CLB Minutes 12/17/2008 R
December 17, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Naples, Florida
December 17, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing
Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 10:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at
Collier County Development Services Center, 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive, Room 609-619, Naples, Florida, with the following members
present:
CHAIRMAN:
Les Dickson
Richard Joslin
Eric Guite' (Absent)
Lee Horn
Terry Jerulle
Thomas Lykos
Michael Boyd
Glenn Herriman (Absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the CLB
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
DATE: WEDNESDAY - DECEMBER 17,2008
TIME: 10:30 A.M.
COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER
2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, ROOM 609 - 610
NAPLES, FL 34104
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2008
V. DISCUSSION:
Discussion of Citation Procedures
Vote on new Chairmanship for upcoming year
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Edwidge Bourdeau - Reinstatement of License W/O Retesting
Myron S. Smith - Contesting Citation
Nahamani Ortega - Review Of Experience Affidavits
Robert Brogdon - Contesting Citations
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
Jeff Baker - Change Your Colors, Inc. - Update on WC Insurance - Review of License
Calvert N. Courtney II - Update and Review of Financial Statement
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Case #2008-15
Daniel L. Scott
d/b/a: Colonial Carpentry, Inc
IX. REPORTS
X. NEXT MEETING DATE:
WEDNESDAY JANUARY 21,2009
W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR
(COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM)
3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34104
(COURTHOUSE COMPLEX)
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning. I'd like to call to order
the meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board,
December 17th, 2008.
Anyone who would like to -- that appears before this Board and
would like to make an appeal will need a verbatim record of that
proceeding, which is being taken.
I'd like to start with roll call to my right.
MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle.
MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
MR. HORN: Lee Horn.
MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we have six, and two absent.
We do have a vacancy on the Board. Vacancy still exists for a
consumer, which we would love to get filled. The only requirement is
that they live within the City of Naples, right?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: City -- Naples corporate city limits,
because it is a representative -- good morning, Mr. Zachary.
MR. ZACHARY: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It is the representative from the City
of Naples.
Second requirement is that you have never had any association
with the construction industry in any way, shape or form.
So if anyone's interested, we would sure like to have them
contact Sue Filson and fill out a form.
Any additions or deletions to the minutes?
Ian?
MR. JACKSON: Ian Jackson, License Compliance Officer for
Collier County.
We have one addition under discussion after the vote on new
Page 2
December 17, 2008
chair. Jennifer Guttuso, discussing the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool
and Spa Safety Act, and which I have some paperwork to distribute, if
the addition is approved.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And Jennifer's here?
MS. GUTTUSO: Yes, I am.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, good.
No more changes. Do I hear a motion to approve the agenda as
amended?
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second, Dickson.
All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you had a chance to read the
minutes? I need either changes that you may have encountered or an
approval as they're written.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we approve
the minutes as written.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Done.
Discussion. Discussion of citation procedures.
Page 3
December 17,2008
I'll let you take the floor on that, County.
MR. OSSORIO: Hang on, Mr. Chairman.
Sorry about that, Mr. Dickson.
For the record, Mike Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
Welcome.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning.
I wanted to discuss just a quick bulletin about the discussion of
the citation procedure. I know that we've been issuing citations for
about 10 years. And of that 10 years, we've probably issued 4,000 to
4,500 citations.
Of that 4,000 citations we've issued over the last couple of years,
there are about 400 outstanding. And out of that 400, 129 or 160, I
believe, have been issued in '08. So there seems to be a little bit of
issue of noncompliance in issuing citations for the '08 year.
And we brought on Karen Clements. I don't know if you're
familiar with Karen Clements. She was in licensing before. She has
just started working with us and she is heading up our citation
procedure. And also she's going to be doing investigations and
obviously going out there on unlicensed activities as well.
So we added a staff member, which is good news, thanks to Bob
Dunn, that we are at full staff now.
And just wanted to let you know that you'll see something on the
agenda in the upcoming months, hopefully will be on the consent
agenda, we're going to be -- start doing on the consent. In other words,
when you approve the agenda, the consent will be approved. And at
the end of the meeting we'll have the chairman sign off on the orders
for proceeding with the clerk's office for the citation process.
So I want to let you aware of that's what we're going to be doing
the upcoming months.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody have any questions?
MR. JOSLIN: Are these citations factors you're talking about,
Page 4
December 17, 2008
these citations that have not been paid? Is that what you're talking
about?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: So there's 120 ofthem out there that have been
cited and not --
MR. OSSORIO: I would say over 120 to 160. I'm not sure, I
haven't really looked at it. But it seems to be a lot more issue in '08,
maybe due to the fact of the economy, whatever it is. But we need to
go ahead and start getting the procedure.
And we've had a procedure, it's just that we haven't had the
means or know how to do it. But obviously I sat down with the county
attorney and the board's attorney and we've come up with a good
solution we're going to be starting hopefully in the next month or two.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, that's a big number.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, it is. At $300 a -- most of the citations are
about $300 apiece, aren't they?
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, most of them are $300 apiece.
MR. JOSLIN: Sizeable amount of money.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have a list?
MR. OSSORIO: We have a list.
MR. JERULLE: Is it a public record of --
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, we have -- that's all public information.
If somebody wishes to get that, we'll do it for you.
So the policy's there, the procedure is there, and we're waiting on
just a confirmation from the county attorney and then we're going to
start proceeding. And I think we're going to get a lot of compliance.
Some citations we're going to be issue (sic) that no matter what
we do or what the Board does, we're just not going to collect. That's --
and I don't know how the Board feels about after we go through this
whole procedure on foreclosing on something that's going to cost us
more money to do than what it's worth.
So we'll come to that bridge when we get there. But right now
Page 5
December 17,2008
we're in the final stages of actually implementing this policy, so I
think it's going to be -- it's a good policy and I think we're going to get
good compliance with it.
MR. L YKOS: Good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, next is vote on chairmanship
for the upcoming year. After six years as your chairman, we've gone
to a yearly chairmanship and a yearly vice-chairman, which will be
elected each December. They will serve starting in January of the new
year through December of the same year.
I've already noticed a change on this Board. It's more vibrant that
way. It's the way the County Commissioners do it. Instead of listening
to the same old guy all the time, a new voice, new face.
So with that, I will entertain nominations for chairmanship for
the year 2009.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chair, I nominate Mr. Joslin for chair for
2009.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I second that. Mr. Joslin has been vice
chair for the last six years.
MR. JOSLIN: It's been a pleasure.
MR. OSSORIO: And he still can't get it right, right?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: He just talks a different language.
MR. JOSLIN: That's what the recorder said, I just talk fast.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other nominations?
(No response.)
MR. JOSLIN: I would like to -- are we just on chairman now?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, never mind.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor ofMr. Joslin,
signify by saying aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
Page 6
December 17,2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous.
Congratulations.
MR. JOSLIN: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Nomination for vice-chairman.
MR. JERULLE: I nominate Tom Lykos.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We could do campaigning. I mean--
we could put signs up, whatever you want.
MR. JOSLIN: Can I sell him?
MR. L YKOS: Let's not go there.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm only kidding.
MR. JERULLE: Are you from Illinois?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you believe that? Absolutely
shocking.
MR. JOSLIN: Really. That is amazing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's not all he sold either.
Interesting.
Okay, no other nominations, then I'll move for a vote. All those
in favor ofMr. Lykos?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
Page 7
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also unanimous.
Congratulations, gentlemen.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I know you'll serve well. Now I can
start hushing my mouth. I'm sure many people will enjoy that.
MR. JOSLIN: Before we go any farther, as the new acting
chairman, I would like to just extend our greatest appreciation and
gratitude, Mr. Dickson, for the past years that you have been
chairman. And it has been a pleasure, I'm sure from all the Board
members and myself as the vice-chairman, to have served under you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
MR. L YKOS: Yes, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
It's nice. I'm still staying on the Board, though, so you can't get
rid of me.
MR. JOSLIN: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Jennifer Guttuso. It's now her
time.
MS. GUTTUSO: Good morning. How are you? My name is
Jennifer Guttuso. I'm the supervisor for the pool program for the
Collier County Health Department.
I'm sorry?
MR. OSSORIO: Spell your name.
MS. GUTTUSO: Oh, I'm sorry. G-U-T-T-U-S-O.
I'm here to talk about the Virginia Graeme Baker Act, briefly.
The first thing I wanted to set out there is that we as the Collier
County Health Department are actually a state office. We're called
Collier County Health Department because that's our area of
jurisdiction. We actually are a state office, though.
This Virginia Graeme Baker Act is actually a federal
congressionally enacted law, but we have been asked by the CPSC,
Page 8
December 17, 2008
who's administering the law, to help them enact this. They simply
don't have the manpower to do so.
So we're trying to get the word out to -- so that the contractors
know what's going on, what's expected of them, what is allowed, what
is not allowed.
So very briefly, Virginia Graeme Baker was a seven-year-old
girl who on June 15th of2002 was at a pool party. She got stuck on
the main drain grate of a spa in a residential spa in somebody's
backyard and consequently drowned. It took them 10 minutes to get
her off that grate.
For those of you that don't know, the main drain is the big grate,
the big hole, usually in the deepest part of the pool. Unfortunately
when you're talking about spas or wading pools, which are about 12
inches deep for the little kids, they're actually not that far away from
the children and arms and legs and should they fall and land on them
and things like that.
Virginia Graeme's grandfather was the former Secretary of State
James Baker. And her mother went on to lobby for safer laws in terms
of pools and spas that are on direct suction so that things like this
wouldn't happen.
As she was lobbying, not a lot was happening, although there
were a couple other children getting hurt.
What happened was there was a young child in I believe it was
Minnesota in a wading pool and had fallen and landed on the main
drain grat and was disemboweled, and that kind of spurred them. What
they did was they took this act and they buried it an extremely
comprehensive energy bill, so it actually passed through.
The law was signed into effect on December 19th of 2007. And
basically what it did was it described a minimum safety standard for
new drain covers that would be used to cover these drains so that
children would not become entrapped in terms of their body getting
stuck, because of the suction, and fingers couldn't get in and hair
Page 9
December 17, 2008
couldn't get in and vortex around where people would be drowning.
The law gave them a year for compliance. The problem was that
they -- the minimum standard that they set out was not finished being
written yet. So by the time that safety standard was written, there was
already four or five months of that year of compliance gone.
The problem we're having now is once the standard was written,
five months behind the ball, now the manufacturers could go out and
manufacture it. But then they have to go through the testing period and
the approval process.
So now that the law is out there and it goes into effect on Friday,
physically these grates are not out there to be gotten, okay? And that's
part of the problem that we're having.
The act, the Virginia Graeme Baker Act, names it as a consumer
product safety law. So the entire law is being overseen and enforced
by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. They have
acknowledged that these drains are very difficult to get.
And so what they're doing, or what they say they are doing, is
that they will be doing their inspections on a complaint only basis for
now until they can kind of get their ducks in a row in terms of how
they will get out there to enforce this.
They're putting an emphasis on the pools and spas that cater
towards the children: The interactive pools where the water shoots up
and the kids run through them, the wading pools which are about 12
inches deep that the kids play in, and the spas. Because these are the
ones that are most dangerous for the children.
If anybody has any information or -- I'm sorry, is looking for any
information, it's -- they actually have a website. It's
WWW.CPSc.Gov. And they're outlining what they're doing there.
There's also a secondary portion of this act that requires a
secondary device on systems that have only one main drain. And this
is where the licensing board kind of gets into it. There's a list of five
secondary devices. Now, the State of Florida only recognizes one of
Page 10
December 17, 2008
them. It's called a collector tank, which puts the pool on a gravity feed
so the pump isn't sucking directly from the drain. Really cuts down on
the amount of suction.
But there are four other choices out there that the CPSC will
allow.
The state, once our code is revised, and we expect that to come
out in the middle of February, beginning of March, is only recognizing
one of those and that is that collector tank. So the other four devices
that are being installed are not recognized by the State of Florida.
So the contractors can go out, install these devices. They don't
need to be approved by us, they don't need to be inspected by us. And
with the Consumer Product Safety Commission not coming out, really
nobody's looking at these devices that are being installed. And what
we're finding out or what we're realizing as this law draws closer and
people are really starting to panic, while these devices are required to
be installed by a commercially licensed contractor, we're finding that a
lot of the contractors out there are not aware of the limits of their
licensing.
The -- on the federal level what it says is that any pool contractor
can install these devices. That includes residential. The county has
some limiting laws that override that, however, saying only
commercially licensed people can work on commercial pools. And
that's where we're running into some problem.
We as the health department have exposure to most of the
commercially licensed pool contractors out there, simply because we
interact with them. We have very little interaction with the
residentially licensed people.
And what we're finding is the residentially licensed people are
reading the act and kind of interpreting it their own way. And while it
does make sense, there are some gross misinterpretations out there that
I'm afraid are not going to have the safety effect that we're looking for,
as well as cost the consumers and residential people out there a lot of
Page 11
December 17,2008
money that they really don't need to be spending.
Which is part of why I'm here, to get that commercial licensing
issue out there. But we also wanted to get out the effects of this act
and what it is that we're afraid of.
The health department does have a little bit stricter standards on
the drain covers that are being installed. And we do have a website out
there. We've tried to get that out to everyone so that they're aware of
what's approved and what's not.
If the contractors are putting on a drain cover that is federally
approved but is not state approved, we as the state, when the
inspectors go out, will be closing those pools. Because those drain
covers will be limiting the flow of the pool, will be limiting the
sanitation of the pool and start the safety issue on a whole nother
level. So we're trying to get some information out there.
Again, the health department really only deals with commercial
pools. And that's about it.
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you very much.
MR. JOSLIN: Thank you, Jennifer.
MR. OSSORIO: Jennifer, I do have one question. I'm sorry.
On a level of licensing as a building review and permitting as in
permits, do you foresee that the building department will be getting
involved in issuing building permits for these drains?
