Loading...
CLB Minutes 02/21/2024February 21, 2024 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD MEETING February 21, 2024, Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Administration Building F, 3rd Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida. MEMBERS: Stephen Jaron, Chairman Terry Jerulle, Vice Chairman Matthew Nolton Kyle Lantz Richard Joslin Robert Meister Todd Allen (excused absence) Elie Hunt (excused absence) ALSO PRESENT: Timothy Crotts, Code Enforcement Manager Ronald Tomasko, Esq., Assistant Collier County Attorney Patrick Neale, Contractor Licensing Board Attorney Sandra Delgado, Licensing Operations Supervisor Greg St. Jean, Contractors Licensing Investigator Any person who decides to appeal this decision of the 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. February 21, 2024 1. Roll Call: Quorum established. Chairman Jaron approved absences for Ms. Hunt and Mr. Allen. 2. Additions or Deletions: Removal of Item 10-A, Public Hearings: Berns F. Cadet — respondent withdrew request for hearing. 3. Approval of Agenda: ■ Richard Joslin: Motion to approve the amended agenda. ■ Robert Meister: Seconded. All in favor— aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) 4. Approval of Minutes: ■ Matthew Nolton: Motion to approve the minutes of January 17, 2024. • Terry Jerulle: Seconded. All in favor — aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) 5. Public Comments: None 6. Discussion: None 7. Reports: None 8. New Business: A. Orders of the Board (11 items) ■ Richard Joslin: Motion that the Chairman sign the Orders of the Board. ■ Kyle Lantz: Seconded. All in favor — aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) B. BRYSON A.A. PAUL: REVIEW OF EXPERIENCE; BUILDING CONTRACTOR; SWIFT WORKS LLC ■ Bryson Paul: Sworn testimony given. ■ Timothy Crotts: Mr. Paul submitted an application for the issuance of a local license as a building contractor, which requires 48 months experience. As part of the application process for the issuance of a building contractor license, Mr. Paul was required to submit documentation showing his experience. As part of the review process by staff, Mr. Paul submitted the following verification of experience. A review of these documents showed the following: Mr. Paul worked for Smith, Holmes and Remodeling, which is currently a state certified building contractor, owned by Kerry Smith. Mr. Paul has been employed from 2019 to present and is full-time. The scope of the work listed was cabinet install, trim, doors, windows, painting and framework. During a phone interview with Mr. Smith, owner of Smith Homes, I was told that his company does residential remodeling 90% of the time. Mr. Smith stated that his company does not do condominium remodeling or new builds, no commercial remodeling or new February 21, 2024 builds, no industrial remodeling or new builds. Mr. Smith stated that he has only built one new home in the last two years, but that Mr. Paul did assist. Based upon the information received, it is staff's opinion that Mr. Paul does not meet the minimum requirements set forth in ordinance 20646 as it relates to experience under Section 1.6.1.3 as a building contractor. Because Mr. Paul does not meet the qualifications for the issuance of the building contractor license, Mr. Paul is being referred to the Board under Section 2.5.2 referral the application to the Contractor Licensing Board for decision and Mr. Paul is here today to answer your questions. ■ Bryson Paul: I don't have any commercial experience. I have worked for a couple of other contractors. I didn't get their affidavits because they wouldn't reach back out to me. What is it exactly that I'm missing — is that the commercial side? That's kind of invalidating my experience. We also have done work in multiple apartments on Marco. I'd say it's a 50/50 split between residential houses and apartments. I worked for Eric Tamayo. He's a small contractor in Marco. 1 did basic cosmetic work, baseboard/trim carpentry, a little bit of framing. The second contractor was Joyce Building. I did framing, concrete work. We also did an addition to a home on Marco mostly nonstructural. Now, with Carrie Smith, my current employer, we are doing another new construction. This will be a second one and during the past couple months we have been doing a lot of concrete work, a lot of structural framing, windows, exterior windows, and doors. Let me rephrase. It's not a new construction. It's an old house and we are adding several additions to it. If I step down to the residential building license, do you think my experience will qualify for that? ■ Timothy Crotts: Based upon the information received, he would not qualify for a residential license at this point for the fact he has only been assisting with one new build as per his current employer. We have nothing else that would show that