, October 1, 2017,
you were not there with this homeowner and DeMarcus Brown? You weren't privy
to any of those conversations, correct?
A. None.
21
January 17,2018
Q. Do you see anywhere on Exhibit 12, the Gulf Coast Roofing & Concrete Proposal
used by Gulf Coast—do you see anywhere on there where it mentions BrinMar?
A. Gulf Coast or Gold Coast?
Q. Gold Coast, thank you. Do you see anywhere on there where it mentions BrinMar?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. Do you have any first-hand knowledge that this homeowner, Mark
Cavellone, was told that Gold Coast was performing the work on behalf of BrinMar?
A. I wouldn't know that. I don't know the conversation they had there.
Q. Thanks. I don't have any other questions for him, but I do have some questions for
Investigator Nourse. I don't know if the Board has any other questions for the
witness.
Chairman Boyd: Not at this time.
Assistant County Attorney Noell questioned Joseph Nourse, Licensing Compliance
Officer:
Q. Sir, can you state your name for the record?
A. Joseph Nourse, Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer.
Q. And, sir, I draw your attention to the investigation with Gold Coast Roofing and,
specifically, Mister Grillo. Were you involved with this investigation?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Okay. Did you reach out—as part of your investigation—did you reach out to
BrinMar representatives to determine the authority level that Gold Coast Roofing
had regarding contract or proposal work in Collier County for roofing?
A. Yes, I did. I spoke to Ladi March.
Q. And who is Ladi March?
A. She is BrinMar Construction's Qualifier.
Q. During your initial conversation, about how many days after the initial complaint—
let me ask you this, when did the initial complaint come in?
A. I'm not sure. (He reviewed paperwork)
Peter Fisher: I am assuming you are referencing the complaint from the homeowner?
Assistant County Attorney Noell: Yes, sir.
A. It came in on October 16th.
Q. Okay. And then, in response to that, you reached out to BrinMar as well—is that
correct?
A. I reached out to BrinMar later after I had provided or started my investigation. I had
already spoken to ... I need to refer my notes here.
Q. Sure.
A. On the 24th, I believe, let me see the dates. On the 16th, I contacted DeMarcus
Brown and confirmed that this was their contract. I referenced it and the address.
He immediately referred me to speak to Mr. Steven Grillo. I contacted Steven Grillo
and he confirmed that this was his contract. When I asked about licensing and how
they were qualified to perform work or provide estimates in Collier County as
roofers,they both stated that they were doing business under BrinMar Construction.
22
January 17,2018
But, BrinMar Construction was not listed anywhere on the contract and the
Complainant knew nothing of a BrinMar Construction.
Q. When you initially contacted that BrinMar Construction, what was the
representative's name that you spoke to? Was it Ladi March?
A. Yes. At BrinMar, the only person I spoke to was Ladi March.
Q. And what was her position at BrinMar?
A. Ms. Ladi March—I—I explained the complaint to Ms. Ladi March. She stated that
she knows and does business with Steven Grillo and Gold Coast Roofing. They are
all on her payroll and employees of BrinMar Construction. I explained the merits of
my case-the contract involved—and she stated to me she had no knowledge of the
estimate provided and that they should not be doing business as Gold Coast Roofing
-they were supposed to be doing business as BrinMar Construction. When I
explained to her about the cash offer made in the email, she became a little upset and
said that she had no knowledge of that and they're not supposed to be doing business
that way.
Q. I don't have any other questions for this witness. If the Board has any questions?
Patrick White: I do.
Patrick White questioned Joseph Nourse:
Q. Mr.Nourse, are you aware of the current mechanism and means by which Mr. Grillo
operates their business as of today, relative to the relationship with BrinMar and
Gold Coast and National Catastrophe?
A. I'm not aware of how they restructured their company.
Q. But you would not have an opinion as to whether they were in compliance with the
two Orders from DBPR and the Executive Order?
A. I do not. I do have an email, E-29, that is from Ms. Ladi March at BrinMar as part
of the packet.
Q. That's the one dated December 1St?
A. Yes. She does state in there that she did, in fact, tell me that she was unaware of the
roofing jobs that I had mentioned and"... to be clear that I've never denied knowing
Steve or DeMarcus. ... Those jobs had not been added to the spreadsheet. I had
explained to you that I've worked with both DeMarcus and Steve before. I did
advise that I was aware of the Executive Order and the contents wherein."
Q. And since you're reading from it, does it not also state, "I contacted the DBPR to get
direction on statutory allowable. We put the necessary safeguards in place to ensure
compliance and as a precautionary measure retained the services of Peter Fisher,
Attorney—copies on this communication." This is part of the same document?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Thank you.
Chairman Boyd questioned Joseph Nourse:
Q. Mr.Nourse,this contract from Gold Coast Roofing & Concrete that was written to
Mr. Cavellone on October Pt, you received the complaint from Mr. Cavellone on
October 16th, I believe.
A. Yes.
23
January 17,2018
A. And then you wrote the Citation on October 24th. Was that Citation given at the
jobsite?
Q. No. At no time have I ever been to a jobsite and seen any trucks or any signs or
magnetic stickers on any vehicles. I've never seen or spoken to Mr. Steven Grillo,
except over the phone, until today.
Q. Okay.
A. So,the whole—somebody stopping him on a jobsite about advertisement—I don't
know what that's about.
Q. Okay.
Patrick White questioned Joseph Nourse:
Q. But that is the nature of the Citation, isn't it?
A. The nature of the Citation is the contract in question. They proposed to do what
roofing services without being ...
Q. What is the date of the Citation? That's the date of the violation—that's the timing
of when the actions took place that were required in order to violate the law and
impose the penalty of a$1,000 fine were stated to have taken place. I believe I
understand the defense to be whether that happened or not, we don't think that's a
violation and even if it did at that time, we've fixed it since. So, I'm just trying to
get to the point of making some determination in this case.
A. The violation is, "Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or
advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business or act
in the capacity of... " By providing an estimate and a contract to an individual
without being duly licensed is the violation.
Q. As of October 24th?
A. Yes.
Q. So, whatever the contract may have been on October 1st, to me is not as relevant to
whether he was contracting without the proper license on October 24th—three weeks
later. And so, we're now two months later and based on the information I'm seeing
and being provided, and what I'm understanding to be the defense that's lawfully
entitled to be made, is that we fixed it. And the County—I don't believe—may have
had an opportunity to determine whether, in fact, they have fixed it consistent with
what it is that's in compliance with the Executive Order and the DBPR Order. And
so—what I said—I'm trying to get to an outcome here. And from my perspective, if
they've demonstrated that they've fixed it, and/or that on the date of the Citation the
facts were then applicable don't support the violation that's alleged by the County,
then the Citation should be dismissed.
Terry Jerulle: I don't find it ...
Patrick White: That's my position.
Terry Jerulle: No, no ... I'm not saying you're wrong, Mr. White. I'm saying I don't
follow you. My ... my sequence of events is they wrote a contract on the 1St of October.
Supposedly, he was made an officer of a General Contractor on the 3rd which is almost
irrelevant to some degree. The Citation was made on the 24th and then the "d/b/a"which
may be a contributing factor was done on the 26th
24
•
January 17,2018
Patrick White: I understand, but today is January and if they fixed it prior to walking
in here today and the Hearing beginning—they are entitled to argue that and offer it as a
lawful defense which puts the Board in the position of having to make a determination
of whether they are in compliance.
Terry Jerulle: Whether they're in current compliance. Not whether they were in
compliance on the 24th?
Patrick White: It's, in a sense, legally irrelevant.
Terry Jerulle: Maybe ... maybe.
Patrick White: They have an argument against that as well that seems to be plausible.
Terry Jerulle: Maybe.
Patrick White: And, hence,why I'm trying to understand what the County's position
was relative to the date of the Citation.
Terry Jerulle: Now I follow you. I may not agree with you, but I follow you.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Joseph Nourse:
Q. I'm not a Compliance Officer so I don't know exactly how it works but, walk me
through the steps. If I call you and say I think there's an unlicensed activity going
on in my street, do you come to my house and issue a ticket instantaneously every
single time or do you sometimes come, do a little research, get your homework right
because you don't want to issue a Citation in error, so you get your ducks in a row
and it might be a week or two weeks after the violation actually occurred before
someone gets a Citation?
A. It's rare that we receive a complaint, show up on-site and issue Citations. It's more
the latter where we receive a complaint, go out and investigate, do our research, get
our ducks in a row, find out who's who, who's what, and who's operating as who.
And in this case, I made multiple phone calls trying to arrange for a meeting and did
have a meeting set up, but the violator never showed up for an arranged meeting that
he was going to straighten all this out.
(Patrick White: Understood.)
Q. So why did it take all the way to the 24th to issue a Citation—because you had to get
your ducks in a row ...
A. Yes, sir.
Q. ... and you didn't want to give a Citation to someone who you felt ...
(Patrick White: ... may fix it?)
Richard Joslin: I can certainly understand what the time span is because of the fact of
another company being involved BrinMar and the Gulf Coast--
Terry Jerulle: And something called Irma?
Joseph Nourse: BrinMar Construction—Ms. Ladi March—stated to me that they were
not authorized to do business using her name, her license number, as Gold Coast
Roofing. I have a contract provided by the Complainant from Gold Coast Roofing. Any
reference in anything that was provided links to BrinMar.
Patrick White: Here's the bigger problem I have, Mr. Chairman and Board Members,
and over the past two meetings—I was going to bring this up later in a different portion
of the meeting but,what we are seeing with respect to the post-Irma complications are
the Citations issued. They are becoming more like Administrative Complaints, and are
25
January 17,2018
being more and more from a procedural prospective, at the level of a formal Public
Hearing. And I could certainly agree with the County's position if we were having an
Administrative Complaint and Public Hearing today. But as of the time that would be
alleged in a Complaint, October 1 through October 24, then October 24 through October
26, that there was at that time,unlicensed contracting ongoing. Now it's up to the
defense that's allowed for the dismissal of a complaint—or a Citation, excuse me—and
that allows a Respondent, a Citation recipient, to argue, "I screwed up, but I fixed it."
