The URL can be used to link to this page

CLB Agenda 05/16/2018 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD AGENDA May 16, 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. MARCH 21, 2018 V. PUBLIC COMMENTS: A. VI. DISCUSSION: A. VII. REPORTS: A. VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. ORDERS OF THE BOARD IX. OLD BUSINESS: A. CASE: 2018-04-JEFFREY BUMPUS- FOLLOW UP ON MISCONDUCT OF A STATE CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR- EXPIRED PERMITS X. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. CASE: 2018-07-STEPHEN PURCIELLO-MISCONDUCT OF A STATE CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2018 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS 3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL 34112 March 21,2018 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD March 21, 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 Matthew Nolton Patrick White Excused: Robert Meister ALSO PRESENT: Everildo Ybaceta— Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Kevin Noell, Esq. —Assistant Collier County Attorney Jed Schenck, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Jonathan Walsh— Collier County Chief Building Official Karen Clements — Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer Reggie Smith—Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer 1 March 21,2018 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. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Michael Boyd opened the meeting at 9:00 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, CHANGES, OR DELETIONS: Changes: • Under VIII—"New Business," the County requested to Continue the following case: B. Robert Abney—Contesting Citations • Under X, "Public Hearings," the County Withdrew the following cases: D. Case#2018-05: Andrew Wood—Misconduct of a State-certified Contractor E. Case#2018-06: Douglas Francis—Misconduct of a State-certified Contractor Everildo Ybaceta, Contractors' Licensing Office Supervisor, noted Andrew Wood's case and Douglas Francis' case have been abated. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman Michael Boyd moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Vice Chairman Kyle Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—FEBRUARY 21,2018: Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the February 21, 2018 Meeting as submitted Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. V. PUBLIC COMMENT: (None) VI. DISCUSSION: • Vice Chairman Kyle Lantz noted the Agenda initially contained three cases against State-certified Contractors. He stated during the entire time that he has been a member of the Contractors' Licensing Board, there have been about three cases against State-certified Contractors. "The unwritten rule was since we won't get any money from them, let's not pursue them." He further stated he was very 2 March 21,2018 happy that the Contractors' Licensing Office was doing what was right and offered"kudos"to Staff. • Patrick White supported Mr. Lantz' statement: "When the rules are broken,the rules are broken." VII. REPORTS: (None) VIII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board: Richard Joslin moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. (Note: The individuals who testified in the following cases under Item VIII, "New Business,"were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) B. Robert Abney—Contesting Citations #11072, 11073 and 11074 (Note: Per Amended Agenda, this case was Continued to the next Board meeting.) C. Lance Miller—Application for Reinstatement of License and Waiver of Exams (Company: "Environmental Materials, LLC" d/b/a"Environmental StoneWorks") Lance Miller stated he was the Qualifier for Environmental StoneWorks but"they forgot to re-up and I forgot to re-up; we are re-applying ... it took us a little while to get the additional information together." He further stated he was moved to Florida to manage Environmental StoneWorks for Environmental Materials, LLC. Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant: Q. You were qualifying the company from out of state? A. At one point, yes, sir, I was. Q. When did you get your license originally? A. It as in 2010, I believe. Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Applicant: Q. You started off in Florida with a Hillsborough license? A. Yes, sir,that's correct. Q. Has that been active the entire time? A. It did lapse for a year as well. But after that, yes, sir, it has. Q. And when did you renew it—just recently? A. It was renewed two years ago. Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant: Q. StoneWorks is a Pennsylvania company? 3 March 21,2018 A. Actually, it's based out of Denver, Colorado. Q. It is a sub-company of Environmental Works, LLC? A. Correct. Q. And that's based out of Delaware? A. That's where the corporate license is out of, yes. Q. And they moved from ...? A. Virginia. Q. So why don't you want to take the test? A. I took the test for Hillsborough County in 2011 and am asking for reciprocity from that. It's not like I couldn't take the test ... Q. But that lapsed as well, you said? A. Yes, sir, at one point it did. Vice Chairman Lantz directed his question to Staff(Everildo Ybaceta): Q. If he never had a Collier County license in the past and he applied for a license wanting reciprocity from Hillsborough County with his credentials and having taken the test three years ago, would he be here today? A. He wouldn't have to take the test if he had an active license. Q. He has an active license in Hillsborough County—so if he came in with an active license in Hillsborough County, even if he took the test twenty years ago, he wouldn't be here trying to waive the test. Q. That is correct. A. This is the penalty that I have been complaining about for ten years. You had an active license here, you let it lapse, and now you're being penalized for trying to reup it because it goes back to the dollar ... they want you to pay your back fees for the whole time. Surprise. Terry Jerulle: You are looking at it in a completely different than I'm looking at it. Vice Chairman Lantz: Correct. Terry Jerulle: Here are two companies that are out of state,the gentleman is out of State, and the license lapsed. Vice Chairman Lantz: But he's not out of state anymore. Terry Jerulle: No,he just moved here ... Vice Chairman Lantz: Right. Terry Jerulle: ... and he doesn't have a license. Vice Chairman Lantz: But if he never had a license ... Terry Jerulle: He just moved here, and he doesn't have a license. Vice Chairman Lantz: But if he never had a license in Collier County and he came in here with a license from Hillsborough County—he could have taken the test twenty years ago but ... Terry Jerulle: Hypothetically, yes ... but that's not the case. It's not the case. The case is he doesn't have a license and he's"from out of state, and his company is from out of state. And I'm the one—like the other people who have come before us—I'd just as soon have him take the test. Patrick White questioned the Applicant: 4 March 21,2018 Q. Sir, can you tell me about Page 4 of your Application—the last item is#7. The question: "Statement of any formal training you had had in the area for which the application is made," and your response was, "Continuous training in the construction industry." Can you give up some details about that training and how it is within the scope of the license that you are asking us to waive the exam for? A. Yes, sir. I have been in the construction industry for about twenty-two years. I ran a fireplace company and then we started taking on stone installations. In about 1994, I joined this company and I started as a project manager—basically working in the field doing the installations with my teams, running the installation schedules, working with customers to set up the designs, and continually learning weather- proofing systems and stone installations. About four years after that,they moved me to Virginia to start the division down in Virginia. I continued doing sales, project management, and running the quality assurance for the company. From that point— it's been fourteen years that I've been with the company doing the different tasks from running the states that I've been in to guiding the quality and the safety installations for the company. Q. I appreciate your answer. But the form of the question on the application is "formal" training. I'm not sure I heard what formal training you've had since either your Hillsborough license lapsed and was reinstated, or Collier County license lapsed. That's specifically what I'm interested in hearing about so that there's some evidence that you wouldn't need to take the exam because you've had some other form of"formal training." A. Formal training to the industry of stone, no, sir, I'm not had formal training from there—I had gotten a bachelor's degree in Business Administration during that time frame. Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Applicant: Q. Have you taken continuing education classes or certification classes for different ...? A. There was never a need, no, sir, I did not. Matthew Nolton questioned the Applicant: Q. We've had Code changes since 2010. So, you currently live in Collier County? A. Currently, I live in Hillsborough County. Q. Hillsborough County? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you lived there? A. We moved down here in September [2017]. Q. How many projects have you done within the last twelve months or been associated with in Florida? A. We do work within our Toll Brothers installation division in Florida, so we do probably three hundred a month ... so about 1100 or 1200 ... Q. What's your involvement with those projects? A. I'm the Area Manager for Florida so I manage my project managers, my sales teams, I am over top of those and run the installations from sales all the way down to the actual installation and quality of the product. 5 March 21,2018 Richard Joslin questioned the Applicant: Q. On Page 22 of the Application—the Statement of Ownership—it shows you are a Managing Member of Environmental Materials, LLC, but you own zero units issued by the company? So how are you paid? A. I'm paid on a salary, sir. Q. A salary? So, you have no interest in the company other than a paycheck? A. Correct, yes. Vice Chairman Lantz: In twelve years ... Lance Miller: Fourteen years of experience with the company, yes sir. Patrick White: The form itself—the Statement of Ownership asks a question that assumes that there are Units issued by the LLC when that isn't necessarily a condition of their creation. There are other ways, I believe, that Managing Members can be compensated under an Operating Agreement which typically is the reason why an LLC is formed because nobody ever sees the Operating Agreement. It's not like a corporation where there's stock issued with a traditional company where you could then look at it and say, "What percentage of the stock do you own?" I would not want to draw an inference from the fact that the answer is zero that he doesn't have the capacity under the law—regardless of what the Operating Agreement says—to be responsible for what it is that the LLC does. He is a Managing Member or Manager who has those responsibilities and is probably qualified. Richard Joslin: The reason why I asked that is because on Page 14,there are a lot of past judgments and lawsuits against the company. Most of them were dismissed. I am curious as to why there were so many. Lance Miller: I don't have that information—they weren't in my area of responsibility on the east coast and I could not speak to each individual one. The ones I do know about dealt with the weatherproofmg system and we were able to work with the companies to get them resolved. Vice Chairman Lantz moved to approve the Application to Reinstate his Masonry Contractor's License and waive the requirement to take the exam. Patrick White offered a Second to the motion 'for the purposes of discussion." Discussion: • Patrick White stated he would be interested in a discussion about a time frame within which the exam could be taken and passed, and then a license would be issued. • Terry Jerulle asked if the company had any contracts pending for work in Collier County and the response was, "No, sir, we do not." • Patrick White directed his question to Staff, asking how long would it take for Mr. Miller to sit for the exam and obtain the results? • Everildo Ybaceta: Two weeks. • Matthew Nolton: So he could take the exam and do it in two weeks? It looks from the paperwork that he has been applying for this since November according to some of the dates. • Everildo Ybaceta: Correct. 6 March 21,2018 • Terry Jerulle: This goes back to my original question: Why don't you just go and take the test? • Lance Miller: We thought there was reciprocity with Hillsborough County which would allow us to bypass having to take the test the second time ... actually, I've taken three tests for different counties. But that's what we were relying upon ... the reciprocity. • Patrick White: What other exams have you passed beside the Business/Law and Trade test? • Lance Miller: I've taken it for St. John's County; I also had to take it for ... • Patrick White: Do you recall when ... • Lance Miller: St. John's County was actually in 2009 or 2010, that's when both of those tests ... • Terry Jerulle: I'm inclined to vote that he take the test. Since 2010 there have been Code changes—you can get ready in a couple of weeks and take the test. That's typically my view for everybody who comes in here. • Matthew Nolton: What test does he have to take—is it just the Business or is there a Masonry? • Chairman Boyd: There is a Masonry test—yes. • Matthew Nolton: Is that what he has to take? • Everildo Ybaceta: There is the Business & Law exam and yes, I believe, there is a Masonry test. • Richard Joslin: You're applying stone to ...? • Lance Miller: It's a veneer stone—it's not a structural stone. • Terry Jerulle: Masonry gives him a Masonry license. • Richard Joslin: Right, and he would be entitled to do everything, • Terry Jerulle: That's correct, which is structural. • Lance Miller: I passed those before ... why wouldn't your group ... I'm not following the play here. • Richard Joslin: Because it's been so long ... • Patrick White: We would have had you kept your licenses in play. • Richard Joslin: Right. • Patrick White: The distinction is and—it's an oddity of the Code—but the facts are the facts. The law is if you had come in today with a new application,never having applied in our County, you would likely be granted a license based on the other materials in your application. I can understand why you would have a reasonable presumption walking in here today that it would be approved, and the exam waived. Given that there is no formal training in the masonry industry, I'm leaning toward voting in favor of the motion. But it serves as an object lesson for Staff when advising applicants -- it may behoove them to just take the exam. It is something that logistically is less burdensome for the applicant, given the time,money, and effort to take and pass the exam. In your instance, if you had contracts in place in December, you could have been doing work during January, February and March in Collier County. As I understand it, we're as busy as bees—busier than ever. I am simply putting this on the record for consideration. 7 March 21,2018 • Richard Joslin: If you did had contracts at the moment, there is maybe a possibility that a probationary license could be issued on the presumption that you will take the tests and pass them. But since you don't have any work here yet, and you don't have a license, I think the thing to do is to take the tests and then you can get a license and go about your business. • Vice Chairman Lantz: You do a lot of work for the big home builders so if you were to make a phone call today and say, "Hey, we're licensed in Collier County." How soon would you be able to have jobs in Collier County? • Lance Miller: It just depends on when they sell the homes and how soon I can switch over from their current product. I could have it within a month. I could have work pretty quickly. • Patrick White stated he was grateful that Mr. Miller's answer to the question concerning pending contracts in Collier County was no. • Vice Chairman Lantz: You have irons in the fire—the potential for work here. Chairman Boyd noted there was a motion on the floor and a second. He asked if the members needed further discussion. Patrick White asked if the motion maker would be willing to consider amending the motion to grant a probationary license for thirty days, subject to passing the exams? If the exams are not passed within thirty days, the license would be suspended. Vice Chairman Lantz: How about 90 days just because I think—as someone who has taken a lot of construction and masonry tests—it's not about how well you know masonry but about how well you can take the test. You have to do some prep no matter what. Patrick White: Having taken the Bar exam, I can tell you that I understand "prep." But, as a practicing lawyer, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be needing as much time as I originally did to be prepared. Terry Jerulle: I could be convinced for thirty days. But if he started his application in November, if it was that pressing—that urgent, why would you wait until March to come to the Licensing Board? Why wouldn't you just go take the test and be done with it? Lance Miller: We had been told that we needed an application, so we filed it and then Staff said they forgot to get us on the "ballot" for that one and so we had been pushing for a different time throughout the course of... Terry Jerulle: But my point is—and I don't know all the circumstances—if you had taken the time from the time when you missed getting on the Agenda to now, you could have taken the test and had your license if it was urgent. Lance Miller: We weren't told that we had to take a test again. We were told that since we were licensed in Hillsborough County that they could use that as ... Terry Jerulle: But your application was dated November 22nd, I believe? Lance Miller: Yes, sir. Terry Jerulle: That's a long time and if it was urgent, I'd go take the test and be done with it. Don't wait for other people to hold you up—I'd go do what needs to get done. Patrick White: Point of Order,Mr. Chairman. I asked a question of the motion maker if he would accept ... Vice Chairman Lantz: I will accept... 