Loading...
CLB Minutes 08/19/2009 R August 19, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida August 19, 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 9:08 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 Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE: WEDNESDAY - AUGUST 19, 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: JUNE 17, 2009 V. DISCUSSION: (A) End of the Month Report - June & July 2009 (B) Review Upcoming Fee Schedule (Section 2.1.5.) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (A) Roger P. Boucher - Contesting Citation (B) Steven Winters - Request to Qualify a Second Entity (C) Donald A. Darling Jr. - Contesting Citation (D) Donald L. Hans - Contesting Citation (E) Adam Sandifer - Review of Credit Report (F) Theodore A. Ryznar - Review of Credit Report (G) Brent B. Bixby - Request to Qualify a Second Entity VII. OLD BUSINESS: VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (A) Case #2009-07 James G. Schuck & Donald P. Ricci Sr. D/B/A: Marco Marine Construction, Inc. (B) Case #2009-09 IX. REPORTS: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: Roberto Gonzalez-Fortan D/B/A: Master Gutters, Inc. WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 21,2009 W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR (COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM) 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FL. 34112 (COURTHOUSE COMPLEX) August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call to order the August 19th, 2009 Collier County Contractor Licensing Board Meeting. 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'd like to open the meeting starting with roll call starting to my right. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz. MR. L YKOS: Tom Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. BOYD: Michael Boyd. MR. WHITE: Patrick White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are there any additions or deletions to the agenda, staff? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. For the record, Ian Jackson, Collier County Contractor Licensing. We have one deletion. New business, letter A, we're going to delete that. That's going to be continued to October. Roger Boucher. And that's all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I need a motion to approve the agenda as amended. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. Page 2 August 19,2009 MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries for the agenda. Okay, the board members, have you looked at the meeting of -- the minutes for the June 17th meeting? Any additions or deletions or changes, or has everyone looked at it? If they have and it's all in line, there's no discussion, I need a motion to approve it. MR. L YKOS: Motion to approve, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Boyd. Motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Okay, under discussion we have an end of the month report for June and July. It's in your packet, gentlemen. Just for the sake of opening this up, I see where the number of citations in this July period was quite high compared to the number of days that the staff is actually working out in the field. So obviously there's a lot of problems going on out there which investigators are picking up on. Page 3 August 19,2009 Mr. Ossorio, do you have anything to add to this? MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor. Not actually. You know we're on a reduced workweek, we work 32 hours a week. And so far this year we brought in $431,503. And we're going to be doing our annual renewals for local and registered contractors at the end of the month, so we're going to be sending about 4,000 renewal letters out. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And there's still what, three more months yet to continue before the end of the year? Is that when this starts, in September or October? MR. OSSORIO: September. But October 1st will be the new year, so we have one more month. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's a good chance that licensing could bring in a lot of revenue. MR. OSSORIO: Well, we anticipate -- if you looked at the last year's numbers we did -- I think we renewed 3,000 contractors in that one month. Maybe I don't anticipate having 3,000, but I anticipate maybe having 2,000, so that's substantial. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Well, I think your people are doing a heck of a job, Michael. Next item on the agenda is reviewing of upcoming fee schedules. We had fee schedules that were done for different types of fees regarding the county and regarding all different phases, and this was done way back in 2007. And staff has asked for an increase in the fees. So Michael, if you want to take the floor and kind of elaborate on this a little more. MR. OSSORIO: Thank you. Just to give you an overview real quick, our office is comprised of four investigators. We have one full-time investigator in the City of Naples, one full-time in the City of Marco Island, one for Golden Gate Page 4 August 19,2009 Estates, and one for the unincorporated Collier County. We have three staff members that do registrations in our office and do the day-to-day operation of our licensing board. In 2001 we elected to raise some fees. And you have a copy of that resolution in 2001. And basically I'll read a little bit about it on paragraph two. This is a resolution that was signed some months later. The extreme poor state of current economic conditions for the construction industry takes us in an extremely inopportune time to raise fees, charges for the industry that suffer from economic downturn. Basically what you said to the Board of County Commissioners is that we're going to raise fees; we think that the licensing department is vital in the health, safety and welfare of the community in Collier County and the City of Naples and Marco Island. So we did raise some fees. It wasn't a lot, it wasn't a substantial fee increase, but it was a fee increase. But you also told us if indeed that if it wasn't enough, make sure you come back and ask for more. Unfortunately this is -- we're in 2009. Our fees have not sustained our department. We incurred some more expenses. We haven't had a reduction in staff but we had a reduction in work hours of 32 hours of workweek. And the building department, Bob Dunn, did hire a company called PMG and did an RFP. And basically we spent a substantial lot of amount of money to go over our department and to view what we need to be self-sufficient as a licensing department. And these reflect on the -- what you have on the sheet in front of you, the draft. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So this draft that we have in front of us is the analysis that PMG did? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. And unfortunately -- I would give (sic) it to you earlier, but we just got this the other day. So when you're going through this the first time, I'm actually going through it the first time. Page 5 August 19, 2009 But I did notice some changes, and I would like to go ahead and get a consensus on the board after you look at the numbers and I make little changes of my recommendations, that we adopt a resolution. And we'll go to DSAC with it next week or next couple of weeks and then back to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval or maybe go to CBIA. But the numbers are not that bad. I thought they'd be worse, but they're not. And I want you to take a look at the first page. I thought that maybe we can take a look at it. And that is on Page 5. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's a Page 4 also. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, there's a Page 4, but you can turn to Page 5. There's a Page 6, too, but you can turn to Page 5. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sorry. MR. OSSORIO: No problem. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I was looking at the calculation of fees. Starts on Page 4. Is the calculation of fees the same as the -- what's on Page 5, or this is the increase? MR. OSSORIO: That's just what is a -- one is a new license and one is a renewal. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see, okay. MR. OSSORIO: Okay? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now I see what you're saying. I gotcha. MR. OSSORIO: We're on Page 5. Typically there are two kind of contractors what this board regulates. There is what you call specialty contractors and there are tier one contractors, or general contractors, building pool contractors that have to register with the state. And when you register with the state there's a lot more paperwork involved when you register through our office. And unfortunately I don't think that PMG took that into account. And you'll see the difference. It says CLE renewal contractor Page 6 August 19, 2009 144. And then on the bottom it says CLE renewal specialty, 144. These fees are exactly the same here. But obviously the CL renew state registered contractors, we would like to see that go to not 144.25 but 159.25. So basically a $15 increase. And that's exactly what transpires that we'd have now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And this is under renewal contractor or renewal specialty? MR. OSSORIO: Renew contractor. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Renewal contractor. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. So under 144.25 you want to write 159.25. (At which time, Mr. Horn enters the boardroom.) MR. OSSORIO: There's a difference between the two. If you are a specialty contractor, there's less steps to renew than versus if you are a registered pool contractor, registered general building contractor there's a lot more involved. We have to make sure you do your continuing education, your state registration. There's a lot more paperwork involved on a year-to-year basis. And that is indicative of what we do now. It's $15 more than it would be. So I'm just adding $15. So I would like to see that 159.25. And I will talk to PMG and we'll square that away. MR. JERULLE: Michael, the 144.25 is the existing fee? MR. OSSORIO: No. That is the -- MR. JERULLE: That's the new proposed fee. MR. OSSORIO: And you'll see on the back side. MR. NEALE: Page 7 and 8 have the current and proposed. MR. OSSORIO: Page 7 and 8 actually have the current and proposed. MR. JERULLE: All right, that's what I'm looking for. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And just for the record, I'd like to make for the record that Lee Horn has just arrived. MR. HORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, continue. Page 7 August 19,2009 All right, so we have a change on renewal for a licensing renewal contractor to 159.25. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. The other two are going to stay the same? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, that's fine. The next page is Page No.6. And this is a second entity. And right now the current fee is $50. And the proposed fee is 56.21. And I don't think PMG realizes that when you do a second entity there's a lot of things involved. Obviously you have to have a staff meeting. We have to have the investigator make the packet up, present it to the licensing board, make copies, bring it to you a week before and actually present it to the licensing board. So that is a fee that we need to calculate. And I calculated 43.79. So it went from 56.21 to $100 to get a second entity, which I think is pretty reasonable. So that fee would be from 56.21 to $100 even. It's a plus of 43.79. And the second -- and the last change is on Page 7. And it's state registration. We have a staff of three. And right now our current -- if you want a state registration, it's $10. Right now we did $11,000 this year in state registration. That typically is a one-person full time doing -- registering state contractors, taking state contractors off hold, putting contractors -- changing status and updating their insurances. That is a full-time job on one person. We get about 60 certificates every day to renew state contractors, insurances. Mr. Lykos can tell you, you know, they come and go. The insurance companies, they change their certificates and all of a sudden we're the certificate holder and we get a fax through the office. And the proposed fee is 19.94. And after I looked at the cost, I anticipate a 30.06 increase, which would be a $50 service. And this is every two years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So the 19.94 should move to $50. Page 8 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And this is state registration for every two years. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: $25 a year isn't really too bad to keep a state license active. MR. OSSORIO: No. As a matter of fact, if you go to Miami-Dade, it's 79.95, whatever it is. But this is just at 50. And that will actually help the state contractors pull building permits quicker, get the insurances into our office quicker and be better -- be more efficient. So this is what we're looking at there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: With that said, I'm done. I did have Bob Dunn -- Bob Dunn is the building director and he might want to speak on behalf of what PMG is doing throughout the industry, without the building review and permitting department, the fees related to permits as well. This is just relating to contracting licensing issues. I did speak to Bob Dunn and he is looking forward to getting this off, you know, 32 hours of workweek, so he can enforce the code, instead of not working on Fridays and having unlicensed contractors word Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Maybe do a little better job on the hot line as well. This is going to do this for us. And also, he's also thinking about bringing another person in our department. Instead of having four investigators, have five. And this particular person -- hopefully this person will be more of a workers' compo related individual that is strictly into class codes, that is trained in class codes that's actually going to go through books and workers' compo and insurance and really get down into the bidding of you, the pool contractor bid on the project and this guy's bid this and how could he do so, because he's not paying proper insurance. And you make that complaint, we'll have that tool to do so. So right now we're sketchy with that, and I'm the Page 9 August 19, 2009 only one that actually does that, so we're looking for the future, so that's what we're looking at. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And this type of dollars is going to allow this to happen -- MR. OSSORIO: As far as I know. Bob Dunn may want to speak about that. But I did think that -- I anticipate these fees going through DSAC. And I can't speak to the building review and permitting fees, but for licensing, I anticipate having smooth sailing so that we can maybe add a staff member and we'll be more self-sufficient. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Dunn, do you want to make some comments? MR. DUNN: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and board members. Bob Dunn, Building Director. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Pleasure to have you here. MR. DUNN: We just -- you know, I just want to bring you up to date on the analysis that's just been completed. This is the first draft. We have a sub-committee that's going to be reviewing it, DSAC sub-committee. They're meeting next week. They're going to forward their recommendation on to DSAC, the full DSAC committee, and then of course after that we go to the Board of County Commissioners. We expect that to happen in October. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. DUNN: And with your support, you know, of this fee increase -- it's basically a 40 percent increase. With your support and with a resolution of support, it's going to help us take it before DSAC and then again to the Board of County Commissioners. So that's why we're here today, to answer any questions you might have. And we are going to add an additional investigator. We hope to have, you know, you know with the increase in fees, that will support another investigator. And we're going to have everybody go back on 40-hour workweek starting in October. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: October we're going to go back to five Page 10 August 19, 2009 days a week then. MR. DUNN: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, super. MR. DUNN: October. The first week in October. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would that also tie into the fifth man being added into staff? MR. DUNN: The fifth person will be added after -- if we have approval from the County Board of Commissioners. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: On that meeting, okay. MR. DUNN: We're also going to -- during the renewal season we're bringing a -- we're bringing the administrative staff in at five days a week on process renewal. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Outstanding. MR. DUNN: They're working, you know -- every day of the week they have folks coming in to renew and obtain new licenses, so we're going to let them work on Fridays so it will give them time with the office being closed to get the licenses processed so we can get the monIes In. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Outstanding. Okay, well, I guess with all that said I'm going to need a motion to approve these changes as far as the fees go, with the upgrades that Mr. Ossorio and Mr. Dunn have asked us to approve. MR. JERULLE: Do we have discussions before or after we do the motion? MR. NEALE: Discussion after, typically. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, we can do it before, if you like. We should -- let's -- ask your question first before we make a -- MR. JERULLE: No, I just received this, and you're asking for a fee increase and you're asking me to approve this. And I haven't really had a chance to review it and digest it to give my vote. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: From what I could gather, the only fee increases are the ones that, Michael, you have indicated so far? Page 11 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: This whole draft is a fee increase. There are some changes to the fee increase. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we're looking more for a motion just to advise us to be able to just -- MR. OSSORIO: Under the code. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- to possibly come back next month? MR. OSSORIO: No. Because we're not anticipating having a board meeting in October -- or actually, we're going to have one in October, we're not going to have one in September. And -- but we've been working on these fees for several months. I mean, we had meetings with PMG, they went through our staff, how many hours we worked and what we've done. So he did a good job on this. And it is short notice and I do apologize, but I got it on Thursday afternoon, or Wednesday afternoon. The package went out on Wednesday morning. So it is what it is. But this is what the licensing board wanted us to do. Remember the resolution before some of these chairmans were here before is that you directed us that if we had to raise fees that you need to come back with a fee resolution so we could be self-sufficient and so we could provide health, safety and welfare. So this is what this fee is, nothing more, nothing less. MR. L YKOS: I have some questions, if I may. Comments, questions, concerns. Bob, you know I've been a strong advocate of the licensing department, not only here but at DSAC and also at the Board of County Commissioners. And I have some questions. If you recall, we had a meeting -- CBIA had a meeting in Mr. Smith's office with you and the budget office, and we addressed our concerns about allocations. I know those have come way back from Page 12 August 19,2009 where they were in the past. There were some issues about how the budgets were prepared. There was a two or three-year lag and created some issues, especially in a market that was going down. I know those have been addressed. My concerns about this fee increase -- and again, let me preface by saying I support funding this department to fully serve the community and the licensed contractor. But a couple of comments. Number one, we know that somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the investigations that the staff go on are not for licensed contractors, they're for -- I hate this term, unlicensed contractors, but people that are contracting without a license. I believe that some support for this department should come from the general fund. I know that's pie in the sky, but there's a direct benefit to the community that has nothing to do with permit fees or licensing fees. And I know that this doesn't take that into consideration. I may be mistaken, but there's no comments in this report about the general funds supporting license department when there clearly is a benefit to the community that is not directly related to contractor fees or permit fees. I think that needs to be addressed, number one. Number two, there's 109 percent allocation for overhead. 109 percent addition to direct costs for overhead for support staff. Our problem was with allocations to begin with. So without seeing the backup and where they come up with this 109 percent multiplier for support services and overhead, I have a hard time supporting 109 percent without seeing the backup for it. I understand you guys are in a tight timeframe because you want to get this in next year's budget and the meeting with that is with the Board of County Commissioners in October, but I'm going to have a hard time supporting this without seeing the backup information. And the third comment I have is we were told that CBIA was going to be involved in this process, and we haven't been at all. Page 13 August 19, 2009 MR. DUNN : We just -- MR. L YKOS: I understand. But we haven't been at all. And I think to support this from a CBIA standpoint, to support this from a licensing board standpoint, I want to see the backup documentation. And I want to know that PM G addressed the fact that there's services being provided to the general public that are not directly related to licensing permit fees. MR. DUNN: Well, PMG will be addressing those questions. They will be coming to the DSAC full committee meeting. We will have a sub-committee meeting next week with our budget office. Those numbers will be addressed with the DSAC committee. And at the meeting, the full meeting with DSAC, this consultant will be there to answer those questions. MR. L YKOS: I understand. But you're asking for our approval, and then you'll take our approval, you'll let the DSAC sub-committee know that we've approved it and endorsed it, then you'll pass it on to the Board of County Commissioners that we've endorsed it, and you're asking us to endorse it without the supporting documentation. I understand that you're under the gun time-wise, but I don't like endorsing these calculations without seeing the backup for them. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, I think you're confusing the issue here. I'm all for CBIA and I'm all for that section of your governing body in that case, but I have a hard time trying to say to you that we have to separate the fact that CBIA is not going to run licensing or the county. Now, I understand that they bring in the revenue, and I understand those licenses and those fees bring in the revenue, but there are other issues that are out there that need to be addressed besides CBIA and their involvement as far as what the bottom line is going to end up saying. Because there are other issues out there, other contractors out there that aren't in CBIA that want that same answer also. Page 14 August 19, 2009 So I'm a little confused on your reasoning as far as to increase the fees that have already been programmed. These were programmed back in '07. And all we're doing -- at the moment all staff is doing is asking for a minor increase in order to support the fact of being able to allow licensing to be able to be self-sufficient. Now, I understand the general fund and I understand that right now we are tied into a different fund rather than the general fund, which I'd like to see us come out of that also. But at the moment it's not happened. It's going to take a little bit of time before that can happen. But I think at the time that we're talking about raising these fees, I think really now is the time to act on it and the time is of essence that we do bring on more people in licensing that will handle the unlicensed contractors and the contractors that are doing things incorrectly. It's for the jurisdiction, for them to have supervision over that. And without -- with the short staff going on right now, there's no way to fund it. So this is nothing more than a way to try to fund what's going on here. That's my point. That's my feeling. MR. DUNN: This is also going to lead into a full-blown fee schedule ordinance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. DUNN: Right, a contractor licensing fee schedule ordinance. That's going to have to be approved by the board and the DSAC committee. This is just a draft and an analysis by the consultant. MR. L YKOS: I understand. MR. DUNN: This is a concept. This is a concept. We're asking for your guidance that we can go forth now and increase the fees. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. To go ahead and get ad valorem funds for contractor licensing this year or the next year, I don't think we have a chance. We have none. And you Page 15 August 19, 2009 know that and I know that. So we can sit here until we're blue in the face, it's not going to happen. However, I can tell you if these fees are not rectified there's going to be a major impact in contractor licensing. And I tell you, it's going to be a major impact in October. These fees are in the realm of all cities and counties throughout Florida, and most cities in Florida, they do get compensated for ad valorem taxes through tax dollars for unlicensed activity. So these fees are right where they need to be. If you're looking to self-sufficient contractor licensing for the upcoming year, this is the time to do it. I know this is a difficult time for you to look at this, I know it's a difficult time for me because I just got it on Wednesday afternoon. But you're asking us to go ahead and wait to see what the Board of County Commissioners do or DSAC does, it's not going to happen. We're just not having a board meeting next month and this is why you're the first line of defense on looking at these items. MR. WHITE: Few questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: I appreciate the position you're in with PMG and the report just coming to you. I appreciate, you know, my fellow board members' concerns. I have a couple of maybe more precise questions and observations. First off, I'd like to start with Pages 7 and 8. And if you could just go through on the recommended fees and tell us again which of them, based on the changes, the three changes, which of those are changing to what on the proposed column? MR. OSSORIO: Okay, if you're looking at the one -- well, why don't we just do the -- 7 and 8. MR. WHITE: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. And -- MR. WHITE: I think you -- Page 16 August 19,2009 MR. OSSORIO: The first page -- hang on. I didn't get this from MR. WHITE: I think one of them is specialty contractor renewal at 145 that you've suggested should be increased. I'm just trying to confirm that that's the case. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, you see the first part -- I have to get my bearings here. It says Certificate of Competency annual license. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: And it says and the proposed. You're absolutely right, the initial fee, the renewal would be 165 and change. 159.25. MR. WHITE: 159.25 instead of 145? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. That's the change on that. MR. WHITE: Because apparently they round it up from 144.25. MR. OSSORIO: Yes, and I kept it exactly the same, except for I added 15. MR. WHITE: So that is the fee for-- MR. OSSORIO: To renew -- MR. WHITE: -- contractor renewal? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. When I say contractor renewal, I mean tier one contracting. General contractors, building, residential, registered. MR. WHITE: Not as it says here, there are two other categories, specialty contractor and journeyman. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. Those are-- MR. WHITE: 145 for specialty contractor-- MR. OSSORIO: That has not changed. MR. WHITE: -- is going to stay the same. Okay, that's change number one. The second change I believe you told us about was for second entity's total cost you wanted was 100. MR. OSSORIO: And Mr. White, that's on Page 8, and that's on the bottom. It says second entity fee. MR. WHITE: Correct. Page 1 7 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: It went from 50 to 56. And I'm saying to you that the PMG, you know, didn't realize that a second entity has to go in front of the licensing board to get approval, and there's steps involved on that. We have to spend, you know -- MR. WHITE: I'm not challenging your rationale; I'm just trying to make sure I got the table right. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, got it exactly right. It goes from 50 to -- PMG recommendation is 56, my recommendation is 100. MR. WHITE: Then the third change was for state registration total cost recommended -- MR. OSSORIO: That's on the same page. MR. WHITE: -- was 19.94 and you recommended 50. MR. OSSORIO: Its current is 10, proposed is 20, and my recommendation is 50. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Those are the changes. MR. WHITE: With that sort of clarified, can you or Mr. Dunn tell me when the report was actually done by PMG, when they conducted the study and developed the methodology, some of the history of this? I want to know how relevant it is to today's date. MR. DUNN: We sent out a request for a proposal and a quote a few months back. I don't have the exact dates with me. But we had I think four contractors submit it, to do the analysis for the fees. MR. WHITE: So it's a study that was done over the past four to six months. MR. DUNN: Exactly. They've had -- most likely after we awarded the contract with this person, the company, they've had approximately four to six weeks to do the analysis, to sit and come in and meet with all the staff members, with contractor licensing, and a building department personnel, the planning, the permitting tax. They've also done, you know, this analysis for Broward County and Ft. Lauderdale, so they have experience. Page 18 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: Apparently. Because at the bottom of Page 2 -- MR. DUNN: You should see that mistake. MR. WHITE: I don't know if it's a mistake or not, you're telling me now it is, that the rates were obtained from the finance department of Collier County -- MR. DUNN: Exactly. MR. WHITE: -- as opposed to Broward? MR. DUNN: Exactly. This is just a draft that was submitted. We have changes to make to it, and we've sent it out to staff. And we're also sending it to the board members today to take a look at the draft, in case you have any recommended changes. And it will be going to CBIA. MR. WHITE: You may want to have them -- Page 2, the end of the second paragraph, it says, the last line, last full line says to ensure that all polices, it should be I believe policies. MR. DUNN: Exactly. MR. WHITE: Okay. I think more generally the concern I have is that although I support the goal, the process that we're going through here is one that I'm a little concerned about. Can you tell me which BCC meeting in October we're actually planning on going to? MR. DUNN: Well, actually, it was originally scheduled for the first meeting in September, that was the 15th, and-- MR. WHITE: The budget? MR. DUNN: -- we had -- yeah, and we had to move it because we wanted to make sure we had enough time for DSAC and the sub-committees and CBIA to take a look at this analysis. So we actually moved it so now it's going to be in October, it's going to be the first meeting in October that we're actually going to take the fee schedule, the recommendation to increase permit fees and contractor license fees. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So at the moment these fees are your Page 19 August 19, 2009 recommendations as far as what PMG has come up with? MR. DUNN: That's right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What you're asking us to do I think now is just to give you a direction as far as to go forward with the draft to complete the analysis, and then come back at some point to get a final approval from the board as far as the changes that are going to be made? MR. DUNN: We're going to take final approval to DSAC, and we're also going to make -- of course we have to take the ordinance before the Board of County Commissioners for approval. MR. WHITE: Can I ask a question about your DSAC sub-committee? Are there any representatives of this panel on that sub-committee? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. DUNN: We have a CBIA member, we have -- I don't have the exact names. We have an architect, an engineer, a building contractor. MR. WHITE: You don't have anybody from this Contractor Licensing Board? MR. DUNN: Not from this board. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. DUNN: We could invite you. I mean, the first meeting is going to be next week. They're meeting with the budget office in our budget department for the building department. MR. WHITE: Correspondingly, as to the full DSAC, are there any members of this board that also sit on DSAC? MR. DUNN: No. MR. LANTZ: I'd like to just address something on the -- it's probably more towards Michael. On the state registration fees, you had -- they had the cost at 19.94. And you said that they were off and there should be an Page 20 August 19, 2009 additional $30.06 which makes it $50. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, I see it. MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious how they could be that far off. I mean, the other adjustments were, you know, seven percent, eight percent, but you're saying that they're, you know, 150 percent off. And I'm just curious how you got to that figure and how -- MR. OSSORIO: Well, when I talked to PMG -- and I'm not saying that he is Mr. Mark on this, but, you know, unfortunately I'm a licensing supervisor, I sit there on a daily basis upfront and I register state contractors. And I think they're all pretty much state contractors here. It takes us a lot more time than what it says here on licensing compliance supervision and customer service, .25 on a biannual rate. Not just every year. There's no doubt in my mind I can look at Mr. Lykos and say I can track you and how many times I went in your certificate, and I'll bet you I go in there -- remember, I have to maintain all these records. You know, your qualified business license, I have to make sure that you're up to date on that. I have to make sure that every two years you bring me a copy of your license. I have to make sure you have workers' compo insurance by statute. I have to put you on hold when your insurance goes out of synch. We have to be the certificate holders or you will not be able to pull building permits. MR. WHITE: So which of the subcategories under the state registration on Page 7 at the top do you see that $30.06 falling into? Is it more than one category under personnel, is it indirect -- MR. OSSORIO: I would say it's more -- it's the customer service right here is I would say two-thirds more. And what we did is -- how I did it was, is that if you take a full-time person, which two-thirds of our contractors are state certified contractors, there are about eight, 9,000 contractors that are state certified. When I say state certified, they could be electrical, plumbing, mechanical, whatever the widget might be. Page 21 August 19, 2009 Is that -- we spend two-thirds of our time keeping track of state certified contractors on a daily basis. And so I took that number and I roughly said if it was 5,000 contractors it would be 150,000 or 140,000 per year if they did. Right now if you can look at July, give you an example, on your packet -- on your July monthly calculations. This is for the year. 10/1/2008, 7/31/2009. State contractor fees. Right here: 11,040. We can't conduct business like this. I don't care if you have to go to CBIA, I don't care if you go to DSAC. 11,040. This is for one year. MR. LANTZ: What was it the previous year when the renewal sanction was? MR. OSSORIO: I have no idea. But I'm only going by year to year so we'll divide it by two. MR. LANTZ: But isn't this biannual, so it should be heavily weighted in one year as opposed to the other year, correct? MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely right. I mean, it should be. We're talking about a budget is for one year. MR. LANTZ: No, I understand that. But if you're saying you're processing the state fees, the year that the license -- MR. OSSORIO: I also calculated -- I didn't calculate the 11,000, I calculated how many contractors might anticipate renewing in an even year, which would be 6,000. Say 6,000 renewed times 50 is a number. And you divide that by two, and that's where I came up with my analysis of my staff time. MR. WHITE: So kind of going back to the point, is it under licensing compliance that the bulk of this $30 -- MR. OSSORIO: No, I don't think -- I tried to stay away from state registration licensing compliance. This is strictly registration; how we regulate your license as in pulling building permits. MR. WHITE: Is there something that's missing? Is there a cost item in here that your $30 should be stuck in? I'm just trying to -- MR. OSSORIO: Yes, I said -- Page 22 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: -- follow their methodology. MR. OSSORIO: I said to' customer service and, you know, if you're looking at supervisor of personnel, .1 hour, I probably spend more time than that per one hour dealing with state licensing, getting their licenses up to date and current. I'm not here to go ahead and -- I'm not a bean counter, I'm not PMG, but I can just tell you, that number -- that's where I got my number from, those two items. So if you're saying .25 hours, I would say in a whole it -- for customer service, I would say .75. And hear me out. I mean, if we approve this, these numbers, obviously then PMG will have to come back in and make obviously the grammar mistakes and make the necessary hour changes and we'll communicate with them. And if there's -- if I'm wrong or he's wrong, we'll amend it. I'm not here to belabor the point, but it is what it is. We're not having a meeting next month. You're the first in line. I recommend that if you don't feel comfortable passing these fees, you say you don't support or deny it, but maybe have the chairman -- authorize the chairman to speak on DSAC and see how they (sic) comes up and have a joint agreement on it and you have more time on it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. BOYD: Mike, so this $50 fee that we're talking about right now, that's for those of us that are state certified to register our license with Collier County. The $50 fee covers two years. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. MR. BOYD: Okay. That fee is not out of line with what I pay all over -- MR. OSSORIO: No, I know that. MR. BOYD: Cape Coral, City of Fort Myers, Lee County. That fee is not out of order, and I don't have a problem with that. The problem I would have is, you know, we've got thrown this Page 23 August 19, 2009 thing, which some of the rates are going up 45, 50 percent. I wish I could raise my prices right now 45, 50 percent, but I can't do it. So, you know, that's where we're in a quandary is how can we justify raising everything 45 to 50 percent and, you know, just being thrown that. You know -- MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Boyd, and I -- MR. BOYD: -- I almost would come to a separate meeting to address this, if we have to. MR. OSSORIO: And I agree with you, Mr. Boyd. But the issue is, is that in 2001 you made a resolution -- and I can pull the records -- and we raised the fees a tiny bit. And you said to -- you gave direction to staff and you said if these fees are not enough you need to come back. Because license is important. You know, health, safety, welfare. There's not a day goes by that we don't issue a stop work order for a health/safety issue. And we're not going to get ad valorem tax. So, you know, it's-- maybe in a couple of years we can advocate it, we'll take it to the board when the dollar does this and the yen does that, whatever it might be. But the bottom line is, these fees -- if we raise these fees to where we are now, we are in line with every other city, municipality. We're probably even below the scale. MR. WHITE: Was that part of what PMG was asked to do? MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. WHITE: No? MR. OSSORIO: I don't think they took other jurisdictions. But I'm telling you as a personal level, and Mr. Boyd can tell you -- and I can tell Mr. Boyd is that if your fees as a sign company was 40,50 percent less than Fort Myers, you would raise your fees. MR. BOYD: I don't disagree. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. MR. BOYD: I totally support that -- you know, probably those fees have been low for the last three to four years. Page 24 August 19,2009 MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. MR. BOYD: And one of the problems I have is the fact that you're not getting any general funds when you should be, because code enforcement does. And code enforcement's still working five days a week. And I think we as a board should push to get you some funding from the general fund. You deserve it as much as code enforcement. MR. WHITE: Meaning the statements are the same and the ultimate benefit to the citizens are essentially the same, so that the costs should be shared from the 111. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think I see Mr. Boyd's aspect as far as this goes, because of the fact that we are not in the general fund. And what we're doing, I think Mr. Lykos is considering, is that we're allowing these increases and allowing the contractors to be paying for items that don't pertain to licensing. If that's what I'm getting at correctly. Which I don't agree with either. However, at the moment we are still locked into the 113 or the 111, whichever fund we're into. And I'd like to definitely -- if it takes a motion or if it takes the board to sit down with someone or go before the commissioners and try to get out of this fund and make licensing a self-sufficient entity here, I think we can do that. I think we're more than self-sufficient to be able to do that. MR. WHITE: Could -- before I'm kind of able to make an informed choice about that, I'd like to better understand what the process steps are here. I know you've got a DSAC sub-committee meeting next week. That's what you mentioned. You've got DSAC when? MR. DUNN: September. MR. WHITE: 1st? MR. DUNN: 2nd. It's a Wednesday. MR. WHITE: Correct. Okay, the 2nd. And then you're not going to the board until October 13th? Page 25 August 19,2009 MR. DUNN: Exactly. I think that DSAC meeting has actually been changed. The DSAC is going to be working on the Land Development Code I believe on the 2nd. And that's a full day. So we might have moved that further into September. That's why we had to postpone going to the Board of County Commissioners, because we didn't have enough time. You know, we got this just last week. MR. WHITE: It seems that in the past, in 2007 there was an independent resolution from the Contractor Licensing Board relative to their view of fee changes pertaining to contractor licensing department. I'd like to put you in a position where you would have that same type of input from this board. And I heard one of my fellow board members suggest that if we even had to come back for a special meeting in September for that purpose, that we might be willing considering doing that. So I'd like to know when those dates are and also whether our -- if we had a meeting, for example, third week September, would that still allow you enough time to get information into the executive summaries, combine it with what you have from DSAC and its sub-committee to make a meaningful recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners at their meeting on the October 13 date? MR. DUNN: I believe if you came back the second week in September, that would help, that would greatly help us. That would give us enough time. I know -- you know, the executive summary, you know, the whole analysis has to be completed. And of course, you know, we have to get it to the Board of County Commissioners. But we have postponed it. I mean, we had to move it out of September because our budget office wouldn't be able to prepare all the fee schedules and have their analysis completed for the Board of County Commissioners. Page 26 August 19, 2009 So if you want to come back the second week in September, we'd be happy to have another meeting the second week of September. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think that would be something that would be definitely in line. That way I think you satisfy more of the people on the board as far as satisfying their questions. And we would get the questions that answered answered (sic) relative to the changes that are going to be made. I mean, I understand that we need to make changes and we need to increase the fees, because we are behind in times, no doubt. But I just don't want to see it go rampid (sic) to where as we're paying for a lot of other things that doesn't have anything to do with licensing. MR. DUNN: Well, the fees that we're looking for, the increase in fees is going to be for licensing. You know, I promised before that we were going to increase staff, we increased staff. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. DUNN: I promised this time if we increased the fees we're going to increase staff, we're going to add another investigator. And we want to do that. I mean, you know, we don't have enough staff to cover the county. Contractor licensing needs more folks. You know, we beefed them up as much as we can with the funding that we receive now. So with this increase, we'll be able to add another investigator. That's the whole purpose. And so the money's going to be used in contractor licensing. MR. NEALE: And just as a reference point for the board, Mr. Ossorio did attach to the front of this the resolution that was passed by this board in May of 2007. And I think as he pointed out, the relevant paragraph is the second paragraph in here where the board did discuss the -- that the level of service should not be reduced, which I think is what the board's saying here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: But what I think Mr. Dunn and Mr. Ossorio Page 27 August 19, 2009 would like from the board, either now or at the September meeting, is a similar kind of resolution and finding, if I'm correct. MR. DUNN: Correct. MR. WHITE: Certainly, it would seem if that's the case, then what we should have had today in combination was something, a resolution for 2009 drafted for our consideration. Because I'm thinking at the minimum there is no other way other than a motion and whatever from this board, and that's just an item in the executive summary. There's nothing that is any kind of loss that the Board of County Commissioners are ever going to see about what our deliberations and recommendations may have been other than a number. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I think if we come up with a-- correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Neale, but we can come up with a tentative -- a motion to allow staff and the county to go forward on this resolution as far as the fee changes goes, but it won't become law or it won't go before the commissioners for final approval until it comes back in September. But we have to give them some kind of direction to proceed. MR. NEALE: Well, what the board would have to do in my opinion is to schedule effectively a special meeting of the board next month, since the regularly scheduled meeting is not until October. Schedule a special meeting next month to consider a resolution on fees. And then the board could meet at its pleasure next month, consider a fee resolution, and I draft that fee resolution before that meeting. And then the board could transmit that fee resolution to staff and the DSAC and the BCC for their consideration, if that -- MR. OSSORIO: One of the things, Mr. Neale, I know we did last time in 2007 is that we had a good argument in 2007 with the proposed fees back then. There was a consensus, you gave us direction, you wrote a resolution and the chairman signed it. There Page 28 August 19, 2009 was no special meeting. I don't know what a meeting next month is going to change. PMG did their study. On the bare minimum this is what we're going to need to go to, you know, 40 hours minimum. So me belaboring -- you know, having the issue come back next month, your job as the health, safety and welfare of the community, you directed me to make sure we didn't have a reduction. We have a reduction. Our staff is working 32 hours a week. PMG basically said, they did an analysis on this thing, no matter what my recommendations are, this is the minimum. Are we going to get ad valorem information this year? Probably not. Maybe in two years we can look at the fees and we can direct staff or we can do a reduction in unlicensed activity if we do get those kind of funds. But it's not uncommon, the board comes to a consensus and Pat Neale writes resolution or I do and the chairman signs it as he signs all the orders after the board meeting. MR. WHITE: I think the big difference for me, Mr. Chairman, is that one of the things I was hoping to have staff do is to put down in some kind of a table what the other jurisdictions are charging so that we do have some documentation that supports the statements that were made today and I think our perhaps general impressions from our own experiences of what those fees are. So that we have something that, you know, kind of helps support this in taking it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know myself as a pool contractor, I can attest, just like Mr. Boyd, that if you go to Cape Coral or any other jurisdictions, Lehigh -- I mean Lee County, I mean, their fees are much higher to do the same types of things that we're doing here for a lesser cost. So I know that we're in a sense behind the gun. We're behind times as far as fees goes. And we have never increased those fees to anything that even comes up to the other jurisdictions. So I don't think Page 29 August 19,2009 we're out of line, I'm trying to make sure that everybody is on the same page as far as how we do it. MR. WHITE: That begs the question of why PMG wasn't apparently tasked with groundtruthing these fees relative to other jurisdictions. MR. DUNN: Excuse me-- MR. WHITE: I've got two conflicting-- MR. DUNN: Excuse me. I sat in with PMG. Michael, his staff worked with them on the analysis part of it on how they functioned in their department. PMG did an analysis based on what the other areas in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Miami-Dade, they're working up in Lee County. I mean, they're a state-wide consultant. I mean, they work on fees, they specialize in fees. They did an analysis; they saw our fees were way low. They knew they were going -- it was going to be -- we were going to have to have an increase. We were happy it just came down with the numbers that we have now. You know, I thought it was going to be a lot higher. But, you know, they have an analysis completed. You know, he's worked -- I know the last couple of years he's worked in Broward County and Fort Lauderdale and Miami-Dade and they do all of the state. I mean, you know, we picked somebody that had experience in Florida. They know what the other communities do in contractor licensing boards. They work with contractor licensing boards. They know the type of fees that are paid. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, you had another question? MR. L YKOS: So we can get on with the rest of our business, I'm going to make a motion. And hopefully it will be appropriate and we can move forward. I'm going to make a motion that we endorse a fee increase today and the amount of that fee increase will be pending a fee analysis by DSAC with one of our members sitting in -- I'm sorry, the DSAC Page 30 August 19,2009 sub-committee with one of our members sitting in on that fee analysis meeting. And that our board hold a special meeting in September, and that the board member that attends that fee analysis meeting will report back to our board and then our board will vote to approve the amount of the fee increase. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: With one minor change. Is it possible that we could increase that to two board members, myself and you? Myself as a chairman, you as a vice-chairman. MR. L YKOS: I'll amend my motion to include the chair and the vice chair of this board to sit on that sub-committee, DSAC sub-committee. MR. WHITE: Second. And one request for a favorable amendment, that being that we would approve that fee by way of resolution that the board would consider in September. MR. L YKOS: Add that to my motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a second. MR. WHITE: I seconded. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Oh, you seconded the motion, sorry. Any discussion further? MR. OSSORIO: One. When you say meeting in September, you know, obviously we don't have one planned for September. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know. MR. OSSORIO: We'll go ahead and get it planned. I have no problem. But this meeting is not going to be a full-blown agenda meeting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, I was-- MR. OSSORIO: This meeting is a specific item to fees, so it shouldn't take more than an hour. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, right. MR. OSSORIO: Do you want to have a court reporter there? Do we need one? Mr. Zachary? MR. WHITE: I'm assuming it's audio recorded as well. Page 3 1 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: Well, if you can get the room. The problem is, is that it's very difficult to get this room. MR. WHITE: You can audio record it regardless. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We could do this at the county. Is it possible -- MR. OSSORIO: Sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- to do this at the county rather than here? MR. OSSORIO: I'm just letting you know, is there a good day you're looking -- the board members wish to have a special meeting on? Is there any particular day? MR. WHITE: Well, I know from my schedule, I will be taking this beard across country the first and second weeks of September. So I couldn't do maybe -- I don't know if we could do it any day of the week, but not until at least the 14th. MR. L YKOS: When's the DSAC meeting? MR. WHITE: I think it's going to be the second-- MR. L YKOS: The sub-committee meeting. MR. DUNN: Sub-committee is next -- the 26th. MR. L YKOS: Of August? MR. DUNN: Yes. MR. L YKOS: So we need to meet immediately thereafter so that we can endorse the exact amount of fees, pass that endorsement onto DSAC and onto the board. We need five members to participate in that meeting? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. L YKOS: Okay. So I think the date of the meeting is not relevant to the motion. MR. WHITE: Correct. MR. L YKOS: Why don't we get the motion resolved and then we can even outside of this meeting at the end of our meeting today, we can resolve the date and the time of that meeting. Page 32 August 19,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One last question, though, the court reporter. Mr. Neale, should we consider a court reporter for that meeting? MR. NEALE: I'll let Mr. Zachary -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Or Mr. Zachary. MR. NEALE: -- take that one. MR. ZACHARY: Off the top of my head, I don't think a court reporter is required. It would be preferred. It's a public meeting, it has to be noticed, open to the public. I think the bare minimum would be a recording or -- and someone to take notes. Preferably a court reporter to be there, then you wouldn't have any question. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I think that would probably be in line, only because of the fact that if the fees changes it may affect a lot of contractors, right? MR. OSSORIO: No problem. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So there probably should be a record. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor to approve, as Mr. Lykos has motioned. 