CLB Minutes 10/20/2021 October 20,2021
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING
October 20, 2021
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board, having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in
Administrative Building "F", 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida,
with the following Members present:
•
Chair: Matthew Nolton
Vice Chair: Terry Jerulle
- Richard E. Joslin
Patrick G. White
Todd Allen
Kyle Lantz
Robert Meister III
ALSO PRESENT:
Kevin Noell, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Colleen Kerins —Assistant Collier County Attorney
Timothy Crofts —Contractor Licensing Supervisor
Carlos Alvarez— Collier County License Compliance Officer
Timothy Broughton—Collier County License Compliance Officer
Michael Governale — Collier County License Compliance Officer
Michael Bogert—Collier County License Compliance Officer
1
October 20,2021
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may
need to ensure that a verbatim record of said proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and
evidence upon which any Appeal is to be made.
1. ROLL CALL
Mathew Nolton, Chairman, opened the meeting at 9:04 AM.
Roll call was taken. Seven(7) members were present in the BCC Chambers.
2. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
Mr. Crotts, Contractor Licensing Supervisor, advised that he had a deletion to Item A under Public
Hearings: TYRONE F WILLEY—Contest Citation#11570 (Unlicensed). It will now be rescheduled for
the December 15th, 2021 Contractors' Licensing Board Meeting.
Mr. Crotts also advised the Board that there will be no Board Meeting set for November 17, 2021 due to the
holidays. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for December 15, 2021.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. White moved to approve the agenda (as amended). Mr.Allen offered a second in support of the
motion. Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. August 18,2021
Mr. White advised Board that he noticed a typo.
Mr. Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the August 18, 2021 Meeting. Mr. Lantz offered a second in
support of the motion. Motion carried unanimously 6—0 (Mr. White abstained due to not being present
for the August meeting). Minutes were approved.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
6. DISCUSSION
None
7. REPORTS
Mr. Crotts, Contractor Licensing Supervisor,made an introduction of Carlos Alvarez, the newest member of
the Contractors' Licensing Compliance Offices. Mr.Nolton queried Mr. Crofts for clarification if Mr.
Alvarez is a new member or a replacement. Mr. Crotts responded he is a replacement with one vacancy
remaining to be filled,totaling seven current officers. Mr. Alvarez introduced himself to the Board
indicating his background as a retired Sergeant from New Jersey and a former Planner at the Collier County
Health Department. The Board welcomed him onto the team.
2
October 20,2021
8. NEW BUSINESS:
A. ORDERS OF THE BOARD
Mr. Lantz offered a motion to have Board Chair sign Orders of the Board; Mr. Joslin offered a
second in support of the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
B. HECTOR D. MARTINEZ-CADENA DBA iTile-it,LLC—REVIEW OF CREDIT—TILE &
MARBLE CONTRACTOR
Mr.Nolton called Mr. Martinez-Cadena to the podium. [The Witness was sworn in].
Mr. Crotts stated that Mr. Martinez-Cadena appeared before the Board on March 17, 2021, for review of
his credit report and a determination whether the applicant's credit should prevent a license from being
issued. Mr. Crotts stated that at the meeting (March 17, 2021)Mr. Martinez-Cadena's credit report was
at a 581 and that he was ordered by the United States Bankruptcy Court to pay monthly payments to the
Chapter 13 Trustee in the amount of$186.00 per month. Mr. Crofts stated that the Board ruled to issue a
six-month probationary period on his license resulting that the applicant may come back before the
Board to show proof that timely payments have been made to the current creditors, approve credit score,
and for the Board to consider termination of the probation to extend the probation or any unlawful action
as prudent majority of the Board present. Mr. Crofts states that Mr. Martinez-Cadena's credit score is
currently at a 630 and that he has stayed current on all of his payments to the Bankruptcy Court for the
last six (6) months. Mr. Crofts recommends the Board that due to Mr. Martinez-Cadena's compliance
with the order of the Board, that his probation be removed from his license.
Mr.Allen offered a motion to approve the removal of the probation;Mr. White offered a second in
support of the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
C. NATALINA CAPONE DBA SIGNATURE GLASS AND MIRROR COMPANY—REVIEW OF
CREDIT—GLASS & GLAZING CONTRACTOR
Mr.Nolton called Natalina Capone to the podium.Natalina Capone was not present in the Boardroom.
Proceeded on to Item 8D.
(Later in meeting) Mr. Nolton recalled Natalina Capone to the podium at 9:24 AM after Medardo
Gomez failed to appear for Item 8F. [The Witness was sworn in].
Mr. Jerulle states that he knows Ms. Capone and has done work with her in the past. Mr.Noell,Attorney
for Contractors' Licensing Board, asked Mr. Jerulle if he has any financial interest or impact on the
outcome of the decision with Ms. Capone. Mr. Jerulle answered"no", he does not.
Mr. Crofts stated that Ms. Capone has submitted a firm application for the trade of glass and glazing.
The review of her credit revealed a score of 599, which is below the minimum score of 660 set forth in
Section 2.5.1 Subsection D, indicating the applicant must meet the financial responsibility set forth in
Rule 61G4-15.006 by the State of Florida. Ms. Capone's personal credit showed the following accounts
in collection which totaled$20,528:
• 5/2021 Account closed by Wells Fargo with an outstanding balance of$16,300
• 10/2020 Account listed as a Charge Off by Synchrony Bank with an outstanding balance of
$4,228
3
October 20,2021
Based on the above information and as required by Collier County's Ordinance 2006-46 Section 2.5.2
and Section 2.5.3 referred the application to be reviewed before the Board for a decision to explain the
credit issues.
Mr.Nolton advised Ms. Capone to make her statement. Ms. Capone reports that in June of 2019 she
worked for and was qualifying a Tile &Marble Company who lost a lot of business. It forced her to
transition to a new company who stopped paying her wages, causing her to be unemployed for four(4)
months. Before she was able to acquire a position working at City Furniture as a salesperson, making
$30,000 a year for two years, which was a huge pay reduction from a previous salary of$100,000 a
year. Ms. Capone states that she hired a debt collection agency called Title Legal Processing where she
was making payments in the amount of$500 a month, until the month of April 2021 when the debt
consolidation company went bankrupt. Ms. Capone also states that during this time she contracted Covid
for two (2) months. Ms. Capone states that her motivation for applying for the license is so that she can
get back into business and to resume paying off her debts. Ms. Capone reports that she has already made
an agreement to pay $100 a month to the Synchrony Bank account, as well as actively pursuing a
settlement agreement with Wells Fargo. She states that she has no idea of a timeline for this resolution
process.
Mr. White asked Ms. Capone how long she thinks she needs to fairly resolve the issue with Wells Fargo.
Ms. Capone responded that she didn't know; possibly 8 months. Mr. White asked if a year would be
sufficient. Ms. Capone agrees, as well as stating she is currently in the process of hiring a salesperson
for her company to help drive revenue in hopes to come up with $10 - $15,000 for a settlement. Mr.
White asked what the terms are for the agreement with Synchrony Bank. Ms. Capone responded by
saying she is paying $100 a month starting this month. Mr. White asked if that is on a 4-year term. Ms.
Capone confirms and says she will be willing to make a settlement with the Bank when she can acquire
more money.
Mr. Allen asked Mr. Crotts what the staff recommendation would be for Ms. Capone. Mr. Crotts reports
the staff would allow a 12-month period to resolve the debts and at the end of the 12 months for her
credit report to be reviewed before the Board, demonstrating consistent payments and improvement of
her credit score. Mr. White asked if the threshold of that would be to bring her above the minimum
requirement of 660. Ms. Capone validates the statement. Ms. Capone states to the Board that she was
presented with the choice of paying her rent or the credit cards. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Crofts if these are
one the licenses that will be dissolved under the Collier County Ordinance changes for 2023. Mr. Crotts
validates that this license is scheduled to be dissolved. The Board discussed this ordinance change with
Mr. Crotts. Ms. Capone asked when that is set to happen. Mr. White responded that the change is set to
take place in July of 2023. Mr. Crofts explains to the Board that the State's Licensing requirements
encompassing a variety of trades, including Glass and Glazing. Mr. Lantz asked Ms. Capone if she is
currently a Glass and Glazing Contractor. Ms. Capone testifies that she is, and she is attempting to
reinstate her license.
Mr.Allen made a motion to approve the 12-month probation period. Mr. Jerulle seconded the motion.
Mr. Crotts recapped that Ms. Capone will have to reappear before the Board after the 12-month
probation period to show that she has satisfied her derogatory accounts and that her credit score has
improved. The Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
4
October 20,2021
D. REYNALDO BLANDON DBA HEAVENLY KITCHEN AND BATH,LLC—REVIEW OF
CREDIT—CABINET INSTALLATION CONTRACTOR
Mr.Nolton called Mr. Blandon up to the podium. Mr. Blandon was not present. Moved on to Item 8E.
(Later in meeting) Mr.Nolton recalled Mr. Blandon to the podium at 9:33 AM.
[The Witness was sworn in].
Mr. Crotts stated that Mr. Blandon has submitted a firm application for the trade of Cabinet Install
Contractor. In review, staff found that Mr. Blandon's credit report showed a score of 610,which is
below the minimum score of 660; as set forth in Section 2.5.1 Subsection D, indicating that the applicant
must meet the financial responsibility set forth in Rule 61G4-15.006 by the State of Florida.
Mr. Blandon's credit report showed the following accounts owed, which totaled $8,370:
• 8/2021 AT&T in the amount$1,308
• 8/2021 Synchrony Bank in the amount of$2,603
• 4/2020 Sun Coast Credit Union in the amount of$3,927
• 12/2018 Kohls in the amount of$532
Mr. Crotts advised that Mr. Blandon does not meet the requirements to approve his application based on
Collier County Ordinance 2006-46 Section 2.5.2 and Section 2.5.3, requiring Mr. Blandon to appear
before the Board for a decision and to explain his credit issues.
Mr. Blandon testifies to the Board that his credit issues were the result of the Pandemic, his wife losing
her job, being responsible for all living expenses and that his salary does not cover all the expenses. Mr.