8 March 21,2018 Patrick White: And I will amend my Second to likewise... Chairman Boyd: You want to amend your motion to 90 days or 30 days? Vice Chairman Lantz: Thirty days. Chairman Boyd: We have an amended Motion on the floor and a Second. All those in favor? Motion carried, S— "Yes"/1— "No." Matthew Nolton was opposed Vice Chairman Lantz: He has to take both tests—we didn't say that. Patrick White: Whatever the licensure requirements are. Chairman Boyd: That's correct. (Directed to Mr. Miller)Do you understand? Lance Miller: Yes. Everildo Ybaceta: For clarification, we are giving him a probationary license for thirty days? During that time, he has to take the tests? Patrick White: Whatever tests are required for the license within thirty days or the license is suspended. D. Constantine Dussias—Application for Reinstatement of License and Waiver of Exams (d/b/a "Jennifer Thompson,LLC") Chairman Boyd explained Mr. Dussias was requesting reinstatement of his Painting Contractor's license with a waiver of exams. He was first licensed in 2012 but he did not renew it in 2013. In 2014, he applied for reinstatement—his license has been suspended. Constantine Dussias: • My father moved in with us in 2014—he is older(83) and in ill health, • My wife and I had to get different jobs so someone would be home with him at all times—she worked during the day at an office and I worked at night at a restaurant, • I kept up with the Florida Annual Report, but I forgot to keep up with Collier County, • My father has now lives with my brother, and • We are able to get our careers going again Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Applicant: Q. You do faux painting? A. Faux painting. My wife started the business over twenty years ago. We moved from Chicago to here. We're trying to get it started here. I brought some boards if you want to see the type of work that we do. But, basically, it's not your straight painting —it is technical and very nice work. Chairman Boyd: You're not just a house painter? Constantine Dussias: No, we're not—no,we're not. Matthew Nolton: Do you do the base coat as well? Constantine Dussias: If needed, yes, base coats. We do not do any drywall repairs, or 9 March 21,2018 anything like that. They would have to call a Contractor for that. We just specialize in faux painting. Vice Chairman Lantz: So, if they're just doing faux painting and they're not doing base coats,they don't even need a license—do they? Constantine Dussias: We do some base coating— Vice Chairman Lantz: Oh. Constantine Dussias: ... if needed, if needed. Chairman Boyd: I would assume this is mostly interior? Constantine Dussias: All interior. Vice Chairman Lantz: And the last few years—have you been painting or not really with your business 'on hold'? Constantine Dussias: In the last few years, no painting has been done. We've done our house and we did a friend's home. But my wife has still kept up with the classes she has taken—she is taking faux finishing classes still, so she's up-to-date with her classes but we haven't done any work. Richard Joslin: Do you do the work also? Constantine Dussias: Yes. The two of us. Richard Joslin: Is there continuing education of any kind that you've taken? Constantine Dussias: My wife has taken courses at the Sarasota School of Faux. It was a multi-day seminar. Richard Joslin: Is that a requirement of the State of Florida? Constantine Dussias: No. Vice Chairman Lantz: So, the exams required would be a Painting Contractor as well as the Business &Law exam? Everildo Ybaceta: Correct, it is Business & Law and Painting. Vice Chairman Lantz: Have you—so, in the last thirty years or so, you haven't really run a business and you haven't really been ... Constantine Dussias: We were not able to because of taking care of my father. Vice Chairman Lantz: So, from my perspective, you're coming in here different from the last gentleman because the last gentleman had been running a business for twelve years—even though it wasn't in Collier County—he was active in his trade and that's why, for me, I felt he didn't have to take the test because he was continually active in his trade. When you are dormant in a trade—you haven't been painting—you haven't been running a business—to me, a lot of things get lost. I know everybody is smart and whatever but—if you're not doing it for a couple of years—you can forget tax filings, Workers' Comp laws,Notices of Commencements, Lien Laws—stuff like that. It's easy to lose sight of that when you're not paying attention to it. Richard Joslin: To add to that, I'm looking at the exams that you did take in 2012 which you passed barely—by the seat of your pants—at that time ... for the Painting Contracting test and for the Business and Law exam. We are talking six years later and I'm sure some of the laws have changed and some of the painting requirements have 10 March 21,2018 changed. In Kyle's defense, too, I would say the same thing. I think this is a different situation than the last applicant. Terry Jerulle: The last gentleman was structure. You wanted to give him a Masonry License which means he could build a structure in Collier County and he had not proven any formal training at all. I was very leery about even giving him a 30-day license. These people are artists. Right? When they go into a house, it's just the two of them. They're artists—they're painting art on the wall. It's not so much about running a business—it's what they do. Constantine Dussias: I brought some samples if you'd like .... Terry Jerulle: There's no Workers' Comp—they are both exempt, I believe. In the packet,they are both exempt. People hire them specifically—they don't work for Contractors typically, I am assuming? Constantine Dussias: (shaking his head to indicate"no") Terry Jerulle: People hire them to paint a wall and if a base coat is needed,they will do the base coat. By his own testimony, if dry wall needs to be done, the homeowner will hire an outside Contractor. That was going to be one of my questions to you: If I hired you and the drywall needed to be repaired, would you fix it? Constantine Dussias: In twenty-plus years, we have always told homeowners if they have repairs,they will have to get someone else to do that. We come in after them to do our work. Terry Jerulle: That's my thought process. Richard Joslin: I wasn't totally against it—I was just bringing up the facts that—if he's required to take the tests—the test scores that he originally took were low. Terry Jerulle: A"pass" is a"pass." Chairman Boyd: The tests probably didn't cover anything that they do—not even close. They're artists. Terry Jerulle: They don't have employees—it's just the two of them going into somebody's house and painting art on the wall. Vice Chairman Lantz: But they can do that without getting a Painting Contractor's License. They can pay a $50 .... Terry Jerulle: Yeah,they're here to try to do it the right way—right? Constantine Dussias: If we do a base coat, we do need that license so we're trying to make sure that we're doing it correct. Patrick White directed his question to Staff: Would we be able to limit the Scope of Work that they would be able to do under the Specialty Painting Contractor's License? For example, "limited to interiors only, faux painting of residential units"? Vice Chairman Lantz: What about if they did a condo? That's considered commercial. Patrick White: It's still a residential unit. Richard Joslin: That wouldn't be helping him because he needs the Painting Contractor's License to do the base coat. Patrick White: If the faux painting requires the base coat,then that's part of the Scope of Work. Richard Joslin: Well,then, what's the point? Patrick White: The point is that he will get the license without having to take the exams. The license will be limited solely to doing interiors of residential units, which 11 March 21,2018 . includes condos, for faux painting. I think we all understand that sometimes it requires a base coat. That's the whole point and purpose of the license. Terry Jerulle: If that was a motion, I will Second. Patrick White: If Staff will confirm that it is the way that we could restrict his license, then I would so move. Everildo Ybaceta: Truthfully, I am unsure of that. Richard Joslin: I really don't think it would be necessary because he's already stated in his testimony that he is not going to do painting at all. Matthew Nolton: The other part of having that is he wouldn't even have to apply for a permit, so the County would not know when he's painting or not painting. I don't see the value in it, I guess. Patrick White: The value would simply to be to get the majority votes of the Board. Matthew Nolton: I am inclined to vote for it without that. Patrick White: I would, at this point, cease and desist. Richard Joslin moved to approve the Application of Constantine Dussias for a Painting Contractor's License. Chairman Boyd offered a Second in support of the motion. Motion carried, S— "Yes"/1— "No." Vice Chairman Lantz was opposed. IX. OLD BUSINESS: (None) X. PUBLIC HEARING: (Note: The individuals who testified in the following cases under Item X, "Public Hearings,"were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Case #2018-01: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs. John Mohrbacher—Expired Permits Chairman Boyd: As a Point of Order, didn't we have guidelines that I had to read before we opened a Public Hearing? Richard Joslin: Yes. Chairman Boyd: I thought so. I don't think I've ever received one. Richard Joslin: It's quite lengthy, too. Assistant County Attorney Noell: I was unaware that you didn't have the guidelines, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that at the Hearings today, no Respondents who are present. In that situation, we would be ... Chairman Boyd: Well, we still want to do it above-board, so they can't come back at a later date .... Assistant County Attorney Noell: If someone is present than that certainly would be an issue. My understanding is that for the Hearings that are before the Board this morning,there are no Respondents and they have received Notice of the Hearing. 12 March 21,2018 Richard Joslin: There are also the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that have to be read. We don't have any of that in our packet. Chairman Boyd: No. Patrick White: They are in the Administrative Complaint which theoretically ... once we get into the meat and potatoes. Assistant County Attorney Noell: I'm sorry—I missed the discussion and certainly suggest the Board's Attorney can advise the Board regarding the legal issues but as far as the County's position, our Investigators are here and are ready to put on the evidence which we believe is going to be uncontested. There is no real need to instruct someone who is not here. I'll will make sure you get the Guidelines. Chairman Boyd: We will open the Public Hearing and start with Case #2018-01: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs. John Mohrbacher— Expired Permits Richard Joslin: I have to disclose that I have known both parties John and Mrs. Mohrbacher—for many years. They have done work for me in the past—many years ago. Also, maybe a year ago, Mrs. Mohrbacher called me regarding these issues and at that time, I did advise her that the easiest way to do it was to re-apply for the permits. They never did, so. Patrick White: It doesn't sound as if you are suggesting you should recuse yourself from voting and not participating. Richard Joslin: No. I don't think so—it's not going to affect me either way. Patrick White: I would ask for an affirmance of that conclusion on your part from our Board's Attorney for the purposes of the record. Attorney Jeb Schanck,Attorney to the Board: I do not find a conflict of interest based upon Mr. Joslin's statements that would prevent him from voting or requiring him to file the conflict form. Chairman Boyd: Is Mr. Mohrbacher or anyone representing Mr. Mohrbacher here? (No response.) Chairman Boyd: We will open with the County presenting its evidence. Contractor's Licensing Compliance Office Karen Clements was sworn in. Karen Clements: I would like to admit the packet. Patrick White moved to approve admitting the County's information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Chairman Boyd offered a Second in support of the Motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Karen Clements: This case started almost two years ago in the Building Department. We have Jonathan Walsh, Collier County Chief Building Official, here today. The Building Department notified them that they had expired permits in 2012 and letters were sent to them with no response. I got involved in October, 2016 and scheduled a meeting for December, 2016 with Jonathan Walsh. They came to that 13 March 21,2018 meeting and agreed that they would re-apply for the permits and finish the work. They were given 60 days. They declined and never finished. They said the County had lost the master file and they were trying to replace the Master Plan but the company was no longer in business. The County did find the Master Plan so they did re-apply but they let that permit expire and never paid for them. They owe $200 for the re-applied Permits that were never called in for an inspection and closed out. They have not complied by re-applying again and getting them closed out. Both houses have the solar systems on their roofs and even after the Hurricane, they are still on the roofs. Mr. Mohrbacher has had several operations. He fell off a roof and tore his arm and he has had continued problems. Supposedly,he was in the hospital over Christmas. Mrs. Mohrbacher said her husband was still having trouble and was not supposed to be around people due to potential infections. Evy e-mailed them on Monday and told them we were going forward with the Board meeting and their presence was requested. Richard Joslin: And the two homes that had the permits, are they still open? Karen Clements: Yes, since 2012. Richard Joslin: And the customer would not be able to move forward with any other repairs to the home until the permits are fmal. Karen Clements: Right. Patrick White: The point of the violation being "willful" is because ...? Karen Clements: They are not acting on it. They re-applied and didn't do anything. They never called for an inspection and let them expire. Richard Joslin: Were they aware that the Master Plan was found? Karen Clements: Yes. Richard Joslin: They were? And they still did nothing? Karen Clements: Yes. Patrick White: Whose assessment are you relying on to reach the conclusion that the violation for failing to close out the expired permits is willful? Karen Clements: Well, they knew they had the three months to finish once they re- applied and they neglected to call in for an inspection. It's only two inspections. Patrick White: I understand the minimal nature of what would be required. I understand that there are, potentially, medical conditions that may have limited the Respondent's ability to perform these things at various points in time ... Karen Clements: There were other things, too ... Patrick White: ... but what I'm driving at is a very precise point here. The County is alleging in this and other matters that the violation by the Respondent was willful ... meaning that they intended, in a sense,to violate. And you are reaching a conclusion about that willfulness—that intent—from a set of facts that are: they failed to perform after they had been made aware of; they acknowledged there had been a violation; that they had a responsibility, and then failed to act. My question is: In the County presenting its case, is that your opinion or it is someone else's opinion that it was willful? Karen Clements: I guess it would be mine. Patrick White: All right. Terry Jerulle: Did the Building Inspector—Chief Building Official—have an opinion? 14 March 21,2018 (No response) Patrick White: I think our prior practice—just so we are all, hopefully, heading in the same direction—is that if there's an allegation made by the County of a willful violation of some other provision of the Code, we not only need to understand what that other provision of the Code is, but we also need to have an expert opinion if you will—absent the Respondent being here and admitting that it was willful—and that requires an inference of intent drawn from a set of facts. Since the only expert based on your responsibility in the Florida Building Code to put that on the record is the Chief Building Official. I would accept an affidavit in that regard from the Chief Building Official but live testimony under oath is certainly equally as good. Jonathan Walsh, Collier County Chief Building Official, was sworn in as a witness for the County. Patrick White asked the Chairman if he could question the witness and the response was, "Yes." Patrick White questioned Jonathan Walsh: Q. Mr. Walsh, is it your expert opinion as the Chief Building Official of Collier County that this violation was willful based on the failure of the Respondent to take the actions required to obtain and close out the appropriate permits for these two residential structures? A. Yes, it is. Q. Thank you. Richard Joslin questioned Jonathan Walsh: Q. Was the Respondent given proper Notice that he was to be here, and he was to proceed with the permits that were issued to him? A. Proceed to be here—I'm pretty sure, yes, but Evy would have to make that comment—but he was given due notice I'm pretty sure by several letters and I want to say—Karen, correct me if I'm wrong—but he met with us twice. Once was in my office and he was given clear direction of what he needed to do, and he didn't do it. Q. And I'm holding a copy of our case file which has a green card that was issued— is this proof that he had acknowledge that he had received Notice to be here? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Patrick White: The one I'm most interested in is the one issued for today. It is signed and this, to me, is the clearest evidence that the Notice of Hearing and the evidence packet that's been submitted were acknowledged as being received by the Respondent. Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent was in violation. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. 15 March 21,2018 Chairman Boyd: Shouldn't we close the Public Hearing first? Richard Joslin: Yes. Patrick White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Patrick White: Good point, Mr. Chairman. Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent was in violation as alleged in the County's Administrative Complaint. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0. Chairman Boyd: Thank you. Patrick White: I think we have to discuss with the Board's attorney the scope of the disciplinary measures we are entitled to impose at this time after finding him in violation. Chairman Boyd: Yes. Attorney Schenck: Once a finding of a violation has been made against a State- certified Contractor, the Board is limited to revoking his permitting privileges or allowing the violator to pull permits under certain conditions as determined by the Board. Patrick White: Point of Order? I don't believe he is State-certified—I think he is just a Specialty Contractor. Chairman Boyd: No,he is State-certified. Patrick White: I stand corrected. Sorry to interrupt. Attorney Schenck: It's okay. If I did not mention it, the Board may also make a recommendation to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CIBL") for further penalty for a State-certified Contractor. Chairman Boyd: Any discussion on the penalty? Obviously, I think we want to revoke his permit-pulling privileges since we can't revoke his license. Richard Joslin: We probably should make a recommendation to the State. Chairman Boyd: Correct—in the strongest terms possible. Vice Chairman Kyle Lantz moved to approve revoking the Respondent's permit- pulling privileges in Collier County as well as sending a recommendation to the State of Florida's Construction Industry Licensing Board to pursue whatever further action it determines is justified Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion. Discussion: • Richard Joslin asked if it was possible to recover the County's costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter. • Attorney Schenck noted it was not possible to recover costs against a State- certified Contractor. 