CLB Minutes 06/19/20241
MINUTES
OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
CONTRACTORS’ LICENSING BOARD MEETING
June 19, 2024
Naples, Florida
LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors’ Licensing Board, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building F, 3rd
Floor, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
Chairman: Stephen Jaron
Vice Chairman: Terry Jerulle
Richard E. Joslin
Kyle Lantz
Matthew Nolton
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Contractors’ Licensing Board Attorney (via Zoom)
Timothy Crotts, Contractor Licensing Supervisor
Ronald Tomasko, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Bogert, Collier County Licensing Investigator
Ryan Cathey, Operations Supervisor, Licensing
2
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.
Supervisor Crotts’ noted that CLB Attorney, Patrick Neale is under the weather today and
could not attend. However, he will be attending via Zoom and be available to answer any of
your questions or concerns.
1. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Jaron opened the meeting at 9 a.m. Roll call was taken; five members, a
quorum, were present in the BCC Chambers. Supervisor Crotts Stated that Robert
Meister was experiencing car trouble and would arrive later if possible. In addition, Mr.
Todd Allen gave prior notice of his absence. Supervisor Crotts asked that both of these be
considered authorized absences and was acknowledged by Chairman Jaron.
2. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Supervisor Crotts stated Public Hearing 10. A. was being rescheduled at the request of
the respondents attorney.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mr. Lantz made a motion to approve the amended agenda. Second by Mr. Joslin. The
motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. May 13, 2024
Mr. Lantz made a motion to approve the May 13, 2024, meeting minutes. Second by
Chairman Jaron. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
None
6. DISCUSSION:
6.A. Senate Bill 1142 Update
Supervisor Crotts stated the bill was approved by the Governor on May 29th of this
year. The bill deals with local, occupational licenses for the specialty trades and with
the governor signing this it has been pushed back again. So that means all local
Collier County licenses will remain in effect until 7/1/25 and won’t be required to be
renewed for the coming year. So all licenses will remain in effect until 2025.
Chairman Jaron confirmed with Supervisor Crotts that that meant no change. Vice
Chair Jerulle asked if Lee County changed their licensing requirements. Supervisor
Crotts stated that yes, they did; they did away with all local licensing requirements, so
if you want to hold a license in Lee County now you have to be a state certified
contractor or if they did away with licensing requirements for certain trades which
this would effectively do, you wouldn’t need a license in Lee County. Vice Chair
Jerulle asked if Lee grandfathered any older licenses or are they starting with a fresh
3
slate? Supervisor Crotts said he was not aware of how Lee County was working that.
Mr. Lantz stated from his experience if there was a GC on the job that satisfied the
requirements, as a person in the field experiencing it and there is a bunch of
unlicensed subs on there and nobody cares. Vice Chair Jerulle stated that in the past a
license in Lee County meant you could get a license in Collier County. Supervisor
Crotts stated that a past license in Lee County still counts as verification of your
experience, showing that you went through the process and received it, that we would
look at when issuing a license. Because the license no longer exists, that does not take
away the experience that you would have gained with that. So we would still look at
any prior license. Mr. Lantz stated that he thinks they have had people in here in the
last few months using their experience in Lee County to do work in Collier and that
work is not regulated in Lee County and use that as experience.
6.B. Reappointment of CLB members
Supervisor Crotts welcomed back to the Board Mr. Terry Jerulle, Mr. Matthew
Nolton and Mr. Richard Joslin. He thanked them for reapplying and continuing to be
a part of this very important board and stated they would be on the board until
6/30/27.
6.C. Emergency Temporary License
Supervisor Crotts gave a reminder now that with the official start of hurricane season
and according to ordinance 2006 46 2.11, if we get a declaration of an emergency, a
hurricane or any other type of emergency, if the City Council or the Board of Collier
County Commissioners declares an emergency we may come to the Board and ask
that emergency licensing be issued. We did it during Ian. So this is a reminder that
we may come to the Board and ask for a licensing meeting at which time will we
determine which trades are most pertinent, depending on the type of hurricane, and
what type of trades would mostly be affected.
7. REPORTS:
(None)
8. NEW BUSINESS:
A. 8A Orders of the Board [3 items]
Mr. Joslin made a motion to authorize the chairman to sign the Orders of the Board.
Second by Mr. Lantz. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. The Orders of the Board were
approved.
B. 8B. – Vicente R. Fernandez, Journeyman, LCC20240001397
Review of Supervision
[Mr. Fernandez was sworn in.]
Supervisor Crotts reported that Mr. Fernandez has submitted an application for issuance
of a license as a Mechanical/Plumber Journeyman, which under Collier County Ordinance
2006 46 section 1.6.2.6.1 must show 4 years as an apprentice and means of those qualified
to perform work in the trade while employed by or supervised by an air conditioning or
4
mechanical contractor. This provision does not apply to any individual who then holds a
valid active Journeyman License as part of the state of Florida statute 489.1455. Counties
and municipalities must recognize a person as a journeyman in plumbing, pipe fitting,
mechanical, and HVAC trades if the person was issued a journeyman’s license in such a
trade by a county or municipality within the state. As part of the experience, the applicant
is required to submit a mechanical journeyman license experience and as a part of the
review process by staff he submitted the following verifications of experience:
● R.G. Mechanical Service which is a state certified contractor for Florida in
Travenere, FL which the applicant was employed by from May 2017 until
October 2019. This contractor was not registered in Collier County and did not
apply for any permits in Collier County.
● Air Solutions and Repair which is a state certified A/C contractor in Miami
Gardens, FL. The applicant was employed from January 2020 until March
2021.This contractor is not registered in Collier County and did not apply for any
permits in Collier County.
● Elite Air Solutions which is a certified air contractor in the state of Florida based
in Hollywood, FL. He was employed June 24, 2001 to present. This contractor is
not registered in Collier County and did not apply for any permits in Collier
County.
Supervisor Crotts spoke to Mr. Fernandez several times on the phone to inquire why he
did not get a license in Miami/Dade or Broward counties where his former and current
employers are licensed. Mr. Fernedez said those counties were very hard to get a license
in and that someday he might want to move to Collier County and be able to work.
Supervisor Crotts advised Mr. Fernandez since all of the work was in Miami-Dade and
Broward County and since none of the work he had done was licensed by or received a
permit in Collier County that we could not confirm work was being supervised by a licensed
contractor. It was again recommended that Mr. Fernandez apply for his journeyman
license through Miami-Dade or Broward Counties. Mr. Fernandez stated again that he
wanted the Collier County license because some day, if he did move to Collier County, it
would help him get a job.
Based on the information received, it is staffs’ opinion that Mr. Fernandez does not meet
the requirements as set forth in Ordinance 2006-46 as it relates to supervision as
required in the trade under Section 1.6.2.6.1 as an air-conditioning, mechanical
journeyman. It is staffs’ opinion that we will not be able to know if Mr. Fernandez was
working outside the scope of his license and it will be near impossible to know if Mr.
Fernandez’ work is being done under the supervision of a licensed contractor as required
by ordinance. Because Mr. Fernandez does not meet the requirements of the ordinance
for supervision, Mr. Fernandez is being referred to the board under Section 2.5.2
referral of application to the County Licensing Board. Staff has spoken to Mr. Tomasko
and the Boards’ Attorney and we all three agreed it was impossible to confirm
supervision of work being done on the East Coast.
Mr. Lantz: Did we try to call any of his employers to verify his work in Miami-Dade or
Broward Counties and asked why we are concerned with where the work is being done.
5
Supervisor Crotts: You mean as far as verifying the work was being done over there?
Mr. Lantz: I don’t care if he was doing the work in Collier County, Miami-Dade
County, as long as he is doing the work he is qualified. Typically, from my experience,
you called and talked to the employers and they told you. Have they verified anything?
Supervisor Crotts: The work experience is not in question but the ordinance states he
has to be working for a licensed contractor and being supervised. And for us to issue that
license here in Collier County, for all work that is going to be done on the East Coast,
outside of Collier County, we have no way to verify that that requirement is actually
being followed though. Staff is concerned that none of the work was done in Collier
County and cannot be assured that the ordinance is being followed under licensed
contractors’ supervision.
Mr. Lantz: Why do we care if the work is being done in Collier County or Miami-Dade
County? The fact that he is working for a licensed contractor and we are unsure if he has
a supervisor working on top of him.
Supervisor Crotts: All the work would be being done on the East coast, none of it in
Collier County.
Mr. Lantz: Who cares?
Supervisor Crotts: Staff cares because there is that question of supervision and there is
no way to verify if the work was being done in the other counties in accordance with the
ordinance.
Mr. Lantz agreed to disagree and thought that was ridiculous.
Mr. Joslin asked Mr. Fernandez: Why it was so hard to get the license in Miami Dade?
