CLB Minutes 11/17/2004 R
November 17,2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
Naples, Florida
November 17, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Code Enforcement 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 Beswick
Sid Blum
Michael Boyd
Lee Horn
Richard Joslin
Anne Keller
William Lewis
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Paul Balzano, Supervisor-Licensing Compliance Officer
Tom Bartoe, Licensing Compliance Officer
Michael Ossorio, Licensing Compliance Officer
1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY CONfRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
DATE: NOVEMBER 17,2004
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING
(ADMINISTRA nON BUILDING)
COURTHOUSECOMWLEX
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND TIIEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE 1HA T A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD
INCLUDES TIIA T TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. ROLL CALL
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
DA TE: October 20, 2004
V. DISCUSSION;
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Frenel Desir - Request to be licensed after approval of credit report.
Frank Milana - Request to reinstate County Plastering License without retesting.
Ronald A. Masseo - Request to reinstate County General Contractor License without
retesting.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case #2004-05 - William Pickens vs David Markovich
DIB/ A Markovich Enterprises Inc.
IX. REPORTS:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 19.2005
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning. I'd like to call to
order the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board,
November 17th, 2004.
Any person who wishes or decides to appeal a decision of this
board, you'll need a record of the proceedings, which is being taken, to
ensure that a verbatim recording of the proceedings is made, and that
testimony -- that includes testimony in evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
I'd like to start with roll call to my right.
MR. LEWIS: William Lewis.
MR. BESWICK: David Beswick.
MS. KELLER: Anne Keller.
MR. BLUM: Sid Blum.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. HORN: Lee Horn.
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd also like to welcome Mr. Horn.
This is his first meeting. He is a consumer representative on the board.
We appreciate you giving your time and look forward to working with
you.
MR. HORN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, any additions or deletions
to the agenda?
MR. BAR TOE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members.
For the record, I'm Tom Bartoe, Collier County Licensing Compliance
Officer.
Under discussion, I'd like to add one item. I don't see the
gentleman here yet, but he could be having trouble finding a parking
place.
Mr. Charlie Davis wishes to discuss the hurricane protection test
that Experior gives, and if he's not here when we get to that, we can
2
November 17, 2004
put him at the bottom on the agenda.
Also, under new business, I received a phone call yesterday
requesting to add Mark Pershing, P-E-R-S-H-I-N-G. He requests to
reinstate a painting license without testing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that it?
MR. BAR TOE: And also, under reports, Mr. Zachary wishes to
discuss our citations that we issue. I think it's something that has
come up here before the board in the past. And Mr. Zachary and Mr.
Neale were going to look into it; is that correct?
MR. NEALE: That's correct.
MR. ZACHARY: Correct.
MR. BAR TOE: And staff has no other additions or deletions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a motion to approve the
changes?
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. BAR TOE: Also, I did, in your packet, include the tentative
schedule of meetings for next year. I did include the updated list on
board members' addresses and phone numbers. Anybody wants
anything corrected, see me after the meeting, please.
MR. NEALE: Tom, there is one thing. After 10 years, you'd
think they could spell my name right.
MR. BAR TOE: I will advise office staff.
MR. ZACHARY: Maybe that's a sign.
MR. BAR TOE: Have they always done it that way?
MR. NEALE: No, they usually get it right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: With a name like Dickson, you get
used to it.
Okay, I have a motion to approve the changes. Second?
MR. BLUM: Second, Blum.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
3
November 17,2004
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
It bothers me that someone by the name of Charlie is going to
talk about hurricanes, but -- also, I need approval of the minutes of the
last meeting.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we approve the minutes of
the last meeting, Joslin.
MR. BLUM: Second, Blum.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll skip discussion, because he's not
here, is he, Mr. Bartoe?
MR. BAR TOE: I'm sorry?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Charlie Davis is not here, right?
MR. BARTOE: I do not see him.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let's move into new business
for now.
Frenel Desir, are you present? Before you, sir -- if you would,
come up here to this podium, state your name and if you would, spell
4
November 17, 2004
it for the court reporter. And she will also swear you in.
(Speaker duly sworn.)
MR. DESIR: My name is Frenel Desir, F-R-E-N-E-L,
D-E-S-I-R.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Desir, if you would, just explain
to the board why you're here and what you're requesting.
MR. DESIR: I have submitted a package to be via licensed here
in Collier County, and from what I understand, my credit report did
not satisfy the requirement.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And tell us why that is.
What's the problem?
MR. DESIR: I been delinquent on some credit card debts, and -_
due to sickness in the family. And basically I just -- cash flow isn't
enough to cover them. I got in over my head. And right now I'm
working to pay them back. In a nutshell, that's it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I notice that you have a Palm Beach
County license.
Mr. Bartoe, he's taken all the tests for Collier County, it's just the
credit report we're looking at?
MR. BARTOE: Just the credit report.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
Do you have any employees now?
MR. DESIR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you're still working in Palm
Beach County?
MR. DESIR: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Members of the board have
questions?
MR. BLUM: Do we have a minimum credit score that we
require? What is the criteria for the credit application?
MR. BAR TOE: That credit be good. And if staff questions it,
they bring it before the board for a decision. Staff saw an awful lot in
5
November 17,2004
this report for collection.
MR. BLUM: I understand.
MR. NEALE: The credit report is based -- or the financial
responsibility is contained both within the Collier County ordinance
and Florida statutes, and both refer back to the Florida Administrative
Code, Title 61, which lists what financial responsibility means as it
pertains to a contractor.
And basically I can -- if you'd like, I can sort of recount that for
the board.
MR. BLUM: I understand why staff would flag this. We have
10 things here from -- put in collection over a period of three years or
so.
MR. NEALE: There's really four grounds on which the board
could deny an applicant pursuant to the code. First is failure to submit
any of the items required, which he has done.
The existence within the past five years preceding the application
of an unsatisfied court judgment rendered against the applicant, based
upon the failure of the applicant to pay its just obligations to parties
with whom the applicant conducted business as a contractor.
An unfavorable credit report or history, as indicated by any of the
documents submitted, or a determination by the board that the
applicant lacks the financial stability necessary to ensure compliance
with the standards set forth in Section 1 of this rule, which I'll recount
in a minute.
As guidelines for the determination of financial stability, the
board shall consider the applicant's responses to the questions set forth
in the applicant's financial statements submitted.
Financial responsibility, pursuant to the rule, is defined as the
ability to safeguard that the public will not sustain economic loss
resulting from the contractor's inability to pay his lawful contractual
obligations.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Where do you see a credit score on
6
November 17, 2004
here?
MR. BLUM: I can't find one, that's why I asked. I don't see one
on this -- Equicheck is notorious for that. The put everything out
there, but they don't make a commitment of value. The other guy,
TRW, gives you the number right off the bat.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Blum, could you pull your mic.
closer, please?
MR. BLUM: Oh, I'm sorry.
We've noticed before that Equicheck has -- even though they're
very thorough, they don't give you a score, which helps all of us lay
people. I mean, number is very important. TRW and a couple others,
they give you a number right off the bat, you go down and kind of
realize why that value is given.
We don't see a number here. I mean, we can make our own
determination from what it says, but it would be nice to have a credit
score.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got some particular questions.
How much business does your company do now? What's your
annual sales volume in Palm Beach County?
MR. DESIR: It's very limited. Because actually, I handle a
full-time job, which take most of my time. I'm just on the starting part
of it. It's under 5,000.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right. How long has this
company, Frenel Specialty Services, been in business?
MR. DESIR: A year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, the reason I asked that is I'm
sitting here looking at about 42 to $43,000 in collection. And that's
why I wanted a reference figure.
So the rest of the time you're working for someone else; is that
correct?
MR. DESIR: Yes, sir. And none of that is -- none of it is
company debt, it's all personal debt.
7
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand.
MR. DESIR: And a lot of that also is duplicates. It's not -- it's
not actually what it is. It's -- the debt's been reported more than one
time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I can -- and that shows on your
credit report, like Arrow Financial is an assignment from Bank One.
Arrow Financial is also an assignment from GE. So those do show on
there.
MR. DESIR: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We can tell which one are collection
agencies and where the debt came from.
MR. BLUM: And they're a year apart, those two.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MS. KELLER: I just have a question about the occupational
license. It says that the business is in lawn maintenance. Is the
occupational license --
MR. DESIR: Yes. It isn't maintenance, but -- because I'm an
electrician, but I've got the land maintenance -- I'm an electrician by
trade, but I do maintain land, you know, as a contract.
So what I -- what it is, I want to qualify the lawn company. I
don't want to be the qualifier for it if I want to do electrical work for
myself. Because as of now, I cannot actually go out to contract work.
MR. BLUM: How many employees do you have and what do
they do? One?
MR. DESIR: That's me.
MR. BLUM: When Mr. Dickson asked if you had employees,
you said yes, plural. You misunderstood?
MR. DESIR: Yes, I did.
MR. BLUM: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
MR. BARTOE: I have one. Mr. Desir said he has employees, I
believe.
8
--~."
November 17, 2004
MR. DESIR: No.
MR. BAR TOE: I thought I heard him say he had employees.
And I'm looking for workers' comp insurance.
MR. DESIR: No, I'm the only one.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman? Over here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, yeah. Go ahead.
MR. LEWIS: Since the business has been in existence for over a
year, how come -- I'd like to see a credit report on the business also.
Because I frankly know as a business owner that my personal debts
are tied into my business and the business debts are tied into my
personal nowadays. So I think I'd like to see -- before I make any
motion, I'd like to see a credit check on the business.
MR. NEALE: And that is required pursuant to the ordinance.
MR. LEWIS: Correct.
And then also, Mr. Neale, if you could clarify for us the
administrative code as to bankruptcies and/or collections.
MR. NEALE: It doesn't refer to collections at all. Collections
are a matter to be considered as part of the credit history.
However, the board may not consider past or present bankruptcy
of an applicant for certification as a contractor in determining whether
to qualify the applicant for certification. And that's because of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and the constitution is -- when you have a
bankruptcy, it's supposed to wipe your slate clean, so --
MR. LEWIS: So as I see it then from this credit check, what we
have are collections, not bankruptcies. So we can consider all of
these.
I'm done, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else? What's the desire --
oh, go ahead.
MS. KELLER: I kind of have a problem with not considering
bankruptcy but considering collections. I mean, are we trying to make
people file for bankruptcy? Or, you know, just when we're looking at
9
November 17,2004
the collection issue, should we -- you know, how do we want to view
that?
MR. NEALE: Well, the problem with bankruptcy is it's covered
under federal law, and it's a State Attorney General's opinion that
states that it can't be considered, so --
MS. KELLER: But we get to decide how we want to view the
collections.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MS. KELLER: So my point is not regarding the bankruptcy,
because that's not an issue here, but that, you know, what kind of
message do we want to send to people.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, if they have a bankruptcy,
there's still going to be collections or a history of collections, and we
can look at that, and we always have. So it's really a moot point. We
just can't -- we can't deny a license solely on the basis of a bankruptcy.
MR. NEALE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's the wishes of the board?
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to deny
the application.
MR. BESWICK: Second, Beswick.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
10
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Frenel-- I'm sorry, I'm saying
that right -- I had it right the first time. Desir, I'm sorry.
Mr. Desir, the application just doesn't fly. There's too many
questions. The credit report -- if we would let that credit report go out
into Collier County, they would be coming after us. My
recommendation is, clean up your credit and come back again.
MR. DESIR: Is there a wait, or -- I mean, how does that work?
Is there a wait, or can -- as far as -- like I said, as far as those -- I've
got here one of them -- I mean, they're in the process of being paid.
With me I've got one of them that's paid as of now. And the rest of
them, they're being negotiated, like I put on the application. And so if
that's any help, I've got proof, that's not just something I just put down.
I mean, this is --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's good, but that takes care of one
out of 10. It's a bad credit report, and you've got to clean that credit
report up. And it's not something that's going to happen in the next
60, 90 days, unless you can get all these accounts paid off.
But credit is absolutely crucial. And if you make application
again, make sure that you get a credit report for the company as well.
MR. DESIR: Sure will.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay?
MR. DESIR: All right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Sorry we could not
accommodate you.
MR. DESIR: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Frank Milana, are you present?
MR. MILANA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would come up to the podium,
state your name, and I'll have you sworn in.
11
November 17,2004
MR. MILANA: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name
is Frank Milana, M-I-L-A-N-A.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you're wanting to qualify without
having to take the test again, correct?
MR. MILANA: I already had the license, and I fell ill back in
2001, and it literally put me out. And I didn't know that my license
would be suspended after three years, it would be canceled out. If I
would have known, I would have paid the fees every year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's one of the questions on the test.
MR. MILANA: What's that?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's one of the questions on the test
you took to get your license.
MR. MILANA: Well, I must have forgot about it, because I
really --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What have you been doing since
then?
MR. MILANA: Well, I'm just getting back on my feet.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What kind of illness did you have?
MR. MILANA: I had a hernia. I had two -- three surgeries. I
had an umbilical hernia and lower hernia.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What have you been doing workwise
since then?
MR. MILANA: Nothing. Light duty, just helping friends and
stuff.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Since when?
MR. MILANA: Almost about eight months of this year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: When did the license expire?
MR. MILANA: 2001.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what have you been doing for
three years?
MR. MILAN A: I haven't been doing any business work.
12
·--·_'-'_'_~~~"_C
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Are you employed anywhere?
MR. MILANA: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That concerns me also.
MR. JOSLIN: Has a full packet been filled out?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. This mean that the rest of the
packet is in order?
MR. BARTOE: There is no rest of the packet. We have an old
packet. If the board would approve him, we would have to have
everything updated in his packet.
His original test he passed was in 1986, and at that time there was
no such separate two-hour business and law test. Part of the plastering
test had a one-hour administrative questions in it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And he renewed it from '86 all the
way up to '98, and then it expired in 2001. Have I got that correct?
MR. BAR TOE: I would say by the paperwork that I gave you
and I have, is he did not get his license until '98. Unless he had an
older license, it does not show up in our computer system.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, I see what you're saying.
Original date, yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: I would have to say that this time we should really
have a full packet in front of us, because if he's been out of work for
three years for some type of problem, medical or otherwise, you
probably have to verify some type of credit application in your
history, tell us where you are, and we could review it again.
MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin, I would concur. And under Section
22-191 (I) of the Collier County ordinance, it requires a payment of the
full fee and a full application packet, should a license be in the status
that Mr. Milana's is.
MR. JOSLIN: At this time our hands are kinds of tied at the
moment.
MR. MILANA: I have no problem with that. You're saying that I
have to back pay all the fees that I missed, or --
13
"'"'--.--""
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm really not seeing much. I have
two pages. One with an original issue date of 11/2/98, even though
you took the test in 1986.
So it doesn't tell me that you had the license for the 12 years that
you -- in between '86 and '98.
MR. MILANA: I had the license between '86 and '98.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you? Okay.
MR. MILANA: I had it all the way up to, I think -- I didn't pay
in September of 2000 and -- it could have been 2000 or 2001, that was
my last --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's 2001, right, was the last one.
MR. JOSLIN: But yet the county has no record -- staffhas no
record that he was licensed before '98; is that right?
MR. BARTOE: My thing is, ifhe comes in with a complete
packet, we can't give him a license without the board's approval
because of how long ago the test was taken. According to state
statutes and our ordinance, if the test is over three years old, you must
retest.
MR. JOSLIN: I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, you want to read the
requirements of voiding retesting? So everyone's aware.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, it's -- any individual who fails to renew his
or her certificate of competency prior to December 31 st of the year
following its expiration shall thereby automatically have a certificate
of competency that is null and void.
To acquire a valid certificate from the county, the individual
must then pay -- must pay the then applicable full application fee in
accordance with the schedule of fees and charges adopted by
resolution, and must submit an entire new application.
If, as of the date of receipt by the county of the new application,
three years have passed since the date of his or her most recent
examination that the individual passed to acquire the former
14
"-_.~-_.'-
November 17,2004
certificate, that individual must pass all then applicable testing
requirements.
Now, the board does have the ability to waive those testing
requirements, based upon certain -- the meeting of certain criteria, but
before the board gets to that stage, the application still has to be
submitted.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And those criteria are actively
engaged in the field, or experience, correct?
MR. NEALE: Typically.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which for three years he hasn't been.
So I'm sitting here trying not to send him to step two when it's not
going to do him any good.
MR. BLUM: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you following me?
What I'm basically getting down to is by the guidelines in the law
that we have to follow, for you for go take another -- for you to put
together an entire packet and then ask us to waive your testing, it isn't
going to do any good, because you haven't been actively engaged in
the field of which you're licensed for that since you've been -- since
your license expired, or was terminated.
MR. MILANA: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So it isn't going to meet the criteria
anyway. So basically what I'm boiling down to is you need to sign up
for the test.
MR. MILANA: Just do it over again.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do it over.
MR. MILANA: That's why I came here, I was just trying to
plead my case to see if I could -- if you can waive that. And if you
can't, then I'll go ahead and take the test.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you had been actively engaged in
the field of your trade since your license expired and had experience
during that period of time, but you've already told me that for three
15
November 17,2004
years you haven't done anything.
MR. MILANA: Right, I haven't -- I haven't done no work.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That ain't going to fly.
MR. MILANA: Okay, so -- I mean, I got to write the test again,
I mean, that's fine. I just thought maybe if I could get in front of you
guys --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can pass it.