MS. GUTTUSO: I don't believe so. It's not really a structural
change, so I don't think it's really something that the county will be
getting involved in. I do think -- as I was speaking with Rick, I do
think that there will be some changes or some addressing in the
residential permitting side of it in terms of when the spas are being
built as new spas.
But to take an existing spa or pool and just change the drain
cover, it's literally unscrewing four screws and screwing something
back. So I really don't think that the building department would need
Page 12
December 17, 2008
to get involved in that.
MR. OSSORIO: Another question is, is that when you're
building a commercial swimming pool, that's one of the things that the
building inspector is going to look at, or is that something that you're
going to be inspecting?
MS. GUTTUSO: Actually, both. We as the state come out after
the piping is done and after they've set up the concrete shell and we
inspect the piping, we also come back after everything is finished.
And then we final it.
Once it's final ed, we take over all the inspections.
But my understanding is the county is out there when the piping
is first put in. They then come back out after the cement structure is
set up while the piping is under pressure, they do an inspection then.
And they come out at the end. I believe they do sanitary facilities and
fences at the end.
So the county is involved in the building process of it. Once it's
done being built, they then drop out and the state takes over. On the
commercial pools anyway.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay. And my last question is, you had
mentioned something about a collection tank equalizing. Is that
something we're going to get involved with permit-wise, or no?
Because that's adding service or adding to the pump house.
MS. GUTTUSO: Well, the ones that have to be retrofitted, it
will have to be permitted. I don't believe that the building department
gets involved in that. I think that is considered a repair or modification
and comes directly through our office in the state.
For the most part, I believe it was 1983 or '84 where the State of
Florida required that all new pools at that point be built with a
collector tank. So for the most part, most of the pools out there already
have them. However, there are some still in direct suction that will
have to be retrofitted.
Those plans are reviewed by our engineer and approved at the
Page 13
December 17, 2008
state level.
I think they do building permits over here, though, in terms of
where they're digging and where they'll be placing these pits. Because
the pits do extend down into the ground. But I don't know what
inspections are done by the county on that level.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay, thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: One last comment. I'll just interject here, only
because I think it's -- everyone's wondering, probably on the Board,
too, of why that -- and I was the one that brought this to the attention.
First of all was because of the media coverage that I'm sure that we're
going to give on TV. Only because to let the public be aware of what's
going on with this particular act, since it is a federal act.
And the second thing is because of the licensing issue that we
have here in Collier County.
Michael Ossorio and I have been in conversation for the past two
weeks about this. And it appears, now, I'm not 100 percent certain but
I'm pretty positive, that we have a conflict of ordinance regarding our
ordinance, a swimming pool contractor/servicing repair companies
versus the state statute of 489.
And the way that the actual law has come out from the HRS says
that any licensed pool contractor can do the service. Which the State
of Florida 489 says that there are only three classifications of licenses.
There are only commercial, residential contractors or a pool/spa
servicing contractor, according to 489.
In our code, in our ordinance, it lists a forth license, which is a
residential pool/spa servicing contractor only.
The difference is is that the servicing contractor can only
maintain pools. This was a license that we issued I believe in the
ordinance change last year, which kept a licensed contractor able to
only go out and service pools, but not repair pools.
According to the code now, we have -- the code says that a
licensing service contractor. Well, apparently the State of Florida now
Page 14
December 17, 2008
has overridden us to a degree and now our ordinance is really at a
moot point. And this is something that we probably need to bring up
for discussion down the road or in our ordinance change for the
coming year, put on the agenda to maybe modify it or change it.
And this is just terminology in the ordinance. But you can see
how it would affect Collier County license versus a state certified
license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that it? Thank you very much.
MS. GUTTUSO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Moving on. New business. Edwidge
Bourdeau, are you present?
Yes, sir, if you would, come up to this podium. If you would,
state your name and then I'll have this pretty lady swear you in.
MR. BOURDEAU: My name is Edwidge Bourdeau.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're going to have to talk louder
than you did. You hear my level at this point? That's what I need to
hear. Okay?
You're wanting to be -- you're here to reinstate your license
without retesting. Looks to me like you've been in Port St. Lucie all
this time; is that correct?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Louder.
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes. Well, I had my office up here, and then
I decided to move it in Port St. Lucie, since I live in Port St. Lucie. So,
you know, I went down there, have met all the requirements down
there.
And from the county here, I don't believe I ever receive any
notice stated that I was supposed to renew up here. But I've been
doing that in Port St. Lucie.
And as you know, as an electrician you have to continue your
education every two years, and I've been doing that. But I never knew
Page 15
December 17,2008
that if I'm not doing business in this area I will have to, you know,
continue to renew it every year.
As soon as I did find out that I had to do that, then I called here.
And then they told me, you know, this is what -- this was my situation.
But I have -- like I said, I've maintained insurance, I've done
everything that I was supposed to down in Port St. Lucie.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Bourdeau, I have a question for you. On your
packet here, I'm looking at four different Department of Business and
Professional Regulation licenses that you have in your possession.
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Have you ever read one of those?
MR. BOURDEAU: In have read them?
MR. JOSLIN: Have you read the license itself, a copy of the
license? It gives --
MR. BOURDEAU: Somewhat.
MR. JOSLIN: -- you the ability to -- as an ER number, to be able
to work as a registered electrical contractor as Bourdeau Electric and
Power Electrical Company.
Also, it says very clearly at the bottom of that license, the
individual must meet all local licensing requirements prior to
contracting in any area.
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes, I understand that. But like I said, since
I had -- I moved to Port St. Lucie, so to my understanding I met the
requirements down there. But I didn't know I had to maintain it going
up here when I wasn't going in business here. That's my main problem
that I didn't know. And I'm sorry about that.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ossorio, how long has the license been lapsed
here in Collier County?
MR. OSSORIO: More than 18 months. And more than -- and he
hasn't taken the exact within three years. But it's always been a policy
of the Board, especially when you deal with a state registered
contractor, whatever it might be, building, residential, electrical or
Page 16
December 17, 2008
mechanical. He has kept up -- he is current with the state registration.
He has obviously let the county lapse. And unfortunately we don't
have any jurisdiction to reissue it, so he has to apply to the licensing
board.
I have no objections. He's done all his CU credit hours, he's
licensed in the State of Florida, and I recommend that we approve it
and pay all back penalties and fees.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I agree with that. I mean, I'm
sitting here -- I understand what you're saying, and I understand what
you're saying, but he moved out of the area, but he still maintained his
license; he still maintained with the state and the local county. Didn't
maintain with the county back where he originated the license. And I
might have been confused about that as well.
So as long as you're not opposed to paying back penalties and
fees, I don't see a problem either.
MR. JERULLE: I have a question. Your insurance certificate
shows you have general liability insurance?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have auto insurance?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: Because it doesn't show it on the certificate that
I have.
MR. BOURDEAU: Because this is a new certificate. And I'm
not -- right now the business is slow and I'm not using the vehicles, so
-- I only got -- as a matter of fact, I only got one van.
MR. JERULLE: How about Workmen's Compensation? I didn't
see in that either.
MR. BOURDEAU: We had that back then also.
MR. JERULLE: Is that in the package?
MR. BOURDEAU: If you want to verify, you can--
MR. JERULLE: Did I miss it?
MR. JOSLIN: No, I have an exemption form I found.
Page 17
December 17,2008
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, there's a -- the state requires him to have
a Workers Compo policy or be Workers Compo exempt.
MR. JERULLE: I didn't see--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Auto is not our concern.
MR. JOSLIN: The exemption form that I'm looking at here
shows that he's exempt, but yet on the company background
information, it shows the number of employees being as two.
Do you have other employees that are listed on here that
shouldn't have been?
MR. BOURDEAU: Yes, I used to. Right now I don't have any
employees at all. Since business is, you know, so slow.
MR. JOSLIN: At this time I'll go along with Mr. Dickson's
thoughts on the approval of the license, but I would want to make sure
that staff has definitely a knowledge of the Workmen's Compensation
or if he has more than one employee, because it's very ambiguous here
as far as the number of employees versus the exemption form.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I make a motion to approve--
MR. JOSLIN: I second.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- reinstatement without retesting.
MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. L YKOS: I guess I would ask that we also require that all
the back fees be paid to get current.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And I'll add that to the motion.
Any more discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. GUITE': Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
Page 18
December 17,2008
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Unanimous.
Now, you can't do this today, because all your stuff is in here.
You have to come back tomorrow, okay? And then go see Maggie. All
right? Wish you well.
MR. BOURDEAU: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Myron Smith, are you there?
Good morning, sir.
MR. SMITH: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, come up and state your
name, I'll have you sworn in also.
MR. SMITH: I'm Myron Smith.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You got a citation for what? Engaging
in business as a contractor or advertising --
MR. L YKOS: Tree trimming.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- tree trimming without being duly
registered or certified. And you would like to protest that citation.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Floor's yours.
MR. SMITH: I've been a licensed contractor in Collier County
for 17 years, I guess it is. I'm not sure exactly. A long time. And I had
-- it had lapsed. It wasn't that I -- I guess at the time it lapsed I was
unlicensed, and I do admit that.
We've had a large struggle in our house which caused our office
-- we have our office in our house, in our den, and we had a leak in the
wall and the whole kitchen, dining room and den had to be taken out.
And so we had to -- it disrupted our whole household, our whole
office.
And I have also with me proof of that what I'm saying, with the
Page 19
December 17,2008
mold in the house and our whole house getting -- and I had just -- in
the chaos, along with my wife that during this time just got -- I don't
want to blame it all on her, but she -- it was a tough time physically
and emotionally with the whole house getting disrupted. And I
overlooked getting my license renewed at the proper time. And that's
what happened.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, I'll be honest with you, I'll be
real blunt. I don't care for people that come in here and blame it on
their wives.
MR. SMITH: I'm not.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're the license holder.
MR. SMITH: I am.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay?
MR. SMITH: Yes.
She usually does all the paperwork and does all that. And that
was why -- you know, I'm not trying to blame it on my wife. It is my
responsibility, absolutely.
MR. JOSLIN: Could we have Mr. Kennette to say exactly what
he saw the day of the citation?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Mr. Kennessa (sic)?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. KENNETTE: My name is Allen Kennette, Contractor
Licensing Compliance Officer.
What I actually saw was the -- out on Ditch Apple Lane, the
gentleman was by a tree, sharpening his saw and getting it ready to do
some more cutting. He had a lot of stuff down. There was another
worker there with him removing debris that he had cut down. They
were loading it onto a trailer. So I -- he had no markings or anything
on his truck.
I asked him for his license; he said he did have one. Produced
one, and I informed him that it had expired 9/30 of '08, that he hadn't
renewed it yet and we were in October already. And he just said that
Page 20
December 17, 2008
he had not proper time to get down and do it. He knew he needed to
do it. He's been in business for 17 years. And I said well, you know, it
needs to be renewed every year at this time, you've been doing it right
along. And he said well, he's had some problems at home and that he
would take care of it as soon as possible.
I did issue him the citation for working with an unproperly
registered license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you since renewed the license?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. Immediately, the next day.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else have any questions?
MR. BOYD: Is he licensed as a tree trimmer?
MR. KENNETTE: Yes, he is. He has a landscaping restricted,
which includes tree trimming.
MR. JOSLIN: How about the insurance requirements?
MR. KENNETTE: The -- he's Workers Compo exempt. And he
did have liability insurance. On the form that I had shows it was
renewed for 1/31 of 2009.
MR. JERULLE: How long has he had his license?
MR. KENNETTE: License was issued in 1995.
MR. JERULLE: '95. Has it ever lapsed prior to this?
MR. KENNETTE: As far as I know, according to our system, it
wasn't that far back, I haven't seen anything on him on not renewing it.
We only go back so far without really pulling the records out of Iron
Mountain. But as far as we have ours, it showed that he has paid every
year, except for this one time.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Smith, has it ever lapsed before?
MR. SMITH: No, sir.
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we uphold the citation.
MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion.
And also, I think staff needs to dig into the license that he does
reinstate and -- or uphold, I'm sorry, upholding this citation, but dig
into his insurance qualifications. Ifhe's got two men working on the
Page 21
December 17,2008
job, or himself plus another man, right, in tree trimming, I would think
he would need some type of insurance, Workmen's Compo or
something to protect those men.
MR. OSSORIO: The code is pretty ambiguous referencing a tree
service. If you are just trimming a tree, it's considered
non-construction, you can have up to three employees with no
insurance. If you're actually on a construction site and you're actually
cutting the tree down, then you will fall under the category of
construction. So we take that into account when we go out there.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
MR. SMITH: I was just trimming trees.
MR. KENNETTE: The other worker wasn't working, he was just
MR. JOSLIN: Loading?
MR. KENNETTE: -- removing trees that he had already cut
down, the branches.
MR. JOSLIN: My second still stands then.
MR. L YKOS: The reason I think we need to uphold the citation
is I think we start to get into a gray area when we say how long has it
been, how long have you been in the community. You know, it
expires, these are the rules we've established. And we start being
subjective with the decision-making --
MR. JOSLIN: That many years in business --
MR. L YKOS: -- then we might as well change the rules. So let's
just keep the rules the way they are and uphold the rules that we have.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm just the opposite. We're in
discussion mode. I guess I've got Christmas spirit or something. I
mean, 17 years and he's never done it before. And he did -- your
redeeming grace was you went and got the license renewed the next
day. So I was going to give him a reprieve.
MR. SMITH: I'd appreciate that.
MR. JERULLE: I agree. I mean, if -- the reason there is a board
Page 22
December 17, 2008
is to be subjective in some cases. Otherwise, Mr. Ossorio could handle
it. I think the history has a great deal to do with it.
MR. JOSLIN: But a history also has to do with the fact that ifhe
has been in business for 17 years, then obviously he knows he has to
renew that license. He knows he has to be qualified to do this work. I
mean, because he does it the next day, well, okay, he's done it, but--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. And it only over-lapsed what, a
couple of weeks?
MR. SMITH: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: I can understand your thoughts.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's why we have a board and that's
why we vote.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, the motion is to -- the citation
will stand. Call for the vote. All those in favor? Show of hands.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those opposed?