Mr. Fernandez: I first went to Monroe County and found out Monroe County is not
giving out licenses. I found a sponsor in Collier County, I applied for it, they accepted it.
I took the test and scored a 90 and that is how I ended up here.
Chairman Jaron: And who is the sponsor?
Mr. Fernandez: A guy from Collier County sponsorship, that is what I got.
Supervisor Crotts: The way the process works is in order to take the exam from the
testing agencies, a sponsor is required, so Collier County acts as the sponsor to allow
them to take the exam.
Mr. Joslin: That didn’t answer my question. Why was it so hard to get a license in
Miami-Dade County? Did you try to get the license in Miami-Dade County at all?
Mr. Fenandez: It is very hard to get a license in those counties. Rumor says it takes 1-2
years in Miami-Dade County so that’s why I go through here to take the test. If I take the
test in Collier County and I can work in Dade or Broward County with the license of
Collier County, that they are fine with that. All the jobs I am looking at, all they request
is a journeyman's license. They do accept the journeyman’s license from Collier County
so that’s why I came here.
Chairman Jaron asked for clarification that if he gets a license here he can work in
Miami-Dade or Broward County but the issue Collier County has is he would not be
supervised by a supervisor that is licensed and registered in Collier County. He’d be
working for a Miami-Dade or Broward contractor.
Supervisor Crotts stated that is correct and added as a journeyman you cannot pull your
6
own permits but the licensee you work for can pull permits and you can go to the jobsite
and work on your own. The contractor with a state license or a local license would be
responsible for the supervision of work that was being done.
Mr. Joslin: So he is trying to get a license in Collier County to work in Miami-Dade or
Broward or whatever.
Mr. Lantz: It is a journeyman's card. It is no different than if he didn’t have a card
except it shows a future employer that he is qualified, that he has been through the
program and passed the skills test so he is qualified to do some stuff. He cannot pull a
permit or sell a homeowner. It is a notch on your resume to say I am qualified, I have
gone through an apprentice program, I have 4 years experience, I know my stuff.
Chairman Jaron: Mr. Fernandez, did you formally apply for the journeyman card in
Miami-Dade or Broward County or are you just telling us what someone told you that it
is difficult?
Mr. Fernandez: I applied in Monroe County, my papers were on the desk to see the
Board, almost two years ago, that it was with the board.
Chairman Jaron: In Monroe County, but you have not applied in Miami Dade or
Broward.
Mr. Fernandez: In Broward I submitted it 2 or 3 years ago and never heard back.
Chairman Jaron: That is a long time.
Mr. Fernandez: I can show you all the jobs I applied for with Dade County and Broward
and all the jobs are in review and require the license which is why I am here; to be able to
work with the counties.
Mr. Lantz confirmed that it is very common on the other coast that they require a
journeyman’s card. It is very rare they do not.
Mr. Fernandez: You’ll see that most jobs I applied for are in review or they just want
the license. I just basically want to work with the counties, Dade or Broward. That's all
the jobs that I applied for.
Chairman Jaron: Which county do you live in?
Mr. Fernandez: I live in Dade but work out of Broward.
Mr. Joslin: Is this considered a registered type of journeyman or can you work in any
county?
Supervisor Crotts stated this is the one caveat with the journeyman's license under the
state's statute 49.1455, once you are issued a journeyman's license you can work in any
county in any state if the company he works for, say in Collier County, pulls the permit
then he would be allowed to do that work, here in the county because of that stipulation.
Otherwise, he cannot work in any other county because it is a local license. But this is the
one caveat with the journeyman you are allowed to do that.
Mr. Lantz: I am a licensed A/C contractor and can pull a permit anywhere in the state of
Florida for any AC system. I have six employees, not a single one of them are
journeymen. I can send any one of them to do a job, completely on their own. I am
responsible for it but they can do it, it doesn’t matter. If someone has a journeyman’s card
it just means I am going to be paying them more. Which I am not because I am too cheap.
But at a real company, he doesn’t have any power and he doesn’t gain any power by
having a journeyman’s card.
7
Mr. Joslin: Technically, he can go to Dade County and work with that license or with
that journeyman's card. Here it doesn’t matter?
Mr. Lantz: It’s just some companies require it.
Mr. Nolton: It is like a certification, a certification you have to have to get hired by
certain companies. It is showing a level of experience. I don’t understand the supervision
part of it.
Supervisor Crotts: As Mr. Lantz said, you are allowed to pull a permit, say in Miami
Dade county and send the journeyman to do the work, whereas with an apprentice, you
would need supervision on site.
Mr. Lantz: No they do not. I could send my daughter to do an AC change out in Miami-
Dade County and I don’t have to be on-site. Look around at all these big AC companies.
How many do you think have supervision on-site? All these big A/C companies that do
500 change outs a year?
Supervisor Crotts: It comes down to the supervision because that is part of the
journeyman license. The staff would disagree, that there has to be supervision on site.
Mr. Nolton: I still don’t understand what you mean by that because he can’t pull a
permit, he is going to have to work under somebody with a license. How do we know
there is not supervision and what does the county even do? I cannot imagine the county is
going around checking that a journeyman is being supervised here, they just want to
know someone licensed pulled the permit.
Supervisor Crotts: Where it comes into play and that is exactly one of the points. Here
in Collier County we do proactive patrol within licensing. We will check certain job sites
to see if the people doing the work are working under a licensed contractor.
Mr. Nolton: That is different, being done by a licensed contractor versus having a
supervisor on site.
Supervisor Crotts: That supervision is the issue under the ordinance and if any work
was done by the individual in Miami-Dade and there was an issue we would never know
about it. And we would have to bring, if there was an issue of him working outside the
scope of what he was doing, then any work being done in Broward or Miami-Dade, we
would have to conduct an investigation and then bring the individual back over here, in
front of this board for disciplinary action.
Chairman Jaron: Can you recall any precedence? I am sure this has come up before.
Supervisor Crotts: This has happened a lot. We have had individuals who came in and
tried to apply for the journeyman’s license that worked for the Miami-Dade school
district. And by getting a journeyman's license, they do get a bump in pay and it has
always been perceived easier to come to Collier County to get the license then it is in
Miami-Dade or Broward.
Mr. Lantz: Well, evidently it is, based on testimony.
Vice Chair Jerulle stated there must be a reason his application is sitting there for 2
years..
Mr. Joslin asked Mr. Fernandez if he had ever been denied after submitting an
application.
Mr. Fernandez: I applied in Monroe County and it has been sitting there for almost 1
year and a half, two years. I spoke to a lady on and off by email who retired last year and
somebody else took her spot. The way that they work is you have to go to school for
8
three years there then they give you a journeyman, they changed the policy over there.
But with her not there, and the back and forth, it would just sit there and wait for the
board.
Mr. Joslin: These companies that you have listed as experience, are you working for
them at all?
Mr. Fernandez replied that he is currently working for Perfection Air and Travinia
Health.
Mr. Joslin: And they don’t require a journeyman’s license? You can go to work for them
as just an employee, is that correct?
Mr. Fernandez: Correct. With them I am just an employee. But I want to get a
journeyman’s license so I can work for any job with more pay.
Vice Chair Jerulle asked if Mr. Fernandez had brought any applications from…
Mr. Fernandez: Right here I have the ones that are pending and the ones under review.
Vice Chair Jerulle asked if he could submit this as evidence.
Chairman Jaron asked if all the correspondence has been via email or phone and has he
gone in to speak with someone.
Mr. Fernandez: In Broward you have to go in to submit the paperwork. In Monroe, I
submitted the paperwork and there was a lot of email and a few phone calls. But it was
easier through Monroe County because they would get back to me. In Broward it was just
like stand by. Here it was easier to talk to everybody, I got emails back quick, submitted
the paperwork, went through all the steps. Here moved quickly. The back and forth. The
last thing you guys needed was my credit score which I submitted and heard back within
four days and that I do have a good credit score.
Chairman Jaron: But you are not getting anywhere with Broward, Miami Dade or
Monroe for 2 years.
Mr. Fernandez: No.
Mr. Nolton asked Supervisor Crotts if he had applied here or applied for a job with
Collier County schools or with Collier County, would we be having the same
conversation.
Supervisor Crotts: If he was working for the school, yes, because if you remember last
month we had a gentleman who applied and he was working for a big hotel down on
Marco Island and that was the same issue. He came to the board to request a
journeyman's license. If he was from Collier County or if he worked for a contractor who
was registered with us, who does work in the county, it would not be an issue. He
probably would have got the license. But if you recall last month the gentleman who was
trying to get the license…
Mr. Nolton: Last month he had a journeyman’s license, he was trying to get a Master's
license and that is totally different.
Supervisor Crotts: But, no. We had the supervision part of that because he was
employed by the hotel. But if we were giving him his CE license, it wouldn’t matter who
he was employed by, if he had the CE license then he could pull his own permits.