MR. MILANA: Oh, I know I can. I'm not worried about that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Except now you're going to
have to take a business and law portion as well, okay?
Do we have a motion?
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make the motion that we deny the application.
MR. BLUM: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second.
All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
So get signed up. And by the way, we do have two testing
authorities now. You can choose -- is that not true, Mr. Bartoe, there's
two different people he can choose from?
MR. BAR TOE: The new one's not quite operational yet. It will
be very shortly.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. MILANA: All right. Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Best of luck to you.
Mr. Neale, do I need to be reading findings of fact?
16
November 17,2004
MR. NEALE: Probably. But on these, these were fairly clear
cut. The credit report one may be. But, yeah, as an excess of caution,
it's always a good idea. But I think these are --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a very typical legal answer, yes --
MR. NEALE: It's what you're going to get. That's why I'm the
lawyer.
MR. ZACHARY: Yes, but.
MR. NEALE: Yes, but.
MR. JOSLIN: Can it just be something as a -- as a verbal entry --
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: -- rather than having to read the whole thing
throughout?
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what do you want me to do? On
the first one just do a findings of fact denied based on the credit
report?
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Regarding the case of Frenel Desir,
findings of fact, credit report review. This cause came before the
Contractor Licensing Board on 11/17/2004. The request was denied.
Is that all you want?
MR. NEALE: Yeah. Based upon the inadequacy of the credit
report.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the second one we don't need to
do anything?
Okay, Mr. Ronald Masseo, are you present?
MR. MASSEO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir, if you'd come forward and go
to the podium.
MR. BLOOM: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Craig
Bloom, and I'm the attorney for Ronald Masseo, who is present here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
17
November 17, 2004
MR. BLOOM: And this is his request to waive the retesting
requirements to reinstate Mr. Masseo's license.
Mr. Masseo's certificate of competency expired on September
30th, 2002. At that time, Mr. Masseo was the qualifier for Phoenix
Homes at Orangetree, Inc.
As the board is now aware, Section 1.4.9 states that any
individual who fails to renew his certificate of competency prior to
December 31 st of the year following expiration shall thereby
automatically have a certificate of competency that is null and void.
To acquire a valid certificate from the county, the individual
must pay the then applicable full application fee and must submit an
entire new application.
Since Mr. Masseo's certificate expired in 2002, he had until
December, 2003 to pay the fee and submit the application.
May I approach?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Do you want to mark those,
Mr. Neale, at all?
MR. BLOOM: I marked this as composite Exhibit 1.
Unfortunately, you see -- from misinformation on the number of board
members, I don't have enough copies here for the entire board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's okay, we can share.
MR. BLOOM: On April 16th of2003, an application and fee
was submitted to reinstate Mr. Masseo's license and to qualify a new
company by the name of Monteleon Development Company, LLC.
Mr. Masseo's certificate of competency as an individual should have
been approved at the time of -- the application was submitted.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me interrupt you, if I may.
Let's go back and get our dates here. So it expired 9/6/2002, but
he had until December --
MR. BLOOM: According to the county's records, it shows 9/6 of
2002. However, you'll see the copy of the license, the certificate of
competency license in the center of the page, of the first page that I
18
---
November 17,2004
submitted to you. That states that the expiration was September 30th
of 2002, for the record.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. BLOOM: So he had until December 31st of2003 to submit
an application.
The next document you'll see with the package that we submitted
is the application which was submitted in April of 2003.
The application was timely, the fee was tendered --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Show me which one you're talking
about.
MR. BLOOM: In the clip.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm looking for the application. Okay.
Is this it here?
MR. BLOOM: It's all clipped together as an entire application at
the time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm just looking for the date on it. Do
you see one?
MR. BLOOM: You'll note on Page 2 of the affidavit, it was
notarized on March 10th of 2003. The cover letter itself is dated April
16th of 2003.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Got it.
MR. BLOOM: And I'll attest to the fact that we sent this to the
staff at that time.
At that time, Mr. Masseo was already registered with the State of
Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation,
Construction Industry Licensing Board, and he was issued a License
No. RG-066730 for Monteleon Development Company.
As you are aware, Section 1.4.9 further states that if as of the date
of receipt by the county of said application three years have passed
since the most recent examination, the individual passed to acquire the
former certificate, that individual must pass all then applicable testing
requirements.
19
November 17,2004
It had been more than three years since the time Mr. Masseo
passed the exam. However, at no time did staff notify us that staff
would not recommend to waive the retesting requirements at that point
in time.
As the board is aware, the retesting requirements can be waived
if the applicant proves that he's been active in the trade or for other
valid reasons.
And we're respectfully requesting today that the board waive
these retesting requirements for the following reasons:
At the time we submitted the application to the board, the only
issue for denying the application or holding up the application, since
this application was never denied, was workers' compensation
exemption certificates were still being processed.
We're informed that the exemption certificates or proof of
workmen's compensation insurance were requirements to reinstate Mr.
Masseo's license, since he would be qualifying a new entity.
Exemptions were finally issued for two of the individuals
involved the company. Exemption was issued for Ronald Masseo,
who is a principal of Monteleon. Gonzalez Sepulveda, Jr., an
exemption was issued. However, we were unable to obtain an
exemption for the other principal partner of Monteleon, since he did
not have a U.S. tax identification number. And therefore, his workers'
compensation exemption was rejected and finally returned to us in
August of2003. The board will find a copy of that rejection notice in
the documents I've submitted.
During the winter of 2003 -- I'm sorry, let me back up.
During this time, Mr. Masseo's application was still pending and
we had been in regular communication with Maggie Wright regarding
the delay of the exemption for issuance of the taxpayer identification
number.
During the winter of 2003, Mr. Sepulveda had returned home to
Columbia to take care of some family business. Unfortunately, as a
20
-,----.,
November 17, 2004
result of some changes in immigration laws, he was not allowed back
into the country. He was approved by the U.S. to return to the United
States; however, his home country had delays in allowing him to
return.
It was important that he return, since when he was not allowed to
return to the U.S., we were not able to complete his father's
application for exemption for workmen's compensation.
A process that typically takes four to six weeks -- and the process
I'm discussing is actually the application to obtain a U.S. taxpayer
identification number for a foreign individual -- at the time we were
informed it should take four to six weeks. Unfortunately, it took
almost six months for the U.S. to issue a taxpayer identification
number to Mr. Sepulveda, Sr., who was the other principal of
Monteleon.
Once again, that was the hold-up on approving our application at
the time it was submitted to staff.
When he finally returned in early 2004, he, being Gonzales
Sepulveda, Jr., he returned with his father's taxpayer identification
number.
Unfortunately, by that time the workers' compensation laws had
changed, requiring that all principals of an entity up to three officers
or directors have 10 percent ownership in that entity in order to
qualify for the exemption.
Since Mr. Masseo did not hold an equity interest in Monteleon,
we were then instructed to place workmen's compensation for Mr.
Masseo.
Also, at that time you'll note that the application was returned to
us. The last document in your package, you'll see a letter dated April
14th, 2003. From the context in the check, you'll note that the April
14th, 2003 is actually a typo. It's April 14th of 2004.
You'll read the context of the letter where Mrs. Wright indicates
that it's been a year since, essentially, submitting the application and
21
~-
November 17,2004
it's being returned to the records room, and they returned the
application, instructing us to get a new application and start all over
agaIn.
By this time -- at this time we have workmen's compensation
insurance in place. We have the ability to complete and submit a new
application, if the board feels that is necessary. However, based on
staffs recommendation, we were instructed not to submit a new
application and simply request that the board waive its requirement
pertaining to retesting.
Mr. Masseo has remained active in the construction industry.
Since the time of qualifying Phoenix Homes, he has continued his
continuing legal education requirements. In fact, he's gone above and
beyond his requirements by taking a building code administrative core
online course with Florida State University.
Mr. Masseo holds a degree in civil engineering, and he's been
employed in Bradenton, Florida by L WR Development, LLC. And in
his capacity there, he overseas construction operations for hundreds of
residential units being constructed at Lakewood Ranch in Bradenton,
Florida.
It should be noted that at no time his application was ever denied,
and at no time were we informed that staff would not recommend that
the retesting requirements be waived.
We'd request that we be able to submit a new application or
retroactively approve the prior application with some updated credit
financial scores and updated insurance verification. And we
respectfully request this board waive his retesting requirements.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you going to allow Mr. Masseo to
answer questions?
MR. BLOOM: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need to have you state your name
and have you sworn in, sir.
MR. MASSEO: Ron Masseo.
22
<..----."
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Masseo is the way you say it?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. MASSEO: Okay. Before I get started, Mr. Neale and Mr.
Zachary, did you get a copy of what we got?
MR. NEALE: No, I don't have that.
MR. ZACHARY: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I would like for you for look through
this. It's quite complex, and there's a lot of questions.
Mr. Masseo, what is your Social Security number?
MR. MASSEO:
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What is your date of birth?
MR. MASSEO: 7/12/63.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sixty-three?
MR. MASSEO: 1963.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And what happened to the qualifier of
Phoenix Homes at Orangetree?
MR. MASSEO: I left employment with them.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There was another qualifier, correct?
MR. MASSEO: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is Phoenix Homes at Orangetree
different than Phoenix Homes here in Naples?
MR. MASSEO: Yes, it is. You have Phoenix -- I believe it's
Phoenix Associates, and then there's a Phoenix Homes, there's a
Phoenix Homes at Orangetree, LLC.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, there is a Phoenix Homes, and
then there's Phoenix Associates, which is commercial.
MR. MASSEO: Correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Phoenix Homes is just residential.
MR. MASSEO: Correct. And then there's a Phoenix Homes at
Orangetree, Inc.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And you had no --
MR. MASSEO: And that was the entity that I qualified.
23
...---.-.~~-'.~
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And you had no association
with those other names?
MR. MASSEO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Because most of us are aware
of those two other companies, as well.
MR. MASSEO: Right. No, no. No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And so as Phoenix Homes at
Orangetree, has it continued as a viable entity?
MR. MASSEO: I don't know. I left that employ three years ago.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you're not qualifying them, you're
just wanting your license back, correct?
MR. BLOOM: Can I clarify?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BLOOM: For the record, Mr. Masseo tendered a letter to
the State of Florida at the point he resigned from Phoenix Homes at
Orangetree, Inc., and no longer qualified Phoenix Homes at that point
in time.
He still had a certificate of competency; however, it -- the copy
that you'll see there was for qualifying Phoenix Homes. Instead of
approving a certificate of competency as an individual, we submitted
an application for an individual qualifying Monteleon Development
Company, LLC.
And that is the new entity which we are attempting to qualify.
That entity was formed in 2002, it has not done any business other
than to acquire some land here in Collier County for development
purposes.
MR. NEALE: If I can clarify for the board, that -- we've almost
got two different issues going on here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right.
MR. NEALE: We've got the issue of Mr. Masseo's submission
of an application, whether that was on a timely basis or not, and the
issue of qualifying another entity.
24
November 17, 2004
And the certificate of competency, while it is supposedly linked
to an entity that he's qualifying, still should stand on its own, whether
the application was made in a timely fashion.
So I would recommend to the board that you sort of in your mind
separate the two issues that -- the primary issue that the board's
looking at today is not his qualification of a second -- of another
company, the primary issue of the board is -- I would suggest the
board is looking at, is the issue of the timeliness and appropriateness
of the application made, subsequent to the expiration of his certificate
of competency.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I got you.
MR. BLOOM: And to narrow in on that limited issue, the
application was made timely. It was made in 2003, which -- in April
of2003, which was prior to December 31st of2003. The fee was
submitted. However, the hold-up was because those two issues got
combined, as far as his certificate of competency license should have
been reinstated at that point in time but for the workmen's
compensation holdup for the entity.
And we were trying to get both done at the same time, rather than
separating those two issues, issuing a -- reinstating Mr. Masseo's
license and then subsequently qualifying the entity, which could have
been the alternate path.
MR. NEALE: And if I can just recount to the board the -- what I
believe is the relevant section, is -- in the codified ordinance it's
22-191 (H). And it's says any individual who renews his or her
certificate of competency by September 30 of the year following its
expiration, but after December 31 of that year, shall have an expired
certificate -- shall have a suspended certificate, pardon me -- and
thereby must pay an additional late fee in accordance with the
schedule of fees and charges, and must reapply in full, including
updated credit reports and all other documentation required in
Division 2 herein, but no retesting shall be required.
25
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Read that one more time.
MR. NEALE: Right. What it basically says is -- and I'll sort of
try and walk through this myself, because I've been sort of making
notes for myself here.
His -- according to the information provided by Mr. Bloom, the
certificates that he had, the Collier County general contractor's
certificate, expired in -- on 9/30/2002, okay?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Nine what?
MR. NEALE: 9/30/2002. They all say expired September 30.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. NEALE: Ifhe renewed his certificate by September 30 of
the year following its expiration, which would have been 9/30/2003 --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: '03, right.
MR. NEALE: He has a suspended certificate, pays the additional
late fee, files a full application and reapplies, but no retesting required.
I'm not trying to make Mr. Bloom's case for him, but it appears
that this was filed, according to the letter from Maggie, on -- sometime
in April of 2003.
Now, it's the board's purview as to all the other gyrations that
went on, but based on the absolute letter of the ordinance, absent other
information, it appears that it was timely filed.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, at the same time, too, it's not
like the other case where he hasn't --
MR. NEALE: He hasn't been doing it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- been actively involved. He is
actively involved.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. LEWIS: It appears to me that we've got a lack of
information here.
According to the agenda, the agenda asks us to reinstate a Collier
County general license without retesting. Since Mr. Masseo --
26
November 17,2004
Masseo?
MR. MASSEO: Masseo.
MR. LEWIS: Masseo, I apologize. Since Mr. Masseo -- and,
sorry, we keep butchering your name, but sooner or later we might get
it.
He's already acknowledged the fact that Phoenix Homes,
Incorporated, or LLC, he is no longer a partner of, which was the
license that he held in Collier County.
So as I see it right now, what we can possibly do is give him
authorization to proceed with a new packet, in light of the fact that the
board mayor may not at this point, depending on what the board
members' preference is, waive the testing.
But we have no packet for a contractor license, and we can't
reinstate the one for Phoenix Homes which he had before.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But if we approve that he doesn't need
the testing, that he most likely will not come back before this board,
because the county staff will take care of it.
MR. LEWIS: I see no problem with that.
MR. BLOOM: We're more than willing to submit a new
application. But for -- just to clarify, what we do have is an
application for the new entity, which is Monteleon Development
Company, LLC, which we're not asking to retroactively apply that
application, we're just asking to waive the retesting, reinstate his
license.
MR. NEALE: It would be a first entity, it wouldn't be a second
entity, so it wouldn't come before the board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's right.
Any other question?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One of the more confusing ones that
we've had before this --
MR. BLOOM: We apologize for that. It's taken a long time.
27
----
November 17,2004
MR. BLUM: Sounds like ifhe had just tried to get his license
and forgot about the Monteleon thing, this would have been a done
deal.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. I can see where it got wrapped
up in there, though, but he was actively there.
What country are you from?
MR. MASSEO: Me? The United States.
MR. BLOOM: The principals of Monteleon are from Columbia.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: See, you still got me confused.
MR. BLOOM: That was not my objective here.
MS. KELLER: Are you going to try out your Spanish?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, no. Yours is better than mine.
Anybody else?
MR. JOSLIN: I have one last question. Does this Monte -- is it
Monteleon Development Company, is this something that is going to
try to come back and second entity for Phoenix Homes?
MR. BLOOM: No. No relationship to Phoenix Homes at all.
The only relation with Phoenix Homes, and we understand the board's
experiences with Phoenix Homes out there--
MR. JOSLIN : Well, I see in the packet there is a little bit of
derogatory credit report on that particular entity. What was it,
bankruptcy?
MR. BLOOM: That's not for Phoenix Homes. That was a
discharged bankruptcy, which should not be considered by the board.
MR. JOSLIN: No, it's not. It's just a light comes on, that's all.
MR. BLOOM: And I believe that's for the new entity.
MR. BOYD: Is his state license current--
MR. BLOOM: Correct.
MR. BOYD: -- because the one we have here expires in 2003.
MR. BLOOM: It's current. I do have proof of that here.
MR. BARTOE: That's a registration.
MR. BALZANO: Not a license, it's a registration.
28
"-----
November 17,2004
MR. BARTOE: When you're licensed by the county, you have
to register with the state. And the state will take your money any time
to register you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Plus the fact we won't have a state
license come before this board.
MR. BLOOM: What we anticipate being able to do is submit a
new application within the next two weeks, so long as the board would
approve -- or waive the retesting requirements. I believe staff had no
objection to that as well.
MR. BAR TOE: No objections.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a motion?
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make the motion that we approve the packet
for the -- not the packet, sorry, that we approve the waiving of the
testing requirements.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second?
MS. KELLER: Second, Keller.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. LEWIS: A little discussion. Just as an addendum to that,
Richard, as long as it's noted that the proper paperwork for the
continuing education and everything is presented with the packet.
MR. BLOOM: We can present that at this time, too.
MR. LEWIS: That just needs to go with the packet.
MR. JOSLIN: As long as that makes it into the packet when you
resubmit in full.
MR. BLOOM: Sure.
MR. JOSLIN: And as long as everything is there, then it won't
come back before us then.
MR. LEWIS: As long as that's noted.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else?
(No response.)
29
'"---~."""