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, citation is dropped. Because
the vote was that it stands, you didn't get a majority. Right, legalese?
Mr. Suits?
MR. NEALE: Yeah, you got it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And even though it was a tie vote, the
motion was that the citation stands. Didn't gain a majority, so a tie
goes to you as well.
So just don't let it happen again, and --
MR. SMITH: It won't.
Page 23
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- say Merry Christmas.
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: See you later.
I've got Christmas spirit today.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, you do. That's okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, my, I'm going to get this right.
Last name's easy, Ortega. Nahamani?
MR. ORTEGA: Nahamani.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Close, wasn't I?
MR. JOSLIN: That's pretty good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. ORTEGA: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If you would, state your name, spell
the name for her and I'll have you sworn in.
MR. ORTEGA: Nahamani Ortega. N-A-H-A-M-A-N-I.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, so we got some questions on
your experience when you applied for a license, correct?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Which ones are they? Which
one got kicked up?
MR. ORTEGA: The one under Genuine Homebuilders, Ms.
Kimberly Todd.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look on the verification
experience, I did call Kimberly Todd, and she does not -- she
unfortunately does not know Mr. Ortega. She knows, I believe, your
brother that we have no knowledge of. And Mr. -- Mrs. Todd was kind
of embarrassed by it and took aback by it, because she was assuming
it was for Mr. Ortega. And she was kind of upset about it.
And I told her that unfortunately this gentleman has
misrepresented himself on the licensing application, so I was not able
to come to a conclusion about issuing him the certificate. So I wrote
Page 24
December 17, 2008
him a letter telling him that he must apply to the licensing board for
the license.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And that's that one -- I'm
hoping I've got the right one here.
MR. OSSORIO: It should be circled with a question.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, there we go. I'm with you.
Okay, tell us what happened here.
MR. ORTEGA: All right. Ms. Kimberly Todd does know who I
am, obviously because my brother and I work for the same company.
And we used to work together as a pair. It's just the misunderstanding
was she thought she was signing for him.
My brother tells me that when he talked to her, he did explain to
her that it would be -- you know, the signature would be for me.
Because he's known her for many more years, he's got more friendship
with her. So, you know, he took the liberty of talking to her, see if she
would do that for me.
I mean, she does know who I am. Just obviously there was a
misunderstanding with the whole thing of who she signed for.
MR. OSSORIO: But Mr. Ortega, when I talked to Mrs.
Kimberly Todd, you can look on the years of experience from 2005 to
2008, she was under the impression she was signing for your brother.
She said she wouldn't have signed for you because she didn't know
your work and you just started working for the company. That's only
going verbatim what she told me.
MR. ORTEGA: Right, I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you call on the other two, Mr.
Ossorio?
MR. OSSORIO: No, I did not.
MR. JOSLIN: Also in the packet there's two other forms in the
packet that aren't even completed. One of them's an affidavit of
integrity and good character. And then also the second one is a
resolution of authorization, showing the business name and partners.
Page 25
December 17,2008
And none of those are filled out. Is there a reason why those weren't
filled out?
MR. ORTEGA: Yeah, Maggie put an "X" on those. I think--
yeah, you can tell on the top right. Because I've already had the
license with Collier County, a fencing contractor's license.
So I guess she crossed that out. I guess you didn't need to do it
again, I would imagine that's why she did that.
MR. OSSORIO: That is a procedure issue, and we'll address that
when -- the time of application.
If the gentleman already has a license, we tend -- he does not
have to sign another good character reference. And if he owns more
than 51 percent of the company, then therefore he doesn't need an
authorization letter from the company because he is the company. So
there's certain things we do procedure-wise in the office, but--
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. Maybe a stamp or something that's already
on file or something, so we know.
MR. OSSORIO: Excellent.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ortega, if I understand correctly, you have a
fence license now?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes, sir.
MR. L YKOS: And you want to get a license for installing
shower doors or for windows and glazing? What is it you're trying to
get a license for?
MR. ORTEGA: Yes, for shower doors and mirrors. Just -- I
mean, since the way things are with the fencing and construction, I've
got the experience with glass and the mirrors, I figured I'd also pull
that and try to get some more income coming in. That was the purpose
of trying to get this other license.
MR. L YKOS: So you've been doing fencing with your own
company and you've been doing shower doors and mirrors working --
MR. ORTEGA: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: -- for somebody else or on your own as well?
Page 26
December 17, 2008
MR. ORTEGA: Yes. Yes, I started doing the fencing. I ended up
having to do it weekends or after work, because with the little work
that was coming. So I started doing the shower doors for the company,
correct.
MR. L YKOS: And what company were you working for doing
shower doors and mirrors?
MR. ORTEGA: First in Miami Gardens with Best Price Glass
and Mirror, which is -- the owner changed now anyways. And now --
well, not anymore, with Creative Glass was my last employer.
MR. L YKOS: How come we don't have affidavits from either of
those companies to verify your experience and your background?
MR. ORTEGA: Employers are not going to sign that for you. I
mean, they know you're going to be their competition eventually, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Not in Miami Gardens.
MR. ORTEGA: Well, I couldn't get ahold of him because he
sold his business. And my understanding was he moved away. So that
-- I was trying to get ahold of him, I figured maybe he would sign it.
But that's been a problem trying to get ahold of him.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The problem is the fact remains you're
-- the one we called on is a bust. Okay?
MR. ORTEGA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's gone, it's over with. We didn't
call on the other two. So we don't--
MR. L YKOS: And the other two are builders, they're not glass
compames.
MR. ORTEGA: Right. My understanding was supervising, you
know, the work. These builders supervise the work while they're there,
you know, and you're doing the job. Correct?
MR. L YKOS: Well, I would personally like to see if you worked
for a glass company, a glass company that could verify your expertise.
MR. ORTEGA: My question. What if my former employer
doesn't want to do it? What if he doesn't want to sign it?
Page 27
December 17, 2008
MR. JOSLIN: Why would he not want to sign it for you? I
mean, if he wants to see you get ahead, I'm sure --
MR. ORTEGA: 90 percent of the time I know plenty of, you
know, people that have pulled licenses and their employers won't get it
-- you know, they won't give it to them because eventually they know
that they're going to have to go up against them. So, you know -- not
all of them, but a lot of times that's how it is.
MR. L YKOS: You tell Bev and Lance I want to see a letter from
Bev and Lance.
MR. ORTEGA: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: Okay?
MR. ORTEGA: Will do.
MR. OSSORIO: My understanding is, is when I talked to the
Creative Glass, and I'm going to paraphrase this, that you left on bad
terms, supposedly. And I'm not saying quoting. But maybe you didn't
leave on bad terms, but your brother did, because your brother is the
one who has all the experience who's actually been working in Collier
County. You've worked in Miami-Dade and I don't doubt that.
But this is your brother's affidavits. How come your brother's not
taking the exam?
MR. ORTEGA: He is. He's taking it next month.
MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation is is that your brother --
MR. ORTEGA: The reason -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation is that you withdraw this
application, have your brother take the exam and use these affidavits
and we'll -- I'll review it and see where we're at and go for it.
MR. ORTEGA: It would definitely be the easiest way. My
brother's already contacted a former employer and he said he would
SIgn.
So, I mean, in regards with me getting the other experience, from
my other former employer, most likely it's not going to happen.
And in leaving with bad terms with Creative Glass, we didn't. I
Page 28
December 17, 2008
mean, when he let us go, we talked about it, it was okay. I explained to
him why we did it. You know, he kept mentioning he's going to close
down his business, you know. And his reason was, well, I was just
upset every time I said it. Yeah, but, you know, I've got to watch out
for my family, you know, and I've got to -- you know, I've got to make
sure that I don't get stayed out in the street.
So if they're something that I know how to do, I'm going to try to
get a license for that. Obviously it's a conflict of interest, but who
wouldn't do it in my position?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, anybody ready to make a
motion?
Or do you want to withdraw your application?
MR. ORTEGA: I wouldn't want to, but it's up to you guys.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, then we'll take care of it.
I make a motion that we deny the request to approve the
experience affidavit and the application be denied.
MR. JOSLIN: I second the motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
MR. JOSLIN: I would feel that ifhe could get together some
more applications or some more affidavits that were correct and were
legal and Mr. Ossorio could check on them, that maybe we would
reconsider it again. But at this point, no.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You've just got to do it again. This
one ain't gonna fly.
MR. ORTEGA: No, I understand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, all those in favor--
MR. JERULLE: And the Board -- excuse me. I think the Board
appreciates you coming in for a license as opposed to going out and
doing this work without a license. And I would caution you not to do
that. We do appreciate you coming in, but like the Board has said, I
don't think you meet the qualifications.
MR. ORTEGA: Understand.
Page 29
December 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for the -- just before you
vote, just make sure Mr. Ortega knows is that -- that he does have a
certificate with our office and we could have charged him on a
misconduct for misrepresenting to the licensing board information that
was submitted today, and we did not do that.
MR. ORTEGA: Understood.
MR. L YKOS: Holiday spirit for everybody.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: It's going to end come January, though.
MR. JOSLIN: Look out.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I've got one coming up. I haven't seen
yours yet, so we'll see if it continues.
Call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to deny.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have a Merry Christmas.
MR. ORTEGA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Sorry it wasn't better.
MR. ORTEGA: That's okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Robert Brogdon, come on up.
Robert, if you would, state your name and I'll have you sworn in
also.
MR. BROGDON: Robert Joe Brogdon.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, you got two citations, right?
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
Page 30
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, tell us what happened.
MR. BROGDON: Some friends of ours bought a house. A
young couple, first house they bought. The husband works with my
wife for about three years. They had a little fix-me-up that they
needed a little help in the house.
So I went over and took a look. And needed some help doing a
little demolition. So I thought well, I'll donate a little time to them.
About four days into it, Rob stopped by. And the house was
partially completed to start with. Somebody laid some tile and they
were -- drywall had been done prior to them buying the house.
Well, he come up and said I was laying tile and doing drywall
work, which ain't the fact. So that's about the name of that tune.
So he got me for unlicensed drywaller and laying floor tile,
which I did none of the above. So I deny that.
MR. JOSLIN: What were you doing there? What were you
actually doing there?
MR. BROGDON: A little bit of demolition. Tore out some
cabinets, took up a couple toilets. Just demolition work. No -- replaced
nothing. I did no floor tile or no drywall, period.
MR. L YKOS: But you did plumbing work and carpentry work.
MR. BROGDON: No, I didn't do no carpentry work or -- I
replaced nothing. Just total demolition. Put the cabinets in the garage.
MR. L YKOS: Well, you took cabinets off the walls --
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
MR. L YKOS: -- and turned off the plumbing to the toilets and
pulled the toilets.
MR. BROGDON: Turned off the shut-off valve.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykos, I'd like to have Rob Ganguli sworn
in and we'll show you some photographs.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, please.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead, Rob, I'll have you sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
Page 31
December 17, 2008
MR. GANGULI: For the record, Rob Ganguli, G-A-N-G-U-L-I,
Investigator, Collier County Contractor Licensing.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good morning.
MR. GANGULI: Good morning, sir, how are you?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good, how are you doing?
MR. GANGULI: My recollection of the incident is as follows:
On October 21st, 2008, I was on the job site at 9741 Campbell Circle
and observed an interior renovation consisting of the initial demolition
and rebuilding of wall openings, plumbing and electrical work and the
replacement of existing flooring.
I met with Mr. Brogdon, who was working on-site, who
informed me that the homeowner was not present. When asked about
the work he was performing, Mr. Brogdon stated he was doing the
demo work, along with the tiling of the flooring, drywall and painting
but was not doing any electrical or plumbing work.
When asked about his licensing information, Mr. Brogdon stated
he did concrete work in Lee County and was doing this job because
his business had slowed.
My on-site research revealed that Mr. Brogdon did have a Lee
County business tax receipt for a concrete pumping business, but no
other licensing information was discovered.
Based on my observations depicted in the photographs, as well
as the information that Mr. Brogdon provided to me, I issued two $300
citations for unlicensed tile/marble work and for unlicensed drywall
work, issued a stop work order and informed the area code
enforcement investigator of the unpermitted plumbing and electrical
work in progress.
I also spoke to the homeowner, Emily Koszinski (phonetic),
about permitting unlicensed contractor requirements.
On November 6th, 2008, I was contacted by Mr. Joel Newman
of the license general contracting company Trinity Project
Management Group, CGC060140, and Collier County Certificate
Page 32
December 17, 2008
30330, who informed me that they had been hired to permit the
necessary work and complete the construction of the residence. Mr.
Newman further informed me that Mr. Brogdon would no longer be
working on the job site.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Questions ofMr. Ganguli?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Response?
MR. BROGDON: Well, it's what it was. I mean, I didn't lay tile
and I didn't do drywall. I mean, I was just donating some time because
they're friends of ours. There wasn't no contract deal, I wasn't getting
paid for this effort at the house. You know, they're good friends. I've
been working with them for three years at work. They were a young
couple fixing to have a baby in January. Trying to expedite the deal a
little bit.
So I guess that's what you get for doing a favor, I don't know.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did she offer to pay for the citations?
MR. BROGDON: They were going to pay for the citations. But
I thought why, you know what I mean, I'll go to the hearing. Yeah,
they were going to pay for it right away. But, I mean, I thought what's
the purpose, you're struggling now to move in a house, you know, and
-- it wasn't no money deal, wasn't no transaction. I contracted to do
this work. I don't know, you know. I think he's making it more out of
something that, you know, it really ain't.
In was contracting to making a salary off this job, it would be
one thing. But, you know, they was just trying to save a little money
and help them out, and he'd do what he can, one of them deals.
MR. JERULLE: You said you didn't do any ofthe tile work?
MR. BROGDON: No, sir.
MR. JERULLE: Who did the tile work you see in the photos?
MR. BROGDON: That was just a little bit of linoleum. That
wasn't laying no tile. That was some old linoleum that was left in the
house.
Page 33
December 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: I see tile work.