Mr. Nolton made a motion to approve. Chairman Jaron asked for a second. No second.
was given.
9
Mr. Nolton: Mr. Fernandez it shows on this piece of paper we were given that you have
withdrawn your application?
Mr. Fernandez: I submit them and when they know I don't have a journeyman's license
that is when I have to pull it back because of the Journeyman part.
Mr. Lantz: Those are job applications, not applications for the journeyman’s card.
Vice Chair Jerulle: I asked about job applications.
Mr. Fernandez: Those are the ones I had to take back.
Mr. Nolton: I am conflicted here because it seems he meets the criteria to get a license
but we don't want everyone coming here just to get a license. Is there something in the
law or statute that says that we don’t give it to him?
Supervisor Crotts: It would be the supervision part of it.
Mr. Nolton: And specifically what does that wording say?
Supervisor Crotts: With the license he has applied for he has to have at least four years
as an apprentice, a passing grade on an approved exam, that means the person is qualified
to work under the trades while employed or supervised by a licensed contractor.
Mr. Nolton: But it doesn’t say a licensed Collier County contractor. Have we thought of
amending that? We can’t just go on the fly.
Supervisor Crotts: We have to go by what the ordinance reads, we can’t say we think it
should say this. We have to go by what the ordinance actually says.
Mr. Lantz: But the ordinance doesn’t say it has to be a licensed Collier County
contractor.
Supervisor Crotts: No, it can be any state licensed contractor and it can also be a local
Collier County contractor, but then it comes in the supervision part.
Mr. Nolton: Mr. Crotts, you are right, we have to go by what it says. But when you read
that, he meets the first two criteria obviously, right? And the third one he meets as it is
written, the ordinance it written. You are interpreting the third one, or the county is
interrupting it that we should have in here that it should be in Collier County or the
supervision has to be here in but it does not say that.
Supervisor Crotts: It has to be supervision by, at least in staff's opinion and in speaking
to both attorneys, it has to be supervised by a licensed contractor who is performing work
in Collier County.
Mr. Nolton: Again, but because it does not state that, you have had to interpret that and
you went to both attorneys, asking how to interpret that.
Supervisor Crotts: That is correct, sir.
Vice Chair Jerulle: This is the Collier County Board, right? It is not the Broward or
Monroe County Board. People come here to get licensed to work here. It may not say
Collier County but it is Collier County. I am not inclined to give a license to someone
that is not going to work here and the only purpose is to get a license here and work
somewhere else and that we have no control over.
Mr. Lantz: What kind of control do we ever have over a journeyman, ever. A
journeymans working down the street, what kind of control do we have over him? Are we
holding the journeyman accountable, or are we holding the Master accountable.
Supervisor Crotts: if he was working outside the scope, it would be the journeyman.
Mr. Nolton: Are we thinking about denying it because he is going to work outside the
10
scope?
Supervisor Crotts: That is one of the reasons, him working outside the scope, but we
might not know if he was working outside the scope and if he was working on the East
Coast, then the disciplinary action for that license would have to come back to Collier
County.
Chairman Jaron makes a motion to not approve the license. Vice Chair Jurelle
seconds the motion. Mr. Lantz voted nay. Motion passes 4-1.
Vice Chair Jerulle noted that there has to be a reason that three counties have not
granted him a license.
C._ 8C. Juan Carlos Lopez_Huistas Infinite Masonry LCC20240001279
Review of Credit
[Mr. Lopez was sworn in.]
Mr. Lopez asked the question be repeated. Mr. Neale swore him in again.
Supervisor Crotts reported that Mr. Lopez has submitted an application for the
issuance of a masonry contractor license which requires a minimum credit score of 660.
As part of the application under Collier County ordinance 2006.46 under Section 2.3.9
Mr. Lopez was required to submit a personal and business credit report. Mr. Lopez’
personal credit report was reviewed and appears not to meet the financial responsibility
as set forth by Section 2.5.1, subsection D. The applicant or qualifier meets the
financial responsibility as set forth in rule G1 G4 15.006 of the state of Florida. The
credit report submitted shows the following area of concern; the credit report submitted
shows a score of 591. The minimum credit score required by rule is 660. The areas of
concern on the report was a collection by Creek RM dated 3/24 in the amount of
$372.00 with the total collection amount being $372.00. An area of concern on his
business report was a lien that was reported, a tax lien in the amount of $1837 in filed
by the Florida Department of revenue dated February 2023. This was filed against Mr.
Lopez’ company, Huistas Infinite Masonry LLC, however Mr. Lopez has submitted
documentation from the Department of Revenue from the State of Florida showing that
the amount owed has been paid in full on April 15, 2024 and the tax lien is now
showing the status as pending. A copy of this document has been included in your
packet for the review. Based upon the information received, Mr. Lopez does not meet
the minimum requirements as it relates to ordinance 2006 46 because Mr. Lopez does
not meet the credit score of financial responsibility as required by ordinance, Mr.
Lopez is being referred to the board under ordinance 2.5.2 in regard to his financial
responsibility. Mr. Lopez is here to answer your questions regarding his credit and we
do have a recommendation.
The Board questioned Mr. Lopez as follows:
Chairman Jaron: Does ADP do your payroll?
Mr. Lopez: Yes, they used to do it but I had to change because they didn’t send the
quarterly reports to the state so that’s why I didn’t pay it. I have been paying my taxes
and I have a satisfaction of lien notice here with me.
11
Chairman Jaron: So who does your payroll now?
Mr. Lopez: APC, I think it is a new company and they have been doing the job right so
I don't think we are going to have that problem again.
Chairman Jaron: And how long did ADP do your payroll?
Mr. Lopez: Almost two years.
Chairman Jaron: And how many employees?
Mr. Lopez: At the time it was eleven employees. Eleven to fifteen..
Chairman Jaron: What is the county's recommendation?
Supervisor Crotts made the following staff recommendation: That the license be
granted with the following conditions:
1. That the license be placed on a 12 month probationary period
2. Mr. Lopez is to provide proof within 30 days that a payment plan has been
entered with Credence RM on the collected amount.
3. Mr. Lopez submit a new credit report before the end of the 12 month
probationary period showing a credit score of at least 660, no new issues, and
that all collection issues have been satisfied.
4. If at any time during the probationary period, Mr. Lopez can submit
documentation showing his personal credit score of at least 660, the collection
amount has been paid in full and there are no new issues regarding his business
credit; the licensing board can remove the probationary status.
Mr. Nolton: Is there any backstory with the $372 dollars owed. I know it is a small
amount. Is that something you are disputing?
Mr. Lopez: Yes, I have been fighting with them because they said I signed a year
contract with AT&T. I never signed any document saying I got a contract for a year. I
signed up with another internet network and I didn’t pay that amount and I asked them
to show me proof that I had a contract with them and they did not show me proof so
that is why I didn’t pay it but I don’t have any problem paying it, it is not a lot of
money so I will pay it.
Mr. Nolton made a motion to approve the counties recommendation with one caveat or
change that rather than a payment plan he show proof of payment of that amount.
Supervisor Crotts: That is part of it that within 30 days he just pays it out, that is fine.
Mr. Joslin seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Jerulle: Mr. Lopez, do you understand what Supervisor Crotts has said?
There is a motion to approve your license, do you understand the conditions.
Mr. Lopez: I am going to pay it today.
Vice Chair Jerulle: I am looking at some of the letters from Commercial Concrete.
You are a very good mason according to what Pete is saying. So you need to take that
dedication you apply to masonry skills and try to apply it to businessman skills. You
need to be a businessman now, not just a mason.
Mr. Lopez: Yes
12
Mr. Joslin: On the one bill though, of $300, you are saying you don’t owe that but you
are willing to pay it.
Mr. Lopez: They say I owe it so I am going to pay it.
Chairman Jaron advised he pay it and that it would help his credit score and be done
with it.
Mr. Lopez: Yeah I am going to pay it as soon as I get out of here.
Mr. Nolton:That is the easy part, then you have to get your credit score up.
Mr. Lopez confirmed the period was a year and the board members confirmed it was
12 months.
Supervisor Crotts: It is 12 months from today and if at any point during that 12 month
probationary period he can prove he has brought his credit score to 660 and there are no
other credit issues the probationary status can be removed.
Mr. Joslin stated that if the lien has been paid he should not have any problem bringing
his credit score up.
Supervisor Crotts: Agreed and believes that since the lien was just paid in April that
the credit score has not caught up with the status, it shows pending but there is
documentation that that full amount has been paid.
Vice Chair Jerulle: Mr. Crotts, if I am Mr. Lopez, how do I know what to do? Is there
is some paperwork to show Mr. Lopez what he needs to do.
Supervisor Crotts: He can contact Mr. Ryan after the meeting and Mr. Ryan can walk
him through what he needs to do on that. But, pretty much he should continue to pay
his bills and within 12 months if has gotten to 660, submit that report to us and we will
remove the probationary status.
