CLB Minutes 01/19/2005 R
January 19, 2005
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
THE CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
Naples, Florida
January 19, 2005
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing Board in
and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met
on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of
the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Les Dickson
David Beswick
Sid Blum
Michael Boyd
Lee Horn (Absent)
Richard Joslin
Anne Keller
William Lewis
Eric Guite'
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Paul Balzano, Supervisor-Licensing Compliance Officer
Jim Hoopingarner, Licensing Compliance Officer
Michael Ossorio, Licensing Compliance Officer
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
DATE: JANUARY 19, 2005
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING
(ADMINISTRATION BUILDING)
COURTHOUSE COMPLEX
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
DATE: November 17,2004
V. DISCUSSION:
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Jesse C. Melton - Request to qualify a 2nd entity.
Michael Varney - Request to qualify a 2nd entity.
Thomas Klinedinst - Request to have painting license reinstated without retaking the exams.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
David Markovich - Request for Board to reconsider the order to suspend his license.
VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case #2004-04 - Debora Kucko vs Charles C. Willey
D/B/A B & W Asphalt Paving & Seal coat.
IX. REPORTS:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE:
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
January 19,2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning. I'd like to call to
order the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board,
January 19th, 2005.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will
need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore,
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
I'd like to start with roll call to my right.
MR. LEWIS: Good morning. Mr. Lewis.
MR. BESWICK: David Beswick.
MR. BLUM: Syd Blum.
MS. KELLER: Ann Keller.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
MR. GUITE': Eric Guite'.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr--
MR. BALZANO: Don't get confused.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I know, Bartoe and Balzano,
yeah. Good morning.
I'd like any deletions or additions to the agenda.
MR. BALZANO: First good morning, Mr. Chairman, board
members. For the record, I'm Paul Balzano, Collier County contractor
licensing supervisor. Mr. Bartoe's on vacation.
There are no additions or deletions.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good.
MR. BALZANO: We're set to go as the agenda reads.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a motion to approve the
agenda as written?
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. BESWICK: Second, Beswick.
Page 2
11. '.... -~,~"...-
January 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Approval of the minutes of the last
meeting, which was November 17th, 2004. We did not have a
meeting in December. If you've read through it, I need a motion to
approve those.
MR. JOSLIN: Move we approve the minutes of the last meeting.
Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a second.
MS. KELLER: Second, Keller.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed, like sign.
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No discussion, so we shall proceed.
Let's go right into new business.
Page 3
January 19,2005
Jesse C. Melton, are you present?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Jesse is not here.
Michael Varney, are you present?
MR. VARNEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need for you to come to that podium,
state your name and the court reporter will swear you in.
MR. VARNEY: Michael Varney.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning, Mr. Varney.
MR. VARNEY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tell us what you're doing, why you're
wanting to qualify a second entity, what your purpose is.
MR. VARNEY: I install hurricane shutters now under my
handyman business. I'd just like to qualify the second company, and
not just transfer the license to the hurricane shutter company, so I can
do aluminum contracting in both.
I repair gutters and install small gutter jobs. And the handyman
business is the reason I don't want to just transfer the license to the
hurricane shutter company.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, help. Can we do
hurricane shutters under a handyman license?
MR. VARNEY: I have an aluminum contractors license.
MR. BALZANO: He's an aluminum contractor.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, okay, now I'm with you.
So you're qualifying the handyman license --
MR. VARNEY: The hurri -- the aluminum contractor's license, I
want to qualify a second entity for the shutter corporation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And under the aluminum
contractor license he can do hurricane shutters; is that correct?
MR. BALZANO: Yes, he can.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Clarify me for just a minute,
Page 4
.._-"-
January 19, 2005
because we went all through that last year with the new Florida
building code, and I was thinking we had a separate category for
hurricane shutters.
MR. BALZANO: Prior to changing the ordinance and adding
shutters, all your shutter contractors took an aluminum exam. So your
other contractors that are already licensed have an aluminum license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So they were grandfathered?
MR. BALZANO: Well, they take a more intensive test than the
shutter contractor. What they did with the shutter contractor is his test
is just on shutters.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what you're telling me is all
aluminum contractors can do shutters, but not all hurricane shutter
contractors can do aluminum.
MR. BALZANO: They can't do any aluminum except shutters.
MR. NEALE: And Mr. Dickson, just one point: All aluminum
contractors potentially could have done shutters. They had to apply
for a hurricane license within one year of the time to -- of the
amendment to get the hurricane license. If they didn't, they don't have
a hurricane license.
MR. JOSLIN: Say that again, please?
MR. NEALE: The way the amendment was done is the language
precisely is that contractors who hold a current -- this is the hurricane
shutter and awning contractor section -- that contractors who hold a
current Collier County aluminum contractor -- including concrete or
aluminum -- license, on the effective date of the amendment, which I
think was in front of me, and it was I think May of '03, are not
required to pass this test, but must apply for the certificate not later
than one year from the effective date of the amendment.
So they had a one-year window, which this board has done in the
past, as far as allowing -- when a new category is created, it fits a part
of an old category that people could apply for that category for a
period of time, but not indefinitely.
Page 5
January 19,2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So this affects Mr. Varney, does it
not?
MR. NEALE: Potentially. I don't know whether he has applied
for the hurricane license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you apply for the hurricane
license?
MR. VARNEY: When I spoke with Maggie at contractor
licensing, I was informed that I was grandfathered in when they had
this new amendment because I had an existing aluminum contractors
license. I just -- I pulled a permit to do shutters two weeks ago. This
is the first that this has came up for me.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, it's new for us, too.
MR. VARNEY: Because they had--
MS. KELLER: No, we did it last month. We went through this
with -- you know, the fact that some of the hurricane protection is no
longer aluminum and that we needed to have a new license for
hurricane protection of any type.
MR. VARNEY: Okay, because I've installed hurricane shutters
all along under my aluminum contractor's license.
MR. NEALE: The ordinance was -- the effective date of the
ordinance was May 14th, 2002. So they had until May 14th, 2003 to
apply.
MR. BALZANO: I have no idea. I wasn't in charge at the time.
The way that we understood it was they were automatically
grandfathered. The reason we put in the shutter, I believe, was
because there was complaints from shutter installation companies that
they were taking exams that had questions on it that didn't have
anything to do with shutters. Because at the time the only license
exam for years was aluminum. And that's where the shutters were put
under aluminum. The exam for aluminum is -- like I said, is a much
tougher exam than just shutters. The shutter exam is basically just
shutters. On the aluminum exam that he took had shutters in it.
Page 6
January 19,2005
So I have no idea if all aluminum contractors were notified. This
is the first I've heard of it. I know that --
MR. NEALE: Well, it's been here for almost two years.
MR. BALZANO: I don't know, I wasn't the supervisor. All I
know is your major--
MR. NEALE: Three years.
MR. BALZANO: -- shutter installing companies are aluminum
contractors.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we can approve it as a board,
based on experience, correct?
MR. NEALE: You could waive the requirement of taking a test
based on experience, but it would have to be a finding that you -- you
can't allow him to do it without waiving that requirement to take the
test. You would still have to apply for the hurricane shutter license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that was my next question, did
we notify everybody? Which we probably didn't.
MR. NEALE: They -- the way this normally works, I mean, is
that, as with most ordinances, it was noticed in the newspaper, there
was public hearings, and the ordinance was then passed, as Mr.
Zachary corrected me, almost three years ago.
So, you know, somehow if it didn't get notified that there was --
there was at least constructive notice on everyone, because if they
looked at the ordinance and wanted to be a hurricane contractor, they
should have read that that's what they had to do.
MR. BALZANO: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BALZANO: It still reads in the county ordinance -- I don't
have a copy of it; Mr. Neale, I'm sure, does -- that under aluminum it
says that he can install shutters. We didn't change that.
MR. NEALE: Security shutters. It does not say hurricane
shutters.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Well, we're going to--
Page 7
..~_._.-
January 19, 2005
MS. KELLER: Where did we stand in our last meeting where
we talked about coming up with a new test for hurricane protection?
Do you know -- do any of you know?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, that case involved somebody
that was hanging canvas --
MR. BALZANO: Canvas, yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- as hurricane protection. And how
did we leave that? We left it that we were going to -- because he
didn't have an aluminum license either.
MR. NEALE: No. The thing is under the hurricane shutter and
awning contractor, the material of the shutter is not specified. The
way it reads in the hurricane shutter and awning contractor license is
that people who are qualified to install, maintain or repair or replace
shutters and awnings that are designed to present -- protect residential
and commercial buildings from hurricane and storm force winds and
wind-borne debris, all in accordance with Collier County amendments
to the applicable building code. So it doesn't matter if he made it out
of rice paper, if it passed the ordinance, under that license, they're
qualified to hang it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's proceed through this,
because we can get by it.
MR. BALZANO: If you'd like, I can step outside and call
Maggie and see what was done. Like I say, I just took over this job
this past June, so I have no idea what transpired.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you, while we continue to hear
this? Would you do that?
MR. NEALE : Well, but just -- and I would suggest to the board
that it direct staff to begin giving the correct information out. I'm sure
it was some kind of a -- you know, just a misunderstanding. But at
this point, you know, this is the information that's been in existence
for two and a half years. And--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, but we can waive the test,
Page 8
January 19,2005
based on experience.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, it's a case-by-case situation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And obviously the fact, I have no
doubt when he said he pulled a permit for a hurricane shutter two
weeks ago.
MR. VARNEY: I've been doing them right along.
MR. BALZANO: They all do.
MR. VARNEY: And I've had my aluminum contractors license
since 1998 and I've done shutters. It's always been part of the
aluminum contracting license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. We just need to clear up in the
county, which we can do that later.
MR. VARNEY: Okay, how does this affect me, if you don't
mind me asking?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll keep going. Don't worry.
Relax.
Okay, so right now your business is Affordable Handyman
Services, Inc., correct?
MR. VARNEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And what's the name of the new
company you're wanting --
MR. VARNEY: Affordable Hurricane Shutters, Incorporated.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Affordable Hurricane Shutters,
Incorporated?
MR. VARNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let's pursue this just like a
normal second entity, and then we'll address the issue when we get to
it.
Give us just a minute, we're looking at credit reports and a couple
of other things in here.
MR. VARNEY: I also have another couple credit reference
letters here they just faxed me this morning, if you need those.
Page 9
~,-"".,~,~--,-"..,_.
January 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, we'll see if we need them.
MS. KELLER: Did you want to establish a second entity for
marketing purposes, or --
MR. VARNEY: I already have a sales of tangible personal
property license for the hurricane shutter company. What I've been
doing is using that to sell the shutters and then pulling the permits with
my handyman with the aluminum license. I just want to incorporate
that all into one company.
MR. JOSLIN: So you're going to use your handyman license
then to qualify the shutter installation part.
MR. VARNEY: Well, the aluminum contractors license that I
have under my handyman business. I have three specialty contractors
licenses for my handyman business.
MR. JOSLIN: So you're going to be using the aluminum license
to install the shutters --
MR. VARNEY: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: -- for the new corporation?
MR. VARNEY: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I do notice on one of your credit
reports that Affordable Hurricane Shutters has had a credit account for
over two years.
MR. VARNEY: That was from Rolling Shield, and it's just -- he
doesn't speak real legible English at times, the sales rep there. I
haven't had an account with -- I've had an account with him for over a
year, but it's not -- it hasn't been two years.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Well, the next one said 18
months.