Blandon explains to the Board that he believes the license will help him obtain more business and he can
have these credit issue resolved within a 12-month period. Mr. Blandon testifies that the AT&T account
is currently being disputed and the account is not his and that he is making arrangements for a payment
plan on the Sun Coast Credit Union account. Mr. White queried Mr. Blandon on his confidence that
these issues can be resolved in 12 months. Mr. Blandon also testifies that he is confident that he can
resolve these issues and that he has been rejecting jobs to avoid breaking the law by working without a
license. Mr. Blandon further explains that he is currently employed and that the license will provide him
with additional income to resolve the credit issues.
Mr. White made a motion to approve a 12-month probation period of the approval of the application
and show that he has resolved the accounts and improve his credit score to the Board at the end of the
probation period. Mr.Allen offered a second in support of the motion. The Motion carried
unanimously 7—0.
E. MITCHELL C. HOWARD DBA PURE HARDSCAPES,LLC—REVIEW OF EXPERIENCE—
PAVING BLOCKS CONTRACTOR
Mr.Nolton called Mr. Howard to the podium. [The Witness was sworn in].
Mr. Crotts stated that Mr. Howard had applied for the trade of paving block contracting which requires
24 months of experience. Upon review of Mr. Howard's experience,he owned and operated a landscape
business from January 2014 to July of 2020 in the State of Tennessee. Mr. Crotts states that Mr. Howard
has not worked for any licensed company here in the State of Florida. Mr. Crotts researched Mr.
Howard's experience and found that he had worked for Howard Landscape Group in addition to several
reviews where Mr. Howard received poor reviews in regard to the quality of work that was produced
5
October 20,2021
and lack of follow through from dates of 2020 through 2021. Mr. Crotts stated he conducted an in-
person interview with Mr. Howard and did online research that he confirmed that Mr. Howard's
business in 2020 and 2021 suffered after he made bad business decisions. Mr. Crotts advised that based
on the information provided and online research that Mr. Howard does possess the experience to be
issued a Paving Block Contractor License, however, based upon the reviews and Mr. Howard's
statements that his business did suffer due to bad business decisions. Mr. Crofts requested to the Board
under Ordinance 2006-46 Section 2.3.12G,Affidavit that the qualifiers honesty and integrity, good
business reputation and competence in the trade of which the applicant has applied. Mr. Crotts'
recommendation is that Mr. Howard be placed on a 6-month probationary period before receiving his
license as it be contingent on there being no issue within that 6-month probation period that the
probationary status be removed under the expectation that all compliance guidelines be adhered to. Mr.
White asked if this recommendation included a future review of the Board. Mr. Crotts suggested that if
there are no issues within the probation period after the 6 months then the probation will be removed and
if there are issues then a review in front of the Board would be executed. Mr. White summarizes that Mr.
Crotts will be responsible to review Mr. Howard's assessment after the 6 months and report to the Board
if anything derogatory is found. Mr. Crofts confirms this responsibility.
Mr. Jerulle asked why 6 months of a probation period over 12 months. Mr. Crotts responded that based
on the in-person interview, he feels confident and attests to that the poor performance from Mr. Howard
would not be repeated and that Mr. Howard has already been in the process of rectifying his bad
business decisions.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Howard for further explanation why he thinks he should be granted 6 months over
12 months. Mr. Howard stated that in addition to online reviews that the company had a total of 58
Google reviews: 10 of them were negative reviews and 8 of them were during what Mr. Howard calls a
sloppy transition with the company, as the company lost employees during this time Mr. Howard was
exiting the company and put the Operation's Manager in charge while Mr. Howard was arranging to
relocate to Naples, Florida. Mr. Howard testifies that the relationship between himself and the
Operation's Manager did not go so well. Mr. Howard states that shortly after this time that company
dissolved. Mr. Howard admits he conducted himself poorly during that time of transition and
demonstrates his remorse. Mr. Howard also informs the Board that he himself did reach out to the
customers who left the bad reviews and rectified their concerns.
Mr. Jerulle restates his question to Mr. Howard to why it should be 6 months and not a 12-month
probation. Mr. Howard responded that the scope of the work at his new company is less than the scope
of the work from his previous company, allowing management and production satisfaction to be more
viable and that his award-winning reputation before the sloppy transition to be a prevailing indicator of
how his workmanship abilities should be taken into account. Mr. Howard states that he is open to
accepting either a 6-month or 12-month probation. Mr. Jerulle commends Mr.Howards response. Mr.
Jerulle queried Mr. Crofts on the ordinance change coming in 2023 regarding the dissolution of Paving
Block License being required to perform this type of work. Mr. Crofts confirms that those changes are
accurate.
Mr.Allen made a motion to disapprove Mr. Howard's 6-month probation period and stated that the
nature of some of the online reviews should be taken into consideration and that one of them
indicates a lawsuit against the company from March 2020 concluding to set forth a motion for a 12-
6
October 20,2021
month probation period. Mr. White offers a second motion in support of the motion with further
discussion.
Mr. White asked Mr. Howard to illuminate the positives of his education in regard to the qualification of
being a Certified Bell Guard Contractor and scope of the ICPI Training and how it pertains to the type of
license that is being requested now. Mr. Howard responded that the Bell Guard is the highest reputable
manufacturer of pavers that offers this certification. It is considered to be the most prestigious level of
certification in the industry you can get only to be obtained through a rigid curriculum that requires in-
house training, ongoing education and on-site inspections of large paving projects over a span of a year
and that these standards are set by the ICPI (International Concrete Paving Institute).
Mr.Nolton asked the Board if there is any further discussion.
Mr. Nolton then asked Mr. White to clarify the motion of the probation be set at 12 months and
review will be given administratively by Mr. Crotts and that if anything negative is to be found, then
review by the Board will be executed. Mr. White confirms. The Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
F. MEDARDO GOMEZ DBA NAPLES HOME & REMODELING,INC.—REVIEW OF
EXPERIENCE—RESIDENTIAL POOL/SPA CONTRACTOR
Mr.Nolton called Mr. Gomez to the podium. Mr. Gomez is absent from the meeting. Revisited Item 8C.
(Later in meeting)Mr.Nolton recalled Mr. Gomez to the podium at 9:40 AM. Mr. Gomez did not show.
Mr. Crotts advised the Board that he will reach out to the applicant to reschedule hearing.
Mr. White made a motion to move Mr. Gomez's hearing to December 15, 2021. Mr. Jerulle seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously 7—0.
9. OLD BUSINESS
None
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. TYRONE F. WILLEY—CONTEST CITATION#11570 (ULICENSED)
Mr.Nolton states that is the hearing that has been moved to the December 15, 2021 meeting.
B. 2021-09 - CHARLES C. WILLEY DBA B & W PAVING CONTRACTORS OF SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA,INC.
Mr.Nolton calls Mr. Willey to the podium. [All Witnesses were sworn in].
Mr.Allen makes a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Joslin seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously 7—O.
Colleen Kerins, Assistant Collier County Attorney, asked the Board to approve the submission of a copy
of the Hearing Preamble and Appeal Process that had been given to and signed by the respondent,Mr.
Charles Willey, as evidence.
7
October 20,2021
Mr. White makes motion to approve the submission of evidence. Mr. Jerulle seconded the motion.
carried unanimously 7—0.
Ms. Kerins stated that the respondent is a Collier County Licensed Paving Contractor, Issuance#27398;
Mr. Willey is the owner and qualifier of B & W Paving Contractors of Southwest Florida. Ms. Kerins
stated that Mr. Willey received payment and performed scope of work to include land clearing and
installation of an asphalt tennis court and fence at 5840 Bur Oaks Lane. The installation did not meet the
generally accepted standards for Collier County. The trees that were cleared on the lot were placed
underneath the asphalt in a containment pit resulting in the ultimate collapse of the tennis court. Ms.
Kerins states that Mr. Willey is in violation of Code 22-201 Section 2 which states that any contractor to
perform duties outside of their competence card as well as Section 22-201 Section 10 states which state
that the contractor unlicensed to fix or repair damages or faulty material of previous work done and the
Mr. Willey installed the project contrary to the provisions of the contract. Ms. Kerins also states that Mr.
Willey is in violation of Code 22-201 Section 18, which states it is misconduct for a holder of the
competency certificate to proceed on any job without obtaining any applicable permits or inspections
from the County and The Building and Zoning Departments. Ms. Kerins states the Investigator Mr.
Broughton and Dr. Everett,the homeowner where the work was performed are present to provide further
details regarding the allegations in the Administrative Complaint.
James Chillemi,Attorney for Mr. Willey, started his Opening Statement indicating that he is disputing
the allegations against Mr. Willey on all three (3) counts. Mr. Chillemi lists the reasons to the disputes
as follows:
• There was no fence installed by Mr. Willey
• There was no viable contract that was signed and agreed to between the parties, and the
• Uncertainty of the conditions of the work site prior to construction
On May 6, 2021, Tennis Sports Services inspected the job site was inspected and approved for the tennis
court to be built.
Public records show that this Right-of-Way permit was open and transferred to Heritage Utilities.
Clearing out the vegetation is allowed within the rights of the License according to Collier County as
quoted by the website, "excavating and clearing and grading anything incidental there to is allowed by a
paving contractor."
Timothy Broughton, Investigator for Contractor Licensing for Collier County, testified that on/about
June 8, 2021, he received a licensing complaint from Mr. Crotts regarding homeowner, Timothy Everett,
involving an unpermitted right of way and workmanship problems with the tennis court work provided
by B & W Paving. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if he physically visited the property. Mr. Broughton
replied that he did on June 10, 2021 and talked to both homeowners, Dr. and Mrs. Everett. Mr.
Broughton indicated that upon inspection of the right of way and the tennis court the homeowner
pointed out pools of water swelling up from the tennis court and the conditions of the clearing of the
land and the trees that were buried behind the tennis court. Ms. Kerins queried Mr. Broughton on if he
was aware of if permits were pulled for the project. Mr. Broughton responded that he did confirm a
permit that was applied for on April 28, 2021, by Mr. Willey and it was listed in "abandoned status."