Vice Chair Jerulle confirmed that Mr. Lopez understood the conditions.
Mr. Lopez: Yes
Vice Chair Jerulle: I would definitely get with him, under those conditions and try to
meet those conditions as soon as possible.
Motions had been made earlier by Mr. Nolton, seconded by Mr. Joslin. Motion passes
5-0.
D._ and E. 8 D and E. Rudy Mendoza_RM Gardens Landscaping LCC20240001169 and
LCC20240001280
Review of Credit
Supervisor Crotts stated there were two different agenda items due to different
licenses and confirmed with Chairman Jaron that they could be heard together. He
further explained that there is one license for irrigation and one license for paving
blocks that the board is going to vote on.
Chairman Jaron approved hearing both cases as one.
[Mr. Mendoza is sworn in.]
Vice Chair Jerulle: So there is two different cases listed. We are going to hear them at
once but vote twice?
13
Supervisor Crotts: No you can vote once the reason they are listed separately is there
are two different trades, one for irrigation and one for paving block.
Supervisor Crotts: Mr. Mendoza has submitted an application for the issuance of a
paving blocks contractor license and an irrigation contractors license which requires a
minimum credit score of 660. As a part of the application process under Collier County
ordinance 2006 46 section 2.3.9, Mr. Mendoza was required to submit a personal credit
report and a business credit report. Mr. Mendoza’s personal credit report was reviewed
and appears not to meet the 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 G1 G4- 15.006 of the state of Florida. A review of the
personal credit report submitted by Mr. Mendoza shows the following areas of concern;
the credit report submitted shows a score of 614. The minimum credit score required by
rule is 660.
Credit reports submitted by Mr. Mendoza show the following areas of concern:
1. Collection by T-Mobile in the amount of $417 dated 4/24.
2. And a past due amount of $70.00 by Bank of America dated 4/24, that
account has been closed by the grantor.
Based upon the information received, Mr. Mendoza does not meet the minimum credit
requirements as set forth under 2006-46 as it relates to financial responsibility. Because
Mr. Mendoza does not meet the minimum requirements of credit score he is being
referred to the board under ordinance 2.5.2, referral to the contractors licensing board.
And Mr. Mendoza is here today to answer your questions regarding his credit and staff
does have a recommendation.
Chairman Jaron: OK, Mr. Mendoza. Can you give us your side, a little background
information?
Mr. Mendoza: T-Mobile has been paid off and is being disputed. Bank of America was
an oversight and has been paid off. Since last year in October I got my landscaping
license and because it is a new company, I purchased new equipment and they used my
personal credit as a grantor and that is what made it drop as well. When I got the license
for the landscaping, my credit was good.
Chairman Jaron: And how much equipment did you purchase? What was the credit?
Mr. Mendoza: A new truck and a new machine, about over 150 grand.
Mr. Lantz asked Supervisor Crotts if he has a license and is applying for an additional
license.
Supervisor Crotts: 2 additional licenses, that is correct.
Mr. Lantz: County's recommendation, Mr. Crotts?
Supervisor Crotts: The county would recommend the licenses be granted with the
following conditions:
1. That the licenses be placed on a 12 month probationary period and that within
14
30 days Mr. Mendoza show proof that either a payment plan has been entered
into with T-Mobile and Bank of America or that these amounts have been paid
for in full.
2. That Mr. Mendoza submit a new personal credit report before the end of the 12
month probationary period showing a credit score of at least 660. If there are no
new credit issues and all collections and past dues have been satisfied during the
probationary period. If Mr. Mendoza shows his credit score is 660, no new
credit issues and all amounts have been paid in full, the supervisor may remove
the probationary status. Basically the same as we had last time.
Mr. Lantz made a motion to accept the county recommendations. Mr. Joslin seconded
the motion.
Mr. Joslin: Mr. Mendoza, do you understood the conditions?
Mr. Mendoza: Yes.
Mr. Joslin: And again, if you have any questions.
Motion passes 5-0.
F._ 8F. Christopher Torres_Master Touch Installations Inc_Master Touch Tile and
Stone Inc. LCC20170000960 and LCC20240001323
Second Entity
(Mr. Torres was sworn in)
Supervisor Crotts: Mr. Torres has submitted a second entity application for the trade
of tile and marble contractor. Mr. Torres currently holds a valid Tile and Marble
contractor license issued by Collier County in 2017 under the current name Master
Touch Installations Incorporated. A review of the current company in the city and
Collier County database shows no complaints issued to the current company and that
Mr. Torres holds the required issuance as set by ordinance. Also no credit issues found.
There has also been no issues with regard to renewals. Mr. Torres is submitting a
second entity application to qualify the company identified as Master Touch Tile and
Stone for the aforementioned trade. There is no local license currently held by this
company associated with this name and a review of the corporations business
documents’ division shows Mr. Torres as listed as President of Master Touch Tile and
Stone and there are no other officers in the corporation. Mr. Torres is here to answer
your questions regarding his second entity application.
Chairman Jaron asked Mr. Torres to provide some background information.
Mr. Torres: I created Master Touch back in 2005 when I graduated high school and
Master Touch Installations is pretty much catered to outside work; pools, pool decks,
driveways, pool tiles. So we pretty much have built a reputation in that sense. My
intention was to create Master Tile and Stone so we could do high end interior work,
specializing in flooring, tiles, showers, everything inside the house. We also applied in
Cape Coral and Lee County and it has been granted.
15
Vice Chair Jerulle asked why 2 entities , why not do everything under the same
entity.
Mr. Torres: The main reason is I want to keep everything separated. Master Touch
Installations I am 50% owner with my dad. So Master Touch Tile and stone is going to
be a whole different entity, as far as the taxes, records and paperwork. I want to make
sure it is totally different to that. As I mentioned, Master Touch Installations has
created a reputation as far as outside work. So I want to create a whole new entity to do
inside work and get it more to the high end projects.
Vice Chair Jerulle: I know dozens of contractors that do both under one entity. Are
you doing this because you have 50% ownership of one and you will have 100%
ownership of the other one?
Mr. Torres: Yes, that is one of the reasons..
Mr. Lantz: Why did you choose almost the same name?
Mr. Torres: To be honest I like the name Master Touch Installations. Again, it was
created when I was 18, we have already built that niche. Tile and Stone I wanted to be
more specific because Master Touch Installations people question what do you guys
do? What do you install? Tile and Stone is more specific so when you hear the name
you automatically go to tile flooring and showers.
Mr. Lantz: How do you buy materials?
Mr. Torres: I have different credit accounts at different stores.
Mr. Lantz: So when you call up Shoreline or whoever and say you need a pallet of
thinset, and you say it is for Master Touch, who is the amount billed to.
Mr. Torres: Master Touch Installations is pretty much run by my father. He has
different vendors, different stores. Master Touch Tile and Stone is pretty much 100%
run by me. So we have different vendors, different stores, different clientele.
Mr. Nolton: So the first one Master Touch, your father pretty much runs it but you are
the qualifier for it.
Mr. Torres: Yes, sir.
Mr. Nolton: So two different companies but you are sort of moving out of the first
company and creating your own company and you are still qualifying for your fathers
company.
Mr. Torres: Yes, sir.
Chairman Jaron: When was the first master touch created?
Mr. Torres: In 2005.
Chairman Jaron: But you own 50%.
Mr. Torres: Yes, sir.
Chairman Jaron:Did you qualify for the company or did your father.
Mr. Torres: I did.
Mr. Nolton: It sounds like he started the company in 2005 with his father and now he
wants to go out on his own to own a hundred percent of the company and his father is
going to go on with the other company.
Mr. Torres: Yes, sir. Part of it was I joined the fire reserve in 2009 and in 2010 I
joined the military. When I got back I had the idea that I wanted to start my own
16
company and Master Touch Tile and Stone was the name for it.
Vice Chair Jerulle: So how many employees are you going to have?
Mr. Torres: I want to grow so hopefully a lot. Asked how many he has now, replied
that he has a project manager and a couple guys.
Vice Chair Jerulle: That work for Master Touch?
Mr. Torres: For Master Touch Installations we have 6 guys.
Vice Chair Jerulle: And for the new one?
Mr. Torres: Right now or the new one I have a project manager that is helping run the
operations and 2 employees.
Mr. Joslin: Are you going to be able to switch employees? If you get a phone call and
you’ve got 2 jobs in the same house? Who is going to do what and for which company?
Mr. Torres: We want to make sure there is a difference between the 2 companies,
when you call Master Touch Installations, they are only going to do outside work;
pools, driveways. So they have their own employees. Those installers do not install
inside, they are two separate in terms of scope of work. And they have different offices
as well.
Mr. Joslin: They are not in the same office even? Same building?
Mr. Torres: No, Sir. They are in Fort Myers, we are in Cape Coral.
