Loading...
CLB Minutes 07/20/2022July 20, 2022 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING July 20, 2022 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building F, 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chair: Kyle Lantz Vice Chairman: Terry Jerulle Matthew Nolton Richard E. Joslin Patrick G. White (excused) Todd Allen (excused) Robert Meister III Elle Hunt Stephen Jaron ALSO PRESENT: Kevin Noell, Esq., Contractor Licensing Board Attorney Timothy Crotts, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Colleen Kerins, Assistant Collier County Attorney Michael Govemale, Collier County Licensing Investigator Michael Bogert, Collier County Licensing Investigator 1 July 20, 2022 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: Chairman Lantz opened the meeting at 9:02 a.m. Roll call was taken; seven members were present in the BCC Chambers at roll call. Supervisor Crotts said Board Members White and Allen provided notice that they could not attend due to prior commitments. They asked that their absences be approved. Chairman Lantz approved the absences. 2. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Mr. Crotts said that Agenda item 8.B was postponed until August 17. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Board Member Joslin moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chairman Jerulle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. Approval of Minutes for June 15, 2022 Board Member Joslin moved to approve the June 15, 2022, meeting minutes. Vice Chairman Jerulle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 6. DISCUSSION: None 7. REPORTS: None 8. NEW BUSINESS: A. ORDERS OF THE BOARD Board Member Joslin made a motion to have the Chairman sign the Orders of the Board. Vice Chairman Jerulle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The Orders of the Board were approved. B. Dale P. Dear — Dear Home Services Inc. — Building Contractor — Review of Experience July 20, 2022 Postponed to August 17 C. William R. Taylor — Nula Home Remodeling LLC — Building Contractor — Review of Experience Chairman Lantz called Mr. Taylor to the podium and he was sworn in. Supervisor Crotts reported that Mr. Taylor is appearing before the Contractor Licensing Board today after submitting a firm application for the trade of Building Contractor, which requires 48 months of experience. He was issued a Collier County Certificate of Competency for Carpentry in April 2022. As part of the staff -review process, Mr. Taylor submitted one Verification of Experience from Roebbelen Contracting Inc., which is licensed out of California. A letter received from Roebbelen Contracting Inc. shows that Mr. Taylor's experience was as an apprentice and journeyman carpenter from 2015 to 2020. Staff has reviewed the definition of a General Contractor in California. It is staffs opinion that Mr. Taylor may not meet the experience required under Ordinance 2006-46, Section 1.6.1.2, as it relates to the trade of a Building Contractor. Mr. Taylor is being referred to the Board under Section 2.5.2, Referral of the Applicant to the Contractors' Licensing Board for a Decision. Mr. Taylor is here today to answer your questions regarding his experience. Chairman Lantz told Mr. Taylor that a Building Contractor can build up to four stories, residential and commercial. Can you explain your experience, different trades that you've worked in, and residential and commercial work? Mr. Taylor testified that when he worked for Roebbelen Contracting as an apprentice through his journeyman years, we brought buildings out of the ground. It was just a pad. We laid out the footings, put the footings in, performed the wood structural framing. From there, we would manage the subcontractors and trade partners through the building process, including painters and roofers. We were managing the scope of work per the plan. During his time with them, he got to see the whole building process and familiarized himself with what's on the plans, scheduling, putting it together and making it happen. Vice Chairman Jerulle said we're not the County. We're a Board that's donating our time to help the County. The County's rules and Ordinances say you do not have the experience. Can you go into more detail to convince me that you do have the experience? Anybody can sit on the sidewalk and watch a building go up and say, "I've seen a building go up." It doesn't mean that they have the experience in managing and supervising and actually doing some of the work. During extensive questioning, Mr. Taylor explained his experience: • Building a seven -building school and laying the footings as the lead carpenter • Pouring the slab • Supervising other trades/subs • Reading plans • Ensuring buildings adhered to plans July 20, 2022 • Differences between contracting in Florida and California • That footings in California were typically 2 to 3 feet deep. • A typical spread footing in California would be 8 by 11 to get as much coverage as possible, so when the earth starts shaking and the building starts rattling, there's a solid footprint in the ground • Florida footings need a lot of uplift due to wind, but he didn't know how to design that • Differences in foundations in both states • There's a lot of block construction in Florida, while California is all steel -beam metal framing or wood frame • (He has no experience in augur cast piles or helical piling) • Laying out steel • He worked for himself as Oak Lane Construction, a general contractor • Past experience with interior design and decors • Structural slabs • Impact windows and doors, securing and waterproofing • Additions and remodeling with a Golden Gate business • Engineering, building and inspecting decks • His California license covered high rises, but he has no intention of doing that here • His experience includes multi -story buildings Chairman Lantz said he was satisfied. Anyone else? Board Member Jaron noted that he was a GC in California and asked why he moved here. Mr. Taylor said he had three young kids and didn't want to raise them in California. Vice Chairman Jerulle noted he just obtained a carpentry license. What do you want to do? Mr. Taylor said he wants to do residential and pull permits. As a Licensed Carpenter here, he's been performing mostly subcontractor work for builders, rough carpentry, finish carpentry and he wants to do the business side of things and move into dealing with homeowners directly, doing home renovations, kitchens and bathrooms. The Registered Building Contractor Certificate would allow him to pull permits and use subcontractors to perform the work. Vice Chairman Jerulle said if he were to say he'd vote to approve the license, but limit it to remodeling, would he be OK? Mr. Taylor said yes. Chairman Lantz questioned why he'd limit the license. Vice Chairman Jerulle said in his mind, Mr. Taylor is still a no, but very close to a yes. It would limit exposure to Collier County residents. Chairman Lantz noted that Florida and California have the nation's toughest GC laws. Board Member Nolton said California is tougher. It's a very regulated state. It sounds like he has plenty of experience to build homes. Rather than limit it to remodeling, he would limit it to single- family homes. During further questioning, Mr. Taylor: • said he wants to remodel kitchens and bathrooms. • described post -tension slabs N July 20, 2022 • described firewall requirements Board members debated: • whether to add probation, restrict the license to remodeling, and how that would not include condos over three stories. • He could remodel condos as long as it was not structural. • They noted he could work for a BC or GC and get more experience for a Residential License. The Board further questioned him on firewall ratings, penetration of firewalls and Mr. Taylor also said he'd hire a fire -specific expert. Vice Chairman Jerulle said he would be OK giving him a Residential License and having him go through the State for the other license. You're very close. He wouldn't mind giving him a Builders License and restricting it to remodeling. If the Board gives you a license, you can work anywhere in the state. The Board discussed whether he should pull his application and taking a different route. Mr. Crotts advised that the cleanest way to do it is to withdraw the application, reapply and go through the County licensing office. Mr. Taylor would have to formally request to withdraw, then apply to the County again. Vice Chairman Jerulle noted that he could do one-, two- and three-family homes and then apply through the State. Board Member Joslin told him it would get his feet wet. Board Member Nolton asked if that sounded fair. Mr. Taylor said it did. Board Member Nolton said he'd be free to also apply to the State. Chairman Lantz told him he'd have to take a different test. Mr. Taylor asked if he had the license for a certain amount of time, would it waive the license? Chairman Lantz said he'd still have to have a State Residential License, not a County Residential License, and you still have to take that test but it would waive the experience. Mr. Taylor said that sounded like a good idea. He then withdrew his application. D. Hayden Hanscom — High Standards Pressure Cleaning LLC — Roof Coat/Roof Paint/ Roof Cleaning Contractor — Review of Experience Chairman Lantz called Mr. Hanscom to the podium and he was sworn in. Supervisor Crotts reported that Mr. Hanscom has submitted an application for the issuance a Roof Coat, Roof Paint and Roof Cleaning Contractor License, which requires 24 months of experience. As part of the staff -review process, Mr. Hanscom submitted one Verification of Experience for Paradise Pressure Cleaning, which is an unlicensed pressure -cleaning company. Mr. Hanscom worked from January 2020 to November 2021, 22 months. However, the experience with this company was done for a company that does not hold a license for this trade. July 20, 2022 Based upon the information received from Mr. Hanscom, it is staffs opinion that Mr. Hanscom does not meet the experience required under Ordinance 2006-46, Section 1.6.3.35, as it relates to the trade of Roof Coating, Roof Painting and Roof Cleaning. Mr. Hanscom is being referred to the Board under Section 2.5.2, Referral of the Applicant to the Contractors' Licensing Board for a Decision. Mr. Hanscom is here today to answer your questions regarding his experience. Chairman Lantz asked Mr. Crotts to give him a quick summary of the license. Mr. Crotts said the license basically allows him to pressure wash, seal a roof and paint. Chairman Lantz asked if the company he worked for could pressure wash, but not on a roof? Mr. Crotts said that was correct. A handyman can pressure wash. This was an unlicensed company. Speaking with the company owner, he said they were actually pressure -washing roofs, also as an unlicensed company. Board Member Hunt said we appreciate you going the route of getting licensed. Mr. Hanscom said he just wants to do it right. Vice Chairman Jerulle asked Mr. Crotts if this license is going away next year. Mr. Crotts said it would go away on July 1, 2023. Chairman Lantz asked him to provide background on his experience. Mr. Taylor said he was hired by the pressure -washing