16 March 21,2018 Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Vice Chairman Lantz: I have a couple of questions about a situation like this. This company applied for the permits to install a solar pool heating system for a couple of different jobs. When they applied for the permits,they already paid for inspections. Everildo Ybaceta: Correct. Vice Chairman Lantz: They never called them in, but they were paid for. Somewhere in the world of Collier County, Collier County has money in their coffers to go out and physically do these inspections. Correct? They let the permits lapse, they re-applied so they paid again—obviously that's for all the paperwork they have to do to re-apply for the permits, but either way,there's money somewhere to do these inspections. My concern is for the homeowners who now have homes that have open permits on them—they are the ones who are having problemshereand our job is to look out for the homeowners. I know we have some issues with the Contractor but, in all reality, if the Contractor is a dead beat and not around, the homeowner has to hire another Contractor to take over the permit and more money is added to the expenses of the homeowner who has already paid for the house to be inspected. As a practical matter, can't we just send an inspector out to do it since it's already paid for? I know it's not really what we want to do but my goal is to make the homeowners whole. And as a practical matter, it's already been paid for so why should we now have the homeowner spend more money to hire somebody else? If you hired me to pull a permit to get an inspection, I would charge you a hell of a lot of money because I'm taking the responsibility for it. Richard Joslin: That might be a question for Mr. Walsh to answer. Everildo Ybaceta: It is but in a single-family home, once as in this case, the Contractor is found to be in violation, he can be removed from the permit and it falls under an Owner-Builder situation, in which case the owner can call for the inspection. Vice Chairman Lantz: Without a fee? Jonathan Walsh: With regard to the fee, our Fee Schedule states you pay for review fees and inspection fees. If you cancel a permit, you have to pay the review fees even on the permits that are not issued. Those fees are already credited. Right now, he paid for a permit, the permit was issued that included inspections, but it expired. He went through the process and re-applied for another permit which then cancelled the expired one. I now only have one, not two, open permits. One permit that is pending fees ... Vice Chairman Lantz: That has not expired yet? Jonathan Walsh: I'm pretty sure it has expired ... so that permit will have to be extended. It will have to be re-instated and the fees will have to be paid. The inspection fees on that permit will be credited because of the fees already charged for inspections on the previous permit. They won't pay for inspections twice. Vice Chairman Lantz: So, the homeowner can come in and pay$100 ... Jonathan Walsh: I need a licensed individual—whether it be an Owner/Builder as the Statutes state or a Contractor associated with ... I can't just go out and do an inspection. The problem comes in if I go out and do an inspection and it fails for whatever reason, who is the responsible party to make the repairs? If the owner 17 March 21,2018 wants to take that upon himself, and some do—they have every right to do it—then that would be the change on the Contractor side. Vice Chairman Lantz: Let's just assume for argument's sake that it is going to pass inspection. The homeowner can come in and pay $100 to get a permit extension and call in for an inspection tomorrow. Jonathan Walsh: On this specific permit? Vice Chairman Lantz: On this permit. Jonathan Walsh: I would recommend that they do the "Change of Contractor"to Owner/Builder and pay for the extension. Then there is no change of contractor fee because the permit is not currently issued. Vice Chairman Lantz: Now what if they don't have a copy of the plans? Would they need ...? Jonathan Walsh: They would need a copy of the plans which we could provide from what's in our records. Vice Chairman Lantz: And would that be an additional ...? Jonathan Walsh: Whatever the copy fee is for a true record,yes. Vice Chairman Lantz: So you're talking like ten cents? Jonathan Walsh: I think it's fifteen cents a page. Vice Chairman Lantz: Okay—so just a photocopy ...? Jonathan Walsh: Yes. Now it may be more expensive if the sheets are larger, but I believe in this case they are probably 8-1/2 by 11" or something like that. Vice Chairman Lantz: Theoretically, the homeowner could come in and ... Jonathan Walsh: Yes,this happens quite often ... Vice Chairman Lantz: ... and do it all by themselves without ... but they won't incur 7 Jonathan Walsh: Well,there are limitations on the Owner/Builder side ... Matthew Nolton: This is a Specialty so can he even take this over as ... Jonathan Walsh: An Owner/Builder can take ownership of anything that they meet the requirements for ... if it's a single-family, detached structure and it's for their primary use ... it's not for sale ... it's for their use or rent ... then if they meet the Owner/Builder statutes then it doesn't matter what the permit was—they can take ownership of it. Matthew Nolton: Thank you. Vice Chairman Lantz: And both apply ... and the owners could theoretically be Owner/Builders? Jonathan Walsh: Pretty sure, yes. I believe they are both single-family homes, yes. Vice Chairman Lantz: Perfect. Richard Joslin: Just for the sake of it ... are we now able to get in touch with these people to advise them that this is the method to close these permits out? Or is that something we cannot do—or Staff cannot do? Jonathan Walsh: Currently the permit had a contractor on it which is why we are at this level. To be honest, we have not gotten to the level where we would penalize an Owner for something they hired a contractor to do. That process will probably start in this case—more than likely—since the violation was determined. It is known. I am going to have to forward it to Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement will go through the process of informing the homeowners of what the requirements are. In 18 March 21,2018 the interim, if they try to sell the property—I am assuming everybody already knows that it would come up on a property search. Richard Joslin: Okay so there will be some way—either through Code Enforcement or through some means of being able to have this knowledge—that it can be taken care of... relatively simple? Jonathan Walsh: Yes. There's a little bit of hassle on the owner's part but yes, it's relatively simple overall process. Richard Joslin: They can be made whole eventually? Okay. Vice Chairman Joslin: I guess what I'm getting at is ... can somebody take ownership and advise them? You are responsible for advising the homeowner. Can we accept that instead of saying, "Well, yes,theoretically, this could all happen?" If the homeowner doesn't know his options, then they are out of luck. Jonathan Walsh: Usually what happens from my experience is Code Enforcement will open a case based on this process and they will go through the process with the owner—tell him what needs to happen—and the owner will meet with Staff and be directed by Staff on what is to be done. Patrick White: From my private practice days,these were matters that I routinely handled, and I am familiar with everything the Chief Building Official shared with you. The reason for the County going through the process of handing it off to Code Enforcement is simply to protect a potential buyer. Once the case is filed,there is a Statutory requirement to notify a buyer that there is a pending case. It isn't looking to be punitive, it is to the homeowner's benefit or the buyer's benefit that they go through the process and, given that the Code Enforcement Director is the former Licensing Office Supervisor, I'm pretty sure that Staff is aware of what the appropriate steps are—the homeowners are informed of what their options are. Richard Joslin: My real question was: since Linda Clements brought this case before us—she has been in contact, I assume, with the people who have the open permits or no? Jonathan Walsh: This all started from our process for the expired permits. Richard Joslin: Okay, I understand. Jonathan Walsh: The owner is, unfortunately,probably unaware of any of this. Vice Chairman Lantz: I thought you said that you advised ... Everildo Ybaceta: The Contractor. Richard Joslin: The Contractor? Okay, I misunderstood. I thought you were in contact with the homeowner because of this situation. Chairman Boyd: Thank you, Jonathan. B. Case#2018-03: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs. Michael Adams—Misconduct of a Holder of a Collier County Certificate of Competency Chairman Boyd: May I have a motion to open the Public Hearing? Richard Joslin moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case #2018-03, Michael Adams. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. 19 March 21,2018 Chairman Boyd: This is Case#2018 - The Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs. Michael Adams—Misconduct of a Holder of a Collier County Certificate of Competency. He asked if Mr. Michael Adams or his representative was present but there was no response. Vice Chairman Lantz disclosed that Michael Adams had worked for him for a few days approximately twenty years ago and his ex-wife is the Vice Chair's realtor. He stated he couldn't pick Michael Adams out of a crowd but has had contact with Mr. Adams in the past. Terry Jerulle: This was probably twenty years ago? Vice Chairman Lantz: Yes,this was in 1998—a long time ago. Chairman Boyd instructed the County to present its case. Reggie Smith, Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer, was sworn in. Reggie Smith requested to enter the information packet into evidence. Richard Joslin moved to approve entering the information packet for Case #2018- 03 into evidence as County's Exhibit "B." Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0. Reggie Smith presented the County's Opening Statement: • On November 15, 2017, I received and began an investigation of the complaint concerning working outside the scope of a license and fmancially harming a customer. The complaint was submitted by Juliana and Raymond Orciuch,the property owners of 11 Moorhead Manor,Naples, against Michael T. Adams, d/b/a MT Adams Carpentry, Inc., Collier County license#33198 as a Carpentry Contractor. • On February 9, 2018,Mr. Adams was served a Notice of Hearing for today's Hearing via USPS Certified Mail, for violating County Ordinance#2006-46, as amended, Section 4.1. • The County will show that Michael T. Adams entered into a written contract for general contracting and air-conditioning and show that he has financially harmed his customers. • Members of the Orciuch family are present at the Hearing to testify in this matter. Chairman Boyd asked the Board's Members if they had any questions for Officer Smith. Patrick Smith questioned Officer Reggie Smith: Q. I reviewed the information packet and appreciate your Opening Statement. As to the three Counts, specifically as to Count Two,help me understand what the 20 March 21,2018 underlying disregard or violation is of either the building, safety, health, and Insurance or Workers' Compensation laws of the State of Florida or Ordinances of this County and what they may be. A. Yes, sir. I believe that pertains, under our Local Licensing Ordinance #06-46, to a locally-licensed contractor and it is a generalized violation of any violation of the Ordinance. It speaks of other things, like Workers' Compensation insurance—it may not be the clearest statement, but it does pertain to an overall violation of the Ordinance. Q. Okay. It says "any" Ordinance but I'd like to know, in your opinion, what is being violated so that we could make a fmding of violation with respect to Count Two. A. Okay. Basically, contracting outside the scope of his license. Q. Which is Section 4.1.6—I'm sorry, it's 4.1.2 A. This Count may be withdrawn upon your review, but it seemed fitting to me to add it into this case because he was contracting without the proper licensing and Q. It seemed to me that, now having the specificity, it is the substance of Count One that is the basis for the violation in Count Two. It's kind of like "piling on." A. As you can see from my comments: "Michael T. Adams' contracting actions led his customer in a false belief that he could contract for and perform all of the items in his contract and supply for and obtain the required permitting—neither of which was true." Q. If you are alleging and can prove that he failed to obtain the required permit, then I would think it's an independent and separate basis for a fmding of violation under Count Two. A. It wasn't so much that he failed to obtain a permit, because he never began this job. Q. But was a permit required to do the work he contracted for? A. Yes, sir. Q. In order to do the work, he would have needed a permit? A. Yes, sir. Q. In that regard, he failed to obtain the permit necessary for the contract that he entered into. A. He didn't commence any work so at that point, I believe ... Q. I didn't ask you if he commenced the work—I asked if a permit was necessary for the contact he entered into? A. Yes. Q. I'm trying to help you prove your case. A. Okay. Q. For me then, to understand Count Two,the County's position is—and the allegation is—that he failed to obtain a required permit. A. Correct. Because he also presented himself as being able to do that which he wasn't. Q. I understand that 4.1.2 is there for outside the scope and that 4.1.8.1(b)is there for causing fmancial harm. My point is: if only those other two Counts were the reasons why you were going to go after Count Two, it seems to be that it would 21 March 21,2018 be more appropriate to withdraw it. But if there's an independent basis as it seems there is,based on the failure to obtain a permit, I'm absolutely fine going forward with finding a violation of Count Two based on what you've shared. A. Very good. Q. I don't think we need the Chief Building Official to tell us that a permit is required. A. Very good. Richard Joslin questioned Officer Smith: Q. In the packet,there are several pictures. On Page 37, is this at the home? A. That's correct, sir. This is a photo that was supplied in the Complaint packet by the Orciuchs indicating the truck and the trailer that were backed into the carport side of this mobile home. This is not the side of the home that was intended to be worked on—it was the opposite side of the home that is an enclosed day room ... a screened porch. That is Mr. Adams' truck delivering materials ... there are some windows and a door. That was part of the complaint packet they submitted to show that he was involved with the project. Q. On Page 38 there appears to be a front door with a Collier County business card on it. A. These photos were taken by me to show attempts to serve a personal Notice of Hearing—there was no answer at the door. It shows that I was there and left my card with a note to call me. Q. On Page 39,the photo shows the home where the construction was to take place? A. Correct. This is a view from the street of the Orciuchs' home at 11 Moorhead Manor. The left side is the carport and the right side is the screened porch. The intent was to turn the screened porch into a fully-enclosed, air-conditioned room, essentially creating additional living space—a habitable space—which I don't believe would have been allowed in the first place without some very special permission. I have advised the Orciuchs that their plans need to be reviewed to move forward. That, too, was one of the reasons why Mr. Adams misled them that he could transform this space into a habitable, air-conditioned living space. He did enter into a written contract with them. He obtained and cashed a check for$7,500 in June or July in 2017 and never lifted a finger. The Orciuchs were up north at the time. They sent emails and text messages back and forth. Their adult daughter, Julie who is not present,was very involved in speaking and corresponding with Mr. Adams. He led them to believe that plans were on schedule, he was waiting for the permit and none of that was true. It came down to Hurricane Irma. The Hurricane was bearing down on the State of Florida while the Orciuchs were up north. The Oricuchs were worried because of the items in the screened porch—he was to have completed the job with hurricane-rated screening. Because of the urgings of the Oricuchs' family and friends, Mr. Adams went to the home and moved the outdoor furniture and, basically,threw it into the house. There will be additional photographs and testimony concerning these photographs which I had not seen before the Hearing. You will see that everything had been thrown inside. After the storm passed and their home had been damaged, Mr. Adams failed to answer them. He did not answer their 22 March 21,2018 requests to return the money. They wanted their money returned. Through additional correspondence and my involvement, Mr. Adams ultimately declined to do so (Pages 30 and 31). His comment was: "I'll just leave this issue unresolved then." Richard Joslin asked additional questions concerning the checks issued by Juliana Orciuch on Pages 18, 19 and 20, dated respectively July 24, 2017 for $3,500 and $3,000 (two checks), and May 17, 2017 for$1,000. Reggie Smith confirmed the checks were deposits on the contract. The total amount of the contract was $13,500. He noted none of the deposit money was used to purchase the materials shown in the photos. The Orciuchs purchased the items at a home improvement store with Mr. Adams who transported the items to their home. He further stated the Orciuchs were able to return the items to the home improvement store and received a full refund on their credit card. Vice Chairman Lantz noted that two of the three checks written by Juliana Orciuch were payable to "Todd Adams"who is the owner of the business while the other was to "M.T. Adams Carpentry." He questioned, on the record, why people would write checks to a person versus writing them to the business. Reggie Smith stated he had never met Mr. Adams—he spoke with him on the telephone only once. He stated Mr. Adams intended to return the funds. He left it to the Oricuchs daughter, Julie, and Mr. Adams to coordinate the repayment. After Mr. Adams refused to repay the deposit funds,the County began to build its case against him. The Oricuchs extended the deadline for Mr. Adams to repay the money to February 1, 2018. Reggie Smith confirmed that Mr. Adams understood he would receive two Citations from the County—for working outside the scope of his license and for air-conditioning—a general contracting citation and an air- conditioning citation. Chairman Boyd stated he heard everything he needed to about the case and was ready to close the Public Hearing and vote. Patrick White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Patrick White moved to approve fining the Respondent guilty of Counts One, Two, and Three of the Administrative Complaint for violations of Ordinance #2006-26,Sections 4.1.2, 4.1.6, and 4.1.8.1(b) as stated therein. Matthew Nolton offered a Second in support of the motion. Discusion: • Vice Chairman Lantz asked how much the County regulated work on mobile homes. He asked for clarification that a permit was necessary and was issued by the County. 23 March 21,2018 • Officer Smith confirmed permits were issued to mobile homes for work including modifications such as carports, sheds, windows and roofing. He further clarified the mobile home itself is considered to be a vehicle and work done within the confines of a mobile home might not require a permit but would require a licensed contractor to do the work. • Officer Smith asked the Board if they would hear from the Orciuchs who were available to testify to the financial harm caused to them. They had a list of expenses incurred to present to the Board. • Consensus: The Board would hear from the Orciuchs during the penalty phase of the proceeding. Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Chairman Boyd asked the Board's attorney for guidelines concerning Sanctions. Attorney Schenck noted as a Collier County-licensed Contractor,the disciplinary options were not as limited as they are for a State-certified Contract. He outlined the options available under Section 22-203 of the Construction Industry Licensing Board Ordinance: • Revocation of the Collier County Certificate of Competency, • Suspension of the Collier County Certificate of Competency, • Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County Certificate of Competency, • Probation for a period of not more than two years, • Restitution to the victims, • Imposing fines, not to exceed$10,000, • Issuance of a Public Reprimand, • Requiring re-examination, • Denial or revocation of permit-pulling privileges, and • Reimbursement to the County of costs incurred in the prosecution of the matter. Patrick White noted there were factors to be considered when considering one or more of the disciplinary options and asked the Board's Attorney to explain those as well. Attorney Schenck: • The gravity of the violation, • Impact of the violation on the public's health, safety, and welfare, • Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, • Previous violations committed by the violator, • Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the Sanction which is appropriate to the case given the nature of violation and the violator. 