We allow that to happen a couple of ways: if it's unlicensed and you go in and get the
right license, we reduce the fine to $300. Great. The other way is to come in and
contest it like we're doing here—and that's where we're getting to be more and more
like the Public Hearings in the Administrative Complaint process—and argue, "I fixed
it." But that puts the County in the disadvantaged position of not knowing what the
defense is going to be and being able to evaluate whether in fact the defense was
legitimate. Which puts us in the position of saying, "We really can't talk, but we don't
know—it seems like you may be"—these documents being provided to me certainly
would indicate that, as of today, everything appears to be in compliance with the two
Orders that I've never read or reviewed,but we're being told—and no one is countering
that testimony—that they are in compliance. So, trying to put the whole thing in
perspective,to get to the point of an appropriate outcome, what I'm seeing now is, it
seems a lawful defense is being raised that would put the Board in a position to be able
to dismiss it. The one fact that's, in my mind, more akin again to an Administrative
Complaint in a Public Hearing is ... has there been and what is the harm, if there is any,
to the homeowner? And so, I don't want to inject that into the conversation but ---
Vice Chairman Lantz: The harm might also be—you might have to consider a harm to
a competing company or contractor.
Patrick White: I don't disagree ...
Vice Chairman Lantz: Not just the homeowner because I am here ...
Terry Jerulle: And we're always ....
Vice Chairman Lantz: ... representing contractors and homeowners.
Terry Jerulle: ... and we're always in a position of debating ...
Patrick White: I'm not trying to do that, but I'm trying to analogize it to the process
we would go through where we could weigh those factors in an Administrative
Complaint in a Public Hearing. Because those are factors under law and under our Code
that we're entitled to weigh. Here, I don't think we have that same latitude. I think
we're a more tightly-drawn circle—was the defense lawful and factually correct?
Terry Jerulle: Oh, we don't have to ... if it is, we still have the option to ...
Patrick White: We have the discretion to ...
Terry Jerulle: ... we still have ... it says"may"—it doesn't say that we must. We're
always under that guideline.
Patrick White: We could enhance it, but I think the point is—and having Counsel
present—were we to enhance it and/or uphold the Citation,my guess is the County is
going to be in a position where they're going to be having a conversation in front of a
Judge. And so, what I'm trying to do is establish on the record what the pros and cons
are of how we handle these cases and potentially as a Board provide some
recommendations or suggestions to Staff and reach the appropriate outcome in this
particular instance. I apologize for some of my prior questions that may not have
26
January 17,2018
seemed on point, and I apologize for my somewhat harsh approach to Mr. Fisher but at
the end of the day, you know, this isn't the simple Citation case that many times we're
heard and kind of gotten to the point of knowing it's simply being done to avoid the fine
being imposed on a contractor who knows he's certainly guilty and is trying to avoid the
guillotine falling on his head.
Matthew Nolton questioned Steven Grillo:
Q. What licenses do you hold?
A. Xactimate Certified-3, I'm in the top two percent of Contractors in the United States,
oldest Asphalt Maker GAF as a Master Concrete Installer, I am a RCI Member voted
inby ...
Q. Let me change my question: What Florida contracting licenses do you hold?
A. Zero. I go for my test tomorrow.
Q. Zero. Do you have a website? Does Gold Coast have a website?
A. Yes.
Q. Does it list you as being a General Contractor on the website?
A. It clearly states right on the bottom of it ...
Q. Does it list you as being a General Contractor?
A. I'm not sure ... I haven't ...
Q. I just looked it up and it's got you, and it says, "General Contractor" ...
A. Okay,this might have ...
Q. ... and below ... does it say anywhere"d/b/a" and BrinMar?
A. It says subcontractor to BrinMar at the bottom, I believe.
Q. It says the contracting work you do is as a subcontractor to BrinMar but nowhere on
the site does it say that Gold Coast is a d/b/a of BrinMar.
A. I don't think so.
(Patrick White)Nor that you're an employee.
A. It says exclusive subcontractor.
(Patrick White) That's the difference between a 1099, sir, and a W-2, isn't it?
A. It says, W-2 -- "exclusive,"—W-2—employee.
(Patrick White) On what?
A. I'm not sure it says that on the website—I know it says that on our email.
(Patrick White) And for the purposes of the information we just heard from Mr.Nolton,
I think it's certainly pertinent to how we would evaluate the potential defense that's
been raised. So, for that purpose, I'm certainly interested in this line of inquiry.
Q. If you will, I have the site here and it says, "We perform services under a
subcontractor capacity of BrinMar Construction." Nowhere does it say that is a
d/b/a or owned by BrinMar. It sets itself out as a separate corporation and, under
your name, it says Steve Grillo is a General Contractor.
A. That's probably correct because I was a licensed General Contractor in Colorado for
sixteen years and I don't do this 100%but whoever built it,probably just templated
over from my"Elite Construction" company to Gold Coast. And now that I'm
aware of this, you're 100%right. It needs to be clearer.
Q. Right. I'm just making the point that it hasn't been abated.
Chairman Boyd: It's hard to be a subcontractor if you're not really holding a license as
27
January 17,2018
a contractor in the State of Florida.
Patrick White: Nor disclose that you're an"employee."
Steven Grillo: It needs to be clearer on the website. Correct. But in our emails, it
states it right at the bottom. Everyone on our jobsite sends this—everyone in our
company carries a badge [shows it to the Board] on-site—so we don't run into this again
—that says, "W-2—employee." We've gone through a lot of steps not to have to do this
again.
Patrick White: I understand, and I appreciate that. Don't misunderstand the effort, but
we're talking about $1,000 here—right?
Steven Grillo: This to me is not about ...
Patrick White: And I understand the principle behind it.
Steven Grillo: Yes,that's why I'm here—for the principle and not for the money ...
Patrick White: And I certainly understand based on what you've brought in as
testimony and that of your Counsel. But the point is, as I've mentioned a couple of
times already, it's time to get to a resolution here. So, I think there's one person who
we've not heard from that from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, I think—given that, at
least in my mind, that the second layer of the defense seems to be one that is not going
to withstand scrutiny—it has at least one hole. And, so, I don't think we can dismiss on
the grounds that they have completely abated in the sense that there isn't still the notion
of some inappropriate "false advertising" or unlicensed offering of contracting services
still on-going as of this minute. We're at the point where the first layer of defense as to
whether on the 24th—simply because there was the whatever on the vehicle—the same
circumstance predominated. And to me, I understand the County's position but at the
end of the day, I think it comes down to what was in the mind of the homeowner as of
the 24th
Attorney Fisher: If I may, and I understand and appreciate Mr. Nolton for pointing that
out, but I would argue that—whether it's a legal argument or not—that he—that
BrinMar and Mr. Grillo are in substantial compliance with this. Everything that the
consumer gets—I understand that there's a website and a consumer can find the website
—but everything ... and on the 24th ... everything that the consumer gets is BrinMar is
doing the roofing work, Steve Grillo and all the employees are BrinMar and that is
clearly stated.
Patrick White: Let me postulate this to you based on prior cases we've heard, we've
upheld Citations where the facts in evidence relative to websites were that the website
was still wrong. Okay.
Peter Fisher: Understand.
Patrick White: So, let me postulate to you that had Mr. Grillo had a conversation with
the County's Staff somewhere in the October/November/December time frame, I believe
he could have avoided the circumstances of today. That's just my opinion based on
years of experience sitting on the Board and knowing stuff At this point, unless another
Board member is interested in hearing what the homeowner may have to say about what
was in his mind as to who he thought he was contracting with on the 24th, I'm prepared
to offer a motion.
28
January 17,2018
Peter Fisher: Just to clarify what you said because when you say the homeowner,
you're not talking about Mr. Cavellone because that was, again, we had never seen that
—we were going on the Citation from the 24th in terms of the homeowner.
Patrick White: Who resides at 116 Muirfield Circle, I believe it is.
Peter Fisher: That's Mr. Cavellone.
Patrick White: Okay. That's the Citation.
Peter Fisher: You mentioned, and I agree with you, Mr. White,that if it is part of the
Citation then I believe that Mr. Grillo didn't get adequate notice because we've never
seen this packet of evidence that was presented today.
Matthew Nolton: ... was set up with Staff and he didn't show up to?
Peter Fisher: I'll let Mr. Grillo testify to that.
Steven Grillo: I spoke to Mr. Nourse. I said I was going to come in at 2:00 PM to
show him exactly what we provided to—I don't know what his title would be—but the
individual who showed up on that date ... the date of the Citation when I spoke to him. I
gave him BrinMar's license, I gave him the Executive Order, and that I was putting up a
tarp. When I made the commitment to meet him at 2:00 PM, I then told the owner of
BrinMar, "This is what happened ... what do you want me to do? I have an appointment
at 2:00 PM with him?" She told me that she had spoken with him and she said that she
was going to handle this between BrinMar and the County and for me not to show up.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: Can I ask you a few more questions? (directed to
Steven Grillo)
Q. Sir,what did you tell her that had happened?
A. Exactly that—that we got—there was nothing issued,there was no "Stop Work"
Order—nothing issued. I told her exactly the circumstances that had happened that
day.
Q. Did you tell her about the proposal for the work?
A. No. Gentlemen, I think we're really confused here. This proposal --- if you guys are
—I'm here for principle—if you're going to give me a Citation, please give me a
Citation in relation to this proposal. We are here today because of the Citation that
happened in that driveway for the magnet on the truck. I've never seen this before.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Steven Grillo:
Q. Did you read the Citation ... "unlicensed roofing contracting." What am I missing
that the October 1St proposal is not part of this because all I see is unlicensed roofing
contracting and I'm told that the contract was given on the 1St and it took a little
while to investigate, and the Citation was given on the 24th. I don't think anybody is
arguing that there was a truck in this lady's driveway on October 24th with a sticker
on it that said Gold Coast.