he's been involved in the other new builds of residential homes. ■ Stephen Jaron: It sounds like you may be able to get that experience though with this company. Either stay with them or maybe find another home builder that would give you more experience and qualify you for a residential license if residential is what you want to do. If you want to get into commercial, then you've got to get commercial experience also. ■ Bryson Paul: I will withdraw. C. EDGAR L. A. HERNANDEZ: REVIEW OF EXPERIENCE; DRYWALL CONTRACTOR; CREATIVE SOLUTIONS SERVICES OF SWFL LLC ■ Edgar Hernandez: Sworn testimony given. ■ Timothy Crotts: Mr. Hernandez submitted an application for the issuance of a local license as a drywall contractor, which requires 36 months of experience. As part of the application process for the issuance of drywall contractor license, Mr. Hernandez was required to submit documentation showing his experience. As part of the review process by staff, Mr. Hernandez has submitted the following verification of experience. A review of these documents shows the following: South Florida Construction of Naples, which is a state certified general contractor, February 21, 2024 Eric Sollitto, former president. Mr. Hernandez was employed from 1999 to 2019 and was full-time. The scope of the work listed was drywall, painting, and trim carpentry. A phone interview with Mr. Sollitto confirmed the experience of drywall. However, the experience was for residential only. There is no experience installing drywall in condominiums, commercial or industrial buildings. Based upon this information and speaking with the Deputy Chief Building Official of Collier County, it appears that Mr. Hernandez does not have the experience with the types of drywalls and methods required used in the settings of condominiums, commercial or industrial buildings. Based upon the information received it is staff's opinion that Mr. Hernandez does not meet the minimum requirements that's set forth in 20646 as it relates to experience under Section 1.6.3.15 as a drywall contractor. Because Mr. Hernandez does not meet the qualifications needed for the issuance of a drywall contractor license, Mr. Hernandez is being referred to the Board under Section 2.5.2 referral the application to the Contractor Licensing Board for decision and Mr. Hernandez is here to answer your questions regarding his experience. IN Edgar Hernandez: Before South Florida Construction, I was employed by Corey Construction, also a local certified contractor. I worked there as a helper in rough carpentry. I learned the trade. I moved on to other trades in that same field of construction. Then I came upon South Florida Construction and created a long relationship with them. I worked on metal framing, drywall hanging and finishing, all residential for many years. And I also understood all the things about concrete, and I became Superintendent for them for the last 8-9 years building houses from the ground up, understanding all the concrete pouring, pillars, etc. As far as drywall is concerned, I was part of one of the commercial buildings at the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road. I believe it is called Addison Place. I was superintendent on site for the first five buildings. South Florida Construction was contracted to do the interior metal framing, drywall hanging, finishing, and stucco. Among the drywall department, we have all the different types of drywall required for fire coating — type X, type C, regular drywall. Maybe Mr. Sollitto forgot to mention that. It is an apartment complex, five stories, and I believe 14 units per floor. That was back in 2019 when we completed building number five. Mr. Sollitto perhaps overlooked it. I can wait and try to reach him and ask him. South Florida Construction no longer exists. ■ Kyle Lantz: What do you do differently with the firewall as opposed to a regular? ■ Bryson Paul: For instance, if you have a firewall dividing two specific units, and I'm going to refer to the Addison place, the code requires that you have either one or a two-hour fire rated drywall most likely composed of 5/8 either Type X which that will create the first layer. You must screw it to a certain pattern that the fire department requires. Then either will require the fire caulking they are supplied and depends on what the application is being used for in that specific moment. Either that or after the second layer, you would do the specific screw pattern and then apply your perimeter with the fire caulking again. Pads on the walls and the ceiling. It depends also on what the structure requires. Most of the time it is only 4 February 21, 2024 on the upper last floor where you have the trusses or an engineered roof where it requires either one layer or half an inch Type C or perhaps 2 layers Type C. ■ Kyle Lantz: Motion that we approve his license. ■ Matthew Nolton: Seconded. All in favor — aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) D. BRIAN J. ALL: REVIEW OF CREDIT; REINSTATEMENT OF TILE & MARBLE CONTRACTOR LICENSE; ALL CERAMIC TILE INSTALLATION, INC. ■ Brian All: Sworn testimony given. ■ Timothy Crotts: Mr. All submitted an application for the reinstatement of his tile and marble contractor license, which requires a minimum credit score of 660 and showing financial responsibility. As part of the application process for the credit under Collier County Ordinance 20646, Section 2.3.9, Mr. All was required to submit a personal and business credit report. Mr. All's personal credit report was reviewed and appears not to meet financial responsibility as set forth in Section 2.5.1, Subsection D, the applicant or qualifier meets the requirement for financial responsibility as set forth in Rule 61 G4- 15.006 of the State of Florida. A review of the personal credit report shows the following: Credit score of 646. The minimum required is 660. However, there are past due amounts of $6,495 by Wells Fargo — this account was closed by the grantor; a small claims judgement in the amount of $2,039 for Portfolio Recovery Associates dated in 2021; small claims judgement in the amount of $7,303 from Wells Fargo dated 2019. The total amount of past due and civil judgments is $15,837. Based upon the information received, Mr. All does not meet the minimum requirements as set forth in Ordinance 20646 as it relates to financial responsibility. Mr. All is being referred to the Board under Section 2.5.2 referral the application to the Contractor Licensing Board for decision, and Mr. All is here to answer your questions regarding his credit. ■ Timothy Crotts: The recommendation is that the license be granted by the Board for reinstatement and the county would ask for the following: that the license be placed on a 12-month probationary period; that within 60 days Mr. All shall submit to staff a payment plan approved by all collection creditors including all civil judgments. That within six months, Mr. All submit an updated credit report showing no other credit issues and that all payment plans are current as required. As for the payments, that within 12 months Mr. All shall submit an updated credit report showing no other credit issues; that all payment plans have been satisfied and paid in full, and an improved credit score of 660. If at any time during the 12- month probationary period Mr. All can show that all past due amounts and all civil judgments have been satisfied in full and his credit score is 660, the probationary period would be removed. Failure to comply with this order shall require Mr. All to appear back before the Board for further review and possible disciplinary action as deemed appropriate by the Board. ■ Terry Jerulle: Do you understand what the county is recommending? (Yes.) He is recommending giving you your license under the terms and conditions that he just stated. Convince me that I should vote for that. February 21, 2024 ■ Brian All: I must get reinstated so I can get back to work and I get these payment arrangements set up. It will happen. l don't have a choice. ■ Stephen Jaron: How did the license go inactive do? Were you just not working? ■ Brian All: Here's what happened. I went in to renew it and they said my insurance had expired. Normally my insurance company sends (is paid) every September. They said they didn't get it this year. I went in November and I renewed my business tax license and then I went to renew my contractor license. They said I didn't have insurance. I'm on auto renew. I don't see how it could have been expired; they just didn't have a current copy of it. They said they had a lady out on maternity leave. I don't know if that's what happened. I failed to go back. I went back on January 3 and they said it had expired. I've held the license for 32 years. ■ Richard Joslin: In the past, we have always heard cases like this. Whereas when people have problems with their credit, they will come in and have some type of plan put together before we issue the license, so we know that they have contacted the creditors that they do owe and that there's a payment planning process. What's different about this one? ■ Timothy Crotts: This license has already been issued. This is a reinstatement of the license. You are referring to people that are coming in with new applications. With this one we feel that he has had the license and there have been no issues with the license nor complaints. The only issue that he got caught up in is because he failed to get the renewal in time and it was suspended. When you do the reinstatement application, you must show your current credit, which obviously shows that he owes $15,837. We will give him the opportunity of giving him 60 days to come up with a payment plan with the creditors. However, if the