24 March 21,2018 Reggie Smith stated the Orciuchs would testify concerning their fmancial harm and would provide an itemized summary of their expenses. They would also produce additional photographs that they had taken. (Note: copies of the financial summary were distributed to the members of the Board.) Patrick White asked if the County's costs for prosecution could be noted for the record. Everildo Ybaceta stated he did not have the total amount of costs available. Richard Joslin moved to accept the information provided by the Orciuchs and enter it into evidence. Vice Chairman Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Raymond Orciuch, Julianne Orciuch, and Mary Orciuch, daughter, were sworn in. Mary Orciuch stated she had traveled from Massachusetts for the sole reason to attend the Hearing. She introduced her father, Raymond,whom she stated has Parkinsons' Disease and had recently had a stroke. Juliana Orciuch introduced herself to the Board. (It was noted Mr. Orciuch attempted to speak with great difficulty.) Chairman Boyd: We have a list of your expenses in addition to the deposit of $7,500. Mary Orciuch noted she did not include the cost of the airfare for her sister and herself to attend the Hearing or the cost of the car rental. She stated her sister, Julie, had emailed the summary the night before and the amounts had not been totaled. Reggie Smith stated the amount was approximately $6,600. Vice Chairman Lantz questioned the Oricuch Family members: Q. I understand you paid Mr. Adams a deposit of$7,500 to build a room on the side of the mobile home but it was not done. A. (Mary) It was not. Q. Can you explain what the damages were: window damage, screen damage, water damage? If he didn't do anything, what am I missing? A. The work was supposed to be completed prior to their return in early September—that's what the contract was for—so they wouldn't be there during the construction, the work, and the debris. He kept telling them he would pull the permits and the work would be completed so when they came back in September, it would be all set and move-in ready. When he failed to do that—because of the condition and the Hurricane came and blew in the windows—the porch flooded—he never went back and checked it. As you can see from our pictures, the furniture was ruined—he left some furniture outdoors. The walls and the rug were moldy—the walls were warped. He never put up tarps or plastic or anything. My Dad who is almost 89 was 25 March 21,2018 forced to scrape off the mold by himself because other Contractors were not available. Q. He hadn't done a damned thing. Patrick White: It's a"but for." But for him having done what he promised and contracted to do, they would not have had these damages. Vice Chairman Lantz: Theoretically? Patrick White: No, actually—because the damages actually occurred. The presumption is that he would have constructed a hurricane-survivable enclosure such that none of these other damages would have occurred. I think that's the argument. Mary Oricuch: Absolutely. Vice Chairman Lantz: None of these damages, none of the windows, none of the anything was on the side of the house different from where the room is that he was supposed to have built? No water came in from anywhere—what I'm saying and I'm not saying that he is a good guy—but there was a hurricane that blew away half of the town, especially mobile home parks. So, whether you had the enclosure or not ... Mary Oricuch: I understand what you're saying ... Vice Chairman Lantz: ... you might have had these damages anyway. Mary Oricuch: The only damage to the unit was on the side where the three- season porch is. The carport remained intact, no other water penetrated the unit, just specifically where he was supposed to do the work. He never went back to check it after the hurricane. You could see that animals got in—they had rats in there—the damage, the mold, all the walls had to be taken down. Last night during the thunderstorm, we were outside securing heavy tarps over the area—and when it's 85 degrees outside and your home is covered on one side with heavy tarps, it makes it that much more difficult to ... Vice Chairman Lantz: When did you realize that he hadn't done any of the work that he said he would do? Mary Oricuch: We knew he never did anything—the neighbors were checking and had the keys to let him in during the time he was supposed to do it. Shortly after the hurricane, my parents had to come down—you can see in our pictures what they came down to was—they literally had a path they could walk through— the living room was full,the second bedroom was full. I am one of six children and there are 18 grandchildren—all of us come down during the winter. We have to stay with neighbors—my brother had to stay in a hotel because everything was left piled into the bedroom and in other areas of the home. Richard Joslin: That mobile home wouldn't hold 18 people. Mary Oricuch: Not all together, no—at different times, we would come down. This was the first year I missed my Mom's birthday in December because we had nowhere to stay. Terry Jerulle: When you hired this Mr. Adams, did you get an insurance certificate from him? Juliana Oricuch: He said he was a licensed contractor. Actually, I did not. I believe his card said that he was licensed. 26 • March 21,2018 Terry Jerulle: If he is licensed,then he is insured. If he is insured—as a point for you—you may want to contact his insurance company. Juliana Oricuch: Oh, I never thought of that. Richard Joslin: That very well may tie into a lot of the damages that occurred because even though he worked out of his scope—and this is what the charge is for and he didn't complete the work—he still has an insurance policy that would be active if he is an active contractor. I'm sure Staff can find that out for you. You may have a claim against that insurance company for the that damages you are seeking here for the damage because of his action. Terry Jerulle: I would make sure I made a claim against the insurance company. The County has a copy of his insurance information. Reggie Smith: Mr. Adams failed to renew his license at the end of September. At this point, his license is suspended. Terry Jerulle: At the time of the contract, he had a license and insurance. I want to make sure that they try to pursue that avenue because—at the time of contract— if he had a license, his insurance should have been in place. Richard Joslin: Even without a license,his insurance still could be active because it runs from year to year. Matthew Nolton: It doesn't matter if it's active. If he had insurance at the time he contracted. Juliana Oricuch: Even though it may have lapsed, it may ... Patrick White: Possibly ... possibly. The company may deny it because the policy only cover work within the scope of his license—I don't know—but the point is—you would be well advised to consider filing a claim. Mary Oricuch: A point of interest—if you have insurance on a mobile home— with Citizen's, the carport is not covered in a hurricane and neither is an enclosed porch. So,we wouldn't have gotten any money anyway. Patrick White: From your insurance company—we understand that. Matthew Nolton: There is another point regarding these damages that I've heard because yes—they could have contracted with someone else, but they thought this work was going to be done. But I also heard from the County that this may not have been able to be permitted, so nobody may have been able to do this work. Patrick White: My experience has been it would have been un-permittable. Some of the work could have been done—certainly, you could have put the masonry floor in—but you cannot, in a sense, air-condition it and make it habitable space. Richard Joslin: That's maybe not true, either. An engineer could have torn it apart and built something if it was structurally sound. Patrick White: Then the next set of questions are: Would you need a variance? Are there any restrictive covenants in the mobile home park that would prevent them from adding that many square feet? What does the zoning allow in terms of square feet? Matthew Nolton: I believe the only bearing is—hey,the damages that occurred from the storm may have occurred anyway because you might not have been able to have the work done. 27 March 21,2018 Patrick White: I think that's a reasonable counterpoint—I'm not suggesting otherwise. I just wanted to understand how they were presenting it to us. Mary Oricuch: That and the fact that he led them to believe he could do all those things and obtain the necessary permits to do it. Matthew Nolton: There's no doubt that he took advantage of them. Assistant County Attorney Noell stated he would like the Oricuchs to go through their summary, line by line, and explain to the Board how they thought each expense was related to the work not being performed By Mr. Adams. Item #14: Juliana Oricuch stated the total cost for the antique iron furniture and the custom painted furniture and the antique wood bureau was "replacement." Mr. Adams told her he would hire a moving company to relocate the furniture from the screened porch to the living room. But the items were moved to the open carport and had been subjected to the storm. Attorney Noell confirmed with Mrs. Oricuch that Mr. Adams told her he would have the three items moved to the interior of the home prior to the hurricane and because they had not been moved—they remained outside—the items suffered water damage and were ruined. He also confirmed there was no damage to the furniture that had been inside the mobile home during the storm. Attorney Noell asked Mrs. Oricuch how she arrived at the replacement value of the items which totaled $3,800. Juliana Oricuch stated the end table was a custom design and had been hand- painted by an artist who stated the replacement value was $1,000. The antique, solid wood bureau was a triple-bureau that was over 100 years old— she was told by the individual who gave it to her that it was worth$1,000. She shopped for a replacement chair for her husband and saw an iron bed in a store—it did not have the trundle feature nor a mattress and was priced considerably higher than$1,800. Items 2, 3, and 4: Attorney Noell asked how Mr. Adams' failure to do the work in the house require her daughter to miss two days of work. Juliana Oricuch stated Mr. Adams piled the furniture from the existing porch into their living room—they needed their daughter's assistance to move the furniture since the only place where they could sit was in their kitchen. The daughter also helped to clean the unit was sustained water damage and had mold due to the damage. In addition to missing work, the daughter incurred costs to rent a car and for gas for the vehicle. Total expenses: $1,161.80 Items #5 and#6: Juliana Oricuch explained the expenses for supplies from Lowe's and Walmart were required to clean the home which had to be scrubbed with detergents to remove the remnants from an infestation from rats and roaches. She had been told that if the work had been completed with the proper materials and the home had been secured, none of the damage would have been happened. The windows and 28 • March 21,2018 doors were to be have replaced with vinyl. They were told by Mr. Adams to buy a certain type of insulation which was the wrong type of insulation for their unit. Items #7, #8, and#9: Mrs. Oricuch stated her daughter, Julie Masley, and Julie's husband flew to Florida in February because they were needed to continue the cleaning and to assist her because Raymond Oricuch had suffered a stroke. She was unable to do anything beyond care for her husband. The costs they incurred included airfare, the car rental fee, and gas for the vehicle. Total expenses: $734.68 Juliana Oricuch acknowledged that Mr. Adams failure to do the work may not have contributed directly to the water damage, but if the work had been completed,the furniture that had been thrown into the home would to have been returned to its original location. Miscellaneous supplies—Items #10, #11 and#12: Mrs. Oricuch explained supplies were purchased at Lowe's. The list included paint,painting equipment, a rug, a replacement cable for the TV, tools, and more cleaning supplies. Total expenses: $382.03 Mrs. Oricuch confirmed supplies were purchased from Home Depot to secure their home. Total expenses: $87.07 Mrs. Oricuch further stated tarps and bolts were purchased from Big Lots to secure the tarps to cover the plastic windows that were to have been replaced. Total expenses: $64.40 Juliana Oricuch explained she and her husband ordered new windows for the unit—"real windows"to replace the standard ("plastic") ones. If the new windows had been installed,they would not have "blown out"and the water damage could have been prevented. When questioned by Attorney Noell, she confirmed none of the other windows in the unit had sustained damage. She further explained the rug on the screened porch had been destroyed. Her daughter and son-in-law tried to make the screened porch area habitable. The paneling had come off the walls due to water damage and had to be removed, the aluminum under the paneling also had to be removed, and the underlayment had to be replaced. When questioned by Attorney Noell, she confirmed Mr. Adams' failure to perform the work he had been hired to do was the direct cause of the damage and the expenses incurred to repair the damage. Vice Chairman Lantz questioned Mrs. Oricuch: Q. What is the name of the mobile home park? A. Moorehead Manor on Bayshore Drive. Q. How did your neighbors fare? A. Several mobile homes were totally destroyed. A lot of people lost their carports or had damage to windows. 29 March 21,2018 Richard Joslin stated he lives on County Barn Road which is near Moorehead Manor. He knew that several mobile home parks in the area had sustained a great deal of damage. Vice Chairman Lantz continued questioning Mrs. Oricuch: Q. Were there other people in the community who had rooms like you were trying to have built? A. Yes, my next-door neighbors have the exact same unit—only reversed. Q. Did they have any water damage? A. They lost their carport, as did several others. Q. But the enclosed rooms stayed dry during the storm? A. But we had the plastic windows and ours is elevated ... Q. The room that you had hired Mr. Adams to enclose is elevated? A. It is elevated (showing about a two-foot depth) and then there's a metal piece on the bottom of the walls and above that are the plastic windows ... A. (Mary) I believe it's three steps to get up into it. Q. You were having Todd build a room the same height as the mobile home? Basically, he was building a deck? A. (Mary) If you turn to Page 39, you can see on the right-hand side—the screened porch is about three steps up (from the ground) and it is level— there's a slider between the porch and the unit itself. Q. The roof that's there has been there forever, and you were hiring him to enclose the sides? A. The three-season porch, correct. Q. Now I understand ... okay. A. (Mary)And the units in the park that were destroyed were further down on the other end from where my parents are. Richard Joslin asked if there were other mobile homes in the park that had the same renovation done—enclosing a screened porch. A. Yes, across the street. Q. More than a couple? A. Many, many. Q. So, it was possible to have it done? It could have been done? A. If they were done with permits, we have no idea. But there were several other units in the park where this had been completed. Patrick White noted that the rules have become more restrictive over time— especially with this type of mobile home. Vice Chairman Lantz noted the contract with Mr. Adams did not specify a start date or finish date. Terry Jerulle asked the Vice Chair if he was advocating for Mr. Adams. Vice Chairman Lantz stated he did not feel the Respondent should pay for the hurricane-relatad expenses other than reimbursing the Oricuchs for their deposit of$7,500. Terry Jerulle noted Mr. Adams could have attended the Hearing to speak for 30 • March 21,2018 himself. Vice Chairman Lantz stated that while he understood Mr. Jerulle's position, the Respondent was still entitled to a defense. Matthew Nolton supported Mr. Jerulle, stating"not if he doesn't show up." Vice Chairman Lantz did not agree with Mr. Nolton's statement. Terry Jerulle replied it was not up to Mr. Lantz to defend Mr. Adams and that if Mr. Adams had been present, he could have defended himself. He did agree that Mr. Adams should not pay the hurricane-related expenses. He reiterated it was not the Board's duty to defend someone who does not attend a Hearing and who the Board determined was guilty of—if not the charges—a Code Violation. Chairman Boyd suggested the members should move on. Assistant County Attorney Noel stated he concluded his questions to the witness—the purpose of which was to show the causation between the contract entered into by Mr. Adams,his failure to perform the work, and how that related to the damages suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Oricuch. He further stated the matter would be up to the Board to debate and consider. He explained the County had finished with its evidence concerning restitution and asked if the members had further questions for the witnesses. Mary Oricuch referred to Page 24 of the packet, noting Mr. Adams sent an email to her sister which stated that the supplies had been delivered and"We'll get starting on everything ... expecting the permit the last week of July ..." and he requested a second draw of$6,500 to be sent to his company. He told her parents by his own words that the work would be done in July and August. He knew their expected date to return to Florida was September. Her parents did not want to breathe the dust and live through the demolition. They signed the contract in May and thought the work would be completed by the time they returned. Assistant County Attorney Noell asked Juliana Oricuch if it was her understanding that Mr. Adams agreed the work would be completed before their return to Florida which was to be prior to the Hurricane. Her response was that she and her husband would"normally be here before then." Richard Joslin asked if there had been a plan given to them by Mr. Adams or any type of drawing detailing what they wanted to be done versus what he was going to do. Did he provide them with a detailed description of the work to be performed? A. He did not, but we did discuss at length how I wanted things done. There were metal panels between the windows and I thought it would be good to keep them there. The roof was intact—I didn't want the roof touched. I wanted every other section to have a window and to have a solid wall in the other sections. When he was contracted to do the work, nothing on the inside wall had to be done. Matthew Nolton directed his question to the Board: Is it our responsibility or purview come up with a dollar amount or determine full restitution? Chairman Boyd: We can do either one. 31 March 21,2018 Patrick White: In my opinion, failing to specify a dollar amount puts the County in a difficult position relative to determining—if we say"full restitution,"we leave to the County's discretion what that may be which may not be the same as what we ... Matthew Nolton: I understand of we leave it to someone else, it's that I thought they might have a little more expertise than the Board to make sure full restitution occurred. Richard Joslin: The dollar amount that we specify would be the full restitution. Matthew Nolton: If we go in that direction, yes. Richard Joslin: We could go through some of these items and see which ones are valid—which are too high or too low—and come up with a bottom line. Chairman Boyd asked if the members had any other questions for the Complainants. (No response.) He thanked the Oricuchs. Mary Oricuch: If I could add one thing—although some of the flights may not seem applicable—at 84 and 88 and my Dad having Parkinson's Disease, it was something that they could not do on their own. It was really necessary for their physical well-being, as well as their emotional well-being, to have family here to help them do the physical hard labor that they would never have been able to do on their own. Thank you. Terry Jerulle: I understand that, and I agree with that. If they were my parents and somebody did this to my parents, I would be down to help them out. Mary Oricuch: Thank you for that consideration. I do appreciate it. Richard Joslin: I do assume,though,that since you did put a neighbor or neighbors in charge of overseeing what was going on and communicating with you that they are the first people who should have been contacted. And maybe they could have helped earlier to prevent some of this damage from happening before you got here. Mary Oricuch: They did have a key to let him in and out and I think it was difficult when the rug and the walls were wet. It didn't really show, but once things started to dry—the mold started growing—and the walls started warping, I think that's when they realized the true damage that was done. Thank you, gentlemen. Chairman Boyd: Okay, let's start discussing the penalties and restitution. Chairman Boyd asked Staff if Mr. Adams had any other complaints made against him because "his name sounded familiar to me from previously being here. Nothing on file?" Reggie Smith: Nothing that jumped out at us. Vice Chairman Lantz: How long has he been licensed. Reggie Smith: In his own words, he has been licensed for twenty years. But it might be on Page 47 ... Everildo Ybaceta: Since 2008. It was noted Mr. Adams was originally licensed on September 3, 2008. Reggie Smith stated he would provide the Oricuchs with a copy of Mr. Adams' general liability insurance information. 