CLB Minutes 10/17/2018 October 17,2018
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
October 17, 2018
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing
Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in
REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor, Collier County
Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Chairman: Michael Boyd
Members: Terry Jerulle
Richard Joslin
Robert Meister
Matthew Nolton
Patrick White
Excused: Kyle Lantz, Vice Chair
Absent: Gerard Shannon
ALSO PRESENT:
Everildo Ybaceta— Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Kevin Noell, Esq. — Assistant Collier County Attorney
Jed Schneck, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Reggie Smith — Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer
Jack Gumph — Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer
1
CoeT County
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
AGENDA
OCTOBER 17, 2018
9:00 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CHAMBERS
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH
THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL:
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. SEPTEMBER 19, 2018
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A.
VI. DISCUSSION:
A.
VII. REPORTS:
A. YEAR END REPORTS FROM OCTOBER 1, 2017-SEPTEMBER 30, 2018
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. ORDERS OF THE BOARD
B. RICHARD MCBRIDE-WAIVER OF EXAM BASED UPON EXPERIENCE
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
A. JEFFREY BUMPUS- NORTHERN BREEZE - EXPIRED PERMITS UPDATE
X. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CASE: 2018-09-ANDREW WOOD-MISCONDUCT OF A STATE CERTIFIED CONTRACTOR
B. CASE:2018-10-STEPHEN BOWLES- MISCONDUCT OF A STATE CERTIFED CONTRACTOR
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE:
NO MEETING IN NOVEMBER
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2018
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
THIRD FLOOR IN COMMISSIONER'S CHAMBERS
3299 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
October 17,2018
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the
proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which any Appeal is to be made.
I. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Michael Boyd opened the meeting at 9:02 AM and read the procedures to be
followed to appeal a decision of the Board.
Roll Call was taken; a quorum was established; six (6) voting members were present.
II. AGENDA- ADDITIONS, CHANGES, OR DELETIONS:
Deletions:
• Under Item X, "Public Hearings," the County WITHDREW the following:
B. Case 2018-10: Board of County Commissioners vs. Stephen Bowles—
Misconduct of a State-certified Contractor
Everildo Ybaceta, Supervisor—Contractors' Licensing Office, stated the County will
reschedule the case.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Richard Joslin offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 19,2018
Richard Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the September 19, 2018 Meeting as
submitted. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
V. PUBLIC COMMENT:
(None)
VI. DISCUSSION:
(None)
VII. REPORTS:
A. Year-End Report: Fiscal Year October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018
Everildo Ybaceta stated:
• The first page indicated the number of open cases
o 1,173 cases were opened by Staff
o 970 cases have been closed
2
October 17,2018
Mr. Ybaceta provided additional details:
• 301 Citations were issued
• The total amount of fees collected was $314,400.00
• The Financial Report contained several categories:
o License renewals
o New applications
o Fees collected
Patrick White requested clarification of the $314,400, i.e., what was included in the
figure?
Everildo Ybaceta stated the figure included the fines collected from the Citations.
Richard Joslin inquired about the status of the remaining 203 open cases.
Everildo Ybaceta replied the cases were "still running."
Mr. Ybaceta continued, noting the Report included a breakdown of the newly-
licensed Contractors. The total was 1,393 of which 377 were Specialty Contractors.
The number of Contractors was broken down in categories of trades.
Patrick White stated he was trying to calculate the percentage of growth and asked
what was the number of renewals.
Everildo Ybaceta replied he did not have an exact figure for the total number of
renewals but stated the County was using an estimate of 7,900 with approximately
1,000 others that were either delinquent or inactive.
Terry Jerulle: You added 350 new General Contractors in Collier County in the last
year?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir.
Terry Jerulle: How many were there before? Do you have any idea?
Everildo Ybaceta: I didn't go back because the year before last was a crazy year
because of the Hurricane ("Irma"). The numbers may be a little skewed.
Terry Jerulle: You added 306 Roofing Contractors?
Patrick White: My guess is there's going to be a large overlap between the new and
the inactive/delinquent.
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir. For the following months, if you wish, I can run the
Report again and show you what the difference is as they are dropping off—most of
the Contractors are probably going to move into a different area of the state or out of
the State.
Patrick White: To the Panhandle.
Everildo Ybaceta: Maybe ... but I don't want to guess.
Patrick White: Seems logical. I'd be interested in seeing some of that data and
would also be interested in understanding if there was any correlation between the
Citations that were issued.
Everildo Ybaceta: During the renewal process, we went back and looked at the
Citations that were issued and if they were correlated to the contractor—we picked up
the fees before we issued a Citation ... I mean, the license. We picked up the fee for
the Citation before we issued the license.
3
October 17,2018
Richard Joslin: Got it. Did you see more Citations issued during the Hurricane
season for unlicensed contracting for out of state contractors?
Everildo Ybaceta: There were a few more. I did run the numbers from last year—
again, for the same period from October 1st through September 30th— and there were
328 Citations issued between 2016 and 2017. The fees for the Citations were
$338,300.00
Patrick White: When you calculate the dollars that are in that"bucket," does it
include the late penalties or is it just the result of disciplinary actions?
Everildo Ybaceta: Disciplinary action. That falls on the second page of the Financial
Report, but I did not break that down.
Chairman Boyd: In 2017, you had 241 cases, and in 2018, you had 1,173?
Everildo Ybaceta: Remember, this is starting from October 1st
Chairman Boyd: Right.
Everildo Ybaceta: through September 30th ... so it is going to pick up the number
from October 1st through September 30, 2017 and then it's going to pick up
November 1st through December 31st and then a different number for 2018, but those
numbers are all crunched into one number for the total.
Chairman Boyd: Would you explain that again?
Everildo Ybaceta: Okay. The County's fiscal calendar starts at ...
Chairman Boyd: It's not a "calendar" ...
Everildo Ybaceta: Right. The County's fiscal year doesn't run from January to
December. It starts on October 1st through September 30th. The Report picks up the
last three months of 2017 but that's all incorporated into the County's fiscal year.
Patrick White: The licensing?
Everildo Ybaceta: The licensing, yes.
Terry Jerulle: And just like 2017 picked up ...
Everildo Ybaceta: 2016. Correct.
Terry Jerulle: But it's still "apples to apples."
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir.
Chairman Boyd: But still, with only one extra Investigator, you quadrupled the
number of cases.
Everildo Ybaceta: Oh, I see what you're saying.
Chairman Boyd: Is that all hurricane related?
Everildo Ybaceta: Um-m ....
Chairman Boyd: Catching people without a license?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir—there's a lot of that in there. I could also ... for the next
Report, if you wish ... I could break it down to "Unlicensed" versus "Other," i.e.,
misconduct.
Patrick White: That would be helpful because, for me, what it tells me is that how
we impose penalties has a consequence and I think it would help me to make a better
determination in which direction it might be that the disciplinary actions might move.
Everildo Ybaceta: Okay.
Chairman Boyd: Any other questions.
Terry Jerulle: The money collected goes ... where?
Everildo Ybaceta: I believe that goes into ...
Terry Jerulle: The General Fund?
4
October 17,2018
Everildo Ybaceta: It may go into the General Fund. I'm not sure where it goes.
Terry Jerulle: I feel that my job is a profit center for the County as opposed to
trying to help the citizens of the County.
Everildo Ybaceta: If you look at it that way, then any job within the County that
issues Citations could be looked at in that way.