plan is not here within 60 days then we will bring him back in front of the Board for review and possible disciplinary action, which could include having his license suspended until such time the credit issues have been repaired. ■ Matthew Nolton: The license was active until just this last renewal period. You had the license when you got the bad credit. You are asking us to give you the license back because you need to fix the bad credit, but you haven't explained how you allowed yourself to get bad credit. ■ Brian All: It was several things. My wife and I lost our oldest son in 2019. Then we went into the pandemic and it's been kind of a hit-and-miss since the pandemic. I just need to get back on my feet. ■ Matthew Nolton: I am willing to make the county's recommendation as a motion, Mr. All, giving you 60 days to prove that you're going to fix this and turn it around. Otherwise, it's all going to go away again. ■ Richard Joslin: Seconded. A I I in favor — aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) ■ Timothy Crotts: You can come into the office and then they'll explain to you their requirements. You will have 60 days to come up with a payment plan with all creditors, including the civil judgments. And if that is met, then you need to take care of it within six months, show a credit report with no other credit issues, February 21. 2024 that your payment plans are current and you're not behind on any of them, and then get everything repaired within 12 months. ■ Patrick Neale: As a recommendation for the judgments that are out there, you're going to have to get in touch with the law firm that got the judgment. D. LUKAS HLISNIKOVSKY: SECOND ENTITY APPLICATIONS; PAINTING, CABINET INSTALLATION, FLOOR COVERINGS, TILE & MARBLE; ARETE FLOORING & CABINETRY LLC ■ Lukas Hlisnikovsky: Sworn testimony given. ■ Timothy Crotts: Mr. Hlisnikovsky has submitted a second entity application for four separate trades, those being cabinet installation contractor, flooring covering contractor, painting contractor, tile and marble contractor. The packet you have today has an application for each of the four trades that the applicant is seeking for the second entity approval. Part of the packet is the required information per Ordinance because the information is the same. In each packet, we've only included one copy. The applicant has submitted a second entity application for the trades of cabinet installation, flooring covering, painting contractor, and tile and marble contractor. The applicant currently holds a valid contractor license for each of the previous mentioned trades from Collier County, which were issued in 2019. A current review of the current licenses and CityView show that there have been no complaints against the applicant or his company. The applicant has had a few renewal issues in 2022 and 2023 where the renewal deadlines were missed, and late fees were assessed. All these fees have been paid. It should be noted that the applicant currently holds a workman's comp exemption, along with another officer of the company, meaning that he has no employees who work in the construction trade under his company name. The applicant is submitting a second entity application to qualify Arete Flooring and Cabinetry for the aforementioned trades. There is no current license associated with this company. It should be noted that the applicant has submitted his workman's comp exemption and that of another officer for his company, meaning that he has no employees to work in the construction trade for this new company. The applicant is here today to answer your questions regarding his second entity application. ■ Kyle Lantz: I read that you are changing over to a different company. You want to keep the old company qualified until you close out all the work on them. And then you want to get rid of that old license. How long do you want the overlap to be? ■ Lukas Hlisnikosky: Correct. I hope it's going to be just a few months. ■ Timothy Crotts: The company that he's looking to have as a second entity will hold the license for four separate trades under that one company. ■ Matthew Nolton: It looks like maybe you're doing this because the existing company you only have 25% ownership and in the new company, you're going to have 50% ownership. ■ Lukas Hlisnikovsky: It's me and my wife. We opened the showroom. He wants to be on his own. But I have to make sure every single job is closed 100%. ■ Timothy Crotts: Is it your wife who is the second officer of the company that holds the workman's comp exemption? 