A. (Peter Fisher) Because the date that ....
Assistant County Attorney Noell: I'm sorry. I just want to file an objection for the
record so that the witness can testify—not the attorney.
Attorney Fisher: I'm not testifying.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: Okay. Then if the witness could testify,that would
be helpful instead of the Attorney, who is not a witness, testifying.
29
January 17,2018
Richard Joslin:
Q. Mr. Grillo, have you read the Citation that you received?
A. Yes. And the way I interpreted it, again, ...
Q. I don't care about your interpretation. I'm going to read it to you—that way you can
understand and be clear. The Citation was for unlicensed roofing contracting with a
checkmark in Box"F"that says:
"Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor,
or advertise self or business organization as available to engage
in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor without
being duly registered or certified. "
That's what you're here for. Not just because of a roof.
A. I would like to know the evidence behind that Citation.
Q. We have a contract ... we have
A. I have not seen that contract.
Q. ... a proposal that was written; we have unlicensed magnet signs on a vehicle that
was in the yard at the time ...
A. Not at that property.
Q. ... from the homeowner that checked you out.
A. Not at that property. You guys are getting confused between two situations.
Patrick White:
Q. Let me understand, Mr. Grillo. What you're stating is that when the Citation was
issued, the vehicle was not at the location ...
A. No—no! That's what I'm saying ... if you guys are going to cite me for something
that happened a month and a half prior,please, I have an attorney—let's deal with
that. The confusion here is between two situations. I'm never seen this.
Chairman Boyd: You've never seen what ... you haven't ... you picked it up at the Post
Office.
A. I've never seen—I understand the Citation, yes -- I shouldn't say I've never seen it.
I did not know we were showing up here today for this ... I was showing up for the
ticket that was issued to me for me speaking with the officer in the driveway
pertaining to our advertising us as a roofer because of our magnet and him saying we
were performing a roofing service. This is the conversation that I had with the
individual in the driveway. I said, "I have a tarp. We're not performing a roofing
service."
Terry Jerulle: I have a thought. May I ask this ...
Patrick White: One quick question ... what was the location at which the Citation was
issued?
Steven Grillo: I think Phoenix Way. Shouldn't that location be brought up on the
Citation—where this happened?
Terry Jerulle: And my question was: Is there another Citation? Did the County issue
another Citation?
Joseph Nourse: Not to my knowledge, no.
30
January 17,2018
Terry Jerulle: Did the City of Naples issue another Citation?
Joseph Nourse: Not to my knowledge.
Patrick White: Is Phoenix Way in the unincorporated County... I mean ...
Joseph Nourse: This is the first that I've ever heard of this ... this part.
Patrick White: Okay. So, when the Citation—your name is on there as issuing the
Citation.
Joseph Nourse: Yes.
Patrick White: And it says the location of the violation was Muirfield Circle?
Joseph Nourse: Yes.
Patrick White: So,the fact that he was in a vehicle with a magnetic sign out at some
other location is in a sense, irrelevant.
Joseph Nourse: Totally irrelevant to this case.
Patrick White: Okay ...
Joseph Nourse: The Citation was ...
Patrick White: The facts ... the facts ... the facts upon which the Citation was issued
must have been as what was in existence on the 24th of October and pertinent to
Muirfield Circle. Would you agree?
Joseph Nourse: Yes.
Patrick White: Okay. Because I think that's what we otherwise have. So, again, Mr.
Chairman, I'm at the point to make a motion unless ...
Chairman Boyd: I would agree.
Terry Jerulle: I'm prepared to hear it.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: I'm sorry.
Patrick White: Do you have a final argument?
Attorney County Attorney Noell: Yes,just from a procedural standpoint. I would like
to address the Board before it's closed because I understand that he has rebuttal. I don't
know if you have any rebuttal before we go into any Closing Statement.
Peter Fisher: I had a couple of questions just for Mr. Grillo but I ...
Chairman Boyd: Is that part of your rebuttal or ...?
Peter Fisher: If I can ... and it's not part of the rebuttal ... it's a re-cross of Mr. Grillo ...
if that's not allowed,then that's ...
Patrick White: I see no reason, Mr. Chairman, why we couldn't allow a re-cross, but I
think, again, we're trying to get to an outcome so, if—as part of your re-cross—you can
then sum up what any rebuttal that you may have is—I'd like to hear what otherwise
maybe ...
Peter Fisher: Yes.
Patrick White: ... in a Public Hearing context ... Closing Statement.
Peter Fisher: The only question I have for Mr. Grillo is—if you're looking at the email
which is in the packet at E-10. Could you please explain—it's on Page E-11, could you
explain what that email is and what it shows?
Steven Grillo: At the time of the email, again yes,things need to be dialed in much
better and the website— 100% -- that need to be dialed in. In every single email, we
always had said: "Florida subcontractor to BrinMar"with their license number. So,
DeMarcus—not even being aware of what he was presenting the client still knew
BrinMar ... the potential client still knew BrinMar because of the email communication.
31
January 17,2018
Now, yes, I do agree—this needs to be worded differently as a W-2 employee. But it is
still known that BrinMar is the licensee.
Peter Fisher: Turning to Exhibit E-12 in the packet, is this the final contract that a
customer would use for the roofing work?
Steven Grillo: This is not a final contract—there's a lot of.... yes, it says proposal and
contract—correct, so you can see the ... can I go through this with you? It's an
estimated ... it's estimated. If you look down to the bottom right, it will say "Grand
Total,"and there's another signature there that says we have dialed-in our price, we
understand the Code in relation to the build scope, and Xactimate has given us a price.
Richard Joslin: It lists all your services ... everything you're going to do ... and the
contract amount ... and ...
Steven Grillo: This is a proposal.
Richard Joslin: This is a contract and a proposal to do that work to be done by Gold
Coast Roofing and Concrete. Now ...
Steven Grillo: Mister ...
Richard Joslin: If I was a homeowner, I would be saying, "Okay, I like the price.
Where do I sign?"
Steven Grillo: We wouldn't ask for a signature from you.
Richard Joslin: That's not what you're saying in this proposal.
Patrick White: As to the two defenses that would entitle Mr. Grillo to have us dismiss
the Citation, would you please summarize your position?
Peter Fisher: Yes. When this Citation was issued, and all the information that Mr.
Grillo had at his disposal, based upon what he was being cited for, he was 100% in
compliance on paper. He was an employee of BrinMar, all the workers were employees
of BrinMar, and he was in the process of—everything—all contracts that were being
presented to the client at that point were BrinMar. The only thing that was left was a
sticker that was on his truck and—now that we've learned today—the website. Other
than that, everything else has been corrected. Secondarily, no work was done on the 24th
and no contract was issued on the 24th. So, on the 24th, the date of this Citation, no
contracting work—no construction work—was being done in Florida. To the extent that
this Citation relates to an October Pt contract, we were not provided that information.
We didn't see these documents until we were here today.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: If I may—I have no issue with we want to ... if
Counsel doesn't want to waive the objection ... and is now taking the position that this is
a brand-new issue to him that his employee was out there issuing an estimate despite the
numerous conversations that Investigator had with the BrinMar representative, but
nothing about a pick-up truck with a magnet on the side of it. I would argue to the
Board that it's a disingenuous argument. With that being said though, if the Attorney
doesn't wish to waive a Notice issue as far as what he's actually been cited for, I have
no issue with it if the Board would agree to—and I would ask the Board to continue it to
the next Hearing—and that way if we're later in front of a Judge, there is no Notice issue
as far as somehow—despite there being no evidence of a magnet and that's why he is
before the Board—if I'm understanding the argument correctly,they are pointing to the
October 24th Notice of Violation date as they came being prepared today to talk about
32
January 17,2018
the October 24th violation of a magnet on the side of a truck—which there's been no
testimony presented and a bias on that point. It has always been the proposal and the bid
proposal, so I would ask for a Continuance if the attorney doesn't wish to waive that.
Peter Fisher: I have spoken with my client. We don't want to belabor the point. We
don't think it's necessary—it's not worth Mr. Grillo's time or my time to come to a
Hearing. So, we will waive the Notice. The only thing that I will rebut to Attorney
Noell is that the paperwork that we were provided did say—it said, "falsely advertising
or holding himself out," and that ... and based upon the date that Mr. Grillo received the
Citation, he put two and two together and knew that the only thing it could have been
was the sticker on his truck. And that's all that we were provided, so it is not a
disingenuous argument—that is based upon the facts that we had at our disposal.
Patrick White: May I offer you a suggestion, Mr. Fisher?
Peter Fisher: Yes, sir.
Patrick White: If this matter is continued as the County suggests and you are in full
compliance a month from now, do I have to say anything further?
Peter Fisher: No.
Patrick White: Now, what's your position, sir?
Peter Fisher: If the Board is willing to continue this for another—and we will be in full
compliance and I understand that you can't state your—what your decision will be, but
Mr. Grillo will be in full compliance within one month, I can assure you of that.
Patrick White: I appreciate your representation. We have a request from the County.
At this point, Mr. Chairman—and it's not objected to by Mr. Grillo—so I move that we
continue this case until next month and that if it's going to come back, that it should
appear as part of a Public Hearing on our Agenda.
Chairman Boyd: Is there a Second?
(There was no response.)
Vice Chairman Lantz: Just a comment. For me, we've seen a lot of cases where
somebody gets hired—somebody gets a Citation for doing work as an unlicensed
contractor and they say, "Gee—I was just working for my buddy. There's no money
involved—I was working for my buddy next door or my friend, whatever. I'm not acting
as a contractor, I'm just helping out as a friend." They come in and they challenge the
Citation. I've been on the Board for 10 or 12 years. One time,the buddy had actually
showed up in their defense and said, "Yes,that's my friend and he's helping me out."
All the other times,the buddy doesn't show up. In this case,the "buddy" is Ladi,the
owner of BrinMar. If Ladi, who is a licensed Building Official and had damn well better
know the law, can drive here and explain what's going on, you have a chance of
convincing me.
Peter Fisher: Would a sworn affidavit suffice?
Vice Chairman Lantz: No. Not for me. Now let me rephrase ...