""."M."'___....,.~.~
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're done. Good luck to you.
MR. BLOOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MASSEO: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: By the way, all of your files are here,
so Maggie doesn't have a thing today, okay?
MR. BLOOM: All of my files have been returned to me, I
understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, the county files are here.
MR. BALZANO: I have no packet. I only have what I gave
you. They will get a complete packet application to us.
MR. BLOOM: I will resubmit, and I believe I should be able to
obtain some minutes of the hearing, or will that be forwarded to staff?
MR. NEALE: What we'll do is, there will be an order issued on
this and you'll get a copy of the order.
MR. BLOOM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you gentlemen.
Next up, Mark Pershing. Are you present?
MR. PERSHING: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would come forward, sir, state
your name, and I'll have you sworn in.
MR. PERSHING: I'm Mark Pershing.
30
~_. ...._-"-,-...... -
November 17,2004
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We don't have any packet, but tell us
MR. BARTOE: I have nothing other than a phone call yesterday
from Mr. Pershing, who advised he was licensed. It expired 10 or 11
years ago. His original license, he was grandfathered in, that he never
tested. We have nothing in the file, nothing in the computer.
And he requests to be reinstated without taking a test. Not
without retesting. He never did test.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. You got about two or three
minutes to tell us your spiel.
MR. PERSHING: I got a good report so far, I guess.
I had a paint and wallpaper store in Old Marco, a family business
with my dad -- he's here too -- in the Seventies. I graduated from Lely
High School 1978. I have a packet here too of different construction
people and paint stores and well established businesses on Marco
Island who have known me for 30 years.
In Old Marco, we had a store, a painting contracting license with
half a dozen employees through the Seventies and Eighties, the early
part of the Nineties.
I've had a good reputation. No problem. I've never been taken to
court for the 20-some years I was -- been as a paint contractor. And
my mother, who was the secretary of the incorporation during the--
she handled all the papers and stuff, didn't keep our license reinstated,
and my dad and I had no idea of -- not knowing it until in the Nineties
when we found -- you know, taking the papers and getting things
caught up, realized that we don't have our license anymore, kept or
reestab lished.
I do have names of several of the big businesses on Marco Island
still there. I was one of the biggest paint contractors on Marco during
the Seventies and Eighties, with a paint and wallpaper store, too.
If there's anything else I can ask -- or say.
31
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I really don't know why this is coming
before this board.
MR. BARTOE: Because he requested it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Your license has been expired for
what, 10, 11 years?
MR. PERSHING: Yes. And just to -- my qualifications as a
painter is well established in the county. I mean, as far as what the
test is going to -- a person who doesn't know how to paint could pass a
test. What the ability would -- you know, except for, you know,
having -- I had a contracting license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but it's been expired for an
extremely long period of time.
Questions from the board?
MR. JOSLIN: I can appreciate the fact of what he's trying to do.
But I think that we're going to show some type of prejudice here -- or
we're going to show some type of not prejudice but favoritism, in a
sense, if we try to give this man a license after 10 years.
I wish we could do this, but at this moment I'm ready to make a
motion.
MR. PERSHING: Yeah, that's -- in my world it's a different
story. Your job and what you've always had to face to is, compared to
what I'm facing to, is more complex to you than -- to me, it's simple,
let me get on with my life, but my jar that I live in is not your jar you
live in in how you deal -- I don't know what you're allowed to do or
what you deal with all-- you know, every day. So it seems simple to
me, but it's complex to you.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, I think the main thing that you need to try
to do now is probably, maybe go to the county, and they can surely
help you out, Maggie can help you out. Get a packet together and
then sign up for a test. Take the test again, and you'll see where some
of the things on the testing have changed in the past 10 years.
MR. PERSHING: Well, I have never taken a test. But I guess --
32
--.--.
November 17,2004
you know, I know that they give you a book that they underline
everything, it's an open book test. You don't have to -- not that I'm
going to school to learn anything, just to take a test so your -- Collier
County is, you know, appeased and -- because they don't -- you know,
like you said, prejudice against grandfathering in --
MR. JOSLIN: I understand.
MR. PERSHING: -- because I was grandfathered in in Old
Marco, too.
MR. JOSLIN: Right. I'll make a motion that we deny the
application at this time.
MR. BLUM: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
I have to tell you, if we approved your request, the next meeting,
the line would be down the stairs and out the door.
You're a smart enough man to go take that test and get it done.
MR. PERSHING: Yeah -- well, that's the problem. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Old business. Real quickly, I'll go back. Is Charlie Davis -- did
he ever walk in?
MR. DAVIS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. You can go right there, Mr.
Davis. You wanted to discuss the hurricane protection test?
MR. DAVIS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't need to have him sworn in, do
33
November 17, 2004
I, for any reason?
MR. BALZANO: Could I --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BALZANO: -- add something, before you start?
Mr. Davis came to us and he wanted to make sure everything he
was doing was legal and that he was doing it correctly.
And the product that he showed me, he had been told earlier by
staff that he would have to take a hurricane shutter test or an
aluminum contractor, which he bought some of the books. And the
books for the test do not in any way apply to the application that his
company does.
And I thought about it and I thought that it was kind of crazy for
him to take a test on aluminum when he shows you what he's
installing.
They're licensed carpenters, and they install windows right now,
in new homes, and do framing, and -- but they can't install these.
So Charlie -- Mr. Davis could explain to you. There isn't
anything on the exam by Experior. He's tried to contact them, they
will not return his call.
And I myself thought that maybe this could be done with the
license that he has.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He has a carpentry license?
MR. BALZANO: Correct. He installs windows right now.
MR. DAVIS: Well, my company. I'm the general manager of
the company.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you the license holder?
MR. DAVIS: No, I'm not.
MR. BALZANO: I asked him to come here to show you the
product that they're installing to see if you think that it should go into
that category.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What, is this a hurricane screen that
you put over windows?
34
November 17, 2004
MR. DAVIS: That's correct. In fact, it's been purchased by
Collier County. They're used on the Golden Prairie and the Big
Cypress elementary schools.
MS. KELLER: What's the name of your company?
MR. DAVIS: It's Sun Sales and Insulation, Incorporated.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sun Sales and Insulation?
MR. DAVIS: Incorporated. Yes, sir.
MR. BLUM: Am I to understand that this is going to cover
openings in a structure and --
MR. DAVIS: That's correct. It will cover the window openings,
the door openings.
MR. BLUM: Is there some kind of testing that shows it'll stand
up to a Category 4 with 140 mile --
MR. DAVIS: Yes. If you look at that sample, you'll see that it
has a Dade County stamp that it has been tested and approved for 150
mile-an-hour locations.
MR. JOSLIN: Is this currently being used in Dade County now?
MR. DAVIS: Pardon me?
MR. JOSLIN: Is this currently being used in Dade County?
MR. PERSHING: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: It is. Do you have any --
MR. PERSHING: There's another company that's similar to it.
It's called Armor Screen, which has been around quite a while.
MR. JOSLIN: Is there any paperwork that follows this product
when you purchase it or distribute it? I don't know which one you do.
MR. BLUM: Has it been UL tested or --
MR. PERSHING: Yes. As far as I know, it has been.
MR. BALZANO: They have that at Naples fire station.
MR. BLUM: Well, that doesn't do it.
MR. BALZANO: Doesn't what?
MR. BLUM: I don't think the fire station is --
MR. BALZANO: No. I'm just saying they have it.
35
November 17, 2004
MR. PERSHING: They've used -- they've installed it.
(Discussion out of hearing of the court reporter.)
MR. BALZANO: Mr. Dickson?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm totally caught--
MR. BALZANO: Mr. Dickson?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BALZANO: We happen to have Mr. Kucko here, who's the
chief structural inspector for Collier County, and he can testify that
this has been approved for use in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Could you come forward, Mr. Kucko,
over to this one over here? Okay, right there's fine.
MR. KUCKO: Yes, I'm Jeff Kucko, Collier County Building
Department, chief structural inspector.
And this product and Armorshield has been approved and is in
use in several locations in Collier County. Forget looking at it like it's
going over the window. This thing basically comes down from the
eaves and protects the whole exterior wall of the building. But it is an
approved product.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It does has Metro-Dade County
approval?
MR. KUCKO: Yeah, Metro-Dade, Southern Building Code
Congress, and now ICC approval. So it is in use, and it is in use in
Collier County and has been for probably the last year and a half.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I wish the brochures would say all
that, because all of us that live in Florida look for that particular
information, Metro-Dade County approved, SB, CCI, all of that.
That's why we hit you real fast with that. Especially after the
hurricanes, we have a lot of products coming in that are not -- have
Florida product approval.
MR. LEWIS: Jeff? Over here. Question for you. On structural
installation, I know you've approved and have certain requirements for
structural installation. Does that require just a final inspection for
36
November 17,2004
installation?
MR. KUCKO: They would have a final inspection on a method
of attachment with all anchors exposed and, you know, a situation like
that. Some of them, I think it's the Armorshield, stays as a permanent
part, like it curls up inside, based on what I'm looking at there. I'm not
familiar with it. Looks like they just flip it back over and flip it up.
But it's basically drilling a hole into either the wood or into
concrete and putting in a fastener. I don't see where it requires any
special -- or specialty kind of license.
MR. LEWIS: What are the differences, in your professional
opinion, the differences between the type of shutter systems that we
have, hurricane storm panel shutter systems, and the installation of
those storm panel systems and the installation of this particular
system?
MR. KUCKO: I think it would be a serious conflict of interest
for me to answer that question, sir.
MR. LEWIS: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BLUM: Would this have to be inspected, or would a permit
have to be pulled to install one of the these systems --
MR. KUCKO: Yes, sir. Any shutter system or method of
hurricane protection, especially if it's a new building, because they are
required to provide all documentation at the time of permit application
to show what sort of hurricane protection they're going to use. And
they would be permanent at that time and inspected.
MR. BLUM: And our inspectors are familiar with the way this
particular product, which is new, would be installed, that it would be
installed -- I mean, none of us know anything about it, so it's kind of
like a prototype in our eyes, I think.
MR. KUCKO: It may be a prototype for you, sir, but we have
the product approval reports, and one of the requirements when they
do make application for permitting is they have to provide, number
one, the product approval and they have to provide the engineering or
37
November 17,2004
installation instructions for that product.
When we go out and do the inspection, we're doing that based on
their product testing, the way it was tested and the way the engineer
designated it to be fastened.
MR. BLUM: So on the plans that you -- that are submitted for
permit when this is going to be installed, it does have the
specifications on the plan on how it's --
MR. KUCKO: Yes, sir, the method of attachment.
MR. BLUM: -- the particular way it's got to be done. So you
inspect the plan on an engineer's report on a plan.
MR. KUCKO: That is correct, sir.
MR. BLUM: Great. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: At this point, I want to stop discussion
on the product.
Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can sit here and think of every single
trade that can do something that doesn't really fall specifically under
the testing.
How do I send a man out here without a license? Because I'm
not going to give him a hurricane protection license, because then he
can turn around tomorrow and start putting storm shutters up.
MR. BAR TOE: The company is licensed carpentry.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's not hurricane protection.
MR. BALZANO: They put in hurricane windows.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Then what we're asking is can this be
done under carpentry? Because I'm not going to put it under hurricane
protection.
MR. JOSLIN: Or what license could it fall under?
MR. NEALE: I thing that's the question, is what license or
licenses could this product fall under.
We've heard some testimony, but not -- you know, I would
38
---'"
November 17, 2004
suggest to the board that since this sort of just got dropped in your lap
today, that staff assist in gathering some more information and maybe
getting some more opinions on which trades they would recommend
this fall under so that the board can make that determination. Because
MR. BAR TOE: I recommend it falls under the one I passed out
to you, hurricane shutters. Mr. Davis is stating the books that he had
to pay for, there's not one thing in those books on installing shutters.
Not only his type of shutter.
MS. KELLER: Mr. Bartoe, what about the new testing people
that we're using, do they have anything for hurricanes, since they're --
MR. BAR TOE: We don't have that information back from him
yet.
MS. KELLER: But that would be a good question to ask him,
because they might be developing something for somewhere else.
MR. BALZANO: This company is willing to do whatever is
necessary .
MR. DAVIS: I'm not trying to avoid doing anything. Just -- I
just want to do it right.
MR. BALZANO: The question that he asked Tom and I
yesterday was, the books that he has purchased have nothing to do
with what they're installing.
And every time someone comes into our office with a product,
are we supposed to magically come up with a category to place it in?
I mean, you can read all the categories and say yeah, could, might,
will not, does. That product is not in there under storm shutters.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but you see my reluctance and
hesitance as well.
MR. BALZANO: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because if we approve this, then
what's to keep them from doing hurricane shutters, and then you got
the hurricane shutter people that are upset?
39
---.---
-".",,-".,,~...."-
November 17, 2004
MR. BALZANO: Because he couldn't pull a permit to do
hurricane shutters.
MR. BLUM: But in fact this is a type of hurricane shutter. You
could -- we're not fighting this man.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's nothing personal.
MR. BLUM: Most of us think that it's probably a pretty good
deal, and I think we'd like to find a way to do it the right way.
MR. BALZANO: That's why we came here.
MR. BLUM: But I couldn't blame the hurricane guys from being
a little bit put off, like, that's really what he's doing, it's just a different
way. They could be interpreted that way.
MR. BALZANO: Well, it's like saying why can a general
contractor build a swimming pool? He's not a pool contractor, but he
can build a swimming pool shell.
MR. JOSLIN: But he's not doing the pool.
MR. BLUM: He doesn't build a pool. He hires a sub with a
license to do that --
MR. BALZANO: The shell is the pool.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, I don't know about that.
MR. BALZANO: Well, it is. Without the shell, you don't need
the pump, you don't need the filter.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, without the insides you don't have water.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Okay, that doesn't get us to the
point. Let's just stop that discussion.
MS. KELLER: It sounds to me like the test is outdated. It's the
test that doesn't -- isn't incorporating the new technology.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a brand new test.
MS. KELLER: So it's the test that's the problem, not the
category, I think.
MR. BALZANO: See, the question that I have is, under his
current license he is able to install windows that are hurricane
approved, that are shatter resistant, or whatever they are. If he's doing
40
-"...~,...,,_..._.."--_.~' ...
November 17, 2004
new construction, he can do the framing of the roof, he installs
windows in new homes. And if they're approved hurricane windows
they do not need a shutter; am I correct?
MR. LEWIS: Paul, just a question for you. What type of
carpentry license are we talking about? Are we talking about interior
trim, are we talking about --
MR. BALZANO: No, he has a carpentry.
MR. LEWIS: A carpentry, which allows him to do all framing,
structure work. Okay.
Just as an input, I've dealt with hurricane shutters over a lot of
years in the past, pulled a lot of permits up -- or pulled a lot of permits
and put a lot of them up. And there are certain requirements
necessary, and they're all engineered by a structural engineer.
We as a contractor cannot go out there and just decide well, I'm
going to put a screw here and a nut there and a bolt there. Everything
is engineered and certified by a Florida registered engineer or an
architect.
Although this to me falls under the application of a license,
which is hurricane protection, not shutters, it's hurricane protection, I
personally as a general contractor can also do structure work, and I
could go put up hurricane protection under my license.
Obviously my license is a lot larger scope than just a carpentry
license, but I think it's definitely something that we need to look at and
address because, as Mr. Blum has said, those that have hurricane
protection licenses that maybe don't offer the product or don't want to
offer the product, if a carpenter comes out and starts offering these
products, which mayor may not be as good or better than any other
product, where do we stop with the licensing? And do we create a
separate category for this or, you know, do we have limitations in the
hurricane protection systems?
I think what we need to look at is defining who is allowed to pull
a permit for hurricane protection, what scope of license.
41
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I also personally would like to hear
from the contractors that have hurricane protection licenses.
MR. NEALE: The board's confronted this kind of situation
before, going back to the infamous hearings on fountains and fountain
contractors, to various other products, stucco-type products and things
like that that have come before this board. Discussion on who's the
right person to present them, you know, who's the right person to
apply them.
And it's my recollection that the board has typically essentially
held a workshop on these type of matters where you've got a unique
product, a new product that doesn't neatly fit into any category, that
the board has heard from multiple sides to find out where the best
place will be.
The most recent one, of course, is the hurricane shutter and
awning contractor specialty that was added to the ordinance a couple
of years ago. And at that time the board created the new category and
then provided a grandfathering provision for aluminum contractors,
including concrete, or aluminum contractors, gave them a one-year
grandfathering to apply for the hurricane shutter and awning without
testing. So that was the most recent instance of sort of new things
coming through.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We could do a workshop or we could
just make it part of the January meeting.
MR. NEALE: Either one.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And have, say, two of what you
consider respected hurricane contractor license holders come and talk
before the board. I personally think we owe them that courtesy. And
in the past they've educated us.
How do you feel?
MR. BALZANO: Well, I agree with you 100 percent. But I also
agree with this gentleman, is he wants to do the right thing. He's
buying $800 worth of books that have nothing at all to do with shutter
42
-,",-".",,~,,~.-.-...,.,.._.
November 17, 2004
installation. It's all about -- he can tell you, he has the books.
MR. DAVIS: It says the following references have been used to
create the exam questions but is not allowed in the testing center. This
is the book that they're referring to, okay? There is not one mention of
the word shutter in here whatsoever. This book is all on the
installation of screen rooms and glass enclosures, the footings, the
construction, the installation and how to go about it. But nothing
whatsoever on shutters. And here's where the questions supposedly
come out of for the exam, come out of this one book.
