CLB Minutes 03/21/2018 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
ZI I-P£ id 'S31dVN
11V2J1 MIMI .3 66Z£
al38WVHO S, :13NOISSIWW00 NI 21001d a2:1IH1
JNlallfl8 3AI1b'2j1SINIWOV
840Z `84 112:1dd 'AVGS3Na3M :31`da ON11331A1 1)(3N *IX
HO10V211NOO a31d112:130 3IVIS V dO 1OlaNOOSIW-SIONVHd svionoa -90-81.0Z :3SVO 3
2j01Ob2:11NO0 03Id112j3O 31V1S V dO 1OlaNOOSIW-a00M M32I0NV-90-81.0Z : 5''O .a
HOJO`d211NOO a3IdI12j3O 3IVIS V dO 1OlaNOOSIW-SfldWflS A2&Id31'-170-81,0Z :35d0 .0
AON313dWOO
d0 31VOIdI1213O 11N1103 2j311100 V dO 10flaN0OSIW-SWVOV 13VHOIW-co-91,0Z :3SVO 8
S11W2j2d 032:1IdX3 -213H0V82:1HOW Nor— 40-8402 :35t/O V
:SJNIHV2H 011ffld X
:SS3NISfl9 a10 .XI
SWb'X3 dO 213AIVM HIIM NOLLV011ddd 1N3W31V1SNI321 - svissna 3NILNVISNOO 0
SWVX3 dO H2AIVM H11M NOLLVOIlddV 1N3W31V1SNI2H -213111W 30NV1 .0
bL01.4 '8 'CL04 4 'ZL04 4 (S)N011VJIO ONIIS31NO0-A3NEIV IH29O21 8
02:1V08 3E11 dO SH3a210 V
:SS2NISf1f M3N .IIIA
:S110d3H .IIA
:NOISSf10S10 •IA
:S1N3WW00 011ffld •A
940Z `4Z AHVf12193d V
:S31f1NIW dO 1VAOHddV 'Al
:VQN2DV dO 1VAOHdd`d •III
:SNO113130 210 SNOWCIV .11
:11V01101
.03SV8 38 01 SI lV2ddV 3H1
HOIHM NOdfl 30N3a1A3 GNV ANOWI1S311VH1 S3afl1ONI C1100a1 HOIHM `30VW SI SONI0330021d 3H1 dO
a2100321 1A1I1vflH2A V 1VH1 32111SN3 01 033N AVA 2HOd3213HI aNy `012H3H1 ONINIV1213d SONI03300Hd
3H1 dO a210O321 V 033N 111M 021V08 SIH1 dO NOISIO3a V 1V3ddd 01 S301030 OHM NOS213d ANV
S2I38INVHa S213NOISSIWWO9 ALNfOO dO a21v08
ONIa1Il8 3AI11d2I1SINIWOV
i31N33 1N3WN2I2AOO AINf1O0 213I1100
'WV 00:6
81.0Z `4Z 113JeW
VON3OV
a2I`d08 ONISN30I1 .S21O13V LNO0 AINf100 2I3IT103
/0141400
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
III
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 Stone Works")
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 weatherproofing 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 final.
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. Sony 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 problems here and 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
9
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
doesn't know his options, then they homeowner p 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 financially
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.
WHi'TC-
Patrick—Sith 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 finding 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 finding 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 financial 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 financial 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 Noell 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 finalized, 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, 3`d 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 : IND, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing Board on
M /(o ,2018, "as submitted" [ - OR- "as amended" F -V1
46