The URL can be used to link to this page

CLB Minutes 10/16/2024 Draft October 16, 2024 1 COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD OCT. 16, 2024 – 9:00 a.m. Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor, Naples, FL 34112 MEMBERS: Stephen M. Jaron, Chair Terry Jerulle, Vice-Chair Matthew Nolton Robert P. Meister, III Richard E. Joslin, Jr. (excused) Kyle E. Lantz Todd Allen OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for Contractors Licensing Board Ryan Cathay, Code Enforcement Ronald Tomasko, Attorney for Collier County Timothy Crotts, Collier County Code Enforcement Division of CLB Michael Boggert, Collier County Licensing Investigator Doug Sposito, Deputy Building Inspector Fred Clum, Chief Building Inspector Cary Goggin, Attorney for Maharai Dacosta October 16, 2024 2 1. ROLL CALL Richard Joslin is excused 2. ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Matthew Nolton motioned to approve the agenda Kyle Lantz seconded Motion passed 6-0 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, SEPT. 18, 2024 Kyle Lantz motioned to approve minutes Chairman Jaron seconded Motion passed 6-0 5. PUBLIC COMMENT None 6. DISCUSSION Timothy Crotts • The Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation has issued an emergency order. That emergency order was issued to several Counties, including Collier. Whereas on September 26 of 2024, 67 counties were under a watch or hurricane warning related to Hurricane Helene. • Due to this, the Secretary of DBPR issued the following order in that all registered contractors, building contractors and general contractors, registered and certified, are allowed to do roofs throughout these counties. The Secretary of DBPR has waived the local jurisdiction requirement for registered contractors only. • If you are registered with the State and you hold your license in Miami Dade, you can come into Collier County and do work. However, you do have to hold the license, and you have to be registered with DBPR. That applies to division one and division two contractors where you're required to register, that does not include specialty licenses. • They may do any roofing, repair and or installation. • Sixty-seven Counties, 61 were affected and Collier was listed as one of the Counties affected. And obviously this carries on through Hurricane Milton. October 16, 2024 3 • Also is there an end date on the order of November 22 of 2024. However, that can be extended. 7. REPORTS None 8. NEW BUSINESS 8a. Emergency Certificates of Competency • On October 7, 2024, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners declared a local State of Emergency due to tropical storm Hurricane Milton and its possible effects to Collier County and its municipalities, including the city of Naples, City of Marco and City of Everglades, under Collier County Ordinance 26 46, section 2.11 emergency restricted certificate of competency which states, in the event of a declaration of a State of Emergency by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, or in the City of Naples by the City Council, in which substantial damage has occurred to buildings and structures so as to cause a shortage of available persons and firms or entities in the contracting traits for which there are in Collier county. • Certificate of Competency the Contractors Licensing Board is hereby authorized to one under section 211.1, declare an emergency contracting trade shortage of designated categories of contractors or subcontractors listed in this ordinance. The declaration shall be for a period not to exceed 6 months under section 211.2 authorize the contractor licensing supervisor to prepare and regulate the section of contractors or subcontractors from other jurisdictions whose licensing requirements are substantially prepared and compared to those in Collier County and issue a temporary license to those contractors for a period not to exceed the declaration of the emergency. • The contractor selected must be licensed in jurisdictions whose testing and licensing requirements have been prepared and predetermined by the contractor licensing board to be substantially comparable to those of the collier county requirements. points. • The fee for 6 months is $55.00 and is for the issuance of the license. However, should the State of Emergency end sooner than 6 months, there is no refund given to the contractor. • Contractors would need to show proof of testing a current license in their jurisdiction. Liability insurance and State of Florida workman comp. insurance unless there are 4 employees or less. The licensing supervisor will have the authority to choose the trades required and the number of trades October 16, 2024 4 needed based upon the information received and once the damage has been assessed by the County and Municipalities. • Today's recommendation will be to approve the emergency licensing issue for a period not to exceed 6 months unless the State of Emergency is revoked by the County and or the City before the 6 months expires the discussion on the status of the license request and the State of Emergency, we can revisit that on the December 18 regular CLB meeting. • At that time, the licensing supervisor will provide an update to the Board on the status of the type of license and the number of licenses issued, if any, as part of the emergency. And I do have a motion. • Motion would be to authorize the contractor licensing supervisor, at his or her discretion to prepare and regulate the selection of contractors and or subcontractors from other jurisdictions for the trades of general contractor, building, residential, moving, drywall, and carpentry contractor for a period of six months from today's date. This will not exceed 6 months, or it will be ended at the end of the declaration of the local State of Emergency by the County or municipality, whichever occurs first. • The request may also be rescinded by the contractor licensing supervisor with the approval of the Contractor Licensing Board at any time during the 6 month period and to authorize the Chairman of the Contractor Licensing Board to sign the resolution of the Contractor Licensing Board of Collier County, Florida, declaring an emergency of shortage of certain designated contractor types of authorizing administrative approval of the County licenses for those designated contractor licensing meeting substantial comparable criteria in approving certain provisional license issuances. • If you have the emergency license issued by us, then you would allow to the permit because it is like having a license in Collier County, but it would be for that period. They have to get a license, they must have insurance, and they still have to file a notice of commencement. • If this was to get revoked, they would be allowed to complete the permit. They would not be allowed to pull any other permits at that time. Chairman Jaron If it takes longer than the 6 months that this is authorized for. Timothy Crotts It shouldn't. But once the six months is up, if the permit has not been issued, we would have to address that it was in the works at the time. The idea behind this is to make sure that the homeowners of Collier County, the October 16, 2024 5 business owners of Collier County, have enough contractors to help them get through what has occurred with both of the Hurricanes, Helena and Milton. Terry Jerulle adopted Mr. Crotts’ motion Todd Allen seconded Motion passed 6-0 8b. Orders of the Board Matthew Nolton motioned that the Orders of the Board be signed Kyle Lantz seconded Motion passed 6-0 8c. Edgar Hernandez-Perez, Goliath Drywall Installation & Finish LLC, Review of Credit Mr. Hernandez-Perez is sworn in. Mr. Crotts • Mister Hernandez-Perez has applied for the issuance of a drywall contractor's license which requires a minimum credit score of 660. • As part of the application process under Collier County Ordinance 2000 646, section two 3.9, Mister Hernandez-Perez was required to submit a personal and business credit report. His personal credit report was reviewed and appears not to meet the financial responsibility as set forth in section two, 5.1 subsection. The applicant or qualifier meets the requirements for financial responsibility as set forth in rule G1G615006 of the State of Florida. • A review of the personal credit report submitted by Mister Hernandez Perez show the following areas of concern. • The credit report shows a credit score of 607 • Charge off in the amount of $5575 by Capital one, 07/24 • Charge off in the amount of $312 by Capital One, dated 04/ 24 • Charge off in the amount of $594 by Synchrony Bank, 07/24 • Collection in the amount of $574 by AR Resources Incorporated, 05/ 24 • The total amount of charge off in collections is $7,055. Based upon the information received, Mister Hernandez-Perez does not meet the minimum requirements as set forth in orange 2646 as it relates to financial responsibility. October 16, 2024 6 • Mister Perez is being referred to the Board under section two 5.2 referral. The application to the Contractors Licensing Board for decision, and He is here today to answer your questions regarding his credit. Chairman Jaron There is a half dozen different FICO scores, so we're looking at the highest one, is that right? So, we are looking at the highest, 607? Timothy Crotts Correct Mr. Hernandez-Perez I'm working on it now. I have some creditors that are helping me. I'm the breadwinner of the household and it's been difficult. I have the work, and sometimes I just don't have any work, and I have to do what I can. It’s difficult, and that's why I want to expand over here to see if I get more, there's more opportunities where I can get more work and I can take care of all those steps. Chairman Jaron And how are you going to do that, the expansion? Are you moving here? Mr. Hernandez-Perez Maybe in the future but I’m in Miami Dade County and I focus just on home repairs. Chairman Jaron So, you primarily do remodels? Mr. Hernandez-Perez Yes, just repairs like drywall from water damage. I focus on small repairs. Kyle Lantz And how do you get paid. Mr. Hernandez-Perez It depends. If it’s small I don’t get always get a deposit. I have a formal contract. October 16, 2024 7 Timothy Crotts • The County recommends that the license be granted with the following conditions. • That the license be placed on a 12-month probationary period that within 30 days, Mister Hernandez-Perez shall prove that a payment plan has been entertained with all creditors for the collection amount and charge off amount as noted • That the applicant submits a new personal credit report before the end of 6 months probationary period showing there are no new credit issues and that the agreed upon payment plans with all creditors are current • That Mister Hernandez submit a new credit report before the end of the 12- month probationary period showing a credit score of at least 660. There are no new credit issues and that all charge off at collection amounts have been satisfied. • Failure to comply with this order shall require Mr. Hernandez-Perez to appear back before the Board for further review and possible disciplinary action. • At any time within the 12-month probationary period, Mr. Hernandez-Perez can show documentation that his credit score has reached 660. There are no new credit issues and I that all charge off and collection amounts have been paid in full. The licensing supervisor may remove the probationary status. Chairman Jaron Do we have a motion? Matthew Nolton I'll adopt the County's recommendation for a motion Chairman Jaron seconded Motion passes 5-1 (Kyle Lantz opposed) 8d. Joseph Molter, Second Entity Application, Irrigation Sprinkler, Naples Irrigation Repair LLC. Mr. Molter is sworn in. Timothy Crotts • Mr. Moltor has submitted a second entity application for the trade of irrigation sprinkler contractor under the name of Naples Irrigation Repair LLC. October 16, 2024 8 • He has a valid irrigation sprinkler contractor license from Collier County which was issued in 2011 under the name of Landscaping Incorporated. • A review of the current license in the Collier County City View database shows there have been no complaints against the current company and Mr. Molter holds the required insurances as required by ordinance and there was no credit issues found. • Mr. Molter is submitting the second entity application to qualify a company identified as Naples Irrigation Repair LLC for the formation trade. Chairman Jaron Can you just give us more information as far as why you want to do a second entity? Mr. Molton I've been in business 35 years and over the years we used to do residential work. Now we don't do residential work unless they're in an Association. We do Pelican Bay and eleven accounts with maybe 200 homes in each Association and don't work outside of where we have a weekly contract. I’m trying to set up Naples Irrigation with Jesus Miguel as my right-hand guy. He's been with me for about 20 years and for his future it would give him ownership in a company that can grow. He would be managing it with me, and it would allow us to work in other Associations and he would handle that. Other providers who do maintenance don't want to see Molter landscape coming in and doing irrigation repair. If I have Naples Irrigation Repair, we can pick up accounts from other providers’ referrals. Kyle Lantz It sounds like you’re trying to set up a long-time employee. Mr. Molton The real reason was how can I take care of Jesus? My adult children work with the company and taking over as well, and it just muddles it. This is a perfect solution for him and I and the business. Chairman Jaron Would he have ownership? October 16, 2024 9 Mr. Molton In Naples Irrigation Repair. The idea is for him to continue working with both companies and to find the next guy to take over and go from there. Terry Jerulle I have always been against second entities for the fact that you now have two companies, and you could be giving one client two bids. I'm very skeptical about approving second entities. Mr. Molton I will not bid the work that he's bidding. I’m declining this work now, but this would allow me to branch off. Chairman Jaron You’re going to have him run Naples Irrigation Repair and then is the five year or ten-year goal to have him take over that business and buy it? Mr. Molton That's not a goal. My goal is for him to have something when he's done working. Matthew Nolton He could be the licensee and that prevents us from having to give two licenses to one person. Mr. Molton If I had to agree that he gets that within x amount of time, I would be happy to do that. Matthew Nolton I’d say give them 12 months for the other gentleman to get the license. Kyle Lantz I’ll make a motion that we approve a license for one year. In one year, this second entity license expires. In one year’s, time, the Jesus Miguel has to have the license and take over, or they close down the business, or they hire someone else that has a license. Matthew Nolton seconded Motion passes 6-0 October 16, 2024 10 9. OLD BUSINESS None 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS 10a. 2024-15, Nova Homes of South Florida, Inc., Maharai Dacosta, CEMIS20240004396 Todd Allen made the motion to open the Public Hearings Matthew Nolton seconded Motion passed 6-0 Those giving testimony are sworn in Chairman Jaron Let’s break until 9:40 for their court reporter to set up. Michael Boggert A copy of the hearing preamble was given to and read by the respondent, Maharai Dacosta, for