MR. BLUM: I think all of us agree with you 100 percent.
MR. DAVIS: I mean, it's like --
MR. BLUM: Nobody's arguing. We agree with you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And this is all--
MR. DAVIS: If I'm an electrician and I'm hanging a fixture over
a tub, do I need a plumber's license? Basically, that's what, you know
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also, this is Experior. And we just
approved another testing company, and I don't have theirs in front of
me.
So just to shoot from the hip I don't think is where we go today.
MR. DAVIS: That's fine. I just want to do it right, that's all.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's the other testing company that
we approved?
MR. BARTOE: Gainesville Independent Testing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gainesville Independent Testing. I
want to see theirs.
And what you might do in the interim is check with Gainesville
Independent Testing and get their sheet of what books they use. You
may not have -- we've had some problems with Experior, and we've
not been real happy with Experior, and so that's why we sought a
second testing agency and approved them at the last meeting. So you
now have a choice.
43
-~,._~
November 17,2004
MR. DAVIS: Okay. Fine.
MR. LEWIS: Just as a subnote, also, we're looking at one item,
which is the Guide to Aluminum Construction, High Wind Areas.
The purpose of that is to give you design criteria for aluminum
construction, which relates back to hurricane storm panel construction:
Widths, lengths, heights, pressures, et cetera.
The -- that book is not allowed in there, but -- and I'm not sure
what type of questions were created from that book, but I can't
imagine it being a whole lot of design criteria, since you have to be an
engineer in the State of Florida to --
MR. DAVIS: Well, each product has -- is approved by the Dade
County and submitted by their engineering. So every product is
different as far as attachment goes.
MR. LEWIS: Exactly.
MR. DAVIS: You could come out with a similar product to that,
but yours is -- it's the spacing that -- the size of the fastener, based on
the spacing of the grommets.
MR. LEWIS: Right. And that's not determined by the
contractor, that's designed by the engineering who designs the system.
MR. DAVIS: Who designed it, they sent it to the laboratory over
there and -- that it was approved and tested by. So each one -- each
product is different.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's leave it at this: We will
revisit this at the January meeting, if it's deemed necessary, after he
checks with Gainesville Testing.
If it is necessary, try to get at least two hurricane shutter license
holders, hurricane protection license holders in here, and we'll pursue
it at that point.
But today, that's all the further we're going to go with it.
MR. BLUM: Mr. Dickson?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. BLUM: I understand that you're ongoing, doing some of
44
November 17, 2004
these installations. And I also understand our --
MR. DAVIS: No, I'm not doing any installations. I'm trying to
straighten all this out before I spend the money to start advertising.
And that's what I was afraid of, if I put an ad in the paper that we're
going to use this product, all of a sudden I've got everybody down on
me.
This way I went to the building department first and say look-it,
this is what I have -- this is what our company has, this is what -- what
do I have to do?
MR. BLUM: Who has installed them in the county?
MR. KUCKO: Armorshield is the general contractor.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He can't speak unless he's on the mic.
MR. BLUM: Armorshield is a general contractor in Collier?
MR. KUCKO: I don't know who the general contractor was that
installed it. It came in as a method of hurricane protection on plans
for commercial building as the system to be used for hurricane
protection.
I think my question is, and I hate being part of the audience, but
is there an awning and shutter license?
MR. BALZANO: Yes, there is.
MR. KUCKO: That's an awning. What's the big deal?
MR. LEWIS: Agreed.
MR. BLUM: Yeah, that's where I was going, to see if there is a
place. Because right now, as far as -- they should be being done,
period, unless we've got a category to put them in that covers it, so --
MR. KUCKO: Well, it's a general contractor, which basically is
a general contractor, when you're putting up a new structure, you can
assume a lot of responsibility for the work that you are doing on that
structure.
MR. BLUM: So a general contractor could do this with no
problem. You inspect it to plan and specifications, but this gentleman
can't because he's only -- I shouldn't say only, but he has a -- in lieu of
45
--.---
November 17,2004
a contractor --
MR. KUCKO: Yeah, from the audience standpoint, if they give
him a shutter and awning license, he can go away with it.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
MR. BLUM: That would be a way to handle it.
MR. LEWIS: And I think, Mr. Dickson, that's what Mr.
Balzano's trying to ask us today, is what license type is allowed to
install this particular type of protection.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think that we've already -- yeah, I
agree, the awning and shutter.
MR. BAR TOE: Awnings come under aluminum, which is a
three-hour aluminum test. And it doesn't matter if you're taking the
three-hour aluminum test or the shutter test, as the gentleman
explained, there's nothing in that book upon the installation of them.
MR. LEWIS: Well, I hate to say this, but when I took my test
there was a lots of things on that test that were not in -- applied to
everyday life. But, you know, the bottom line is, I see that, and it's
being permitted as hurricane protection.
The gentleman's going to -- not just this gentleman, but anybody
that sells this type of product is going to sell it as hurricane protection.
The person needs to be licensed to install hurricane protection, in my
opInIon.
MR. JOSLIN: And if we categorize it under awnings, then it's
going to fall under the aluminum category, in which case then, the
gentleman's going to have to take the aluminum test, right?
MR. BAR TOE: Or hurricane.
MR. JOSLIN: Or hurricane.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I think we've discussed it.
MR. BALZANO: So from now on what we're going to do is
every new product that comes out, we'll just throw it into that
category, if it has anything to do with a shutter protection. That's my
question.
46
._.~."_.,.."._~_.
November 17, 2004
MR. JOSLIN: I guess maybe until January, until we have a
chance to really review all these new products. They have more
products that are coming out like this.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's another one out there, too, that
we need to have this meeting on, because there's another one puts film
on windows. Well, where does that go?
MR. NEALE: And that was part of the discussion when the last
hurricane protection issue -- the board didn't come to a good resolution
on that, because the board was still seeking information, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the thing this board has always
historically done is not leaped until they're well informed. And you
can see why.
So let's do this in January, okay?
MR. LEWIS: In the meantime, if you want to install hurricane
protection, you need to find someone out there --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: General contractor.
MR. LEWIS: -- hurricane protection, that's able to install it
according to the county licensing, which is a hurricane protection
installer or licensee or general contractor.
MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. LEWIS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, moving along.
Okay, we're going to hear the case next. It is now 10:22. Really,
let's keep it five minutes, just a restroom break. So at 10:27 we'll
reconvene. Okay?
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I call this meeting back to order
of the Contractor Licensing Board.
Next on the agenda is Case No. 2004-05, William Pickens versus
David Markovich, d/b/a Markovich Enterprises.
Mr. Zachary, you're going to present the case for the county,
which if you would do over there, sir.
47
November 17, 2004
And the Pickens, you are here? Okay, if you would come up, the
two of you, and sit here on this front row here.
And Mr. Markovich, if you would come up and sit on the front
row here.
MR. BALZANO: Mr. Dickson, this isn't running.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, it's not. Didn't miss much.
Okay, this is Case No. 2004-05, William Pickens versus David
Markovich, d/b/a Markovich Enterprises, Incorporated.
F or both of you, just so you have an idea of how this case runs,
the county, Mr. Zachary, will make an opening statement, very, very
brief overview of the case. Then Mr. Markovich, you can make an
open statement, very brief response. Don't get into details, don't get
into evidence and all of that.
Then what will happen is the county will present their evidence
of the case, which when they call witnesses, you will be allowed to
ask questions of each witness in response.
Then once the county rests their case, you will be allowed to
present your case.
Then once that's completed, the county will make a closing
argument and you will make a closing argument.
Once that's all done, the public hearing will close, and we will
tell you when that happens. Once the public hearing closes, we go
into our deliberations, but you sit there and listen to us and hear what
we have to say about the case. It may be that we will want to ask you
one or two questions.
After we finish our deliberations, we will render an opinion and a
decision on the case. Are you clear?
So with that, Mr. Zachary, if you would start.
MR. NEALE: Mr. Dickson, if I could just --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: A couple of points before we start, and because
we have a couple of new members.
48
,,----'
- ~-,.~,.,..,-,.~-"---......_.,,-_...-_~,.~,"~ "- ,'.... ....'~","---.,"".....,..
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just so everyone understands, Mr.
Zachary is the county attorney. Mr . Neale is the attorney for this
board, who keeps us out of trouble.
MR. NEALE: I try.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And he's done well for a long time.
MR. NEALE: As Mr. Dickson correctly said, that's the structure.
There's some evidentiary matters and such that I just wanted to lay
out to the board. Most of the board members have heard it, but the
two new board members, since this is your first hearing, it's probably
good to say it in advance as opposed to waiting until afterwards.
This is not -- the board in this matter sits as a -- what's called a
quasi-judicial body, in that you actually act essentially as judge and
jury in this matter.
These are fairly -- these are in fact very serious matters in that
you're making a decision that could cost someone their livelihood. So
it's a very serious responsibility that you're taking on your shoulders.
In these deliberations, though, the board must ensure that
fundamental fairness and due process are afforded to the respondent,
and that is Mr. Markovich in this case.
That requires that Mr. Markovich be clearly advised prior to the
institution of the proceedings as to what the charges were against him,
and that the evidence that is presented bears upon those charges only,
because that's the only thing this man's had the opportunity to prepare
a defense against.
So extraneous matters that do not pertain to the specific charge
that is set out in the complaint really should not be included in
evidence here. And if they are, the board really should -- is
admonished to ignore them, frankly.
Also, the board should exclude from its deliberations any
irrelevant, immaterial or cumulative testimony. Going back to what I
just said. However, it shall admit and consider all other evidence of a
type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the
49
November 17, 2004
conduct of your affairs.
So it's not as strict a rule of evidence as you have in a courtroom,
but it's the kind of thing that you in your everyday life would consider
to make a decision on.
As I say, this is whether or not the evidence would be admitted in
a court of law or equity.
Hearsay, which is typically excluded in a trial, may be used to
explain or supplement other evidence in this type of proceeding.
However, by itself it cannot support a finding of this board.
The standard of proof in this case really is split. And that's one
of the things that's a little confusing about this type of matter. If you're
making the decision on whether the respondent is going to get to keep
his license or not, the evidence must be presented in such away, and
the board must be convinced that the complainant proved the
complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. And if you
think of -- preponderance of the evidence is essentially the 51/49 test.
This is much greater. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's
significantly more than just a slight tipping of the scale, if your person
is to lose their license.
However, for sanctions other than licensure, the standard is a
preponderance of the evidence, or that tipping of the scale.
As I said before, the complaint -- the matter complained about in
the complaint is the only thing that you really can consider within the
scope of this hearing.
And just to review the charges, it's proceeding on any job without
obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the city building and
zoning division or the Collier County building review and permitting
department.
So with that said, Mr. Dickson, sorry about that, I just wanted to
give a little update for everybody.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any time you want to speak up, we
welcome it.
50
-........--... ..."-
November 17, 2004
Mr. Zachary, are you ready?
MR. ZACHARY: Yes, I can go ahead. I'll give a short opening
statement.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. ZACHARY: This is case -- first of all, we have a packet
that's been submitted to the board, and at this time I would ask the --
Mr. Markovich if he has any objection to the packet as it's been
submitted to the board.
MR. MARKOVICH: No objection.
MR. ZACHARY: Do you have any objections?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let it be noted that Mr. Markovich
signified no.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. That being said, this is a Case No.
2004-05, William Pickens, petitioner, versus David Markovich, doing
business as Markovich Enterprises, Inc., under License No. 1091 7. I
think there's a typo in the pleadings on the face of it. But 17, I
believe, is correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One seven is correct and not one two.
MR. ZACHARY: 917. That's duplicated on the -- in the packet
in another place, so we'll go with one seven.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Markovich is charged with violation of
4.1.18 of our ordinance, proceeding on any job without obtaining
applicable permits or inspections from the city building and zoning
division or the county building and review and permitting department.
An overview of the case would be that on or about March 1 st of
this year, the -- Mr. and Mrs. William Pickens met with Mr.
Markovich, who had been recommended by a neighbor, and wanted to
get their screen replaced, their flat screen replaced with a mansard roof
screen. And they hired Mr. Markovich to do that job.
There was no written contract, only a verbal contract, and cash
51
,~.,......_.,....~--~
November 17, 2004
was paid for that work. Evidently he did the work for the roof, and
they asked him to install -- or enclose the lanai, which involved
enclosing with aluminum and doors and windows, and they paid him
cash for that additional work.
They asked if a permit was required to do this particular kind of
work, and they were told by Mr. Markovich that it was not needed.
So the work was finished and at this -- some point, they were
dissatisfied with the work and they found out that a permit was
required for the work.
And that is the -- basically the case, that Mr. Markovich did the
work, a permit was required, and he did not obtain one to do the work.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Markovich, if you would
come up to this podium here. State your name, and if you would, spell
it for the court reporter.
MR. MARKOVICH: David, David Markovich.
M-A-R-K-O-V-I-C-H.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Give us your opening comment,
please.
MR. MARKOVICH: I am not the one who did the work. I refer
-- I was contacted by Mr. Pickens to do some construction work to his
screen enclosure, and one of my ex-employees I referred to do the job
to him, and Brian is the one that did the work on the man's job. It was
not -- there was no permit because I didn't do the work. It wasn't my
-- it wasn't something I did through my company or did at all, for that
matter.
MR. JOSLIN : Were you ever on the job site?
MR. MARKOVICH: I was on the job site a few times at Mr.
Pickens' request.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you receive money?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, I did not.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who was the money given to?
52
November 17, 2004
MR. MARKOVICH: I assume Brian.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You never received any money
whatsoever?
MR. MARKOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So -- and is that the extent of
your opening statement?
MR. MARKOVICH: You said to keep it brief. I'm not sure -- I
guess I --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that tells me real quick where
to define this thing.
First of all, I don't care about all these pictures, because you've
already said there was no permit. And that's the only issue at hand. So
at this point where the county will go with their case is to prove that
you were the one that was contracted or not contracted.
MR. MARKOVICH: I was not contracted to do the job. I did
not do the work. One of my ex-employees did the work for--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. That eliminates 15 pages of
our packet right there. Okay . Very good.
Mr. -- and you can have another seat.
Mr. Ossorio, it's -- if you would like to present your case --
Zachary, I'm sorry. Where did I get Ossorio?
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, I'd like to call Mr. Pickens. You could
step up to the microphone right over there, sir.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. ZACHARY: Could you introduce yourself to the board,
please.
MR. PICKENS: My name is William E. Pickens.
MR. ZACHARY: And do you own the home at 445 -- 4445
Beechwood Lake Drive, here in Naples, Florida?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, I do.
MR. ZACHARY: Did there come a time that your neighbor
recommended someone to replace your screen enclosure around your
53
. _.""__."_.....M·.·..·-
November 17,2004
pool?
MR. PICKENS: Yes.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And did you meet with that person that
was recommended by your neighbor?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, I did.
MR. ZACHARY: And did that person identify himself?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, he did.
MR. ZACHARY: And what was -- what did he say his name
was?
MR. PICKENS: David Markovich.
MR. ZACHARY: Do you see that person here in the boardroom
today?
MR. PICKENS: The gentleman that just testified, yes.
MR. ZACHARY: Let the record reflect that Mr. Pickens has
identified Mr. Markovich.
What did you tell him that you wanted done?
MR. PICKENS: There was a series of events. The first event
was that we wanted the screen replaced on the original screen
enclosure. It was a flat roof screen enclosure and that was what we
wanted to do to start out the proj ect.
In the conversation with him, with Mr. Markovich, looking at the
enclosure, my wife said boy, it would be nice if we could have a
mansard roof put on that, because she's always wanted to raise the roof
or replace the whole thing. And David said that he would do that also.
MR. ZACHARY: David, you mean--
MR. PICKENS: David, Mr. Markovich.
So at that point in time we said go ahead and do that work and
we will pay you for doing that, putting in the mansard roof and
replacing all the screening.
MR. ZACHARY: Did you ever have any conversations with
anybody else about doing that particular work other --
MR. PICKENS: No, we did not.
54
-~...-
November 17, 2004
MR. ZACHARY: -- than him?
Then did in fact Mr. Markovich come and work on your screen
or replace that screen?
MR. PICKENS: Mr. Markovich did, and the employee that he
refers to as being an ex -employee, his name is Brian. Brian worked
with him also.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And did you see Mr. Markovich
working on the pool screen enclosure that you --
MR. PICKENS: Yes, I did.
MR. ZACHARY: And you negotiated the price with him and no
one else?
MR. PICKENS: That's correct.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And did that -- when that was
completed, did you pay him or did you -- in what manner did you pay
him?
MR. PICKENS: I paid him -- he would ask for a draw and I paid
him with a draw. Paid him cash, and did ask him to initial that we
were doing the draw, and we both signed it with our initials.
MR. ZACHARY: And did you bring anything that you have to
show that you gave him these draws?
MR. PICKENS: My fabulous draw sheet.
MR. ZACHARY: I want to refer the board to Page E-8 of the
packet. And that is a copy of the draw sheet that Mr. Pickens has.
Mr. Pickens, I see that on 3/2/04, there's a $2,000, and an initial
besides it. Whose initials are those besides the --
MR. PICKENS: BP is mine and DM is David's.
MR. ZACHARY: And you handed him the cash and then--
MR. PICKENS: Handed him cash, yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: And he signed your draw sheet.