MR. BROGDON: That was prior -- the tile work was in the
house when they purchased the house. Some of it was partially
finished. The tile work, there was drywall unfinished. I mean, they had
a -- people went in there and had a report when they bought the house.
There was so much unfinished that probably started in that house and
never completed. I mean, there was a homeowners inspection when
the house -- there was a big '01 list this thick of projects started in the
house, never finished.
But I laid no tile in that home. No drywall. I never told him I
hung drywall or laid tile. The tile was laid all the way through the
living room up to the kitchen and stopped. None I laid.
MR. JERULLE: Would this work require a demolition permit in
the county?
MR. GANGULI: I believe it would. Mr. Ossorio?
MR. BROGDON: I mean, I can see demolition. I did demolition.
I mean, that's -- I'll -- you know.
MR. JERULLE: Just asking the question here.
MR. OSSORIO: In a perfect scheme of things, what typically
happens when you're doing a remodeling job or you're trying to
explore -- probably Mr. Lykos would probably be more apt to tell us,
that sometimes you do get a demolition permit to take things off the
wall, to do some exploring to see where the electrical work is, where
the plumbing is, and then the demolition permits gets issued, gets
C.O.'d, and then you apply for your main building permit.
And obviously this didn't happen on this particular case.
MR. JERULLE: Well, that's what my question was. There was
no demolition permit?
MR. OSSORIO: There was no permit at all, no.
MR. L YKOS: In would have stepped in a project like this, the
first thing I would have done was brought the inspectors on-site to
inspect the existing conditions to even know what the scope of work
Page 34
December 17, 2008
that needed to be done to make sure that everything that was existing
was up to code.
How can you start into something without knowing what the
existing conditions are, or how code compliant they are?
MR. BROGDON: They had a home inspector come in the
house.
MR. L YKOS: I'm talking about the building department.
MR. BROGDON: Oh, okay. Right.
MR. L YKOS: And I wouldn't be very safe working in the job
where wires are hanging from the ceilings and -- it doesn't appear to
me that a small amount of minor work was done to this project. I
understand that you think there was some work that had already been
done before you got there, but I see tools laying on the floor. This is
not something that somebody stepped into.
What you're trying to imply is that a bunch of work got done,
and the people that did it left their extension cords, their power tools,
their hand tools, their garbage cans and all the demolition material and
just abandoned the job site and you just happened to step in there and
was going to do all this work for free.
MR. BROGDON: I only was there four days, sir.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But what you're implying is that
other people did work before you got there, and those people brought
on jackhammers and power cords and air guns and compressors and
tore apart this house, and most of that work got done before you got
there to scrape linoleum off the concrete.
MR. BROGDON: No, sir. The only thing I'm saying is I did no
tile work, I did no drywall. Strictly demolition. That's my only
argument.
MR. L YKOS: Well, you're demoing walls and there's bare
framing exposed. You had to take drywall down to do that work.
MR. JOSLIN: Electrical covers over the light sockets, over the
electrical sockets, over the plugs. There's a lot of things in here that
Page 35
December 17,2008
are being done that should have required a permit for starters, there's
no doubt.
I don't know, I'm under the impression of saying that -- I'm
going to make a motion that the citations stand. Whether or not you
were doing the work there, you were caught there at the job. And I can
tell by Mr. Ganguli's comments that he felt that you were doing that
job, and I think that's enough for us to act on.
MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
(No response.)
MR. JOSLIN: Christmas spirit?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I don't know.
MR. BOYD: Robert, did you talk to the homeowner?
MR. GANGULI: I did talk to the homeowner, sir.
MR. BOYD: Was he being paid, or is he actually a friend?
MR. GANGULI: I can't answer that, Mr. Boyd, I'm sorry. I can't
answer that.
The contributing factor to me writing the citations was Mr.
Brogdon's specific admission that he was not doing electrical and
plumbing work. But he was doing the others. He specified that
deliberately. And based on what I observed, I had no reason not to
believe him.
MR. BROGDON: Can I speak? I told him if! had time I would
have helped the homeowner do some drywall at one point in time. But
at that point there was no drywall, you know, done in the house. And
he was saying well, you can help the homeowner if the homeowner is
present, you know.
But I'm still saying I'm helping the guys out. You know, this is
not a contract situation where -- I don't know.
MR. JERULLE: Do you have a license in Lee County?
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: And what is the license for?
Page 36
December 17,2008
MR. BROGDON: Concrete, pumping.
MR. JERULLE: So you know that certain work needs
requirements for licensing?
MR. BROGDON: Well--
MR. JERULLE: You're aware that you need a license.
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: So being in this house and doing the work that
you were doing, were you not aware that you needed a license for
some of this work?
MR. BROGDON: Well, I was going to do no plumbing--
MR. JERULLE: Whether you're helping somebody--
MR. BROGDON: -- no electrical.
MR. JERULLE: Whether you're helping somebody under a
contract or as a favor, were you not aware that this work needed to be
licensed?
MR. BROGDON: Well, it looked like a handyman list to me. I
mean, you know, there was just raw edges that somebody started a
bunch of projects in this house and never finished.
MR. JERULLE: You're not answering my question, though.
My question is were you not aware that this work required a
permit and to be done by a licensed contractor?
MR. BROGDON: My observation, me just helping them out, no,
sir, I didn't think that, no. No, I didn't.
I mean, if I would have thought that, I wouldn't even got
involved in the deal. It was kind of like, you know, you help deals --
MR. JERULLE: But you're a licensed contractor in Lee County.
MR. BROGDON: Yes, sir. I do concrete. I don't do -- I don't
claim to be a drywaller or none of the above.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli, just for the record again, when
you talked to this gentleman, he just specified that things were slow
and this is why he was doing this?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
Page 37
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any more discussion?
MR. L YKOS: I have a hard time justifying any circumstances
where this scope of work is being completed without a permit without
a licensed contractor.
MR. JOSLIN: I agree.
MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I agree also.
MR. L YKOS: I don't know what -- any circumstances that you
could justify, I'm somebody's friend and I was -- I can't imagine that
we would recommend as a Board that our county employees allow
this kind of work to go on. I just can't -- I can't envision the
circumstances where we'd allow this to go on.
Electrical, plumbing. How do we know there wasn't structure of
the building being affected?
MR. JOSLIN: One thing for Mr. Ganguli. After you spoke to the
homeowners of the property, you said that there was then another
contractor that was going to continue finishing the work?
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, very expeditiously I was contacted
by a licensed contractor. The company's name is Trinity Project
Management Group. The representative's name is Joel Newman. And
he told me that he had been hired by the homeowner to remedy the
situation that existed.
MR. JOSLIN: I got you.
MR. GANGULI: There are permits --
MR. JOSLIN: After the fact then.
MR. GANGULI: After the incident with Mr. Brogdon, there are
permits ready to be picked up from Trinity Project Management to
proceed.
MR. JOSLIN: I got you.
So Trinity could have done the same work that was done there
that you saw when you went to the home as far as demolition goes
with a permit by Trinity, ifno one else had done it.
MR. GANGULI: Not chronologically, Mr. Joslin. They had
Page 38
December 17, 2008
been hired after the incident occurred with Mr. Brogdon.
Am I understanding your question?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm just
saying that if this gentleman had not done that work, Trinity, being
hired by the homeowner, could have done the same work that he did --
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: -- what you saw that day.
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: So it was after the fact for sure.
MR. GANGULI: Absolutely.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, let's put this to bed. Call for the
vote. I have a motion that the citations, both citations, two total, stand.
All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's unanimous. The citations stand.
MR. BROGDON: Okay, thank you, gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thanks for coming in.
Thank you, Mr. Ganguli.
Jeff Baker, are you here?
MR. BAKER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How are you doing?
MR. BAKER: Good. How are you?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Good. Come up to this one.
Change Your Colors, Inc. update on a Workers' Compensation
Page 39
December 17,2008
and review of license.
If you would, state your name and then I'll have you sworn in.
MR. BAKER: Jeffbaker.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Before you get started, I'm going to
turn this over to Mr. Ossorio. Give us kind of a background and bring
us up to date. I don't remember this one.
MR. JOSLIN: You weren't here, I don't believe.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look in your package,
you'll see a finding of fact that was ordered by this Board. And you
can look at the paragraph one, probation for a period of one year, at
which time the contracting activities shall be under the supervision of
the contractor licensing staff, the contractor licensing board. Such
probation may be revoked at any time by the Board at a hearing
noticed for such purpose and to reappear before the Board within six
months for review.
This is just clearly Mr. Baker just showing up, telling me I'm
still in business, I've done what I was supposed to do, I'm still on
probation, and it's a six-month review. You can call it that, if you
wish. You can ask him any questions.
I believe Mr. Baker -- and I've talked to Ian Jackson about it,
who's the investigator on the case, that he has called in every job he
has done and he has applied by and paid all the civil fines and also
went to school and probation and did the business procedure test
agam.
So he has complied with your order. This is just a review to stop
in and say here I am, I'm doing what I'm supposed to be doing.
MR. JOSLIN: So in your opinion, did everything that we gave
him for disciplinary actions so far has been done and met and
everything's on the copasetic and everything's up to par?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, you can -- one through six, he has
Page 40
December 17, 2008
complied with everything, and he is in good standing with our office,
other than being on probation.
MR. L YKOS: Do you have employees working for you, Mr.
Baker?
MR. BAKER: No.
MR. L YKOS: So you're Workers' Compo exempt.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. L YKOS: And you understand if you get employees, you
have to have Worker's Comp.?
MR. BAKER: Yes, sir.
MR. LYKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we set aside this order as far
as for another six months, since this gentleman has done all the
requirements that we have set ahead of time.
And I commend you for doing that. We took a chance on you. I
remember the case very well. And I took a chance on you at that point
and I'm glad you made a good person out of me and made me feel
good now.
So we'll see you in six months.
Is that something we need to vote on, correct?
MR. L YKOS: Well, you made a motion--
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry.
MR. L YKOS: -- I'm not sure I understand what the motion was.
MR. JOSLIN: Motion that we accept this --let me see what I've
got a motion to.
What are we actually doing? We're hearing the Case No. 21660
regarding the findings of fact and the conclusions of law and the order
of the Board. And that at this moment --
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I don't think he has to make a
motion, this is just informative. And after today he'd still be on
probation for six months. So that will just expire sometime next year.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
Page 41
December 17, 2008
MR. OSSORIO: So this is just Mr. Baker to say--
MR. NEALE: Informative.
MR. OSSORIO: -- I'm doing what he's (sic) supposed to be
doing. He's satisfied. You take it at face value and he goes on his way.
MR. JOSLIN: So he's good to go.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If -- always looking for a way to
expedite activity for the Board. Being that he's done everything that he
was requested to do in a very timely manner, could it be that the
Board could excuse him from appearing at the end of one year if you
were satisfied with him doing everything? Leave it up to county
whether he returns or not?
MR. OSSORIO: I don't think the Board -- I don't think -- well,
when I read the order of the Board, it actually just says has to appear
within six months. He doesn't have to reappear every six months. He's
on probation for one year. If you want to take a look at him in six
months, everything's okay, then it will expire sometime. The probation
will expire within a year, so --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No need to come back here.
MR. OSSORIO: You don't need to come back here, no.
MR. NEALE: No, he's good to go.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Baker, thank you very much for your
compliance. We appreciate it.
MR. JERULLE: Good job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have a nice Christmas.
MR. BAKER: Merry Christmas.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You, too.
Calvert Courtney, are you here? Yes, sir, if you would, come up.
What did you do, do all this stuff while I was gone? Okay.
How are you, sir?
MR. COURTNEY: Fine.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Joslin, why don't you take this?
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Courtney, I remember this.
Page 42
December 17, 2008
THE COURT REPORTER: Do I need to swear him in.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, that's right, thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Courtney, I know in the findings of fact that
you were before us on May 21 st of '08 and you were -- indicated you
had to do some items.
MR. COURTNEY: Yes. My recollection of it and the way I
interpreted the stipulations that I read was I think it was Mr. Lykos or
Mr. Dickson requested a profit and loss and a credit report six months
from the time that you reinstated the license. So I've brought those
with me today. There's one for each one of you.
MR. JOSLIN: This had to do with your credit report, correct?
MR. COURTNEY: No. What Mr. Dickinson's (sic) statement, as
I remember it was, is they wanted to make sure that the business did
not incur any more debt. And that's what I've brought here. He wanted
to look at the profitability of the business as a --
MR. JOSLIN: I got you, okay.
MR. OSSORIO: If you remember Mr. Courtney, we did have a
couple of cases on him. And you suspended his license and then it got
revoked. And then he petitioned the Board to get reinstated and you
denied it and I think Mr. Lykos said well, if you really wanted to, you
would pay everyone off the 30 some thousand, in which he did.
So he came back with his attorney and said, okay, I paid
everyone off, please let me have my license back.
And you said fine, we'll put you on probation. I want to see you
in six months, I want to see what you have on your credit statements
and make sure that you have a bona fide business and you're in
business and you're not taking any more deposits that you cannot do.
We have had one complaint since then, but I think it was more
of a prior one which Mr. Courtney did not know that it was out there. I
believe he is making payments on it. So the homeowner is satisfied at
Page 43
December 17, 2008
this time that he is -- you know, this homeowner is getting paid,
slowly but surely. Am I correct?
MR. COURTNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. JOSLIN: Have you seen a copy of this report that he has
(sic) going to provide us? Have you seen a copy of this report?
MR. OSSORIO: No, I have not. He just brought it today.
MR. COURTNEY: Should I just hand them to you?
MR. OSSORIO: I recommend we just hand it out. You can
review it, if you have any questions, and it's on the record and then
we'll see what happens.
MR. COURTNEY: At the time that the request was made for the
P&L, I asked if it had to be an audited statement, and Mr. Dickinson
(sic) said no.
This is simply off of my accounting software. I use a Quick
Books programs. And it's dated from April 1 through end of business
day yesterday. So it shows where we are.