case 20 415 and enter into evidence. Kyle Lantz made the motion to accept Matthew Nolton seconded Motion approved 6-0 Michael Boggert • The respondent, Maharai Dacosta, a State of Florida licensed certified general contractor with Collier County Issuance number 28576 is the qualifier for and officer of Nova Homes of South Florida, Inc. • Nova Homes of South Florida, Inc. contracted for and received payment to construct a new home at 6647 Livingston Woods Lane on August 20, 2020. • On June 17, 2024, a meeting was held with County staff and Nova Homes of South Florida, Inc. to address several as built conditions identified in two engineer reports supplied by the property owner that did not match the approved construction plans on file with the Collier County Building Department for permit number PRBD 2021-010- 3027 related to the new home build at 6647 Livingston Woods Lane. • Chief Building Official Fred Klum determined that several as built conditions do not match the approved plans on file with Collier County permit PRBD 2021-010-3027 and revoked the certificate of October 16, 2024 11 occupancy issued September 15, 2022, for noncompliance with the required requirements of the Florida Building code. • On June 17, Chief Building official Fred Klum gave Nova homes of South Florida, Inc. 30 days to submit the proper revision documents to permit PRBD 2021-010-3027 regarding the new home construction at 6647 Langston Woods Lane. • During the 30-day deadline, there was no contact or communication from Nova Homes of South Florida, Inc. to Collier County Building Department staff. • On July 22, 2024, Chief Building official Fred Klum reviewed the ongoing case and the submitted reports and agreed. The respondent knew or should have known that the violations existed. Maharai Dacosta willfully failed to submit revisions to permit number PRBD 210-10-3027 in the allotted time and constitutes a willful code violation. • Miss DaCosta is in violation of Collier County Code Laws and Ordinances Section 22.201.12 which states in whole or part that willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the State, City or Collier County shall constitute misconduct and grounds for discipline. Cary Goggin, representing Maharai Dacosta • As an opening statement of our own, I would like to point out that this case is a very confusing one in the sense that this involves a certificate of occupancy having been revoked a year and nine months after the issuance. Initially, multiple temporary certificates of occupancy having been issued subsequent to that revocation, and I guess an issue of plan submittal and approval occurring well prior to that September 15, 2022, date where it was originally issued. Now, the board may recall that last time I had raised an issue regarding notice that was not merely a technical issue, that was a matter of intending to determine when exactly the county determined this violation existed. We now understand, as the county has re noticed, has asserted that this violation has been raised as of July 22, 2024. The issue here, and the confusing aspect of this, is that it is very difficult to determine the timeline by which compliance is supposed to be met. • So ultimately, this was not exactly 30 days from the time that we had a County meeting. It was not, and we would dispute this. It was not made clear at the County meeting held June 2017 or June 17, 2024, that we had 30 days and only 30 days to submit revisions to do X and Y and Z. October 16, 2024 12 • It was represented by the County that if Nova sought to amend this, sought to submit revised plans, sought to remedy whatever issues may have existed, that the county would abate this matter in reliance on this, and disputing that these issues constituted violation in the first place. • Nova has since submitted multiple revisions, received multiple approvals for revised plans. • The County has submitted in its hearing packet a permit history going through, we believe, about the beginning of June. The real question is why it does not go through the present date. • If the Board would allow, we would submit a current permit history. I believe the question was raised last time, and I apologize, I forget which Board member raised the question as to whether or not this is something that could apply more broadly. • And I would state that that is one of the issues here. What is being sought in the context being provided by Nova? It's not. And again, the county will dispute this, and they will state that a violation of law is a violation of law. We absolutely agree. • I think in this case, the question what is the law here? • The gentlemen of this Board are, for the most part, licensed contractors. If the County requires a revision, what is the time period? What is the time period in which that revision must be submitted? • The Code states that, and again, this is the only Code cited as violation. It states that if a project is abandoned for more than six months, that permit shall be revoked. So here we have, give or take, 30 days. We have no citation to a Code, we have no citation to a law, and we simply have, I think, the assertion that enough time had passed, there's no evidence that things had changed. • Nova had been provided notice that today's the day that if you don't get it by Friday, something will happen, if you don't do X and Y and Z. And so, in reliance on the representations of the County, my own conversations with one of the County Attorneys, we continued on and proceeded forward. In the words of the County last time, if this is rectified, this entire violation goes away. • In point of fact, I believe it's the intent of the County here today at this hearing, in order not necessarily to have the permitting privileges revoked immediately, and this is speculation, I will certainly let the County speak for themselves. But to the extent this is, as was stated at the last hearing, the intent of the County to provide a deadline, to provide a sort of contingent October 16, 2024 13 enforcement. I believe, Mr. Nolton, you raised the point last time that said, look, this either is a violation or it isn't a violation. • This sort of ambiguous date on which this violation would have occurred, that there's no relation to the original submittal, has certificate occupancy revoked a year and nine months later, involves essentially an attempt to provide some sort of backstop by which Nova's compliance, which has, for all intents and purposes, been ongoing, even as of just a couple days ago, I represented the last hearing that Nova had submitted revisions. • Even as of the date of that hearing, they have since submitted further revisions and, to my understanding, have been approved. The question I have is, why is this going forward when there is such ambiguity as to the violation, as to when the violation could have occurred, why it's 30, I believe, two days, 33 days, something of that nature, instead of 180, as provided under the building code. And the bigger question, what does this mean for every contractor holding a state license? I assure you, as a construction attorney, I deal with more than my fair share of unhappy homeowners. • The question here is, is this now a path by which to hold a Contractor accountable for something that a homeowner does not appreciate having occurred in the course of their construction. Is this now a path where I can recommend a client go to County Code Enforcement, have a Certificate of Occupancy issued multiple years ago revoked, and then have compliance with terms of contract? And again, we're not asserting, we're not conceding that there was a violation here. • Even upon the initial submission, this was, at best, a confusion between two separate sets of approved plans, which is being sorted out, which is being inspected. Engineering letters are in the process, inspections have been scheduled, and so on and so forth, but can now, as with any member of this board, a certificate of occupancy for a project completed? • I don't know when the timeline ends. Is it two years ago, three years ago, five years ago, 20 years ago? We can have that ripped open and the threat of your license being suspended or your permitting privileges. I guess in the case of a State Licensed General Contractor being suspended, being revoked, question is, where does this end, and why is this occurring in this manner? This is not a typical licensing case. • This is not a matter of exceeding the bounds of one's license. This is not a matter of willfulness in any regard. Is it a matter of willfulness? Willful involves intentional. That brings me to the second aspect of that. October 16, 2024 14 • Not only is there not a violation, because there was allowed, I would say, I would suggest at least six months for this to be considered abandoned and for that to be considered a violation, but there is no evidence of willfulness. Willfulness is intentional. And the continued history which has not been submitted by the County to this Board, but which does exist, and I believe the County would concede, many, many, many submissions have occurred from August through the present day. Many approvals have been issued from August to the present day. What is the significance of all of this? • What is occurring? Is this the right way for these matters to be handled, and where does it end? For these reasons, we would argue that, again, with a six- month time period, again, assuming from the revocation of the certificate of occupancy that starts at six months, that is what is in the building code, not 32, 33 days. Number one. Number two, the continued compliance evidence conclusively that there's no willful violation here. • There never was a willful violation in the first place. The attempts at proceeding forward evidence that there is no willful violation now, and that ultimately what is being sought by the county should concern every general contractor, every state licensed contractor in this state, because it does not suggest where this ends. For those reasons, we believe that no sanction should be imposed. We believe that there was no violation, and that Miss Dacosta, as well as Nova Homes, should not suffer any sanction or disciplinary action by this Board. Chairman Jaron Mr. Boggert, if you'd like to present the County’s case. Mr. Boggert The County would like to call up Chief Building Official Fred Clum and Deputy Official Doug Sposito. Both are sworn in. Mr. Clum, would you please give your name to the Board and your occupation at this time for the record board? Fred Clum My name is Fred Clum. I'm the Chief Building Official for Collier County. Doug Sposito Doug Sposito, Deputy Building Official for Collier County. Mr. Boggert October 16, 2024 15 • You both have heard testimony and the opening statement from respondents League of Counsel on that. That regarding a willful violation, could you explain how the willful violation came about? • I would like to defer to Mr. Sposito, who's been monitoring this case since the beginning, if I may. Doug Sposito • Just to be clear, I was the person assigned to be responsible for this particular case to address Mr. Goggin’s issues there. The violations took place at the time that the contractor did not submit the revisions. And contrary to what Mr. Goggin said in the letter that we provided to Nova Holmes cites all of the relevant Code and Statutes attached to that letter. • Each of the six items that were made aware to us were provided to us in Engineers reports. One by Nova's Nova Homes, and then one by the Gatos themselves. The two engineering reports agreed on a number of issues, and there were a couple of them. That one engineer, the Gato's engineering report, identified that we're not on the engineering report, but that's where we got these. • We were not aware that the revisions had not been submitted until we receive those engineering reports, and again, to cite the relevant code, that even if the County inspects and passes an inspection, that does not authorize a Contractor to violate the Code, we didn't see it. • For whatever reasons, we didn't catch these things. We can't go back in the past, but again, to address the violations themselves. When we looked, only the contractor knows that each of those six instances, he was required by code to submit a revision, and he did not submit those revisions. We did have a meeting. We met with the Gatos one time. • We met with Nova Holmes at that time. One time we had internal discussions, and then we drafted a letter, you know, staff participated and that drafted a letter that I believe that you guys have access to do. That outlined the six. Six instances that revisions should have been submitted at whatever time they occurred in the past. And we established a 30-day timeline to provide those revisions to us to get the process going. Kyle Lantz • So basically, what you're saying is when your meeting happened, they were given 30 days to get a whole bunch of engineering and apply for a revision on day 31 it became a willful violation. October 16, 2024 16 Doug Sposito • Not at the meeting. We met with both parties, and I'm not sure I do have those times, but it was several days, a week after the meeting. Nowhere at the meeting did we convey a timeline or anything like that in the letter that was drafted. • After discussion with staff, we sent it to them. Kyle Lantz • But at some point, you came to a determination and said, you need to submit a revision, and you have 30 days to do this. Yes. I've been a contractor in Collier County for more than a year, and I have engineers that I work with, and I have architects that I work with. Some of them are my friends, even. • And even if I called some of my friends, I don't know if I could get a revision for a complex. Sounds like this was a complex problem. I don't know if I could get a revision for a complex problem in 30 days. Pulling my friend power, pulling everything that I can do. So do you really think 30 days was a fair in making it willful. Doug Sposito • We considered that. I don't want you to think that we didn't consider that there was a single item on there that would require more participation by an engineer or an architect. • But in the engineer's report provided, that engineer had claimed they had already done all those calculations and that they had them, but they didn't submit them or include them as part of that engineer's report. So, we did make an assumption that since the engineer was claiming that that work had been done, it would be a rather straightforward matter for him to simply put together those documents and provide them on that particular item. • The rest of them were fairly straightforward. They were not as complex. Terry Jerrule Mister Lance, if I was given 30 days, I would make sure it happened or provide documentation why I couldn't. Kyle Lantz • I understand completely, but I think 30 days is a very difficult number to achieve. I mean, I remodel condos, which are the simplest, useless permits I apply for. And no matter who I call for an engineer and architect, I'm lucky, October 16, 2024 17 no matter how much money I throw out of them, if I can get a. A stupid condo remodel plan done in 30 days, let alone real engineering. • No matter how far along they are, you're a bigger guy, you have more resources, people probably jump for you a little more. I'm a little bit mean and not so nice, so people don't jump for me. I don't know how these guys are. I just think the average guy, you know, I mean, if they're building 50 homes