Loading...
CLB Minutes 07/19/2006 R July 19, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing Board in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Les Dickson Sid Blum Michael Boyd Lee Horn Richard Joslin Eric Guite ( absent) Ann Keller ( absent) ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board William Mountford, Assistant County Attorney Tom Bartoe, Licensing Compliance Officer Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: July 19, 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: May 17, 2006 V. DISCUSSION: Review Proposed Amendments to the Ordinace VI. NEW BUSINESS: Robert Unger Review Credit Report Wayne Webb Granted a License for Epoxy Stone based on Highest Exam VII. OLD BUSINESS: Grimaldo Bravo Modify Finding of Facts VIII PUBLIC HEARINGS: IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday August 16, 2006 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning, I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Licensing Board. Anyone who wishes to appeal a decision of this board will need a verbatim record, which is being taken. I'd like to start with roll call to my right. MR. BLUM: Sid Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. HORN: Lee Horn. MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We barely have a quorum. We did have some people out of town. Additions or deletions. Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Mr. Chairman, board members, for the record, I'm Tom Bartoe, Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer. Staff has one deletion. Under new business, Mr. Wayne Webb. If you looked at your packet, he wanted to be granted a license based on his highest exam score, which was below 75, but since we put this packet together last week, he retook the test and passed, so we do not have to hear that. And another addition under new business, I hope I'm pronouncing it right, is Mr. Regia Lastra. And he requested the board review his credit report. And as far as the agenda goes, staff has no more additions or deletions. We do have a new member of the County Attorney's Office present; he can introduce himself to you. MR. MOUNTFORD: Hi. Bill Mountford, here for Robert Zachary today. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning, Bill. Is this permanent? MR. NEALE: No. MR. MOUNTFORD: No. You're not that unlucky. Page 2 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Good to have you with us. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda as amended? MR. BLUM: So moved, Blum. MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. HORN: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Minutes of last meeting. Do I hear a motion to approve? MR. BARTOE: Sir, I have some corrections. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. BARTOE: I just want to prove to you I read these minutes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm glad someone did. MR. BARTOE: On the front cover page they do not have Mr. Boyd present, but throughout the minutes he's voting on issues, so I'm sure Mr. Boyd was here last month. Also, starting on Page 46 and running through to about Page 55, we have starting on Page 46 Chairman Dickson asking Mr. Bowersox if he had any questions of this witness. And for those nine or 10 pages, instead of Mr. Bowersox answering, it has Mr. Hammond answering. And I want to make sure that gets changed to Mr. Bowersox. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well done. MR. JOSLIN: Very good, sir. MR. BARTOE: Did you catch that when you read the minutes? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, of course. MR. MOUNTFORD: I did. Anybody else read the minutes and notice anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Now do I hear a motion to approve Page 3 July 19, 2006 the minutes as amended? MR. JOSLIN: Motion to approve the minutes as amended, with Mr. Bartoe's interjections. MR. BLUM: Second, Blum. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Does anyone see a problem with me changing the order a little bit, since we have people that are here waiting, and wait and do the proposed amendments at the end? So that they don't have to sit here and listen to all of that. MR. BARTOE: That would be agreeable with staff. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Then right off the bat, Robert Unger, is that you? MR. UNGER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you'll come up here to this podium, SIr. I need for you to state your name and I'll have you sworn in. MR. UNGER: It's Robert Unger. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Welcome, Mr. Unger. What we're doing is looking at the credit report, because you're trying to qualify -- is it a fence company? MR. UNGER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And as we're looking at that credit report, have you got an explanation as to why there's some bad things on it? MR. UNGER: I do, sir. Actually, I gave a letter at -- with it at that time, because I knew there's some things on there. And I brought a copy with me. If you'd like me to read it to you, I would. It's Page 4 July 19, 2006 explaining what it is. It's short, one page. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sure, go ahead. MR. UNGER: Okay. Several years ago, I was a minor stockholder in a corporation. That corporation, West Coast Gates & Access, had multiple stockholders. Due to a major difference of opinion on how business should be run, I resigned as the officer, which was secretary, sold my shares. The then president continued to run the business until its failure. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: A little bit slower. MR. UNGER: Okay. Where did I leave off for you? THE COURT REPORTER: Until its failure. MR. UNGER: Okay. The then president continued to run the business until its failure. He had incurred several debts, including one for products from a company called Control Products. That company, through its collection company, sued all parties, even those of us that were no longer associated with the company, West Coast Gates, and had not been for years. Acting on poor advice and believing that the lawsuit had nothing to do with me, I simply filed an answer with the opposing attorney and the courts also, so stating the above. The court ruled against all of us. The sole owner of West Coast Gates filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws and did not pay this debt or a debt to me for my $50,000 original investment. All this happened several years ago, but it's still in his bankruptcy files, showing him as the sole owner, showing he owed the money to me and also to the Control Products and other companies. N ow even though the statute of limitations has released me from any obligation for this debt, some of my credit reports continue to show this judgment. My counsel has advised me to just let it run out rather than going to the expense of fighting to get it removed, which will require court action. Page 5 July 19, 2006 And I've written to the credit agencies protesting this, and have been successful with only one of the three major credit reporting agencies. My credit report shows one other problem, that is being a lien from the State of Minnesota, which was an error on their part. And I have attached a letter, all right, a letter with the information before it showing that. What they have done is they listed it as expired. And it's not a collectable debt. As you know, proper (sic) tax really never expires, so an expired tax lien, there's no way I guess of dismissing it. In a conversation I had with an Assistant Attorney General from Minnesota, I was told that I could not even pay this, since no money was owed. There I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place. If you need further documentation on any of this, I would be more than happy to supply it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I mean, it's easy to sit here and look at your report and tell what could be caused by that. So let me get specific. I do see the lien, the state tax lien. Not much of one. And then this one is really hard to -- I don't see any others, do you guys? I see accounts closed, but three of them were closed by consumer. A couple of them just I guess ran out and were paid. Personally I don't see -- anybody else seeing anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't see anything besides that tax lien. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Dickson, that's the reason why we brought it to the board, for the tax lien. MR. JOSLIN: The tax lien? MR.OSSORIO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And it shows on here -- let's go back and look at it. Well, there's dates all over the place. So without looking at it, I can't really tell. But the latest, like in 2002 through 200 -- no, that's not the right one. 1995. Page 6 July 19, 2006 MR. UNGER: Yeah, I moved out of Minnesota in 1981. And this -- I didn't even know about this until I was trying to get the other one resolved. And that's when I contacted the State of Minnesota and they said oh, that was a mistake. And they sent me this letter, which you should have a copy of, saying it's an expired lien. Which I guess you'd have to ask your attorney, I'm not an attorney, is that how the tax lien is taken out, they call it expired? Because the tax lien doesn't expIre. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but it may be an attorney that's not used to working with those. I don't see a problem. Mr. Neale, you want to advise us? MR. NEALE: Well, the test that you're applying is under Florida Administrative Code Rule 61(G)4-15.006, which is for financial responsibility. And the test is whether the public will not sustain economic loss resulting from the contractor's inability to pay his lawful contractual obligations. And so some of these items are to be reviewed. But that's the real test that the board needs to look at is whether those tests are there. And also, if -- these tests are to be applied to his operations as a contractor. And it's also whether there are any current valid liens. And according to the information submitted by Mr. Unger, it appears that the lien is no longer valid because the State of Minnesota has said that the lien has now expired. So it appears that that lien would not even be included in the test. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and for the record, there is a letter in here from Minnesota Revenue, and it's titled Expired Lien, dated February 17th, 2006. And it's exactly the lien showing on the credit report. So, okay, how's the board feel? Everything else looks in order, doesn't it? MR. JOSLIN: If you're ready for a motion, I'll make one. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Page 7 July 19, 2006 MR. JOSLIN: I don't really see anything that's really that derogatory. I'll make a motion that we approve the packet. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: A second? MR. BLUM: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're in business. MR. UNGER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I wish you well. Don't go to the county today, because your files are here. But you can go there tomorrow and finish out this license and go to work. MR. UNGER: Very good. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Regia Lastra, would you come forward, please. I need for you also to state your name and I'll have you sworn In. MR. LASTRA: Regia Lastra. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Say it again? MR. LASTRA: My name? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. MR. LASTRA: Regia Lastra. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Lastra? MR. LASTRA: Lastra. It's my last name. R-E-G-L-A. L-A-S- T -R-A. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Another fence application, huh? MR. LASTRA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Fencing's getting bigger, I guess. Page 8 July 19,2006 And we're looking at your credit report, following what he did. Do you want to tell us what's on here and what the reason was-- MR. LASTRA: Sure. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- that's negative. MR. LASTRA: The reason that I have a negative credit report, in 1998 I sold a business, and when I went to my lawyer to do to the closing, he forgot to put in the contract that the other person that they buy the business with the corporate and everything, he forgot put in the contract that they will be responsibility for make the payment for the equipment for the credit card. And too many month ago they call me that they don't want to pay this, you know. And I say why? I can do nothing, because my lawyer, he made the mistake and he did the closing and he never put in the contract they will be the responsibility for make the payment for the equipment. And, you know? And we can do nothing, you know, reference to this, because -- And I was keeping -- make the payment every month with them. But they say -- they told me, if you don't pay this on full, this will keep it on your credit. And I stop this. After three, four years ago, I see the important there is a credit in this country, you know, because I have 12 years in this country. And I went to them, I called them to try to make the payment, and the last year I tried to contact them, and they sold this account to other company . You know, and I can't find them for make the payment for them for the equipment. MR. JOSLIN: What type of equipment are we talking about? MR. LASTRA: This is equipment for the credit card. MR. JOSLIN: How much money? MR. LASTRA: It's close to 7,000 they put in the contract, you know. MR. JOSLIN: So what you did was in your business you bought equipment with your credit card; is that what you're talking about? Page 9 July 19, 2006 MR. LASTRA: Yes, this is equipment that you pass the credit card. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. LASTRA: I did, I make the lease with them and I ask them in the contract, you know, if I sold the business, they say yes. If you transfer the business, if you sell the business and you transfer, the name of the corporate and everything, you can transfer the equipment on this person. But in the closing cost -- in the closing, my lawyer he forgot put in the contract that they will be the responsibility for the equipment. MR. JOSLIN: Did they still have the equipment when they bought the business? MR. LASTRA: Yes, they keep it. MR. JOSLIN: How come your attorney can't get involved in this then and find out? MR. LASTRA: I don't know. This is my question. MR. JOSLIN: There must be some type of an addendum that can be made. I mean, that would be part of the corporation or corporate entity, wouldn't it? MR. LASTRA: This is my question, you know. MR. JOSLIN: Ask Mr. Neale. MR. BLUM: How long ago with this? MR. LASTRA: That happened in 1998. And I was keeping the -- make the payment on 2000 was the last payment. MR. BLUM: For two years you made the payments on the seven grand debt? MR. LASTRA: Yes, because we was -- MR. BLUM: And you stopped? MR. LASTRA: I stopped, right. When I sold the business -- because when I sold the business, it's too many months ago later they told me no, we don't want to keep -- we don't want to keep going to make the payment for the equipment. And they put on my credit Page 10 July 19, 2006 because the equipment was under my name. MR. BLUM: I understand all that. But you made the payments for two years, then you stopped? MR. LASTRA: Yes. And I stopped because I -- because they put on the credit. And I tried to speak to the lawyer of the company that I would like to keep it going to -- you know, to make the payment every month. But they say no, you have to pay everything in full. I say I can't -- MR. BLUM: So they wanted to make -- they wanted to force you to pay it in full? MR. LASTRA: In full. And I can't. MR. BLUM: This is the company that you owed the money to or the company that you sold the business to? MR. LASTRA: The money -- the company that -- the owner of the machine. The company, the lease company. MR. BLUM: So the people you sold the business to wanted you to pay it in full? MR. LASTRA: No, the company of the lease. MR. BLUM: Okay, I got it now. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm sitting here looking at everything else. You're currently operating in Lee County, correct? MR. LASTRA: Yes. On Cape Coral. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right. How long have you been there? MR. LASTRA: We have two years -- we was working about on their PC contracting license, and now we got a license on Lee County, you know. Because I'm sorry, my English no is good. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're okay. MR. LASTRA: I'm try to do, you know, every day something new for me. And this is the reason that we don't applicate for the credit for the license before. MR. BLUM: But you got it in Lee County? Page 11 July 19, 2006 MR. LASTRA: Yes, I got it in Lee County and Cape Coral. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm looking at this one. I don't think too much of this credit report we have. But Central Finance says, paying on charged-off collection, account previously in dispute now resolved. Reported by subscriber. Paid collection amount. You all see that? Well, that's medical. MR. LASTRA: Yes, because I was in surgery the last years, emergency, and I paid 13,000, because my insurance, they don't cover everything. And they are charging insurance on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So that one's gone. You're done there. So this other one is the -- is like $4,785 left? MR. LASTRA: Yeah, this is the lease account. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's the argument. MR. LASTRA: This is the lease account. MR. NEALE: That was a judgment from 2000. It's over five years old. And the standard in the Florida Administrative Code is the existence within the past five years preceding the application of an unsatisfied court judgment. So it's outside the time window under the Florida Administrative Code. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Cool. I didn't see a problem with it anyway. So everything else is clean. Anybody else see anything? MR. JOSLIN: No. I'm good. I'll make a motion to approve it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BLUM: Does staffhave any comment here to make? MR. BARTOE: I have none. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need a motion from someone. MR. BLUM: Joslin. MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion to approve the packet. MR. BOYD: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? (No response.) Page 12 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Guess what? You're good to go. MR. LASTRA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Again, not today, but tomorrow. MR. LASTRA: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Her paperwork is not here, is it? MR. BARTOE: I have no idea if she has a folder at the office or not. MR. LASTRA: No, I got it with me, the original. She give me the copy. MR. JOSLIN: I think it would behoove you, though, to maybe get a hold of your attorney that sold the business for you originally. MR. LASTRA: Yeah, I know. You know, that's happen, and it happen to me. MR. JOSLIN: I see the situation you're in. MR. LASTRA: This is the other reason for, you know, I say no, I have to learn English a little bit, you know. I don't have time for go to the school because I have to work hard. You know, I have two jobs. And it's impossible, you know. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: There's nothing wrong with your English. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah, you're fine. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're fine. I wish you well. MR. LASTRA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Old business. Grimaldo Bravo? MR. BRAVO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would come up here to this. Page 13 July 19, 2006 You're free to go, unless you want to sit here and let us entertain you. Whatever. I need for you to state your name, sir, and then I'll have you sworn In. MR. BRAVO: Yes, sir, my name is Grimaldo Bravo. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How can we help you, sir? MR. BRAVO: Well, I've I guess come out with this opportunity to come and talk to you all about my situation. And I went to trial in February for I guess being unable to complete a job. And I was told that I -- at that point in time I was in a very difficult situation and I couldn't really come up with a payment plan, so you guys came out with a payment plan for me. Unfortunately I had been unable to do any business for I don't know, four, five months before that trial date, because my license was put on hold. I'm still not sure why it was put on hold, but it was put on hold prior to me coming here and talking to you all. I wasn't able to make the payments, and I guess my license eventually was suspended. And I'm not sure if it's revoked at this point. I wanted to say that I spoke to Mr. Prudomme (phonetic) and -- actually yesterday, and he is willing to accept some payments from me aside to what you guys gave me. He is -- he's planning on doing -- well, we're planning on doing a promissory note with my houses -- the equity in my house as collateral. And he understands that, you know, I was in a tough situation, I was unable to make the payments. So I wanted to know if the board will give me an opportunity to deal with him directly as far as the balance that is due and be able to get back into business, since, you know, contractor has been my life for the last 20 some years. And I have been unable to operate at all. And it's made it really, really difficult for me to get ahead. So I wanted to know if I could have an opportunity of working this out directly with Mr. Prudomme and kind of untie my hands. Page 14 July 19,2006 Because my hands have been tied as far as having a license. I haven't had a license for almost a year now, so -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio? MR.OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Michael Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing. Just to give you a brief overview, this case was heard on January 19th, 2006, and the board found that Mr. Bravo was in violation of a couple of different sections. That is great that Mr. Bravo's here today, that he is willing to pay back Mr. Prudomme, but that's not what we're here for today. I'm glad he's here, hopefully that he can come up with a payment plan with the owner. And if he does do that in good faith, my office will provide all the documents necessary to get his license back, and we will push forward with that. But we're here today to discuss what the Construction Licensing Board in Tallahassee is doing. And I'm glad Mr. Bravo has given you an update. We're not going to recommend that you re-modify your board's order to let him get his license on probation due to the fact that his license is revoked. You know, he needs to do a little more leg work and talk to Mr. Prudomme and get some more information for him from us. And I need to talk to the homeowner and we need to get some kind of a census of where we're going with this. So that's our recommendation on that part. But I do want to talk to you and probably Pat Neale wants to discuss some issues about the findings of fact and about how we're going to conduct business with the State Licensing Board. MR. NEALE: Yeah, in this instance, the local board -- the gentlemen made a recommendation to the state, because as you know with each order on a case such as this, the board has to make a recommendation to the state of either no action, revocation, or reconstruction of the license and/or a fine. Page 15 July 19, 2006 In this case the board made a recommendation of no action to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board because of the fact that I think the board had believed that it was handled at the local level. Subsequent to that, this order was transmitted to the state and I guess the homeowner sought recovery through the State Construction Recovery Fund. Mr. Ossorio and I discovered that the State Construction Recovery Fund will not act on an order of a local board unless there is a specific recommendation made to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board by this board of some kind of action to be taken by that board. So the recommendation of no action, according to the state, keeps them from doing anything with the State Recovery Fund. It seems like that's not exactly the best possible approach by the state, but it is the one they choose to take. What I believe the board could do if it's its desire is to reopen the order only as to the portion applying to the state recommendation and make a recommendation to the state. You don't have to make a specific recommendation other than -- at least in my opinion, other than that the State Construction Industry Licensing Board take such action of revocation, restriction, suspension and/or a fine as it deems appropriate, based upon the facts of this case. I think that would be a modification that could be made and would allow the state board to act in the State Recovery Fund Act. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Question for you. Is he the Tier One contractor? MR.OSSORIO: Yes, he is. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because you're aware Tier Two cannot go to the recovery fund. MR. OSSORIO: He's a registered residential contractor. He is a Tier One contractor. Unfortunately one board doesn't talk to the other, and our findings and facts are stuck in the middle. One won't look at it Page 16 July 19, 2006 without the recommendation from the State Construction Licensing Board. They don't take local registrations, they don't take our findings of fact for some reason. I did go round and round with Tallahassee. And to Mr. Bravo's credit, once we do amend this finding of fact, you know, nothing's edged in stone, it will take three or four months, and by that time, you know, he could have an agreement with Mr. Prudomme, and this whole thing will be a waste of time. But we need to cross our T's and dot our I's to make sure we're on the same path and the same page. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Am I not correct that now the only ones that can recover from the fund are GC's and residential contractors? MR. OSSORIO: And building. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And building. MR.OSSORIO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Because they've now excluded pool contractors and roofing contractors. MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: New legislation. Okay. I'm kind of caught in the middle. I'm looking for your guidance here. I understand what you're doing with the recovery fund. But if we allow him to work something out with Mr. Prudomme, then we may have the state doing something when he works something out with Prudomme. You see, I'm -- MR.OSSORIO: Well, Mr. Prudomme has to provide -- there's two entities here. One is the State Construction Licensing Board, the other is the recovery fund. And the process, what was told to me, is that the state takes our findings of fact and they amend it and say okay, it sounds like a good plan. Mr. Prudomme gets the finding of facts from the State Licensing Board from Tallahassee, then he has to fill out an additional form, and it gets sent up to the recovery fund. They're two different Page 1 7 July 19, 2006 departments. So we're talking months here to go in front of the Construction Licensing Board. And then he has to get that information and then he has to fill out a form and send it to the recovery fund. So nothing's overnight. If Mr. Bravo is serious about paying someone back, then Mr. Prudomme won't be filling that form out because he's received the funds from Mr. Bravo. MR. NEALE: What Mr. Ossorio said is absolutely correct. You know, there is no recovery from the recovery fund unless the homeowner is out money. If Mr. Bravo has paid him off by the time it works its way through this process, then Mr. Prudomme would not be able to make that claim to the state recovery fund, so it would be a moot point. But it would allow him -- by the modification order, it would allow him to make that claim, should the circumstances warrant. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what's your recommendation for us today? MR.OSSORIO: I recommend we modify the findings of fact to allow the state to impose fines and restrictions on Mr. Bravo's registered license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's all? MR. OSSORIO: That's it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Then ifhe works out something with Mr. Prudomme, we'll proceed with that, once he's done. MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely correct. To Mr. Bravo's case is that I hope he pays him back, I really do. And I've told him that many times, his attorney and to himself personally, that our office is not trying to put people out of business. You know, I'd rather him have a license and be regulatory and pull building permits and make a living. He has some issues that were probably not under his control and Page 18 July 19,2006 he got behind the eight ball. A good contractor sometimes is one contract away from being bankrupt. And I want him to get a license, and I want him to pay Mr. Prudomme back as early as possible and get in front of this board again to have our weight and see what we can do. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm very impressed with the fact that you're here today. I've been on this board 18 years. This is a first. I've never had a character who didn't follow through with the findings of fact and get his license revoked and come back and try to work it out. So that goes a long ways. MR. BRAVO: Thank you, sir. Only thing is that, you know, by not having a license is real difficult for me to be able to -- I was never able to reinstate my license. So my license hasn't been active since it was put on hold in I guess September of last year. And I wasn't able to reactivate my license. So is there any way I could reactivate my license so I can get some contracts going and get some substantial cash flow? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think you missed the whole point of the conversation. The conversation is you've got to go to Mr. Prudomme first and work out this payment. He's got to tell Mr. Ossorio that everything is good and he's all for it. And before that happens, we're not doing anything. MR. BRAVO: I understand. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All intentions are good, but we've got to know from him that everything is okay and that this citizen who lost money is happy with the arrangement. MR. BRAVO: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Once that happens, then yeah, that could possibly take place. He's also on your side, Mr. Ossorio is. So you need to get with him and the homeowner and resolve this issue quickly. Then we can Page 19 July 19, 2006 do something. MR. NEALE: The order as issued was actually for him to operate under probation and supervision of the board for a period of a year. MR. BLUM: That's why I don't understand there's a problem. Because I recall his face pretty clearly, and he was -- should have been able to operate under probation as long as he made his payments. .MR.OSSORIO: Well, he ha~n't made any payments and he hasn't -- MR. BLUM: Oh, he hadn't made -- MR. BRAVO: No, I wasn't able to make the payments, so -- MR. BLUM: You didn't make any? MR. BRAVO: No, it was like a Catch-22. I didn't have any cash and I couldn't get my licensing going, so I couldn't make the payments. MR. NEALE: The second part of the -- MR. BLUM: I don't want to be cruel here, but I distinctly remember you sitting right there, and when we put this out there, and I think we modified it a couple of times to make it okay for you and the homeowner, and you were thrilled with the idea. No problem, I want to do it. You had good -- I mean, but you didn't make payment one, though. Is what I'm hearing now; is that right? MR. BRAVO: Right, I wasn't able -- MR. BLUM: You were okay with this decision at the time. More than okay. MR. BRAVO: The decision was made by you all and the payment plan was made by you all. I had to accept whatever came to the table. You know, I wasn't here to, you know, press something into -- press somebody into doing anything in particular. You know, I was just humble and, you know, hoping for the best. And, you know, I tried to make those payments. I was just in a very tough situation at that point in time. I mean, I could hardly feed my family, nevertheless Page 20 July 19, 2006 come up with $2,000 for Mr. Prudomme immediately. That was just difficult. I was -- my hands were tied, I couldn't. MR.OSSORIO: Mr. Dickson? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. MR.OSSORIO: I don't want to throw anymore salt on the wound. Let's -- can we move on and to the fact that he wants to go ahead and get his license back, A. B, he wants to pay back Mr. Prudomme. And see that I will look into it, and if I feel comfortable, we'll come back and then we can go ahead and go through this whole process agaIn. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, the order's very specific. MR. OSSORIO: It is. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It says miss three consecutive payments, license is revoked. So that's why it's revoked. MR. BRAVO: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So the only thing we want to do here today is modify the -- MR. NEALE: Recommendation of the state. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- recommendation of the state to take action with the State Recovery Fund? MR. NEALE: Yeah. The language would be that the recommendation to the state -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why don't you -- can I get you to -- can I ask you to read what the motion should be? MR. NEALE: Sure. It would be to move to reopen the order to amend the recommendations to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board that the state board is to take action to either suspend, revoke or restrict the respondent's license, or fine him as deemed appropriate by the board, based on the facts presented. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And this is Case No. 2006-02, License No. 21939. Does anyone want to make that motion? Page 21 July 19, 2006 MR. JOSLIN: Can I put that motion -- I mean those words in the form of a motion, or do I have to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. MR. JOSLIN: -- restate it again? So do, I will make that motion that Mr. Neale dictated. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a second? MR. HORN: So moved, Horn. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Opposed? MR. BLUM: Nay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One opposed. Four in favor, one opposed. So the motion passes. We really didn't do anything of what you're looking for yet. MR. BRAVO: Okay. Can you kind of explain to me where -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All this does is it opens up Mr. Prudomme -- is that his name? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Prudomme to recover from the State Construction Fund, which will take months to happen. But it gives him the opportunity. It doesn't affect your license whatsoever. You are still revoked. You've got to get with Mr. Prudomme and Mr. Ossorio, work out an arrangement that is good for both of them so that you can come back before this board and the homeowner's happy and our -- what do I call you now, chief? MR.OSSORIO: You can call me Mike Ossorio is fine. Page 22 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. He is now the -- what is your title now? MR. OSSORIO: I guess my title is Contractor Licensing Supervisor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Contractor Licensing -- congratulations, by the way. We were all in favor of this. -- Contractor Licensing Supervisor, that his office will make a recommendation that we reinstate your license, which will probably be under some form of probation, but you've got to get with them. That isn't happening -- MR. BRA YO: I understand. Well, I appreciate anything that you've done today as far as working something else. So I see -- you know, I see the path I need to take. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We wish you well. MR. JOSLIN: I've never heard this happening before, but can a revoked license be reinstated? MR. NEALE: It would not be reinstated. It would actually -- in my opinion, he would have to file a formal application and come back through, because it's a revoked license. MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which your office could approve with our blessings and not have to come back in here. MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. I mean, there could be some form of restrictions as of retaking of an exam or a business and law exam, or under the supervision of the Contractor Licensing Supervisor or the Building Director. So we're willing and ready to go ahead and do anything we can for Mr. Bravo. So whenever he's available and he wants to come down to my office, he knows where I'm at and we'll do what we can. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BRA YO: Thank you very much, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Wish you well. Page 23 July 19,2006 Public hearings. There are none. Now we go back to discussion. Review proposed amendments to the ordinance. And who wants to lead this show? MR. NEALE: I met with Mr. Zachary and we also met with the contractor licensing staff to review the existing 90-105, as amended, which was last amended in 2002, I believe, for compliance with changes in 489 with -- for other issues that were brought up by the board over the last four years, and also to make some clarifications and so forth. You have, I believe, a copy of the revised ordinance which is a strike-through and underlined copy that shows the changes. The most significant changes really are to the level of fine which can be imposed, it's now $10,000 per incident, to the hours required for all the exams. Hours were eliminated on all exams, because there is no -- they've all changed and different grantors have different -- or different test administrators have different kinds of hours for the exams. There's also a change as to what exam they must take. It's now an exam that is generally accepted throughout the state. The requirement that it be Experior or whatever exam has been removed, just to simplify life. There was also some other changes -- let me make sure I've got all the notes here. MR. BARTOE: Owner/builder. MR. NEALE: Yeah, there was a significant change to the owner/builder, which was based on a 489 change. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's pretty much just dollar amounts, isn't it, and things they can do when the governor issues an executive order? MR. NEALE: Right. And the notice of disclaimer is a little bit different. So we included in this ordinance the full text of the disclaimer, which will now be handed out at the licensing office. There was a new addition of 4.1.8.2, which is the variance Page 24 July 19, 2006 provision that if a customer incurred financial harm by having to seek a variance or other remedy, that is also now deemed to be a misconduct under our ordinance. Under plumbers as a specialty category, they now can do LPG installations. So they now are permitted to do LPG installations under the ordinance. There is also a change under 2.11.2, and there was added language that the temporary licenses that can be issued during a time of emergency is for a period of time not to exceed the time of the declaration of emergency. There's also some substantial changes made to both landscaping and tree trimming categories. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do we want to talk about these as we go? What do you want to do? MR. NEALE: You can do it however you want. It's your pleasure. I'm just sort of going with a quick overview here. I believe we've got some folks from Code Enforcement to speak to the -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: First of all, I don't know how the other board members feel, but do we have to approve this today? We just got it. No one's had a chance to read it. MR.OSSORIO: No, you do not have to approve it today. But we need to make sure we have a quorum next month to approve it. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. OSSORIO: The BCC wants to hear this in September, the 12th, I believe. And we need to -- everything we've talked about in the last couple of months hasn't really changed any except for tree contracting issues, and that's something that we could we could hammer out today or we could hammer out on our next month. But I just want to make it clear that our position is, is that if we don't have an approved ordinance today, we definitely have to have it next month. Something. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can tell you right now, landscaping Page 25 July 19, 2006 contractor, I will vote against this, these changes. Because number one, I'm not going to take someone who's maybe lived in this county for 30 years and take their license away in two years. Plus the fact I haven't heard from any landscapers who are currently licensed in this county. We've made no attempt to contact currently licensed landscape contractors that do tree pruning, to hear their side of the issue. It's all one-sided. MR. OSSORIO: That's a good point, Mr. Dickson. And if that's something you feel strongly about and we have a quorum, and you get a vote on it, we'll strike that right out. And we can always come back at a later date and -- but we want to get this thing approved and get to the BCC. So if we can't do it today, we'd have to do it next month, so MR. JOSLIN: Have we opened this to the public as far as -- MR. BARTOE: All meetings are in the public. MR.OSSORIO: All meetings are open to the public. It's been advertised. I know that we've been working with Lisa Keeler in the Public Information Office. MR. JOSLIN: So it has been advertised as far as you know? MR.OSSORIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have we -- can we -- I know we haven't. Can we request -- I don't care whether it's a workshop or whether they show up at the next meeting, but do we have the ability to put out a notice or make phone calls, which ever is easiest, to all licensed contractors that this will affect to get their input? MR. JOSLIN: Is there a deadline on this information that we're going to -- MR. OSSORIO: Well, I just don't want to put myself in a box. Unfortunately we're talking September, and we just had 14,000 renewals going out. And we're going to be very busy in the next two months. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, that's right, you are -- Page 26 _--....-" _.--,-~'- July 19, 2006 MR.OSSORIO: We have state contractors coming in and we have about 6,000 county contractors who are going to be coming in. And we're going to be trying to get more staff. I'm not saying that as an excuse. But we have had workshops on this. Have we had workshops on the testing? Yes. Have we had workshops on the testing requirements? Yes. But have we had workshops on making landscapers that have their license take some continuing education? No. So that's something that you -- I know Bill Hammond and myself, that's something that you need to look into and give us some direction. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It would be like four of us up here hold licenses and you make some change that I'm totally not aware of, or this board does, and all of a sudden I've got to do something additionally or new or I lose my license in two years. That is so unfair. MR. OSSORIO: Well, it's going to go into the inactive -- I'm not going to defend what's written on the ordinance, because that's something that we came up with. Pat Neale and Robert Zachary and Tom Bartoe and I all came up with, with the Code Enforcement. There was a happy median somewhere in between how to educate the contractors. And what we were going to do, if it did get passed, sometime in December I was going to sit down and write a letter and we were going to submit all landscaping contractors and submit mailing to them and let them have an opportunity to voice their concern. And if they had some concerns, they have 24 months to concern to the licensing board. They can come back to us and say, you know, I don't think this is fair or reasonable. Let's try to amend this or work something out. And it's pretty ambiguous, the ordinance. You know, it says that it has to be under the direction of the supervisor, myself, or Bill Page 27 July 19, 2006 Hammond, the Building Director referencing any kind of courses. And that of course could be basically something on-line that says, you know, something that we can approve or sit down with Code Enforcement just to see if they have taken some kind of a course. It's not a passing course, it's not a failing course, it's just a continuing education, a one-time shot saying that you have a license that would require you to take some kind of a course. We made it as broad as possible so then we have a lot of latitude. And the building director, myself to go ahead and look at the information. MR. BLUM: I've been involved with taking continuing education credits for a lot of years for just about every damn license I ever heard of. I mean, HV AC is -- I forget whether it's a four or five, every two years I've got to have -- MR. OSSORIO: The state does have the opportunity to make sure that all state contractors have some continuing education. But I believe, if Pat Neale wants to elaborate on this, the county really doesn't have jurisdiction under 489 to have continuing education under 489. And I think-- MR. BLUM: Is the landscapers similar to like HV AC and -- MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. BLUM: -- other things? MR. OSSORIO: No. They're not certified. MR. BLUM: So that you're making them kind of similar to other trades is what you're doing; is that what it amounts to? MR. NEALE: What we're doing -- what this does is create them as being a separate -- we're imposing a requirement upon them that this county does not impose on any other class of contractor that the county regulates. MR. BLUM: But can I ask why we're doing it just to the landscapers? MR. NEALE: That was a -- Page 28 July 19, 2006 MR. BLUM: How did it come about? MR.OSSORIO: We had -- we've been having workshops for the last year, year and a half about pruning, and I believe we had testimony last board meeting, we had a landscaper, an arborist, and we had some folks from Code Enforcement. And they laid out a reason why they wanted it. So-- MR. BLUM: Who wanted it? MR.OSSORIO: Well, Code Enforcement and the tree industry wanted it. So there was some testimony taken last month and the board did __ the licensing board did give us direction on how to proceed, and this is what we came up with. MR. BLUM: But we haven't heard specifically -- do the landscapers have like a body that represents them? Like we have HV AC organizations that kind of speak for us on behalf of our industry? I'm sure the roofers do as well. MR. OSSORIO: I'm not sure. MR. BLUM: I mean, I'd really like to hear from some landscapers. I sense that a lot of really good reputable landscapers would be all in favor of this. MR.OSSORIO: Well, you heard testimony last month, and we had a landscaper out here and he said that he attended the workshops, and he fully endorsed it. I don't know who it was, but there was a -- you did hear testimony from a contractor that belongs to some kind of CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, and the contractor we heard from was a certified arborist, which gets a free pass. MR.OSSORIO: Yes, that's right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So it's like who gets passes here. You're welcome to comment. Come up and state your name. MS. O'FARRELL: For the record, Susan O'Farrell, Code Enforcement Environmental Investigator. Page 29 July 19, 2006 I've been working with Crystal Segura and she had a group of five or six arborists and people from the community extension office that met for over a year to develop this test that people would be taking. That was where the test came from. And the idea of the continuing education units for people who already had the license. The reason we wanted the people who already had the license, because they don't have to take the test to take the CEU's is because things are changing so rapidly, especially with the hurricane seasons that we've been having, and pruning methods have become much more clear. And a lot of the violation that we're showing are from the older businesses. Businesses that have been in business for 30 or more years. They're still using the same original techniques that have been proven in the last 10 years to be really detrimental to trees. So that is why we're trying to have the education for the existing contractors. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But do you see our point? We have to hear from those people. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I could get -- we have the LS.A., which is the International Society of Arboriculture. They are an international organization that represents arborists. Not all of the members are certified arborists, but I could have, you know, five or 10 of them here next month, if you'd like to hear from them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Again, I've got a group of certified arborists. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I also have-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm talking about-- MS. O'FARRELL: -- a lot of people that I know that are landscapers that aren't certified arborists that we could have come and speak as well. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm talking about the regular Joe that's been -- MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Page 30 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: --licensed for 30 years. MS. O'FARRELL: Unfortunately he's the one that's creating the problem. So obviously he's not going to be in favor of it. MR. BLUM: How much of an imposition are these new -- I mean, I know next to nothing about it, so I'm trying to get around it. At face value I'm all for it. Everything changes, you've got to go with the times, you've got to learn new techniques, you've gotta do what you've gotta do to stay in business. And every year changes and all of us have been through that. So -- but I want to hear from some of these people that have been out there for a long time and -- MS. O'FARRELL: Right. Well I've been in landscaping-- MR. BLUM: -- what their reason is. MS. O'FARRELL: -- for 11 years. That was my job before I worked for the county. And it's no imposition to go out to the Lee County or Collier County extension office and take a two-hour seminar on pruning. They're usually about $5.00. I mean, there's barely any cost involved. It's a matter of going and learning. And that's what those organizations are for. Also on the ISA website, they have hundreds of events where you can choose from, all over the state. You know, if someone has a weekend where they're going to Deland or Daytona, they can take a class at that extension office and learn something. That's basically the push is to try to get some of these older generation tree pruners to learn some of the tree techniques. MR. BLUM: And we give them two years to do it? MS. O'FARRELL: That's been the recommendation ofMr. Ossorio. MR.OSSORIO: That's two years of passing the ordinance for the BCC, yes, that's correct. MS. O'FARRELL: They would have a two-year grace period in order to do those continuing education. Page 31 July 19, 2006 I've always felt that it should be a continuing thing, that every two years they should have more education, because, you know, every two years things change. We had a significant change to our landscape with Hurricane Wilma. And you can see in some places where they've approached it in a correct manner and other places where they haven't. And I personally am waiting for hurricane whatever his or her name is going to be -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, no, no. MS. O'FARRELL: -- to see what those things do. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We don't want one of the those. MS. O'FARRELL: We don't. But it will be interesting to see where the places are that were correctly pruned, how they fair as compared to the places that weren't correctly pruned. MR. NEALE: Mr. Dickson, if I may? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, you made a statement, Mr. Neale, that really bothered me. We're imposing a restriction on a class of contractors that we impose on no other contractors. I mean, legal ramification are -- MR. NEALE: That -- I brought this up in a meeting we had earlier, and Mr. Zachary and I haven't fully researched the issue, but it does cause me some concern that there's a requirement being imposed on one particular class of contractor that we're not imposing on any other contractor class, other than those contractors that are also state licensed that have to have continuing education because of their state license. So this is a specialty contractor class that is being set out separate from every other specialty contractor class. The argument being made is that tree trimming is more complex somehow than cabinet work or than pool maintenance or than -- you know, it's somehow more dangerous to the public health, safety and welfare, and that's -- MS. O'FARRELL: Well, I think what it is -- I'm sorry to interrupt you -- is that anyone can go trim a tree -- Page 32 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me do this. Let him finish. MS. O'FARRELL: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It was an interruption. MS. O'FARRELL: Sorry. MR. NEALE: And that is an issue from my point of view is that while it's a noble effort to try and make sure everybody does everything absolutely correctly, would it then -- you know, the logical extension is then every other class of specialty contractor the county regulates would then somehow have imposed on it a continuing education requirement. And that's a policy decision that I'm not prepared to weigh in on, but I'm just bringing it up that that's an issue. Now, one other thing jurisdictions have done with tree trimmers is they have removed them from the contractor licensing ordinance and created a separate category of profession, like a taxi cab driver or a funeral director or whatever, and created additional requirements upon them through that ordinance. Now, that would remove them from the purview of contractor licensing, remove them from your regulation. Broward County specifically has done that. But obviously that's not a decision for this board, that's a decision for the Board of County Commissioners, if they want to create a whole new class of profession. MR. JOSLIN: Who would regulate them? How would they be regulated anyway? MR. NEALE: Well, what they do is they create and regulate them, just as they regulate a whole lot of other license professions in the community, with -- you know, that they have to meet certain requirements and certain standards and so forth. It removes them totally from the purview of 489 or even DVPR, frankly, and creates a class of professionals under county authority. Sort of a home rule authority. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Response? Page 33 July 19,2006 MS. O'FARRELL: My response to his original comment about putting more restrictions on one single category is that when a builder is building a house and they have plumbers and cabinet makers and electricians, all of that house has to be C.O.'d before it's moved into, which is guaranteeing, you know, the quality of the work. Whereas, a tree trimmer does not have any kind of certificate of completion. There's no inspection done after they've finished the tree. They're not being regulated in the same way that those other categories are. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's true for handyman and a whole lot of categories, though. Mr. Neale, my other question for you, has county looked at whether -- if we impose this regulation, has county looked at whether you can weather a legal challenge? MR. NEALE: I represent the board. And that would be for County Attorney's Office to review. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And does the county want to spend the money to weather a legal challenge? MR. MOUNTFORD: My concern is -- and my concern is I think it would behoove this board to consider advertising somehow what is going to happen to give the landscape people an opportunity to address you. I think it's -- because of the nature of this change and the uniqueness as it applies to the other licenses issued by the county, I think that at a minimum, to protect our legal position, I think it should be -- the other landscapers should be afforded an opportunity to voice their opinions. And then you can base your decision upon the information you receive from them, as well as Code Enforcement and other sources, arborists, whatever. But I think this is such a change, and it is somewhat nontraditional as compared to all the other licenses, that I think that some kind of notice or meeting, at least at the next meeting they should be given some notice that they are allowed to voice their opinions, so you can base it upon that. Page 34 July 19, 2006 MR. NEALE: And I would totally concur with that. I think that's appropriate. And I, like Mr. Dickson, have been serving this board for a number of years. I remember at a previous ordinance revision there was a controversial matter that was being addressed, and that the board opened up and had workshops where we had -- my memory is we had to move to a separate room because this one wasn't big enough to have everybody come into it. So the board, I would suggest that that would be an appropriate thing is to somehow get the information out to the landscaping and tree trimming community -- because this is, both the landscape contractors and the tree trimming contractors are both impacted -- that they be somehow advised so they can come and comment and you know, the arborists could comment, the A.S.L.A. could come out, the American Society of Landscape Architects could come out and they could all talk about it and make recommendations to this board for the board to then make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. BLUM: How many tree trimmer/landscaper people do we have on the books? Do you have an idea? Hundreds, thousands, dozens? MR. OSSORIO: Probably a couple thousand. MR. BLUM: Couple thousand? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Couple of thousand. MR. BLUM: Just for Collier County. MR. JOSLIN: I think that definitely this would be something in line that we should do then. There's that many licenses out there that -- MR.OSSORIO: We're talking about-- MR. JOSLIN: -- are affected. MR. OSSORIO: -- restricted landscapers, unrestricted landscapers, we're talking about tree contractors. There's the whole gamut. Page 35 July 19,2006 MR. BLUM: And at this point in time all of them are able to do this trimming, whether or not they do it correctly or not. MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I could just hear the county commission, who we serve at their pleasure, if we got them into a nasty lawsuit that 2,000 licensed contractors joined in a class action lawsuit. And I don't see this happening in 30 days. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Dickson, let me put something out here and see if we can come to some kind of a solution here. We knew that was an issue. I brought that to the attention, Tom and I talked about it, about how we had all the -- we did have many workshops pertaining to amending the tree contracting ordinance about getting more restricted and taking the exam. And it's a good exam and it's something we've worked on for many months with Code Enforcement. Have we had workshops pertaining to landscapers and tree service contractors regulating themselves to making -- take more exams or schooling? No, we have not. And we can definitely do that in upcoming months. And I recommend this office -- I feel that this is -- where we're going with this is that we need to move on if we need to strike that particular item. But I just don't want to go ahead and throw the whole thing to the wayside. It's something next year we can have workshops. It's just that it is a bad time. We are going through 14,000 renewals in the next month and the BCC needs to hear this ordinance in September. And I just don't want to have to throw the whole thing away, because we've worked hard on it for many months. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Comment? MS. O'FARRELL: If that's the recommendation that Mr. Ossorio is giving, I would just suggest that we keep in the exam and strike the parts that have the continuing education and work on that for a future amendment. Page 36 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, we'll consider it. MR. NEALE: I would think that's appropriate, is to have the-- because we have examination requirements for other license categories. This was currently just has a business and law. This board has recommended addition of examinations to other categories when one is developed. So I think that would be appropriate is to recommend that essentially for new categories -- new applicants, that they have a 24-month period, you know, that they -- any new applicant has to take the exam and then come up with a grandfathering operation for them. MR. BLUM: Is there currently an exam for -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. MR. BLUM: -- this trimming? MR. NEALE: Not now. The only current exam is business and law. MR. BLUM: So it's kind of -- MR. NEALE: Which -- but in the past this board has recommended and the County Commission has adopted addition of a new examination when one is developed for a particular licensing category. So that's not unique. MR. BLUM: So we would go to Experian or some testing authority and request them to develop it; is that -- MR. NEALE: Well, apparently there is an examination of some sort. MR. OSSORIO: Yes, there is an exam. We've worked hard on it for many months with Code Enforcement with Gainesville Independent Testing. And it's made up of questions. And maybe Code Enforcement can elaborate on what's entailed in the testing. But it's about pruning safety. And it's something we've worked hard on. And I think that it's something we should look into. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't have any problem with that at all. Because I'm surprised there's not an exam. You're telling me that Page 37 July 19,2006 I could get a license because I can pass the business and law. MS. O'FARRELL: Right. My addition to that is that the Collier County extension office and Steven Brown at the Lee County extension office are going to be offering regular classes as a way of preparing themselves for the test. So they have -- MR. NEALE: So there will be prep courses. MS. O'FARRELL: -- plenty of courses to take. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is all new licenses, so that's fair. MS. O'FARRELL: Would it be possible to consider that new license applicants take the continuing education units every two years? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's a different issue. If you can't do it for one group, sub-group of a -- MS. O'FARRELL: You can't, just by saying that the others are grandfathered in you're free and clear, but new applicants are going to be more regulated? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. MS. O'FARRELL: I'm really trying to get those continuing education units in there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I agree with you, but we have to protect the people that have been in business a long time. MS. O'FARRELL: Well, those would not affect them. It would just be -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't do a sub-group ofa sub-group. MS. O'FARRELL: -- the new applicants. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Neale -- thank you for your time, though. MS. O'FARRELL: Thank you for hearing us. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You want to proceed what else we should be looking at? Page 38 July 19, 2006 MR. NEALE: Sure. MR. BLUM: Before -- haven't we had some conversations and a couple of people even came here with some wind issues with hurricanes with film, and weren't we going to get involved in that? Remember the films for the hurricane and the different kinds of awnings and shades? MR.OSSORIO: You mean shutters? MR. JOSLIN: Shutters. MR. BLUM: Shutters. All kinds of different hurricane protection. Is that being addressed at all? MR. OSSORIO: That's something that the industry needs to bring to our attention. We've talked to many different suppliers and different kind of products. The forum is open to any particular contractor who wants to come in and show you. But it has to be approved by the Florida Building Code. So whatever the film is, whatever new product they have, it really has to be done by the Florida Building Code and it has to be approved. MR. BLUM: Are we going to have some -- it seems to me at some point in time there was going to be a couple people come in and demonstrate or talk to us about some new products? Nobody's come forward? MR. OSSORIO: No, because it hasn't been approved by the Florida Building Code. I mean, there are some -- I do have some things on my desk that people do send us, you know, and it's a good product, but it hasn't been tested by the Florida Building Code, so basically we -- MR. BLUM: Didn't we have contractors using some of this stuff before? MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. BLUM: Not yet? MR. OSSORIO: No. If they are, they're not using it -- the term Page 39 July 19, 2006 is not hurricane protection then. It might be wind protection. But that's a big difference between wind protection and hurricane, because then you have to meet the Florida Building Code. MR. NEALE: What's happened in the past is when new products have come up, people have come in, presented them and they've been added to a licensed category. If you look in some categories, I think pool decking is one that there was a new pool decking product that came in and it was added to the license category, subject to them getting appropriate certification by that pool decking applicator. So those kinds of things have been added in the past by the board. But it has always been at the motivation and instigation of the supplier of the product. Because typically they'll come in when they've got a new product and put on a show. MR. JOSLIN: As I recall, I believe that was part of the conversation, was that they were going to go and try to get their approval through the building code. MR. BLUM: Yeah, we should have heard something by now. MR. JOSLIN: It must not have got it done, or else we would have heard about it. MR. BLUM: It sounded like it was something that could help us all and potentially be a savings as far as application and less money for the homeowner. I was looking forward to hearing about it. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Dickson, just to -- I don't want to bring up something old again, but this tree service and landscaping, I want to make sure we get on the record that we are going to strike the requirements for 24 months, Section A, Band C and D and E, and we're going to just -- so we can give the County Attorney some direction about putting in there just take the pruning and safety exam with the business and law exam. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think that was the general intent, but I'll tell you what my motion's going to be once Mr. Neale finishes, is that we table this till the next meeting. Because I will read this word Page 40 July 19,2006 for word, as I'm sure many of the other members want to do. MR. OSSORIO: And when you say table, you mean the whole ordinance or the particular tree -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The whole ordinance. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And vote on it next month, which is crucial for everybody to be here. MR. JOSLIN: I agree. I don't think that there's really any -- I don't have any -- what's the word I'm looking for? I don't have reservations about having even some of these older licensed landscapers taking continuing education credits, as long as there are ways to give them an opportunity to learn this trade or add to their knowledge to pass these credits, rather than just take their license because they don't go and do this. MR.OSSORIO: I just want to make sure we stay the course and we're on the same page. And I agree with you 110 percent, that that's not going to happen next month, it's not going to happen a month from now, but there's no sense in actually going through the ordinance. You know what the underline is and what the strike is, and so you can read up on it and make sure we have a licensing board next month and we'll continue it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I basically don't like giving a license to anyone who doesn't take a test -- MR. OSSORIO: There's no doubt. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- in their trade besides business and law. So I don't have a bit of problem with that. Tom? MR. BARTOE: I've been looking at something under these proposals for landscaping, and I'm sure there's a lot of landscapers out there that are going to say I don't trim and remove trees, why do I have to take this test? Because it says you do. It says all landscapers. A lot of landscapers don't do tree trimming, tree removal. Page 41 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but then we have to set up a new category of license. MR. BARTOE: Yeah, tree trimming and tree removal. We have it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, I see a lot of changes in here that I really want to read intently. I'm sure other board members do. I saw the one about the contractors that don't get a variance and cause the homeowners financial problems. That was a big issue this year. MR. MOUNTFORD: Based upon what I've heard so far on the record, I think that it would behoove you to wait till next month to address this until you've had a full opportunity to review it, because this is major. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a major issue. MR. JOSLIN: It could come back to haunt us. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And our board, we operate on -- this is so crucial to us, I would never approve this just being handed today. MR. NEALE: Just as a point, when the ordinance was last revised in 2002, there was a new category added, it was the hurricane shutter and awning contractor, and that was the last time this board really addressed grandfathering in or changing categories in any significant way. And at that point aluminum contractors were brought into that fold. But they had to apply for that category but did not have to take the test. Just as a suggestion, that may be the kind of language that we look at is that they -- you know, that there is a grandfathering provision, as long as they're adequately licensed at that point. So-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Ifwe change to the test, right? MR. NEALE: Yeah, if the change is made to the test, right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I notice fines are going up to $10,000? MR. NEALE: That's 489. Page 42 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is it? Wow. MR. BLUM: There is two separate categories now then, landscaping and tree trimming? MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. BARTOE: There always has been. MR. OSSORIO: Always has been. MR. NEALE: Always has been. That's always been there. MR. BLUM: So why don't we just say landscapers can't do tree trimming unless they take the test? What's so hard about that? MR. JOSLIN: What's going to dictate a tree versus a bush? How big does a bush get before