Patrick White: And some of them—if they're through the County's Courts where
there are limitations on where those funds go ... I may be mistaken because the law
could have changed ... but it would be, I think, worth this Board's time to understand
what that may be. I think there is certainly an argument that some of those funds, if
you will, from the General Fund are for the purposes of compensating new hires
(Investigators) has had a `return on investment.' Whether it's direct or indirect, I
guess is a fair question.
Chairman Boyd: Any other questions or comments? (None) Okay, let's move on
to New Business.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board:
Richard Jerulle moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders
of the Board. Terry Jerulle offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
(Note: The individuals who testified in the following case under Item VIII, "New
Business,"were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
B. Richard McBride— Review of Experience and Waiver of Exam
("McBride Home Watch Services, LLC, d/b/a McBride Pro-Seal")
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman, before we get into the substance of this, I must ask for
some guidance from the Board's Attorney. I don't believe that I have any type of a
conflict of interest of an actual nature, but I want to avoid any appearance of a conflict
of interest because of my association with Ms. Stoner, seated here. We were in
"Leadership Collier" together and I have had a limited number of communications with
her regarding this matter—but only as to the process steps ... not as to any of the
substance of the matter. So, I'm putting myself in a position looking for guidance. I'm
perfectly comfortable if I must file a Form 8B entitled "Memorandum of Voting
Conflict."but on the other hand, I don't believe I have any pecuniary or other interest in
the outcome of today's consideration of this matter.
Jed Schneck,Esquire, Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board: I agree.
There's no special interest or special gain that you would receive from the outcome of
this application today. So, there is no conflict and you can vote.
Patrick White: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Boyd: Mr. McBride, you are asking for a Waiver of Exams. Would you
explain your reasoning?
5
October 17,2018
Richard McBride: First of all, I go by Adrian McBride—Richard Adrian McBride.
I'm the owner/operator of Pro-Seal, paver sealing and pressure washing with my son,
Andrew, who is in attendance. We have no other employees—it's just Andrew and me.
I've taken the test four times—the first two times, I scored in the 60s. The third time, I
scored a 74 ... I needed a 75. I chose to do it a fourth time and scored in the 60s.
Patrick White: This is the Business and Law exam?
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir.
Patrick White: Thank you.
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir. We have a professional CPA who works with us on the
financial side and my wife has been in the investment business for thirty years, so she
helps with the back office also. We only do driveways and lanais—we're not doing
roofs or anything vertical. We don't take any deposits—the customer or homeowner
doesn't pay us a dime until the job is completed to their satisfaction. That's why I'm
here.
Patrick White questioned the Applicant:
Q. Can you offer us any explanation as to your theory as to why it is that, despite your
best efforts, you've come close but not gotten over the line regarding the test scores?
A. Quite honestly, it probably goes back 30 years. I went to the University of Missouri
and finished in 1985. I was a football guy for what it's worth. I had some
concussion issues and I'm in the middle of a concussion settlement now with the
NFL (National Football League). There's just a disconnect and I get anxiety when
I'm taking tests. Otherwise, I'm fully functional.
Richard Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. Who handles your payroll?
A. My wife and our CPA.
Q. Was there something in the test results that you had a problem with? Was it the test?
A. Yes, sir. It's my concentration ... I just don't do well with numbers.
Chairman Boyd: Is there only the Business and Law exam?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir.
Chairman Boyd: Okay.
Patrick White: If that's the only thing before us for today, we certainly can inquire
about all the other aspects.
Richard Joslin: I see a Waiver of Experience also. I'm just questioning the Affidavits.
Richard Joslin questioned the Applicant:
Q. You went to college, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is there something in this college packet that I missed that shows me some
experience for driveway sealing?
A. In college? No.
Q. I understand that you went to college.
A. Yes, sir.
6
October 17,2018
Q. But, actually you still have no experience with the trade that you want to be in.
A. I've got about twenty-five years of experience. We owned rental properties in St.
Louis and I was always in charge of taking care of and manicuring the rental
properties including our own house—cleaning and sealing, and trimming bushes and
everything—to make it look nice and have nice curb appeal.
Patrick White: All I'm seeing is a Waiver of the Business and Law exam. Is that
correct?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir.
Patrick White: Thank you.
Richard Joslin: This is Mr. McBride—right? I'm seeing "Waiver of Exams based on
Experience" in my packet (showing documents).
Patrick White: What I think that means, Mr. Joslin, is that he believes he has the
pertinent experience relative to operating a business that we ought to waive taking the
Business and Law exam. I don't think it goes to his qualifications or to the Scope of
Work, but rather the Business and Law exam.
Richard Joslin: It should be a Waiver of Exam then and not based on experience.
Everildo Ybaceta: You're correct.
Richard Joslin: It's not labeled correctly.
Everildo Ybaceta: Right.
Richard Joslin: Okay.
Everildo Ybaceta: It is a Waiver of Exam.
Richard Joslin: As long as I've been on this Board, that's how it's read. It's a Waiver
of Exams.
(An off-mic comment was made.
Mr. White: You may only speak if you are at the podium and have been sworn in.)
Matthew Nolton: I believe Mr. White is correct. It's a Waiver of Exam based on the
Applicant's experience.
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes.
Patrick White: He's been operating a business, managing a business, conducting
whatever financial affairs —those are all pertinent areas of inquiry.
Richard Joslin: Okay, I understand that, but what I'm driving at is the fact that I'm
looking at the experience level and the college level that he's taken. And no where in
there does it show his experience in the trade that he's trying to qualify. Because he
went to college doesn't mean that he's a sealing person other than the experience in his
affidavits.
Patrick White: Okay.
Richard Joslin: So that's why I'm questioning the fact of the exam because if he's a
contractor here in Collier County, he should know the laws and know the business
portion of that and not rely on a secondary avenue to get to it.
Terry Jerulle: Mr. Joslin, if you look at Page 23 —there is an affidavit—Verification of
Construction Experience ... and Page 22 ... is that what you're looking for?
Richard Joslin: Yes. I'm seeing several of them.
7
October 17,2018
Terry Jerulle questioned the Applicant:
Q. The name of the company?
A. McBride Pro Seal.
Q. Okay. And the owner?
A. Myself.
Q. 100% - You?
A. 91% and 9% (indicating his son).
Q. If I may ask you—is there any reason why your son since he's a part owner can't
take the test?
A. He doesn't have the experience?
Q. So, he wouldn't qualify ...
A. No.
Q. ... because of the experience.
A. Right.
Richard Joslin: I'm just on the crossroads to say that to have a business, I think that
the Business and Law test is probably one of the most important ones that should be
passed. The sealing ... I have no problem with how you're doing the job because you do
have experience in the college and you have done it for other people, but it's the fact of
being able to handle and run that business correctly. If those people should leave you
for whatever reason, the business is going to have no one who knows what is going on.
Mr. McBride: For what it's worth, I've run my own business in St. Louis for several
years. It wasn't this particular business. I was a corporate headhunter for twenty-five
years in St. Louis. For twenty of those years, I was self-employed working with small
and medium-sized companies who didn't have an HR Department or internal recruiters.
I've run my own business for over twenty years now. We run a clean ship—a tight
business—with no issues.
Richard Joslin: I appreciate that.
Terry Jerulle: Would you say that if we gave you a license, that you son—in two years
—could take and pass the test?
Mr. McBride: I don't know why he couldn't--- I mean, yeah, because my intention—
at 55 years old—is to work for another five years and then slowly hand it off to my son
and let him run with it. So, yes, sir.