a year, they've got an engineer that's going to jump for them and they snap their fingers if they're building one home every two or three years, nobody's jumping for them. Timothy Crotts Mister chairman, if I may, Mr. Sposito, when you sent the letter with the 30 days from the date that that was issued till the 30 days expired, did you receive any communication at all from the contractor saying they were having difficulty getting engineering reports or any communication at all? No, we were not contacted by the contractor during that time. Todd Allen Can you show me where in the outstanding corrections letter it says the 30 days? Maybe I'm just missing it. Mr. Boggert It's on page, sorry, 227, the third line from the bottom. Todd Allen Can you address for me the argument that Mr. Goggin is making that it should have been 180 days instead of 30? Doug Sposito • Well, those timelines apply to open active permits. This was a unique situation in that we were made aware of information substantially after a co was issued that had we been given that information prior to CO, we never would have issued the CO. And so those timelines, while they do apply to open permits, don't necessarily apply to this situation where we have revoked a co and then asked for those revisions that should have been provided by code, were required to be provided while that permit was open. • I want to be clear; we were in no way trying to create a hardship. We thought 30 days was reasonable considering the information we've received in the Engineers reports. And we also felt, and we do, and if you are October 16, 2024 18 contractors and Collier County, you know, you reach out to the Building Official. We grant additional time all the time. Todd Allen And what deficiency? You said, for the most part, the deficiencies were fairly easy to address, but I think you said that one was not. Which deficiency was the most difficult for them? Doug Sposito It's the offset timing where we had a tie beam that was supposed to run consistently like this, and then it had been set like that for design considerations that would have required additional reinforcement, overlaps, whatnot, whatever it was. We just needed a detailed calculation showing that the existing engineers report provided by Nova Homes claimed that they had done all those calculations, and it would work. We weren't disputing that. We just simply needed to see that information, and it hadn't been provided with the Engineers report. Chairman Jaron So that. Excuse me. That revision, that offset tie beam. You never got a revision? There was never a revision to the tie beam ever submitted back in 21. Doug Sposito No. Chairman Jaron It was built differently from the original plan. Doug Sposito Yes. Todd Allen So, they knew that it was an issue back when it was constructed. Well, the 100s failed. Chairman Jaron There were several failed inspections. The structural concrete inspections failed several times. Tie beam, you know, what have you. October 16, 2024 19 But that's a pretty big boo boo. I mean, to do an offset typing, there's a lot of errors there, but to me, it's pretty glaring. Mr. Boggert Mr. Sposito. Could you elaborate on the footing’s deficiency found in the report as well? Well, the footing deficiency in one of the reports, a length of CMU wall was hanging over the edge of the footing by more than what we consider tolerable. • It was approximately half or more of the wall was not being supported. It appeared in the photos provided by the engineer that it wasn't being properly supported. There was another area where an articulation, also from the one Engineers report, he had excavated around, and it appeared to be no footing under the articulation. And so, we just simply asked that to be addressed, you know, one way or the other, pull it back. Their claim, of course, is that that was wrong. • We weren't going to argue about what an engineer who had investigated and reported to us, or professionals, simply schedule an inspection, withdraw the dirt, show us the footing is there properly, and we're good, we'll push the dirt back, and everything's fine. Kyle Lantz So is the code, is the reason we're here because they didn't build to plans and they did a bad job building, and they did revisions without getting revisions? Or is the reason we're here because they didn't do it within 30 days after it was made of note to the County? Doug Sposito Well, the reason we're here is they were required by code to submit revisions on six instances during construction before CO and they didn't do that. That was made aware to the building official after the fact. And so, we required them. We revoke the CO's that gave them opportunity to go in there and provide those revisions, and as the letter states, and schedule the inspections, I mean, and reissue the CO. Kyle Lantz I understand the big picture, right? I'm trying to get the small picture. We're here because of a willful code violation, which was made determined to me a few minutes ago that the willful code violation was that you all had a big powwow, everyone got together, and then at a certain date, a letter was October 16, 2024 20 drafted and they were told they have 30 days to submit revisions. That's why we're here. We're not here because they did a horrible job building, because they didn't get revisions while they're doing it. That's not what we're here to address. I just want to make sure I'm correct. I think we're addressing both. Chairman Jaron One doesn't happen without the other. Kyle Lantz But our purview is not to discuss that they do a good job building or they do a bad job building. That's not our purview. Our purview is what was written in the charge. Well, why are we discussing, I mean, are we here to discuss if they're a good builder or a bad builder? Chairman Jaron The County is about the building quality, and your side is about the 30 days or 180 days. So, the homeowner is kind of stuck in the middle of the house that might fall down. Patrick Neale Gentlemen, if I may, just because of the fact, remember, this is quasi-judicial hearing, and therefore, the only charges that you can consider are the two that are laid out in the complaint. You can't go off field. The two charges are a violation of section 107.4 of the Florida Building Code and a violation of 22 201.12 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. That's it. Because due process requires that you only decide upon the charges which were actually made, and the respondent was advised of. Doug Sposito • If I may address the board. I just want to be clear that we are nothing. We're not discussing quality of the performance at all. What the county cares about is keeping accurate records. • And accurate records require that the structure as built match the drawings as submitted, and they don't. So, we need to get the revisions in so that the records are accurate. Those revisions are substantial. Require additional inspections. Those inspections must be happened so that we can, in fact, confirm that was built to the revised drawings. October 16, 2024 21 • And once those inspections passed, a CO will be issued, and the case will be closed. The quality of the work would be a civil matter between them. Kyle Lantz But it's more than records. It's a life safety issue. Not just that they built what they said you want to make sure that what they built isn't going to fall down, right? Doug Sposito Well, that's what the inspections are, right? So, we're assuming that the drawing submitted, if it was built that way, it's not a life safety issue. That's what they're claiming. We still haven't inspected to see that they have built it to the way they're claiming they built it. Once that's happened, then, yes, that will be resolved. Chairman Jaron Anything else from the County? Cary Goggin May I ask questions of the witness? If I may, Mr. Sposito. At the meeting with Nova Homes occurring on or about June 17, was it made expressly clear that they had 30 days and only 30 days to submit these revisions? Otherwise, they would be considered a willful violation. Doug Sposito We never made any determination that way because we had staff meetings afterwards to come up with that. So, if 30 days was discussed, these are all informal discussions at that time, nothing was formal until we put it in writing and sent it to you. But there was no absolute mandate of anything happening in 30 days. And was that mandate of deadline, whatever we want to call it, of July 22, ever put in writing to Nova Homes? It was the 30 days was put in writing in a letter that was sent to Nova Homes. Cary Goggin Yes. Which letter is that? Doug Sposito I don't know where it's at in your documents, but where does it say that? Cary Goggin October 16, 2024 22 Where does it say we have 30 days, otherwise, we will be construed to be in willful violation of Building Code. Okay. I mean, I can read exactly two. Doug Sposito Well, it says that you have 30 days or further Code action. I can read exactly but you all have it in front of you. Todd Allen I believe the Board Members have it in front of them. Cary Goggin Are you aware of any communication between my office and the County Attorney's Office? Doug Sposito I have been copied on emails. Cary Goggin Was there any communication between my office and the County Attorney shortly after this June 17, 2024, meeting? Doug Sposito I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. Cary Goggin Have you ever been to this property? Doug Sposito I have not been to the property. Cary Goggin How do you know that there is any discrepancy between the plans and what exists on that property? Doug Sposito Because each party had an engineer go out and do that assessment. Write up a report, and each party provided the reports to us. Cary Goggin Did those reports differ? October 16, 2024 23 Doug Sposito They differed on some. On a few of the items, yes. Cary Goggin But that report wasn't provided to the County, was it? Doug Sposito Which report? Cary Goggin The expert for Nova homes. Doug Sposito Yes. You gave us a copy of it. Cary Goggin That is correct. I apologize. Was that report provided to the Board. Dou Sposito I couldn’t tell you. Cary Goggin I’ll represent to the Board that it’s not in the hearing packet for today. So, is it fair to say that you were relying exclusively, not on your own personal knowledge, but on the report, I believe, of the homeowner, in order to determine whether or not these issues existed? Doug Sposito No. We also relied on the existing plans and permit application. So, there were two engineering reports? There were existing plans and inspections and documents. And looking at the reports and comparing them back to the original permitted plans is how it came to our determination. Cary Goggin Do you have any personal knowledge of what exists on site at the property as built at this moment? October 16, 2024 24 Doug Sposito I have not personally, no. Cary Goggin Okay. You had mentioned some calculations performed by an engineer. Relating to the offset tie beam, do you know which engineer performed those calculations? Doug Sposito know that the engineer provided by Nova, Holmes, in the statement, claimed that he had done the calculations and believed that the tie beam would be acceptable. Cary Goggin That is correct. Do you know whether that engineer is the engineer of record in this particular permit or on these plans? Doug Sposito I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head. I’d have to look. Cary Goggin Are you aware of the current submission history and permit history of this particular permit and project? Doug Sposito The most recent, yes. Cary Goggin I have a copy of that more current history. If I present that to you would you recognize that history? Doug Sposito Possibly, yes. Cary Goggin May I approach? Chairman Jaron Why are we getting it now? Another massive bunch of papers like last month. October 16, 2024 25 Cary Goggin I apologize. It looks quite massive, but I wanted to provide the entire permit history for completeness. Literally? The last, maybe twelve entries on the very last page. This is the County's current permit history. Alternatively, I can provide this to Mr. Sposito to refresh his recollection as to the precise documents that have been submitted and the number of documents that have been submitted on behalf of Nova, since that is the only purpose of that document. Chairman Jaron Since when? Cary Goggin Since the meeting on June 17. It provides the dates, and I believe that’s relevant to that particular issue. Chairman Jaron Let’s see it. Kyle Lantz I’ll make a motion that we accept the evidence Mr. Goggin is submitting. Chair Jaron seconded Motion passed 6-0 Gary Goggin May we approach with copies? Mr. Sposito have you had a chance to review the document before you? Do you recognize the submission history for the documentation related to this permit is located on the last page. Doug Sposito I haven't had a chance. I copied submission history out of city view for this meeting as well. So, I mean, I could take a minute and compare the dates. Timothy Crotts I think we probably should take a five-minute break to allow Mr. Sposito to take a look at the documents, considering this is the first time he's seen what has been presented by counsel and us and the Board. October 16, 2024 26 Chairman Jaron Break until 10:30 Cary Goggin Did you have a chance to look at the permit? Doug Sposito Yes, I mean those all appear to be correct. Cary Goggin Mr. Sposito, you have noted on the document before you there were multiple submissions made by Nova Homes relevant to this permit subsequent to the meeting June 17, 2024. Is that correct? Doug Sposito Yes. Carey Goggin And what is the status of those submissions as we sit here today? Doug Sposito The permit has been reissued. Carey Goggin And have the resubmitted plans been approved? Doug Sposito Yes, the permit has been reissued. Carey Goggin At the moment, how long does Nova Homes have to comply with whatever conditions and inspections are pending relative to this permit? Doug Sposito Absent a code case, it would be 180 days to schedule the first inspection or we would be back into an extended expired status. Cary Goggin But this is a code case. October 16, 2024 27 Doug Sposito It's a bit unusual. Cary Goggin How is it unusual in that? Doug Sposito It's a Code case. So, nothing in the Code explicitly states a time frame when we're talking about Code compliance, it has been interpreted as simply being what the building official applies to it. Cary Goggin What standard does the Building Official use in determining the time period. Doug Sposito Just, we try to give all parties reasonable time to get the job done. Cary Goggin So, at present, is it your testimony that there are no further issues with submissions themselves pending the further inspections? Is that what you mean by the permit reissuance? Doug Sposito Yeah. The revisions submitted were approved, inspections were assigned and it's now in inspections commenced status. Cary Goggin At the moment is Nova Homes in willful violation of Florida Building Code. Doug Sposito • I believe that that's what the Board decides. • The building officials issued a willful violation when we had not received within 30 days any contact, any submission. • So, at that point, the violations that took place again during construction when they were supposed to be submitting, those were the violations. • That was the point when the willful violation took place. • We