Mr. Lantz: How much supervision do you give to your old company, that your dad is
running?
Mr. Torres: I show up from time to time, my brother is there sometimes doing
supervision. But the guys have been doing it a long time, know what they are doing.
We do the job as it was contracted; we get the materials we get the contract. But the
guys have been doing what they are doing for a long time. As far as me supervising
what they are doing?
Mr. Nolton: As far as you It sounds like there is a set thing in place.You get the
contract, your dad is there. How involved are you?
Mr. Torres: As far as Master Installations, a minimum. My dad is running that, he has
my brother is a supervisor over there too and they have other employees over there too.
I want to put a lot of effort into Master Touch Tile and Stone.
Mr. Lantz: But still be a part of the old one.
Mr. Torres: 100%
Chairman Jaron: Do you also still work for the fire department, is that Cape Coral fire
department?
Mr. Torres: No Sir, I work for Lehigh Acres Fire Department.
Chairman Jaron: How does that work, are you part time? Fulltime?
Mr. Torres: No sir, I actually just got off. I didn't have time to change. We work 24
hours then we are off 48 hours, so I have the next two days off.
Chairman Jaron: So you are a busy guy, not much time to sleep.
Mr. Joslin: How are you going to do that with the new business? Do you have people
under you, working for you? Someone working under you, supervising the people when
they go to a job?
Mr. Torres: Yes, sir. We have a project manager that has worked for us for many years
so he is going to be the one as far as operations. We also have someone at the office
that manages the logistics so there is definitely going to be supervision. The days that I
17
am off what I like to do is check on the clients, not the guys doing the work. I know
that the guys are doing good work so I like to check on the clients. So there is definitely
going to be supervision on that. If it is not directly by me, it will be under my
supervisors.
Mr. Nolton: From what I understood you already have licensing in Lee County?
Mr. Torres: With the name Master Touch Tile and Stone we have already applied in
Lee County and Cape Coral and it has been granted. We are just waiting for Collier
County, 90% of our work is here.
Mr. Nolton: But you are already doing work in Lee County and the City of Cape Coral
under that name?
Mr. Torres: Yes sir, under Master Touch Tile and Stone.
Chairman Jaron asked Supervisor Crotts if he has given a recommendation.
Supervisor Crotts: I have not yet. Based upon the information received this is
probably one of the best applications I have seen regarding a second entity. We
recommend that the second entity license be granted with a probationary period of 12
months. At the end of 12 months if there are no issues then the probationary status is
automatically removed.
Mr. Joslin: I would go along with that motion and make it a motion, even though I
know the board is not fond of giving second entities, as far as the same situation, the
same work that you are going to be doing. Only because there is so much conflict that
can happen. But I think you very well got it under control, you are handling it, plus the
fire department plus your fathers helping. So I will make the motion that we accept the
recommendation with 12 month probation.
Mr. Lantz: I have something to say but I don’t want to make a motion. So, I am
probably more contractor friendly then most of the people on this board, but I am
against it. Two things, I do not like almost the same name, I think that could lead to
confusion and that could lead very easily to financial mismanagement where products
are bought under one name and the other company does not have the money to pay for
it. I think there could be a lot of confusion there. And there is always the potential to
get different bids, I don’t know. To me it has the illusion that we are trying to cover
something up. And it is probably just an illusion, I don’t know, but that is just my gut.
Vice Chair Jerulle (to Mr. Lantz): You may think you are more contractor friendly and
that can be debated later. I think I am more anti two entities than anybody but the name
doesn’t bother me. Because if it was a different name you could easily have both of
those give a proposal to one client and not know who the owners are. To me that is
where the conflict arises. When the names are so close, you are not going to have two
bids go to the same client. Using that logic I am more comfortable that the names are
closer then.
Mr. Lantz: I am looking at it more under the purchasing side. I am also a little
uncomfortable that he is stretching himself too thin. Dad’s running the old business,
he is really not part of that business anymore. I think he needs to be supervising both.
Vice Chair Jerulle: Has there been any complaints?
18
Supervisor Crotts: No complaints at all under the original company.
Chairman Jaron: You say most of your work is in Collier County?
Mr. Torres: Yes, sir. Mr. Lantz if you’ll allow me to answer your question. Master
Touch Installations is a well formed company they have been running since 05, so you
can go under our reviews, we have the highest reviews in SW Florida. But what they do
is straight outdoors, so pavers. You can’t do pavers inside the house, so they do pavers,
pool tiles. So marble flooring is not going to be outside. So there is not going to be
multiple bidding cause the guys do two different scopes of work and that company is
well run. As far as Master Touch Tile and Stone, I am putting a lot of my background
from the military and the fire department and that structure, I am putting that into the
new company so it is going to do very well.
Mr. Joslin: That is the reason I made the motion, because it has been since 05 with no
complaints. That's a long time to have a company with no complaints.
Supervisor Crotts: Yes, and I think the probationary period also adds that extra layer
of protection. If there are any issues within the 12 months, Mr. Torres would
automatically be brought back in front of the board for a review.
Mr. Joslin had made a motion to approve. Mr. Nolton seconds Mr. Joslin's motion.
Chairman Jaron: So we have a motion. All those in favor say aye.
Vice Chair Jerulle: Mr. Torres, we typically really look at second entities so this is
kind of an exception.
Chairman Jaron calls for a vote.
Motions had been made earlier by Mr. Joslin, seconded by Mr. Nolton. Motion
passes 4-1. Opposed by Mr. Lantz.
9. _ Old Business
(none)
10. _Public Hearing
Mr. Nolton made a motion to reopen the hearing. Vice Chair Jerulle seconded. Motion
passes 5-0.
Chairman Jaron asked if we are doing Item 10 B and 10 C together. Supervisor Crotts
confirmed you have to do them separately.
10. A. 10A. _Kevin Andrew Newton_Classified Access Control
LLC_CEMIS20240003645. Rescheduled.
10 B. 10B._Michael A. Meracdo and William David Allen_Affodable Fence and
Screen Unlimited Inc._CEMIS202400002412
The respondents were sworn in by Mr. Neale.
Michael Bogert Collier County Licensing Investigator introduced the complaint
19
as follows:
A copy of the hearing preamble was given to and read by the respondents they have
initialed and dated it. I would like to enter the package for case number 2024-07
Mr. Nolton makes a motion to enter the packet into evidence. Vice Chair Jerulle
seconded. Motion passes 5-0.
Mr. Michael Meracdo and Mr. William David Allen are licensed fencing contractors
for Collier County with issuance numbers 201400001391 and 20120000551
respectively are the qualifiers for and officers of Affordable Fence and Screen
Unlimited Inc.
Affordable Fence and Screen Unlimited Inc. contracted for, received payment, and
performed a pool fence installation at 594 104th Ave N. without a permit where one
was required. Mr. Meracdo and Mr. Allen are in violation of Collier County code laws
and ordinances section 22-2018 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 any permits or inspections by the city zoning department or the Collier
County Building review and permitting department.
Discussion as follows:
Mr. Lantz: This is one company with 2 qualifiers.
Supervisor Crotts confirmed it is for the same license.
Mr. Lantz: Is it going to state a primary qualifier and a secondary qualifier or just two
qualifiers for the same company.
Supervisor Crotts confirmed two qualifiers for the same company.
Mr. Lantz: So any charges or punishments that might be levied, would they each get
one or is it divided between the two.
Supervisor Crotts: If we have a guilty finding and disciplinary action is done it would
be against the company with both qualifiers so it would be one.
Mr. Lantz wanted it confirmed that if it was a million dollar fine (we’re not) it would
be one not a million dollars each that it would be divided among the two.
Confirmed by Supervisor Crotts.
Mr. Nolton: And these are registered?
Supervisor Crotts: They are local licenses that is correct.
Chairman Janro asked Mr. Meracdo and Mr. Allen to give their opening remarks.
Mr. Meracdo: On the permit, number 594104, I had applied for it with the easement
use agreement and I did not sign it was the problem. But the easement use agreement
had gone through and was passed and I got it back. You know it is a process of like
three different steps, but I got all those back and I didn’t sign them. I am sorry. I did do
the job. I was under pressure with the customer and I have been doing this since 2012
and we haven’t had any issues and I try and make everybody happy and sometimes that
can get me in trouble.
20
Vice Chair Jerulle: So you are saying you've been doing this since 2012 and you’ve
qualified for this company since 2012.
Mr. Meracdo: Originally David Allen has qualified the company that I bought. So he
was my original qualifier until I had the 2 years experience under him and then I
qualified. Or he qualified me, something along those lines.
Mr. Joslin: So you are the license holder basically?
Mr. Mercado: Yes.
Mr. Joslin: Why are you both on it still?
Investigator Bogert: They are both renewing their license every year so that is a
question you should ask them.
Mr. Joslin: Then why are you carrying two licenses then?