company and started in January 2020 and then COVID hit. We were doing a lot of pressure washing during COVID and he probably cleaned well over 50 roofs, from physically being up there with the surface scrubber cleaning the roofs for eight to 10 hours. Toward the end, he started to try to find a good eco-friendly soft wash and started to use that so he wouldn't have to be up on the roof for the entire day. He did not know the company was unlicensed. They advertised as licensed and insured. Mr. Crotts told him the company was unlicensed. Everything else on his application was good except for the experience. He has experience and has photos of himself harnessed up on roofs and cleaning roofs. He has multiple photos of before -and - after work on roofs. He also heard that this licenses is for sealing, not just roofs, but sealing patios, pavers and driveways. He did many, many, many sealing jobs — sealing patios, pavers and concrete. As far as roofs, he was the one the company called and the only employee who did roofs. He's not sure why they only called him, but he was good at it. He didn't like the way he was being treated or how he was paid, so he decided to leave and start his own company. During questioning by Board members, Mr. Hanscom detailed: • Safety procedures he uses on a roof, a harness and tying the scrubber to an anchor • That he didn't know how to seal a roof, but sealed a lot of pavers (this license does not allow him to seal a patio) • How to mix a 50-50 water -based sealant and use a pump spray to seal, although mold in Florida usually returns in a year • That he didn't believe using a drone to wash works well Cel July 20, 2022 Vice Chairman Jerulle asked for Mr. Crott's recommendation. Mr. Crotts said staff recommends that Mr. Hanscom be issued a license restricted to roof cleaning and roof sealing only. They have seen no evidence of any experience with roof painting. This license will be issued with no restriction. However, should Mr. Hanscom get the experience for roof painting, he would be able to come back in front of the Board under Ordinance 2006-46, Section 110, for a Restricted Certificate of Competency. He would present proof that he has experience in roof painting. Chairman Lantz noted that he wouldn't be able to seal pavers. Attorney Kerins said he'd have to wait until July 1, 2023. Mr. Hanscom said he had no intention of painting or sealing at the moment, just cleaning. Vice Chairman Jerulle made a motion to approve the Roof Coat/Roof Paint/Roof Cleaning Contractor license application for Mr. Hanscom. Board Member Nolton seconded it. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. E. Robert Rough — The Hardscape Guys Inc. — Paving Block Contractor — Review of Credit Chairman Lantz called Mr. Rough to the podium and he was sworn in. Supervisor Crotts reported that Mr. Rough submitted an application for Paving Block Contractor, which requires 24 months of experience. As part of the application process, a credit score of 660 is required. Mr. Rough's credit -score review did not appear to meet the financial responsibility as set forth in Section 2.5.1, Subsection D: The applicant or qualifier meets the requirement of financial responsibility as set forth in Rule 61 G4-15.006 from the state of Florida. A review of Mr. Rough's credit showed the following areas of concern: The credit score was at 570; the minimum required by Rule 57 is 660. Other areas of concern that were noted on his credit report were insufficient payment activity over the last year and not enough available credit credit on revolving accounts. In reviewing his credit score, there were two charge -offs shown that totaled $972. Mr. Rough has submitted documents as part of his credit report that show the two charge -offs were paid in full. During an in person interview with Mr. Rough, he told me he understands the need for credit in running his business and is currently working with a financial institution to build his credit. Because Mr Rough does not meet the minimum required for a credit score under the Ordinance, Mr. Rough is being referred to the Board under Section 2.5.2, Referral of the Applicant to the Contractors' Licensing Board for a Decision. Mr. Rough is here today to answer your questions regarding his experience and his credit. Chairman Lantz noted that it was more of a no -credit issue than bad credit. Mr. Crotts added that there also were charge -offs. Mr. Rough said one was due to a utility bill. He doesn't use credit a lot. He moved and forgot to notify the utility company. He wasn't aware there was a problem until he applied for this license, so he took care of it right away. That took his credit down to "unscore-able." To remedy that, he's taking out a secure loan through his bank and will have it automatically withdrawn and maybe VA July 20, 2022 he'll buy a motorcycle. But he hasn't used credit in a long time. Chairman Lantz asked if he pays things on time. Mr. Rough said he pays on time. Board Member Nolton noted that they'd dealt with this before by adding probation. He can prove it and then he doesn't have to come back before the Board. We don't penalize somebody for not having a bunch of debt. He said he'd approve it with 90 days or six months of probation, which gives him time to get his credit score up and remove those issues. Then he doesn't have to come before the Board. Mr. Crotts recommended a 12-month probationary period and at the end of six months, Mr. Rough will submit a new credit report showing that there have been no more detrimental issues and his credit is rising. At the end of 12 months, he can submit another credit