MR. VARNEY: Yeah, that was R&R Electric.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right.
MR. VARNEY: I use -- he does all the wiring when I do electric
rolldown shutters.
Page 10
."__~....._m."'_"'~_'.___'''~'''''''__W~_~___'__·
January 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any comments from the board?
MR. BLUM: I wish everybody's was -- looked this good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Your credit report--
MR. VARNEY: I pay all my bills on time and ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Your credit reports are good.
MR. VARNEY: Well, it took me eight months to get the credit
report for the business, because there's another Affordable Handyman
Services that's averaged at 93 days late paying his bills. So it took me
eight months to straighten that out with Equifax.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And your Affordable Handyman is
incorporated?
MR. VARNEY: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Then the other one's working as a sole
proprietor?
MR. VARNEY: I'm not sure what it is. It just both -- all they do
is run by the name, and they kept coming up the other company's
report. When I got the first credit report, I knew it wasn't mine.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Neale, procedure. Should
we first approve the second entity and then --
MR. NEALE: No. You can't grant a second entity to someone
who doesn't have a license to operate under that entity.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So what should we do,
approve the license based on experience?
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, he's got to have a license to do
what you're going to approve the second entity to do. And he doesn't
currently have that license, won't have that license, really, until after
you waive the requirement, he submits an application, gets it
approved, and comes back.
So I -- I would have trouble -- and I apologize to Mr. Varney, but
I would have trouble recommending to this board that they approve
the second entity application today, because you'd be approving an
unlicensed contractor to do something.
Page 11
__w..__..___.__
January 19, 2005
MR. LEWIS: Correct me if I'm wrong -- excuse me, I'm sorry,
Mr. Balzano.
Correct me if I'm wrong, if we approve him or to -- or if we
approve to waive the requirements for the hurricane shutter
installation license, he won't need a second entity, because that's a
totally separate license for Affordable Hurricane Shutter installations
MR. NEALE: That would be true, he could do that as a single
entity under that license.
MR. LEWIS: So basically then the board would only have to
approve waiving the requirements for testing for the hurricane license,
then he could take that information back and reapply for the --
MR. NEALE: And apply for the hurricane license, have it under
a separate license. Good suggestion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Balzano?
MR. BALZANO: Mr. Ossorio just checked with Maggie at the
office; she said that Mr. Nonnenmacher told her when the ordinance
was changed that any aluminum contractors that had an existing
aluminum license that were doing shutters were exempt. So she never
notified anybody.
MR. NEALE: Well, for a period--
MR. BALZANO: Anyone new that came in, they made them get
the shutter license.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, that was true as far as it went, but they were
exempt for one year.
MR. BALZANO: Well, he did not tell her that, so it's not Mr.
Varney's fault that--
MR. NEALE: No, I'm not saying it is. You know, somehow he
got bad information.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so what we can do at this point,
Mr. Neale, without an application, can we waive additional testing
requirements so that when he fills out the application it will go on
Page 12
January 19,2005
through?
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. As long as -- yeah, I mean, the only
thing -- and I'm sure he already did, because he has an aluminum
license -- that he has to pass the business and law test, but I'm sure he
did because he --
MR. VARNEY: I got a 90 --
MR. NEALE: -- got the license.
MR. VARNEY: I got a 90 percent on the business and law and
94 percent on the trades test.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, just do the findings of fact for a
waiver, and then --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The board clear on what we need for a
motion?
MR. BESWICK: Sort of.
MR. LEWIS: No.
MR. BLUM: It's your idea, so you motion it.
MR. LEWIS: I don't know if --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I can't make a motion, but what
we need to satisfy this and get it taken care of now is to approve any
requirements for this gentleman to take any additional testing for
hurricane shutter license. And then when he fills out an application,
the approval has already been given. That will immediately qualify
his new company and he's set to go.
MR. JOSLIN: And he won't have to come back--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We will not come back before this
board.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. In given
time.
In light of the information brought forward and the fact that Mr.
Varney has an outstanding record so far, as experienced by his packet
to us today, and also an existing aluminum license, which was a
prerequisite in the last ordinance approval, that we today waive the
Page 13
__"._..,_~___,.,.,__om__
January 19, 2005
testing requirements for his hurricane shutter installation license so
that he may go to -- and make application for the license to the Collier
County Contractor Licensing Board -- or to Collier County Contractor
Licensing. I think that might cover it.
MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MS. KELLER: Do we need to do something with the other
people that are not aware that they need to take this test or that they
should have taken it? I mean, should we send something out to people
saying that we had an oversight and that they need to --
MR. NEALE: Frankly, the only thing that I think the board --
that could be done to follow the ordinance is sort of a, if you want a
hurricane shutter and awning license, you've got to take the test, or
apply for a waiver of the testing requirement, one of the two.
MS. KELLER: Well, to avoid having a gazillion people coming
in to talk to us about it, should we give them a year --
MR. NEALE: You can.
MS. KELLER: -- from now to take that test?
MR. NEALE: The board can.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's do that after we settle this issue.
This is individual.
But I agree with what you're going with, Ms. Keller. Because I
know right now I've got aluminum contractors pulling hurricane
shutters right and left.
MR. BALZANO: They do it in every other county.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. So we can handle that
afterwards.
Any discussion on this motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I'll call for the vote. All those
in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
Page 14
January 19,2005
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, do you understand what we've
done?
MR. VARNEY: I have to go to the board of -- or Collier County
building there and fill out an application for a shutter installer.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right.
MR. VARNEY: And -- but it's already approved because of my
past experience.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And don't do that today,
because Mr. Balzano will let Maggie and the office staff know that
this has been approved, and then you'll fill it out in the company name
that you want.
MR. VARNEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You follow me?
MR. VARNEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you'll be set to go.
MR. VARNEY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you very much.
Now, let's address the other issue, because as soon as the county
starts refusing hurricane shutters to all these aluminum contractors,
we're going to have a line at the door.
MR. NEALE: I have to say, there's nothing that can be done
unless the Board of County Commissioners amends the ordinance.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ouch.
Page 15
January 19, 2005
MR. LEWIS: Except on a case-by-case basis, just like we did--
MR. NEALE: On a case-by-case basis is the only way that it can
be done. Because the staff somehow, you know, in the past
misinterpreted what the ordinance said, and the language of the
ordinance is about as clear as anything I've ever seen. There's not a lot
of wiggle in there.
MR. JOSLIN: Would it be in line to possibly have or have
county copy this ordinance, with a copy of that ordinance and send it
to all the aluminum contractors involved in it?
MR. NEALE: It probably should, because you -- I hate to say it,
but you have a lot of contractors that are operating illegally right now.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
MR. BALZANO: But not knowingly.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not knowingly, right.
MR. NEALE: Theoretically knowingly, because they had a
constructive notice because the ordinance was passed, but they were
given bad information, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And in support of the county we spent
so many meetings on this issue, and of course I've been on the board
so long I don't remember the one-year grandfather clause, so I'm just
as guilty as the county is.
MR. BALZANO: I was under the understanding that the people
that had the aluminum license could continue with their aluminum
license and anyone else applying would have to get a shutter license.
That's what I thought it was. And I think that's what everybody else
thought.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what's going to happen when you
go back, you're going to inform county of this new change, and all
these guys that come in to pull permits are going to get stopped.
MR. BALZANO: Well, you're going to put a lot of people out of
work. Some of your shutter companies, all they do is shutters and
they have an aluminum license.
Page 16
January 19, 2005
MS. KELLER: Plus you can't hold up people wanting to get
hurricane shutters put on their homes, because this is an important
season to do that for next year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, give me some --
MR. NEALE: Mr. Zachary just came up with an interesting
possibility, and I think it's one that may avoid excessive problems:
That this board could direct staff to administratively review the
applications, and if they appeared to meet the standards for waiver,
that is, that the person was a licensed contractor, had adequate
experience, had the proper licensure, had had the licensure, I think
you'd want to say that they had the license in 2002 when the ordinance
was passed, so that they would fit in that time line, you know,
sometime -- well, by May of 2003 that they had the license. I think
the board could then direct staff to administratively waive these,
subject to just a simple review by this board where essentially staff
would report back the following month saying these people have come
in, we've granted administrative review based on these facts and the
board could essentially on a consent agenda basis waive those, based
on staff recommendation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good.
MR. ZACHARY: Yeah, waive this one-year requirement when
they're required to get the certificate for hurricane if they had an
aluminum license.
MR. BLUM: But they'd still have to get the shutter license.
MR. NEALE: They'd still have to get the shutter license.
MR. BLUM: But not to go through all this. They would have to
come back before the board, because the board directed staff to waive
that, and then --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Am I technically waiving the
one- year requirement?
MR. NEALE: What I think you're doing is technically -- you
know, this is something we're sort of pulling out of our hat right now,
Page 1 7
January 19, 2005
but I think what you're technically waiving -- what you're doing is
delegating to staff the ability to review and waive where appropriate
the testing requirement. If staff has a question on the testing
requirement, if they think this person either didn't have a license as of
May 14th, 2003 or is not a very -- you know, has had complaints or
something like that, he can always get bounced back to the board. But
if it's someone who's, you know, like Mr. Varney, a good solid
contractor that has no complaints, pays his bills and all that, then the
staff could do an administrative waiver, subject to approval of the
board at its next meeting.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need to make a -- should there be a
time limit on this?
MR. NEALE: I would say that you wouldn't want to probably do
it for more than -- Mr. Balzano, what do you think would be
appropriate to get the word out and to get everybody in line?
MR. BALZANO: I'd have to look up how many aluminum
contractors we have and contact them all to see how many do shutters
that were licensed prior to 2003.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I mean, is 180 days enough?
MR. NEALE: Six months?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Six months?
MR. BALZANO: Definitely.
MR. BLUM: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir.
MR. BLUM: What's the volume? Do you have any idea of
shutter permits that are being pulled?
MR. BALZANO: It's huge.
MR. BLUM: What I'm getting at is, is staff going to be able to
handle -- I mean, I go in there and there's a line out the door as it is
with three people servicing customers. And they can't be going
through these things one-by-one to check all these guy's credentials as
they come in for permits, if we've got a whole lot of them coming in.
Page 18
January 19,2005
And I expect it's going to be more and more as the year gets closer to
season. Is staff really going to be able to handle this volume of work?
MR. BALZANO: Well, we have five other people I can put on
it.
MR. BLUM: Okay. That was my only question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The hurricane shutter permits is
massive. I just did a contract for one on my house, and I don't know if
he's got an aluminum contractor license or the hurricane shutter, but
I'm still having to wait five months.
MR. BALZANO: It's the aluminum shutters.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So yeah, if we just --
MR. BALZANO: The permit doesn't take five months.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, it's --
MR. JOSLIN: It's the materials.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ifwe shut the door, it's a major
impact.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, another thing that we might -- well,
not might, but need to address, are the aluminum contractors now
doing business in the hurricane installation industry that were licensed
after May, 2003?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right.
MR. LEWIS: So we have to address those, too, because we have
a responsibility, because they thought they had to have an aluminum
license and were covered to install shutters so that's what they went
and got after May, 2003, because that's what they were told, if they
didn't want to do the hurricane shutter license. They said they could
have an aluminum license and still do it, too.
MR. BALZANO: Correct.
MR. LEWIS: So there might be people like that out there, too.