And I ran a -- had In Balance, a local credit reporting agency run
the three major bureaus on a credit check on the company, and there's
nothing there, of course.
MR. OSSORIO: You can look on the Page 3 and it says
respondent's business balance sheet and profit and losses, dated six
months from the date of hearing.
MR. COURTNEY: We were actually supposed to have this
meeting in November, but it got postponed.
MR. JOSLIN: That's okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's nice to see someone makes profits.
MR. COURTNEY: The percentage is okay, it's just the gross
revenues are so small in this quiet economy.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Hey, there's nobody making profits,
so if you're making profits, count your blessings.
MR. JOSLIN: Really.
MR. L YKOS: Couple of things, Mr. Courtney, I'd like to make a
Page 44
December 17, 2008
note of. We don't have your balance sheet, and that shows your debt.
And that was one of our concerns was that you'd be increasing your
debt. We don't have your balance sheet, so I'd like to see that.
MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Lykos, there are no revolving lines of
credit, there's no chattel mortgages. There is one debt to a homeowner,
a past customer, and it's in the amount of $18,000. And that's all the
debt there is.
MR. L YKOS: I understand. But in our order to you, we wanted
to see your balance sheet as well as your P&L.
MR. COURTNEY: I will admit the mistake to that. I did not
realize you wanted to see that balance sheet.
MR. L YKOS: You have a great attorney. Do you have a good
accountant?
MR. COURTNEY: I have an expensive one.
MR. L YKOS: You have $103,000 in casual labor?
MR. COURTNEY: I use 1099. I have a Workmen's Compo
exemption, and on the paver brick side I physically can't do the work.
I can a lot of the landscaping. But I have a group of subcontractors out
of Fort Myers that I 1099 at the end at the end of the fiscal year.
I call it casual labor, the entry -- that's the heading I use in the
Quick Books system. I do this myself. I don't have a bookkeeper.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. COURTNEY: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: Is this a licensed contractor that you contract to
do this work for you?
MR. COURTNEY: Yes, it is.
MR. JOSLIN: They have their own Workman's Compo
insurances and --
MR. COURTNEY: They do. And I'll qualify that statement. I
don't ask for that on every job. If the homeowner requires it -- I'm
doing no work for contractors at this point. If they ask for it, I have
them provide proof of it, and so far they have complied with that at
Page 45
December 17, 2008
every request. They are a Lee County/Collier County contractor.
MR. JOSLIN: Do you know what that contractor's name is?
MR. COURTNEY: Croat.
MR. JOSLIN: What is it?
MR. COURTNEY: Croat. C-R-O-A- T.
MR. JOSLIN: I think just for your own sake, it would be good to
have it on file for your insurance purposes, because if you get audited,
they're going to ask you for the certificates. And if you're claiming this
is a 1099, that could be the same thing as you paying them on the side
as just a payrolled employee that you're not paying insurances on.
MR. COURTNEY: There are some guidelines at that that are
unclear to me, Mr. Joslin. I've yet to learn that, exactly what
determines a 1099. I understand if you tell them to be there at 9:00 in
the morning that you've violated 1099 guidelines. I wish I had a better
understanding. I'm kind of doing a commonsense thing. I set up the
time for the job and do a little quality control.
MR. L YKOS: I really would like to see the balance sheet. I want
to see your payables and your receivables. If you're using Quick
Books, this is probably in an accrual report.
MR. COURTNEY: It is.
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I'd like to see your balance sheets.
One of our concerns was that you were going to create debt
again and use customers' deposits to pay old debt and that -- I think it's
important that we can verify that you're not just moving debt around,
and that's why we need to see your balance sheet.
MR. COURTNEY: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: You should be able to print that report with Quick
Books, just like you do the P &L.
MR. COURTNEY: I use the simple start, but I can pull it. I don't
have the professional Quick Books. This is the $99 one, not the 700.
MR. L YKOS: I understand.
MR. COURTNEY: And it won't print my balance sheet, but I
Page 46
December 17, 2008
can pull it for you, I can create it. I know --
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, how about also that we get into this
casual labor situation. As far as if he's saying he's using a licensed
contractor to do $103,000 worth of work for him, then he should
surely have certificates of some sort they would be more willing to
give him. So we're sure that he's covered with this insurance and not
just paying casual labor.
MR. COURTNEY: I have no problem with that at all.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, that's --
MR. COURTNEY: I'll share anything that you request.
I didn't realize -- I thought today was to come and simply
provide the credit report and to show you the P&L. I didn't have any
idea that these other things would enter into it, and I'll be glad to
produce whatever you request.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, super.
MR. L YKOS: We don't want to run your business, we just want
to make sure that you're doing a good job of doing it yourself.
MR. COURTNEY: I gotcha.
MR. L YKOS: And those reports will help us verify that you're
doing that.
MR. COURTNEY: Gotcha.
So what is the specific list of your requirements and what are the
time frames?
MR. L YKOS: Well, I think we've got end of the year coming up.
Ifwe can get an end of the year P&L and end of the year balance sheet
and --
MR. JOSLIN: Copies of the certificates by the end of the year
I'm sure shouldn't be a problem. Out of all the subcontractors that you
have worked or paid, it shouldn't be hard to do.
And then one other thing. If he can provide this, do we need to
look at this again through the Board next month, or would staff be able
to --
Page 47
December 17, 2008
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I think we should look at it at the January
meeting.
MR. JOSLIN: January meeting?
MR. L YKOS: Yeah, let's look at the P&L and the balance sheet.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. So at the January meeting you'll have to
resume coming back here again one more time with that information.
MR. COURTNEY: Do I have to submit this to Maggie by the
1 st, or can I bring it like this?
MR. OSSORIO: No, it would be fine. I think what we should do
is that we'll collect the folders that you have outstanding here, you'll
go back, add more things to it and we'll add you to the agenda for
January -- or January 21st over in the Board of County Commissioners
chambers. No, not a problem.
MR. L YKOS: Thank you. Very good start, though, Mr.
Courtney.
MR. JOSLIN: Collect all these again?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Public hearing. We've been at it an
hour and 20 minutes. Anybody need a break? We okay? Let's do 10
minutes. 12:00 sharp back in here.
Is it going to be a long hearing? You never know? If your
stomach growls, we won't chastise you for it.
MR. OSSORIO: I'd say 40 minutes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, sounds good.
We stand adjourned for 10 minutes.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call back to order the
meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board.
Moving on to public hearings. We now have a public hearing
with Daniel L. Scott.
Daniel, are you present?
Sir, if you would, come up here on the front row. I'm going to
have you sit there on the front, just in back of that podium there.
Page 48
December 17,2008
MR. JOSLIN: You want to swear him in first?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No.
The way this case is handled, it's kind of quasi judicial. Once
you get up here, we'll swear you in. Everybody else has been sworn
m.
Does the county have anybody else that's going to testify that
hasn't already been sworn in? Ian, you haven't been sworn in, have
you?
MR. JACKSON: No, I have not.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Dickson, the complainant also is here and
may need to be sworn in, should we require his testimony. It's pretty
redundant in comparison -- or with regard to his sworn statement that
you all have in front of you, but if you would --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I can do the packet for him. Are they
going to testify? Is the complainant going to testify?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, when they come up, I'll do that.
It's Case No. 2008-15, License No. 11229, Board of Collier
County Commissioners, they are the petitioner, Board of Collier
County Commissioners, not us.
Here in the blue coat is Mr. Neale, who's the attorney that
represents the licensing board.
Mr. Zachary in the gray coat represents Collier County and the
Commissioners.
Versus Daniel Scott d/b/a Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated.
The way this thing handles is -- and get this name right,
Ganguli?
MR. GANGULI: Very good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Got it, okay.
The county will open up, Mr. Ganguli will make an opening
statement, and then you'll make yours. Then he'll present his evidence.
You can cross-examine witnesses he has. Then the floor will be yours.
Page 49
December 17,2008
After that's over, we'll close -- you make closing statements.
Then we'll close public hearing and you'll hear us decide.
So with that, would you stand up here and state your name, Mr.
Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Daniel Scott.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And Ian Jackson is also going
to testify.
I'm going to have both of you sworn in right now, and then I'll
get the homeowner when they come up.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have any questions, Mr. Scott,
before we start?
MR. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, go ahead and have a seat and
I'll turn it over, opening statement, to Mr. Ganguli for the county.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Dickson, Case 2008-15, County
Commissioners versus Daniel L. Scott, doing business as Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated.
Sir, I have a summary that may be a little longer than usual, but I
feel all the facts in it are pertinent.
On October 21 st, 2008, I, Rob Ganguli, Collier County License
Compliance Officer received a preliminary complaint form submitted
by a Kent G. Smith, who stated that he had been working for Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated at the residence of Rabbi Fishel Zaklos at
1195 Creech Road, on or about the first week of July, 2008.
Mr. Smith stated he had sustained an injury on the job site. And
when he had informed the qualifier, Daniel L. Scott of Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated of this, he was informed that he was not
covered by Workers Compensation insurance.
Mr. Smith presented a copy of a Colonial Carpentry,
Incorporated company paycheck dated for the time frame which he
stated was in substitute for his usual means of compensation through
Page 50
December 17, 2008
an (sic) Employee Leasing Solutions which provided his insurance
coverage.
After contacting Employee Leasing Solutions, I verified that Mr.
Smith's last paycheck and period of Workers' Compensation coverage
was on May 16th, 2008.
Mr. Smith further state that the scope of the work performed
consisted of the installation of windows and a French door on the
addition to the rear of the single-family home.
When interviewed for the issuance of this notice of hearing on
October 24th, 2008, Mr. Scott denied that Colonial Carpentry,
Incorporated had ever worked at this job site.
Mr. Scott also stated that the slowdown in construction had
resulted in Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated having not worked in
several months.
However, when questioned by Investigator Ian Jackson about an
existing job site employing Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated on
Marco Island, Mr. Scott then recanted his statement.
A notarized statement was also later obtained from the property
owner of 1195 Creech Road, stating the presence of Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated performing this type of work as described by
Mr. Smith at his home and during this time frame.
The notarized statement submitted by the complainant, Kent G.
Smith, regarding the form of payment from Colonial Carpentry,
Incorporated construes a violation of State Statute 440.10, and
440.107, which regulates securing the payment of Workers'
Compensation, and therefore is also a violation of Collier County
Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.6.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, Mr. Scott, if you would, please,
tell us where -- come up to the podium. Opening statement. Tell us
where you're going to go.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Dickson, could we get the packet moved
into evidence?
Page 51
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, thank you very much.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we move Case No.
2008-115, License No. 11229, Daniel L. Scott, d/b/a Colonial
Carpentry, Inc. packet for his administrative complaint into evidence.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I second that.
All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, gentleman.
Mr. Scott, tell us where you're going to go with your defense.
Opening statement.
MR. SCOTT: Colonial Carpentry, Inc. never did work at the job
site. Colonial Carpentry, Inc. doesn't work for homeowners, only
works for general contractors.
Workers Compo insurance: I have a copy here that Kent Smith
was still on the payroll for Colonial Carpentry up until August 4th. So
if Colonial Carpentry did do the job at any time frame until August
4th, he was still actively on the payroll.
I'm really fuzzy about the job on Marco Island. That job was not
started -- Colonial Carpentry did not work on that Henning job until
the second week of September. That's when we started that. I don't
understand that statement in the thing here.
And what statement I recanted, I don't know what he's talking
about.
The job that was done at Creech Road was for Rabbi Fishel
through a friend of a friend to take care of a water intrusion problem.
He had -- we removed the siding and -- I went over there and
removed the siding. Colonial Carpentry never had anything to do with
Page 52
December 17,2008
the job. I mean, there's no contract, there's no compensation, nothing.
Colonial Carpentry had nothing to do with it. It was a friend of a
friend. Went over and removed the siding and was going to flash it
properly and put the siding back on. There's no compensation. I've
never been -- it was just helping the guy out.
I mean, I -- Colonial Carpentry, I mean, I've been in business for
14 years, and I've never worked for a homeowner. I only work for
general contractors. I've always had Workman's Compo insurance
since the day I've been open. Liability insurance, vehicle insurance,
I've had it all. So I mean, I don't know what else to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's good for an opening
statement.
All right, County, present your case.
MR. OSSORIO: County calls Mr. Smith.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Smith, if you'd go to that podium
over there, I'll have you state your name please and then I'll have you
sworn m.
MR. SMITH: Kent Smith.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Go ahead.
MR. GANGULI: Good afternoon, Kent. Just a few simple
questions for you.
On or about the first week of July, 2008, did you work as an
employee of Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated at the address 1195
Creech Road?
MR. SMITH: Yes, sir, I did.
MR. GANGULI: Did the work consist of window and French
door installation?
MR. SMITH: Yeah, we removed siding, we removed exterior
door, we removed some windows. We reframed a wall. We took a set
of French doors that was in the existing home and moved them to
where we reframed them on this addition. We re tar-papered it. We
Page 53
December 17, 2008
insulated it.
There was electrical moved to compensate everything that had
been done. We then hung drywall.
And the next day that I had went back I was informed the job
was shut down because there was no permits pulled on the job. So we
cleaned up the job.
At this time I was told by Dan Scott, the owner, to carry a door
that we had removed from the home to his truck; he was going to take
it to his home.
In the process of doing this, I injured my neck and my back
severely, and now I am -- the burden is on my family and myself to
pay all these bills, and I have not been able to work since, due to
doctor's orders.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Smith, for this particular job that you did
for Colonial Carpentry, were you paid in an unusual manner as
opposed to the ways that had been compensated before?
MR. SMITH: Yes. Generally I was paid through Staff Leasing --
or Leasing Solutions. At this time when I was going to be paid, I was
asked to go to Mr. Scott's house. He then wrote me a check out of
Colonial Carpentry checking account, and that's how I was paid.
When I informed him about my injury, that's when I was
informed I was not covered by any Workmen's Compensation.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Smith, if you look at your packet E-4, does
that depict the method of payment you received?
MR. SMITH: I don't have it, but I did review it earlier.
Yes, that is the check that would have been for 18 hours of work.