it's considered a tree? MR. OSSORIO: Well, landscapers tend to be -- MR. JOSLIN: I mean, that's -- MR. OSSORIO: Landscapers tend to be -- have the ability to trim trees. It's incidental to their job they're doing, but they do trim trees. MR. BLUM: But the testimony we're getting is those are the guys allegedly that have less experience with handling trees properly for hurricane protection, right? MR. BARTOE: I'd say no. Landscapers have -- MR. NEALE: If I may, I was in the meeting with the county staff, and their complaint was not just about landscape contractors, it was about -- frankly, my reading of it, and Mr. Ossorio can correct me if I'm wrong. My reading of it was they actually had more heartburn with tree trimming contractors than they did with landscape contractors. That was my impression. Mr. Ossorio, would you agree with that? MR.OSSORIO: Yeah, I agree with that analogy. But landscaping contractors tend to not go out and trim trees purposely. That is their business. They're mostly in the landscaping and designing of landscaping. It's incidental to their practice. But we didn't want to exclude them because it was the same test. So they could trim trees, Page 43 July 19, 2006 as long as they have the requirements by the insurance. Because tree insurance is different from landscaping insurance, so that was the big difference. MR. NEALE: Yeah, in the current landscape contractor section, the landscape contractors may contract for only removal and/or trimming of trees and/or any other combination of the authorized services. They can't just go out and be a tree trimmer. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me ask you a question. I know we're spending a lot of time on this, but now that it's in both categories, most of the landscape contractors mow lawns, right? MR.OSSORIO: No. If you are a landscape contractor, you really don't mow lawns. You provide a service to your customer of -- you know, some landscapers are unrestricted, they can do irrigation, because there's a new category for that for irrigation. They provide a whole gamut of things, of trimming trees, pruning, shrubs, planting. They provide a broader service than quote, a tree service contractor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's lawn service license then? MR. OSSORIO: It's not. It's just an occupation. It's a tax, a business tax. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good. I didn't want to put a test on them. MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. BLUM: No. I was thinking the same thing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else? MR. NEALE: Those are really the major -- you know, what I brought up before are really the major issues that we had made changes to. It's not -- a lot of changes, we went through 489 with a fine-toothed comb and didn't find anything that was particular new. If anyone on the board knows of anything that we may have missed, we'd certainly appreciate the suggestions. Or if there's a category where the board feels that they'd like to go, it's certainly Page 44 July 19, 2006 something that can be considered. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did the change of the name occupational license go into effect? MR. OSSORIO: It did. MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. OSSORIO: It's called the business tax, I believe. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Business revenue tax. MR. NEALE: Business operations tax or something like that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a business revenue tax. MR. NEALE: Right. Which is one of the best things to ever happen, frankly. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, why did it take so long? Okay, any comments on all the changes to the owner/builder? MR. NEALE: No. I mean, what they've done is they've raised the dollar amount on commercial substantially. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I didn't know there ever was an owner/builder for commercial. MR. NEALE: Yeah. That was added. And this is -- all the commercial stuff is new, as far as I know. They could do -- up until this time we had previously allowed owner/builder on commercial buildings not to exceed $25,000. And it now is up to $75,000. And so they -- they made a number of changes. There's an owner/builder for roofing, asphalt shakes and fiberglass, and asphalt shingles, which Mr. Zachary and I jokingly refer to as the PI lawyers relief act, because you're going to have a whole lot of people falling off of roofs, not knowing what they're doing. So that's going to get pretty gruesome. That one was added and didn't seem to be a good policy decision, but we've got to live with that one. And it just -- there's been a significant change to that part. So I would read that -- essentially what we did in that part is quote directly from 489, just take their language. There's also the -- in 1.3.2, this is almost bearing on a case that Page 45 July 19, 2006 we had earlier with the City of Naples, there have been changes made to the public works exception, and so you may want to take a look at the public works exception a little bit more closely. It formerly was just on federal lands and done by federal contractors, and now they've expanded somewhat to a more broad category. So I would suggest the board take a look at that. And those are really the most significant changes that were made. And testing. So-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I would like for -- if you remember two months ago, we essentially shut down the skateboard park being built at Fleischman Park. I'd love for Mr. Ossorio to tell you what happened so we've got it on the record, if you would, sir. MR.OSSORIO: There were actually two items that I was going to talk to you about, but not pertaining to the amending of the ordinance. One would be -- I don't want to get off on a tangent, but I wanted to let you know that I am the new Contractor Licensing Supervisor. Bill Hammond selected me to the position. And I will give you an honest opinion. That my door is always open to the board members, I encourage them to come stop by and see me. I encourage them to answer any questions; you may want to stop by. And if I can help them in any way, shape or form, I will do so. The second, I was pleased and I was proud that the license board made a tough decision two months ago referencing the skate park. It was a pleasure to be here to watch how the process worked, how we are consistent. It's something that we strive for in our department is basically to try to be consistent to every contractor and try to be consistent with the licensing board, and that's how we should conduct business. Pertaining to the skate park is that Mr. -- whatever his name is, I can't remember, but he did pass the exam. He got at 75 with no books and no studying, and he was pleased that he passed and he was also Page 46 July 19, 2006 pleased that he took the exam. Due to the fact that now he probably won't have any problems in Florida, due to the fact this he took a pyrometric exam. And those exams are recognized throughout Florida and probably other states as well. So the board made a tough decision and it was a right call and I appreciate all the hard work you did two months ago, and it was a tough decision. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the park's close to being finished. MR. OSSORIO: It is. It's on -- to be completed. And I believe that the building director of the City of Naples agreed with the board's decision. He said it is what it is, and he appreciates your hard work. And his name is Paul Bolinbach, and he's a new building official in the City of Naples. And he'll probably stop by from time to time to let you know what his plans are in the city. And hopefully we'll get someone from Marco Island in here to really start getting the city into the licensing process a little more. MR. JOSLIN: I'd just like to say for the record, Mr. Ossorio, I'm very proud of you for taking the initiative to go and actually canvass that situation when it did happen. Because I know that that could have been ramifications between the City of Naples and Collier County and this board. But you took an energy to go and do, and I'm glad that this board did uphold what we decided should happen to a licensed contractor in Collier County, and that we're not afraid to punish whoever is in violation. MR.OSSORIO: I believe that sent a message out to the public that, you know, the county is not above -- or the city is not above anything that we do in the licensing board. And we try to have an open forum. And there's a process. And if you stay consistent, you stay true to the path, I really do think that this licensing board is going to make a big difference in the future. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else have anything? (No response.) Page 47 July 19, 2006 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's a pleasure to have you today with us. MR. MOUNTFORD: Thank you. Good to be here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're welcome back any time. MR. NEALE: We'll make the amendments to the -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, I'm going to make a motion that we table approval of the Ordinance No. 2006- what will it be? MR. BARTOE: We don't know. MR. NEALE: We don't know yet. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We don't know. That all of us take these home, and if I could impose upon staff to get copies to the four members that are not here, if you could get those to them within the next few days with a big instruction, please read thoroughly, that we table it until next month's meeting and make any changes and approval that need to be done at that time. MR. JOSLIN: I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. BLUM: Aye. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye. Anything else to come before this board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do I hear a motion to adjourn? MR. JOSLIN: So moved. MR. BLUM: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio, we're thrilled to have you taking over the office. Very nice. Thank you. We're adjourned. Page 48 July 19, 2006 ****** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:23 a.m. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING BOARD LES DICKSON, CHAIRMAN Page 49