MR. PICKENS: Right.
MR. ZACHARY: And continuing on down, there's four more
entries with the -- what appears to be the same initials and dollar
55
...._~<--~....-
November 17, 2004
amounts.
Are those also the draws that you gave Mr. Markovich?
MR. PICKENS: That is correct.
MR. ZACHARY: And those are his initials?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: And he continued to do that work until it was
finished; is that correct?
MR. PICKENS: It never was finished properly, in my opinion.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Did you ask him -- did there come a
time when you asked him to do more work other than just replacing
the pool screen?
MR. PICKENS: Yes. My wife has birds, and we thought that it
would be a good idea that we could close in the lanai. We had
roll-down shutters, and she was getting tired of upping and downing
the shutters, so we asked him if he could close in the original portion
of the lanai. And he said that he could do that. And we entered into
an agreement to do that.
And while we were doing it, the thought came up that instead of
just stopping with the one wall that was on the north side, that we
would go ahead and extend the enclosure all the way out and make it a
completely enclosed lanai.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. With regards to this new work that you
were going to have done as well as the pool screen enclosure, did you
ask Mr. Markovich if you needed to pull a permit?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, I did. He said it wasn't necessary.
MR. ZACHARY: He said it wasn't necessary?
MR. PICKENS: Right.
MR. ZACHARY: Did he then continue to do the aluminum
work that you requested, as far as enclosing in the lanai?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, he did.
MR. JOSLIN: I have one quick question, if I may. The
enclosing that we're talking about here, is this still dealing with the
56
----
November 17,2004
screen enclosing or are we talking about enclosing a room and making
it a permanent structure?
MR. PERSHING: Both.
MR. JOSLIN: Both.
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
MR. ZACHARY: I don't have any further questions of Mr.
Pickens.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Markovich, would you like to ask
the witness any questions?
MR. MARKOVICH: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wait, if you're going to say anything,
you've got to come here.
MR. MARKOVICH: Please bear with me. I'm -- it's kind of a
nervous type situation for me. I don't know what, really -- I've never
gone through this before. I'm not sure what questions I should ask Mr.
Pickens, other than I'm sorry that Brian has let him down. But I don't
know why it's me that he's going after. I even offered to Mr. Balzano
and Mike Ossorio that I would pay -- because I'm the one that set him
up with Brian, and Brian let him down, that I would pay a contractor
to come fix what his issues were. I mean, I've tried everything I could
to make -- to appease the situation, and I get threatened with --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But no questions at this time?
MR. MARKOVICH: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No questions of him at this time?
MR. MARKOVICH: I'm -- I guess I don't.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Next witness.
MS. KELLER: Can we ask questions?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can we -- let's save it.
Does anyone else have any questions of Mr. Markovich (sic)?
MR. NEALE: Mr. Pickens.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I mean Mr. Pickens. I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
57
November 17,2004
MR. ZACHARY: Okay, I'd like to call county's chief structural
inspector, Jeff Kucko. I knew I was going to get that wrong.
Introduce yourself to the -- well, go ahead.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. ZACHARY: Introduce yourself to the board this morning.
MR. KUCKO: Once again, I'm still Jeff Kucko, chief structural
inspector, Collier County Building Department.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. I just have a couple questions.
Are you familiar with this case and the structure or the pool cage
and enclosure that's the subject of this case?
MR. KUCKO: I've had opportunity to review the file and have
made a site visit to that location.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Is it your opinion that a permit was
needed for this particular work?
MR. KUCKO: Yes, sir, it is.
MR. ZACHARY: And to your knowledge, was any permit ever
issued to perform this work?
MR. KUCKO: A research of CD Plus history, the county's
computer system, indicates that there was no such permit pulled for
anything at that location.
MR. ZACHARY: I don't have any further questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any questions, Mr. Markovich?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any questions of the board?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Next witness. Thank you.
MR. KUCKO: At this time I'd like to ask if I can be free to
vacate the premises.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anyone see any need to keep him?
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, I would ask one question, if that's the case.
Regarding this question I asked Mr. Pickens, regarding the
completion of the work that was to be done, as far as enclosing of the
58
November 17, 2004
lanai, or a portion of the whole section, when you viewed this
property, what did you see there?
MR. KUCKO: There was an existing screen cage and a mansard
roof had been added to that. On the porch itself where the birds were
located, you could see where at one time there was a -- something
mounted there. Mr. Pickens advised me that it was a shutter system.
But you could see where it was.
That had been replaced with two-by-three aluminum windows,
and it looked like -- I'm having a little brain seize there, the material
that looks like stucco, not demi-board. Anyway, a stucco-like material
that was screwed onto the face of it.
The lanai roof had been extended with insulated panels like the
snaplock panels with supergutter, and also enclosed down to -- with a
framework and window system.
MR. LEWIS: Okay, that's all I have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you for your time. You're free
to go.
MR. KUCKO: Thank you. Have a good day.
MR. ZACHARY: The county has no other witnesses.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Markovich, would you like to
come up?
Now it's time for you to plead your case.
MR. MARKOVICH: Again, I've never been through this before,
so I'm not sure how to plead my case.
I'm not sure why I'm being brought up against the board for
doing work that I did not do.
Again, I've apologized to Mr. Pickens that -- that -- and I feel
very bad that it was through me that he met Brian to do the work, but I
-- you know, he did not have a contract, he did not contract me to do
the work that needed to be done.
59
November 17, 2004
I think he's going after the wrong person to get it rectified.
In saying that, though, I did -- because it was through a friend of
mine that he met me, or got my name, so I through reputation was
offering to try to take care of what shortcomings that Brian left him.
And I was suggested to by Mr. Balzano not to pull a permit when
I got the original paperwork here, because if I did not do the work,
then I shouldn't pull the permit for it because that opens up a new can
of worms, or something to the effect of that.
So I think Mr. Ossorio had asked me to pull a permit, and --
because that would take care of something -- I forget how he put it.
But again -- and I was going to. Then Mr. Balzano said well, if you
did not do the work, then don't pull the permit, so -- I did not do the
work at this man's home, although I do feel responsible to the extent
that I did recommend my ex -employee to do it for him.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you seen this sheet where he
apparently kept track of cash draws?
MR. MARKOVICH: Yes, I did.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are those initials yours?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, they are not. I did not receive any
cash from Mr. Pickens. That must have been Brian. I assume it was
Brian, anyway. I was not there when this happened. I went to the job
a half a dozen, 10 times. I mean, I -- because he would call me to let
me know what different things that Brian was doing, where Brian had
cut some grooves in the floor with a saw, where he had installed a
front wall with windows, where he had done some different things to
-- kind of overview, so to speak.
As far as the actual --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What type of a license do you hold?
MR. MARKOVICH: An aluminum contractor's, which includes
concrete.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Go ahead, Bill.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Markovich, it -- clarify something for me. We
60
November 17, 2004
just heard under oath testimony from Mr. Pickens that says that he
paid you directly cash money on-site and witnessed you sign this
receipt.
Is it your contention that that is a false statement?
MR. MARKOVICH: It is not my contention, it's the truth that it
was not me that did it.
Again, I feel that he can't find or hold Brian responsible for the
job because he's -- there's no license with Brian, so he's trying to hold
me responsible because I was the one -- and I -- again, I wish it was
being handled in a different matter. But again, it's not my contention.
I did not receive any cash from Mr. Pickens.
MR. LEWIS: And then also, excluding visits to the site,
reviewing complaints that you had received through Mr. Pickens, you
did no work on the proj ect?
MR. MARKOVICH: I did no work on the project at all. A
neighbor came over and brought me over a screen, a damaged screen
that he had at his home and asked me to repair it for him on one of the
occasions that I was out there. And I did take it back to the shop and
give it to Brian -- this is one of the other complaints, because Brian
didn't get that screen done anywhere near a very, you know,
reasonable amount of time.
And the -- I think the neighbor called me and asked what the
status was on it, and I so I finally got in touch with Brian and said
Brian, will you please take care of this for the man. And he went over
and took it over, and he paid Brian.
MR. LEWIS: At any time would Mr. Pickens have a
misunderstanding that Brian was not your employee? To clarify that
question, did you at any time in the introduction of -- I believe the
man's name is Briant, or Brian?
MR. MARKOVICH: Brian.
MR. LEWIS: Did you at that time in introduction explain to Mr.
Pickens that you were not the contractor on-site?
61
-....----".
November 17,2004
MR. MARKOVICH: I -- from the start he knew that I was not
contracting the job. I mean, it was not through me, it was -- because I
am not physically able, although I look like I may well be, I am not
physically able to install screen enclosures anymore. I was in a car
accident five years ago, and I'm currently taking medications to -- for
pain that I have in herniated discs in my neck.
So I -- you know, I set him up with Brian, and he had -- I don't
know how much contact he made with Brian. I would always get the
phone calls whenever Brian wouldn't show when he promised to be
there, and I just -- again, I was caught in the middle of a situation, and
I did the best I could.
MR. LEWIS: One final question. Did you know at the time that
you recommended Brian for the job that he was not licensed as a
contractor to do this work?
MR. MARKOVICH: Yes, I did.
MR. LEWIS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else? Anything else?
MR. ZACHARY: I have a question for Mr. Markovich.
Who purchased the material to build the screen enclosure and
enclose the lanai?
MR. MARKOVICH: I purchased the material. Well, Brian,
through me.
MR. ZACHARY: But you used your license in order to --
MR. MARKOVICH: No, I didn't use my license. I used one of
my distributors to get it.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. I don't have any further -- any
questions for him.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else?
MR. ZACHARY: But the county would like to call Mrs. Pickens
in rebuttal to Mr. Markovich.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody -- okay. If you could just
have a seat for a minute.
62
November 17, 2004
I need you to state your name and have you sworn in, please.
MRS. PICKENS: Camille Pickens.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. ZACHARY: Good morning.
MRS. PICKENS: Good morning.
MR. ZACHARY: Introduce yourself to the board, please.
MRS. PICKENS: Camille Pickens.
MR. ZACHARY: And you're the wife of Bill Pickens, who
testified here before?
MRS. PICKENS: Correct.
MR. ZACHARY: And you live at 4445 Beechwood Lake drive,
in Naples Park?
MRS. PICKENS: Correct.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And are you aware of the situation
where you had -- well, you had your screen enclosure and other work
done. Were you aware of the person that you hired to do that?
MRS. PICKENS: Yes.
MR. ZACHARY: And who was that person?
MRS. PICKENS: David Markovich.
MR. ZACHARY: And do you see him here?
MRS. PICKENS: He's in the front row.
MR. ZACHARY: Let the record reflect that she's identified Mr.
Markovich as the person that did the work.
Did you actually see him working on the screen and installing it
and fabricating that screen at your house?
MRS. PICKENS: Several times. In fact, when Brian was in jail
for domestic problems, he came and he worked on the screen by
himself. And I asked him how was he going to put up the tall panels,
and he said he would get a friend to help him, but he would get it
done.
MR. ZACHARY: Thank you. I don't have any further
questions.
63
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I do.
Did you ever witness your husband paying cash?
MRS. PICKENS: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. ZACHARY: I don't have any further questions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
Do you have any questions?
MR. MARKOVICH: Not so much questions --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, just questions at this point.
MR. MARKOVICH: I don't think I have questions. I don't agree
with what she's saying, but I --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Zachary?
MR. ZACHARY: I want to draw -- thank you, you can sit down.
I don't have any further testimony, but I want to draw the board's
attention to Page E-9 of your packet, where a neighbor of that 4445
Beechwood Lake drive had observed Mr. Markovich working on the
screen pool and doing other alterations.
And the board -- you can read that, but it's very clear that this
neighbor has talked -- had opportunity to talk to Mr. Markovich, and
he introduced himself as David Markovich, and it's very clear that this
neighbor observed him working and doing this particular job that he
claims that he didn't do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I would like to ask Mr. --
MR. MARKOVICH: Can I present questions to that -- what he
said?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, you may. Go right ahead.
MR. MARKOVICH: Okay. It says in here that he observed me
-- observed two men working on the job. I don't think it says in here
that he observed me, because he observed me on the job, but he never
observed me working on the job. And if he says he has, I'd like to
have something more than this expressly stating that, because this did
not happen, sir.
64
November 17, 2004
I think this is a little -- I think the scope of his statement is not
such that it puts me on the job working. Because--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I quite honestly wouldn't worry about
that letter. We're not going to give really any -- that much to it.
I'd like to recall Mr. -- I'll get the name right here in a minute.
Mr. Pickens, would you come back up?
You did make cash payments, direct, to Mr. Markovich?
MR. PICKENS: That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you handed Mr. Markovich the
money?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why did you do that?
MR. PICKENS: Because he was doing work on my property.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why did you do cash?
MR. PICKENS: I figured it would benefit him, he wouldn't have
to report it to the taxes, to be very honest.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So that's the reason you did it
without a written contract.
MR. PICKENS: Correct. I felt that David having been
introduced to me by my neighbor, my neighbor is also his accountant,
that I wouldn't have any problems.
David is a very personable man. He's a different man right now
than he usually is. But he's a very personable, very nice individual. I
like the guy. He just did not finish the work that we asked him to do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did he request cash?
MR. PICKENS: I said I would pay him in cash. He said that's
fine with me.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody have any questions?
MR. JOSLIN: Could that cash payment be another reason why
there was no permit pulled?
MR. PICKENS: That's -- he would have to answer that. I asked
him if a permit was necessary. He said it was not.h
65
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you saw him working on the --
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- project as well.
MR. PICKENS: As a matter of fact, if I may, my wife made one
comment to Brian one day when Brian was working on the pool
enclosure, the screen enclosure. She said, what happens if you fall?
And Brian told her, I'll be fired before I hit the water.
In other words, Brian did work for David. David is saying that
Brian did not. Brian was David's employee.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Had he fell, you would have lost the
house.
MR. BLUM: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. BLUM: We're hearing such diverse and diametrically
opposed -- without a third party to back up either one, it's difficult for
me. Is it at all possible -- and I know this is conjecture, but I have to
ask, since we have a little bit of latitude, according to Mr. Neale -- that
maybe Mr. Markovich was taking the money in Brian's -- in his stead,
and did you get any sense that okay, yeah, and I'll pass it on to Brian,
'cause he's doing the work? That type of thing?
MR. PICKENS: No, sir, because we have -- we have two
miniature schnauzer puppies. I have to come home every day at lunch
time to take those dogs out. I would come home and David was
working. David did not work on a very timely basis, as you can see
from the time the money was drawn from the beginning to the end.
When we talked to him in August, the proj ect still hadn't been
finished. We were getting very frustrated with that.
I don't know if I can make this statement, but I would like to tell
you about when we filed this grievance with David, and David was
notified of that grievance. David called me. I had been home, and I
was on my way back to work, and I sat in the parking lot of my
employer, who is the property appraiser, and talked to David for
66
^....,.~'"--"'~'''''.,'''....
November 17, 2004
probably 15 minutes. And one of the statements that David made to
me was exactly what's he's doing here, I'll deny I ever did the work.
That's my statement of what David said, that he would deny that he
ever did the work.
MR. BLUM: And there's no question in your mind, you saw him
physically with his hands and tools actually performing work on your
job.
MR. PICKENS: Using a saw with -- out in my yard, cutting
aluminum with it. He had a saw that stayed at our place for quite a
while. The man was on the lanai in his shorts, no shirt, working --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any further questions?
MR. PICKENS: -- on my project.
MR. MARKOVICH: Does that include me, questions for him?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, you may. You've had one
chance, but I'll give you a second one.
MR. MARKOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, go ahead. Go ahead.
MR. MARKOVICH: He states that August was when this job
was completed. According to this, the first payment was in March, the
last payment was in May.
Again, he's a very nice man and I am a very nice man, and I'm
sorry that he's going through this.
This conversation that he said that we had after this paperwork
was gone through, it happened completely different than he's
explaining it happening, that -- there was no threat by me about
denying it, it was me telling him that, you know, I did not do your job,
why are you bringing charges against me for it? And he says, well -- I
forget what exactly his --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If I might make a clarification. I think
it's been clear throughout that the job has never been completed.
MR. PICKENS: That's correct.
MR. MARKOVICH: Well, he made the statement just a few
67
-'"
"."-~....._"...,,...,..".
November 17, 2004
minutes ago that it was August that the final payment was made.
MR. PICKENS: No, I didn't say that.
MR. MARKOVICH: And here it says May.
MR. PICKENS: It was August when the -- when we finally gave
up on him and I made the decision that we were going to file this
complaint. The last thing we wanted to do, and the last thing that --
my wife had a big conversation before I went to the board, to the code
enforcement deal-- was that we did not want to remove David's
livelihood. David's got two kids and he'd gone through some problem
with a divorce and all this stuff. I heard this time and time again.
He did not do the work in a timely fashion. We started in March,
in August we finally gave up. The roof that he added over the
addition to the -- the second part of the -- that was the new roof, leaks
like a sieve. It can't -- has not been fixed, and he's made attempts to
fix it. And to me they're just -- they're a waste, they do not do the job.
The roof leaks.
MR. MARKOVICH: He says that I made attempts to fixing it.
Does he mean me or does he mean Brian?
MR. PICKENS: I do not mean Brian, I mean you.
MR. MARKOVICH: I was not there. It was Brian that was
going out and doing it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Question for you -- kind of turned into
a free-for-all, but that's okay.
Mr. Markovich, was Brian an employee?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, he was not. He did work --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He was not on your staff.