report to show he has reached the minimum of 660. If that's done, then the probationary period would automatically be removed, with no further action required. If not, then he'd be required to appear before the Board. Board Member Nolton amended his motion. Mr. Rough said he understood. He's done this since 1989 and is a manager at Timo Brothers. He'd rather have his Collier County license. Board Member Hunt told him he'd only be under probation for a year and then could prove his credit score had improved after six months and again after 12 months. Mr. Rough said it shouldn't take him that long. Board Member Nolton made a motion to approve the Paving Block Contractor License, with a 12-month probationary period; require Mr. Rough to submit a new Credit Report after six months to show no detrimental issues; after 12 months, he must submit another credit report to show his credit score reached 660 and then probation will automatically be lifted. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. F. Fugang "Frank" Zhou — Collier Sign Installation LLC — Second Entity Application Chairman Lantz called Mr. Zhou to the podium and he was sworn in. Supervisor Crotts reported that Mr. Zhou submitted a second -entity application under Ordinance 2006-46, Section 2.1.3, asking to qualify a second firm that's practicing the same trade. Approval of the contractor Licensing Board is required. This trade is Electrical Sign Contractor. Mr. Zhou currently holds two Contractor Licensing Certificates in Collier County. One is a Non - Electrical Sign Contractor, which he obtained in 2011. However, as of March 202Z this license has been inactive due to expired general liability insurance. He also holds a Certificate of Competency for Electrical Sign Contractor, which was issued by the Contractor Licensing Board on March 16, 2022, and this license is active. There have been no permitting issues for either license. Mr. Zhou is here to present to you and answer any questions about the Second -Entity Application. July 20, 2022 Vice Chair Jerulle said you were here in front of us before Mr. Zhou, so as soon as you renew your insurance, you'll have two licenses and you're asking for a third. Mr. Zhou said he was confused. He thought that once you get electrical, you don't need non- electrical licensing because the other ones covered it. Mr. Crotts said the cleanest way to handle that would be that he could come into the office and ask that the second license be withdrawn. Vice Chair Jerulle noted that he'd possibly have three licenses and is asking for a third. Mr. Zhou said he would have one and transfer the other to the new company, the installation company. When he was at the original Board meeting, he told the Board that he wanted to do just installation. The other company was just for liability reasons. The sign company now sells signs, but we got fined $1,000, and the next penalty could be severe and that's what he wants to avoid. Vice Chairman Jerulle said he didn't understand. Mr. Crotts said he wants to operate a second -entity company under another name. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • He will operate two companies, one to sell signs and another to install. • If an employee makes a mistake, it would be better if he operated a second -entity company. • Either company can do both, sales and installations. • He'll be a 100% owner of one and 50% owner of the second -entity company. • He came before the Board before and was fined because he was doing electrical install work without the correct license. • He wants to make sure that doesn't happen again, so he's filing for the second -entity application. • He's been in business since 2008, with no complaints or issues. Board Member Joslin made a motion to approve the second -entity application for Fugang "Frank" Zhou, with the requirement that he terminate the non -electrical license. Second by Board Member Hunt. The motion passed 6-1; Vice Chairman Jerulle voted nay. 9. OLD BUSINESS: None 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: [10.C-Keyes was heard before IO.A. and IO.B) A. 2022-13 — Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc. dba Crystal Waterscapes (CEMIS20220001076) [The respondent was not present] Board Member Hunt made a motion to open the public hearing. Second by Jerulle. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The hearing was opened. Investigator Bogert was sworn in. Investigator Bogert asked to submit the Preamble and Case Packet for 2022-13 into evidence. Board Member Joslin made a motion to accept the Preamble and Case Packets for 2022-13 C9 July 20, 2022 into evidence. Board Member Hunt seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. The preamble and case packet were accepted into evidence. Chairman Lantz asked for a motion to accept the evidence packet. Vice Chairman Jerulle made a motion to accept the County's evidence packet for 2022-13. Board Member Joslin seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously, 7-0. The evidence packet was accepted, Investigator Bogert said service was given by Investigator Ramos. Board Member Joslin asked if the respondent said he wasn't going to be here. Investigator Bogert said he last spoke to him on July 13 and he said he'd be here. Chairman Lantz told him he could proceed with his opening statement. Investigator Bogert presented his opening statement: The respondent, Robert Engler, a state - certified Pool Spa Contractor with Licensed CPC 1456678, with Collier County Issuance No. 31969, is the qualifier and owner of Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc., doing business as