acknowledged it with the letter and allowed for 30 days to correct that. October 16, 2024 28 Cary Goggin So, when did the willful violation take place? Doug Sposito • I would suggest that it took place, although again, we're discussing it. So, when did it take place? • Did it take place when the contractor failed to submit the revision in each of the six instances through the construction in those years. • Or did it take place when the building official was made aware of it and acknowledged it? • I guess the Board's going to have to decide that. • I think from strictly a Code perspective, the Code very explicitly states that the contractor is required to notify the building official at that time of changes in the plans. He failed to do so. • So as the Deputy Building Official, I would suggest that the willful violation took place at the failure of the Contractor to submit those revisions in a timely manner at that time. We were not made aware of that until approximately June of this year. And then, of course, we apply. • When do we go back? We don't know when the contractor failed to submit the revision during that construction phase each of those six times. That's not a, a date where even anyone could actually come up with. • And so, at some point, we gave them an opportunity to remedy that situation. And after that additional time, we simply declared those six instances whenever they took place to be willful violations. Cary Goggin Let me ask you a question. You attached to the June 17 letter it looks like a couple of Code sections from the Florida Builder Code. Is that the Code section you're referring to 107.4 that says that the builder is supposed to submit amended plans. Work shall be installed in courts with the approved construction documents. Any changes made during constructions that are not compliant with the approved documents shall be resubmitted for approval. Is that what you're referring to? Doug Sposito October 16, 2024 29 Yeah, I believe that that's one of the relevant. I believe all of them are relevant in some way. I'm sorry, I got a bunch of now additional paperwork piled up here. I'm looking for that document. Give me just a second. All the Code references that are on the back of the. I apologize. I just now got too many pieces of paper up here. Cary Goggin You're fine. I think it's page 228 of our packet. Doug Sposito • Oh, here. It's on the back. I'm sorry. I got printed up on the back. So, I believe that the two relevant passages are 107.5. • Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in compliance with the approved construction document shall be resubmitted for approval as an amended set of construction documents. That did not happen on six instances. • And then 110.1, I believe, is also approval as a result of an inspection shall not be construed to be an approval of the violation of the provisions of this code. • I mean, we can only enforce what we're made aware of, and I'm not suggesting in any way that this contractor did anything. But as you guys are aware, with us, we have always been dealing with contractors that aren't necessarily as upfront as they could be. • I'm not suggesting they weren't. We don't know the circumstances that led for the reasons that those revisions were not submitted, but we gave them an additional 30 days to remedy that situation. It was not our arbitrary. We discussed with staff on what an appropriate timeframe would be based on the engineers reports that we got. We thought that 30 days would certainly be long enough to submit those revisions or at least reach out to us and say, hey, here's our engineer or architect under contract. • He needs additional time. Everybody's busy. And of course, we would have granted that additional time. So, the letter was dated June 17, 2024. When was the first time they submitted, submitted a revision in response to this letter? • That would be August 9. Kyle Lantz October 16, 2024 30 Can I just clarify something. I think I heard something, but I just want to make sure when they have, whatever, six instances that they didn't follow the approved plans and they should have had a revision, but they didn't at the time that those occurred. That wasn't a willful code violation. That was just a code violation. It didn't become willful until they were made aware of it and didn't respond, correct. Doug Sposito Well, I don't know what, I can't speak to what they're thinking at the time that they failed to submit the revision. I don't know whether they intentionally and willfully did not submit a revision. I have no knowledge of that. I just know that they didn't submit anything. Kyle Lantz But at some point, either you or Mr. Clum determined this is a willful code violation. Right. And that's why we're here. So did the willful code violation occur two years ago, or did it occur after they were told, hey, man, you screwed up, you got to fix it, and they didn't fix it. Violation occurred two years ago. We gave them 30 days. Doug Sposito In our mind, if this was simply an oversight, boom, here are the documents. Let's get this taken care of, wrapped up, and reclose this thing. We want to be done with it. Kyle Lantz So, the reason why I'm asking is I have had plenty of jobs where my plans call for something, and for some reason or another, maybe we've changed a window or we've changed a front door or whatever it is, and the front door that we have doesn't match the NOA on file. The inspector comes in, inspects it, and says, hey, you screwed up. You need to apply for a revision. We can move on. In my mind, hey, I screwed up. It's a code violation. But is that a willful code? Are we now saying that that's a willful code violation and my license should be on the line? Doug Sposito The catch we have for that is we either put inspection holds or CO holds, and so you don't get the CO. October 16, 2024 31 So, this contractor allowed a CO to be issued without substantial revisions. Again, I can't speak to his mind. I don't know. Kyle Lantz I understand completely. but what I'm concerned about is if we're saying it was a willful code violation two years ago. Matthew Nolton OR TODD ALLEN That’s not what I heard him say that that was the violation, not the willful. What I believe the County has said is the willfulness comes in to when they had the meeting, gave them the written notice, and there was no response. Is when the willfulness came in that we construed that the violations that took place, then we're willfully done. Doug Sposito It is a strange area. It's an unusual circumstance. So, we're arguing over when an exact violation, I don't know in this particular case, aside from the Board voting and deciding when you can make that exact determination, the violations of the code took place at that time two years ago. We were made aware of them two years later. Were they willfully then? I can't speak to the mindset of the contractor at that time, but I know we gave them 30 days to respond, and they did not reach out to us in any way. So, then we made a determination that it was willful that they did not make those revisions. Kyle Lantz So, then we made a determination that it was willful that they did not make those revisions. So basically, after they've been told 30 days, they were given 30 days, and they didn't do it. That's when it became willful. Patrick Neale It's the Board's determination of whether it's willful or not. No matter what the County says or no matter what the respondent says, the Board is the one that's going to have to determine whether it was a willful violation or not. It's just argument that you're hearing at this point. You folks are the ones that make the decision. Matthew Nolton And we're in the stage where Mr. Goggin is just asking the witness questions. We haven't even got to them to put on their case yet so that we'll have the chance to ask their witnesses. October 16, 2024 32 Patrick Neale He's in the midst of cross examination at this point. Cary Goggin Mr. Sposito, are you the only point of contact for the County regarding this permit or this Code Enforcement matter? Doug Sposito I don’t believe so. Cary Goggin So, if somebody, for instance, myself, had reached out to the County, you may not be aware of that if they discussed this matter between June 17 and July 22? Doug Sposito Yes. Cary Goggin Was any contact made to Nova between the June 7, insofar as formal notice, a request, a final deadline. Was any such notice made to Nova prior to July 22? But subsequent to the June 17 meeting? Doug Sposito Between June 17 and the letter being sent out, we did not reach out to Nova? Cary Goggin To which letter are you referring? Doug Sposito I'm not sure how we're referring it to it. The letter that the Building Official sent out. There was one letter that the Building Official sent. I'm not sure how you want me to refer to it. It's the letter dated June 17, addressed to Nova Homes. Cary Goggin Was there any correspondence subsequent to that June 17, 2024 letter prior to July 22 from the Building Official? October 16, 2024 33 Doug Sposito I don't believe so. Cary Goggin Was Nova put on notice of the violation on or about July 22? The willfulness or the intentional violation on or about July 22? Doug Sposito I would have to look. I believe so, yes. I would have to look at that the willful violation was determined approximately that date. Cary Goggin Apologize. I'll restate my question. I understand that the willful violation was determined by Chief Building Official, Mr. Clum. Was Nova told that that violation occurred or existed on or about July 22? Doug Sposito I'm going to need to look at the documents to get the dates right. I believe that it was referred to code as a willful after we didn't receive any information, and then Code took it over from there, as in all the cases and Code would have sent out. Just to be clear, once it's referred to Code as a violation, then Code takes over, we let them reach out and make the contacts with the parties so the Building Official at that time wouldn't have been communicating. Are you asking when Code sent the official notice? Cary Goggin I'm just asking if Nova was informed of the potential of a being brought before this board for licensing at any point prior to July 22 beyond this June 17 letter. Doug Sposito No, I don’t believe so. Cary Goggin So essentially, Nova was declared in violation, willful violation, without being told ahead of time, other than this June 17 letter, whether they would be brought before this board. There's just simply that note which you cited to before that further action may be taken. I apologize if I'm not quoting that verbatim. Is that correct? October 16, 2024 34 Doug Sposito Yeah, I don’t know that we send out multiple notices that further action will be taken. No. Cary Goggin But Nova continued to attempt to comply with the County's request, as evidenced by that permit history. Is that correct? Doug Sposito Not for 30 days. Cary Goggin That is conceded. But they did submit however many revisions are reflected on that permit history. Doug Sposito Right, but it was all based on the 30 days we did not get contact. We sent out a letter saying there perhaps could be further code action if we did not hear from you in 30 days. We did not. It was referred to Code, and I believe within a week or two of that referral, they did begin to submit documents. Cary Goggin And in the meantime, Nova wasn't told, continued to comply with the request of the county, and submitted multiple revisions which were subsequently approved. Is that correct? Doug Sposito After they started the process and went through it they got ultimately got the permit reissued. Yes. Cary Goggin Are you familiar with section 105 4.1 of the Building Code entitled Permit Intent for Reference? It is, I believe, the first section submitted. If the county will pull up the next page on the packet they submitted, I believe that's 228. What am I asking? Doug Sposito Absolutely. October 16, 2024 35 Cary Goggin I don't know who's in charge of the screen. Court members have in front of them just 228. Right at the top, I believe, if I recall correctly. Mr. Boggert What section are we looking for? I'm sorry, 105 4.1. That's right there. It's. Cary Goggin Was there determined to be a violation, a willful violation of this particular section of the building code on the part of Nova? Doug Sposito Okay, can you ask the question again? Cary Goggin Was Nova determined to be in willful violation of 105 4.1 entitled Permit Intent of the Florida Building Code and willful as part of. Yes. Can you read the last sentence of that particular section? Doug Sposito Every permit issued shall become invalid unless work authorized by such permit is commenced within six months after its issuance or if work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months after the time the work is commenced. Cary Goggin That generally provides a six-month period for which contractors may proceed to comply with conditions of the permit. Is that correct? Yes. And in this instance, Nova was again provided approximately just over 30 days. Doug Sposito This is a Code case. And as they pointed out, there's potential life safety issues and if we don't get the right documents. Cary Goggin Have you seen these life safety issues personally? Do you have personal knowledge of the? Doug Sposito October 16, 2024 36 I have the experts who would actually make those evaluations submitted to me. Cary Goggin Which expert is that? Doug Sposito The engineers. I can pull them up. I don't have the names off the top of my head, but the two engineers’ reports, I believe. Cronin Engineering and John Walsh Engineering. Cary Goggin Are you familiar with John Jonathan Walsh outside of this particular case? Doug Sposito I am, yes. He was the former Building Official before I became working for the County. He was the former Building Official. Cary Goggin And he was the only report submitted to the Board in reference to this case. Doug Sposito I couldn't tell you that. Cary Goggin I will represent the Board that that is the case. Todd Allen Let me ask you a question on this 105.4.1. I think you said your testimony was that that last sentence of the section says that it gives the contractor six months to address issues with the permit. Is that correct? Because that's not how that reads, and I just want to make sure I understand it. Doug Sposito A permit is valid for six months unless no action is taken on it, and action is defined further on as being an inspection called and passed. Todd Allen Right. So, the way that this reads though is, and I think the way that it was presented by Mr. Goggin is that they had six months to cure any defects in October 16, 2024 37 the work. But that's not how this is written. Right. This last sentence says you've got six months to commence work. Exactly. And if you don't, it's invalid. Chairman Jaron The permit was just recently reopened. So, the six months applies to an open permit. It doesn't apply to the, you know, revoking a co and then asking for revision documents. I mean as a Contractor, we all know the month rule. Kyle Lantz Wasn't the permit reopened when the CO was? Chairman Jaron No, they had to get all the revisions in, which didn't come in. Kyle Lantz But a revision implies that a permit's already issued. No? It’s not a separate permit. Todd Allen I think they had to get the revisions in to amend the permit. And that didn't happen until August. Doug Sposito Yes, August 9. Todd Allen I want to clarify that I don't