Mr. Meracdo: For me it's just that he’s had his license for a long time, he’s been doing
fences for a long time. He was qualified for a long time and I felt like he wanted to
keep his license and I needed to keep mine going too. We are good friends and we
wanted to keep it that way.
Mr. Joslin: Well he could put his license in dormant state that one only one of you is
responsible not both of you. It could get sticky. To make a long story short, you did the
work and you knew you needed a permit and you submitted for the permit but it didn’t
quite make it before you started the job.
Mr. Meracdo: Because I didn’t sign it. I am sorry.
Mr. Lantz: So technically you did apply for a permit but you didn’t follow through.
Mr. Meracdo: Technically I did follow through I did get it back cause I was following
the EUA process back then and it was kind of a tedious process and I did get it back,
its; just that I didn’t sign the application, that's why that got stuck. I have corrected
everything and submitted everything and it’s uploaded in the system.
Mr. Lantz: Is the permit issued?
Mr. Meracdo: No, it is applied for. But the EUA was issued so it was a long process.
Mr. Lantz: So there is no permit.
Supervisor Crotts: I think that Investigator Bogert can shed some light on the
timeline that has occurred since our investigation has taken place.
Chairman Janro asked Investigator Bogert to present his case. He made the
following points:
● The contract was signed in November. They applied for the permit shortly after
that. It was November 21st.
● Immediately from the get go they put in their submission, in November
● They got a corrections letter in the end February due to the use agreement that
he was talking about. Time lapsed in between there and in March there were
documents uploaded but then there was a subsequent rejection notice for lack of
a response to the corrections.
● Shortly after that in May, kinda the same thing . Some more documents were
21
updated, that was also rejected for the response received and for the documents
he uploaded either this morning or yesterday there was a rejection in a similar
nature. I think they are missing a sheet detailing what the corrections responses
were supposed to be and some pictures to supplement that to probably get the
permit issued.
● Since November and now we are here in June some of these things are really
easy to take care of.
Chairman Jaron: When was the fence actually completed?
Mr. Mercado: It was in November or December.
Investigator Bogert: I would highlight that it is actually a pool fence.
Mr. Lantz: Was it a new pool?
Mr. Meracdo: I believe it was for a new pool.
Mr. Lantz: Do you know if there was water in the pool when you put the fence up?
Mr. Allen: There was no water in the pool, not when we did it. They usually can’t put
water in the pool until you put the fence up.
Vice Chair Jurelle: Not usually, you are not allowed to.
Mr. Joslin: I am a pool contractor, I know.
Investigator Bogert: I believe some of the pictures in the packet show there is
definitely water in the pool, since March at least.
Chairman Jaron: Is that it from the county?
Investigator Bogert: Yes, the permit is still not issued, he has corrections to address.
Mr. Joslin: Are you aware of these corrections?
Mr. Meracdo: Yes sir, on this last one I submitted I don’t know what corrections we
submitted, I believe he said we were missing a paper?
Investigator Bogert: You did not submit the pictures, you did the plans but I believe
you are missing the pictures for the latch and that is what they are looking for.
Mr. Meracdo: Typically what I do I have done this for years the same. I will show you
this, self closing, self latching, 2 inch gap 24 inches from the bottom concrete.
Vice Chair Jerulle: You don't have to show us that, it's more important you give that
information.
Mr. Joslin: Has that been submitted to the county?
Vice Chair Jerulle: It this for the city of Naples or the county.
Mr. Meracdo: It is for the county.
Investigator Bogert: He needs to go to the building department and work it out.
Mr. Lantz: I was just looking through. Is the next case a separate property with
basically the same conditions?
Investigator Bogert: It is contract abandonment versus no permit.
Chairman Jaron: Did you have anything else you would like to add?
Mr. Meracdo: I try and do my best, I try.
Chairman Jaron: When you installed the fence you knew the permit wasn’t issued.
You knew you did not have a permit.
Mr. Meracdo: We applied for it.
Chairman Jaron: The permit was not issued.
Mr. Nolton: We are either going to find you guilty or you are going to tell us you are
22
guilty of installing the fence without a permit.
Mr. Meracdo: I am definitely guilty.
Vice Chair Jurelle: So you are admitting guilt to the charge.
Chairman Jaron: Is this a habit?
Mr. Meracdo: No it is not. I am getting gray hairs over this.
Mr. Lantz makes a motion to accept a plea of guilty. Mr. Joslin seconds the motion. The
motion passes 5-0.
Chairman Janro asks if the county has a closing statement. The county rests.
Chairman Janro asks for the county's recommendation.
Supervisor Crotts: In the case 2024_07 the county asks for a fine of $1000 to be paid
within 30 days. Failure to pay the fine within 30 days will result in the automatic
revocation of the respondents license. That the licenses be placed on a 12 month
probation, that the permit process be completed to include a certificate of completion
within 90 days. Failure to comply with the order of the Board will result in the license
holders be required to report back in front of the Board for review and possible other
disciplinary action. And I guess we should state that for some reason within the 90 days
they are running into issues to notify the contractor licensing staff and then we can
review and I would ask that staff have the ability to extend within the 90 days if we feel
that they are making efforts and there might be a hold up by the county.
Vice Chair Jurelle asked if they have already voted. Mr. Lantz confirmed they voted
that they were guilty.
Mr. Joslin voted that they close the public hearing.
Vice Chair Jerulle asked if this was a new home construction.
Investigator Bogert: It was not a new construction, it was just a new pool and then the
fence.
Vice Chair Jerulle: So it was an existing home and they put in a pool and they put the
fence up.
Investigator Bogert: Yes.
Vice Chair Jerulle: Are they are using the pool.
Investigator Bogert: Yes.
Mr. Joslin: Has the pool has been sealed?
Mr. Lantz: Can’t seal without a fence, right?
Mr. Joslin: Right.
Chairman Jaron: Just to refresh my memory, who filed the complaint? The property
owner?
Investigator Bogert: Yes.
Mr. Nolton: Probably trying to close out the permit.
Mr. Joslin: (asked the respondents) What do you need to submit the submittals that are
wrong or have been wrong since November, to get this pool sealed and the fence
23
completed?
Mr. Meracdo: I think I have everything I need except for the one page, the details
page, they were looking for with the pictures, the pictures of the self latching.
Mr. Joslin: Have you talked to anybody down at the county to find out exactly what
you need, not what you think you need? That's where we have been since November
right?
Mr. Meracdo: I will head down there right after and I will get that detail.
Mr. Joslin: I mean we have a pool open that doesn’t have a permit and if someone gets
hurt in that pool, that is not good.
Chairman Jaron: Have you been paid in full by the homeowner?
Mr. Meracdo: yes.
Mr. Nolton: Is there was anything else from the county do we have everything we
need to close the hearing?
Mr. Joslin: Not yet we need a motion for it.
A motion was made to close the public hearing. Mr. Nolton seconds the motion.
Motion passes 5-0.
Mr. Nolton also makes a motion that we adopt the county's recommendations for the
penalty portion of the hearing. Mr. Joslin seconds the motion. Motion passes 5-0.
Attorney Neale (via Zoom) was asked for his comments and responded: The
county's recommendations fell within the guidelines prescribed in statutes in Collier
County ordinance so there is no need to go any further as far as discussing what
penalties were available so there is no need to go any further in the next one we may
do.
Chairman Jaron asked respondents if they understand that they pled guilty and
there are some sanctions, we’ll read those off to you. 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:
1. Service of the administrative complaint and notice was legally and sufficiently
provided, and in compliance with the applicable law.
2. The respondent is the holder of the license that was set forth in the
administrative complaint.
3. Respondent was present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel.
4. The Board has jurisdiction over the respondent and subject matter raised in the
administrative complaint.
5. The respondent committed the violations as set forth in count 1 of the
administrative complaint. Therefore by a vote of 5-0, 5 in favor and zero
opposed, the respondent is found guilty of the violations as set forth in count
one in the administrative complaint.
Chairman Jaron: The Board imposes the following sanctions against the
24
respondent:
1. A fine of $1000.00 to be paid in 30 days.
2. 12 months of probation
3. The certificate of completion on the fence that is in question.
This concludes the order of the Board in this manner.
Supervisor Crotts clarified that if the fine is not paid in 30 days then the licenses will be
automatically revoked.
Mr. Neale (via Zoom): As to the permit, I believe there was a 90 day provision on that.
Supervisor Crotts: That is correct they have 90 days to have the permit issued and completed
to include the Certificate of Completion being issued. The other stipulation would be that if the
respondent can show just cause that he cannot meet the 90-day requirement, that the contractor
licensing staff would have the authority to extend the 90-day period.
Chairman Jaron: (to the respondents) You have 90-days and are going to have to push it
along. I would definitely be aware of how much time. If you need it you may be able to get a
little more time, but the sooner the better.
