Loading...
CLB Minutes 08/18/2004 R August 18, 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida August 18,2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: LES DICKSON David L. Beswick Sydney Blum Eric Guite' Richard Joslin Ann Keller William Lewis ALSO PRESENT: Thomas Bartoe, Licensing Compliance Officer Robert Zachary, County Attorney Patrick Neale, Counsel to the Board Bleu Wallace, Interim Building Director Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: AUGUST 18, 2004 TIME: 9:00 A.M. W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING (ADMINISTRATION BUILDING) COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: July 21,2004 V. DISCUSSION: Jay E. Bowermeister, Gainesville Independent Testing Service. LLC Information on his company as an alternative to our current testing company. Executive Summary on Issuance of Citations to licensed contractors. VI. NEW BUSINESS: VII. OLD BUSINESS: VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS: IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 August 18, 2004 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, is that -- Mr. Zachary, are you ready? MR. NEALE: As ready as we'll ever be. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board, August 18th, 2004. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which it is, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Starting with roll call to my right, please. MR. LEWIS: Mr. Lewis. MR. BESWICK: David Beswick. MR. BLUM: Syd Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MS. KELLER: Ann Keller. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. BARTOE: Staffhas one addition to put on the agenda, and it might as well be put under discussion. The only two items we have are already under discussion. And we would like to discuss the insurance requirements in the ordinance, Section 2.8. And staff has no other additions or deletions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. MR. BLUM: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. LEWIS: Aye. MR. BESWICK: Aye. Page 2 August 18, 2004 MR. BLUM: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MS. KELLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Approval of the minutes July 21st, 2004. I need a motion to approve those. MR. BESWICK: Motion to approve, Beswick. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second? MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. LEWIS: Aye. MR. BESWICK: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MS. KELLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Moving right along, discussion. Jay Bowermeister. MR. BALZANO: Mr. Chairman, he did intend to be here today. He has offices in Gainesville and Orlando. There's a possibility Hurricane Charley had something to do with him not being here. Interstate 75 traffic. I suggest we leave him on the agenda and we'll come back to him, if he should show. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And even ifhe doesn't, ifhe could get him to come to the next meeting? MR. BARTOE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because we've wanted this individual for quite a while, and I understand him not being here. Executive summary on the issue of citations to licensed contractors. Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: The board directed I believe staff to come up with an executive summary on issuing these citations to licensed contractors, which Mr. Bleu Wallace, our interim director, has done. Page 3 August 18, 2004 But he's been discussing it and e-mailing County Attorney Tom Palmer and some other things have come up, so I believe I'll let Mr. Wallace address you right now. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Wallace, if you'd come forward? Just state your name, please. MR. WALLACE: Thank you. For the record, Bleu Wallace, interim building director. I attended your meeting last time, and I think it was my recommendation that staff bring you back an executive summary. We've since drafted one and provided that in your packet for you to reVIew. And in discussing it or in correspondence with Mr. Zachary and Mr. Palmer, the county attorney staff, we see no need to take this to the board. We think that there's enough authority in the existing ordinance that this board can direct staff to issue those citations, write it in. Or we could have the citations reprinted to include another line. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Bring me up to speed, and any other board members that don't remember, what we're adding to this. MR. WALLACE: I'll let Mr. Bartoe do that. MR. BAR TOE: We're adding the ability for staff to issue citations to licensed contractors. As it was originally written, Mr. Neale advised you, it was for unlicensed contractors only. This would save staff a tremendous amount of time, paperwork, et cetera, having to put a case together to come before the board. Instead, we figured we could expedite everything, save time, et cetera, by issuing citations. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale and Mr. Zachary, comments? MR. NEALE: I'm still not 100 percent comfortable with this, I'll be very honest. The enabling statute on this is 489.127, which is what specifically sets out the ability for a county to issue citations or a Page 4 August 18, 2004 county or municipality to issue citations. 489.127 is specifically focused on unlicensed contractors; uncertified, unregistered, unlicensed contractors. In 489.127, I have not been able to find authority to issue this same kind of citation to a certified or a licensed contractor. That said, there is one potential opening that I found that gives you at least the color of being able to do this, and that is in 489.127, subsection one, it does state that for purposes of this subsection a person or business organization operating on an inactive or suspended certificate, registration or certificate of authority is not duly certified or registered and is considered unlicensed. If you then go to the section we're going to talk about later, 2.8 or 22.187, which discusses requirements of insurance that a contractor has to have in order to be licensed, it says all licensed contractors shall maintain liability in other categories of insurances required by state law at all times. If you make the presumption that by not maintaining insurance your license is by definition no longer valid, then you can make the argument that the subsection of 489.127 that I just stated makes you an unlicensed contractor and therefore subject to citation. It's a long route around the block, but I think there is an argument that can be made to support that. MR. BESWICK: Question, Mr. Chairman. Would that require the issuance of two citations, one for being unlicensed and the other for being uninsured? MR. NEALE: It would -- what you could do, is because the citation has multiple places to check, is you could check two boxes instead of checking one. MR. BARTOE: And to go along with what you said, Mr. Neale, I know our county computers, if I'm a contractor and my insurance expires tonight at midnight, tomorrow morning that computer is going to show me inactive. MR. NEALE: So that supports the argument, and that was one of Page 5 August 18, 2004 the questions I wanted to have -- Mr. Bartoe answered the question before I had the chance to ask it, which is does the county automatically remove -- consider you inactive when you lose your insurance. Yes, it does. Therefore, that subsection of 489.127 kicks in, you're inactive, therefore, you're unlicensed, so therefore you could be reached by the citation. I think it's a completely defensible argument. It's one that takes a little bit of multiple reading of codes and ordinances, but I think that it's supported by the -- indicated by the statutory and ordinance law. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Zachary, any comment? MR. ZACHARY: Well, that's with regard to state certified and licensed contractors. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you hear him on the -- MR. ZACHARY: And I think it's pretty clear that under our ordinance we can cite the county's specialty contractors, the ones that have the county license. Under part four, which talks about them falsely indicating that they had workers' comp and personal liability , so I think that part, there's really no question about. But I agree with Mr. Neale, it's sort of a roundabout way, but it's an argument that we certainly could make to validate issuing citations to people who don't have insurance, or if we find that they don't have insurance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I want to hear from Mr. Balzano. MR. BALZANO: What would you like to hear? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What do you feel about this? MR. BALZANO: Well, a legitimate contractor that keeps up his insurance, one that pulls permits, like yourself, a roofing contractor, Mr. Joslin, a pool contractor, an AC contractor, a building contractor, their insurance is kept in check all the time. We know when your insurance expires, because the computer kicks you out. You come in to get a permit, it could be an error on your insurance company that didn't send the certificate in that you did renew it. But you take a Page 6 August 18, 2004 specialty contractor that's not required to pull permits, he can come in, renew his license, show his insurance and three weeks later cancel it. And he can go until the next year without any insurance or paying anything, because he doesn't require (sic) to pull a permit. Even if the computer kicked him out. Right? Because there's no way of us knowing he's been kicked out unless we go through 7,500 contractors. Because he will never come before the permitting department to put pull a permit, where they would say you can't have a permit because your insurance expired. So the people that we have a problem with are the specialty contractors. Because the major contractors are scrutinized daily because they're in pulling permits. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussions or questions? MR. LEWIS: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I may direct a question and somewhat comment to Mr. Balzano. Paul, is it not true also that not only the specialty contractors but even state certified or registered contractors that do specialty work that have exempt certificates, single people that have exempt certificates, they can go ahead and you really have no response or authority to issue them citations if you find them on a job with employees. For not having insurance, that is. In other words, if I have a state licensed contractor that's a single sole proprietor, or however they license that now, and he has an exempt certificate, he shows you his exempt certificate but yet still has employees, quote, unquote or people working for him on the job, you really can't issue a citation on that. You can stop him working, right? MR. BALZANO: We shut him down and turn him over to workers compo MR. LEWIS: Right. But you can't issue him a citation for working without the insurance in the county. MR. BALZANO: Legally right now, no. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And this will not give you the Page 7 August 18,2004 authority to do that either, will it? MR. BARTOE: I think it would. It would-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It will? MR. BARTOE: -- in my mind make him an inactive status. And that would give us the authority. MR. NEALE: You certainly -- the -- and 489.127 specifically talks about uncertified, unregistered. And so by extension certified and registered would be covered once they become uncertified or unregistered by failure to have insurance. MR. LEWIS: But if they're an exempt corporation or company, then they're still not uncertified, because they're exempt, according to the state's eyes. MR. NEALE: Right. But they have to provide the proof of that exemption. MR. LEWIS: So like you said, it's going to be a long route, and it's probably going to create maybe not as much but almost as much paperwork by the time -- and leg work by the time you get back around, instead of just issuing the citation. MR. NEALE: What they have the opportunity to do under the citation is the citation is issued, and if they can provide proof that at the time the citation was issued they did have coverage or were exempt, then the citation is essentially dismissed. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So this is not a stop work order. MR. NEALE: No. MR. BARTOE: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's just a citation. MR. BARTOE: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Only the state has the authority to stop him from working on that job. Your citation, he takes the citation, basically he can keep working. MR. BALZANO: Well, within a matter of24 hours he's going to wish he had insurance, because workers comp would be down at his Page 8 August 18,2004 office and go through his paperwork for a year, and he's going to pay a lot more than $300 to workmen's comp, when they go through and see how many people he's 1099'd with his exemption status. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you're saying all these citations you're going to refer to the state? MR. BALZANO: No, no. The scenario that Mr. Lewis just said had nothing to do with what I responded to you about specialty contractors. He's going further to the state license or a major trade that's showing exempt. But you're not showing that many general contractors that are going to be exempt, the way the workers' comp is changed. MR. LEWIS: I was thinking more the residential or building contractors that do specialty work. You know, they're specialty contractors, in essence, but licensed as a residential or building contractor. MR. BALZANO: Well, what we have been doing in the past, and we just did it at the new Super W al- Mart, is that company there had an outfit from up around Orlando down here working who were unlicensed, and they said they were working for the GC. Well, they were cited for being unlicensed contractors and they were cited for not having insurance. So if they're working for him and he's not taking out taxes, and they be a 1099, they become a subcontractor. And we can give them a ticket under our current citation powers. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because I see that all the time. I do know a lot of small general contractors that are exempt, and they hire unlicensed contractors. I mean, we both know financially how stupid that is. MR. LEWIS: Yep. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But it happens with regularity, right? MR. BALZANO: Yeah. And we fine them. And the top dog's getting away with it and the people under him that think they're legal because they're a subcon -- they think that they're 1099, they're a Page 9 August 18,2004 subcontractor, that they're exempt, which they're not, they become a contractor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any more discussion? Bleu? MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace. I think in this case this gives your contractor licensing staff just another something else in your tool box that they need to expedite compliance. And I think once the word gets out, that this is going to enhance compliance in the contractor licensing arena. And I did want to defer to either the county attorney or Mr. Neale, I don't think this needs to go as far as to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation from this board. I think this board has enough authority to go ahead and direct staff to commence to issue those citations. MR. NEALE: I would agree with Mr. Wallace that this citation was originally granted under authority. And this is to my mind authority that is granted to the board by 489 and by 90-105. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So Mr. Neale, what we need is just a motion to approve or disapprove this executive summary? MR. NEALE: I would say approve or disapprove the executive summary with direction to staff to -- and myself and Mr. Zachary to draft an appropriate amended citation and bring it back for final approval next meeting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any more discussion? MR. JOSLIN: So we are going to be able to issue the citations? MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: This the bottom line of this conversation? And legally uphold it when they do come before us? MR. BALZANO: I can't hear you. MR. JOSLIN: I said after all this conversation, we are then -- staff is going to be able to issue these citations to specialty contractors? MR. BAR TOE: If the board approves it. Page 10 August 18,2004 MR. JOSLIN: Unlicensed contractors or whatever, and they will be brought before this board. MR. BALZANO: If they appeal the citation, they would come before the board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The other reason I see that it's important is given the current status, circumstances after Hurricane Charley, unlicensed and uninsured contractors is already a major problem in Charlotte and Lee County. And should that storm have been a little further south, we need this for teeth for you if we would go through a storm like that. Not only just what we normally go through. MR. BARTOE: We went through it in Hurricane Andrew. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. I mean, I've had calls after calls from Orlando offices up there that I work with with unlicensed contractors. They're going door to door, street to street already in Charlotte County. In fact, are you sending people up there? You haven't heard yet? MR. BALZANO: Mr. Wallace can answer that. MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace. I provided Joe Schmitt, the administrator over at community development, a list of some 33 folks. They included five inspectors from the three -- all three disciplines. That's 15 people. A total of 33 to include four people from contractor licensing that were ready to deploy once the EOC, Emergency Operation Center, gave the word. So we're standing by, waiting for word. It might be a little early for us to get up there right now. I do know that there's over 100 EMS, fire and sheriffs office employees up there now from Collier. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, because it's -- the problem is going to be when they start doing the reconstruction. Right now they're just boarding up. So any discussion, anybody on the board? MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman? Page 11 August 18, 2004 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. MR. LEWIS: Just a question, Mr. Neale. I'm still not certain from the discussions here that we're not overstepping our boundaries in the 489 statute. We're -- we are -- basically fall under the 489 by the state. And we're authorized by the state to proceed as we have in our amended documents. My question is, state licensed certified contractors deal with the state board. Are we sure that we're not overstepping our boundaries by going out and issuing citations to state certified contractors prior to the board making their finding, state board making their findings? MR. NEALE: My reading of 489.127 is that it says uncertified or unregistered. By definition of them not having insurance makes them uncertified or unregistered. So therefore, I think -- I do not think that they'd be outside their bounds to issue a citation, just as if someone was performing an act that would be required to be certified for, you would be required to be a certified contractor for. So I think while there may be an argument on -- there certainly is an argument on the other side, I think we have a defensible position that the staff can go out if someone does not have insurance or proof of insurance, to issue a citation against them. MR. LEWIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else? Tell us again the points you want in the motion. MR. NEALE: Really just that you adopt the executive summary and direct staff and the county attorney and myself to redraft the citation and bring it back to this board for approval at your next meeting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does anybody want to make that? MR. JOSLIN: Can I put that just in the form of a motion as he worded it? I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second? MR. BESWICK: I'll second, Beswick. Page 12 August 18,2004 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. LEWIS: Aye. MR. BESWICK: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MS. KELLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous. MR. NEALE: There's a related matter that I'd like to bring up, even though it's not on the agenda, but something the board may want to put forth on the board agenda in the future. Under 489.113(4)(D), there was language added in '03 that says specifically it is the policy of the state that the purpose of regulations is to protect the public by attaining compliance with the policies established in law. Fines and other penalties are provided in order to ensure compliance, et cetera, et cetera. It is the intent of the legislature that a local jurisdiction agency charged with enforcing regulatory laws shall issue a notice of noncompliance as its first response to a minor violation of a regulatory law in any instance in which it is reasonable to assume that the violator was unaware of such a law or unclear as to how to comply with it. A violation of regulatory law is a minor violation if it does not result in economic or physical harm to a person or adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or create a significant threat of such harm. A notice of noncompliance is a notification by the local jurisdiction agency charged with enforcing the ordinance, which is issued to the licensee that is subject to the ordinance. A notice of noncompliance should not be accompanied with a fine or other disciplinary penalty. It should identify the specific ordinance that is being violated, provide information on how to comply with the Page 13 August 18, 2004 ordinance and specify a reasonable time for the violator to comply with the ordinance. Failure of a licensee to take action correcting the violation within a set period of time would then result in the institution of further disciplinary proceedings. My reading of this is that it's not discretionary on the jurisdiction, but mandatory on the jurisdiction that such policy be followed. And I would just suggest that certainly staff and the -- should consider putting together such a notice of noncompliance and using that as the first tool. Because as you see, it says very specifically you issue this notice of noncompliance, give them a period of time, seven days, 14 days, 21 days, a month to comply. If they don't, then it very clearly says if they don't take that action to correct it, then it results in further disciplinary proceedings. So it's -- to some extent I would analogize it to what I think everybody here is familiar with is a code enforcement citation, where they come in and put a citation on, saying you have 30 days to fix this code violation; if you don't, we're going to take you to the Code Enforcement Board. That's effectively what this is. It's a warning, but it's also a warning with teeth. Yeah, Mr. Wallace just advised me, yeah, in the code enforcement arena it's called a notice of violation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which basically our citation, you're saying if they check this particular issue of insurance -- MR. NEALE: The problem with our citation is it is not a notice of noncompliance, and it's covered under a completely different section of the statute. Our citation says you owe us 300 bucks because you're not in compliance. The notice of noncompliance says you are not in compliance, you're not doing anything that's really going to cause any great harm to anyone, but if you don't fix your noncompliance, we're going to take you in front of the board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I disagree with the fact cause great harm to anybody. Page 14 August 18, 2004 MR. NEALE: Well, I'm not saying specifically on insurance. I'm saying, you know, this is more as a general matter, not on the insurance issue or a workers comp issue but on other type issues that are minor violations of the regulations. And, you know, that's something that's discretionary. But if it does not result in economic or physical harm or adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or create a significant threat of such harm. MR. BALZANO: The other -- you said knowingly. In the beginning they were unaware? MR. NEALE: Yeah, they were unaware. MR. BALZANO: Well, everyone knows they are aware, because to renew their license they have to show -- MR. NEALE: I'm saying this is not specific to the insurance Issue. MR. BARTOE: I think what Mr. Neale might be referring to is if we come across someone on a job site doing some type of small repair job but it's large enough that it needed a permit -- MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. BARTOE: -- and this guy is unaware that this needed a permit, that would be your minor violation that has to get corrected. MR. NEALE: Those are the kind of issues that I think the state specifically addressed, is where at this point in time people are getting cited for it, instead it's a kind of thing where they get this notice of violation and then they could get brought up. Or notice of noncompliance. The only reason I really bring it up is because the legislature made it mandatory that you have to do it. Because it says that you shall issue such a thing. That's the only reason I bring it up is because it says you shall issue such said notice, not that you may. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which is, if I look at the current citation form, which we all have in our packet, because it was part of Page 15 August 18, 2004 that executive summary, are you talking specifically about the box for H? MR. NEALE: No, this is -- because this has nothing to do with the citation form at all. Just ignore the citation form. What this is for really is for minor violations that the state legislature wanted people to be able to get a warning about. And it's a completely separate notice. It doesn't -- it wouldn't be the citation form. It would be a completely separate notice. MR. BALZANO: Those would be the trades that are specifically covered under 489, which under 489 the majority of specialty contractors aren't listed in the State of Florida. MR. NEALE: Well, but we have adopted -- we're covered by 489 by definition, because our ordinance adopts 489. MR. BALZANO: Correct. But I'm talking about the specialty contractors that we have chose to license and have come into compliance with our ordinance. That would not affect them, correct? MR. NEALE: No, because the way this is, is we are the local regulatory agency. So therefore, we -- any contractor we license, Collier County licenses, is covered under us. MR. BARTOE: I see no problem with staff being able to come up with a notice of noncompliance. MR. NEALE: To my mind, I would suggest that it probably gives staff a way to not have to hit somebody with a $300 fine if -- and we've got a very competent and highly qualified staff that's got a lot of experience and can tell whether a guy is simply unaware that he's doing something wrong or whether the guy is just trying to pull a fast one. And I would suggest that our staff might like the ability to go up to a guy and issue this notice of noncompliance and say look, you may not have known but I'm putting this on. In the future you will now know, and if I come back and catch you in 14 days or seven days doing the same thing, you're coming in front of the board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Balzano, do you like that? Page 16 August 18,2004 MR. BALZANO: I thought we were just here about insurance. I didn't know we had gotten off into -- if we find someone doing work without a permit, the permit is quartered. That's their fine. If they're doing a job that -- an AC change-out, which they all know it requires a permit, I'm going to say it's a $50 permit, it now becomes a $200 permit. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I thought it was just doubled. MR. NEALE: As I say, this is just -- and as I said, it's not on the agenda. You may want to think about it between now and the next meeting. But it's just something that's mandatory by the state legislature under 489 to do this. And so -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll leave that between your office. Why don't you discuss it. MR. BALZANO: Right, because -- well, what I go back to again, that the majority of our specialty contractors aren't listed under 489, so 489 would have no bearing on them. It would be the trades that are listed under 489. MR. NEALE: I think that's a misinterpretation, because-- MR. BALZANO: Well, according to state law, a painter does not have to be licensed. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. BALZANO: A drywaller does not have to be licensed. MR. NEALE: Once we have taken on the responsibility as a regulatory jurisdictional agency and created our own categories, then they are covered under this section of 489. They're covered under 489 because we have adopted 489. MR. BALZANO: I don't have a problem with us drawing up whatever we have to. MR. BLUM: In effect, this is like a cop giving you a courtesy warnIng. MR. NEALE: Yes, it's a warning -- MR. BLUM: The next cop gives you a ticket for speeding. Page 1 7 August 18, 2004 You've been warned, so here it is. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. BLUM: You're done. MR. NEALE: That's exactly the perfect scenario. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, except in this case, the cops are going to know who got the warnings. MR. NEALE: Right. Yeah. Because this notice would put the guy on notice and also specific time to fix what he's doing wrong. MR. BLUM: Well, in effect you're saying we don't really have a choice here, it's mandated. MR. NEALE: Yeah, that's my issue, that it's mandated by the legislature. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm going to let you guys hash that over the next 30 days and put it on the agenda for next month. MR. BALZANO: Well, basically what we already do, if like -- I have a case that I was working on where it's a state licensed general contractor, and the job he performed is incorrect. We sent him certified mail telling him that he has violated the ordinance while working at a certain address, he has 20 days to correct it or it could be brought before the Contractor Licensing Board. That's similar to what you're talking about. MR. NEALE: That's a notice of noncompliance. MR. BALZANO: That's what we do, we send him a 20-day letter. MR. NEALE: Yeah, and that's the same thing. It's just, you know, the state's given it this particular title that they want to have on it so-- , MR. BALZANO: So we could basically use that form. MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Then you've already got it. MR. BALZANO: We already have it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Case closed. Page 18 August 18,2004 Okay, the next one. Mr. Bartoe, I know you're -- or Mr. Balzano, are you going to present this? MR. BALZANO: Mr. Bartoe and myself will both do it. What I'm going to pass out to you, Tom and I had the opportunity to go to a seminar in June up in Sarasota, which was with CLOF, which is the Construction Licensing Officials Association of Florida. And at these meetings they usually have different speakers from agencies throughout the state, and this one happened to be from the federal government. And it was very interesting, because the majority of the people in attendance at this meeting didn't know what this gentleman was talking about, but we put it in our ordinance. I put together a packet, it's in chronological order, of how this snake started to come up out of the basket. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: While you're passing that out, just to bring everyone up to speed, is there anybody on this board that doesn't understand longshoremen insurance and what happened? MR. BLUM: What happened? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How it came about. Anybody? Are you all up to speed? That's what we're talking about. It's all yours. MR. BALZANO: I was going to give you a few minutes to look through. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why don't you just take us through. MR. BALZANO: As you can see on the first page, this lady was confused when she left, and she was -- addressed Mr. Brode, who is the secretary of CLOF, who is also a licensing investigator in Palm Beach County. And when he received this from her, he then forwarded it to Mr. Lee, who is the head of the Jacksonville office at the Department of Labor. And you can see Mr. Lee responded by quoting the section of the federal law regarding the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. And then after that paragraph, he kind of dances with the federal government isn't going Page 19 August 18, 2004 to have -- doesn't have the resources to ensure that employees are covered under this act and they do not enforce it. Our question is why do we. And then he says further on in the paragraph three that the Department of Labor has no jurisdiction over enforcement of local law . Why do we have jurisdiction over enforcement of federal law, a federal law in which they are not going to enforce? We then -- Mr. Bartoe asked Mr. Brode to send out an e-mail to members ofCLOF, which he said to Tom, don't expect too much of a turnout. Well, we got a little more than we thought, and the two e-mails are there. And if you go further, the first one when we got back, the City of Jacksonville, Florida, they don't know how to enforce the Longshoremen's Act, but Collier County does. Then you go to Hillsboro County, they do not enforce the Longshoremen's Act, but Collier County does. Lake County, which is on the St. John's River, which has ships coming in there to load paper, they do not enforce the Longshoremen's Act. The City of Port St. Lucie does not enforce it. Valucia County does not enforce it. The only one we found that has it is Pinellas, and they really don't enforce it unless they have another complaint. When we were at this meeting, I was probably the only one that had any know ledge about the longshoremen's, because we had been involved with it. And I questioned Mr. Lee, and Mr. Lee's response was the federal government really didn't know if it pertained to local contractors, and that they were -- I believe legislation had been filed to try and figure out what our forefathers that wrote the law in 1921 had in mind, which we know it didn't have to do with having the ability of me having a 24- foot boat in my back yard. They were talking about ships. And if you go on to the Jones Act, which is involved -- in our ordinance, it refers to -- if you have a copy of the ordinance on Page Page 20 August 18, 2004 30, I believe. Tom can read it to you, he has it open. MR. BALZANO: At the end of Section 2.8, all licensed contractors shall maintain applicable workers' compensation insurance, as required by Florida law and/or federal law, including but not limited to the provisions of the Federal Employers Liability Act, the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation act, the Defense Base Act, or the Jones Act. MR. BALZANO: Any of you have any idea what the Jones Act is? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Uh-huh. MR. BALZANO: The Jones Act refers to ships in foreign nations. I don't know whether we would ever see one in a canal at Marco Island or Port Royal that we would have jurisdiction over. Then what came up to us, Tom and I started researching, then we went to Mr. Hayes, who was the chairman of the board at the time, and he doesn't really remember us ever discussing longshoremen's insurance. And we didn't know it was in our ordinance until we got a call from a local dock company. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me correct you right there. He doesn't remember discussing it in a workshop -- MR. BALZANO: At a workshop. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- prior to the change. MR. BALZANO: If you look at the ordinance that went into effect in May of 2002, it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Down on the bottom, I mean, it shows all of the deleting and the additions to sections, and it shows Section 2.8. But if you go to Page 30 in the new ordinance, and there it is, all -- contractors will maintain workers' compensation and the Federal Employees Liability Act. But none of it is underlined. To be an addition, it has to be underlined. Anybody that would look at this when it was sent to them would go to Page 30, look at the insurance and say they didn't change anything, it's not underlined. We got a copy Page 21 August 18,2004 of -- MR. NEALE: If I may-- MR. BALZANO: -- and that's in there too of the executive summary, and it's very ambiguous, that was submitted to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. NEALE: If I may? MR. BALZANO: Can I finish? Where it says that we're amending this current ordinance and we addressed hurricane shutters, awnings, blah, blah, blah, and any increased insurance requirements for certain contractors. It doesn't say anything about longshoremen's. We didn't even pick up on this when we approved it that it was in there. Staff didn't know it was in there until we got a complaint wanting to know why we weren't enforcing it. We're just questioning how it got in there. We don't remember ever addressing this at any of our workshops. Some of the bigger counties that have port of calls do not enforce this law. And if the federal government doesn't enforce their law, why are we? Every day we have electricians, plumbers, dock workers coming in to us that can't do the work, they can't afford to buy these premiums. We had an electrician last week, $29,000 he has to get for longshoremen's insurance to hook up a davit. If you have a fish tray on your dock, the plumber has to have longshoremen's insurance, according to longshoremen's. We checked with workers' compensation, State of Florida. When they go on a job, they don't even ask if you have longshoremen's insurance. Why do we? That's the only question we're bringing to you. MR. NEALE: Well, the reason we do is very, very, very, very simple. The county commission put it in there. MR. BALZANO: We want to know how it got in there. That's all we're asking. Page 22 August 18, 2004 MR. NEALE: It got in there at the direction of the county commission at the board -- I was not there, but Mr. Zachary I think was there at the board of county commissioners' meeting. There was extensive, extensive discussion of this. Hours-- MR. BALZANO: Not on the consent agenda. We got copies of the minutes. There was no discussion. MR. NEALE: There have been hour -- there was hours and hours of discussions of that at these meetings. We had a full room. MR. BALZANO: That was after the law. We had the meeting at the -- MR. NEALE: No, no. I must disagree with you. MR. BALZANO: Well-- MR. NEALE: Because this was -- MR. BALZANO: Well, let's dig up the minutes and look it up. MR. NEALE: This was brought up by Marco Dock and Naples Dock. MR. BALZANO: Naples Dock. Which are owned by the same people out of St. Louis, Missouri. MR. NEALE: They were not at the time. They were not. They were independent organizations at the time. MR. BALZANO: My question is to you and to the board that we should look into this, why we are enforcing a federal law that the federal government does not enforce. MR. NEALE: It is part of the county ordinance, unless the county ordinance is amended to take it out. MR. BALZANO: That's what we're asking. We do not -- did Mr. -- Mr. Dickson, you were on the board then. Do you remember extensive hours of talking about longshoremen's insurance, the Jones Act and the -- I don't know what the other one is. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What I remember is Naples Dock and Marco Dock coming in here, and that's when it was discussed. Now, I don't have all of the dates and records, but to my recollection we never Page 23 August 18, 2004 discussed longshoremen in a workshop. MR. NEALE: No, it was not in a workshop, it was in a regular board meeting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we did have a lot of the other dock people in here. My feelings on the issue is I don't like longshoremen's insurance. I don't like that Collier County is requiring these people to get it. Even me as a roofing contractor, I -- someone wanted me to repair a roof on a dock. It was $40,000. But the point of it is -- let me finish -- is I don't like it. And then we talked to the federal government, the federal government says by the Jones Act, which was written in the early Twenties, they don't even know if the Jones Act intended to imply residential docks. Now, I know I'm not the attorney, you guys are, but there has to be case law on this issue of residential docks. If there's no case law and the federal government can't tell us what the interpretation was, then are we taking something that was intended for federal dock workers or federal ports and applying it to a residential? MR. NEALE: I think the only -- you know, what I would say, because for Mr. Zachary and I, this is the first time we've seen this packet, so, you know, we've had no time to prepare. MS. KELLER: Well, I'd like to say from a consumer point of view that this is dramatically increased cost and availability of people to do docks. MR. NEALE: And certainly -- MS. KELLER: They've created a monopoly, basically. MR. NEALE: And we -- you know, there were a lot of objections to it on this board, I remember. When it happened, it was -- it went from the draft had been prepared by this board to the draft that was approved by county commission. At some point between the two points, it got added. Remember, again, this is an advisory board to the county Page 24 August 18,2004 commISSIon. The county commission can do whatever the devil they want with an ordinance after it leaves this board. So it's sort of irrelevant, you know, what this board approves to some extent. Yes, they're advisory, but this board has no approval authority over an ordinance. The board has the ability to recommend to the county commission that they relook at this ordinance, but aside from that, this board cannot say in any way, shape or form don't enforce a provision of the county ordinance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we fully understand that. MR. BALZANO: That isn't what we're asking. MR. BARTOE: Excuse me -- MR. ZACHARY: If I could add something. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, we've got to take it one at a time now. MR. ZACHARY: Go ahead. MR. BAR TOE: Mr. Neale said it was discussed extensively. You know, I'd like to know when. I know it was not this May 14th, 2002 board of county commissioners meeting. I went through those minutes. It was on the summary agenda and went -- got passed right through. You know, when were all these discussions? MR. NEALE: All I was-- MR. BARTOE: Were they after or before? MR. NEALE: I was not there at the cou~ty commission meeting, I do not advise the county commission, so I don't know. All I know is at these -- at numerous -- at least my memory is at more than one contractor licensing board meetings, we had a number of people here both from Naples Dock, Marco Dock and other contractors discussing it here. It may not have been at one of our ordinance workshops, but MR. BALZANO: It was after the ordinance was approved. MR. NEALE: No. MR. BALZANO: Yes, it was. We're pulling the minutes now. Page 25 August 18, 2004 It was -- we had that meeting in the supervisor of elections office after May of 2004 when it was approved. That's when the other dock workers found out that they had to have this insurance. We had so many people, we had it at the supervisor of elections. MR. NEALE: You know, frankly, I don't care. I'm here to interpret what the law is, and the law is this is the ordinance. This board has the ability to recommend to the county commission that there be a change to it. MR. BALZANO: We have citizens that were legitimate businessmen that have gone out of business because of this. And we have other businessmen that are trying to pay these premiums that can't get subcontractors to work for them. The two people that pushed this through have electrical licenses and subs so they don't care. But if you're working with your son building docks, you cannot get an electrician that wants to spend that kind of money to come out and wire a davit for you. They don't even want to touch it. And we're putting people out of business. And my only -- our only question at staff, we don't go out and go after everybody that everyone's a bad guy. We do work to help contractors. And they come to us continually, and we tell them we had nothing to do with this, and we tell them the board had nothing to do with this, that we have no idea how it ended up in this final draft. Our only question is if the federal government does not enforce their own law, because they do not have it interpreted, why are we? And what do we have to do to make this right? That's my only question. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I agree. And the other thing, number one, the federal government doesn't enforce it, they can't answer the questions, they don't know if it applies. And then we have checked with workers' compo All workers' comp claims paid are-- from injuries on a dock are being paid. Collier County is the only county in the State of Florida that's enforcing this. Page 26 August 18,2004 MR. NEALE: Well, that's not what it says. Pinellas County says they are. MR. ZACHARY: Let me interject-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, in certain restrictions. Why do we have it in there? And then especially when we're harming the public because of cost and availability. MR. NEALE: As I say, you know, the board's -- Mr. Balzano asked a question what can the board do about it -- MR. ZACHARY: And let me interject at this point that nobody came and snuck in at midnight and put that in the language in the ordinance. I wasn't the attorney that was working specifically on that, but that was at the direction of either this board or the board of county commissioners, because it would not have been in there otherwise. MR. BALZANO: Why would the county -- MR. ZACHARY: Because -- the reason it's not underlined, I can't answer that. But it was just a scrivener's error. But it would not be in there unless we were specifically directed to put that amended language in there. So that's how it got in there. MR. BALZANO: My question to you -- MR. ZACHARY: And the board told us to do it. MR. BALZANO: My question to you is why do we have this board, why do we have you, why do we have us, why do we have workshops, if we draw up what the people want that are licensed in Collier County, and this is supposed to go to these board of county commISSIoners -- MR. NEALE: I don't -- I don't think that's really an appropriate discussion, because this board, as noted, is an advisory board to the board of county commissioners for purposes of ordinance drafting. That's a matter to be taken up with the board of county commissioners, not with this board. MR. ZACHARY: And we can certainly amend the ordinance if it's not working, but that direction needs to come from the board of Page 27 August 18, 2004 county commISSIoners. It's their ordinance. And I'm not really sure that I agree with you that we're enforcing the longshoremen's part of the law. We're enforcing our ordinance that says you need to have the insurance that you need to have. And do we have the ability to determine whether or not they really need longshoremen's? MR. BALZANO: Well, my question is-- MR. ZACHARY: That's a question-- MR. BALZANO: Another question. Mr. Neale said earlier we go under 489. Show me in 489 where it says you have to have longshoremen's. It says you will have liability insurance and all other insurances required by the State of Florida. That's where it ends. 489 doesn't say anything about longshoremen's insurance. MR. JOSLIN: If I recall that meeting, I think I remember a lot about that meeting, and I think the whole situation that started that whole process rolling was the fact of someone had a workmen's compensation policy that had it written out and they weren't going to pay the claim. MR. BALZANO: No. MR. JOSLIN: And workmen's compo was not going to cover claims that were done on water. And that's where the longshoremen's insurance started to really click in where they found that they had to have it. Maybe my interpretation of it was wrong when it first came in front of us, but I think that's what it was. I think someone had a workmen's compensation claim that did not get paid. MS. KELLER: Well, if that's the issue and now you say that workmen's comp is paying the claims for damages done, or injuries, I mean, that's really what the core of the issue is are these employees covered under workmen's comp if you don't have longshoremen's insurance. And I don't see any other reason why it would be relevant. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MS. KELLER: So if you can talk to workmen's comp and Page 28 August 18,2004 determine that they will cover it -- MR. JOSLIN: The off-shore-- MR. BALZANO: There was never anybody -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wait wait wait, one at a time. MR. BALZANO: There was never anybody in here that was complaining about that. You're on the right idea, but you're on the wrong track. The thing that came up was one dock company was complaining that a company did not have worker's comp, and the company they were complaining about had longshoremen's insurance. It was the first time we had ever heard of it. Because I ended up doing a deposition for a bunch of lawyers from Boca. Because that company is now out of business because it was sued by another local company here for taking work away from them. And they went after them for troubled damages. The man was told by his insurance company he had to have longshoremen's, not workers' comp, which he did. Then he got turned into us for not having workers' comp insurance. And this thing ended up in a lawsuit that took over two years. And then the guys just got sued again. That's what was brought up. He was the only one that had longshoremen's, and the complaint at the time was he didn't have workers' compo MR. JOSLIN: Okay, that may be-- MR. BALZANO: That's what happened. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, it is a catch 22, because you have to have workers' comp when you step on the ground. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. BLUM: This whole ordinance change is as a result of that? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, no. MR. BLUM: I find that -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Here's the key. And no one likes longshoremen insurance. I sure don't. I would love to see us do away with it. But in my opinion I also know where the county's going to go, and we talked about this. We have got to get a letter from the state Page 29 August 18,2004 board of workers' compensation and a letter from the state insurance commissioner's office telling us that if someone is working on a residential dock, and be very specific, residential dock, and they are injured, that they are covered by standard workers' compensation insurance. And until we get that letter, I don't think we can carry this forward. MR. NEALE: I would suggest further that this board needs -- in order to take this before the board of county commissioners, they need to have some notice from the federal government who under -- because federal law becomes state law. MR. BALZANO: But do we have the jurisdiction to enforce federal law? That's my question. MR. NEALE: You're not enforcing federal law. What you're doing is enforcing a provision of your ordinance that requires people to have a certain type of insurance. MR. BALZANO: But that's because someone put it in there. The question is -- and yesterday afternoon I also called Broward County where -- you know, where the cruise ships that go to the Bahamas? They do not have longshoremen's insurance. And they do not enforce it. MR. NEALE: But I -- MR. BALZANO: And I just don't understand. MR. NEALE: I think it's an irrelevant point. MR. BLUM: Can I ask a question? In your discussions with the other counties, in your capacity, did you ask them why did they get these affidavits from agencies to cover their butts? I mean, these other counties are just as -- MR. BALZANO: Their what? MR. BLUM: Broward County, how they justify not doing it. MR. BALZANO: Because workers' comp pays the claims. MR. BLUM: But did they specifically tell you that? Did they get the letters that our Chairman is -- Page 30 August 18, 2004 MR. BALZANO: They belong to the same association. You're talking about the letters that I supplied to you? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, I'm talking about the letters that you and I talked about that we need to get. MR. BLUM: The Chairman makes a very valid point. If -- the county commissioners, the first thing they're going to say is, well, how do we know? Well, here's a letter from the state insurance board saying that they'll honor the claims. Now, did Broward County do that? Did Pinellas -- MR. BALZANO: Well, my question would be to you, Mr. Blum: All the other counties are wrong and they're letting all their people -- MR. BLUM: No, no, no -- MR. BALZANO: Wait a minute. MR. BLUM: I think they're right and I'm totally in agreement with you. But we have to go to our commissioners now and ask them to overturn something that they've already done. They're going to want documentation from us to give themselves a comfort level to do it. Part of that comfort level is going to be Broward, so forth and so on don't have it and here's why and here's the documentation they got, here's the documentation we have, it's justified that we don't do this anymore. That's what I'm asking. I'm with you all the way, don't misunderstand. MR. BALZANO: I'm saying you just need a letter from the state insurance, you don't have to go to the other people. MR. BLUM: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I agree, we need a letter from the state insurance commissioner covering this issue. You've made -- we've made the point with every other county and that's as far as it goes. It doesn't really mean that much. Because I can hear the commissioners right now, we really don't care what everyone else is do doing, any more than in my business I care what all my competitors are doing. Page 3 1 August 18, 2004 But if we can get that letter, and that letter's crucial, then I've got something that I can hand to the county commissioners and say we have no liability so why are we doing this to the contractors and the citizens? MR. BALZANO: What we were told at the meeting we went to from our contractor licensing officials on the west coast that were at the meeting, and there were ones there from Miami-Dade and everything else, that the same thing happened to them, that the local dock company from here went to their boards with a person from here who was pushing this Jones Act and longshoremen's, which they turned down. They were up there trying to get them to put it in their ordinance. Lee County doesn't have them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I agree. And Paul, don't misunderstand that you have -- you have support of this board. MR. JOSLIN: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But if we can get that letter-- MR. NEALE: But just -- you know, as I say, I don't -- you know, I follow direction from the people I work for. But if you read the Pinellas County e-mail, they take a position very similar to Collier County . MR. BALZANO: You cannot get a permit to build a dock from Collier County unless you show them your insurance policy for longshoremen's. MR. NEALE: All I'm saying is I don't think we're as unique as is suggested. And if I remember correctly, part of the argument was that Collier County potentially could subject itself to liability by not being in compliance with federal law . MR. BALZANO: But who told us that? That's what we're trying to find out. Mr. Lee, who was the speaker there, when questioned could not answer these questions you're answering. And he's the -- MR. NEALE: Well, I'm not answering any questions because you've not given me the opportunity to do any research on this matter. Page 32 August 18, 2004 MS. KELLER: Well, I recommend that the board-- MR. NEALE: If I may, one more point, and Mr. Zachary makes it. And if I remember correctly, and Bob, you can speak to this better than I, a member of the County Attorney's Office, Bill Mountford, did a significant amount of research on this during that period of time. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who is that? MR. ZACHARY: That's a colleague in my office. MR. NEALE: In the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tell me the name? MR. ZACHARY: Bill Mountford. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Milford? (sic) MR. NEALE: Mountford. MR. ZACHARY: And I'll get ahold of him, because he-- MR. NEALE: And he did issue a memorandum of law, if I remember correctly, or at least a memorandum of opinion that was -- came down very strongly on the side of the fact that Collier County needed to have this in its ordinance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Then the thing to do would be to have him at our next meeting? MR. NEALE: Because I remember having a discussion with him and disagreeing with him. And Mr. Palmer I think disagreed with him. But he came down very strongly on the side that it needed to be there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So the thing to do for the next meeting is to get Mr. Milford (sic) here and see if we can get a letter from the insurance commissioner's office? MR. BALZANO: Maybe he should go to work for the federal government, because they don't know, but he does. MR. ZACHARY: You know, maybe we should have this-- MR. NEALE: Well, he did the research. MR. ZACHARY: -- discussion somewhere else besides here -- you all can come over to our office or we'll come to you -- that we can look over the research that we did, or that he did, and that will give Page 33 August 18, 2004 you some answers. We can't give them to you right now. MR. BLUM: I'm wondering how Mr. Milford's attitude would change if he saw the letter that we're talking about, if it was available. That may change his mind. MS. KELLER: Well, I think the other thing that is important to present is the effect that this has had on the -- the effect this has had on consumers and people who have lost their businesses as a result of this law, too. Because there's the legal side and then there's the soft side, and I think that's a really important thing to convey to the county commissioners as well. MR. LEWIS: Absolutely. I couldn't concur more, Ms. Keller, thank you. It's obvious that we're very excited about this, and I think under the umbrella of simplicity, which I deal with a lot in my own life, my first question would be the law states that longshore workers need the insurance. Do we have a definition for longshore workers? Frankly, I don't think I hire any of them. MR. NEALE: At this point, you know, we did have a member of the County Attorney's Office who did research this whole issue back in 2002. I would suggest that since none of us have had the opportunity to do any research on this, except for Mr. Balzano and his staff, that it's an inappropriate time to be discussing this any further until we've had some time to get our -- do our homework. MR. JOSLIN: I agree. Is this something that we could -- could be put on next month's agenda that we could rediscuss this or rehash this again so we could have a little more information? MR. BALZANO: What I will also do is get a person from workers' comp at this meeting. MR. JOSLIN: That would be advisable, too. MR. BALZANO: Because there has to be a lot of people that are getting injured that aren't getting paid by anybody that only have workers' compo Page 34 August 18,2004 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think we need -- here's my recommendation, as Chairman of the board. We need to revisit the issue, obviously. MR. LEWIS: Agreed. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not only because of businesses that can't work out there, but also the damage that's -- financial damage being done to homeowners. If you would, Mr. Zachary, our next meeting is September the 15th. Would you see if Mr. Milford can attend that meeting? MR. ZACHARY: I will. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And what we will do, Mr. Bartoe, since you do the agenda, since Mr. Milford will be here, let's put it in the discussion so it's done before any cases or citations, so that we don't waste his time. And then, Mr. Balzano, if you would get with workers' comp? I would even suggest the insurance commissioner's office. In my experience with state government, there's nobody who's more -- makes themselfmore available than Tom Gallagher. MR. NEALE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can talk directly to that man. MR. BALZANO: I will. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And if we can get something in writing from him regarding -- I like what you said. Number one, what is the definition of a longshoreman? Number two, if they're working on a residential dock -- and let's be specific here, let's quit saying docks and let's start calling it residential dock -- are they covered by workers' compensation? MR. NEALE: It's my memory, and somewhere buried in my files I have Mr. Mountford's memo, but it's my memory that it turned more on definition of navigable water than anything else. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I want to go to one of those law books in the definition sections, I want a definition of longshoremen. Page 35 ----.....-- - August 18,2004 MR. NEALE: Yeah, but that's just the -- my memory is it's just the title of the act that basically referred to anyone working in or around navigable waters. But, you know, we'll have to do the research on that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BALZANO: Mr. Neale, if you could research that? I mean, we've already talked to someone that had some basic knowledge at the Army Corps of Engineers. I mean, I could see maybe throwing in the Jones Act, but I can't imagine this board discussing the -- I mean, the longshoremen's, the Jones Act. Because the Jones Act refers to vessels of foreign flags. Why would we enforce that? And that's what the Jones Act is in regards to, vessels flying foreign flags. At ports of call they -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, that's something we can-- MR. BALZANO: -- can hit at any time. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's do that. Number one on the discussion next time, and we'll revisit it, because I think everyone on this board would agree, if we can get rid of longshoremen insurance requirements, I mean, everyone in the county would like to do it. But it's the legal issue. Okay? Any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a hot subject. No new business. Any old business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Besides we all dodged a bullet. That wasn't a bullet, it was a howitzer round that went through. So we wish all of our neighbors to the north Godspeed and the best in recovering. Anybody have anything else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Next meeting is September 15. Where do we stand? Mr. Bartoe, where do we stand on filling Page 36 August 18,2004 the two vacancies we have? MR. BARTOE: Sue Filson received an application from a state certified sign contractor. And if you -- the only -- if that person would get appointed, the appointment won't be -- I believe she said the next commissioners meeting's September. No applications for consumer yet. So if anyone knows a consumer that would be interested, have them apply right away. Sue says it can be done on-line. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did anyone contact Mr. Baril like we talked about last meeting to see if he would -- MR. BARTOE: Mr. Neale was going to see him I believe later that day. Mr. Baril, did you ask him about-- MR. NEALE: Yeah, and he -- I guess fortunate for him, he's extremely busy with his contracting duties; his business is doing quite well, because he's also dropped off the Marco Island planning board. So he's focusing on his business activities at this point. MR. BARTOE: I believe we were advertising for a general contractor, which is not a necessity on the board. That's -- and we have one, don't we? MR. LEWIS: Uh-huh, yes. MR. BARTOE: So I advised -- bye-mail today, I advised Sue Filson that the sign contractor would qualify as a specialty contractor for the board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Anybody have anything else? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Entertain a motion. MR. LEWIS: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All-- MR. JOSLIN: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. LEWIS: Aye. MR. BESWICK: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. Page 37 August 18, 2004 MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MS. KELLER: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:07 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY LICENSING BOARD LES DICKSON, CHAIRMAN Page 38