Mr. Broughton also stated that there was a Code Enforcement case open who originally discovered the
right of way that was tampered with first and approached the homeowner then the complaint from the
8
October 20,2021
homeowner was submitted a few days later. Mr. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if he was given a copy of
the contract for the work performed. Mr. Broughton states that he did receive a contract from the
homeowner, as well as thirty pages of text messages from a conversation between Dr. Everett and Mr.
Willey discussing the scope of the work. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if the shown document from
the evidence packet on Page 255 was the contract. Mr. Broughton confirms that it was. Ms. Kerins asked
Mr. Broughton is there was canceled checks received by the country to confirm payment from the two
parties. Mr. Broughton testifies that he received three separate checks in the amount of$5,000, $5000
and one for$7000 made out to B & W Paving (Mr. Willey). Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if the
county made an inquiry regarding if a permit was needed for the vegetation clearing of the work site.
Mr. Broughton said that in late July or August received determination from Land Development
Specialist of Collier County, Michelle Crowley, who reviewed pictures of the site prior and after and
confirmed that a permit was required. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if a permit had been pulled prior
or during his investigation. Mr. Broughton testifies that there had never been a permit pulled for the
vegetation clearing. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if the County had taken photographs of the work
site during the investigation. Mr. Broughton explains that the County had made several visits to the
property during the month of July,August and October, as well as updated pictures provided by the
homeowner of the sinking and collapse of the tennis court. Mr. Broughton proceeded to say that he
himself also took additional photos. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton to explain to the Board what is in
the pictures shown on Page 302. Mr. Broughton explains that the photograph showed the stop work
order for the abandoned right of way permit from his initial visit. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton to
confirm the photograph on Page 303 to be the depiction of the Right of way from June 15, 2021. Mr.
Broughton confirms that it is. Ms. Kerins proceeded to show the Board additional pictures of the Right
of way on Page 304. Mr. Broughton confirms that it shows the access to the rear of the property. Ms.
Kerins asked Mr. Broughton is the photos on pages 305 and 306 show the collapse of the asphalt. Mr.
Broughton confirms they are. Ms. Kerins asked about the visits done on July 21, 2021. Mr. Broughton
explains he made a visit on July 9, 2021, and took some additional photos of the forming sink holes on
the tennis court. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton is there were additional photos taken in August 2021
regarding continued issues with the asphalt. Mr. Broughton confirms there were more photos taken as
well as him receiving many calls from the homeowner as well as visiting the site several times and took
additional photos as the holes became larger. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Broughton if in October he took
additional photos of the property. Mr. Broughton responded by saying he received a call around October
5, 2021, from the homeowner's wife regarding information about Heritage Utilities,who was
subcontracted by Mr. Willey to remove the trees and that they decided to transfer the abandoned Right
of way Permit into their name and take up all the trees and containment pit under the tennis court free of
charge for the homeowner. Mr. Broughton further explains that on that day he visited the property while
Heritage Utilities where doing the work and took photos with their certified contractors. Ms. Kerins
asked Mr. Broughton if the contract and text messages that were received by the County had indicated
an installation of a fence. Mr. Broughton confirms there was. Mr. Kerins also asked if Mr. Willey or his
company had a license to install a fence. Mr. Broughton explains that Mr. Willey only has a certificate
of competency for paving and does not hold a license for fence erection. Ms. Kerins asked Mr.
Broughton about the violation in Administrative Complaint if the alleged violation of the fence
regarding the underlying contracting for that work to be performed. Mr. Broughton said, "that's correct."
Chairman
Mr. White asked permission to inquire with questions. The TE4Gard gr.n . '-rmission.
Mr. White asked Mr. Broughton about page 338, if a permit is stil -:uired even though the subsection
31 for permissible activities for a paving contractor indicates that clearing is allowed. Mr. Broughton
9
October 20,2021
responded that one (permit) is still required because the land development had determined (after that fact
that he brought photos to them)that more than an acre of land had been cleared(up until that date). Mr.
Broughton further explains that under the County Code the homeowner is allowed to clear up to an acre
but beyond an acre, a permit is required. Mr. White reclarifies with Mr. Broughton the details on that
permissible detail to be"subject to"more than an acre of clearing warrants a permit. Mr. Broughton
confirms that is correct.
Mr. Joslin asked, in reference to Page 333, if where the excavator was positioned if that's where the
trees were buried. Mr. Broughton responded that the photos is showing the beginning process of
Heritage Utilities of their clearing process and at that time they determined that trees were buried under
the tennis court. Mr. Joslin then refers to the water table on the photo that looks to be about three feet
down and asked if that's a hole with water. Mr. Broughton responded that it is some standing water as
Heritage Utilities had to go down deep to get the trees. Mr. Joslin explained to Mr. Broughton that he
has been in that area many times and built many swimming pools and clearly knows that is water in the
photo. Mr. Broughton agrees there is water. Mr. Joslin explained that he believes that water resulted
because of the hole in the asphalt and not because the trees were removed. Mr. Joslin asked Mr.
Broughton how he thinks the removal of the tress were the initial problem to the collapse of the asphalt.
Mr. Broughton said he did inquire with Land Development if the area was in a low-lying area or wetland
area and it was not.
Mr. White asked about Page 323 if the fence in the picture was the fence installed by Mr. Willey or if it
was preexisting. Mr. Broughton testifies that it was preexisting. Mr. White asked where the evidence of
the fence is that is in question. Mr. Broughton explains there was never a fence erected. Mr. White asked
Mr. Broughton to clarify that the allegation is regarding the violation of the scope of work permissible in
the first count(a fence was contracted for but not erected). Mr. Broughton clarifies that the violations
are regarding the permits for the abandoned Right of way and clearing of the trees, not the fence.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton to clarify that there was no fence erected. Mr. Broughton said that
was correct. Mr. Chillemi also asked Mr. Broughton that there was a contract for the fence.Mr.
Broughton confirms that was correct. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton if he can prove a signed
contract for the installation of the fence. Mr. Broughton responded by saying it was only in the text
messages. Mr. Broughton continued to explain that text message can be considered a contract. Mr.
Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton if he has anyone from Land Development at the hearing that can testify
to back up his claims. Mr. Broughton responded by saying he "does not."Mr. Chillemi clarifies that his
testimony will be based only on hearsay. Mr. Broughton explains that he has a written termination letter
that is signed by Land Development. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton if that packet explained how
much land was contracted to be cleared by Mr. Willey. Mr. Broughton responded no it does not detail
how much land and that it indicated the area of land where the tennis court was to be built. Mr. Chillemi
asked if the packet shows how much Mr. Willey did clear. Mr. Broughton said that there are photos. Mr.
Chillemi asked how Mr. Broughton knew if that land wasn't cleared beforehand. Mr. Broughton testifies
that he took photos from Google showing that there were trees in the yard. Mr. Chillemi asked if he had
actual proof that Mr. Willey was the person that cleared the land. Mr. Broughton clarifies to Mr.
Chillemi that Mr. Willey didn't clear it and that it was Heritage Utilities who was subcontracted by Mr.
Willey to clear it. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton to provide the contract that was executed between
Mr. Willey and Heritage Utilities. Mr. Broughton said that he does and that it is in the evidence packet
on Page 257. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton where on the contract does it indicate the exact amount
that was supposed to be cleared. Mr. Broughton explains that the image shown is an invoice from
10
October 20,2021
Heritage Utilities to Mr. Willey for the clearing that was done. Mr. Broughton also explains that Mr.
Willey talks about the clearing of trees burying them in the back on the contract that was executed by
Mr. Willey and homeowner. Mr. Chillemi asked for that contract to be pulled up. Mr. Broughton
provides the document from the agenda. Mr. Chillemi asked where on the contract where there is
evidence of the homeowner's signature. Mr. Broughton showed that it had Mr. Willey's signature on it.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton to validate the signature from the homeowner. Mr. Broughton said
that is the only contract he received from the homeowner.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton, in reference to photo from July 9, 2021,that there was "pooling
water"on the paved site of the tennis court. Mr. Broughton agrees. Mr. Chillemi asked if Mr. Broughton
knew what caused the pooling of the water. Mr. Broughton said that rain would fill in the holes on the
asphalt. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton if had ever built a tennis court before. Mr. Broughton said
that he "has not."Mr. Chillemi asked if a tennis court is supposed to be built like a roof where the water
runs off. Mr. Broughton responded by saying that has never built a tennis court. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr.
Broughton if he knew if the top surface of the tennis court is the main component that gets rid of the
water.Mr. Broughton explained again that he has never built a tennis court. Mr. Chillemi asked if Mr.
Broughton witnessed the surface that was place on the asphalt. Mr. Broughton explains again he has
never built a tennis court. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Broughton how many pages of text messages he was
provided. Mr. Broughton said, "approximately 30 pages." Mr. Chillemi asked what the content of the
text messages were. Mr. Broughton responded saying it talked about the scope of the work. Mr. Chillemi
asked if there was anything else discussed. Mr. Broughton testifies that topics regarding medical
information was redacted from the text messages. Mr. Chillemi asked if the medical information had
anything to do with the contacting of the pool. Mr. Broughton responded, "not that I am aware of." Mr.
Chillemi asked again if there were any other details in the text messages other than the scope of the
work. Mr. Broughton proceeds to explain that he would have to review them again but most of the
content about the homeowner asked Mr. Willey when he was going to come out to the property, to give
him a call, Mr. Willey wasn't responding,the owner owning continuing trying to reach Mr. Willey,
there are sink holes on the tennis court, complains about burying the trees under the tennis court... Mr.
Chillemi interjects Mr. Broughton. Mr. Broughton interjects Mr. Chillemi. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr.
Broughton if there was talk about the scope of the work and the contract between Mr. Willey and the
homeowner as well as other details in the text messages. Mr. Broughton confirms that is correct.
Mr.Nolton asked if there are any other witnesses. Ms. Kerins calls Dr. Everett to the podium.
Mr.Noell asked Mr. Nolton if the County had a redirect with Mr. Broughton. Ms. Kerins responded,
"not at this time." [The Witness was sworn in].
Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett to say his name and his address. Mr. Everett answers, Timothy Mathew
Everett, 5840 Bur Oaks Lane,Naples, Florida. Ms. Kerins stated that the reason for their appearance is
in regard to a complaint again B & W Paving Contractors of Southwest Florida. Ms. Kerins asked Mr.
Everett if he made the complaint regarding that company. Mr. Everett confirmed he did. Ms. Kerins
asked what was the basis of that complaint. Mr. Everett said that in his desperate attempts to get ahold of
Mr. Willey regarding the deterioration of the tennis court he would never get a response, so he received
counsel to contact the County to file a complaint for the poor workmanship and lack of communication.
Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett to identify the person he went into contract with for the tennis court. Mr.
Everett said Charles Willey. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett to explain the scope of work that was
expected to be performed by Mr. Willey's company at his property. Mr. Everett explained that he had a
section of land in his backyard that he wanted to build a tennis court on, and that Mr. Willey was willing
11
October 20,2021
to facilitate that, but did "carve out"the exception of the coating applied to the asphalt or put up the
fence himself. Mr. Everett claims that Mr. Willey would get the land cleared, get the asphalt in place and
other details that would be required to move the project forward. Mr. Kerins asked Mr. Everett, in
reference to page 255, if he recognized the document and what was it exactly. Mr. Everett testifies he
does recognize the document and that it explains the starting point to the work to be performed by Mr.
Willey. Ms. Kerins also asked if there was any other documents or forms of communication. Mr. Everett
said, "only through the text messages." Mr. Everett added that in hindsight he would have done things
differently and that text messaging was the primary source of communication. Ms. Kerins asked Mr.
Everett if the land where the tennis court was built if that land was previous cleared prior to the project.
Mr. Everett testifies that in the 6 years of living at that residence that there had been no clearing activity
then or before them taking ownership of the property. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if he paid money to
Mr. Willey (B & W) for the tennis court being built. Mr. Everett confirms that he did and he paid half
down to start the project and another$5000 toward the end of the project and then paid the deposit to
start the asphalt. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett, about page 261, 262 and 263 if those are the checks he
drafted to Mr. Willey. Mr. Everett confirm they are. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if there were any
other company beside Mr. Willey's for the work that was performed at the property. Mr. Everett
responded, "no."Ms. Kerins also asked if Mr. Everett was under the impressions that Mr. Willey would
be clearing the trees, vegetation, installation of tennis court and installation of a fence around the tennis
court. Mr. Everett said yes with the understanding that most of the work was being facilitated through
Mr. Willey primarily as a source for referral to assist with the project. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if
there was a Right of way cleared to access the back of the property. Mr. Everett testifies that he doesn't
believe there were trees that were cleared but rather an access being made through the drainage area.
Ms. Kerins references Page 303, then asked Mr. Everett if the picture shows the clearing of the Right of
way that was done by Mr. Willey's company. Mr. Everett confirms it was. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett
if he questioned or had any concern regarding the trees that were cleared for the tennis court as it regards
to the text message conversation they had. Mr. Everett responded, "absolutely."And his wife was the
one that took some pictures and expressing her concern to Mr. Everett about the trees being buried under
the tennis court and he walked the property with his wife, and they determined that the trees would be a
problem leading him to reach out to Mr. Willey about his concern. Mr. Willey assured him that it
wouldn't be a problem and that he (Willey)would reach out to Heritage. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if
Heritage Utilities was the company that was brought out to his property by Mr. Willey. Mr. Everett said
"yes."Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if the trees that were being buried under the tennis court appeared
to be compacted. Mr. Everett testified that Mr. Willey told him that the trees would be placed at the back
of property in a compacted manner could drop a couple of inches in the future and that can be fixed by
bringing in extra fill.
Mr. Joslin asked Mr. Everett to clarify the area he is talking about where the trees were placed. Mr.
Everett said that the trees would be placed at the "back" of the property, away from the tennis court. Mr.
Joslin asked again if the trees were placed at on the property or under the tennis court. Mr. Everett said
the trees were placed contrary to what he was told. Mr. Allen asked Mr. Everett did Mr. Willey state that
he was going to place the trees at the back of the property but in fact placed them under the tennis court.
Mr. Everett confirmed that is correct and also states that he tried to express his concern to Mr. Willey
and was under the impression that it would be remedied, but it was instead"covered up."
Ms. Kerins brings in reference the text messages between Mr. Willey and Mr. Everett regarding the
conversation about the trees being compacted under the tennis court. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if
that's what the text messages demonstrates on page 299. Mr. Everett confirms. Ms. Kerins also asked he
12
October 20,2021
received any remedies for the problems with the tennis court from Mr. Willey. Mr. Everett responded
"yes" and "no." That there was a point in time Mr. Willey did come to the property to offer some
solutions to the concerns in the beginning but when the tennis court started to collapse Mr. Willey never
addressed those and all efforts to communicate came to complete silence. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett
if those holes got worse over time. Mr. Everett confirmed they did. Ms. Kerins also asked if Mr. Willey
tried to remedy the holes. Mr. Everett said he never received a response back from Mr. Willey. Ms.
Kerins also asked if Mr. Everett reached out to Heritage Utilities to try and remedy these issued on his
own. Mr. Everett confirms he did and when he contacted the County, Mr. Broughton came out to the
property and was the one who informed Mr. Everett of the Heritage Utility company which then the
owners of that company came out to the property and expressed their regret to the work done and
offered to help fix the issue. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if there was an additional contract executed
that demonstrated an exchange for money. Mr. Everett responded "absolutely."Ms. Kerins also asked if
Mr. Everett what he had done to remedy these issues. Mr. Everett stated that Heritage Utility came out
to the property and brought some equipment to dig up 50%of the tennis court, revealing lots of large
logs. Ms. Kerins asked if there were details in the agreement to what size of tennis court would be
constructed. Mr. Everett was under an assumption that it was a standard tennis court. Ms. Kerins
confirmed with Mr. Everett that payments for the fence would be made to Mr. Wiley. Mr. Everett
responded"correct" and that he was under the impression that Mr. Willey was the general contractor of
the project.
Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett in reference to the text messages, if those messages detailed the cost of the
fence and that payment would be made to B & W Paving. Mr. Everett confirmed this was accurate.
Mr. Allen asked Mr. Everett about the math calculations of the dimensions of the fence.Mr. Everett
responded that text messages can be misinterpreted. Mr.Allen also asked if there is evidence of a text
message from Mr. Willey disagreeing with Mr. Everett's calculations or the confirming the budget of
$22,000. Mr. Everett responded by saying he believes that they talked on the phone about it. Mr. Allen
asked if Mr. Everett paid Mr. Willey the $22,000. Mr. Everett says that he has paid around $18,000.
Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Everett if$17,000 is the correct amount paid. Mr.Everett confirms. Ms. Kerins
asked Mr. Everett if he was ever aware of permitting issues by Mr. Willey. Mr. Everett responded"no"
and that he was contacted by the County about the right of way being an issue and that a permit was
needed. In turn, Mr. Everett reached out to Mr. Willey and finally got a confirmation from him that he
would get that process started and then found out later by Heritage Utility that it was abandoned. Ms.
Kerins asked Mr. Everett if he is seeking restitution. Mr. Everett would like to receive his money back
as it has been made aware to him that there will be more costs going forwarded with fixing the failing of
the asphalt. Mr.Kerins also asked if Mr. Willey had brought up any concerns about the water tables. Mr.
Everett said"no."
Mr. White queried Mr. Everett about page 255 if Mr. Everett knew if that signature is Mr. Willey's or if
he saw Mr. Willey sign it. Mr. Everett said he did not see him sign it.
Mr. Allen asked Mr. Everett how he received that contract. Mr. Everett said he received it from Mr.
Willey.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Everett about the March 2nd and March 5th text messages: if Mr. Willey
affirmed to what he was asking in the text messages in regard to a contractual agreement about the
13
October 20,2021
numbers discussed. Mr. Everett said he did, as well he did during the call. Mr. Chillemi also asked if Mr.
Everett remembers having that conversation. Mr. Everett said that he does not remember every
conversation.
Mr. Chillemi also asked what his relationship was with Mr. Willey before the tennis court project. Mr.
Everett said that he was his Physician for 2-3 years. Mr. Chillemi also asked how familiar he is with his
property and if he remembers Hurricane Irma. Mr. Everett said that he had lived there for around 6 years
and yes,he remembers Hurricane Irma. Mr. Chillemi also asked if he was aware of any water tables on
his property. Mr. Everett said that yes, he was aware of retained water(heavy rain). Mr. Chillemi also
asked if he was aware of any caprock on the property. Mr. Everett testifies that he asked Mr. Willey
about that and Mr. Willey said it wasn't something he was dealing with. Mr. Chillemi asked how much
he has paid to date on the project. Mr. Everett responded$17,000. Mr. Chillemi queried Mr. Everett on
what services have been proved to him to date by Mr. Willey(B & W). Mr. Everett said they provided
the clearing of the land and the application of the asphalt. Mr. Chillemi also asked if Mr. Everett has a
contract stipulating what job was worth. Mr. Everett only has the contract shown in the evidence packet
and the requested deposit amount of$5,000 for land clearing and $5,000 more for the closure as it was
spelled out in the text messages and the $7,000 check for the asphalt. Mr. Chillemi asked if Mr. Everett
had any other contractors out on the property before Mr. Willey in the last 7 years. Mr. Everett said
"no."Mr. Chillemi asked if anyone had hauled anything onto the property or dumped any debris onto
the property. Mr. Everett said"no."
Mr. Chillemi asked why Mr. Everett never signed the agreement with Mr. Willey. Mr. Everett admits
that he should have done a better job and assumed that the terms through verbal communication would
be sufficient. Mr. Chillemi asked how the terms on the contract were determined. Mr. Everett responded
that it was a mix of text messages,phone calls and in person discussions. Mr. Chillemi also asked if he
ever made a payment for the asphalt. Mr. Everett said he paid the deposit of$7,000. Mr. Chillemi,
summed by Mr. Willey said that was for the rock and not the asphalt. Mr. Everett said again that he was
under the impression that the payment involved all of that. Mr. Chillemi states that there is a lot of
assumptions being made about the terms and conditions of the contract. Mr. Everett responded by saying
that the professional providing services should be the one provided details of the work for the consumer.