MR. MARKOVICH: He ended up with a license. I understood
him to have a screen license whenever I was first having him under
my employ, and found out that there was a number of things that he
told me that were not -- that were not the truth. So he was not
employed by me. He was -- he would do work -- I would contract
jobs and he would do work on the side, doing some of the work.
68
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You just stepped into a pit. I would contract jobs and he would do the
work on the side. Was that the testimony? Can you read it back?
(The previous answer was read back by the court reporter.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So he wasn't an employee, he was a
subcontractor.
MR. MARKOVICH: He was a subcontractor until I found out
that he did not have a license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But he did your contracts.
MR. MARKOVICH: A couple of years ago he did--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Come on, let's don't -- it's like I'm
talking to my child here. We got a lie going, let's --
MR. MARKOVICH: Excuse me, I got a lie going?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You got -- you just made a statement.
Let's follow through with this.
You would contract the jobs and he would do the work on the
side. That's exactly what you said.
MR. MARKOVICH: No. I think I maybe misstated what --
what is happening then, because you're making it like it was --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: She read the -- she just read the
testimony back.
MR. MARKOVICH: Again, I may have misstated what the case
is then, because I -- you know, he didn't do all my work. I would take
on certain jobs and I would have --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He wouldn't do all of your work, but
he did some of it.
MR. MARKOVICH: He did do some of the work for me.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That you contracted.
MR. MARKOVICH: Until I found out that he was not licensed.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So he was not an employee, you were
subcontracted to him, paying him on a piecemeal, correct?
MR. MARKOVICH: Yes, that's correct.
69
_...."--""'"_._"--~
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Prime example, and exactly a
point -- you all would not believe the television audience we have.
Had that man fallen and hit your pool deck, you would have lost
your home. I'm not exaggerating. Because one, you didn't have a
permit, because a permit wouldn't have been issued because of
improper worker's compensation insurance, which the subcontractor
didn't have.
And this is how all these people get in serious, serious trouble,
not only in Collier County but all over the country. But you would
have lost your home. That's what you were flirting with.
So get the permits, make sure the permits are there. If the
permits aren't there, don't let anyone on your job site.
MS. KELLER: And get a contract so you know who you're
working with --
MR. PICKENS: Yes, ma'am.
MS. KELLER: -- and have a record of payment. It's come up to
us to -- as an authority, but you didn't follow the rules either, so it's
kind of hard for us to --
MR. BLUM: We can't help but--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One at a time. Okay. Yeah, I mean, if
I could send out any message in this case, this is it: If there's not a
permit on your job site, you are in serious trouble as a homeowner,
and liability is unlimited.
Any other questions of either one of these people? It's been a
free-for-all, but that's good, everything's coming out.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Markovich, were you aware of -- when you
referred, so to speak, from your testimony that you were going to
allow Brian, or whoever this man is, to do the work --
MR. MARKOVICH: I didn't consider allowing him to do the
work. I did not do the work, I did not contract the job. So it wasn't--
I merely passed on Brian's name to Mr. Pickens. I mean, this is not a
job that I contracted, so it was nothing -- something -- nothing that I
70
.........."""".-..""""...'...--
November 17,2004
had really any ties to.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Now, understand we have two different--
three different testimonies of -- of one in writing and two people that
are physically telling us that they saw you at this house.
MR. MARKOVICH: I was at the house.
MR. JOSLIN: They saw you working at this house.
MR. MARKOVICH: I was not working at the house.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
MR. BESWICK: Yeah, does this Brian have a last name?
MR. MARKOVICH: Allison.
MR. BESWICK: Allison.
MR. MARKOVICH: A-L-L-I-S-O-N.
MR. BESWICK: Okay. Then these initials here are your
initials. Did you initial this thing?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, I did not.
MR. BESWICK: So Brian used your initials on this?
MR. MARKOVICH: I assume so. Again, I was not there for --
at this time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions?
MR. MARKOVICH: Maybe this was one of Brian's ways of
covering his butt. I'm not sure.
MR. BESWICK: Well, I've been looking through these papers to
see if there's anything that you're saying. I've been recognized in New
York State courts as a handwriting expert. I would like to see
something with your signature on it.
MR. MARKOVICH: You'd like to see --
MR. BESWICK: Yeah, I'd like to see something with your
initials or your signature on it, if you have anything.
MR. MARKOVICH: E-5.
MR. BESWICK: E-8.
MR. MARKOVICH: There's E-5 on here where I've signed at
the top.
71
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I did not know.
MR. MARKOVICH: I can show you my driver's license also, if
you would like.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I want to emphasize, we are
quasi-judicial.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, question for Mr. Pickens, please.
Referring back to Item E-8 in the packet, the last two payments,
the second to the last marked 5/10 of '04, for $2,000 had what appears
as a -- your initials, BP, and then some initials after that that don't
quite match the others, and it's out of sync with the rest of the
markings.
And then the last payment for $400, if that was a payment, it says
in the other documents that you paid him $12,400, so that would need
to be included.
When was that paid, and why was it not initialed?
MR. PICKENS: I couldn't answer that. The reason it was paid,
it was -- there was some trim work that had to be done. David wanted
to charge me $500 and I said -- I disagreed with his price and I paid
him 400.
As far as the initial on 5/10, the one on the left is mine, the one
on the right is David's. If you look, the right character is the "M", is
the one above it on the left.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions of either of these
two gentlemen?
MR. JOSLIN: For the material delivery, Mr. Markovich, did you
have the materials delivered to that property --
MR. MARKOVICH: I beg your pardon?
MR. JOSLIN: -- to have this job done? When you said earlier
that you bought the material, basically through your account.
MR. MARKOVICH: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: And then was the material delivered by a supplier
or did you go pick this material up and deliver it to the job site?
72
November 17, 2004
MR. MARKOVICH: I don't recall how it worked. I don't think
there -- I'm sure they weren't delivered to the job. I would imagine
they were delivered to my shop and they were just used. And they
may not have been specific materials for that job versus materials that
were in stock that we used to -- or were used to do the actual work.
That's how I, you know, do my -- I have a stock, and whatever jobs
that I do is pulled out of stock to do -- to do work. So it could have
been stuff that we just used out of stock. I -- there's no --
MR. JOSLIN: No way to break down the amount of materials
that you used for that particular job?
MR. MARKOVICH: I would have to look at the job and see
what was used there to break down an actual material list that would
have been -- I'm not sure if that answers your question or where you're
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Markovich, without trying to be facetious, you
just made a statement to us, and I'll paraphrase it, that you mayor may
not have had material in your shop that somebody used on Mr.
Pickens' job. If I come to your shop this afternoon, will you just allow
me to take material out of your shop?
MR. MARKOVICH: No, sir.
MR. LEWIS: Then why would you allow a non-employee
named Brian Allison, I believe, to do the same?
MR. MARKOVICH: Because I trusted that whatever he used he
would pay me for, and he was good about doing that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Quick question, Mr. Pickens. What's
the condition of the project today? Is it in its -- the way they left it?
MR. PICKENS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you gotten any other estimates
of what it's going to take to correct it?
MR. PICKENS: No, sir. Because I did not know that -- I knew
that we were going to have to pull permits or a permit or whatever to
do this. I didn't -- people have told me that a lot of contractors,
73
November 17, 2004
because of the way it is, would not touch it, because it had never had a
permit and it was done at this point -- to this point. So I was waiting
to get some kind of a decision.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's your opinion, it has to be tom
down, redone? Where do we go?
MR. PICKENS: The only thing that I have any issue with is the
roof over the new part. I do not like the way the roof is installed and
the fact that it leaks like a sieve.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, being a roofing contractor, I
wouldn't go near that job for any amount of money.
MR. PICKENS: You answered my question -- or you answered
the question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I saw the pictures. There is no
correction.
MR. PICKENS: Other than tearing it down?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't create a dam and put a
bunch of metal in there and screws and think it's going to work.
MR. PICKENS: That's been my point. That's why we did what
we did. We could not get him to rectify the situation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The roof is not repairable the way it's
designed. You can't do a mansard like that.
MR. MARKOVICH: Am I part of this discussion?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can be, if you want.
MR. MARKOVICH: Because I have seen what was done to it.
And I do see something that could be done to -- this again is why I
tried to offer to give my services to fix what Brian had done. I do feel
there's a way to correct this. A permit would have to be --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What would be your
recommendation?
MR. MARKOVICH: I don't think there's any problem with the
mansard roof or the screen enclosure or the room that's been put in. I
think where Brian put the roof, the additional roof to the structural
74
November 17, 2004
gutter is higher than what it should be, which I did convey to Mr.
Pickens.
And I think -- he's got a -- where a flat roof meets a gable -- I'm
not sure what they call it, a downslope, I think that there's a lot of
things that would be helped by bringing the lower part of that roof up
the same height as what the flat roof would be, which would then
bring it above the installation of the -- or the height of the Elite panel
roof that was --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON : Well, just to save time here, because I
don't want to get into the issue, but if the board wants to look at E-38,
that's what I'm talking about. I am a state-certified roofing contractor,
been in the business for 35 years. That is the most hideous mess I
have ever seen. And no, that is not repairable.
MR. MARKOVICH: Well, I've seen that -- this is not a very
good picture, from what I've seen, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's not a good picture, I'll agree with
that.
MR. MARKOVICH: Not so much a picture, it's not a good --
not a judge of what the actual -- what is actually there.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But that's not really part of the case.
It was a side comment. The case here is did you have a permit.
Any other questions? Mr. Ossorio?
MR. OSSORIO: I just wanted to refer to the board to look at
what was here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, it doesn't show up as good as
our picture does. Here it does on these.
Go ahead, Mr. Bartoe.
MR. BARTOE: If I might remind the board, this job is going to
require a permit, if one can be obtained. You know, you've got to
have engineering, and then if that happens, you've got to have
inspections that pass. And if what's there -- there's a possibility it may
have to come down. None of us know.
75
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Closing comments. I'm ready to close
this case, unless you all have a whole lot more you want to go ahead
with.
MR. NEALE: Each side does get to make their closing
arguments.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I know, that's why I want to get to
them.
MR. BLUM: Mr. Pickens knows that the only thing we can do is
decide whether this man needs to be censured for not pulling a permit.
We're not here doing damages or anything, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's part of the penalty phase,
though, that we'll get into. There are no damages on that.
MR. NEALE: I'll explain it later.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You'll explain it.
Any other questions? I'm going to go for closing arguments, if
not.
MR. BOYD: How long has Mr. Markovich been licensed?
MR. BAR TOE: I don't have the file with me.
MR. MARKOVICH: 15 to 17 years.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any past complaints?
MR. MARKOVICH: None that I'm aware of.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr.Ossorio?
MR. OS SO RIO: For the record, Mike Osorio, O-S-S-O-R-I-O.
We had received a complaint on Mr. Markovich, but it was not in
writing and she didn't want to come forward, so the case was
dismissed.
MR. NEALE: And the original issue date was 1990, according
to the records.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 1990 was -- thank you.
Mr. Zachary, closing arguments?
MR. ZACHARY: Thank you.
Simply, to bring the board back into focus, we were simply here
76
November 17,2004
on whether or not a permit was needed for this job, whether a permit
was pulled, and also, who did the work.
You heard from the chief building -- structural building inspector
for Collier County, and he said that a permit was needed for this work
that was done after he visited the site and saw the work firsthand. And
he also told you that no permit was pulled.
Mr. and Mrs. Pickens are emphatic that the contractor here,
David Markovich, was the one that they had a verbal contract with to
enclose their -- put a new screen -- mansard roof on their screen and to
enclose their lanai.
As evidenced by -- on your packet on E-8, Mr. Pickens stated
under oath that he handed Mr. Markovich and no one else the cash,
and they both initialed the receipts, and Mr. Markovich initialed the
receipt in his presence.
Mrs. Pickens also testified that when she was there, she
physically saw Mr. Markovich doing the work, sometimes with
someone named Brian and sometimes by himself. But they were very,
very clear that it was he who -- that they made this contract with -- this
verbal contract to do the work. And it was he who told them that no
permit was needed, and it was -- and he was actually physically on the
job cutting aluminum and doing the construction work and -- himself.
So I'd ask the board to find that he did have a contract with them,
a permit was required, and he failed to pull that permit, as required.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Markovich, closing statement?
MR. MARKOVICH: I again tell you that I did not do the work, I
was not on the job doing it. And again, I'm sorry for Mr. and Mrs.
Pickens that they -- that the man that I referred to them has let them
down.
I am willing, and which I have been since the whole thing started,
to -- as you can see by my continued contact with Mr. and Mrs.
Pickens, that -- to try to help get them through the situation, and I still
to this time, because I don't want -- I've had long -- a lot of years
77
November 17,2004
working in the county and don't want a scar on my record with you, I
still offer to do whatever I can to get them through. If it means pulling
permits and taking on the responsibility of someone else's work, I
would do so just to try to do whatever it takes to get -- you know --
because they're very, very nice people, and I -- you know, I feel very
bad that I am any part of what's -- what they're going through. I wish
they were a little more honest with a few of the things that they've
said. But I guess they feel they have to cover themselves however
they best fit -- best see fit.
But I am willing to do whatever I can to fix whatever problems
that my referral created for them.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Thank you.
Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing?
MR. LEWIS: So moved, Lewis.
MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
Now this is Mr. Neale's turn.
MR. NEALE: I've gone through some of the information that I
normally give the board earlier, just to set everybody up for the
hearing.
But I would like to repeat the charges that -- the charge that was
brought against Mr. Markovich, which is proceeding on any job
without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the city
building and zoning division or the County building review and
78
~--_.."..
November 17,2004
permitting department. That is the only charge that this board may
consider in its deliberations.
And further, the only damages that this board may consider are
those that flow directly from the failure to obtain a permit. There was
no charge brought in this matter as far as faulty workmanship, failure
to complete or any matter such as that.
So those matters are something that either would be left for
another case or for a case brought under those charges.
So the only damages that may be considered by the board are
those that are specific to did the -- was there a permit required, was a
permit pulled, and was Mr. Markovich the one who was responsible
for pulling that permit.
The decision made by this board in this matter shall be stated
orally at this hearing once it's reached and it's effective upon being
read by the board.
The respondent, if found in violation, does have certain appeal
rights to this board, the courts and the state construction industry
licensing board as set out in the Collier County ordinance in the
Florida statutes and rules.
If this board is unable to issue a decision immediately following
the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a
nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the board may
withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting.
The board shall vote upon the evidence presented on all areas,
and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the administrative
complaint.
The board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law
in support of the charges set out in the administrative complaint.
If the respondent is found in violation of the ordinance, the board
shall consider and order sanctions under the parameters set out in
Collier County ordinance, as amended. The sanctions, if the board
gets to that point, the board shall consider the gravity of the violation,
79
--~._..~
November 17,2004
the impact of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct
the violation, any previous violations, and any other evidence
presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that
is appropriate to the case given.
At this point, the board can deliberate on the matter, and then
subsequently the board will -- the normal practice is the board reaches
a decision on whether the violation was committed, and subsequent to
that, the board considers the sanctions to be imposed.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just as a reminder, this is our
discussions, which you all can listen to but not respond to.
Discussion from the board?
MR. JOSLIN: I think it's quite obvious that, just through the
mechanics of what we've seen here, that the job does require a permit,
without fail.
I'm not really certain that maybe when the contract came out or
when Mr. Markovich and Mr. Pickens talked about doing this job that
that could have been something that came up in the air which may said
well, let's rescreen my screen enclosure. Which I'm not certain, which
-- maybe staff can guide me on this, but I don't believe to rescreen a
screen enclosure you have to get a permit.
However, after the fact and after the job was underway, Mr.
Pickens maybe added some other things to the contract -- or to the
verbal contract that would now, yes, require a permit.
So I'm quite certain that my -- maybe all the board can agree that
we do need a permit here. So that question is out of the picture.
There is at the moment just two people that are arguing back and
forth of saying I wasn't at the job, but I paid this man, and this is what
we have to determine.
If we can verify that we can prove in our own minds and in the
minds of this case that money was paid to Mr. Markovich, then that
makes him the contractor.
MR. NEALE: I'd like to remind the board that hearsay is
80
-~ '-~'~.'---,-,.
November 17, 2004
admissible in this proceeding, but it cannot be the sole basis for the
decision.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I think in all the testimony,
that's already been admitted to. Mr. Markovich said he purchased
material. He knew that the material was going to this job. He knew
that the material was going on. And he did have this other individual
doing unlicensed subcontractor work of which he contracted.
So it comes down to a point of who do we believe. I don't have
any doubt in my mind who I believe. I don't believe Mr. Markovich,
based on the testimony and the things that he has said.
But I'm curious, David, looking at those signatures, what do you
think?
MR. BESWICK: This signature on the acceptance is just a
scribble. There's not enough there to compare. It's tough. I went
through this for a long time at the FBI Academy. I'd have to look at
some samples.
I cannot understand for the life for me why someone named
Brian Allison would put down the initials DM on that thing with Mr.
Pickens standing there. It just doesn't make sense in my cop mind.
MR. JOSLIN: Maybe there's a way, possibly, if Mr. Markovich
is willing to do this, which maybe clarify our minds -- if he would
want to allow the board members to review a copy of his driver's
license which has his signature on it. It may clarify some of the
analyzing of the signature that's on this paper.