MR. BALZANO: You could have someone that came in and
they were told -- and they wanted to do aluminum and they wanted to
do shutters, they could have been advised to take the aluminum exam;
Page 19
January 19, 2005
and if they were doing just shutters, to take the shutters.
I really thought that's what -- why that was brought up originally.
I had no idea until today that grandfathering, they had to get the
shutter license in a year.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's leave--
MR. BALZANO: I thought the people that had the aluminum
were left alone. That's the way I thought we did it, but --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: In the motion, let's leave a date out of
it and leave it up to county's, you know, review. I mean, you guys
know what you're doing.
MR. BALZANO: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We know the intent here.
MR. NEALE: Maybe have the staff report back what the
situation is at the next meeting and then six months down the road.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so what we need is from the
board a motion to waive this one-year requirement for the next 180
days, so the aluminum contractors can get the proper hurricane shutter
license, which they were originally entitled to anyway.
MR. NEALE: What I would suggest, as opposed to the board
blanket waiving it is that they grant the -- they delegate the authority
to waive to the contractor licensing staff, subject to the staffs review
of those applications. Because everybody's going to have to apply for
the permanent license.
And that way staff will have the authority to be able to, if one
comes in that doesn't appear to fit the criteria, to bring it to this board
for disapproval or review.
And then also, I would suggest that, as I said, for all of them
come up that have been done in that month, just get put together in a
single page listing packet for the board to essentially appear on a
consent agenda, where the staff reports back we've had this many done
this month, we've administratively approved those many. The board
then makes a motion to officially waive those, and then, you know, it
Page 20
January 19,2005
follows an appropriate trail.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Who wants to take a shot at it?
We can amend.
MR. BLUM: Let Mr. Joslin do this.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Come on.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, I'll make the motion to -- that we waive the
testing requirements for the hurricane shutter installation based on the
information that Mr. Neale's given us regarding the ordinance. And
there is no time limit in which this is to be done. However, staff is
being directed to be able to review these requirements, and every six
months they be -- these applications be brought back before the board
to review them?
MR. NEALE: Well, no, what it would be is every month staff
would bring in a listing of all of the waivers that have been granted in
the previous month.
MR. JOSLIN: Once a month.
MR. NEALE: And then the board would approve those.
What I would suggest, and this just popped into my head, is that
in order that we're not holding up people who are legitimately
qualified to practice, that during the interim period, between the time
the staff grants the administrative waiver and it comes before the
Contractor Licensing Board, that the applicant's given effectively a
temporary license so that they don't have to wait until the next
subsequent board meeting before they can start operating under their
hurricane license.
MR. JOSLIN: So we add to the motion that this requirement
only applies to aluminum contractors only, not existing hurricane
shutter contractors?
MR. NEALE: Well, the existing hurricane shutter contractors
are already covered. They've already gotten this out of the way.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: It's just the aluminum contractors. Basically it's
Page 21
January 19, 2005
the aluminum contractors who haven't come in yet, if they so desire to
get -- somehow the communication didn't get to them that they only
had a year to come back in to apply to become a hurricane shutter
contractor. This is essentially waiving the testing requirement that
they would have had during that one-year period, or granting staff the
administrative ability to waive that testing requirement.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, anything else?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let me review. It's aluminum
contractors only. The waiver period is 180 days. Based upon -- it's a
waiver of the additional testing. County will be responsible for each
individual case, deciding its merit on whether it should be waived.
You'll report back to us monthly how many have been waived and
gotten their license. At the end of 180 days, this waiver shall be
terminated. And during that time all aluminum contractors will be
contacted. Is that the way I understand it?
MS. KELLER: So basically they have to come in and get the
waiver, and that waiver will make it so that they don't ever have to
take that test, right? So anybody who doesn't come in during that 180
days loses that privilege.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MS. KELLER: And if they don't come in, then they'll have to
take that test after 180 days, okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second?
MR. BLUM: Blum, second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion.
MR. JOSLIN: One other question. Now, is this going to be
something that staff is going to be sending out a copy of this ordinance
or notifying all these aluminum contractors --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: -- that they have to have this?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That was in the notice, correct?
MR. JOSLIN: That's in the motion.
Page 22
January 19, 2005
MR. NEALE: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, you will notify all aluminum
contractors.
MR. BALZANO: You know how many there are?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, sir.
MR. BALZANO: Most aluminum contractors do shutters.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But we will contact each one of them.
You've got a big staff.
MR. BALZANO: My question is, these people, if you have
someone that's been in business for 15 years, am I going to make them
make out a complete application and a credit report to get this license?
MR. NEALE: They would have had to two years ago.
MR. BALZANO: They would have had to make out a complete
credit report? So we were taking their license away three years ago
that they went and took --
MR. NEALE: No.
MS. KELLER: No, they would have had to take the test two
years ago.
MR. NEALE: No, they still would have had to apply to get a
hurricane shutter and awning contractor license.
MR. BALZANO: I don't remember any of this when it was
changed that we would have done that.
MR. NEALE: Well, it says the only thing that was -- contractors
who hold current Collier County aluminum contractor, including
concrete or aluminum licenses on the effective date of this amendment
are not required to pass the test -- this test but must apply for this
certificate.
MR. BALZANO: That's what I'm asking you, can they -- if
they've been doing aluminum shutters and their main business is
shutters, we're going to make them do a complete application to get
the license that we now tell them they have to have that they've been
using for 15 years?
Page 23
January 19,2005
MR. NEALE: They were told they had to have the license --
MR. BALZANO: We don't know if they were told.
MR. NEALE: -- May 14th, 2002.
Well, they were because the ordinance was passed.
MR. JOSLIN: Is it possible that we can waive -- put a waiver on
that application requirement?
MR. NEALE: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Going too far.
MR. NEALE: I would suggest that the board not do that,
because what we're opening is then anybody who somehow missed a
grandfather date at any time in the past for any license can come in
and say oops, nobody told me. And then you're getting into a ball
where you might as well just waive everybody's license requirements
for everything.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, then yes, they are going to do a
full application.
MR. BALZANO: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We found -- wait a minute.
We've found a problem. We've done the best thing that we can
do to resolve it. If they're in the business, get the license. We've done
all that we can do.
MR. BALZANO: When we've grandfathered before, it's when
we've given a license to a trade that was never licensed. We're talking
people that took exams to do shutters, and the only exam we had at the
time was aluminum. And they've been doing this trade for 15 years.
N ow we're telling them -- they have a successful business -- that
they're going to make out an application that's about an inch and a half
thick and go to all that expense because we put in just a plain shutter
license that had nothing to do with aluminum.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but what brought about that
shutter license was a Florida Building Code and that all structures had
to have hurricane shutters.
Page 24
January 19, 2005
MR. BALZANO: If I remember correctly, this shutter license
came up because there was a lady that came over from the east coast,
over in Palm Beach County or Broward County, the only exam they
had to take was a shutter exam. And we decided to look in at getting a
shutter exam. Because under what you're speaking about, I believe,
would go under glass and glazing where they could buy the units that
are the shutters built into the windows, if I remember the workshop
correctly.
We're trying to eliminate people taking an exam that had five
other parts that did not pertain to their trade, but that was the only
exam that was available at the time that these contractors had taken.
And we had decided to go with that shutter license they used over in
the east coast in one of the counties --
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman?
MR. BALZANO: So all they could do was strictly shutters.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. LEWIS: May I make a suggestion, please? It appears
there's a lot of information that still needs to come out on the table for
us to make any kind of decent approach to this. May I suggest that we
table this until the latter part of the discussion and let the public
hearings continue, complete our business with them so they may --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I personally think we're ready to end
this discussion right now. I have a motion, I have a second. I'm in the
discussion phase. I'm ready to call for a vote.
MR. LEWIS: I'm not ready to vote on it. I'll have to abstain,
because I don't think I have proper information.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Anymore discussion?
MR. BALZANO: Could we try to get the definition of security
shutter? I mean, a security shutter -- a hurricane shutter is a security
shutter; it secures your house. Or it could be a shutter on the front of a
store to keep the crooks out. We don't know what was intended when
we used the word security shutter.
Page 25
~ ._-,~"..",._--~.".~--_. v- ...,.--..'-
January 19, 2005
MR. BLUM: The word hurricane usually is prefaced by it for the
intent of what we're talking about.
I understand the hair you're splitting here, and I agree, there
should be a differentiation between security and hurricane security,
but for all intents and purposes, we're talking about hurricane
protection.
MR. BALZANO: We're also talking about a lot of people that
have been in business for years, and because a mistake was made a
couple of years ago by my predecessor by not passing on the
information, evidently, that we're going to put a lot of these companies
-- I don't think any of you businessmen would want to jump through
the hoops you're going to make them jump through for a business that
they've been performing.
MR. BLUM: If you have a case like that, they have every right
to apply to this board to waive that and come before us. How many
are out there that are 15, 20 years old that may fall under your
guideline? And I do agree with you, but we've got to cover everybody
or as many as we can as expeditiously as possible.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I'm going to agree, we'll table
this for the moment.
MS. KELLER: We could make them take the test. I mean, that
would make them a lot --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thomas Klinedinst, are you present?
Would you come forward to the podium.
MR. LEWIS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand that I have a motion on
the floor that I'm tabling.
MR. LEWIS: Can we table that without taking a vote, or do we
need to rescind it?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We can table it without taking a vote.
MR. LEWIS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because I said we could.
Page 26
January 19, 2005
Mr. Klinedinst, if you would, state your name and I'll have you
sworn In.
MR. KLINEDINST: Tom Klinedinst.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And you're here to request
having your painting license reinstated --
MR. KLINEDINST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- without taking the exam?
MR. KLINEDINST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, sir, give us the
particulars.
MR. KLINEDINST: I had my painting license for
approximately six years, and --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can barely hear you. Can you talk
into that mic?
MR. KLINEDINST: I had my painting license for almost six
years in Collier County. I moved out of state. I'm back and I'd like to
get my license so I can do painting again.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Am I not finding his paperwork? You
all have it?
How long were you out of Collier County?
MR. KLINEDINST: Two years.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Two years. What did you do during
those two years?
MR. KLINEDINST: I went to North Carolina and built log
homes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did what?
MR. KLINEDINST: Moved to North Carolina and built log
homes.
MR. JOSLIN: It appears the test was taken back in 1994; is that
the case? Eleven years ago?
MR. BLUM: This license has been inactive for four years, not
Page 27
January 19, 2005
two.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, your license expired September
30th of 2000.
MR. KLINEDINST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You may have been gone two years,
but it expired before you left, if that's the case.
MR. KLINEDINST: Well, okay, I've been back for a year and a
half.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Huh? Say that again?
MR. KLINEDINST: I've been back here for a year and a half, so
you could say I've been gone --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What have you been doing for a year
and a half?
MR. KLINEDINST: My wife has a commercial cleaning
business. I worked with her.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So now you've decided all of a sudden
you want to paint?
MR. KLINEDINST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But you knew your license was
expiring and you could have kept it in an inactive status, if you wanted
to.
MR. KLINEDINST: Yes. When you move out of state you're
saying I'm never coming back, but here you are, you know.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hindsight's 20/20.
Questions of the board?
MR. JOSLIN: I'm going to have a problem with this.
MR. NEALE: If I may --
MR. BLUM: Me, too.
MR. JOSLIN: Otherwise, we're going to have --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One at a time.