Patrick White: So, based on the testimony, the risk is with the fellow who came close
to passing the B&L exam by one point and is here because of the stated issues is going
to, suddenly, over the next twenty-four months, cause a circumstance to arise in a
business where—with no cash up front and records managed by a CPA for accounting
and tax purposes and payroll by a competent professional—is going to cause harm and
would warrant us withholding granting a license to someone who is otherwise qualified.
Richard Joslin: Doesn't this license allow him to do commercial work also?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir.
Mr. McBride: It would, but I have no interest. Single-family homes is basically our
niche.
8
October 17,2018
Richard Joslin: That was part of my reason ... that could be, I suppose, if it was
restricted to residential ...
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir, if you wish.
Chairman Boyd: Has your son done this work before ...
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir.
Chairman Boyd: ... with you ... he's had some experience?
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir.
Chairman Boyd: How much can you verify? A year ... two years?
Mr. McBride: A year and a half.
Chairman Boyd: So, we could grant a probationary license and then, based on the son
who would take the test within a year ... would everybody be comfortable with that?
Mr. White?
Patrick White: If there's some reason to go that route, then we should consider a
limitation on the Scope of Work for the license. I'm certainly going to support that,
but I believe he has otherwise demonstrated an adequate level of protection for the
consumer. If there's anything that ought to be rightfully done with respect to the license
in terms of Scope of Work, that would seem to me to be more prudent at this point. I
don't know what's going to happen in six, eight, twelve or twenty-four months from
now, but I know that if, as long as he is in business and the Scope of the license is
limited to non-commercial, then I'm comfortable that the consumers are protected.
Terry Jerulle: One of the things that I'd like to see and be— as much as I probably fail
at it—is trying to be consistent. And I'm consistent about having people take and pass
tests. I had to do it for my license and several people on the Board had to do the same
and to maintain that license. Whenever someone comes before us, I always ask them
why they won't take it. Sometimes it's easier just to take the test than to come before
us. I tend to agree about giving some sort of probationary license so that his son can
take and pass the test. It not for the business than for his son, himself. I think it would
be good for him to know some of these things if he's going to take over the business.
Maybe a year is long enough ... maybe a year and a half or two years ... I don't know
what the timeframe is but ... I like the idea of giving you a license and I also like the idea
of having somebody take the test. And I like the idea of being consistent with
everybody who comes before us.
Everildo Ybaceta: If I may ask a question? Mr. McBride ...
Mr. McBride: Yes.
Everildo Ybaceta: Your son ... I'm sorry ... what is your name? Andrew. Has Andrew
gone to college?
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir. FGCU ("Florida Gulf Coast University").
Everildo Ybaceta: FGCU. What kind of...
Mr. McBride: It was FSW ("Florida Southwestern State College") for one semester.
Everildo Ybaceta: For?
Mr. McBride: General business.
Everildo Ybaceta: So, that could be used ... for every year of college, it's .75 of
experience that could be added to his record ...
9
October 17,2018
Richard Joslin: But it was only one semester.
Everildo Ybaceta: Okay. Also, if we could extend the probation a little bit only
because family cannot verify experience ... or should not verify experience. So, if you
could add a little bit extra to the probation so that he can gather the minimum amount of
experience of...
Terry Jerulle: Two years ... 24 months.
Everildo Ybaceta: ... twenty-four months.
Patrick White: All right. I mean, I'm simply stating my view. As I indicated, I will
support a motion of either aspect or both because I believe it achieves the objective as
has been stated.
Richard Joslin: I'm fine with it as far as it is for residential only.
Terry Jerulle: After he takes the test, he can do commercial.
Richard Joslin: He can go to commercial, correct, if he chooses to.
Terry Jerulle: And in the future—who knows what the future will tell—he may want
to do commercial ... be more aggressive.
Mr. McBride: We've had the opportunity to do it, but I just don't want to pursue that
path. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but I've just created my own
little niche and I'm trying to stick with it.
Patrick White: Mr. McBride, you've indicated that you prefer single family ...
Mr. McBride: Yes, sir.
Patrick White: The way that this typically breaks down between residential and
commercial is because building permits for condominiums are "commercial" ... does
your business make a distinction between those two in terms of what you think
residential is? I live in a residential condominium and its not a commercial operation if
you will but if your license were restricted to "residential"—I think we want to be clear
on what that would or should include for your perspective ... if they are condominiums
or not ... or one or two-story condominiums ... I don't know.
Mr. McBride: We haven't done that ...
Patrick White: When you say single family, you are talking single-family homes or
any duplexes.
Mr. McBride: There's been a duplex or two in there, but we've done nothing ... we're
not going vertical. And we're not going on roofs either—that's something we have no
interest in.
Patrick White: I think residential would include duplexes.
Richard Joslin: What about a fourplex?
Mr. McBride: A fourplex?
Everildo Ybaceta: A fourplex is commercial.
Richard Joslin: Okay.
Mr. McBride: Our niche is a single-family home of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, you know, a
driveway and lanai.
Richard Joslin moved to approve granting a two-year Probationary License Sealing
and Striping Contractor's License to R. Adrian McBride with the Scope of Work
limited to residential properties. Patrick White offered a Second in support of the
motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0.
10
October 17,2018
(Note: The individuals who testified in the following case under Item IX, "Old
Business,"were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
IX. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Jeffrey Bumpus—Misconduct of State-Certified Contractor: Expired Permits Update
(d/b/a "Northern Breeze Air Conditioning, Inc.)
Chairman Boyd: Mr. Bumpus, you are here today to provide an update on the expired
permits.
Jeffrey Bumpus: Yes.
Chairman Boyd: Reggie, do you have a report for us?
Reggie Smith, Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer, and Josh Lenio stated:
• Seven permits in are "void" status;
• Four permits are in "re-activated" status;
• One permit is in "ready to issue" status;
• Twelve permits have been issued;
• One permit is in "Inspection commenced" status;
• One permit is in "Inspection completed" status
• There are seven outstanding permits and the remainder of them have been
actively pursued.
Josh Lenio clarified the seven permits in "void" status are considered as the
outstanding permits that must be addressed.
Patrick White requested further clarification.
Josh Lenio explained the seven "void"permits are expired and the contractor must
submit a re-application for each. The remaining seven are "outstanding" permits which
means that Mr. Bumpus acted in good faith by either applying for an extension or
submitting a re-application. He has called for inspections and is working toward
getting those permits completed.
Patrick White: So, it's fair to say that over the past seven days, he has moved four of
the original eleven from "void" to some other status?
Josh Lenio: That's correct. The seven that are in "void" status —when you look at the
properties—he has not submitted re-applications for those permits.
Patrick White: Okay. From my perspective, that's the area of inquiry for us with Mr.
Bumpus. I appreciate the update—it's very helpful. The one number I missed was
"ready for issuance."
Josh Lenio: Instead of four, it's now one.
Patrick White: Okay. So, that's where the three went ... into "issued."
Chairman Boyd: Reggie, when we first started this, we were told there were 44
permits.
Reggie Smith: Approximately, yes, sir. That was a total of expired and void.
Patrick White: Currently, the seven "void" are expired -- correct?
Josh Lenio: That's correct.
11
October 17,2018
Richard Joslin: That's going to require him to re-apply totally for those seven
permits?