MR. BLUM: I know with myself I signature one way, I initial
another one. And I don't think you could tell my signature was the
same guy as I initialed.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I'll buy it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't think I want to go that far.
MR. LEWIS: Personally, I don't need to. I agree with Mr.
Dickson's comments earlier.
Also, one of the questions that I had raised to Mr. Markovich
81
November 17,2004
earlier was were you aware that Brian Allison was not licensed when
you referred him to do the work. He acknowledged that he did know
that he was not licensed and still allowed him to purchase material
either through his company or from his company to do this work, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that was after he said that he got
rid of him after he realized he didn't have a license.
MR. LEWIS: So as far as I'm concerned, he contracted the job.
MR. JOSLIN: Would he not be aiding and abetting an
unlicensed contractor besides?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's a lot of other charges could
have been brought from the county. A whole lot of other charges.
MR. LEWIS: So if there's no other discussion, I'm ready to make
a motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go for it.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion in this
case, Case No. 2004-05 against License No. 10917, the complaint
against David Markovich. I'd like to make a motion that the board
find in favor of the complainant on count one, that the licensee
proceeded on the job without obtaining the applicable permits or
inspections from the proper authority.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
82
"--.-
November 17,2004
Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now you have to listen to me read for
a little bit.
Findings of fact: Board of County Commissioners, Collier
County, Florida. Petitioner, William Pickens, versus David
Markovich, d/b/a Markovich Enterprises, Incorporated, Case No.
2004-05, License No. 10917.
Order: This cause came on for public hearing before the
Contractor Licensing Board on November 17th, 2004 for
consideration.
I got the wrong one, Pat -- oh, maybe it is.
MR. NEALE: Of the administrative complaint.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Of the administrative complaint filed
against -- am I okay?
MR. NEALE: I've got it here, if you want it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got it here.
Administrative complaint filed against David Markovich.
Service of the complaint was made by certified mail, or personal
delivery in accordance with Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as
amended.
Is it still 90-105?
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. The board, having heard
testimony under oath, received evidence -- oath, received evidence,
heard arguments respective to the appropriate matters, thereupon
issues its finding of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board as
follows:
Findings of fact: That David Markovich is the holder of record
of Certificate of Competency No. 10917; that the Board of Collier
County Commissioners is the complainant in this matter; that the
board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent; and that David
83
November 17, 2004
Markovich was present at the public hearing and was not represented
by counsel.
All notices required by this Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as
amended, have been properly issued.
Five, the allegations as set forth in the administrative complaint
are approved, adopted and incorporated herein by reference of
findings of fact.
Conclusion of law: The conclusion of law alleged and set forth
in the administrative complaint, which was Section -- or 4.1.18,
proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or
inspections from the city building and zoning division or county
building review and permitting was approved, adopted and
incorporated herein.
Based upon the order of the board, based upon the foregoing
findings of fact and conclusion of law, pursuant to the authority
granted in 489, Florida Statute, Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as
amended, by a vote of nine in favor and zero opposed --
MR. NEALE: Eight.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Eight in favor, zero opposed, it
did pass.
And then now we go into the complaint, which again -- or the
sanction, disciplinary sanctions, if you would go through those again.
MR. NEALE: As the board has now found the respondent in
violation of Collier County ordinance, it has to decide on the sanctions
to be imposed.
The sanctions are set out in the codified ordinance in Section
22-203, and in the revised ordinance in Section 4.3.5. The board has
the option of 10 different sanctions which it may impose, and I'll read
those.
Number one, revocation of the respondent's certificate of
competency.
Number two, suspension of the certificate of competency.
84
November 17, 2004
Number three, denial of issuance or renewal of certificate of
competency.
Number four, probation of a reasonable length, not to exceed two
years, during which time the contractor's contracting activity shall be
under the supervision of the contractor licensing board and/or
participation in a fully-accredited program of continuing education.
Probation may be revoked for cause by board at a hearing noticed
to consider such purchase (sic).
Number five, restitution.
Number six, a fine not to exceed $5,000.
Number seven, a public reprimand.
Number eight, a reexamination requirement.
Number nine, denial of the issuance of permits or requiring
issuance of permits with conditions.
And number 10, reasonable legal and investigative costs.
The board also must issue a recommended penalty for the state
construction industry licensing board, and the penalty may include a
recommendation for no further action or a recommendation of
suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration or a fine to be
levied by the state board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Zachary, what are the wishes of
the county, so we just have that on record?
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Ossorio, I would defer to you. Do you
have any recommendation to the board?
MR. OSSORIO: The county's recommendation would be obtain
all necessary building permits and to go ahead and get it inspected by
the license inspectors and to pass the code and to make sure it meets
the proper wind load and the hurricane codes and the standards within
a reasonable amount of time.
That's what we're looking for.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, restitution is not an issue
here, is it --
85
November 17,2004
MR. NEALE: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- because of the charges?
MR. NEALE: And, you know, frankly, there was no proof
brought forward. It would have been appropriate for any proof to be
brought forward. This is basically a licensure issue. Or a fine issue for
the board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think I read between the lines here,
the county wants the permit pulled, the engineering done, and then
they have more avenues for action.
MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. Once a building permit is
pulled, we can legally send the inspector out there to verify . We can
do the workmanship a different time. You're going to also make sure
it meets all the engineering, all the codes. And then if we need to, we
can come back with a better case and recommend restitution or fines.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Clear as a bell. Okay. Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No discussion.
Do I have a motion?
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, you didn't give me enough time.
You know I've always got discussion.
Just throwing this out at the board for thought, obviously we've
heard different sides of testimony. I'm sure there was confusion as to
who shot John here, at least in my mind.
My thoughts, though, are as far as restitution was mentioned -- I
know we don't have that authority -- but on that same line, the Pickens
were at fault also here. They knowingly skated the law, even though
they acknowledged, they said they asked if a permit was required,
they work for the county, I believe, I think Mr. Pickens said that he
mentioned he worked for the property appraiser. That's part of their
job is to appraise properties that have improvements -- building
improvements.
If I'm wrong in that, please excuse me. But ignorance is no
86
November 17, 2004
excuse for the law, as we all know. So they do have some type of
responsibility also.
If the board considers issuing demand upon Mr. Markovich to
pull permits, I certainly would condone that. But I think he probably
needs to be compensated for that, too, ifhe's going to take on this
contract that he says he never had. He's in testimony stated that he
was willing to do that, to get the proper permits, to get the drawings
that he needed to get it, you know, inspected and correct any work that
was there.
In light of that, my suggestion to the board for thought would be
to ask Mr. -- or to enlist Mr. Markovich as d/b/a Markovich
Enterprises, I believe, to go ahead and permit the structure properly,
and after correcting any work that needs to be corrected to applicable
codes, have it inspected, CO'd properly, and that the Pickens be
responsible for the permitting and drawings necessary for permits.
MR. NEALE: I'd just like to bring to the board's attention that
the sanctions available are those set out in the ordinance in the code.
I'm not sure whether it's within the purview of this board to create
sanctions on its own.
MR. LEWIS: Good point.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I personally don't agree with that. I
really don't have any question as to what's taken place here. Even
though I've heard conflicting evidence, I know in my own mind and
my own heart what happened.
And I personally think that the Pickens are going to have $12,400
that is going to go out the drain because this thing's going to be
virtually impossible to repair or bring up to engineering.
Yeah, you all were at fault, you knew better. I mean, everyone's
smarter business people than that.
But at the same time, I'm not going to chastise someone who
comes before this board, because the problems we have with this
board is that more people don't bring cases before this board.
87
November 17, 2004
At the same time, though, for those of you that are new, we only
see maybe five or six cases a year. Because 99.9 percent of them are
settled by those gentlemen over there, so that they don't come before a
case. The only cases we get is when you have head butting like we
have here today. And there's no way to get it settled.
So I will never turn against the homeowner. I'm all for ordering
that he has to get this job permitted. Until he does permit it, I want to
suspend any more permitting rights for his company, because I want
this to be his number one priority, to get a permit on this job. And
once he's permitted it, then get the engineering and go forward.
MR. JOSLIN: If I'm not mistaken, I think when Mr. Markovich
has his license as a license holder, I believe when he goes to pull the
permit, the engineering has to be already done, already part of the
application when they submit to the county for a permit. So that will
be done before when the permit is issued.
I do agree with Mr. Dickson as far as not chastising the whole
idea here, but I do disagree with him in some points, because I don't
think it's right to penalize the contractor or the homeowner, because
they both made errors.
So it's difficult for me to put a handle on where to go with this.
They've both been in -- they both, like Mr. -- I'm sorry, they were both
at fault.
And what is fair, or what is the obligation that we have to -- you
know, both sides of the coin, I guess. I'd like to see Mr. Pickens get
his property fixed. And he did mention the fact that he would accept
getting it done correctly. And Mr. Markovich has agreed to do that.
So is there a way that maybe that can be worked where maybe there's
a medium here to get this thing somehow repaired so everyone gains?
MR. BLUM: Is there a reason why Mr. Pickens didn't allow Mr.
Markovich to do what he offered, or was that not true also?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What was that?
MR. BLUM: Mr. Markovich has stated a number of times that
88
..----.
November 17, 2004
he was willing to get it done and pull a permit. He just told us in his
summation here that in fact that's exactly what he wants to do, but Mr.
Pickens didn't want to do that. Is that reality?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I heard that, but I don't know that--
MR. OSSORIO: The question is not actually building (sic) the
building permit, it's when the building permit is pulled, what do you
do after. Because there's going to be some fixing up and getting
things done. And sure, getting a building permit is not a big deal for
Mr. Markovich, the problem is, what's going to be done in six months
when that permit is pulled?
We have to make sure that he's responsible for what he has done.
It's not proper to say well, okay, I pulled a building permit. But once
-- he's going to be totally, 100 percent responsible for that particular
job to make sure it meets the proper codes. And we have to make sure
he understands that. And whatever he needs to do to bring it up to
code, like Mr. Dickson says, or rip it down to make the code, well,
that's what has to be done.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well-- and it gives him a chance to
get things right, and it gives you a chance to save your livelihood.
Because if we had the permit, I can think of three or four other
charges that would be on this case right now. And those three or four
other permits could result in, one, full restitution and revocation of
your license.
So this gives you the opportunity to pull the permit and make it
right and save your livelihood.
In 15 years on this board, I've never seen a case go this direction.
You're the first, where now you get a chance to do what you say
you're willing to do, and for them not to take your livelihood away.
It's a wonderful opportunity.
MR. MARKOVICH: I understand.
MR. JOSLIN: That was the comments that were made by
themselves also, so it's not something that we're making happen.
89
--.-----.--.-
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's been structured that way for this to
happen. And I'm shocked that you're getting that break, but that's
what you're getting.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Neale, if I may ask a question.
Does the board have the authority to require that Mr. Markovich
get the proper permits under this count?
MR. NEALE: I believe the board does, because the board could
create a situation -- well, they have the ability to deny the issuance of
permits or require issuance of permits with conditions.
I can interpret that as saying that the board can require that he
have a permit issued with conditions.
Further, under probation, if the board creates a probationary
situation, Mr. Markovich's activities as a contractor would be under
the supervision of the board, whereby the board could essentially act
as the general contractor for Mr. Markovich's subcontracting
activities, for lack of a better analogy.
So there are routes in which that can be done. I don't think the
board can, under this charge, require that he do much more. But, you
know -- because the charge was fairly specific as far as damages.
But I think as far as if the board feels his conduct was such that it
requires him to be under the supervision of the board or that his
permits only be issued with conditions, the board can do that.
MR. LEWIS: That's something like what Mr. Dickson had
mentioned earlier.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No more permits until he gets this
right. No more permits until he pulls this permit.
MR. LEWIS: Exactly. I think that can be a fair condition.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Once he pulls this permit, the door's
open.
MR. BLUM: There needs to be a reasonable time to make this
happen. This could go on for two years, you know --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He's out of business. He's out of
90
.-,........-
November 17,2004
business if he doesn't pull the permit.
MR. BLUM: Right. But once he pulls it and you allow him to
do business as usual without delaying --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's other charges, if that doesn't
happen.
MR. LEWIS: You'll have six months for a permit.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Other charges.
MR. NEALE: And if I may suggest to the board, the
probationary. If the board sets up a probationary period, with
reporting requirements, then the board could monitor the activities of
the contractor.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Suspend before he pulls it, and
probation after that.
MR. NEALE: That could be -- that would be something the
board could do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good idea. Because this permit will
be good for six months. And if he doesn't act on it, the county is
standing there ready to come with more charges. And you really don't
want to come back here.
MR. OSSORIO: Just for the record, that Mr. Markovich hasn't
really pulled any permits in -- since '01. He's pulled a couple in
Marco Island and maybe one or two this year alone in '04. So either
he's working without a building permit or he's working under
somebody else's building permit and subbing -- you know,
subcontracting to wit. So him not pulling building permits is really
not going to do anything other than say, you know, you just can't
come down and get a building permit. Just make sure you're aware of
that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. NEALE: But if he is operating under the supervision of the
board, all of his contracting activities are under the supervision of the
board at that point.
91
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, Mr. Ossorio knows who he is.
I would not want you following me. I know how tenacious you are.
MR. LEWIS: What are the board's thoughts about restitution for
staff? We have that ability.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't think we have that available.
MR. NEALE: It could be available, except for the fact that there
was no evidence brought forth as to what it cost.
MR. LEWIS: Okay.
MS. KELLER: Can we impose a fine?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: She's asking if we can impose a fine.
MR. NEALE: Yes, a fine is available.
MR. LEWIS: Up to $5,000.
MR. NEALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's your pleasure?
MR. BLUM: Is that what you want to do?
MR. LEWIS: Make the motion.
MR. BLUM: Does Mr. Ossorio or Mr. Bartoe have a
recommendation?
MR. OSSORIO: I would say that give him 90 days to get a
building permit, get it completed, get it CO'd, and not the six months.
And if he doesn't, it's a $5,000 fine.
MR. BLUM: Works forme.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't want to go there. We're still in
closed discussions. I just want him to pull the permit and get it done,
because then if it doesn't happen, you've got a brand new case. And--
right?
And if we do a fine, does that limit us in the future?
MR. NEALE: I'd want to review the potential for a secondary
case on this. I think they probably do, but I wouldn't want to fine him
at this point.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I would be worried about a fine
affecting what we can do on a second case.
92
__0..--
November 17, 2004
MR. OSSORIO: It would be a different charge, though. They
wouldn't be charged with --
MR. NEALE: It's a fine on violation -- it's not -- it's a fine on
each individual case, it's not a limitation on a lifetime fine.
MR. BLUM: And it's only if he doesn't perform.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MS. KELLER: What -- is there a normal fine if you don't pull a
permit? If you go in and fine somebody who hasn't pulled a permit?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's double the fee.
MR. OSSORIO: A normal fine would be between 300 and 500
under the building code.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which he's going to get that anyway,
right?
MR.OSSORIO: He'll get four times the amount of the building
permit. And it's up to Balzano if he wants to go ahead and charge him
the $500 fine.
MR. NEALE: But the board does have the ability to levy up to a
$5,000 fine. And this board has in the past levied some significant
fines.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I remember one last summer.
MR. NEALE: That one wasn't paid, but --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It wasn't paid, but it was 23,500. He
died. No, they never got paid.
Okay. So I think we're all in agreement, if -- because it's going to
be an involved motion -- that we want him to pull a permit. I think we
all agree there.
And we want to put him on probation for 90 -- and it has to be
done within 90 days, the permit pulled.
And we want to put him on probation. We'll all agree with that.
MR. JOSLIN: 90 days probation.
MR. BLUM: You're going to give him 90 days to pull a permit?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm going with the county on that.e
93
November 17, 2004
MR. OSSORIO: It's 90 days to get it completed, we'll get a final
completion on it, final building.
MR. BLUM: Yeah. He's got to pull the permit like right away.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He's got to get some engineering, so
give him a little bit of time.
MR. JOSLIN: Probation period, I thought, should be longer,
though.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How long does it take to get
engineering, Bill?
MR. LEWIS: It varies. But on something like that, it could go
as long as 30 to 45 days.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And then we don't care what
happens after he pulls the permit. The county will take care of that.
And then the discussion is do we want to do a fine on top of what the
county is going to already do?
MR. NEALE: Mr. Dickson, I would suggest that because of the
-- some of the things that the board is proposing, it sounds like the
board is proposing to require that you create a probationary period
under which he's operating under the supervision of this board.
Because if that's not the case, then the board really has no ability
to reach back out to him and bring him in, suspend the probation and
then add additional penalties.
Because the reason for a probationary period is if a person
doesn't live up to the terms of the probation, or under the operation of
the board, then the board has the ability to bring them back and add
additional sanctions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so let's pull a permit,
probationary period, fine. All three of those are the questions.
MR. LEWIS: First two go without saying, in my mind. The fine
is -- can we tie the fine to inaction on his part? That we would waive
the fine after the probationary, if it's a positive probationary period
and everything's done.
94
---"'.~-
November 17, 2004
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I think that would be -- we can structure
the order in such a way.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Of course, I'm thinking also the fine's
going to be the cost of the permit and the engineering that he's going
to have to bear the cost of.
MR. LEWIS: It's going to be a big one.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. LEWIS: So, you know, that's why I say, if we tie our
probationary with a fine, that levies -- allows us to levy some leverage
on him if he doesn't perform, which he says he will, so then we can --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's up to you guys. You all make the
motions.