7 February 21, 2024 ■ Lukas Hlisnikovsky: Yes. I worked for Top Solutions as Superintendent for construction for 15 years. Once you start working with the people, you get to know them, and they ask you if you want to watch over their property because I have built that trust. That's how I started. And I have so many clients that I opened my own business. ■ Timothy Crotts: You need to listen so I can make sure that you don't get yourself in trouble. If you're going to have an employee, you must make sure that you have the workman's comp exemption; if you are hiring them as a 1099, they must hold the license for the trade they're going to be doing. They cannot be unlicensed, and that will get them in trouble and cause you a problem. So, make sure that when you start getting your W2 employees that you get a workman's comp policy to cover them. ■ Kyle Lantz: I'll make a motion that we approve all four licenses on the separate entity provided that the current entity license expires six months from today, with no option to renew unless they get a new qualifier. ■ Timothy Crotts: If I could add to that, failure to submit the request to cancel the license in six months will require the applicant to appear back before the Board for review and possible disciplinary action against that license. ■ Richard Joslin: Seconded. All in favor —aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) 9. Old Business: None 10. Public Hearings: A. Berns Cadet — withdrawn B. 2024-02 — Timothy J. Lirette DBA Zoem Inc DBA Accent Floor Coverings of SWFL (CEMIS20230011307) IN Stephen Jaron: Do I have a motion to open the public hearing? ■ Matthew Nolton: Motion to open the public hearing. ■ Richard Joslin: Seconded All in favor —aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) ■ Timothy Lirette; Greg St. Jean: Sworn testimony given. ■ Greg St. Jean: A copy of the hearing preamble was given to and read by the respondent. He has initialed and dated the copy. 1 would like to enter the preamble and packet for case 2024-02 into evidence at this time. ■ Kyle Lantz: Motion to enter the hearing preamble and packet into evidence. ■ Richard Joslin: Seconded. All in favor —aye. (Carried unanimously, 6-0.) ■ Greg St. Jean: The respondent, Timothy J. Lirette, a Collier County licensed flooring covering contractor with issuance number 26450, is the qualifier for and owner of Zoem, Inc, doing business as Accent Floor Coverings of Southwest Florida. Mr. Laurette contracted, received payment, and performed interior renovations at 3235 Cypress Glen Way Unit Number 309 that included drywall, 11 February 21, 2024 cabinetry, plumbing and electrical without a permit, where one was required during a state of emergency caused by Hurricane Ian. Mr. Lirette is in violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-201, Subsection 2, which states in pertinent part that it is misconduct for a holder of a Collier County certificate of competency to contract to do any work outside of the scope of his competency as listed on his competency card and as defined in the ordinance, or as restricted by the Contractor Licensing Board. Mr. Lirette is also in violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-201, Subsection 18, which states in pertinent part that it is misconduct by a 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. ■ Timothy Lirette: I do not contest. Guilty. I will say that I am a flooring contractor. I have worked for several building contractors in town for many years. This situation was with a contractor that I have worked for 15+ years. It's his condo and he didn't pull the permit. I'm in the wrong obviously for doing the work without a permit. But he had asked me to do the flooring. He then asked if I could throw in these cabinets too. I said sure, I'll have my guy do it, which again, is against what I'm supposed to do at that time. I only billed him for the flooring because he was such a great contractor over the years. The removal of the flooring and the cabinets was all free. I billed him for the installation of the flooring and the flooring itself. It just escalated from there. The plumbing was old and when they removed the cabinet one of the valves was bad. One of my guys called him (the owner) because I was out of town and told him that the plumbing was weak, so he called his plumber. The plumber showed up, started messing with the plumbing and said all the plumbing needs to be replaced. I wasn't even involved in this because I was away. Then it escalated. The plumber went in there, asked my guys to open holes in the wall so that he could remove the plumbing. My guys went ahead and did it for him which apparently, they're not supposed to open up walls. Then the plumber was replacing the main valve because the main stack was made from CPVC instead of copper or anything better than that, and he broke it which created a flood in the place. The plumber and the owner created that. My guys were there doing the flooring, so they were cleaning everything up when the county showed up and that's how this all laid out. I was not supposed to be doing the cabinets, and I guess I did a whole bunch of other stuff that we weren't supposed to do and didn't