Mr. Joslin?
MR. JOSLIN: I said I probably will have a problem with this on
Page 28
.-....--.--."'..."
--.---..-.--
January 19,2005
the vote. Only because we're going have a lot of painting contractors
or other contractors coming in asking to do the same thing for a
license that's been canceled and didn't renew.
One question: Were you notified that you needed to keep your
license active or put it into a temporary status or --
MR. KLINEDINST: No, that's something --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a problem with that question
when that's one of the questions on the test. Because that's explained
to you when you take the test.
MR. BLUM: I know I wouldn't be in a hurry to give up any
license that I earned for any reason. I still have an active license in
N ew York and one in Georgia, and I've been here 15 years.
MR. BESWICK: I think a lot of things have changed since 1994
also.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm going to make this painless. I'll deny the
motion -- I mean, I'll make the motion to deny the application.
MR. BESWICK: Second, Beswick.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
MR. JOSLIN: I think what you're going to have to do, Mr.
Page 29
January 19,2005
Klinedinst, is maybe apply for taking the test again. Painting
contractors license is not that difficult of a test.
MR. KLINEDINST: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sure you could probably pass it again if
you've been building homes, log homes. Under the circumstances, I'm
sure you can see our situation.
MR. KLINEDINST: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think the other thing that hurt you is
the fact that for this four years you've not been active in the trade.
MR. KLINEDINST: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Best of luck to you.
MR. KLINEDINST: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There are two choices now for the
testing. There's two companies. So when you check on that, follow
up, there's different locations.
MR. KLINEDINST: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Jesse Melton, did you come in?
MR. MELTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You were late, but I'm being nice to
you. If you would, come to the podium.
MR. MELTON: I apologize, I'm from Ft. Myers.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Probably couldn't find a parking
place, could you?
MR. MELTON: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I know the problem.
Need for you to state your name and have you sworn in real
quick.
MR. MELTON: Jesse Melton.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you're here to qualify a second
entity. Tell us what you're doing now and why you want to qualify
the second entity.
Page 30
January 19,2005
MR. MELTON: I'm doing tile and marble installation right now.
I have my business that I'm running and doing that.
I have a partner, not on that business, but somebody I've known
and been working with for a few years, and he has a corporation that I
was going to qualify and we're going to probably kind of partner up
and kind of help each other out and run both businesses.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So he's a partner with you now and
he's going to be a partner with you in the new one?
MR. MELTON: Well, not actually on my corporation, no, but
he's a big part of helping me out, you know, as an employee. And he
knows what he's doing good enough to get his thing going, and we're
just going to help each other out. So basically qualifying it, and it's
going to be kind of like his business, his corporation, but I'll be a big
part of it since it's my license and I'm pretty much responsible for it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you realize that if he takes you
down, you will go with him?
MR. MELTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Including your business.
MR. MELTON: Yes, sir.
MR. GUITE': Will he be doing work for you, like his company
do work for your company?
MR. MELTON: Some. He's got some work lined up with other
people, but yes, he's still going to -- we're still going to be together.
He's going to do some work for me, too.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Melton, on your personal credit
report there's a couple of bad items on here. Starts off with three
charge-offs. You want to explain those?
MR. MELTON: What I had there was a bankruptcy about -- I
guess it was about five or six years ago. And that came from -- also, I
didn't put an explanation on there, but that came from I had a car
accident and rear-ended someone, and they tried to sue me for -- I had
insurance, but I didn't have bodily insurance, so my lawyer advised
Page 31
---,---_._-'.
January 19, 2005
me to file bankruptcy or else they were going to start taking
garnishments out of my wages and everything. So that's why I had to
file it. It was never a problem with me not paying bills or anything,
but once I decided to file bankruptcy, that's when, you know, the
lawyer advised the stop paying certain things or whatever. But since
then, since the bankruptcy, I'm back to normal 100 percent.
Everything on time. Shouldn't be anything on there bad since the
bankruptcy.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's kind of a paradox here. If you had
a driver's license, you had to have bodily insurance insurance.
MR. MELTON: Well, what I--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Bodily injury.
MR. MELTON: -- had back then, I had full coverage insurance,
everything that the bank requires. But I don't exactly know what
happened. I thought I had everything, but I did not have bodily injury
Insurance.
I was told, back then at least, it was not a requirement that you
had to have bodily injury. That's going back in '98 when that accident
happened.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have a driver's license?
MR. MELTON: Oh, yeah.
MR. BLUM: Is Mr. Rigoberto the only other owner of this new
corporation, Mastercraft?
MR. MELTON: Yes.
MR. BLUM: So it'd just be you qualifying Mr. Rigoberto, with
no other employees?
MR. MELTON: He'll have -- he's got some employees lined up.
I mean, there's nobody actually technically working for him right now
because he's not licensed, but he will have employees.
MR. BLUM: So this is not an in existence company? It hasn't
done any work yet?
MR. MELTON: Right.
Page 32
January 19, 2005
MR. BLUM: I notice Mr. Rigoberto's scores are 566, which is --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any further questions from the board?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Or a motion? Or are you still
looking?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He doesn't have insurance on the
business, because he hasn't really started it yet.
MR. MELTON: Right, yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ifwe approve, we can make that a
qualification.
MR. MELTON: That's what the plan was, after -- if this went
through he was going to get his Workmen's Comp exempt and
insurance and everything. And when he does have employees, he's
lined up to use the same payroll service that I use to actually cover the
guys with Workmen's Compo But he was going to get Workmen's
Comp for himself -- or I'm sorry, Workmen's Comp exempt for
himself.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's the pleasure of the board?
MR. BLUM: I have misgivings.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Form of a motion?
MR. JOSLIN: I'm in the same mode. However, I don't believe
we can do anything except motion -- I make a motion that we approve
the application. I make the motion that we approve the application.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Do I have another motion?
MR. GUITE': I'll make a motion that we deny.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We have a motion to deny. Do I have
a second?
MR. BLUM: Second, Blum.
Page 33
January 19,2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. LEWIS: Where do we have the standing to deny?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Based on his credit application, which
is one of the things we consider.
My feeling on the case, Mr. Melton is marginal. And the person
that he's going to open a new business with is also marginal.
Would you like to direct us, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Well, you know, the issue is financial
responsibility is what the board is primarily focused on. And the
board is to be guided by the Florida Administrative Code, because
that's incorporated as the definitive statement in Collier County
ordinance.
And the financial responsibility grounds on which the board shall
refuse to qualify an applicant include -- one of them is failure to
submit any of the items, although the items have all been submitted.
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 his 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.
A determination by the board that the applicant lacks the
financial stability necessary to assure compliance with the standard set
forth that the public will not sustain economic loss resulting from the
contractor's inability to pay his lawful contractural obligations.
As guidelines for the determination of financial stability, the
board shall consider the applicant's responses to the questions set out
in the application and the applicant's credit history. The applicant's
history of bankruptcy is included in the statutory definition of
financial responsibility and shall be considered by the board; however,
the fact that an applicant has been or is a debtor in bankruptcy shall
not be the sole basis of the board's determination to deny the issuance
Page 34
._.._.,_,~".__"..,,__.__,__,,_....._._..e..,__
January 19,2005
of a license or a request for change of status. However, that was
amended by an opinion of the attorney general whereby the board may
not consider past or present bankruptcy of application for certification
as a contractor in determining whether to qualify applicant for
certification. That doesn't necessary apply to qualification.
MR. LEWIS: Question for Mr. Balzano, please.
What type of license is this?
And while you're looking in there, have we had any negative
reports against this license?
MR. BALZANO: He has a tile and marble license. And I do not
see any complaints against him.
MR. LEWIS: And how long has he been licensed? Sorry.
MR. BALZANO: Since June 2nd, 2001.
MR. LEWIS: Thank you. So the man's been in business since
2001, licensed since 2001, had no negative reports in this county, and
his credit report is not as bad as I've seen come through here. I don't
think I can support not denying it.
MR. GUITE': Is your primary residence in Cape Coral?
MR. MELTON: Yes, sir.
MR. GUITE': Do you have a Lee County license?
MR. MELTON: Yes, sir.
MR. GUITE': Shouldn't he be applying to Lee County for his
second entity and then come in here for his reciprocal?
MR. MELTON: Actually, I did that. But Rigoberto lives in
Collier County, so they won't give me anything in Lee County until I
get Collier County first.
I'm already pre-qualified in Lee to do the second business. I've
already gone through the board and everything, so I need to get this
one first.
MR. LEWIS: You're also a Collier County license, too.
MR. MELTON: Yes, sir.
MR. LEWIS: So he's applying for a Collier County license. It's
Page 35
".....""-_...~- -..._- -..-
January 19,2005
not a reciprocal.
MR. BOYD: Have you in fact filed for bankruptcy?
MR. MELTON: Yes, but it was over five years ago. It was as a
result of that accident I had in 1998, and it's been discharged for over
five years now.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to put the motion back
on the floor that we approve this. I have some reservations on it also,
because of the credit report. However, I don't believe that we really
have just cause to deny it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, you're going to have to wait.
I've got a motion already on the floor.
Any more discussion on the motion to deny, which has been
made and seconded?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I'll call for a vote on that
motion to deny the second entity. All those in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Say it again.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Five.
All those opposed?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Abstain?
MR. GUITE': I said aye to deny.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So I have a vote of5-3 (sic) to
deny.
You were close, but we're not going to let it go. What might help
you, this isn't the end of the road, is if your partner can clear up his
Page 36
January 19,2005
credit a little bit. Because some of it's very recent. Or maybe even a
financial partner.
MR. MELTON: I don't think I'll go that far. We'd probably just
wait and let him clean up his credit a little bit.
Now, as far as my credit, I mean, with it being bad marks over
five years old, that's not a consideration here, is it?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, it wasn't. And the credit report --
yes, and no. Some of it was. The credit report agreed with your 1998
date, but the charge-offs didn't show up until 2001. And it was a
substantial -- it's about $38,000.
MR. MELTON: Well, and even then, I mean, it -- you know,
what that was, it wasn't like I actually -- what it was was I had a
couple of cars that I let them have back. So, I mean, it's not like I -- I
mean, after they sold them and all--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The Harley Davidson showed as a
surrender. The cars didn't show that way.
MR. MELTON: Yeah. And that wasn't even a Harley; it was a
four-wheeler, only about $3,000.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The other thing that bothered me,
there's no credit report whatsoever, because apparently you don't have
credit through your corporation.
MR. MELTON: Well, now, even that, I'm surprised it shows like
that. I mean, I've got one credit card that I've had on the company for
about -- I guess about three years now and it's not showing up for
some reason. It's in my name, too. But I thought it was going to show
on the business account also, and it's not --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It didn't.
MR. MELTON: -- obviously.
MR. BLUM: It's in your name, it's you, it's not the business.
You can have your name as a business, but your name's on it, it's your
name only.
MR. MELTON: Now, also what 1--
Page 37
January 19,2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Clean the credit report up, get
something on the company, get that cleaned up. The other thing, you
should have something in here, since you have employees, or you
don't? .
MR. MELTON: I do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Then we should have had something
from your leasing company.
MR. MELTON: Okay, I could get that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There were -- you were all in the gray
area, that's why the vote was so close.
MR. BLUM: Has Mr. Rigoberto been in this field before,
himself?