Mr. Chillemi asked if Mr. Everett was demanding the stipulations of the contract. Mr. Everett stated that
he did enter in an agreement with a professional. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Everett if he and his wife play
tennis. Mr. Everett said "no" and that the tennis court's intentions was for a community endeavor.
Ms. Kerins redirects to Mr. Everett and asked him he receive an invoice for the $8,000 he paid. Mr.
Everett explains that he got a notice in the mail and an email from Mr. Willey. Ms. Kerins asked Mr.
Everett, in reference to the packet on page 250 and 260, if the invoices shown are for the work to be
performed by Mr. Willey. Mr. Everett confirms they are. Ms. Kerins also asked if there was a text
message about the $8,000 sent my Mr. Willey as shown on page 296. Mr. Everett responded"yes"Ms.
Kerins also asked if the $5,000 and $7,000 payments made were confirmed by Mr. Willey by text
message on March 4th. Mr. Everett responded"correct."
Mr. Joslin, in reference to page 255, asked Mr. Everett, since he didn't sign the contract,to clarify some
of the listed items: Item#2 indicates that it included site fees, rock excavation and permit fees; asking
who pays for the permits fees and if Mr. Everett paid for the permit fees. Mr. Everett said he wasn't
aware of that. Mr. Joslin also asked if that would be Mr. Willey's position to come ask for permit fees.
Mr. Everett said that"would be helpful" and that he would be happy to pay or reimburse Mr. Willey for
14
October 20,2021
permit fees. Mr. Joslin asked about Item #8: indicates that there is no responsibility of water problems
which transfer over to the new overlay and if that's part of the problem to why he had sink holes. Mr.
Everett disagreed. Mr. Joslin asked for clarification. Mr. Everett said he had pointed out to Mr. Willey
that there was water settling on the top after it had rained causing the worsening of the holes, collapsing
revealing trees and gaping holes. Mr. Joslin asked, in reference to page 253 about the trees piled in the
back of the yard, if those were the trees that were removed from the court or were they preexisting. Mr.
Everett said those were the trees they dug up from the asphalt and he physically saw these trees be
removed.
Mr.Noell asked for any redirect from Mr. Chillemi.
Mr. Chillemi asked the Board permission to submit new evidence. The Board and Mr.Noell discusses
procedural steps for new evidence to be submitted. The Board and the Attorneys found the evidence to
already be in the packet.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Everett if he had ever seen the document on page 256. Mr. Everett said that he
did not see it until the investigator gave it to him. Mr. White asked Mr. Everett if it was his handwriting
on the document. Mr. Everett denies that it is and that it is the investigators.
BREAK FROM 10:41 —10:52 AM
Mr. Chillemi calls Mr. Willey to the podium. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey if he is the owner of B &
W Paving Contractors of Southwest Florida. Mr. Willey confirms he is. Mr. Chillemi also asked if he
performed work at 5840 Bur Oaks Lane in Naples and who is the owner of that home. Mr. Willey
confirms he did, and that Matt Everett is the owner and that Mr. Everett relationship with him was that
he was his doctor. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey how much he has been paid for his work. Mr. Willey
responded$17,000. Mr. Chillemi also asked how much is still owed to him. Mr. Willey said $10,000.
Mr. Chillemi asked if he knows the start date of performing the work. Mr. Willey said the start was at
the end of April, but the removal was done sometime in March. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey if there
was debris at the property and what type. Mr. Willey said there was mulch, sticks, cut up wood. Mr.
Chillemi asked Mr. Willey about the picture taken by Heritage Utilities. Mr. Willey testifies that the
picture was taken some time before February. Mr. Chillemi asked how he knows. Mr. Willey testifies
that he was there with Heritage Utilities. Mr. Chillemi asked who the person is in the picture. Mr. Willey
says it is himself. Mr. Chillemi asked if that picture was taken before work was done. Mr. Willey
confirms. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey who is Mr. Arevalo (provided pictures). Mr. Willey said he is
the managing partner at Heritage Utilities. Mr. Chillemi also asked if Mr. Willey cleared any of the area
shown in the pictures. Mr. Willey denies. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey to describe the water tables
and the caprock. Mr. Willey confirms there was caprock in the backyard and he was aware of the
possibility of water draining if it is broken into and that no soil samples were taken so he did not know
where it was actually located and the only time he remembers and trees being buried was in the
southeast corner of the court and that his team did their best to just clean off the debris that was already
present,to where the tennis court was going to be built and he placed down 8 to 10 inches of base rock
and then put two layers of blacktop. Mr. Chillemi also asked if he alerted Mr. Everett about the
existence of possible caprock and water tables. Mr. Willey confirms he did and that Mr. Everett asked
him to work around the caprock. Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey if he was aware of any water pooling
15
October 20,2021
on the black top. Mr. Willey confirmed he was and that water pooling occurs because the sloping range
for constructing a tennis court is 1%for every ten feet, resulting in some water pooling. Mr. Chillemi
asked if water pooling is rare. Mr. Willey indicates that he has seen water pooling before and even on
built tennis courts for the County and indicated that he had one of the representatives from the County
from the Sports Court looked at the court and confirmed that water pooling is common. Mr. Chillemi
also asked how long he has been a contractor. Mr. Willey said since 1992. Mr. Chillemi asked if he built
Mr. Everett's tennis court the same as he did other courts. Mr. Willey confirmed he did. Mr. Chillemi
asked Mr. Willey his opinion why that sink hole in the picture was happening. Mr. Willey said that he
had no idea other than the weight of the court may have cracked cap rock, causing an eruption of water.
Mr. Chillemi asked if he agreed to install a fence. Mr. Willey denies that he did and that he did not
install one and that he gave Mr. Everett a referral to a Bob Camp to do the installation. Mr. Chillemi
asked if Mr. Everett signed a contract with Mr. Willey. Mr. Willey testifies that he did not. Mr. Chillemi
asked if Mr. Willey is aware of any other contracts Mr. Everett may have with other contractors.Mr.
Willey said he believe he does with Heritage Utilities. Mr. Chillemi asked if Heritage Utilities sent him
the pictures shown in the evidence package. Mr. Willey confirms they did. Mr. Chillemi asked for
explanation for the permits. Mr. Willey said code enforcement came up requesting them to pull a permit,
which was applied for April 13th and admitted that he abandoned it because he didn't know how long
anyone would be in there and the person at the Permitting Department advised Mr. Willey to restore the
ditch when finished with the job and they allowed Heritage Utilities to take over the right of way permit
but it was paid for by himself and that the advisement of getting a vegetation permit was well into
construction. He didn't think he needed one based on the condition of the trees and that he planned to
only clear 130 by 70-foot area, which comes in under an acre. Mr. Willey testifies that he was under the
impression that he was working within the permissible guidelines of his license. Mr. Chillemi asked how
much Mr. Everett owes him for the work. Mr. Willey testifies that he owes a little over$10,000 and that
Mr. Everett has not paid for the asphalt that was laid.
Mr. Chillemi asked the Board to submit new evidence. The Attorney and the Board discuss the
authenticity of the evidence.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey in reference the picture being submitted for evidence. if the new
evidence is an actual representation of himself at the property before the work was done for submission
approval.
Mr. White offers a motion to approve submission of Respondent's Exhibit A. Mr. Joslin seconded
motion. Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Willey if he had done any soil borings. Mr. Willey denies he did. Mr. Jerulle
asked if he did any test pits. Mr. Willey denies he did. Mr. Jerulle asked if he did any compaction test
before or after the base rock. Mr. Willey denies testing. Jerulle also asked if he did and proctor testing or
a final survey. Mr. Willey denies doing a survey.
Mr. White asked Mr. Willey, in reference to page 255, if that was his signature on that document. Mr.
Willey confirms that it is. Mr. White also asked that the one-acre limitation pertains to the entire area of
the property cleared and not only the area cleared for the tennis court. Mr. Willey denies understanding
the one-acre parameter of the clearing allowance.
Mr. Jerulle explains to the Board the specificity of the amount being cleared in total.
16
October 20,2021
Mr. Allen asked Mr. Willey if he received anything regarding a fence. Mr. Allen also asked, in reference
to page 279, if the correspondence to receive the survey was accurate and if the survey was received.
Mr. Willey testifies that he did receive one but he didn't have anything to do with the fence. Mr.Allen
asked why he didn't respond to Mr. Everett's text messages.Mr. Willey said that he gets an
overwhelming number of texts and it's hard to respond to all of them. Mr. Willey confirms to Mr. Allen
that he had nothing to do with the fence installation. Mr. Allen, in reference to page 265, asked Mr.
Willey what the $6500 is for Mr. Willey that the price was a guideline for various items that Mr. Everett
would ask about. Mr. Allen asked if Mr. Willey had a text message saying that he was not going to build
a fence. Mr. Willey denies that they were doing a fence. Mr. Allen, in reference to page 307 and 308,
asked Mr. Willey what he thinks caused the sink hole. Mr. Willey responded saying he has no idea and
that he didn't dig down and only laid base rock. Mr. Allen confirms with Mr. Willey that the water
shown must be water from the bottom to up. Mr.Allen also asked, in reference to page 255, about the
warranty clause and if Mr. Willey contends that some of these conditions were not met. Mr. Willey said
he has no idea and that they didn't do any testing because Mr. Everett was not going to pay for it. Mr.
Allen asked if he suggested testing. Mr. Willey testifies that he did but Mr. Everett didn't want to pay
for anything. Mr. Allen also asked if the damages that occur fall within the warranty on his contract. Mr.
Willey said that it does not. Mr. Allen asked to explain why it wouldn't. Mr. Willey proceeded to
explain that he supposed the caprock could break from having a dump truck drive over that area which
there were dump trucks during construction. Mr. Allen asked if there are exclusions in his warranty for
sink holes. Mr. Willey explains that Mr. Everett didn't want to test for any of the soil, so the sink hole
does not fall under the warranty provisions.
The Board discusses what caprock is and what happens when it's broken and the ethics of proper
contracting and meeting obligations.