Patrick White: Simply because it's a dead instrument and you can't cross-examine it.
Peter Fisher: If I may, can I ask the Board a procedural question on what happens,just
so I can advise my client. If Mr. Grillo chooses to pay this fine, is there any duty from
your office to report that up the chain to the DBPR? Is that a legal question? Because
he's here on principle ... he does not want to have to deal with anything further. So, if
Mr. Grillo pays the fine and we move on from this, if there's going to be no further time
33
January 17,2018
spent by myself having to represent Mr. Grillo then that's an option. I'm asking what is
your procedural duty if a fine is levied?
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that's for our Board's Attorney and Staff to
answer.
Chairman Boyd: I would say since he doesn't have a license at the present time, it
would be kind of hard to report it.
Assistant County Attorney Noel: If I may just put something on the record,just so it
is clear, I was moving or asking for a Continuance only based on if the Attorney was not
going to waive the Notice issue that they were raising. Since he has agreed—his client
has agreed to waive that Notice issue, I am not asking this Board for a Continuance.
And I do have a very brief argument that I want to bring before the Board before they
would rule on the motion to continue it.
Patrick White: We have a motion and a Second under discussion, Mr.Noell.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: Okay.
(Note: It was pointed out that no one offered a Second in support of Mr. White's
motion.)
Patrick White: I apologize. It's my misunderstanding—I thought I heard a Second.
But I think we have a procedural question that—although the Board may have some
opinion on it—I think the practice of the County is what was inquired about and what
lawful duty the Staff may have—similar to an Administrative Complaint where a
violation is found especially for a General Contractor where we have a duty to report it
up the chain to the DBPR/CILB ("Construction Industry Licensing Board"). I'd be
interested because I don't know the answer.
Richard Joslin: I think we have another issue—the Attorney has asked for a non-
continuance ...
Patrick White: I withdraw my motion.
Richard Joslin: So that's gone. And now the Defendant has agreed to possibly pay the
fine.
Matthew Nohow But he needs an answer to the question.
Richard Joslin: Correct ... which goes to our Board's Attorney to give us that answer.
Patrick White: Can we get there,please?
Richard Joslin: Yes—one step at a time.
Attorney Schenck: For licensed contractors, I can't tell you off the top of my head
whether that is reportable. And I don't know, Kevin, if you can add to that. But I
believe I'll find it in the next two to three minutes.
Richard Joslin: Would that go into a database someplace where someone who was
trying to achieve a license somewhere down the road?
Patrick White: He'd be required to report it if a subsequent application was made
either to us or to the CILB.
Richard Joslin: Okay.
Attorney Schenck: Yes,there are reporting requirements when there is a disciplinary
action locally-licensed contractors or state-certified contractors.
Patrick White: The question was ...
Attorney Schenck: I know, and that's ... I believe there may be some reporting, but I
can't tell you off the top of my head.
34
January 17,2018
Peter Fisher: And just to be ... why I'm asking is because we don't want to take up any
more of the Board's time. However, Mr. Grillo is sitting for an exam with the State
tomorrow. If a Continuance is in his best interests to comply and then come back and
re-argue this,then he will do that. If there is not going to be any ramifications, then
Mister Grillo, again, does not want to take up any more of the Board's time. Then we
would agree to waive the Notice and allow a decision to be made here based upon the
arguments presented.
Patrick White: Would it make sense, Mr. Chairman,to allow our Board's Attorney
and Staff an opportunity to further research this during a brief recess?
Chairman Boyd: We could take a five-minute break.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: And if I could ...just as far as the County's
position, I certainly don't want to be in the position where I'm legally advising his client
on ramifications on a Board action.
Patrick White: I think the question about what prior practice has been and if there were
no lawful mandate to report as there is for al G.C., and the County would stipulate that it
has no intention to so,then the Respondent—the Citation holder—is in the position of
having to make the decision about a Request for a Continuance solely on the idea of
what reporting requirements they would have for a pending application or a future
application.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: I'm in absolute agreement, I think, as far as
resolution and moving in that way. I am 100% onboard. I'm just not comfortable
advising him as to what ...
Patrick White: I never expected you to ...
Assistant County Attorney Noell: his decision. Thank you.
Richard Joslin: How about ten minutes for them to figure this out.
Chairman Boyd: We'll take a ten-minute break and back at 11:02 AM.
Patrick White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
RECESSED: 10:52 AM
RECONVENED: 11: 03 AM
(The Board's Meeting resumed.)
Everildo Ybaceta,Licensing Office Supervisor: Now as to the question that was
posed as to whether the Administrative Complaints go to the State: yes, they do. And
the State also frequently asks for information on Citations that we do issue. And, on
occasion,they want copies of those Citations.
Chairman Boyd: Is that for County-licensed contractors or just state-certified?
Everildo Ybaceta: For both, yes.
Richard Joslin: Okay but what if he is unlicensed?
Everildo Ybaceta: They ask for all the Citations.
Richard Joslin: By email?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes.
Attorney Fisher: In light of that then, my client is not willing to waive the Notice
requirement and we would request a Continuance. We are going to correct any lingering
35
January 17,2018
issues with the advertising. You did mention that you wanted to hear testimony from
Ms. Ladi March in-person at the next Hearing. I can tell you, and Mr. Grillo can testify,
that she's a ... she has three children and one of them is disabled. If there is any possible
way—if there are specific questions that you would like to submit in advance and she
can do those under oath or be present by telephone and swear her in under oath, it would
be very much appreciated if that could be done.
Richard Joslin: Okay. Just to clarify though, we have now ... you have asked for a
Continuance.
Peter Fisher: That is correct.
Richard Joslin: Staff— Staff attorney?
Assistant County Attorney Noell: I have no objection to it based on the issue on the
Citation. And just to be clear for the record, if it is continued, we are proceeding on the
October 1, 2017 proposal and bid that was submitted on behalf of the company, Gold
Coast Roofing.
Terry Jerulle: And just to be clear in my mind—and I'm asking our Attorney—there is
no rule that says we must abate if they do come into compliance—correct?
Attorney Schenck: That is correct.
Terry Jerulle: I just want to make sure that you know that just because you come into
compliance and come back here, doesn't mean we have to say, "Okay, we're going to
abate the fine."
Peter Fisher: I completely understand. Obviously, if I don't think it's something we
can do, we would certainly want some assurance that you would—that's the reason why
we are moving ...
Terry Jerulle: And I'm tell you we ...
Peter Fisher: Absolutely cannot. I understand it's at your discretion, however, again
we came in and saw this for the first time. We are addressing it—I haven't spoken with
Ms. March about it—I am only dealing with my client today. So, we're not-because of
the reporting requirement and because of the nature of the fine, we are not waiving the
Notice requirement and are requesting a Continuance.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: So I understand what you said: there's no
Continuance being requested based on any assurance from the Board on what may or
may not take place in the future.
Patrick White: There is no way that I could pre-determine my vote.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: Right. And I just want to make sure the Attorney
understood that.
Peter Fisher: No, I understand. Obviously, we are doing this in the hope that the
Board will be sympathetic after these things are taken care of, but I understand you can't
make a pre-determination sitting here today.
Matthew Nolton asked Investigator Nourse if Mr. Grillo had not seen a copy of the
Citation, which was in the packet, before today. Investigator Nourse replied Mr. Grillo
had signed the for the certified mail on November 6, 2016.
Vice Chairman Lantz clarified that Mr. Grillo had not seen the contract and proposal
dated October 1, 2016.
Peter Fisher: Right. Correct.
Terry Jerulle questioned how Mr. Grillo could not have seen a contract from his own
company.
36
January 17,2018
Matthew Nolton: The point is, the Citation clearly states,"160 Muirfield Circle,"and
if I had gotten a copy of the Citation, I would have looked to see what the Citation was
for and not have assumed it was for another address.
Chairman Boyd: We have a Request for a Continuance.
Patrick White: Correct and to Mr.Nolton's point,the distinction is between the
temporal occurrence of the violation on the 24th and the location. He may have known
the location, but it doesn't mean that he knew the County was going to bring up the
argument about what took place prior to the 24th
Terry Jerulle: I think the testimony was that he didn't know the location earlier.
Patrick White: And so ...
Peter Fisher: The testimony was that he had never seen the document. All he received
was ...
Terry Jerulle: That's funny because he thought it was for a different address for the
truck sign.
Steven Grillo: That's what I was told by the driver of...
Terry Jerulle: But that's not what the Citation said. That's what we're saying.
Peter Fisher: It's looks kind of blurred out—I understand but it looks like it could be
"100." And, yes,then all he received was a write-up, "unlicensed roofing contracting,"
which doesn't mention a contract or the ...
Steven Grillo: I have a question for Mr.Nourse, if I may. Why was I provided a
Citation on almost the same exact date that I was found in the driveway? Why wasn't I
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman, I think we are well past that. If it's something that ...
Chairman Boyd: I thought we had a Request for a Continuance.
Patrick White: We do and ...
Chairman Boyd: And that's where I'd like to move.
Patrick White: This points out the complicating aspect of contesting a Citation in the
instance where it may have been more appropriate to have been brought in as an
Administrative Complaint. It still could bel an Administrative Complaint. In any event,
I'm prepared to make a motion.
Patrick White moved to approve granting the Request for a Continuance and to
continue the matter until the next Board meeting for a full review. Vice Chairman
Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
• Terry Jerulle asked if the Board had the authority to increase the fine.
• Richard Joslin: It's going to be a full-blown case.
• Patrick White: Certainly, based on what we may hear further.
• Attorney Schenck: That is correct. For a contested Citation, if you find him to
be in violation,there is a process by which you could impose a higher fine.
• Terry Jerulle: A higher fine—so we could increase it.
• Peter Fischer: Between now and the Board's next meeting, if Mr. Grillo
changes his mind and wishes to pay the Citation, he can do that—correct?
• The reply was: "At any time."
37
January 17,2018
• Steven Grillo asked for clarification that the only thing the Board wanted to see
changed was the website. He asked what else would be expected of BrinMar
since it was now in compliance. He was told the Board could not give legal
advice.