think that last sentence of 105.4.1 says what it was previously testified, and I may have misunderstood the question. I mean, it certainly doesn't apply to a permit that's not been issued, and that has been the case up until recently. Whether it applies going forward, that would be a determination of the Board on how much additional time they would have to get the inspections and do any work that may be required. Cary Goggin One further question. Did Mister Walsh do any work on this particular permit while he was still with the building department of Collier county? Doug Sposito October 16, 2024 38 Other than that, he was the Building Official, he would have issued the CO originally. Cary Goggin Okay, thank you. No further questions. Todd Allen Mr. Sposito, I just want to clarify a couple things. Letter was sent to the contractor regarding the 30 days. On what date? Doug Sposito Dated June 16. Timothy Crotts Okay. And at the end of that 30 days, you received no communication from the contract, you received no submissions of any nature for anything involving the permit, is that correct? Michael Boggert That's correct. Timothy Crotts At this time, I'd like to have Mike Boggert come back to the stand. Mr. Boggert, after the end of the 30 days, were you notified by the Chief Building Official that he had declared a willful code violation? Michael Boggert Yes. Timothy Crotts And did you reach out to the contractor advisor advising that a willful Code violation had been determined? Michael Boggert I did. Timothy Crotts And when was that? Michael Boggert October 16, 2024 39 On August 21. Timothy Crotts And then, Mr. Boggert, how soon after the 21st did they submit provisions? Michael Boggert I think that was the August 9. Cary Goggin You told them on what date that there was a willful Code violation? Michael Boggert I think the qualifier, Maharai Dacosta and I had a conversation on August 21. I wasn’t able to reach her prior to that. Everything was done. I believe the previous notice of hearing was sent out without speaking to her of time. But that would have declared the willful on there as well. Kyle Lantz So, are we still in violation or technically, the violation has been abated because the permit's been issued and the revisions have been approved, correct? Doug Sposito Sure. From a building official standpoint, the violation has not been abated until the CO has been reissued. I mean, it needs to. That's part of the process. And there's two separate timeframes for getting plans and permits issued. It's got its own set of code and statutory timeframe requirements and then inspections. And co have a different set of statutory timeframes. And again, being a Code case, you know, how you apply those timeframes would be up to the Board here. Kyle Lantz So, from your perspective, it's still willful up until the final co has been issued? Doug Sposito That's correct. We don't have any knowledge that the revisions, that it is to the plan. We have to go out now and verify that what has been submitted is in fact what was done. We don't know that that's the second half of this. October 16, 2024 40 Kyle Lantz But had they applied for the permit within, or revision, whatever, within the 30 days, we would have never gotten to the willful status? Doug Sposito Would guess so, yes. And then perhaps, I mean, I'm not sure. I can't say never because we still have the inspections. We still would have had to go out and verify. We still would have had to issue a Co. We still may have ended up here. The work still needed to be done, but we're here now because it didn't take place within those 30 days. Kyle Lantz But I don't know. Let's say it takes ten years to get to a solution. I mean, I don't know how long it's going to take. Two weeks, ten years, anywhere. It's willful up until the time the Co is issued, even though they're actively working on it. Whether anyone agrees that the pace that it's going is good or bad, it's willful up until the time the Co is issued. Had they filed a 30-day plan, it wouldn't have been willful, and they still could have taken ten years, but it wouldn't have been willful. Doug Sposito Will the “it” be willful that it needs to be closed out? I'm not the “it”, the it is the whole thing. So, in our minds, we, it was still a code case. Had we issued a permit and then not heard anything in a timeframe, we would have said they're not acting on it. Sure, they submitted the documents, but they're there. We have no way to verify that these documents that they submitted in any way still match the conditions. We need inspection scheduled, or we need engineers’ affidavits, or we need whatever it is it's going to take to prove that in fact, the work was done for the plans. So, this is the first part. The first part of any construction project is getting the documents approved and issued. And the second part is getting the work inspected and the co issued, which is the building official saying, yes, I agree, this house is now safe to occupy. Doug Sposito So, we're in the second half now, the second phase of this. So, this is still a Code violation. October 16, 2024 41 Kyle Lantz I'm not asking if it's Code violation. I'm asking if it's willful. In your opinion. Todd Allen That's our determination. That's really the Board and it's to us. Terry Jerrule So, we're going to discuss it and come up with whether we agree or disagree. Todd Allen Does the county have any more witnesses? Timothy Crotts No, not at this time. Chairman Jaron Mr. Goggin, I think you said that was your last question. And then did you have more of your case to present. Cary Goggin Certainly. Okay, the respondent would call Mr. Arcia, if we may proceed. This is Mister Frank Garcia. Mr. Arcia, would you introduce yourself to the gentleman of this Board? Frank Arcia Frank Arcia, President of Nova Homes. Cary Goggin Mr. Arcia, are you familiar with the matter on which we were here today? Frank Arcia Yes, we're here today due to 30 days. No response to the County through the revision that we had to submit. So, I think it was clear. I mean, working with the engineer, as the gentleman mentioned before in architect, is now something that we can reply back within 30 days. Something that is not typical. Revoke CO. I need to explain the engineering why the CO was revoked. And I mean, I had to explain it very well. And they even don't understand it. I mean, they October 16, 2024 42 don't understand why they can only revoke the CO because we did the offset beam and we did everything match on the floor plan, so the floodplain match. What we did is just the interpretation the last minute after the complaint from the County. That's my opinion. Cary Goggin Mr. Arcia. Subsequent to the June 17 meeting, I apologize for speaking a little more loudly. I'm trying to overcome the lack of a microphone. Subsequent to the June 17 meeting, what steps did you take to comply with the County's request to submit revised plans? Frank Arcia We just immediately have a meeting with the engineer with the architect and present to the engineering executive. We go over the floor plan with the only difference that the offset beam is just only one view, not 3D, not any other way to present to the County as other permits or plans before. It's something that we normally do in every single instance in every department, and they always approve. So even the low calculation on the beam, it was not required in the first place. So, it was required after the fact as a revision. We never get information from the County or from the Inspector on site that we have to revise the floor plan due to the offset beam or the footer. So, all that was passing patient. We got a couple of fails. I get it. But we never get informed from the County inspector on site that we have to revise the plan two years ago. So, I understand how I can revise a plan that is now requested by the site inspector. Cary Goggin So, the first time you understood, so the first time you understood that you were to revise the plans was June 17, correct? Frank Arcia Yes. Okay. Cary Goggin And did you understand that those plans had to be revised by July 22 or the county fail to provide a particular timeline? Frank Arcia October 16, 2024 43 I mean, we might not pay attention 100% to the 30 days. I apologize about that. But as a contractor, we always think about 180 days. Cary Goggin But you did diligently seek to provide the revised plans and ultimately made submissions, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Approximately how many submissions did you make to the County in reliance on the representation that they would seek to abate this matter if you complied with their request? Frank Arcia Say it again. Cary Goggin Approximately how many submissions did you make to ultimately try to remedy this matter and comply with the requests of the County? Frank Arcia I would say three or four. Cary Goggin I believe the County has already attested to. That. Was the first time you were apprised of any willful violation on or about August 22, 2024? Frank Arcia No. Cary Goggin When did you first find out that Nova was being declared in willful violation of Florida Building Code? Frank Arcia I mean, when we get a notification about the hearing. Cary Goggin Okay. You were not informed prior to July 22 that this would be brought before the contractor licensing board should you fail to provide revised plans within five days, ten days, or by a particular date, is that correct? Frank Arcia October 16, 2024 44 That’s correct. So, I even hear from Maharia she got a phone call from the court enforcement that we going to have the hearing. But if we compliance with the submitter before the complaints date. The complaint. I mean the hearing date. The hearing date should be canceled. Not necessary to come to the hearing because we complied with the submitter even before the complaints. I mean, even before the hearing. We have meeting at the county and ask the journeyman if it's necessary to come here once. We already submit everything that we need to submit, even if still on review. He said yes, you have to go tomorrow. So, I request to not come here because I think it's wasting time. Cary Goggin So, at any point, was it your intent to ignore, evade, or otherwise fail to comply with the County's requests at all? Frank Arcia Not at all. I mean, in the normal home history, I've never been here. This is my first time in 20 years of business. Cary Goggin Just to clarify, you're saying that there is no disciplinary history for Nova Homes before this Board or Florida DBPR. Correct? Frank Arcia That's correct. Chairman Jaron Mr. Arcia is the President of Nova Homes? Frank Arcia Yes. Chairman Jaron And not the qualifier? Frank Arcia No. Chairman Jaron October 16, 2024 45 Is the qualifier here. Frank Arcia No. Chairman Jaron My second question is who was a full-time project superintendent? Frank Arcia Myself. Todd Allen Mr. Arcia. Did you review the building plans that were submitted to the County for the issuance of the permit? The ones that were initially submitted to the County. Frank Arcia Every single one. And do revise it. Todd Allen And then as part of your project management duties, are you on site inspecting the construction throughout the process? Frank Arcia Yes. Todd Allen So, is it fair to say that you knew at the time that the tie beam was constructed at the exterior lanai that you knew it was not according to plans? Frank Arcia It was. I mean, based on my experience. My opinion is according to plan. It's just the way to look at it. I mean, if you look the truss layout over, the dealer is according to plans or it's not. In my interpretation. The inspector, the County Inspector that went to the site that day to inspect the typing. I mean, we got couple feral typing inspection. During the inspection, he never mentioned the offset beam. So that means that the offset beam is built according to the floor plan. Now, in the last minute after the Jonathan Watch Report is when that the beam is October 16, 2024 46 not according to plan, which I mean was approved ordinary that way that we submitted. Todd Allen So, you were relying on someone else to tell you whether it was in compliance with the plans or not, and that person was the Inspector? That's what you're testifying Frank Arcia The Inspector, having agreed with the beam that was built that way. So, I mean, the way joined the plan. Todd Allen So, did you know at the time that the interior LVL beam was constructed that it was not built in accordance with plans? Frank Arcia The beam is according to the plan. The only issue that we have with the LBL beam is just the fastener. Is one fastener missing on the saddle of the beam. Todd Allen So, you didn't know that it was the wrong length? Frank Arcia It's not a wrong length. It's right. I mean, I don't know. Todd Allen Failure to submit a revision for interior LDL beam. Point bearing and length. Frank Arcia Exactly. That missing fastener in that location. Chairman Jaron No, that's a different deficiency. The missing fastener. We’re talking about deficiency number 2. The LVL is either not supported properly or it’s too long. Todd Allen October 16, 2024 47 So, my question for you is, you knew at the time that that was constructed that it wasn't in accordance with the plans. Frank Arcia Yes. Todd Allen And is that also true with the footing issue at multiple locations that you knew when it was constructed that it wasn't according to plans? Frank Arcia I mean, I bring that up to my engineer. The engineering responded to the County in the revision, accepting as an engineering that the difference between the physical work and the floor plan is. Todd Allen You knew that was different. Frank Arcia Yes. Todd Allen And so, you knew that the windows, the substituted windows, were not according to the plans that were submitted to the county. You knew that as well when they were constructed? Frank Arcia Yes. Chairman Jaron Were the windows larger than the original plans? Frank Arcia The windows, it was a little smaller than the window schedule. I mean, the window schedule call for a specific window schedule. And the measurements were different. It's a type of room engineer. And that was the mistake that we have. By the time that we provide the windows, we provide a smaller window due to is a discrepancy between the windows scale. You know that the windows call October 16, 2024 48 out by 25 35 and then measurements right next to it. So, the measurements were not according to the schedule. That's the only thing that is a type of mistake. Todd Allen How about the cut truss? Frank Arcia Cut truss. I don't believe it. I got to go and see it myself. I don't believe it. I think that's a number member that is installed right next to the truss or the area access. I don't believe that. A truss cut. Todd Allen You don't believe that the trust was cut? Frank Arcia No, I don't believe it. I want to see myself. I requested to go and see it and I don't have permission to inspect it myself. I don't believe it. If it does, I have to apologize and get the correction. Might as well the County is requesting the letter or the repair for the truss company. And I provide the repair in case that I find out that it's cut? Yes. Todd Allen So, it's fair to say that if it was cut, then it wasn't done according to the plans that were submitted. You're saying that you don't believe it was cut? But is it fair to say that if it was cut that it's not according to the plans that were submitted? Frank Arcia Well, we're