MR. BOYD: I have a question. What are we going to require
him to permit and engineer, exactly what's there?
MR. LEWIS: The structure.
MR. BOYD: Because if the homeowner had known up front,
which is part of his fault, that he was going to need engineering, which
is going to incur additional costs, maybe they would have had done
what they got, which is an abomination.
MR. LEWIS: That's a possibility. I think at this point it's a little
too late. I just think that it's going to have to work out.
MR. BLUM: The homeowner would have borne the brunt of the
engineering; is what you're saying? And maybe that's kind of one of
the due diligence things that he --
MR. BOYD: Maybe that would have changed their mind on
what they had done.
MR. BLUM: Now we're saying that the contractor, if he'd have
done the right thing, would have said we need engineering, it's going
to be "X" amount of dollars. The guy would have said it probably isn't
worth it because it's more than the job, theoretically.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And if you look at past cases, if they
had brought all the charges they could have brought, which is
95
.--
November 17,2004
questionable, because there wasn't a permit, I doubt, going through a
divorce, he has $12,400 to give back to him, so it would put him out of
business anyway.
So this is a way to let him work out the problem and save his
livelihood, even though he doesn't have money to pay back. I don't
see any other way. What we usually see in these cases is homeowners
walk away with a fine or restitution, and the majority of them are not
paid.
The floor contractor in Miami, he gave up his license rather than
pay the fine, right? He never made those payments, did he?
MR. BAR TOE: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, that guy lives here.
And then the one that was going to do the payments --
MR. BARTOE: The one that was going to do the payments and
we had to bring it back to the board is making payments now.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wonderful.
MR. LEWIS: Good.
MR. BARTOE: He's made three so far.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's rare.
MR. LEWIS: He's only about seven months behind.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So any way we can try to make
homeowners whole, it's really hard to do sometimes.
MS. KELLER: But yeah, I agree with you that because this was
sort of done behind the system, that we shouldn't make him pay to get
them legitimized, an addition that they didn't -- they were kind of
doing it on the cheap anyway.
So I agree with you on that. I think that's something that we need
to consider as well.
MR. JOSLIN: So in essence, who pays for the engineering?
Should Mr. Markovich's company pay for the engineering?
MR. BLUM: It should be a shared cost.
MS. KELLER: I don't think so.
96
November 17, 2004
MR. JOSLIN: Or--
MS. KELLER: Maybe we should ask the Pickens what they
think.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I won't have a problem with that.
Mr. Pickens, would you come up to the microphone?
By the way, the comments that are being brought on some of
these issues are the consumer representatives on this board and not
contractors.
MS. KELLER: What do you think we should do in regard to
making your addition or whatever you want to call it legal under the
permit?
MR. PICKENS: I think what the county has said is what we're
agreeing to, or what we would agree to, that the permits need to be
pulled.
My concern was, and my wife's concern was that when we were
told there was no permits needed, and has been stated, I work for the
property appraiser's office, although I'm not an appraiser, when I told
one of my friends in the office that they had to come out -- or that we
had done this, they said, oh, boy, wait until we get the permit, and
then we'll come out and inspect it and we'll up your value and you're
going to pay more taxes.
And at that point in time I said well, now, we don't have a permit.
And they said you'll always got to have a permit when you do
structures like you did.
And so at that point in time what my worry was, what our worry
was, was that the county was going to come through, David was
totally out of the picture -- the county was going to come through and
say you don't have a permit; therefore, you're going to have to get a
permit and have the whole thing done all over again, so it was going to
cost us again.
I don't know if I answered your question or not, but --
MS. KELLER: Would you be willing to pay the difference
97
..----
.~__-·m_..
November 17, 2004
between having an engineer come in and have it done right and what
you've already paid to him?
MR. PICKENS: Well, I would have assumed to begin with if
permitting was done that the engineering would have been included in
the contract price. But since he stated he needed no permit and was
doing his own engineering, so to speak, I guess you could almost say
we have no choice but to pay for the engineering, or to pay for part of
it.
I don't know, because I don't know what something like that
costs. I haven't had any kind of dealings like that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What are we talking about, Bill?
MR. LEWIS: Again, it would vary, but it could be anywhere
between 500 and probably 2,000 for the engineer.
And Mr. Pickens, I commend you for your statements. You're
being very forthwith and very honest with us and, you know, certainly
this board appreciates that, I know.
And I would realize, too, that if you did not realize at the time of
contract, verbal contract, that permits were not allowed and that
engineering was not required, that if you had realized that it was
required, that the price would have gone up accordingly.
I think Ms. Keller is stepping at a point that I mentioned earlier
on, that I think personally you should be responsible for the additional
cost of the engineering to be borne by you, only because you're
receiving the benefit of that, not as a penalty, not as a slap on the wrist
or anything, but because you're receiving the benefit of that.
I think it's Mr. Markovich's responsibility to pull the permits.
And as a penalty to him, he needs to bear the cost and the
responsibility of doing that and making any repairs that are needed in
order to make it a permittable and a COld, completed project for you.
I personally am not fully convinced that this is going to be a
permittable project. I don't know that what you've done is going to be
permissible according to county standards. It mayor may not. I
98
.,~_.,,~
November 17, 2004
cannot answer that for them, and would not. But -- and that's
something that the board needs to realize, too, that if in fact Mr.
Markovich goes to county permitting with engineering to do this work
and it's denied a permit, then, you know, we've got another situation,
albeit, I think Mr. Markovich would have at that time fulfilled his
requirements to try to do that. He would still be responsible in some
way to bring that structure back to its original condition, which would
be to remove whatever was done.
MR. JOSLIN: You still have a hand from Mr. Markovich.
MR. MARKOVICH: I would be more than willing, again, to try
to please the Pickens, because I like them very much. I will bear the
brunt of the cost of the permitting of the -- of everything here. I would
rather leave them -- because I do feel very bad with the whole
situation.
Only request that I would make with that, my -- I would pull the
permit this afternoon. If they have site plans that I can have available
to me this afternoon, I will be in this afternoon and get the proper
permitting done. I am on AL engineering master sheet. I don't think
there's any additional. And if there is, I would pay for them --
engineering that needs to be pulled.
The only request that I would make is that rather than you had
mentioned something about not pulling permits until this is pulled,
since I'm pulling this thing immediately, and I want this gone and
behind us so that we -- you don't have to look at me again -- I agree, I
don't want to be here again -- that you don't stop my permitting
abilities at this time, because I do at this time have three in. My
brother is down now from the hurricanes that came through, and I've
got three permits that are in the county right now for approval.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think the only discussion on that was
to suspend your permits until you got this one pulled.
MR. MARKOVICH: And I will be there this afternoon and get it
done. I honest to God would like to have this behind us. But I also
99
November 17, 2004
would not like to have enemies in the Pickens.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I think --
MR. PICKENS: I have one question, and that is with -- in order
for David to pull a permit, do we have to have the engineering done
first?
MR. LEWIS: If he's on the AL master list, he doesn't need an
additional engineer, which is going to be -- you know, save you the
cost of that, and he's accepted the responsibility or is asking to accept
the responsibility of any additional cost incurred.
So all you need to do at this point is provide him with a site plan
of your residence, and you can do that through closing documents, or
actually the property appraiser has that, too. And if you provide that
to him, he will provide everything else that you need. I think that's
commendable. Thank you, Mr. Markovich.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let's close this up. Give me a
motion.
MR. LEWIS: Is it the board's consideration still to tie this permit
in with a probationary period and suspending of permit pulling? As
we've had -- heard Mr. Markovich mention, he does have other
permits in. He has requested, he has accepted the responsibility of it
and -- in lieu of his testimony that he's not responsible.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, probation won't prevent any
permits being pulled, it will just put him under a screen, more or less,
to be watched.
MR. LEWIS: Do we want to tie -- you had mentioned something
before, though, about tying a suspension until this particular permit
was pulled. You still up on that or --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Or that -- I mean, if he pulls it
tomorrow, then that suspension is over with.
MR. LEWIS: I don't know that that's going to happen.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, that's my point.
MR. JOSLIN: You could give him a time span of 10 days, 15
100
November 17,2004
days.
MR. NEALE: If the board could, as part of the conditions of the
probation, as opposed to suspending his permit pulling privileges, the
board could set a probation as part of the terms of the probation that he
must pull this permit within a certain period of time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Ossorio.
MR. OSSORIO: Just to clarify, because my understanding
about, you know, the master plan on the engineering on the building
department side, that's not -- that's a very simple thing to come in and
get the master plan and go ahead and get the building permit. That's
for the screen enclosure. But for the room enclosure itself with the
plan of the roof, that might take, you know, weeks. And maybe
Markovich can elaborate on that.
Does he have engineering for the enclosure, and does it meet all
codes?
MR. MARKOVICH: Yes. AL-1 has specific sheets that show
Elite panel roofs over closed-in rooms. And again, in the event that
this room does not -- is not described in the AL manual, I will call AL
and I will get something specifically, and again, at my cost.
MR. JOSLIN: I think that's where we're at.
MR. BLUM: This sounds so terrific, and I'm listening to this
man say all these wonderful things, and it wasn't an hour ago we
seriously doubted his credibility, directly contradicted to people, and
we ruled, basically, because none of us bought it. And now we're
buying into the whole package.
And it really sounds great, but I'm just a little bit doubtful here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and it happens a lot of times,
when people can't -- when these guys can't resolve the case without
coming here. And last time it happened it was a shutter case that
couldn't get resolved until they came here and they saw what we were
going to do, and all of a sudden attitudes changed immediately.
MR. BLUM: $14,000 check got written on the spot.
101
November 17, 2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And there was an apology that came
from that owner also. So it's not unusual, we see this all the time.
But let's get a motion: One, to pull the permit; two, to put a
probationary period in there with a suspension if he doesn't get this
permit pulled within a period of time. And he's going to get fined
enough with engineering and once the county gets finished with him.
Do you all agree?
MR. LEWIS: Yes.
MR. BLUM: Can we ask Mr. Ossorio to stay on top of this.
Because I personally really want to see where this is going real -- all
the time.
MR. OSSORIO: We just want to make sure, since the structure
is already there, that he calls his inspections in and doesn't get a
building permit and say well, I'm on probation but I'm not pulling any
building permits, I'll wait six months and we'll see what happens.
Since the job has already been completed, he should be calling
his inspections, you know, within a reasonable amount of time, within
a couple of days or a week.
So we would want to get a little completion date of in six months,
say two months from today, have it completed, have the final building
on it so we can work on the workmanship issue, if need be, on the
workmanship side. Not the code issue, but on the, you know,
workmanship matter, if there is one.
MR. BLUM: That would make me feel better.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's go for it. Someone make a
motion.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll be the guy. Thanks. You guys are killing me.
Bill, you want to do this?
I make the motion that we require Mr. Markovich to obtain a
building permit for the Pickens residence within 15 days of today's
date.
And also that Mr. Markovich be placed on a six-month probation
102
November 17,2004
period, in which case he will be under the direct supervision of this
board.
Should this permit he has to pull not be achieved within the
15-day time span, then his license will be, technically, with Collier
County, suspended. Permit privilege will be deceased until this permit
is pulled and the job is completed.
We'll give a completion date this has to be done within 60 days.
After the permit is active, 60 days within that time this has to be done
and COld and final.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not in 15 days COld and final.
MR. JOSLIN: No, the permit.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh. But not CO'd -- are you saying
CO'd and final?
MR. JOSLIN: COld within 60 days.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sixty days, okay.
MR. JOSLIN: Now, this Elite panel roof may be a situation, but
I think we're -- it might require a little bit more time. At least he's still
going to be under the 15-day rule. If he doesn't, he knows where he's
gOIng.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second?
MR. BLUM: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. BOYD: Are we requiring him to submit the permit or have
the permit issued?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio will know that that
permit's been issued. Right?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I go to job sites and they know his
name.
MR. OSSORIO: Right.
MR. BOYD: My question is, is can the county get that permit
out in 15 days?
103
November 17,2004
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, if it's an express permit, isn't it?
MR. BOYD: Not with engineering involved, is it?
MR. MARKOVICH: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good point.
MR. BLUM: He's saying that's not a problem.
MR. LEWIS: Yeah, generally those type of permits, as long as it
doesn't involve additional living area, in spaces like that there may be
some concerns, but I think it could be done in 15 days.
MR. MARKOVICH: The engineering is on file, and it is an
express permit.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: You're under a master plan, aren't you?
MR. BOYD: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: Any other comments, Bill, you want to add?
MR. LEWIS: No, sounds good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I got a second, didn't I?
Anymore discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the question. All those in
favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DIXON: Aye.
Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So, order of the board. Based upon the
foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to the
104
..--,-.,
November 17,2004
authority granted in 489 Florida Statutes, Collier County Ordinance
90-105, by a vote of eight in favor, zero opposed, it is hereby ordered
that the following disciplinary sanctions and related order are imposed
on the holder of contractor Certificate of Competency No. 10917.
One, permit on this residence will be pulled within 15 days.
Two, six-month probationary period for this certificate holder.
Three, if the permit is not pulled within 15 days, all permitting
privileges and license will be suspended.
And four, if the permit is not CO'd within 60 days, permitting
privileges and license will be suspended.
Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you understand the charges? You
understand the --
MR. MARKOVICH: I do. I have one question, possibly.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This case is closed, so you're free to
ask.
MR. MARKOVICH: The 60-day period you're giving me on
getting it closed, in the event that not by -- I will not let it drop, I don't
want enemies on the board either. In the event that something needs
to be taken down and redone, it may go beyond the 60 days. Is there a
way under certain circumstances that the 60 days can be -- not from
failure of my compliance to your rules, that's all I ask.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We won't ever hear about you again
unless the homeowners are upset with you or Mr. Ossorio or
contractor licensing is upset with you. So if there's something that's
beyond your control, and all of those people agree --
MR. MARKOVICH: Enough said.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- then nothing's really going to
happen. You want to make all of those people real happy.
MR. MARKOVICH: I understand. It's going to be taken care of.
MR. JOSLIN: Also, I'd make one other comment, too. I think at
105
November 17, 2004
this moment it may be behind the ball and late, however, I believe that
the two of yous, then, or whenever, should get together and get
yourself a contract together. That way you have records that the work
was done, you have record of what you've done. Down the road if
you sell the house, what happens happens, I think that would be a
good move to have in your hands, for both parties.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We do thank you for your time, both
of you.
And I'm glad we could come up with a somewhat agreeable
solution. And I hope it works out for everybody . You're free to go.
Thank you.
Mr. Zachary and Mr. Neale, you wanted to talk about citations?
MR. ZACHARY: Actually, I think Mr. Bartoe misunderstood
me, I said we really didn't need to talk about it, but since he's
committed me, I just want to tell the board that Mr. Neale and I have
looked at the citation form.
There's very few changes that we need to make. We'll add in a
box, a letter" J" that says failure to carry the applicable insurance
needed or words to that effect, and change part of the heading that
says "did violate subsection 489.127(1) Florida Statutes and Collier
County Contractor Licensing Board," and change that "and" to
"and/or. "
So -- because the statute doesn't specifically talk about insurance
other than workmen's compensation. But our ordinance requires
workers' compo liability and, you know, the other forms of insurance,
including the harbor workers and those that -- I think a contractor
needs to have those. We're not going to enforce that other than to say
well, you don't have that. And that would be -- we'll give them a
citation if they didn't have the proper insurance.
So other than that, just add a line, and I think we'll be okay with
the citation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Bartoe.
106
November 17,2004
MR. ZACHARY: And I think that we can probably use the
citations up that you have and write a line in there, and I'll give you
the language. I don't know, Mr. Neale, we talked about that. I think
that you can do that.
MR. BAR TOE: You can e-mail it to me.
MR. NEALE: This was all resulted from the discussions on the
new workers' comp law and making sure people had workers' comp
insurance. And this was a shortcut way to be able to bring them in
front of the board, or, you know, get -- essentially enforce compliance
without everyone having to be a major case brought before the board.
But it could be done on a citation basis.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that okay? Can you guys connect
me with state people?
I have two advertisements of state certified roofing contractors
that are advertising their license to qualify a company for $300,000 in
cash, because of all the hail work. Can you take care of those people?
MR. BAR TOE: (Nodding.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good, I will get that to you. I have
telephone numbers that are in the ads. Most shocking ads I've ever
seen in my life.
MR. BAR TOE: What were they in?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: They were in a roofing magazine.
$300,000, statewide certification. Set them up for $300,000 and only
take commission on sales over $200,000.
MR. LEWIS: Those unscrupulous roofers.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unbelievable.
MR. BLUM: They're all --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the number that he gives you, he
will only talk to you if you do an advance deposit.
MR. BLUM: What do they say, roofers, lawyers, and used car
salesmen?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I guess.
107
November 17,2004
Anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a motion?
MR. LEWIS: Before it goes, I'd like, since this is a last meeting
before the holiday season, I'd like to wish all the members of the
board, county staff, our illustrious attorneys and our court reporter and
all the staff here at the county and the Board of Commissioners a very
happy holiday season.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you. I appreciate you thinking.
Weare taking a Christmas vacation. There will be no December
meeting. So enjoy your families. Amen, be careful.
MR. LEWIS: And with that, I'll move that we adjourn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I got a motion.
MR. JOSLIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Fine.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:21 p.m.
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
LES DICKSON, Chairman
108
, __,__, _..0>.__ _"".~.~,,__._ ,_.,~....