Supervisor Crotts: On the system for Collier County you have 24 permits. Make this your
priority.
Mr. Joslin: In the final portion of this, did they ask you for a spot survey? That may be the
kicker.
Investigator Bogert: I don’t see that on his permit for conditions.
Mr. Joslin: The spot survey may complete the entire project.
Vice Chair Jerulle: You might check that and see, the owner may have a survey.
Chairman Jaron thanked the respondents for coming in.
Chairman Jaron asked if respondents need to be sworn again. Mr. Neale responded they have
already been sworn so they should be OK, just remind everybody that they are still under oath.
Vice Chair Jerulle made a motion to open the public hearing. Nolton seconded. Motion
passes 5-0. Motion passed to open the public hearing for case 2024_08.
10 C. 10C._Michael A. Meracdo and William David Allen_Affodable Fence and Screen
Unlimited Inc._CEMIS20240004496
Michael Bogert County Licensing Investigator introduces the complaint:
A copy of the hearing packet has been given to and read by the respondents, they’ve initialed
and dated the copy. I would like to enter the packet and preamble of Case number 2024_08.
Mr. Nolton made a motion to accept the packet. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Jerulle.
Motion passes 5-0.
Investigator Bogert, Investigator gives an opening statement:
The respondents, Mr. Michael Meracdo and Mr. William David Allen are licensed
fence contractors for Collier County with issuance numbers 201400001391 and
20120000551 respectively are the qualifiers for and officers of Affordable Fence and
25
Screen Unlimited Inc.
Affordable Fence and Screen Unlimited Inc. contracted for and received payment for a
fence installation at 3640 68th Avenue NE since the contract date of December 16,
2023, no work has been performed. Permit number PRFW20231251620 was applied
for December 19, 2023 and is currently in ready for issuance status since February 15,
2024.
From the contract date of December 16, 2023 to early February there were sporadic
communications between the respondents and the property owner regarding fencing
installation updates. From early February 2024 until the middle of April 2024, the
property owner made various communication attempts to the respondents for an update
but received no response. The property owner has not had contact with the respondent
or any work performed for a period of over 90 days since early February 2024.
Mr. Meracdo and Mr. Allen are in violation of Collier County code of laws and
ordinances 22-2013 which states in pertinent part abandoning a construction project in
which he/she is engaged or under contract as a contractor. The project may be
presumed abandoned if the contractor abandons the project without just cause or fails to
notify the owner in writing of termination of the contract and basis for the same or fails
to perform work for 90 consecutive days without just cause and no said notice to the
owner.
A discussion was begun with Chairman Jaron asking respondents to present their
opening remarks.
Mr. Meracdo: On that permit, we did apply for it on that month, but he had, I guess,
preserves and he had to get some approval or disapproval or what not for the preserve
so we were waiting on that approval. And then he finally got the notice that we were
OK for everything we wanted to do around the preserves. That was part of the delay we
were waiting on the wildlife, no, vegetation.
Chairman Jaron: This fence goes around the perimeter of the property, is that right?
Mr. Meracdo: It goes around the whole back and down the front side, on the front, but
not where the preserves are.
Mr. Joslin: Did he get the fence?
Mr. Meracdo: No, he did not get the fence. It took so long to get everything going I
kind of got backed up myself, I had other problems. I will get him squared away,
whether he wants the money back or he wants me to do the job.
Vice Chair Jerulle: So the county would not have issued the permit if there was a
conflict with any wetlands.
Investigator Bogert: I believe the permit is up to the point of just an application fee
issued for the permit, all that was taken care of in the first 2 months that he applied for
the permit.
Mr. Meracdo: I try and stay on top of things, sometimes things slip through.
Chairman Jaron: And so the homeowner filed the complaint again. Is that correct?
Investigator Bogert: That is correct, they are in attendance if there are any questions
26
of them. But they are just looking to be reimbursed so they can move on with the
permit themselves and hire a new contractor due to the lack of work.
Chairman Jaron: Run it by me again, so why the delay. Because you were waiting for
the..
Mr. Meracdo: Because there were preserves on the property in some parts. They
wanted to do more but we got that approved for what I submitted.
Chairman Jaron: It just got lost in the 24 permits that you have submitted?
Mr. Meracdo: It was delayed.
Mr. Nolton: Are we here to vote on guilt?
Mr. Meracdo: I am definitely guilty.
Mr. Nolton made a motion to accept the guilty plea. Mr. Jurelle seconded the motion.
Motion passes 5-0.
Mr. Nolton made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Joslin seconded the motion.
Motion passes 5-0.
Mr. Nolton: It was clear abandonment. Whether you are waiting on information on the
wetlands or something you should have been in communication with the client. It
appears there was no communication with the client. We’ve also heard that the clients
just want their money back.
Investigator Bogert: That is correct.
Mr. Joslin asked Mr. Neal what the board can do.
Mr. Neale: You can fine them. Restitution is an acceptable, permissible sanction to be
imposed upon a licensee when they are in violation. So you could require restitution to
the homeowner of the $5012.00 that is alleged in the complaint.
Mr. Nolton asked for the county's recommendation.
Supervisor Crotts stated recommendation as follows:
1. With regard to the case 2024-08 the county is going to ask for a $1000.00 fine
paid within 30 days. Failure to pay this fine within 30 days will result in the
automatic revocation of the license.
2. The licenses be put on a 12 month probationary period.
3. Restitution be paid to the homeowners in the amount of $5012.00 to be paid by
certified check within 30 days to the homeowners. Failure to pay this restitution
will result in the automatic revocation of the license and brought before the
licensing board for disciplinary review.
Mr. Lantz: I just have a question on the timeline. You took the deposit in November,
something like that? Applied for a permit, the permit was ready for issuance in 2
months.
27
Mr. Meracdo: The two months was the delay was because
Mr. Lantz: Theoretically in 2 months you could have started the job but then you got
backed up with other stuff, so it kind of pushed them further down on your list is what
you are saying. And, you weren’t in contact with the homeowners.
Mr. Meracdo: I was hoping to get this all resolved by April 1st, but it didn’t work out
and then this came up and I knew I was going to be getting some funding soon enough
so I could get them all squared away.
Mr. Lantz asked Investigator Bogert: When did you get involved?
Investigator Bogert: The complaint came on April 22nd.
Mr. Lantz (to Mr. Mercado): So how did we get from April 22nd. If I got a call from
Investigator Bogert saying the owners are mad you didn’t do the fence they just want
their money back. Why didn’t you write a check? Did you not have the money? Did
you spend it or..
Mr. Meracdo: It was crossed up I just didn’t have the money.
Mr. Lantz: But you will?
Mr. Mercado: But I will have it in 30 days.
Mr. Lantz: But you don’t have it today. You have a lot at stake in the next 30 days if
you don’t come up with some money. So you spent the money that was given as a
deposit on other jobs. And the money that you are going to owe now, at least the fine
you got a couple minutes ago, their money and possibly another fine, is that going to be
deposits from the next customer?
Mr. Meracdo: No, I got some other money that is coming in I should be OK.
Mr. Lantz: Should be Ok?
Mr. Meracdo: Will be OK, how’s that?
Vice Chair Jurelle: I have to ask is there anybody else out there that hasn’t
complained yet.
Mr. Meracdo: No.
Vice Chair Jurelle: That is your testimony that you are giving now.
Mr. Meracdo: Yes.
Mr. Nolton: Because I think we heard there is 24 other permits issued not applied for?
Supervisor Crotts: That is correct sir.
Mr. Nolton: Issued not applied for?
(inaudible)
Investigator Bogert: There is actually 14 issued, 4 ready for issuance, this is one of
them.
Mr. Nolton: Ready for issuance so they haven’t been picked up?
Investigator Bogert: There are 14 issued, 4 applied for and ready for issuance, 3
incomplete applications, 1 applied for, 1 denied, 1 abandoned. So there are 14 issued
permits
Mr. Nolton: It almost sounds like this is the tip of the iceberg. We have not received
any complaints as of yet?
Investigator Bogert: We have not received any as of yet.
28
Mr. Nolton: I wonder if the owners since they have taken the time to be here, if they’d
like to make a statement. It is up to you whether you make a statement or not.
Investigator Bogert: The property owner is here Mr. Tomas (per permit Tomas
Natalio Datorre referred to as property owner and property occupant). I believe the
daughter is the occupant and she is here as well.
[Mr. Neale swears them in via Zoom.]
Property Occupant: My father bought the property for me, so far we have had no
problems until we got to doing the fence. We spoke to him about the urgency of doing
the fence. We have a lake in the back of the property. The fence is supposed to be a
barrier between our house and the lake. I do have two small children, one is autistic. It
was implied it was told, we said it several times that we need it done quickly, we need
done with a permit, it is a matter of safety and we were promised everything. We paid
the $5000 dollars the same day, gave him a check, gave him everything he needed.