not supposed to cut trusses. Terry Jerrule Mr. Arcia, you're the President of Nova Homes. How many homes were under construction during this time? Frank Arcia I would say 70. Terry Jerrule October 16, 2024 49 So, you had 70 homes under construction during that? And you're the President of the Company. And earlier you testified to me that you were the full-time superintendent on this project. Frank Arcia Overlook. As a project manager Terry Jerrule I'm asking you for Project Superintendent Frank Arcia 100% on that job site every day. No. Terry Jerrule You were not? And did you have a project superintendent on the job site 100% every day. Frank Arcia Every day that we need to be there? Terry Jerrule Yes. Who is that? Frank Arcia He's not without the Company anymore. Terry Jerrule I didn't ask you that question. I asked you who it was. Frank Arcia Oh, who was the superintendent? Gio Arcia. Terry Jerrule Is he related to you? Frank Arcia Yes, my brother. Terry Jerrule And he was the full-time superintendent? Was he on any other project? October 16, 2024 50 Frank Arcia Yes. Terry Jerrule So, he wasn't full time superintendent? Was he on any other project? Frank Arcia Yes. Terry Jerrule So, he wasn't full time then? Frank Arcia I mean, full time for the project and the players? Terry Jerrule Yeah, and that's my question. I'm not trying to trick you. I'm just trying to get information. So how much time did he spend on this project? Frank Arcia I mean, every time that he needs to be subcontractor, every time that he needs to be an inspector, every time that he got to go and double check. Part time superintendent. Terry Jerrule Say it again. Frank Arcia He was part time superintendent, called part time. I mean, that's a superintendent for the job. Terry Jerrule Well, if he was on several different projects, he's not full time on all the different projects. He was part time on each project. I would say full time for a group of houses. Of ten houses. Okay, so he was a full-time superintendent on ten homes? Frank Arcia Yes. Correct. October 16, 2024 51 Terry Jerrule So, in my opinion, that's part time. You're part time superintendent for ten homes. You said 70 homes under construction. This particular home is a custom home, right? Frank Arcia Custom. You can call custom home because we build a house. I mean, it's a regular floor plan that we have modifications. Terry Jerrule Okay, but still, there was an architect that designed the house and it's not a stock. Frank Arcia Yes. Terry Jerrule So, the other homes that you build, are those custom also more or less the same concept? We got a base plan and then we modify the plans according to the homeowner's request, with a permit or without. With a permit or without. Terry Jerrule With a permit or without. Frank Arcia I never been here before, so I don't know. We don't do job with no permits. Matthew Nolton Who was the structural engineer on the plans for this? Frank Arcia I don’t know. We got a few and I don’t remember exactly which one is the one for this one. I mean, Daywin Scott is my designer, so I work in with his engineer. Terry Jerrule And you don't recall who that engineer was? October 16, 2024 52 Frank Arcia I think. I don't remember the name right now. That engineer passed away, but I don't recall the name because. Pass away. A couple. I mean, like a year and a half ago. I'll record the name. They got a new engineer now. Not the same that we got it for the job. Terry Jerulle So, do you know if that engineer was on the job site? Frank Arcia No, I don't know. I don't think so. Terry Jerrule Just want to clarify. You're building 70 homes at the same time? Frank Arcia Yes Terry Jerrule Are they all in Collier Count? Collier and Marco Island. I mean Naples and Marco Island. Terry Jerrule Does the County know the engineer on record? Chairman Jaron Who did the revisions? Leonard Forest was the engineer on record. Cary Goggin If I may hope to clarify, the two engineering reports by Mister Walsh and by Mister Cronin were for the purposes of an arbitration that occurred between the homeowner and Nova homes. The revisions were submitted through Wainscott Designs. We're looking for the particular person who signed and sealed those plans and those revisions? Frank Arcia We do have the engineer right here, Gene Cravillion. October 16, 2024 53 Terry Jerrule Did Leonard Forest pass away before the original CO? Frank Arcia We say no. After the original CO. Terry Jerrule I know who you're speaking about now. And I know, Mister Wainscott. And I know there's some issues there that's separate from this case. But you're sure that he passed away after the original CO was issued. Frank Arcia Yes. Matthew Nolton I would like to talk to the licensee, Maharai Dacosta. Did you ever go to this site? Maharai Dacosta I think during construction. Matthew Nolton About how many times? Maharai Dacosta I can’t tell you. Matthew Nolton Were you aware that it was being constructed different than the plans? Maharai Dacosta Well, we weren’t aware of that. As far as we know, until this came out, everything was done according to the original plan. Matthew Nolton Did you attempt to talk to the county in that 30-day window from the June 17, did you talk to anyone at the county about this? Maharai Dacosta October 16, 2024 54 I didn't speak to anyone in the County, no. In that time frame, the only communication I had directly to me from the County was the day that Mr. Boggert called me. I mean, I knew what was going on because of the paperwork that was sent to the office. And apparently, we didn't miss a 30- day deadline. But it was not, you know, it was not done willfully, all malicious. We were just working on it. I guess maybe we lost track. We thought it was 180 days, and that was an honest mistake. But we never stopped working on the revisions since then we got the first notice. Todd Allen Miss Dacosta, did you review the plans that were submitted to the County initially with the permit? So, you are aware of what those plans contain? Maharai Dacosta Yeah. Todd Allen And did you go to the site and compare the construction to those plans? Maharai Dacosta Well according to us the plans were correct. It was just the view in the plan did not reflect what was in the actual property. But we submitted the detailed view that the county wanted. And it was approved, correct? Todd Allen Well, I mean, the reason I'm asking, because I think that's different than what Mr. Arcia testified, is that he knew when these issues were constructed that they didn't comply with the plans. And you're telling us that they did comply with the plans? Which is it? Terry Jerrule Do you know how to read structural drawings? Maharai Dacosta Yeah. Terry Jerrule And did you go to the site and look at the structural drawings? October 16, 2024 55 Maharai Dacosta Well, I did go to a site and saw what was going on. Any problems that were on the job site? I didn't. If there's any problems, they would have told me had nobody signed. As far as I know, it was just a regular, what do you call it? Routine visit. Terry Jerrule But if they didn't know of the problem, aren't you responsible to find them? Maharai Dacosta We didn't have any problems. We didn't see any problems. As far as we knew, there were no problems. Routine visit, routine inspection. Done. Terry Jerrule So, you didn't compare the structural drawings to what was being built? Maharai Dacosta Yeah, but again, we saw no nothing. Terry Jerrule Before you said no and now you said yes. I’m just trying to clarify. I’m asking not we, I’m asking you personally because you’re the qualifier, right? And you're responsible. Did you go to the job site and look at the structural drawings and compare it to what was being built? Maharai Dacosta Yes. Terry Jerrule You did? Maharai Dacosta I don’t know exactly how many times and which times you’re asking, but yes. Terry Jerulle And you do that on all your projects? All 70 of them. You visit all 70 projects and look at the structural drawings and the truss drawings and the electrical drawings and look at what's being built. October 16, 2024 56 Maharai Dacosta When it’s needed. Yes. Terry Jerulle When it’s need, or all the time? Maharai Dacosta Not every single day for every single job site, but yes, routinely, yes. Chairman Jaron Anything else Mr. Goggin. Cary Goggin I have no further questions. Patrick Neale If the board wishes, they can allow each party to make their closing statements. Todd Allen Mr. Crotts, are we doing public comments during the public hearing? Mr. Crotts Not yet. We'll do it at the penalty phase if in fact they are found guilty. • I believe the reason we're here today and we've heard testimony regarding issues that occurred during the building of the home. • There were different engineers that were involved in reviewing the work that was done. Some issues that were found, deficiencies within the work being done, and it was brought to the attention of the builder at a meeting prior to the letter that was sent out and given in 30 days. • The letter was sent to the qualifier on June 17, saying that there were deficiencies and that there was information that needed to be provided to the County within the 30 days. • Through testimony of both the qualifier and the project manager, that date was not met. They confused it with what they thought was maybe 120 days, but clearly the letter does state 30. • There was no information sent to the County until after the 30 days had passed, and we would submit to the Board that only after they October 16, 2024 57 found out that a willful code violation existed did the information start coming into the County. • The county has been able to review that information, was able to get the permit reissued, and now we're waiting for the inspections. • But the County will sit there and say that the willful code violation occurred at the end of the 30 days, which was clearly stated in the letter to the qualifier on June 17. And by their own admission, no information was submitted to the Building Department, and no communication, either phone call or emails or writing of any issues they were having in trying to get the information. Chairman Jaron Mr. Goggin Cary Goggin • If I may. This is a narrow issue. Allegedly, we have 30 days to submit revisions and so on and so forth. I cannot find a single bit of authority for that time period. • Nova was not informed of those 30 days. If we read that letter, it says further action may be taken. It doesn't say this will be deemed a willful violation. • In my world, that is as black and white a difference as building a house on one lot versus another lot. Simply vaguely alluding to the fact that something may happen is not noticed, that you must do something by a particular date. • And quite frankly, this should concern every single licensee. Everyone, basically on this Board may be subject to this same type of procedure at some point. • I stated in the opening, where does this end? Everybody here, perhaps with the exception of Mister Allen, as an attorney like myself, has built numerous projects. You are all very experienced. Can we go back to something that was done in 1995, 96, 2002? And then you have 30 days to not just meet with an engineer to get those plans, get those revisions. • Oh, and by the way, the county is not going to tell that it was exactly those 30 days, or else you're coming here in this particular instance. The county's testimony was that the first time Nova was informed of this. Miss Tacosta was informed of this was August 22. I may have October 16, 2024 58 missed that date, which is a month after. A month after this willful violation was deemed to have occurred. • It was approximately two weeks after the revisions were submitted, ultimately, the county and the reason for the issue. Last time they said this occurred on July 22, 2024. And throughout all of the testimony here today, I can't understand what authority was cited for that particular date, why that particular date was chosen, why Nova wasn't informed, why I wasn't informed. The county has asserted on numerous instances that no communication occurred during those 30 days. I personally spoke with Derek Perry of the county attorney's office. • I had a phone call on June 21. I emailed him on June 18. That may have been 19. Mister chairman, we'll object to that with the communication with Derek Perry. Mister Perry's here not to collaborate. • That information or any phone calls took place. If Mister Crotts is denying that communication, I would request you assert that on the record. I'm just saying we don't have Derek Perry here to confirm any conversation that may have taken place with him regarding this issue. • Fair enough. Nevertheless, as the Chief, or excuse me, the Building Official who was called Mr. Sposito said, he's not the sole point of contact in this particular case. • There is not sufficient evidence to say that absolutely no communication was provided between Nova and the county during that period. • Okay, ultimately, what is occurring here is, I think, clearly stated in the letter from the County. The County's letter dated June 17. Terry Jerulle In whose letter? Who wrote the letter? Timothy Crotts Mr. Clum. Cary Goggin Yes, that was electronically signed by Mr. Frederick Clum. Terry Jerulle October 16, 2024 59 Okay, so he's the one that wrote the letter, and he's the one that said further action, and he's the one that's saying that nobody contacted him or asked what further action was. Cary Goggin • Mr. Clum didn't testify here today, so I'm not entirely sure what his testimony would be. Mr. Sposito, I believe, had stated that no further communication had been received. • And I believe that the County, and I forget exactly which witness had stated that Nova was not informed of any willful violation until August. And again, I believe it was 22nd that they had stated. • If we look at the exact language of that letter submitted in this packet, again, I don't know if that was 227. 