Josh Lenio: (nodding his head in agreement)
Richard Joslin questioned Jeffrey Bumpus:
Q. You have heard the results so far.
A. Yes.
Q. What is your plan for the seven void permits?
A. I've just got to get the application—there's two in process right now. One of them
was kicked back yesterday because they want a drawing of the location. They
didn't know which one it was. I've got two in the same building and one of them
has been re-issued. Yesterday it was rejected—I got an email and I need a drawing.
It was done in 2012. I've got it scheduled for an inspection for tomorrow on the
other system so I'm hoping to work it out where they can check them both and sign
them both off.
Patrick White questioned Jeffrey Bumpus:
Q. And the other five?
A. I haven't done the paperwork on them yet. Two of them, I don't know who the
owners are yet. They are rental houses that I did for friends of friends, so I'm trying
to get the information on two of them. The other two, I've just got to do the
paperwork and turn it in.
Q. And the fifth?
A. One of them is ... I had a hearing— some lady turned me for putting in an air-
conditioner in and I went to a hearing. It was five years old. So, with the person
who was in charge at the time— after the hearing, he went in and issued a permit ...
it was supposedly signed off... I called Reggie on it, but he wasn't the hearing
officer at the time. So that's just a matter of talking to Mr. Noonan and hopefully
we can clear that one up totally without even applying for it. He charged me $50 or
$25 for the permit and said that we didn't need an inspection.
Q. And that's five -- total?
A. Yeah. I don't know the sixth ... I have to check for sure. I got two in there now ...
one of them is the wrong name—the old owner, not the new owner. I've just got to
change the name and re-apply. I've got, like, twenty of them completed—inspected
—done.
Q. Okay.
A. And I've got two scheduled for tomorrow ... or three ... once I go back and call the
third one in and, hopefully, they will do the fourth cause it's in the same building ...
it's the office for the project. So, I'm trying to get them done. So far, we haven't—
that I know of—failed any. I've been with the Inspector on everyone. I usually do
four at a time—it takes twenty minutes for him, basically, twenty minutes to an
hour to run through and do four.
Q. How much time do you think it's going to take to finish off the ...?
A. I've got more people coming in now, so ... by next month, they all should be 100%.
I was hoping to have them all done by now but they're not.
12
October 17,2018
Richard Joslin: How does Staff feel about this—the results so far? Reggie?
Reggie Smith: This is a burden for the homeowners. My priority is to protect the
homeowners and their properties. My Bumpus has come approximately half-way.
We've been before the Board quite a few times. We will not have a Contractors'
Licensing Board hearing in the month of November due to the holiday. So, depending
on your Order today, if it's added time, then we will be coming back in December.
Hopefully, we really can have them all done by then.
Patrick White: I think I heard you say either thirty or sixty days. Once he gets them
all out of void status, we're effectively at a point where we could reconsider the
already-imposed disciplinary action.
Everildo Ybaceta: I don't believe that a disciplinary action has been imposed yet.
(Several Board members were making comments at the same time.)
Richard Joslin: Last month, he had until this meeting to do everything, I'm pretty sure
... if you look at the last page of the minutes.
Patrick White: He was restricted to no new ones —that's my understanding. He is
limited to only the ones currently outstanding. What I'd like to do, Mr. Chairman, if
we've had an adequate discussion so far, is to make a motion to continue the matter
to the next meeting for a determination of any modification to the disciplinary action
to be imposed.
Chairman Boyd: Is that the form of your motion?
Richard Joslin: I'll second the motion.
Terry Jerulle: I'm sorry—I didn't hear the motion.
Patrick White moved to approve continuing the matter to the next Board meeting for
further deliberation. The disciplinary action that has already been imposed remains
and at the next meeting, the Board will consider any modification to it.
Terry Jerulle: So, you want to do the same thing that we've done in August and the
same thing we did in September?
Patrick White: I believe it was September.
Terry Jerulle: It was continued in August.
Jeffrey Bumpus: I wasn't here in August.
Terry Jerulle: That's my point—you were invited but didn't show up. You were
invited to last month's meeting and didn't show up either.
Jeffrey Bumpus: Last month, I didn't but the month before, I did show up. —I thought
I did.
Terry Jerulle: No. You were here in May.
Jeffrey Bumpus: That was the first meeting. It says on the Complaint that in August,
Mr. Bumpus was scheduled to return to the Board, but he did not show up. In
September, he was scheduled to return to the Board and was given proper notice but did
not show up. You weren't here in August and you weren't here in September. I don't
know about the rest of you, but I'm ready to go to the State. I'm done.
Jeffrey Bumpus: Okay.
13
October 17,2018
Terry Jerulle: I mean, you give us enough just to keep it going—I don't know why
you don't just finish it!
Jeffrey Bumpus: I'm actually getting ....
Terry Jerulle: Why didn't you come to the meeting last month?
Jeffrey Bumpus: I wasn't around.
Terry Jerulle: Pardon me?
Jeffrey Bumpus: I wasn't around ... I was in Fort Myers.
Terry Jerulle: And why didn't you come to the meeting in August?
Jeffrey Bumpus: I was out of town ... I was in Orlando for my birthday. I even told
[gesturing to Staff] that I wouldn't be here for that one.
Richard Joslin: I can see Mr. Jerulle's point and I can go along with it somewhat ...
I'm going to second this motion only because ... I think at this moment you've been
here many times in the past ...
Jeffrey Bumpus: Yes ... correct.
Richard Joslin: ... and we're a little frustrated with your being here ...
Jeffrey Bumpus: I realize that.
Richard Joslin: ... and not getting these permits done.
Jeffrey Bumpus: Right.
Richard Joslin: But on the other side of the coin, I look at the residents of Collier
County who are sitting there with no final inspections on their units ...
Jeffrey Bumpus: Correct.
Ricard Joslin: ... and it seems like you are just doing a piece at a time. Unfortunately,
we don't have a meeting in November—otherwise, I would definitely make a different
motion and it would be all over. But, under this circumstance, I will go along with Mr.
White's ...
Patrick White: I heard Staff say we are presently not scheduled to meet in November
... the form of the motion was "the next meeting" ... so if it's November—it's
November, if it's December—it's December, if it's January—it's January. To the point
of clarification on what happened last month ... I want to be certain—it's my
understanding and I believe that the Board, last month,restricted his license. That's a
different disciplinary or Board action than what took place in August or in May because
it imposed an additional limitation on his license. The only other"next step" is—as
you suggested Mr. Jerulle and I think that Mr. Bumpus hasn't quite caught the essence
of our concerns here—or he would have gotten these last seven off"void." He knows
what's going on. I know what I'm going to do. I'm not trying to pre-judge the case,
but I can tell you with almost certainty that I would adhere to your position 100% at
that point. If there wasn't a good faith effort on his part, and to Mr. Nolton's point as I
read it in the minutes for last month, and as Mr. Joslin said, I've come down on the side
of the people who may or may not be in the process of trying to sell one of these units
that have the seven voids, and they're going to have to get to cleared up. We can't do it
without him. He's not only the lock, if you will, but he's also the key. I don't want to
take the key away from them by referring him to the State until we are absolutely
certain that it's no longer his intention to correct this mess.
Richard Joslin: I'm not content with the time or ....
Patrick White: No.
Richard Joslin: ... the speed that he's been doing them ... but at least we're getting
14
October 17,2018
something accomplished ... at least some of the residents are going to be satisfied
with inspections. Again, I'm not content with the time span.
Jeffrey Bumpus: I've been trying to pull the permits for the ones that I can get
inspected—for the ones I know are here. I didn't realize it was such a big deal to get
all the paperwork 100% -- I met with the lawyer [Assistant County Attorney Noell]
and he told me to get them done.