I was paid $25 an hour.
MR. OSSORIO: How long have you worked for Colonial
Carpentry, Incorporated?
MR. SMITH: Eleven and a half years.
MR. OSSORIO: And all that time you got paid by the leasing
company?l
Page 54
December 17, 2008
MR. SMITH: Yeah. The first six to eight months I was
piecework. After that, from probably 1998 on was always through a
leasing company.
MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, Mr. Scott had stated that his
employee, Leasing Solutions company that he hired provided
Workers' Compo coverage up to some point in August. And when I
contacted -- the lady's name was Shannon Ingram, of Employee
Leasing Solutions, I asked her the policies involved and how coverage
is implemented for people who are on the Leasing Solutions program.
And if they don't receive a check, they are not covered. Their
names may still be on the list, but if a check is not issued to them, their
coverage ceases at that point.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli, do you have any more questions
for your witness?
MR. GANGULI: I have no more for this witness, no, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Scott, do you have questions of
the witness?
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have questions of the witness?
MR. SCOTT: Oh, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Why don't you come over here to this
podium.
MR. SCOTT: This has gotten out of hand.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It was a yes or no question.
MR. SCOTT: First question is, on or about July 10th did you go
to Ohio?
MR. SMITH: Yes, I did.
MR. SCOTT: Did you call me from Ohio about a week after that
and say that you coughed in the front yard and you went to your
knees, you can't move, and your brother and your dad had to help you
up?
MR. SMITH: I informed you before I went to Ohio, I was going
Page 55
December 17, 2008
to Ohio to take my daughter to visit relatives because --
MR. SCOTT: No, you were going to Ohio --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We don't
run it this way here. You let him finish the answer. We don't do two
people talking, and we don't get argumentative.
MR. SMITH: So I informed you again when I went to Ohio that
my condition had worsened.
I also asked you again, I need to go seek medical help. I have a
severe Injury.
And what I explained to you yes, did happen. I explained to you
I had to go to the hospital, what was I supposed to do? Was there
Workmen's Compo You again told me no, you were not covered by
Workmen's Comp., do what you have to do.
MR. SCOTT: No.
Did you or did you not come over to the house? Because I've got
two witnesses. I wish I had brought them in.
The mechanic that worked on your truck before you went to
Ohio and the shocks were replaced on your truck before you went to
Ohio the day before?
MR. SMITH: Yes, that I paid in cash.
MR. SCOTT: And you helped do that and you were fine?
MR. SMITH: I didn't help do anything. You put the shocks on
my truck, you took the tires off of it. I stood there. You asked -- you
said I could come out there because you had a lift.
You have never once called me after I informed you of my
injury. You continued to work. And you had spoke to other people
informing them that they inform me you were going to make a
decision for me when I got back whether I had a job with you or not,
which I never was called back to work.
MR. SCOTT: Should I bring in Dr. Berktold (phonetic) and
show all these people how long he's been -- he's worked on your neck
as a chiropractor and --
Page 56
December 17, 2008
MR. SMITH: Well, this has nothing --
MR. SCOTT: -- how long you've been going to the doctor --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One at a time.
MR. SCOTT: -- for years.
MR. SMITH: This has nothing to do with this.
Back in 2002 I had a door fall on my head. Took my wife
forever to get any kind of information for Workmen's Compo She
finally got it from the man.
2006 I was injured, ruptured disc in my neck. Nothing near as
severe as it is now. I informed Mr. Scott again I need to get help,
there's a definite problem here.
I had to seek this on my own. I've been paying for a doctor ever
since 2006.
So then when I pick up this door again in 2008, now my injuries
are so severe I cannot work anymore. I had to file for Social Security
disability.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman?
I'm going to interrupt you. But this really has no bearing on the
case in hand.
MR. SCOTT: No, but he's--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I disagree. It does. Because we're
hearing some dates here that have a bearing on this.
MR. SMITH: Right.
MR. SCOTT: Well, Rob --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wait, wait, just --
MR. SMITH: I have never got to get my Workmen's Compo for
anything -- injuries I've had except for the one in 2002.
I have all the x-rays. I've had to get MRI's. My doctor sent me
for new ones in July, because she had to see what was going on with
my body to know where I stood.
I have eight ruptured discs. Every disc in my neck is ruptured
and three in my lower back. All these injuries stem from working for
Page 57
December 17, 2008
Mr. Scott.
MR. JOSLIN: What you're telling us is that this injury that you
occurred (sic) happened while you were working at Cabinetry (sic) in
2002?
MR. SMITH: That was -- that healed up and everything. This
injury I have now stems from this 2008 lifting and carrying this door
from the home that we're talking about on Creech Road.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What happened in 2006?
MR. SMITH: I was carrying doors, it was for a job in Bonita on
Bonita Beach for D. Garrett Construction, working for Colonial
Carpentry .
The doors were extremely heavy. I was sent to the job by myself
to do this work.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And we've got a good feel for it
now, and we don't need to go through that anymore, because the issue
still remains whether or not there was Workers' Compo coverage at the
time of this alleged incident in July of 2007. That's the issue, okay?
Not car issues, not changing out stuff, none of that.
Was there coverage in place, that's the issue. Okay, you got it
defined? It doesn't matter all the other stuff. Did you have Workers'
Compo coverage.
MR. SCOTT: Colonial Carpentry had Workers' Compo coverage
but --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's what we're here--
MR. SCOTT: -- Colonial Carpentry didn't do the job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- to discuss.
MR. SCOTT: Colonial Carpentry didn't do the job. Whenever
Colonial Carpentry did a job, license, insurance, everything.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we'll decide that. Okay, very
good.
Any other questions ofMr. Smith?
MR. SCOTT: No. I mean, I'm not going -- I'm not --
Page 58
December 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Do you have any redirect, Mr.
Ganguli?
MR. GANGULI: (Shakes head negatively.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Smith (sic), if you would, please
sit down.
And Mr. Smith, if you would sit down and the county continue
with your case.
MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, obviously we have two different
stories regarding what the company payroll check was for. And I just
would like to call Investigator Ian Jackson to try to establish what may
be inconsistent here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: I'll answer from here.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, that's fine.
MR. GANGULI: Were you sworn?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, he's already sworn.
MR. GANGULI: Good afternoon, sir.
On October 24th, 2008, Daniel L. Scott was interviewed and
served this notice of hearing at the Contractors Licensing Office. Were
you present at this interview, sir?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
MR. GANGULI: When asked about work performed by
Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated at the address of 1195 Creech Road,
do you recall what Mr. Scott's response was?
MR. JACKSON: Not quoting, his response was that there was
no work performed there. And that's of course not a direct quote, but
that was the gist of the conversation.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Jackson, do you recall Mr. Scott stating
that Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated was not presently working at
any job sites and had not been working for, quote, several months?
MR. JACKSON: I do recall that.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Jackson, do you have any information
Page 59
December 17, 2008
indicating that this statement was not entirely accurate at the time it
was made?
MR. JACKSON: At that time I had been onjob sites on Marco
Island the previous week, roughly the week of October 14th, where
they were working as a subcontractor for Henning on a condo.
MR. OSSORIO: What was your purpose looking for this
Colonial Carpentry Contracting?
MR. JACKSON: Our office received a complaint regarding
employees being on this job site and not being on the employee list
from the leasing company.
I went to the job site twice, interviewed all companies there.
Daniel -- Colonial Carpentry was not there on either of those two
visits. But there was confirmation from the super that they were the
sub on that job.
MR. GANGULI: And one last question for you, Mr. Jackson.
Would you please inform the Board of Mr. Scott's reaction after being
confronted with this information that you knew.
MR. JACKSON: After Mr. Scott said that he hadn't been
working in some time and I brought up the job on Panama Court, he
then said, well -- it was recanted or yes, I do have that job.
And of course once again it's not a quote, but that was the
general conversation.
MR. JOSLIN: Meaning the job on Creech Road?
MR. JACKSON: Meaning the job on Marco Island.
MR. JOSLIN: On Marco Island.
MR. JACKSON: Right.
MR. GANGULI: I have no more questions for Mr. Jackson.
I'd like the Board to be aware of what I feel may be
contradictory. We have two sworn statements, one coming from the
homeowner placing Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated at that job site at
1195 Creech Road at the time of the alleged violation.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli, for the record, can you turn to
Page 60
December 17, 2008
Page E-8 and can you read the homeowner's statement for the record?
And this is your handwriting?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: And Mr. -- the homeowner of Creech Road was
at our office?
MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay, go ahead, if you wouldn't mind, just read
into the record his statement.
MR. GANGULI: Regarding work performed by Daniel L. Scott,
qualifier of Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated, Collier County
Certificate 11229.
I Fishel Zaklos do hereby affirm that on or about the first week
of July, 2008, Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated, qualified by Daniel
L. Scott, performed work at my residence at 1195 Creech Road. This
work consisting of installation of windows and a French door was
performed on an unpermitted addition to the rear of the single-family
home, resulting in Code Case No. CESD2008-000-9970, and it was
initiated to correct the leak intrusion.
And it's signed by him and dated November 10th, 2008.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, just one quick question.
In the packet here, it seems unusual to me that if this work and
this affidavit was signed saying that Colonial Carpentry was on this
job at that time that there would not be a contract of some sort for this
type of work being done. Was there a contract initiated?
MR. GANGULI: The Rabbi told me it was done verbally, sir. It
wasn't a written contract.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Was there any money? Any check?
MR. GANGULI: From the Rabbi to Colonial Carpentry?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. GANGULI: I cannot verify that, sir.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
Page 61
December 17, 2008
Mr. Scott, again, do you have questions of Ian Jackson at this
point?
MR. SCOTT: No.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Continue on.
MR. GANGULI: The county rests.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I thought you were going to -- is the
complainant here?
MR. GANGULI: We've heard from him, Mr. Dickson.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, okay. I was thinking maybe -- I
got confused, thinking it was the homeowner on Creech.
Okay. Mr. Scott, at this point the floor is yours. If you would
come up to this podium, present your case, sir, and call any witnesses
you choose.
MR. SCOTT: Let's see. No, I don't -- I'm not going to go -- I'm
not going to stand up here and argue about it. I don't know what else
to say. I mean, we just -- Colonial Carpentry did not work there. You
know, it's just -- I have no witness.
MR. JOSLIN: Is there any vehicles in your company?
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
MR. JOSLIN: Is there any vehicles in your company?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, a van and a truck.
MR. JOSLIN: Does Mr. Smith drive one of your vehicles?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, he did.
MR. JOSLIN: Was it possible that that vehicle was at that job
site to do that work?
MR. SCOTT: Is it possible? Yeah, it's possible, yeah. That's
what he was driving. I mean, he was driving -- drove it wherever. I
mean, he had free roam to drive it wherever he wanted.
MR. JERULLE: Are you the license holder --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: -- of Colonial Carpentry?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
Page 62
December 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: Are you the owner of Colonial Carpentry?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Did you receive any money for that
work on Creech Road?
MR. SCOTT: No, I did not. Received no compensation. I did it
for a friend of a general contractor. That's his Rabbi. I did it for him as
-- I mean, I've worked for that company for almost 14 years. And I
just -- you know, I'm just a friend.
MR. JOSLIN: So there really was no written contract for you to
go and do this job, but as a friend of a friend through a general
contractor that you work for, do work for, he asked you can you go
over and take care ofMr. Rabbi's (sic) house, and in turn Mr. Smith
ended up on the job?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, he knew. He came willingly. I mean, we did
it for the Rabbi.
MR. JERULLE: So just so I understand it, a contractor that you
worked for -- do you mind telling who --
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
MR. JERULLE: Who was the contractor that you typically work
for?
MR. SCOTT: Core Construction.
MR. JERULLE: They asked you to go to the Rabbi's house?
MR. SCOTT: No, they did not. The person that works for them.
An employee of theirs.
MR. JERULLE: An employee of Core Construction asked
Colonial Carpentry --
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: -- to go to the Rabbi's house to --
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, he's a friend of mine. He works for the
company. And he asked if I would go over there and see where the
water intrusion was coming in, and I went over there and the siding
wasn't --
Page 63
December 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: And so you took your people over there and he
drove the van to the house.
MR. SCOTT: I just went over there myself first. And we weren't
working and he said he was going to Ohio to put siding on his
mother-in-law's house and work on his parents house, so he needed
some extra cash for gas to get up there and stuff, so I had him help two
days.
MR. JERULLE: And you paid him. And you've paid him then?
MR. SCOTT: I gave him money to go up north, yeah. Fix his
truck, put freeze plug in his truck, put shocks on his truck. I mean --
MR. JOSLIN: So was this out of compensation?
MR. SCOTT: We didn't have any -- Colonial Carpentry didn't
have any work so he was going up north to work on his
mother-in-law's house, put siding on it.
MR. JOSLIN: So was that check that we have in our packet, was
that a check that you gave him for compensation to go and do the
work for the friend of a friend of your Rabbi's, or was it a check to
give him to go up north with?
MR. SCOTT: It was a check for cash to -- because he was
driving north. To go to put siding on his mother-in-Iaw's house and his
parents' house.
Like I said, that's when he called me about a week, week and a
half later and said that he -- his brother and his dad had to help him in
the house. So I have no idea what went on in Ohio.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Scott, where did you come up with a dollar
amount of$450? Why not 1,000, why not 250? Where's the 450
number come from?
MR. SCOTT: He hadn't worked in -- I think the last time he
worked was in May. I mean, I was living on my -- living on life
insurance money. I just helped him out.
MR. L YKOS: So again, where did that $450 number come
from?
Page 64
December 17, 2008
MR. SCOTT: No idea. Just 450 bucks. Probably what I could
spare.
MR. L YKOS: You just wrote a check for $450, and no
reasonable explanation for the dollar amount. Had he come the next
day, it could have been 800.
MR. SCOTT: It could have been. Could have been 200. Could
have been 1,000. I don't know. I mean, just whatever I had.