When those things came up, that the permit needed the extra wilderness and all that we
gave it to him. Last communication was back in January? February? And after that, no
matter how many text messages were sent, there was no reply.
Mr. Joslin: Were you aware that the permit you needed to put the fence up in the back
like that needed a permit or needed to be approved?
Property Occupant: Yes, we got it all approved, gave him all the stuff and then he
handed it in.
Property Owner: Inaudible.
Mr. Neale instructed all who are testifying need to be on the microphone.
Property Occupant: It was all approved in February. So the fence…
Property Owner: I would like my money back we can give him 60 or 90 days to pay
so that we don’t push that much.
Mr. Joslin to Mr. Meracdo: The permit that was required for you to build the fence
you submitted for and whatever permit you needed, were you aware of this before you
took the job? Did you look at the job to know it was going to need another permit?
Mr. Meracdo: Well we never find that out until we apply then the zoning came and
looked at it. But it is a process, all I do is apply. I get a rejection.
Mr. Nolton: Did you walk the perimeter?
Mr. Meracdo: Oh yes.
Property Occupant: Yes and it was passed. He was given the information necessary to
get that permit in February and he stopped returning phone calls.
Mr. Joslin: Who was responsible for getting that permit?
Property Occupant: We just provided the information.
Supervisor Crotts: The permit was ready to be issued. Every element to get that
permit was satisfied from the homeowner or the contractor. The permit was ready to be
issued, they just had to pay for the permit then commence the work. The permit was put
in and ready for issuance in February and as of today's date they have not paid to have
that issued.
Mr. Nolton: I am not clear about one thing from the owners. I want to make sure I
29
understand, are you saying you would give him more time or you would allow them to
put the fence in if they put the fence in?
Property Occupant: He is saying he does not trust the work. They can't get a permit.
Property Owner: I am saying I would give him more time I would not push him to pay
it back in 30 days I can give them an extension to 60 or 90 days. If he commits now that
I will pay you in 60 or 90 days and that's it.
Mr. Nolton: I would put to the board that they are not a bank, I am not sure I would
give them 30 days. I would be more apt to say I will give you 10 days to pay the money
back.
Chairman Jaron: What kind of fence? Chainlink?
Mr. Meracdo: Yes, it was chainlink.
Property Occupant: No it was not a chain link. It was the horse fencing.
Mr. Meracdo: Oh, that's right, farm fence.
Property Occupant: Farm fence. And it was going to go around the front of the
property with a gate that would open and close where the driveway is. It was going to
go all the way back and it was going to close about 35 feet before the lake which is the
dangerous part for me.
Chairman Jaron: The amount that you are owed is $5012.00. Is that correct?
Property Occupant: That is correct. We have a copy of the check, we have a copy of
the contract, we have a copy of everything that we turned in here.
Mr. Nolton: So they have had the $5012.00 since December. That's six months.
Vice Chair Jerulle thanked the respondents and asked the question of the county:
Going back to what we have there are 14 issued permits?
Investigator Bogert: Yes, there are 14 issued currently. There are 4 ready for issuance
as well so really that would bring it to 18. There are 3 incomplete applications, those
could be active jobs. I can look into those. That just means they were submitted and it is
going through the review process for intake. And then there's one inspections
completed at the end, there is one denied from a couple years ago. I don’t know what
the status of that is. And there is one abandoned as well.
Mr. Nolton: On the 14 that were issued and the 4 that are ready to be issued, do those
go back months too?
Investigator Bogert: Yes, they do, some until last year.
Vice Chair Jerulle: So the question is have you taken deposits on those others?
Mr. Meracdo: On those other jobs they are done, the work is all done. It is just a
matter of inspections but the work is all done.
Investigator Bogert: The work could be done. These are just issued permits so if he
did the work we wouldn’t see that until it is finalized.
Mr. Nolton: This is one of the ones ready for issuance, so there are 3 others ready for
issuance. You haven;t done the work on those? Have you taken a deposit on those?
Mr. Meracdo: I don’t have any open jobs right now. Everything is done, work wise.
30
Investigator Bogert: The county will obviously have to address that with him and
show him what he has in the system.
Chairman Jaron: Are you confident that you have enough cash on hand to pay the
fines and the $5012 refund within 30 days?
Mr. Meracdo: If I had a little extension I could do it. I could do 40 days.
Vice Chair Jerulle: This complaint came in April. If I am a business person and this
complaint came in April I am giving them the money back before I even get to the
board.
Mr. Nolton: The only thing I can say about 10 days versus 30 days is they are going to
be back here if they fail. And the most important part is getting the money back to the
owners so the owners can move on with their fence. I don't know if they haven’t moved
on with someone else.
(Homeowner answers inaudibly off microphone.)
Chairman Jaron: Do we have a motion regarding the sanctions, the county
recommended sanctions.
Supervisor Crotts: The county would like to amend its recommendations as far as the
probationary period. We would recommend that the probationary period be extended
for 24 months to run concurrent with the case of 2024-07. So it would be a 24 month
probationary period and I think this will cover the area for the permits that are out give
us more ability to deal with the contractors and make sure they do everything or result
in their license being revoked.
Mr. Nolton: Thinking along those lines and trying to make the homeowners whole
again, the county’s not in need of the thousand dollars versus the homeowners would
need their money back. I am more inclined to delay the county being paid, but the
homeowners have to be paid.
Supervisor Crotts: I would be willing to go with the recommendation for the county
be paid the $1000.00 within 90 days. But the restitution of $5012 dollars be paid by
certified check within 30 days to the homeowners.
So moved by Jerulle. Mr. Nolton seconds. Motion passes 5-0.
Chairman 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:
1. Service of the administrative complaint and notice was legally and sufficiently
provided in compliance with the applicable law.
2. The respondent is the holder of the license that is set forth in the administrative
complaint.
3. The respondent was present at the hearing and was not represented by counsel.
4. The board has jurisdiction over the respondent and subject matter raised in the
administrative complaint. The respondent committed the violations as set forth
in count 1 of the administrative complaint. Therefore, by a vote of 5 in favor
and zero opposed, the respondent is found guilty of the violations set forth in
31
count 1 of the administrative complaint and the board imposes the following
sanctions against the respondent.
Sanctions listed as follows:
1. A fine of $1000.00 to be paid within 90 days.
2. The homeowners deposit of $5012 dollars to be paid in a certified check within
30 days.
3. 24 months probation.
Supervisor Crotts: confirmed that is correct and stated the only other caveat would be
that the restitution not being paid within the 30 days would result in the automatic
revocation of the respondents license and the same with the fine to the county not paid
within 90 days, it would result in the license being revoked.
Mr. Joslin: One question on that one, we’ve got 14 more permits out there?
Supervisor Crotts: What is going to happen, in speaking with the Investigator that
when this is done we are going to set up a meeting with both license holders and we are
going to walk them through what we see that is in the portal and explain to them the
action that it's’ going to need to be done. And not to say that they are not going to be
back here again but we are going to give them every opportunity to understand what is
out there as far as the outstanding permits and make sure they understand they
understand the severity and the consequences.
Mr. Joslin: The reason why is if they don’t pay this within 30 days and their license is
revoked, there is 14 other people out there that have contracted with them and have
outstanding permits.
Supervisor Crotts: Exactly and that is one of the unfortunate caveats of having to go
with that sort of discipline but it has to be a level of discipline to make the respondents
understand that if you don’t do what you need to do here in Collier County, we are
going to take your license and you will not work in Collier County any longer.
Mr. Joslin to respondents: Now you heard that, right? And you understand that, right?
You have got a lot on your plate.
Chairman Jaron confirmed the respondents are going to meet with the licensing
board and stated that this concludes the order of the board in this matter.
Vice Chair Jerulle: You just admitted under oath that you took a deposit to use for
another project. So you may want to reconsider how you are doing business going
forward. Those deposits are supposed to be for that project. I am not an attorney but
that leaves you wide open to maybe some legal matters so you may want to look at how
you are doing business going forward.
Mr. Meracdo: Yes, sir. I appreciate it. Thanks.
11. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 17,2024
Commissioners' Chambers, Third Floor,
Administrative Building F, Collier County Gov't Center,
3299 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL
Supervisor Crotts added that Mr. Meister has not shown up today so having given prior notice I
ask that his absence be approved. It was determined they did not have to vote and the board
approved Mr. Meister's absence.
Vice Chair Jerulle: Having said that, I will not be here next meeting and I would like approval
in advance. Chairman Jaron gave approval.
This proceeding is now concluded
Mr. Nolton made a motion to close the meeting. Motion was seconded by Mr. Joslin.
Motion pa,sses 5-0.
There being no further business for the good of the county, the meeting was
adjourned *llz24 a.m.
Collier 'Licensing Board
1,.
Board
These m by the Chairman of the Licensing Board
on (check one) as submitted or as amended
32