• Assistant County Attorney Noelle asked to amend the Citation to change the
date to October 1, 2017 as the date of the violation. The violation will be for the
bid proposal and contracting.
• Patrick White: That's unprecedented. I think if we continue this, we will
consider the County's position at the Continuance.
• Peter Fisher requested a new Citation and the deliverance of a packet. He
wanted to be presented with all the information—officially—before the next
Board meeting. He asked if there was going to be additional testimony by other
persons, that he know in advance who they were, from an evidentiary standpoint,
so it would not be "trial by ambush."
• Assistant County Attorney confirmed the County would comply with the terms
of the Ordinance.
It was noted the next schedule meeting of the Board was February 21St
Patrick White clarified his motion, asking that the case be listed as a "Public
Hearing"on the Agenda. Everildo Ybaceta confirmed that it would.
Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion.
Motion carried, S— "Yes"/2— "No." Mr. Jerulle and Mr. Nolton were opposed.
It was noted the additional documentation provided by Attorney Fisher would be
provided to the County's Minutes and Records to include as part of the Minutes for the
meeting.
G. Pedro J. Licourt—Application to Qualify Second Entity
(Currently Qualifies: "PL Electrical Contractor,LLC."
Second Entity: "Allstate Mechanical of SWFL,LLC.")
Chairman Boyd requested the Applicant provide information concerning his request to
qualify a Second Entity.
Mr. Licourt indicated he needed the assistance of a translator who accompanied him.
He stated he understands English, but has trouble expressing himself and feels more
comfortable with a translator.
The translator was sworn in.
Chairman Boyd noted the Applicant currently qualified PL Electrical Contractor, LLC.
Mr. Licourt is currently a Registered Electrical Contractor, License#ER13014605
There was a discussion amount the members concerning if the State was to be notified
of Mr. Licourt's application to qualify a Second Entity since he was a Registered
38
January 17,2018
Electrical Contractor. The question was should he have applied to the State initially, but
it was determined that he had to apply to Collier County as the first step. If approved,
the State would be notified.
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Applicant through his translator:
Q. What will you do for Allstate Mechanical of SW FL, LLC?
A. They worked together before. One does a/c and the other is electricity. They
wanted to come together since they have been working on the same condos and the
same houses. If the a/c needs an electrician, he will be the electrician. It is so the
HVAC can do the electrical under his supervision.
Q. Just the electrical related to a/c?
A. Yes.
Q. So, the mechanical company is not going to submit a bid to re-wire a house or a
condo?
A. They would be but under his permission and supervision.
(Richard Joslin) They could do it if the license was ...
A. Yes,yes, of course.
Q. So,theoretically, somebody could get a quote from PL Electrical Contractor to do
the wiring and then get a separate quote from Allstate Mechanical to the electrical
for the same place?
A. Yes,that's how it will be. PL Electric and then Allstate Mechanical.
Q. And are they going to be competing against each other?
A. No,no.
Q. That's not what I'm asking. Can somebody get a quote from PL Electric to do
electric work on a house and also a quote from Allstate Mechanical to do electric
work on a house?
A. They will not be competing, but he wants Allstate to do electric as well as a/c. They
will not submit a proposal to the same customer. It's either one of them. If it's a PL
Electric customer, it will be him. If it's an Allstate Mechanical customer, it will be
under Allstate Mechanical. They will not submit a proposal to the same customer at
the same time.
Q. But Allstate Mechanical might expand its business to add full electric service as part
of their business?
A. Yes, but not to PL Electrical's customers unless Pedro authorizes it.
Q. How many employees does Allstate Mechanical have and how many employees
does PL Electrical have?
A. PL Electric has four employees and a partner for a total of 5. Allstate Mechanical
has three working vans, but he does not know how many employees.
Q. So,you want to be responsible for the company,but you do not know how many
employees they have?
A. He is just starting with this ... once he has the license to qualify Allstate Mechanical,
then they will talk about how many employees and how many more he will hire to
do electrical.
Q. Who is going to do the electrical work—current employees of Allstate or will they
hire ...
39
January 17,2018
A. Allstate will hire employees to do electrical work. In the meantime, PL Electrical
will do the work until Allstate hires, but it will definitely be under PL Electrical.
Q. Allstate will essentially be subbing work out to PL Electrical until they get
electricians established?
A. Yes.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. What is your responsibility with Allstate Mechanical going to be?
A. He will be responsible for electrical work in general; he will supervise all work
being done by Allstate Mechanical; pricing; accounting; paperwork;permits—he
will be responsible for everything on the electrical side.
Q. 'What is his title at Allstate Mechanical?
A. He will be the Electrical Qualifier.
Q. What percentage of the company does he own?
A. It will be a 50-50% commission on the work that he will be doing under his license
but if he is doing the job for Allstate, he will receive a higher commission.
Richard Joslin:
Q. He doesn't own a percentage of Allstate?
A. No.
Q. You said after they get going, he will receive a salary?
A. After Allstate Mechanical begins doing electrical work—steady—then he will have a
salary.
Q. But he will still have a percentage of interest in the company?
A. Yes. But it will be after Allstate "settles down"with electrical work.
Vice Chairman Lantz:
Q. Right now, does he own any part of Allstate Mechanical?
A. No.
Q. No—no ownership in Allstate?
A. No.
Q. How about PL Electrical? Do you have a partner?
A. Yes.
Q. So how much do you own?
A. 50/50 in PL Electric, and zero in Allstate Mechanical.
Q. Is there an intention for you to start owing part of Allstate Mechanical in the future?
A. His future intention is to have a lot of work with Allstate Mechanical, so he doesn't
have to do any more work, and make a lot of money because he doesn't have the
health to keep working.
Q. On Page 11 of the application, it says, "What percentage of ownership do you have
in the present business you qualify, and what percentage of ownership will you have
in the business you are attempting to qual ?" He answered: "I currently have
100% of my present business and have 51% ownership in Allstate Mechanical of
SW FL, Inc." But he just told me is he has zero percent ownership in Allstate.
A. As of right now, he doesn't have any because Allstate doesn't have the electrical
license. Once Allstate has the electrical license, he will have a 51% ownership.
40
January 17,2018
Q. Instantaneously or later on down the line?
A. No, automatically—once the license is set, that's how it's going to be.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. He also answered he owns 100% of his current business but he testified that he only
has 50%.
A. He was confused. He gave his partner 50%because he cannot do all the work by
himself.
Vice Chairman Lantz:
Q. Do you work full-time right now for PL Electrical?
A. (Applicant did not speak into the microphone to reply.)
Q. So, you're not in the field—you're more jobsite supervision—you are ordering
permits and stuff like that?
A. (Applicant did not speak into the microphone to reply.)
Q. And are those the same tasks that you will be doing for Allstate Mechanical?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you be able to do both jobs simultaneously?
A. (Applicant did not speak into the microphone to reply.)
Q. I'm not saying you can't, but I know my company is really busy and it requires a lot
of time from me. It would be very difficult for me to take on additional work and
maybe even more difficult for me to take on additional work on a different company
because then there's a lot more confusion. That's why I'm asking you—because it is
not just adding on more work—it's adding on more work and a whole lot more
bureaucracy because you have to it two different ways.
A. (Applicant did not speak into the microphone to reply.)
Richard Joslin:
Q. Let's look at your credit report. On Page 18,there is a public record of a bankruptcy
that was filed in March of 2013.
A. It was a personal bankruptcy for his wife and himself
(Note: The answer to this question was found on Page 5, Question 5 of the application.)
Patrick White:
Q. What is the status of the bankruptcy today?
A. (Applicant did not speak into the microphone to reply.)
Q. Can you share with us how much you still owe?
A. (Applicant did not speak into the microphone to reply.)
Q. Your testimony is that you are current on the requirements that the Bankruptcy Court
imposed and that it will wrap-up in April 2018?
A. (Translator) Yes.
Terry Jerulle directed his question to Staff:
Q. Have you looked at Allstate Mechanical's history concerning fines?
A. (Everildo Ybaceta)No, sir.
Q. We don't know what type of company it is?
41
January 17,2018
A. No, sir.
Chairman Boyd: I think they are state-certified.
Terry Jerulle: I was just curious to see if the County knew if they had been fined in the
County before.
Richard Joslin:
Q. I have some reservations about your application only because of your testimony so
far. You want to qualify this company, but you really don't know how you are going
to do it yet. You don't know the number of people who are working for you. I think
I understand how you want to do it-with the a/c and the electrical together.
Normally when someone comes before us wanting to qualify similar companies,
they have a business plan put together on how they will do it. Call it putting your
ducks in a row so you know what you're going to do and how you're going to do it,
the kind of contract you will have been the two entities so there is no confusion.
You stated you have a 100%ownership of your company on the application, but you
only have 50% and you have no ownership in Allstate. I can't imagine why you
would put your license on the line and not have some type of control. Part of our
requirements is that you have control because it will follow you throughout the rest
of the business.
A. He has known the owner of Allstate Mechanical for a long time and they have done
work together. He trusts Jose Nunez with this.
Q. Well, money separates a lot of people. Business separates people. I think in your
own interests, it would be better to try to put together a contractual agreement that
spells things out so that, should something happen down the road, you will have an
interest for what you put into it.
A. They will have it but since Allstate doesn't have the license, then ...
Q. They don't need a license to come before us and tell us what they're going to do or
what their plan is.
A. That's the plan for the beginning—he will get the license and ...
Q. We would like to see a plan put together rather than let you run off wild and hope
things work out. Do you understand?
A. Allstate has told PL Electrical—Jose to Pedro—that it has missed out on a lot of
electrical work in places where it did a/c. Allstate's G.C. has an electrical contractor
and Allstate doesn't do electrical, that's why Allstate has missed out on so much
work. Once Allstate and PL Electrical are partners, Allstate's G.C. will give Allstate
. electrical work and that's where Pedro will come in. Up until now, he didn't have
enough money to make his company bigger which is one of the options he has
considered.