MR. L YKOS: Do you think it's reasonable that an employee of a
company, when told to show up and work somewhere, would be under
the impression that they're working for that company?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, if the company was working there. The
company wasn't working there.
MR. L YKOS: Well, if you were there working and your
employees were there working, how do you say the company wasn't
working?
MR. SCOTT: I was working there as a friend of a friend. And I
knew --
MR. L YKOS: If you're the owner of the company and you're
there working and your employees show up and do work there, how
do you say the company was not there working? Do you know if
you're driving the company vehicle and you get into a car accident,
your company and you are liable? You're not working, but you
represent the business. So if the --
MR. SCOTT: That's my work truck.
MR. L YKOS: -- if the owner of the company and the employees
of a company are working at somebody's home, how is that not the
company is working? And then you compensate somebody, how is
that not paid for work?
MR. SCOTT: The company wasn't working. It wasn't a contract
job for the company.
MR. L YKOS: Who is the company?
MR. SCOTT: Who is the company?
Page 65
December 17, 2008
MR. L YKOS: Who is the company? You said the company
wasn't working. Well, who is the company? Is it some entity that
shows up?
MR. SCOTT: It's me.
MR. L YKOS: Well, you are the company and your employees
are the company. So if you and your employees show up somewhere
to work, then that is the company working. You can't decide that we're
going to work today and our liability insurance is in effect and our
Workers' Compo is in effect and tomorrow we're going to work, it's all
the same people and all the same tools but today well, this isn't the
company working, this is just a bunch of people all getting together to
have fun.
MR. SCOTT: So you're saying if! go over to my neighbors and
I drive my van in their driveway -- I'm just trying to clarify this -- if I
go over to my neighbors or my brother's house, pull my van in the
driveway, get a saw out of the truck and work on his front door, that
Colonial Carpentry is doing the job, not me?
MR. L YKOS: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: That's correct.
MR. SCOTT: So what do I have to do? I mean, it's the only
truck I've got. It's the only truck that I have the tools in.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And that's especially true if you have
an employee with you.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. SCOTT: I mean --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So it's really quite simple.
MR. JOSLIN: He's under your supervision. You've given him
the means to get there. You've given him the tools to go and work.
Whether he touches anything or not, he's on the job.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: See, what happens here today is in no
way going to help Mr. Smith. He doesn't benefit from the actions
today. This is an action just on your license, or you as a license holder.
Page 66
December 17,2008
So there's no gain here for him. It's just as a matter of you say one
thing, he says something else and the county says something else, and
we have documentation to prove what's been said. And then you
recant.
How do you address that I've got county employees -- they don't
have anything in for you -- that say you recant statements?
MR. SCOTT: So all these years that I've been going over to
friends houses --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need you on the mic.
MR. SCOTT: All these years I've been going over to friends
houses and driving my truck, that's the company's over there?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, you're avoiding my question.
If you take employees and go somewhere in your truck and
work, yes, you are working. That is the company.
But what about recanting statements? Did you recant
statements? Did you say times are tough and you let the Workers'
Compo lapse?
MR. SCOTT: My Workers' Compo never lapsed. I got it through
-- my Workers' Compo was always there. It goes from the--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't prove that, though.
MR. SCOTT: Huh?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You can't prove that.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
MR. L YKOS: Mr. Scott, with an employee leasing company, if
you don't run --
MR. SCOTT: I know, but--
MR. L YKOS: -- employees time cards through the--
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: -- employee leasing company, there is no
Workers' Compo So for you to say you had a policy, then why doesn't
Mr. Smith have access to Workers' Compo for his medical bills?
The fact is, with an employee leasing company, if you do not
Page 67
December 17, 2008
submit that employee's time cards into the leasing company --
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: -- there will be no Workers' Compo coverage.
MR. SCOTT: Right. There was no--
MR. L YKOS: So for you to ask your employee to show up at
somebody's house and do work, you're putting the homeowner and the
employee at risk.
MR. SCOTT: I did not demand he go there. I did not --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, come on.
MR. SCOTT: You know, I just asked ifhe wanted to help. We
were going over to the Rabbi's to help. He went willingly.
I mean, I understand the Workmen's Comp., ifthere's no payroll
run, I understand that. Because I turn in people all the time when I hire
them. I understand that. They can't step foot on the job until you turn
them in.
MR. JERULLE: You did this work at the Rabbi's house. Did you
pull a permit?
MR. SCOTT: No, I had no idea it wasn't permitted. It wasn't --
all we were --
MR. JERULLE: You had no idea --
MR. SCOTT: -- going over there was to look at a water intrusion
problem.
MR. JERULLE: -- yet you're a contractor with a license and you
started the work --
MR. SCOTT: I can't pull permits with my license. The
homeowner takes care of that. If there was a permit to be pulled, he
pulled the homeowner permit.
MR. L YKOS: You removed the windows and doors and may
have done electrical work and framing and installation, and you didn't
know that you needed a permit?
MR. SCOTT: I did no electrical work. None.
MR. L YKOS: I said may. But we know that you did siding and
Page 68
December 17, 2008
did work on windows and doors and you didn't know that you needed
a permit, and you didn't ask the homeowner to go get one first.
MR. SCOTT: No, I've done a couple sidings and called here and
they said it was cosmetic, that I didn't need a permit for it. I called the
office and asked.
MR. L YKOS: And you've done work on windows and doors and
didn't think a permit was required.
MR. SCOTT: The door, we just hung the door. That's all we did.
We just--
MR. L YKOS: Was it an exterior door?
MR. SCOTT: Huh?
MR. L YKOS: Is it an exterior door?
MR. SCOTT: Yes, it was a double --
MR. L YKOS: Does it meet--
MR. SCOTT: -- French door.
MR. L YKOS: -- the wind load and impact requirements for
Collier County?
MR. SCOTT: I don't know if the door was or not. I couldn't --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, do you have anything else to
present in your defense?
MR. SCOTT: What's that?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Do you have anything else to present?
MR. SCOTT: No. I just -- like I said, we just -- we were asked to
go over and help and I went over and helped the guy. I just -- good
friend of mine and I just --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, closing statements. County?
Stay where you are, Mr. Scott.
MR. GANGULI: Mr. Dickson, it's for all of you to decide what
exactly the company check from Colonial Carpentry, Inc. made
payment -- made out to Kent Smith was for.
Page 69
December 17, 2008
I'd like to turn your attention to Exhibit E-10, section two,
regarding securing the payment of Workers' Compensation.
Specifically where it's stated if at any time an employer materially
understates or conceals payroll, materially misrepresents or conceals
employee duties so as to avoid proper classification for premium
calculations, or materially misrepresents or conceals information
pertinent to the computation and application of an experienced rating
modification factor, such employer shall be deemed to have failed to
secure payment of Workers' Compensation and shall be subject to the
sanctions set forth in this section.
This in turn is a violation of what I am charging Daniel Scott
with, Collier County Ordinance, Section 4.1.6, for disregarding or
violating in the performance of his contracting business in Collier
County any of the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers'
Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinances of this
county.
MR. OSSORIO: Just to finish up, you heard testimony from Mr.
Ganguli, you heard testimony from the complainant that was on the
job site, you heard testimony from Mr. Scott.
His opening statement, I believe he said he was never on the job
site and now he was on the job site, and then he wasn't, and then he
was doing it for a friend.
But we have a sworn affidavit from the homeowner from Creech
Road stating the fact that he was present. And the implication is Mr.
Smith was assuming -- the complainant was assuming that he was an
employee of the company working on that job site. He had no
knowledge of the fact that Mr. Scott was a friend of a friend working
on that job site. Mr. Smith, the complainant, only realized that he was
a worker and he went to a job site to perform work for the company at
hand.
And with that, we have no -- we close.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Scott, closing statement?
Page 70
December 17, 2008
MR. SCOTT: What he just said about saying that I was never
there and then I was there, when I said that I said Colonial Carpentry
wasn't there until later in the proceedings you were saying that I was,
my truck had to be -- okay, then if that's the way you look at it. I
mean, even though Colonial Carpentry wasn't contracted to do the job
and there was no contract, no notice to owner, no none of that stuff
that I always send, you know, because -- then I can understand where
he's saying that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that it?
MR. SCOTT: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right, do I hear a motion to close
public hearing?
MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos.
MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, everybody sit down.
Now, what you're going to hear us do is get guidance from the
attorneys, and then we're going to first settle on whether you're guilty
of the charge before we go into any penalties.
Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: In a case like this, the Board shall ascertain in its
deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded
to the respondent.
However, pursuant to Section 22-202.G.5 of Collier County
ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in Florida Statute
shall not apply. The Board shall consider solely evidence presented at
Page 71
December 17, 2008
the hearing in the consideration of this matter.
The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant,
immaterial and cumulative testimony. It shall admit and consider all
other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably
prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. This is whether or not
the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a court of law or
equity.
Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other
evidence in a case like this, but by itself it's not sufficient to support a
finding in this or any other case unless it would be admissible over
objection in a civil court.
The standard of proof in this type of case where the respondent
may lose his privilege to practice his profession is that the evidence
presented by the complainant must prove the complainant's case in a
clear and convincing matter.
This burden of proof on the complainant is a larger burden than
the preponderance of evidence standards set for normal civil cases.
The standard and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the
charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90-105.4.1.6 of the
Collier County Code of Ordinances, which is disregards or violates in
the performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of
the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers' Compensation laws
of the State of Florida or ordinances of this county.
The -- in order to support a finding that the respondent is in
violation of the ordinance, the Board must find facts that show
violations were actually committed by the respondent. The facts must
show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the
respondent was in violation of the relevant sections of Ordinance
90-105 as amended.
As the charges that are listed in the complaint are the only ones
the Board may decide upon, since they are the only ones which the
respondent has had the opportunity to prepare a defense.
Page 72
December 17, 2008
Any damages that the Board would find, should the respondent
be found guilty, must be directly related to those charges. The
damages may not be for matters not related.
The decision made by this Board today shall be stated orally at
this hearing, as effective upon being read by the Board.
The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to
this Board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing
Bureau, as set out in the ordinance in Florida Statutes and Rules.
If the Board is unable to issue a decision immediately following
the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a
nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the Board may
withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting.
The Board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all
areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the
administrative complaint.
The Board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of
law in support of the charges set out in the administrative complaint,
should the respondent be found in violation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir.
All right, gentleman, as far as the one complaint and that one
complaint only, that's all we're looking at. What's your feelings,
discussion? And I'll entertain a motion.
MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we find the defendant guilty
of the charges.
MR. HORN: Second, Horn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote. All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
Page 73
December 17, 2008
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, guilty of the charge.
Now the penalty phase, Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: As the respondent's been found in violation of the
ordinance, the Board shall consider and order sanctions under the
parameters set out in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
These sanctions are set out in the ordinance and the codified ordinance
of22-203.B.1 and in the revised ordinance in Section 4.3.5.
The sanctions which this Board may impose are: Revocation of
the respondent's Certificate of Competency; suspension of the
Certificate of Competency; denial of issuance or renewal of the
Certificate of Competency; probation of a reasonable length, not to
exceed two years, during which the contractor's contracting activities
shall be under the supervision of the Board; and/or participation in a
duly accredited program of continuing education. Probation may be
revoked for cause by the Board at a hearing noticed to consider said
purpose.
The Board may order restitution, a fine not to exceed $10,000
per incident, a public reprimand, a reexamination requirement, denial
of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with
conditions, and also reasonable, legal and investigative costs, as
proven.
In considering these sanctions and imposing these sanctions, the
Board shall consider five elements: Number one, the gravity of the
violation; number two, the impact of the violation; number three, any
actions taken by the violator to correct it; number four, any previous
violations committed by the violator; and number five, any other
evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant as to the
sanction that is appropriate for the case, given its nature.
Page 74
December 17, 2008
The Board also shall issue a recommended penalty to the State
Construction Industry Licensing Board. That penalty may include a
recommendation for no further action, a recommendation of
suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration, or a fine to
levied by the state board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Before we go into that. County? I
assume Mr. Ossorio. What are your recommendations and --
MR. OSSORIO: County's recommendation is a $5,000 fine, paid
within 30 days; $500 investigation cost; one-year probation.
Gentleman -- qualifier must reexamine the business procedure test
within one year and must take a two-hour accredited course for
Workers' Compo insurance. And no restitution. And no notifying the
State of Florida, since he's the county license holder.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Let me go through that again: $5,000
fine, $500 investigation, one-year probation. And what about the
testing?
MR. OSSORIO: Must take the -- must retake the business
procedure test and take a two-hour accredited course for Workers'
Compo insurance within six months. No restitution.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And no recommendation to the state.
MR. OSSORIO: And no recommendations to the state, that is
correct.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, gentlemen.
MR. JOSLIN: What is the fine, $5,000?
MR. OSSORIO: Five thousand dollar fine, yes.
MR. JOSLIN: And $500 was for the --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Investigation.
MR. JOSLIN: -- investigative costs?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: This is unfortunate. Gentleman, I think that this is
probably one of the worst cases that we've had as far as Workmen's
Compo goes, because there was an injury on the job.
Page 75
December 17, 2008
I'm not totally convinced I guess that the man was hurt totally on
the job that he did that particular day. Nevertheless, he was hurt. So I'd
more or less be willing to go along with just about anything that Mike
Ossorio has prompted us to recommend, the punishment.
Does anyone feel that the person who got hurt here should be
compensated for his injuries?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's a tough issue. And it gets into
legalities, too, because we're talking a preexisting injury. It started in
2002, was aggravated in '06 and happened again in '08.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, and there was no evidence presented as to
dollar value of the compensation or anything like that, so the Board
has nothing on the record, nothing in evidence to base any restitution
on.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Quite honestly -- Mr. Scott, I know
you're listening; it's a closed hearing -- but the recommendation of the
county was much easier than I thought it was going to be. I think the
county has looked kind of lightly on you; one, to pay a fine and learn
a lesson but to still keep you operating, still keep you in business. I
expected a revocation recommendation. I think probably some of the
other people did too.
MR. JERULLE: I'm surprised also.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'm very surprised.