Patrick White: Yeah.
Jeffrey Bumpus: And, like I said, I think I've filed 17 of them or something like
that, or half of them in the next ... I just picked up the final three yesterday and paid
for them, and they're ready to go. I've got to do two corrections and I'll get two more
and then fill out whatever paperwork I've got left and I know the ones I have left are
not in communities —they are single-family houses that I've done for rentals so it's
just a matter of finding out who the name is and get the records, I guess, pull up all
the old stuff. I have no idea who owned them then and who owns them now.
Patrick White: The Property Appraiser's database can tell you that based on the
address.
Jeffrey Bumpus: Okay. Well, I'll sit down with Josh and we'll see if we can't work
it out. Like I said, there's one or two other ones that I need to try to work out with
him.
Patrick White: You have a plan and you believe that this plan can be implemented
within the time frame that it sounds like ...
Jeffrey Bumpus: No, I've got three or four more ready that are on my other project
will be scheduled next week ...
Patrick White: Do you think it will take longer?
Jeffrey Bumpus: What? To schedule the permit? No, no, no, no ... like I said, if
you had a meeting next week—I'd be totally close ... I'd be 99% done. There might
be one or two that aren't done. That's the best I can say.
Patrick White: How much time do you need?
Jeffrey Bumpus: Next month. But I mean, I'm doing my best. I'm just trying to get
them inspected and get them done.
Patrick White: Is it your intention to pursue and complete all of them?
Jeffrey Bumpus: Yes.
Patrick White: Correct?
Jeffrey Bumpus: Yes. For all the ones that he [Josh Lenio] did the extensions for, I
wrote a check for$900 and got them done. There were two that were already
inspected—maybe three— so they should be signed off. I should have about twenty
out of... what is it ... thirty-five or forty completed ... 100% ... signed off and done.
Assistant County Attorney Kevin Noell: If I could just add ... I'm the "lawyer" ...
Jeffrey Bumpus: I'm sorry ... the Assistant County Attorney.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: I met with Mr. Bumpus and Staff and explained
to him ... because I wanted to get a feel for what had happened in other Counties with
a situation like this. I certainly understand and can appreciate the Board's frustration
with—as Mr. White had alluded to—him holding the lock and the key and seeming to
move at his own pace. In looking at this type of factual scenario, when I talked with
the State—they referenced a recent case in Sarasota where a similar HVAC company
15
October 17,2018
was fined roughly $60,000.00 for these types of violations — so I explained to Mr.
Bumpus the urgency to the task he needs to now have. So, I have no thoughts on
what the Board might decide but I think he understands it's much more than him
holding the cards here and the next step would be a step that would probably
significantly would change his business if he's not going forward. So, that was
basically the scope of our conversation.
Richard Joslin: Too bad that we didn't know this back in September or October or
August and September when this first started. It maybe may have put a little bit of a
fire under him because it can get serious.
Jeffrey Bumpus: I don't have$60,000 to pay a fine. So, I definitely don't want to
do that.
Terry Jerulle: I'd like to call your attention to Page 51 ... the last paragraph ... the
Board voted unanimously to give him thirty days.
Patrick White: Correct.
Terry Jerulle: And ... if all the permits are not in final status, a recommendation for
further action will be made to the State of Florida. That's how I'm going to vote. And
by me voting that way does not prevent him from still completing his permits.
Patrick White: So, you're going to vote "no" on this motion?
Terry Jerulle: I am.
Patrick White: Okay.
Terry Jerulle: Because I want to be consistent.
Patrick White: That's fine. I have no issue with consistency. I think we all strive for
that.
Terry Jerulle: And it doesn't prevent him from still being the key to the lock. In my
mind, it's going to motivate him to even get it done faster. Because if he does—it's
going to take time to get to the State— and by the time it gets to the State—he better be
done with the permits.
Patrick White: Mr. Jerulle, I don't know if it's a tremendous burden on Staff to go
through that exercise. If I thought it was necessary, I'd certainly withdraw my motion
and support it. But I believe we're on the right path and I don't know that we need to
go that distance yet. The form of my motion is one that I believe takes what the Board
did last month and effectively continues the later part without changing the restriction
on his license.
Chairman Boyd: We have a motion and a Second. Does anybody else have a
comment?
Richard Joslin: I'm only seconding this motion because as I read Page 51 with Mr.
Jerulle, at this moment, that could apply right now. There would be no more time span
... you already worked out your time span as far as I am concerned. However, again
I'm going to go back to the residents of Collier County. You're showing due diligence
to get this done. If we go to the State, that may all stop and then you may not have a
reason to do it any longer. And then we're going to have a whole bunch of people out
there who aren't being satisfied ... which is going to open another can of worms. So, at
this moment, I made a Second on that motion and as I say, I may have done it with
good intentions but I'm willing to, I guess in a sense, recant it for the moment only to
see that this happens before this next meeting. And if it doesn't, I just don't know what
to tell you.
16
October 17, 2018
Chairman Boyd: So, do we have a Second or we don't have a Second?
Richard Joslin: You have a Second.
Chairman Boyd: We have a Second. Also, from the get-go, when he agreed, we gave
him sixty days to get 44 permits cleared out. At that time, I thought it was a myth—
there was no way he could do that and now we're about where I thought we'd be with
him getting these closed out because it's not a simple process.
Richard Joslin: Let me ask another question—real quick. Would Staff... if by some
chance he was to ... he said he could do this within a few weeks—correct? Is that what
I heard?
Jeffrey Bumpus: The paperwork is just a matter of filling out a form.
Richard Joslin: If this happens ... if this does happen before our so-called non-
November meeting and he brings it before Staff, could this then be rectified by Staff
and not have to come before the Board in December? I'm only trying to eliminate the
fact of waiting until the December meeting to hear it again and then come back and see
what's going on. If we give him until November ... can Staff handle it?
Patrick White: Not going to step in on Staffs response, but my understanding and the
basis for the form of the motion was that whenever our next Board meeting is, we're
going to have an update and a report. We are still at a point where we have a final
determination of disciplinary action to be made, and a potential to change the
restrictions on the license. Assuming—for the sake of discussion—we are at a point
where the restrictions could be lifted, I don't know that I would vote in favor of that at
all. Suffice it to say that some of that will depend upon what happens in the interim and
on what Mr. Bumpus' intentions are with respect to losing his license or not. He may
choose to let it lapse—I don't know. Based on what I've hear in the prior months, he's
looking to do just "maintenance" and he may not need a license. So, that's why I think
that a more prudent course of action today is to give him the time and to protect the
residents and not impose a burden on Staff to go through a process that seems the
Respondent has already received the message about.
Chairman Boyd: How much time are you giving him, Mr. White?
Patrick White: Until our next Board meeting.
Chairman Boyd: Until our next Board meeting?
Patrick White: Yes.
Chairman Boyd: Have you considered limiting that to thirty days?
Patrick White: Even if we did, there's no way that until we next meet, we can do
anything differently about it.
Chairman Boyd: Staff can. You can put that in the motion.
Patrick White: I am not a fan of self-executing Orders except when there is a very
clear and bright line of how to proceed.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: I think one of the issues is that the Board maintains
jurisdiction of this issue ...
Patrick White: Yes.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: ... because the Board collectively voted—heard the
evidence—and found a violation ...
Patrick White: Right.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: ... or several violations ... many of which still
exist.
17
October 17,2018
Patrick White: Correct.