Mr.Nolton asked Mr. Willey if he was the main contractor on the job. Mr. Willey confirms he was. Mr.
Nolton asked Mr. Willey to walk him through the process of determining the project and contractual
agreement with Mr. Everett. Mr. Willey answers various questions from Mr.Nolton about the steps that
were taken to execute the job. Mr.Nolton asked Mr. Willey if he saw the caprock and if testing was
done. Mr. Willey repeatedly stated that he never dug below 16 inches and there may have been caprock
underneath the burial site of the trees which were located farther behind to where the tennis court was
built. Mr.Nolton asked Mr. Willey for his opinion on the if its water coming from the bottom up. Mr.
Willey said that it was "possible." Mr.Nolton explains to Mr. Willey the behavior of water when
caprock is broken. Mr.Nolton and Mr. Willey discusses the how water affects the asphalt. Mr. Willey
suggested to asked Heritage Utility about the soil because they were the ones that dug up that area.
The Board discussed the behavior of water tables and changing conditions throughout the year.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Willey if he hired Heritage Utility. Mr. Willey testifies that Mr. Everett hired
them.
The Board asked Mr. Willey to clarify if he initially hired Heritage Utility. Mr. Willey admits he did.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Crofts if Mr. Willey holds a General Contractor's License. Mr. Crotts advised Mr.
Jerulle that he does not have a general contractor license. Mr. Jerulle also asked if Mr. Willey can hire
subcontractors. Mr. Crotts advised that he cannot hire subcontractors according to Ordinance 2006-46.
The Board continues to ask Mr. Willey for clarification of who dug up the trees. Mr. Willey said they
17
October 20,2021
would have to asked Heritage Utility. The Board continues to be asked various questions about the
details of the job and the requirements of constructing a proper tennis court. Mr. Willey testifies that
they scraped the area down 12 inches and then brought in base rock. Mr. Jerulle asked why and
expressed his confusion to why Mr. Willey didn't do his due diligence in making efforts to examine the
whole area for any possible problematic areas to digging, adding, or testing soil. Mr. Willey said that he
can build a tennis court if the customer has an unlimited budget.
Mr. White asked Mr. Willey if he had considered where the trees may have come from based on his
state of mind. Mr. Willey testifies that he did not.
Mr.Noell asks the County if they have any questions for cross. Ms. Kerins responded that most were
taken care of by the Board.
Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Willey if he agrees to accepting money for the work being done and a balance is
owned. Mr. Willey agrees and there is a balance owed. Mr. Kerins also asked if there were any other
contractors hired other than Heritage Utilities. Mr. Willey testifies that there were no other contractors
hired. Ms. Kerins also asked if Mr. Willey provided contract and invoices to Mr. Everett. Mr. Willey
confirms he did. Ms. Kerins confirms with Mr. Willey that there is a Warranty Agreement within the
contract and Mr. Willey confirms that is correct. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Willey if he recalls exchanging
text messages with Mr. Everett. Mr. Willey responded, "some of them."Ms. Kerins proceeded to ask if
Mr. Willey received text messages regarding concerns from Mr. Everett for trees being buried in the
area of the tennis court and not being compacted properly. Mr. Willey confirmed that he received
concerns from both Mr. Everett and his wife, and the wife wanted new trees planted and he attempted to
remove the pooling water. Mr. Kerins also asked Mr. Willey about the right of way area. Mr. Willey
reiterated again that he had accessed the property through the ditch and then pulled a permit after Code
Enforcement asked him to, and then Heritage Utility took it over. Ms. Kerins asked Mr. Willey if that
permit was abandoned and subsequently canceled. Mr. Willey denies that the permit was not abandoned
and refutes the status report in the evidence packet and that the County sent him a completed permit. Ms.
Kerins asked Mr. Willey, in reference to page 343, if he sees an active permit for the Right of Way area.
Mr. Willey testifies that he has a copy of an active permit.
Mr. White asked him for the permit number. Mr. Willey reported the number to be
PRROW2021062964201. Mr. White clarifies that number to be contrary to the document on Page 343.
Mr. Willey reads off the statement on his document giving permission to use the Right of Way. Mr.
White asked who the applicant for the permit was. Mr. Willey testified that he was. Mr. White asked for
the date of application. Mr. Willey testifies it was submitted on April 13, 2021; then mentioned it was
canceled and he was notified by the County when they(Code Enforcement) called Mr. Willey to inform
him. Mr. White and Mr. Willey discuss the accuracy of the dates on the opposing permits. The
Respondent is responsible to provide clarifying documentation to the Board if there is any confusion.
Ms. Kerins asked her final question to Mr. Willey that a permit was only pulled by B &W after being
prompted by the County. Mr. Willey confirms"yes".
Mr.Noell asks the Board if they have any additional questions for the County.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey to identify the permit application document and the signature. Mr.
18
October 20,2021
Willey testifies that it is the permit application, and it is signed by himself and to be an accurate
representation of an application on April 13, 2021.
Mr.Noell advised Mr. Chillemi to provide this permit documentation as Exhibit B.
The Board and Mr. Willey discuss how he received the copy of the permit. Mr. Willey testifies that it
was the original and he scanned it online.
Mr.Noell asked the County if they object to move the document into evidence.
Mr.Allen made motion to approve the submission. Mr. White seconded that motion. Motion carried
unanimously 7- 0.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey to describe a new document. Mr. Willey describes the document to be
the removal to the Code Case (Right of Way) removed by the County. Mr. Chillemi requests to have the
document submitted into evidence as Exhibit C.
Mr.Allen made motion to approve document to be submitted into evidence. Mr. White seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously 7- 0.
Mr. Chillemi asked Mr. Willey to describe the new document. Mr. Willey described them to be copies
of the permits to the property and confirmed that it is a public record from the GMD Public Portal. Mr.
Chillemi requests to have the document submitted into evidence as Exhibit D.
Mr.Allen made motion to submitted document in Exhibit D. Mr. White seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Lantz asked Mr. Willey if the permit that was applied for in April (rejected May 17th) was ever
issued. Mr. Willey testifies that it was. Mr. Lantz asked what date it was issued and explains that he can
view online that it was rejected(Incomplete Initial Submittal Notice—May 17, 2021). Mr. Willey
explains that it's possible that it was rejected but he has "no idea."
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Willey to summarize the new evidence. Mr. Willey followed the directive order of
Code Enforcement to get a(temporary)permit for the Right of Way,then he put base rock on the Right
of Way and was told to replace it with sod when he was finished; and then Heritage Utility transferred
the permit over to themselves and again was directed by Code Enforcement not to close out the permit.
Mr. Lantz asked Mr. Willey how often he gets Right of Way permits. Mr. Willey said, "quite often."
Mr. White asked, in reference to page 244 and 245, if Mr. Willey sees any errors. Mr. Willey refutes the
accuracy of the dates of the Right of Way and vegetation permit, and he proceeded to explain that they
combined the permits, and the temporary Right of Way permit was not abandoned. Everything else
looks fairly accurate.
Mr.Noell asks Mr. Chillemi if there is anything further or does the Respondent rest. He rests.
Mr.Nolton asked the County regarding the fence, if there was any contractual agreement executed
listing the fence as an actual work to be done. Ms. Kerins responded"no."Mr.Nolton continued to
19
October 20,2021
discuss with Ms. Kerins the legitimacy of the text message and the scope of the work as it pertains to
being a contract. Ms. Kerins clarifies that the violation of the Ordinance is not based on whether the
work was performed but rather if the work was agreed upon between the parties including
subcontracting the work out. Ms. Kerins clarifies that the only form of contract indicating the fence is
the text messages. The Board and the County continue to discuss what determines a viable contract and
how the definitions of the Ordinance define the violations.
Mr. Lantz asked for clarification of who hired Heritage Utility. Mr.Everett explains that Heritage Utility
was a referral from Mr. Willey to himself to continue work. The top coating for the tennis court was also
a referral from Mr. Willey.
Mr. Joslin asked Mr. Everett the age of the home and how long he lived there and if Mr. Everett where
the dirt came from making his home elevation so high and what was buried there after the trees were
removed. Mr. Everett said it was built in 1986, he lived there for about six(6)years and the elevation of
dirt was untouched other than the guest house developed sinkage due to the debris being buried
underneath and the work site had never been touched previously.Nothing had ever been cleared. The
trees were to be buried in the back area of the property.
Ms. Kerins stated in the County's Closing Statement the allegations against Mr. Willey as follows:
Count 1 —Using the Right of Way before the Permit was pulled.
Count 2—The contracting of the fence going by the definition provided in the Ordinance of the offering
of the fence constituted by the dimension and charges discussed between the parties, constitutes an offer
of contracting.
Count 3—The workmanship issues with the collapsing of the asphalt and the quality of work that was
purchased and the contract's workmanship guarantee.
Mr. Chillemi stated in his Closing Statement that the agreement between the two parties were not of a
traditional sense. Mr. Chillemi states his reasons to why the evidence and testimonies do not prove to
provide substantial evidence to validate the violations of Mr. Willey's license. Mr. Chillemi stated that
the text message chain is not a valid form of contract due to their nature of personal content discussed,
as well as the contract proved omitting the signature of the buyer. Mr. Chillemi also stated that Mr.
Willey was merely suggesting prices and referrals to Mr. Everett over the text messages and does not
stand as grounds for a contractual agreement. Mr. Chillemi stated reasons of the invalidity of the
allegations as follows:
• There was no hard evidence about the fence being built or being contracted by Mr. Willey.
• The issue with the debris below the tennis court did not rise to the level of substantial evidence to
prove that the collapse was Mr. Willey's or B & W Paving's fault.
• The confusion with the dates of the permits and the dates were not ascertained.
• The vegetation clearing lacks significance and done within the ordinance properly within the
confines of Mr. Willey's license.
20
October 20,2021
Mr. White motioned to close the public hearing. Mr.Allen seconded motion.
Motion carried unanimously 7- 0.
Mr.Noell advises the Board the decision of the hearing must be based on competent substantial
evidence (clear and convincing).
The Board discusses the validity of the evidence and how it pertains to the allegations against Mr.
Willey.