MR. JERULLE: By his own admission it gives the impression
that he's done this before. By his own testimony. And I just -- I'm not
comfortable -- I'm thinking about the one-year probation, I don't know
that I'm comfortable with that.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm thinking more on the phases (sic), maybe two
years.
MR. L YKOS: Well, I would say too that I agree that this seems
a little bit lenient, especially when you consider the fact that we've had
some people in here that have made mistakes and they've owned up to
those mistakes and not tried to make excuses. And it just seems that
Page 76
December 17, 2008
Mr. Scott is making excuses and trying to sidestep his responsibilities
and try to play word games with us and with the county employees.
I have a lot more respect for somebody that says I made a
mistake and I accept my punishment and I'm going to do the right
thing. And that's not the situation that we have here.
MR. HORN: My other question was notifying the state. Mr.
Ossorio said -- in our recommendation, should we be considering
making a recommendation to the state, gentlemen?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, it's a county license, so the state
wouldn't take any action.
MR. HORN: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only thing you can do, it's a
registered license, so he just registers with the state.
The Workers' Compo people may take issue to this. I would say
that's probably not out of the realm of possibilities.
MR. JACKSON: If! may?
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: I think Workers' Compo would have to
physically observe the violation to take action.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JACKSON: Even with the finding of fact, they have to
physically observe the violation.
MR. JOSLIN: At the time that it happened, you mean?
MR. JACKSON: At the time it happens. For example, if they
show up to a job site and employees are having lunch and there's no
coverage, they can't take action.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Really?
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, one of the biggest problems is
misreporting payroll and misclassifying payroll. That's why carpenters
ended up being a more expensive class than roofing, because all the
GC's were taking their roofers and putting them in carpentry, and then
Page 77
December 17,2008
all of a sudden carpentry shot above roofing.
Even with an audit they can't?
MR. JOSLIN: Got to be caught.
MR. JACKSON: I was at a seminar in November, and that
specific question was asked. If there is a finding of fact of our Board
for a Workers' Compo violation, will you take action, and they said no.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wow. Okay.
Well, how do you feel, guys? We need to resolve it.
MR. JOSLIN: One other item I'm really not -- I guess I'm not in
totally agreement with is I'm not sure that I believe either one of them
totally. I think that there was probably some other underlying things
that we don't know about that has prompted this to happen. Whether it
be a friend of a friend or he did it for a friend, I'm not certain that the
injury that he sustained possibly could have been something that he
did on that job that particular day that brought him to this situation.
Looks like there may be a conflict of personalities going on besides.
So I guess with that said, I'm going to make a motion. I'll make a
motion that we place -- we have found, I'm sorry, Daniel L. Scott of
d/b/a Colonial Carpentry, Inc., guilty of Count 1,4.1.6. And his
penalty be as -- he be placed on probation for a period of two years.
He's to pay a $5,000 fine within 30 days of the hearing of this date.
He's to pay $500 investigative fees. He's to take 14 hours of
continuing education, six hours of which will be by Workmen's Compo
policies. And to retake the business and procedures test.
And no further action would be sent to the State Licensing
Board.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No restitution?
MR. JOSLIN: Restitution for $500 -- no, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No restitution. That's investigative.
MR. JOSLIN: And no restitution. I'm sorry, yes.
MR. HORN: Question. Time frame on the education?
MR. JOSLIN: The 14 hours, 14 hours of it, I'd like to see done
Page 78
December 17, 2008
within 60 days.
MR. JERULLE: What is probation?
MR. JOSLIN: Well--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Ossorio, do you want to answer
that?
MR. OSSORIO: Typically probation is a -- is something we use
in our office when a homeowner or a perspective buyer calls. If he's
on probation, we tell them they're on probation. And probation also
means that this gentleman should be contacting us on a monthly or a
weekly basis, let him (sic) know what job he's on, what he's doing and
where he's going to be so then we have an opportunity as a tool to go
out to the job sites, like Ian was just telling you earlier, to check
payroll, to make sure everyone's on payroll. That's what probation
means to me.
And if there's ever another infraction, he automatically goes in
front of the licensing board for violation of his probation.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Only word I didn't like in your
explanation was should be contacting you. Is that mandatory or is it
not?
MR. NEALE: It is if the Board so orders. It is essentially
voluntary unless the Board orders it.
In the past this Board has ordered people found in violation to
report on a regular basis. They've given specific time frames.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: With that, I think I -- under that circumstance, I
think I'd like to amend the motion just to say that during this probation
period that Mr. Scott will be required to report all jobs to Collier
County Contractor Licensing on a per job basis. And if there's any
violation at all that takes place during that time period of the two-year
probation, then his license would be immediately revoked.
In other words, if he's caught doing something without
Workmen's Compo or something that would oversee --
Page 79
December 17, 2008
MR. JERULLE: Building permits.
MR. JOSLIN: Building department. There's no permits. He
doesn't require permits, so we can't say that.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: He doesn't require --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You understand the motion?
MR. OSSORIO: One more thing, just to clarify. The $500
restitution, you mean the $500 for investigation costs within 30 days
as well?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: As well as the $5,000 fine.
MR. JACKSON: I have a question as well, please. Sixty days for
the 14 hours of continuing education. And would that also include the
business and law --
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: -- in that 60 days?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
MR. JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just so I don't give the man something
he can't do, Ex -- not Experior, but Gainesville can do this for him; is
that correct?
MR. OSSORIO: Gainesville, he can sign up today or tomorrow
and take it the next day, not a problem.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay.
MR. L YKOS: How long to pay the fine?
MR. JOSLIN: Thirty days.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thirty days was the motion.
MR. L YKOS: I'll tell you, I don't feel real strong either way, so I
guess that means I'm good with it. I don't feel it's too harsh, I don't feel
it's too lenient so I guess I'm comfortable with it, because I don't feel
real strong either direction.
Page 80
December 17, 2008
MR. JOSLIN: I want to see it happen in a sooner time; 15 days, I
was thinking. However, we do have the Christmas holidays. So let's
call it a Christmas 15-day period. So by the middle of January it
should be paid.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, I've got a motion. Does
everyone understand it? I do not have a second.
MR. HORN: Second, Horn.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay, now we're in the slot.
Okay, discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, you okay with the motion?
MR. NEALE: I'm fine with it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right, sir.
No more discussion, I'll call for a vote --
MR. JOSLIN: Anything else that we missed or that we don't feel
comfortable with, now's the time.
MR. L YKOS: I'll ask a question just for clarification. Maybe it
doesn't have anything to do with this specifically. But a comment was
made by Mr. Scott that he doesn't pull permits. Maybe Mr. Scott needs
to understand what the limitations of his license are and what he's
allowed to do.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's why he got the 14 hours in the
business test.
MR. L YKOS: Okay, we're going to take care of that, okay.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, we're going to get some more
education in there.
MR. L YKOS: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Call for the vote then. All those in
favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
Page 81
December 17, 2008
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. LYKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It's unanimous.
Mr. Scott -- no, I'll do that -- yeah. What we've done -- come up
here to the podium.
And I really do think this could have been handled a whole lot
better. But $5,000 fine -- you'll get an order, this will all be in writing
to you.
Five thousand dollar fine paid in 30 days; $500 investigation
cost; two-year probation. On a job basis you'll let the county know
where you're working, and that's easy to do. There's three wonderful
ladies in there working, and everyone answers the phone, they're good
people.
You're going to take 14 hours of education. Best place to go is
called Gainesville Testing, they'll tell you where to go. County will
work with you on this. It's a good outfit. They're also -- you're going
to take a business and law test, which you've done before, but you're
going to do it one more time. Two hours of Workers' Compo course.
Was that in the motion?
MR. JOSLIN: Six hours.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Six hours of Workers' Compo So
you're going to know Workers' Compo well enough to sell it. Go to
work for AFLAC, maybe, I don't know, it's probably better than
construction right now.
And no restitution and no state recommendation.
I really am -- I really thought it would be harder. You're still in
business, and I would count my blessings for that. It could have gone
Page 82
December 17, 2008
the other way real quick.
So do you have any questions of the Board?
MR. SCOTT: No, I learned some things that I didn't know, so--
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I'm glad you're still in business.
MR. SCOTT: I will never drive a company truck to --
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just be straight.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I had no idea. I didn't know that.
MR. JOSLIN: You go to that business and law test, you better
ask some more questions, because there are a lot of things that you
may not know about driving a company vehicle or wearing a company
T-shirt. There's a lot of things that fall into play when you start doing
that type of thing.
MR. SCOTT: That's -- well, I got to thinking about that sitting
down over there. If I give my company truck to somebody else and
they go work at somebody's house, I'm liable for it.
MR. JOSLIN: Exactly.
MR. L YKOS: Correct.
Also, just so you don't -- I still think you're missing a little bit. If
you're at a friend's house working and you think you're not on the
clock and you damage their house, real quick they're not your friend
anymore.
MR. SCOTT: I understand that.
MR. L YKOS: You're the general contractor. And all of a sudden
there's no friendship anymore and all they say is he's my general
contractor.
MR. SCOTT: I understand how fast things can change.
MR. L YKOS: All right. Well just don't -- it's not just about the
truck sitting in the driveway, okay? People expect that you're an
expert and you know what's right and what's wrong. And the court
will feel the same way.
MR. SCOTT: Understandable.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Very good. Wish you well. Hope you
Page 83
December 17, 2008
still have a nice Christmas.
MR. SCOTT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you.
Mr. Neale, do you have a short form for me?
MR. NEALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: This is my last one. And I must admit,
this is the one thing I've never enjoyed doing.
MR. NEALE: But we shortened it.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: At least you shortened it.
Case No. -- and it has to be done. Case No. 2008-15, License
No. 11229, came before public hearing, the Contractor Licensing
Board today. Consideration of an administrative complaint filed
against the license holder, which I just stated, which his name is
Daniel L. Scott, d/b/a Colonial Carpentry, Incorporated.
Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier
County Ordinance 90-105, as amended.
The Board having at this hearing testimony under oath, received
evidence and heard arguments respective to all matters, thereupon
issues findings of fact, conclusion of law and order of the Board as
follows:
Findings of fact: That Daniel L. Scott was present and he is
license holder -- holder of the License 11229. The Board of Collier
County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant
in this matter. That the Board has jurisdiction, that's number three, of
the respondent, and that Daniel L. Scott was present. He was not
represented by counsel.
Number four, all notices required by the Ordinance 90-105, as
amended, have been properly issued. And service was personally
delivered -- correct? Okay.
Number five, respondent acted in a manner that in the violation
of Collier County ordinance is the one who committed the act. That
the allegations of the fact as set forth in administrative complaint as to
Page 84
December 17, 2008
4.1.6, disregard or violates in the performance of the contracting
business in Collier County any of the building, safety, health, issuance
or Workers' Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinance of
this county. And found to be supported by the evidence presented at
the hearing.
Conclusions of law -- I can do the down button.
The conclusion of law, alleged and set forth in the administrative
complaint as to the count which was stated was approved, adopted and
incorporated to wit. The respondent violated that section as read.
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, violation set forth in the
administrative complaint.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusion of law
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes,
Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of six in
favor and zero opposed, a majority of the Board members present, the
respondent has been found in violation as set out above.
Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of six in favor and zero
opposed by a vote of the Board members present that the following
disciplinary sanctions related order are hereby imposed upon the
holder of Collier County Contractor Certificate of Competency No.
11229. That is, number one, a $5,000 fine, payable to the Collier
County within 30 days.
Number two, $500 investigative costs, paid to Collier County
within 30 days.
A two-year probation during which time the -- Mr. Scott, Daniel
L. Scott will report to Contractor Licensing regularly what jobs he is
working on.
A 14-hour continuing education to be done within 16 days,
number four.
Number five, six hours of Workers' Compensation continuing
education.
Number six, to pass -- to take and pass the business/law test
Page 85
December 17, 2008
successfully within 60 days.
Where am I at, number seven? No restitution.
Number eight, no state recommendation. My numbers may be
out of order, but you can correct them.
And so ends and closes that case.
Any questions, comments? Anything I missed?
MR. L YKOS: I just want to clarify, that was the short version.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, yes. Yeah, the only one had two
more pages.
MR. JOSLIN: Make sure that you print me out a copy of that,
okay, so the next time I have to do this that I won't--
MR. NEALE: I will make sure that we've got printed copies. I'll
send it over to Maggie and make sure it's in the packet for next
meeting, how about that?
MR. JOSLIN: Perfect, thank you.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I commend the Contractor Licensing
Office for what you're doing. It is extremely difficult out there. All of
us contractors know that better than anybody. And we know you have
a difficult task and we know people are bending rules. We know
they're stretched to the max. There's a lot of pressure out there. I can
only imagine some of the confrontations that you encounter. Because
there is so much pressure on people out there.
I thank you for what you do. I appreciate the opportunity to
work with you all these years. You guys are a phenomenal bunch. And
I'm glad you got the extra employee, because you sure did need it.
And to the Board I wish -- and county staff, these two geniuses
over here, and the prettiest court reporter in Collier County, I wish all
of you a Merry Christmas and may next year be abundantly blessed
for all of you.
No reports.
Next meeting, Wednesday, January 21st, 2009. They go fast,
don't they?
Page 86
December 17,2008
And we'll all hope that 2009's better than 2008.
MR. JOSLIN: Let's hope so.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anything else to come before the
Board?
MR. JOSLIN: We should that the Board of Commissioners I
think for passing this resolution reimbursing all the board members
and all the people that serve on these advisory committees for some
fuel mileage, the expenses that takes to get here, to and from. I think
that was a very nice gesture on their part, and I thank them.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: With nothing else--
MR. L YKOS: They must have a bunch of extra money laying
around.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think something maybe happened.
With all that, do I entertain a motion -- I move that we adjourn.
Do I hear a second?
MR. JOSLIN: I second that motion.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Aye.
MR. L YKOS: Aye.
MR. HORN: Aye.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :04 p.m.
Page 87
December 17, 2008
CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
LES DICKSON, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 88