Terry Jerulle:
Q. I can't speak for the Board but,personally, I would like to see is that you come back
with a corrected application and a plan to pay off creditors on your credit report, and
a business plan showing that he is going to be financially responsible for Allstate.
Mechanical and that he will have ownership at some point. Right now, we have your
42
January 17,2018
testimony which I am not disputing but it would be better to have something in
writing—not just to show us but for your own protection.
A. Okay.
Vice Chairman Lantz: This is a very big packet and I've searched for a credit report
for Allstate Mechanical. I found one for Pedro and one for PL Electrical. Do we have
one for Allstate? I think that is a requirement—to have a credit report on the second
entity. I don't know if you know what you're getting into, but I want to know what you
might be getting into—if he's getting into a company has financial problems?
Everildo Ybaceta: Allstate Mechanical's credit report is the last few pages of the
application(150 through 154).
(The proceedings paused while the Board members reviewed the credit report.)
Patrick White noted information had been provided for Allstate's business checking
accounts. He stated he did not see the attachment concerning the payment history of the
Bankruptcy. The application(Page 5, Question#5) stated the Chapter 13 payment
record was included, but it was not.
Pedro Licourt stated (through his translator)that he could probably obtain the
information—he has not seen it—but he was certain his attorney told him the
Bankruptcy would be over in April.
Chairman Boyd recommended to Mr. Licourt that he ask for a Continuance and return
next month with a corrected application and provide answers to the questions asked by
the members of the Board, including a written business plan and a schedule for payment
of debts.
Pedro Licourt agreed. He acknowledged he might have missed some items since he
had prepared the paperwork by himself.
Terry Jerulle stated the business plan should confirm Mr. Licourt's authority to write
checks from Allstate's accounts to pay vendors for supplies, etc. He reminded Mr.
Licourt he will be financially responsible for Allstate Mechanical in addition to his own
company, PL Electrical.
Richard Joslin moved to approve granting a Continuance to Pedro Licourt. The
Applicant will return at the Board's next meeting with a corrected application and will
provide a written business plan and schedule for payment of debts. Patrick White
offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7-0.
H. Will O. Hammond—Petition for Waiver of Examination
(d/b/a"Hammond DCB, Inc.")
Will Hammond provided the following information to the Board:
• He has been performing screen enclosures for the past 30 years;
• He is licensed in Broward County and applied for reciprocity in Collier County;
• When he initially took his exams,the Business/Law test result was not separated
from the trade test—he received a total score for both exams;
43
January 17,2018
• He was originally tested by the National Assessment Institute which was later
acquired by Prometric;
• Prometric does not retain records for exams given more than five years ago;
• He carries an aluminum specialty license, a concrete placing and finishing
license, and he is a state-certified Roofing Contractor;
• He took the Broward County exam for Roofing in 2001; his County license was
grandfathered into a state license approximately five years ago
Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Applicant:
Q. Have you been active in your trade in other counties.
A. In Broward County.
Q. Have you ever had a license in Collier County for anything?
A. No.
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. When did you get on the Agenda. When did you ask the County to come in front of
the Board?
A. I did this right after the hurricane. I basically put all the paperwork and mailed it.
They lost the paperwork in the beginning and they couldn't find records of it. I let a
couple months go by, and then I came back about a month ago and asked to go in
front of the Board, so I could explain the problem that I have. I have all these
licenses. I've been doing screen enclosures for 32 years—my father started the
business many years ago. I have no complaints on my license. Yeah, about a month
ago, I put in for my license.
Q. Mr. Hammond, I'll say this to you. I've said this to everybody who comes in front of
this Board and I'll say this to the next gentleman. Why don't you just go and take the
test? Since the hurricane, you've been trying to get licensed in Collier County? You
could have had three tests.
A. Yeah, I could have come down here to take the test, but I am busy doing work in
Broward.
Q. It took you how long to come here today and sit through all this—you could have
had the test. You could be out there working today.
A. That's correct. But I have so many licenses—I'm over-qualified as far as the roofing
license—even the National Institute ...
Q. It should be easy then.
A. Well, it's time consuming-you have to go back and get all the books, you've got to
study and you're talking two,three months more before I can get a license. I do
continuing education classes all the time for my roofing license—I have to—for over
32 years.
Q. Lots of licensed contractors have taken the test. I don't like waiving subcontractors
from taking the test. I took the test and the subs that I work with have taken the test.
You're asking for us to ...
A. I'm not really asking ... what I'm presenting was basically I gave everything to the
County to reciprocate the license ... in Palm Beach ... most of the counties all
reciprocate the license and there's just that little glitch because at that time, you
know,twenty—thirty years ago, I took the test and they didn't have them separated
44
January 17,2018
... the business ... that was the basic... the only problem. I didn't think there was a
big problem with that. It's many, many years since I've taken the test and
everything ... I'm much older now and it's going to take a little longer for me to
study and it's just a matter of time ... and most of my business is in Broward County.
But I have some friends and family here and I'm trying to help them out ... basically,
put some temporary fences around their yards so they have the safety and
everything. So,right now, I'm just trying to help some friends out and I have a
brother who lives over here as well. After I get back in, I'll have to pull the permits
and get the inspections and whatever is properly needed. So that's what I'm
basically doing. I wasn't coming over here and work for many, many years ... I'm
just trying to help out a little bit. You know, to take the whole test and everything
just for three or four jobs that I'm just trying to get done. I'm sure I'll get a few
more out of here but I'm not going to be ...
Q. We can give you a temporary license,then.
A. Well,I don't know if I need a temporary license but if you want ... I'm just trying to
help some people out ... you know, I could probably get enough work here for five or
six months.
Matthew Nolton questioned the Applicant:
Q. Mr. Hammond,you've been in business in Broward ....
A. Yes, sir.
Q. ... and you have been for ten plus years.
A. Yes.
Q. How many projects a year do you do, roughly?
A. How many projects? I usually do probably about $800,000 a year.
Q. And in those last ten years, have you had any issues? Any fights with your
customers? Any issues that have come up that you've had to deal with?
A. No. We've been doing this for thirty years ... you're going to have little complaints
here and there with some customers but it's not going to be, you know, that I didn't
straighten something out or not get a final inspection. I am the Qualifier, so I
basically make sure that everybody gets a final inspection and the jobs will be, you
know, completed. So I basically, you know, stay on top of my guys.
Richard Joslin: Any violations or Citations in Broward County?
A. No, sir.
Terry Jerulle(directed his question to Staff): Why is he up here?
Everildo Ybaceta: Because I do not have a Business and Law test score.
Patrick White: And you're not allowed—you do not have the discretion to ...
Terry Jerulle: To issue unless you have the score?
Patrick White: ...consider the prior exams that included Business and Law as part of
his passing score in the other jurisdiction. If he doesn't not have the authorization and
discretion to approve, he had to send it to us.
Matthew Nolton: To clarify the question that Mr. Jerulle asked, he did take the test—it
was just a long time ago and it was an all-inclusive test.
Patrick White: That's exactly the same point.
45
January 17,2018
Richard Joslin: I can verify that for the Board members—because I took my test in
1982 and, at that time, it was one test and everything on it was included in everything
that you took. It was broken down into different segments, but the Business and Law
and the mechanical were all in the same test.
Terry Jerulle: Does the County have a recommendation?
Patrick White: Do you have an objection?
Everildo Ybaceta: I accept the Board's better judgment.
Chairman Boyd: I will say that since he is a state-certified Roofing Contractor,he does
renew his license every two years with fourteen hours of continuing education. It's not
like he took the test in 2002 and hasn't done anything since.
Vice Chairman Lantz moved to approve the Applicant's request to Waive taking the
Business and Law exam. Matthew Nolton offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
I. Mark Smith—Application for Reinstatement; Petition for Waiver of Exam, and
Review of Credit
(d/b/a "Alamar Aluminum Systems,Inc.")
Chairman Boyd asked Mr. Smith to provide background information to the Board.
Mark Smith stated:
• He has been a licensed Aluminum and Concrete Contractor since 2005;
• He is currently licensed in Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Pinellas
Counties;
• Since 2006, he has been active in all those counties;
• After Hurricane Charley, he came to Collier County work—under his father's
company --from Charlotte County and replaced 130 pool cages;
• He obtained his license and took over his father's company after he became ill;
• He left the area and did not take the County test because he didn't think he would
be returning to Collier County.
• His customers in Charlotte asked if he could help their family members on
Marco Island after Hurricane Wilma;
• He obtained a reciprocal license and worked locally in 2008 and 2009;
•` He did not realize he had to keep making yearly payments—he thought he would
only need to pay a renewal fee that next time he came to Collier County to pull a
permit;
• If he had known, he would have been the fee every year;
• He has no debt—pays C.O.D. for everything;
• Has been in the area doing non-permitted work and sold about eight jobs before
he realized he needed to come before the Board to renew his license;
• He has deposits from customers in the bank—if his license is not renewed, they
will receive refunds;
• Has never had a complaint about mis-managing customers' money;
• Has run his father's company since 1983 and started his own company in 2008;
46
January 17,2018
• Due to a dog bite on his wrist, he was unable to work for five years—had four
surgeries on his wrist;
• He is getting back on his feet but kept his licenses current during the entire
period that he was unable to work;
• His licenses in Hillsborough, Pasco, Hernando, and Pinellas Counties are up to
date and have not lapsed;
• During his recovery, he obtained his Bachelor's Degree - Education (St.
Petersburg College—2014); teaching does not pay enough;
• He has been cleared by his physician to return to work;
• He reiterated he did not pay the renewal fees in Collier County because he didn't
think it was necessary when he wasn't working in the area and did not think he
would be back in Collier County again.
• When he was licensed and working in Collier County previously, he did 16 pool
cages. When the next storm came through, none of his cages came down and
none of his screens fell out. We build them to last. That's the way we do things
regardless of where we are working.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I have a question for Staff. If this gentleman never had a
Collier County license in his life and he was applying just for reciprocity with the
credentials that he's given being licensed in other counties,would he have a license right
now?