228. It states at the fourth to last paragraph, Collier County would like to assist the contractor and, and homeowner and finding a solution to this issue. • This is the purpose of this action. It is to bring the contractor here to compel compliance with something that was ultimately a civil issue and was adjudicated as a civil issue. This letter states essentially that failure to submit the required revisions within the time period allowed may result in further code compliance or licensure actions by the county. I didn't read that. I don't know if that's reasonably read as saying, ultimately, if we don't get them, you'll be brought here. • Why was it. Why was Nova engaged in this process this entire time? Why were all of these revisions submitted in good faith to try to remedy this particular issue? Why, even as of recently, has no seen fit to try to rectify everything that the county has complained of? It is because this is not a willful violation. • Even to the extent that a violation may have existed. I would dare to say that that is probably the case on almost every project built in Florida, if it's reviewed carefully enough and with an eye towards litigation, because I assure you, with an eye towards litigation. Some of you may be familiar. The experts that are retained, they are paid. Our expert, they are expert. • Everybody's expert. They have an interest in finding issues. If that is the side that they're on, that's the report relied upon by the county. One of the questions that I asked initially in this opening is, where does this stop? Are you putting another tool in the attorney's toolbox so that now when we have a customer that is unhappy, this is where we go? October 16, 2024 60 • Will the county provide my other clients the same treatment? How far back do we look? If you built something in 2002, can I go give you 30 days to get all of the revisions or else your license is in jeopardy, and you can't pull permits. That's what's being requested here today. The county is seeking to remedy effectively a civil issue which has been adjudicated by threatening the license of the definition of willful is provided by Black's law dictionary. • I know I'm going to do the 9th grade book report thing and read you the definition, but it is important in this case. It states that it is an action done wittingly or on purpose, as opposed to accidentally or casually, voluntary and intentional, but not necessarily malicious. • This term willful is stronger than voluntary or intentional, and it is traditionally the equivalent of malicious, evil, or corrupt. Nothing here. Nothing that the County, even if everything they said was true and the building was. In fact, despite the fact that there is no personal knowledge of these issues as built, even if it was true, nothing suggests that any of these actions or failures to act were done with that intent. And the question would be, would you want to be held to that same standard if you weren't informed that 30 days from a June 17 violation notice, you were going to be brought before this board and then only told a month later, after you've made several revisions, committed the time, the effort, the money to do all this, that too bad you're coming in here. • I believe the County last time requested a particular action be taken by this Board. And that’s to say, don't immediately punish Nova. Just give us more time to hold their feet to the fire. Is that the purpose of this? Mister Knowlton, you very, very astutely brought up last time, a violation exists, or it doesn't exist. • It is not the purpose of the county. It is not the purpose of this board to seek to hold a contractor's feet to the fire by threatening their license on matters that are ultimately a civil issue. For those reasons, disciplinary actions should not be imposed. This is not a willful violation. It is never a willful violation. • And quite frankly, the evidence put forth by the county still cannot adequately state whether this violation occurred in 20. 212-022-2024 picked a date through a darted dartboard, and apparently it was July 22. No one else knew about that until August. But that's what we're dealing with. Is this fair on the part of the county? October 16, 2024 61 • Is this what the rule of law should be? Are you going to see me in a month with a different client and a different contractor doing the same thing? Because it's a lot easier than filing a lawsuit. These are all the questions that are bound up in all this. And, yes, attorneys will do that. • That's what we're deciding. So, for those reasons, we would suggest that any discipline, any sanction, should not be imposed upon Nova or Miss Dacosta. Thank you. Todd Allen I make a motion to close the public hearing. Terry Jerulle seconded Motion passed 6-0 Patrick Neale • I believe they've been addressed, but just to clarify them once more, the first issue is that procedures set out in our ordinances and statutes, hearsay is admissible in cases such as this. Testimony that someone heard someone else say something is admissible. You just can't use that as your sole basis for making a decision. So unlike in regular court, you can have listen to hearsay. Second thing is the only charge that you are really deliberating on is a violation of section 22.201.1. • Parenthood, two of higher candy code laws and ordinances which states this, the charges willfully violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, city, or Collier County. This is a, as everyone's noted, a willful violation. I will also reiterate to some extent, what Mister Guy just said is I think the board needs to look to the definition of willful to determine if the county has proven its case by a preponderance of the evidence that this is a willful violation. Remember, the county has the burden of proof in these matters, not the defendant. So, the county has to show their case by a preponderance of the evidence, actually by clear and convincing evidence, because this is something whereby someone may seek, may be able to lose their ability to practice a profession. • So actually, the standard in these kinds of cases where a license is at stake is a clear and convincing standard of proof, not a preponderance of the evidence proof. So that's a bit larger than a little bit more, but it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. So, they've got to do a clear and convincing amount of evidence. And so, what willful means is that October 16, 2024 62 I'm reading again from black's law dictionary. Willful differs from a negligent act. • One is positive, another is negative intentions separated by negligence by a line of demarcation. In common parlance, willful is used in the sense of intentional as opposed, distinguished from accidental or involuntary. But it is typically other definitions in sending the relative result which actually comes to pass, designed intentionally. Malicious are other definitions. So, when you're considering malicious, that's the definition I would suggest that you refer to. Todd Allen • I think this is willful, and here is how I'm getting there, because I don't know that we're required to adopt the violation date that the county argued. I think as a fact-finding Board, we're able to make a determination. And I think the county has met its burden, not through their own testimony, but rather to the testimony of Mister Garcia, who testified that he knew at the time that these things were constructed, that they were not constructed according to the plans that were submitted to the county. And I think you get to there through 107.4 of the building code says that the work has to be installed in accordance with approved construction plans, and that if it's not, you need to resubmit those plans for approval. The construction plans for approval. • So, I think the willful violation, arguably through his own testimony, occurred when he said that he knew that the violation, that the constructions was not done according to the plans. I think you get to the willfulness when the county has put them on notice that you've got 30 days to resubmit the proper revision documents. And that didn't occur. Right. And I think the language in the letter is important because it doesn't say, you know, call us or communicate with us. • It says you have 30 days to submit the revision. And they didn't submit the revision, nor did they request additional times. So I think you get to the willful when the 30 days past this notice expired. I mean, he testified that he knew at the time that it was constructed that it wasn't according to the plans. The county gave him a chance to fix it and blew that deadline. • How many more deadlines do we need to give him in order to cure it? I think that's how you get to willful. October 16, 2024 63 Kyle Lantz • So, does it make a difference? I don't think he understood when he was saying that he knew it was done, not according to plans. I heard that but I don't think he understood that. I think he thought, well, now that I'm seeing all the reports, I agree that it's not. But you can take that as you want. But does it make a difference that he's the project superintendent or the President, as opposed to the qualifier or the qualifier clearly stated? No. Everything was built according to plans. That's how we think. And the qualifier is the one on trial, or whatever you want to say, not the superintendent. • I'm just asking the question. You're way smarter than me. Todd Allen • Far from it. I think the qualifier doesn't know what's going on in this project. She testifies that she does. • I'm not feeling the sense of confidence that she knows what's going on. That Mister Arcia testified that he knew what was going on. And I made it very clear in my questioning because I wanted to know. Did he know at the time that this was constructed that it wasn't according to plans? I don't know how you can interpret that question any different. Kyle Lantz • So, one thing that I preach with my employees, subs, whatever, is don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence. Just because from your argument, she's incompetent. Does that make it malice? Todd Allen • No, no, it's not malice. And I'm not imposing malice on any of this. • Right. Willful is whether they knew it happened, not whether they did it intentionally to cause the homeowners’ harm. That's the malice. I don't think there's any malice. I mean, Nova's a very successful contractor. • They wouldn't be in business if they were out trying to deliberately harm their customers. I think it becomes willful when you know that it wasn't constructed according to plans and that you didn't do anything about it. And when the County gave you a chance to do something October 16, 2024 64 about it, you didn't do it, and you didn't ask for more time to come into compliance. That's where I think you get to the willful. Terry Jerulle I tend to agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I heard the same things that you heard. Matthew Nolton Well, and I'll just add, I heard that testimony. Right. And as we heard, for willful, intentional. Right? Intentionally. And so, the question is that we had testimony that he knew it wasn't for plans. Even if we just talk about windows that are different sizes and whether or not the product approvals were submitted for that. As contractors, we all have been there, and we've all made modifications to jobs, and we correct the plans, revise the plans, and we resubmit them to make sure we follow the process. That wasn't done here. It was done way after the fact, once the CO was pulled. So, they knew before that that there were components to this building that weren't built for the plans and were not doing anything about it. They did not submit. So that's where the intentional part comes in. They've built 70 homes, and they've moved on. Right. And I think that the qualifier. I mean, I heard her testimony, but 70 homes and frankly, I think if specific questions were asked, she wouldn't know the answers to those questions about this home. We’ve all been in construction and there's no way that we could know all the details about a home that we're building with 70 of them. And we only go into that house periodically. I think that, yes, as Mr. Goggin said, it's like, is it willful or is it not? Frankly, I see they wouldn't be doing Nova Homes, wouldn't be doing anything about this if these proceedings hadn't come before us, or even they were past the civil part, it seems like. And so, I don't know that they would have done anything to correct this. The noncompliance to the permanent plans. Chairman Jaron Is this one. We do the public comments. Timothy Crotts I would ask for a finding by the Board, and then before we get into the disciplinary action, the homeowner would like to speak to the board. October 16, 2024 65 Kyle Lantz So, I'll make a motion. I don't think I'm going to win, but I'll make a motion that we find them not guilty. Two reasons. A, I don't think it is willful, and b, I think they've supplied everything and there, in my opinion, they're in compliance. I've heard many choices of when it's willful, when it's not willful. And after 30 days seemed to be the big thing, especially Mister Cross's closing argument was after 30 days. Well, they have supplied, they have provided the revision. It's been approved. So, they're in compliance now. Whether it was willful or not, they're in compliance. The job doesn't have a CO, but it depends on who you talk to. Everybody has a different opinion. Mr. Sposito feels it's in compliance when the CO is issued. Mr. Crotts, in the closing statement, felt it was in compliance. When the revisions are being accepted, I feel that they're in compliance now, and I don't feel there was any intent for willful. So, I will make a motion that we find them not guilty. Chairman Jaron Do we have a second? Timothy Crotts The motion fails. Todd Allen So, I will make the motion that there be a finding of guilt. I think that we've established that they knew the violation occurred when it was constructed. They didn't submit revision plans, revised plans according to the Florida building code, and then they didn't do it in response to the county's notice. I think we have to find that there's a willful violation. Terry Jerulle I tend to agree with you. Like I said before, Mr. Allen, if I would have received that letter, I would not have called the County Attorney to call the permit tech. I would have called the person who wrote the letter and asked, what is further action? And then I would say, may I have more time? Because I'm working on it. Neither of those things happened. It feels like it was purposely ignored, which to me makes it willful. So, I will second the motion. October 16, 2024 66 Chairman Jaron Motion passes 5-1 (Mr. Lantz opposed) Patrick Neale Before we get into the actual penalty, the homeowner, Monica Delgado, would like to request, we also have five additional others who are wanting to give their time to Delgado. Rocco Ritrio Paul Gato Victoria Gato Stephen Gato Robin Prestis If I may just give you the intro as to what to consider when you're considering sanctions. This is a little different than the norm. You found them in violation, so you have to decide on sanctions are going to be imposed and the sanctions in this case are set out in Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances 22-203. And this is specifically as to holders of State Certificates of competency. And this is a State Certified Contractor. So therefore, If you find the misconduct that has been misconduct, the Board may have two options. Deny the issuance of permits carrying permits, or priority issuance of permits. I specific conditions, and also that if you do so, then notification of information regarding such permit denial shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Business and Professional regulation. Within 15 days after the contract, the licensing board decides to deny the permit. And in imposing those sanctions, you shall consider the gravity of the violation, the impact of the violation, any actions taken by the violated to correct the violation, previous violations committed, and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant to the sanction that is appropriate for the case, given the nature of the violation. Todd Allen Do we have that in our packet somewhere? Matthew Nolton It’s on page 145. Patrick Neale October 16, 2024 67 And it sites to the 22.201, which is dot one, which is the state certified district conduct. And the sanctions are found in 22.203 B. One and two. Todd Allen You said 22, 200, 303, northern certificates. Patrick Neale Those are the sanctions that can be imposed based on 201 are those set out in 22.203. SEE ADDENDUM MONICA GATO Chairman Jaron Does the County have recommendations. Timothy Crotts • In speaking with the Chief Building Official and the Deputy Chief Building Official, the County has asked that the respondent be ordered to complete this project. The permit has been reissued. We have inspections that need