Crystal Waterscapes. Mr. Engler contracted and received payment to perform the scope of work for water fountain renovations at 910 Waterways Blvd. without a permit where one was required. It has been two years and two months since the contracts, final payment and job completion. The respondent, Robert Engler, has failed his obligation as a contractor and has committed a Building Code violation 105.1, commencing work without a permit where one was required. Attempts to remedy the issue with the respondent through numerous phone calls, emails and communications, most recently on July 13, 2022, were unsuccessful. Chief Building Official Jonathan Walsh reviewed the ongoing case and agreed that the respondent willfully failed to correct the code violations, which constitutes a willful code violation. Mr. Engler is in violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22201.12, which states, in pertinent part, that willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the State, City or County shall constitute misconduct and grounds for discipline. Chairman Lantz asked Investigator Bogert if wanted to provide his whole case. Investigator Bogert said there was originally a permit applied for on March 15, 2022. It was incomplete on March 18 and subsequently denied on April 18, basically for abandonment of the permit. There was an improper application, no plans, and he hasn't been registered with the County to pull the permits since 2016. He hasn't been registered with the County since 2016. Chairman Lantz asked if this was a state contractor. Investigator Bogert said it was Pool CPC. Board Member Nolton made a motion to find him guilty. Board Member Joslin seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Jerulle said he wanted to give him consideration, but noted that this dates back to 2020. Board Member Nolton IN July 20, 2022 There's evidence that he applied for a permit improperly and probably didn't have the engineering and the documents he needed and decided he didn't want to spend that kind of money. Board Member Nolton made a motion to find Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc., dba Crystal Waterscapes, guilty of working without a permit. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Board Member Nolton made a motion to close the hearing involving Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc., dba Crystal Waterscapes. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Chairman Lantz asked for Mr. Crotts' recommendations. Mr. Crotts said the County recommends that the permit -pulling privileges for Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc., dba Crystal Waterscapes, be revoked permanently in Collier County; that the respondent be issued a public reprimand and that this reprimand be sent to Lee, Hendry, Broward, Monroe, Miami -Dade, Glades, and Charlotte counties; and the case will be referred to the state DBPR for action against the license. Chairman Lantz asked Attorney Noell for the range of penalties. Attorney Noell said the range of penalties is listed on p. 231 of the agenda packet and sets forth the disciplinary range against State license holders. Board Member Nolton said this owner, which has an association, is left with a project where they need a permit and so they're going to have an expense, right? Investigator Bogert said that is correct. Board Member Joslin said the Health Department should be notified. Mr. Crofts said the cost will be for the homeowner and HOA to correct this. Board Member Nolton said, So we can recommend a fine, but not impose it? Mr. Crofts said that's correct. Board Member Joslin said the Health Department should be notified so it can red -tag it. Investigator Bogert said that was correct. Chairman Lantz asked if there was a motion. Board Member Nolton made a motion to permanently revoke the permit pulling privileges for Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc., dba Crystal Waterscapes, in Collier County; that the respondent be issued a public reprimand and that this reprimand be sent to Lee, Hendry, Broward, Monroe, Miami Dade, Glades and Charlotte counties; and the case will be referred to the state DBPR for action against the license. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Chairman Lantz said the Board can now move on to findings of fact. Upon consideration of all testimony received under oath, evidence received, and arguments presented by the parties during the public hearing, the Board issues the following findings and conclusions: • Service of the Administrative Complaint and notice was legal, sufficiently provided and in compliance with the applicable law. 11 July 20, 2022 • The Respondent is the holder of the license as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. • The Respondent was not present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel. • The Respondent is a license holder as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. • The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent and subject matter raised in the Administrative Complaint. • The Respondent committed the violations set forth in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. Therefore, by a vote of 7-0, the Respondent is found guilty of the violation set forth in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint and the Board imposes the following sanctions against the respondent: • The permit -pulling privileges for Robert Engler Construction Co. Inc., dba Crystal Waterscapes, will be revoked permanently in Collier County; • The respondent will be issued a public reprimand and this reprimand will be sent to Lee, Hendry, Broward, Monroe, Miami -Dade and Charlotte counties; • The case will be referred to the state DBPR for action against the license. This concludes the order of the Board in this matter. B. 2022-11— Richard Fout, dba Air Express HVAC LLC (CEMIS20210012642d) Mr. Crotts said Mr. Fout was unable to attend due to a medical issue involving COVID. The County asked for a continuance until August 17. Board Member Nolton made a motion to continue the hearing involving Richard Fout to August 17. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. [A recess was taken between 10:13 and 10:30 a.m.] C. 2022-07 — Kevin J. Keyes, dba Keyestone Interlocking Paving Contractor Inc. (CEMIS20220005455) [Keyes was heard before IO.A. and IO.B and was continued, then reconsidered when Mr. Keyes arrived after the recess.) The respondent and Investigator Governale were sworn in. Vice Chairman Jerulle made a motion to open the hearing. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion to open the hearing passed unanimously, 7-0. The hearing was opened. Board Member Meister recused himself, saying Mr. Keyes was a subcontractor of his, is working with him now and has been a friend for 30 years. Attorney Noell said he'd give him the Form 8B, the Memorandum of Voting Conflict. The standard is if you believe you have a financial interest that would be impacted by the action the Board would take today in regards to a finding of violation. Vice Chairman Jerulle asked if Mr. Meister could participate. Attorney Noell advised he could participate in the discussion, but cannot take any formal action, and said he should err on the side of caution. Board Member Meister said he would not participate. Vice Chairman Jerulle noted that he knows Mr. Keyes, but has no financial relations and would not be impacted in any way. 12 July 20, 2022 Board Member Joslin said he'd used Mr. Keyes, but hadn't used him in years. Investigator Governale asked to submit the Preamble and Case Packet for 2022-07 into evidence. Board Member Nolton made a motion to accept the Preamble and Case Packet for 2022-07 into evidence. Vice Chairman Jerulle seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously, 6-0, Board Member Meister abstained. The preamble and case packet were accepted into evidence. Investigator Governale presented his opening statement: The respondent, Kevin J. Keys, a Collier County Paving Block Contractor and Masonry Contractor with Issuance Numbers 12322 and 11938 is the qualifier for and owner of Keyestone Interlocking Paving Contractor Inc. Mr. Keyes was subcontracted by Workaholics Landscaping Management Inc. and received payment to supply and install a retaining wall at 1314 Noble Heron Way in the City of Naples without a permit, where one was required. Mr Keyes is in violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-201-18, which states, in pertinent part, that it is misconduct by the holder of a Collier County Certificate of Competency to proceed on any job without obtaining applicable permits or inspections from the City Building and Zoning Division or the County Building Review and Permitting Department. Past history: On August 18, 2021, Mr. Keyes was issued a notice of non-compliance for commencing work without a permit, which was abated. On December 6, 2021, he received a notice of non-compliance for commencing work without a permit and that also was abated. Chairman Lantz asked Mr. Keyes if he'd like to give an opening statement. Mr. Keyes apologized for arriving late and said there have been many changes in his 35 years of doing business. He didn't know a permit was needed in those three instances. Not in his wildest dreams would he think they required a permit. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • Mr. Keyes is here due to the three -strike rule. • He didn't know he was responsible for pulling the permit because he wasn't hired by the homeowner, but by Work-A-Holics Landscaping. • Work-A-Holics was not cited since they aren't licensed for this type of work, but will go before the Special Magistrate next month for an administrative hearing. • The GC did not have the ability to pull a permit, so it would have been his responsibility. • Mr. Keyes didn't know Work-A-Holics didn't pull a permit. • Board members said that would put a burden on a subcontractor to check all permits or licenses of contractors they're hired by. • The onus to check a permit or license is on the subcontractor, but subcontractors don't generally research companies that hire them. • Most Board members agreed they'd never considered doing that and assumed a company that hired them had already pulled a permit and was licensed for that work. • The burden should have been placed on Work-A-Holics, not Keyes. 13 July 20, 2022 • A Board member said he'd never been asked by a sub if he'd pulled a permit. • If subs are not checking for permits or licenses, they're putting themselves at significant risk if they're brought in front of the CLB. • Mr. Keyes installed a stackable retaining wall and didn't think a permit was needed for that. • Mr. Keyes has testified as an expert witness in front of Collier County boards. • Mr. Mole, Naples' building official, requires permits to ensure work isn't done in setbacks and so City officials can inspect the work. • Mr. Keyes was contracted to do work at The Estuary after the HOA/Architectural Review Board there took six months to do its due diligence, yet he was cited. • A neighbor called it in, the HOA president. • In his first 35 years, Mr. Keyes said he'd never had a violation and never thought a permit was required in the three cases he was cited