Everildo Ybaceta: The question that I have about his application is actually ... his
credit check.
Terry Jerulle: Because of his credit report?
Everildo Ybaceta: I don't have ... this is something I don't have an answer to ... how
he comes up with"insufficient credit." If he has had business dealings—he's moving
money back and forth.
Mark Smith: Moving money back and forth for what?
Everildo Ybaceta: For the business.
Mark Smith: My business money is my business money, and my personal money is
mine. I have over$80,000 in my business account. As far as my personal credit—as I
told you before—I was injured and then went back to college, and I have to pay back
$725 a month on my student loan but that wasn't happening. I took the crunch on that
on my credit report. When I was bitten by the dog, I didn't work for five years and lost
my home four years ago to foreclosure. I received a settlement, I paid $87,000 in
medical bills, and I bought a house that is paid for—that all happened 18 months ago. I
have two VISA cards—personal—that I charge every month and I pay them off every
month. I'm trying to re-establish my personal credit. My business credit—other than
my company credit cards—I don't owe my suppliers anything. I pay my credit card bills
and I don't owe anybody a dime.
Vice Chairman Lantz: But he has insufficient credit—no credit—as opposed to bad
credit?
Everildo Ybaceta: Correct.
Mark Smith: I gave you my bank statements in there [the application packet] on my
business.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I don't think that's a bad thing.
47
January 17,2018
Everildo Ybaceta: With insufficient credit—when I don't have a credit score—I must
bring it before the Board.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I don't think anyone is complaining about it. I don't think
that's the issue at all. You're not authorized, you know, you don't have the power to do
it. But from my perspective, looking at it, insufficient credit is not a bad thing for me.
Terry Jerulle: Mr. Smith, when did you get on the Agenda?
Mark Smith: When I went to pull a permit, I found out they were not going to renew
my license. I talked to Deborah and she said to fill out an application—sent it overnight
mail on December 17th—I called her on January 2nd and she said she didn't know where
it was but then she found it. I didn't know I was coming here until 3:30 yesterday. So, I
came down. I live in Pinellas County-we drive down here and do the job—we're
stymied. If I don't get my license,then we won't move down here. We have two years
in Charlotte and go home on the weekends. I'll either move forward with this or just
pack up my tools and go home. We plan to stay for at least another year and we want to
live in the area where we are working—it makes the customers feel better. It's not like
I'm just driving in here and then running out. It was the same thing when we worked in
Charlotte. We lived in Charlotte for two years.
Terry Jerulle: Is that the reason why you haven't taken the test?
Mark Smith: No, I took the test.
Vice Chairman Lantz: He did very well—got an 86 in Business/Law ...
Mark Smith: Yes, I took the test in January.
Terry Jerulle: Excuse me ... in Pinellas County.
Vice Chairman Lantz: I'll make a motion.
Vice Chairman Lantz moved to approve granting the Applicant's request to reinstate
his license. Patrick White offered a Second in support stating the exam requirement
is waived and the credit is approved.
Motion carried, S— "Yes"/2— "No." Mr. Jerulle and Mr. Joslin were opposed.
Terry Jerulle commended Mr. Smith for taking the exam before the meeting.
Patrick White cautioned him that the County could have issued Citations because he
took deposits before he was licensed in Collier County.
Richard Joslin: You took deposits.
Patrick White continued, "You took the money -- your own testimony would have
convicted you." He further stated the Board's job was to gain compliance and have
lawful activities take place by contractors—to keep a level playing field—and to protect
the consumers. "I applaud you for coming in and doing so."
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
• Patrick White requested of Staff where they have the opportunity—as in
circumstances like the Grillo matter—to consider bringing a matter as an
Administrative Complaint. It allows for a formal, in-depth consideration of the
matter and affords the Board to have a more well-developed set of facts both from
the County's side as well as the argument that was made by the attorney, Mr. Fisher,
today, i.e.,the due process argument. I think it puts the County in a better position
48
January 17, 2018
overall concerning the posture of the case and how it is presented to the Board, and
for any potential for appeal that may go against the County.
• Vice Chairman Lantz: Do you want everybody who is contesting a Citation to
now become a ...
• Patrick White: No, no, no. I'm simply saying that in a particular—in the post-Irma
cases where it seems there is a bit of a pattern forming with roofing contractors or
roofing cases in particular—that there just be perhaps some additional consideration
both as to the type of enforcement action and the type of disciplinary process that is
used.
• Richard Joslin: This was a situation where there was a Citation issued and that
started it, but it turned into something more drastic ...
• Patrick White: And I think the same thing happened last month to some degree as
well.
X. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Case#2018-01: Board of County Commissioners vs. Jon Mohrbacher,
Respondent, d/b/a "Jon Glenn Mohrbacher."
Richard Joslin disclosed that he knows Jon Mohrbacher who has done solar
installations for him but not in the past ten years. Mr. Joslin stated the relationship
would not affect his objectivity concerning the case.
Chairman Boyd noted that Mr. Mohrbacher was not present for the Hearing.
Karen Clements, Licensing Compliance Officer, stated Mr. Mohrbacher underwent
surgery on December 28th at Tampa General Hospital. Notice was sent via certified mail
to Mr. Mohrbacher. USPS provided confirmation of delivery of the Notice sent by the
County,but Mrs. Mohrbacher called the Licensing Office yesterday stating they had not
received the information packet. He husband has had several surgeries and is still
hospitalized. She said she received the packet and asked if she should come down to be
present, but we weren't sure that she would be heard.
Richard Joslin moved to approve placing the information packet for Case #2018-01:
Board of County Commissioners vs. Jon Mohrbacher,Respondent, d/b/a "Jon Glenn
Mohrbacher"into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Terry Jerulle offered a Second
in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
Karen Clements: She asked what she should do.
Richard Joslin: What does staff recommend?
Chairman Boyd: Were they aware this was a Public Hearing and not just contested
permits?
Karen Clements: They did renew them at one point, and then never did anything.
When I called to let her know they were going to be expiring,she never answered the
phone. After I sent the notice that we were going to have this Hearing, she called and
said that we never called concerning the inspections. The County does call for
49
January 17,2018
inspections—that's the Contractor. But there were other circumstances—they had lost
the master plans; this has been going on since 2016.
Patrick White: I understand the County's position and the desire to move this to an
outcome. Given what we've heard, and the unavailability of the Respondent, I will
repeat the question of another Board member: Is the County asking for a Continuance
or does it desire to have the case prosecuted today? I am not sure of the posture. Would
there be any objection to a Continuance?
Everildo Ybaceta: We could do a one-time Continuance?
Patrick White: And I think the goal is—not so much due to the gentleman's medical
condition—but rather the statement on the record that they only just received the
County's evidence packet. From a procedural due process prospective, I don't know if it
needs to be re-sent in a way that there's confirmation of receipt but the idea is to be able
to have testimony that they received it, they knew what the charges were, knew what the
County's evidence was going to be, and we're in a position to be able to defend it and
not need to be heard and, so, from my perspective, it's the reason why I'm going to
make a motion.
Patrick White moved to approve granting a Continuance to Case #2018-01 to the next
Board meeting. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Discussion:
Karen Clements: If he is not available then, are we going to move it?
Patrick White: I would leave that to the discretion of the County and the Continuance
could be open-ended in that regard. I don't know that I'm comfortable making a motion
for an indefinite Continuance, but—on the other hand-if the County has no objection, I
will amend my motion.
Patrick White moved to amend his motion to grant an indefinite Continuance to Case
#2018-01 to be brought back before the Board at the County's discretion.
Karen Clements: I did check on both solar panels after the Hurricane and they were
still on both roofs.
Terry Jerulle: We are going to continue this as a Public Hearing—correct? Earlier we
voted to move it from"New Business"into a"Public Hearing?"
Patrick White asked if Mr. Jerulle, who made the Second, agreed to an indefinite
Continuance, without objection from the County.
Terry Jerulle: Is the homeowner being harmed currently—is it going to make things
worse for the homeowner by delaying this?
Karen Clements: If they do not get this inspected,the homeowner will need to get
another contractor to get a permit to get it inspected.
Terry Jerulle: Okay but they don't need this to get another contractor. Correct?
Everildo Ybaceta: Potentially if they do want to sell the residence, it may do some
harm to them. Because it is an open permit, title companies and banks are checking
these ...
Patrick White: Judiciously.
Everildo Ybaceta: ... yes.
50
January 17,2018
Terry Jerulle: It is an open permit—I thought the permit had expired.
Everildo Ybaceta: Until it expires, it's basically an open permit on the property, it just
hasn't been ...
Patrick White: If a request is made to the County for a report of Code enforcement
violations, it will show up. The report will give details as to what is necessary to correct
the violations. My experience has been that it only becomes an issue if someone is in
the middle of a sale. Should the motion be approved to grant an indefinite Continuance
at the County's discretion,the County would look at bringing it back so there wouldn't
be harm to the homeowner. Is a sale pending.
Karen Clements: It was sold in 2012.
Everildo Ybaceta: Jonathan Walsh, the Building Official is here, and I know that this
is continued but we have two cases ... and I don't know that you can hear this ... if you
want to know what the County is doing about the applied permits, in general.
Patrick White: As a point of order, assuming the Second agrees with the amendment to
the motion for it to be indefinite and to appear as an Administrative Complaint in a
Public Hearing when it re-appears. Is that okay?
Terry Jerulle: Just to make sure, what would the difference be to the homeowner if we
voted today—if we held the Public Hearing today as opposed to not having the Public
Hearing today? What would the difference be to the homeowner?
Patrick White: I would expand the question to ask what would the difference be to the
homeowner if we were to find the Respondent in violation and impose a set of sanctions
and penalties? The homeowner is still in the same circumstance—if the contractor
cannot or does not come back and re-open the permit, get the necessary inspections and
close it out, the homeowner is in essentially the same circumstance. The difference is—
it would then put the contractor in a more negative position relative to what he must do
to put the homeowner in a better circumstance. If you agree to the amendment of the
motion as a Second,then I think we can move forward.