Assistant County Attorney Noell: So, it still has to come back before the Board—
even if it's been abated—when the Board found the violations, they weren't abated.
The Board has the jurisdiction to act on what sort of penalty or punishment would be
involved.
Richard Joslin: It has to be heard.
Patrick White: Beyond what we've done so far. And I understand Mr. Jerulle's
point that—in a sense—part of the motion that was approved last month in terms of
the disciplinary action is that there should be a referral made at this time. The form of
my motion simply holds off on doing that until our next Board meeting.
Chairman Boyd: We have a motion and a second. Does anyone else have a
comment? I will call for a vote.
Motion carried, 4— "Yes"and 2— "No." Chairman Boyd and Mr. Jerulle were
opposed.
Matthew Nolton: I've been quiet, but I want to say something to Mr. Bumpus. So,
we expect this to be cleared up by the next time you come before us. We have the
ability to recommend to Staff to take this to the State and we can recommend what
fine we think the State should impose. They may not listen to us but I, as one
member, will vote very strongly for a stiff penalty if this has not been taken care of by
our next meeting.
Chairman Boyd: Thank you, sir.
Richard Joslin: Good luck.
X. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Case 2018-09: Board of County Commissioners, Plaintiff, vs. Andrew Wood,
d/b/a AMW Construction Services, Inc., Misconduct of a
State-Certified Contractor
(Note: The individuals who testified in the following case under Item X, "Public
Hearing,"were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
Chairman Boyd noted that Respondent, Andrew Wood, was not present.
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman, as a point of order, if you wouldn't mind reading the
"anyone who decides to appeal" verbiage for the record.
Chairman Boyd: "Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will
need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of
said proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which any Appeal is to be made."
Chairman Boyd outlined the process for the Hearing:
• This Hearing will be conducted pursuant to the procedures set forth in Collier
County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes Chapter 49.
18
October 17,2018
• The Hearing is quasi-judicial in nature and the Formal Rules of Evidence will
not apply.
Chairman Boyd requested a motion to open the Public Hearing for Case#2018-09:
Board of County Commissioners, Plaintiff, vs. Andrew Wood, d/b/a AMW
Construction Services, Inc., Misconduct of a State-Certified Contractor.
Patrick White moved to approve opening the Public Hearing for Case#2018-09 as
previously referenced. Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 6— 0.
Chairman Boyd confirmed the Public Hearing was open.
Jack Gumph, Contractors' Licensing Compliance Officer,requested to introduce
the information packet in Case#2018-09 into evidence as County's Exhibit"A."
Patrick White moved to approve the County's request. Richard Joslin offered a
Second in support of the motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0.
Jack Gumph presented the County's Opening Statement:
• The Respondent is a State-certified General Contractor and holder of License
Number CGC 1507208.
• He is also registered in Collier County (#LCC201120001969) as a General
Contractor.
• The Respondent installed five windows in a condominium at 709 Palm View
Drive, Naples, Florida 34110, without first obtaining a permit.
• On June 7, 2017, a complaint was made by the homeowner, Deirdre Ventry.
• On June 9, 2017, a site inspection was performed. The tenants stated
windows had been replaced in the unit approximately two years earlier. The
owner later arrived and confirmed that she hired a contractor in September of
2015 to install five windows in the condominium.
• On August 9, 2017, the homeowner provided the name of the contractor and
Andrew W. Wood of AMW Construction Services, Inc. was contacted by
telephone.
o Mr. Wood was informed that a permit was required to install windows
in a condominium in compliance with Code regulations.
o Mr. Wood stated his registration in Collier County had lapsed but he
would re-active it and then apply for the permit.
• On August 16, 2017, a Notice of Non-Compliance was emailed to Mr. Wood.
• On November 6, 2017, following a message left on Mr. Wood's phone, he
returned the call and stated he had re-activated the registration in Collier
County and was preparing to submit an application to obtain a permit for the
window installation.
• On December 4, 2017, an application for a permit had not been submitted. and
a Notice of Hearing was issued to appear at on February 21, 2018. The Notice
was sent to Mr. Wood via certified mail.
19
October 17,2018
• On December 26, 2017, the signed proof of delivery to Andrew Wood was
received from the US Postal Service.
• On February 16, 2018, the February 21st Contractors' Board meeting was
rescheduled to March 21, 2018 and Mr. Wood was again notified of the new
Hearing date by certified mail.
• On February 28, 2018, the signed proof of delivery to Andrew Wood was
received from the US Postal Service.
Patrick White: Mr. Chairman—Point of Order. I think we're at the point where
we're supposedly receiving information about a summary of the County's case, i.e.,
the Case in Chief which is what I guess we are hearing now. But if there is anything
that is not already in the written record that has been submitted into evidence, that can
be added, I am certainly willing to hear that. But I would prefer to not have to listen
to what I have already read be stated again because it's already in the record. I
apologize, Mr. Gumph, but I am interested in anything new that you can tell me ...
such as why Mr. Wood is not here today ... such as the conclusion and inference that
has been drawn is this is a willful violation is being substantiated in the record today.
So, Point if Order, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how the other members feel but I've
heard enough because I do my homework, I review the file.
Richard Joslin: Mr. Gumph, Mr. Wood received a certified mail that he was
required to be here today—correct?
Jack Gumph: That's correct, and the certified mailing was his signature because it
was the same signature of the previous certified mailing. I'd like to enter into the
record that Mr. Wood came into the office on the day before the March 21'meeting
and provided a receipt for the permit application which he had submitted. I believe
that he had abated the violation. At the time I advised him that he had to follow
through with the permit application because there had been a Code violation which he
did not.
Patrick White: Understood.
Chairman Boyd: But you haven't seen or spoken to him since?
Jack Gumph: I've emailed him on several occasions ... no. One point to note is that
his State license is not delinquent ... he hasn't paid up.
Patrick White: You see, that's a key fact for me because what you're asking me and
this Board to do is to infer from his action or his non-action that his conduct is willful,
i.e., intentional. So, being aware that he had to renew his license in order to be able
to complete going through the permitting process to abate the violation that otherwise
would have been heard "back when"... is readily apparent to me that his failure to
renew his license and allowing it to continue to be in the delinquent status prohibits
him from being able to move forward on the permit that he applied for and, thus, is
intentional, i.e., willful, as a violation today without having to have—as we've had in
the past for consistency's sake—a statement from the Building Official ... which I
may have missed in the packet, but I don't see the Building Official here today—that
the Building Official's conclusion and opinion as a professional is that the violation
was willful. So, hopefully we've gotten to the point—at least in my mind—and I
don't know how the Board members feel—where I ... I think the County has
20
October 17,2018
cemented its case, if you will, in terms of the testimony today. I appreciate you
adding that piece of information. Again, that was the most critical keystone for me in
the arch that we're trying to build to go from an alleged violation to a Finding of
Violation. Just so in the months and hearings ahead, I am clear on what the
expectation is on how we complete that arch and get from one side to the other.
Jack Gumph: I agree with you, sir. I think that's something that needs to be
discussed Staff on how we go forward with these. There has been some discussion
about that and there needs to be some more discussion.
Patrick White: But not today. From my perspective, I think you have all done your
jobs.
Chairman Boyd: Is the permit is still in the rejected status —is that correct?
Jack Gumph: It's expired.
Chairman Boyd: It was never approved—it was always in rejected status?
Jack Gumph: Correct. He was sent a Correction Notice, but he never responded to
it.