MR. MELTON: Yeah, he's been installing for--
MR. BLUM: So he's an experienced guy for a while?
MR. MELTON: Um-hum.
MR. BLUM: Why doesn't he just take his own license? Take his
test.
MR. MELTON: I don't know exactly. The thing -- I mean, he's
MR. BLUM: Is it a language issue?
MR. MELTON: Yes, pretty much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's not a language issue anymore,
because we approved a company that does bilingual, does Spanish.
MR. MELTON: Oh, really?
MR. BLUM: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's the easiest way, him go take his
own test.
MR. MELTON: Okay.
MR. BLUM: And he's in Collier, he'll get it quick, pass the test
and go right to Lee and it's a done deal.
MR. MELTON: All right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It just takes a little more work. Good
Page 38
--,,--_..--'.,.._-'
January 19,2005
luck to you.
MR. MELTON: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Old business. David Markovitz, are you present?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Your letter, Mr. Ossorio? He's
dropped everything?
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. OSSORIO: Michael Ossorio, Collier County contractor
licensing.
I just want to read you a quick passage from last meeting. And it
says I personally think that the Pickens are going to have to -- $12,400
is going out the drain because it's not going to meet the repair back to
engineering (sic).
And Mr. Dickson, you're absolutely right, it wouldn't pass the
code and it would never pass engineering. He couldn't get engineering
for it. So he did the next best thing, he returned the money in good
faith.
But the problem is, we came up with a conflict of when you're --
you gave a pretty strict order and the order was, I'll read it to you real
quick: One, permit will be pulled by the resident within 15 days; 2,
six-month probation; 3, if the permit is not pulled within 15 days, all
permit pulling privileges and licenses be suspended; and 4, if the
permit is not C.O.'d within 60 days, privileges and licenses be
suspended.
Right now his license is suspended for good cause. But I think
that the board might want to reconsider to vacate the order, since the
money was returned and put back on the license as of active, and put
him on six months probation, but let him continue to do work, because
he did return the money to the homeowners. And they are satisfied as
well.
Page 39
---.,-,----,.~_-..._.,-_.
January 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does everybody remember this case?
It was a screen enclosure that was a cash deal.
MR. BESWICK: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which the homeowner was paying
cash, no receipts. There was some culpability on both parties, I
believe.
MR. BESWICK: Yeah, homeowner worked for the property
appraIser.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And I do see the check. I
assume the check is cleared, December 20th. You have --
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do we know if the check has cleared?
MR.OSSORIO: Yes, the homeowner's very satisfied and thanks
the board for its help. But Mr. Markovitz is still on -- we ordered him
to get a building permit and one could not be obtained and they settled
with the agreement of getting the $12,000 back. Which is reasonable,
I think Mr. Dickson will probably agree. But he's on suspension.
MR. JOSLIN: Right. I remember the motion.
MR. BLUM: And rightly so.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think Mr. Markovitz is very lucky.
How's the board feel? You want to -- so basically what you're
asking us, since he didn't pull the permit, if he hadn't done that within
six months, then his license would have been revoked. The county's
suggesting we remove that revocation order and change it to a
probation?
MR. OSSORIO: I would think so. Or just vacate the order itself.
Mr. Zachary?
MR. ZACHARY: That was my recommendation, either/or, since
he has repaid the money and it appears that the homeowner is
satisfied. He's still got the problem of having to get the permits or
having to do something to bring that work up to code. But at this
point, I think Mr. Markovitz's probably done all that he could do,
Page 40
--"--_._-----"-~~
January 19,2005
because he could not get the permit for that work that he did.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I think we all knew that he
wouldn't get the permitted.
MR. LEWIS: Question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. LEWIS: What happened to the screen room? Is it still
there?
MR. OSSORIO: Possibly--
MR. ZACHARY: Apparently, because the homeowner said that
he's assuming all responsibilities for obtaining the permits.
MR. OSSORIO: The screen enclosure wasn't really the issue.
So basically the homeowner got a free screen enclosure.
The problem is, is the lanai area, and what the definition of what
living space is and what's not living space, what's to code and what
electrical outlets you're going to have. And that came into play. And
Mr. Markovitz found the ways of what Mr. Dickson said, that it wasn't
going to pass the code and the roofing was going to be a problem. He
elected to go ahead and return the money. Which was rightfully so. It
should have been done in the first place. We would have ordered that
right from the beginning before the licensing board. But he didn't want
to. So obviously he came to his senses, but he's on probation and his
license has been suspended. So it's up to the board how they want to
handle it. Do they want to go ahead and return him back to active
status and put him on probation or say, you know, well, your had
chance and your license has been suspended.
MR. BLUM: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. BLUM: I remember this vividly, and I remember looking at
that picture where the roof meets the new lanai area. I can't imagine
this guy having the opportunity to go out and do that again. I just can't
conceive of it. And I can't in good conscious think that he may not.
By the same token, I don't want a guy not to be able to make a living
Page 41
...~,.,--
January 19,2005
who may be able to do decent work if he follows all the rules.
I wouldn't mind seeing this guy having 30 days at a time and we
watch him real close. But to give him carte blanche for six months to
go out there, I'm a little concerned with that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only thing is on the case that I
remember, and I've got something, Mr Ossorio, to address to county
also, is this individual, the license holder, was never really active on
the job. He just showed up when there was cash available. He was
subbing it out to someone else that he thought was qualified. So I
don't really have a problem with that.
Where I have a problem with the county is I want this screen
enclosure demolished, because -- and that's the whole purpose of the
permitting inspection process, so that this house isn't sold and turned
around and dumped on some poor unsuspecting soul. I want that
screen enclosure down.
MR. OS SO RIO: Okay. Well, like I said, we're in contractor
licensing business, we're not in code enforcement with private
property. But I will definitely make the case --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But something has been built without
a permit. It has to be demolished.
MR. OS SO RIO: And we will--
MR. NEALE: Yeah, but--
MR. OSSORIO: -- take steps for it.
MR. NEALE: -- this board has no power to require it.
MR. OSSORIO: I will --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but that is the way it works,
isn't it?
MR.OSSORIO: Yes, most definitely. I think in the letter it does
say that he is -- he's in the active business of trying to get a new
contractor in there to either repair it or rip it down and demolish it.
I will make a case with code and have code enforcement go to
talk to the homeowner to make sure that he is -- you know, gets the
Page 42
,___.~,;__;'_'_""'_"W_""'"
January 19,2005
job done within a reasonable amount of time.
MR. BLUM: Didn't we have code enforcement here that day?
Wasn't that gentleman here --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No.
MR. BLUM: -- that was -- no, it was the construction guy.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, the building inspector.
MR. BLUM: And he made it very clear that it wasn't even close
to being correct, right?
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I just don't want to get a call one day
and I go out to this house and it's that same thing still sitting there and
a different owner.
MR. OSSORIO: Might be a possibility. Unfortunately, it's really
not our jurisdiction.
MR. BLUM: You've had a lot--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But you'll make code enforcement
aware of it?
MR.OSSORIO: Yes, most definitely.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. BLUM: You've had a lot of contact with the owner, right?
MR.OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. BLUM: Directly, you personally?
MR.OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. BLUM: And I kind of sensed, from what I remember those
folks, that they're thrilled to death, they got something for nothing and
as far as they're concerned, it's okay, it works.
How are they going to feel -- let's just say code enforcement says
it's got to come down. Are they going to be happy with their $12,000
refund then? And who's going to pay to take it down and take it
away?
MR. BALZANO: You have to ask them that.
MR. BLUM: Well, yeah, you see where I'm going here, though.
Page 43
January 19, 2005
MR. LEWIS: I think if you'll refer to the letter that Mr. Pickens
wrote to the board, it basically says that he's assuming all
responsibilities, which includes code enforcement issues, of which Mr.
Ossorio's going to notify code enforcement, which I think relieves this
board of any further action.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right.
MR. LEWIS: He also assumes the responsibilities of obtaining
necessary permits to bring the structure up to code standards in a
timely manner. So I'm sure this letter will probably be forwarded as a
copy to code enforcement for their case.
So I think as far as we're concerned, we just need to address Mr.
Markovitz.
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: Under the circumstance, I think since Mr. Pickens
did make these comments, that we are pretty much obligated to
reinstate or take his license out of suspension.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, because the problem you have is you have
created an order which is impossible for the respondent to fulfill.
There is absolutely no way the respondent could possibly fulfill the
requirements of the order.
MR. JOSLIN: He's not bound to now by the--
MR. NEALE: By the original --
MR. JOSLIN: -- by the original complaint.
MR. NEALE: -- original complainant.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So do we need to vacate the order?
MR. NEALE: I think it's probably the -- I mean, what the board
can do is vacate the current order and impose an order whereby he will
operate under the supervision of this board for a period of time, which
is a -- one of the sanctions that may be imposed by this board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: I remember the order and I remember the motion.
Page 44
'''_'~>o__",..=_,,"'_~_~'"'-'''.
_..~,-
January 19, 2005
I made it. So I'm going to do that, I make a motion --
MR. NEALE: Yeah, the issue is -- and I wanted to make this
clear, too -- that being that Mr. Markovitz is not here, he should have
the opportunity to present testimony if the board is going to do
anything other than simply vacate the order. Because you would be
imposing sanctions to which he has not had the opportunity to
respond. And therefore, I believe that it would be in violation of his
due process rights.
MR. BESWICK: Was he notified.
MR. JOSLIN: He was notified, though.
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, he was notified. I talked to him this
morning. He said most definitely he would be here between 9:30 and
10:00.
MR. LEWIS: He also wrote in his letter January 12th, 2005 that
he is withdrawing his complaint, which I know he can't do at this
point, but that's an indication that he is satisfied with everything as it
IS.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, Mr. Pickens appears to be
completely satisfied.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you're saying we cannot impose a
probation?
MR. NEALE: Well, I mean, Mr. Markovitz -- we have no proof.
I mean, we have Mr Ossorio's testimony, but we have no proof that he
was advised that sanctions would be considered at this hearing. I don't
know what the notice was that he was given as to what's going on at
this hearing, so he really didn't have an opportunity to reply. So if the
board's going to do anything other than vacate it --
MR. BLUM: I recommend we wait--
MR. NEALE: -- I'd suggest that he be given an opportunity to
respond.
MR. BLUM: I recommend or make a motion, if it's appropriate,
that we table this until Mr. Markovitz can be here to understand the
Page 45
January 19,2005
full extent of the situation.
MR. NEALE: The problem is, he is still operating under an
impossible to comply with order, which has taken away his
opportunity to practice.
MS. KELLER: Well, he should come back to us and present the
situation, right?
MR. BLUM: Mr. Ossorio was led to believe he'd be here today.
He chose not to be here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's -- God, this is the second
time. Right now he can't pull a permit, so he can't do his livelihood,
and yet he's given $12,000 back to try to satisfy this.
MR. LEWIS: But he's also not here today. I mean, I think if it
was my license, I'd be present.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think he probably -- Mr. Ossorio, I
think after talking to you, he probably didn't think he had to be here,
did he?
MR. OSSORIO: I told him to be here between 9:30 and 10:00. I
didn't think it would be imperative, I thought it was going to be a --
something we could just discuss and go through. But I told him to be
here. I did not tell him not to be here. Either -- there might be some
problem with traffic, hopefully. I'll give him a call on his cell phone,
see where he's at and see if we can catch him on the rebound.