Mr.Allen requested the Board to provide a decision on each count separately.
Mr.Allen offered a motion on Mr. Willey being found guilty on Count 1. Mr. White seconded the
motion. Motion carried in favor 4—3 (Mr. Lantz,Mr. Jerulle and Mr. Noland opposed).
Mr.Allen offers motion to find guilt on Count 2. Mr. White seconded the motion. Motion carried in
favor 6—1 (Mr. Joslin opposed).
Mr.Allen offers motion to find guilt on Count 3. Mr. White seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously 7—0.
Mr.Noell advised the Board to consult the Packet Page 242 shows range of sanctions to determine the
penalties of the violations. Fine not to exceed$10,000 per Violation (as confirmed by Mr.Noell)
Mr. Lantz asked Mr. Crofts if the County has any recommendations.
Mr. Crofts suggested that on Count 1 that a fine of$1000 be paid in 90 days and if not paid within 90
days,then the license would automatically be revoked, and Mr. Willey would be put on a 12-month
probation period under administrative discretion.
Mr. Crotts suggested that on Count 2 that a fine of$1000 be paid in 90 days and if not paid within 90
days,then the license would automatically be revoked, and Mr. Willey would be put on a 12-month
probation period(run concurrently with Count 1) and restitution for the homeowner would be left up to
the discretion of the Board; and
Mr. Crofts suggested that on Count 3 that a fine of$1000 be paid in 90 days and if not paid within 90
days, then the license would automatically be revoked, and Mr. Willey would be put on a 12-month
probation period (run concurrently with Count 1)
The Board discusses penalty fees. Mr.Allen suggested that a motion be taken on each count individually
for the penalty and restitution. The Board discusses restitution.
Mr. Crotts advises the Board that he had received an estimate from the homeowner,that was received
from Heritage Utility indicating the amount needed for Heritage Utility to finish their scope of work of
the tennis court in the amount of$5,934.48,which covers labor and items needed, excluding asphalt.
The Board continued to discuss the restitution.
21
October 20,2021
Mr.Allen made motion for Count 2 with a restitution amount of$4,000 to be paid within 90 days to
the homeowner and if not paid within the 90 days, Respondent(Mr. Willey would have to appear
before the Board to make a further determination) will have to return to the Board; $1000 fine to be
paid in 90 days or else license will automatically be revoked and license placed on a 12-month
probationary period(concurrent with Count 1 & Count 3). Mr. White seconded the motion.
Motion carried in favor 6—1 (Mr. Lantz opposed).
Mr.Allen made motion to amend Count 1 to dismiss the fine of$1000. License to be placed on 12-
month probation standard(for compliance and to run concurrent with Count 2& Count 3)) and not
include a fine.
The Board discussed the amendment.
Mr. Lantz seconded the amended motion. Motion carried in favor 6—1 (Mr. White opposed).
Mr. White made motion for Count 3 to impose $1000 fine to be paid in 90 days or else license will
automatically be revoked and license placed on a 12-month probation (concurrent with Count 1 &
Count 2). Mr. Jerulle seconded motion. Motion carried in favor 7- 0.
Mr.Nolton proceeded to read the Final Order of the Board's Findings and Conclusions.
BREAK FROM 12:51 PM TO 1:01 PM
C. 2021-11 -R. D.DAVIS dba DAVIS BROTHERS ASPHALT SEALCOATING LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY
Mr.Nolton called Mr. Davis up to the podium. [All Witnesses were sworn in].
Michael Governale, Collier County Contracting Licensing Investigator, opened the hearing stating that
he was given a Hearing Preamble packet and read and signed by the defendant and made request of the
Board to allow submittal the packet into evidence.
Mr. White made motion to approve submission. Mr.Allen seconded the motion.
Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
Mr. Governale stated that the County received a complaint from Charles Willey regarding an re-asphalt
overlay of a driveway and right of way at 980 Diana Avenue in the City of Naples. The respondent, R.D.
Davis, a Sealing and Striping Contractor with Issuance#18998 (Qualifier and Owner), Mr. Davis
received a contract for a re-asphalt overlay of a driveway and right way with the property owner. Mr.
Davis subcontracted the job to a Collier County License Paving Contractor and made payment to them.
Mr. Governale stated that Mr. Davis is in violation of Collier County Code Section 22-201.2, which
states that it is misconduct by a holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency to do any work
outside the scope of his/her competency.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Governale who made the complaint. Mr. Governale stated Charles Willey.
Mr. White clarified that Charles Willey is the respondent from the prior case.
22
October 20,2021
Mr. Davis opened his Statement by stating that he had been a personal friend of the property owner who
asked him to come over to his house and dig up some potholes and then asked if he could provide a
referral to do an overlay on the asphalt. Mr. Davis said he did offer the name of a contractor and they
will come out and give you quote. Mr. Davis said that the homeowner asked if he (Davis)would just
pass it onto the contractor of the job. Mr. Davis indicated that he had a long history of friendship with
the asphalt contractor and had done work with him many times before. Mr. Davis admits that he wasn't
aware of committing the violation and testifies that he is guilty of the violation.
Mr.Nolton interjected Mr. Davis and asked if he is claiming guilt to the violation.
Mr. Davis said "yes, I guess I am guilty."
Mr. White made motion to open the Public Hearing and a finding of violation as guilty. Mr.Allen
seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7- 0.
Mr.Noell advised the Board that the range of sanctions in the packet on page 360 and charges will lie on
the same factors to consider from the hearing prior.
Mr. Crofts offered the recommendations for Mr. Davis indicated that Mr. Davis has been a Licensed
Contractor for some time and had no prior violations of this manner, based on that information The
County is asking for$1000 fine to be paid within 90 days, if not paid within 90 days,the license will be
automatically revoked and license will be placed on a 12-month probation period. If all guidelines are
adhered to,the probation status would be removed by Staff.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Crofts is this is one of the licenses to be dissolved at the turn of 2023. Mr. Crofts
confirmed that it will.
Mr.Nolton asked Mr. Crotts if the Board can amend the fine amount to a lesser value. Mr. Crofts
confirms that is allowed.
Mr. White made motion that the disciplinary action here for the finding of admitted guilt be a public
reprimand only. Mr.Allen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7—0.
Mr. White motioned to close the public hearing. Mr.Allen seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously 7- 0.
Mr.Nolton proceeded to read the Board's Findings and Conclusions.
D. 2021-12 -NELICA KREKIC DBA NELLA K LLC
Respondent was called to the podium. [All Witnesses were sworn in].
Mr.Allen made motion to open Public Hearing. Mr. Joslin seconded
Motion carried unanimously 7- 0.
Michael Bogert, Collier County License Investigator, opened the hearing stating that he was given a
Hearing Preamble packet which was read and signed by the defendant and requested to be allowed by
the Board to submit the packet into evidence.
23
October 20,2021
Mr. White motioned the approval for the submission. Mr.Allen offered second. Motion carried
unanimously 7- 0.
Mr. Bogert started his Opening Statement saying that Nelica Krekic, a Collier County License Paving
Block Contractor License, Issuance#LCC20170000259, is the qualifier for and owner of Nella K, LLC.
Ms. Krekic had contracted and received payment for the performed work that included installing paving
blocks in a right of way and installation of a pergola at 1320 Woodridge Avenue. Ms. Krekic's license
does not allow for the contracting or construction of a pergola that was performed under the scope of
services under the contract. Ms. Krekic is in violation of County Code Ordinance Section 22-201.2;
which is in violation for any contractor to perform work outside of her competency card. Upon review of
County Permitting Records, it was found that no Right of Way permit was issued for working on the
driveway and a permit was required by County Code Chapter 110.31, additionally a building permit was
not pulled for the installation of the pergola which was required by Florida Building Code 7th Edition -
2020 Chapter 1 on Section 105.1,Mr. Krekic was found in violation of County Code 22-201.18 stating
that it is misconduct to commence any work without obtaining applicable permits or inspections. Mr.
Bogert concluded October 20, 2020,the Collier County Contracting Licensing Board held a formal
disciplinary hearing in which place Nelica Krekic's license on a 24-month probationary period for
working outside the work of her license and commencing work without an issued permit.
Susan Ray,Attorney for Nella K, opened her Statement by saying the situation started with a phone call
from Mr. Bogert and there had been so much confusing regarding the licensing and that there is no
evidence for a willful violation, Ms. Ray proceeded to say the Mrs. Krekic has taken steps to comply
stating that Mr. Bogert showed up at the property and talked to Mr. Krekic expressing he wasn't sure if a
permit was needed for a pergola. Mr. Krekic was under the impression that the removal of old pavers
and replacement with new pavers did not require a permit. She further stated that the work is now
finalized and in ADA compliance. Ms.Ray stated that the first inspector told Mr. Krekic that he didn't
need a permit based on that it was repair work; then a second inspector came out and told them they did
because of the right of way of the sidewalk; and then they were unsure if the pergola required a permit.
Ms. Krekic pulled a permit for the right of way and when pursing a permit for a pergola,they were told
by the Permit Technician that they didn't need a permit. Ms. Ray concluded that there has been ongoing
confusion of whether the pergola is a structure or piece of furniture and if it does require a permit. Based
on that, her clients have shown willfulness to rectify the permitting issue throughout the entire work
project and based on willfulness her clients are not in violation of the County's complaints.
Mr. Allen asked Mr. Bogert for clarification on the terms of the complaint. Mr. Bogert responded that it
is for not pulling the permit for the right of way prior to the work being performed and the licensing and
pulling of a permit for the pergola.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Bogert, about the picture shown, if the sidewalk went through the driveway before
the work was done. Mr. Bogert answered"no."
Mr. Bogert presented his case by stating on June 24, 2021 Collier County Licensing Department
received a complaint from Collier County Field Inspector Mark Lindsay regarding installation of pavers
without a permit at 1320 Woodridge Avenue. In addition,there was an email about the discussion,
(shown as evidence) stating the correspondence from Mr. Lindsay to himself indicating that he received
a phone call from a utility worker for the City of Naples named Dave Banter who informed Mr. Lindsay
24
October 20,2021
of the paving work being done. Mr. Lindsay asked if a permit was issued and Mr.Banter said he didn't
need one. Mr. Banter also took pictures on June 24th and reported that after talking to the contractor,the
contractor wasn't aware that he needed one, as he has worked in other counties that never required it.
