Loading...
CLB Minutes 06/17/2009 R June 17, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida June 17,2009 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Eric Guite' (Absent) Lee Horn Terry J erulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor Pagel AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: WEDNESDAY - JUNE 17,2009 TIME: 9:00 A.M. W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING (ADMINISTRATION BUILDING) COURTHOUSE COMPLEX 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: MAY 20,2009 V. DISCUSSION: End of the Month Report - May 2009 VI. NEW BUSINESS: Jason Schooley - Contesting Citation Edwin Moreles - Contesting Citation Ron Palmer - Waiver of Examination(s) Marisol I. Santos - Review of Credit Report Ronald M. Burns - Review of Experience Affidavits Colleen Martinez - Review of Credit Report VII. OLD BUSINESS: Case #2009-06 Bobby J. Phillips Jr. D/B/A: Bob's Air Conditioning - Refrigeration, Inc. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Case #2009-07 James G. Schuck & Donald P. Ricci Sr. D/B/A: Marco Marine Construction, Inc. Case #2009-08 Edward Lee Whitsett D/B/A: Whitsett Construction, Inc. IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: WEDNESDAY AUGUST 19, 2009 W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR (COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM) 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL. 34112 (COURTHOUSE COMPLEX) June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the June 17th, 2009 Contractor Licensing Board. 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 proceeding is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. And just for the record, we do have a court reporter that is taking notes and will have a verbatim record of this meeting. I'd like to open the meeting by starting with roll call to my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz. MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. BOYD: Mike Boyd. MR. HORN: Lee Horn. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good morning, board members. Staff, do you have any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing. Under new business, Edwin Moreles contesting citation will be continued to the next meeting. We have an addition of Tony Kirkland, and he is here to qualify a second entity. And upon approval, I will pass out documentation that you'll need for that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Tony Kirkland was the name? MR. JACKSON: Correct. Under public hearings, Case No. 2009-07 will be continued to the next hearing. And that's it for additions or deletions. Page2 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll need a motion to approve the additions and deletions as amended. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0. All right. Moving right along, I need a motion for -- has anyone looked over the minutes from the last meeting? Any additions or any changes anyone's found, or otherwise need a motion to approve them. MR. L YKOS: Motion to approve the minutes, Lykos. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just one topic of conversation as far as the minutes go. There is a case coming before us today in which the minutes were read inside of here as far as the gentleman that's coming before us, again, Mr. Phillips; is that correct? MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Keep the minutes handy. Motion and a second to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. Page3 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No opposed. Motion carries 7-0. Okay, next thing on the agenda is the end of the month report for Contractor Licensing. There's a few items on here that a couple of us want to go over. MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record Michael Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor. This is something that you and I discussed that every month you will get an end of the month report. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: So this is for FY information. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them for you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not really any questions for you, Michael, I think you're doing one fantastic job as far as between April and May. At the beginning of the month I had one of your attendants there -- one of your girls that work in your office pulled up the middle of the month and at that time we were pretty much way under citation issuance and dollars brought in. But by the end of the month, I can see where we're almost up to almost as much as we were in the previous months. So obviously the licensing investigator is doing one great job. Anyone else have anything to add or discuss? MR. L YKOS: Michael, how is the progress on the fee review going? MR. OSSORIO: I know that Joe Schmitt and Bob Dunn, our building director, have a contract with a company called PMG, and they're actually doing a study. We've met with them and we've given them all our documentation, salaries of our day-to-day operations, and Page4 June 17, 2009 so they were going to review it and see where we are in a shortfall. So that's where we are right now. MR. L YKOS: Any idea when that study will be done? MR. OSSORIO: Soon. I've asked PMG to come to this meeting, but he had prior engagements and he could not do it. Supposedly he is very keen on licensing issues. He's doing a review for Brevard County and he just finished one in Broward County. So this particular company is very versed in licensing. So that is good news for us. So he's going to target where we need to be at for renewals, fees, licensing fees and the day-to-day operation of contractor licensing. So hopefully we'll get this thing fixed. He's also doing a study on 113, which is the whole building review and permitting department. So he's just not hired for us, he's actually working to look at fees, permitting fees, the whole spectrum. And that hopefully will be in a couple of months. MR. L YKOS: Thanks. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does this have anything to do with the possibility of the -- I know this is a bad topic, but the 32-hour workweek that the licensing has begun to work as of the 12th of this month? Is there a way that this can be reviewed or changed or maybe modified to where the investigators can be working a five-day workweek again? MR. OSSORIO: I couldn't answer that. I know that we just started the 32-hour workweek. You know, we're not happy about it. You know, who doesn't like to have unlicensed contractors work Friday, Saturday and Sunday versus -- you know, it is what it is. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I can certainly-- MR. OSSORIO: I can see us going back to 40 in a couple of months, but other than that, I couldn't tell you. I think Bob Dunn's here to talk to you today. I think he'll be here around 10:00 when the meeting starts. Maybe you can ask him all those questions. Page5 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, then we'll defer that until he gets here. Because I do have several questions about that. And I think it's something that the board needs to discuss and find out. We can't-- we've got to make some kind of change here, or try. MR. OSSORIO: I just know our phone is off the hook why we're not working on Fridays-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: -- and it is what it is. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I had a couple calls myself on my personal phone for people that were trying to get a hold of licensing and couldn't because the building was closed so -- all right, moving right along. New business. Is there a Jason Schooley here? Would you please come to the podium here please and be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Schooley, before me I have a citation that was issued to you on April 15th of '09; is that correct? MR. SCHOOLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And there was a penalty issued to you for $300 for apparent Workmen's Comp violation; is that correct? MR. SCHOOLEY: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The citation was given to you by Ian Jackson. Mr. Jackson, have you been sworn in already? MR. JACKSON: I have not. (Mr. Jackson was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson, would you please tell the board the reasons for the citation and what you cited the man for. MR. JACKSON: On April 15th I observed construction activity at 633 Spinnaker, on Marco Island and approached the house and met with Mr. Schooley. There was installation of flooring and/or tile marble, which was determined that Mr. Schooley is a licensed flooring Page6 June 17, 2009 and tile and marble contractor. We talked for a while and determined that he was doing the work for his father-in-law, or future father-in-law, I'm not sure of the details of that, for a house that he was going to be residing in. Looking into the license in our database while on-site, it was -- it came up that there was a lack of documentation in the database for workers' compo coverage, so I wanted to go back and talk with Mr. Schooley about that, get him up to date current with the county so we can get a new certificate for him, insurance certificate. And then it came up that Mr. Schooley had I believe his father and another gentleman by the name of Bernie who were there working with him, and no workers' compo coverage at that time for those two individuals. And based on that, based on the first offense, I issued the $300 citation for not being properly registered with workers' compo with the county . CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is the license that he has still active? It's an active license but no insurance certificate; is that what the case is? MR. JACKSON: At the time it was not active because of the lack of the updated insurance certificate. At this time I don't have accurate information as to whether he's active right now or not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Schooley, would you like to give us a little oversight as far as what went on that day. MR. SCHOOLEY: Well, we started the work there. When Ian pulled up he basically -- we approached out in the driveway and he asked to look around. I let him look through the house. And he walked in and, you know, we were doing tile work and doing some painting in the guest bedroom. And he decided to look around briefly, said have a good day, walked downstairs. He spent about 15 minutes or so in his truck. Came back and approached me on the fact that I didn't have coverage for my father who lives in the house, resides in the house with me, and my friend Page7 June 17, 2009 that was also there helping me out. So I didn't kind of fully understand where we were going with this whole thing of not having coverage, because I don't have any employees and I wasn't getting paid, there was no contract. I was doing the work my own free will myself, so I didn't receive any payment in lieu of my work, so -- my father-in-law had the material itself, I did the work my own. I didn't have any work for about three weeks, so I worked on the house itself. So -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Besides the tile work in the house, did you do any other kind of work on the house? MR. SCHOOLEY: No, we didn't. Just painted the guest bedroom and did the foyer, the stairways, carpeted the stairways, tiled the floor area. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So in your opinion do you think that, or do you assume that because you -- because it was family or going to be family that you could go in and do the work and then not be licensed or not have any kind of coverage if someone got hurt? MR. SCHOOLEY: Well, no, that's not -- I'm living in the house now. So, I mean, my father lives in the house with me. So, I mean, he lives in there just as much as I do. He works -- you know, he's working on the house with me, helping me out. I think because I got approached because I had my work shirt on I got looked at as I was doing a contract or contract work, so -- MR. JERULLE: I'm a little confused. Going through the material, the address that you went to, Ian, was 633 Spinnaker Drive? MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. JERULLE: And is that a single-family home? MR. JACKSON: Single-family home. MR. JERULLE: And who owns that single-family home? MR. SCHOOLEY: Marvin Drummond? MR. JERULLE: And who is Marvin Drummond? MR. SCHOOLEY: He's the owner of the house. PageS June 17, 2009 MR. JERULLE: Does he live there? MR. SCHOOLEY: No, he does not. MR. JERULLE: So Marvin Drummond owns the home and he's leasing the home to whom? MR. SCHOOLEY: To myself and his daughter. MR. JERULLE: To you or your father? MR. SCHOOLEY: To myself and his daughter, which is Natasha Drummond. MR. JERULLE: So Drummond owns the home, he leases it to you and your wife or -- MR. SCHOOLEY: Fiancee. MR. JERULLE: Fiancee, okay. And you were at that house doing tile work? MR. SCHOOLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One other question. On the leased home -- I'm not certain about how the lease was written, but on a leased home is it normal for you to go in and make changes to a property that you don't own? MR. SCHOOLEY: I have done it before, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is this done at your own free will and your own expense and you just -- MR. SCHOOLEY: Well, places I've rented before I've never really negotiated with the homeowner as far as money or, you know, payment taken off on my rent. So if I have extra material on myself or something like that, I've done that before, kitchen backsplash or tile a bedroom or put wood floors in a bedroom. MR. JERULLE: The reason I said I was confused is one of the lease agreements I have in here is for a different address. And -- MR. SCHOOLEY : Well, I was just giving you that -- showing you the termination of my previous lease, just to show that I wasn't actually there doing contract work, I was moving in the house. I was cleaning the house up. Because the previous tenant that lived there Page9 June 17, 2009 didn't really keep up on the place. MR. JERULLE: Okay. So this is your former address. MR. SCHOOLEY: Yes. MR. JERULLE: Okay. And then the other lease I have here is the lease of the home that you're moving into? MR. SCHOOLEY: 633, yes. MR. JERULLE: So you're contending that you did tile work on a home that you were moving into on that leased premise? MR. SCHOOLEY: Yeah, it wasn't -- I didn't -- there wasn't a contract agreement or payment of any sort towards me. My father's helping me and Bernie was helping me himself also. MR. JERULLE: And did you know that at the time, Ian? MR. JACKSON: No matter what the arrangement was with Mr. Schooley and the owner of the house, no matter what kind of shirt he was wearing, whether there was a contract or not, obviously there was an arrangement for Mr. Schooley to do the work. And when that work commenced, that's a construction site. And Mr. Schooley did not have Workers' Compo coverage for the people assisting him on that construction site. That's what the citation was based upon. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One other thought. If Mr. Schooley would have been working there by himself with no one in the home with a licensed contractor, even though he didn't have his own insurance at the time, would he still have been in violation? MR. JACKSON: Had he not been licensed at all, it would have been difficult for me to substantiate compensation between his further father-in-law and himself. So the licensing aspect wasn't really the issue. The issue was that was a construction site. Mr. Schooley did not own the home, so he has some sort of arrangement with the homeowner and there was no workers' compo coverage for the people assisting him. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you understand what he's trying to tell you? Page10 June 17, 2009 MR. SCHOOLEY: In some sort yes, I do. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: Mr. Schooley, didn't you just say that you received no compensation? MR. SCHOOLEY: I did not, no. MR. WHITE: So what kind of an arrangement did you have with the owner, Mr. Drummond? MR. SCHOOLEY: Actually, I asked him if I could do the work myself. He didn't come to me and present will you do this. I have nothing going on at work, so I wanted to clean the place up. MR. WHITE: To improve it because that's where you're going to live -- MR. SCHOOLEY: Yes. MR. WHITE: -- where you do now live. MR. SCHOOLEY: Well, yes, I do. MR. WHITE: Okay. I'm confused about what the arrangement was that the county considers to be essentially the basis of the case. And I guess I'm going to defer to the other gentlemen on the board and perhaps our board attorney as to whether there's an owner/builder exemption here or some other kind of circumstance where those people who are helping you could have filed any kind of a Workers' Compensation claim, and if they had any legal right to do so. MR. SCHOOLEY: Well, I have -- I was exempted myself. And I think when I went down to the county, my license, they didn't have it active I guess in the actual system, but I was active. Because of the fact that I didn't have workers' compo coverage, that's why they had me inactive. So when I went down and talked to Maggie, I actually had it cleared up. MR. WHITE: That even kind of complicates it more from my point of view. But I'm trying to get to the nut of what I think the county's case is, that because there was an understanding from the Page II June 17, 2009 investigator's point of view that there was some arrangement between you and the owner, that this therefore became a construction site and accordingly you were required to have either something that covered the people who were helping you or some otherwise qualified exemption that you didn't have to have Workers' Compensation for them. Am I getting the -- MR. JACKSON: I'll try to clarify. The arrangement between the contractor and the homeowner is irrelevant, due to the fact that he is a contractor. And had he not been a contractor, I certainly would have looked into the arrangement to determine compensation. It's absolutely irrelevant. When the work commenced, the installation of the flooring and/or tile, it's a construction site, and it's Mr. Schooley's construction site. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If it would have been an owner builder aspect, as far as what you're maybe thinking about, if the owner of the property, Mr. Drummond, would have been in there doing the tile work, he could have been able to do that totally legally, if he was the only one on the property. Because it's his property. But unfortunately Mr. Schooley does not own the property so therefore he becomes a contractor in a sense or it becomes a construction site. MR. BOYD: But he has a lease on the property. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It doesn't make a difference, he does not own the property, he's only renting it. MR. BOYD: So if I lease a piece of property, I can't paint my walls or -- MR. JACKSON: I'll touch on that. If you lease a property and you're compensated for it, for painting the walls and I can substantiate the compensation from the homeowner to you, I would cite you for unlicensed painting contracting. MR. WHITE: It sounds like we're right back where I thought we Pagel2 June 17, 2009 were about the idea of some arrangement or compensation where the only testimony that I've heard, sworn testimony, is that there was no compensation, so -- MR. JACKSON: Again, compensation is not the issue. Because he's a licensed contractor. It doesn't matter ifhe was paid or not paid. He had people working with him there without workers' compo coverage on his construction site. MR. LANTZ: Ifit was an owner/builder job, the owner of the property would still be responsible for having workers' compo on anyone he hires. Even though he doesn't have to hire someone licensed. So either way there's people working without workers' comp., if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct, you are. MR. SCHOOLEY: Wouldn't his homeowners insurance cover that? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry? MR. SCHOOLEY: Wouldn't his homeowners cover that? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. SCHOOLEY: No? My one question was what defines a construction site? I mean, there's many definitions of construction site. So that little bit of work details construction site? MR. JACKSON: Installation of flooring and tile and marble requires -- for instance, Mr. Schooley, you have a construction exemption for the licensing that you have. MR. SCHOOLEY: Yes. MR. JACKSON: It's determined by the state that that's construction. MR. SCHOOLEY: Okay. MR. NEALE: And just to go to the issue of exemptions on this, there are two reasons where I would opine that the county's citation is Pagel3 June 17, 2009 probably valid. And one, that the -- this is in Section 489-103, which is exemptions. And the subsection does not accept any person who is employed by or who has a contract with such owner who acts in the capacity of a contractor. So that removes the owner/builder exemption. And then the other potential exemption is the casual, minor, inconsequential nature exemption, work under $1,000. But that exemption does not apply to a person who advertises that he or she is a contractor or otherwise represents that he or she is qualified to engage in contracting. So I believe that those two would dispose of the potential exemptions. MR. WHITE: So I guess what I might call, Mr. Neale, a status violation, simply because he has the status of a contractor, that second exemption doesn't apply. MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, it's a specific status exemption. You know, there is an exemption for casual and inconsequential work under $1,000 if you're not a contractor. But if you hold yourself out to be a contractor, then that exemption no longer applies. MR. WHITE: And even in the context factually here where he's stated he's not operating as a contractor, he's rather doing some, I guess home improvement, for lack of a better phrase. It's simply the idea as Mr. Jackson has indicated, it's his status as a licensed contractor. MR. NEALE: The exemption is very -- in my reading, the exemption is -- or the lack of exemption, I guess for a better phrase, is very specific. And it says, to a person who advertises that he or she is qualified to engage in contracting. Well, by the simple act of having a license, they're advertising that they're qualified to engage in contracting. MR. WHITE: That helps clarify it in my mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Pagel4 June 17, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: I have a question for Ian Jackson, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Ossorio. MR. OSSORIO: Ian, when you were talking to this gentleman, was it implied that he was a contractor? MR. JACKSON: Upon my arrival at the house, I determined that he was a contractor. Due to the advertisement on the shirts they were wearing, it was apparent that he was a contractor. MR. OSSORIO: And he said that he was a contractor, licensed? MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he admitted that to you. The shirts. You mentioned shirts they were wearing, was there more than one person wearing a towel or a company shirt? MR. JACKSON: If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Schooley and his father were both wearing the shirts. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I need to have a motion, or we've made a decision? Unless you want me to do it. (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Schooley, I'm going to make a motion that under the circumstances you received the Citation No. 4699 for $300 for contracting without workman's compo insurance. I'm going to make a motion that this citation be upheld. And on the citation itself, which is something we'll get into in a moment, but I'm going to give you 10 days after today to pay the payment. MR. SCHOOLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That is the motion. MR. WHITE: Second, White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Pagel5 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-1. Okay, the next case is a Ron Palmer. Are you present? MR. PALMER: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Palmer, would you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you would give me a few minutes before Mr. Palmer comes up. I'll probably give you a -- you can sit right there, Mr. Palmer. I'm going to give you a little history of the issue with Mr. Palmer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Palmer has a company in Collier County that specializes in stump grinding. He has a business tax receipt that actually states stump grinding only. One of my investigators was out in the field and issued Mr. Palmer a citation for working without a tree license. Under our code it says basically -- I'll read it to you verbatim so we -- tree removal and tree trimming contract requires a 12 months ( sic) experience and a passing grade of a business and law test and means those who are qualified to trim and to remove trees and stumps. The licensing department has taken a stance for many years that if you are a stump grinding contractor, you are removing the stumps; therefore, you would need to be a tree service contractor. With good faith Mr. Palmer went and got a business tax receipt, and it was issued in error by the tax collector. And he conducted his business only strictly to do stump grinding. Pagel6 June 17, 2009 One of my investigators saw him doing some stump grinding. It was a call-in complaint. We've issued him a citation. He brought his paperwork in. I dismissed the citation, due to the fact that he was issued something in error, so he was -- his envision was he was licensed to do stump grinding. We gave him the information to get a tree license. However, I sympathize with Mr. Palmer referencing that to be a stump grinding contractor he would have to take the tree exam. When the stump's there, there's no tree to trim or there's no leaves to cut. So under the code we are -- the licensing supervisor is not able to waive testing. Mr. Palmer was advised that if he petitioned the licensing board, we would support the waiving of the tree exam and Mr. Palmer would take the business procedure test to come into compliance and be a tree service contractor, restricted to stump grinding without taking the test. If Mr. Palmer has taken the tree exam and the business procedure test, the licensing supervisor could restrict him to stump grinding only. But I don't have the jurisdiction or the authority to waive a test. This is why Mr. Palmer's here today. I believe Mr. Palmer had second thoughts referencing taking the business procedure test, because this has been going on for several months, and he could have taken the business procedure test months ago and come to the licensing board with a full application and you could have reviewed it on that merit itself. However, I think Mr. Palmer had a change of heart. He doesn't want to take any test. So this is what Mr. Palmer is here to talk to you today about. Am I correct? Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come up and be sworn In. MR. PALMER: Good morning. Do I need to be sworn in? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, please. Pagel7 June 17, 2009 (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. PALMER: Good morning. My name is Ron Palmer. Five years ago when I was looking into starting my stump grinding business, I called the county, asked them what I needed to become licensed. They told me what I needed, which was an occupational license. I went down to the county, and they wouldn't issue it to me because they found out I lived in the city and I needed the city occupational license first. So I went down to the city, got my occupational license from the city, went back to the county, and they issued me -- I thought it was an occupational license. Mike is saying that it is a tax receipt license or something. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, business tax. MR. OSSORIO: It probably was back when he first obtained it, it probably was an occupational license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long ago was this now? MR. PALMER: Five years. MR. OSSORIO: He's probably had it for quite a long time. And he's not the only one. There's several. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There are. MR. OSSORIO: So this is nothing that we haven't been dealing with for several months. I mean, there's other people out there. But when you say the City Clerk, it's really only one. It's just the location where you're at; am I correct? The Tax Collector is a tax collector. There's no City Tax Collector, it's just one. MR. PALMER: Well, I have two licenses, one from the city, one from the county. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: When this information was told to you, was this the procedure at that time, Michael ? Was this something that is how the stump grinding I guess was handled? He didn't have to have a tree trimming test? PagelS June 17, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: Not that I remember. When I was out in the field, stump grinding was considered tree service. Usually they work hand-in-hand. If you're a tree service company you have the stump grinding machine and you do both services. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. OSSORIO: You don't find too many tree service contractors that don't have stump grinding. Some people elect not to do it. But I've called around, I've talked to a lot of tree companies, and they all said that, you know, they do stump grinding. But as far as my recollection, being here 15 years, is I think I've issued unlicensing (sic) contracting for stump grinding too. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I've been on this board for nine years now and I can't ever recall there not (sic) being a license for just stump grinding or something of that nature. I can't imagine who would have told you that or how it happened, but nonetheless. MR. PALMER: Well, I went right to the place where they issue licenses and they said that's all I needed and they issued it to me, and they've issued it to me for five years. MR. OSSORIO: No, there's no doubt about it, Mr. Palmer is correct. Because I even went up to the Tax Collector and they said no, we've issued it. And they've also stated that they made an error and they will correct it as well. This is why we voided Mr. Palmer's citation, because I don't -- in good faith that he thought he was working with a license. Therefore, I think that the spirit of the license, we should go ahead avoid it as of -- and get Mr. Palmer in compliance. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Ossorio, excuse me, I need to swear you In. (Mr. Ossorio was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So Mr. -- we're going to make this real short and sweet, I guess then, because obviously there was a mistake Pagel9 June 17, 2009 made by the Tax Collector, and give you the license and probably gave out more than just that one, so I don't think it's -- I think it's more of a moot point that we stand here and try to ask you a bunch of questions about it. Because all I'd like to know is are you willing to go and take a tree trimming and tree removal license ( sic), if necessary? Or are you not interested -- MR. PALMER: Well, I mean, I guess if necessary. I mean, I can't lose my way of making a living. So, I mean, if I have to, yes. I mean, I was going to ask you, since it's been five years, to grandfather me in. I have the contract with the City of Naples. I've done all their work for four years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't think I have a problem with grandfathering you in as far as for the stump grinding. But as far as for doing anything else -- MR. PALMER: Oh, I don't do anything else. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- tree trimming or tree removing or anything of that nature -- MR. PALMER: I do none of that. I don't even carry a chainsaw with me. When I get there, all I have is a stump. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And no tree climbing and no spikes and MR. PALMER: No, no. Heck no. I'm too old for that. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, just to make sure, it's not actually grandfathering it in. It's more -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Waiving the test. MR. OSSORIO: -- if the board feels that taking the exam would be superfluous, pretty well moot not to take the exam, they can waive testing and go on your experience. If I'm correct, Pat Neale, I'm not sure. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. OSSORIO: But the county's contention is, is that he should take the business procedure test. And he doesn't wish to take the Page20 June 17, 2009 business procedure test, so this is where we're at right now. MR. PALMER: Well, personally I just don't see what OSHA rules and the different things that I would have to do have anything to do with what I do. I mean, I would be more than willing -- as you know, Mike, I've supplied to you from Tallahassee my workman's compo exemption. I'd be more than happy to take a competency test of any type relating to that. But any -- to take a test that has really nothing to do whatsoever with what I do doesn't make any sense to me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, I can understand what you're saYIng. MR. OSSORIO: There's no doubt about it, Mr. Palmer. However, the -- our code, there are a lot of -- MR. PALMER: I think that's an interpretation. MR. OSSORIO: -- licenses that don't require -- some trades tests require a business procedure test. And that is about your business taxes, insurance and making sure that you are -- we check your workers' compo insurance and your credit report to make sure that you are something that we need in the community. However, it's up to the licensing board. MR. JERULLE: How much is the test, Michael, the cost of the test? MR. OSSORIO: One exam is $100 for it to get sponsored, and the test is I think 78 bucks. It's about 178. The exam is taken every day in Gainesville or once a month from Thompson Prometric, which is in Fort Myers or Bonita Springs. MR. PALMER: You had mentioned that there's other -- a competitor is here with me. I called all the ones in the phone book, the competitors that don't do trees, just do stumps. All of them said the very same thing, they went to the county and that's the license they were issued, same license I have. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I can believe that, because of the Page21 June 17, 2009 comment that Mr. Ossorio made about the Tax Collector making a mistake in issuing that license. We're not questioning that fact. I'm sure they're all that way. I'm just concerned at the fact of having a stump grinding license. If it's a restricted license, I wouldn't have a problem, because of the fact of knowing that you're not going to be up in trees. MR. PALMER: You can restrict it till the cows come home. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If did something come down and let's just say one of these five or six or seven companies that had this particular license, if they were out in the field and I -- they came before this board and they were trimming trees, you can rest assured, I would not feel very well about it. That would be a -- MR. PALMER: Oh, I understand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- bad thing going on. Just so you're aware of that. MR. PALMER: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Otherwise, a restricted license I wouldn't have a problem with, or waiving the exam. MR. NEALE: Yeah, if you're seeking to restrict his ability to trim trees and so forth, then it would have to be issued as a restricted license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. That's probably the only way that I would want to go with it. But if we -- MR. NEALE: And just I'd like to make one further point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: In the definition of the tree removal and trimming contractor in the ordinance, it does say requires 12 months experience with a passing grade on a business and law test. It means those who are qualified to trim and remove trees and stumps. All new applicants applying for a tree service license are required to obtain a passing grade on an approved exam pertaining to tree pruning and safety, in addition to the business and law. Page22 June 17, 2009 So if you were going to permit him to do tree pruning, then there's this -- and deemed him to be a new applicant, two tests there, then you would have to require him to take or waive the second exam. MR. PALMER: Which I totally understand. I mean, to prune the trees you've got to know what you're doing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And should we do that, would that still then, waiving the exam, would that then allow him to be able to do that work? MR. NEALE: As long as -- yeah, if the board chooses to make it a restricted license -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: -- solely for stump grinding, then the board could then also deem that he does not have to take the tree pruning exam because he's not going to be able to do tree pruning. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. JERULLE: And Mr. Ossorio, you're recommending that he takes the business exam. Let me rephrase that. Can you tell us what you're recommending? I don't want to put words in your mouth. MR. OSSORIO: Well, my recommendation is that he takes the business procedure test, and that's always been pretty well standard. MR. JERULLE: A restricted license with taking the business. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, in reverse, you want to have him take the business and law exam, we're going to waive the test -- or the license for his actual trade as far as the tree trimming. And then he's allowed to have a restricted stump grinding only license. Is that the case? MR. OSSORIO: We would give him a tree license. And on the license itself it would say restricted to stump grinding. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Unfortunately Mr. Palmer is the test case. But I Page23 June 17, 2009 would like to see once -- whatever you decide today is give the authority or the finding of facts that the licensing supervisor shall do this for not just Mr. Palmer but for, you know, four, five, six others so we're not here every month with Mr. Palmer's case. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Gotcha. MR. OSSORIO: This is why we're here today too as well. MR. JERULLE: Set a precedence for the future. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, I just want to make sure that the licensing board can give the contractor licensing supervisor direction to do this if it meets all the other -- on the application of 1.4 of the procedures of obtaining application and getting their license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Rather than have all five or six of them come -- MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- before the board and do the same thing again. Understand. Okay, in that case then all -- MR. WHITE: Just one question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. WHITE: Mike, do you know what the relative level of experience and the kind of length of time that the other stump grinding businesses have been ongoing? Five years or more? MR. OSSORIO: It very well could. We're going to treat if anyone that comes to our office with a business tax receipt that has stump grinding, we're going to treat him the same as Mr. Palmer. However, the business tax people are not actually issuing that certificate anymore so we've stopped the bleeding, of course, but now there's four or five others. And Mr. Palmer's stated that there's a lot more. I don't know if there is or not, I couldn't tell you. I know there's one or two I've talked to. And we've given the same information that we just gave Mr. Palmer, go ahead and take the business procedure test, this is what the Page24 June 17, 2009 county recommends. However, you don't have to take our recommendation, you can petition the licensing board on your own behalf and go on your own. So this is what Mr. Palmer is here today for. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is this something that would be in the Collier data base as far as these people that are licensed with only this license, or would this only be for the business and tax portion? MR. OSSORIO: Business/tax. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Only. So we would have no real record MR. OSSORIO: We've had some -- if you look in the licensing database, CD Plus, we do have some stump grinding contractors in there. And we also have stump grinding contractors that have been canceled. So we've had stump grinders come in and take the business procedure test. Not the tree exam, because the tree exam is somewhat fairly new, in the last couple of years. MR. PALMER: This test, I don't see how that's going to help in any way in my business. How does it help? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Palmer, I would disagree with you there. Now, we're not talking about a test that has to do with your trade of stump grinding. MR. PALMER: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Because like you said, there is no test that's going to give you the capability to do that. But we're talking about the business and law test that allows you to know how to do your books, know how to pay your taxes, know how to do -- just handle the business overall. Even though maybe you've done it over the years -- MR. PALMER: I owned three Wendy's franchises for 10 years, I had a well drilling company out in Golden Gate for nine years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And I'm not-- MR. PALMER: So, I mean, I've been familiar with business for Page25 June 17, 2009 sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm not disputing what you're saying, I'm only saying that this is the way that we're going to try to set up away, because not only yourself but possibly these other stump grinding companies that have the same license, and they also need to know how to run a business. And we want to be sure that that's happening. So in a sense, yes, maybe it is a mute (sic) point in your thoughts. But in our thoughts this is the way that we need to have it done, in order for you to be so-called grandfathered or allowed to do this business that you work. MR. PALMER: Well, it's not really grandfathered because you're saying that I still got to take the test. Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Only a business and law test. MR. PALMER: Okay. Can I ask one more thing? Can I run my license till it expires, which is September, to give me time to prepare for this test? I mean, the way the -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're going to allow you to probably operate, I would think, for a period of time and give you time to take the test, yes. We're not going to just close you down -- MR. PALMER: When the inspector that came in gave me the ticket said that I'm red tagged, I can't work anymore, I'm done. You know, just took my living away. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At that moment, yes. But now you're before us, so maybe we can make some consensus here, okay? MR. JERULLE: You say they -- excuse me, Michael, you say they take the test every day at Gainesville and once a month? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, this is nothing new. Mr. Palmer has been told this for several months. It's nothing that's out of the blue. You know, this went from the Board of County Commissioners down to-- issued down to me writing Mr. Palmer and letting him know that the county wants you to take the exam. This has been supported by the CDES division. Page26 June 17, 2009 You can take the exam every single day in Gainesville. I know some people just sign up, drive up and take the exam. If they fail it, they take it again the same day. They could take it four or five times in one day, if they need -- if they wish to. So this is -- and if Mr. Palmer's been a franchise owner for Wendy's, then he's been -- then this test should be not a big deal to him. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Very simple. MR. PALMER: It's still something I've got to study for. MR. OSSORIO: I believe it's an open book exam. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, it is an open book exam. Anyone like to make a motion or any more discussion? MR. LANTZ: I just personally think -- I sympathize with him. I kind of think if I've been in business for five years and now someone told me I had to take a test to continue, you know, I wouldn't want to take either of them. And so my personal opinion is I don't think he should have to take either one. I would like to see something -- maybe if you've been in business for a certain amount of years, if we're setting a precedence. Ifhe's been in business for five years and he hasn't had any problems, I don't personally think that the business and law test means anything. If someone got their license issued three weeks ago, then I would say they should need to take the test. MR. JERULLE: And you're not wrong really, but as we're saying, we're not looking at his case individually. I think what we're trying to do is set a precedence -- what the county's trying to do is set a precedence for the future on all the other stump grinders -- MR. LANTZ: Right. What I'm saying is how about if we put a time frame in, okay, if you've had your license for three years, you've had whatever, the business tax for three years, then you shouldn't have to take the business law. But if you've had it for less than three years then you should. Or whatever that day being. Page27 June 17, 2009 But I don't -- I mean, somebody else might have that stump grinding license and been doing it for 20 years, who knows? And that's kind of a -- I mean, I don't think the test is very hard by any means, but I wouldn't want to do it either. Besides the difficulty the spending the money on the test, the books, whatever. I mean, it's still an expense. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chair, two comments. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. L YKOS: One is that Mr. Palmer, if I'm correct, you're workers compo exempt now-- MR. PALMER: Correct. MR. L YKOS: -- is that correct? One of the reasons that we want Mr. Palmer to take the business and law test is that let's say a year from now Mr. Palmer decides that he's winding down his career and decides to pick up a few employees to do the work that he doesn't want to do anymore. If historically Mr. Palmer has been workers' compo exempt and hasn't had to deal with employees and workers compo and the laws involving workers compensation, he might not be aware of his obligations, not only to his employees but also to consumers. And this test will make him aware of those laws, number one. Number two, the way that our economy has been in the past, you didn't have to be a very good businessman to stay in business. And now that the economy is difficult there's a lot more people coming in front of us that have credit problems and have business problems, because you didn't have to be a good businessman to run a business when there's a lot of money and there's a lot of business and you paid for the last job with the deposit from the next job. And quite frankly, if anybody wants to operate a business in this community and doesn't think that taking a test is the minimum threshold to operate in this community, then don't do business here. MR. P ALMER: Well, I think -- I'm just asking to be Page2S June 17, 2009 grandfathered because of my tenure. MR. L YKOS: I understand. But if you're not willing to put in the minimum effort to take a business practice exam -- MR. PALMER: It's five years after the fact. MR. L YKOS: -- don't insult the level of effort that people have to put in to open and maintain a business in this community. If you're not willing to put that effort in, then don't own a business in this community. MR. PALMER: I'm not quite sure why you have that attitude. You know, I've been self-employed in this county for 30 years, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The thing is we don't have a history on you. We don't know that. We have no idea -- there's no real evidence that shows us that you are a legitimate, honest, good businessman. All we're going by is what you're saying and your license that you've had for five years. It doesn't tell us how you run your business, it just tells us that you're here before us to ask us in a sense allow you to do this work, under the circumstances that the tax collector maybe did make a mistake. However, barring that, we're saying to you the tax collector made the mistake, we're going to go ahead and consider the fact of allowing you to work here, but these are the restrictions that we're going to put on you, at least now where the board as a board knows -- MR. PALMER: The restriction I have no problem with at all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that you can run this business in a correct manner and that we feel confident that that's the case. Not only yourself, but again the other four or five that you told us that are out, or six, however many there are, that are probably going to come in and want the same treatment. So this will be a carryover to all of them then. So all of your people that you know in this business that are doing your work will be able to do the same basic thing without having to come before this board. As long as they follow that procedure, you can do it, they can do it, everyone can do it. And this is what we're trying to do. Page29 June 17, 2009 Otherwise, the only other determination that we can make is that we say okay, we're not going do this for you at all, go take both tests. MR. PALMER: I understand that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. PALMER: I agree with Kyle, though. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sure you do. I'm still waiting for a motion or any other discussion, gentlemen. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, this one's something that I see is almost two separate actions we're being asked to take today. The county would like to give us a bundle decision to make that sets a precedent for the others. I think we have two separate issues. I think we have the question of first what's the procedure going to be, and then second, relative to that procedure, does this gentleman qualify for any kind of treatment different than that based upon him coming before us and the testimony he's put on, the sworn testimony about operating a series of businesses that no one has disputed. So from my point of view, I don't want to make him a test case if the facts that someone else comes forward with aren't as compelling as his. I think he's in a position where he's testified he's got the degree of business acumen and there's nothing that says he doesn't. There's no bad credit report, there's nothing in the record that says he's not capable of operating a business. And ifhe's as qualified to go out there and grind a stun1p, then I guess he's as qualified to understand what his obligations are now only with respect to workman's comp., but also to not defrauding any of his customers. So I want to treat that as a separate issue. I think the policy, the practice ought to be that unless you have some demonstrated business capability for three or five years, good credit history in the business, all those kinds of things, that you would qualify for an administrative approval. And that if you otherwise don't, you'd have to come before this board to demonstrate to our satisfaction that you met not only the Page30 June 17, 2009 business aspect, but if there was any question about your actual qualifications under the license. Especially for those who want to restrict it to just stump grinding. MR. NEALE: What I'd like to do is just -- and for Mr. White and the rest of the board sort of refer to the relevant statute and sections of the Collier County ordinance so that everybody knows what the ordinance requirements are in these cases. And then, you know, as Mr. White suggested, you can base it off of those to weigh a further going procedure. Under Section 22-184 of the Collier County Ordinance, which is standards for the issuance or denial of a Certificate of Competency, there is a list of things that have to be submitted by a contractor in order to obtain a license. And that application is the base application, a determination of experience, which is set forth in Section 183 and 162, which basically, to summarize, is affidavits from previous employers and so forth. A credit report that they meet the requirements for financial responsibility, as set forth in the Florida Administrative Code. That they have either taken and passed an exam or meets all license and requirements provided for, all required affidavits are paid, fees paid, that they possess a current occupational license. So the license he currently has is nothing more really than a predicate to the issuance of regular license, if you want to look at it that way. That the applicant or qualifying agent is at least 18 years of age. I think -- not to cast any aspersions of Mr. Palmer, but I think we can all observe that he is that. And then in this case there's a provision also in part B of 184 that says a referral of application to Contractors Licensing Board. And in that section it says if it does not appear on the face of the application the applicant has complied with the requirements of this article, so as to be eligible for a Certificate of Competency, then the contractor licensing supervisor shall refer the application, which is Page31 June 17, 2009 what he did in this case, to the board for a decision regarding approval or denial. And then sub-part C says, when the application is referred to the Contractor Licensing Board, the board shall take testimony from the applicants and shall consider other relevant evidence regarding whether the application meets the requirements of this division. The -- under Subsection 22-183(B), there's the list of evidence that should be -- that needs to be considered as to experience, and that is: The Contractor Licensing Supervisor or his designee shall consider the following fonns of proof of experience. Number one, affidavits from former elnployers with specifics as to the number of years of experience, work performed and any other relevant information, copies of other certificates of competency, that's part two. Number three, affidavits from any building director. Four, affidavits from any union organization. And five, affidavits from any other source within the trade applied for. What I would respectfully suggest to the board is that bare testimony on its own mayor may not in this board's opinion fulfill the requirements as set forth in the ordinance, as I think was suggested by one of the board n1embers. However, if he had brought forth additional evidence in the form of affidavits from other people in the business, the board would have more to go on. So I would propose to the board that you have a couple of choices here. Either you can go on the evidence that you currently have in front of you, or you can request that the applicant come back with affidavits stating that he has the experience, which would give you a greater basis to make the decision on. MR. PALMER: I'd be more than happy to do that. MR. NEALE: And so I think those are the choices that this board has. The applicant can withdraw his application, he could come back in with affidavits, and then the board could make a decision Page32 June 17, 2009 based on further evidence. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, under that, is it possible that at this time we could still carry out those same ideas as far as him waiving the testing requirements, waiving the test for the pruning and for the tree triln111ing requirements, restrict the license and restrict his application, or the license that the licensing will give him. And then also under the presumption that ifhe presents a complete packet with a credit report, and Michael being the supervisor for licensing can review that packet. And if it is all in line for the past five years and there's nothing derogatory in the packet, he can bring us affidavits that shows his experience level, that Michael can make the decision and he can be then issued a restricted stump grinding license in effect? MR. NEALE: Certainly it's within the board's purview to issue what I would probably deem a provisional restricted -- it would be a provisional restricted license, which would give him the opportunity to practice his trade during a limited -- for a limited period of time until he presents other evidence which the board and the contractor licensing supervisor would have the opportunity to review, and that the license would be restricted to stump grinding only. So it \vould be a doubly restricted license, but at least it would allow the appl icant the opportunity to practice his trade, which he's practiced in the past for a period of time, until he meets the requirements of the ordinance. And that's certainly within the board's purview. 1'111 not suggesting one way or the other that the board do that, but that is s0111ething that the board can consider as an option, I would suggest. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And then by the last comment would be that if Mr. Ossorio, in his review of that packet that he brings before him, detem1ines that the credit report is let's say not good or there are some issues in there of other things that the board can now have to look at this packet, that he would now then have to go and take a business 8nd hl\V test. Page33 June 17, 2009 MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, that would be a situation where the waiver of the examination would still be something that would have to come before the board. Because that's not something that's within the power of the contractor licensing supervisor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: So the fact that he hasn't taken an examination or not still has to come before the board. But the board could then at that time waive the taking of the license based on affidavits given. So, you know, the contractor licensing supervisor still can't just take the packet in and waive the licensure, the taking of examination for the licensure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I mean, what I was driving at is that we could approve that now, to waive the testing requirements, providing he gives us all his information within the next period of time. I don't know what period of time we can put on to it. But as long as he provides us information, brings it in to the supervisor, if he looks at it then he can make that ultimate decision. Or no? MR. NEALE: I have a question on that, just simply because that's a delegation of an authority that the board has, which is the waiver of license requirements, to an administrative staff person. And I'm a little uncomfortable with the delegation of that authority. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Then in that case then there's no way to really add the other five or six people that have the same license to allow Michael to do what he has to do, which would be to review their history also and this (sic) to give them a license when they come in. They'd have to all come before the board. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, maybe what we could do is create that procedure and kind of -- maybe I'm going back against when I was suggesting before as these are two separate things. Because I think with what Mr. Neale said, it seems a little clearer in my mind that in this instance and all other ones we could direct the staff that they are -- to those people who come in, I don't know, in the Page34 June 17, 2009 next 30 days, that the staff would be able to issue a provisional restricted license, with the understanding that if within some period of time that applicant came in and took the business and law exam and passed it, they would be able to, from the staff level only, issue that li cense. Today we would be essentially allowing them to have a provisional restricted license, subject to taking the business law exam and passing it. That could be handled administratively. Anybody who wanted that -- who had that same status with a provisional license to stump grinding that did not want to take the business and law exam and chose, as perhaps Mr. Palmer may yet do, to come back before us and demonstrate with the additional types of evidence beyond just bare testimony, affidavits as suggested in our regulations, that they're free to do that as well. If they want to take the extra time to do that, and effort, as opposed to just pay the money and take the exam, they're welcome to their election of that option. To me, it would probably seem simpler to just -- MR. JERULLE: Take the exam. MR. WHITE: But that's not me. It's not my choice. I'm just -- MR. JERULLE: Everybody in the county has to take the exam, do they not, Michael? MR. PALMER: I respectfully disagree with that. I mean, the lawn guys don't have to and they got bigger equipment than I do. Pressure washer guys. I mean, there's just many, many trades out there that you issue occupational licenses that don't have to take this test. And this is a no- brainer. MR. JERULLE: I understand. But everybody that does the work that you're doing has to take the exam. MR. WHITE: Right. It's pretty clear that -- MR. PALMER: Well, new guys. I understand that license for tree guys. MR. JERULLE: So to me it's simple. Page35 June 17, 2009 MR. NEALE: Yeah, I would-- MR. BOYD: Even the lawn people take the business and law, correct? MR. OSSORIO: No, that's not correct. MR. BOYD: It's not correct? MR. OSSORIO: Business -- the lawn -- if you are just lawn maintenance, that's considered just a business tax, it's not regulated by the construction licensing board, no. MR. NEALE: But if you are landscaping, you do. MR. OSSORIO: If you are landscaping, you do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Then you're a contractor. MR. PALMER: But this is considered non-construction. MR. OSSORIO: So is tree stumps. MR. NEALE: I would respectfully suggest that the suggestion made by Mr. White I think is a very good one. It follows with the ordinance in that, you know, everybody out -- essentially everyone who is in the similar situation of Mr. Palmer by order of this board would then be issued a restricted provisional license subj ect to meeting one of two conditions: Either taking the exam, bringing proof of the exam to Mr. Ossorio, okay, I passed the exam, I've got all the other stuff here that shows that I've got the experience and so forth. Mr. Ossorio then would under the ordinance even have the opportunity to issue them a license. But it would give them the opportunity -- it would also give them the ability to practice their trades during the interim time, as decided by this board, without having to -- while they're in the process of applying. If they decide not to take that licensure exam, then they would still have to come before this board to request a waiver. So it's a two-part set there. And I think it -- you know, it clears up several issues, if the board would follow what Mr. White's suggesting, which is it allows the people who have experience, who are out there, who are doing this job but got misled somehow by the tax collector to Page36 June 17, 2009 continue practicing their trade for a limited period of time under a limited manner until they meet one of two requirements. And then once they meet those -- one of the two requirements, they continue practicing. If they don't meet one of those two requirements, they're unlicensed contractors. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So they have a choice of either/or. MR. NEALE: They really have three choices. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Either do it-- MR. NEALE: Either do it one way, do it the other way where they're unlicensed, and Mr. Jackson will come out and cite them. MR. WHITE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Ossorio what he feels may be a reasonable period of time for these group of folks to come out and make and file a completed application? And then the second time period would be how long you think it would take them to make the election and demonstrate either the exam being passed or making their request to come to the board. So I'm thinking 30 days may be enough for both, but I definitely wanted staffs input on it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I would also have to ask them then how this information is going to get transferred from each individual company that's out there right now without having staff pull it up in the computer or find a data base of these people, send them a letter, let them know that this is available and have them come in and do all this. It's going to be difficult to do, I believe. MR. WHITE: I guess one way would be to look at the city and county records for those occupational license or business taxes that have been issued for stump grinding only. And that would be the place to start. Plus I think there may be word of mouth in the industry, I don't know. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio, what's your thoughts? MR. OSSORIO: I just want to make sure I understand this. Page37 June 17, 2009 If we do this, you're asking the county to accept the applications from people in the industry without taking the exam, apply the ordinance for making sure they have proper liability, workers' compo exemption, all the affidavits necessary to be a stump grinding contractor, issue them a provisional restricted license for 60 days. Within 60 days they would either have to petition the licensing board and -- to waive the exams or to take the exams -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: -- within 60 days. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If they take the exam, you can -- as long as their packet is correct then you can issue the license directly from your office. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, but we're still -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If they choose to come in and waive the examination, and they just want to bring evidence before us, then they have to come back before the board individually. MR. PALMER: And evidence would be how many letters of competency? Three or four letters? MR. OSSORIO: We'll take care of that in-house. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah, they'll do it. MR. OSSORIO: The application procedure is very simple and that's not our concern. I just want to make sure we understand that I don't think 30 days is enough, due to the fact that the licensing board probably won't be meeting next month, it would be in August. So let's go ahead and give them the benefit of the doubt so we can get the word out there, give them 60 days. As long as the application is met on the level of workers' compo insurance and affidavits, and the credit issue might be an issue as well for some of these applicants. And if so, we can issue them a provisional restricted license for 60 days. And within 60 days you would take the exams or you would go ahead and get them on the docket for the licensing board within 60 days to prove to the board with a full application, without just taking hearsay or Page38 June 17, 2009 testimony, you would have something in front of you saying basically this is why I don't -- taking these exams would be imperfluous (sic) to doing my job and you can do it on the merit of each individual person or applicant. That makes sense to me. MR. L YKOS: Now, when you say taking the test, are you talking about both tests? MR. OSSORIO: I'm talking about both exams. MR. L YKOS: I think the business practices should be mandatory . MR. OSSORIO: Well, that's something you should be able to take into con -- if you have an applicant that is -- has a CPA and he doesn't feel that he wants to take the exam and he wants to petition the licensing board, I think he has an opportunity to do so. And you can address him on his merit. MR. L YKOS: I agree with that. MR. OSSORIO: So let's not, you know, cut him short. Let's give him an opportunity to be heard in front of the licensing board. I think that's what Patrick White is probably telling you. MR. WHITE: That's what I was suggesting, is that they basically get to make the choice at some point in the process of whether they're going to take that exam or they believe that they can successfully demonstrate through affidavits and the other things that were listed in the ordinance to our satisfaction that they would otherwise not have to take the business law. MR. OSSORIO: But make no mistake about it, we do give recommendations to every applicant out there, no matter if it's this particular item, testing requirements. We tell them that the licensing board's pretty strict and their feeling is that you should take the business procedure test, so just to get yourself ready maybe you should take the business procedure test, because he still has to petition the licensing board anyway to waive the tree exam due to the fact that he's not trimming trees. I don't have that authority to restrict him to Page39 June 17, 2009 stump grinding, due to the fact that I can only look at both testing, per the ordinance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think that's what makes the board feel a little more uncomfortable about even issuing this license is because at least now we have some kind of proof that the man has at least gone through the effort of taking this test, at least the business and law. Because we can't prove his experience, we can't prove what he does, we're just going by the merit that we're hearing now. MR. L YKOS: Well, I would concede that somebody could prove their understanding of financial statements and how to run a business financially, and somebody could prove that they've taken workers' compo classes and then come to us with that verification. And I would be more comfortable that they have the knowledge to run a business, regardless of what circumstances might arise that would alter their current plan. Understand what I'm saying? MR. PALMER: Not 100 percent, no. MR. L YKOS: If you're going to petition us to not take the business and law, then come to the table with some proof that you understand those things. MR. PALMER: Oh, I -- MR. L YKOS: Have you ever had a workers' compo class? MR. PALMER: Oh, yeah. I had 130 employees. Yes. MR. L YKOS: You've taken a workers' compo class? MR. PALMER: Yes. MR. L YKOS: Okay. Have you ever had an OSHA class? MR. PALMER: Yes. MR. L YKOS: So if you can verify those things, I'll be more comfortable that whatever circumstances might arise within your company, that you're prepared to handle those circumstances and that your customers won't be put at risk, your creditors won't be put at risk. MR. PALMER: My license the county issued me I believe is restricted already. Because it says right there restricted to me only, no Page40 June 17, 2009 employees. MR. OSSORIO: It's a business tax receipt. You know, I don't want to split hairs with you. You're absolutely right. MR. L YKOS: We get people here all the time that are workers' compo exempt and they go out and hire a few employees, and well, he didn't really work for me or I didn't understand. And I'll tell you, those workers' compo cases that come in front of us don't go very well for the respondents. So what I'm saying is I'll back off of my mandatory business practices test if you can verify that you have that experience and that knowledge. You don't have to prove it right now, because that's not what we're talking about. What I'm saying is I'm willing to back off of that. As part of this agreement, I'm willing to back off of that ifpeople come here with the verification that they have received -- that they've taken those classes and have that experience. So I'm just hoping that you, when you hear this, you understand what we're looking for. We're trying to give you a head's up. MR. PALMER: I understand totally. MR. L YKOS: Okay. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. JERULLE: We're setting a precedence here, it appears, for stump grinding. How is this going to relate to other subcontractors that may be watching this or hearing this that may be in a similar situation? MR. NEALE: I think what it does is you're creating a very limited subset based on a very limited group of people that have a specific set of facts that they were directly -- you know, we have testimony on the record that they were directly misled by the tax collector's office that this was an adequate license for them -- for this. And further, you're not just letting them go willy-nilly running off and okay, you've got a grandfathered license, go and sin no more. Page41 June 17, 2009 What you've actually done is say we're now going to bring you all under the tent, we're all going to make you get licensed, and you've got a couple of choices, or you become an unlicensed contractor and then you're going to be subject to sanctions on that basis. So it's a very -- to my view, this procedure suggested by Mr. White and the rest of the board is one that would provide great protection for the people of Collier County and not just let anybody think well, you know, I got mistakenly issued a business tax receipt, I'm going to be able to go do whatever I want. Because I think the board in this case is setting a very clear precedent that if you're in the situation, you'd better have some solid evidence on your behalf or you're going to -- the contractor licensing staff is going to be after you. MR. JERULLE: So you don't feel that another subcontractor, another trade will be in this situation that will use this as precedence against us for taking the test? MR. NEALE: I think if they did come before the board, the board would have this as precedence to look back on and say okay, but here's what we did before. We either required you to take the test or come in front of the board and prove why you didn't. Or you lost your license. Because the board's setting out some very clear guidelines, I believe, with this suggested procedure. MR. JERULLE: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: And if I might add, I think the contractors have always had the opportunity to come before this board to waive any licensing procedures or testing -- I mean not licensing procedure but testing. And Mr. Ossorio always gives that opportunity. So you're not really setting a precedent in this case because they've always had that opportunity. If you find that, you know, the testing would be superfluous even for the trade or business and license, you know, that's always been your prerogative. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're just trying to set a standard I guess Page42 June 17, 2009 to bring everyone in compliance with the ordinance. Basically that's what we're doing, or trying to do. And unfortunately you are the first one here before us, so we're trying to work with you, not against you. We're just trying to come up with a nice overall way so that it satisfies the whole -- everything at once. Mr. White, I'll ask you if you are -- anymore discussion, if you'd like to turn it into a motion or put it into a motion, I'd be more than willing to listen. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move that in the instance of Mr. Palmer and those that are able to demonstrate similar circumstances, that a provisional restricted license be granted to those individuals who make full application and otherwise qualify. And, in addition, demonstrate either by taking the business and law exam and passing it that staff would have the opportunity to be able to issue them that provisional -- or excuse me, restricted license to stump grinding only. In the alternative, for those who may choose to not take the business and law exam, they would have to, consistent with the ordinance, provide evidence of demonstrated prior business operation and management to this board's satisfaction. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, just to clarify one other point. MR. WHITE: Within 60 days. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Within 60 days. Does that mean that today Mr. Palmer will be able to maintain his business now for the next 60 days? MR. WHITE: I would say that he falls into those set of facts that the motion provides for. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And he will be able to then have an opportunity to go and either take the business and law test and get a license that way or table his motions right now and -- MR. WHITE: Well, he-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- come back with a full packet. Page43 June 17, 2009 MR. WHITE: -- qualified (phonetic) the motion, as I am making it, to have that option and come back before us within 60 days. That would be I guess in our August meeting. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. If this passes, Mr. Palmer, what he would do is get a full application, fill it out, pay the fee. I would review it. I would then issue him, if everything meets the criteria other than the testing, I will issue him a provisional restricted license for 60 days, it would say 60 days on it, and in that time he would have to either petition the licensing board in the future within the 60 days to show that he is -- taking the business procedure test would be irrelevant and superfluous due to his job, or he would have to take the business procedure test, pass it with a 75 and then get a restricted license, not a provisional license. MR. WHITE: Exactly. MR. JERULLE: So are we talking about one test or two? MR. WHITE: Business and law. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Business and law. MR. JERULLE: Just the one test. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. L YKOS: Mr. White, if you would add to your motion that we give Mr. Palmer 30 days from today to submit his full application, then that's when the 60-day clock starts. MR. WHITE: Absolutely. MR. L YKOS: If you would add that 30 days to your motion, then I would be happy to second that motion. MR. WHITE: I'm agreeable. MR. NEALE: If I would suggest to the board that that be not for Mr. Palmer but all other similarly situated, so that -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. WHITE: Accepted as well. MR. BOYD: I have a question. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. One discussion. Page44 June 17, 2009 MR. L YKOS: We have to second it before we discuss it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You did second it. You said-- MR. L YKOS: I said if you would add -- you're right. Okay, keep going, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Discussion on the motion. MR. BOYD: So the way 1 understand this, we're granting a license before you have a packet? MR. WHITE: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. OSSORIO: That's not correct. He is -- any applicant who must come into compliance with the provision of the ordinance, minus the testing. So he would still have to come in, get a full application, he would have to go ahead and show affidavits of experience, he would have to show affidavits of his -- if he's been in business for over one year, he would have to have a business credit report. His personal credit report. Pay the necessary fees. And then 1 would review it and if it meets the criteria of the ordinance, then I will issue him a provisional restricted license. And then -- so we're not waiving anything other than we're not going to shut his business down for 60 days. We're going to let him continue with a full application for 60 days until which time he has a choice to make: Either petition the board with a full application so you can judge it on the application itself; or two, he takes the necessary business procedure test and then I will restrict him, take away the provisional license and restrict him to restricted to stump grinding only, no tree service. MR. WHITE: I think, if I get your point, it's the idea that those people that are out there presently are at risk. And what they're at risk for is the discretion that staff will utilize relative to issuing them potentially a citation for unlicensed work versus the idea of coming in and getting in underneath the umbrella, the regulations and being legitimized. So I'm hoping that that's what is going to happen and that as staff Page45 June 17, 2009 has demonstrated repeatedly, they will exercise sound judgment. But for those folks that seem to be unwilling, they have to know they're going to be coming in front of us very soon. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. All right, any other discussion? MR. LANTZ: I have one more. As it stands this afternoon, can Mr. Palmer go grind a stump? Or he can't grind a stump until he's done the application, the credit report and everything? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, he's got a 60-day window -- no, I'm sorry, 30-day window. MR. OSSORIO: He's unlicensed as we speak. He needs to go to our office, if the motion passes, fill out a full application, minus the testing. I will review it and then I will either issue him a restricted -- a provisional restricted license to stump grinding. Once that certificate is issued, he comes into compliance for 60 days. After 60 days, ifhe hasn't done two things: One, take the business procedure test and pass it with a 75, or two, petition the licensing board to show on his full application that he meets the criteria of why he should not be taking the business procedure test, other than just hearing testimony. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I have one other last question then in that case. If that's the case, then he is doing stump grinding as we speak, or as of yesterday. Now he can't do it no longer. What about the people now that are out in the field that we're trying to add this other provision into that allows the other people out in the field to come and do this? Are they unlicensed as we speak now too? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, any stump grinding contractor that comes to my office who gets issued a citation that has a business tax receipt that says stump grinding only, we're going to treat that as insubstantial and we're going to go ahead and take care of the citation, we're going to get him in compliance. You're absolutely right, Mr. Palmer, when he was issued the Page46 June 17, 2009 citation, the stop work order, I told Mr. Palmer that if I caught him tree servicing after the date of the citation, he is considered unlicensed. He's unlicensed until the licensing board gives him direction. And it looks like you're giving him direction to get down to my office, fill the application out, full credit report, minus the testing, to get him in compliance for 60 days. So then he has two choices to make, and that's two choices that any stump-grinding contractor has, not just Mr. Palmer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So Mr. Palmer received a citation? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, he did. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's why -- I don't have any copies of that so that's why I questioned. Okay, I understand. MR. WHITE: My understanding, it was withdrawn? MR. OSSORIO: The citation was withdrawn due to the fact that he was issued a business tax receipt showing that he could do this business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I understand. MR. OSSORIO: And the board has set precedence in the past with another citation that was issued, and he had the same thing, for some carpentry, whatever it was. So we took that as a standard policy. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I understand now. MR. L YKOS: Well, here's the question then. I asked Mr. White to add to his motion that we give Mr. Palmer 30 days to submit his application. So my question now is, in that 30 days is he allowed to work or is he not allowed to work in those next 30 days? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: That's the board's decision. MR. L YKOS: That's why I threw it out there, try to clear up the specific case of Mr. Palmer. MR. WHITE: Then let me make the suggestion that, Mr. Chairman, we vote on the motion and we separately consider the facts of Mr. Palmer's case in terms of anything we may want to do about his Page47 June 17, 2009 status up to the point where he gets an application in. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm just really confused now as far as what we're trying to say. I mean, I have to honestly say, I bet the audience is confused, because I am definitely confused. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, it's very simple. I don't agree with the 30 days. Mr. Palmer, he came to his own accord. He has a stop work order for several months. He knows what he needs to do. He's going to leave our office and go down there and get it. He knows what he needs to do. So if my staff or Ian Jackson goes out there in three or four days and he is stump grinding and he does not have an application on my desk, he's unlicensed. Simple. It doesn't (sic) take a person to come down to the office, pick up an application, fill it out. So let's just stick with the motion and let me worry about the 30 days. I'm sure Mr. Palmer's going to be coming down to my office today or tomorrow to fill out the paperwork -- MR. PALMER: I've got work this afternoon and tomorrow. MR. OSSORIO: -- and take care of it. And any other contractor that's in the same situation as Mr. Palmer's going to be coming down there tomorrow. So let's not reinvent the wheel, let's just go ahead. MR. NEALE: But the motion and second as made included a 30-day provision. MR. L YKOS: And the reason I did that, Michael, is the application has to have a credit report. MR. OSSORIO: Credit report you get within two days -- I mean two hours. MR. LYKOS: Yeah? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. They fax you right to the office. MR. PALMER: How do you do that? MR. L YKOS: I guess I'm getting old. MR. OSSORIO: There's a company in town that's right on Radio Road that he can go to and they fax it to our office and he has a license Page48 June 17, 2009 within a couple of hours, you know. MR. LANTZ: I've got one more question. I understand for Mr. Palmer he'll be in your office probably this afternoon with his check for whatever it is and the application filled out. What about the -- is there going to be a way -- are you guys going to notify? Thirty days to me to get your application is -- I mean, I don't know how -- MR. OSSORIO: I said 60 days. MR. LANTZ: Sixty days to get-- MR. OSSORIO: Sixty days of -- MR. NEALE: But the motion as stated -- MR. WHITE: Was for 30. MR. NEALE: -- is to give everyone -- MR. L YKOS: Give Mr. Palmer 30 days. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, we have several talking at once. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One at a time, please. MR. L YKOS: Sorry. MR. NEALE: We may want to read back, because the way I have it recorded is that it was a motion that all similarly situated would have 30 days to apply, not just Mr. Palmer. MR. LANTZ: So my question is -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Which means -- MR. LANTZ: -- how long would it take for the other people to get -- I mean, obviously -- I'm sure they're not, you know, watching this on TV because they're so concerned about this. So is somebody going to notify them? I mean, I can't imagine -- MR. OSSORIO: Yes, we will. MR. LANTZ: And it will be quick enough where 30 days is a reasonable time. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, that's not a big deal. We can pull the Page49 June 17, 2009 records from the tax collector. I don't know if Mr. Palmer -- but there's not that many. I would say there's maybe five or six at the most. MR. PALMER: Four or five. MR. OSSORIO: And we'll deal with it when it comes through. So I'm sure these two gentlemen know in the business and we'll take care of it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So the-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does that clarify the motion as far as to how the motion goes? Because we're motioning it seems like on two different -- three separate issues: Once for the overall people that have their stump-grinding license, and then we have another one that's going to allow them a particular ample either/or way to come in and get it done. But we also have Mr. Palmer in front of us who we have to make a decision on this factor. So is this one motion going to take care of all three situations? MR. NEALE: Well, the motion as stated would take care of everything. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The whole thing. MR. NEALE: The motion as stated basically says that every one similarly situated toMr. Palmer would have 30 -- would be issued a temporary provisional license for 30 days, giving them the opportunity to apply. Then they would apply within 30 days, full application. Mr. Ossorio would then make a decision based on that application and whether they had taken the test or not to issue them either a permanent license or an additional temporary license. That's at least the way it currently would read. The elections that they would have are either apply and submit that they had taken the test, apply and submit for a waiver, which would be heard at the next board meeting in August, or not apply at all and then they're unlicensed contractors. So there's -- at least that's the way I perceive the motion. If that's what correctly reflects what Mr. White moved, I would suggest that he Page50 June 17, 2009 incorporate that, Mr. Lykos second it or amend as needed. MR. WHITE: I feel that that accurately reflects what the motion was and would ask if the second agrees. THE COURT REPORTER: Who was the second? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos seconded. MR. NEALE: Mr. Lykos had seconded. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But that was with the 30-day provision. MR. NEALE: Which Mr. White accepted, so therefore the motion and second stood. MR. L YKOS: I said I would second it he added the 30 day provision, which he then subsequently added. So then I guess by default I seconded. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So I have a -- I'm going to call for the vote, get this over with. I have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are there any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries unanimously. MR. PALMER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : You are welcome. Thank you for coming in, your time. MR. NEALE: What I will do is I will draft an e-mail to go to Mr. Ossorio that can be distributed to the board so that everyone knows what they just did. Page51 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah, because it was very confusing. We solved a bunch of bases it seems like all at once, but -- MR. NEALE: Yeah. The board solved in I think a very creative manner a minor but significant problem. I think that was very well done. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's no doubt there's going to be more of them that are going to want to come before us regarding that. I need to see a -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could we take a brief recess? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We certainly can. It's 10:26. How about till 10:40. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call the board meeting, Contractors Licensing Board meeting back to order again, please. And one quick comment. Through all the conversation that we've been going through today and in most meetings, I would appreciate it if the board members have a question or would like to raise a question, just for the court reporter's courtesy, that if you raise your hand, please, for a question you have and then I'll recognize you and then allow you to speak, no problem. Okay? That way we can keep the court reporter on a good note when she's typing. We get too confused and we all speak at once. And I'm probably guilty also, so I'll make sure I raise my hand. Is there a Marisol L. Santos in the room, please? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No? All right, I'm going to put this on the burner for the moment and see if she shows up. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if Mrs. Santos does not show up, would you want to still have a review of her application, due to the fact she comes in tomorrow, we have something for her, or do you want to just go ahead and say she's not here, we won't hear it? Page52 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think probably in fairness to her it would be better if she was here than just to act on anything before us without having, you know, the respondent present. Mr . Neale, can you -- MR. NEALE: I would suggest that would be the better course for the board. Because at least in my experience with the board in cases such as this, the credit reports, it's the testimony of the applicant that probably the board I think weighs as much as they do the bare facts on the paper. So granting her a continuance or an ability to reappear I think would be a good thing to do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Was there a reason why possibly she wasn't here, or you do have knowledge? No. Okay, we'll just set it out for a little bit, maybe she'll come in. Okay, I'm looking for a Ronald M. Burns. Are you present? MR. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come up to the podium and be sworn in, please. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir. MR. JACKSON: Ian Jackson here. Mr. Burns requested that some additional documentation be distributed, which I just did. That's the paperwork beginning with a CPO that I had just handed out. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Burns, you're here today to review your experience factors regarding a license you are trying to obtain to own and run a swimming pool maintenance business; is that correct? MR. BURNS: Pool cleaning service, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Pool cleaning only? MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to give you a quick Page53 June 17, 2009 overview, Mr. Bums came to the office, filled out the appropriate paperwork, took the business procedure test and applied for a swimming pool cleaning only. Mr. Burns also took the certified pool operator exam course through I think it's human services -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. OSSORIO: -- to clean pools for commercial use under a qualifier, owner or company. Unfortunately Mr. Burns is reinventing himself and doesn't have the necessary years of experience under a pool cleaning company, so this is why Mr. Burns is here today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Well, you're in luck. I'm a state certified pool contractor, so I'm going to have to ask you some serious questions. What experience do you have? MR. BURNS: Well, I provided a packet that has my experience in the packet. Some before and after photos. Has anybody had a chance to review my packet? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have. Have you ever done any business at all or worked for any pool service companies of any sort here in Collier County? MR. BURNS: I've never worked for a pool company, no. I can't live off of a pool tech income. So I did the next best thing, which was to educate and gain experience on my own. And also by taking the CPO, certified pool operators course. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you realize what that CPO license allows you to do? MR. BURNS: Yes. My intentions are just to do private residential pools. That's all. No commercial, no nothing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, Kyle. MR. LANTZ: Well, I did a little research. Personally I don't feel he needs a license to clean a pool. And the reason why is when you Page54 June 17, 2009 look at the county statutes under residential pool/spa contractor, it says on the bottom, water treatment that does not require such equipment does not require a license. In addition, a license shall not be required for cleaning of the pool or spa in any way that does not affect the structural integrity of the pool or spa or its associated equipment. So -- MR. BURNS: It's confusing. MR. LANTZ: -- I mean, if I looked at that I would say he doesn't need one. And I couldn't find anyone that said -- I couldn't find a license that said a pool cleaning contractor. I found a pool/spa servicing contractor which allows him to do other stuff. But just for cleaning, my opinion is he doesn't need a license at all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, in some reading on that particular license that you're speaking of, is this a state -- a Florida license or is this a Collier County license? MR. LANTZ: Well, it's on both of them. But it's on the Collier license one. I don't know what the original thing, but it's 1.6.2.8 on that form. That's what I was given. MR. BURNS: Statute 514 states that I am a certified pool service technician. MR. LANTZ: And also, on the construction industry website, on the same -- under the same license, I mean it's not the statute, but when it has a residential pool/spa contractor it also says, however, the uses are the same -- I mean, they're the exact same statutes. But the installation, construction, modification or replacement of equipment permanently attached to and associated with the pool or spa for the purpose of water treatment or cleaning of the pool/spa requires licensing. However, the usage of such equipment for the purpose of water treatment or cleaning shall not require the licensure unless the usage involves construction, modification or replacement of such equipment. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. According to the ordinance, the Page55 June 17, 2009 2006-46 ordinance for Collier County, there is a separate entity, there's a separate license necessary, which is in 1.6.2.9.1. MR. LANTZ: But that's a servicing contractor, which allows him to maybe fix a coping tile or -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. LANTZ: -- change the filter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. No. MR. BURNS: Yeah, it says-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A servicing license that is required in that particular entry is a swimming pool/spa servicing contractor. Servicing, by their definition of servicing, meaning a maintenance license. Basically what he wants to do. The other three licenses are either service spa repair, which entails all of the things you're speaking of. And then there is another classification for a license regarding a residential contractor who can do residential construction or repair. And then there is a commercial license who allows you to do basically anything in the pool business, construction, repair or servicing. MR. BURNS: I just want to clean pools. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, just to clarify this, one moment. There is a discrepancy, which I've noted this many times already, in the two codes. Because of the fact that the State of Florida code now does not have the fourth license, which would be the swimming pool servicing contractor license only. According to the State of Florida, if it's a state certified license, then you do not need to take a test, you do not have to have a license. But Collier County is just one step more stringent and has kept this into the ordinance. So this is the ordinance I am assuming that we must follow, because this is our ordinance. Even though it is more stringent, Collier County has their ability to be more stringent than the state code. MR. BURNS: I've been pursuing this for quite some time. It Page56 June 17, 2009 wasn't a sudden change. This was something that has been progressing over a period of years. And that's how I gained my knowledge and my . expenence. And then to top it off, I wanted to make sure that, you know, I was 100 percent on my own knowledge and experience by taking the certified pool operator's course, which is offered by the National Swimming Pool Foundation. It's a nationally recognized course. And if I had to work for a -- if I worked for a pool cleaning company for the 24 months and I was trained maybe not so well, may be not the right way and I did that for the 24 months and then I went out and started my own pool company and carried on those bad habits, you know, that's where the certification comes in. That's where the proper training and knowledge comes in. There's no training and knowledge requirements, but there's just a 24-month experience requirement. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have to agree with you in some ways, but in other ways, no. Because there are many of the service companies that are operating here in Collier County, and also in the State of Florida. In order to work for certain companies, this is one of the tests that they require you to take, which is a CPO course, which familiarizes you, yes, a little bit more knowledge, a little bit -- you gain a little bit more knowledge because it is a pretty thorough course, no doubt. MR. BURNS: It's a great course. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But it is not in no way an affidavit that says you have experience to be able to go and maintain swimming poo Is. MR. BURNS: It says I have experience to operate an aquatic facility . CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under the direction ofa third party. MR. BURNS: Did you read the two documents that I submitted, that Ian submitted to you? That basically gives you a description of a Page57 June 17, 2009 certified pool operator. It's not necessarily under a pool cleaning company. It's the first page, the two pages that are stapled together. Read the first page, if you would, please. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll read it aloud. MR. BURNS: Sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: CPO says a CPO graduate might be a maintenance person with part-time pool responsibility. A CPO graduate could have a position on an engineering staffwith full-time pool operations responsibility. Again, engineering staff. A CPO graduate could be a manager with hands-on responsibility or who has management authority over other operators in staff positions. A CPO graduate could be an outside service technician providing third-party support to a pool operation. A CPO graduate might be a lifeguard providing pool operations management when not surveilling. And finally, a CPO graduate could be a facility owner who recognizes that the ultimate responsibility for the supervision and responsibility of any aquatic facility resides at this level. Whether owner or technician, manager or lifeguard, the certified pool operator is one thing an aquatic facility professional -- and that's it. First page. MR. BURNS: Have you seen any of the pictures? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I've seen pictures that are somewhat -- enclosed in your packet you're speaking of? MR. BURNS: Yeah, these are the conditions -- some of the conditions of some of the pools that I've had to maintain. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were these pools that you were maintaining or pools that you began maintaining? MR. BURNS: This pool -- every picture in here except the green pool is my family's pool which I've been maintaining. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that doesn't say very much as far Page58 June 17, 2009 as looking at the pictures. MR. BURNS: Well, if you look at the pictures you can see the conditions, the bad conditions. I mean, that takes some experience. And, you know, I'm trying to prove that I've gained a lot of experience through all these conditions. I mean, take a look at -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm looking at some stains on the second page which is -- MR. BURNS: You see one green pool. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- third, no, fourth page? MR. BURNS: Can I -- could I come up and show you? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We can just go through the pages, if you like. MR. BURN S: Yeah, the first pool -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The first page? MR. BURNS: The pool that's green, the before and after? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is this the one with your picture of your face on it? MR. BURNS: Yeah, I just wanted to give you an idea of some of the experience that I've -- I'm not just somebody who wants to just start cleaning pools. I've gained experience over a period of years. But I haven't been able to work for a pool cleaning company. I can't support myself on eight to $12 an hour. So I did the next best thing, which is to take it upon myself to gain as much knowledge and experience as I can on my own. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, quite honestly, bringing pictures in here of showing me a green pool doesn't tell me you know how to take care of a pool, because the pool should come in here blue, not green. MR. BURNS: Between these pictures and the certified pool operator, I think that should be substantial enough. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: Michael, I'm a little confused, if you could help me a little bit. Page59 June 17, 2009 Exactly what license is Mr. Bums applying for? And Kyle said earlier that there may be -- it may be that Mr. Burns doesn't even need a license based on what -- MR. BURNS: I just -- MR. L YKOS: Please let me finish my question and let Mr. Ossorio answer. MR. BURNS: I'm sorry. MR. L YKOS: So the first question is what license is he applying for? Second question is, does he need a license for what he's applying for? Does that make sense? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. And like I stated before, Mr. Burns is applying for a swimming pool maintenance license, which is a two-hour business procedure test, and he or she has the ability to clean pools. Clean pools only. Now, there are other -- there's other trades tests you could take to be a repair contractor or be a certified pool company or a residential pool or commercial pool. He is applying for a swimming pool cleaning license only. MR. L YKOS: And is there a -- does the county have a license for -- MR. OSSORIO: Sure. MR. L YKOS: -- swimming-- MR. OSSORIO: You have a copy of the ordinance in front of you? MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Lykos, it's technically called a swimming pool/spa servicing contractor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: And what section is that? MR. ZACHARY: That's 1.6.2.9.1. MR. OSSORIO: And what page is that on? MR. ZACHARY: Well, of ordinance itself it's Page 12. I think Mr. Neale can tell you about the -- Page60 June 17, 2009 MR. L YKOS: I didn't get that in my packet, Michael. That's why I'm at a little bit of a loss. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Here, I'll show you. MR. L YKOS : Yeah, I don't have that. It wasn't in my packet. MR. OSSORIO: Well, we don't usually -- MR. JERULLE: 162. -- MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykos usually-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One at a time, please. Michael? MR. OSSORIO: We usually don't give a copy of the ordinance, per se if somebody wants to waive an exam which is in the ordinance. But if you will like us, we will do so in the future. MR. L YKOS: So according to this ordinance, the license that Mr. Burns is applying for is a swimming pool and spa servicing contractor. MR. OSSORIO: That is correct. MR. L YKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that license allows him to go and service maintenance only with chemicals, treatment, water quality only. That's the only operation that the man can carry on. No matter if he has one employee or 100 employees, that's what his license allows him to do. To do any other work with pools he would have to go to the next layer or next level of licensing, which would be the spa servicing repair contractor license, which is under 1.6.2.9. And then on so forth, there are other licenses in construction and commercial construction. Right now the way our ordinance reads, it requires 24 months of experience. And what Mr. Bums is asking us to do is accept his CPO certificate that he takes through Collier Health Department, which gives him a little more knowledge as far as the essence behind a swimming pool function and how the chemicals are read and how to read test kits. I mean, it gets a little more involved than if someone just Page61 June 17, 2009 trained you out of a truck that you worked for a servicing contractor. So it's a little more involved. But I don't think it gives enough -- I don't feel that it gives enough affidavit or knowledge to be able to open a business and be able to start doing this as a business entity. Because he does not have the experience. He's passed the test. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure, when you look at an affidavit for experience, and Mr. Neale can probably tell you this, is that some -- we can take some certificates, some education, some training, but it cannot take all the respects to experience. You have to work under a licensed contractor for the business, supervision, training, ordering, supplying, the whole nine yards, the whole field of working, opening up a business and running a business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. NEALE: To be specific, and I concur with Mr. Ossorio, in the codified Ordinance 22-183-C states that education at an accredited school may be presented to satisfy a portion of the experience requirements of the section. Specifically each full year of school level work in the trade for which application is made shall be credited to the applicant as .75 years of experience, but such credit shall be for no more than one-half of the total experience required by this section. So taking the broadest possible interpretation of the education, it potentially could count for one of the two years required under the ordinance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. BURNS: Combined with my experience as far as the pictures that I provided, I mean, these are extreme conditions that I've had to maintain a pool. I've gained a lot of experience and knowledge from this. MR. JERULLE: How long have you been maintaining that particular pool? MR. BURNS: Roughly seven years. There's others that I've Page62 June 17, 2009 helped people with. Hurricane Wilma, I've helped people's pools. With neighbors. I voluntarily -- I pursued this because I can't work for a pool cleaning company, I can't live off of that income as a service tech. I did what I could to gain the necessary education and experience. And I did all that I could. And I feel that I am qualified to clean pools. I honestly do. MR. NEALE: Just going further on 22-183-A, as a prerequisite to and as a requirement for the issuance of a Collier County or city certificate of competency, an applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence of experience in the trade for which he desires certification. Sub point one, contractor's experience shall be in that particular trade with at least one year of said experience being as a supervisor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that's my thoughts. I mean, I'm-- I've been in this business for 27 years, and I'm telling you that I feel as though I am not comfortable with issuing a license to someone that has never been in the business before, is not willing to spend any time with a pool company to learn the trade and only comes in here with a test that is really not that difficult to pass. MR. BURNS: There's a lot of people that don't pass that test. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sure there are, believe me. MR. BURNS: It's very credible. It's a nationally recognized organization -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand that too -- MR. BURNS: -- it carries a lot of weight. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- it certainly is. I know that. And it carries a lot -- MR. BURNS: It allows me to walk out and work on -- and operate public pool facilities. Public. Which, you know, that's -- if something goes wrong, that's a huge risk. I mean, that's saying a lot. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you're going to honestly sit here and tell me -- stand up there and tell me that without any experience at all as far as working for a national pool service company that you pass Page63 June 17, 2009 this test and you're going to go down and you're going to maintain the Golden Gate Aquatic Center? MR. BURNS: I told you I just want to do private residential. Everybody has to start somewhere, and this is where I want to start. And I feel like I've provided adequate documentation that I'm competent and knowledgeable and experienced enough to clean and chemically balance pools. And I won't -- I'll be the person who's choosing which pool to do. There won't be any pools forced upon me. So I'll make my own educated decision based on my knowledge and my skills. You know, I'll be making the choices and no one will be saying you have to do this pool, that pool or that pool. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. BURNS: So I feel based on my knowledge and experience that I'll be able to handle this starting out this business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Jerulle? MR. JERULLE: Michael? MR. JACKSON: I'll try to field it, Mr. Jerulle. MR. JERULLE: We're here because you did not -- obviously did not deny him the license? Do you have a recommendation? MR. OSSORIO: There's a couple of things. One, under the ordinance it says the contractor licensing shall review the application. If it meets the merit of the criteria, then we proceed with the license. If it doesn't for any particular reason, credit issues, experience or whatever that might be, it gets forwarded to the licensing board. I told Mr. Burns, just like, you know, Mr. Neale said, is that we would take his -- be very liberal and we would -- show me one year of working for a licensed company, up north, whatever it might be, and I'll take that application, that CPO license, as credit of one year. It would be two years and we could proceed with the license. I have no recommendation to the licensing board how they want to proceed if they hear testimony ifhe's qualified or not through the Page64 June 17, 2009 application process. That's really up to the licensing board. But I can tell you this: Having a pool in Naples, Florida and having a pool up north, totally different. How you clean it, how you prepare it and how you address it and how you conduct business, so -- but that's up to the board's decision. MR. BURNS: No, I've been cleaning pools here for roughly seven years in Florida. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know. And the conversation I'm hearing, I'm not really hearing it correctly or I don't think you need to say anymore, because -- MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin, Mr. White has -- MR. WHITE: Question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: If I may, of staff. And perhaps your knowledge can help, too. But when I'm reading through the contractor requirements, one of the things it says is that it's to provide servicing or water treatment of any public or private swimming pool, et cetera. Under the heading of public, does that include condominiums? Which way do they fall? Are they public or -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public. MR. WHITE: -- private? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public pool would be a public pool detouring (phonetic) with condominiums that are regulated by Collier County Health Department or what's called HRS, health and rehabilitative services. Those are commercially licensed and they have to run by licenses and they are governed by the State of Florida. MR. JERULLE: I could -- MR. WHITE: So they fall under public. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public, yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Okay. So private would be limited essentially to single- family residences? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Single-family homes, residentialr Page65 June 17, 2009 pools. Anything with a residential marketplace. Some of the condominiums fall under what's called a -- another portion of a statute. If it's 32 apartments or less, it can be exempt from the commercial status. So it can be also considered a public -- private pool. MR. WHITE: So my next and last question I hope is could we issue a restricted license to just private swimming pools, hot tubs or spas? I don't know if there's any precedent for it -- MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. White, but the only point -- MR. WHITE: -- but I'm asking-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We could do that, but under the circumstances, I mean, we can surely talk about that and probably put a motion on the floor if you like, but I know that I won't be in favor of it. MR. WHITE: Understand. I'm just trying to split the baby. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. White, if anything, Mr. Burns is more qualified to work on commercial pools therefore because he's taken the CPO test, and he could work on a commercial pool under the direction of a licensed company. Versus then he goes to a residential home and does, you know, 15 homes a day times seven and runs his business that way and coordinates on a daily basis, so -- MR. WHITE: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: -- it's totally the opposite. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Neale, did you have a question? MR. NEALE: Well, just a point, that this really does go to the same issue that the board was reviewing on the Palmer issue where this application, you know, as stated, was referred to the board by the Contractor Licensing Supervisor because it did not appear from the face of the application that they've complied with the requirements of the ordinance. When it's referred to the Contractor Licensing Board, the board shall take testimony, consider other relevant evidence, and then upon Page66 June 17, 2009 the evidence presented here, the Contractor Licensing Board shall determine whether the applicant is qualified or unqualified for the trade in which the application has been made. So that's the determination being made here by the board is he -- based on everything presented to you today at this hearing, is he qualified or unqualified to perform the tasks set out in the ordinance. MR. BURNS: The certification that I have right now would allow me to be hired by a hotel. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, it will. MR. BURNS: To maintain-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you're under their supervision, though, see? That's the difference. MR. BURNS: But I'm the person who's responsible for the maintenance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You would be responsible for the maintenance to do the job, yes -- MR. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But it doesn't mean you are liable for anything, because you do not work as a business, you are working for an entity that hired you. MR. BURNS: But that means -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's the difference. MR. BURNS: -- that I'm qualified. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that could be an experience factor when you look at it. That could be part of your experience, if you went and did that. MR. BURNS: By them hiring me, that means that they're saying that I'm qualified enough to do the job to maintain their pool. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Well, yes, I guess they would say that, yes. MR. BURNS: So I am qualified. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Whether you are or not is still to be Page67 June 17, 2009 subj ect to -- MR. BURNS: But I am qualified enough -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- looking at. MR. BURNS: -- is what I'm trying to -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They are saying that. MR. BURNS: No, the certification says that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under supervision, yes. Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: Michael, can you come and take your paperwork back? I'm going to have you follow along with me on something, if you would. This looks like it would be pretty straightforward when we started out, and it's getting a little complicated. I'm going to ask you about 1.6.2.8, this lower section down here. And I'm going to borrow Kyle's paperwork. MR. OSSORIO: Go. MR. L YKOS: Sometimes this gift of start at the beginning to understand what they mean at the end, so I don't want to misunderstand what's in this ordinance. But if you follow along with me, the last two sentences of that section it says, water treatment that does not require such equipment, which is referring to permanently installed equipment up above, does not require a license. In addition, a license shall not be required for the cleaning of the pool or spa in any way that does not affect the structural integrity of the pool or spa or its associated equipment. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That phrase -- MR. OSSORIO: That tells you that if you have a residential pool and spa license you don't need to get a cleaning license. No license required, because you have a residential pool license. So you don't need to get two. Page68 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Actually, Mr. Ossorio, that's not quite correct. But it's under 1.6.2.9 is where that's coming from. That's where it begins at. This is a swimming pool/spa servicing repair contractor. That ties into the sentence that you're reading at the end of the page where it says water treatment. Because if you start at the top like you said, it begins with a 1.6.2.7, which is a commercial spa/pool contractor. All of those items that we're talking about that fall under each one of the those headings from that point lower all fall into the same idea that water treatment is not necessary, because your license allows you to do that in that license as being a commercially (sic) spa/pool contractor. The residential pool contractor is the one that you're reading, which is the 1.6.2.8, which you have to have a residential pool/spa contractor license, then you don't have to have any other licensure till you're allowed to do any other things regarding maintenance or servicing it. And then 1.6.2.9. says the same thing, but it just limits you on what you can do. And you're allowed to do repairs with that license. But the license that you're speaking of or this gentleman is wanting does not have that in that clause. That is a strictly maintenance license only. And you have to have a license for it; 24 months of experience and a passing of a two-hour business and law test. MR. L YKOS: I understand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, didn't I say that, or no? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I thought you did, but I just wanted to clarify it one more time. MR. OSSORIO: All right. MR. LANTZ: I just have one more. I still don't agree with your interpretation. In other sections of the license, instead of saying in addition a license shall not be required, it would say, an additional Page69 June 17, 2009 license shall not be required, as in if you look under -- I don't know where it is but -- and I don't have the paper so I'm going by memory. On a plumbing contractor it says if you want to do septic systems, you don't need an additional license to do septic systems, your plumbing contractor license does it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. LANTZ: But it's specific in saying an additional license. Whereas this doesn't sayan additional license. I mean, I'm not an attorney. Mr. White would be able to -- I'm sorry, Mr. Neale would be able to answer -- MR. WHITE: Blame Mr. Neale. MR. LANTZ: -- this. MR. NEALE: Yeah, blame me. MR. LANTZ: I'm looking at him and saying your -- but in my opinion, unless it says an additional license, that it means a license is not required. So I feel -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, this interpretation-- MR. LANTZ: -- he doesn't -- it's an interpretation and that's for MR. BURNS: I know what pool cleaning techs are doing out there, and I feel like the community would benefit from an individual like myself. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: I agree that there's distinctly a conflict in the ordinance. I would suggest to the board, because this is within the board's purview, that this be reviewed at some future meeting and a suggestion made to the Board of County Commissioners to amend the ordinance to eliminate the conflict, in whatever way the board sees fit. I would suggest to this board that the typical practice that it has followed in the past is to err on the side of the more restrictive. Since a licensed category has been created and the licensed category for which this gentleman is applying was created I believe subsequent to the Page70 June 17, 2009 original drafting of this ordinance that included this no license required language, that the subsequent drafting would probably take precedence and therefore the more restrictive language would take precedence. And that would be my suggestion. I certainly would be open to doing research on it and seeing which is the case, but I would suggest that subsequent amendments to the ordinance and more restrictive language would be the controlling matter in this issue. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. NEALE: So therefore the more restrictive would probably be the case. Because it says no license is required, but it appears that that language was written before there was a license that existed to cover that area. Once the license existed to cover that area, then the new license I would believe would take precedence. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions of any other board members? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anything further? I'll give you more opportunity to state your case. MR. BURNS: I feel I've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I'm more than qualified to clean residential private pools. Especially if the CPO certification states that I'm qualified to operate and maintain public pools, which is a greater responsibility. Technically it isn't, but the risk is higher. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I do -- I guess I'm going to agree with you in some ways. But -- MR. BURNS: I've done everything I can-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- as far as the experience factor goes, I feel as though you don't have it. MR. BURNS: But I've provided you-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jerulle? Page71 June 17, 2009 MR. JERULLE: I'm sorry, were you done? MR. BURNS: No, go ahead. MR. JERULLE: As experienced as you have (sic), Mr. Chairman, what is the risk of granting someone like him a license? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, you have things that are in swimming pools that are very detrimental to a person, children, persons. How the system functions. There are so many brand new laws that have come out regarding the most recent law, which is the Virginia Graeme Baker Act, in which children were getting hurt in pools, and one died. And now there are major, major changes to the construction portion of it, as well as the maintenance of it. And actually tomorrow I do have another meeting with Mr. Dunn at Collier County regarding this act and how we're going to act on it. So there are lots of issues in even a private swimming pool. The pool that he gave us the pictures of that shows green in the pool, if a child went in there, they could very easily get ear infections, they could get e coli, they can get a lot of things, especially in a spa. MR. BURNS: It shows also-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So there are -- MR. BURNS: -- that it was clean. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- lots of things that can go wrong in a swimming pool that people aren't aware of. MR. BURNS: But the green pool is the pool that I fixed, that I cleaned. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I can't deny that because I don't have pictures of it clean, I've got pictures of it green. MR. BURNS: No, I showed. This is the before and this is the after. It's simple to see that. I don't know -- I feel like there's a conflict of interest or something. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, there's no conflict of interest, sir. I would be more than happy to give anyone a license in the swimming Page72 June 17, 2009 poo I trade -- MR. BURNS: I feel like you're saying-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- because the more good people we have, the better it is, no doubt. MR. BURNS: I feel like you're saying the National Swimming Pool Foundation doesn't mean anything. I honestly feel that I am more than qualified. It's just all I want to do is just clean swimming pools and balance the water. That's it. I've been doing it for over seven years here in Florida. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Have you been cleaning other people's pools in town? MR. BURNS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Have you? MR. BURNS: I've been doing it to gain experience. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You've been doing it without a license then, huh? MR. BURNS: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You've been doing it without a license? MR. BURNS: I'm helping. I'm gaining experience. There's nothing wrong with helping people to gain experience. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's enough. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sir. MR. WHITE: The thing I'm hung up on is the phrase within the trade. It sounds like he has what otherwise might be the types of experiences he would get if he was operating within the trade. And what I see the regulation telling me that I should have evidence from the applicant on are his experiences or level of experience within the trade. I'm okay with the idea that he probably can supervise himself, so I'm not getting hung up on the one-year supervision requirement. I recognize there may be techs and then supervisors within the trade. Page73 June 17, 2009 But it's the idea of whether his own statements and testimony about his experience gets him within the trade if he has not actually worked for someone in the trade, as opposed to done what may be the equivalent types of tasks not within the trade in the sense that he wasn't employed. So I'm kind of down here stuck on that hair and trying to split it in a way that makes most sense to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and protect the consumers in the community. And so I'm just interested in other board members' perspective on it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anyone else have any other comments? MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to go anywhere near whether or not I can understand if Mr. Burns has the expertise to clean pools to the level that you would understand that. I have other issues that I made notes on reviewing this case. Mr. Bums, you do have experience in running a business up in New Jersey, and -- MR. BURNS: Delaware. MR. L YKOS: I'm sorry, in Delaware. I apologize. So you do have some business experience. MR. BURNS: Absolutely. MR. L YKOS: But I have concerns about running a business in Florida. Again, if you do a great job and your business was to grow and you took on some employees or you needed some help, you don't have real business experience working for a Florida company. I question whether or not you've had to go through a chemical emergency working for another company, if you've had the training that other pool companies would offer as an employee of another pool company. I wonder about your ability to schedule work for several clients. I wonder about your ability to manage the finances of a pool service company. All those things are the kind of things that you learn when you work for somebody else, and you don't have that . expenence. Page74 June 17, 2009 So you might be a Ph.D. in chemistry, but if you don't understand how to service a client, if you don't understand how to run a business within the pool industry, I don't know that I'm comfortable issuing you a license with that other experience lacking as well. MR. BURNS: Is it likely that I would be able to learn all those things in a 24-month span with a particular company? They just might keep me as a -- you know, if anybody wants -- if anybody finds out that I want to open up my own business, they're going to keep me down. They're not going to want to do anything with me or train me or see me go any further than just a pool cleaning tech. This is my opportunity to start a small business for myself and to try to survive in today's economy. This is a perfect example of a person struggling -- MR. L YKOS: Mr. Burns -- MR. BURNS: -- I've done everything I could-- MR. L YKOS: -- I applaud your entrepreneurial spirit, I truly do. However, you are concerned about another pool company investing in you, and what you're asking us to do is to let the general public be your school of hard knocks. And that's why you're in front of us. Because I don't know that I'm comfortable allowing you to continue your education at the expense of the general public. MR. BURNS: Everybody has to start somewhere. This would be my first pool cleaning service. When I started my first body shop, I learned as I went. I gained experience. That's how life works, you gain experience. This is my opportunity to gain my experience and to take off. This is -- that's what happens in life. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: I just merely point out, I think I've come to some sense on that within the trade issue for my own way of seeing this. And I understand what the gentleman is saying. I agree with his efforts. But many of those life experiences are things that don't require licensure by boards such as ours. And in our community there's a Page75 June 17, 2009 standard. And to me volunteering, no matter how good you are at it, is not the equivalent of experience within the trade. I think to be within the trade you either have to have had business experience somewhere else that's equivalent in a different jurisdiction, or you have to have worked for someone effectively in similar circumstances here. I don't see that. I'm willing to take on face value what the gentleman is saying and willing to accept the educational experience as a component, but it does not get me. Ifhe wants to volunteer for a business enterprise to gain experience and have someone who's within the trade demonstrate by affidavit that he has that experience, I'm more than willing to consider it. But at this point I don't even think I'm comfortable with a restricted license to private and making it temporary. Because I believe that you don't get your experience on the job for this type of license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Or like Mr. Lykos stated from the hardship of the people that he's going to be servicing, to learn his trade. Okay, I think we're ready to make a motion. MR. JERULLE: One more thing, if I may. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, Terry, go ahead. MR. JERULLE: You've taken the test and passed? MR. BURNS: I've done everything. MR. JERULLE: You have insurance? MR. BURNS: Yes. I'm legitimate. MR. JERULLE: And I'm assuming you're workmen's compo exempt? MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. JERULLE: So here's a guy that's trying to start a business and trying to do it the right way -- MR. BURNS: Yes. MR. JERULLE: -- okay? And from my experience, I've hired pool companies to come service my pool and I've serviced my pool Page76 June 17, 2009 myself, and without knowing anything, I've done a better job than some of the pool companies that I've serviced (sic). MR. BURNS: Absolutely. MR. JERULLE: And I'm just convinced that this person, by the means of doing what he's done and taking the course that he has, is going to end up being a better pool tech than some of the people that I've hired. MR. BURNS: That's what I'm trying to get across. MR. JERULLE: So -- in my mind. And I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just -- I'm on the record saying in my mind I think I would be comfortable giving him a-- MR. BURNS: I don't understand why you'd want to hold back someone like myself. I'm not a bad person. I have no ill intentions. I've done everything I can to -- with the exception of working for a pool cleaning service. I can't afford to support myself on that kind of a income, so I went around that. I did everything that I could. I've done everything that I could. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One other question. MR. BURNS: I've got business experience. I owned and operated a collision repair facility for six years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, one other question? MR. HORN: Thank you. I don't think we need to go there with it, sir, but the other issue we haven't even started on was the credit report, credit history on this packet. Have you reviewed it? MR. BURNS: We're not here for the credit report. MR. HORN: It's our job to review all areas of that. We're just reviewing the experience because we haven't gone to that at this point. MR. BURNS: I've attached a letter with my credit report, if that helps. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I reviewed it earlier and I didn't think that that would fall into the issue. But yes, it does fall into portions of Page77 June 17, 2009 the issue, because there are some things that are derogatory on his credit report, which is just another strike that we haven't even opened up yet. I'm going to go ahead and make this short and sweet. I'm just going to say that, Mr. Bums, at this particular time, without the experience knowledge and without the affidavits where you can verify that you have enough knowledge in the business to be able to own and operate a pool servicing company, I have to make a motion to deny this application. MR. BURNS: I strongly disagree. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sir. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second on the floor. All of those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. LANTZ: Nay. MR. JERULLE: Nay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 5-2. I'm sorry, I think the best thing that you can do would be to either try to get some more experience from another pool contractor, work for them, or maybe go and do one other thing; you could go and -- you could go to Gainesville or you could go to Mr. Ossorio, he will guide you in how to go and take a full spa servicing repair contractor's test, which would eliminate all of this. And then you'll be able to do that as well as go and work on pumps and filters, and as you gain your knowledge, once you have that test, you're still going to need the Page78 -'~'-'''''''~"---''''~'.''''''''-"'--'''''-'''''-'-''--.'._-~-..-___.."'.._.;.__"..........______,,~.~...<O._._.._.~"_ June 17, 2009 affidavits in order to get that license. MR. BURNS : Yeah, it's still -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But wait up. If you pass the test, then we can come back and look at you and we may be able to just take away the repair portion of it and give you a servicing license and not let you do repairs yet because you haven't proven that portion. But with your CPO and passing that test, I'd be more apt to give you a license for sure. MR. BURNS: Minus the experience. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Minus the experience. Because I can use portions out of that experience because you passed the test. When you pass that test, I know it's not a very easy test to pass, it's all open book. But you will still have another knowledge to pass that test. And if you're telling me you're as good as you say you are, and I'm not doubting that you are, at -- MR. BURNS: I'm better-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- least then you'd have two credentials MR. BURNS: -- than half the people out there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that I could go on, and I'm sure the board would go a different direction. I thank you but I'm sorry. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Let's -- we need to move on. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, we do. MR. OSSORIO: I would like to go ahead and go out of order, if you may. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. OSSORIO: And have Edward Lee Whitsett, Case No. 2009-08 under public hearing. He's here and present. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to then -- we only have one Page79 June 17, 2009 more entity here for aTony Kirkland. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, we have one, we have a credit report and then we have a second entity, but this is -- we need to hear this case first -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I gotcha, I understand. MR. OSSORIO: -- so we can get moving. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you, sir. MR. OSSORIO: Rob Ganguli will be presenting for the county. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'm just going to go through this little opening statement here as far as how this meeting runs. This is a Contractor Licensing Board Meeting and it's in regards to Case No. 2009-08; License No. 23418 on RR 282811095. It's for Edward Lee Whitsett, Whitsett Construction, Inc. I'm just going to give you a little opening statement on how this is going to run. F or general reasons the general process of the hearing is for the county to present opening statement where it sets out the changes in general terms how it intends to prove them. Respondent then will make an opening statement, setting out the general terms in his defenses to the charges. The county then presents its case in chief, calling witnesses and presenting evidence. The respondent may cross-examine these witnesses. Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent puts on his or her defense. They may call witnesses and do all the things described earlier; that is, call, examine witnesses, introduce exhibits, et cetera. After respondent puts on his case, the county gets to present a rebuttal to the respondent's presentation. When the rebuttal is concluded, then each party gets to present closing statements with the county, getting a second chance to rebut (sic) after the respondent's PageSO June 17, 2009 closing argument. The board then closes the public hearing and begins deliberations. Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will give them a charge, much like a charge to the jury, setting our parameters on which they base their decision. During deliberations the board can ask for additional information and clarifications from parties. The board will then decide two different issues: First, whether respondent is guilty of the offense as charges (sic) in the administrative complaint. A vote will be taken in this manner. If the respondent is found guilty, then the board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. The board attorney at this point will advise the board (sic) sanctions may be imposed and the factors to consider. The board will discuss sanctions and take a vote on those. After the two matters are decided, the chair, myself, or in his absence the vice chair will read the order to be issued by the board. The summary will set out basic outline of the order, but will not exactly be the same language as the final order. The final order will include full details required under state law and procedure. One quick question. Is there an attorney for the defendant here? No, you're going to do the case yourself. Okay. All right. I'll bring the county to state your case. You're going to do this? MR. JACKSON: Mr. Ganguli will be presenting the case for the county. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Rob Ganguli. I'm sorry. Would you like to have an opening statement, Mr. Ganguli? MR. GANGULI: Yes, Mr. Joslin. CLB Case No. 2009-8, Edward Lee Whitsett, doing business as Whitsett Construction, Incorporated. On May 22nd, 2009, I addressed a complaint against the Respondent Jeffrey Scott Mitchell regarding the advertisements on his business card, which included several contractor license trades, as well PageS 1 ~'~"'-"'~""""","~,.~_.^.,,,.,,,-,-,_.,,,-,_._--,,,,, ~ ~ ~'~r June 17, 2009 as the licensing information, RR28281 I 095. My investigation revealed that this registered residential contractor number was in no way associated with Mr. Mitchell but was that of the company Whitsett Construction, Incorporated, Collier County Certificate No. 23418. In the process of issuing the appropriate fines to Mr. Mitchell for the violations represented on his business cards, I learned that he had obtained permission from the qualifier of Whitsett Construction, Incorporated, Edward Lee Whitsett, to use his contractor's license. These activities of authorizing an unlicensed contractor to use one's certificate or registration and of performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited unlicensed practice of contracting construe violations of Section 4.1.1 and Section 4.1.9 of Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, as amended. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I have one quick stoppage for the moment. I need a motion to enter this packet No. 2009-08 case against Edward Lee Whitsett into evidence, please. I need a motion to do that. MR. WHITE: So moved, White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion. And a second? MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Jerulle. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so moved. Page82 June 17, 2009 Mr. Whitsett, could you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. THE COURT REPORTER: I have sworn him in. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, you already did. All right. Would you like to give an opening statement on the charges that are against you? MR. WHITSETT: Yeah, there's not much to say, as I didn't give the guy permission to use my license, so. I mean, he works for me sometimes. Because I was in jail, he came and saw me. And he was supposed to finish up a pressure cleaning job for me. And he printed business cards and things like that up without my knowledge. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, just for the record, I'm going to read the count that's against you. This is Count I of Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.1, you knowingly combining (sic) and conspiring with an unlicensed contractor by allowing one's certificate of competency to be used by an unlicensed contractor with intent to invade (sic) provisions of this ordinance. When a licensed contractor acts as the qualifying agent for any firm without first making application under the ordinance to represent this said firm, such act shall constitute prima facie evidence of intent to invade (sic) the provisions of this ordinance. When a certificate holder allows his certificate to be used by one or more companies without having any active participation in the operations, management, control of other such companies, such an act constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to evade the provisions. Active participation requires job site supervision, knowledge and participation in the business operations of the company, including all contractual matters. And Count No. II, Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.9, performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited unlicensed practice of contracting, if the licensed Page83 June 17, 2009 contractor knows or should have known that the person or entity was unlicensed. Did you know this was going on? MR. WHITSETT: No. Like I say, he worked for me. He actually is a worker, an employee of mine. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long did he work for you? MR. WHITSETT: He's worked for me on and off for 10 years. And he was just pressure cleaning, stuff like that. He's a carpenter, stuff like that. But he didn't -- he had no permission to use my license whatsoever. He was supposed to be following up on one of my jobs because I couldn't get to it, that was it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, do you have any comments or questions of the defendant? MR. GANGULI: I'd just like to present my case. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. GANGULI: We'll go after that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. GANGULI: On May 22nd, 2009, the Collier County Office of Contractors Licensing received a preliminary complaint consisting of a business card for Jeffrey Scott Mitchell, which included advertisements for several contractor license building trades. In addition to this, Mr. Mitchell's business cards also displayed the registered residential Contractor License No. RR282811095. In your evidence packet this exhibit is listed as E-l O. Gentlemen, as always, if you could follow along with what I'm talking about, it would probably help you. During the course of my investigation, it was discovered that this license number was in no way associated with Mr. Mitchell, but was that of the company Whitsett Construction, Incorporated, Collier County Certificate No. 23418. It was further discovered that Mr. Mitchell was neither a bona Page84 June 17, 2009 fide officer of this corporation, nor had any insurance coverage under the workers' compo exemption held by this company. During a scheduled meeting in which appropriate fines were issued for his advertising violation, Mr. Mitchell produced a signed and dated note which appeared to grant permission from the qualifier of Whitsett Construction, Incorporated, Edward Lee Whitsett, to operate in the manner being addressed. This exhibit is marked as E-8 in your evidence packets. Gentlemen, the only defense I could anticipate Mr. Whitsett having was claiming that the signature wasn't his. So in your packets, there are two handwriting samples of Mr. Whitsett. Exhibit E-9 depicts his signature as it appears on a page taken from his contractor license application, and E-7 contains a photocopy of his driver's license which also depicts the same. The board can conclude the authenticity of the dated note at their discretion. Should the validity of the note be determined, it would construe violations of Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, as amended, Section 4.1.1, which regulates unlawful authorization of an unlicensed contractor to use one's certificate or registration, as well as Section 4.1.9, regulating any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited unlicensed practice of contracting. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Ganguli? MR. GANGULI: Sir. MR. OSSORIO: Just one question. Did you confront Mr. Whitsett with this information? MR. GANGULI: I did. MR. OSSORIO: And what did he state to you? MR. GANGULI: He didn't deny that the signature was his. MR. OSSORIO: I have no further questions. If the board has questions, they're more than happy to answer (sic) of Mr. Ganguli. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, in your expertise, in your Page85 June 17, 2009 review of this case, do you feel as though the signature on this section of page number E-8 of the right to whom it may concern, I have given Jeff Mitchell permission to use my contractor's license number RR2828 I I 095; we sometimes work together and at other times Jeff works alone, that this was signed by Mr. Whitsett? MR. GANGULI: If Mr. Neale allows me to answer that question. MR. NEALE: You may. MR. GANGULI: It's my opinion that the signature's the same. MR. NEALE: Take into account that obviously Mr. Ganguli in that case is not testifying as an expert but only as a lay person. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I'm just finding out what led him to believe that, that's all. Any questions? Go ahead. MR. HORN: Question for our defendant. Is this your signature on the page, sir? MR. WHITSETT: I've seen that. That looks like a forgery to me. The date's even wrong on that. And I don't know if he took my signature and photocopied the words different. I did write a letter saying -- or I signed a letter saying that he was acting as my agent to do a pressure cleaning job. I did sign something like that. But that doesn't -- I've never seen that before until I saw the evidence. MR. WHITE: So if I may follow up? So your testimony, your sworn testimony, is that that's not your signature? MR. WHITSETT: It looks like my signature. But I don't know if the -- the letter's not the letter that I signed. So I don't know if that's a way they can photocopy or whatever, but it's -- MR. WHITE: Let me try it again. It's your testimony today that you did not sign this document? MR. WHITSETT: That letter, yes. MR. WHITE: Thank you. Page86 June 17, 2009 MR. GANGULI: Gentlemen, I do want to put on the record that when I visited Mr. Whitsett to serve him his subpoena and his notice of hearing and showed him this letter, he did relay to me that the date, May 20th, '07 that's on the document was actually done during the time that he was incarcerated. And it's my understanding he hasn't been there since '07. MR. WHITE: Well, those were some other questions, Mr. Chairman, I did want to delve into, but I wanted the county to finish its case. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. If you're concluded right now? I'll give you an opportunity to cross then, if you'd like to ask any questions of the county. MR. WHITSETT: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No? MR. WHITSETT: I mean, the date's wrong. I mean, I don't know, this is all new to me. I know that I can't -- I just know that I had a partner before and I had a corporation. And that's where you have -- the only way somebody could use my license or work with me is if I made him a corporate partner. And this guy was an employee. And what he's done on his own, it actually happened while I was in jail. I had no control over it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. What I'm asking you then is the letter that is here that has your signature on it that gave them authorization to use your license, that was dated on 5/20 of '07? MR. WHITSETT: Yeah, but I didn't -- I've never given him permission to use my license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were you incarcerated at that time? MR. WHITSETT: In '07, no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Were you working at that time? MR. WHITSETT: Yes. I've only been incarcerated for six weeks. Page87 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just a question. MR. WHITE: In fact, one of the -- if I may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. I'm sorry? MR. WHITE: If I may? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. WHITE: One of the documents that I thought I saw here actually looked like it might have been part of some kind of an application, whatever showed an August '08 date. And my question, Mr. Whitsett, is what was your status as of August of '08? Were you -- MR. WHITSETT: I was working. MR. WHITE: Working. MR. WHITSETT: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Jerulle. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Whitsett, how many employees do you have? MR. WHITSETT: Right now I have none. Just the one part-time, which was him. MR. JERULLE: How many -- at the maximum how many employees did you have? MR. WHITSETT: I had nine. That was four or five years ago, I had nine employees. MR. JERULLE: And how long have you had your license? MR. WHITSETT: Seven or eight years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you have any jobs at the moment that are still ongoing or under permit right now? MR. WHITSETT: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Nothing. So there's no work underway under your license number. MR. WHITSETT: No. Nothing permanent. We were pressure cleaning, but there's nothing going on at all right now. Nothing. Page88 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We were pressuring cleaning, meaning we. Who's we? MR. WHITSETT: Just the guy Jeffwas pressure cleaning with me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is he still an employee of yours? MR. WHITSETT: No. Not now. He was going to do ajob -- this all came about -- he was going to a job for me while I was incarcerated. And then I found out he was doing all this. That's how this came out. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So it's your testimony that he was allowed to go and do one job for you, is that the case? MR. WHITSETT: Paid by the hour, yes, as an employee. Just to go pressure clean a house. That was it. That's all he was supposed to do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, go ahead, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ganguli, just to get a better understanding of everything that's included in this packet, if you look at document E-7, it looks like a license application? MR. GANGULI: Yes. MR. L YKOS: And then it looks like E-8 was probably inserted in between -- E- 7 and E-9 probably go together; is that correct? MR. GANGULI: E-9 is from Mr. Whitsett's application to be a licensed contractor. I took this page out of his application because of his handwriting sample that was afforded to it. Same thing with E-7, it has his driver's license with his signature on it and that's the reasoning for me to include it in the packet. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Lykos, E-7 and E-9 are, you're absolutely right, the application itself that's submitted probably simultaneously. Rob just put it in between the two so you could see in between. MR. L YKOS: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That was put in there for more or less for Page89 June 17, 2009 signature purposes; is that correct? MR. GANGULI: That's entirely why it was put there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's what I thought, okay. MR. L YKOS: So it looks like a lot of this case revolves around this letter, page E-8, which you received from Mr. Mitchell; is that correct? MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: And could you please remind me again, when was it you received this letter from Mitchell? MR. GANGULI: The citations for the violations that Mr. Mitchell received were -- they were about May 22nd, sir. I can't give you the exact date that I wrote the citations. But at the time that Mr. Mitchell was brought into the office to receive his fines, he produced this, I'm presuming as some sort of defense so he wouldn't receive his fines. MR. L YKOS: I'm trying to get my brain around how soon after you caught Mr. Mitchell and the time -- how much time passed between when you first caught him and when he came into the office and whether or not there was enough time to forge the document. Just trying to determine -- MR. GANGULI: To the best of my recollection, it was two days, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. BOYD: Rob, what was Mr. Mitchell doing or charged with? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Mitchell was charged only with his advertising. I didn't catch him on a job site performing any function that he wasn't licensed to do. It was the presentation of his advertising, which is depicted in E-I O. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Boyd, one-third of our complaints are usually for advertising. Constituents or contractors come in and say Page90 June 17, 2009 this particular person is advertising that this license doesn't match this corporation. So that's not uncommon that we get just an advertisement citation due to the fact that we get those complaints. MR. BOYD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me, the other item I'm looking at -- I'm sorry, Terry? MR. JERULLE: Do we know how many permits were pulled under this license? MR. OSSORIO: No, we do not. I don't think -- I think I checked CD Plus and I don't think -- if he did, he didn't pull that many, maybe one or two. But Mr. Whitsett can probably ask (sic), maybe he just worked as -- MR. WHITSETT: Maybe three or four at the most. MR. OSSORIO: I stand corrected. He's pulled two. MR. JERULLE: Two. By Mr. Whitsett or by the other gentleman? MR. WHITSETT: Not me. Yeah, your picture's in the computer at the courthouse. You have to go pull the permit yourself. You can't -- MR. JERULLE: So Mr. Mitchell's pulled permits? MR. WHITSETT: No, no. MR. JERULLE: That's what I'm asking. MR. WHITSETT: No, I pulled the permit. There's only been two or three, maybe four at the max. And I'm the only one that can pull them. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Whitsett, do you still reside your residence at 1145 Cherrystone Court? MR. WHITSETT: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No? MR. WHITSETT: My address is on the -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you not lived there? MR. WHITSETT: Three years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Three years? Page91 June 17, 2009 There's no copy in the packet of his license number. License or copy of his license at all, his contractor licensing? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I believe if you look on E-3 -- MR. BOYD: E-6. MR. OSSORIO: -- and maybe E-6 as well. But definitely -- E-6 is the state -- when you become a state residential registered contractor, you need to register with Tallahassee. And that's what E-6 IS. And then when you're licensed with us, this is our certificate of detail on E-3, the top right. It says state number and the certificate number too as well, showing that -- depicting that he's a residential registered contractor, locally licensed by our office. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. The mailing address on the application, or the license application, is 190 Pebble Beach Boulevard; is that where you live now? MR. WHITSETT: I've moved several times in the last couple of years. Right now I live at 5305 Trammel Street. MR. OSSORIO: Which is depicted on E-6. So he changed his state registration, but he forgot to change his certificate down in Collier County. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir, go ahead, Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Mr. Whitsett, the county's E-3 shows under the expiration date for your state license that it's due to expire August 31 st of'09. MR. WHITSETT: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: Have you made any application to renew or continue that license? MR. WHITSETT: No, everybody's license expires on that date. We just have to go down and pay the county to renew it. Everybody's expires that day. Page92 June 17, 2009 MR. NEALE: Yeah, that's standard. MR. OSSORIO: Well, when you're a state registered contractor, you have to renew your license every year. And when you are state registered, you need to register with Tallahassee every year to make sure you do your credit hours. So Mr. Whitsett, if he hasn't done his credit hours, his continuing education, they won't reissue him a state registration number, and therefore his license with us will go inactive as well. That's one of the things we require when he renews is to make sure his state registration is current. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The state license is done in the odd years, correct? Every two years in the odd years? MR. OSSORIO: When you are a state certified contractor it's every even year, and when you're a state registered I believe it's every odd year. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But he is a -- just a registered license with Collier County, correct? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, state registered. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that's every year. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. He has to redo his license every year with us and every even year with the state to get himself state registered. I think it's on E-6, I think it probably shows you the expiration date. Yeah, it expires 8/31/2009. So if you're state registered, you renew every odd year, if you're state certified -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Every even year. MR. OSSORIO: -- like yourself, then you renew every even year. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct, okay. MR. NEALE: And there's not an application. Those are contractors, you know, there's not really an application process other than you have to submit to the state proof of your continuing education requirements. Page93 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: And if you complied with that, then you pay your money, you submit your CEU's and get your license back. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct. MR. NEALE: In the county it's just they follow the state. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions from the board? Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes, Mr. Whitsett, have you gotten the requisite number of hours for training this year to maintain your license? MR. WHITSETT: No. I just -- when I get out of jail I'll just go on my computer. So it takes two days on the computer. And I have til' August. MR. WHITE: So it is your intention to renew? MR. WHITSETT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, if that's the case, then any other comments, questions? MR. WHITE: Just one for counsel, if I may. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: You had indicated, when Mr. Ganguli was commenting about his opinion on the signature, that it was a lay opinion. What is the status of the law relative to us as board members being qualified to review a signature and make a determination about its authenticity or not? MR. NEALE: I think, you know, in this case you'd sort of look to yourselves as jurors in any other case and you use your knowledge and experience in these matters. You don't have any expert testimony as to whether that's his signature or not. You have the testimony of the two witnesses and that's really all that you can go on, plus the documents presented to you. So certainly that's one piece of evidence that you can weigh, and it's not based on expert testimony at all. So it's really just a matter of your own knowledge and experience in this matter, you know, based Page94 June 17, 2009 on the testimony given. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, if that's the case then, I'll ask for Mr. Ganguli for a closing statement then. MR. GANGULI: All right, gentlemen, obviously Mr. Whitsett is facing some issues that -- or will be on the officer of the contractor licensing prosecution here today. But I'd like the board to be aware of some of the unusual circumstances. The 110tice of this hearing and subpoena were served in a variety of ways, including visits to the Collier County Jail to make personal contact. During these visits I inquired if Mr. Whitsett was even concerned about the welfare of his contractor's license and his present situation. At no time did he ever express anything but immense concern about the welfare of his license, stating that his livelihood depended entirely on retaining it. Mr. Whitsett's concerns were demonstrated with his inquiries about the ramifications of a felony conviction on his ability to remain a contractor in Collier County and whether or not he would be permitted to attend this hearing to testify if he were still incarcerated. I feel that the board should be aware that Mr. Whitsett specifically requested the unlicensed contractor who was fined for using his licensing information to also be issued a subpoena to attend this hearing so that he may have an opportunity to present his defense to the board. A subpoena was served to Mr. Mitchell. Obviously he's not here today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's it? MR. GANGULI: (Nods head affirmatively.) Mr. Whitsett, I'll give you an opportunity to give a closing statement. Page95 June 17, 2009 MR. WHITSETT: I really don't have anything to say. I just -- you know, I want my license, I want to keep my license. I didn't do this. This guy did this on his own. I'm innocent. That's all I can say. I want to keep on contracting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What is your home phone number now? MR. WHITSETT: 239-234-0884. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The reason I ask that, gentlemen, this is a very difficult situation we're in here, because we don't have a whole lot of evidence that is really I guess what you would call over and above a reasonable cause. We've got a signature on a card. We've got a card written, we've got another man's name on it. And I've got a different phone number than his home phone number. I'm just a little bit concerned as far as if we have enough to go on to go too far. Now, Mr. Neale, I'm going to have to ask you for a little advice here. MR. L YKOS: We've got to close the hearing first. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, okay, we'll do that first. MR. NEALE: Yeah, let everyone finish their statements, then-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Last statements, either side. One more time I'll give you. Mr. Ganguli, you're done? MR. GANGULI: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Whitsett, you're done? MR. WHITSETT: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a motion then to close the public hearing. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, let me just -- can I just speak? I just want to make a statement. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: When Mr. Ganguli did confront Mr. Whitsett about this document, there was no cause. Ganguli thought that -- and due to the fact that Mr. Ganguli did not know Mr. Whitsett, that Mr. Page96 June 17, 2009 Whitsett didn't know what Mr. Ganguli was here for. And when he presented that documentation, Mr. Whitsett seemed, in Rob's opinion, that very aloof; in other words, yeah, okay, I did it and basically yeah, that's my signature. And he didn't know that he was doing something illegal or immoral by signing that documentation. This is why we went forward, not just because of the signature, but Mr. Whitsett's candor about saying okay, yeah, I know the guy, yeah, I'm trying to help him out, whatever it might have been. No time or shape did Mr. Whitsett say that's not my signature. If it was your signature or anyone else's signature or not his signature, the very first thing Mr. Whitsett would say is that's not my signature, I didn't do it. This is why we proceeded with the information on top of E-7 and E-9 of the signature. So therefore we ask you find him in violation of these two sections of the code. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. JERULLE: May I ask the witness a question? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, you may. MR. JERULLE: Have you taken any legal action against Mr. Mitchell ? MR. WHITSETT: No, but I asked -- I thought he -- I asked this man right here if he could prosecute him for fraud and arrest him, because it's a felony to contract without a license. He said no, they have to catch him in the act of doing something. But I would like to. MR. JERULLE: So you have not taken any legal action. MR. WHITSETT: I'm incarcerated, sir. I mean, I have no access to an attorney or anything. Until if I get out of jail I can do something, but I'm just going on what the prosecutor said here, so -- I would prosecute, yes, if I could. MR. JERULLE: That's it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Last questions? (No response.) Page97 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Then I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. MR. BOYD: So moved, Boyd. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by . saYIng aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0. You can have a seat if you like for a moment. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. HORN: If I may, I want to have the board members look at the signature. I have some concerns. I'm not a forensic expert, never have been, never claimed to, but I've owned a sports company since '97 that deals in sign memorabilia. Now people's signatures change over time, but there's about six different things that kind of concern me. So just comparing, we have two known signatures of the defendant versus the signed letter. Just looking at the letter versus that, the first concern is on the letter E in the first name. It has an extra loop in the bottom. The next letter, the D, it is two known samples. The D has a loop for the round part of the D. The letter that we have does not have the D. What else was there? On the E, there's a loop to make a -- let's Page98 June 17, 2009 just call it an opening on the Whitsett on the second part. The other two, it doesn't have an opening. On the H, it appears on his H's he doesn't do a loop, but it's not certain. On this one there's a big loop before the H. And there were a couple other things, like it looks like there's an extra S in this signature, like there's two S's, when there's only one in his name, obviously. So there's a couple of things. It's just questionable. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have to agree -- MR. HORN: I wish we had a forensic expert. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It would have been nice, yes. MR. BOYD: Well, there's some real differences in the numbers. If you compare the numbers, the 5/20/07 to some of the numbers on the application. They're not even close. Because somebody that draws a slash through their seven would do that all the time. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. WHITE: Bingo. MR. BOYD: There's not a single one. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I agree. MR. BOYD: So the numbers definitely are not the same, if Mr. Whitsett filled out the application for his contractor license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see the same things in the signature portions of it that I think that maybe everyone was looking at. But I mean, someone that's trying to forge a signature did a pretty close job. But again, I just don't think that this piece of paper, us not being forensic scientists, that we can actually say without a reasonable doubt that that signature is one in the same. I mean, let's just look at it in other fashions. This is a case that involves -- MR. NEALE: Gentlemen? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- pressure cleaning. MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin, if I may, before the board starts -- Page99 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- because you're in the midst of deliberation, let me just -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, I'm sorry. MR. NEALE: -- layout the rules a little bit here so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: Everybody's heard this before, I think, but we're going to go through it again. Because it seems to be of particular interest and importance in this case. In this matter, the board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to the respondent. However, pursuant to the Collier County Ordinance, the formal rules of evidence as set out in Florida statutes shall not apply. The board shall consider solely the evidence presented at this 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. As noted several times and previously, hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence in a case such as this, but by itself it is 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 wherein the respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the complainant must prove the complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. The burden of proof on the complainant in this case is a larger burden than the preponderance of evidence standards set for regular civil cases. The standards in evidence are to be weighed solely as to the Page100 June 17, 2009 charges set out in the complaint as Collier County Ordinances 90-105 or 96-46, Sections 4.1.1, which was previously read in the record as knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed contractor by allowing one's certificate of competency to be used by an unlicensed contractor with intent to evade the provisions of this ordinance. When an unlicensed contractor acts as the qualifying agent for any firm without first making application under this ordinance to represent said firm, such acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of intent to evade the provisions of this ordinance. When a certificate holder allows his certificate to be used by one of our more companies without having any active participation in the operations, management and control of such companies, such act constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to evade the provisions of this ordinance. Active participation requires job site supervision, knowledge of and participation in the business operations of the company, including all contractual manners. That is Count I. And Count II is section 4.1.9, performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited unlicensed practice of contracting, if the unlicensed contractor knows or should have known that the person or entity was unlicensed. In order to support a finding that the respondent is in violation of the ordinance, the board must find facts to show that the violations, as set out, were actually committed by the respondent. The facts must also show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of the relevant sections of 96 -- of 2006-46. These charges are the only ones the board may decide upon, as these are the only ones to which the respondent has had the opportunity to prepare a defense. Any damages that the board may find, should they find him in Page101 June 17, 2009 violation, must be also directly related to these charges and may not be for any matters not related to these charges. The decision made by this board 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 Board, as set out in the Collier County ordinance and the Florida statutes and rules. If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of the 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 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 its findings on the charges set out in the administrative complaint. N ow please proceed. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Discussion? MR. L YKOS: Well, I question what the motivation for each of the two parties would be for this letter and what the benefit was to each party. Seems like Mr. Mitchell had a lot more to gain from this than Mr. Whitsett did. Not to say that, you know, there was nothing in it for Mr. Whitsett, but Jeff Mitchell had a lot more to gain from this than Mr. Whitsett did. MR. WHITE: And I question the use of the tense have given. It seems a little awkward, rather than if I were signing a document contemplating moving forward. I hereby give, or something. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. WHITE: And someone who's preparing a document where having had the permission earlier in time was essential may have Page102 June 17, 2009 subconsciously influenced the use of tense. I don't know. We're all kind of, you know, reading things as best we can using our prior experience in life, but I don't see we're at, for me, a clear and convincing standard of evidence, let alone a reasonable doubt. So for me that's a key thing in looking at what the weight of the evidence is here. Even if this were a 50/50 case, meaning preponderance was the test, it would be a close call for me. But under a clear and convincing, I don't see it as being clear nor convincing. It may have been if Mr. Mitchell were here and we were able to inquire of him some of the specifics and some of the questions about intent. But I'm not convinced. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have to agree with you. It's a -- you know, it's the duty of the board to I guess try to be as clear as we can be and as convincing as we can be when we're dealing with someone's livelihood on a license. But I know the board well enough to know and I know myself well enough to know that if there was any kind of an idea, thought that this man was out there doing this with this license, that I'd be the first one to make sure it's removed. But I just don't feel as though there's enough evidence in this packet to proceed too far. Unless someone else has something else that they can add or help me out on this. Because I just -- there's a lot of loopholes. I can't see any reason why for a pressure washing job there'd be a lot to gain. But the fact of this Jeff Mitchell being able to use that license and go out and do a lot of different types of jobs, if he chose to, or if he got phone calls on. Has anyone found out what Mr. Mitchell's phone number was on the business end of it, business card? On the business card it's different from any of the other phone numbers that we have on this packet. There's a 465-3165 number for Jeff Mitchell. Now, it's possible that he just could have clear-cut stole the license for his gain. Now, I'm not saying that a 14-year old relationship that the Page103 June 17, 2009 man's worked together -- I'm sure they're friends. So there's no doubt that if one hand fed the other one, then he wouldn't care. But I don't know that there's a way to prove that at the moment. MR. JERULLE: We have subpoenaed, did you say, Rob? We have subpoenaed Mr. Mitchell? MR. GANGULI: Yes, Mr. Jerulle, I served him a subpoena as well. MR. JERULLE: What are the consequences of him not appearing? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Neale, would you like to answer that question? MR. NEALE: Well, I'm just going to that. This board does have the power to issue subpoenas. The problem is within the statute and the ordinance the board doesn't have any direct enforcement power of subpoenas. They're more of a -- unfortunately of a persuasive nature than they are of a mandatory nature. The board would have to apply through the courts to obtain a subpoena and then uti lize that subpoena, which then would have the force of law to compel the appearance here. So it's not really a -- and Mr. Zachary, would you concur? MR. ZACHARY: Yeah, I concur with that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we can issue a subpoena, but in essence we really can't force them to act on the subpoena? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, just for the record, Mike Ossorio. Yes, when you sign the subpoena, if it's not obeyed or adhered to, we take it to the judge and we affirm it with the county attorney, and then he issues another subpoena with the two. So there is some bite to it and we're going to look into it. I'm going to have a meeting with the county attorney and the judicial system probably in the near future to find out what we're going to do about this subpoena not being -- Mr. Mitchell not here today. Page104 June 17, 2009 So with that said, we do have a bite and we will be pursuing this with the county attorney under Robert Zachary. MR. JERULLE: So if -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So then there is the possibility then that we could table this particular case until we heard more evidence from Mr. Mitchell? MR. OSSORIO: That's up to the licensing board. MR. JERULLE: And that's along the thoughts of me asking the question is I would like to hear from Mr. Mitchell before I make a decision. Because there are some questions on both sides. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I totally see. I agree. Yes? MR. BOYD: Has Mr. Mitchell been here before? MR. JACKSON: I can't think of any reason that he would have. He's not a contractor. MR. BOYD: Okay. MR. NEALE: Just as a point of reference, I as a legal matter would have difficulty recommending to the board that they table this matter because of the failure of a witness to respond to a subpoena issued by this board and thus not appear. Remember one of the primary roles of this board is to ensure that due process is afforded to the respondent. And by -- you know, the old adage of justice delayed is justice denied certainly would apply in this matter. And so therefore I would caution the board against continuing this matter solely to allow a witness who was validly noticed and attempted to have appear, I would have some real difficulties in supporting that decision. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. That makes sense, I suppose, yes. MR. JERULLE: Under the circumstances, and I don't know how long he's going to be incarcerated, but under the circumstances, I don't know that's necessarily the -- believe me, I'm not trying to practice law here. Under the circumstances, I don't know that it's going to make Page105 June 17, 2009 any difference. MR. NEALE: However, it's very important for the board to note, and this I should have said at the outset, the conditions of Mr. Whitsett's incarceration or lack thereof, the conditions of his other legal matters are completely beyond the purview of this board and must be ignored in any deliberation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Joslin, I would point out that Mr. Mitchell, who's not here, may very well be at home in his living room watching this on television, and you would run the risk of -- if you continued it and had him testify, his testimony would be influenced by what he's heard here today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I understand. MR. ZACHARY: Obviously he has an opportunity to do that. I want to just caution you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And Mr. Chairman, even ifhe wasn't watching, he certainly would have the opportunity to see it later in time. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: See it later. MR. WHITE: From my point of view, although I may have gained some additional insights and direct observation from the testimony of Mr. Mitchell, I think there's a strong presumption in my mind that anything he would have to add would be couched in terms of what was in his own best interest. And it is evidence to me that that would be the case just from the facts we have so far. I'm prepared to make a decision today and comfortable with it over time. If there's going to be anything that's going to be a problem with Mr. Whitsett in the future, I'd have to imagine it's something we're going to know about rather quickly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I can certainly understand that. I was just looking -- I think Terry and I were both looking at just a way to make it a little more clearer and convincing in our decision, but I Page106 June 17, 2009 can see your point and I can see definitely Mr. Neale's point about if our friend Mr. Mitchell would be watching this, it could be detrimental to either side. And we probably wouldn't learn anything new anyway. MR. WHITE: That doesn't mean that I'm not disappointed by him ignoring the subpoena. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, I would definitely like to make that a conversation -- a topic of conversation down the road after this case is over, for sure. Because that's not something that should be -- we shouldn't be doing that. A subpoena is a subpoena. They should be here. So I'm going to ask for anymore conversation, anymore discussion or a motion. MR. L YKOS: I will make a motion that we find Edward Lee Whitsett d/b/a Whitsett Construction, Incorporated not guilty of Count I and Count II of Case No. 2009-8. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And I have a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saYIng aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are there any opposed? MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-1. Page107 June 17, 2009 Just a little bit of paperwork now I have to read. The order of the board is: This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractor Licensing Board on June 17th, 2009, consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Edward Whitsett d/b/a Whitsett Construction, Inc. Service of the complaint was made by certified mail, personal delivery of publication in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended. The board, having hearing testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon issues its finding of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board as follows: That Edward Lee Whitsett is the holder of record of Certificate of Competency No. 23418 and RR2811095. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is the complainant in this matter. This cause came on -- whoops, sorry. That's it. And Mr. Neale, am I lost here? MR. NEALE: Yeah, the next is the board has jurisdiction -- board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent, and -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, yes. The board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent in that Edward Lee Whitsett was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing on June 17th, 2009. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered. Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation -- MR. NEALE: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That is not in violation-- MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who did not commit the act. That the allegations of fact as set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I, Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section Pagel08 June 17, 2009 4.1.1, being that knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed contractor by allowing one's certificate of competency to be used by an unlicensed contractor with intent to evade the provisions of this ordinance. When licensed (sic) contractor acts as the qualifying agent for any firm without first making application under this ordinance to represent said firm, such acts shall constitute prima facie evidence of intent to evade the provisions of this ordinance. When a certificate holder allows his certificate to be used by one or more companies without having any active participation in the operations, management or control of such companies, such act constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to evade the provisions of this ordinance. Active participation requires job site supervision, knowledge and participation in the business operations of the companies, including all contractual matters. And also of Count II, Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.9, performing any act which assists a person or entity in engaging in the prohibited unlicensed practice of contracting, if the licensed contractor knows or should have known that the person or entity was unlicensed. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count I are approved, adopted and incorporated herein -- MR. NEALE: Are not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are not. Sorry, are not approved, adopted and incorporated herein; to wit: Respondent did not violate Section 4.1.1 or 4.1.9, as amended in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by not acting in violation of the sections set out in the administrative complaint with particularity. Order of the board: Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as Page109 June 17, 2009 amended, by a vote of six in favor and one opposed, a majority -- a non-majority (sic) vote of the board members present, the respondent has been found not guilty or not in violation as set out above. MR. NEALE: And the rest you don't need to -- because there's no order. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No order to read, right? MR. NEALE: And you said a non-majority of the board members present. You need to say that it was a majority. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A majority of the board members present. Sorry. Is that it? MR. NEALE: That's it. Case is closed. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, it's 12:20. We could do two things: One, we can go to lunch or three; we can take a break and finish up. We have four items. I don't think they're going to take too long. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd just be apt to take a break and come back and be done with it, huh? Maybe 15 minutes or so? MR. WHITE: I'm okay without one, if you want to just move forward. Oh, you're not. So sorry. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's take a IS-minute recess and then we'll be right back. So it's 12:21, so 12:35. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Call the meeting of Collier County Contracting Licensing Board, June 17th meeting back to order again. And we'll begin where we left off on new business. And I'm going to go back to the one that we left, because the lady wasn't here. I believe she's here now. A Mirasol L. Santos, are you here? MS. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come to the podium on this side, please, and be sworn in. Pagel 10 June 17, 2009 (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. Santos, you are in front of us today to -- review of a credit report that you have in your business that you're trying to establish -- MS. SANTOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- is that correct? MS. SANTOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : You want to give us a little bit of insight on what kind of happened? I've looked at your packet and I've got several questions for you, but maybe you want to give us a little oversight view as far as why the credit is in this condition that it is in. MS. SANTOS: I have a lot of medical, unpaid medical bills. And I had employed a credit repair company and assumed that it would be reappeared by now. I've been doing this -- it's been going on almost a year now I've been trying to get licensed and the school and everything like that. And when I submitted by application, I didn't check. I should have checked before I submitted my application. But I figured it had already been about four months into it and that my credit should be way better than what it was on the report. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Most of these are medical? I see most of them are. MS. SANTOS: I have a few charge-offs. I think one cable bill or something like that. But most them are medical bills. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify real quick, Mrs. Santos applied for a -- landscaping license, or was it tree? MS. SANTOS: Tree. Landscaping restricted, tree service. MR. OSSORIO: She took the exam, tree exam. I don't have any questions about her experience, she has some good credentials. And we, the licensing board -- or licensing division doesn't really take into account medical. But unfortunately that she hasn't had her business open for more than 12 months, we really look hard on her personal Page1l1 June 17, 2009 credit, and there are some things in there that -- the Sprint bill, the Direct TV bill, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. My recommendation is that we put her on 12-month probation and within four months a new credit report to see how she's doing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Within four months? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I looked at the packet seriously myself, and there's nothing on here that's really -- I mean, there's no thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. They're all basically medical payments. Are you going to -- I assume you're going to make a pretty much hard effort to try to get rid of these charges or these collections that are against you. MS. SANTOS: Oh, yes, absolutely. I put on my letter six months, just to be safe, but I imagine that it should be substantially better in at least three months. And that was back in May. So I figure another two months it should be substantially better. In four months it should be even better. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: I've looked at a lot of credit reports in the time I've been doing this, and it's safe to say that the ratio of collections and charge-offs to current accounts is probably the worst I've ever seen. I understand it except what the applicant is saying in terms of the medical bills and the idea that it's going to be improved. And I appreciate the staffs recommendation about the credit report. And the applicant agrees that four months may make some sense. I'm not comfortable with 12 months of probationary. I'm wondering whether six months makes more sense, because we would then be able to take a look at that credit report six months from now and see what's on there and kind of go from there. And I'm just wondering if that's an option for us, as opposed to the 12. Pagel 12 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That is an option, sure. MR. WHITE: I just wanted to ask. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Twelve months probation is quite a long time to be on probation with a license. However, it does give us a little more -- MR. WHITE: History. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- a little more control and a little more history on being able to monitor a little closer, providing that we are giving her a license, or allowing her to have a license. And also, this license that you're asking for is a restricted landscaping, where all you're going to do is what? MS. SANTOS: Tree trimming, some tree removal. Right now just basically residential tree trimming, picking up shrubs, stuff like that, landscaping. Any rock removal and put back, stuff like that. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, it -- MS. SANTOS: Right now it wouldn't be anything big, because we're just starting out. MR. OSSORIO: It's a tree servicing contract, not a landscaping restricted, so she'll be -- it will be a full-blown tree trimming contractor. MS. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Neale, in line with the recommendation of staff, if we did a six-month probationary license, she'd have to come back in six months, come in front of us, we could review her credit again, we could extend it six more months, we could remove probation. So I think the length of probation isn't really critical. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. L YKOS: Whenever we have her come back, we can choose to extend probation or just release it altogether. MR. NEALE: Precisely. Yeah. And the board, you know, has in the past put forth a -- for example, a 12-month probationary license Pagel13 June 17, 2009 with quarterly reporting during that 12-month period, things like that. Just as a point of reference, the State of Florida, for its contractors under Florida Administrative Code Section 61 G4-15.006 sets forth as the standard for state contractors a FICO score of 660 or higher as being what is a good score for them. So just for the board's reference, that's the current standard at stake. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's basically the minimum that you can have to -- MR. NEALE: Well, either -- if you don't have a 660 at the state level, you have to put up a financial stability bond or a letter of credit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And hers was what, a 574, something of that nature? MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Well, I think she has the experience. As far as the experience goes, she's worked -- apparently the affidavits that you have in here are all from Santos, so I take it this is family? MS. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mother, father and sisters and brothers and -- MS. SANTOS: Father-in-law, uncle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Obviously you've had your hands in the pie quite a long time, right? MS. SANTOS: I grew up around trees. My dad had a nursery; my grandfather was a lawn guy. I helped when I was a kid all growing up and throughout school and on the side. And then as I became an adult, also did stuff on the side. And while working, I also worked as a bookkeeper for 12 years. So I have the experience and trade and the administrative part of it. And I believe if I'm given a chance, I know I will do well. I know I will. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that's a good heart thought. Thank you. Pagel 14 June 17, 2009 MS. SANTOS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other comments? MR. L YKOS: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this license with a six-month probation, and that Mrs. Santos comes back in front of the board at six months and then we review her credit and make a further determination at that point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion on the floor. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Mr. White. A motion and a second to approve the license. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations. MR. JACKSON: Ms. Santos, your license won't be ready until tomorrow. MS. SANTOS: That's okay. MR. JACKSON: You'll be able to get it tomorrow. MS. SANTOS: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, you do understand it's for six months. MS. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, at the end of the six month. And then also in the -- well, yeah, in four months you'll bring back a credit Pagel15 June 17, 2009 report? MS. SANTOS: Yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: No, six months. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, six months. MS. SANTOS: Six months, okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just to make sure that you are doing what you said you were going to do with your people that are reviewing your credit. I would stay on them daily until they get it done, okay? MS. SANTOS: I have been. Since then I have been. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Good luck to you. MS. SANTOS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. All right, next one in line here is -- who did we skip? Colleen Martinez, are you here? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. Martinez, you are here to -- the review of your credit report, or a license that you are trying to obtain here. MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: For professional painting? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As a painting contractor. MS. MARTINEZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, would you like to give us a little bit of insight as far as what's going on with your credit? MS. MARTINEZ: Mine majorly is a lot of charge-offs due to a divorce. And my ex-husband is responsible for the debt in our divorce. And then there's a few medical things for my daughter. I was a single Pagel 16 June 17, 2009 mother for a while. I have recently remar -- not recently, but I've remarried since then, and I have been working towards repairing my credit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You said that your -- this credit or some of the items in your credit report that are listed are actually in your husband's name also? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And through a divorce decree he was the one that was supposed to have taken care of these items? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, because he has kept the accounts current and he also has kept all the items that were charged with that account, so he's responsible for them now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long has this been going on? MS. MARTINEZ: As far as the credits that were charged off to him? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, or when the divorce decree was initiated. MS. MARTINEZ: I was divorced from him I guess eight years now. And so he's -- I don't know if he has paid those accounts or not. They do say that they are charged off to his name. If he's paying on them, I'm not sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you have something in your divorce decree that clearly states that he -- MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, that he is -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- is responsible for the debts that -- MS. MARTINEZ: -- responsible for the debt. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- are on here? MS. MARTINEZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is that in the packet maybe? MS. MARTINEZ: No, I did not include that, but I could bring it in if I need to. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been painting? Pagel 17 June 17, 2009 MS. MARTINEZ: I've been painting off and on. My husband does the majority of the painting and I've kind of been painting off and on with him for a few years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What does he allow you to do? Or what did he allow you to do? Did you paint or clean the brushes or, you know -- MS. MARTINEZ: Yes. I'm allowed to do the prep work and any of the cleanup, of course. And he trusts me with a few things here and there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anybody else? Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: Mr. Ossorio, are you comfortable with the applicant's experience? MR. OSSORIO: I haven't really checked the -- her references. I did skim over it when I was reviewing her credit application. And I was going to call Coleman Homes, Mr. Coleman himself, and ask him about this, but I haven't got that far yet. MS. MARTINEZ: Excuse me, my father is actually -- he's my father, and he's actually here, if you would like to direct any questions towards him, for my experience. MR. OSSORIO: Is he a licensed painter? MS. MARTINEZ: He is a licensed contractor -- or he was previously -- I'll let him speak. I don't know what he's doing. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. COLEMAN: Mark Coleman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Coleman, has Ms. Martinez worked for you in the past? MR. COLEMAN: She's my daughter, and I was building homes, yeah, I had all the kids in there cleaning and prepping and sanding and whatever we needed to do. Mainly sweeping floors and making sure the job site was nice and clean. Pagel 18 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: See, I told you that's what you were allowed to do. MS. MARTINEZ: It was our punishment. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions from the board members? MR. JERULLE: No, if I could just -- you can go ahead and ask your question, but 20 years ago I worked with Mr. Coleman and know who he is. I don't know his daughter. But Mark used to do nice homes and did nice work. He was a very good builder on Marco Island. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions? Mr. White? MR. WHITE: I heard what Ms. Martinez said about the divorce decree and yeah, it would have been helpful to have seen how the distribution of debt was handled by that judgment. But there are a number of items on here, certainly four or five of them, that seem to originate from the past year or two and are in collection account status. Now, maybe they originally -- maybe they relate back to something original that was a medical debt and they're in a new credit agency's hands for collection, but Planet Fitness, is that one of the ones that you know was something that -- MS. MARTINEZ: There are a couple on there that I have never seen before. So Planet Fitness and Styles for Less are the two that I do not know -- I've never been a member of Planet Fitness so I don't know where it came from, and I have taken steps to resolve that with them. And also Styles For Less, I actually was employed by them at one time and they owe me my last paycheck, and I don't understand why it's showing that I owe them money. But I also have contacted them and they are no longer in business. MR. WHITE: Well, it's $62. I mean, it's not-- MS. MARTINEZ: I know, that's why I don't understand why it's on there. Because -- Pagel 19 June 17, 2009 MR. WHITE: Well, we understand that certainly there are all kinds of things that end up in a credit report and why it's important to keep an eye on it. But I just was trying to get to the root of some of these that seem to be maybe a little newer than the time period after -- MS. MARTINEZ: Yes, I understand. MR. WHITE: -- the divorce, so -- MR. L YKOS: Well, I know that Colleen is here because of her credit, but I still haven't heard anything that convinces me that she can run a painting company. She's swept floors and she did prep work and she sanded. And I used to work for my father and I know what it's like to work for your father, so I give you a lot of credit for surviving that expenence. MS. MARTINEZ: Thank you. MR. L YKOS: But I still haven't heard anything that convinces me that she can go out and run a painting company. MR. COLEMAN: Sir, I have had her at home painting the walls with a roller, rolling some paint on the walls. She's excellent in cutting in. She's learning how to cut in. You know, the prep work I always felt like is the most important thing. Having that thing caulked, sanded properly, sweeping the floors before you spray or before you roll so that that baseboard's not like sandpaper, she has done all that part. Has she used the sprayer? No. But has she used the roller? Yes. Has she used the brush? Yes. And I've been doing this since '82 in Collier County. Of course she hasn't. She was only about two years old then. But she has been around the job sites forever, ever since I've been doing it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The other thing that I see that is a plus is that she did take the painting contractor test, which 1 know isn't rocket science to pass. Mr. Bartoe, who used to be one of the investigators here for years, was a painting contractor. And I know if he could pass it, a lot of people can. Page120 ..._~--",,,,,. -___._'..4- ,II~" i i 111' _~~;,..'.~"_m._.."..~.,.~_.,_.,.._..,,'____.__..,....,< June 17, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: Well, he took it several times. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know. It'd take it a couple of times to pass. But I mean, she got 80 percent on that. And also on the business procedure she got a 92, which tells me she knows a lot about the business and law end of it. MR. COLEMAN: Well, A lot of the people that she'll be working with have -- will probably be contacts that I have made over the years, and those people with me kind of overseeing her and working with her will -- not working with her, but overseeing it, going in there. Because I'm very picky. Those jobs have to be neat, clean. And that's what sells jobs. And be priced right and just do what it takes to get it done and done right and finish the job. And those are the people that she'll be working for, a lot of the contacts I have, to get started. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : You might want to caution yourself just a little bit, because if she doesn't get this license, you may end up working for her. MR. COLEMAN: You know-- MS. MARTINEZ: We've discussed that. MR. COLEMAN: -- that wouldn't be a bad thing, because I like to go to North Carolina in the summers and then in winter come here and just do a little bit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Payback. MR. COLEMAN: I'm getting to that age. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's payback they call it, you know that. MS. MARTINEZ: We've discussed it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sure you have. Any other questions? Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: Who's Adrian Martinez who's going to be vice-president? MS. MARTINEZ: That would be my husband, and who has Page12l -~-'--"-"""-'-'-"'~'--'-'---"-----"-""'-"-""--_.~"-'-'-'-'-''"--"'"~''"-~-'~_'''''''1Il . """,' 'R _~"':.U "'l _ 1l'l1 .." "._.".....~..",..._""_"___.-,"=,,..",."'~.,.,~~,,~"."..M_ June 17, 2009 been painting for eight years. MR. L YKOS: Okay, because I was going to ask what his painting experience is. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: May I ask a question of the applicant? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You sure can. MR. WHITE: One of your verification and construction experience is for Keith Leonia? MS. MARTINEZ: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: There's no time period filled in when you worked for him or -- can you tell us how long that period of time was that you spent with Sunset Builders or working on their behalf? MS. MARTINEZ: Sure. MR. COLEMAN: Well, I've been working with them since 1999. And my sons are now working with Sunset Builders doing trim work, as well as I am too. And she's been on the jobs with us, helping us, assisting us. MR. WHITE: Mr. Coleman, that's a very good answer for you. I was asking your daughter. MR. COLEMAN: I'll sit down then. MR. WHITE: Thank you, sir. MS. MARTINEZ: I'm sorry. I would have to say I've been off and on there for the last two, maybe three years helping out my father and now my husband. MR. WHITE: Were you an employee or -- MS. MARTINEZ: Of Sunset Builders? MR. WHITE: Of Sunset Builders. MS. MARTINEZ: No, I am not an employee of Sunset Builders. Whenever my dad needed me to come sweep, that's when I would show up. Or whatever he needed me to do. But I'm not an employee of Sunset Builders. Page122 June 17, 2009 MR. WHITE: Was it the same type of a relationship that you had with Steven Henell? MS. MARTINEZ: Yes. I am not an employee of them, I just come -- Steve Henell. I just help my dad with trim and my brothers with trim whenever they need me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anyone else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll make a motion that we approve the license for Professional Painting of Southwest Florida, Ms. Martinez, for a six-month period. In six months you come back as a probationary license. And I want to at least hopefully bring back some kind of a better little credit report (sic). And also if there's a way that you can get a copy of your divorce decree -- MS. MARTINEZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that verifies what you told us today regarding the debts that don't belong to you. MS. MARTINEZ: Okay. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second. All in favor signify by -- any discussion first? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. Any discussion, no. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. L YKOS: Aye. Page123 --''''-'-'~-'''-_.'_.''-_'_,,_.~-'---'''_.''"-'~'-''''.''-'._'"U_"''''u.<..n.._"".~~~''''''''_"'*'"''_~_'' J _0... . .-. June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-1. MS. MARTINEZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. Good luck to you. And you can't get your license today; it'll have to be tomorrow, okay, when they are down there again. Good luck to you. MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome, Mr. Coleman. A Tony Kirkland, are you in the room, please? MR. KIRKLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come to the podium and be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You'll have to just bear with us for a second, Mr. Kirkland, we just got this packet. I know you're here for -- to qualify a second entity; is that correct? MR. KIRKLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And right now you own -- what company do you own right now? MR. KIRKLAND: TK Pump and Irrigation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's what I thought. Which does what? MR. KIRKLAND: Irrigation work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Irrigation work. MR. KIRKLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is this irrigation of homes or is it irrigation for any place, lakes? MR. KIRKLAND: Pumps, homes, residential, commercial, new installs. I'm licensed to do all that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been in business? MR. KIRKLAND: A little over five years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Staffhave any comments as far as any Page124 .... ~"~____~"'_"___~__'_'4'_"_'_'~_~"___"__,--,,,,_,,.I.~ """ II June 17, 2009 problems that Mr. Kirkland has had with his other business? MR. OSSORIO: No, I think he's a good contractor. He calls us on many occasions to turn in unlicensed contractors. He's out there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. MR. OSSORIO: So he's doing it the right way. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The new business you're opening is called Earthcare Landscape Services; is that right? MR. KIRKLAND: Actually, I'm going to be qualifying Sean McGuinness -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. KIRKLAND: -- Earthcare Landscape. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Well, qualifying, that means that you're part in there, you're part of Earthcare Landscapers. MR. KIRKLAND: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. What's your reason for doing that? Being that you're in the pump and irrigation business, what makes you want to get into landscaping? MR. KIRKLAND: He's been doing it for 19 years. We've been working together for over five now, you know. And he wants to get his license real bad. So after I can qualify him for I think two years, he can get his irrigation license on his own later on. It's just basically to help him out. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to give you a quick . overVIew. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Tony Kirkland has an irrigation license. The company he wishes to qualify has a landscaping company restricted, meaning he can't do irrigation. So the landscaping company, the gentleman wants to take the irrigation exam, but he doesn't have the . expenence. Tony has been doing all his work for many years, all the irrigation for him by the homeowners association, whatever it might Page125 June 17, 2009 be. And Tony wishes to qualify his company, a landscaping company, and be in charge of it, day-to-day operations of the company, hiring, firing, supervise the job to make sure it gets done right. And then within a period of three or four years when, you know, this gentleman gets more acclimated with the irrigation, Tony Kirkland can sign off his qualifications truthfully and say he's an irrigation contractor, therefore he's ready to take the exam. So they're just doing it the right way. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand. Very good. MR. KIRKLAND: That's what I meant to say. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's okay. He always says the right words. We just kind of search out those words, that's all. I like to hear it from you. Just so you know what you're getting yourself into. You understand that you're liable for the company, both companies now? MR. KIRKLAND: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Now, we're going to get into something else that I'm looking at here. And I'm wondering. I've got a credit report here from TransUnion showing Tony Kirkland, which I . assume IS you. MR. KIRKLAND: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm seeing a lot of collections, a lot of medical bills. MR. KIRKLAND: The only thing you should see on there is medical. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Medical, yes. A lot of medical. MR. KIRKLAND: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can you kind of give us a little insight of what's going on there? MR. KIRKLAND: Yeah, about 10 months ago I almost died. They still don't know what -- I spent $40,000 -- well, the medical bills totaled $40,000. And I paid a lot of them off. I think there's a balance of 17,000 that's left. Page126 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I assume you didn't have insurance at the time when you -- MR. KIRKLAND: No, sir. I have paid thousands and thousands of dollars to them, though. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I can contest. I was there when I saw TK Pumping. I mean, he went through -- one day he was fine, the next day he's on ICU. So it does happen. But his credit report on his business looks pretty clean. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Just a question. Mr. Ossorio, what's your recommendation? MR. OSSORIO: We approve the license. MR. NEALE: And this has happened before, and I think it's more an administrative issue sometimes, is the only credit report that actually should be in there is the business credit report, because he's been in business for more than one year. So that credit report actually is in error and shouldn't even be looked at. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Any other questions? MR. BOYD: I move we approve the license. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to approve the li cense. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0. Congratulations. Page127 June 17, 2009 MR. KIRKLAND: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Have fun. Okay, that pretty well does the minor stuff. Now we've got one - MR. OSSORIO: We have old business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- item in old business. MR. OSSORIO: Case No. 2009-06, and Rob Ganguli will be discussing it with you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. This is in regards to a Bobby J. Phillips, Jr., d/b/a Bob's Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. Seems like this morning I saw that gentleman here. And he just must have left on his own I guess, huh? MR. GANGULI: Do you need me to swear in again, ma'am? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. (Mr. Ganguli was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli? MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, the last time we met, the board gave an order for several things. Mr. Phillips needed to obtain a permit and get the work done for the residence at 6901 Compton Lane. As of this morning, no permit was in issue status. The old one that he had obtained was still in cancel status. I called him and informed him several times that we'd be meeting here today and that there were several things he needed to take care of before he appeared in front of you. This morning I found Mr. Phillips in the office of the County Commissioners and escorted him into the chambers here. And somehow I can't help but feel that when you called the first recess he thought the hearing was over and he left. I remember Mr. Guite' at the hearing inquired of Mr. Phillips whether or not he felt he'd be better off with legal representation. He seemed to be playing a different role here today. But the fact is he never got the permit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Well, that was the order of the Page128 June 17, 2009 board, I'm quite certain, to get that permit. And that was the only permit that he was allowed to be able to honor -- MR. GANGULI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- Collier County was going to honor. MR. GANGULI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And ifit didn't happen, then we would make our ruling on that pretense. MR. GANGULI: That's correct. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, you can see on your packet, the first part of it is a letter to G.W. Harrell, who is the executive director of the licensing board, letting him know what we're doing with the state certified contractor. Then you also see your finding of facts, signed by yourself, and the order of the board on count number one, permit pulling privileges. We recommend that you go ahead and find him guilty of 4.2.2 and suspend his building privileges indefinitely, and I'll rewrite the letter to the construction board. MR. WHITE: So moved, White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are there any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0. Now, do I need to read the orders of the board again, or no? Page129 June 17, 2009 MR. NEALE: No, I think -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's already in here already, right? MR. NEALE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, one more housekeeping item. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: We're going to be trying to have a scheduled licensing board in August, and we're going to try to do it every other month for convenience and plus to try to save a little bit of tax dollars. So if nothing really happens this month, we're going to definitely have it in August. So we'll see how it plays out in July. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. JERULLE: When you say cost savings, I guess I don't understand. MR. OSSORIO: Well, court reporter, probably the renting of the room. And, you know, the board members are expensive too as well. MR. JERULLE: Which means that we need to schedule our time differently then. Instead of just a couple of hours once a month, it's going to be several hours every other month? MR. OSSORIO: Could be. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If the caseload is such, right? MR. OSSORIO: You know, for right now July, we typically have an agenda for August, and it does fill up. And we tried to make sure that -- we try to make sure that we don't go past noon. If not, we push it back till two more months. Unless something happens in the next couple of days and we need to have a July meeting. I'll let you guys know. If something pressing happens or we have an emergency issue we need to go ahead and schedule, then we will do so. MR. JERULLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So right now the every other month is something that will be just on a basis that we're going to do, unless the something comes up differently? Page130 June 17, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. L YKOS: Couple of things, if I could make some requests? I don't like getting these credit report cases the day of our meetings. Unless they're an automatic slam dunk for you, I really like to take the time to go through and try to understand a little bit about the applicant. And to have to do those reviews while the person is standing there waiting for us, I really don't like those. So if we can avoid that. Now, I understand sometimes you do it __ like the one today was pretty much a slam dunk. But if we can avoid it, I'd rather to avoid it. I don't like feeling pressured to go through that report and make a good decision without the time to review it. MR. OSSORIO: Since we're here, I know Patrick White was on the construction licensing board in Lee County. Do they have a board meeting every month, or is it every other month? MR. WHITE: It was Cape Coral, they had monthly meetings. And I represented the Lee County board and they also had monthly meetings. MR. OSSORIO: And that was several years ago, though, so -- MR. WHITE: Yeah, that probably goes back to '95 that's been the practice. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, there's no doubt that with the economic factor the way it's falling into play, there's several other items that are out there that I'm not real content with. Having been on this board for this many years, I just feel as though somehow or another we have to get message across to the commissioners or Collier County or whoever the powers to be may have to be done too to try to keep the investigators that work here in Collier County against unlicensed contracting in the field on a five-day basis. I know the economic time is bad, I know the money is tight, but there's got to be a way that these investigators need to be out there. Page 131 _.____._"~~"._.".~_~____,..__;._.......'""'''_'~_'_;~~~.'''"__._.._._,,__,._. "".'_""'~._'M._~""'_"'___""_'___~"__"'_*"'__ June 17, 2009 Just so that you know for the record, Mr. Lykos and myself attended the board of commissioners meeting here the beginning of June, I believe it was, and we hung around just about all day, but we never could get on the agenda. We were supposed to be able to talk about asking them and presenting them right to the commissioners. But their agenda was so tight and so booked and it went on and on. And at 4:00 Mr. Lykos walked out, and we still couldn't get in. So we did try our best to try to get this out into the open. But if code enforcement can be out there working and they're issuing the same types of citations for different offenses that Collier County residences are calling in about, I know we're getting calls and I know licensing is getting calls. And I think now more than ever is the time when we really need to be out there, with the way that their workload is right now, people laying off people, they're all going to be looking for work and we're going to see more of it, I'm sure. So just so that you know I'm doing everything in my effort to try to do something to keep it open or try to keep at least the office open, even if it's on a satellite or a temporary operation. But at least keep the phone I ines there. 800 number doesn't work. I tried it myself. I tried it myself Saturday, and got a machine and that's it. If there's someone working that I find out there in the field that I know is unlicensed and shouldn't be there, I make a call, they're going to be out there next time. So these are all just things that I just want to at least let people know here on the board that I'm trying to do anyway. Anything else? Any other reports, meetings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Next meeting I guess is August 19th, unless we hear differently from Mr. Ossorio. I just need a motion. MR. L YKOS: Motion to adjourn, Lykos. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. Page132 June 17, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1: 12 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD RICHARD JOSLIN, 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. Page133 '-"'IOlV-_..RIr .. I_JHI