to be done in the CO being issued. We would ask that that be done within 60 days. • Failure to meet this request in 60 days would result in qualifier’s permit pulling privileges being suspended until such time the matter has been resolved with this home, and we would ask that the qualifiers permit privileges be put on probation for a period of 12 months. • That if there's any issues at all involving a permit that, we would have the authority to bring them in front of the Board as a probationary issue. Same thing you do when you put a license on probation. If there's any issue, that person could be brought in front of the Board to have that issue addressed. Terry Jerulle Mr. Crotts, please explain your motion one more time because I heard 2 different things and I'm sure you only meant 1. Immediately put their permit pulling privileges on hold today. Timothy Crotts . No Probation. • Probation for 12 months. October 16, 2024 68 • This matter be resolved and the CO issued within 60 days because the only thing they would have left now, because the permit has been issued, is that they have to get their inspections and get the CO reissued. That'd be done within 60 days. • Failure to do that within 60 days would result in the qualifier's license being suspended until such time that the matter was resolved and the CO issued. Terry Jerulle So why not pull their permit pulling privileges until they complete the project? Timothy Crotts • Well, I mean, it comes down to, as the qualifier stated or as the project manager stated. I mean, they have 70 homes they're working on. We're not gonna affect those. Right. We could do that, but that's the County's recommendation. • If the Board would like to suspend their permit pulling privileges now until the matter is resolved, that is something the Board certainly could do. Terry Jerulle I just want this matter done. Right? I want them made whole, and I want them to have a sense of urgency to make them whole. If they're not gonna make the 30-day deadline, I'm not confident they're gonna make the 60-day deadline. They're still gonna be out, and we're gonna just continue this further. I'm thinking out loud. Alright? I'm not making a motion. I'm trying to figure out what your motion was. And if we suspend their permit pulling privileges today, they have projects under construction that they could continue with. But the question is, would that prevent them from doing revisions? Timothy Crotts • No. For any permit, this would be to pull any new permit. After today's date. That's correct. If that's the way you want to go. I think the reason we did 60 days is because of that urgency. It's now giving them 60 days to get this project done. If you can't get it done within 60 days, then you are going to lose your ability to pull permits in Collier County. Terry Jerulle October 16, 2024 69 I understand. The way I'm looking at it, I say is suspend them until they're taken care of. According to the testimony, he knew about this stuff 2 years ago, and nothing's been done. Timothy Crotts • You can certainly do that. You could suspend the permit pulling privileges effective today until the CO has been issued on this property. If they get it done within 30 days, then great. The permit pulling privileges are active. • Again, if it takes some 180 days, then, you know, they don't pull permits in Collier County for 180 days until it's been resolved. Terry Jerulle Do we know how many permits they have in for submission as of today? Doug Sposito or Michael Boggert? So raw numbers. I don't have that as of this morning. In the County, I only saw 15 issued and there were 5 expired. City of Naples said 14 issued, 0 expired, and Marco 4 issued, 0 expired. Those are all issued though. So, you have 33 issued between the 3 jurisdictions. Those are all numbers. I don't know if there could be a couple more or less. Matthew Nolton • There are there are a couple other points too here. One is for the 60 days. We have no understanding or knowledge of what needs to be corrected and inspected and what that is gonna entail. I mean, allegations of a missing footing. If there's a missing footing, that's gonna take some effort and time to correct. • I mean, if there's finishes that have to be opened up and corrected so, straps, buckets, fasteners can be done. Don't know what kind of time and effort that takes to do that and complete those finishes. That's one issue. • 2nd issue is, obviously, this is very confrontational. So, I'm concerned about even the work being done in the home and how that gets done with both parties. Timothy Crotts • Well, I think to answer that question, the homeowner knows that the contractor has to be allowed into the home to repair anything that is done. If the homeowner does not allow the contractor into the home to address those issues, then the contractor would have the ability to get his name off the October 16, 2024 70 permit. That happens all the time. And with regards to your first issue, I guess Mr. Jerulle’s idea is maybe one of the better ones to suspend the permit pulling privileges until the inspections can be completed and the CO is issued, and that gives the contractor a more sense of urgency to get this done. Kyle Lantz I'll make a motion if nobody else does. My motions don't go very well, but. I'll make a motion that if the permit is not closed out and a full time CO not issued within 60 days then the contractor's permit pulling privileges are revoked, cancelled, whatever until that happens. End of motion. Timothy Crotts You're not going to do the probation? Kyle Lantz I think probation is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and I think we're not authorized to put State Contractors on probation. I think it's a slippery slope, and I'm trying on words and plan everything that I think it's a bad idea. Patrick Neale You're correct. If the if the authority does not extend the probationary actions for the you could, uh, uh, do permit pulling permit pulling with restrictions. You could say that something has to be done, but you can't say that they're on probation because that's just not one of the sanctions available on State certified contractors. Todd Allen Cary, can I ask you a question. Is this feasible, 60 days for your client? I mean, if you need a couple minutes to talk to them because I don't want to set people up for failure, but I also feel bad for this woman. Cary Goggin • Well, the problem, I think, fundamentally, and I did have a chance to speak to my client, although I'm sure they'll correct me, is we're not sure. I mean, quite frankly, we don't know what is going to come of this entire process. You know, as far as I understood, the issue here today was you didn't submit October 16, 2024 71 revisions on time. You know, you have the five factors that we look at. You have the gravity of the violation. • Alright? You didn't submit the documents timely. You look at the impact of the violation of public health welfare and safety, submission of documents. I'm not entirely sure. Any actions taken by the violator, several actions taken to correct this violation even through, you know, as recently as, I believe, a couple of days ago and previous violations of which there is no evidence. • Mister chairman, I'm going to object. We've had the hearing already. I think the direct question was, can the contractor do it within 60 days? • I would advise the Board. Can they do it in 60 days? • Can he; I don't believe so. I think further time is requested. It would be setting us up for bid. Frankly, without the County specifying exactly what needs to occur, how is anyone set up? Matthew Nolton? Well, wait a minute. I understand that the plans have been finally accepted. And the permit has been issued. There is a definition of what they have to do because the plans have been accepted. Cary Goggin Understood. it's doing the work. Kyle Lantz My understanding is the plans have been accepted, but they're trying to do some NDI testing. They don't know if the footer is what it's supposed to be or not. Once they do their NDI testing their NDI testing or possibly destructive testing, then they'll find out, okay, what's built is not what it's supposed to be, and we have to redo it. They don't know the extent of what the repairs are because they don't know the extent of how bad it is. Carey Goggin • That it is fundamentally the issue at the moment. • Because if in 45 days, after we go try to determine whether or not we can get an engineering letter because, again, county at some point assured us that this was a matter of paperwork. If we go get an engineering letter and the engineer says, I can't sign off on that because of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, then, you know, we have an entirely different issue. • Or if the inspector fails it at 59 days, what do we do? I mean, the problem is, I think, reasonably, it requires more time than that just to assess this October 16, 2024 72 situation, determine what it is precisely, unless there's a checklist as of this moment that we can look at, uh, in order to determine how we need to complete this. Timothy Crotts And I believe the checklist has already been supplied as far as what is the conditions and what's required with the permit. What you could do, Board, is you could sit there and do the 60 days with a caveat that if there is an issue with the CO being issued within 60 days to allow the qualifier to come back in front of the Board to ask for additional time. Cary Goggin • If the County is suggesting those are the only things that need to be done and there will be no further actions required beyond what has been indicated, I mean, that's one scenario, but the problem is, and I think as everybody understands, that may not be the end of the story. • I mean, ultimately, you know, what do we do to come back in front of the Board 49 days from now if the County inspectors say, well, now that I've seen this, you need 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 beyond the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 that we may have been informed of as of this day. • How do we come back here? How do we request an extension? Is it through the County? Is it through this Board? Kyle Lantz Now let me ask you a stupid question. Put yourself in our shoes. What do you recommend we recommend? Cary Goggin • I think at least 120 days to try to sort this out. I mean, what if the if the issue here is to get this corrected, then Nova requires time to get this corrected. There are certain avenues that are not just as simple as a as a as a normal job. • Much of this communication is going through attorneys. You know, I'm still not entirely clear on exactly how communication with the County is supposed to work given our ethical rules and my requirement to speak with counsel rather than with certain officials and so on and so forth. • I think at least that amount of time, it provides a buffer to adjust, to work with the other professionals required, which was, I believe, as testified, the October 16, 2024 73 fundamental issue in the first place. It takes time to get some of these revisions. • If they're for I mean and the County will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure, but I believe one of the issues at the moment is we are seeking engineering letters, to look at some of these items and to either provide approvals or recommendations. I don't know what those recommendations are going to be. We're in the process of getting that scheduled. Terry Jerulle It's not that difficult. You're making it sound more from a legal aspect; you're making it sound more difficult than it is. I'm a contractor, and I know what has to be done. And I do this all the time just like everybody here. It's not that difficult. Mr. Lantz made a motion. I second the motion. We're required to vote. Now we have a motion. We have a second. Can you just restate the motion? Kyle Lantz My motion is they have 60 days to get a CO. At day 61, if the CO is not issued, then their permit pulling privileges are revoked until either they get a CO issued or they come back to the Board and request more time. Chairman Jaron We've got a second. Terry Jerulle Yes, sir. Chairman Jaron Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion passed 6-0 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. Service of the administrative complaint and notice was legally and sufficiently provided and in compliance with the applicable October 16, 2024 74 law. The respondent is the holder of the license as set forth in the administrative complaint. Respondent was present at the hearing and was represented by counsel. The board has jurisdiction over the respondent and subject matter raised in the administrative complaint. The respondent committed the violations and set forth in counts 1 through 6. Correct? Is that correct? There were 6 deficiencies, so essentially 6 counts. No. Just we know 1 count. One count. Okay. Alright. My mistake. So, the respondent command the violations as set forth and then count 1. There for by a vote of 6 in favor and 0 opposed, the respondent is found guilty of the violations as set forth in count 1 in the administrative complaint, and the Board imposes the following sanctions. Timothy Crotts Excuse me, Mr. Chairman This is a correction on the finding of guilt. It was 5 to 1. Chairman Jaron Sorry about that. 5 to 1. Therefore, by a vote of 5 in favor and 1 opposed, the respondent is found guilty of the violations as set forth in count 1 in the administrative complaint and the board opposes the following sanctions against response. Before we read sanctions, I'd like to propose something for the Board for their consideration. Patrick Neale The language of the motion was to have the license revoked. If he doesn't do it within 60 days, I would suggest that that language should be suspended because revocation means the license is gone forever where suspension means it wasn't the license. Timothy Crotts It was the permit pulling privileges. Yeah. We can't do the license. It was the permit pulling privileges. The permit pulling privileges. Patrick Neale I'm sorry. The permit pulling privileges were revoked. October 16, 2024 75 I would say suggest they should be suspended. Chairman Jaron Okay. The Board imposed of the following sanctions against the respondent. The project must be completed within 60 days. Otherwise, the qualifiers permit pulling privileges will be suspended. This concludes the order of the Board and this matter. Patrick Neale Just one. I believe in a motion also included that they'd be suspended until the CO was actually issued or the respondent comes back for the Board to request additional time. Is that what the Board was that Mr. Lantz’s motion? Todd Allen Yeah. That was that was the motion. Kyle Lantz I knew you don't listen to me. Now it's on record. Chairman Jarron Okay. Wait. So, this the second sanction? So, you're saying there's another sanction? Patrick Neale No. What I'm saying is I'm just recounting the motion as I have noted that Mr. Lantz's it's his motion so, it was 60 days to get the CO, or the privileges would be suspended until the CO is issued or the respondent returns to the Board to request an addition. Chairman Jaron This concludes the order of the Board and this matter. 11. NEXT MEETING Wednesday, December 18 Timothy Crotts At the December meeting we will be choosing a new Chair and new Vice-Chair. 12. ADJOURN October 16, 2024 76 Motion to adjourn by Terry Jerulle Seconded by Chairman Jaron Motion passed 6-0