32 • March 21,2018 Richard Joslin: These items (summary of expenses) probably could fall under his insurance plan if the insurance is applicable to getting this money paid back in that respect. Correct? Assistant County Attorney Noell: A couple of quick issues as the Board is getting ready to deliberate: The Oricuchs always have the option to work with Mr. Adams' insurance company if the insurance was in place at the time. Not knowing what the insurance adjuster and the company will do, they also can go through the legal system as far as the formal Court system. I will discuss some other options with them, i.e., the State Attorney's office, etc., and will give them some specific facts in the case. Chairman Boyd: Do we want to start with what to do with his license? Revoke it? Matthew Nolton: It is already suspended, so we could deny renewal. Vice Chairman Lantz: I think to revoke it is stronger. Chairman Boyd: Can we place a stipulation that he cannot apply for any future license? I thought I heard that. Vice Chairman Lantz: I think if he applies for any license when it's revoked, he will come before us automatically. Attorney Schenck: That stipulation would be appropriate. He can apply for a license and go through the process, and the County would deny it. Vice Chairman Lantz: The fine of$10,000—is that per Count or is that the total? Attorney Schenck: That would be per Count. Chairman Boyd: Do we want to take these one at a time? Chairman Boyd moved to approve revoking the suspended license of Michael T. Adams, holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #33198. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Chairman Boyd moved to approve issuing a strongly-worded Public Reprimand. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Patrick White asked Staff if they had an amount for the cost of prosecution. Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir. The costs incurred: $360.00 for investigative time and $145.35 for copying costs for a total of$505.35. Patrick White: Would the County accept$500? Everildo Ybaceta: I can live with that. Patrick White moved to approve requiring Michael T.Adams to reimburse the County for the costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500). (A"Second"was not made.) 33 March 21,2018 Mr.White pointed out there was no incentive for the Respondent to reimburse the County in a timely manner since his license had been revoked. He suggested if any payment is made,the order of priority of distribution should be restitution to the Oricuchs first; restitution to the County, and then payment of the fines that the Board may impose. Terry Jerulle and Chairman Boyd agreed with Mr. White's proposal. Vice Chairman Lantz: Is that standard practice? Patrick White: I don't know that in the past we have had a circumstance where, beyond the out-of-pocket financial harm under the contract,the damages have been evaluated with the addition of the "but for"proximate-cause expenses from the failure to perform—so I don't know how to answer the question. Richard Joslin: In the past, a couple of years ago, everything was tied into one payment or one situation where the total costs were included, and he was given a time frame for payment. In that case if he didn't pay it, his license would be revoked. Patrick White: Or he was under probation and a time frame was given to make the payments. If he didn't, his license was either suspended or revoked. Richard Joslin: Right. Patrick White: And permit pulling privileges could be denied, etc. But here, because we have already revoked his license,his pulling permit privileges are gone, as is the denial of his Certificate of Competency, as is probation—so we're down to restitution, fines, and cost of prosecution. Vice Chairman Lantz: Did you make a motion for restitution? Patrick White: I made a motion for reimbursement of the cost of prosecution in the amount of$500. I will make a motion as well that the costs be paid secondarily to imposing the costs of restitution which, in my mind, have reasonably been demonstrated and, simply for ease of mathematics,I believe should be $14,000. Thirdly, as to the fines, they would be the third thing preferentially to be paid and that the full amount of$10,000 should be imposed based on the gravity of the harm, the impact to the public health/safety/welfare, and the failure to make any corrections. It should be the maximum allowed for each count—$10,000 per Count—or$30,000. The total amount is $44,500. Terry Jerulle: Was that a motion, Mr. White? Patrick White: That was a motion. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of Mr. White's motion. Discussion: • Matthew Nolton suggested amending the motion to include timing or ask the Board of County Commissioners to pursue it if payment is not made so the Contractors' Licensing Board would not need to discuss this case again. • Patrick White asked for opinions from the Assistant County Attorney and the Board's attorney concerning the process for filing a potential lien against the Respondent. 34 March 21,2018 • Assistant County Attorney Noell stated he would have to research what the County's position would be concerning the Board entering a quasi- legal Order of Restitution and the legal implications of a quasi-judicial Order upon either an individual or an individual's property and the Lien Law and the individual's right. He stated he could not give a definitive answer. Traditionally, the Board of County Commissioners has not proceeded with the foreclosure on a lien against an individual's property unless there was an immediate public health/safety/welfare issue. But there were other avenues to pursue, i.e., involving a collection agency. • Patrick White noted that, statutorily under the Code Enforcement process, the law does provide for that while this was more of a licensure/administrative type of proceeding. • Matthew Nolton read: Under 489, "... should any monetary penalty imposed by the Board not be paid within the time specified by the Board's Order,the Board may request from the Board of County Commissioners authority to take appropriate legal action to collect ..." • Patrick White: Is the Board referenced therein the CILB (Construction Industry Licensing Board)? • Matthew Nolton: Yes. • Patrick White: That's not us. • Assistant County Attorney Noell: The word penalty is important because there is potentially a distinction between a"penalty" or a fine for a violation versus restitution to make someone whole on damages. I'm not sure the law views restitution as a penalty. • Matthew Nolton: So that would only apply to the $30,000 which is the penalty? • Assistant County Attorney Noell: Correct. One of the conversation I would have with a quasi-judicial Order on Restitution would be some next steps for the Oricuchs civilly and also through the State Attorney's Office. • Matthew Nolton: Okay. • Patrick White: I'm all in favor of doing anything that enhances the probability that this person will make them home,pay the County what it is owed, and the fines that I think are warranted. • Richard Joslin: I think the $14,000 is in line however I think you have the $7,500 deposit plus the line items ... • Patrick White: Yes, I think the values stated, the testimony—those are reasonable ranges and I think that they do flow as part of the "but for" rationale as to the harm that was caused. If we compare it to a Court case, where somebody under contract was to be paid"x" amount of dollars— they weren't paid the money and then they incurred additional damages— those are things that are compensable. • Richard Joslin: I'm agreeing with you—I'm just trying to break it down. My question is if we impose this portion of this and make them whole on their itemized bill, then should the insurance company get involved—will the insurance company pay twice? • Chairman Boyd: The insurance company will fight them tooth and nail. 35 March 21,2018 • Patrick White: The $6,500 is based on a reasonable belief that the contractor's insurance will not pay, and that the homeowner's insurance will not pay. I don't want to dampen their expectations as to the contractor's insurance, but my belief is that there is a provision that says if the contractor does work outside the scope, it is not something the insurance company is liable for because it's not negligence per se. So that's kind of where my thinking was. • Richard Joslin: As a carpenter to do some of the work that he was contracted to do in the house, it would fall under his insurance policy because even though he was going to do other things that were outside the scope,they could deem that what he did do—he would have to do anyway. • Terry Jerulle: We're here to look at the facts of this case as they are presented to us. • Patrick White: Let me put it this way ... • Terry Jerulle: And the facts presented to us are the $6,500 for damages that, in my belief, would not have happened if this guy did what he was supposed to do or didn't do anything at all—if he had never even showed up. • Patrick White: Let's put it this way, if his insurance company pays the money then it doesn't matter if it comes out of Mr. Adams' pocket or not. The point is they are owed $14,000—it doesn't matter who pays them. Hence the Order for Restitution. Chairman Boyd: We have a motion and a second ... Attorney Schenck: Mr. Chairman, if I may. Regarding the potential lien process of the civil penalty, there is a provision under Florida Statutes, Section 489.27(5)(h) which upon recording of a certified Order of a civil penalty against the violator, it will then become a lien against any personal or real property of the violator. And then it sets forth a process whereby the Board designates the County Commissioners to move forward with perfecting that lien and going through the judgment process. That's with a civil penalty only—that provision does not apply to restitution. Patrick White: So, it's the $30,000? Attorney Schenck: Correct. I would recommend putting in a time frame for payment of each of the items to know when the trigger is due to record. Patrick White: I would be willing to amend the motion to as to payment of the restitution to ninety days because I think that's a reasonable period of time for any insurance company to work through adjustment and the claim processing. As to reimbursement of the cost of prosecution, thirty days. And as to the fines, sixty days. Matthew Nolton: If those get paid first, he may not have the means to pay the restitution. Patrick White: I understand. Matthew Nolton: I would be more likely to keep them in the same order of priority that you gave them in the timing. 36 March 21,2018 Patrick White: And your recommendation would be? Matthew Nolton: I would say 30—60—90. Thirty days for restitution—he has $7,500 of their money. I don't believe in giving more time to give that back. Patrick White moved to amend his motion to add timing provisions to the payment of each of the three items as discussed: Restitution, reimbursement of prosecution costs, and fines to thirty days,sixty days, and ninety days, respectively. Terry Jerulle offered a second in support of the amended motion. Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried, 5— "Yes"/1— "No." Vice Chairman Lantz was opposed. RECESS: 11:24 AM RECONVENED: 11:33 AM Chairman Boyd called the meeting back to order. C. Case#2018-04: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs.Jeffrey Bumpus,d/b/a "Northern Breeze Air Conditioning,Inc."—Misconduct of a State- Certified Contractor Vice Chairman Kyle Lantz moved to approve opening the Public Hearing in Case #2018-04. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Chairman Boyd noted that neither Jeffery Bumpus nor anyone representing Mister Bumpus was present. Reggie Smith, Contractors' Licensed Compliance Officer,presented the County's Opening Statement: • On January 25,2017, I received and began an investigation of a complaint of a Building Code violation of fifteen expired and void permits. • The complaint was submitted by Jonathan Walsh, Collier County Chief Chief Building Official, against Jeffrey H. Bumpus, d/b/a"Northern Breeze Air Conditioning, Inc." • Mr. Bumpus is a State-certified Air Conditioning Contractor, License #CAC054719 and holder of a Collier County Certificate of Competency, License #16194. • On February 15, 2018, Mr. Bumpus was served a Notice of Hearing for this Hearing via USPS certified mail delivery for the violation of Collier County Ordinance#2006-46, as amended, Section 4.2. • The County will show that Jeffrey Bumpus has allowed numerous permits to expire and become void for a total of 44 expired permits. 37 March 21,2018 • Furthermore, Mr. Bumpus has received three Notices of Non-Compliance in the pasts for performing air-conditioning work without first obtaining a permit. • On March 16, 2018, Mr. Bumpus received a copy of the same information packet which the Board received via USPS certified mail delivery. Richard Joslin asked if the Respondent had contacted Mr. Smith concerning attending the Hearing. Reggie Smith replied Mr. Bumpus indicated he would attend the Hearing. • During my investigation, I noticed Mr. Bumpus had stopped pulling permits in 2016. • Air-conditioning work typically requires a permit. • On March 19, 2018, I drove to the Falling Waters community(off Davis Blvd.) to see if he was there doing air-conditioning work. • I found Mr. Bumpus standing before a condominium speaking with an individual. • When I arrived in my truck,he saw me and approached my window. • I asked him if he had received Notices and the information packet and he stated that he had. • I asked him if he was in the neighborhood that day to perform any air- conditioning work and his response was, "no." He stated he was more of a handy-man and a home watch person. He said he no longer performed air- conditioning work. • When I asked if he would attend today's Hearing, he stated he didn't know if he could make it because he would be in Fort Myers in the morning. He did request the case to be presented in the latter part of the Hearing. • I advised him to contact the Contractors' Licensing Office to speak with Lilla Davis concerning the scheduling of his case. He was given her phone number. • Ms. Davis confirmed that Mr. Bumpus had contacted her to request that his case be scheduled during the latter part of today's Hearing. • Mr. Davis signed for the certified mailings and I have the green cards for each. Richard Joslin: The issue before the Board is that this air-conditioning company has outstanding permits that have not been finalized. Is that correct? Reggie Smith: Correct. Richard Joslin: The equipment has been installed but not finalized? Reggie Smith: Correct. Vice Chairman Lantz: What is the difference between an expired permit and a void permit? Reggie Smith: Collier County switched its software package from"CD Plus"to "CityView." Approximately four years ago, the records from the old system were transferred to the new system. The software placed the expired permits, some were 38 March 21,2018 several years old, into a"void" status. If a permit is "void," an extension cannot be obtained under"CityView." A contractor must apply for a new permit. Vice Chairman Lantz: If a permit is in the void status, it would have been issued more than four years ago,theoretically? Reggie Smith: Typically, yes. Vice Chairman Lantz: So, they would have to apply for a new permit and meet the new Building Code requirement versus the Code in existence at the time the work was done? Reggie Smith: I would think so. Richard Joslin pointed out an individual was standing at the podium. Chairman Boyd: Are you Mr. Bumpus? Let the record show that Jeffrey H. Bumpus is in attendance. Mr. Bumpus was sworn in by the Board's attorney. Attorney Schenck explained the proceeding to the Respondent, Jeffrey H. Bumpus: • Today's proceeding is an Administrative Hearing seeking disciplinary sanctions against you as a licensed contractor. • The County has the burden to prove the alleged violations as set for in the Administrative Complaint. • You may testify on your behalf and offer documented evidence into the record, as well as question or cross-examine any of the County's witnesses. • The formal Rules of Evidence will not apply to these proceedings, but fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and will govern these proceedings. • At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Board will make a Finding of Fact based on the record and Conclusions of Law and they may impose disciplinary sanctions, if warranted, against you and your license. Patrick White: Mr. Chairman, I think it's also fair to say that we've concluded the Opening Statement by the County. We're now talking about void versus expired. Procedurally, would you want to have Mr. Walsh offer his clarification as part of the Opening Statement? Reggie Smith: It would be nice. It was noted Jonathan Walsh, Chief Building Official, had been sworn in previously and was still under oath. Jonathan Walsh: For the record, Jon Walsh, Chief Building Official for Collier County. The question is the difference between null and void and expired. The Code states all three. I offer two different types of status: an"expired" status which then triggers a Notice letter to be issued. If you have an expired permit, it will appear in a report which is run monthly. We send a letter stating the permit has expired and you have 30 days to address it or it will go into a"void" status. If there are any pending 39 March 21,2018 fees on the permit and they are not paid, your license will be place on"hold." It is basically a warning. If nothing happens during the 30-days, the status of the permit is changed to "void." There are some extenuating circumstances and I will reinstate a "void" status permit to "expired"to allow the contractor to apply for an extension. It is not done often. For the most part, if a permit enters"void,"the contractor must re- apply for it as a built-in penalty for not addressing the original Notice. The Board's question on whether the work that was done needs to meet the current Code will depend on the status of the permit. If a contractor re-applies for a permit, any work that has not yet been done on a project has to meet the current Code. In some instances, such as energy compliance, it is more restrictive. It is to a contractor's benefit to extend the permit rather than to re-apply for it. The void permits were not transferred from CD Plus to CityView. We only take on the ones that must be addressed. Typically,they are addressed through a real estate transaction when it appears on a property search. Usually the ones that are transferred into CityView to be closed out have a penalty fee to be collected. The old program is no longer tied to a cashier—it is put into CityView to collect that money, or to reinstate the permit and then to perform the necessary inspections. If all we are missing is some paperwork, the old permits are typically closed out in CP Plus. Vice Chairman Lantz: I want to know about air-conditioning inspections. Jonathan Walsh: There is typically only one inspection. Vice Chairman Lantz: So that final inspection—I will assume that out of fifteen probably fourteen were never called in for an inspection. If they never got called in for an inspection, then the homeowner would have to re-apply and now meet the new Energy Code. Jonathan Walsh: Yes, if it comes down to an owner, it would have to be the contractor. Vice Chairman Lantz: Theoretically,the air-conditioner that some homeowner has paid for to install might not meet today's Code and they may—if the contractor is a dead beat—pay to have a new unit installed. Is there an option ...? Jonathan Walsh: What would happen is if the permit expired,the contractor would be informed via an Expired Permit Notice. The Notice would state whether there were any pending fees and if there was an open inspection. Usually it is one or the other. If it is not addressed within 30 days, the permit status would change to "void." If the permit goes into void status,the contractor would re-apply for the permit utilizing the old Code if the work was done. A permit could have been issued and the contractor had not yet done the work but planned to do it,then the permit would be re-issued under the current Code. Vice Chairman Lantz: Even though it hasn't been inspected,people have common sense and say I have a 2012 air conditioner ... Jonathan Walsh: It's typically noted by a date stamp on the unit when it was manufactured and that would be the Code that we would utilize. Chairman Boyd: Mr. Bumpus, you are here due to a Complaint that you have 31 void permits and 13 expired permits that need to be resolved. You have taken no action. Do you want to make a statement? 