mean to do. The owner was Jake, with Ryan and Voigt Construction. His unit was on the third floor of a multi -family. I have no idea what has happened with the plumber or the contractor. ■ Greg St. Jean: Ryan and Voigt Construction did apply for and receive a permit for all the work that is going on in the condo now. A case was opened on Robert Lewis, the qualifier for specialty plumbing. I opened an investigation, and he was issued a notice of noncompliance on February 15, 2024. ■ Kyle Lantz: The owner of the condo is the GC. Of any homeowner out there that we say we give the benefit of the doubt, which 1 don't agree with to begin with, but there's no way we can give the benefit of the doubt to a GC who's now sending his subcontractor who did him a favor to handle his dirty work. February 21, 2024 ■ Matthew Nolton: I'll make a motion we find the respondent guilty. ■ Richard Joslin: Seconded. ■ Kyle Lantz: I know he's guilty, but I don't believe he should be found guilty. I will vote against that because I feel he's the peon at the bottom of the chain who is taking the brunt for somebody else's mistake. Don't take it personally. AI I in favor — aye. (Disunited vote 5-1: Kyle Lantz — nay) ■ Timothy Crotts: Based upon four separate trades that were done — two major trades were done by the respondent. Therefore, the county is going to ask for a $2,000 fine to be paid within 60 days on Count One. Failure to pay the fine within 60 days will result in the automatic revocation of the respondent's license; on Count Two for no permit a $1,000 fine to be paid within 60 days. Failure to pay the fine within 60 days will result in the automatic revocation of the respondent's license and the respondent's license be placed on a 12-month probation. ■ Further discussion ensued about the respondent losing money for the job; whether a `homeowner' or `general contractor' asked the respondent to do the job; who paid for the work done — refer to page 289; is the owner/general contractor going to reimburse the respondent for the fines; the estimate was made out to the homeowner; the homeowner is up in arms and concerned about this just as is the respondent; if we say it was the general contractor's responsibility to pull the permit(s), there is no willful code violation and we would have to refer the matter to DBPR for their review ■ Patrick Neale: There are five factors for the Board to consider: the gravity of the violation; the impact of the violation on the Community and County; any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; any previous violations committed by the respondent; and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties that is relevant as to the sanction that's appropriate for the case given the nature of the case. So those are the five factors to consider. ■ Kyle Lantz: I will make a motion that we levy zero fines and put him on probation for two years. ■ Motion dies; no second. ■ Matthew Nolton: Motion that we put his license on probation for 24 months and fine him $1,000 each for Count One and Count Two; to be paid within 60 days. Failure to pay within 60 days would result in the automatic revocation of his license. ■ Terry Jerulle: Seconded. All in favor — aye. (Disunited vote 5-1: Krle Lantz — nay) ■ Matthew Nolton: Motion to close the public hearing. ■ Richard Joslin: Seconded. All in favor— aye. (Carried unanimously; 6-0.) ■ Stephen Jaron: 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. Number one: Service of the administrative complaint and notice was legally and sufficiently provided and in compliance with the applicable law. Number two: The respondent 10 February 21, 2024 is the holder of the license set forth in the administrative complaint. Number three: Respondent was present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel. Number four: The Board has jurisdiction over the respondent and subject matter raised in the administrative complaint. Number 5: The respondent committed the violations as set forth in Count One and Count Two of the administrative complaint. Therefore, by a vote of five in favor and one opposed, the respondent is found guilty of the violations as set forth in Count One and Count Two in the administrative complaint and the Board imposes the following sanctions against the respondent. For Count One, a $1,000 fine; for Count Two, a $1,000 fine; both fines to be payable within 60 days; with a 24-month probationary period. This concludes the order of the Board in this matter. 11. Adjournment: Matthew Nolton: Motion to adjourn the meeting. Kyle Lantz: Seconded. All in favor —aye. (Carried unanimously; 6-0.) 12. Next Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 AM. Colliertou�ty Contractor Licensing Board Chairman These minutes were approved by the Chairman orthe Contractor Licensing Board on 3AV_ZV�4 , (check one) as .submitted It/or as amended 11