for. • He wants to fight the citation and didn't think he was guilty of anything. Investigator Governale testified that on June 6, 2022, he learned that Keyestone Interlocking Paving Contractor Inc. constructed a retaining wall without an issued permit in the backyard of 1314 Noble Heron Way in the City of Naples. Upon investigation, it was discovered that on October 13, 2021, Keystone Interlocking Paving Contractor Inc. entered into a contract and was subcontracted by Workaholics Landscaping Management Inc. to supply and install a retaining wall at 1314 Noble heron Way. The contracted amount was $9,490. An initial deposit of $4,050 was made on March 1, 2021, to Keyestone Interlocking Paving Contractor Inc. with business check no. 19600. A second payment of $5,440 was made on May 19, 2022, to Keyestone Interlocking Paving Contractor Inc. using business check no. 19788, for a total of $9,490. On June 6, 2022, while onsite, Investigator Governale reviewed City of Naples Building Department records and determined no building permits were applied for regarding the installation of a retaining wall. A Stop -Work Order was issued for commencing work without an issued permit. On June 7, 2022, City of Naples Chief Building Official Craig Mole reviewed the photos of the site visit and confirmed a Site -Work Permit was required for a retaining wall. Chairman Lantz asked if there were any questions. Mr. Keyes said he had none, but questioned the validity of requiring a permit for a stackable retaining wall. He also asked Investigator Governale if there were any problems with the wall. Investigator Governale said he was an investigator and couldn't answer that. He rested his case. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • No permit has been pulled since the violation. • This came down to a decision by Mr. Mole. • The City of Naples is very interested in limiting drainage. • This stackable wall is permeable and that's why it was chosen. • The HOA Architectural Review Board and others approved it, gave the go-ahead and sent someone to inspect the work. • It was built up to the wall line. • Most walls are above grade. • Mr. Keyes said he always pulls permits for rights -of -way, an average of twice a week. 14 July 20, 2022 • Since the pandemic, most of his work is for homeowners, not contractors. • He doesn't pull a second permit if there's already a permit in place for the job. • Everything was done professionally. • Mr. Keyes would have no objection to pulling a permit to resolve this. • He's always been able to erect a wall up to the property line. • This is a breakaway wall and doesn't impede the neighbor's property. • The City may require a contractor or owner/builder to take out a permit. • The City's requirement seems over -the -top. Chairman Lantz said they now need a finding of guilt. He didn't think Mr. Keyes was guilty. He's not responsible for pulling the permit, Work-A-Holics is. Board Member Nolton said Mr. Mo16 says a permit is required. Making sure that permits are needed is a separate issue. Chairman Lantz said his position is that a permit is required, but he's a sub, not a contractor. He should not be punished for being a sub. Vice Chairman Jerulle said he tends to agree. A permit is required and that goes back to Work-A- Holics. Chairman Lantz said just because the CLB can't go after Work-A-Holics doesn't mean they have to go after Mr. Keyes. Board Member Joslin asked if it was possible to delay this phase until they hear the Work-A- Holics' testimony. We're putting the cart before the horse. Attorney Noell said that's a good question. It's like bifurcating. The Board may want to continue the discussion on whether there's a violation or not and close out evidence in the matter for 60 days. But he didn't believe the Board could hear evidence in another case and apply it to this case. It requires due process. Vice Chairman Jerulle made a motion to close the hearing involving Kevin J. Keys. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0; Board Member Meister abstained. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • It appears the CLB is heading toward a not -guilty finding, but it could create a precedent in not needing to pull a permit. • Subs need to ensure a permit is pulled, which may be unique. • Someone is guilty and it may fall on Mr. Keyes. • Could two different entities be found guilty? • Mr. Keyes has never been found guilty of anything before. • It could set a precedent, but every case is site specific. • The Board would have to be very specific in its not -guilty finding. Board Member Joslin asked for Attorney Noell's guidance. Attorney Noell said the Board is dealing with looking at administrative compliance, what's alleged to have been violated and whether he proceeded on a job without obtaining a permit. Vice Chairman Jerulle asked if he'd filed a notice to proceed with the owner. 15 July 20, 2022 Mr. Keyes said he didn't know, but probably not. Vice Chairman Jerulle said if he had, he would have found there was no permit. Mr. Keyes said he had never been required to pull a permit for that in 35 years. The City considered the stackable wall masonry, but it's not. Chairman Lantz asked if he'd filed a formal notice to proceed when he started. Mr. Keyes said yes, Cullen Walker, president of Work-A-Holics, did. He got it from the Architectural Review Committee. Chairman Lantz said, So you were given notice to proceed. He made a motion, noting that when Work-A-Holics gave notice to proceed, it was their job to pull a permit. It was under their control. Chairman Lantz made a motion for a finding of not guilty. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion failed, 3-3; Board Members Hunt, Jerulle and Nolton voted nay, Board Member Meister abstained. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: • There was evidence that a permit was needed. • Mr. Keyes, a subcontractor, is not guilty because Work-A-Holics should have handled the permit. • Mr. Keyes was under the assumption that Work-A-Holics would have pulled a permit. • Mr. Keyes was under the assumption that a permit was not needed due to the type of wall he was erecting, a stackable wall, which is hardscape, not structural. • If Mr. Keyes thought a permit was needed, he would have pulled one. • Mr. Keyes said he'd resolve this by pulling a permit. • Mr. Mole gets to make the call over whether a permit is needed in the City. • The City is very concerned about drainage and setbacks, so it's requiring permits so they can inspect the work. Board Member Nolton said as much as it pains him, he had to make a motion to find him guilty of doing work without a permit, based on the evidence. I don't think it was willful, but that's the motion he has to make. Board Member Hunt seconded it and said her position is that during the penalty discussions, that is where the Board can consider his intent. The motion failed 3-3; Board Member Meister abstained. Vice Chairman Jerulle made a motion to find Kevin J. Keyes not guilty. Second by Board Member Joslin. The motion passed 4-2; Board Member Nolton and Board Member Hunt voted nay, Board Member Meister abstained. Chairman Lantz said the Board can now move on to findings of fact. Upon consideration of all testimony received under oath, evidence received, and arguments presented by the parties during the public hearing, the Board issues the following findings and conclusions: • Service of the Administrative Complaint and notice was legal, sufficiently provided and in compliance with the applicable law. • The Respondent is the holder of the license as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. LG7 July 20, 2022 • The Respondent was present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel. • The Respondent is a license holder as set forth in the Administrative Complaint. • The Board has jurisdiction over the Respondent and subject matter raised in the Administrative Complaint. • The Respondent did not commit the violations set forth in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. Therefore, by a vote of 4-2, the Respondent is found not guilty of the violation set forth in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. This concludes the findings of the Board in the matter. Chairman Lantz reminded Mr. Keyes that he gave them his word that he'd pull a permit. Board Member Meister suggested that municipalities contact contractors and subcontractors to inform them of any changes in rules and ordinances. Chairman Lantz said if a contractor or subcontractor is not sure a permit is needed, err on the side of caution. 11. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY, August 17, 2022 Commissioners' Chambers, Third Floor, Administrative Building F, Collier County Government Center, 3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL Vice Chairman Jerulle made a motion to adjourn. Board Member Hunt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 11:57 a.m. Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board Kyle Lantz, Board Chairman These minutes were approved by the Chairman or Vice -Chairman of the Contractors' Licensing Board on , (check one) as submitted or as amended 17 FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST.NAME—FIRST NAME —MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE MAILINGADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON I Z0 I L -7 th A �• WHICH I SERVE IS UNIT OF: CITY S COUNTY ❑ CITY OUNTY ❑ OTHER LOCALAGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: DATE vvvONWHICH VOT OCCURRED l� \ MY POSITION IS: ` 48 7�Z0J -Z_0-Z,z— ❑ ELECTIVE ,APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies to members of advisory and non -advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also MUST ABSTAIN from knowingly voting on a measure which would inure to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent, subsidiary, or sibling organization of a principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies (CRAs) under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you are not prohibited by Section 112.3143 from otherwise participating in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on page 2) CE FORM 8B - EFF 11/2013 PAGE 1 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.0 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, IZc6e A- P i-_ik' - itk hereby disclose that on 3 3 � Zit 20 Z_Z� (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one or more) _ inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, F_r•--_ -4 inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of is the parent subsidiary, or sibling organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me- (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: 1 v, P e�' o JP of hAl by which If disclosure of specific information would violate confidentiality or privilege pursuant to law or rules governing attorneys, a public officer, who is also an attorney, may comply with the disclosure requirements of this section by disclosing the nature of the interest in such a way as to provide the public with notice of the conflict. 7• Z5 Zoe Z. Date Filed 1 Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 11/2013 PAGE 2 Adopted by reference in Rule 34-7.010(1)(f), F.A.0