MR. NEALE: I also feel that -- and not to argue with Mr.
Ossorio or say anything, but if you have a county official tell you that
I don't think this is going to be any problem, so, you know, you try to
be there if you can, but if you can't, we'll take care of it. I don't know
whether he said that or not, but, you know, but we don't know what
the notice was.
MR. BLUM: That's not he said, Mr. Neale.
MS. KELLER: That's not what he said.
MR. BLUM: That's not what Mr. Ossorio said.
MR. NEALE: Or, that -- you know, because it appears that, you
Page 46
January 19, 2005
know, what was represented was that it was not going to be a major
issue, so, you know.
MR. LEWIS: And the other thing, I believe, correct me if I'm
wrong, Mr. Neale, we haven't notified him properly.
MR. NEALE: No.
MR. LEWIS: So, therefore, we really can't hear--
MR. NEALE: There has been no notice of this hearing,
officially.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But we could vacate the order right
now and be done with it.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MR. LEWIS: But it would --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I don't have any sympathy for,
you know, whoever has to tear this down, because there was some
problems on both sides.
MR. JOSLIN: Well, because he's not here, does that mean we
have to vacate the order at all?
MR. NEALE: No.
MR. JOSLIN : We can table it till next --
MS. KELLER: It's not really an issue now.
MR. BLUM: There's a motion.
MR. NEALE: I do have--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a motion?
MR. BLUM: Yeah, I made the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, you haven't got a second yet,
though.
MR. NEALE: I do have a problem --
MR. BLUM: My motion is that we table this until --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wait a minute. There's someone
talking.
MR. BLUM: I'm sorry.
MR. NEALE: You know, just -- I do have a problem with the
Page 47
January 19, 2005
imposition of the -- an impossible to comply with order taking away
someone's ability to practice their profession.
MR. BLUM: We made the order back in November, and it was
an impossible thing then, and everybody knew it, including him, and
everybody agreed to it. He was told by Mr. Ossorio to be here
between 9:30 and 10:00. He's not here.
We now have a situation that's again untenable. I don't see how
we can avoid it or vacate it without him here. And we certainly can't
agree to do sanctions or not do sanctions unless we talk to him. So it
seems to me we have a rock and a hard place deal here. I'm not
willing to let the guy go back in business just because he's not here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I have a motion to postpone
this till the next meeting and proper notice is given. Do I have a
second?
MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, all those in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I was doing hands. I'm not
voting.
All those opposed?
MR. GUITE': No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
So the vote is 6-2 to postpone to the next meeting and give proper
notice.
Okay, Mr. Ossorio?
Moving on.
MR. OSSORIO: That's fine.
Page 48
_ _..m__~"____·
January 19, 2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sir? Okay.
Case No. 2004-04, Deborah Kucko, versus Charlie C. Willey,
d/b/a B&W Asphalt Paving and Sealcoat.
Are the parties here?
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And you're representing Mr.
Willey?
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
I'm David Bryant, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. This is
Mr. Willey, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And Deborah Kucko? Okay, if you'd
come forward. With the county.
Just so we have an understanding -- I know you've been before
this board before, but so they understand -- we are quasi judicial in the
respect that we do accept hearsay. It is somewhat informal, there is
some procedures.
What we will start out, the county will represent you, and the
county will speak for you. You will basically be -- it is Collier
County that's bringing this complaint on your behalf. You will
probably, I'm sure, be called as a witness.
And we'll start out with the county making an opening statement
and Mr. Willey's representation will also make an opening statement.
Then the county will present their case. You will be allowed to
cross-examine any witnesses. Then you'll make your case. They will
have the same privilege of cross-examination. And then we will have
closing statements.
Once this all happens, you will see us close the public hearing.
The public hearing will be closed. We may call upon you to ask a
couple of questions, but basically you'll just hear us deliberate. And
then after we do that, we'll make a motion and rule on the case.
Any questions?
MS. KUCKO: No.
Page 49
-..---
January 19,2005
MR. BRYANT: If you're completed, Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a motion, for purposes of the record. I'm going to object to this
board hearing this matter.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. BRYANT: And the reason is, and Mr. Neale has mentioned
this in several other cases while we've been waiting today, it's because
of a matter of due process. And I'm surprised that this issue hasn't
come up before, but I feel compelled to raise it. And I raised it in my
letter, initial letter to the county and the investigator.
I know the board is provided a package of information prior to
coming here today. That information includes observations by the
county, comments about what they believe people have said. It's their
case.
I submit to this board, that is a total denial of due process. And
the reason I say that is because that's no different than when I was an
assistant state attorney, I sent the jury all of my evidence and then they
came and listened to the case.
You ladies and gentlemen are sitting as finders of fact in this
matter. By already having the information and the county's position
and the county's spin, if you would, on this case, you are predisposed.
I'm not saying you would not try very hard to make a very
learned, very rational, very correct decision. Because I've listened to
you for over an hour, and I've heard many of you before this meeting,
and I know you try to do that. I mean, I was very impressed with the
way you were trying to handle the problem with the aluminum
hurricane shutter issue. So I know you would do the same with my
client.
But I feel compelled to object to this process, and I submit to this
board, that process should not be allowed to be used. You should
receive the information and the testimony from this podium or that
podium at the hearing, not before you get here.
And there are three cases that I've got that specifically speak
Page 50
,-~--
January 19,2005
about due process, and it talks about evidence adduced at the hearing.
Specifically, the first case is -- and these are older cases, but it goes to
due process and it goes to hearings such as this board is sitting. And
as Mr. Dickson said quite correctly, as a quasi judicial board. Because
you're going to make decisions that are penal in nature. That's why
due process is very important and it be observed.
The first case is Powell vs. the Board of Public Instruction of
Levy County. This is a First District Court of Appeal case, and the
issue was whether or not the school teacher was provided due process
and notice of hearing at the hearing.
The court said, "It has long been recognized by the courts of this
state that administrative hearings conducted by state boards and
agencies are of an informal character and not governed by the strict or
technical rules of evidence or procedure. It is sufficient that the party
involved is informed with reasonable certainty of the nature of the
charges against him, has a reasonable opportunity to defend himself,
and the proceedings are conducted in a fair and impartial manner."
The board went on -- the court went on and said, "Due process,
as well as the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act,
dictates that the agency's final action" -- and that's what this board is
doing, its final agency action -- "be reduced to writing, contain
findings of facts based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and
specifically state the charges which the agency finds to have been
sustained. "
And I submit to this board, that is exactly what is being violated
here because you have already received the county's case. It's not the
evidence that you're hearing in this room.
And if any of you have ever been in a courtroom, the judge didn't
get the state's case before you went there, or the judge didn't get in a
civil matter the case before you went there. The judge or the jury
heard the evidence at the hearing, not before.
And I find that this has been a violation that this board has been
Page 51
January 19, 2005
led to allow to do for a long time. And I'm surprised that nobody else
has raised this issue.
But there's another case called Deal Motors versus Department of
Commerce. And this is kind of like the leading case --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What was the date of your first case
law? You say it's First District Florida?
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir. It's -- if you'd like the cite again, I can
give it to you.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, could I get copies of these?
MR. BRYANT: Sure. Yeah, I'll be more than glad to give Mr.
Neale copies of them.
It's Powell versus the Board of Public Instruction. And, Mr.
Neale, it is at 229 Southern Reporter Second, Page 308. And it's a
First District Court of Appeals case. Most of these cases are always
going to be First District Court of Appeals cases.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What I wanted was the year.
MR. BRYANT: Oh, the year? It was 1970. And like the
constitution, it's old but it still functions.
And I know this case is a 1970 case, and I've sheperdized these
cases to get these cases, because this goes back to what -- and this was
the beginning of really the Administrative Procedures Act and the
beginning of due process being applied to hearings such as this, and
the Administrative Procedures Act being created for the State of
Florida.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Before you get to that second case,
since we are quasi, let me make a comments as chairman of the board,
and then I'm going to let Mr. Neale respond after you.
MR. BRYANT: And I don't mean to belabor this issue.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, I know. But just so you
understand, several points. Number one, most of us don't read these
packets before we get here. I purposely will not read cases before I
get here so that I am impartial.
Page 52
,.,.~.,--"-_.~,,_.>..-
January 19,2005
Number two, we usually hear some type of objection from
representation from the other parties and not the contractor because
the majority of the time we're accused of being contractor friendly.
The makeup of this board is nine members, of which six are
contractors with licenses. And three are consumers, which are totally
impartial.
So -- and thirdly, at all of our rulings we realize the livelihood of
the contractor, we realize the problem. So that's usually not the case.
This is the first time it's been brought up on your side of the room.
MR. BRYANT: And I appreciate that, Mr. Dickson, and I
wrestled with that issue, because I appreciate the makeup of the board.
But by the same token, if I don't raise this issue now and make a
record of it, I can't raise it later.
And you can ask Mr. Neale that, and he will tell you exactly
that's the case. So if I don't do it, I waive it. So if something should
come to pass that this board is not of a persuasion to believe my client
everything right -- because we believe he did everything right -- I
want to have that issue that I can raise. Because I think it's a
fundamental issue that the board has been allowed to participate in.
And I don't tell you it's your fault; it's the fault that you haven't
had this issue come up before, the county look into it and say due
process says you've got to hear the evidence at the hearing. Whether
you read it or not. And I respect your position on that, Mr. Dickson.
And I know that's the kind of person you are. But that's not the issue.
The issue is did that information go out and was there an opportunity
to review that information.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, go ahead with your next case
law.
MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment also,
please?
Mr. Bryant, just to -- for your information, in our packet is your
letter dated February 9th, 2004 to Mr. Hoopingarner over at the
Page 53
"--+'-'_~-"'''''''''_'--'.' ."'-, ~,.., ._---~_.._"_.
January 19, 2005
licensing compliance officer, which is your response to the complaint.
MR. BRYANT: That's exactly what --
MR. LEWIS: So in the packet that the county has presented to us
is not only their case but yours also or at this point your response to
the case.
MR. BRYANT: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Lewis, and I know
that's in the package, because I got a copy of it from the county. They
were kind enough to provide that to me.
But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not any of that
package, my information or the county's, should have gone to the
board.
MR. LEWIS: Duly noted, thank you.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, sir.
Deal Motors versus the Department of Commerce at 252
Southern Second, 389 stands for the same proposition. And Deal is
quoted numerous times, and I'll just read in short order what it says.
"It is contemplated that the order to be entered will be based on
competent and substantial evidence adduced by the parties, consisting
of sworn testimony of witnesses and properly authenticated
documents, bearing the required indicia of credibility. "
And if you note that the word constantly is adduced at the
hearing.
The last case is my McCully Ford versus Calvin, and that's at 308
Southern Second, 189.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also the year?
MR. BRYANT: It's another -- it's 1975, and that's also a First
District case.
The reason most of these cases are always heard in the First
District Court of Appeals, is because all administrative matters are
automatically appealed to the first DCA. That's a requirement.
If you have a department of professional regulation issue and you
get cried by them, you appeal that case, it automatically goes to the
Page 54
"----~_..
January 19, 2005
First DCA in Tallahassee. And all agency issues go to the First DCA
in Tallahassee.
And the last case they also cited Powell versus Board of Public
Instruction, that I talked about earlier, and it again uses the same
language: "Contains findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced
at the hearing."