Mr. Lindsay told the contractor to stop and get a right of way permit for the pavers and the new
construction around the pool and around the fence. Mr. Bogert reports that the respondent did apply for
a permit the day following on June 25th. After, Mr. Bogert visited the property back on July 1st and at
that time, the work was already completed. The permit did not get issued until August 31, 2021. Upon
further investigation,Nella K contracted on June 1, 2021 with Newman Hospitality, an agent for the
property owner,Delta Centauri 5 LLC; entered into an agreement to build the pergola and install pavers.
They contracted for the amount$42,750: the initial payment of$21,375 was made by wire transfer on
June 4, 2021, the second payment of$10,000 was made by wire transfer on June 22, 2021, and the final
payment of$11,375 was made by wire transfer to make payment in full. Mr. Bogert proceeded to
explain that on July 1,2021 (picture shown as evidence), that the pavers and pergola were already
installed. On that day there no issued permits pulled. A subsequent permit was applied for on June 25th,
but not issued. On September 24, 2021, a meeting was schedule with the respondent and her husband
(only the husband attended) at the property and did confirm the contract and the contract amount he also
confirmed he and his workers did the work. Jonathan Walsh, Chief Building Official reviewed the
pictures on September 29th, 2021, and reaffirmed that a permit was required for the pergola and Senior
Engineer David Crane reaffirmed a permit was required as well. Mr. Bogert showed the Board a copy of
the contract and reiterated that the construction of a pergola cannot be done under a Paving Block
Contractor License, but rather a Carpenter,Residential Contractor, Building Contractor or General
Contractor License.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Bogert if there was an inspection. Mr. Bogert said there was one initial inspection,
and the right of way permit is still open. Mr. Jerulle then asked if a permit was pulled for the pergola.
Mr. Bogert responded "no" and because the respondent did not have the proper license, she could not
pull the permit.
Mr. Bogert added that the charges do not have to be willful.
Mr. White asked if the determination from the building official had to do with how the pergola was
attached to the ground. Mr. Bogert said it did not.
Ms. Ray asked Mr. Bogert, in regard to the pergola, if these structures can be purchased at a home
improvement store. Mr. Bogert confirmed they can be. Ms. Ray also asked if they are constructed on
site. Mr. Bogert confirms they can be. Ms. Ray queried Mr. Bogert on what basis is he determining that
the pergola needs a permit. Mr. Bogert answered by revisiting his statement regarding Collier County
Chief Building Official Jonathan Walsh's determination and the Florida Building Code- Sections 101.2
and 105.1. Ms. Ray asked if the contract that he showed the Board, if it indicated the removal of all
pavers. Mr. Bogert confirmed it did. Ms. Ray queried Mr. Bogert on the pavers around the pool being
new construction. Mr. Bogert said that is ancillary to the pavers being installed.
Mr. Lantz asked Mr. Bogert that no permits were required for work at the pool. Mr. Bogert said, "that is
correct."
The Board briefly discussed permits.
25
October 20,2021
Ms. Ray called Mr. Krekic to the podium.
Mr. Krekic opened his Statement by saying he is owner of Nella K along with his wife. He testified to
the Board that he learned in school that when you replace"like for like"you do not need a permit and
when he was approached about needing a permit, he called right of way and the person he talked to
asked if he was digging and Mr. Krekic said he was not, and the person said he didn't need a permit
because he wasn't digging. He told the first inspector(Utility) he didn't think he needed a permit and
that inspector requested he secure the work site with a barricade, which Mr. Krekic complied to. He also
stated that the second inspector was rude and unprofessional during his inspection who said that he
needed a permit. Mr. Krekic willingly sent Mr. Bogert the contract and bank statements verifying
payment, and then he pulled the permit for the right of way. During Mr. Bogert's investigation he told
Mr. Krekic that he didn't know if the pergola needed a permit. Mr. Krekic testified to the Board that his
client received a letter from Mr. Bogert accusing him of being the "biggest criminal". Mr. Krekic also
told the Board that his client is the happiest client and is very happy with the work. He was then asked
by Mr. Bogert to find someone who can pull a permit for him that held the proper license. He called Sun
Coast Builders, Inc. and asked if he can pull a permit for the pergola, and he was told by the Permitting
Technician that if it's self-standing and not attached with no roof,that it doesn't not require permit. Mr.
Krekic expressed that he is fully willing to acquire a permit, but he keeps getting different answers from
different people and he tried to pull one.
Ms. Ray asked Mr. Krekic to explain what he was contracted to perform and if there was any new
construction. Mr. Krekic testifies that he was only replacing the pavers. Mr. Krekic also explained that
he never needed a permit for replacing pavers in any other county. Ms. Ray also asked if there was a
sidewalk under the pavers. Mr. Krekic denies there was a sidewalk. Ms. Ray asked how many
inspections are needed on a job. Mr. Krekic stated, "he thinks two." Mr.Bogert interjected to clarify that
three inspections are needed. Ms. Ray asked if he was present during the inspection. Mr. Krekic said he
was not, but it went well and passed. Ms. Ray also asked how many pergolas he installed. Mr. Krekic
said around 30 and this what the first time he had installed a pergola in Collier County and ever needed a
permit and he is still trying to get a permit. Mr. Krekic verified that it was Jimmy Pek that tried to pull
the permit for him. Ms. Ray asked if the pergola touches the building or have a roof. Mr. Krekic said it
did not and it did not have a roof.
Mr. Bogert asked Mr. Krekic if he entered into an agreement with Newman Hospitality to install the
pergola and pavers. Mr. Krekic confirmed he did. Mr. Bogert also asked if a permit was applied for prior
to starting the work. Mr. Krekic said"no."
Mr. White asked Mr. Krekic what installation process (supports)was used to secure the pergola. Mr.
Krekic stated 2x2 holes were made, added the columns and then added concrete.
Mr.Nolton asked if Mr. Krekic added a protectant around the wood. Mr.Krekic purchased additional
wood and replaced the original columns with bigger ones.
The Board discusses the determination factors of a structure that needs a permit.
Mr. Lantz asked the respondent to clarify their probation status. Mrs. Krekic responded but stating it was
not their intention to not comply. She stated that on September 29th,they got a notice from the County
26
October 20,2021
that they needed a permit for the pergola. She proceeded to say she tried many times to get a permit and
she expressed her deep frustration for all the confusion.
Ms. Ray asked Mrs. Krekic what her requirements under her probation status are. Mrs. Krekic replied
she has to pay $380 a month to Gulf Condo Association in restitution.
Mr. White asked if she was told that the pergola was considered an "accessory structure"because of his
knowledge of zoning rules indicate that a structure must have a 10-foot separation of the building
(residential building).
The Board discussed again the determining factors of what makes a structure warrant a permit.
The Board reviewed an email document provided by Mrs. Krekic (placed on Visualizer).
Mr. White asked Mr. and Mrs. Krekic if they had an email from a Permit Technician. Mr. Krekic said
they do not.
Mr. Bogert presented his closing argument by saying the respondent, a paving block contractor, entered
into a contract outside their license competency and failed to pull a permit prior to the start of
construction.
Ms. Ray closed by stating that her clients had nothing but good intentions and were misled with ongoing
confusion and maintained their willingness to comply and still willing to rectify pulling the permit for
the pergola.
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Bogert when the right of way permit was issued. Mr. Bogert said it was issued
August 31, 2021 and it is still open with two inspections remaining (includes the courtesy and final
inspection).
Mr. Jerulle asked Mr. Krekic why he would appear before the Board without finalizing the right of way
permit.
Mr. White added the importance of being due diligent about conducting his permit activity according
and thoroughly by getting communications in writing and taking care of closing out permits before
going before the Board.
Mr. Krekic reiterated that he did his best to get a permit by involving a friend to help him out.
Mr.Nolton asked the Board to close the public hearing. Mr.Allen made motion to close the hearing
Mr. Jerulle seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously 7- 0.
Mr.Noell advises the Board the decision of the hearing must be based on competent substantial
evidence (clear and convincing).
The Board discusses the charges on the two counts.
27
October 20, 2021
Mr. Lantz called Motion as guilty to Count 1 and Count 2. Mr. Joslin seconded the motion. Motion
carried unanimously 7- 0.
Mr. Crotts provided Staff's recommendation as based upon the respondent appearance before the Board
back on October 20, 2020 and being found guilty to two counts of working outside the scope of the work
and performing work without a permit, in addition to paying a fine and restitution and now having to
appear before the Board once again for two additional violations. Mr. Crotts concluded based upon prior
acts and what happened today, the County recommended the respondent's license to be revoked(at the
discretion of the Board).
The Board discussed the County's recommendations.
Mr. Crotts advised the Board that the respondent has not paid the fine from the previous charges set
forth during last year's hearing.
The Board continued to discuss the County's recommendations.
disciplinary actions
Mr. Nolton read the follows:
Count 1: A fine of be paid within 90 days or the license will be revoked, an additional 24
months of probation is a ded to the existing probation and a notification must be provided to Mr.
Crotts, the County Contractors Licensing Supervisor, 48 hours prior to starting a project.
Count 2: A fine of$2000 must be paid within 90 days or the license will be revoked and must
obtain and finalize the permit for the pergola or modify the pergola so it doesn't require a permit
within 60 days and final the right of way permit within 60 days or license will be revoked.
Mr. White made motion the approve the charges. Mr. Allen seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously 7— 0.
Mr. Nolton proceeded to read the Board's Findings and Conclusions.
11. NEXT MEETING DATE: December 15, 2021
Commissioner's Chambers,3rd Floor-Administrative Building
Government Center,3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
28
October 20,2021
Mr. Jerulle made motion to adjourn. Mr. Joslin seconded the motion. Motion curried unanimously 7- 0.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' BOARD
MATTHEW NOLTON,Board Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing Board on
Q oar.Sp1a,r k,6 ,2021, "as submitted" [ 1 or"as amended" 1 V 1.
29