Loading...
CLB Minutes 01/18/2006 R January 18,2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, January 18,2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Contractor's 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 Sydney Blum Ann Keller Richard Joslin Lee Horn ALSO PRESENT: Michael Ossorio, Licensing Comp Officer Tom Bartoe, Licensing Comp Officer Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Contractor Licensing Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: JANUARY 18, 2006 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: October 19, 2005 and October 31, 2005 - Emergency Meeting V. DISCUSSION: VI NEW BUSINESS: Claudia A. Sacacian - Request to qualify a 2"' entity. Stephen Scire - Request to qualify a 2"' entity. VII OLD BUSINESS: VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case # 2006-01 Mr. Fiddes vs Rolando Rodriguez D/B/A On The Level Builders, Inc. Case # 2006-02 Jerry Prud'Homme vs Grimaldo Bravo D/B/A Bravo Design/Build, Inc. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board on January 18, 2006. I'd like to start off with role call to my right. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: David Beswick. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Syd Blum. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Ann Keller. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. COMMISSINER HORN: Lee Horn. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Michael Boyd. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And looking over the agenda, are there any additions or deletions, Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and the Board members. I'm Tom Bartoe, Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer. Staff has no additions or deletions. And I hope the Board members all got a copy of the tentative schedule for the year 2006 in with your packet. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir. I need a motion to approve the agenda. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So moved, Blum. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And secondly, we need to approve two minutes. One was our regular board meeting in October, and then we had an emergency Board meeting October 31 st following Hurricane Wilma. We can do both Page 2 January 18, 2006 of those minutes in one motion. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I make a motion we approve the minutes for both meetings. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Second, Keller. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So done. Discussion, none. Moving right along. New business. Claudia Sacacian. Not present. What about Steven Scire? MR. SCIRE: Here. MR. BARTOE: Excuse me. I think we ought to discuss this first one. I think Mr. Blum didn't even want to hear it. Possibly I can get back to the office and give office staff direction after we hear from Mr. Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is this on the-- MR. BARTOE: This is on the one that's not present. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Sacacian? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sacacian. Who wants to address that? We'll get right to you. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Let Ms. Keller do that. I agree with what she's going to say. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Well, I just -- I'm kind of frustrated when I read these applications, because there's always different information there. Some we're supposed to have, some we're not. Some are missing. There's really no consistency. And it would be really nice if we had on the front a list of exactly what pages are Page 3 January 18,2006 following, and make sure that we have only what we need. And on this application there's a -- the credit report is from a mortgage service, and I don't think that's approved. I think the credit report has to be from one of several services, right? Is that right? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's one of the three approved credit agencies, Mr. Neal? MR. NEAL: Yes. COMMISSIONER KELLER: But we end up getting information about people that we don't even need to know about. And it just is kind of frustrating in going through these packets trying to look at the information that we need to look at in order to approve or not approve the package. So I don't know if anybody else is feeling the same frustration in looking at things, but -- MR. BARTOE: And something I noticed with both these applications, they are different. I have to get with office staff and say which one is the correct one. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Right. MR. BARTOE: Number two, on the one says name of business currently qualified. Number two, on the other says name of business to be qualified. So one of those I'm assuming is an outdated form. I will check with office staff when I get back. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Well, I think the second one is-- it's not a second entity that's being qualified, it's just one, right? MR. NEAL: They're both second entities. COMMISSIONER KELLER: And the first one has the current qualified and is trying to do a new one. But this says application to qualify second entity as well, so I don't know. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neal is Mericredit -- they're not one of those three, are they? MR. NEAL: No. Its the standard three, Experium -- I can't remember the three of them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't know who Mericredit in Fort Page 4 January 18,2006 Myers is. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I just have one item maybe we'll look at on the mortgage services report that we have addressed to us. In their sources it lists that -- what is this, TU Equifax and Experium as being the sources for this information? MR. NEAL: Right. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Could this be just a copy of something or they've got it and then forward it to us. MR. NEAL: It could be. I mean, this may be -- COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I don't know if it's good or bad, but MR. BARTOE: Merit has listed their source of information -- MR. NEAL: As Experium. MR. BARTOE: Right. COMMISSIONER KELLER: I just have a problem with the information being presented in different ways and through different sources. Because there's no -- it just -- information can be manipulated so easily. I'm just a little hesitant to look at something unless it's from one of the actual credit services. And it's confusing. You know, you don't know how to read it, and it's presented in different ways and it's just harder to get through the packets. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Well, I've got an annual report, profit -- corporation profit report that says it's filed, but there's no statement I ever saw and I don't think that's something we need to see anyway. To me, I would respectfully suggest that we send this back to the staff, and get it done in a different format. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, plus the one that's filed for the annual report if we wanted it, it's not current anyway it's 2005. COMMISSIONER BLUM: To me this is very incomplete and very difficult to understand. I don't see how we can rule on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can I have a motion to reject the application, redo it correctly with one of the three approved credit Page 5 January 18,2006 agencies? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Second, Keller. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. MR. NEAL: If I could, this Board back in 2001 approved a two-page document that goes with this when supposedly the second qualifiers get it, that lists 16 items that are supposed to be submitted with the application. It appears that somehow that's gotten lost in the shuffle. Because if staff would just hand that to the -- to the applicant, then every application would look the same. COMMISSIONER KELLER: And with the check list on the front and the documents in order. Nothing more, nothing less. MR. NEAL: This could be easily converted into a check list. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you do me a favor-- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Let staff say no you didn't do this, yes, you did that. Let's get it right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you do me a favor and fax that to Maggie? MR. NEAL: I'll just email it over to her. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So, if you'll correct that, Mr. Bartoe and Michael. How much longer until -- MR. BARTOE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How much longer until Paul is gone? COMMISSIONER BLUM: 122 days. Last I spoke to him, it was 122 days or something. Page 6 January 18,2006 MR. BARTOE: June, July. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: June, July. Am I free to discuss that? MR. BARTOE: He wouldn't care. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I understand he's recommended Michael Ossorio to take his place; is that correct? MR. BARTOE: I don't know if he's made any recommendations or not. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BARTOE I mean, the job will be advertised. It will have to be. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I'll just go on record that I would go for Michael 110 percent. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think he would be wonderful at the job. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I think he's too tough myself. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Everyone in town knows him. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Pull him off the street we're going to lose. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Really. MR. BARTOE: Look what you'll lose ifhe doesn't go back out in the street. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Exactly. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's okay. COMMISSIONER KELLER: They'll find someone else to do it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ifhe's half as good as the way he started, just imagine what he could be. Okay. Steve, you ready? MR. SCIRE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Come on up. Before you come to the podium, state your name, and then I'll have the reporter swear you in. MR. SCIRE: Steven Scire, S-C-I-R-E. (Sworn. ) Page 7 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Tell us what you do now, what you want to do, and why. MR. SCIRE: We have a tile and marble installation business. Basically been in town for a little over 15, 16 years. We're looking to -- or I'm looking to use my license to qualify and open another business doing granite and marble fabrication separate from my tile and marble business. So I don't want to combine that and incorporate that into my business, I want to keep it separate, but I wanted to use my tile and marble license to qualify for sales and installations versus just selling the product. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Who currently qualifies Marble & Granite Industry? MR. SCIRE: Nobody. It's a brand new business. COMMISSIONER KELLER: So why does it have a credit report already? MR. SCIRE: There shouldn't be much of a credit report for Marble and Granite Industries. COMMISSIONER KELLER: It has a balance of $5,900 from Community Bank of Naples. MR. SCIRE: Yeah, there's an initial investment between my partner and myself. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any complaint from staff against the company presently qualified? MR. BARTOE: None known, sir. COMMISSIONER BLUM: The second company has already been formed? MR. SCIRE: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER BLUM: The second company has been formed with shareholders and -- MR. SCIRE: Exactly. We've gone through the corporation. COMMISSIONER BLUM: When was that done? MR. SCIRE: Maybe a couple months ago. Page 8 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER BLUM: You're not -- what I'm seeing and what Ms. Keller is alluding to is it appears you're already doing business without the qualification. MR. SCIRE: Right. We're trying to get set up and get moving on it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: By looking at the effective date of the corporation when you incorporated it was 11/l5/05? MR. SCIRE: Yes. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: It's showing status as active before you have an active corporation. It's doing business as of right now. MR. SCIRE: Well, actually isn't -- the initial occupational license that was applied for was for -- was for manufacturing only. So I couldn't sell -- I couldn't sell the product installed. That's where my tile and marble license -- I was under the impression -- would come into play to get the product to be licensed to install it and sell that product as an installed product instead of just manufacturing. So that's where we're getting established. I'm trying to get out to the street as selling installed product instead of just manufacturing and having somebody else install it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: To be honest with you, I like this route better than the other route. He's expended money to do it, we have a credit report. We've got all the documents, whereas all the other times we can't even get a certificate of insurance or any documents because he's awaiting approval. I don't really -- ifhe's doing business without a license, Michael will find him. COMMISSIONER BLUM: He can sell, he just can't sell and install product. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He can sell, yeah. COMMISSIONER BLUM: And that's what he's doing. That's the part I want to know about. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 941 taxes got you in trouble, didn't it? MR. SCIRE: Excuse me? Page 9 January 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 941 taxes got you in trouble? MR. SCIRE: Got me in trouble? Back in the day, yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's one of those lessons to be learned by all business people. MR. SCIRE: Yeah. Well, we just went through -- our tile company went through a full sales tax audit. It's the end of the year and, you know, you learn stuff. You really do. And unfortunately, nobody can take the whole book unless you're in that department or business, per se, and throughout the top of your head know things that come up. So, you know, you do learn things. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It takes a while to get to learn how to run a business. MR. SCIRE: That it does. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody find any problems with the application? COMMISSIONER KELLER: I'm sorry. I don't understand. The tax lien has been paid. MR. SCIRE: Yeah. It should be a copy of the release. MR. NEAL: There's a satisfaction attached. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we approve this application. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Second, Beswick. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. Page 10 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You got it. MR. SCIRE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All your files are here so don't go to contractor licensing today. MR. SCIRE: No problem. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can go tomorrow and get It done. MR. SCIRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do well. Old business, none. Public hearings. Let's go to case number 2006-1. Our first one of the year. Mr. Fiddes versus Rolando Rodriguez On the Level Builders, Inc. Are we ready? Mr. Rodriguez. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If the two of you would just come up for a moment. Let me explain to you how this is done. I'll have both of you sit over here and you'll sit over here on the front row. Basically what we'll do is, we'll start with opening comments. It's a quasi judicial hearing. Opening comments. The county will represent you. And then you'll be able to make your opening comment. Not a presentation of evidence or anything, but you watched enough TV to know how it goes. Just an opening comment. Then the county will produce their case. Any witnesses they call, you will have an opportunity to cross-examine them. Once the County rests, then you can present your case, call witnesses if you want, they can cross-examine, and then once those two things are done, both of you will make a closing argument. We will close the public hearing at this point, which is basically you're finished. Unless we ask you any specific questions, you're out of it. You're basically just going to listen to our deliberations and then we'll render a decision. Okay? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Can I -- this may sound foolish, but what exactly are we ruling here? There has been a judgment already rendered here. A court judgment. Are we looking to discipline this Page 11 January 18,2006 gentleman or not? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I haven't read the file. MR. NEAL: One ofthe reasons -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Just clarify exactly what it is we're doing. MR. NEAL: One of the reasons this case took a while to get to you is because of the fact that it's been the policy of this beard, and it's typically the policy of the Board that the Board does not hear or rule on any cases that are the subject of litigation. Once the litigation is complete, the court has no power essentially over the respondent's license. This Board is the only Board that has power over the license. So this Board is then charged -- this Board then may hear the case to determine what if any sanctions are appropriate as to the applicant's -- as to the respondent's license. So, you know, with all the sanctions that apply to -- this Board can apply versus a license holder. COMMISSIONER BLUM: The complainant has already been through the civil litigation, and he's now looking to pursue further county -- through us, county restrictions? MR. NEAL: And remember that the fact that even though Mr. Fiddes is the petitioner, then that's really incorrect in here. Mr. Fiddes is not the petitioner. Collier County is actually the petitioner. There really is no standing for an individual here. Collier County is the one bringing the case. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Gentlemen, just so you understand who's who in the room, both of these gentlemen are County staff of Contractor Licensing. Mr. Zachary is the attorney for Collier County, and he's overseeing the case here. And we'll -- he'll ask questions. Mr. Neal is the attorney for the Licensing Board. He keeps us out of trouble. So that's where we go. Okay. Go ahead and have a seat Mr. Bartoe. The floor is yours. Are you going to present the case, or Mr. Zachary? MR. BARTOE: Mr. Zachary. Page 12 January 18, 2006 MR. ZACHARY: I will this morning. Good morning, Robert Zachary representing Collier County. Good morning, Board members. We're here today for case number 2006-01. Petitioner, Robert 1. Fiddes versus Rolando Rodriguez, doing business as On The Level Builders. As was noted before, this case is an '03 case, and the reason we had gone so long hearing it is there has been a judgment and wanted the board to note there's been a judgement obtained against Mr. Rodriguez and On The Level Builders by Mr. Fiddes pertaining to the same remodeling case that you all are hearing today. The original contract was entered into on May 15,2003, and the contract specified -- which all this is in your packet -- the contract specified that there would be a kitchen remodel, that cabinets would be delivered for this remodel in six to seven weeks. The job would be completed within two to three weeks after the cabinets were delivered, and significantly, Mr. Fiddes paid On The Level Builders $9,000 as a deposit. And significantly, if you look -- well, we'll get into that with the case. Late in June Mr. Fiddes was informed by On The Level Builders that the cabinets were -- that he had ordered for the job that were specified in the contract had been delivered. And approximately in late July, Mr. Fiddes began to inquire ofMr. Rodriguez or On the Level Builders when the job was going to start. And this was some six or seven weeks after the contract was signed. Mr. Fiddes was assured that the cabinets were in and that work would start in mid August. Well, work did start in mid August, on August 13th. On the Level Builders began the demolition of the kitchen, and an inspector from the county happened by and noted that there was no permit to the job. Work was suspended, and evidently, Mr. Rodriguez did obtain a permit that day. Approximately two weeks later work was stopped for a building inspection, and Mr. Fiddes called the building department and inquired and found that no inspection was scheduled. He inquired of Mr. Rodriguez, evidently the inspection took place, and on Page 13 January 18,2006 September 12th -- work then continued on September 12th. Mr. Fiddes complained to On The Level about the quality of the workmanship. And in your package you'll notice there's some pictures of the workmanship. He was told at that time that the cabinets were ordered, were in and ready for installation. On September 19th, Mr. Fiddes again complained about the quality of the workmanship. He noted that the installation of the drywall and the hard coat were -- the workmanship was shoddy. That the -- the walls were not level, the ceilings were not level, to the point that cabinets could not be installed. And at that time, on September 19th, Mr. Fiddes informed On The Level Builders that they were terminated from the job. Subsequently, through the discovery process for the civil court case, it was determined that the cabinets that were specified in the contract and were specified in the contract, were not ordered by On The Level Builders. That cabinets that differed materially from the specifications that were given from, and the drawing that was made that specified the type and the size of the cabinets differed significantly from what were eventually ordered by On The Level Builders. It was subsequently found out that the cabinets used and ordered under the Fiddes name were used in a spec house that was being built by On The Level Builders on Wilson Boulevard and were not used in the house that Mr. Fiddes owned. At this point the county is -- and you can read the counts one through five -- at this point the county would suggest that Mr. Rodriguez and On The Level Builders has committed all of these counts and ask that the Board, at the end of the evidence, find that On The Level Builders has violated our ordinance and is guilty of all these violations. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Rodriguez. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Good morning, Board. First I'd like to start by saying everything that you heard is completely and totally incorrect. It may not be the way to go about this, but all the facts have been so misconstrued that it's not even close. Not one thing that was Page 14 January 18,2006 said was correct. I did enter into a contract with Mr. Fiddes on May 15th for remodel of this kitchen, which included Hanley Cathedral kitchen cabinets, which you have a copy of in the package. We agreed after the contract, after in June to start this job in the middle of August. I was -- because I was going to be out of town in July. He could not have called me in late July, I was not in town in late July. And I was gone from the first week, right after July 4th to August 1st. Mr. Fiddes also in deposition during the course from 2003 to now was gone the first week of August. And that they testified to during one of the depositions that we had through this whole process. So that's why we agreed to start this project in the middle of August. As far as for his kitchen cabinets, what he said everything -- which you'll see in your packet -- the cabinets -- I'll be happy to explain. Every kitchen cabinet that he ordered that was on the contract was ordered. There's some s's and some l's behind the numbers that signify a hinge left or hinge right. That's the only difference. There's a minor difference in two cabinets because Craft Made does not make a cabinet -- there's one that's 4242. Craft Made does not make a 4242. I ordered two 2142s, which makes 4242 for the opening. Also if you look at the cabinet's description on the contract, it shows a total of 17 cabinets and some miscellaneous moldings. I ordered 18 cabinets miscellaneous moldings, and four additional moldings and upgrade to plywood paneling, as far as one is the WPLS 4896, that's a skin. We ordered -- we'll get into this later. WPL 48-96, which is three quarter inch plywood to build a cabinet. If this was done -- if this was done to defraud or to lose money, I'd order less cabinet and less moldings. Also on all these counts -- do we go through the counts here now or? COMMISSIONER BLUM: It's up to you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's up to you, just keep it brief Page 15 January 18,2006 though. You'll have time later. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Also these counts, like the first count of diverting funds, property received for the execution of a specific contract. Or operation of diverting funds earmarked for a specific purpose to any other use whatsoever. All funds that he gave me -- he gave me a $9,000 deposit on a $24,000 contract. This was for a kitchen remodel and kitchen cabinets and countertops. And you'll see through discovery that we went in, we removed all his kitchen -- all his kitchen cabinets, all his counter tops, we removed the entire drop ceiling. I paid Galaxy Electric, a subcontractor to do all his electric wiring. I've got pictures of probably all the electrical wiring because, of course, it's a drop ceiling and all the wiring is underneath the trusses. That was part of the contract that I paid. We paid to redo all the lights. That I paid for. After he left, I paid Tim Williams AC, a licensed air conditioning contractor to redo the duct work. That was paid for and that was done. I also paid to re-insulate the ceiling. That had to be done and paid for. This is all before these cabinets even got here. This all had to be done preliminarily. It wasn't just a kitchen job where we just changed up cabinets. It was a remodeling job. Then redo the drywall, that was done and paid for. Redo the finish coat, that was done and paid for. As far as to not -- not done to Mr. Fiddes' specifications, I had three separate finishers in there because he was not happy with the first. The next day I had a second subcontractor. He was not happy with the second subcontractor. He called me on the 19th at 3 :00 and told me he was not happy with the contractor. I had a third one there at 5:00 that day. Which eventually sat there and got it done for Mr. Fiddes -- Mr. and Mrs. Fiddes' specifications to what they liked. They even told me they liked it. They told me they were happy all the way up to the 20th. He terminated the contract on the 21 st. We were there on the 20th, through the 20th. I even had Mr. Michael Bugnell ready to go there Page 16 January 18,2006 on the 21 st to prime the ceiling and paint the ceiling getting it ready for the cabinets. And he fired me on the 21 st. They even called Mr. Bugnell to tell him not to come to work. There was no lapse. There was no time that we were not working. That, oh, he hasn't been here a week, or he hasn't been here in two weeks, let's fire him. The reason that I was terminated, which actually, I've got the letter and I've got Ms. Fiddes' statements here, because they received a phone bill that there was a telephone call to Cuba, and they believed it was my workers that did it. As a matter of fact, the actual quote here, which belonged to KraftMaid from Ms. Fiddes, is that she said that the builder has her money and that she has had to fire him for not doing the job. And also letting his workers call from her home to Cuba. That's why I got fired. That's it. And then the count two, departing from, or disregarding in any material with respect to plans or specifications of a construction job without the consent of the owner or his duly authorized representative. If we'll take the time later on to go through a cabinet list, his cabinets on the contract and the cabinets that were ordered, you will see that they all fit, they were all made for that kitchen. They were upgraded. I spent more money in what I ordered than what was on the contract for Mr. Fiddes. And then number three, committed mismanagement or misconduct that causes financial harm to customer. He gave me $9,000. I gave him -- up to the point, I gave him $9,000 worth of work. I gave him $9,000. I hired subcontractors, electrical contractors. The subcontractors, electrical finish guys, insulation, AC guys. All these guys have been paid. He has not received a letter from anybody on that job that they were not paid by me. Also, I also paid for the cabinets that I got stuck with. Because I got fired before -- I got stuck with these cabinets. They're Hanley -- they're custom made cabinets for this job. I'm not going to bum them. I'm not going to go toss them. I did have a spec home at 13 70 Wilson Boulevard. Page 17 January 18,2006 Two months afterwards, I sitting there looking at these cabinets. So we took them to Wilson Boulevard, and I made them fit. I cut them, I chopped them, but I made them fit. They weren't ordered for Wilson Boulevard. Too bad you can't go there to see, but the kitchen is different heights and so forth. But I did make them fit with fillers and so forth. They were not earmarked as representing that I bought them with his money and went and put them in a spec home that I have. That was not -- I had to use them. I got them. I'm stuck with them. I'm terminated from the job, and I got these cabinets. So that's why they're at Wilson Boulevard. Number four, failure to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to provisions of the construction contract. Like I said before, we were there working. I was working with Mr. Fiddes. One example is the finishing of the ceiling. You remove a drop ceiling -- I've got pictures here. You've got the whole ceiling open. Were-sheetrock and we're trying to match the texture. And if anybody knows, that's extremely difficult. I had three different -- three different people working to finish the texture. Finally he was happy with the last one which completed the work on the 20th, and then he fired me on the 21st. Okay. When I finished the work -- I don't know about these pictures, or who these people are with this level here, but I didn't do any framing, I didn't frame the ceiling,I didn't frame the walls. I just applied the drywall to the walls and I finished coating. If there is some inconsistencies with the trusses or how we hung them, I don't know. I was fired. Okay. And, like I said before, promptly, he told me at 3:00 one day, he was not happy with the finisher. I had a different finisher there at 5:00. Two hours later -- I don't know how more promptly I can get. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Question for you. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just trying to get some dates before Page 18 January 18,2006 we get into this. What's the date you actually started on the job? MR. RODRIGUEZ: The 13th. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Of what month? MR. RODRIGUEZ: August. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: August 13th. Okay. That's '03, right? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. August 13th. Count Four -- Count Five, proceeding to any job without obtaining applicable permits of inspection per the City of Naples Building Department Zoning. On the 13th, I sent the crews out. I sent them out to Mr. Fiddes' job and I went to the building department. Okay? There was -- there was -- he had a down power line in the front and he had the county people working there. I did not have the permit on the job site when my guys got there. It was not meant to not get a permit. It was not meant to -- it was in the spirit, which I have done. I sent them out -- if it's an over the counter permit like this, I send the guys out, I go to the Building Department. As a matter of fact I was at the building department when he called me. I was standing in line to get my permit for his job. Actually, I've gone before to try to get the kitchen cabinet permit, but they wouldn't give me a kitchen cabinet because they said kitchen cabinet doesn't require a permit. But the demo does. The permit I got was for the demo, to remove the ceiling and to put everything back up. So, at that time when I was sitting there -- I believe it was Wanda who I was there with. She told me that someone called in, and I did pay -- I did have to pay four times the permit amount for the permit because the guys were there. It was a matter of hours. I sent them to the job, I went to the Building Department. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Were they actually performing the demolition at that time? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, they were getting -- no, it was like they got there at 8:30, 9:00, I think the permit was issued at 11 :00 finally when I got there. I sent them over there, they were probably getting Page 19 January 18,2006 the stuff out. They got the big On The Level Builder vans. There was a down power line, so the county was doing work in front of them. I think they felt we were doing that, the routine -- an inspector for that. But we did have the guys there. I don't think they could have started the demolition. They definitely did not start the demolition of the ceiling. I'm sure they probably started removing cabinets by the time I got the permit there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Move on, sir. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. As far as financial harm to the customer. Like I said, he got $9,000 for the -- he gave me $9,000. I did $9,000 worth of work. He did get a judgement against On The Level Builders because this has -- this dragged on. I paid my attorney over $20,000 for this mess. I just couldn't keep paying the guy. So what happened, I then, my attorney -- my attorney quit or retired or whatever. They gave me 30 days to get an additional attorney. I couldn't get an additional attorney within 30 days. I did call four different attorneys but the stack was like this after two years of this being dragged out. And nobody would take it. And I wanted to get the attorney to do this. Then finally we went again in front of the judge, and I told him I needed more time, and he said I don't have a right to speak for On The Level Builders, Incorporated because On The Level Builders is a corporation. And that's when he gave sanctions that I was not allowed to present a case. No one has ever heard my case. Not the county, not the judge. No one has ever heard anything that I've had to say. This is the first time that someone listened, that someone got to hear what I've got to say about this job. The county did not hear it. Okay? So anyways. So the judge determined that I wasn't allowed to defend the case. He struck my pleadings and he ruled in the favor of Mr. Fiddes. And in the favor of Mr. Fiddes for $33,000. We're looking at a man who gave me $9,000, I did $9,000 worth of work, and now somehow I'm paying him $33,000. Page 20 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, that doesn't really influence us, nor does the fact that you gave $9,000 worth make any difference, so don't waste a lot of time on that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because what we're looking at is completion of the contract. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't care that you think you gave him $9,000 worth of work. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I understand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The contract wasn't completed. MR RODRIGUEZ: No, my contract -- I was terminated. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who was attorney before? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Wayde Seidensticker. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I know Wayde. He's still active. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I see Mark Silverio in here. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I know Mark is still active. They're both good attorneys. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And they quit on you? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, not Mark Silverio. Wayde Seidensticker. I paid him 20,000 and he needed another $10,000. At that time On The Level Builders did not have another $10,000 to give him up front before the court date, and he wanted the money up front before the court date. I could not keep paying him. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So he withdrew? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. RODRIGUEZ: He's been my attorney before for different Page 21 January 18, 2006 things, but I could not afford to keep paying him. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. County. Mr. Zachary? Would you present your case. MR. ZACHARY: The county would like to call Mr. Robert B. Fiddes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Fiddes, if you would come up to that podium. State your name and the reporter will swear you in. MR. BARTOE: May I first, staff would like to request the packet be introduced as evidence, composite Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That would be a pretty good idea. It's a shame I didn't think of that. MR. BARTOE: 2006-01, Mr. Fiddes versus Rolando Rodriguez doing business as On The Level Builders, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would someone introduce the packet, please, since I forgot it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll make the motion that we introduce the packet COB2006-01 Fiddes versus Rolando Rodriguez into evidence, please. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER KELLER: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I told you it's quasi-judicial. If you would state your name, sir. MR. FIDDES: My name is Robert Fiddes. (Sworn.) Page 22 January 18, 2006 MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Fiddes, could you introduce yourself to the Board, please? MR. FIDDES: I'm Robert Fiddes. I'm the complainant in this matter. I'm a long time resident of Collier County. My home is in the Pinewoods subdivision off Airport Road. My profession is economic consultant, personal manager. For several years I taught economics and personal finance at Edison Community College. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just one clarification, you are not the complainant. MR. FIDDES: I beg your pardon. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Collier County is the complainant. MR. FIDDES: Collier County, yeah. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Fiddes, you own the home at 2970 Pinewood Circle. MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Did there come a time that you entered into a contract with Roland Rodriguez, the licensee on behalf of On The Level Builders? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. May 15,2003. MR ZACHARY: Okay. Can you tell the Board what that contract was for? MR. FIDDES: In simple terms, the contract was for the removal of existing cabinets, removal of a drop ceiling, the replacement of cabinets by the manufacturer KraftMaid, and also provided for new countertops. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. When you entered into that contract, did you -- how did that happen? Did you sit down with the builder and go over what you needed and or what? MR. FIDDES: We had looked for several months at home centers at cabinets and had an idea of the design that we wanted and the cabinet specification that we wanted. We also recognized that this -- our interest was in more than just removing cabinets and replacing Page 23 January 18,2006 cabinets. We wanted a taller style cabinet that involved removal of a drop ceiling that existed in part of the kitchen area. So we believed we needed the services of more than just a cabinet removal, cabinet installer company, which was why we went looking for a service provider beyond the capacity of a home store. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can I ask you to get a little closer to that mic? MR. FIDDES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you. MR. ZACHARY: Did you interview any other contractors, other than On The Level Builders? MR. FIDDES: We went to the web site for KraftMaid Cabinets and On The Level Builders was shown as a dealer for KraftMaid. We interviewed Mr. Rodriguez. My recollection is we had a conversation with another dealer on the list and Mr. Rodriguez seemed particularly interested in the contract and the business. We ended up asking him to make a proposal and subsequently entered into a contract with him. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And that contract is in the packet at F5 or four. Looking at the contract, it appears that it's very specific as to which cabinets are going to be installed in your remodeled kitchen. How did that come about that you have those specifics on there? Are you aware of that? MR. FIDDES: The cabinets were specified by style and by cabinet number as reflected in the KraftMaid catalog. KraftMaid catalogs are readily available. Mr. Rodriguez had one. We had one from other sources. These were specifically identified from the KraftMaid catalog as appropriate to the design for the replacement for the kitchen. MR. ZACHARY: And I note there's also on E7 of the packet, there's a sketch or a drawing. Was that made at the same time as the contract? Are you aware of that? Page 24 January 18,2006 MR. FIDDES: This was a drawing prepared by Mr. Rodriguez as a part of his design process and specification process for the cabinets for the kitchen. MR. ZACHARY: Was that included as part of the contract? MR. FIDDES: It's referenced in the contract. MR. ZACHARY: All right. At the signing of the contract you paid Mr. Rodriguez $9,000. MR. FIDDES: That's correct. On May 15th of'03. MR. ZACHARY: As an inducement to signing the contract, did Mr. Rodriguez tell you any -- give you any delivery dates or completion dates for the contract? MR. FIDDES: I told Mr. Rodriguez at the time of signing that, for several reasons, one of which as matters related to my wife's health, that we wanted to be certain that the period of time the ceiling in the kitchen was open was minimized, and he agreed. I told him also that I did not want any work to begin on the kitchen until cabinets were in hand ready for installation. He agreed. He indicated in the contract, as you'll note, cabinet delivery approximately six to seven weeks completion, two to three weeks following delivery. Contract is dated May 15th. There are no other dates on the contract. MR ZACHARY: And Mr. Rodriguez agreed that the cabinets would be delivered in approximately six to seven weeks, and the job would be completed two to three weeks -- MR FIDDES: Following delivery. MR. ZACHARY: Subsequent to delivery? MR. FIDDES: Correct. MR. ZACHARY: All right. What happened after that? MR. FIDDES: Approximately six weeks after the contract date, which would have been the end of June, I started calling Mr. Rodriguez asking him if the cabinets were in. He indicated they were in. Within the six to seven week period, but for a variety of reasons he was unable to start on the job then. Indicated he was too busy, he was Page 25 January 18, 2006 going on vacation, he had some other projects to do. Couldn't start. MR. ZACHARY: What did you do at that point? MR. FIDDES: There was nothing I could do. I felt held hostage. He had my money. Said he had my cabinets. I didn't feel I had any alternative, but to wait. MR. ZACHARY: When was your next contact with Mr. Rodriguez? MR. FIDDES: Subsequent -- well, we're called on a regular basis, and as my recollection is, at the end of the July he called and said he was ready to start in August. And he indicated an August 12th date. And I said, fine. Nobody showed up on August 12th. A subsequent call indicated, or suggested that there would be workers there on the 13th. Workers did arrive at approximately 8:00, is my recollection, on August 13th. MR. ZACHARY: What did they do when they arrived? MR. FIDDES: Began the process of demolition and disassembly of the existing cabinets. MR. ZACHARY: What happened after that? MR. FIDDES: As was mentioned earlier, there was a heavy duty electrical cable strung across my yard. Some underground repair work had resulted in one of my neighbors having no electricity. And Florida Power & Light had strung an enormous cable through the trees across my yard from one house to another. My house wasn't affected, but my neighbors on either side were. An inspector who was driving by saw the cable and wondered what was going on. He stopped in, saw no permit, saw the demolition work, stopped the demolition work. Mr. Rodriguez showed up a couple hours later with the permit and work resumed. The demolition continued a couple of days to remove the cabinets. Remove the drop ceiling. The ceiling stayed open for an inordinate period of time after having requested that it be covered for matters related to my wife's health. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Excuse me. By inordinate, how Page 26 January 18,2006 long are you talking about? MR. FIDDES: Days. COMMISSIONER BLUM: How many days? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: How many days? MR. FIDDES: Five to seven. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: All right. MR. FIDDES: Two primary workers in the employ ofMr. Rodriguez eventually were able to drywall the ceiling, at least cover it up and began the process of finishing. And Mr. Rodriguez is correct, there were multiple drywall finishers there. Multiple drywall finishers because none of them could get it right. MR. ZACHARY: Now, what do you mean couldn't get it right? Specifically what? MR. FIDDES: Couldn't get it level. Couldn't get a reasonable match to the existing wall to the existing ceiling. The kitchen is a part of a larger area and textural differences between the two would have been obvious. So there was a need to match the installation. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. You say that certain portions of the work were not level. And I note that you have several photographs in the package from E 14 to E 18 or 19 because -- could you explain to the Board what those represent? MR. FIDDES: Certainly. I apologize for the texture of these pictures. They were not intended to be enlarged to this size. The first is a vertical wall picture, E 15 is correctly viewed as a portrait. This shows approximately a four foot aluminum level held flush against a comer beam about chest high, and shows the wall pulling back from level. MR. ZACHARY: That would be -- would that depict a wall that had been replaced as part of the remodeling project? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. The area behind the level and to the right of the level had been replaced. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who took the picture? Page 27 January 18,2006 MR. FIDDES: I took the picture. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who's holding the level? MR. FIDDES: That is my wife. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The problem we have we these is we can't see the bubble on the level. So, it doesn't mean a whole lot to us. MR. FIDDES: Well-- MR. ZACHARY: Well, Mr. Fiddes, you were there and the picture that is depicted, were you able to observe the bubble on the level? MR. FIDDES: I was able to observe the bubble on the level. MR. ZACHARY: And is the level as depicted plum or is the bubble centered on the level showing that it's -- that the vertical position is some distance away from the drywall as it's showed? MR. FIDDES: The leveling device is level, perpendicular, and the drywall within the top two feet of the ceiling pulls back from the level position of the level. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Can I ask a question? MR. ZACHARY: Sure. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Were any level pictures readings taken before the new drywall was put on? MR. FIDDES: Oh-- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Mr. Rodriguez said he had nothing to do with the framing, the studding, the rafters, whatever. If it wasn't level before, it certainly wouldn't be level now. I'm wondering if you have anything to show that it wasn't level, or it was level before he did the work. MR. FIDDES: I don't have pictures pre -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: So you don't know if it was level or not before the new drywall was put on? MR. FIDDES: I do know that cabinets in the area just depicted on picture E 15 were -- had a consistent level at that edge. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Shimmying sometimes. Page 28 January 18,2006 MR. FIDDES: Well, this particular area, the drywall, was removed for electrical work at -- out of this picture, but just around the comer is a switch panel with major wiring coming down behind the level. This portion of drywall was removed and replaced by what you see here. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So, what you're saying is, maybe the wiring changed, and that's why it's out of level now; is that what you're saying? MR. FIDDES: The replacement was not installed. COMMISSIONER BLUM: The replacement wiring or -- I'm getting confused. MR. FIDDES: The drywall replacement, which was removed to facilitate some wiring wasn't installed level. COMMISSIONER KELLER: And since this case you have replaced it and it is level? MR. FIDDES: Yes, ma'am. MR. ZACHARY: Let's go a little further than that. How did-- did the several attempts by On The Level Builders make this wall able to have cabinets installed, or did you do that consequent to his termination? MR FIDDES: Subsequent to the termination of On The Level Builders, the drywall was in several areas in the kitchen, this being one of them, was replaced and made level. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Was Mr. Rodriguez aware that you had a problem with the drywall and was he given the opportunity to make it right? MR. FIDDES: He was given every opportunity. And, in fact, two of the workers that he had there -- two, the two individuals who were his primary workers, when I complained to them repeatedly about sections of the ceiling and sections of the wall being unlevel, became upset with me for those comments, and wouldn't come back to the job. Page 29 January 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER BLUM: Well, that's neither here nor there. MR. FIDDES: I agree, it's neither here nor there, but, yes, were there complaints about -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: But you told Mr. Rodriguez the sheetrock is up, the finish is done, it's out of level, will you fix it, and he did not fix it? MR. FIDDES: He did not fix it. He was given, with the drywall, with the repeated presence of drywall people on site, to Mr. Rodriguez's testimony, three plus, it was not level. COMMISSIONER BLUM: How close in time between this revelation and when you removed him from the job? Was it like right then and there? Like this is part of the reason for terminating him, or was it like a week before or something? MR. FIDDES: He was terminated because the job couldn't have had cabinets installed. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So, that's got a direct relationship to the level wall part? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Okay. Thanks. MR. FIDDES: The contract should have been finished ten weeks after May 15th of '03. On August 13th of '03 the job was just starting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, let's continue on. MR. ZACHARY: Let's go onto-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not to get lost in points, but the contract says it will take six to seven weeks to get the cabinets, so that statement is -- MR. FIDDES: Understood. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Fiddes, what's depicted in the packages E16? MR. FIDDES: E16 is a picture that is properly viewed landscape. It shows again another section of ceiling. Page 30 January 18,2006 MR. ZACHARY: So, in other words, the level is against the ceiling? MR. FIDDES: The level is against the ceiling. Shows a gap of approximately an inch at the left-hand side. Also reveals an improperly installed exhaust vent. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Again, as we can't see the bubbles in the level, you were there. Did you observe that the bubbles were centered in the level? MR. FIDDES: The level is level in this picture. MR. ZACHARY: Next picture, E17, is again another view of, a close up view of the circumstance depicted in E 15. MR. FIDDES: Picture E18 is a properly viewed landscape. It is the level applied against a section of ceiling revealing the out of level gap. MR. ZACHARY: Again, is that gap or that hole that we see in the ceiling, is that again the exhaust vent? MR. FIDDES: That is a -- that is a hole for a then uninstalled light fixture. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And, again, you were there and you can represent to the Board that this level is again -- MR. FIDDES: Level. MR. ZACHARY -- level, for lack of a better term. MR. FIDDES: E19 is again a properly viewed landscape. A step back view of what was previously shown with the light fixture and the foreground. The level is level. The ceiling is not. MR. ZACHARY: And you told Mr. Rodriguez repeatedly about these problems with the plum of the walls and the ceiling not being level, and the problem that would be encountered if cabinets were to -- if it was attempted to install cabinets? MR. FIDDES: Correct. MR. ZACHARY: And what did Mr. Rodriguez say about that? MR. FIDDES: Mr. Rodriguez said the kitchen was ready for Page 3 1 January 18,2006 cabinet installation. MR. ZACHARY: Okay, and this was what date? MR FIDDES: This was at the time of termination and subsequently in a letter from Mr. Rodriguez to me dated September 23. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Did you ever tell Mr. Rodriguez that you were satisfied with the installation of the drywall and the ceiling as it was? MR. FIDDES: No. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And when you terminated Mr. Rodriguez, was the kitchen still in the same state as was depicted in the photographs that we just looked at? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: So then you're representing that none of the ceilings were -- there were several places where the ceilings and wall weren't level, and in your estimation, they wouldn't be able to successfully install cabinets at that point? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Subsequent to your termination of On The Level Builders and Mr. Rodriguez, what did you discover about the cabinets that had been ordered for your job? MR. FIDDES: I subsequently discovered that representations Mr. Rodriguez had made since late June, early July, that the cabinets were in his possession was a lie. Repeated statements in response to inquiries made to me by his possession of the cabinets in which he represented that he had the cabinets in his possession were untruths. In a letter referenced in which Mr. Rodriguez responded in writing to his termination, he indicated that cabinet installation was scheduled for September 23. We subsequently determined by direct contact with KraftMaid Cabinets that he did not have the cabinets on September 23. MR. ZACHARY: You determined that yourself with contact Page 32 January 18,2006 with KraftMaid? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. Mr. Rodriguez subsequently agreed he didn't have the cabinets on September 23. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Can I ask a question? Had you paid for those cabinets? MR FIDDES: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not with the second draw, no. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Had you paid the $17,000? MR. FIDDES: If you look at the contract-- COMMISSIONER KELLER: That the cabinets cost? MR. FIDDES: If you look at the contract, the contract calls for a second payment on delivery of the contract. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So the only monies you paid were $9,000? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Total? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: You're contending that -- it says on the contract that upon delivery of cabinetry, Mr. Rodriguez would be due the second draw? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: And that's noted on the contract? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. So essentially you have paid for the cabinets, paid to have them delivered to your house, and upon delivery, you would pay him the second draw of$9,000? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. In the packet I note that you have a spread sheet that details the cabinets that you ordered per the contract, and the drawing and the cabinets that were subsequently ordered by Mr. Rodriguez from KraftMaid. MR. FIDDES: That's correct. Page 33 January 18,2006 MR. ZACHARY: can you explain that to the Board, please. That's on E 1 0 and Ell of the packet. MR. FIDDES: The two pages that I just referred to are pages E 1 0 and Ell. As a predicate to my comments there, exhibit E9 is a copy of the contract of his -- copy of the order for cabinets at KraftMaid Cabinets that bears the name Fiddes. It's a list of quantity, specific cabinet description, and certain prices. The 27 pages described as exhibit E 10 and Ell, are comparisons prepared for trial that contrast in the first left column the items identified in the KraftMaid order. Next column to the right, are cabinets specified in the On The Level Builders contract. The third column is cabinets identified in the sketch related to the contract. And the fourth column is an identification of differences among these three columns. I submit that what was ordered bears scant relationship to the contract and sketch. MR. ZACHARY: Well, specifically, Mr. Fiddes, we look at EI0, the KraftMaid order that corresponds to the order we see on E9, and then from the bottom of the KraftMaid order on down, all those numbered cabinets from your contract or your sketch were not ordered for your job. MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. ZACHARY: And several of the cabinets that were ordered were for -- were specified in your contract, but never delivered? MR. FIDDES: No cabinets were delivered to me -- MR. ZACHARY: Well, you terminated the contract. MR. FIDDES: -- any of these circumstances. But, certain cabinets, a select number, appear in all three places. A 24-inch cabinet is, I suspect, a fairly standard item. But there is an extensive list of items in my contract which were not ordered and a substantial number of orders -- of items ordered that are not in my contract. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Rodriguez told you that he was ready, willing and able to install these cabinets, the ones that were specified Page 34 January 18, 2006 for your house on September 23rd? MR. FIDDES: 23. MR. ZACHARY: Were you ever able to determine when the cabinets were actually ordered from KraftMaid? MR. FIDDES: Mr. Rodriguez in fact paid for the cabinets on October -- excuse me. August 28. Mr. Rodriguez, it was subsequently determined, was on a cash in advance basis with KraftMaid, and KraftMaid would not start making cabinets for his clients until he had paid for them in full. KraftMaid started manufacturing cabinets for the Fiddes order sometime after August 28, 2003, when it was determined that Mr. Rodriguez paid for it. MR. ZACHARY: Were you able to determine if the cabinets were ever delivered at all? MR. FIDDES: We were subsequently -- we were able to determine that the cabinets were delivered to Mr. Rodriguez in approximately mid October. MR. ZACHARY: And were you able to determine what happened to the cabinets that were delivered, that were delivered under your name for your job? MR. FIDDES: Mr. Rodriguez indicated a couple of times in deposition that he used the cabinets in the spec home he was building for his own account on Wilson Avenue, I believe. MR. ZACHARY: Were you able to determine if the cabinets that were eventually ordered would have been -- would have been able to be used in your house? MR. FIDDES: I see no way that the cabinets ordered could possibly have been used in my house, based on the significant deviation between the cabinet specified for my kitchen in the contract and what was ordered. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Is there somewhere in the packet that I'm missing the actual order of the cabinets that you received that are actually installed in the house at this moment. Page 35 January 18,2006 MR. FIDDES: KraftMaid Cabinets were not installed in my house. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So you chose another installer? MR. FIDDES: Regrettably, yes. MR. ZACHARY: What did you do after you terminated Mr. Rodriguez? What did you do at that point? MR. FIDDES: We initiated lawsuit. Initiated suit against On The Level Builders to recover damages as a result of the work upon On The Level and what would subsequently be involved in completing the job. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And as far as the work on your house, after you terminated them, did you have to hire someone to make the walls and the ceiling acceptable so that you could install cabinets at that point? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. There was a delay of several months in the litigation process where nothing took place. Subsequently, we obtained proposals for replacement, alternative replacement cabinets, alternative replacement countertops. All the items necessary to finish a kitchen. That included removal of the several sections of ceiling, several sections of wall that weren't level. That in the opinion of the cabinet, subsequent cabinet installers, had to be made level for cabinets to be installed. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything further. Any questions ofMr. Fiddes, would anyone like to add anything? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I want to say something. You'll get a turn here in just a minute. Mr. Neal, this is one of those points where people either like me or don't like me. But trying to cut through the muck. I really don't have a desire to sit here and hear about cabinets sizes or left and right and whatever, but what I'm looking at on this case, and that's what I'm asking for your direction, if we heard this right off the bat before a civil action, we would probably say it's a Page 36 January 18,2006 civil action. The question I have for you, we have a contract that was cancelled, so a lot of these charges aren't valid because the contract was cancelled by the homeowner. We have a he said he said and two people that don't get along. Then we have a civil judgment which now we have to take into consideration, which one person did receive $33,000. So essentially, received their cabinet job free of charge. And I have a contract that was never completed. Where does this Board sit in this situation? I have a question, I have a real problem as to whether we go forward. MR. NEAL: Well, the Board needs to review what the respondent did in terms of the contract up to the point the contract was terminated. Because he still had contractural obligations up to that point. So he needed to have completed the contract up to that point. If! may, I'll go through the counts one by one and sort oftry to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to -- MR. NEAL: Summarize and review. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I'd like for you to define this so some of this stuff we don't need to get into, we can leave out. Do you follow what I'm asking? MR. NEAL: Certainly. Count one is diverting funds or property received for the execution of a contract project or operation for diverting funds earmarked for a specific purpose for any use whatsoever. So, what that says is that you need to look at the contract and what was to be performed up to the time under that first draw, because the first draw was paid. Everybody acknowledges that. And that there was certain work to be done under that first draw, which is the determination of this Board to determine if the work was done up to that first draw, and that it was -- so that there was no diversion from those funds paid under that first draw. The value received was the same as value paid effectively is what the Board is looking at here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEAL: Under number two, count two, departing from or Page 37 January 18,2006 disregarding in any material respect the plans or specifications of the job without the consent of the owner. The Board needs to look to the contract again and determine if there was a material departure from that contract by the respondent during the period of time he was under contract, or if his departure from the contract prior to termination was so egregious that it could be deemed that there was no way to cure. Number two -- or count three. Excuse me. That is one that this Board has seen a number of times before. And it's committing mismanagement or conduct in the practice of contracting that caused financial harm. And what this very simply is is, did the respondent do something in the performance of the contract that resulted in financial damage to the customer. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Irregardless of a judgment? MR. NEAL: Regardless of a judgment, did it cost the person more to get the job done than it would have cost them if the contract had been properly performed. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEAL: Count four is fairly simple. Failing to properly correct faulty workmanship or properly replace faulty materials installed contrary to provisions of the contract. Obviously, there needs to be an opportunity given for that repair and replacement. And it's a question of fact as to whether the -- and this is -- I'd like to bring to the Board's attention, that the actual description -- the Count as set out here is not actually what the ordinance says in full. It's a summary of the ordinance. What the ordinance actually says under that section is, failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract, which is what's set out here. It goes on to say faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced, not continued or not completed in accordance with all specifications of the applicable written agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any material flaws in the quality and or quantity of the unfinished work product, including Page 38 January 18,2006 any item that does not function properly as a part of the entire project. If there is no written agreement provision regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty workmanship exists if the work process, product or part thereof, does not meet generally accepted standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project. Faulty workmanship does not include matters of aesthetics, unless the aesthetically related item clearly violates a written contract specification directly related thereto. So, what the ordinance goes on is to further define what is meant by faulty workmanship. Count five is very clear, you know, failing -- proceed on any job without obtaining applicable permits. That's then -- I don't think that needs an explanation on that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, if you would come up to the podium. What I spent that little five minutes for was to try to streamline so that everyone understands where we're going. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Basically we understand the two of you don't get along. MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This board is made up of six contractors and six consumers. So that's -- three consumers, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Two. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, we do have a vacancy for a consumer. Right now there's only two consumers. So we understand people don't get along. I'm a contractor. I've had customers I didn't get along with. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What we want you to really limit yourself to right now and what we're interested in is the $9,000. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Where the cabinets are. Why the Page 39 January 18,2006 cabinets weren't delivered. I don't really need to get into specifics. Did you order something else for another job? Were there variations of the order? You follow me? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So if you could kind of streamline it on that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: On the cabinet order? MR. NEAL: If I could, just a moment. And I would recommend to the Board that you look to the contract and see what was supposed to be done for that first $9,000. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've read that contract in detail, and I recommend everybody else does as well. MR. RODRIGUEZ: If you notice, the second draw of $9,000 is when I gave him the cabinets. He gives me $9,000. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And it's impossible for us to compare these cabinets. I'm not a cabinet maker I don't represent these two people. You spelled out the cabinets in your contract, and what I have in front of me is the list that's prepared by the homeowners. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't have delivery sheets from each of the two manufacturers. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir, you do. You have a delivery sheet. Mr. Fiddes provided a delivery sheet, number E9, is what KraftMaid sent me. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Before I turn you loose, one other comment -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Sorry. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Since you're representing yourself. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It is to your advantage -- and I say this because there's a lot of anger, you know, is keep it civil. Be gentlemen. Both of you. Page 40 January 18,2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Have I not been civil? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, just I have been on this Board so long. I've seen tempers get raged. MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I'm fine. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So I always say that. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER BLUM: You alluded to paying the electrical contractor sheet, rock guys, your guys, AC guys and so forth, do you have a breakdown of bills you paid to those subs? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I don't have the breakdown here, but I can tell you what I -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Well, it would be important for us to know whether you did $9,000 worth of work because you've attested. The only way to do that is tell us what you paid. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Where we are right now is your opportunity to question the witness. You're not presenting your case yet. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So now is your opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Fiddes. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Mr. Fiddes, who installed the cabinets at your residence? MR. FIDDES: Vanity Craft Cabinet Company. MR. RODRIGUEZ: On your judgment you have here that you had M&M Cabinetry install the cabinets. That's when you sued me, you sued me for $17,367 because of the M&M Cabinetry contract for your cabinets; is that correct? MR. FIDDES: No, it's not correct. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. So you paid 17,080 to who you said Vanity? MR. FIDDES: I didn't pay $17,000 to anybody. Page 41 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Hang on just a second. We need to get to that. That's the breakdown of the page right after the judgment. MR. ZACHARY: E14. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: E14. Who prepared this, Mr. Zachary? This On The Level Builders damages? MR. ZACHARY: I would have to ask Mr. Fiddes. It appears to be part of the Final Judgment. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. FIDDES: This is a document submitted to the court as part of the litigation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. That's where these figures are coming from. MR. FIDDES: That's correct. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Then I have one question. Youjust indicated by questioning Vanity Cabinet Company installed the cabinets, not M&M Cabinetry; is that correct? MR. FIDDES: For clarification, and I'm loathed to clarify Mr. Rodriguez's question, but I will do so, Mr. Rodriguez asked me if I paid M&M Cabinetry $17,080 to install cabinets. No. I got an estimate from M&M Cabinets, also a dealer from KraftMaid for the cost of completing the contract as originally specified. MR. RODRIGUEZ: But you did not give the work to M&M Cabinetry? MR. FIDDES: That's correct. MR. RODRIGUEZ: But you want the money for the bid from M&M Cabinetry for $17,080? MR. FIDDES: For the contract as specified, yes. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right. For the contract as specified. M&M Cabinetry, that was just for cabinets, that wasn't for the remodel work, or for the rip out of the cabinets or anything? $17,080 you're stating here now is just to take the job from when you fired me. Page 42 January 18,2006 MR. FIDDES: Yes. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to that line of questioning, because you're going behind the judgment at this point. It's probably irrelevant, and plus we might try to find out from Mr. Fiddes whether he's seen a penny of that judgment or not. COMMISSIONER BLUM: The judgement is done. You can't change it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'm trying to see if there's an actual legal judgment. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Mr. Rodriguez? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Can you -- can he contest this? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Contest? COMMISSIONER KELLER: Because he didn't have representation. MR. NEAL: He could appeal, but from this Board's point of view really, the primary concern of this Board is not so much what the court found in terms of a judgment, but what, if anything -- however, how Mr. Fiddes may have been damaged by Mr. Rodriguez's actions. Regardless of what the judgment says, was there financial harm caused? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Basically what I'm going back to is what we defined before. I'm interested in the $9,000. Am I not, Mr. Neal? MR. NEAL: You're interested in the $9,000 and you're interested in whether in the performance of this contract or the portion thereof, that Mr. Rodriguez caused financial harm to Mr. Fiddes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let's proceed. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Now I've got a letter from M&M Cabinetry and Millwork stating -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now, wait, wait, wait. You're presenting evidence. Page 43 January 18,2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. You can't -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: From the questions that were answered, you can redirect your questions to the witness. MR. RODRIGUEZ: To the witness. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is your opportunity to direct questions to him that were brought up. Okay? MR. NEAL: You will have an opportunity to present evidence. MR. RODRIGUEZ: So you stated that M&M bid for $17,080 was for him to take the job from where I left it. That did not include demolition of the cabinets, did not include tearing out a soffit or removing the window; is that correct? MR. FIDDES: The contract never provided for removing a window. But this was M&M Cabinetry's proposal to finish the job, including countertops. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. So, nothing with demolition? Nothing with rewiring, nothing with electrical, nothing with plumbing; is that what you're stating? MR. FIDDES: Correct. MR. RODRIGUEZ: All right. Now, on the picture here, E15, showing that wall that you stated was four inches -- one inch out of level. Was that wall framed by On The Level Builders, or was the framing there? What is your statement that On The Level did on that wall? Did we build a wall? Did we change the framing of the wall? MR. FIDDES: You removed the wall for electrical work. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I removed the wall and rebuilt the wall, or framed the wall, is what you're stating, or just the drywall on the wall? MR. FIDDES: You did whatever you had to do to open the wall for electrical work and then restore it and what you said was finished condition. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: In other words, what you're driving out in your questioning is that the framing work was already done? Page 44 January 18,2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct, the framing work was existing. I have other pictures. All I did was remove drywall, and drywall it back. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: You put drywall back? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So if the unit was out oflevel to begin with, it would be out of level with new drywall? MR. RODRIGUEZ: It's going to be out oflevel now. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Unless you change the framing? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Unless I change the framing, and I did not. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Is it part of your contract to change the framing? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. There's nothing in my contract for framing. Also, back to your damages here. There's a question about the damages. I lost that page again. Okay. You've got -- from the beginning, you've got On The Level Builders, you want $9,000, so you want your money back for the initial $9,000 you gave me? Is that what that $9,000 is for, the initial payment that you gave On The Level Builders? MR. FIDDES: Yes. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct? MR. FIDDES: And this has been awarded? This case is closed. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right, but they want to know -- they just said they want to know, as far as for your financial damages. This case may be closed, but this case has nothing to do with the Contractor's Licensing Board. Is that correct, Mr. Dickson? Is that what you were saying? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, basically we're just interested in what you did with the $9,000. We're not going to harp on the judgment. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I'll just go ahead with the $9,000. Page 45 January 18,2006 For $9,000 what On The Level did was we removed all the existing cabinets, we -- MR. ZACHARY: You know, this is evidence. This is not -- he's in cross-examination. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I know. Questions that he answered MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I've got no more questions for him. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any redirect? MR. ZACHARY: So we can eliminate this matter about the judgment. Mr. Fiddes, have you received any kind of, anything from the judgment? All you have is the judgment, you haven't received anything monetarily. MR. FIDDES: No, nothing at all. And, in fact, Requests for Financial Disclosures have not been responded to satisfactorily. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Thank you. I think that takes that off the table. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Do you have any more witnesses, Mr. Zachary? MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Bartoe. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Have a seat, Mr. Fiddes. You can have a seat also, Mr. Rodriguez. Is this -- MR. BARTOE: For the record again Tom Bartoe, Collier County Licensing Investigator. I do want to testify that Mr. Rodriguez did receive proper notice of the hearing and I believe he will tell you so. He showed up here today. I have a signed copy that he received on December 28,2005, a copy of this letter notifying him of the hearing, and a copy of composite Exhibit A. Also for the one charge, Count Five, proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections. Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was in our office that day and did obtain a permit. If you look at the page E20 in your packet, this permit is for the removing of ceiling and damaged cabinets. All it is is a demolition permit. It only requires one Page 46 January 18,2006 inspection, which it received on September 5th in the past. And that inspection is for the demolition that's done. You heard Mr. Rodriguez testify as to AC and electrical work, and I have checked the records for Mr. Fiddes' address and can find no other permits that have been issued for that work. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Bartoe, let me ask you, do those kinds of work -- does that kind of work, air conditioning, electrical, and in the subsequent installation of cabinets, require separate permits from what he obtained? MR. BARTOE: Yes, they could have been covered on one permit. Mr. Rodriguez could have pulled a permit and listed the AC and electrical subcontractors on it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Is there a reason why when he went to the county to get the permit on the 13th of August that this did not happen? I mean, this is what he went in and applied for, only this demolition permit, and he didn't ask for an AC or plumbing or electrical or anything else that went along with it? MR. BARTOE: I cannot answer why he applied for the type permit he applied for. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: But you can't find anything in Collier records showing that he did apply at all? MR. BARTOE: Only this permit for this address that we're talking about, Mr. Fiddes' address. COMMISSIONER BOYD: What does his license cover, Tom? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's an RR? MR. BARTOE: Registered residential. He's county licensed residential contractor registered with the state. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Well, I notice on the contract that he's got state certified. That's one reason why the state didn't get involved because they said he wasn't state certified. MR. BARTOE: If you look, and I don't know if this license is still valid because I haven't checked it. There is a state certified Page 47 January 18,2006 roofing license number on this contract. That's the CCC number. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's in the packet, and it's -- it was not -- it did not renew in the year 2000. So all he has is the residential county license. As far as the packet is concerned, Mr -- or Tom, that you want us to use that 2006 and not the RR? MR. BARTOE: That's his certificate number with the county, the 20006. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. BARTOE: Also, if the Board would like to look at pictures that have a little bit better quality, in my packet I have the originals that came off the color printer, and then when I made copies, they came out in black and white. If you would like to pass my packet around, I would gladly let you do so. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody think they need to see them? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, it's not an issue. MR. BARTOE: I have nothing further to offer at this time. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have any questions ofMr. Bartoe, Mr. Rodriguez? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Are you finished, Mr. Zachary? MR. ZACHARY: I'm finished. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I'm hearing now that potentially there were maybe two or three additional permits, or one permit to cover a multitude of other subs, that were not pulled. Is that something that Mr. Rodriguez is being charged for as well? This is the first time I'm hearing that. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Well, it's already on point 1.18. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So that is an issue. As of right now Page 48 January 18,2006 there's a permit that was not pulled. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Yes. Not all applicable permits. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Only applicable ones. So we didn't know whether he didn't know, or he chose not to or what. We don't know that. Okay. And the work that's been done by somebody else, this work has already been completed? MR. FIDDES: Yes. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So were the proper permits pulled on all these issues for the work that was done? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, the work that is completed has been pulled properly permitted, wasn't it? MR. BARTOE: I could find no other permits for this address. And if the electrical and AC work was already done, just to put the cabinets in and countertops would not require permit. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But the judgment's got other electrical work being shown. Mr. Ossorio, you got some work to do after this case IS over. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. It's very common that a residential contractor, building contractor, or any kind of contractor doing some remodeling obtains a demolition permit to remove the exterior of, you know, the doors and the drywall to look behind it. So then they know what to apply for the full blown permit. Your electricians and plumbing, and that's what should have been done here. It does happen that contractors get a demolition permit and don't proceed with getting the full blown permit. They just close back the wall and rewire the conduits and that's something we look into on a daily basis. So we'll look into it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So the last question is then, ifMr. Rodriguez was removed from the job, and Mr. Fiddes hired another contractor to come in and finish the work that was not satisfactory to him, then also if there's no other permits being shown on this home, then this home is still being done with cabinetry and still doesn't have Page 49 January 18,2006 a permit by whoever finished it? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So we now have a potential second case to come before this board, investigated by you because the work that really was completed, that guy didn't pull permit and maybe didn't do -- MR. BARTOE: And we don't know ifhe needed a permit. We don't know how much electrical and AC was done, or all done, or partially. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are we going to get into it on this case? It doesn't pertain to this case so let's move on. MR BARTOE: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions ofMr. Bartoe? Mr. Rodriguez, do you have any questions of Mr. Bartoe? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Fiddes, you may sit down, SIr. MR. FIDDES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Zachary, any other witnesses? MR. ZACHARY: No, no other witnesses. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, it's your turn. Present evidence. Let's hear your side of the story. MR. RODRIGUEZ: We're not going to get into the cabinets? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What, as far as the -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: As far as what was ordered. I'm getting the gist of what he's trying to say is that I bought the cabinets with his money and I put them in my house. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And that maybe some of his cabinets were mixed in with another order? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got some curiosity there. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. If you'll go to the cabinet list. I'll Page 50 January 18, 2006 make this brief. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Give us a page number. MR. RODRIGUEZ: It is -- COMMISSIONER KELLER: E9. MR. RODRIGUEZ: E what? COMMISSIONER KELLER: E9. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Let's go to ElO. Mr. Fiddes prepared this. And we'll go through the On The Level contract and the actual KraftMaid order. The actual KraftMaid order is a copy of what is on E9, which is what was delivered. If you notice on the contract it says the cabinets are Hanley Cathedral Honey Spice. And if you notice on E9, which is the active order what came in was Honey Spice Maple Hanley and the job has Fiddes on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Where did this -- you supplied this? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I believe Mr. Fiddes got this in discovery. This is part of his packet. I'm using his packet. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because I'm looking at a date on here. MR. RODRIGUEZ: E9. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm looking at June 30th. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right, that's when I ordered the cabinets. On June 9th -- I ordered the cabinets on June 30th prior to me leaving and closing down for July because a lot of times they send stuff back, like they don't make a 4242. They alternate stuff which is just the standard in the kitchen. So I sent that on -- I ordered the cabinets on June 30th. I paid -- I am on a cash in advance. I paid prior to them going into production. I paid for the cabinets on June 21 st. They processed the payment -- I mean, I paid for them on August 21 st. They processed the -- KraftMaid processed it on August 28th, that's when they actually -- that's when they say they received payment. Or, actually processed the payment to put the cabinetry into production on August 28th, is when KraftMaid put the cabinets into production to make them. Page 51 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Now-- COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Question. If you order these cabinets on June 30th, why were they not into production until August? MR. RODRIGUEZ: They don't put them into production until they receive payment. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So this is when you actually paid for them? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I paid on August 21st. I did not pay for them on June 30th, no I did not. I put the order in, and a lot of times I do that prior because I put the order in, they take it back four days later with their order that I got a check through, and any discrepancies with cabinets -- there's so many letters and stuff, that a lot of times they get back to you, do you really want a PBS, or do you really want this or that. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I understand. MR. RODRIGUEZ: So I sent them prior to me leaving on vacation in July. So when I -- knowing that we weren't going to start this project until the middle of August, I ordered it prior to me leaving. That way when I get back, I can just go through it and say, okay, it's paid for. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Questions. At the bottom, October 4, '03, changed order. It looks like that's when you -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. On October 4th -- okay, let's go over the cabinets. On October 4, 2003, I changed the order. What the order for that is -- I'll present KraftMaid, the deposition that they gave when Lou Filman, the representative of KraftMaid. There were many changes. Not with the cabinets, not with the cabinets. There were no changes with the cabinets. There are many changes as to how I'm getting the cabinets. We were -- he was in a hurry, and if you notice on -- well, I've got it here. On August -- on September -- just give me one second. The cabinet comer. They were ordered on June 30, Page 52 January 18,2006 2003. That's when I sent in the order. I paid for them. I sent the check approximately August 21, 2003. KraftMaid put it into the production after they received payment and processed on August 28, 2003. On September 12,2003, and I've got -- I changed the order from KraftMaid delivery to customer pick up. That means instead of going through -- because KraftMaid takes four weeks or so to process the order, and then it takes approximately two to three weeks to get it to me. And he was in a hurry, so I changed the order from them going through their route, I was going to ship them, which I've done prior, and they get them here in two days for me. So I get them quicker. And they were supposed to come out of production on, actually on the 19th, and they actually came out of production on the 22nd. So I was going -- I got a statement here that I was actually going to pick them up on Monday the 19th to get them down here, and get them installed quick. On September 22nd they actually came out of the production line ready for pickup from KraftMaid. I mean, September 22nd. On September 19th, there's further testimony that I even called to get the shipping weight. I was trying to get them here quicker than KraftMaid could get them. Then finally on September 23rd after I got fired, I called and changed it to just send them whenever because I didn't need them anymore. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now, do you have anything to document what you just said? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have anything to document that you paid for the cabinets? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd love to see it. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We need to introduce it -- mark it as-- MR. RODRIGUEZ: You can take this whole thing. Page 53 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got to have it introduced. Do you have any objections, Mr. Zachary? MR. ZACHARY: I don't know. I haven't seen it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you want to look at it first? MR. ZACHARY: Sure would. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And this is showing that you paid for the cabinets on what date, August? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, it doesn't show. They don't put the exact date. If you know Lou Filman, who is a representative of KraftMaid that was deposed, they put them -- it says in there, they put them in production on the 28th, and when I asked, is that when he paid for them, Lou Filman said, no, he probably paid prior to that. But on August 28th, they wouldn't have put them in production until they had the money and it went through their system. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Do you have a check that you paid them with? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not with me, but I did pay them with a check. I don't have it, but they are paid. They wouldn't have sent them tome. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a major item. It's a shame you didn't bring it. It doesn't do you any good. MR. ZACHARY: I would object to all of that. Apparently there is a copy of a deposition that was taken in the court case. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh. MR. ZACHARY: It would all be hearsay at this point. There's no documents to verify that any of the testimony that was in there is actually -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have anything from KraftMaid? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I've got the KraftMaid phone logs from KraftMaid. Do you want to see those? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. Page 54 January 18,2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Not that either? COMMISSIONER KELLER: A check? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need something like what's in E9. Some printed form or receipt from them or a cancelled check. And the fact that you don't have it with you -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: I didn't think I'd have to bring it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- and you're not prepared for this case, just doesn't do you any good. So proceed. MR RODRIGUEZ: Okay. All right. You want to go to the cabinet discrepancy on E 1 O? MR. NEAL: If! may, I just wanted to clarify. As from the many hearings in the past, this Board may hear hearsay evidence. So they may look and evaluate hearsay evidence unlike a court oflaw. However, I would make the admonition that hearsay evidence can be used for supplementing or explaining any other evidence, but is not sufficient by itself to support a finding unless the hearsay would be admissible over objections and civil actions in court. So, it may be heard, but it cannot be dispositive of the whole matter. It can be used -- it's part of the case, but certainly your whole decision may not turn on that one piece of evidence. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I can't accept that evidence? MR. NEAL: You can accept it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The deposition? MR. NEAL: You can accept it as hearsay. It's hearsay evidence. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Even over Mr. Zachary's objection? MR. NEAL: You could accept it over his objection because, you know, based upon the rules of this body, hearsay evidence may be heard, but it just may not be used as the sole and dispositive manner. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's better than hearsay because it was a deposition under oath. MR. NEAL: It's a deposition under oath. They're to avoid the hearsay exception is there would have to be some testimony or other Page 55 January 18,2006 evidence showing that it was in fact a deposition of this person and when it was taken and so forth. So the Board needs to weigh it on that basis. But certainly hearsay is acceptable and is admissible. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Do you need a motion to do that? MR. NEAL: Yes, you do. MR. ZACHARY: As a note, Mr. Chairman, I think we'd have to show that, you know, where the parties were, when the deposition was taken, whether they were under oath. And plus I want to note, if there's no documentation available to backup anything that may be said in the deposition, maybe what we have is hearsay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I agree. MR. NEAL: It does, in the deposition itself state when and where the deposition was taken, who it was reported by, and it does show, state that Mr. Filman, I believe it is, was sworn. And there's a transmittal letter from Mr. Seidensticker that states that this is a condensed copy of the deposition transcript. So based upon that, the Board can put whatever weight they see fit. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Seidensticker is known by this board, so, yeah I need a motion and to include over the objection of county attorney, Mr. Zachary. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I will move that we accept this and put this into evidence over the ruling ofMr. Zachary. Just as our own Board be able to analyze this information. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? Mr. Zachary. MR. ZACHARY: I renew my objection in that that deposition is not -- it is a highlighted copy. If that -- I would say that if that deposition were in evidence, it would have to be a clean copy with nothing highlighted that might influence the Board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Objection so noted. Any other discussion? Motion on the floor. All these in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Page 56 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? None. If you would, give that to the court reporter, she will mark that as Exhibit 1. And then if we can get it up here so I can pass it down the line. And like we say, it is hearsay. It's been accepted. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, go ahead. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Let's go to EI0. This will show -- I did highlight it. Let's go to ElO. We'll start at the top with On The Level Builders contract, and what was the KraftMaid order. First, there's two cabinets, PB24, that's a peninsula based 24-inch wide cabinets. Two of them ordered. That means they have doors on both sides. On the KraftMaid order, you'll see there's two PB, but, but was added because I put but doors instead of one big door, which looks nIcer. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'll tell you what will save you time, just address the ones that have differences. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Next there's two. There's 118L, 18 right, and the difference on the right is B182. Well, there's two of them. One is right, one is left. Then there's the BD18, and you'll see down below On The Level Contractors BD318. Same thing. There's no BD318, it's just BD 18. So that's how I ordered, BD18. Three means three door, BD means base door. So the three was just extra. The DKD27, you've got the DKD27. The DR12, that's a desk height base cabinets that was going to go next to the DKD27. On the order there was a B3 -- BB312 on the bottom. The DDR was substituted for the BB3 because the BB3 is a kitchen cabinet. The Page 57 January 18,2006 DDR is a desk cabinet, and that's for the desk area next on the drawing that was more applicable than a base cabinet. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So as a general rule, you're saying it's just a misunderstanding. Is there anything that you ordered that is not in the contract? Is there anything in the contract that is not in your order? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. We changed -- okay. On the order there's a WPLS4896. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Where is that on the contract? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's -- I'm looking at ElO. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm going back and forth between ElO and F5. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Actually, that's not even on the contract, but I ordered it. That's just extra panels for, we had to cut up a cabinet and I figured I order two more panels in case I needed material. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: For the same job? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. It's all Hanley Honey Spice Cathedral. Two isn't going to help me on another kitchen. There's 500 finishes that KraftMaid makes. So that was extra. There's also an ICN8, that's not B8. That's under cabinet light mold. There's none on the cabinets. There's none on the order, but if you notice on the order, they were going to put under cabinet lighting, and I forgot to put it on the contract that I gave Mr. Fiddes. But, like I said, I ordered it on the 30th, I looked through it when I got time in the office to sit down, we needed it so I ordered the extra four. It's not for another job. It's Hanley Cathedral for his kitchen, the under cabinet light rails. It's not specified on the contract, but it would have looked nice to hide the under cabinet light. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, it's only molding. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, it's only molding. The W4242, which is on the contract and it's on the order, I was going to order it and I did order it, but they don't make it. It's too big. It's 42-inch wide Page 58 January 18,2006 by 42-inch tall. The cabinet would break. So if you look, I ordered two. I ordered a W2142 left and a W2142 right. Should be put together, it's the same thing, two doors 4224. The 4242 cabinets were two doors and a bar in the center. This I got one full door, 2142 right, 2142 left with the bar in the center. The bottom that says 44, that's moldings and fillers and stuff. And if you'll notice, if you count the cabinets on the KraftMaid order that I actually ordered, there are 18 of them. If you count the cabinets on the contract, there are only 17 of them. The discrepancy is probably I ordered, on the contract, there's only one 4242. I ordered two cabinets to make for that one big opening, 2142. 2142. And this is a kitchen remodel. And often this is done a lot. If you notice on my contract, E6, which we put in there just to kind of save myself for this, if you look you see on number eight contractor at his discretion may replace materials with equal quality or upgraded materials in compliance with local and state codes. My attorney put that in there. I didn't know what that was for but I guess I know now. But that, if there's more cabinets, I ordered more. Just one more cabinet for the 4242 and additional molding. I wouldn't have done that just to have it laying around. Like I said, these cabinets were delivered finally after I -- you'll see on the thing, after he fired me I changed it from me going and paying an extra $1,500, which is on there. They state how many times I ordered, September 12th, I said don't deliver them. I'll get them. The 19th I said, how much do they weigh, because my shipper needed to know if they can have them in three days. It would cost me $1,500. And I would have paid for it just to get the job expedited. And finally on the 23rd when I got fired -- on the 21 st I called them and said forget it, I'm not going to pay an extra $1,500 if he doesn't want the cabinets anyways. I said just put them through your process. They finally got to me on October 13th, and they sat for a couple of months until I finally put them in a spec home that I had. Because they had no Page 59 January 18,2006 kitchen and it was a spec home and it doesn't -- I wasn't building it for anybody. I made them work. Essentially, if we could go through all the drawings, you will notice that all those cabinets will fit nice, perfectly inside the opening. The only difference is, is on the width, the size, the 4242, is the only -- if we had a kitchen guy here to testify. And if we had the contract showing what he actually bought, we could compare it to this too. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Mr. Rodriguez. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Did you have mediation with Mr. Fiddes? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Can you summarize that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Mediation. I offered him -- well, I can say anything. Mediation, anything we did was horrible. There was almost no communication. We couldn't mediate. The attorneys didn't even like each other. I guess Mr. Silverio represented Mr. Seidensticker's wife in a divorce or something, from what I heard. But anyways, nothing through this whole thing was good. Nothing through this whole process was good. I mediated that I did -- I know it's not supposed to be in court and so forth, but to give him $4,000 and just whatever. Because -- that's it, my hard cost on this job, what I actually paid taking out the cabinets because I used them, my hard cost was like $5,800. Hard cost what I paid. Not counting overhead. Not counting overhead, not counting permits, not counting my time. The amount I actually paid subcontractors was $5,800 anyway. So I offered $4,000. I would have ate the cabinets, which I ended up eating, and paid for them. And that was rejected. His mediation back to me was $12,000 that he wanted. And I didn't take it. I probably should have. I would have spent less than the attorney, but I didn't take it because I figured he only gave me $9,000, why should I give Page 60 January 18,2006 him back $12,000 and all the work for free? That's just how I was looking at it. Actually in the beginning he only wanted the cabinets, which cost $2,900 and he would have forgotten about it, and I wish to God I would have just gave them to him and left. And I wouldn't have gone through all this. I wouldn't have paid my attorney $20,000. I wouldn't be sitting here in front of you today, but I can't do anything about that now. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Could you have cancelled the order? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. I paid for them prior to production. If you'll notice, in Mr. Filman's thing, and what I gave you in hearsay, their attorney asked them that, Mr. Silverio asked if they could take the order back, and he stated they do not take orders back. It's custom. They make them custom for the order. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: One question. I've got a page in here, since you mentioned that, page E6. I'm seeing -- I can't see where it came from, but I'm seeing something to do with purchaser or purchaser's warranties or purchaser's buying certain items. Is this by chance the warranty or warrant from you? MR. RODRIGUEZ: The what, sir? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Is this the warranty that is on your contract, the page E6. MR. NEAL: That's the back of his contract. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's the back of my contract. What warranty? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: \Well, this actually just says purchaser warrants certain things all down through here. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, purchaser's warranty. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: This may have been -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: Oh, that means when he signed the contract that he's stating that he is the owner of the property, right. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I thought it was from the actual manufacturer of the cabinets, KraftMaid. Page 61 January 18,2006 MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. KraftMaid has a seven year warranty. MR. NEAL: In this contract the purchaser would be Mr. Fiddes. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's just all disclaimers on the back of the construction contract. And then also in evidence, he was going over the judgment as far as financial damage. He stated that here I have from M&M Cabinetry and it's signed to the Contractor's Licensing Board. M&M Cabinetry & Millwork gave a bid to Mr. Fiddes back in 2003 which included tearing out the kitchen, removing windows, granite countertops, undermount sink and new countertops. He did not do the work. It was only a bid that was given to them. If you have any questions, please call Greg Muller at his number. I don't know if you want to see this or not. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We don't need it. The owner already agreed to that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Then also on the disclaimer, on his damages, he's got $965 to New Haven Builders. I tried to get a hold of them. I couldn't find them. I asked Mr. Bartoe who are they, and he doesn't know. So I don't know who they are. The people that allegedly said they had to level off my drywall. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Enough material. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Do you have any questions for me? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Zachary, you have questions? MR. ZACHARY: No questions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Questions of the Board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Have a seat, Mr. Rodriguez. Closing response, Mr. Zachary. You didn't have any witnesses, did you? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, sir. Page 62 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: Give me half a second here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tell you what let's do, five minutes. And you know how punctual I try to be. (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to reconvene the meeting of the Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board. Where we were were closing statements. Mr. Zachary. MR. ZACHARY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'll keep this brief. What you wanted to know was what was performed under the contract for the money that was paid. I think, Mr. Chairman, you made it clear that that was going to be your focus. I won't go through it and specify what each count is because the Board is well aware of that, but in 4.1.4 what was to be performed? For the $9,000 that was paid by Mr. Fiddes, Mr. Rodriguez, On The Level Builders, was to do the demolition of the kitchen, was to place an order for the cabinets and to obtain a permit. Quite simply, the demolition was done. The cabinet order was not placed, and there's testimony that after the work was performed the walls were not sufficent to allow for cabinet installation. And specifically a permit was not pulled for the demolition work until after the work was started. And we've heard testimony that there was not a permit pulled for any electrical or air conditioning work that was done before the walls were replaced, the drywall was replaced by Mr. Rodriguez. 4.1.5, cabinets were ordered that were different from those specified. And you have in your packet a spread sheet that shows the cabinets that were on the sketch and on the contract and specifically, the cabinets that were ordered and the spread sheet clearly shows that there was a material deviation from the plans or specifications as set out in the contract and the sketch, and cabinets that were on those contract documents were not ordered. 4.1.8, there was an unreasonable delay in the job. There was Page 63 January 18,2006 poor workmanship and misrepresentation to Mr. Fiddes as to when the cabinets were ordered and delivered. The job was supposed to take six to seven weeks with the completion for the cabinets to arrive and completion two to three weeks after. Mr. Fiddes terminated the contract after 18-and-a-halfweeks. As to financial damage, you have prima facia evidence that there was a judgment entered by a court that Mr. Fiddes was damaged by the actions of this contractor. 4.1.10, there is evidence that the work was faulty in that there was not drywall installed that would sufficiently allow the installation of cabinets. It was tried -- it was tried to be corrected three to four times. And you have testimony from Mr. Fiddes that after the third time that there was still, the walls and the ceiling were not level enough for the installation of cabinets, even though On The Level Builders indicated that the cabinets were there and ready to be installed. In fact we know that the cabinets were not yet in the possession of On The Level Builders at that time. Finally, 4.1.8, the permit issue, I've said before, we know that the permit was not issued before the job was started. And we know now that permits were never issued for some of the work that was done on the electrical and air conditioning. Consequently, the county would ask that On The Level Builders be found in violation of all counts specified in the complaint contrary to our ordinance number 200221. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any recommendations? MR. ZACHARY: I would defer to the Contractor Licensing for that. MR. BARTOE: With this many charges, if found in violation, very lengthy probation if not suspension or revocation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, if you'll come up here for closing comments. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. Page 64 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER BLUM: Can I ask -- Mr. Zachary just brought up a point that I didn't hear an answer to. We were discussing the level and the wall and bubbles and all those things, and it's come out that the day you were aware of that, was the day you were terminated. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I was not aware about the levels or bubbles until probably a year after the job when he gave this to Mr. Seidensticker. COMMISSIONER BLUM: And this is just an opinion I'm asking you for, in your professional opinion, had you continued, would you have been able to install those cabinets? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER BLUM: And they would have been -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: They would have been within the accordance with the builders and remodeler's handbook for remodeling. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Did you inspect this job before you did demolition on it? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I did. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Were the cabinets that were hung there before looking straight and clean and nice? Was there any issue as to the original ones before you took them down not being installed properly or level? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. The original ones were kind of old and -- the original ones were all old. I didn't put a level to the original ones and see if they were all level or not. COMMISSIONER BLUM: And in your job, you run into houses that are a certain age and sometimes walls get out of plum for one reason or another. What do you do to compensate for that when you put new cabinets up? MR. RODRIGUEZ: We have scribe molding. Scribe, you know, you put the compass along the wall and then you cut the molding to Page 65 January 18,2006 the contour of the wall and you put it so your cabinet is level and plum. COMMISSIONER BLUM: It's a fairly common situation? MR. RODRIGUEZ: There's no walls that are perfectly level and plum. I mean, just being a kitchen installer, there is not. There are shims. There's scribe molding. Even when you put them to the ceiling, there's moldings that are applied on the ceiling. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER BLUM: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Closing comment. MR. RODRIGUEZ: My closing comments. Just to go over the count that he has against me. Number one is diverting funds or property received for the execution of specific contract project or operation or diverting funds earmarked for a specific purpose to any other use whatsoever. All the money that was given to me, the deposit of $9,000 was used towards his project. I believe you heard testimony that the work has been done, the demo was done, the ceiling was done, the insulation was done. The electrical contractor has been paid, AC contractor was paid. Cabinets have been ordered. They were ordered on the 30th and they were paid for on August 21st. They were paid for prior to the second draw. The second draw was due upon delivery of the cabinets. Once he got the cabinets, he gives me $9,000. He never got the cabinets. He fired me prior. I never got another $9,000. Departing from or disregarding any material with respect to plans or specification of the construction job without the consent of the owner as a duly authorized representative. I believe, and I've shown going through the cabinets, that the cabinets that were ordered were in accordance to what we contracted for. With minor deviations for cabinets that were not made from KraftMaid. They do not make a 4242. We used two 2142. It's done all the time. It's not specifically different. It's not even close to different. I can lay these out if we had time to put them on a grid sheet and show you that they fit. And they Page 66 January 18,2006 are his cabinets. If anything, what I departed from is I made his kitchen nicer at my expense. I added moldings and I added paneling for just in case at my expense. He did not get any extra -- he did not pay me anything extra for that. Committing mismanagement or misconduct in a practice of contract and it causesfinancial harm to a financial customer. He paid me $9,000, he got up to the draw. I don't know what he spent, and you don't know, and nobody knows what he spent to finish this kitchen. Because what he has that he submitted to a judge is not true. He did not pay M&M Cabinetry $17,080. They didn't do the work. So I have never received anything of what he's paid. I never received any receipts. And as Mr. Dickinson said earlier, which someone sees through it. He has a brand new kitchen, remodeled, ceiling is raised, granite countertops, new sink. Everything. He has all that new and he wants me to give him $33,000. He contracted this kitchen for $24,000. He got the kitchen now he wants me to give him $33,000 is what it comes to in a nutshell. I can't even understand that. Count four, failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship, or promptly replace faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract. As Mr. Fiddes stated, and as Mr. Zachary stated was the big problem with the finishing on the drywall. And up until I got terminated on the 20th, I went through three separate -- I didn't say it's good enough or it's fine or he can live with it. I got different drywall finishers to tie up, to match the ceiling on his kitchen and he was happy with it. He never told me anything about not level. His wife even called me on the 20th, the day before I got fired, thank God you sent Michael Bugnell. I'm so happy with it right now. He was set to go prime the kitchen the next day, but he fired me. And if you see, it's because somebody called Cuba on his phone, which later he found out it wasn't me. Count Five, proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits of inspection. I'm guilty. I sent the guys out, I went to the Page 67 January 18,2006 Building Department. It wasn't done to try to get around any permitting processes. It wasn't done in any spirit, well, I'm going to do this on the side. It's just what happened. I sent the guys out. They went that way, I went this way to the permit. As Mr. Bartoe testified, a permit was issued two hours after. And it takes about two hours to wait in line there. As far as for the permitting, I went and I explained what I was doing. I was doing demo work. We were removing the drop ceiling. There are going to be wires. There is going to be an AC duct that has to be raised. What the AC contractor did is he cut the duct, and he put a new grid on it. As far as -- I don't know. I'm not a licensed electrician. I don't know what he had to do so I didn't know how to go about it. This is the permit that they gave me for now. If afterwards if it was -- it might have been my responsibility to see and say okay, maybe this has to be, of course, with a drop ceiling all the wires are under the truss. And he had to rewire them, put them over the truss. I did not get a permit for that, that license. I used Galaxy Electric. He's a licensed electrician. I did get a permit for that. The AC, I don't -- maybe it needed a permit to cut the duct and put another grill on it. That's all he did. The duct was done. He cut it and put a grill on it. That's what the AC contractor did. As far as for -- oh, that's it. That's five counts. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Two quick questions. Has there been a hearing to determine attorney costs yet on the judgment? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Attorney cost yet? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I don't think that they're liable for attorney cost because the contract doesn't stipulate. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's up to the court because they reserve the right. MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And one final question, may cut you a Page 68 January 18,2006 little bit. MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You made a big deal out of the fact this is the first time you've been able to tell anyone what happened. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why didn't you show up for trial? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I did show up for trial. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The judge says you weren't there. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I was there. I was at trial and I'll show you -- I was at judgment and the attorney told me to be quiet. I'm not allowed to speak for On The Level Builders. Where does it say I was not there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: In the judgement. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: In the judgment. MR. RODRIGUEZ: I wasn't there for the judgement. I was there for -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'll take you to it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: That's when you should have showed up. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It says in the first paragraph neither defendant nor its counsel appeared, despite proper notice. MR. NEAL: This is for on the hearing for damages. MR. RODRIGUEZ: There was never a trial. There was never a trial. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Summary judgment? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. It was a -- what happened was, like, I paid Wayde -- Mr. Seidensticker, and he's been my attorney for four years. I paid him, I think it was close to $20,000 during this whole process. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But this is final judgment. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: This is a final judgment. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Right, but there was no trial. There was no Page 69 January 18,2006 trial because counsel withdrew. He allowed my counsel to withdrew. I could not keep paying him. Okay? And he send me 30 days to get additional counsel. I could not. I had a big package. I could not get an additional attorney. Then I went and asked for a 20 day extension. He provided a 20 day extension. That morning I think I talked to Mr. Donovan who is over here who I know. He couldn't get there in time. I went and he told me go in front of the judge and explain it to him. I went in front of the judge and I went to explain it to him, I need more time. This has been going on for two years. He could have gave me another 30 days. I'm not allowed to hire additional counsel because I'm not allowed -- the lawsuit isn't against me, Roland Rodriguez. It's of course the corporation which I represent, On The Level Builders. So I was not allowed to state my case. So the judge struck my pleadings saying you can't say anything, you can't say any more. Guilty. And there was never a trial. None of this evidence was ever heard on trial. And this is the first time that I received any break down like M&M Cabinetry in New Haven, which I just now found out is false anyways. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions anybody has? I need a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Second, Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All though in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just to explain to you, what we're going to do now is talk about this with you present so you're basically Page 70 January 18,2006 just listening to us. Both of you will hear things you don't like. Sorry. Both of you will hear things you will like, and we'll see where we go from there. We may ask questions. We would have to close the public-- I mean, reopen public hearing to ask the questions if that comes up. MR. NEAL: If! may. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, Mr. Neal give us direction. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. In the process of making a decision in this case, the Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process have been afforded to the respondent. However, pursuant to Section 22.202G5 of the Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in Florida statute shall not apply. The board shall consider solely evidence presented at the hearing in consideration of this matter. The board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. This is whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a court oflaw or equity. As noted to this Board previously, hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence. However, hearsay by itself is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case, unless it would be admissible over objection in civil court. In this case, unlike most, there's a judgment rendered by a court of law that has be presented as evidence. This judgment rendered by the court appears to be a default judgment and is not evidence presented -- is not evidence in this case other than the prima facia judgment as presented. No additional evidence is brought forth by this judgement. So the Board must decide this case solely on the evidence presented today and here in this matter. The standard of proof in this type the case wherein the respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession, is that the evidence presented by the complainant must prove the Page 71 January 18,2006 complainant's case in a clear and convincing matter. This burden of proof on the complainant is a larger burden than the preponderance of evidence standard in civil cases. The standard established for sanctions, other than those affecting the license is that of a preponderance of the evidence however. The standard of evidence are to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the complaint as ordinance 90.105 as amended sections 4.1.4 or 4.1.5,4.1.8,4.1.10 and 4.1.18 of the Collier County code. In order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation of the ordinance, the Board must find facts that show the violations were actually committed by the respondent. The fact must show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of the ordinance. The charges are specific and are set out in the complaint. These charges are the only ones that the board may decide upon, as those are the only ones to which the respondent has had the opportunity to prepare a defense. The damages if the respondent is found in violation must be directly related to these charges and may not be for matters not related to these charges. The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective upon being read by the board. The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing Bureau, as set out in ordinance and Florida Statutes and rules. If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law, or other matters of such a nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the Board may withhold it's decision until a subsequent meeting. The board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all areas and if it finds the respondent in violation adopt the administrative complaint. The Board shall also make it's finding of fact and conclusions of law in support of the charges set out in the complaint. And you may now go forth. Page 72 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let me make a recommendation. Of course we're only dealing with the complaints first. There's five of them. May I suggest as a board we just go through them one at a time and we can take a vote among ourselves which ones were going to find him in violation of. Do we agree? Okay. First complaint, diverting of funds for property received for the execution of a specific contract. How do you feel? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I think the contract calls for what he did at the beginning phases. He got the $9,000. I think at this moment he utilized those dollars to do that, and he did order the cabinets in the next draw, over the $9,000 was due, so I don't see anything that he's diverted or spent the money elsewhere. Unless I'm missing something. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else? Any opposing view? Also not seeing any liens, which is a common situation. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I don't see any evidence that he paid people, but yet I don't see any liens that he didn't pay them, so I'm going to have to assume that he did. MR. NEAL: And Mr. Dickson, just one more note on proceeding, probably to simplify things. If you take a vote as to liability for each count, that would make it clearer in the form of the order. Make the order a bit longer but it will make it a little clearer. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I was going to vote on each one. Since we're in closed hearings, that still needs to be a motion though, correct? MR. NEAL: Yeah, you can probably do that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Will someone give me a motion on 4.1.4 diverting funds of property received for the execution a contract? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll make the motion to find Mr. Rodriguez not guilty of 4.1.4. Page 73 January 18,2006 COMMISSINER HORN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Vote. All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. 4.1.5, departing from and disregarding in a material respect plans or specifications of a construction job without the consent of the owner. How do you feel? COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that charge was substantiated at all. I think Mr. Rodriguez explained the differences in the orders that he placed for the cabinets in 21 inches as opposed to 42-inches. COMMISSIONER BLUM: And nobody has come forward contradicting it. It would have been incumbent on Mr. Fiddes to have somebody come and say they did do substantially different than what was contracted by Mr. Rodriguez. That didn't happen. We don't know what job was done, how it was done, and if, in fact, anything different was done. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: There was also that clause on the back of the contract allowing the contractor to make changes. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Or substitute material. I agree. COMMISSINER HORN: I have one question. Does the timeliness factor in ordering materials or delivering of cabinets have anything to do with this charge? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. And his contract, if you read it, which I read it in detail, it said that it would be six to seven weeks, which he isn't far off of that. While it was delay in ordering, yeah. Page 74 January 18,2006 COMMISSINER HORN: When he admits he didn't pay for the cabinets until the end of August though. I'm just wondering if that anyway -- COMMISSIONER BOYD: I think would be the next one. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That would be the next one. COMMISSINER HORN: Okay. Got you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Does anyone have a motion on 4.1.5? COMMISSIONER BESWICK: I'll make a motion to find him not guilty. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 4.1.5 is out. 4.1.8 committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. How do you feel there? COMMISSINER HORN: Same thing, I was just stating, as far as if the order wasn't made until later than promised and it was made end of August which, I don't know, that's past 10 weeks promised, therefore, just a question of if that's negligence or misconduct. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: What's the financial harm? COMMISSIONER BLUM: I don't see a financial harm related to that. Page 75 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER KELLER: Particularly since he wasn't required to put up the total amount for the cabinets initially. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Right. COMMISSIONER BLUM: The contractor had to order and pay for them and then get the money when they were delivered. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Maybe the draw schedule he set up should have been a little bit more reversed. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Yeah, the pay schedule -- COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: More money up front to be able to order them and pay for them ifhe knew he had to payout of the cash account. COMMISSIONER KELLER: If anything, the financial harm was to Mr. Rodriguez because he was putting the money up for them. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Agree. COMMISSIONER KELLER: And coming to collect later. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Agree. We had other testimony that there were vacations involved. This one wasn't going to be here, this one was going to be gone back and forth. I didn't hear Mr. Fiddes dispute any of that, that it was a problem for him. Even though the contract stated when it was mentioned that there was going to be some vacations and three or four weeks involved where something couldn't happen, if the issue wasn't raised then. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got -- well the other thing I threw out, and, of course, I'm a contractor and it's a nightmare. I can't even tell people a three-month period I can start doing the work because I'm at the mercy of manufacturers and suppliers, and they can't even tell me when it will come in. I can't even call a manufacturer and get a production date anymore. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: That in itself does not give the contractor the right to be able to sell a product or a contract to someone and promise something and then, at least not try to fulfill what he's done. Understanding that probably phone calls after phone Page 76 January 18,2006 calls should have been done between the both of them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I agree there's a lack of communication here. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: That's no doubt. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Big time. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's where the whole thing failed. But I went through this list of damages, and if I take out delay damages and lost interest and mediation fees and a lot of this other stuff, the price has come down pretty close to what they were. So I agree with you, I don't see, you know, I don't see financial harm to the customer. I see irritation. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But you can't put a price tag on that. Do I hear a motion on that? COMMISSIONER BLUM: I'll make a motion -- what was it, 4 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 4.1.8. COMMISSIONER BLUM: 4.1.8 be found not guilty. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Second, Beswick. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. COMMISSINER HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Are there seven of us? That has a five to two vote to throw it out. Okay. 4.1.10, failing to properly correct faulty workmanship or properly replace faulty materials. I'll speak up on that one. That one I'll never vote for under any Page 77 January 18,2006 circumstances. One, he wasn't allowed to complete the contract, so half of this doesn't apply. No one has given me anything to prove that he had anything to do with that wall or ceiling, and his contract doesn't show it, nor does any conflicting evidence. I see nothing of the little work that he did that there's any validity to this charge. Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER BESWICK: I think the fact that he got a brand new drywall man in within a two hour period, you must have a magic lamp. I don't know how you do that. COMMISSIONER BLUM: That was finishing. And we haven't heard Mr. Fiddes deny that the finishing part was in fact eventually done to his satisfaction. We're dealing with plum walls here, and we haven't heard another contractor come in and say he replummed then. And what did he do to plum them. I have a feeling that, knowing a little bit about cabinet installation, the other guy did exactly what Mr. Rodriguez would have done, and he explained to us how you do it. And that's a very common way of fixing out of plum walls which every one of our houses has an out of plum wall. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If! brought in a cabinet installer and asked him how many of his jobs have plum walls -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: None. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: They don't exist. COMMISSIONER BLUM: None. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Can you make a motion? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, I can't make the motion. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll make the motion. We find Mr. Rodriguez not guilty on count 4.1.10. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Second, Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? Page 78 January 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? None. That one is out. We're down to the last one. That's the one he's admitted to. Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits of inspections from the Collier County Building Department. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Guilty as charged. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Yeah. You can't dispute it. I have a problem with the timing, and we've had, I don't know how many people come before us with similar charges like this that it took months, weeks, and never got pulled. This got pulled within hours. The issue I have is with maybe staff advising him. Now we don't know what he said to staff. Did he say he was doing electrical work and they might have said well you need to have Galaxy Electric come in here and pull a permit for the electric. You need to have Tim -- and I know Tim very well -- to come in and pull a permit for doing -- moving a vent. I've got to tell you, it's a 10-minute job that the AC guy did. The electrical stuff, maybe took a couple hours from the kitchens I've seen that type of stuff going on. Who is at fault there? Was it because he didn't know he had to do that? Staff didn't advise him? Did he not tell staff? And the eventual job that has gotten done, was that done right? How do we find fault with this guy if the second guy didn't do it right either? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but I have a problem with that because, that's why we have testing, and that's why we have to go through licensing. Not knowing is no excuse. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I agree. Page 79 January 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER KELLER: But what about the subcontractors, don't they have to, before they start working, don't they need to know ifthere's a permit required? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aren't they liable? COMMISSIONER BLUM: One of them should have stepped up and said, hey, we have to pull a permit for this. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a builder on a remodel that wanted us to do work, and we go down there and I said, where is the permit, he didn't pull one. We pulled off the job. Get a permit down there. That's every subcontractor's responsibility. And as far as these little permits, the ones that you can buy in packets -- says right down at the bottom, failure not to have the permit posted at the time an inspector comes by, is not -- what am I looking for? Any defense. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Whose responsibility is that, Mike? Is it the general contractors or the subcontractors? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Well, he's really not a general contractor. MR. OSSORIO: It's the residential contractor. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Is he a general? MR. OSSORIO: He's in charge of all the aspects of the job. He hired an electrician, and if the electrician is able to get a short form permit, just get the final electric, that's what he needs to do. But the general contractor hired him and pays him and the residential contractor, building contractor or general is responsible for that subcontractor. It's what's called page two. Mr. Dickson knows that if you're a long form permit, you list your subcontractors, your plumbers, your electricians and your residential contractors or your roofing contractors. So, there's no excuse. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's no excuse there. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Could the electrician and the AC people have gone in and gotten their own permit on a short form on Page 80 January 18, 2006 this particular case? MR. OSSORIO: I would say no. If it requires two permits, the building department wants one long form permit by the general contractor. I don't think the air conditioning probably needed a permit, didn't need some calculations. So, just shorten up the vent, not a big deal. But adding a new service for electrical, needed to get inspected. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any more discussion? Motion? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Move that we find Mr. Rodriguez guilty on 4.1.18, proceeding on a new job without obtaining applicable building permits of inspections by the Collier County Building Department. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second? COMMISSIONER BESWICK: I'll second, Beswick. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? All those in favor? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Yeah, I got a discussion I want to bring up. This particular charge would have never come before us on it's own merit, ever. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, it would have been-- COMMISSIONER BLUM: We would have never heard it. The only reason it's here, was thrown in is because of all the other stuff. That's what annoys the heck out of me. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, we would have never heard it. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: But on the other hand, this type of a thing is going on in Collier County for a lot more jobs than probably this one, so -- COMMISSIONER KELLER: And still doesn't have a permit for the work that was done. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Now we're supposed to protect the interest of the public and -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Technically, I guess we have to say yeah, he's wrong, yeah, he did it, whatever. I just want to say, I'm Page 81 January 18,2006 troubled by the whole situation. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Well, we need to bring in the person who finished the work and they have the same, basically the same complaint as well. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio will take care of that, and it will be a citation, right? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. But it won't be for the electrician, it will be for the contractor on record which will be Roland Rodriguez. And he's been sited before, so this is not his first time. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well I got fired. Am I responsible for-- MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. Once you got fired, where does the obligation lay, and that's something we're looking into. I'm not saying we are going to issue a citation, but that's something we look into. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So we don't even know then, did a new general contractor take this job over? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Don't know and don't care. COMMISSIONER BLUM: There were no other permits pulled. We don't know any of that. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. I take responsibility for the subcontractors that were under my contract. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Well, we know that. We know you do. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Anymore discussion. I call for the vote. Motion is that he be found guilty on 4.1.8. All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. Page 82 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? That's the one we find you guilty of. Mr. Neal, I need your laptop. MR. NEAL: Okay. The respondent was found in violation of one count of the complaint. So the Board shall consider an order of sanctions under the parameters set out in Collier County ordinance. Those sanctions are set out in the ordinance in Section 22.203, or 4.3.5. The sanctions which may be imposed include the revocation of his Certificate of Competency, the suspension of his Certificate of Competency, denial of issuance or renewal of a Certificate of Competency, a probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the contractor's contracting activity shall be under the supervision of the Contractor Licensing Board and/or participation in a duly accredited program of continuing education. Probation may be revoked for cause by the Board at a hearing noticed to consider said purpose. Five, restitution. Six, a fine not to exceed $5,000 is noted before -- the legislature has changed that. We have not yet changed our ordinance. That is now $10,000. But under our ordinance we still only have five. A public reprimand, a re-examination requirement. Denial of the issuance of permits requiring issuance of permits with conditions. Reasonable legal and investigative costs. Imposing these sanctions, the Board shall consider, number one, the gravity of the violation; number two, the impact of the violation. Number three, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; number four, any previous violations committed by the violator, any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that is appropriate to the case given the nature of the violation. The board shall also issue a recommended penalty for the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, and this penalty may conclude a -- this penalty State Board may include a recommendation for no further action, a recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration, or a fine to be Page 83 January 18,2006 levied by the state board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So what's your desire as far as penalty? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Mr. Ossorio just mentioned something that I haven't heard. We had asked Mr. Bartoe originally if there had been any previous complaints and he said no, no record. Mr. Ossorio just alluded that there may have been. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I didn't ask on him. MR. BARTOE: Previous complaints on who? COMMISSIONER BLUM: I thought we asked on Mr. Rodriguez? MR. BARTOE: No, you didn't. He's been before this Board before. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Oh, okay. So let's hear -- can we ask for prior problems then on Mr. Rodriguez? MR. BARTOE: He was found not in violation that time. That's been probably 10 years ago. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So there was one complaint and he was not in violation? MR. BARTOE: He might know the date better than 1. Ten years ago. MR. RODRIGUEZ: It was about four. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: It was maybe about three years ago. I remember the case. MR. BARTOE: Really. Okay. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So he hasn't been convicted of any previous problems? MR. OSSORIO: Convicted? That term is ambiguous at best. He's been -- we have a file on him, and he's been cited for working without permits, I would say, no more than ten times. Maybe six. COMMISSIONER BLUM: In what period of time? MR. OSSORIO: Within four or five years. Page 84 January 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER BLUM: Really? So it's a consistent ongoing problem? MR. OSSORIO: Well, I think he's probably learned his lesson today. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: He will learn his lesson today, let's put it that way. COMMISSIONER BLUM: You might want some overview on this gentleman? MR. OSSORIO: That's Bartoe's case so it's up to whatever Tom Bartoe decides. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I would recommend a lengthy period of probation. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: A year? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Yes, a year. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I think he suffered damages as far as dollars and cents for a while. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Oh, yeah. And ifhe hasn't learned by this, he never will, so -- at least he got a chance to, like you said, he said his peace. He got it out. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: And as a residential contractor, he should know better. He's very lucky that it's not worse. COMMISSIONER BLUM: It could have been a lot worse. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: In that year's time what happens if he fails or if something happens? COMMISSIONER BLUM: He comes before this Board and we'll decide. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Should we make it that way right now and we don't have to have him come before the Board. It's automatic. COMMISSIONER BLUM: We can do that. MR. NEAL: Well, no, terms of the probation always require a hearing in front of the board. Page 85 January 18, 2006 COMMISSIONER BLUM: Mr. Ossorio I'm sure is going to be watching him no matter what job he might have. COMMISSIONER KELLER: When does this judgement's have to be paid? Because ifhe doesn't pay it, then he's going to be in front of us again. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. COMMISSIONER BLUM: No, that's a civil action. It's got nothing to do with us. He gets a lawyer, he disputes it. Whatever he does, it's got nothing to do with us. MR. OSSORIO: Just for clarification, there is a State Recovery Fund, since he is a tier one contractor. Just because he's registered, you know, the complainant still can file and get a recovery fund up to $50,000. So once we issue a finding of fact, that's something he should look into with Mr. Neal. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's if we put a fine on him? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which, I'll say right now, you can't be putting those kind of fines when we found all the other four charges not to apply to this case. We're dealing with one charge of failing to pull a permit, correct, Mr. Neal? MR. NEAL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEAL: It would be difficult to support that, a fine of any level. COMMISSIONER BLUM: You want to make the motion? I make a motion that we place Mr. Rodriguez and his company on probation for one year to be reviewed by staff and bring back to us with any problems. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Ifhe's been cited at any point in that one year probation time for doing a job or getting caught by Mr. Ossorio, or one of the representatives, that his permit privileges are immediately stopped and he becomes part of -- Page 86 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER BLUM: I don't think we can do that. MR. NEAL: No, you need him to come before the Board for a hearing. COMMISSIONER BLUM: You can just put him on probation and see what staff comes back to us with. That's my motion. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion. Have a motion for one year probation. Discussion. Call for the vote. All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? Zero. Unanimous. Mr. Neal, you want to read the order of the board for me? MR. NEAL: I can do that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Since you've got it and I don't have mme. MR. NEAL: This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractor Licensing Board, hereafter the Board on January 18, 2006 for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Rolando Rodriguez. Service of the complaint was made by -- made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105 as amended. The Board having at said hearing heard testimony under oath, received evidence, and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon, issues it's findings of fact conclusions of law and order the board as follows: The finding of fact are, one that Rolando Rodriguez is the holder of record of certificate of competency 2006 that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida is the complainant in this matter. That the Board has jurisdiction on the Page 87 January 18,2006 person of the respondent, and that Rolando Rodriguez was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing on January 18,2006. All notices required by the Collier County ordinance 90-105, as amended, have been properly issued. The allegations of fact is set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count Five, to wit, proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections, or inspections from the City Of Naples, Building and Zoning Division, slash Collier County Building Department are approved, adopted and incorporated herein by reference, as findings of fact. These allegations were proven by clear and convincing evidence presented at the hearing on the above date. Respondent has been found not to be in violation of counts one through four of the administrative complaint. Conclusions oflaw. The conclusions oflaw alleged as set forth in the administrative complaint as to count five are approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit the respondent disregarded or violated section 4.1.18 of Collier County ordinance 90.105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the section set out. The order of the board based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida statutes, and Collier County ordinance dash 90-105 as recommended by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, the majority of vote of the board members present, the respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, the majority vote of the board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed upon the order holder of contractor's certificate of competency number 2006. A one year period of probation, during which the contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board. We do need a recommendation from the board of action by the Page 88 January 18, 2006 Construction Industry Licensing Board by the state board. So we need a motion on that. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that this shall be forwarded to the state Industry Licensing Board. MR. NEAL: But we need a recommendation of action other than -- there are three potential actions. COMMISSIONER BLUM: No further action. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I have a second. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No action to be taken by the state. Mr. Rodriguez. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Basically you got off fairly easy. Because I think your real problem was a lack of communication in the beginning which probably created an atmosphere that you two couldn't work together. But at the same time you were found guilty of the permit issue. My best advice, don't come back before this Board in the year. Okay? And Mr. Fiddes, I appreciate your time. I know there's a civil issue still to be resolved and that's between the two of you. MR. FIDDES: There's a judgement that's not going to get paid. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, that's something we can't get involved in. MR. FIDDES: I know that. Page 89 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But we do appreciate your time and becoming involved. And that's it. That's all for that case. You both are free to go. Mr. Bartoe, this next case, is it something that can be done in an hour? Or is it going to be longer? MR. BARTOE: It's his case. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Michael. Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: It is what it is. I think it should be wrapped up within an hour. I hope by 1 :00. I'm going to lose two people right now that have other obligations, that's going to put me down to five, which is my bare minimum. I know who those two are. Don't anybody else go. Lock those doors and trap you in here. Are you okay? Okay, gentlemen, let's get this done. Next on the agenda. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Excuse me, Les. You'd rather I go now or wait the hour? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I thought you had to go. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I have to leave at 1 :00. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We'll get it done. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I just lose one. Thank you. Let the record note that we did lose one member of the Board, but we still have a quorum of six. Case number 2006-02. Jerry Prud'Homme v. Grimaldo Bravo, D/B/A Bravo Design Build, Inc. Are all of those people here? MR. NEAL: Somehow staff changed our form without -- and magically and started listing the complainant as the petitioner, and the petitioner is actually Collier County. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, there's someone new over there. It is Collier County. Building Department -- or Collier County Contractor Licensing. So noted. And Mr. Ossorio, this is your case? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is Mr. Bravo here? MR. BRAVO: Yes, sir. Page 90 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. If! could have you sit up here on this front row. And I assume Mr. Prud'Homme. Say that for me agam. MR. HOMME: Prud'Homme. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm trying to make that a middle name. If you'll have a seat right up here, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me explain how this goes because I don't think you were in here before. We will have opening statements by the county, which is really filing the case on your behalf. You'll be allowed to make an opening statement. Then there will be a production of evidence by the county, which you can ask questions of their witnesses. Then you'll be allowed to present your case and offer evidence and they can ask questions of you. Then there will be a closing argument of each. You saw what happened after that, we will close the public hearing, and go from there. Any questions? Okay. Mr. Zachary. MR. ZACHARY: I think Mr. Ossorio was-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio is going to do it? MR. OSSORIO: I'll try to make it as brief as possible. It's going to be a couple of sentences, and that's going to be about it. This case was entered by Mr. Prud'Homme on October 14, 2005. Exactly what the date it was destined to go in front of the Licensing Board. Mr. Prud'Homme entered into a written contract for $152,000 and change to remodel his penthouse. And the sum of the amount is owed $38,000. So with that, I would like to call Mr. Jerry Prud'Homme to the stand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let him make an opening statement. Okay. Mr. Bravo, do you have an opening statement? I need for you to come up to this podium. State your name, and the reporter will swear you m. MR. BRAVO: My name is Grimaldo Bravo. (Sworn.) Page 91 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just an opening statement as to your response. MR. BRAVO: Very briefly I'd like to say that I acknowledge as my fault in this case the fact that I underbid this job. I'd like to say on my behalf I have completed seven other units in that building successfully. I strongly believe that when I bid ajob, I try to do it accurately. I think a lot of the prices and contractors prices have gone up quite a bit in the last year. And that put a little burden on me. I'm a man of pride. I take a lot of pride in my work. I'm a perfectionist and I'm an honest man. And I made Mr. Prud'Homme aware of the fact that I want to pay him back whatever balance we had at the end, not because I felt like it was owed because of me taking that money and using it somewhere else, it was because I wanted to stick with my contract price. But if you all are aware of how extensive this job was, it was a complete gut of the unit. And based on what other contractors are telling me, the job should have been bid for at least $50,000 more than what it was. I don't feel like I abandoned the job. We had some failure of communication. Because of my personality, when I get into a conflict with people sometimes, I don't communicate very well, and I had other people communicate for me. And in this case, I had my employees and superintendents communicate with Mr. Prud'Homme. Mr. Prud'Homme never needed to get another contractor to complete his job. He just needed to pay the balances to a few of my contractors to complete. He didn't have to hire somebody else to finish it and the job was completed to Mr. Prud'Homme's satisfaction, I believe. I'd also like to say that my contract had specified the dates on the draws -- I had seven draws in that particular contract. And I specified when the draws are to be made and, it's imperative. And I think you guys can understand it's imperative for the contractor to receive that payment timely. Out of six payments, four of them were done late. I specified in my contract that it causes a breach of contract if it's made over seven days after it's due. And out of the six payments that were Page 92 January 18,2006 received, four of them were over seven days. I feel like the customers want to stick with the contract when it comes to, hey, you do it for the price that you said you're going to do it no matter what, but when it comes to paying, they don't quite respect the contract. This just my feeling towards it. And that's all I'd like to say. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me ask you a couple of questions. MR. BRA YO: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: From September of'03 through -- or September of'04 through September '05, I don't know any contractors that made any money. Because I was getting price increases every two weeks. I couldn't even bid jobs. I couldn't get to them quick enough to where I was losing money. So basically, what you're saying right now is, you admit that you owe him money? MR. BRA YO: No. I admit that I underbid the job. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But you did have a contract to do the job, but you didn't bid it correctly? MR. BRA YO: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which is whose fault? MR. BRA YO: It was my fault. So that's pretty much an admission at that point. I don't think you're going to get anywhere with seven days on a payment schedule. God, if I had 15 and could hold people to it, I'd be the happiest guy -- I'd bounce down 41. MR. BRA YO: Even though your contract says that they're under breach of contract when -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's a lot of delays there, but, yeah. I mean, that's Alice in Wonderland to get it in seven days, but I agree it would be nice. COMMISSIONER BLUM: After the first time it was more than seven days late, it behooved him to take the man to task so it didn't happen the next three times. And obviously if it's okay, you wouldn't let it happen four more times. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So the only thing I'm going here -- Page 93 January 18,2006 and I'm not trying to get into the case, or I'm not trying to stall it -- but what I'm trying to say is, basically you're saying you could not complete the job because it was your mistake on the bidding? And that's pretty much the nutshell of the case; isn't it? MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. At this time can we, before we proceed any further, can we get the exhibit into -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's twice I've done that. MR. OSSORIO: Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Twice in the same day. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I make a motion we put the CLB 2006-02 Jerry Prud'Hornrne versus Grimaldo Bravo into evidence. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a second. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Second, Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I was just trying to expedite things there. MR. OSSORIO: It's very simple. When we had our meeting, October 14, 2005, Mr. Bravo was never candid in saying, you know what, yeah, I underbid this job, I did, and I have no money. This case was destined here from that day before only because there was no money. Mr. Prud'Hornrne was very lenient. You can see he has no problem paying. He never fired the contractor. It was always understood when at the end of the project, ifthere was no money owed back, it would be reinverted back to the homeowner. But if you have no money to give back, here we are with the charge of -- the place had been completed. There's no workmanship issues. I'm sure Mr. Prud'Hornrne will testify to the fact that he's happy with the job. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's no liens. MR. OSSORIO: There's no liens. Nothing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what's the issue? MR. OSSORIO: The issue is, he paid $38,000 more of what the contract price reads at. MR. BRA YO: 28. Page 94 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He paid how much? MR. OSSORIO: He paid $38,000 more on the contract price of $152,000. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: He paid it? MR. OSSORIO: He had to pay it. There were liens. MR. BRA YO: It's not 38,000. MR. OSSORIO: Well, that's to be seen. Let Mr-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Don't get all picky on me yet. MR. OSSORIO: Let's not go ahead and fudge the numbers one way or the other. Let Mr. Prud'Homme testify of the fact that he paid more than what the contract price was for. And there's a charge for that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Now I understand where you're going. Okay. Mr. Ossorio -- you can go ahead and have a seat, Mr. Bravo. The floor is yours, Mr. Ossorio. MR. OSSORIO: With your pleasure, I would like to go ahead and call the homeowner, Mr. Prud'Homme, to the stand. MR. PRUD'HOMME: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hi. MR. PRUD'HOMME: Would you like me to simply summarize MR. NEAL: We need him sworn. (Sworn.) MR.OSSORIO: Mr. Prud'Homme, if you could just summarize for us in a clear and convincing manner how you found the contractor all the way up to the C.O. which you obtained through the City of Naples Building Department. MR. PRUD'HOMME: Yes, sir. I met Mr. Grimaldo Bravo in early November of 2004. Mr. Bravo had remodeled several units in the building where I had recently purchased a unit, and I received his name on a referral from one of the individuals he was doing some work for. I met with Mr. Bravo. He showed us several of the projects Page 95 January 18,2006 that he completed. We were very pleased with the quality of his work and the quality of finishes. While we were in town -- and we are just part-time residents -- while we were in town, we, with Mr. Bravo, and one of his employees, went to several places to select granite, select plumbing fixtures, interior trim and detail while we were here so that could determine a price based on the actual materials that would be used on the job. As a result of that, later in November, Mr. Bravo forwarded me a proposal and a contract with a contract price of $152,790. And the contract and the proposal, which I think you have included in your package, list in detail the specifications of the job and also the materials that were to be used. On December 3rd, at the request of Mr. Bravo and the contract, I paid him a deposit of $22,918.50. And this was made at the time of contract signing, even though the work was not to commence until March 21 st. We wanted to use the condo over the winter months and not start the work until earlier in the spring. And that deposit was to cover the cost of Mr. Bravo requiring certain materials that may not be available three or four months later, such as actual slabs of granite that we had selected, plumbing fixtures and so forth. The job did start on March 21 st, or on about March 21 st, as specified in the contract, and I paid the first payment as stipulated in his agreement of$38,197.50. And I will state at this point that I did make all payments on the day they were due, or the day that I received an invoice from Mr. Bravo. Some of his invoices were late, and that might have been the reason for any delay. But, I think you also have included in your package the account where all of these checks were drawn. And I think you'll see they were paid on a very timely basis. MR. OSSORIO: That's going to be depicted on E27 on your packet, the first payment. MR. PRUD'HOMME: The only payment Mr. Bravo did not receive from me was the final payment that was due on July 25th. The contract specified that the commencement date would be March Page 96 January 18,2006 21st, and the completion date July 25th. With time being of the essence, we requested that be added to the contract and Mr. Bravo agreed. The project was not completed on July 25th. Never during the process did we have problems with the quality of the work or the quality of subcontractors that he used. But corne the period beginning early June and early July, I realized that there was no way the project was going to be completed on time. Based on several visits to the property, it was obvious there was too much work to do and it wasn't going to be finished. The first inkling I had of a financial problem is when I received a call from the granite company to review my selections, and these selections had been made back in November. And, in fact, we had given Mr. Bravo a deposit of $22,000 so the actual slabs of granite could be purchased, we learned at that time, or I learned at that time that in June that, in fact, those slabs were not purchased and he was now working with a different supplier. Fortunately we had samples of the granite so we knew the name of our choice and this other company was able to make those purchases. But, I became a little suspicious that there was problem at that point in time when the money I had given as a first deposit to buy the granite wasn't actually used for that purpose. The second thing that alerted me to a financial problem was when I received a call from the appliance company that had appliances scheduled to be delivered while I was here, telling me that they could not make their delivery because the invoice had not been paid by Mr. Bravo. I discussed that with him during a meeting and, it was on a Thursday or Friday afternoon, and he told me he had just left there and it had been taken care of. I later confirmed with the appliance company that in fact the appliance had not been paid for. And then during that same visit I contacted the plumbing company that was doing our work. I was able to found out who they were because they're the same company that does work for the condominium, and they told me the reason they hadn't corne back to Page 97 January 18,2006 do the finish was that the plumbing supply company that was providing the fixtures had not been paid and would not release the fixtures until they were paid. So at that point in time I gave them my credit card so they could buy the fixtures and also agreed to pay them for their labor if Mr. Bravo did not do that. And that following week I issued a check to the appliance company so that in fact they could deliver the appliances that would be needed for installation. And, again, about this same time all of the problems became obvious. The company that was supposed to be supplying the cabinetry for our closets was nowhere to be find, even though we met with him. I spent several weeks trying to find out who they were so I could find out whether or not, in fact they had placed the order thinking that, you know, here is a supplier sitting with custom made cabinetry for my closets, and here I am a customer who wants those installed, but I couldn't find out who they were. Mr. Bravo wouldn't tell me who they were and wouldn't allow his foreman to tell me until sometime later we did receive that information. There were several email communications, I think, which are also in the package which illustrate the chain of events that occurred. I wrote a letter to Mr. Bravo on June 23rd telling him that I was enclosing the fifth scheduled payment and that we needed to work out an adjustment on the final payment because it was obvious that all of the work would not be completed. And one item alone, which was the hurricane shutters, was going to cost very close to the amount of the final payment. I received -- and then from that point on did not have any communication with Mr. Bravo, as he stated during his testimony. I tried on several occasions to contact him and both by phone and by email. He wouldn't return my calls. Wouldn't return my emails. But responded to me on August 18th, telling me that some additional work had been done, and also telling me that if I would provide him a list of everyone that I paid, he would reimburse me. I sent him a reply that very next day listing the expenses I had paid through that point in Page 98 January 18,2006 time, which total, at that point, $20,568. I did not receive a response from him. I followed up with another email, and again, he did not respond. And then on September 12th I received an email from Mr. Bravo saying that he just returned from Peru and states in his email, I see I have missed several emails from you. To be honest, I am afraid of reading them. I hate to disappoint people, and now I encounter myself helpless having to face it. I am not a crook. I was raised to be honest. I take pride in my work. I promise to repay you all I owe. Just give me a couple of weeks. I tried to reach him on several occasions to work out some kind of an arrangement, and he failed to contact me. When I met with Mr. Ossorio at his request, he asked if I would meet with Mr. Bravo. He had a conversation about Mr. Bravo that same day, and said that he felt that maybe we could make some arrangements. I agreed to do that. I had a meeting with Mr. Bravo. He simply told me that he had no money and that his only asset was his house and that I could file an attachment against his house. This was an issue with his company and not with him personally, so, I didn't see that as an avenue that I could take. Since that time, I have had no communication with Mr. Bravo. I have a summary that should be in your documents. The total amount that I paid personally to subcontractors and suppliers totals $42,768.71. And that does not include any expenses I incurred to make additional trips to Naples to get this work done to complete the project. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Say that amount again. MR. PRUD'HOMME: $42,768.71. And that does not include additional expenses I incurred. Because basically at that point in time I became the contractor. Mr. Bravo was not on the job, so I worked directly with the subcontractors and the City of Naples to get my final Certificate of Occupancy. I did not make the final payment to Grimaldo that was due on July 25th for the completion, which was Page 99 January 18,2006 15,279. Again, that amount was $15,279. So, in fact, the amount that he owes me is $27,489.71. And I'd like to add during this project, up until my being in this room today, Mr. Bravo has never mentioned to me that the problem was that he underbid the job. Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Just one last question. Did he ever state to you what the problem was? Why he didn't finish the job? MR. PRUD'HOMME: He told me he was having personal problems, that his wife had left. I know during the process of my project he opened a woman's clothing store. I assume that probably some of the drain on his construction business went to buying inventory for that store and doing -- well, he sold improvements, but he told me on several occasions early on, and later during the periods when we were communicating, that there were personal problems he . . was expenencmg. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You have any questions, Mr. Bravo? You have to corne back up here. And these questions should be directed to Mr. Prud'Homme. MR. BRA YO: Actually, I don't have any questions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Does the board have any questions of Mr. Prud'Homme? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I think you're a very honorable gentleman for doing what you've done completing this home. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hey, you want ajob? MR. PRUD'HOMME: No thank you. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: He has more patience than most people. Most people would have already been in civil court. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This question is going to corne up later. What is your desire? MR. PRUD'HOMME: I would like to -- I would like to be reimbursed for my loss. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: In your meeting that you had previous Page 100 January 18,2006 to this board meeting, was there a time period that was discussed? MR. PRUD'HOMME: Excuse me? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Was there a time period discussed? MR. PRUD'HOMME: A time period for? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That repayment. MR. PRUD'HOMME: I've never had a discussion with Mr. Bravo. He's never discussed with me making any arrangements for repayment. In the contract that I engaged with Mr. Bravo, it states on the last page that if there is a financial problem, a filing can be made with the state. And I made that filing, I believe they felt they did not have jurisdiction because of his license status and it was referred to Mr. Ossorio. And Mr. Ossorio tells me that there may be some possibility of recovering from the State Fund. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other complaints against Mr. Bravo prior to this? MR. OSSORIO: We had one in '04 for a worker's comp violation but he took care of it and he paid his penalty. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Do you have any other further witnesses? MR. OSSORIO: No other witnesses. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And he doesn't have any questions so your case is done. Anybody else have a question of Mr. Prud'Homme? You can have a seat. Mr. Prud'Homme, if you'll corne up and present your case, sir. The floor is yours. MR. BRA YO: Well I think what had to be said has already been said. The only thing I can add to that is, yes, indeed technically, I do owe that money, but if we go beyond that, I don't know if we can go beyond that, but Mr. Prud'Homme even put in that money out of his pocket. He got his job completed for a lot less than he would have in bid it properly. So it's not like I stole money from him, or I used that money for someone else. I don't think it's fair for him to mention my Page 101 January 18,2006 other business, and to even inquire, because he doesn't know where that money carne from -- that I used his money for my other business. I don't think that would be a fair comment. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't think he said that. He said he may draw on cash. And if I opened up another business, I would create some -- MR. BRA YO: Well, that's kind of saying you could have used his money somewhere else. And I didn't -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It was not presented that way. MR. BRA YO: That's all I have to say. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only thing I'm going to say to you is, the fact that he could have gotten it done cheaper and you underbid it, that really is no defense. You know that. I've lost money on jobs. Everyone up here has lost money on jobs. Unfortunately, I do it less and less as I get older, but I still do it. It's irritating, but it's part of the business and it's unfortunate. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Bravo? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Was there -- I mean, I've written a contract or two in my life, and something this extensive, a complete remodel, you know $150,000, was there any provisions that -- it had to be a six month duration, roughly. And we all know what happens to cost in six months, especially in Naples, especially in that timeframe. Wasn't there any provision in there to go to the homeowner and say, look, this is what happened? Did you have any provisions for escalating costs, or cost increases or overruns or anything like that? Nothing in there. MR. BRA YO: You know, life is a learning process, and -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: The answer is no. MR. BRA YO: The answer is no, right. I should have had one. Again, my contract has changed so much since I have been in business for the last 15 years. And I have been putting things in and taking things out to protect myself. And, I always make a point to protect the Page 102 January 18,2006 homeowner also in my contracts. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Your admission that you do feel that technically you do owe this gentleman $27 some odd thousand dollars. Are you going to accept that responsibility? MR. BRA YO: Well, technically, it says in the contract. Ifwe go to the contract, yeah, it says that I owe the money, and I have to accept that because I told him I will build this for this much. This is what I'm promising in my contract. So I can't deny that. COMMISSIONER BLUM: So my question to you is then, you're saying, yes, I owe Mr. Prud'Homme $27 some thousand dollars? MR. BRA YO: If we're basing that in the contract, yes. COMMISSIONER BLUM: That's the damages he's looking for. MR. BRA YO: Right. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Can you make some kind of a provision with this man? I mean, I think now may be the time to step up to the plate and make some kind of commitment. MR. BRA YO: Unfortunately, I have been out of business for the last six months. I haven't had an income for six months -- or four months or whatever this case put my license on hold because -- I mean, this is not helping me make money to pay him. But he complains that -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me tell you what's going to happen. We're going to find you -- I have been here long enough to speak for the Board, but you're probably going to be found guilty of the charges, and then there's going to be a suspension with probably a restitution, and that restitution might surprise you how close it's going to be to $27,000, plus some interest with some payment terms. And if you make those payment terms, then your license is going to be on suspension -- not suspension, but probation. But you miss one of those terms, and we've had several that have agreed to certain terms to pay people back, low and behold they never even make the first Page 103 January 18,2006 payment. You know what happens automatically? You're license is revoked. So what we're looking for is some guidelines to keep you in business and pay Mr. Prud'Homme back. What can you do? We don't want to put you out of business. That's not our desire. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: We'd like to corne up with a method, also something, that if you tell us, this is what you can do, and he's accepting and agreeable to it, that it will happen so it does keep your license active. MR BRA YO: To be honest, I can't make any promises financially. I'm in a really big hole right now. I don't want to put myself in a deeper hole. Ifhe wants to sue me, then he'll have to do that, but unfortunately, I am not in a position to either promise that I'm going to give him a dollar tomorrow, because, I mean, I'm losing everything I have at this point. I've lost my vehicles. I'm getting close to losing my house. You guys want to take my license away to make him happy, go right ahead because I can't do anything about it. I'm sorry I made a mistake. I under-bidded the job. He should -- I think personally if I was him, I'd be like, look, you under-bidded this job. And why should I take more money out of you if you don't have any money to finish my job. You obviously didn't steal the money from me. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Corne on now, corne on now. Corne on. Let's don't get personal here. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I just got one quick question. Because this is being embellished. And this is the first time we've heard that he underbid the job. Are there any other jobs out there in '04 that might be pending with this Contractor Licensing due to the fact that you underbid other jobs, or is this an isolated case? MR. BRA YO: Not that I'm aware of. MR. OSSORIO: You and I never had a discussion about other cases involving that might corne later in time and a later date? MR. BRA YO: There was, but nothing has been concise. Page 104 January 18,2006 MR. OSSORIO: The reason why is because somebody else is going civilly with it, and then you're going to hear after there's been a judgment like the previous case before us. So this is just a reverse. Instead of getting a judgment, it will go to the licensing board, which is a good thing so we hear the case fresh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Our desire is never to use the death sentence and take someone's license away, because you obviously are a good contractor because he said he was happy with the quality of work. You obviously have done a lot of other people in there that are happy with your work because they refer you. MR. BRA YO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So all ofa sudden I've got a good contractor that got in a financial mess. I don't want to put you out of business, but you've got to give us, as a Board, and you're responsible for that contract, you can't keep saying that he should pay it, because you're one that made the mistake. MR. BRA YO: I understand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So, give us a way to save you. MR. BRA YO: I have no idea what my options are, sir. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Are you currently in business? MR. BRA YO: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER BLUM: You haven't pulled any permits in how long? MR. BRA YO: Since Mr. Prud'Homme's. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: And why is that? MR. BRA YO: My license is on hold. I'm not allowed to do any work. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why is that, Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: His license was on hold from the supervisor for worker's comp issues, and liability and for this action in this case here, and for other cases as well. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that something that can be done? January 18, 2006 MR. OSSORIO: I think the building director, if it's not a certified contractor, can put a licensed registered contractor on hold. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Doesn't that have to corne through this Board? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't think he has that authority, unless I'm mistaken. Why do you need this board ifhe has that kind of authority? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Exactly. We might as well go home. MR. BRA YO: I was told I couldn't do any work under my license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neal, we're waiting. MR. NEAL: I'm looking. I'm looking. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Essentially, the director put him out of business without anything ever corning to the Licensing Board. I think that's a violation of county ordinance. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I think you're right. MR. OSSORIO: I believe under the Administrative Code, and you can't quote me. I will get the sections for you. If a contractor doesn't close out building permits or C.O. proper projects, that the Building Department Director and his designee have the ability to put him on building permit hold. Now he's not on hold, per se, for contracting, but the ability to clean up his building permit record to make sure that he closes all the building permits, he needs to close out so he can start fresh. That does happen from time to time. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm aware of that, because I know an air conditioning contractor that's got over 400 open permits. MR. OSSORIO: His license is not on hold, but his building permit privileges, until he cleans this mess up and C.O.'s a couple of places -- I know he's got a lot of things pending that need to be looked into and closed out. And that's exactly what we do on residential contractors, or specialty contractors that don't close their permits out. Page 106 January 18, 2006 They have that ability. So the license is not on hold, no. His privilege to pull building permits is. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: What's the difference? MR. OSSORIO: There's a big difference. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's a big difference. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Ifhe can't pull a permit, you can't work. MR.OSSORIO: Well, you can work, you just can't pull a building permit. You working, Mr. Joslin, you don't pull building permits sometimes. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I don't understand that. MR. BRA YO: Mr. Ossorio told me very clear on several occasions that I was not allowed to do any work because my license was on hold. You told me that on several occasions. MR.OSSORIO: I said to him your license -- I said that your building permit license, or your license was on hold. I said you can still work, you just can't pull a building permit. And that was on the 14th of October. MR. BRA YO: Sorry, I hate to disagree with you, but you-- MR. OSSORIO: Okay. We can agree to disagree. The facts are the facts. MR. BRA YO: Is my license on hold right now? MR. OSSORIO: Your building permit privileges are on hold until you get your building permit record cleaned up. And this is one of the things you need to clean up as is getting a place C.O.'d and everything else. MR. BRA YO: So if it's on hold, I shouldn't be doing any work, that's basically what you told me. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Bravo, when we had meetings, I told you you were still in business. As a matter of fact, when I talked to you at your place of business, you said you still had guys out there working. I said, I have no problem with them working, you just can't pull a Page 107 January 18,2006 building permit. MR BRA YO: I didn't even have another job. How could I have guys working with no job? I don't have any employees. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Enough, enough. Save this discussion for outside of this room. Mr. Neal hasn't found anything yet. We're not finished with you, Mr. Bravo. MR. BRA YO: Yes, sir. MR. NEAL: It doesn't appear to be addressed in our ordinances to -- the only way it's addressed is that the county may -- Contractor Licensing supervisor may issue a Stop Work Order. If it's being undertaken by uncertified or non-exempt persons, but that is the only point I see. I'd like to have the opportunity to look further into this. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What we're go doing to at this meeting is -- Mr. Neal, you're not going to China this afternoon, are you? MR. NEAL: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So if he'll research that and get with you guys on the director building department and make sure that what's been done is legal. Because I was thinking this board was the only one that could do that, except for some administrative hold for some offence or something. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Insurance and workman's comp, I can understand that. MR. OSSORIO: Well, insurance and worker's comp is done for State level contractors. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Right, but even at county levels, I know that there are other contractors I've been aware of that their permit privileges are put on hold until they have certificates of insurance that actually keep their license in place. MR. OSSORIO: I'll look up and see where it says for -- when you talk about a building official and what his jurisdiction is, his ability as to put somebody on hold for a particular reason, we'll look Page 108 January 18,2006 into it, and make sure we relay that message back to you at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Would you do me a favor? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And call me. And I'll take it upon myself to call the others, but I don't want to wait until next meeting. MR.OSSORIO: I'll call you as soon as I get the information. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I want to know this week. MR. NEAL: I'll do the research also. On behalf of the Board, Mr. Zachary and I will both look into it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Anything else, Mr. Bravo, you want to present? MR. BRAYO: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Any questions you have of him, Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: No questions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have a seat. MR. BRA YO: Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Other than, one other question, that he's done many jobs in that building, and he knows what the price is, and price is price, and it changes, but like Mr. Prud'Homme said, he's done work in that building and he priced them all right and he should be paid a penalty of $27,000 and change. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Just a real quick question, as far as the degree of work that you've done on Mr. Prud'Homme's versus the other ones that you already done in that project, were they similar to being the same, or was this one like more involved or -- MR. BRA YO: Well, the price would change drastically depending on the types of fixtures, cabinets, type of marble. This is one of the most extensive ones as far as the price of the materials. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I understand. So, in other words, this job was more elaborately done, or more things were chosen that Page 109 January 18,2006 would have cost more money for you to go do them, and for to be bidded out at? MR. BRA YO: Yeah. I would say different things were chosen, not more. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: That's what I wanted to know. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'll say some things, one comment in defense of him, and I've been in business obviously a lot longer than he has, but that 12 month period was a nightmare. You guys that are in construction know about it. And I never had escalation clauses before I went through that 12 month period. It was literal every week to two weeks major increases. Tough time. Okay. Closing arguments, Mr. Ossorio. Closing comments? MR. OSSORIO: Other than Mr. Bravo owes Mr. Prud'Homme the money of 27,500 dollars and change, for, he violated the code for 200221 Contractor Licensing. Mr. Prud'Homme paid more for the contract price than was written. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any closing comment,Mr. Bravo? MR. BRA YO: Just one thing I wanted to add is that Mr. Prud'Homme hired a company to do his shutters. I already had a bid from Roll Secure for $8,000, and I guess by the time he hired somebody else, he ended up paying $14,000. So I already had a contract for Roll Secure for doing it for $8,000. I don't know how it could have gone up $6,000 unless -- because when I get a bid from somebody, you know, I do some research, and I try to get a reputable contractor but with a reasonable price. I don't think he was too concerned about that. I think he just wanted it done, and that's $6,000 more right there that I believe that could have been saved. MR. OSSORIO: Do you have a copy of that bid? MR. BRA YO: I do, but I don't have it here. I'll be happy to fax it to you as soon as I get back. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Could that be part of the reasoning Page 110 January 18,2006 also, or possibly for the fact of underbidding that job, knowing that you had it for $8,000 if it was a written contract, but yet that gentleman goes out and tries to get the same role of shade, and maybe at that moment that escalation that Mr. Dickson was talking about happened, and now it's $14,000? MR. BRA YO: I believe that's part of what Mr. Dickson was talking about. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Metal hit 35 year highs. All metal. I need a motion to close public hearing. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So moved. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second someone. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Basically we've got count number one. Mr. Neal, I think we can skip directions, since we just had them on the other case? MR. NEAL: I would think that the board probably can. Everybody's memory is good enough. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not that we don't thoroughly love hearing from you. Count number one, there's only one, 4.1.8.1. MR. NEAL: It's actually 4.8 -- 4.1.8A, and subsection two or three. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: 8A. MR. NEAL: And those are subsections two and three of 8A. Page 111 January 18,2006 MR. OSSORIO: It should be on the back side, Mr. Dickson. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I was looking. Yeah, Band C isn't it? MR. NEAL: It shows Band C, but in the ordinance it's actually two and three. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Two and three. Okay. 4.1.8. or 8A in subsections two and three. And it's kind of cut and dry. He admitted to it. Doesn't take a whole lot of discussion. You agree? COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody need a motion? Got a motion? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Make the motion that we find Mr. Bravo guilty on charge of 4.1.8 subsection A, Band C. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One, two and three. MR. NEAL: And I actually did make an error. It is this way in the ordinance as passed, but in the codified version, it's A2 and 3, so -- they did that just simply to confuse us, I think. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Second, Beswick. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Found guilty. You probably should give us direction on penalties though, Mr. Neal. Page 112 January 18,2006 MR. NEAL: All right. The sanctions that are available to the Board under ordinance and Florida statutes are ten different potential sanctions. Number one is revocation of the respondent's certificate of competency. Number two is suspension of the respondent's certificate of competency. Number three is denial of issuance or renewal of certificate of competency. Number four is a probation of reasonable length not to exceed two years during which the contractor's contracting activity shall be under the supervision of the Contractor Licensing Board, and/or participation in a duly accredited program of continuing education. The probation may be revoked for cause by the Board at a hearing after notice to consider said purpose. Number five, restitution. Number six, a fine not to exceed $5,000. Number seven, a public reprimand. Number eight, a re-examination requirement. Number nine, denial of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with conditions. Number ten, reasonable, legal, and investigative costs. In determining what sanctions to oppose, the Board shall consider the gravity of the violation, the impact of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct it, any previous violations committed by the violator, and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction that is appropriate for the case given it's nature. And then the Board also has to issue the recommended penalty to the state and construction industry licensing board. And those are three different penalties. I might as well go through that. One is recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration, or a fine, or a recommendation of no further action. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Who wants to speak first? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Okay. Until the money is refunded and verified by Mr. Prud'Homme that he's satisfied with the Page 113 January 18,2006 repayment or repayment schedule, Mr. Bravo should be enjoined not to have any privileges. His license should be revoked until such time as all actions are satisfied. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I'm going to fight you on that one. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I am too. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Suspended instead. That's fine. He shouldn't be able to do any work until he pays this man back. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can't pay him back-- COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Ifhe can't work, he can't pay him back. COMMISSIONER BLUM: What comes first, the chicken or the egg? He indicated he doesn't even have any need to go to work. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I want Mr. Prud'Homme to get paid. And he's entitled to it, and we all agree with that. And at the same time, you know how many contractors have corne in here with liens and problems and failure to do warranting. I'm really impressed with this man that, one, that he's even here; two his level of honesty, and the fact that he's a darn good contractor that this county could use, I'd love to save him. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And whether it's a payment schedule that he and Mr. Prud'Homme work out that meets Mr. Prud'Homme's satisfaction, or it's additional work that he does that meets Mr. Prud'Homme's satisfaction. It all has to meet Mr. Prud'Homme's s satisfaction, but, boy, I mean, I really would love to save this guy. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I understand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I would like to have him work on my house. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Well, sure. Ifhe's indicated he has no means, no way, no how to pay him. He's done. He's destitute is what he's telling us. Page 114 January 18, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But if we keep him working and we get this issue, this hold resolved, there is so much work out there. He can be busy -- he could have a 12-month backlog in one week. You all agree with that? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I agree. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's that much work. And to put this guy out of business, is only defeating the purpose. COMMISSIONER BLUM: He's not even willing to make a payment plan. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because he can't tell you. But if we give him like a year that he pays it off with interest, or the two of them agree to some payment schedule and we open up his permit, I can see why he didn't negotiate. He's being told he can't work. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Ifwe have $2,500 a month just for-- just to pay back Mr. Prud'Homme. That's a pretty heavy burden when he's ready to lose his house and his car. We know he's not going to be able to pay it. Take it out two years, just for giggles and chuckles, now you've got $1,300 a month, which is still a hell of a payment. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But if we give him the death penalty, Mr. Prud'Home isn't going to get a dime. COMMISSIONER BLUM: I don't think he will anyway. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let's give it a chance. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Okay. My motion stands. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, yours was a motion? COMMISSIONER BLUM: It sure was. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, it was a motion. Okay. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, your motion was to revoke; is that correct? COMMISSIONER BLUM: Until such time as payment has been negotiated and agreed to by Mr. Prud'Homme, his licenses is suspended. Page 115 January 18,2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. So it's not revoked, suspended. Okay. Do I hear a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we put Mr. Bravo on a one year probation period and that within a 90-day period, or 90 days after this goes into effect, he has something worked out with Mr. Prud'Homme for the home on some type of a payment plan that they can negotiate that will be satisfactory to both parties where he will, Mr. Prud'Homme, will get his money back. If that doesn't happen in the 90 day period, then his license is suspended. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Prud'Homme, do you care about having communication with him via email or something? Is that acceptable with you? MR. PRUD'HOMME: My preference would to be for the Board to arrive at an arrangement that they feel is reasonable, because Mr. Bravo has not communicated with me on several occasions. Even after he has told Mr. Ossorio that he would contact me. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: How about if we place staff in charge, or in charge of the communication link between the two? As far as he has a payment to make, and you can accept the payment in trust and it gets delivered, sent to Mr. Prud'Homme. I mean, I'm placing you someplace maybe you don't want to be at. I'm not sure. MR. OSSORIO: Well, I'm not a baby-sitter to a contractor to any kind of hold hostage. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: It is what it is. This case started October 14th. IfMr. Bravo really had any intention of paying him back $500, $10, $100, he would have been in contact with Mr. Prud'Homme months ago. We don't take cases for Licensing Board unless we need to. And this is one of the cases that unfortunately, we can't mediate. So we need to find the facts so we can go to the recovery fund State Licensing Board so Mr. Prud'Homme can get his money back. I think every tier one contractor pays into it. They pay to a fund up in Page 116 January 18,2006 Tallahassee for this reason alone, to get recovery. And he should be no different. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me ask you a question. Can we do __ you can obviously see which way the Board is going. We want the money back. Can we give him a time period to pay that, and you still have remedies available through the state? MR. OSSORIO: Well, the remedies have to corne from the Licensing Board. They issue the finding of fact, and then it gets forwarded to Tallahassee. We don't do anything in our office without your permission. So whatever the Board decides to do, we'll go and do. If we need to hold Mr. Bravo's hand and be a bill collector, I'll do it. I don't want to do it, but if that's what the Board wants us to do, we'll do it. If you want to put him on hold until he pays back, or attempts to. I'm sure Mr. Bravo has assets. He can stand up here and tell you that he has -- he built a million dollar house off of Oakes Boulevard and it's tied up in litigation, he could get settlement out of that within three months. It's something he needs to put on record. Sell his business over there on Pine Ridge Road or Airport Road to get it liquidated. I mean, the sky is not falling. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Would you corne up to the microphone? MR. PRUD'HOMME: Just a couple of things. I think my likelihood of recovery from the state recovery fund -- I'm not sure how it works -- I think my likelihood of recovering from that fund is much greater than recovering from Mr. Bravo. Mr. Bravo had another job that was in process, according to his foreman, when I was finishing my job. So, the fact that he didn't have any work is not true, from information that was given to me by his contractor. And the work that he did on my unit was work that he engaged in while he was doing work on other units at that property. And keep in mind, that before he started doing any work, he had 50 percent of the total job paid to him. The first $20,000 that was supposed to be used to purchase Page 117 January 18,2006 products, and had he purchased those materials at that time, that would have avoided any increase in material cost, and an additional $30,000 that was paid to him before he even started the project. So the under-bidding is a lame excuse. It's not a fact. He knew what the costs were going to be. He was involved in other projects in that property. I think that he ran into personal problems, and I got caught in his personal problems. So my preference would be to hopefully receive some relief from the Recovery Fund, and then I think if Mr. Bravo goes back to work, I think he should have to pay back whatever the recovery fund pays to me. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Bravo, will you corne up. While you're corning up, I just want to say something to you Mr. Prud'Homme. My manufacturers were smarter than I was. And it didn't matter when I ordered the material. It was the cost at ship date. They nailed us. So there was no way I could avoid it. I don't take deposit though. But even so, I can't pay for it up front. MR. PRUD'HOMME: Majority of this work was labor and not materials. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Bravo, you got to give us something. If you just say nothing, you're not going to like the outcome. What can you do to pay this man back? MR. BRA YO: If I am given some time, I can maybe corne up with some kind of payment plan. I done think it's fair that Mr. Ossorio is mentioning my other business? And selling my other business. He has no clue what's going on with my other business. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It does. It does. It all is pertinent, and this is why this is not a court oflaw. A lot of things are acceptable here, and that is acceptable. COMMISSIONER BLUM: We need you to say the next two years, the next three years, the next six months. Something. Specifically say it right now for the record in front of us, in front of this gentleman, that you're going to pay him $27,000, how are you Page 118 January 18,2006 going to do it. Can do you that? Let's cut to the chase. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Well, what is your intention? MR. BRA YO: Well, my intention is to pay him back, but-- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Can you make the commitment. Some kind of a commitment? MR. BRA YO: I'll make the verbal commitment, yes. COMMISSIONER BLUM: What's that going to be? MR. BRA YO: I can't corne up with $28,000 right now. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Six months. A year. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How much can you corne up with on a monthly base payment? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: And be honest. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Give us something to work with to help you to help yourself. We're trying. MR. BRA YO: I understand, but it's $28,000. In divide it in 12 months and I tell you I'm going to pay him every month $2,000, I'm not going to be being honest, because I'm going to be -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: What can you do? Say something that you can live with. MR. BRA YO: In am given some time, I can work out a payment plan. I mean, if you guys didn't hold my license for this long, I could probably have already paid it. If I could have worked for the last four months. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Thank you. We'll corne up with one. Thank you. Okay. We're back there. So who had the floor? You did? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I did. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Corne up with a payment schedule. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: The amount of the damage so far, or the amount that Mr. Prud'Homme has corning back, is $27,498.71. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Mr. Joslin, I would suggest two years $1,300 a month for two years. The first time a payment isn't Page 119 January 18,2006 made, his privileges are revoked. And that's that. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I think that's where I was going to. I was just trying to corne up with a way within a 90 day period that this is already cut out in stone. Something has to be writing or something done so we know this is happening, not just let it go on and on and on and he's working on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We can't baby-sit. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: No. And I don't want the baby-sitters -- I mean, I don't want Michael or staff -- obviously, there's something between those two, so they're going to have to -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Mr. Blum is going to make a phone call, the first 30 day period he doesn't see a check, he's going to call Mr. Ossorio. Mr. Ossorio is going to do what he's got to do and that's that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can I make a comment? In was Mr. Prud'Homme and was sitting out there right now, I'd go who are they to decide that I'm not going to get paid back for two years. COMMISSIONER BLUM: No, no, no. One payment is missed CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Okay. Let's ask Mr. Prud'Homme. Can you live with that finding? MR. OSSORIO: He already said he couldn't. He already stated his preference was to go to the state fund. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can I make a motion, Mr. Neal? MR. NEAL: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can? I move that $27,000 -- I think it's $27,489.71, plus seven percent interest be due and payable within the next 12 months, and monthly payments of $2,000 a month commence 30 days from today's date with a balloon payment, which will include interest in the unpaid balance, 12 months from today be due and payable on that 12th installment payment. Failure to meet the Page 120 January 18,2006 first payment, or any subsequent payments, would result in immediate suspension ofMr. Bravo's license. And for payment to reach three months unpaid, would result in Mr. Bravo's revocation of his license. Am I clear? COMMISSIONER BLUM: I second that. I like that. I can second that one. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We've got a first and a second. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So he's going to be locked into a 12 month period for $2,000 a month? Then a balloon payment after the 12 months of the balance? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The 12th month will be the balloon payment. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Is the balloon payment. Which will be the difference for the 11 months -- COMMISSIONER BLUM: Plus seven percent interest. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which will be $22,000 less at that point. So, basically $5,500 plus interest due on that 12th installment. Misses the first one he's suspended, misses three of them, he's revoked. With recommendation to -- state can't do anything. He's a local license. MR. NEAL: Yeah, they can. They can take action, and certainly the fund can -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What should be my recommendation to the state? That they take no action? MR. NEAL: No action except for the fact that he -- well, they really don't need to take any action because he can still go to the fund as long as you found that he was in violation. I have a first and a second. Everybody clear. All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. Page 121 January 18,2006 COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. Opposed? None. It's unanimous. You understand the ruling, Mr. Bravo? MR. BRA YO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd love to see you save yourself. I have a feeling you're not, but I hope you do. MR. BRA YO: Thank you. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd love to keep you around here, but you've got to corne up with $2,000 in 30 days and every month after that. And we'll find out what's going on with the license so that you can still work, but you miss that first payment, it's over with. Okay? MR. BRA YO: Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Also it still leaves the door open for Mr. Prud'Homme to get repaid from the fund? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We usually see bad contractors here. MR. NEAL: One quick note. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's not the case with you. MR. NEAL: Is it the pleasure of the board that ifMr. Prud'Homme recovers from the fund, that the respondent still repay him? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think those payments should go to the state back into the fund, shouldn't they? Can we do that? I never addressed this issue. MR. NEAL: I'm not sure. I simply don't know enough about the workings of the fund. MR. OSSORIO: I believe how it works, Mr. Neal, is that when we send up a finding of fact in the packet, we'll send up when we get it, they'll do their own independent investigation. And we'll have DBPR down in our office and they'll look through it and they will start independent investigation through that process. We're not talking he's Page 122 January 18,2006 going to get a check tomorrow from the Recovery Fund. It might take 12 months. But within that, we're going to find -- within that 12-month period, we'll find out what the Board is going to corne to a conclusion if he's getting $2000 a month. We'll know within a month or two. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Prud'Homme, we thank you for your time, sir. MR. PRUD'HOMME: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You'd make a good contractor. We wish both of you well. MR. BRA YO: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We did that in an hour. There's no reports. Anything staff? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I just had one quick comment that doesn't apply to you two. You're welcome to go. If you want to stay and listen, that's fine. But over this past week, I was at home last Wednesday, I believe it was, and I was able to watch the commissioner's meeting on the television. And I was a little appalled at the comments that I heard from some of our commissioners that are a little bit against our Licensing Board here, and what we do and how we do it. That we are always supposed to, always in 100 percent I guess, to protect the public, and the contractors are essentially -- in his words, kind of always wrong. I'm going to tell you as a Board member that's been on this Board for quite sometime, I don't always look at the case that way. I'm not always trying to go and crucify a contractor because a homeowner comes in here and says, or tries to say, because I think there are just as many guilty homeowners as there are contractors. So I would like to at this time see ifMr. Neal, or your staff, could invite these Councilmen or Commissioners to one of our meetings out here so they can actually let them see what we do here. MR NEAL: That would be really -- the Board itself would have to do that. Mr. Dickson could write a letter over his signature, if the Page 123 January 18,2006 Board approves him to do so, requesting that. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: All that -- that whole comment that day -- I mean, it was Mr. Coyle, and I believe the other -- I can't remember his name, the other one, Harris, Harold, something like that. I forget his name now, but it really hurt my feelings a lot that I have to spend this much time here for free on a monthly basis and this is how they feel we are doing this job. I'd just like to have them corne in here and sit in front of me so I can ask them some questions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The whole issue was, just to clarify, over some zoning request. That people had done things that were in violation of zoning, and now they were asking for waivers after the fact. And everyone was blaming the contractors. And it was a misunderstanding of the commissioners that Contractor Licensing board has anything to do with that, which we don't. That's totally a zoning board issue. And two of the cases that were before the County Commission that day were owner builders. But yet contractors caught the heat for it. Most contractors know what they have to do, and the way it's supposed to be done correctly. I don't know if it needs to go any further than that. Well-- MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Dickson, there was one owner builder and one contractor involved. There is more in particular -- there's more than meets the eye. W e'lllook into the case as we speak. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we've had some of those when they continually try to take issue with the Zoning Board. You remember a national builder that cut off a back porch of a model house and a bay window because it was over the setback line. Honest to goodness he did. And I can say his name, but I won't. And then as soon as he got a C.O., he went back and repoured and rebuilt that bay window and porch. And then someone bought the house and carne to us for our -- carne to zoning for a variance, and which they wouldn't give him, so we got the case on the contractor, which we nailed him. But here you had this innocent homeowner in the middle in that Page 124 January 18,2006 timeframe. So there's a lot more to the picture than sometimes we just hear. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Also there was one other comment made that I think maybe should be addressed also was that they were __ some of the conversation was that we are not allowed to investigate or have before this Board a state certified contractor. And a comment from Mr. Coyle was, maybe there's a law that can be changed, or maybe there can be a change in code that would allow us to reprimand or to have a state certified contractor that works in Collier County corne before our board. If the laws -- if those laws are challenged at the state level, maybe they would give us the jurisdiction to be able to control state certified contractors in Collier County. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That all carne up three or four years ago. We were going to have the jurisdiction, and then the State Board would be the appeals. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But only 10 percent of the contractors in the State of Florida are state certified. So it's a very, very small percentage. And no county can take -- I'm state certified. No County can take my license away. Because it's issued by the state. And the state can take it away. We visited that road before Mr. Neal. I don't think that's going to get revisited. MR. NEAL: Probably not. One of the other issues that the commissioners were addressing, and it is one that this Board may want to clarify with them because I think they have a misunderstanding of what can be done is the commissioners were also questioning the fact that the way it carne up was someone purchased a house, permits had not been pulled on for improvements made, which happens all the time in this county. And the board was trying to find some way that that homeowner could have a remedy against the contractor who didn't pull permits. Well, I think the board had a misunderstanding of how easy it is to track down a contractor who did work ten years ago. It's Page 125 January 18,2006 almost impossible. A, they may not be in business; B, if they are in business, if they didn't pull a permit, how do you know who really did the work? So it's a nice thought. But Mr. Ossorio, Mr. Bartoe can speak to that a lot better. It's hard enough finding out who did contracting work without a permit a week after the work is done. Trying to find out ten years later, would be effectively impossible. Mr. Ossorio, you might want to comment on that. That's certainly my . . impressIOn. COMMISSIONER BOYD: It's an election year also. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're the only County that's put up felony signs at all the entrances. MR. NEAL: Yup. MR. OSSORIO: You like those, don't you? MR. NEAL: I like those a lot. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the one exiting on Pine Ridge from the north has been run over. You need a new one. How many arrests? What's your activity from Hurricane Wilma? Any problems? MR. BARTOE: No major problems, no. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because we only approved Contractors Licenses within the state of Florida that met our requirements for testing and insurance. We did allow them in, but no out of state contractors, and we've had no problems? MR. BARTOE: No problems. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's wonderful. And there's still another six months worth of work to do. That's just on the costmetic repairs. MR. NEAL: And I have to commend our staff, but also this board because I have fair amount of business over on the east coast of Miami in Broward, and they have had nothing but problems. They've had huge unlicensed contractors problems and all kinds of issues over there that they're going to be digging themselves out of for years. This board by taking the action they did, and staff by taking the Page 126 January 18,2006 enforcement action they did, and putting up the big felony signs didn't hurt. We're really been extremely well protected here versus other counties. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've seen good work -- if you're watching on TY and you have a screen enclosure, yeah, you probably won't get another one for at least a year or two, and roofing is backlogged for a year, but basically everyone is doing good work. And you guys have done a great job, especially with that many contractors corning in. I commend staff. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I might need a new blue tarp for my roof. MR. NEAL: You know those roofing guys, I'll tell you. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: I got one next to me, I can't get him to corne and look. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You don't want to know how backlogged we are. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: So moved. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER LEWIS: Aye. COMMISSIONER BESWICK: Aye. COMMISSIONER BLUM: Aye. COMMISSIONER KELLER: Aye. COMMISSIONER JOSLIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HORN: Aye. COMMISSIONER BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you for a good meeting. Page 127 January 18,2006 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:00 p.m. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD OFFICIO GOYERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL LES DICKSON, Chairman. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERYICES, INC., BY DANIELLE AHREN. Page 128