And in all due respect to this board -- and I very much appreciate
your listening to my observations and my objection. And like I said, I
wanted to make that for the record, because I just don't think this
procedure is correct. And I think that it's a matter that ought to be
looked at carefully.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, duly noted.
And so that everyone understands -- I guess Mr. Willey, you'd be
the only one -- Mr. Neale represents -- this is the attorney representing
the board. Mr. Zachary is the attorney with the county.
And I don't know which procedure I should go here, but I want to
hear from both of you. I don't know who should go first.
MR. ZACHARY: Well, I'll start out. I wasn't prepared today for
a debate on due process, but I appreciate the -- Mr. Bryant's
observation that if he does not raise the issue now, make an objection
now, that he's lost that. And should he take this on appeal, it's an
unfavorable ruling from the board. So procedurally, I understand that.
As far as our procedure, I think it affords due process to the, for
lack of a better word, the defendant or the respondent in the case in
that we are an open public hearing and we provide him this packet as
well as anything else that the county has as far as the case.
I think this procedure -- we've used this procedure for quite a
while and I think it meets the requirements for due process. And I
note his obj ection.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And would you not agree that not
knowing that this was going to be brought up, you haven't had a
chance to look at case law supporting your side?
Page 55
January 19,2005
MR. ZACHARY: Well, that's exactly the case.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right. Which I'm sure there is some
case law in that respect also.
MR. ZACHARY: I'm sure that there is. That would take, you
know, more than three minutes to research.
MR. BRYANT: I would respectfully suggest to the board that
you're not going to find any cases. And I know Mr. Zachary is an
outstanding attorney, but I don't think he's going to find one that says
that an individual is not entitled to due process.
And I think another thing that the board should look at as kind of
an example, there's a specific statute on conduct of hearings for code
enforcement board hearings, which is what this board is kind of like
acting, except you're a contractor licensing board.
And Section 162.07 of the Florida Statutes specifically says an
enforcement board shall proceed to hear the cases on that agenda for
that day. All testimony shall be under oath and shall be recorded. The
enforcement board shall take testimony from the code inspector and
alleged violator. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but
fundamental due process shall-- not permissive, mandatory -- shall be
observed and shall govern the proceedings.
And I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen of the board, that the
code enforcement board sits exactly the same as you do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, it's all interesting, but to
me all the objection really does is maybe postpone this hearing till
next month. Do you have comments?
MR. NEALE: Well, I have a few comments. Number one, I
certainly respect Mr. Bryant and his arguments, and I do concur with
Mr. Zachary that, you know, I'm sure they're brought forth at an
appropriate time. And I think this was the right time to bring them
and he is preserving an objection that needs to be preserved.
Specifically within the Collier County code there is reference
made to Florida Statute 125.01, which is the authority to adopt
Page 56
January 19,2005
business regulations, but also within our ordinance, in the codified
version, under Section 22-202, sub-paragraph G(5) regarding the
contract -- conduct of hearing, it does say that -- and exactly mirrors
the language in Section 162.07 that formal rules of evidence shall not
apply, but fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and
shall govern in proceedings. So that is specifically the rules set out for
this board.
And one thing that I guess I would say in this case is we're
arguing over what the definition of fundamental due process is. It's
not an issue that I have researched or had the opportunity to brief
before this board, so I'm not prepared to -- and having not read any of
these cases, I would not want to give the board advice on what appears
to be a reasonable argument, but one that I think is not accurate in the
terms of the way this board does conduct its hearing.
Because one of the aspects of due process, and one that we've
actually gotten obj ections from attorneys for respondents before, is
that the complaint, as provided, doesn't provide them enough
information to respond to, because it should be noted that the
respondent gets exactly the same packet you get and at the same basic
time you do and is given the opportunity to respond to all of that
within there.
Further, the respondent also -- and we've had this come in front
of this board numerous times, where the respondent has received the
packet, had a hearing scheduled two weeks later and has requested for
an extension of time so that they can further prepare. This board has
typically granted those type of extensions in order that adequate
preparation is made.
So my gut, as opposed to my lawyer, my lawyerliness, says that I
believe this board has complied with all aspects of fundamental due
process.
That said, it is still an issue that I would feel more comfortable in
researching and coming to the board with an official opinion prior to
Page 57
January 19,2005
the conduct of the hearing. Because if in fact it is my opinion at that
point in time that Mr. Bryant's position is correct, I will so advise the
board and we would change the procedure.
I do not believe that's the result I would end up with, but I know
that this board likes to be cautious, and to make sure that it operates
under the strictest of guidelines. And so I guess I would recommend to
the board at this point that we continue this matter until the next
regularly scheduled hearing in order that Mr. Zachary and I may both
have the opportunity to research the issue and come up with an
opinion -- with two opinions, independent of one another -- as to the --
Mr. Bryant's argument.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And I concur, bec~use Mr.
Bryant, I know you, you're excellent counsel. And in my 14 some
years on this board, we've never had a case reversed or even appealed,
and I don't want to start today. And you'd be just the guy that could do
it.
MR. BRYANT: That's kind of you, Mr. Dickson.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So -- but that would be -- my response
is I want to postpone this till next month when you have -- both of you
have a chance to research this issue and make sure we do follow due
process.
My only question is, if we postpone till next month to give you a
chance to research the issue, we don't really satisfy the due process
that Mr. Bryant is asking about, which is an opportunity for him to
supply us packets previously. Or am I misreading what you want?
MR. BRYANT: I appreciate where you're going, Mr. Dickson,
but that's not the gist of what my -- the core part, the seminole part of
my argument is. My argument is that nobody should be supplying this
board evidence. The evidence should come out at the hearing, just
like it does in the courthouse across the way. It should not be evidence
that's sent to the judges, if you would, because you're all sitting as
triers of fact. Whether you're sitting on a jury or you're sitting as this
Page 58
_~,_~,..o..,+o...·.·,_ ,._'"_._..·....,.o,_____~~__
January 19, 2005
administrative board.
So what I'm saying is this procedure should change. You should
have your hearings, you should have the government come in, put
their case on, the defense has their opportunity to cross-examine,
present their defense, and then you make the decision based upon the
evidence, as the cases said, adduced at the hearings, this being the
hearing.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Bryant, I only have one question for you.
And I'll just for the matter of record, Mr. Bryant's does several --
many, many -- work for my own corporation that I own. However, I
do have a question with this, what you're asking.
If you have a copy of this packet in which you're telling us that
we received, which we did, and I did read it, I have a certified mail
receipt here that was date October 4th, 2004, in which it clearly stated
a letter written to Mr. Willey who filed a complaint from Mrs. Schucyl
(phonetic). And it clearly stated in this packet that you would receive
composite exhibits to be delivered to members of the contractor
license board one week prior to the hearing.
So you were notified due process that we were going to have a
copy of this contract.
MR. BRYANT: Mr. Joslin, all due respect, that is not the issue.
The issue is whether or not you got a packet at all. And I objected to
your receiving a packet in my initial letter to the investigator. And I
object to you receiving packets in any case --
MR. JOSLIN: I understand that--
MR. BRYANT: -- but specifically mine.
MR. JOSLIN: But this is your -- the reasoning for your
statements now, though, is that you feel as though the board should
not receive any information at all regarding any case that we are going
to hear until the date of the hearing.
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir, that's exactly right.
MR. JOSLIN: I understand.
Page 59
,----.,.
-,-.,,----.--.. .,"'-,"'
.,.,-'_.~-----_.._'-
January 19, 2005
Now, is this a reasonable matter of law for you to change the
proceedings of how we're going to manage the board? Which I can
understand that, I'm grateful for your comments. Or is this to put this
case on a hold for the moment and then have the same packet
delivered or presented to us next month when we hear this case again
and now we've already seen the case?
MR. BRYANT: And now you've hit another point of -- another
part of the issue. You really can't hear this case, because you have
already heard the case by receiving the information.
That's what's fundamentally, I submit to you, wrong with this
procedure. It's no different -- if you sit and think about it, if you ever
had a ticket, and most of us have been to traffic court. How was the
case presented? The deputy comes in and testifies. He doesn't write
the judge a letter and say Dear Judge, Mr. Joslin was doing 65 in a 30
and I think this is what you ought to do. And I submit to you, it's the
exact same scenario.
MS. KELLER: You know, I as a board member, I consider
myself an ally of the contractors licensing office. And so right there I
have a bias, because I support them. And I sort of look at how we look
at these cases, where we can support them in enforcing the -- because
basically what they're doing is filing a complaint against somebody.
And so we're just giving them support in helping them decide what
should happen to that person. So it's not really like an independent
court, per see
MR. BRYANT: But it is, Ms. Keller.
MS. KELLER: So--
MR. BRYANT: You're sitting as a quasi judicial. And what that
means is you're not a judge technically, but you're quasi judges.
And you should not have the attitude, I'm trying to support them.
You should walk into this room and hear the evidence and make
the decision based upon the evidence that you hear, not with the
preconceived idea that I'm here to try to support one side or the other,
Page 60
January 19, 2005
whether it was my side or their side. And if you came in trying to
support my side, I'd love that, just like I'm sure they do.
And I appreciate your being that candid, too.
MS. KELLER: Well, I mean, that's something that, you know,
when I look at my role here, Mr. Neale, I'd like to get some input as to
how I am supposed to view -- if I didn't have a bias.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. And it's -- you know, I try to make it clear
when I give the charge to the board at the time of every hearing, is that
the board is to be a completely impartial finder of fact. That you must
entertain your deliberations -- and this is directly from what I read to
the board, that fundamental fairness and due process have been
afforded to the defendant; that the board shall exclude from its
deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony; that the
board must be a fair and unbiased finder of fact. It cannot have a --
come in with a bias.
Because, I mean, everybody comes in with some bias.
MR. BALZANO: Mr. Chairman?
MR. NEALE: We as lawyers like to come up with the fiction
that there is no bias, but we admit that people do.
But the rule is that there is to be no bias, that the board is to come
in with an open mind and only decide -- and we say that very clearly,
that the board is only to decide on the evidence presented to you, not
to decide on anything else.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Balzano?
MR. BALZANO: The very few times that we've had cases in
here regarding state license contractors, and we have found them to be
at fault, and we report that to the Department of Business and
Professional Regulators. They always call us and request all the
information we have on the case. So they're getting it before they hear
the trial because they --
MR. BRYANT: That's not the case, Mr. Balzano. And
respectfully, I disagree with you, because I prosecuted for DPR for
Page 61
January 19, 2005
seven years all over Florida, as you know. It goes to a probable cause
panel. That probable cause panel sits, like you're sitting, and listens to
what the government's case is. Three members of each board is
designated as the probable cause panel. Those three members hear the
case, only put on the government. Then they make a determination
whether or not there's probable cause to go forward with the
prosecution. If they determine that they do, the probable cause panel
members are not allowed to sit as the triers of fact at the board
hearing.
Because I've presented those cases to the probable cause panel
and I've prosecuted cases before the Department of Professional
Regulation all over Florida.
And Mr. Balzano didn't know that, I'm sure, but that's the way
the procedure works. And the reason is, is so those individuals that
hear the governments position to determine whether or not there is
probable cause, are not tainted by what they've heard when then they
sit in judgment of the licensee.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gotcha.
MR. BALZANO: May I finish what I was saying before I was
interrupted?
MR. BRYANT: I'm sorry.