40 March 21,2018 The Respondent stated: • I do have thirteen that expired. They weren't called in for an inspection. • The voided—I didn't really look at them. • I know a couple I didn't pick up because they failed the Fire Inspection at the review process. I know there are three or four of those. • What the other ones are, I am not really sure. • I'm willing to have them re-inspected—I've done it before. • I've done it for other companies when they go to sell at real estate time, I've gone in and extended the permits and gotten them through inspection. • Like I say, normally when I pull a permit, I give it to the customer. They are home all day and can call it in—and I get a call the day before. • Yeah, I never follow up on final inspections. Vice Chairman Lantz: Why? Respondent: Because I'm there for two hours doing the change out. I never follow up getting the inspection. Vice Chairman Lantz: But you're responsible ... Respondent: It is my responsibility ... I should check the next day and make sure it is inspected. Richard Joslin: Don't you go back to see if the unit is working properly and the customer is advised on how it works? Respondent: I did all the work myself—me and my son would do it. He left me a couple of years ago, so I am pretty much not doing a/c anymore. I do repair work, I do home watch and I do handy work. Richard Joslin: Repair work—meaning on air-conditioning units? Respondent: On air-conditioning units, so that's yes. Richard Joslin: But you still need a license to do that. Respondent: Yes. Correct. Vice Chairman Lantz: You don't even call in for final inspections? You just leave the paperwork for the homeowner? Respondent: Correct. Vice Chairman Lantz: On the day you enter their home, you're responsible. Respondent: Basically, you have to be home. If nobody is home, they are not going to get an inspection. I'd go back the next day and sit and wait. They have a process now where I can request a text message thirty minutes prior to inspection—the system is better now. It's just—I blew it off... it's my fault. Richard Joslin: What's your plan for the future? Respondent: Right now, I talked to Mr. Smith yesterday and I'm trying to get my Workers' Comp re-instated and once the insurance has been reinstated, I can go down and get the permits issued. I'm with Staff Leasing but I found out the Workers' Comp was cancelled in November. I talked to them and they are re-instating it. Hopefully in a few days, I will have the Workers' Comp. 41 March 21,2018 Chairman Boyd: If you are working on your own and you don't have any employees, you don't need Workers' Comp. Respondent: The way my license is, it was done as a d/b/a and I can't be exempt unless I'm a corporation. At the time, my son was with me, so I had to carry insurance. I could only get Staff Leasing to write me—I couldn't get an insurance company to write me. It was all done through Staff Leasing. I didn't do anything wrong to get it cancelled, they just didn't renew it and nobody at Staff Leasing picked it up. I got my audit the other day and it said it ended in November. Patrick White: Do you have an estimate of about how long it will take to clear out the backlog of these void and expired permits? Respondent: No more than a month I would think. I've got to get it done now because most of my customers are seasonal and I have to get the inspections before they go back. Like I said, I should have insurance by the end of the week at the latest. I've got to call her back today and get the certificate sent out today. Patrick White asked Staff: What is the status of his license now? Respondent: According to the letter, I have eight permits that are voided that I have to take care of before I can pull anything. Patrick White asked Staff: Were there any fees owed? If fees are owed, from what Mr. Walsh just stated, I believe your license would be in a 'hold' status. Respondent: That's what it says—I have eight outstanding fees or something ... there was a note on there when I read it. Vice Chairman Lantz: He's still active as a State contractor, so he's still active. I mean, he's an active State Contractor—he just can't pull permits in Collier County. Your license is still ... Respondent: Yeah, I'm still 'active'... Vice Chairman Lantz: You're still a licensed contractor. Respondent: Correct. I can't pull any permits without active insurance anyway. Nobody would issue any permits. But if you're not registered, if they don't have my certificate of insurance, they consider me to be inactive until I physically go in there and show them a copy. Patrick White: In my mind there are maybe a couple of ways we can handle this. We can continue to go through the process. I believe you're making an admission that you're in violation. Respondent: Oh, yeah—there's no doubt I'm in violation. It's me. Patrick White: And not to burden the process anymore than we need to, it's up to the County if they want to continue this case for thirty days. I understand you have everybody here and you want to get a finding of violation but if he's willing ... it's up to you ... Richard Joslin: How old are these permits? Reggie Smith: Some of them date back to 2012 and 2013 —and as recent as when he stopped pulling permits in 2016. 42 March 21,2018 Richard Joslin: The units that are in at this moment are working and the people in Collier County aren't sweating, right? Terry Jerulle: That's irrelevant. Patrick White: The only other way it will work is if we impose a time period and make a finding of violation, then move into a suspension of his license but I don't know if that's the wise thing to do or not. I don't think he can get the permit work done with that. Regardless, what I suggest is we could hang up to a$10,000 fine over his head—if the violations aren't abated within a specified period of time,then the fine would be imposed. Chairman Boyd: He's State-certified. Matthew Nolton: If he's State-certified, we can't do that. Patrick White: Okay. We're down to the permits. Matthew Nolton: It looks to me as if the County has been trying to clear this since 2016 ... I'm not sure what we can do. Patrick White: There is another mechanism that I'm aware of which is that we would withhold notification to the CILB. The permits certainly need to be abated and we would not revoke his license because we can't. Terry Jerulle: There's a couple of things here. It makes it sound as if all he has to do is call in for the inspections. But he has to pass the inspections. And we don't know what the status is of those units. They may not meet Code. That may be the reason why he didn't call them in,in the first place. Reggie Smith: On the voided permits, a new application is needed. Matthew Nolton: He has to re-apply and go through that whole process. I'm assuming there are a lot of fees associated with that. Patrick White: Well, it's a whole lot less than ten grand, I'm guessing. Vice Chairman Lantz: Assuming that it's $100 per permit and we're at 44 permits, we're talking about$4,400 as a baseline. Can you do that? I mean, realistically, do you have the money to do that? Respondent: (Nodded his head affirmatively) Terry Jerulle: Let me ask the uncomfortable question: You say you can go that, but they [the County] have been trying to get you to do that and you said you were going to do it previously. Why should we believe you? Respondent: They handed me a packet of 13 permits to do. I got mad because it was $125 to send a letter to have them extended. The permit was $112. So, I basically didn't do it. Terry Jerulle: So, convince me that you're going to do it now. Respondent: I mean I don't have a choice. See—I'd lose my license and get a $10,000 fine and the State would take my license away. I need to get it done. I'm not hiding anything. I don't have any problems with the units. Granted it may fail if one locking cap is missing or something like that, but the units are all brand-new units— high efficiency units ... Patrick White: What is the warranty on those? Respondent: If they're registered, they get ten years on parts and one year on labor. There was one a lady turned me in for that I had put in five years prior to the day she turned me in, and I still got that one through. I had one lady in this subdivision who 43 March 21,2018 hated me. She would call the County. Within ten minutes of me showing up,the lady was out there after fifteen minutes making the phone call. Patrick White: Looking up your verification is a beautiful thing. Respondent: Well, I've been doing this since I was nineteen ... I'm fifty-five now ... so, basically, I've run my company, I've had hand-on everything. I was in new construction ... condominiums ... and when the construction died, I got rid of my employees and it was me and my son. We basically never pulled permits ... up until then. New construction was all permitted, change-outs were not permitted we were told. We stopped pulling permits and I got caught the first time. I paid the fine—it was two times the permit amount. I've been violated twice when I was wrong. One time I was running a new charge line—it was $700. I figured I didn't need to pull a permit—well, she turned me in after I was done. It cost me $300 or so for the permit on a$700 job, so I wasn't happy,but I did it. The one other time I was sweeping a garage door and the lady said I couldn't put the air-conditioner in and the County came out with a picture of the unit. It's on the back of the complaint—it was done five years prior. I met with the head at the time and he said to permit it. I said I couldn't permit it because it was not a complete change-out. He said it matched the coil, so you can do it and I did it. They charged me $50 bucks and it was done. I know a lot of people don't get inspections and when it comes down to the real estate closing—you can't close unless you get it. Patrick White: I can assure you that as a now-retired land use lawyer, I assisted my real-estate, Board-certified attorneys regularly in getting through the County process to do this. It has become a cottage industry. It is not going to get less ... it is only going to get more and more. Respondent: It's all on the computers. Everything is stored on computers and it sends up a red flag. Patrick White: Terrific. Respondent: Like I said, I permitted what I didn't put in and I went out and checked it and everything was okay. I charged the owner for the permit, went down and the County came out and inspected it and it was fine. I've done it on a couple that I've sold that I pulled permits for and never had inspected. I had it renewed and then inspected. Richard Joslin: Are you willing at this moment to get these permits fmalized, done and completed and to take care of the items that you need to keep your license active? Respondent: Yes, I don't have a choice. Richard Joslin: How long will it take you to do that? Respondent: I would say if you give me a month, I should be fine. Patrick White: Does the County have a position on this, having heard his testimony? Everildo Ybaceta: We would like the permits to be taken care of We would suggest giving him 30 to 60 days—do you feel 30 days? Respondent: I think I can get most of them done in 30 days. What are the ones that I have to re-apply for? I don't know getting through Fire ... Everildo Ybaceta: So, let's say 60 days. Respondent: Okay. 44 March 21,2018 Everildo Ybaceta: Let's say you 60 days to give you some time, and if you don't get it done in 60 days, what we will do is suspend your license and send it to the DBPR (Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation). Respondent: Okay. Assistant County Attorney Noell explained the Board would state the Finding of the violation as admitted and grant a Continuance for 60 days, and then the Respondent would return to appear before the Board. Patrick White: Are you suggesting we split the Finding of Violation and the penalty imposition? Assistant County Attorney Noell: The Board can continue the matter. Patrick White moved the approve closing the Public Hearing. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0. Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent, Jeffrey H. Bumpus, in violation as stated in the Administrative Complaint in Case #2018-04. Vice Chairman Lantz offered a Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Patrick White moved to approve tabling any consideration of the imposition of a penalty in this Case until such time as the County places it on the Board's Agenda, not to exceed two monthly cycles from today's Hearing date. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion. Patrick White explained when the Case is brought back before the Board,the members will consider the penalty phase. Matthew Nolton requested clarification of the permits— Patrick White stated the Administrative Complaint stated"multiple." Whatever the County believes is the appropriate number—it might find another one. In my mind, it is any and all of them that the County believes are either void or expired, and they all need to be resolved within the sixty days—otherwise, we're back here. Richard Joslin stated he hoped, considering the number of outstanding permits that may be voided, the County's Staff would work with Mr. Bumpus to make the process go smoothly to not delay the 60-day period. Patrick White noted the thing that took the longest was to get the permits transferred from CD Plus into CityView. Everildo Ybaceta: It is a process, yes. Chairman Boyd called for a vote on the motion. Carried unanimously, 6—0. Everildo Ybaceta: Just to clarify, Mr. Bumpus has 60 days or two meetings? Patrick White: My expectation is you will be putting it on the Agenda two months from now. And it will be 'nip and tuck' down to the day of the Hearing for the May meeting. 45 March 21,2018 Richard Joslin gave the Respondent some advice for the future to ensure that the inspections are called in and he verifies the appointment and confirms that the inspections have been approved. Respondent: The new system shows you if it is done. Patrick White: Thanks for coming in. Respondent: Glad I made it. Chairman Boyd: the Next meeting is Wednesday, April 18th. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18,2018 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 12:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MICHAEL BOYD, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing Board on ,2018, "as submitted" 1 1 - OR- "as amended" [ � 46 Cao ger Comn.ty COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MAY 16, 2018 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT - CASE 2018-07 STEPHEN PURCIELLO- MISCONDUCT OF A STATE CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR STEPHEN PURCIELLO is the License holder for his company STEPHENS REMODELING CO. (DBA) CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL. The license (CBC1250129 —BUILDING CONTRACTOR - CERTIFIED) is currently ACTIVE with the County under Collier Licensing number LCC20140003154. A Contractor Licensing case (CECV20170007941) was opened due to a complaint from a customer regarding improper action with their building permit. Permit number PRBD20151238075 is currently sitting in Expired status since it expired for the third time on 2/18/2018. After further review and discussion with the Building Official Jonathan Walsh, Mr. Purciello is in violation of the Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, Section 22-201.0 (Willfully violating the applicable building codes of laws of the state, City or Collier County). He is going in front of the board to hear possible disciplinary actions due to his violation. C.L.B. CASE # 2018 — 07 Stephen Purciello Stephens Remodeling Co. (Dba) Certapro Painters of SWFL TABLE OF CONTENTS El / E2 — Administrative Complaint E3 / E5 — Formal Complaint E6 — Collier County Certificate Detail Report E7 / E8 — State of Florida, Department of Business & Professional Regulation Licensee Detail E9 / El0 — State of Florida, Division of Corporations, Florida Profit Corporation Detail — Stephens Remodeling Co. El 1 — State of Florida, Division of Corporations, Florida Profit Corporation Detail — Certapro Painters of SWFL E12 — Notice of Hearing sent via Certified Mail / Return Receipt E13 — Signed Return Receipt for accepted Certified Mail E14 / E17 — Case Detail Report for current Misconduct Violation E18 / E20 — Collier County Building Permit # PRBD2011238075 E21 — Expiration — Reactivation Reports: City View Computer System E22 — Collier County Building Permit # PRBD2011238075, Extension # 1 E23 — Collier County Building Permit # PRBD2011238075, Extension # 2 E24 — Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, Section 22-201 .1(2) for MISCONDUCT — State Certified Contractors E25 — Florida Building Code (A) 105.3.2, "Time Limitations of Application" BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Petitioner, V. Case Number: 2018-07 License Number:CBC1250129 Stephen Purciello Stephens Remodeling Co. (Dba) Certapro Painters of SWFL. Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Collier County(County)files the Administrative Complaint against Stephen Purciello (Respondent), a State licensed Certified Building Contractor(license#CBC1250129),and states the following facts and allegations in support of the cited violations below: 1. The Respondent is currently licensed by State of Florida as a Certified Building Contractor with License number CBC1250129. 2. Under the provisions of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended,Section 22-201.1,the following actions by a holder of a State Certified Building Contractor/Collier County registered Contractor(#LCC20140003154) shall constitute misconduct and grounds for discipline pursuant to Section 22-202. a. On 04/04/2016, a Collier County Building Permit#PRBD20151238075 was issued for the property at 1 Bluebill Ave.,#203, Naples, FL. 34108(Folio#79620480002)to "BATHROOM REMODEL:INCLUDING NEW FLOORING,SHOWER TILE,SHOWER, VANITY, CABINET, SHOWER FIXTURES. TUB TO SHOWER CONVERSION. FRAME DOWN CEILING AND ADD RECESSED LIGHTING, MOVE CEILING FAN LOCATION. NO TENANT SEPARATION OR STRUCTURAL WALLS/FLOORS WILL BE ALTERED OR AFFECTED BY THIS SCOPE OF WORK". b. The permit expired on 10/02/2016 and was REACTIVATED, issued a 1St Extension on 12/30/2016. c. The 15t Permit Extension expired on 03/31/2017.The permit was REACTIVATED, issued a 2nd Extension on 06/28/2017. d. The 2"d Extension expired on 09/27/2017.The permit was REACTIVATED, issued a 3rd Extension on 11/16/2017. e. The 3`d Extension expired 02/14/2018. f. All inspections FAILED(Framing& Elect. Rough) and fees are outstanding($200 for Permit Extensions).The permit was never completed or inspected therefore failed to obtain a Certificate of Completion. 3. Thereafter, pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended,Section 22-202 (b) and Section 22-202 (c),the complaint was investigated and found sufficient cause to file formal charges. 4. Collier County brings the following charge in this formal complaint against the Respondent. COUNT I 5. Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended,Section 22-201.1 (2), Misconduct—State Certified Contractors, states: "Willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state,city or Collier County." WHEREFORE, the Petitioner asserts the above facts and charges are grounds for disciplinary action under Section 22-201 of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended,and WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing,the Petitioner respectfully requests the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board to find the Respondent guilty of the violations charged. iteDated: V 9 U 5 Signed: „!4/:,_ , A..,i, ack G ph olli- County Contractors' Licensing Supervisor or Designee Contractors' Licensing Board 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Fl. 34104 Complaint Number-2018-07 Complainant: Any person who believes that a Contractor holding a State Certification or Certificate of competency has violated Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, may submit a sworn complaint to the Contractor Licensing supervisor, or his/her designee.The complaint shall be in substantially the form prescribed by the Contractor Licensing Supervisor.The complainant shall pay a fee of$50.00 to defray the costs of administering the complaint,at the time of filing the complaint.The complaining party shall state with particularity which section(s)of this Ordinance he or she believes has been violated by the contractor and the essential facts in support thereof. Complaint: Please print or type and return signed copies of the complaint. Date:April 10,2018 Against: Contractor's Name:Stephen Purciello Phone: (239) 777-1369 Business Name:STEPHENS REMODELING CO. (DBA)CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL License Number if known:CERTIFIED ISSUANCE#CBC1250129(Certified Building Contractor) Collier County Competency number: LCC20140003154 Contractor's Business Address:2614 Tamiami Trail,#532 Naples, FL 34103 Filed By: Name: Collier County Contractors' Licensing Office(Jack Gumph) Address:2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples,FL 34104 Business Phone: 239-252-2468 Address where work done: 1 Bluebill Ave, Unit 203 City: NAPLES, FL 34108 County: COLLIER Date of contract: Unknown Date job started: Unknown(Building Permit issued 04/04/20161 Date job completed or new home occupied: INCOMPLETE Were there plans and specifications? Unknown Is there a written contract? Unknown. If yes, amount of Contract: Unknown Has Contractor been paid in full? Unknown. If not,what amount? Unknown Was a Building Permit obtained?YES Building Permit number if known: PRBD20151238075 Have you communicated by letter with the licensee?YES Date:04/10/2018. Do you have a reply? YES Please attach to this form all copies of the purchase agreement, building contract, home improvement contract, copies of receipts and/or cancelled checks available and any additional evidence to substantiate your allegations. List any subsections of Section 4 of Collier County Ordinance number 90- 105, as amended,which, in your opinion, have been violated by the contractor which is the subject of this complaint, (list subsection number): Collier County Ordinance 90-105,as amended,Section 22-201.1 (2), Misconduct—State Certified Contractors,states:"Willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state,city or Collier County." Please state the facts which you believe substantiate your charge of misconduct against the subject contractor. List facts separately for each subsection number above: Contractor,Stephen Purciello was issued permit#PRBD20151238075 on 04/04/2016 which expired on 02/14/2018(with 3 expirations&3 extensions)and inspections failed and fees not paid.The permit expired on 10/02/2016 and was REACTIVATED,issued a 1st Extension on 12/30/2016.The 1st Permit Extension expired on 03/31/2017.The permit was REACTIVATED,issued a 2nd Extension on 06/28/2017.The 2nd Extension expired on 09/27/2017.The permit was REACTIVATED, issued a 3rd Extension on 11/16/2017.The 3rd Extension expired 02/14/2018.The permit was never completed or inspected therefore failed to obtain a Certificate of Completion. (Complainant's signature) State of FLORIDA County of COLLIER A Sworn to(or affirmed) a . subscribed before me this 2— day of 'I i• L , 2018, by (.A 4 ,______�_(signature of person making statement). allt YF� ULLA Aer signature of Notary Public) �`:•••.e�% DAVIS * « * MY COMMISSION#FF 909749 0 11111 e EXPIRES:May 0,2020 Print,type or stamp commissioned name of Notary Public: 'rFOFF�°�� idTh"Budget "rySorting Personally known r) or produced identification V License Application Status - CityView Portal Page 1 of 1 GPO Public Portal License Application Status Note:You can collapse and expand individual sections by clicking the header of the section you wish to collapse/expand. — License Application Summary Application Number: LCC20140003154 Business Name: STEPHENS REMODELING CO.(DBA)CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL License Type: Contractor Application Status: Active Description of Business: Mailing Address: 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL,SUITE 532 NAPLES FL 34103 - Issuances Type Date Issued Date Expires Status Number •BUILDING CONTR.-CERTIFIED '09/20/2016 08/31/2018 Active 201400001704 — Submittals There are no submittals for this license application. - Reviews There are no reviews for this license application. _ Insurance Producer Type Policy Effective Date Expiry Date j Limit CONSTRUCTION PROS General Liability GIFL11840901 04/11/2017 1;04/11/2019 $2,000,000.00 INSURANCE LLC Expiration Processed: No Producer Phone Number: 800-685-0027 PLYMOUTH ;Worker's I WC71949 01/01/2017 01/01/2019 INSURANCE AGENCY Compensation Expiration Processed: No Producer Phone Number: 877-266-6850 hllp://cvportal.colliergov.net/CityViewWeb/License/Status?licenseId=139784 4/24/2018 Lc- DBPR- STEPHENS REMODELING CO;Doing Business As: CERTAPRO PAINTERS ... Page 1 of 1 9:17:00 AM 4/24/2018 This is a business tracking record only. Licensee DetailsClick here for information on how to verify that this business is properly licensed. Licensee Information Name: STEPHENS REMODELING CO (Primary Name) CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL (DBA Name) Main Address: 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL # 532 NAPLES Florida 34103 County: COLLIER License Mailing: License Location: License Information License Type: Construction Business Information Rank: Business Info License Number: Status: Current Licensure Date: 08/09/2013 Expires: Special Qualifications Qualification Effective Alternate Names View Related License Information View License Complaint 2601 Blair Stone Road,Tallahassee FL 32399-:: Email: Customer-Contact Center :: Customer Contact Center: 850,487.1395 The State of Florida is an AA/EEO employer.Copyright 2007-2010 State of Florida.Privacy Statement Under Florida law,email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact the office by phone or by traditional mail.If you have any questions, please contact 850.487.1395.*Pursuant to Section 455.275(1),Florida Statutes,effective October 1,2012,licensees licensed under Chapter 455,F.S.must provide the Department with an email address if they have one.The emails provided may be used for official communication with the licensee. However email addresses are public record.If you do not wish to supply a personal address,please provide the Department with an email address which can be made available to the public. https://www.myfloridalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=7C737422CDE 1A78409... 4/24/2018 •DBPR-PURCIELLO, STEPHENJOHN; Doing Business As: CERTAPRO PAINTERS ... Page 1 of 1 9:16:19 AM 4/24/2018 Licensee tails Licensee Information Name: PURCIELLO, STEPHEN JOHN (Primary Name) CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL (DBA Name) Main Address: 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL #532 NAPLES Florida 34103 County: COLLIER License Mailing: LicenseLocation: License Information License Type: Certified Building Contractor Rank: Cert Building License Number: CBC1250129 Status: Current,Active Licensure Date: 05/07/2002 Expires: 08/31/2018 Special Qualifications Qualification Effective Construction Business 11/24/2010 Alternate Names View Related License Information View License Complaint 2601 Blair Stone Road.Tallahassee FL 32399 :: Email: Customer Contact Center :: Customer Contact Center: 850.487.1395 The State of Florida is an AA/EEO employer.Copyright 2007-2010 State of Florida.Privacy Statement Under Florida law,email addresses are public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public-records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact the office by phone or by traditional mail.If you have any questions, please contact 850.487.1395.*Pursuant to Section 455.275(1),Florida Statutes,effective October 1,2012,licensees licensed under Chapter 455,F.S.must provide the Department with an email address if they have one.The emails provided may be used for official communication with the licensee. However email addresses are public record.If you do not wish to supply a personal address,please provide the Department with an email address which can be made available to the public. https://www.myfloridalicense.com/LicenseDetail.asp?SID=&id=02C36026F8EC0879CB2... 4/24/2018 c Detail by Officer/Registered Agent Name Page 1 of 2 Florida Department of State DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS a f/ .,gorg y. r c) f r Department of State / Division of Corporations / Search Records / Detail By Document Number/ Detail by Officer/Registered Agent Name Florida Profit Corporation STEPHENS REMODELING CO. Filing Information Document Number P13000054023 FEI/EIN Number 46-3044264 Date Filed 06/24/2013 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL 532 NAPLES, FL 34103 Mailing Address 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL 532 NAPLES, FL 34103 Registered Agent Name&Address REGISTERED AGENTS INC. 3030 N. ROCKY POINT DR.STE 150A TAMPA, FL 33607 Name Changed:01/08/2018 Address Changed:01/08/2018 Officer/Director Detail Name&Address Title P PURCIELLO,STEPHEN J 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL#532 NAPLES, FL 34103 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2015 09/17/2015 2016 04/29/2016 2017 04/28/2017 http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=Offic... 4/24/2018 • Detail by Officer/Registered Agent Name Page 2 of 2 Document Images 01/08/2018—Req.Agent Change View image in PDF format 04/28/2017—ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/29/2016—ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 09/17/2015—ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 05/01/2014—ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/24/2013—Domestic Profit View image in PDF format Florida Department of State,Division of Corporations http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=Offic... 4/24/2018 ci sunbiz.org-Florida Department of State Page 1 of 1 Florida Department of State DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS orgat Previous on List Next on List Return to List Fictitious Name Search No Filing History I Submit Fictitious Name Detail Fictitious Name CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL Filing Information Registration Number G14000068253 Status ACTIVE Filed Date 07/01/2014 Expiration Date 12/31/2019 Current Owners 1 County MULTIPLE Total Pages 1 Events Filed NONE FEI/EIN Number 46-3044264 Mailing Address 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL#532 NAPLES,FL 34103 Owner Information STEPHENS REMODELING CO 2614 TAMIAMI TRAL#532 NAPLES,FL 34103 FEI/EIN Number:46-3044264 Document Number:P13000054023 Document Images 07/01/2014--Fictitious Name Filing View image in PDF format Previous on List Next on List Return to List Fictitious Name Search No Filing History Submit Florida Department of State,Division of Corporations http://dos.sunbiz.org/scripts/ficidet.exe?action=DETREG&docnum=G 14000068253&rdoc... 4/24/2018 Certified Mail#7017 0530 0000 8339 6071 Date:April 10.2018 Stephen Purciello Stephens Remodeling Co.(Dba)Certapro Painters of SWFL. 2614 Tamiami Trail.#532 Naples,FL 34103 Permit Application:PRBD20151238075(EXPIRED PERMIT) Job Description: BATHROOM REMODEL Job Location: 1 Bluebill Ave, Unit 203,Naples,FL 34108 Dear Mr.Purciello, A complaint has been filed against you by the above referenced entity.A hearing of this Complaint will be held by the Contractors'Licensing Board on Wednesday,May 16,2018 at 9:00 AM in the Board of County Commissioner's Room,Third Floor,Administration Building (W. Harmon Turner Bldg.),at 3301 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,Florida 34112.Your presence before the Collier County Contractors'Licensing Board is required at this time. The packet you will receive marked composite exhibit"A"will be delivered to the members of the Contractors'Licensing Board one week prior to the hearing.If you wish to prepare a defense packet and have it delivered in conjunction with composite exhibit"A",you must make fifteen copies and have them in our office by 8:00 AM on Wednesday,one week prior to the hearing. In your packet,you may give a summary of events.At this meeting,you may present evidence and be represented by an attorney of your choice. In the event the Contractors'Licensing Board finds you in violation of Section(s)22-201.1(2))of Collier County Ordinance#90-105,as amended,the range of disciplinary sanctions which may be imposed are from an oral reprimand to a suspension or revocation of your Collier County Certificate issuance(N/A),and/or suspension or revocation of your permit privileges against your State license#CBC1250129. Sincerel tr,klt Jack.Gump Licensing C. . iance Officer,Collier County Contractors'Licensing Operations and Regulatory Management,Growth Management Department 2800 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples,FL. 34104 ARM c 'O 73r (2.ovi ity Growth Management Division Planning&Regulation 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive 7017 0530 0000 8339 6071 Naples,FL 34104 .5.1- Stephen Purciello Stephens Remodeling Co. (Dba) Certapro Painters 2614 Tamiami Trail, #532 Naples, FL 34103 U.S. Postal Service"' SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY CERTIFIED MAIL° REC • Complete items 1,2,and 3. A. Signature I N Domestic Mail Only • Printyour name and address on the reverse ©Agent ( Q ! x For delivery information.visit our websitea so that we can return the card to you. Addressee ( .J7 B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery I I ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Q' '-__ { or on the front if space permits. m Certified Mail Fee 11. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes c0 $ If YES,enter delivery address below: D No Extra Services&Fees(check box,add fee as appropriate) �..�^7�Oi1Ir�� MV ✓�-I w.+ff Q ❑Return Receipt(hardcopy) $ 'GG TT�f /VL/C 1.t t! I Q 0 Return Receipt(electronic) $ 107 _C/ I Q 0 Certified Mall Restricted Delivery $ ii-C�`'' Q 0 Adult Signature Required $ �� 'I[ �• • TR �3't i 0 Adult Signature Restricted Delivery$ `( 'Ammo's Q Postage iV4-hoc. , ,C` 3c f/0 3 m $ I D Total Postage and Fees 3. Service Type 0 Priority Mail Express® $ 0 Adult Signature 0 Registered MaiWTM ry N Sen.................��V 111111111111111 I I II i II I II ' I ( Aertified Mailp Restricted DeAvery p Delivsetered Mail Restricted Q j 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Return Receipt for N SY set and pt. o.,or P ox No. 9590 9402 2733 6351 0951 01 0 Polled on Delivery Merchandise i 'Z„ Ii-n,•., ,�, ; 772 e A.tt..to tu.,nst,r rr}ansfer from service label) 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmation' I City,Sia I 1 !"! r7 r��ry '-tail 0 Signature Confirmation A �1 $C 7 017 0530 0 0 0 0 8339 6071 tail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery PS Form 38uo,April 2015 PSN 7530.02.000.9047 D) DER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 'Postal Servicer'' omplete items 1,2,and 3. A. Signature ITIFIED MAIL® RECEIPT p -� ❑Agent .tic Mail Only 'int your name and address on the reverse x )that we can return the card to you. ,� Addressee very information,visit our website at www.usps.comd. B. ec- ed by(Printed Name) C. Da of Delivery „ 5 v Itach this card to the back of the mailpiece, = ,° $y. u As �, •on the front if space permits. ill Fee -tide Addressed to: t D. Is delivery address different from item 1 a��s �Q��5.0.-1A4 If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No as a Fees(check box,add fee aappropriate) T �\ Iceipt(hardcopy) $ ceipt(electronic) $ P tmark 'ern '� (C(,Aw!c tw deli Restrcted Delivery $ lere of • T� #53z_ iature Required $ G Ml4K stare Restricted Delivery$ 4;10 , 't- 3cfi O 3 ge and Fees 3. Service Type 0 Priority Mail Express® 1111 III 111111 I I II I II 111 1111 0 Adult Signature 0 Registered MaitTM 0 Af. d aRestricted Delivery 0 Regsetrered Mail Restricted stricted G•GErieMail® (2641 0 0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery 0 Return t.ho.,or PO Receipt for Pox No. 9590 9402 2733 6351 0951 01 0 Collect en Delivery Merchandise wAt�� 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature Confirmat on t 7-ii-- ,E,„t t,r tar!Transfer from service label) _. 