Richard Joslin: It appears that it was definitely willful, there's no doubt. I mean,
for someone to not renew his license and not get this particular permit and get it
finalized—it's pretty clear-cut ... this is a pretty much "done deal" as far as I can see.
I don't think it needs a whole lot of discussion. I know there are only certain things
we can do to a State-certified contractor but is he licensed in other Counties also?
Everildo Ybaceta: I'm sorry, what is the question?
Richard Joslin: He is a State-certified contractor -- correct?
Everildo Ybaceta: Correct.
Richard Joslin: One of the things we can do is to stop his permit pulling privileges.
Everildo Ybaceta: In Collier County, yes, sir.
Richard Joslin: But if he's not licensed, it's not going to matter anyway.
Terry Jerulle: It will matter because we can make a recommendation to the State ...
Richard Joslin: Right.
Everildo Ybaceta: Correct.
Terry Jerulle: ... and if he goes to renew his license, he may or may not be able to.
Richard Joslin: You're right.
Patrick White: But, first things first.
Chairman Boyd: Obviously, moving forward, we have no Respondent to present his
case. So, can I have a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Patrick White moved to approve closing the Public Hearing for Case#2018-09.
Richard Joslin offered a Second in support of the motion.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
Patrick White: Thank you, Mr. Gumph.
Patrick White moved to approve finding the Respondent guilty of the violation
consistent with Count One as stated in the Administration Complaint for a willful
violation of misconduct by a State-certified contractor. Richard Joslin offered a
Second in support of the motion.
21
October 17,2018
Chairman Boyd asked if there was any discussion needed. With no response from
the Board, he called for a vote on the motion.
Carried unanimously, 6— 0.
Patrick White suggested asking the Board's Attorney for advice on what the Board
was allowed to do.
Attorney Schneck: There are two options. The Board can suspend or conditionally
restrict his permit-pulling privileges in Collier County. The Board can make a
recommendation to the State's Construction Industry Licensing Board ("CILB") for
further action—whether its penalties or a State-level suspension.
Patrick White addressed his question to Staff: Since the permit has expired and his
license is inactive, in order for Mr. Wood to be able to perform any work under a
permit, he must come in and pay and he's good to go?
Everildo Ybaceta: No, sir.
Patrick White: What does he have to do?
Everildo Ybaceta: Since he is a State-certified Contractor, much like Mr. Lantz is, if
he does update his license with the State, he can come in and show his certificate and
his insurance and he can be issued a permit. The voluntary registration that we do is
only for the use of the portal. Since he has not updated his Collier registration and
paid for the use of the portal, that's why he shows up as "inactive" in our system.
Patrick White: What is the status of his license relative to the State's DBPR
("Department of Business and Professional Regulation")?
Everildo Ybaceta: Delinquent.
(An off-mic comment was made.)
Patrick White: If you're going to offer testimony, Mr. Gumph, you must be at the
podium.
Patrick White: So, the same question but at the State level. If he just goes into the
State in delinquent status and pays whatever he has to pay to renew his license, does
the State automatically renew it?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes.
Patrick White: Okay. What I'm trying to get to is ... is it worth us doing anything
relative to his license in Collier County given his status relative to his State license.
What I hear you saying is, it is because we want to avoid a circumstance where he
simply has to renew with the State by paying some money, then comes in and shows
you a certificate and thus he's now "clean and green."
Everildo Ybaceta: At the point where the Board finds him in violation and either
restricts or suspends his permitting privileges in Collier County, I have fifteen days to
submit that information to the State.
Patrick White: My point is the distinction between the first of the two opportunities
we have for disciplinary action versus the second. I understand if we find him in
violation, you're going to report that. But—just thinking out loud—if we don't for
whatever crazy reason don't impose some restriction on his license, you're still going
22
October 17,2018
to have the reporting recommendation ...
Everildo Ybaceta: Correct.
Patrick White: ... or the reporting requirement with or without a recommendation
from the Board. I'm just trying to unravel the two threads and make sure that there's
a point to us going forward in restricting his license. I believe we certainly should ...
at least in Collier County ... whatever he does at the State level. I further believe that
we should make a recommendation to the State for an imposition of some type of
limitation on his license at the State level, unless or until he makes a commitment to
come in and deal with the permit. I mean, he shouldn't be allowed to operate
elsewhere in the State until he addresses the matter here in Collier County.
Richard Joslin: We can make the recommendation but whether it happens or not is
another thing.
Patrick White: I understand that—we're not the CILB. So, that was the whole point
of my inquiry.
Everildo Ybaceta: It as a long road to get there.
Patrick White: Well, but at least now, I'm 100% certain we have to take that course
of action. And I didn't want to put Staff through the mechanics of doing something
that really didn't matter. Since he can get around us by going to the State and simply
paying money—that's not a good safeguard for me.
Richard Joslin: We have a case and we've found the Respondent guilty—we have
to make a Finding of Fact to proceed. The Finding of Fact is the penalty and the
penalty that we can impose is to contact the State.
There was a general discussion among the members; the consensus was to also
restrict the Respondent's permit pulling privileges in Collier County to this specific
permit. The recommendation to the State was to allow renewal of his State-certified
license conditioned upon completing the permit application in Collier County.
Richard Joslin: I don't think that's going to work.
Terry Jerulle: Well, I'm not saying they will do it, I'm saying I don't know.
Patrick White: Therefore, I think we should simply make the recommendation—the
State understands our authority to restrict ...
Richard Joslin: In other words, what you're trying to say is he can't get his State
license—or if he does get his State license—it is governed by cleaning up this
particular permit in Collier County?
Patrick White: That he would be limited in Collier County to this permit only until
the permit is otherwise closed. He can re-apply.
Matthew Nolton: I think it's a little more complicated than that. If you go back
further and read what the County rejected, I don't think he can get a permit because
what the County rejection was there was no evidence of the windows being the right
size for egress—means of egress. So, I'm fairly positive the reason why he didn't
follow through is because he couldn't follow through without changing out these
windows.
Patrick White: And if the Building Official were here, I would inquire of him as to
the specifics of what the physical design of the unit was and whether, in fact, a
window could be a second means of egress or not. It may not be a size issue, it could
23
October 17,2018
be simply the manner in which it opens. In my unit, I had to go with a 90° opening,
casement-style crank out to provide that secondary egress even though I had double
sliders right there.
Terry Jerulle: We don't know that it wouldn't pass ...
Patrick White: Exactly.
Terry Jerulle: ... it might pass ... he just may have not provided that information.
Regardless, it's his duty to get a window that does pass the NOA ("Notice of
Acceptance") and it is his duty to get a window that is the correct size.
Matthew Nolton: You're right—we do not know, but he did go through the effort of
getting the permitting. He re-applied to obtain a permit, but it was rejected and that's
where he stopped for whatever reason. So, we found him guilty.
Patrick White: If that were all that he had done, I wouldn't be in a position where I
was comfortable finding him to be "willful." It's the fact that he failed to get his
license and keep it active to be able to work on the permit before it expired that to me
makes it willful.
Terry Jerulle: If I can summarize this, are we in agreement to restrict his Collier
County permit pulling privileges to this case only?
Richard Joslin and Patrick White stated they agreed.
Terry Jerulle: And are we comfortable recommending to the State that if he gets a
license that he takes care of this case before he's allowed to do any other work?
Richard Joslin: Yes.
Terry Jerulle: I don't know how to put that into the form of a motion, but I think
that we are all in ...