MR. BALZANO: The attorney that represents the Department of
Business and Professional Regulators in Tallahassee will contact us to
send to him all the information, a copy of the case and your finding of
fact, conclusion of law to your office. That's all I'm saying.
MR. BRYANT: That's exactly--
MR. BALZANO: They have it before they have their hearing is
what I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Please. Mr. Bryant?
MR. NEALE: Yeah, but that's -- and if I may, just for the board
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let Mr. Balzano finish.
Page 62
January 19,2005
MR. BALZANO: We passed these out because we were told--
I've been here 10 years -- by the county attorney that we were to
deliver these packets to the board members. This isn't something we
came up with.
And I was on code enforcement before I came to contractor
licensing, and I believe they deliver packets to their members before
the hearings also. So I'm sure that came from the county attorney's
office in that we supply the respondent or his attorney with a copy of
the case also. So he has a copy of the case, as a matter of fact, most of
the time before you do. But they get one. And if they wish to
respond, we will deliver their package to you, which we do.
MR. NEALE: And if I may make two points, and one is to
distinguish what Mr. Balzano said about, you know, the delivery of a
packet to the state, because what you may not know is that every time
we issue an order here, that this board issues an order regarding
someone's license that is state registered or certified, a copy of that
goes to the state contractor licensing board, the order does, with a
letter from me saying here's the recommendation. That's why the
board has to make a recommendation to the state board.
In my letter I state here's the recommendation we have made, that
the Board of County -- that the Contractor Licensing Board of Collier
County has made regarding this person's registration or certification.
That, which Mr. Balzano says, then they request the full packet.
But that goes to the attorney for the board; that does not go to the
board.
I don't personally know where it goes from there, but it would be
like someone sending Mr. Zachary a packet, as opposed to sending it
direct to the board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. BRYANT: And those are --
MR. NEALE: Further -- just further, one other point. And I
think from my point of view, being counsel for this board and having
Page 63
January 19, 2005
been counsel for this board for a long time, what Mr. Bryant suggests
is something that potentially could be -- create a major change within
the operation of not just this board but all quasi judicial boards in
Collier County and, frankly, throughout the state.
MR. BRYANT: I don't know what they do throughout the rest of
the state.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, I don't either, and that's something that --
MR. BRYANT: I'm not worried about it.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, and he's worried about his client and what's
going on in Collier County.
You know, one of the things -- and this is one of the dilemmas
that we're going to have to research and resolve -- is that state law
which governs decisions which affect substantial interests, which is
Section 120.57, "Except for any hearing before an unemployment
compensation appeals attorney -- referee, a short and plain statement
of the matters asserted by the agency and by all parties of record at the
time notice is given." This is one of the things that's required to be
provided.
And one of the things that is required in due process is that the
respondent know that the -- what the charges are that are being
brought in some plain statement, so they can respond to those charges.
Now, what we're going to have to research is what's enough
information to allow counsel for the respondent to prepare an adequate
defense, but not so much information that the board is predisposed?
MR. BRYANT: And I agree --
MR. NEALE: Or the -- and I'm postulating here, and this is to
something I'm not willing to put forth -- or does there need to be a
bifurcated packet, one supplied -- a larger packet supplied to the
county and to the respondent, and a bare bones packet provided to the
board.
And those are things that certainly I'm going to be busy doing
over the next month, I guess.
Page 64
January 19,2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm going to allow one more
comment, and then I'm going to put an end to this. Go ahead.
MR. BLUM: My feeling is that it's quite obvious that Mr. Bryant
doesn't want to allow us to hear the case, and he's put forth his reasons
for not hearing it.
If we allow him to stop us from hearing the case, it puts in
jeopardy everything else we've ever heard and it raised the question
how do we proceed.
We have a statute, we have a mandate, we have rules that we're
governed by, we have statutes that Mr. Neale presents. We're quasi
judicial, we all knew that. My feeling is we do what we're supposed
to do and if he doesn't like the result, he knows what the legal
recourses are.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, here's the point. As Chairman,
I'm going to suggest -- I'm going to ask for a motion from this board
that we postpone it till next month. Because the county provides us an
attorney to protect their interests, they provide us an attorney to
protect the board's interest, and as a board we should never go against
their advice. And they both have told us to postpone it for one month,
which I suggest we do, but also tell the county and Mr. Bryant and his
client to be prepared to hear this case next month. Because if I get the
go from our representation, we're going to hear this case.
MR. BRYANT: And I appreciate that, Mr. Dickson.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And then you can do whatever you
want after that. But to sit here and continue to have -- this has been
the most frustrating meeting.
MR. BRYANT: I'm sorry we were at the end.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, you were at the end of it, but you
saw how it started.
MR. BRYANT: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And now I've got to go back to the
beginning.
Page 65
~~,-_._~
·'·_"".·'~__·._.."_>W" .
January 19, 2005
So at this point, would someone please give me a motion to
postpone this hearing until next month and we hear from legal
counsel.
MR. JOSLIN: I would make the motion. I just want to hear one
last time from the county attorney, Mr. Neale? Mr. Neale, is this your
recommendation as of what you're speaking of today, that we should
table this motion until next month?
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: I make the motion that we continue this--
MR. GUITE': I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll see you next month, gentlemen.
MR. BRYANT: And I greatly appreciate your listening to me
and your candor and your observations and your comments.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It was interesting.
N ow we get to go back to more frustration. We have a motion on
the floor that has been seconded. And if I -- I don't even know that we
can summarize the motion. But basically the motion was -- okay,
coming through on Mics -- oh, I'm sorry. Mrs. Kuck?
MR. KUCK: May I go?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, Mrs. Kuck. Sorry for all the--
this wasn't us, this was legal maneuvering.
MR. KUCK: That's fine. I'll see you next month.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Interesting.
Page 66
~. -.-.-.~..._.,.",,-,..<...,"_..,.,,-,....,-
January 19,2005
The motion was that we grant 180-day waiver of additional
testing for aluminum contractors to secure a hurricane shutter
contractor license. Did I get that right?
MR. NEALE: Yeah. If I can read back sort of my notes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And the two issues now at
hand are, one, do they have to do a full packet to include an inch and a
half application for someone who's been in business 15 years to
include credit reports and everything; and then the second issue was,
are we going to make a definition between hurricane shutters and
security shutters.
MR. NEALE: I guess this is not a legal comment, but sort of a if
I were sitting in your seat comment. If I had the opportunity to review
a whole bunch of contractors just to make sure they're really -- in your
role as contractor license board, just to make sure they really are --
still do have good credit reports and are operating well and don't have
any complaints and everything, I might want to take a shot at that.
MR. BALZANO: Would you like to come in the office and sit
there with the girls?
MR. NEALE: Well, I mean, I'm just -- that's solely -- as I say,
that's not legal advice, that's just a -- you know, a question posed to
the board.
MR. JOSLIN: In a sense, isn't that a perfect opportunity to be
able to check on some of these people that are possibly unlicensed,
.possibly out there doing work? That are -- that's not right.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, that's my suggestion. You know,
that's not legal advice, that's just sort of a --
MR. BALZANO: How are we going to find them?
MR. NEALE: -- an observation made.
MR. JOSLIN : Well, you have copies of their licenses on file for
every licensed aluminum contractor in town and you have the dates
they were licensed, and you have all the information in that computer.
MR. BALZANO: So why would that tell you who's unlicensed?
Page 67
January 19,2005
MR. JOSLIN: It won't. But it's going to at least give you
updated reports on people that have credit reports that may be --
MR. BALZANO: Would you want to file another packet?
MR. JOSLIN: I just did two months ago. I got a new license,
Mr. Balzano. And you want to see it? It's--
MR. BALZANO: There had to be a reason.
MR. JOSLIN: It's a brand new one, okay?
MR. NEALE: And if I may make a point to the board--
MR. JOSLIN: There are some people that are bad out there.
MR. NEALE: All of these license holders would have had to file
a new packet two years ago anyhow. So they've essentially gotten a
two-year reprieve from filing a new packet. I mean, the ordinance
was pretty clear that all they got was a waiver of the testing
requirement.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good point.
MR. NEALE: Further, our ordinance, Collier County ordinance,
makes a very clear definition, at least of what hurricane shutters are.
And it says that hurricane shutters and awnings are those that are
designed to protect residential and commercial buildings from
hurricane and storm force winds and wind-borne debris all in
accordance with Collier County amendments to be applicable building
code, as amended from time to time.
That appears to have been put in there to clearly distinguish them
from quote, unquote, security shutters.
MR. BLUM: I think we covered this already.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I know. The water was getting
so muddy, we had to move on. I just didn't know we were going
deeper in the mud regarding other subjects.
So have we answered all the questions? This was discussion
phase. We have a motion and a second on the floor.
MR. NEALE: I can sort of run through the pieces of the motion
Page 68
January 19,2005
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you, please?
MR. NEALE: That the Contractor Licensing Board would
delegate to staff the administrative authority to waive the requirement
for all aluminum contractors, including concrete, and aluminum
contractors who are licensed prior to May 14th, 2003. That waiver
would be subject to approval by the board at the next regularly
scheduled board meeting after the waiver was granted on a consent
agenda basis.
There would be a six-month termination date on this waiver
position -- provision that a temporary license would be given to the
contractors who met the administrative review, during the time
between the time they filed the application with the contractor
licensing staff and the next Contractor Licensing Board meeting.
Assuming they met the requirements -- that they were administratively
approved.
And that all aluminum, including concrete and aluminum
contractors must apply for a new license but have the waiver of the
application requirement -- of the testing requirement.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only correction I'll make to that is
we did not put the May date in the motion. Specifically we left it out
because there's been contractors that have come in after that May date
and were told that the only license they had to have was the aluminum
contractor license. Which some of them have been doing hurricane
shutters after that date under that license. So we included all of them,
okay?
Any other corrections?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a motion on the floor, I have a
second. All those in favor?
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
Page 69
January 19,2005
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Done. Six months, 30-day reporting.
After six months, they're on their own.
I know we put a lot of work on county, Mr. Balzano. I apologize.
But we had to correct something that happened a couple of years ago.
MR. BALZANO: I still don't agree with it, but--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah.
MR. BALZANO: Because we did the same thing with paving
blocks, we added that as a test, but we still have people that are
masonry contractors put down masonry stones, paving units, because
it's a masonry product. We didn't make them get another license. We
just made the people that applied for a current license to get a paver
block license.
And that's what we as staff believe happened with the aluminum,
that the people that just wanted to do shutters could take just the
shutter exam, but the aluminum contractors could continue to operate
as they had. We did not even -- this is almost like the longshoreman's
insurance. You could have shot me when Mr. Neale came up with --
MR. BLUM: Don't go there.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But at the same time, it also helped
those contractors, I think, in regards to the guys that are just doing
hurricane shutters can't do aluminum -- well, that doesn't make sense
either. Enough.
Is there any -- any reports?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Fun meeting, huh?
Page 70
. ",.~".."...>._~,._- ......
January 19, 2005
Can I have a final motion?
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion to adjourn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Motion to adjourn. Second?
MR. BESWICK: Second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All in favor.
MR. BLUM: Aye.
MR. LEWIS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. BESWICK: Aye.
MS. KELLER: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Folks, March 16th is the next
meeting.
MR. NEALE: No February meeting?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: February 16th.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County,
the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :00 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
LES DICKSON, Chairman
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY
COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE'
NOTTINGHAM.
Page 71