0 Signature Confirmation 1tY' r`! Q 7 017 0530 0000 8339 6071 tel Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery ef "'11 I— `Y m _'�^��)r�tk�. may,. .. ...... -- '- - - - - - ` " C iergov.net. Report Title: Code Case Details Date: 4/24/2018 9:31:08 AM Case Number: CECV20170007941 Case Number: CECV20170007941 Status: Preliminary Review Case Type: Code Violation Date&Time Entered: 5/6/2017 2:07:54 PM Priority: Normal Entered By: WebAnonymousUser Inspector: JackGumph Case Disposition: Case Pending Jurisdiction: Contractor's Licensing Origin: Public Portal Detail Description: The General Contractor, Stephen Purciello of Stephen's Remodeling in Naples, has failed to comply with permit regulations as it pertains to interim and final inspections. As the property owner, I have requested compliance repeatedly, but he continues to fail to respond. These delays have been ongoing for many months. The renovation was finalized after 18 months, and only after retaining legal counsel. I believe interim inspections were conducted by a private contracting firm, as I was made aware at the time of the inspections and was present for one inspection. However,the interim inspection reports(9) have not been submitted to the county for the final inspection to occur, and it needs to be done. Location Comments: 1 Bluebill Ave.,#203, Naples, FL. 34108 (Folio#79620480002) Property 79620480002 Complainant Loren G. Mealey Contractor STEPHEN PURCIELLO Violator STEPHEN PURCIELLO Business Management& Budget Office 1 sl • Code Case Details Execution Date 4/24/2018 9:31:08 AM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Preliminary Investigation JackGumph 5/6/2017 5/9/2017 Needs 05/09/2017 I nvestigatio n The General Contractor, Stephen Purciello of Stephen's Remodeling in Naples, has failed to comply with permit regulations as it pertains to interim and final inspections. As the property owner, I have requested compliance repeatedly, but he continues to fail to respond. These delays have been ongoing for many months. The renovation was finalized after 18 months, and only after retaining legal counsel. I believe interim inspections were conducted by a private contracting firm, as I was made aware at the time of the inspections and was present for one inspection. However,the interim inspection reports(9)have not been submitted to the county for the final inspection to occur, and it needs to be done. I (Jack Gumph)reviewed Permit# PRBD20151238075 and verified"Expired" status. On the date of May 8,2017, I contacted by phone, STEPHEN J. PURCIELLO, (239)777-1369(License# Q25260, LCC20140003154)and advised of the Expired status and code violation. Mr. Purciello stated he would initiate steps to resolve the matter. follow up necessary. Addressing Review webAnonymo 5/6/2017 6/30/2017 Complete usUser Cont. Investigation JackGumph 6/30/2017 6/30/2017 Complete 06/30/2017 I (Jack Gumph)reviewed Permit# PRBD20151238075 and verified the permit has been placed in"Reactivated"by the contractor, STEPHEN J. PURCIELLO, (239) 777-1369(License#Q25260, LCC20140003154). this would show progress of Mr. Purciello initiating steps to resolve the matter. Follow up required for the permit to be 'finaled". Cont. Investigation JackGumph 8/24/2017 8/24/2017 Complete 08/24/2107 Researched permit, status is"Reactivated". Follow up necessary Business Management & Budget Office 2 Code Case Details Execution Date 4/24/2018 9:31:08 AM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Cont. Investigation JackGumph 10/12/2017 10/16/2017 Complete 10/12/2017 On the date of October 12, 2017, I (Jack Gumph)reviewed this case report detail. I researched the building department files for permit#PRBD20151238075 and found that the permit has again been placed in the EXPIRED status. Contact to be made AGAIN with the contractor Cont. Investigation JackGumph 10/24/2017 10/24/2017 Complete .10/23/2017 On the date of 10/23/2017, I (Jack Gumph) placed a telephone call to contractor of record, STEPHEN J. PURCIELLO, (239)777- 1369.At that time,there was no answer and a message was left to contact me reference the permit in question. Cont. Investigation JackGumph 10/24/2017 10/24/2017 Complete 10/24/2017 10/24/2017 On the date of October 24, 2017, I (Jack Gumph)drafted a letter to Stephen Purciello, who qualifies the company, STEPHENS REMODELING CO. (DBA)CERTAPRO PAINTERS OF SWFL with his license# CBC1250129(State Certified Building Contractor)in regards to this expired permit# PRBD20151238075 requesting immediate resolution.The letter was sent USPS. Follow up necessary Cont. Investigation JackGumph 11/20/2017 11/20/2017 Complete 11/20/2017 On the date of November 16, 2017, I (Jack Gumph)received a telephone message from contractor, Stephen Purciello who advised that he has re-activated(again)the permit in question and will take the necessary steps to resolve the issues. Case remains open at this time. Cont. Investigation JackGumph 3/12/2018 3/12/2018 Complete 03/12/2018 Research indicates that the permit has again expired as of 2/18/2018. continues Business Management&Budget Office 3 Code Case Details Execution Date 4/24/2018 9:31:08 AM Desc Assigned Required Completed Outcome Comments Cont. Investigation JackGumph 4/10/2018 4/11/2018 Complete 04/10/2018 Research indicates that the permit still listed in Status"expired"as of 2/18/2018. This case was initiated on May 6, 2017 for the`Expired' Permit that was originally issued on 04/04/2016.The permit was given two(2) Extensions. As of this date of April 10,2018, I (Jack Gumph)have not seen any progress reference Mr. Purciello's attempts to resolve the permit situation. On this date, I issued a Notice of Hearing for May 16,2018, Contractor Licensing Board(#2018-07)for willful code violation. If violation is abated before hearing, I will pull case from agenda. Notice mailed Certified Mail Return Receipt on 04/10/2018(USPS#7017 0530 0000 8339 6071). Follow up necessary Investigation JackGumph 5/8/2018 Pending Stephen Purciello of Stephen's Remodeling Violation Description Status Entered Corrected Amount Comments 4.2 Misconduct State Certified Open 5/9/2017 $0 Contractors Title Reason Result Compliance Fine/Day Condition Business Management&Budget Office 4 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PERMIT PERMIT#: PRBD2015123807501 PERMIT TYPE: BD ISSUED: BY: APPLIED DATE: 12-07-15 APPROVAL DATE:04-04-16 MASTER#: COA: JOB ADDRESS: 1 Bluebill AVE,Unit:203 JOB DESCRIPTION: BATHROOM REMODEL:INCLUDING NEW JOB PHONE: FLOORING,SHOWER TILE,SHOWER,VANITY, CABINET,SHOWER FIXTURES.TUB TO SHOWER CONVERSION.FRAME DOWN CEILING AND ADD RECESSED LIGHTING,MOVE CEILING FAN LOCATION.NO TENANT SEPARATION OR STRUCTURAL WALLS/FLOORS WILL BE ALTERED OR AFFECTED BY THIS SCOPE OF WORK 1 BLUEBILL AVE#203 SUBDIVISION#: BLOCK: LOT: FLOOD MAP: ZONE: ELEVATION: FOLIO#: 79620480002 SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE:20-48-25 OWNER INFORMATION: CONTRACTOR INFORMATION: MEALEY,LOREN G STEPHENS REMODELING CO.(DBA) 1 BLUEBILL AVE#405 STEPHEN'S REMODELS NAPLES ,FL 34108- 2614 TAMIAMI TRAIL,SUITE 532 NAPLES,FL 34103 CERTIFICATE#::LCC20140003154 PHONE: FCC CODE: CONSTRUCTION CODE: 0218 JOB VALUE: $9,000.00 TOTAL RES SQFT: 300 TOTAL COMM SQFT: 0 SETBACKS FRONT: REAR: LEFT: RIGHT: SEWER: WATER: CONTACT NAME: CONTACT PHONE: Per Collier County Ordinance No.2002-01,as it may be amended,all work must comply with all applicable laws,codes,ordinances,and any additional stipulations or conditions of this permit.This permit expires if work authorized by the permit is not commenced within six(6)months from the date of issuance of the permit Additional fees for failing to obtain permits prior to the commencement of construction may be imposed.Permittee(s)further understands that any contractor that may be employed must be a licensed contractor and that the structure must not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. NOTICE:PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS PRODUCTS OR THE DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE,FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS REQUIRE THE PERMITTEE(EITHER THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR)TO SUBMIT A NOTICE OF THE INTENDED WORK TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION(DEP).FOR MORE INFORMATION,CONTACT DEP AT(239)344-5600. In addition to the conditions of this permit,there may be additional restrictions applicable to this property that may be found in the public records of this county,and there may be additional permits required from other governmental entities such as water management districts,state agencies,or federal agencies. WARNING TO OWNER: YOUR FAILURE TO RECORD A NOTICE OF View Master Project View Ail Activities on this Application Add new person or business to Address Book • Permit Application 1 New Application (current project) ; 1 New Application(no project) Application Number 1PRBD201.51.238075 Application Status !Expired Application Type Building Date Entered 12/07/2015 Work Class 'Alteration Entered By Ed Bouia El Construction Type ' Department Building Review and Permittircg—E Plan Checker E Jurisdiction 2 Inspector r--------- _El2_ Land Use TAdd Occupancy Code j Fire Zone E Occupancy Code(s) Linic Occupancy Code Date Issued 04/04/2016 v Residential Multi-Family Date Expiration 02/14/2018 No Date Finaled v Total Valuation $0.00 Inspector Note Description of Work ' BATHROOM REMODEL: INCLUDING NEW FLOORING, SHOWER.TILE, SHOWER,VANITY, CABINET, SHOWER A FIXTURES. TUB TO SHOWER CONVERSION. FRAME DOWN CEILING AND ADD RECESSED LIGHTING, MOVE ! CEILING FAN LOCATION. NO TENANT SEPARATION OR STRUCTURAL WALLS/FLOORS WILL BE ALTERED OR ' I AFFECTED BY THIS SCOPE OF WORK , 1 BLLIEBILL AVE#203 v Show Permit Application Project Types L__. i Show More Fields Business Name I , Electronic Documents I No Fire District Original Ft ISO Report Code Natural Disaster Type Building Permit Application attributes ---, 1-2 Family or Comm!Commercial L::::1 Master Permit ,. Building Official!Jonathan Walsh _JC1 Bldg Code in Effect L_I FBC 5th Edition 2014 __. ron Pvt Prov Review "..., Pvt Prov Inspection ryes ...i.........j Permit By Affidavit 3 Flag Sprinkler Nd COA Required 0 COA Number I Simultaneous Review? El # Stories 11.00 #Bedrooms # Bathrooms Expedited Review?0 EWAApproved ID Fast Track?0 Work without Permit El Shell/Warehouse/Build-Out?0 Building Height Building Length Building Width 1 Cur Wind Load Zone Duplex or Less 1 Lot .....1 All Docs Attached El # Elevators 1 Escalators Township [48 Flan Thrpchnlds El Ronne 125 P.N . Application Information . Application Number PRBD20151238075 Description Type propertv.11ert | Type Ouikding [�y 79620400002 Property _, ____- / `J 1 QluebU|AVE, Unb:283 ! Address ! Status 'Expired bj Inspector -----'- [°( _-_�� View Master Prolect Add a new person or business to Address Sook Show Permits on this Aoolicati on Show Inspection Zones on this Aoolication V Activity Tracking A. L -- - — --_ ------ ----�-----�-- show Me -' --- — | ------- ��°no /no Activities� ' ` � [ Refresh ' Generate Email Add Activity i __-- ��| i Go Link Activity . Assigned'To Priority OatmRoqtdred Outcome Date Complete A �. 108 -Framing John Serenko High 0e/15/2016 Fail Private Provider 08/15/2016 �= 108-Framing ! Private Inactive Activity 02/1512018 „ 115-Building Final Private Inactive Activity 02/1512018 �� l4z -Interior Slab Infill Private Inactive Activity 02/15/2018 ". 201-Plumbing Rough-in Private Inactive Activity 02/15/2018 �. 20a-Plumbing �no| Private -lnucdvm� ctivitv 02/15/2018 „ 501 -Electrical Rough Richard Davidson High 00/15/2016 Fail Private Provider 08/15/2010 �� 501 -Electrical Rough Private Inactive Activity 02/15/201e ,. 502-Electrical Final Private Inactive Activity 02Y15/2018 =. 601-FIRE INSPECTIONS Cont Private Inactive Activity 02/15/2018 =. 604- North Collier- NN FD: Private Inactive Activity 02/15/20113 == 610-Penetration Protection Private Inactive Activity 02/15/2018 == 612- Fire Barrier Walls-Rough Linda Simmons Normal Not Required 12/29/2015 =� ___ 613-f1nn|MrmB*rhmr0Va||o Linda Simmons Normal Not Required 1�2e/2u1� v - . ' .' - --' _ '' --' . .... .. -.. '. -. ' - .. .. . --.— — ' ' - '-. --.-^'-.- '. .-_-_ .—' Comments ��o�n��wp�� i ' | { _� ato�Time � Responsible Department [�adrwm�ng---- ] 'X Resource Gro [�/ sndT1mmYup L �� ________ ____L�� Hours Spent A Date Requested { V � � — —` Completed By � ncquc��dTime��m� i ---- — �_____'___ , Category [ I1 Jurisdiction L_____ Notification Phone Number �( ) - Notification Email � - — � � Show Activity Comments History V Show Activity Extended Description * Show Activity Public Notes v F Show More Fields 1 Added bAddAcuvity — �|cctronioQooummnt» ----- �� au�nnv (DamvddActivitvBU�� L��.___-__- Manual A ^",�'' �� SubmittalNumbcr)z fa��nnMnnuniAdbvhv) - , Activity Che�� * -- ` ^ ` ~�' | �� -°d ��~�/"~~ ~, {� /^ Add COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Case Number: 2018—07 Stephen Purciello Stephens Remodeling Co. (Dba) Certapro Painters of SWFL Collier County Building Permit # PRBD20151238075 Expiration — Reactivation Reports: City View Computer system Status Tracking Status Type Date Entered •i Entered By NAttos ,. Expired 10/02/2016 cvmanager Building PRBD2015123807501 Expired 10/02/2016 comanager PRBD20151238075 Reactivate 12/30/2016 LilleDavis Building PRBD2015123807501 %s Reactivate 12/30/2016 LillaDavis PRBD20151238075 Status Tracking . Sous Type I NO Befe>fed A Entered By Expired 03/31/2017 cvmanager Building PRBD2015123807501 Expired 03/31/2017 cvmanager PRBD20151238075 Reactivate 06/28/2017 Pamelaludy Building PRBD2015123807501 Ll Reactivate 06/28/2017 Pamelaludy PRBD20151238075 Status Tracking Type DaleEntmedAEr4efed By Wes 1 Expired 09/27/2017 cvmanager Building PRBD2015123807501 Expired 09/27/2017 cvmanager PRBD20151238075 Reactivate 11/16/2017 Pamelaludy Building PRBD2015123807501 r+ Reactivate 11/16/2017 Pamelaludy PRBD20151238075 I , Expired 02/15/2018 comanager Building PRBD2015123807501 --.: Expired 02/15/2018 cvmanager PRBD20151238075 i-' ' V‘ .`".-1 .•."-- 1 IPECV 0 E, ‘;\ , t . ...,013 nty C....C:z< EXTENSION FORM ' 2076 (1- (.1, Date: 12'27,16 Permit#: PRB.0291.$123301$92 :, \I/0, Primary Permit#(if required): Contractor: Stephens Rcritceling CO T\ Phone#:7;5947'1369 Address: 2614 Mini.:in:trail North ir.532 Naples Fl 34103 Contractor's E-mail Address: stepht ncistephensremocieline.corn Loren Meal:: Owner's name: Job Address: 1 Bluebi9 Ate unit 293 Permit Description: Roth Remodel-paint Permit Expiration Date: "1:19116 Has work commenced yet? Reason for extension: Com pkting tt orklott n er was at,4)-, Estimate time of extension: 90 daY, No,of other extensions: I (MAXIMUM 90 DAYS) (MAXIMUM 3 EXTENSIONS ALLOWED) Signature of ' n --• Contractor/Qualifier Print name of Licensed Contractor/Qualifier , Stephen Purciello State of Florida County Z? ---\ Sworn to and subscribed_kfore me this day of lie-c------ ,--7, By:z,-/-v3b/v&A, : 4-ZrieCiEz 4-c.3 \ )Personally known ( ) Produced Identification Type of Identification i.4te‘,,,..,it,, , ..emtutia tick eimmtimto_ SigneisreSeal t of Notary Publi •,-- 4 ./: - 44-i(a-',. " rr , .. i a; . : MY COMMISSION 1 FF035656 1 "-:,,i, -„s EXPIRES November 12,2019 (i\ ,_,f/--.Th I •,-"4...._"' • ,---''---0'5' -• . • Sormccern Extension granted Permit extension period O Extension denied Reason for denial I Collier County Fax No: (239)252-6318 , \ i V7C,NADe'573 E-mail: GMDPerrnicExtens;onPcolliergov.net Co Cr County ' EXTENSION FORM JUN 2017 Date: 06/07/17 Permit#: PRBD20151238075 J " Primary Permit#(if required): Contractor: Stephens Remodeling Co Phone#:239-777-1369 Address; 2614 Tamiami Trail North#532 Naples FL 34103 Contractor's E-mail Address: stephen•astepbensremodels.com Owner's name: Loren Molly Job Address: 1 13mef;al Ave#203 BATHROOM REMODEL:INCLUDING NEW FLOORING,SHOWER TILE,SHOWER,VANITY,CABINET,SHOWER Permit Description: FIXTURE&Tug To SHOWER CONVERSION.FRAME DOWN CEILING AND ADD RECESSED LIGHTING.MOVE CrALtiG rAN LOt.AI iO:S.NO CL NA:'N I EFAKAt 10A OK FRL,.t tsitni\ALL5/ mum/um/WILL tit.ALtERED OR AFFECTED BY THIS SCOPE OF WORK Permit Exp ration Date: 3/30/17 Has work commenced yet? re Reason for extension: Extra Time needed for work performed/CLient Access Estimate tirie of extension: 30 No.of other extensions: (MAXIMUM 90 DAYS) (MAXIMUM 3 EXTENSIONS ALLOWED) Signature of LicerriontractorfiQualifier Print name of Licensed C9ptractor/Qualifier State of Florida County L t, ( Sworn to and subscribed before me this 471 day of � ; —,, fir'l By:c 1 0/ "�a% �1 ` (- 1 ! J ( )Personally known roduced Identification ) Type of Ide--tification 1 k•Wrl C_ Signature-et Notary Pub Seal Extension granted Permitexteasidn period Extension d:nied Reason for denial Collier County Fax No: (239)252-6318 E-mail: GMDPerinitExtension(10/COI iieraov.net 1/11) results in a financial loss to the owner, purchaser,or contractor;or falsely indicating that Workers' Compensation and public liability insurance are provided. (21) Failure of a qualifying agent for a firm/legal business entity to comply with the requirements set forth in F.S. §§489.119 and 489.1195. (22) Falsifying or misrepresenting any material fact to another person with the intent or for the purpose of engaging in the contracting business, providing materials or services, or soliciting business for an employer, as a contractor, or as an employee, regardless of any financial consideration. (23) Failing or refusing to provide proof of public liability and property damage insurance coverage and workers compensation insurance coverage. (24) Misconduct in the practice of contracting (see section 22-201.1, below). (Ord.No. 90-105, § 4.1; Ord.No. 92-61, § 4; Ord. No. 94-34, § 4; Ord.No. 97-68, § 1, 10-28- 97; Ord.No. 99-45, § 4.1-4.1.24, 6-8-99;Ord.No. 2002-21, §§ 1(4.1-4.1.24); Ord.No. 2006- 46, §§ 4.1-4.1.24, 10-10-06) Sec.22-201.1-Misconduct—State certified contractors. The following actions by state certified contractors shall constitute misconduct and grounds for discipline pursuant to section 22-202 of this article. (1) Failing or refusing to provide proof of public liability and property damage insurance coverage and workers compensation insurance coverage as required by Florida Statutes. (2) Willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city or Collier County. (3) If the CLB finds through its public hearing process that the contractor was found by another county or municipality within the past 12 months, to have committed fraud or a willful building code violation and the CLB finds that such fraud or other willful violation would have been fraud or a willful violation if committed in Collier County or within the respective city. (4) Fraud. (Ord.No. 94-34, §4; Ord.No. 99-45, § 4.2-4.2.3, 6-8-99; Ord.No. 2002-21, §§ 1(4.2-4.2.3); Ord.No. 06-46, § 1(4.1.8.2)) Sec. 22-202.-Disciplinary proceedings. (a) There are three categories of violations: (i) Violations of F.S. §489.127(1), and/or Section 1.1 of this Ordinance(§22-101), as amended; (ii)Violations of F.S. §489.132(1); and (iii) other violations within the jurisdiction of the Contractor's Licensing Board. (1) Florida Statutes § 489.127(1), is incorporated herein. (Lack of required license, certificate, or registration). The following are designated to enforce F.S.§ 489.127(1): Collier County Building Official, all License Compliance Officers, the Chief Building Inspector, Chief Electrical Inspector, Chief Plumbing/Mechanical Inspector,and/or other inspectors authorized from time-to-time by the Building Official. Procedures specified in this Ordinance shall apply except to the extent, if any, that F.S. §489.127 or F.S. §489.132, may require different procedure(s).The penalties for each uncontested violation of F.S. § 489.127(1) and/or F.S. § 489.13.2(1), are one thousand ($1,000.00)dollars for the first uncontested violation and two thousand($2,000.00)dollars for the second uncontested violation by the same individual or entity. In the event of a third uncontested violation,the Contracting Licensing Supervisor shall refer the matter to the State Attorney's Office for filing of charges. Notwithstanding the above-referenced penalties, in the event a first uncontested violation is the result of the violator engaging in the business or acting in the capacity Page 28 2017 Florida Building Code - Building, Sixth Edition CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION V < > [A] 105.3.2 Time limitation of application. An application for a permit for any proposed work shall be deemed to have been abandoned 180 days after the date of filing, unless such application has been pursued in good faith or a permit has been issued: except that the building official is authorized to grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Thursday,Jan 04,2018 12:17 PM e:73