Terry Jerulle: Yes.
Patrick White: Thank you.
Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the amended motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
Comment from Jonathan Walsh:
• Once a permit is expired, we would run a report and once that permit comes up
on the report, a warning letter will be issued, and thirty days will be allowed to
address the permit issue. Then it will go to a"void" status—while there may be
some extenuating circumstances,but in most instances, it's considered to be a re-
application.
• In this case, there are two open inspections left on the permit,but the owner will
be the one responsible for it due to changes in the Statutes.
• Richard Joslin asked if the homeowner could apply for a permit as an
owner/builder to speed up the process?
• Reply: If the contractor is removed from the permit or no longer has a license, it
becomes a Code case and Code Enforcement would go after the homeowner
unless the homeowner fires the contractor,takes over as an owner/builder, hires a
51
January 17,2018
new contractor, applies to extend the permit, and then has the inspection
performed.
• Patrick White pointed out there are fees associated with the applications. So, in
a case like this, in lieu of prosecution, would there be an opportunity to have a
conversation with a contractor who, because he/she is unable to do the work,
may be willing to pay for fees and pay for someone to process the applications
that were necessary, then the owner could call for the inspections to close out the
permits on the owner's behalf. If the contractor is willing to cover the costs ...
• Mr. Walsh: In any case, the contractor has the right to extend a permit and most
times just schedules the inspection through the homeowner or through us to get
the final approval because, in theory, all the work has been done. In most cases,
there are either fees that must be paid or a condition that has to be resolved, some
sort of certification before the final inspection. For the most part, we work with
the homeowners as best as we can if there is a pending sale.
• There was further discussion concerning what a homeowner could do if a
contractor was unable to complete the work on a project. A homeowner could
take over as an owner/builder if he/she fired the original contractor and
documentation was provided to the County ("Change of Contractor").
Additional fees would be involved. It was agreed it would be simpler if the
original contractor completed the work and obtained the final inspection, but the
County had a process to allow the homeowner to take over when necessary. It
was time-consuming, but possible,
Chairman Boyd noted that Tom Davis from Gulf Coast Aluminum had not yet arrived.
Richard Joslin stated he brought up the subject of re-screening and who was doing
them during a previous meeting. He was told the County would look into it. He stated
he thought that re-screenings fell under the same criteria as screen repairs. Some of the
enclosures that were built are two to three stories high. To roll in a screen does not
require a permit or a license. If someone is up on a three-story enclosure and falls to his
death, who is responsible? Whose insurance will pay?
Terry Jerulle noted the situation had nothing to do with a permit.
Richard Joslin agreed it was not a permitted item. Homeowners are allowing an
unlicensed individual to come onto their property to roll in screens on a three-story
enclosure—the structure is not being changed—but if something happens at that
property ...
Terry Jerulle: If they are not licensed,typically, they do not have insurance ...
Richard Joslin: Exactly.
Terry Jerulle: If they don't have insurance, it usually falls upon the homeowner ...
Richard Joslin: The County is doing the public an injustice by not requiring a permit
or a license so that there would be insurance.
Terry Jerulle: The other part of this is the type of screening that is used. A screened
enclosure may be designed for a certain wind load and by changing the type of screen,
the structure may no longer be compliant.
Patrick White: This is a discussion that I remember this Board raising and there was
someone who we were anticipating hearing from, and we may have had a presentation.
My understanding was the County was going to consider the issue. I guess we are at the
52
January 17,2018
point where, regardless of whether Mr. Davis is here or not, we could renew that request
and potentially ask for a recommendation on a Code change to develop a license for re-
screening? Or to modify the Scope of Work of some existing license?
Vice Chairman Lantz: As of now, a handyman can do it—correct?
Richard Joslin: Anybody can do it. There's no criteria.
Everildo Ybaceta: Are you requesting a specialty license for re-screening or to look
into the issue?
Richard Joslin: Yes.
Patrick White: And in particular,the necessity for re-engineering and modification of
existing enclosures and cages where the type of screen may be different than what was
originally available in the market and was installed. Most of the people I know whose
cages survived, took the advice of screen contractors who said to just cut them before
the storm because it cost less to replace the screens than the entire cage. You could
almost wait until you were ready to leave town to spend the time to ...
Terry Jerulle: I am not sure we are asking for a specialty license as much as we are
asking for it to be permitted work.
Everildo Ybaceta: Permitted work?
Terry Jerulle: Correct.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Or fall under the scope of an aluminum contractor ...
Terry Jerulle: Just because I have a license to re-screen doesn't mean I will put in the
correct screen ...
Patrick White: I think that ...
Richard Joslin: They all should go together, I think. That the license or some type of
specialty under an Aluminum Contractor's license with a specialty only trade—and, as
Terry said, with a permit of some sort that lists what is there now and what he is going to
install, so the screens are the same. The guy should have an insurance policy so, if he
falls,the homeowner is not responsible.
Vice Chairman Lantz: Imagine how many screen enclosures are done—hurricanes
aside—yearly, daily here—and what a logistical nightmare. I hear people complain all
the time about the ridiculous fees they must pay—how they need a permit for
everything. Holy cow, can you imagine? I have a hole in my screen that used to cost
me $40 a panel to fix it and now I'll have to pay $100?
Matthew Nolton: There is a distinction there, isn't it—re-screening versus repair? You
must define what is a repair and what is re-screening. Just to replace one screen is not
what we are talking about—we are talking about re-screening the whole thing.
Terry Jerulle: Really, it's rescreening it with a different type of material.
Richard Joslin: What percentage of the screens is called a re-screen ...
Patrick White: Those are conversations that I would expect the County to have
internally and then to come back with a range of recommendations for us. I don't think
we're trying to direct the response to what has been identified as a problem. I think we
would all accept that there's an argument out there that the people who had screen re-
screened prior to Irma and they did it with an increased wind load—how many of those
enclosures would not have come down but for that re-screening? The enclosures may
have withstood—they were designed to. There are multiple considerations that should
be part of the County's dialogue and I think it will take at least a couple of months
before they come back to talk with us again.
53
January 17,2018
Matthew Nolton: That is something they can consider. I believe there are other
jurisdictions that do have permit requirements for re-screening—I'm not sure if they
have a different license or if they allow Aluminum Contractors to incorporate that work
in ._.
Patrick White: The point is to not re-invent the wheel.
Richard Joslin: I can't imagine why an Aluminum Contractor wouldn't be entitled to
do it because he has the license to do it. He can screen his aluminum structures. But
individuals who are not licensed Aluminum Contractors are doing that work now.
Terry Jerulle stated the concern was not the replacement of a few panels but when an
entire screen enclosure is re-screened with a"no-see-em" (smaller hole)type of screen,
the wind load on the structure could be changed.
Jonathan Walsh: From my experience, most screens were designed with a bigger
opening and have a safety factor built into them. Most homeowners don't know what's
in their screens—they will buy whatever is on the shelf and put it up. There is a concern
that if you are adding more than a 5% load to an existing structure but it's kind of hard
to dictate what requires a permit. You guys were discussing it. One panel would not but
would three panels? And now you have what are called"picture windows"—they are
20-foot openings—is that one panel? That could be more than 50%of your screens. It's
a grey area. Right now, any person can do it—they are looking for a license behind it.
It is a regulatory element. You must have at least some knowledge of what you're doing
—not just going to Home Depot,buying whatever, and sticking it up in a window. On
the inspection side of it, I don't know where I would start. It's not going to be easy.
Patrick White: I think you can put a lot of the onus -- if it becomes permitted—on
demonstrating ... similar to how windows and other kinds of penetration covers are
handled with types of compliance documents—testing.
Jonathan Walsh: Again,there are elements - that's an approved product for an
approved opening installed in a certain way.
Patrick White: It would be a structure designed to hold the load.
Jonathan Walsh: Yes.
Patrick White: I think there's two sides to this—there's the existing structures and the
new structures.
Jonathan Walsh: With all that I must analyze, it would be easy if I had the documents
from the old screen that was installed then I could compare it. But what about the ones
that I don't have a prior history for ... now I need an engineer to go in and analyze it.
Patrick White: And to your reminder about Wilma, I think what we're looking at is a
type of generational evolution in the regulation because one of the largest percentages of
damage that we've seen throughout the County was to these types of structures. I think
—generally speaking—a lot of the roofs and a lot of the walls,the penetrations—even
uncovered—withstood the substantial winds we had ...
Matthew Nolton: I would agree with that.
Patrick White: ... I think it's kind of generation over generation—we may be fortunate
to not have another storm like this for another twenty plus years.
Matthew Nolton: Screen enclosures are just really unique, from an engineering
standpoint. There are a million different screen enclosures out there, constructed a
million different ways and, depending on what the fasteners are, we're experiencing
brand-new systems that have failed and lawsuits associated with those right now. I
54
January 17,2018
don't know how you do that because you don't want to have to make them have an
engineer evaluate each one. Frankly, it's very difficult to do with the fasteners—were
the fasteners corroded or were they not? It would be complicated to be able to do that.
As an engineer, I don't want to do that—I don't want to be on the hook when the storm
comes through and it blows down and have you call me and say, "Hey—you said our
screen enclosure was okay!" Frankly the only way I'm going to do that is to have a
whole lot of bracing and a whole lot of stiffening and a whole lot of cables. So, I don't
know how you do that.
Jonathan Walsh: Again,these are also elements that are typically not insured or that
have a very high deductible associated with them.
Richard Joslin: Some of them have even backed off insuring them at all.
Matthew Nolton: Some of it comes down to-we live in Florida-we have hurricanes.
It doesn't matter too much how strong your enclosure is, if you're on the wrong side of
the lake—they all blew down.
Patrick White: Well, I think the goal is to have the discussion and come back with
whatever recommendations that may be appropriate to try to balance the public and
private considerations.
NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY,FEBRUARY 21,2018
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 12:50 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD
MIC " BoYD, airman
The Minutes were approved by the Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing Board on
2-1 ,2018, "as submitted" [ ] - OR- "as amended" [ ]
55