Matthew Nolton: Well, the exact wording is "restriction of the registration." So
that's what we're saying—we would recommend that the State restricts his
registration until he has rectified this permit.
Terry Jerulle: There's no permit.
Patrick White: The "subject matter" of the case.
Matthew Nolton: Correct.
Patrick White: Specifically, the address and the issues regarding the expired permit.
Matthew Nolton: We can do that. But I haven't heard anybody say anything about
a monetary fine that we could recommend to the State.
Everildo Ybaceta: For clarification, the permit was never issued. It is still an
application.
Matthew Nolton: Correct.
Terry Jerulle: Does the County have any administrative costs?
Everildo Ybaceta: For this? No.
Chairman Boyd: The maximum fine we can impose is the maximum fine we can
recommend.
Terry Jerulle: I'm not worried about a fine, I just want that condo to be safe. The
homeowner paid for windows that were impact resistant and Code compliant—and
they may or may not be— we don't know.
Patrick White: And that's the other factual thing I would have inquired of the
Building Official was if part of the reject was if the contractor hadn't provided
shutters if the windows weren't impact resistant, or if the shutters that were there
24
October 17,2018
are not Code compliant. I thought the way Mr. Jerulle stated it was adequate relative
to the form of a motion. And I would second that if Staff believes that, from their
perspective, if they have enough direction from the Board on how to proceed in terms
of the disciplinary action. Do you feel you need greater clarification?
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, sir, I do.
Patrick White: What is it that may not be clear?
Everildo Ybaceta: The restriction regarding the permit pulling privileges —you're
restricting it to one application and I'm not entirely certain what that means.
Patrick White: It means as to the specific factual basis for the complaint of the
property in question—the permit that was applied for but not issued. It has to at this
point—because of its expiration—to be re-applied.
Terry Jerulle: If I may ... form a motion ...
Terry Jerulle moved to approve restricting the permit pulling privileges of Andrew
Wood until he satisfies Case#2018-09, referencing 709 Palm View Drive, Naples,
Florida...
Everildo Ybaceta: So, you're allowing him to pull one permit or to continue with
this permit but no other?
Terry Jerulle: That is correct.
Everildo Ybaceta: Okay.
... and that the Board recommends to the State's Construction Industry Licensing
Board to restrict his license until Case#2018-09 is abated.
Everildo Ybaceta: Okay—that's understandable.
Patrick White offered a Second in support of the motion.
Richard Joslin directed his question to the Board's attorney: One quick clarification
-- does that terminology make sense for what we're trying to do?
Attorney Schneck: Yes, it does. The only other thing that I would recommend is ...
there was some discussion regarding administrative costs and penalties. Would you
like that included or some more general language of any further action the CILB
deems ...
Patrick White: Staff indicated they had no administrative costs and we did discuss
the notion of a fine, but I don't believe a fine is going to do us or the State any good.
If the State wants to fine him, God bless them.
Terry Jerulle: I'm done.
Chairman Boyd stated there was a motion and a Second on the floor. He asked if
there was a need for further discussion. Having no response, he called for a vote
on the motion. Carried unanimously, 6— 0.
25
October 17,2018
Chairman Boyd stated:
• This cause came for a Public Hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board
on October 17, 2018 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed
against Andrew M. Wood, d/b/a AMW Construction Services, Inc.
• Service of the complaint was made by certified mail, personal delivery, or
publication in accordance with Collier County Ordinance#90-105, as
amended.
• The Board having heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard
arguments respective to all pertinent matters hereupon issues its Findings of
Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Board as follows:
Conclusions of Law, Findings of Fact, and Orders of the Board:
• Andrew M. Wood, d/b/a AMW Construction Services, Inc., is the holder of
record of a Collier County Certificate of Competency, License Number
LCC20120001969.
• Mr. Wood is also a State-certified General Contractor and holder of License
Number CGC 1507208.
• The Collier County Board of County Commissioners is the Petitioner in this
matter and Andrew M. Wood is the Respondent.
• Mr. Wood was not present at the October 17, 2018 Public Hearing and was
not represented by counsel.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, have
been properly issued or personally delivered.
• The Respondent acted in a matter that is in violation of Collier County
Ordinance and is the one who committed the act.
• The allegation set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Collier County
Ordinance#2006-46, as amended, Section 4.2.2—Misconduct of State
Certified Contractors states: "Willfully violating the applicable Building
Codes or law of the State, City, or Collier County."
• The allegation was supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing.
Chairman Boyd: And that's it.
Richard Joslin: I just have one quick question for Staff. Since we have seen Mr.
Bumpus for the past several months, I'd like to know if there are any other
contractors who have this many or maybe more outstanding permits that are not being
finalized who are not before us yet?
Patrick White: There's a can of worms.
Richard Joslin: I'm quite certain that there are.
Matthew Nolton: Before you get the answer, let me ask you does the answer in any
way affect how you may choose to vote on Mr. Bumpus' case in the future?
Richard Joslin: No, not at all. I'd just like to know if there will be more cases
coming before us.
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, there are. There are quite a few that are ...
Patrick White: ... somewhat similarly situated!
Everildo Ybaceta: Yes, very well put. Some are extreme.
26
October 17,2018
Richard Joslin: Are we actively going to pursue this situation?
Everildo Ybaceta: We are actively looking into all of them and pursuing them.
Richard Joslin: Okay.
Everildo Ybaceta: We are trying to bring them into compliance.
Terry Jerulle: Has the County come up with a system or plan to prevent this from
happening in the future?
Everildo Ybaceta: The Building Official is working on updating the Administrative
Code to touch on the subject.
Patrick White: From my understanding of the technology behind this, it could be
effectively computer-driven in terms of capturing when permits lapse, expire, or
become void—whatever the case may be—and I think what you're suggesting is that
the Administrative Code would impose a set of guidelines and circumstances on the
Building Department that would require them to monitor those things and take
appropriate action.
Everildo Ybaceta: You're right. I don't wish to comment any further on what the
Building Official is planning to do. Basically, he is working hard on trying to get this
passed and it's still an active document that ...
Terry Jerulle: You have answered my question.
Patrick White: If at any time the Building Official believes the views or support of
this Board would assist in that process, I certainly would be willing to take the time to
invest in understanding and offering recommendations. Additionally, I understand
what you are not saying and recognize that the County has choices as to the form it
wishes to take these types of cases to. They do not always have to come before the
Contractors' Licensing Board. My understanding is there may be other forms that
would give the County greater latitude. For example, the County Court could impose
equitable circumstances where an injunction could arise. I encourage that
conversation. My point is a Judge can do things that we can't. We can't impose an
injunction on someone to take corrective action, but a Judge can. If they fail to
adhere to the terms of the injunction, they can get a weekend at"steel beach."
Richard Joslin: Is there anything in process right now to help Mr. Lenio to speed up
some of the process? Time goes on and this has been going on for seven months.
I'm sure there are more cases in the background that haven't been touched on yet.
Everildo Ybaceta: Right. He has been given more staffing to help with the process.
Richard Joslin: Okay.
B. Case 2018-10: Board of County Commissioners, Plaintiff, vs. Stephen Bowles,
Misconduct of a State-Certified Contractor
(Note: This case was withdrawn by the County,pursuant to the Amended Agenda.)
NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 19,2018
BCC Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building "F,
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
27
October 17,2018
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by
order of the Chairman at 11:30 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS'
LICENSING BOARD
C
MICHAEL B D, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing
Board on ZecE-a b e:- ,2018, "as submitted"[x] - OR - "as amended" [ ]
28