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 6 -- 7-0. All right. Put that to sleep for a moment. Mr. Dunn? MR. DUNN: Yes, I wasn't clear on who the two members on the Page 33 August 19, 2009 sub-committee were. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry? MR. DUNN: The two members that you were appointing for the sub-committee. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Myself and Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Chair and vice chair. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Chair and vice chair, we'll be there. MR. DUNN: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : We just need notification when and where and we'll be there, okay? MR. DUNN: Okay. It's going to be on the 26th and we'll send you an invite. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you. MR. L YKOS: Thank you. MR. DUNN: Thank you very much, board members. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. All right, on to some new business, huh? Is there a Steven Winters here? Would you please come up to the podium here and be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Winters, you are here before us today to -- requesting to qualify a second entity; is that correct? MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. And currently you qualify or you're going to qualify Setterquist Carpet and Tile? MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And let's see here. Do you have your own carpet business at the moment yourself? MR. WINTERS: No, I do tile and marble. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do tile and marble. MR. WINTERS: And I want to qualify them for tile and marble. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see. Page 34 August 19,2009 MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. Mr. Steven Winters qualifies Steven Winters, LLC. MR. WINTERS: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: He's a tile and marble company. He wishes to qualify Setterquist Carpet, Tile and Marble. Setterquist Tile and Marble has a carpet license already, but they want to go have a tile and marble license as well. MR. JERULLE: In lieu of the Steven Winters, LLC or in addition to? MR. OSSORIO: Addition to. So he qualifies Steven Winters, LLC and he wants to qualify a second company called Setterquist Carpet and Tile, Incorporated; am I correct? MR. WINTERS: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: Did you pay your $50 fee? MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So actually Steven Winters as the license holder is qualifying, not Steven Winters, LLC? MR. WINTERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, just to make sure. MR. WHITE: Based on that, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions maybe on the application to help straighten some of the answers out that don't seem to make sense. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know, I didn't -- go ahead. MR. WHITE: On number five -- do you have the application with you, Mr. Winters? MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: I think it's the third page that says -- number five at the top, questionnaire, qualifying. MR. WINTERS: Number five or letter? MR. WHITE: It starts at the top of the page it says five. At the bottom right-hand comer it's number four. Page 35 August 19,2009 MR. WINTERS: Oh, okay. MR. WHITE: Okay. Under letter B you answered no. So I'm a little confused because your answer in A says you work for the proposed entity. I think you mean you work for the entity that's going to be qualified. MR. WINTERS: They sell tile and carpet, and right now they -- I contract the work from the customer through them. We want them to be able to contract the work; be licensed so that they can contract the tile work from the customer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under your license. MR. WINTERS: Under my license. MR. OSSORIO: There was no -- Setterquist never had a tile and marble qualifier, so the answer is no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I gotcha. MR. WHITE: Okay. MR. WINTERS: It was a little confusing for me too when I was CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes. On the next page under letter N as in Nancy, you're listed as the owner? MR. WINTERS: Correct. MR. WHITE: I think if it's an LLC -- MR. WINTERS: A member. MR. WHITE: Okay. Because that then matches up with what you said on Page 7. MR. WINTERS: I apologize for that. MR. WHITE: Okay. And if I direct your attention to Page 8, the affidavi t. MR. WINTERS: Okay. MR. WHITE: What firm is he supposed to be signing for here? Is it Setterquist or -- Page 36 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's who he is wanting to qualify the second entity. He's trying to qualify Setterquist Carpet and Tile. MR. WHITE: If that's the case, I don't believe he's an officer of that firm. MR. OSSORIO: No, this is an affidavit for the application that's true and correct, this affidavit. MR. WHITE: Okay. Well, then if the affidavit was acknowledged by -- appears to be acknowledged by the Notary. I think it should have been Mr. Winters name instead of the Notary's name that went in there. I may be mistaken about that. MR. OSSORIO: I think you're correct. MR. WHITE: So I don't know if the affidavit is valid or not, but I'll leave that to staff to rectify. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, under the ordinance, under the application it doesn't say it has to be notarized, it just says an affidavit. That's how we actually get the affidavit, by getting it notarized. We can fix that before he goes forward. MR. WINTERS: My name should have been here? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. We can fix number eight. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have some questions then. Mr. -- MR. WHITE: Just one more, if I may, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. WHITE: On Page 10, this resolution, there are no witnesses. And there's no designation of Mr. Winters' title. I'm assuming he'd be signing this as part of the -- I don't know why he's signing this. And quite honestly, because unless he's an officer of Setterquist somehow, which none of the other records support him being -- MR. WINTERS: No. MR. WHITE: -- then I don't know why he'd be signing it. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. Winters, you shouldn't have signed on that bottom. But Setterquist signed above you? Page 37 August 19, 2009 MR. WINTERS: Yeah. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. So you just signed underneath it? MR. WINTERS: Yeah. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. MR. WHITE: And I don't know which of the D. Setterquists that is. There appear to be a few of them. MR. WINTERS: Don Setterquist. And he's here today. MR. WHITE: It doesn't have his title on there, and there's no witnesses, Mr. Ossorio. I'm assuming we can correct those matters as well. MR. OSSORIO: No problem. MR. WHITE: I think that's it for now, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I thank you, Mr. White. I have some questions for you. First of all, Mr. Neale, considering that Steven Winters is going to be qualifying this entity and not Steven Winters, LLC, we are looking at a credit report here that only reflects around Mr. Steven Winters; is that correct? MR. NEALE: It depends on how long he's been in business. MR. WINTERS: Since November. Last November. MR. NEALE: Okay, then you would be looking at his credit report. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: His personal. MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Mr. Winters, in the packet I have an In Balance credit report here. MR. WINTERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In that package it shows that there are several things derogatory on you. MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to elicitate (sic) and elaborate what's going on here, especially with the child support? Page 38 August 19, 2009 MR. WINTERS: My child support is taken care of. It was paid off with my tax return. They're still holding the money so it's still on the credit that it's bad. But I was $2,200 behind, and they took that money and they're holding it. They're holding it for 170 days. But I do pay an extra $50 every week for my child support for my arrears. So in the time that they're holding that money, I'm still paying my back child support. Is that clear, or no? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: From the records that I have, it shows that it goes from -- you've been paying child support since '03; is that correct? MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And as of'06 you were behind $2,769. MR. WINTERS: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And then as of now in '09 you're still behind $2,422. MR. WINTERS: There was a -- I have a daughter -- I have two daughters. And when my second daughter was born, my wife and I weren't together. And she had a D.N.A. testing later, so all the medical expenses came back. You understand what I'm saying? So after '06 they added more when they found out the paternity from the paternity test that the daughter was mine. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have another concern. As I look through your packet, I'm looking for your economy checking through your LLC corporation, and I'm seeing a lot of money transfer through but I'm not seeing a very large ending balance when the months are passed. MR. WINTERS: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there a reason for this? I mean, I'm seeing some pretty substantial amounts of money going through but you're ending up with -- MR. WINTERS: I'm just getting started. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- $30 or-- Page 39 August 19, 2009 MR. WINTERS: Yeah, I'm just getting started and trying to catch up on other bills and stuff like that from being behind from no work during the winter months. But things are getting better now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is my concern. Because of the fact that maybe not financially you may not be able to support another business, especially a Setterquist, which is as large as they are. That's my concern. I mean, any other comments from the board? MR. L YKOS: I have some questions, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Back on Page 4, question number five, which Mr. White referred to earlier. Letter A, it says that there are some jobs that they need to be qualified for. I think we've cleared up that they're qualified now to do carpet only and you'll be qualifying them for tile and marble; is that correct? MR. WINTERS: Right, correct. MR. L YKOS: Okay. And then the second issue, which would be under Item B, what about workers' compo and liability insurance for the added scope of work? There's no workers' compo paperwork in here. Does this company-- MR. WINTERS: I'm workers' compo exempt. MR. L YKOS: Okay, you are. So you're the only person -- MR. WINTERS: No, I -- MR. L YKOS: -- that's going to be doing work? MR. WINTERS: -- have two others that are workman's compo exempt. And we're the only three that work. MR. L YKOS: Are those other two officers of your corporation? MR. WINTERS: They're members, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Members or officers of the corporation? MR. WINTERS: Members, as an LLC. MR. L YKOS: Right as an LLC as members. Michael, would this -- would Mr. Winters qualifying Setterquist Page 40 August 19, 2009 allowed Setterquist to hire people outside of Mr. Winters' company to do tile and marble? Wouldn't that allow Setterquist to do that? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. Setterquist would be -- he's qualifying a qualified business. Once he gets a -- once a licensee qualifies a qualified business, that qualified business will be doing tile and marble and carpet, and they might have four or five employees that work for Setterquist. The bottom line is is that tax will be taken out, workers' compo will be taken out, and Mr. Winters would be the qualifying agent. MR. L YKOS: We need to make sure that Setterquist has workers compo and liability insurance -- MR. OSSORIO: Of course. MR. L YKOS: -- for the added scope of work. Do we have that verification? MR. WINTERS: I do all the work for Setterquist, the tile and marble. MR. L YKOS: Well, as of -- if we approve this you do. MR. WINTERS: Right. Right. MR. L YKOS: But if one day you get in a dispute with Setterquist and you don't work there anymore, they'll still be allowed to do that, unless you come back and say that you don't qualify them anymore. MR. WINTERS: I understand. MR. L YKOS: Or they could get busier and say hey, we're going to add on another crew, and nobody saw the fact that there isn't workers' compo coverage for those other people or that the liability insurance doesn't cover that additional scope of work. So I want verification that Setterquist will have workers' compo and liability insurance, because you'll be allowing them to do that work without you. MR. OSSORIO: Typically when he'll come in, we'll have a checklist, Setterquist will have to provide us with a description. Page 41 August 19, 2009 Have you ever seen a certificate of insurance? On the bottom it says what he can do, carpet, tile, whatever that widget is. We'll make sure it says tile. It's really up to the -- I agree with you that, you know, we're dealing with four or 5,000 contractors. If I stopped and examined every single certificate on my desk, every single scope of work and get a -- I think it's called a document -- MR. JACKSON: Declaration page. MR. OSSORIO: Declaration page, thank you. We're looking into that. As a matter of fact, that's one of the things I just touched on earlier with this fee increase. With that extra help, that individual will be doing the declaration page. The second page, it says description in the class code. So if you are a carpentry contractor doing carpentry work and you tell the insurance company you're a clerical, we can see that and you'll be penalized for it. Right now we don't have that, obviously. We're looking for the future, but we'll see. MR. L YKOS: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. MR. L YKOS: Typically when we get these packages, we get documentation of the workers' comp., and we don't have that in this package. At least when I went through this package I didn't see it, which is why I made a note. So we don't have workers' compo documentation for Setterquist. That's why I had the question of -- MR. OSSORIO: No, but you need to take the workers' compo exemption, which I think is in the packet, or we get the policy. It's either/or. Obviously if you can have employees, we want to know about it. But it's not uncommon that a general contractor, a building tile company comes in with this exemption and we have that on file and he has four or five employees and the county doesn't know about it.w Page 42 August 19, 2009 MR. L YKOS: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: So we go out in the field and we do that legwork. MR. L YKOS: But I don't want you to have to do that after the fact. Let's get this done up front. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. MR. L YKOS: I mean, if we decide to approve this, I would make a caveat that Setterquist provides the workers' compo documentation so that we know you don't have to go find out later that they have people on the job that didn't have workers' compo and then we're up here for a citation for not having workers' compo MR. OSSORIO: Is Mr. Setterquist here? MR. WINTERS: Yes, sir. (Mr. Setterquist was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're Mr. Setterquist, the owner of Setterquist Carpet and Tile -- Carpet, sorry. Setterquist Carpet, correct? MR. SETTERQUIST: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you now carry a workman's compo policy ~- MR. SETTERQUIST: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- for your carpet installations? MR. SETTERQUIST: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do. Would you have a problem providing a copy of that to the board MR. SETTERQUIST: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- should we grant this gentleman his second entity to qualify your company? MR. SETTERQUIST: Not at all. We can do that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay that's the question. You can be seated. Page 43 August 19, 2009 MR. SETTERQUIST: Thank you. MR. L YKOS: A few other questions, Mr. Winters. Actually, you know what, Mr. Setterquist, I'm sorry, you might as well stay up here, since you've been sworn in, because I have some questions with regard to -- let me get that page now, since Mr. Setterquist is up here. In the -- I use pink so I can find my notes. Now I've just got to find the one with -- the page with the pink on it. Here it is. Page 10, which is the resolution authorization. Under the name of the business, there's -- the business has been called a couple different names. At the beginning of the application it's called Setterquist Carpet and Tile. The first two times it's listed as Setterquist Carpet and Tile, the third time it's listed as Setterquist, Inc., and the fourth time it's listed as Setterquist, Inc. And then at the bottom of the page again it's Setterquist, Inc. I wasn't sure if there was two separate entities, if this was just a matter of trying to save your hand from having to write more words. Is there two separate businesses here? MR. SETTERQUIST: No, one business. Setterquist, Inc., d/b/a Setterquist Carpet and Tile. MR. WHITE: Somebody ought to -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let me ask you a question, Michael. Didn't you just tell us earlier that Setterquist is a carpet company only? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, then how can it be called Setterquist Carpet and Tile. MR. OSSORIO: Ask Mr. Setterquist. MR. SETTERQUIST: Setterquist Carpet and Tile has been doing business since 1976. And back in 1976 all we needed is a license and -- for the one person responsible. It happens to be my son, who's a director of the company. And until last year that was fine. We could put in wood, carpet, Page 44 August 19, 2009 window treatments, tile, vinyl, anything we wanted to put in. But now we have to have a separate license for tile. And we thought we were all covered, but that wasn't good enough. MR. OSSORIO: You sell tile, too, am I correct? MR. SCHUCK: Oh, yeah, we have a -- MR. OSSORIO: So you have a retail sale office too. MR. SETTERQUIST: Yeah. Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: And I think I understood Mr. Winters to say that all the tile jobs since the licensing change took place have been done through his LLC? MR. SETTERQUIST: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: As a subcontractor then. I understand. MR. WINTERS: That's right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. What's the pleasure of the board? Anymore questions or discussion? MR. WHITE: You may not have heard me, but RBC Bank thinks the name of your business is Setterquist Carpet and Tile, Inc. So MR. SETTERQUIST: We -- at one time we were known as Setterquist Carpet, and then d/b/a The Carpet Shop. And then we also had a furniture store that was known as The Happy Sleeper and we were on file as that at one time. But this has been, you know, we've been here 34 years, so we've made some changes over the years. Maybe not all of them got posted properly. MR. WHITE: Well, it seems to be at odds with what the corporate entity that was created says as to the name of the business. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, Terry. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ossorio, do you have a recommendation? MR. OSSORIO: I recommend you approve it with the changes of Pages 7 and 8. MR. JERULLE: Thank you. Page 45 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: And get insurance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we approve it. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: With one exception -- I'm sorry -- to make sure that that Workmen's Compo policy comes in to staff. And I would like to approve the second entity; however, I think I would put it on a 90-day probationary period. I would like to see something happen with this child support situation on your credit. After 90 days you'll either come back to us and show us some kind of proof that this child support is taken care of -- MR. WINTERS: No problem. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- or at least it's reduced or you're taking care of it. MR. WINTERS: It will be paid off, because one of my daughters has come to live with me as of Friday and my child support stops. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Well, that's all I'm asking for. MR. WINTERS: No problem. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. That's a motion. I need an amendment to the motion, probably -- a second? MR. BOYD: You amended your motion? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I amended the motion. MR. BOYD: I'll second it, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A 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. Page 46 August 19, 2009 MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Break. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Need a small break? Okay. We'll take a 10-minute recess here. Make it for 10:35. We'll adjourn till then. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'd call the meeting back to order for the August 19th Collier County Contractor Licensing Board, and we'll pick up where we left off earlier. The next item on the agenda, is a Mr. Donald A. Darling, Jr. present? Please, come up and be sworn in. (Mr. Darling and Mr. Ganguli were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Darling, you are before us today because you are contesting Citation No. 4881 -- MR. GANGULI: No, sir, Mr. Joslin, that's an error. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- for unlicensed landscape? MR. GANGULI: 4882. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have 4881 in front of me. Thank you, Mr. Ganguli. MR. WHITE: That answers my first question about having elected the option to pay it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, this citation -- Mr. Ganguli, were you sworn in already? MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Ganguli, you're the one that investigated the situation. Would you like to elaborate on what you saw. MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. Page 47 August 19,2009 First of all, I'd like to address the two things: One, that in Mr. Darling's administrative complaint he makes mention of Citation 4882, which is the one you have in your packet that I just handed to you. And the one he included was 4881, which he's not contesting. So I just wanted to be clear on what I just did. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So if I'm understanding this correctly, Citation No. 4881 was an unlicensed landscape contractor citation that -- MR. GANGULI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that he did not contest. MR. GANGULI: That's not being contested. 4882 for advertising as such is being contested. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. But the first one was paid already? MR. DARLING: Yes. Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It was paid? MR. DARLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, continue. MR. GANGULI: The other thing I also wanted to do is speak to Mr. Darling and his administrative hearing request. He may have felt that I treated him unfairly, and if that's the case, I do apologize to you, sir. I'm always confident substantiating my reasoning in front of these gentlemen, and you'll have the same opportunity. MR. DARLING: Absolutely. I didn't feel that you necessarily treated me unfairly, I just thought maybe there was -- the wording of my company was -- MR. GANGULI: Understood. MR. DARLING: -- misunderstood or taken in the wrong context. MR. GANGULI: Understood. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, the way I see it here, I'mjust going to give an overview of what I see. First citation was for a Page 48 August 19,2009 landscaping service that you've done, or landscaping that you did that you were unlicensed to do; is that correct? MR. DARLING: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. And then clearly on the-- apparently on the side of the truck you have a sign that's listed as Darling Landscape Services, Inc.? MR. DARLING: Yes, correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. So Mr. Ganguli gave you a citation for advertising landscaping. MR. DARLING: Yes. Landscape installation, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not landscape installation but landscaping as a word. MR. DARLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is that what your sign says? MR. DARLING: Yeah, my sign says Darling Landscape Services, which is a noun. And the services that we provide, such as cutting the lawn, fertilization, mulching, that type of thing, I would think that that was included under landscape maintenance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, but that's not what your sign says. Your sign -- MR. DARLING: Landscape services -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- says landscape services. MR. DARLING: Well, I would say that maintenance or services are the same thing. We're providing a service for a landscape. Maybe I'm confusing that, but that's the intent of it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you say that landscape as a service, is that something that you do for someone that you get paid for? MR. DARLING: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. DARLING: As a service for them. You know, cutting the grass and so on, so forth, as I've just mentioned. Page 49 August 19,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. The definition of service -- do you know what that is? MR. DARLING: To provide a -- I don't know, provide service for a fee. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: According to Webster's, it says it's to make or keep ready for use. Obviously your service part of your signage is what got you in trouble. Landscape is a noun, no doubt, until you change it and put it into a different context. And what you did was you said you do landscape services -- MR. DARLING: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- which changes that now over to a verb, telling you that you are advertising to do landscape services, anything to do with landscaping, correct? MR. DARLING: If that's your interpretation then I guess maybe mIne IS -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's not mine, it's Webster's. MR. DARLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I go by the dictionary. MR. DARLING: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's easy that way. MR. DARLING: Sure, sure. I didn't -- you know, I was just trying to -- I'm not trying to be difficult here, I was just trying to understand what -- you know, what is right and what is wrong, that's all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ganguli, what did you actually see at this -- MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, on June 4th, 2009, I observed a crew from Darling Landscape Services, Incorporated planting shrubbery at the residence located at 5640 Hammock Isles in the Vineyards Country Club. Although advertising on the equipment indicated landscape Page 50 August 19, 2009 services, my investigation revealed a Collier County business tax receipt for lawn maintenance only. I called Mr. Darling to advice him of the violations I observed and issued two citations: Number 4881 for unlicensed contracting, and No. 4882 for unlicensed advertising, which was signed by his crew leader on the job site. Citation 4882 for unlicensed advertising was issued based entirely on the evidence you have in photographs in front of you. That was my interpretation. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we try to be consistent in licensing. If a gentleman is doing electrical work and outside his van it says electrical services, well, he gets a ticket because he's -- the impression of those homeowners and impression of the public is saying that he does electrical work. So there's really no difference between landscape services and electrical services. We try to be consistent, so that's what we do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we uphold the citation. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second to uphold the Citation No. 4882. All those in favor -- any discussion first? MR. WHITE: Yes. Just if I could, can you tell me what the scope of work for the license is that Mr. Darling has? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Darling has a business tax receipt for lawn maintenance, cutting grass and those kind of items. MR. WHITE: That's the scope of service. MR. OSSORIO: That's his scope of service. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. DARLING: I did -- I have applied for my landscape license, after I talked to Mr. Ossorio. And I have applied for that. I have passed the test for the contractor's license, and I've picked up the Page 51 August 19, 2009 packet, and I'm proceeding with all of that. So I'm trying to do the right thing here. I do have Workmen's Comp., I do have a limited spray license, which very few people in the county actually have, to spray. It's called a roundup license, basically. So I do have liability insurance. I'm trying to do the right things. I'm just really trying to get an explanation of why, you know, I was cited for this. And certainly what you're saying, you know, makes sense. So I'm just -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We appreciate your comment and that, but there's a motion on the floor. All those 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. You have to pay the fine, Mr. Darling. And the reason is because what you're doing is you're trying to advertise yourself as a landscape service company. And that's what happened. If you said the landscape -- I do landscapes, well, you could be looking at another train looking at a landscape and saying there's a landscape. That's a noun. That's what you're thinking. MR. DARLING: Yeah, I understand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But now that you've got it together and you've got your license under way, then I don't think you'll have any more problems with -- MR. DARLING: I really don't. I was just trying to understand, Page 52 August 19, 2009 you know, the difference there, landscape services or landscape installation or landscape contracting. I could see if I had landscape contracting or landscape installation written as my -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, that service is the one that got you, okay? MR. DARLING: I understand what you're saying. I just -- I also don't want to change the name of my company, obviously. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, you won't have to. If you get the license you won't have to. MR. DARLING: Sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay? MR. DARLING: Thank you. MR. L YKOS: Good luck. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Next on the agenda is a Donald L. Hans. Are you present? MR. HANS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please come to the podium also and be sworn In. (Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hans were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hans, you're before us today because you are contesting Citation No. 4838, issued to you by Ian Jackson. Mr. Jackson, have you been sworn in? MR. JACKSON: I was. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you like to elaborate a little bit on what you found Mr. Hans to be doing improperly. MR. JACKSON: Sure. On June 4th I received a call from a plumbing inspector for Marco Island, Gary Konicek, I believe his name is, regarding unknown work that was going on at a condo. I went to the condo, met Mr. Hans, who explained that he was a tenant there. And I asked him to come in -- if I could come in to see Page 53 August 19, 2009 what kind of work was going on. He allowed me to enter, where I observed a recently painted condo and the refurbishing of two bathrooms, including removal of toilets, removal of cabinetry, both of which in Marco Island requires a building permit. There was a stop work order posted. And in my talking with Mr. Hans, it was determined that he was responsible for the removal of the cabinetry and the toilets to paint the condo. And I then asked Mr. Hans how he was being compensated for the painting and he said there was a reduction in his rent. Therefore, based on what Mr. Hans told me I considered that compensation and I cited Mr. Hans for unlicensed painting there and then, and also posted a stop work order for the unpermitted bathroom remodeling, since there has been a building permit issued for that remodel. But the issue was painting that day and being compensated by a reduction in rent. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Was anybody working on the bathroom when you were there? MR. JACKSON: There was a licensed plumber doing some work there. He and Mr. Hans both explained that he was doing some light plumbing, some installation of fixtures, if I'm not mistaken. With the stop work order that plumber left, talked with the homeowner, explained to the homeowner what needed to be done, getting a general contractor to get the building permit for the bathrooms. The bathrooms isn't the issue of why we're here today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. JACKSON: The compensation for painting is. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Mr. Hans, would you like to -- MR. OSSORIO: Before we go further, Mr. Jackson, did you look at a lease agreement? Page 54 August 19, 2009 MR. JACKSON: Mr. Hans did show me a lease agreement between himself and the owner, and included in that were construction type items, painting, the refurbishing of the bathrooms. In the condo I wasn't able to get a copy of anything, but based on his testimony in the condo, based on what he showed me in that lease agreement that contained construction items, that's why I cited Mr. Hans. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And Mr. Hans testified to you, told you that this is how he was being compensated for -- MR. JACKSON: When I asked him how he was being paid, he said there was a reduction in rent. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hans? MR. HANS: Well, the last statement Mr. Jackson made is incorrect, I didn't say that at all. I did let him in. He said he was an inspector. He came in and looked around. And he was indicating about the painting and I said yes, I did all the painting myself. I'm moving in. In order to move in, I wanted to make sure the condo was in proper condition before I did that. His words were -- he asked if I was compensated for this work and I said no, I am not compensated for this work. I did it free because I'm moving in and I want it to look nice. And he says, people don't paint for free. That's his exact words. And I said well, I am to take care of the place. I know the lady and I'm fixing it up. He said, well, you're not compensated. I said no. He said, well, what about all this paint and everything that's going on? I said, all the materials that I am paying for to paint the place is being reducted (sic) from my rent. So if I bought paint, if I bought rollers, if I bought things, that was coming off the rent, not compensating for the labor work to paint the place. Page 55 August 19, 2009 And he said well, that's -- you're being compensated then. And I said no, I'm not, just for the materials that's in there. So we had further conversation, and I tried to explain again that I'm not being compensated. I showed him the contract, as Michael had mentioned. I also showed him in the contract that addendum that said specifically that the work was being done at no cost to the owner. I showed him that. And I also asked Mr . Jackson if he'd like to call the owner, she'll explain to him that I am doing it for free. I'm fixing the place up to move in. So I was not being compensated, I have not been compensated. I have an affidavit from the owner, if you'd like to see it, Chairman. I brought one, because I didn't know who all would be here, indicating that I was not compensated at all for doing the work in the condo. So, you know, I talked to a couple ofGC's, you know, about the statute, and he said the intent of this statute is to make sure that people don't paint for a living and be compensated for it. All I was doing was painting where I was living, just like if I was a homeowner. That's all I was doing. And I did remove, as Mr. Jackson said, a couple of vanities, because I wanted to paint behind them before they put the new vanities in. But that's all I was doing. And I was completely done when he came. There was no more painting to be done after that point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any questions of the board? (No response.) MR. HANS: Any other questions of me, I'd be glad to answer them. MR. WHITE: I'd like to take a look at the affidavit, if -- MR. HANS: Sure, sure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have to have a motion that this personal written affidavit of facts from Rachel Klein, owner of condo Page 56 August 19, 2009 unit 403, Princes Del Mar, Marco Island, Florida, be submitted into evidence. MR. WHITE: So moved. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second? MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor? 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. Mr. Hans, do you live in this apartment? MR. HANS: Yes, sir, I do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you live in the apartment that you were painting? MR. HANS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were you living there at the time you were painting, or -- MR. HANS: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- was this something that you were just potentially going to move into? MR. HANS: I was going to move into, yes, sir. MR. WHITE: Did you have a signed lease at that time? MR. HANS: Pardon me, sir? MR. WHITE: Did you have a signed lease? MR. HANS: I did. We signed the lease May 1 st. I was supposed Page 57 August 19, 2009 to move in June 1 st, but it wasn't completed. I didn't move in till about the 15th of June. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: By your own testimony, though, you said that for the materials that you purchased for, the rollers, the paint, the brushes and all the tape and everything it takes to do that painting work, that was going to be deducted from your rent -- MR. HANS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- to pay you back that money, correct? MR. HANS: That's correct. For the materials, not for the labor itself. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Normally a contractor, when he contracts he normally contracts labor and material. He doesn't contract just the labor. Most of the time. Some contractors do, but very seldom do I see too many labor only contracts come out. Generally it's a contractor contracts his labor and material. In which case then you would definitely have become a contractor, because you included materials in that payback to you. Even though it was a reduction for your rent it still becomes a contractor -- MR. HANS: Well, she's an 87 year old lady and she wasn't going to go out and purchase the stuff. She just asked if I would get it first and she would just deduct it from the rent. I mean, you know, I'm not a contractor, I'm a tenant living there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It would have been-- MR. HANS: I'm a banker. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- easier in some cases if she'd have given you a $50 bill and said here, go buy it and give me the change. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Hans, you have a copy of the lease agreement? MR. HANS: I do. MR. WHITE: I've got his testimony as to when he said he entered into it, a sworn statement from this gentleman about what it Page 58 August 19, 2009 purports to say. I don't feel I need to see it, but other members may feel differently. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jerulle, you had a question? MR. JERULLE: No. Mr. Ossorio just asked the question. I'd like to see the lease if I could, please. Or at least the page that MR. HANS: There's no -- the addendum to this -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Hans, you need to be on the mic. Thank you. MR. HANS: The part that I showed Mr. Jackson, the addendum, isn't with the original contract that I have here. This states that at no cost to the owner. It does -- just said there's an addendum to it. I don't have that with me. MR. JERULLE: Why is that? MR. HANS: Why is what, sir? MR. JERULLE: Why is it that you have -- MR. HANS: Well, that was the only thing I thought I had to bring. I just happened to have this with me. Just to verify signature or that I was a tenant is the only reason I brought it. I don't have the whole thing. She has the original contract. MR. JERULLE: So we have -- you do not have the page that Mr. Jackson was referring to? MR. HANS: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One other thing. On this letter -- this is kind of unique, but on this written affidavit of facts we have a Rachel Klein who signed it and the same Donald Hans notarized it. MR. HANS: As a Notary I'm just verifying she's the individual, not that the facts are true and correct. I can't verify that as a Notary. All I'm doing is verifying that her signature is correct and she is Rachel Klein. And I have her contract, if you want to look at that. It's the same signature. Page 59 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's the pleasure of the board? MR. L YKOS: Let me just throw this out, because I think everybody -- I kind of sense everybody is in the same place I am. I don't think that we want to give a citation to a guy who's moving into an apartment and wants to paint it before he moves in. I think in my history I've probably done stuff like that where I was renting somewhere and maybe did the yard work or painted before I moved in because I wanted it to be nice and clean when I moved in. That being said, this whole thing with the bathrooms being remodeled -- and even though that's not the issue at hand, I just get a sense that there was a lot more going on. And even though, Mr. Hans, it appears that you were only involved with the paint, I just start to question the bathrooms and cabinets, and there was a licensed plumber on site, there's no permit. So now who was running the project? And it just -- if it was just the paint and nothing else was going on, it's kind of a black-and-white for me. But with all your stuff going on, I just start to feel different about it. MR. HANS: Well, if I could make a comment on the plumber, he was there for an estimate. He came in for an estimate. And when he came in, he saw that the stuff was leaking, the shutoff valves. And that's what I was getting an estimate on, the shutoffvalves. They were leaking real bad. And even though he had to turn the water off, they were still leaking. And he said, well, while I'm here, should I just fix this? I said, well, just fix that one, if you will, because it's leaking real bad. That way there's no problems downstairs. And then Mr. Jackson came when he was there. But he was there just for the estimate, and we explained that to Mr. Jackson when he was there. MR. L YKOS: I understand. But toilets were removed, cabinets were removed. I don't know many painters that remove toilets and Page 60 August 19,2009 cabinets to paint. Now, you made a comment earlier that you wanted to paint before new cabinets went in. MR. HANS: Yes, sir. MR. L YKOS: Well, now again we're talking about remodeling bathrooms. If this was just about paint, to me, it's a no brainer. But we're talking about pulling toilets and cabinets and countertops and plumbing fixtures, and it just takes on a whole different feel than just some guy who's painting a condo before he moves in. MR. HANS : Well, I think my citation is for unlicensed painting. MR. L YKOS: I understand. And that was -- MR. HANS: I was doing nothing else there. MR. L YKOS: That was made clear to us at the beginning. That issue was separate. I'm just saying how I feel -- MR. HANS: Yes, sir, that's fine. MR. L YKOS: -- okay? I feel like if it was just paint, it's black-and-white, probably shouldn't be a citation. But with everything else going on, I don't think it's that clear anymore, and that's why I'm conflicted. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Understand-- MR. NEALE: Except that the board really just has to look at what the charge was, not extraneous circumstances. He's here for unlicensed painting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. L YKOS: Okay. MR. JERULLE: I think we had a case several months ago very similar to this, and I think we upheld the citation, so I'm going to make a motion to uphold the citation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion. I need a second. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second to uphold Citation No. 4838. Page 61 August 19,2009 All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. WHITE: Opposed. MR. BOYD: Opposed. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Two. Motion carries 5-2. MR. HANS: Could I make -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You'll have to pay the fine. MR. HANS: -- a comment? I understand. Could I make two comments? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. MR. HANS: One, you need to be aware, when the inspector came out, he tried to twist my words around, just to get the citation, number one. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, let's not go any farther then. MR. HANS: The other was is I think it's ridiculous. I know you need money, but to charge somebody that's painting their condo is ridiculous. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Hans. MR. HANS: And I'll make a note to the county about this, too. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir, you can do what you like. MR. HANS: I will. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Next one on the agenda for today is Adam Sandifer. Would you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Sandifer, you are before us today Page 62 August 19,2009 regarding -- you're applying for a license to call it Elective (sic) Elements, LLC. MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you are before us today because of a credit problem? MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's the actual-- what is Elective LLC going to do? MR. SANDIFER: It's Eclectiv Elements, and we're going to do cabinet installations, manufacturing, millwork such as that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's called Collective (sic)? MR. SANDIFER: Eclectiv. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Eclectiv. MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Is the spelling on this correct the way it's spelled? MR. SANDIFER: E-C-L-E-C-T-I-V. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for clarity and maybe for speeding this -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: -- up, his business is less than one year old, so we went on his personal credit. There's some medical issues in there that we didn't take into account, but there are some issues in there, minus the medical, that unfortunately that shows to his not paying his bills. So his license was referred to the Contractor Licensing Board on 6/2/09. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I'm seeing two pages worth of collection items. MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir. MR. WHITE: May I inquire, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. Page 63 August 19,2009 MR. WHITE: Mr. Sandifer, with regards to the item pertaining to AFNI Incorporated, what's the status of that? It's $196. I guess the original creditor was Embarq. MR. SANDIFER: Paid for. MR. WHITE: You've since paid them in full? MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir. There's a -- I don't want to interrupt, but there's a lot of stuff that's on there. I lost my job the end of last year. And through that time I was without work for about five months. And a lot of the smaller stuff that you see on there were things that I couldn't pay for and it went into collections. And since that time I've been paying a lot of that stuff back. I plan on paying all of it back. It's just that at the time it was pay my rent to where I was living and eat and feed my family or pay that. And unfortunately I had to make a decision, a choice. MR. WHITE: The dollar amounts for the medical payments really don't seem that large. I mean, the largest of them is 255, 178,62 bucks, 25 bucks. Are any of those paid? MR. SANDIFER: I'm working on paying those off at this time too, sir. MR. WHITE: So none of them have been paid? MR. SANDIFER: Some of them have been paid for, yes. Not all, but some have, yes, sir. MR. WHITE: You wouldn't know which of them? Because it's kind of hard to tell. MR. SANDIFER: At this time, no, sir, I couldn't tell you exactly which ones I've paid for. MR. WHITE: You don't have any canceled checks for any of these? MR. SANDIFER: No, sir, at this time I do not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: There's also one that was -- kind of Page 64 August 19, 2009 bothers me a little bit, from Mazda America, with a charge-off. Apparently there was a repossession? MR. SANDIFER: I guess so. That's what they're calling it, yes, sIr. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did they take the car? MR. SANDIFER: I surrendered it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You voluntarily gave it back? MR. SANDIFER: I did, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And what's the status on that? MR. SANDIFER: At this time I have a -- I'm working with Mazda America to work a payment plan out with them. I'm supposed to be talking with them this week on that. MR. WHITE: There's one other item on here, Mr. Sandifer, the Ibis Club Apartments, nearly $2,000. What's the status of that? MR. SANDIFER: We moved out of there a couple of years ago. We had lived there for about six years. There were some damages to the apartment. We're presently talking with them as well about -- they didn't apply our security deposit to any of it, they just kind of took it. Now, that's not really an excuse. And, you know, at the end of the day I'm still going to have to pay for it and I agree that I have to pay for it. Everything you see on there, I will pay for. I'm not trying to make an excuse of why I have a bill, so -- MR. WHITE: Could you give us an estimate of how long you feel it might take you to make those payments in full? MR. SANDIFER: Probably within the next six to eight months. And there's not a great deal of money on there, it's just a lot of small stuff that I need to take care of. MR. WHITE: I don't disagree, but that's the reason why we're here. MR. SANDIFER: Yes, sir, I understand. MR. WHITE: Did Sears ever issue you a credit card? Page 65 August 19, 2009 MR. SANDIFER: I've never had anything from Sears. I don't remem -- I don't think I've ever applied to Sears. MR. L YKOS: Is there a recommendation from staff on this, Michael? MR. OSSORIO: I recommend we approve and put him on probation for six months and within six months have a credit report in my office. And if it makes improvement, probation will be lifted. If not, we'll schedule it for the board meeting, just as we've done in the past. As a matter of fact, I have one on my desk right now. MR. WHITE: I move the recommendation of staff, Mr. Chairman. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Got a motion and a second to approve with a recommendation of probationary license or report back in six months. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. L YKOS: Can we have discussion first? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. L YKOS: So I understand properly, at the end of the six-month period we can do another review and we can extend it six months if we wanted to, we could -- MR. NEALE: Right. But if staff -- the way Mr. Ossorio recommended it is if at the end of six months staff deems that his credit's clear, that they -- he could move ahead. MR. WHITE: We wouldn't see it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We wouldn't see it. He will make that choice. MR. WHITE: Same way administratively they're always handled. MR. L YKOS: I understand. MR. WHITE: I'm sure you do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is not going to get missed through Page 66 August 19,2009 the cracks, though, right? I mean, would it be better if the motion says that he comes back before us in six months and we look at it? MR. L YKOS: I think I'm leaning towards let's just have him come back in six months. Let's just take a look at what's going on. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Yeah, that'll take a little heat off of you too. MR. WHITE: I'll amend my motion accordingly; ask the second to do as well. MR. LANTZ: I second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, the motion, as amended. 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. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 7-0. Good luck to you. MR. SANDIFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Don't forget-- MR. SANDIFER: Six months. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- six months you come back with a new credit app. and let's see some of that stuff gone, okay? MR. SANDIFER: Thank you, board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. You didn't want to watch him anyway, Michael. MR. OSSORIO: No. As long as he doesn't come on Fridays. MR. L YKOS: In six months you'll be okay. Page 67 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, next on the agenda is a Mr. Theodore A. Ryznar. Are you present? MR. RYZNAR: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please come to the podium, be sworn in, please. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I want to give you a quick overview so we don't get lost in the shuffle here. Mr. Ryznar is a qualifier of a company called Zap Marine. He no longer wants to qualify Zap Marine. I think he owned 50 percent of it. He came in, disqualified himself and then tried to open up another marine company, another -- qualify another company. We checked his credit on Zap Marine and there was a substantial judgment on Zap Marine. So therefore, I was not able to go ahead and reissue him a new certificate to a new company due to the fact that he had a judgment on the previous one of the one he qualifies now. But maybe he can elaborate more. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been here in business, sir? MR. RYZNAR: Pardon? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How long have you been in business here? MR. RYZNAR: I've been in business 25 years now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I mean with the-- MR. RYZNAR: With the county? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, not with the county, no. With your marine -- the company you qualified before, Ryzap (sic). MR. OSSORIO: Zap Marine. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Zap Marine. MR. OSSORIO: He still qualifies Zap Marine. He doesn't want to qualify -- he doesn't want -- he was in limbo. He came in and thought about disqualifying Zap Marine to qualify another company. NPage 68 August 19,2009 He didn't want to associate with Zap Marine anymore. And when he pulled his credit he figured that well, wait a minute, if I get rid of Zap Marine, I can't get it back due to the fact that my -- I have a judgment on Zap Marine. So everything's at status quo. He wishes to go ahead and disqualify Zap Marine and qualify another company. But before he does that, he wants your approval to go ahead and open up another company to apply for a new license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he doesn't lose them both. MR. OSSORIO: So he doesn't lose them both. So ifhe disqualifies Zap and then he' stuck with no license versus right now he has Zap Marine but with a judgment. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, one last question to you then. Under Zap Marine, with this judgment that's against him from Zap Marine, as a qualifier for the company he's responsible for this judgment, correct? MR. RYZNAR: I have two other members in it, and I was outvoted on that. I explained that in my letter to the board. I have tried to negotiate to get it settled. We've offered settlement on it and they refused to do it. MR. NEALE: Mr. Joslin? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sir. MR. NEALE: If it's just a civil judgment against the corporation, not a licensing violation or a fine imposed on his license, he's no more responsible for that judgment than if you had a judgment against your company for something and -- you know, that's the reason he's incorporated, basically is, you know, he's a limited liability company, and that limits his liability for that judgment personally. Unless they joined him personally in the lawsuit, the judgment is against the company, not against him personally. It doesn't have anything to do with his licensure specifically, unless it was a judgment against his license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we're not looking at a judgment at all Page 69 August 19, 2009 then; is that what you're saying? MR. NEALE: Well, you can look at the judgment. But just to say that he as a qualifier is responsible isn't correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: That doesn't -- him being a qualifier doesn't make him any more liable than any other shareholder in that company. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Neale, if you look under 489, and I don't know the section, but it does say something in there, 489-127, Section I, I think, or something. It says if a licensee fails to pay his civil judgment, that is a ci -- that is not a defense for a licensee that says I have no part of it. So there is a section in 489 that says a licensee is responsible for taking care of his civil penalties -- it says civil judgments -- within a reasonable amount of time or there's a charge for it. MR. NEALE: If those judgments are pertaining to the contractor, typically. MR. OSSORIO: Well, it says against the qualified business. Licensee pertaining to his qualified business. And I'd tell you, Mr. Zap Marine is a qualified business. He owns 50 percent of it and there's a civil judgment. In good faith I could not go ahead and issue him a new certificate with a civil judgment on top of it. The board may want to, but unfortunately the licensing refers that quite often. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ryznar, how much do you own of Zap Marine? MR. RYZNAR: All the shares were divided 33 percent. And to be a qualifier as a member, LLC member corporation, I don't know how -- well, we all divided three ways. Voting was all three ways. The ownership of it, I had a majority of the equipment in the stock in the company, the 50 percent. MR. WHITE: Of the 50,000 shares, you had 25,000? MR. RYZNAR: Of the 50,000 -- no, we don't have shares in the Page 70 August 19, 2009 corporation. It's LLC. MR. WHITE: Then why is there a document at the last page of this that says that somebody has 50 percent of 25,000 shares. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's the new company. MR. L YKOS: That's the new company. MR. WHITE: My mistake. Okay, as far as the managing members go-- MR. RYZNAR: Managing members, we have all 33 percent. MR. WHITE: With equal voting rights. MR. RYZNAR: Right. MR. WHITE: And can you explain, if you know, the rationale your other two members gave for not resolving this suit, working it out as stated you wanted to do? MR. RYZNAR: Well, as stated in the letter, that we were paying double for this piece of equipment. The company would not furnish the information, bill of sale and everything and deposit for us. We had the item financed. And finally after paying -- instead of $20,000 for it we were going to pay $40,000 for this piece of equipment under their lease agreement. And they said no way are we going to do that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Was there a copy of the lease agreement that was signed by someone when you originally received this equipment? MR. R YZNAR: When we first started negotiation, yes, there was. And it was signed by two members. But after we were wanting to purchase this piece of equipment, we took it to our bank, we had the financing available, they approved it. And turned around, all we needed was documentation from that company. In the meantime they were charging us $3,500 a month rent for this thing that we were still negotiating on a lease agreement for, with them and our bank. And here I am, stuck with like 14,000 or $15,000 worth of rental on this equipment, when if they would have furnished the information right upfront, I would have purchased it through my Page 71 August 19,2009 bank, which they did not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And they wouldn't give you any compensation back for the amount of times -- MR. RYZNAR: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that you rented it or the amount of money you put into the rent? MR. RYZNAR: No. They wanted to charge me $18,000. And then they didn't even acknowledge our deposit on the thing. MR. JERULLE: So you want to leave Zap Marine -- you want to take your license from Zap Marine and move it over to Precision? MR. RYZNAR: Yes. MR. JERULLE: And you want to leave that debt with Zap Marine? MR. RYZNAR: Yes. MR. JERULLE: And you have not paid anything on that debt? MR. RYZNAR: No. They -- MR. JERULLE: Did you plan on paying anything on that debt? MR. RYZNAR: They told us that they would rather use it for tax write-off than -- we offered 50 percent on it to settle and they said no, we'd rather use it for a tax write-off. MR. JERULLE: Well, they want the whole amount. MR. RYZNAR: Yes. MR. JERULLE: My point is, is that you're abandoning Zap Marine and their debt to start a new company -- MR. RYZNAR: I have-- MR. JERULLE: -- and you feel no obligation to payoff that debt. MR. RYZNAR: I have two partners; one moved to Costa Rica, the other one quit. MR. JERULLE: Okay. Did you payoff 33 and a third percent of that debt? MR. RYZNAR: Could I? Page 72 August 19,2009 MR. JERULLE: Have you? MR. RYZNAR: No. MR. JERULLE: Do you have plans to? MR. RYZNAR: No, I don't have plans to do it because they've already used it for a write-off. MR. JERULLE: I just don't feel comfortable with somebody abandoning -- you know, moving their license from one company to another company and leaving debt. Personally I just -- I just don't think that's the right thing to do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And now all the other percentage of shareholders or members now are gone, so -- MR. RYZNAR: They're not completely gone, but they're still there. You know, one moved to Costa Rica, still in touch with things, and the other one, he actually quit the company. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, in my mind it says gone, I mean, in a sense. They're not here still functioning as a business, apparently. And now you're wanting to again remove yourself from the business and just leave Zap Marine out here with a debt and -- MR. R YZNAR: Zap Marine is still going to be in business, but it's not going to be in the marine business. I have two new partners that want to start up on the precision seawall and dock. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm just afraid that when this lawsuit does come to a head and they wait long enough and the collections get high enough and the dollars grow enough that when they do come back and try to recover this money that this new company of yours is going to be suffering and you -- MR. RYZNAR: It's already been judged. They've already got a judgment against it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, they can act on a judgment, though. MR. RYZNAR: Yeah. Well, I furnished information to them and giving them all that. Page 73 August 19,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's your recommendation, Mr. Ossorio? What do you think? I'll ask you. MR. OSSORIO: Well, this is something that doesn't happen that often. I recommend that we deny him a new certificate to open up a new business, a new qualified business, until he gets the facts to you other than saying that I tried to give 50 percent to the company or this is for -- this is all hearsay, which is good, but I think if he comes back to the board on a future date and says okay, here's a certified letter saying I want to negotiate with him for 50 percent, I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to take 50 percent. As somebody told me, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. So, you know, he needs to provide that documentation to you versus him just telling you. And he needs to provide that documentation that his partners left to Costa Rica and he was a managing member and he wasn't responsible. But he's a qualifier, he's responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and firing, and under State Statute 489 he could be accountable for the qualified business activities, if he is a primary qualifier. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's the way I understand the law. I mean -- MR. NEALE: However -- MR. OSSORIO: However. MR. NEALE: -- let's take this to a point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: And I will do the research on it for next meeting. But that would make the assumption that if you have a qualifier for Bonita Bay Group or WCI and they go bankrupt, that he then becomes liable for every debt of Bonita Bay Group or WCI. MR. LANTZ: Unless they have a financially responsible officer. MR. NEALE: Even -- MR. OSSORIO: A bankruptcy -- MR. NEALE: Unless they do. But at that-- Page 74 August 19,2009 MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: -- these are issues for contracting, not for general civil judgments. MR. OSSORIO: You're absolutely correct. If it was a bankruptcy, I wouldn't be here today . We've issued many licenses with current bankruptcy or in the process of bankruptcy. Well, this is a civil judgment. Could have been a homeowner, could be anyone. It's not a judgment -- I mean it's not a bankruptcy. If it was a bankruptcy, you're absolutely right. MR. NEALE: But even at that, what I want the board to consider and I want to review is let's assume neither of these companies -- you know, Bonita Bay's not bankrupt yet. Would you want to be the qualifier as contractors and liable for every judgment against that company? MR. RYZNAR: I'm doing this to protect my license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see your point, Mr. Neale. Yeah, I see your point. MR. OSSORIO: Do you have a copy of 489? MR. NEALE: This is saying that if one of your employees gets in a car wreck and there is a judgment against your company, because of that car wreck, nothing to do with your contracting, that that judgment would automatically, based on the logic you're using, attach to you personally as a contractor as the qualifier. Why then would anyone have an incorporated contracting business? MR. WHITE: I think the distinction that I see Mr. Neale making is that if the judgment were something that pertained to a contract with a landowner, a property owner for a seawall or a dock, and that would be something that I think you'd see the relationship between the judgment and the license. What we have here is some separate business arrangement for the purchase of a piece of equipment that -- I agree with Mr. Ossorio, there probably could be better documentary evidence of what the facts Page 75 August 19,2009 are here, but we have the sworn statement under oath. So I'm just trying to give you another way of seeing what Mr. Neale is sharing with you, that there should be some relationship between his license and a contract as opposed to some other business or personal injury or some other aspect of judgment that can be levied against the business organization. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: But this judgment that's against the business is a piece of equipment that was purchased for the use of that business. So wouldn't it tie into the business entity that it's being used for as in a sense a contract with -- MR. NEALE: Well, so then just taking it one step further, you go out and purchase a car, a truck to be used in your business -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: -- and you buy it through the business, no personal guarantee on the note. Business has trouble, you don't make the payments. They take the truck back. They get a judgment against the business. Should that also be a personal judgment against you as the qualifier? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. NEALE: Okay. MR. JERULLE: But it doesn't change the fact that he says that he owns 33 and a third percent of Zap Marine and he's obligated for 33 and a third percent of the debt of Zap Marine. MR. NEALE: Not unless he signed a personal guarantee. MR. JERULLE: He owns part of that company and that company has a debt. Is he not responsible for that debt? MR. NEALE: Not unless he signed a personal guarantee. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. JERULLE: And do we know -- MR. NEALE: That's why you have a corporation. MR. JERULLE: Then we don't know ifhe signed a personal guarantee then. Page 76 August 19,2009 MR. RYZNAR: No, I did not. MR. JERULLE: We don't have any docu -- MR. NEALE: But the judgment is only against Zap Marine, as far as we can tell. Now, we don't have adequate evidence on what the judgment was, don't have adequate evidence on who it was against, whether he was personally liable on it -- MR. JERULLE: I'm still not comfortable with the fact that -- I have a contractor's license, and I just am not comfortable with the fact that my company owes somebody money and I don't want to pay it so I'm just going to move my license to another company. That's an excuse not to pay. And I'm not comfortable and I'm not going to vote that we allow that to happen. I just don't think it's correct. MR. RYZNAR: That's not the reasoning why I'm doing this. I have 99.9 percent customers that have all been satisfied. I'm trying to protect myself against this, because of decisions on other parts of the other two owners on this thing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let me ask you a question then, and maybe I can clear some of it out. I'd still like to see some proof. But when you bought this piece of equipment or you signed some type of a contract or lease agreement or whatever you did to get this piece of equipment, someone had to go into that office or wherever you purchased it at and sign something that says, okay, we agree to X, Y and Z, at least for "X" number of years. Is that something that you did or that your partners did, or who signed that piece of paper? MR. RYZNAR: I signed the piece of paper. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How did you sign it as? MR. RYZNAR: Under the corporation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Under the corporate name. MR. RYZNAR: Yes. Not personally. MR. JERULLE: I'd like to see that. Page 77 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. L YKOS: There are two credit reports in the packet, one for Mr. Ryznar personal and one for the business Zap Marine. The judgment is against Zap Marine, it's not on Mr. Ryznar's credit report. Which means that the judgment is against the company and not against him personally. MR. JERULLE: I accept that. But I'm still not comfortable with somebody, seems to me, abandoning one company to start another company because there's debt. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have to agree with you, Mr. Jerulle. MR. L YKOS: Well, there's a saying, and I'm paraphrasing, I know I won't say it right, that you can't legislate morality. And you might think this is a moral issue, but law doesn't necessarily dictate morality, it -- there's a corporate shield for a reason. And even though you might not invoke it for a moral standpoint, there is a corporate shield to protect us as personal owners of a business, or officers of a corporation. MR. NEALE: Now this would be a completely different issue if he had an outstanding judgment from the Contractor Licensing Board for a penalty. That's directly related to his contracting business. Or if he had an outstanding judgment on a specific contracting business, that's potentially it. But for something like purchasing equipment-- MR. JERULLE: I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying, but you haven't changed my mind. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm going to -- another question. MR. WHITE: If I may ask Mr. Ryznar? What are your thoughts if you were to have offered to APEI one-third of the value of the judgment in exchange for a release? MR. RYZNAR: I've offered 50 percent. MR. WHITE: And you were told that they wouldn't give you a release as a managing member? MR. RYZNAR: No. Page 78 August 19,2009 MR. WHITE: So they wouldn't release Zap -- MR. RYZNAR: They wouldn't release-- MR. WHITE: -- totally? Because there's a distinction here between you going to them as a managing member and saying hey look, I've got this Contractor Licensing Board that I'm working with -- you don't have to tell them that, of course. But the point is you're trying to go and talk to them to get a release of you as the managing member. MR. RYZNAR: I have tried for three months now to settle with them. And they said no. I have offered them $10,000 to settle this thing -- that's 50 percent -- to settle this thing and get it out of the bushes, as you might say. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos, do you have a question? MR. L YKOS : Well, I was going to say, I think I've got a sense of where you guys are trying to go with this. We want to get something from him so that he recognizes that he has some obligation. But with regard to the specifics of Mr. White's question, if this was me and let's say the judgment was for $100,000, if you ask for a personal release, you're removing the corporate shield. You're now asking for a personal release when the corporate shield is there to protect you personally. You'd almost be opening the door to then being -- having a judgment against you personally if you ask for a personal release. You've got to maintain the separation between the person and the corporation. MR. NEALE: I mean, you don't want to sit there and say well, release me personally, because then by extension you're saying I had some personal liability . MR. L YKOS: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. WHITE: Which is why I said as a managing -- MR. NEALE: As a managing mem -- release my interest as a managing member from any -- Page 79 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: Exactly. MR. L YKOS: That still gets -- MR. NEALE: It's -- I don't know whether I'd recommend it, but yeah. MR. WHITE: Well, I'm just trying to find out what it is that might be comfortable grounds for our board to be able to actually consider and approve it. So I'm just trying to find something that may allow us to move forward from today and meet Mr. Ossorio's-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At this time, is Zap Marine active? MR. RYZNAR: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And it's still in business? MR. RYZNAR: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: I just want to read something in there, and then we'll clarify it. And I think I have a resolution here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: This is under 489-129, Section Q. Failure to satisfy within a reasonable time terms of a civil judgment obtained against a licensee, or the business organization qualified by the licensee relating to practicing of a licensee's profession. Now, that's a violation of -- that's discipline. So what we can do is, is we can go ahead and issue him a temporary -- a new license, new certificate, put him on some probationary period. Ifhe doesn't pay that with -- that judgment within a reasonable amount of time, we would charge him under 4.2 under misconduct ofa licensed company. MR. WHITE: Could you read the phrase about relating to again? MR. OSSORIO: It says relating to the practice of the licensee's profession, which is marine contracting. And I guess if you buy marine equipment, that would be related to his profession. If you -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I can understand-- MR. WHITE: I think that-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- your point. Okay, one at a time. Page 80 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: -- splits the hair that Mr. -- MR. NEALE: I would not recommend this board go down that road. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. MR. OSSORIO: Well, I'm just -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I mean, I can see your point, Mr. Ossorio, for being able to put a handhold on him as far as to come back later on after he -- we say he pays this debt off. But in some cases in some ways I'm looking at this debt and saying okay, we have three people who are in this corporation and apparently all three want to walk away. And apparently the people that they owe the money to aren't willing to settle. So other than to maybe approve it with a probationary period and see what happens with it, if it's going to come to a head, I don't think it's going to take longer than a period of time before something's -- MR. NEALE: There's already a judgment against the business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: They can do nothing to enforce that judgment against this gentleman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Personally. MR. NEALE: Personally. The judgment's against the business. They can go after Zap Marine's assets, they can shut it down, they can take its typewriters -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: -- they can do whatever. But, you know, as Mr. L ykos correctly points out, they don't have a judgment against this gentleman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I see your point totally. MR. WHITE: And it appears from what we've been told, and this may be the level of documentary evidence Mr. Ossorio is looking for, the idea of being that somehow API has handled this as a tax write-off that could be documented. Because that would seem to be Page 81 August 19, 2009 the resolution of the matter from the perspective of could they thereafter then attempt to attach the assets of Zap Marine. If they've already effectively written this off as a loss on their books for tax purposes, it seems they would be in a difficult position if they later on tried to come back -- MR. NEALE: In effect they should issue a 1099 to Zap Marine showing they have taken that write-off. MR. L YKOS: There should be documentation. MR. NEALE: They should. I mean, whether they will or not, that's -- a lot of places choose not to do that, so -- MR. RYZNAR: They won't even talk to me. MR. NEALE: So it's unlikely that he's going to get that. MR. WHITE: The other thing, I think that, you know, in looking at the letter that was provided to us in our packet dated June 26th, at the end of the second to last paragraph it says that apparently also the partners, I don't know why it says former business partners, when the issue of taking an appeal which seemed to be one that would have been meritorious because there was not proper notice, the former partners, it says, voted against doing so. So I don't understand why they would take that action, but it seems to be consistent with the notion that efforts have been made to try to prevent the judgment first from attaching and then second, even in light of the fact that it may not have been warranted legally, would still have been a good faith effort, from what the gentleman's told us today, and he has on the record, to try to resolve it. So I just don't want to leave him with his hands tied and us feeling that he hadn't made a good faith effort. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: This question is for either one of our or both of our attorneys. Will the judgment expire if it's not acted on in a certain time frame? Is there -- Page 82 August 19, 2009 MR. NEALE: Yeah, you've got a certain time in which to enforce a judgment. MR. L YKOS: It's 20 years. MR. NEALE: Yeah, 20 years. MR. L YKOS: Longer than -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, but -- MR. L YKOS: Like with liens, if we don't act on them in one year, they expire. But we're not talking about that kind of a time frame. This is something that would be a lot longer. MR. NEALE: No, but the thing is they're -- you know, as you point out, you know, it's by today's standards a relatively small judgment against a company that I'm sure they -- as I would if I were handling the litigation, I would have investigated that company to see if they got any assets. If they don't have any real assets, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of my client's money chasing down a company that has nothing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. NEALE: So you got the judgment hanging out there. If something happens, you enforce it. If not, it's a judgment that hangs out there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Boyd? MR. BOYD: Mr. Ryznar, who has the piece of equipment? Does the APIE or whatever, do they have the piece of equipment back? MR. RYZNAR: Yes, they do. I returned it. MR. BOYD: Okay. So what they're going to do is they're going to write off the $20,000. They got the piece of equipment back, they're going to lease it out again and they're going to make money. MR. NEALE: Exactly. MR. RYZNAR: Yes. MR. NEALE: They got it, they took it back, they got it again. Yeah, that's why they don't want to settle, because then they'd have to show what kind of compensation they received for the Page 83 August 19, 2009 releasing of that equipment, reduce their judgment amount by that, you know, because they'd have to mitigate the damages, reduce -- the judgment at the end of the day may be zero once you go through that dance. So -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, let's put this to sleep, huh? I'll make a motion that we approve the application for Mr. Ryznar to qualify and get his license for Precission Drywalling. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor signify -- any discussion first. Any further discussion? MR. WHITE: Just one point, Mr. Chairman. There seems to be some lack of precision about the spelling of Precission -- MR. RYZNAR: Two S's. MR. WHITE: Some instances it's two, some instances it's one. MR. NEALE: I guess it's supposed to be two. MR. WHITE: That's the way it was formed and I would think that's the way that the license, if it's going to be issued should be issued. MR. JERULLE: Regarding the discussion, I still don't understand. He has a corporation, he has a license. Why he needs to transfer that license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think the biggest-- MR. JERULLE: But what our obligation is, to give it to him when he already has that opportunity. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, it's like Mr. Neale said, in a sense what we're doing is protecting his license that he has now because of a judgment that is against the corporation with three parties involved. MR. NEALE: There's only one reason this is here, and that's because it was referred to the board by the Contractor Licensing Supervisor, because he had a question on the application. MR. JERULLE: So my opportunity (sic) is he has an opportunity to act as Zap Marine tomorrow, does he not? tPage 84 August 19,2009 MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. JERULLE: What obligation do we have to give him -- to transfer that license? We're not taking away anything from him. He already can go out and work and do seawalls under Zap Marine. Why do we want to give him an opportunity not to pay a debt? I just think we have a responsibility to Collier County to -- if there's something that we can do to help or prevent something in the future -- he has a license entity. Let him operate under that license entity and deal with the debt that way. Why are we letting him off the hook? MR. NEALE: The thing is just the transferring of the license doesn't change his ownership in Zap Marine. And that's the only way they get to him as far as that judgment. He still owns Zap Marine. He hasn't gotten rid of it, correct? So that judgment still -- however it may, which it probably doesn't, attach to the owners that Zap Marine still has. MR. JERULLE: I understand that. But we're still giving him the opportunity to operate under another entity. And even giving him a less chance of paying off the debt or dealing with the debt. And he has more of an incentive to deal with the debt if he keeps his license with Zap Marine. MR. WHITE: It seems to me that Zap Marine is dysfunctional in terms of the -- MR. NEALE: At best. MR. WHITE: -- business organization to make effective management decisions. MR. JERULLE: Then dissolve it. MR. WHITE: That would be, logically speaking, even worse scenario than the one you're suggesting is inappropriate now. Because then if they dissolve it, there'd be no way that you'd ever have any responsibility and opportunity to have APEI properly paid back. MR. JERULLE: Depends on how you dissolve it. Page 85 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: Which I believe they have -- that Zap Marine made every effort, he as a managing member, to rightfully work with him, if possible. But there's nothing that tells me that this is the kind of a debt that he has sought to avoid and use the shell of a new corporation or new entity to defraud someone. It seems to me that -- I accept the rationale that this is the only way he can protect his license in terms of qualifying a new entity. And one that's properly capitalized is one that seems to have -- MR. JERULLE: I know which way I'm going to vote. And I just hope that he doesn't come back in front of us again with something similar with the Precission Marine. MR. WHITE: Well, the rest of his credit for Zap Marine looks good. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: He has outstanding credit for the rest of the items. I mean, there's nothing derogatory on there. Anyway, motion on the floor. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify the motion by saYIng aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All opposed? MR. JERULLE: Nay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Nay (sic). Motion carries six in favor, one opposed. MR. RYZNAR: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good luck to you. Page 86 August 19, 2009 MR. RYZNAR: Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we have one second -- to qualify second entity. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One more. MR. OSSORIO: Bixby. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: I don't know how the court reporter feels. We can hurry up and finish this second entity, or take a few minute break and then we'll try to go ahead and do these cases within an hour or so, or -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are both cases going to be heard? MR. OSSORIO: Both cases are going to be heard. I anticipate hopefully these cases will go quickly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so-- MR. NEALE: Take a break? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, let's get this second entity out of the way first and then we'll discuss how we're going to take a break and what we're going to hear then. MR. NEALE: Break's right after the second entity, though. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I have a Brent Bixby. Would you please come up and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Bixby, just for the record, I'd like you to -- the board and members of the board to recognize that I've known Mr. Bixby for many years and I know the quality -- or the type of work he does now. And if there's any question about me hearing this case, then they need to make that response now. You're okay with it? MR. BIXBY: Yeah, I'm okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Bixby, you are here to qualify a second entity called Grinders; is that correct? Page 87 August 19, 2009 MR. BIXBY: Correct, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you currently now qualify a lawn service; is that correct? MR. BIXBY: Yes. Native Son. MR. OSSORIO: A landscaping company. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A landscape company, that's right. MR. OSSORIO: That can do stump grinding and tree service work. So he's licensed as a landscaping (sic). So if you qualify another company, he'd have two landscaping companies: One is Native Son and the other one is Grinder, doing business as Holiday Lights, Incorporated? MR. BIXBY: Correct. MR. WHITE: The other way around. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah, it's the other way around. Will both -- I'm sorry, Holiday Lights, Inc. and d/b/a Grinders is the same company? MR. BIXBY: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. And Native Sons Lawn Service-- Landscape Service is your other company? Or is it -- MR. BIXBY: I qualify them. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- the primary company? MR. BIXBY: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I've looked at your credit report and it looks pretty impressive, considering. I've known you for a long time. I do have one major problem and that is that right now you own Native Son Landscape, Inc. And it says on the opening statement that this company I do not have stock or ownership in. MR. BIXBY: No, I do not own it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. But you have a silent role in the landscaping? MR. BIXBY: Yes. Page 88 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, can you kind of clarify that a little bit? I'm a little bit confused. As an owner or as a license holder for Native Son Landscape, Inc. MR. BIXBY: I went to work for Native Son and they had a maintenance in Hurricane Wilma. So when my company -- I dissolved that and I qualified Native Son. So that while I was there we were doing landscape. And I left my license with them just so I could keep it active so if I needed it in the future. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. But that is your primary source of companies right now; Native Sons is the only company that you qualify, correct? MR. BIXBY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio, or maybe Mr. Neale, I'm not sure, but is there anything in the ordinance that says that a particular qualifier has to be a portion of an ownership in it? MR. OSSORIO: Has to have a letter of authorization. Which when we first came in for a certificate for Native Son, a letter of authorization from the managing member or the owner of Native Son authorized him to work on his behalf and he would be responsible for anything construction related or judgments, whatever you want to call it, he would be responsible for. MR. L YKOS: Is this Grinders company a company that was here in front us before? MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. L YKOS: That name sounded familiar. MR. NEALE: No. MR. L YKOS: Maybe it was just the term stump grinder. MR. NEALE: We did have a stump grinder -- MR. OSSORIO: We had a stump grinder. MR. NEALE: -- a couple months ago. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we went through the grinding situation there for a little while. Page 89 August 19,2009 MR. OSSORIO: We resolved that. MR. NEALE: We ground that into the ground. MR. L YKOS: Yes, we beat that one to death. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I just have one thing that I picked up in the second entity qualification guidelines page, as far as the application fees and all the fees and all the things that are listed as far as what's inside the packet now. But at the very end it kind of makes me wonder. I'm going to read it out just so we know. It should be noted that the qualifier must be responsible for and capable of supervising, directing, managing and controlling both the contracting activities of the entity he or she now qualifies, as well as the proposed entity. Managing and contracting activities include the proper collection and disbursement of funds and the proper payment of subcontractors and suppliers. In addition, he or she must be responsible for and capable of supervision, direction, management and control of all the entities for which he or she pulls permits. In a nutshell this tells me that he should be some kind of a something within Native Son, Inc. MR. OSSORIO: He is. By letter of authorization from the owner, it gives him authorization to be the qualifier. You just named what a qualifier does. When we talk to a qualified business, we always try to talk to the licensee of the qualifier, not necessarily the owner. So if there's ever a complaint or a question on payroll, question on any services, the qualifier's the first person we talk to, no matter ifhe's in Michigan, Alaska. The state really takes a role on what does a qualifier do and how he runs his company, and they think that supervision means a phone call. So if I call up Native Son and he's not working that day or he's not on the job site, he's a phone call away. Which I'm assuming they know who you are and you work. Page 90 August 19, 2009 MR. BIXBY: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you have the ability to sign checks? MR. BIXBY: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Well, the last entry on here says, at the sole discretion of the -- and option of the board, the board may deem it a requirement that the qualifier be able to sign on checks relating to construction payables. So with that said, I would be more inclined to say I would approve the second entity or the stump grinding, but I would like to see Native Son Landscape, I would like to see something to do with you being able to at least write checks on that company. Should it get in trouble or should there be situations where someone else doesn't pay the bill, you're able to go in there and sign checks to pay people or to take care of it, not just be something that sits on the outside that has no control at all, other than you are funding them their license. Which in some ways sounds to me like you're selling the license. MR. L YKOS: Michael, what's your recommendation on this? MR. OSSORIO: Well, I think we should approve it. I don't know what's in his mindset, but he's the qualifier of Native Son and he takes that responsibility, and I have no problem. MR. L YKOS: He already qualifies Native Son. MR. OSSORIO: Exactly right. MR. L YKOS: This is about their company. MR. OSSORIO: Well, I have no problem him qualifying-- MR. NEALE: This has nothing to do with Native Son at all. MR. L YKOS: So the fact that he mayor may not sign checks for Native Son -- MR. NEALE: It's irrelevant. MR. OSSORIO: That's right. MR. L YKOS: -- he's already a qualifier. MR. NEALE: Right. You're not asking -- all you're asking is if Page 91 August 19, 2009 he can qualify a company now. THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. MR. NEALE: I mean, this question is whether he can qualify a company as a second entity that he owns 100 percent of. That's all the question is. He already qualifies Native Son. Ignore the fact that he qualifies Native Son, unless Native Son has some major issues in front of this board. That's already -- he's qualifying them. The only issue is are you going to permit him to also qualify Grinders. MR. L YKOS: Which he is sole owner of. MR. NEALE: Which he is sole owner of, et cetera. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Totally. MR. L YKOS: Motion to approve, Lykos. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 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. MR. BIXBY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good luck. MR. BIXBY: Appreciate it. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we take a 15-minute break. Terry Jerulle won't be here after noon; am I correct? MR. JERULLE: That's correct. Page 92 August 19,2009 MR. OSSORIO: Unless you want to take a lunch. I prefer to take a 15-minute break, since all the respondents are here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's fine. MR. OSSORIO: If the court reporter doesn't mind. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Keep on going? All right, we'll take a 15-minute recess and we'll return at five minutes after 12:00. (Recess.) (At which time, Mr. Jerulle is absent.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll call back to order the August 19th, 2009 Contractor -- Collier County Contractor Licensing Board meeting, and we'll continue where we left off. The next case before us is a public hearing -- I'm sorry, is there any old business before we go into that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No? We'll discuss it afterwards. Public hearings. Case No. 2009-07, a James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr., d/b/a Marco Marine Construction, Inc. Are you present? MR. SCHUCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Come to the podium and be sworn in, please. (Ms. Clements and Mr. Schuck were duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. SCHUCK: James G. Schuck. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And Karen, you'll be presenting the case? MS. CLEMENTS: Karen Clements, Contractor Licensing Officer. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, just for the record, I'm going to read the hearings and procedures on how we're going to conduct this particular case. The hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in Page 93 August 19, 2009 Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature. Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. Irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative evidence shall be excluded, but all other evidence of the type commonly relied upon, reasonably prudent to the persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in the trial in the courts of the State of Florida. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any evidence, but shall not be sufficient by itself to support the finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in civil actions in court. The rules of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that they are now and hereafter be recognized in civil actions. Any member of the Contractor Licensing Board may question any witnesses before the board. Each party to the proceeding's shall have the right to call and examine witnesses, to introduce exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebuke any evidence presented against the party. The chairperson shall have all the powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in a full, fair and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. The general process of this hearing is for the county to present an opening statement where it sets out the charges in general terms and how it intends to prove them. The respondent then makes his or her opening statements, set out in general terms, the defenses to the charges. The county 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 Page 94 August 19, 2009 puts his or her defense (sic). They may call witnesses and do all the things described earlier; that is, call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits, cross-examine witnesses and impeach any witness, regardless of the party who called the witnesses to testify, and rebut any evidence presented against the party. After the respondent puts on his or her 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 after the respondent's closing arguments. The board will then close the public hearing and begin deliberations. Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will give them charge, much like charges to a jury, setting out the parameters on which they based their decision. During deliberations the board can ask for additional information and clarifications from the parties. The board will then decide two different issues: First whether the respondent is guilty of the offense charged in the administrative complaint of what 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 board of the sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to consider. The board will discuss and take a vote on those sanctions. After the two matters are decided, the chair will read a summary of the order to be issued by the board. This 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 conclude full details under the state law and procedure. Does everyone understand that? MR. LANTZ: Yes. MR. BOYD: Yes. MR. NEALE: It's my understanding that in this case the Page 95 August 19, 2009 respondents have agreed to stipulate to the charges. I believe that's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. ZACHARY: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. I had a conversation with the respondent, Mr. Schuck. He has agreed that he would accept the Count I and stipulate that Marco Marine is -- well, is guilty of Count I. What I think we should do is we should have Ms. Clements give a statement that sets out to the board what this case is about, and then at that point I can ask some questions of Mr. Schuck to clarify his position, his company's position, and we can conclude this at a shorter time than going through the entire thing. And Ms. Clements can enter the packet into evidence and we'll get on the record what the case is about. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, that will work fine. At this time I'd ask for a motion to accept Case No. 2009-07, Board of Commissioners versus James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr, d/b/a Marco Marine Construction, Inc., license No. 26439 and 13520 into evidence. MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second, Mr. Lykos. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) Page 96 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Karen, would you like to begin the county's case? MS. CLEMENTS: On May 20th, 2009, the office of contractor licensing received a complaint from John M. Carr, who's the CAM property manager for Sunset Cay Villa Condominium Associations located at the Port of the Islands. And it was regarding Marco Marine Construction and the permitting of already existing docks for each unit and the certificate of completion. Several marine contractors proposed bids to complete permitting and COs of floating docks at the Sunset Cay Villa Condominium. Marco Marine Construction won the bid and started working to obtain the permitting and COs for the floating docks. It was for Sunset Cay Villas Buildings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. And those are located at Port of the Islands off of U.S. 41 East. The docks were originally constructed by the developer of the communities at the time that the buildings were built, and included one dock space for each condo. The docks were never properly permitted, and the Sunset Cay master association and the individual Sunset Cay Villa Owners Association undertook this project to correct the oversight of the developer and have the boat docks properly permitted and approved by Collier County. Contract verbiage states that the condos were to pay permitting fees and an additional permit -- I'm sorry, they were to pay permitting fees and an additional fee per contract to the contractor, which were paid in full. The associations paid the proposal in full and assumed the contract was complete. A new invoice was submitted for 1,350 for additional permit fees, also paid in full by the associations. The official Collier County receipts appeared to be altered by Marco Marine Construction to show an inflated permitting fee. Mr. Carr was alerted to the situation by an officer of one of the Page 97 August 19, 2009 associations who had questioned Marco Marine about the total permit fee for his association for the dock proj ect. Marco Marine Construction gave the association a document that appeared to be an official receipt from Collier County Permitting Office. The association then obtained a list of actual permit fees from the Collier County website and from official receipts provided to him directly by Collier County Permitting Office. The association discovered that the actual permitting fees were significantly less than charged by Marco Marine Construction. The association then contracted the Collier County Permitting Office. County personnel confirmed the receipt provided by Marco Marine Construction was not a county receipt at all, that there had in fact been an alteration to the original official receipt. Mr. Carr decided that these discrepancies might not be the only altered official receipts and looked into the other association receipts. Mr. Carr requested the other association receipts and consistently found the same pattern of overcharging for county permit fees by Marco Marine Construction. The evidence is provided in the document accompanying this complaint. All permit fees invoiced by Marco Marine Construction have been paid by the associations. On June 9th, 2009, Jim Schuck of Marco Marine came into our office. Mr. Schuck was informed that the complaint had been filed against Marco Marine Construction by Sunset Cay Villas. Sunset Cay Villas was given an additional billing above and beyond the original contract price. The additional billing was substantiated by the misrepresentation of a material fact being the official Collier County receipt. Mr. Schuck agreed that the receipts were altered by someone at his office. Mr. Schuck, whose company is already on probation, agreed to pay the money back in the amount of$14,300. And we arrived at that Page 98 August 19, 2009 by taking the difference of the good receipt and the receipt that appears to have been altered. Mr. Schuck signed our letter to him stating he received notification of the hearing to be held on August 19th at 9:00 a.m. in the commissioners' boardroom. We also notified Donald Ricci, Sr., who also holds a county license. Mr. Schuck was given the letter regarding the complaint to have Mr. Donald Ricci sign and return to our office. The activity construes a violation of Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.22, falsifying or misrepresenting any material fact to another person with the intent or for the purpose of engaging in the contracting business, providing materials or services or soliciting business for an employer as a contractor or as an employee, regardless of any financial consideration. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Schuck, would you like to -- MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, if I can ask Mr. Schuck a couple of questions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Schuck, you've heard the presentation by the county. And as we talked before, do you agree at this time to stipulate or not to contest the charge of -- under Section 4.1.22 in the administrative complaint? Is that your intent here today? MR. SCHUCK: Yes, it is. MR. ZACHARY: Do you understand that you have a right to go to a hearing, you have a right to hire an attorney, but it's your own free will to decide that it would be best not to contest the complaint at this time? MR. SCHUCK: Yes, I understand. MR. ZACHARY: Do you also have the authority of Mr. Ricci to stipulate, and as Marco Marine as the owners of Marco Marine, do you have their authority also to stipulate to this complaint? Page 99 August 19,2009 MR. SCHUCK: Yes, I do. They have a letter stating that fact. MR. ZACHARY: All right, thank you. Do you understand that by stipulating to this, the board can find you guilty and there's not -- and would you tell the board there's not been any agreement as to the fine or penalty that might be levied against your company or yourself at this point? MR. SCHUCK: There hasn't been a fine or penalty as of yet. MR. ZACHARY: Okay. Would you agree that the charges set forth, that receipts were received by the condo associations that appeared to be altered or doctored that set forth dollar amounts that were higher than those that you had agreed to in your original contracts, and that those documents would constitute the material facts that were misrepresented in this case? MR. SCHUCK: Yes. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, I don't have-anything else. I think it's clear that Mr. Schuck has agreed that there were some documents that were presented, and at this point he has agreed to stipulate to the charge at this point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. MR. ZACHARY: Do you have any statement or anything that you wish to make, Mr. Schuck? MR. SCHUCK: I regret the facts that happened with this. It wasn't our intention to dupe these people out of money. It's just a clerical error on our staff. And I have started restitution already. They have four checks for them in the amount of $6,255.56, with two other payments to come on September 30th and October 30th of this year. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ricci (sic) -- MR. L YKOS: Mr. Schuck. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Schuck. I'm sorry. I know you've been here not too long ago -- MR. SCHUCK: January. Page 100 August 19,2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- with some other issues. I know your license now is on probation. I don't have too much to say at the moment. Anybody else want to interject any comments? MR. NEALE : Well, at this point, you know, you can finish. Then the board will close the public hearing, and then you would vote on -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The penalties. MR. NEALE: Well, no, first you have to vote on guilt and then on penalties. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Then I need a motion to close the public hearing. MR. WHITE: So moved, White. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public hearing is closed. N ow I have to read, right? MR. NEALE: No. MR. L YKOS: Determine guilt first, and then -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, he's admitted to guilt. MR. NEALE: Well, the board still-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: Even though he's admitted to the charges in this kPage 101 August 19, 2009 case, the board still has to evaluate the evidence as presented, even his stipulation. And at that point you vote upon whether he is in fact guilty of the charge made in this matter. To complicate it a little bit, is I would recommend that the board make two findings of fact as to guilt: One for Mr. Schuck and one for Mr. Ricci, because they are two separate parties in here. And I would suggest that you make two different motions, one for Mr. Schuck and one for Mr. Ricci. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Gentlemen? And just for the record, Terry Jerulle has left the meeting for today. He had something he had to go and take care of, so he is going to be absent. MR. NEALE: Also, I think the board ought to note on the record that Mr. Ricci's not here, but the board is accepting Mr. Shuck's testimony; that Mr. Ricci has authorized him to speak on his behalf, to stipulate on his behalf and to represent him for this matter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Do I have to repeat that again, or does that go on the record now? MR. NEALE: I think the board needs to make that finding. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I will make a finding that James Schuck and Donald Ricci are both the respondents in the case of -- I'm sorry? MR. BOYD: I've got a question. Did they pull these permits under both licenses, or is it one licensee? MR. SCHUCK: Just my license. MR. BOYD: Okay. So you pulled all these permits under your license. MR. SCHUCK: That's correct. MR. BOYD: Then I'd have a question of why is Mr. Ricci being charged. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I have the same question. MR. LANTZ: Multiple licenses on the same company. MR. OSSORIO: The question is not the building permit, the question is the letter that was sent to them from Marco Marine, a Page 102 August 19, 2009 qualified business, wanted more money. So the question is -- it's not a building permit question. We take many qualifiers to the licensing board where no building permits are required. But he's still a qualifier of the company and he's still responsible. The both parties are both responsible for that activity that transpired. The building permit -- the actual building permit is not the question. We didn't cite him for no building permit or working out of the scope of his permit. The qualified business under Donald Ricci, Sr. sent letters out demanding more money and misrepresented that fact. MR. BOYD: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Okay? MR. L YKOS: Looks like Mr. Ricci and Mr. Schuck are qualifiers for Marco Marine. So -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, let it be known that James G. Schuck is present here to respond to the Count I of Section NO. 4.1.22, and also that he is in response to be able to speak for a Donald P. Ricci, License No. 13520 and License No. 26439 on his behalf. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, wasn't there a document that Mr. Schuck said he had that authorized him to speak on Mr. Ricci's behalf? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I haven't found it in the packet. MR. WHITE: No, I understand that, but I thought he mentioned it as part of his testimony. MR. SCHUCK: May I approach? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: And if so, we're going to look at that, Mr. Schuck, and I'm going to move that we bring it into evidence. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. ZACHARY: It will need to be marked at some point after you look at it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Page 103 August 19, 2009 MR. NEALE: What I would do, being that this is being offered in support of the public hearing, that the board reopen the public hearing for the purposes of accepting this into evidence for review, and then you can reclose the public hearing. MR. WHITE: So moved, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: To open the public hearing? Second? MR. WHITE: Accept it into evidence. MR. HORN: Second, Horn. MR. L YKOS: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to reopen the public hearing. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public hearing is open. Okay, I have one piece of evidence that has been entered, as far as evidence in the packet regarding Case No. 2009-07. I'll read it to you aloud: Marco Marine Construction, Inc., of 1757 San Marco Road, Post Office Box 1247, Marco Island, Florida. Collier County Contractor Licensing Board, attention Karen Clements. Dear Mrs. Clements: I was unable to attend the hearing on 19th of August, 2009. I authorize authorization for James Schuck to speak on my behalf. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Donald P. Ricci, Sr. Signed as of this date, August 14th, 2009. MR. WHITE: Move it be marked as Respondent's Exhibit 1 and admitted into evidence. Page 104 August 19,2009 MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to accept this into evidence as Motion ( sic) Exhibit 1. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, while we're on the getting things on the record, could we go ahead and get the stipulation agreement 2009-07 into evidence as Petitioner 01 ? MR. WHITE: I'd pre -- the public hearing is still open. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. WHITE: But we have yet to close it and make the finding of guilt or not. So I don't know if we're not putting the cart before the horse. But I'd defer to Mr. Neale. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Ossorio, is that a stipulation for the restitution -- MR. OSSORIO: Yes. MR. ZACHARY: -- is that what you have? It's not a stipulation that was entered into as a result of this hearing. So I believe Mr. Ossorio has a stipulation that was entered into by either Mr. Schuck or Mr. Ricci. And Mr. Schuck, you could clarify that, that there would be restitution paid; is that correct? MR. SCHUCK: That is correct. MR. ZACHARY: And Mr. Ossorio, I don't think you've been sworn, but would you show Mr. Schuck that stipulation and to verify that that is the stipulation that you signed just for restitution? Page 105 August 19, 2009 Is that the stipulation you agreed to? MR. SCHUCK: Yes, I have a copy of it. MR. ZACHARY: Well, then I'd move that into evidence as Petitioners Exhibit 2. MR. L YKOS: So moved, Lykos. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to enter resolution MR. NEALE: Stipulation agreement. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- stipulation agreement as Exhibit No. 2. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-0. MR. L YKOS: Any other exhibits? MR. NEALE: Any other exhibits? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anything else we need to enter? No. MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion to close. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. In favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. Page 106 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Public hearing is closed. Now we can talk. MR. L YKOS: Well, I'll make a motion that we find James G. Schuck, License No. 26439 in Case 2009-07, guilty of Count I. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a second, to find Mr. Schuck guilty, and Mr. Donald P. Ricci also, Sr. MR. NEALE: No, no, two separate motions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, Donald -- James G. Schuck only under Count I. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. I'll make the motion that we find Donald P. Ricci also of Marco Marine Construction guilty of Count I, Section 4.1.22. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (N 0 response.) Page 107 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That motion carries. MR. NEALE: Since the board's found him in violation, it's now time for the board to review what penalties are available and what penalties are to be imposed on the respondents. There are several different penalties that the board may impose. They include revocation of the certificate of competency, suspension of that certificate, a denial of issuance or renewal of the certificate, probation not to exceed two years, restitution, a fine not to exceed $10,000, a public reprimand, a reexamination requirement or denial of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with conditions, and reasonable investigative costs. The board shall consider five different elements in imposing these sanctions: Number one, the gravity of the violation; second, the impact of the violation; third, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violations; fourth, any previous violations committed; and fifth, any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties relevant to the sanction that's appropriate for the case, given its nature. The board also has to issue a recommended penalty to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. I believe that the county and the respondents have evidence to present on the sanctions that they recommend. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, and those sanctions? What is the recommendation? Page 108 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: For the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contactor License, pertaining to this case about my recommendations. Marco Marine Construction's on probation. Mr. Schuck is here on his own free will. Mr. Donald Ricci understands the issues at hand. They attempted to repay the money to the association of $14,300, without any stipulation from our office pertaining to revocation of somebody's license. I recommend that we find him in violation, of course. $7,000 penalty for each finding of fact; one for Mr. Ricci and one for Mr. Schuck. $1,500 for licensing investigation fees by Mr. Schuck and to Mr. Ricci. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Each? MR. OSSORIO: Each. Since there are two findings. And to be continued to be put on probation due to the fact that he's trying to make restitution. Ifwe suspend or pull his building permit pulling privileges and we revoke his license, I believe these homeowners at these associations would be adversely affected by it. Since Mr. Ricci's (sic) here in his free will, he understands the clarity and the issues at hand. And we continue to put him on probation, but he needs to go ahead and take the trades test again for marine contracting, both Mr. Ricci and Mr. Schuck, within six months. And to continue his probation for one more year for both parties. MR. HORN: What about business law testing? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Schuck needs to take the business procedure test. He has so many more months. I think he has till -- MR. SCHUCK: January 21st. MR. OSSORIO: January 21st. The board has already ordered Mr. Schuck to go ahead and take a business procedure test. So not only that he has to take the business and procedure test, Mr. Ricci and Mr. Schuck needs to take the trades test. If neither of them take the trades test within one-year period of today, they should automatically Page 109 August 19, 2009 have their license revoked. In other words, if Mr. Ricci took -- if Mr. Schuck took the trades test within six months, he would be okay. If Mr. Ricci elected not to take it within 12 months, his license would be automatically revoked. That's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, on the penalty phases of the $7,000 penalty for each party at $7,000 per offense or per-- MR. NEALE: Well, there's only one count. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are we talking about-- MR. OSSORIO: There's only one. MR. L YKOS: One count. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Each count -- each person, though. MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. L YKOS: In the stipulation agreement, item number four says the respondent realizes that there are other complainants that require restitution. What are those other complainants and what are the dollar amounts; do you know? MR. OSSORIO: There are some -- we do have some preliminary investigation on hand. And I believe Mr. Schuck is in communication with those individuals. I'm not at liberty to go ahead and give you any more information on that, other than that we could be back in front of the board in October. I don't think we will be, hopefully, but we might. But there are some respondents out there that are coming forward with the same MO, or same issue. But -- MR. L YKOS: Different client? MR. OSSORIO: Same association. MR. L YKOS: Same MO but different client or same association? MR. OSSORIO: Same association. Mr. Carr is the association manager through two through nine. Page 110 August 19, 2009 He doesn't really manage the other association in that condominium association, but there are some filtering in. And we're taking those complaints. But we're not at that stage yet, so -- MR. L YKOS: I -- it seems like you've given this a lot of thought in terms of what the disciplinary action should be. It's pretty comprehensive. And your first statement was that we need to keep him in business so that he can afford to pay restitution. I have a serious concern that we're setting up more people to be taken advantage of. And I don't like to put the people at risk of not getting their restitution, but is our responsibility to Marco Marine's previous clients that are seeking restitution or is our responsibility to any future clients that may be taken advantage of and the situation could be worse? So I have that concern and I want to put that on the table. MR. OSSORIO: Well, that is a good point, Mr. Lykos. And you might want to hear from the respondents, or Mr. Carr, the association manager, and how he feels about Marco Marine about revocating his license or putting him on probation. So he is -- because they are the affected party. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is he present today? MR. OSSORIO: He is present. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does the county want to call him as a witness? We'd have to reopen the public hearing. MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. NEALE: You don't have to reopen the public hearing. This is evidence as to sanctions, not as to guilt or -- MR. OSSORIO: That is up to the board if they want to hear him or not. I know what he wants. He wants his money. And he doesn't -- I don't think he wants to take Marco Marine's license away but, you know, that's not really up to him, but that's how he feels. He can elaborate more on that, I'm not sure. MR. L YKOS: I understand that that -- those intentions are Page 111 August 19, 2009 self-serving, or at least on the surface would appear to be. That's one comment. Just because we don't take their license away doesn't mean that they can afford to pay the restitution. There's -- they're more likely to pay it if they have their license or are able to continue to work, but it doesn't mean it necessarily will happen. MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think permit privileges should be pulled at this time also. MR. NEALE: Well, one-- MR. L YKOS : Well, I haven't gotten that far yet. I'm just putting out on the table what my issues are or what my concerns are so that we can address them all independently. MR. NEALE: One point to note for the board. Just that both of these gentlemen are operating on probation at this point. And that the board has, for at least the period until January of next year the ability to pull them back in at any time, should they commit any other violations. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It seems like a pattern. I mean, they were here what, five, six months ago? MR. NEALE: January. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And now we're back on the same boat again. And we gave him the probation the first time with the stipulation. Like Mr. Lykos said, now where's our responsibility lie? Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Although I wasn't present in January, I certainly can recognize that perhaps it's because of the fact that they're on probation that folks in Sunset Cay looked into this. Especially when additional compensation was requested. But that aside, the staff has made a recommendation as to what they feel appropriate penalties and cost of prosecution are.p Page 112 August 19, 2009 And I would just like to know from both the respondent and from Mr. Carr if they would be in agreement with those penalties and cost of prosecution as something sufficient. So I -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Karen? MS. CLEMENTS: Mr . Joslin, I just want to put in, these permits were pulled last December. So it's not like something that was just recently done. MR. SCHUCK: May I interject something? MR. WHITE: Yeah, just wondering if what your -- are you agreeable if that were to be the penalties that would be imposed? MR. SCHUCK: Yeah, I'd like to keep our license. And this is not -- this situation wasn't work oriented. It was trying to get their permits for their floating docks. And what happened, we permitted one dock and the permit price was around 400 bucks. So the next dock we went to do, they came back and said it's going to be like $1,250. The original contract was for 950. So we thought it was $1,250 plus the 500. And that's when we went back and asked for the extra money, in which it didn't turn out to be. So we didn't try to dupe these people. And usually -- and when you're doing work for a permit, this doesn't come up like that. Well, when I first started this, I went and asked Collier County what they would charge for permitting and that's how -- MR. WHITE: I understand. But you heard what the staffhas recommended. MR. SCHUCK: Yes. I agree to that, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you're speaking on Mr. -- MR. SCHUCK: Ricci's behalf, that's correct. MR. WHITE: -- as well? And I guess we'll get to Mr. Carr perhaps at some point as to whether he thinks that that's a penalty that is sufficient or not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Carr, be sworn in, please. (Mr. Carr was duly sworn.) Page 113 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Carr, you've heard this stipulation, and I assume you've been involved in it. Do you agree to the stipulation and realize what penalties staff has asked for? MR. CARR: Yes. I would like to add that the villas really have no opinion on taking Marco Marine's license. You know, our goal was to recuperate what we felt was an unfair charge. And that's being done with the agreement that Mr. Schuck and the other gentleman agreed to. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So in no way there was any kind of a work ethic problem or anything that was done improperly, it was just simply a matter -- MR. CARR: I didn't say that. But the general consensus of the presidents of these associations was try to recuperate the money, and was not specifically to try to take their license, no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: Two comments. This is all nice that we got a recommendation and the respondent agrees to it and everybody feels good. There's a letter written by the respondent's company that says the reason the costs are higher is because the permits are after the fact and it's four times the cost, okay? So that was one deception on the respondent's part. These permit receipts have been altered. I mean, there's two different situations when the respondent and Marco Marine was being deceptive and dishonest in invoicing the client. If there's some misunderstanding about how much permit fees were, that's not the same thing as altering permit documents and then sending a letter to try to justify how much the fees were after the fact. That's completely different than a misunderstanding about how the fees were calculated. So a company that was on probation sent a letter that was dishonest about why the fees were raised from what was originally anticipated, and then altered the receipts to support that invoice. Page 114 August 19, 2009 If you're happy with $7,000, then we should quadruple it or make it 10 times that amount. This should be painful for you, not agreeable for you. This is egregious, sir. This is egregious. MR. SCHUCK: Me standing here is enough. MR. L YKOS: Well, I don't think it is. MR. SCHUCK: Yeah, I do. MR. L YKOS: I don't -- MR. SCHUCK: I feel ashamed of what we did, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: The fact that you -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, okay, whoa, whoa. MR. L YKOS: -- can keep your license and continue to operate and perhaps put more homeowners or more businesses at risk. MR. SCHUCK: We're not going to take anybody's money. MR. L YKOS: Yeah, I bet you said that in January. MR. SCHUCK: It wasn't our intention, sir. It was not our intention. You don't know me from Adam. MR. L YKOS: I don't like the fact that everybody's comfortable with the fact that you sent out a letter that lied about why the costs were higher, and then you falsified public records to justify the Increases. MR. SCHUCK: I agreed to that. You don't think me standing here is enough punishment of what's going on? MR. L YKOS: No, I don't think it's enough. MR. SCHUCK: Well, you don't know me very well, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Well, I know about how you conduct your business. MR. SCHUCK: We've been in business for 30 years. I don't think -- MR. L YKOS: But I do know how -- MR. SCHUCK: -- there was a person complained against us. MR. L YKOS: -- you conduct your business. MR. SCHUCK: No, that isn't. You don't know us. Page 115 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, that's enough. Okay. MR. WHITE: I'd just point out, Mr. Chairman that -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: -- Count I starts out with the word falsifying, okay? So in my reading through the materials and recognizing that there were misrepresentations and falsification of documents, whether it was the letter that was sent to the condo association and whether it was based upon misrepresented facts as to the idea that they were somehow four times the fees, I don't know the degree of complicity that Mr. Schuck or Mr. Ricci have, but I know they're standing here today and taking responsibility for it. I'm also looking at what the staff is telling me they think are their costs of prosecution and what they think a penalty that's appropriate to get the message across is. Now, is some comment from the board so that the respondents understand the sentiments of the board members appropriate? Absolutely. But I do not believe that simply because we had an agreement from Mr. Carr and Mr. Schuck and from the staff as to what the recommendation of staff as being appropriate is somehow itself inappropriate. I think that it makes sense. And the whole point of it here to me is to come to a fair and reasonable conclusion. I think the fact that they admitted to the guilt probably to me goes a long way in this case to somebody recognizing that they have a problem. The things I'm concerned about and would want to know that this business is doing is to make sure that internally it is operating in a manner so that these things cannot happen again. They were either done with this gentleman's knowledge or at his direction, or he was responsible for them. I don't know. But what I do know is that he has stood up here and said he's taking responsibility for it. So we will leave it to him as to whether there will be any further complaints, whether there are (sic) in fact restitution made over the Page 116 August 19, 2009 next coming months, and whether the other undesignated respondents are themselves going to be treated fairly. If anyone of those things don't go the way they're projected to go, I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be prepared to vote to take away all of their privileges as far as permit pulling go. But that isn't today's case. So I'm comfortable with where we are today, even though I don't like to see this kind of a business entity operating in this county. It's scary. There's something internally in the operation of this business that is not tight enough. And so I'm hoping that between the trade school-- or between the trade exam and the business and law, the things that are necessary as internal controls are going to be put in place. I don't know what employees may have been responsible and whether they were disciplined or not, but those are things that have to do with how you operate your business, not with whether we give you a license or not. We've already put your license on probation, we've extended it an additional year. So whether we're going to in fact be doing our jobs and making sure that others can't be harmed, I feel comfortable with. I'm not going to put Mr. Carr and the association people in a position where by pulling permit pulling privileges today we assure that the restitution more likely than not will not be paid. So far, so good. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, go ahead. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, I've got to ask, in the case in January where the company was found guilty where we had the penalty phase, do we have a copy of that? Because on certain occasions we have had terms of probation where if another violation occurs it's automatically revoked, all their rights. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Neale? See if it's not in there. MR. NEALE: The terms in the order were that -- and this is Mr. Schuck's order specifically, that the first term, number one, probation Page 11 7 August 19, 2009 for a period of 12 months whereby the respondent will perform his contracting activities under the supervision of the board. During which time, should the respondent violate the ordinance in any respect, his license will be immediately suspended and a hearing on the suspension and violation shall be held at the next regularly scheduled board hearing. Two different fines, administrative costs and then the requirement to take and pass with a minimum grade of 75 percent the business and law examination within the probationary period. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. LANTZ: I don't know if it's within the power of the board, but I would like to see both of them have to take classes on business ethics at their expense. I would like to see 20 hours per person. I know that seems excessive, but I think it's well fit for this. I don't know if we have the power to stipulate that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, we can add that in. But right now the order that Mr. Neale just read is I think an eye opener. Because this was another case that was here in January, and the board made it clear cut then, if there were any other violations that came before the board, that the license would be suspended. Is that the way I'm reading it or you're explaining it? MR. NEALE: That's what it says. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Now, we do have the jurisdiction to be able to change that, or not? MR. WHITE: Well, I'd just ask, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Neale could tell us whether we were supposed to take some additional action relative to that as suspension for the January order, or is it something that was in a sense, quote, automatic, self-executed. And whether in fact the same is also the case on the order for Mr. Ricci. MR. NEALE: The way I would interpret the order as having been is that should they violate it, the license is immediately suspended. Self-actuated. Page 118 August 19,2009 MR. WHITE: So as of our finding today of the violation of Count I to each of these gentlemen, their licenses are presently suspended. MR. NEALE: Right. And then a hearing on the suspension violation shall be held at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. Now, I think the board could take that to mean that this would be that scheduled board hearing. MR. WHITE: I agree. MR. NEALE: But as of the finding that they were in violation, his license is suspended. MR. WHITE: And is the same true for Mr. Ricci? MR. NEALE: Same is true for Mr. Ricci. Exact same language in both orders. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, do we have any power to accept the county's stipulation agreement? MR. NEALE: Well, what you've got is then -- what this is, is the hearing on that suspension and that violation are being held. So you are now essentially -- this part of your sanction deliberation is whether that suspension is to stand or whether you are to waive that suspension, create a new probationary period for them, or however you're going to decide. But part of the hearing on sanctions right now is whether that suspension is going to stand. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the staffwere aware of the prior order from January or not. And I'd like to have their input, if it's okay to request that. On the suspension in particular. MR. OSSORIO: I did not know that ifhe violated -- my assumption was is that only the board can decide if he's guilty or not. Ifwe charged him with a charge and we brought him and we found him in violation, he would be suspended automatically. Not automatically just because a consumer made a complaint against him. I would personally suspend him. Page 119 August 19, 2009 MR. NEALE: What it says specifically, and that's -- as I said, when the board found him in violation, he's suspended. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. MR. WHITE: And what is your recommendation, if any, with respect to length of the suspension and if in fact you feel it ought to be waived? MR. OSSORIO: I have no comment on him being suspended. That's really up to the licensing board. I think that we can suspend him from maybe just working in Marco Island only, not working in the City of Naples. There's a variety of different suspensions you can do. MR. WHITE: I understand. MR. OSSORIO: And so that's really up to the board. I know that he's suspended as we speak now. My recommendation stands what I just said to you before. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And the stipulation that we put in the last order stipulates that he is right now suspended -- MR. OSSORIO: He is suspended. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- because he's been found guilty. MR. OSSORIO: He is suspended. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now we can make a ruling on what the suspension -- or how long or how we're -- MR. NEALE: You can have the suspension -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- going to dictate that suspension. MR. NEALE: You can have the suspension be valid until -- MR. WHITE: Fines are paid. MR. NEALE: -- fines are paid. You can have it be valid until, you know, two minutes from now or until you finalize the sanctions. The length of suspension is up to the board's decision. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Lykos. MR. L YKOS: Were there any fines invoked at the last -- the hearing in January? MR. NEALE: Yes, there were. Page 120 August 19, 2009 MR. L YKOS: What were those fines? MR. NEALE: As to Mr. Schuck, a fine of$1,500 to be paid within 60 days, another fine of $5,000 for the fine, total of $6,500 in administrative costs, and investigative cost of $500. So a total of $7,000 to be paid. And those were to have been paid by March 21st. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Have they been paid? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They have been paid. MR. L YKOS: Michael, if I wrote this down right, your recommendation was for $7,000 each in terms of a fine. Did you come up with that number because the amount in question was 14,000? MR. OSSORIO: Yes. MR. L YKOS: Maybe it ought to be 14,000 each. MR. OSSORIO: I believe that the penalty can only be 10,000. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, maximum 10. MR. NEALE: 10,000 fine is max per violation. MR. LANTZ: Does that include administrative costs? MR. NEALE: No, that's just the fine. Fine is 10,000, max restitution is whatever's proven, legal and administrative costs or whatever the staff states that they are. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, all the problems that are in question that are going to be possibly coming before us, going by what you're talking about, the other rest of the people that are in this particular development or the owner, there may be more cases that are going to be coming before us or possibly more people that are in the same situation? MR. OSSORIO: You have to ask Mr. Schuck that question. MR. SCHUCK: I've talked to both parties, and they'll be paid within two weeks. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: These are the ones that are-- MR. SCHUCK: Are not on the-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- not on this-- Page 121 August 19,2009 MR. SCHUCK: Right. They weren't represented by Resort Management. One was represented by themselves. Another was Cardinal Management. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So what you're saying then is that after this is completed and whatever happens here now today, you should have no more issues that are going to come before us and the board for anything else that's gone on with Marco Marine Construction? MR. SCHUCK: No. I mean, this was just permitting. It had nothing to do with work or anything. I mean, this was -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No, Mr. Schuck, you're missing the boat. MR. SCHUCK: No, I understand-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is how you run your business. MR. SCHUCK: Right, I understand. I won't be before you again. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I hope not. MR. SCHUCK: Neither do I. I don't like standing up here. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, any other discussion, or do we need to make findings here? MR. WHITE: Mr. Chair, I'd like to proffer a motion. Notwithstanding the staffs recommendation and the acquiescence on the part of respondent and Mr. Carr, I'd like to move that as to each, Mr. Schuck and Mr. Ricci, that a fine of $10,000 be imposed, that costs of prosecution each in the amount of $1,500 be imposed, and that the additional tests be taken within six months as to trade for Mr. Schuck, as to 12 months for Mr. Ricci, and by -- we already have the business and law to January 21st, 2010. Additionally, that one additional year be added to the length of probation for the licensees in this business, and that the permit pulling privileges remain suspended from today forward until such time as the fines and cost of prosecution are paid in full. And that in no case will it be more than 60 days that those dollar amounts be paid. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Paid within 60 days, the total amount? MR. WHITE: Yes. Page 122 August 19, 2009 And if they choose to pay them sooner, then the suspension is lifted. If they don't, then they're suspended for at least 60 days. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You want to restrict him to a suspension of only Marco Island and take him out of the City of Naples and Collier County areas? MR. WHITE: Where was the prior work done for the -- MR. SCHUCK: Sunset Cay, Port of the Islands. Collier County. MR. WHITE: So it's in unincorporated. This is unincorporated, the other was Marco. I'd be amenable to any second that would offer a geographic limitation of the suspension. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll second the motion. It is a motion? MR. WHITE: It is. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. White, you said 60 days from -- MR. WHITE: Today's date. MR. OSSORIO: Ifhe doesn't pay within 60 days, we schedule a licensing board hearing again. We don't automatically take him off suspension if he doesn't pay. MR. WHITE: Correct. With that point, we would probably I would imagine revoke. MR. OSSORIO: All right. No, I got it. MR. WHITE: And does the second wish to make any limitation on the scope of this suspension to a particular area of the county? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think I would like to see it happen and take out City of Naples and take out pretty much Collier County. But if that particular area is in part of Collier County, then that's not going to work. MR. WHITE: You've got, as far as I understand it, City of Everglades -- you've got Everglades City, excuse me, the City of Marco Island and City of Naples and everything else is the unincorporated county. MR. L YKOS: So you're trying to decide which homeowners and Page 123 August 19, 2009 which businesses he can take advantage of? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, we're trying to put him into a little bundle right there where we can keep him right in one location. I don't think it's going to help us to totally take him out of the picture; otherwise the people that may be coming before us here may not. He's got 60 days to prove it, in a sense, or his license I'm sure will be revoked. I don't think this board's going to question it. So I'm just trying to contain him a little bit so he doesn't go to the City of Naples and all over the place. MR. LANTZ: As the motion stands, he's suspended. He can't do work in either of them -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Until he pays the fines. MR. LANTZ: -- until he pays the fine. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Until he pays the fines. MR. WHITE: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That could happen tomorrow. MR. WHITE: Correct. He's got the key to his own lock. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. BOYD: Well, I'd also add that he pays the restitution. Because even though we have this agreement, we have -- MR. WHITE: If I may comment on that, Mr. Chairman? My understanding from the stipulation is that there is a time line specified already. And that if those milestones aren't met that we're going to have them back in front of us again. And I think that to me, similar to the other issue, would probably lead to revocation. MR. BOYD: The other thing I would like to question is Mr. Schuck is at least here, he's shown remorse, he seems to be the one driving this whole attempt to provide restitution and everything. I'd like to keep Mr. Ricci on suspension until he appears before us. Is he active in the business? MR. SCHUCK: He's retired. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I'll remove City of Naples and City Page 124 August 19,2009 of Everglades out of the motion, and the rest I'll leave in for the moment. MR. WHITE: So the effect would be that he would be suspended in -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Suspended totally in the City of Marco -- I mean City of Naples and City of Everglades City. MR. WHITE: But elsewhere -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Elsewhere operational. As long as his fine is paid within 60 days. After that, if it's not paid, then like you said -- MR. WHITE: We'll be back. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- we'll be back. MR. WHITE: I accept that amendment to the motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have nlotion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. L YKOS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's 6-1? MR. NEALE: 5-1. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 5-1. Motion carries, 5-1. MR. NEALE: We do need one-- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Schuck, do you want to remain for the reading of this, just so you understand all the terminology within it? MR. NEALE: We do need one further thing, which is a motion Page 125 August 19, 2009 for any action by the state board. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: You have the option of no further action. MR. L YKOS: I make a motion that we don't make any recommendations to the state. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second. Motion and a second to keep the state out of the picture at the moment. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. All right. In the Case No. 2009-07, License No. 26439 and 13520, Board of County Commissioners versus James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr., d/b/a Marco Marine Construction, Inc. Administrative complaint and the order. This cause came on or before the Contractors Licensing Board on August 19th, 2009 for consideration of administrative complaint filed against James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr. Service of the complaint was made by certified mail, personal delivery or publication in accordance with Collier County ordinances 90-105, as amended. Board having heard testimony under oath received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters thereupon issues its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board as follows: That James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr. is the holder of record of Certificate of Competency number 26439 and 13520. Page 126 August 19, 2009 That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is the complainant in this matter. That the board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent, and that James G. Schuck only was represented at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel and was given authority by Donald P. Ricci, Sr. to speak on his behalf. 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 of Collier County ordinances and is one of who committed the act. The allegations of fact as set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count I, Section No. 4.1.22, falsifying or misrepresenting any material fact to another person with the intent or for the purpose of engaging in the contracting business, providing materials or services or soliciting business for an employer as a contractor or as an employee, regardless of any financial consideration. They are to be found and supported by evidence presented at this hearing. Conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the administrative complaint as to Count I, Section 4.1.22 are approved, adopted and incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section No. 4.1.22 of Collier County Ordinance 91-105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of sections set out in the administrative complaint with particularity. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, by a vote of five to one -- I'm sorry five in favor and one opposed as a majority vote of the board members present, respondent has been found in violation set above. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. WHITE: I think the finding of violation was 6-0. Page 127 August 19, 2009 MR. NEALE: The violation was 6-0. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Six to zero. I'm sorry, I amend that to -- it was amended by a vote of six in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present. Respondent has been found in violation and set out above. Further, it is ordered by a vote of five in favor and one opposed, a majority vote of the board members present at the following disciplinary sanction and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of contractor Certificate License No. 26439 and 13520. That Marco Marine Construction, Inc. and James G. Schuck and Donald P. Ricci, Sr. will be penalized or to be paid civil penalties in the amount of $10,000 to each party, $1,500 investigative costs per person, Mr. Ricci and Mr. Schuck. Both are placed on probation for one year additional period from today's date. Let's see. Mr. Ricci has to take a trades test within 12 months, and Mr. Schuck has to take a trades test within a six-month period. And the license is now suspended and will be suspended until the restitution has been paid within 60 days. If not paid within 60 days, then it will become (sic) back before this board. MR. WHITE: I believe it was, Mr. Chairman, not the restitution but the fines and cost of prosecution. MR. NEALE: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, the fines and cost of prosecution will be paid within 60 days. And also, the suspension will remove Naples -- City of Naples and the City of Everglades City from permit pulling privileges until the suspension has been paid. Anything further I missed? MR. WHITE: I just had a question as to the length of time that the suspension of one year operates from. I believe it's from the end of the prior -- MR. NEALE: End of the prior suspension, right. Page 128 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: But not from today's date. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not from today's date? From the prior suspension, which is when? When is that? MR. NEALE: Well, the prior suspension ends January 21st, 2010. So this tacks another year onto that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So it will go till January 1st of 2011. MR. NEALE: Right. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Joslin, I think you said suspension. I mean till the time that the fines and the costs are paid. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Suspended until the fines and the costs are paid, within 60 days. That's the order of the board. All right, the last case before us, Case No. 2009-09, Robert Gonzalez- F ortan. Are you present? MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Please be sworn in, please. (Mr. Gonzalez-Fortan and Mr. Ganguli were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, you've heard the method of how we're going to proceed with this, right, earlier? MR. GONZALEZ: I need to interpret. I speak English, but not 100 percent. Is it possible? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. State your name and be sworn in, please. MR. BUSTO: Rafael Busto. THE COURT REPORTER: Spell your last name, please. MR. BUSTO: B-U-S-T-O. (Mr. Busto was duly sworn to interpret the following testimony.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'm going to open the Case No. 2009-09, and License No. 27736, Board of County Commissioners versus Robert Gonzalez, d/b/a Master Gutters, Inc. You've been charged with Count I, 4.1.6, disregards or violates Page 129 August 19,2009 the performance of his contracting business in Collier County in any of the building, safety, health and insurance Workmen's Compensation laws of the State of Florida, ordinances of this county. Are you aware of this? MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll open it with county presenting the case, please, your opening statements. MR. GANGULI: Mr. Joslin, this is Supervisor Ossorio's case. He knows how nauseating he can be when he stands and speaks excessively, so he staffed it out to me to present to you. I'm going to read the summary into the record. And if you have any questions at that point I will call him as a witness and he can answer them. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. GANGULI: Case 2009-09, County Commissioners versus Roberto Gonzalez doing business as Master Gutters, Incorporated. On June 24th, 2009, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor Michael Ossorio observed three employees of Master Gutter, Incorporated performing work on the exterior soffit of a building located at 1100 Swallow Avenue on Marco Island, Florida, 34145. Master Gutters, Inc., Certificate No. 27736 is an active aluminum contractor but has a workers' compo exemption on file for only the qualifier of the company, Roberto Gonzalez. Mr. Ossorio met with the qualifier at the contractors licensing office where a sworn statement was obtained from Mr. Gonzalez where he acknowledged having failed to provide the necessary Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for his employees at this job site. This activity construes a violation of Florida State Statute 440.10, which outlines employer responsibilities for securing and maintaining compensation coverage for workers. And this Page 130 August 19, 2009 consequently is a violation of Collier County Ordinance 2006-46, Section 4.1.6, whereby the respondent disregards or violates in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of the building/safety/health/insurance or Workers' Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinances of this county. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, Mr. Gonzalez, would you like to present an opening statement regarding this charge? MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, could we move the evidence packet into -- move the packet into evidence? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, we certainly can. I need a motion to put the Case No. 2009-09 into evidence. MR. BOYD: So moved, Boyd. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: 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 6-0. Continue, please. MR. BUSTO: What he just stated was correct. Actually, he didn't know about the exempt. Now he did have the other employers except now. He didn't know that part, really. He only had himself. And actually was one of the jobs that he got that he couldn't do himself. That's honestly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: He didn't know about having an exemption form, is what you're asking -- saying? Page 131 August 19, 2009 MR. BUSTO: No, no, he had exempt himself, but didn't know he couldn't add others for the company, officers, which they are now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: They are now officers. MR. BUSTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's the gist of it? MR. BUSTO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN : Were you actually on the job without Workmen's Compo insurance, doing the job? MR. BUSTO: Yes, they were there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So you're -- under your testimony now under oath you're admitting that as far as Count 4.1.6 goes you are guilty? MR. BUSTO: Yeah, he signed an affidavit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Turn back to Mr. Ganguli or Mr. Ossorio. You want to present the rest of the case? There's a lot more to say, but -- (Mr. Ossorio was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Continue. MR. OSSORIO: Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor. On June 24th, I did witness Master Gutters. I saw their trucks and it basically said Master Gutters, Incorporated, Licensed and Insured. This was a commercial building. There were condominiums 50, 60 feet up in height, a huge ladder up there, three individuals working on the job site with no harnesses. Appeared to be a safety issue, so I did stop. I conducted an interview. I talked with three individuals. They said they worked for this gentleman, Mr. Gonzalez. I looked through our records and found out that Mr. Gonzalez has a workers' compo exemption and there is no policy. At that time I called Mr. Gonzalez. He did meet me on the site. I Page 132 August 19, 2009 issued a stop work order and advised him to stop by the office that day to sign his notice for the hearing and also take a statement. And then I'll read the statement into record. Since it's my handwriting, you probably couldn't read it anyway. Roberto Gonzalez, regarding misconduct. I am a qualifier of Master Gutters, Incorporated. On June 24th, 2009, my company, noted above, was working on an exterior soffit throughout the building. Mike Ossorio from the contractor licensing office issued a stop work order for disregarding the workers' compensation laws. I realize that I had three employees without proper coverage pursuant to Statute 440. I also realize that I put this condo and my employees at risk. Signed the date, 24th of June, 2008 -- 2009. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Can you really read that? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. Just like your handwriting, right? MR. L YKOS: Question, Mr. Ossorio. The three employees you saw working, Mr. Gonzalez was not one of the three-- MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. MR. L YKOS: -- working in the building? MR. OSSORIO: That was not one of the three. Mr. Gonzalez met me on the site after I issued the stop work order. The three employees, from my notes, were Sergio Gonzalez, Roberto Gonzalez and Lewis Gonzalez. They could be relatives, I'm not too sure. I think one of them might be. Subsequent to that, since then, the 24th I issued a signed statement. Mr. Gonzalez did come in and said he's going to put them on a leasing company payroll service. I did not get that information. I don't know ifhe actually finished the job, but there's a stop work order. I'm assuming that the contractor that hired him completed the job. But he did not complete the job. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he was acting as a subcontractor? MR. OSSORIO: He was a sub on the job. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So just to finish Mr. Lykos's question, iPage 133 August 19, 2009 I'm sure he's going to say the same thing, that Mr. Gonzalez was not on the job but there were three other people on the job? Which would be a total of four in the corporation, right? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, you can have up to three people of your corporation, as long as they have 10 percent of the ownership of the company. That wasn't the case here. These individuals had shirts that said Master Gutters on it, and they were clearly acting as an employee, not as a subcontractor. And then Mr. Gonzalez came into that office the same day, after I met him on the job site. He did acknowledge that those are my employees. It was very busy and basically that work has been slow. I had my exemption, I really only worked on -- myself but I got an opportunity to do this big job and so therefore I took that risk. And I had hired my brother, my cousin and other people to work on this 50-foot, you know, community and put them at risk with no coverage. So this is why we're here today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did you have a question, Mr. Lykos? MR. L YKOS: Mr. Gonzalez, there was a stop work order issued and your crew was removed from the job site in question; is that correct? MR. GONZALEZ: Yeah, that's correct. MR. L YKOS: And did your company go back and complete the project? MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yeah, the other day-- THE COURT REPORTER: Please speak one at a time and in the microphone. MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: On the other day I don't have information for the labor office. Michael talk to me, go for labor office and pay. The other day I don't have this information, no. And the other day go for labor office, four of the guys name and pay for labor office and finish the job. Page 134 August 19, 2009 MR. OSSORIO: I believe that's true. I'm not sure, but I know he did come back and we talked about the fact-finding labor people and he was going to put them on payroll. And I believe in fact that he did. So that wasn't the question. The question is that he had coverage -- he didn't have coverage on the three individuals, and it was clearly a life/safety issue out there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Were they on ladders, by chance? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, these ladders were 50 feet. MR. GONZALEZ-FORT AN: It's 30 feet, 38 feet. MR. OSSORIO: This is why I have these (indicating.) They're large ladders, 35, 40, 50 feet, whatever, they were pretty well up there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, doesn't leave us a whole lot here to question now that you've already pretty well admitted I guess that you are definitely guilty on the job. Any other questions from the board members? MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious, how are you paying the people? Did you pay payroll taxes or just pay them cash? MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: The people -- these people, one is my son and the other is my brother. I pay for check, never paid cash. Well, this job is for three, four days of bidding and the second day only working one day. And the other time I work only until gutters, cleaning. For one years and a half, no work. And this year maybe work 30 days for seven months. This is cusable (phonetic). You know, look at the opportunity and go for the license company, and I need the down payment, 2,000 bucks, I don't have it for two, three days. And the other information, the labor office, Michael talk to me. You know, I don't have it. Right now working -- the last month working one day and this month two days. It's just cusable (phonetic), you know. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Michael, you have anything else to add in this in rebuttal or any more questions before I -- I don't think we need to hear too much more. We'll probably close the public Page 135 August 19,2009 hearing, if not. MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. L YKOS: Move to close the public hearing, Lykos. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion to close the public hearing and a motion and a second. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-0. All right. Discussion here, gentlemen. MR. NEALE: This is another situation where the respondent stipulated to the charge. So in essence the board needs to just accept the stipulation, accept the affidavit as presented and find him in violation, and then find sanctions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. We need a motion. MR. WHITE: Motion to find violation in Case 2009-09 of Count I, Section 4.1.6, based upon the sworn statement as a stipulation by the respondent. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion, I need a second. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. Page 136 August 19, 2009 MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Okay. MR. NEALE: Maybe the board can recall from not that long ago what the sanctions are, what the tests are as to the sanctions and potentially go to the county staff to see what they recommend. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does staff have a recommendation on penalty phase? MR. OSSORIO: I do. One-year probation. Mr. Gonzalez must take the business procedure test within 12 months in that probationary period. $1,000 fine to be paid within 60 days. And $258 in investigation costs. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 260. MR. OSSORIO: 258. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 258. MR. OSSORIO: Paid within 60 days. MR. LANTZ: I move we accept the staffs recommendation. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to accept the county's recommendations for penalty. All 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: Discussion? Sorry. Go ahead. MR. L YKOS: Mr. Neale, we've had some prior cases with Page 137 August 19, 2009 regard to workers' compo My memory is not what it used to be. It seemed like there was an amount that we were working with. MR. NEALE: There was. And I believe that basically what that was is it was -- in those cases, if I remember correctly, it was trigged basically by an equivalent amount to what the state fine had been. So I think in those cases those have typically been cases where the state came in and caught them and then the county came after them subsequently. So it was whatever the state had imposed. And I think they were in the range of between 1,000 and $2,500, depending on the case. I think this would be -- certainly fall within reasonableness, particularly as to the -- as to the gravity of the violation. Because one, he was caught. He appears to have corrected it. MR. OSSORIO: We took in consideration there are three employees, one was his son, so we minused him out. And the other would be $500 per employee, so that made it to $1,000. So that's how I came to it. MR. L YKOS: I understand. You know, in reading Mr. Gonzalez's statement, it was explained to him that he put the association and the employees at risk. I want to make sure that when you leave here, you understand the gravity of that risk that you put people at. It isn't just the fact that somebody could have fallen off the ladder. Somebody could have fallen off the ladder and had no insurance company to pay for their medical expenses, and their only recourse may have been to file suit against the condominium association. So you put your employees' welfare at risk, you put the condominium association at risk. The other thing that really bothers me about these workers' compo cases is that you were subcontracted. Somebody else who was paying workers' compo and paying employee taxes could have submitted a bid for this project and didn't get it because you didn't Page 138 August 19,2009 have those costs factored into your estimate. And we have legitimate companies out there operating and they're losing business because people like you that may not understand the laws are submitting bids. And if you wouldn't have got caught, you'd have kept on doing this in the future. MR. BUSTO: Sir, he understands now. I'm sure he does. MR. LYKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So we have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor, 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: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Okay, no other recommendations. This cause came on or before public hearing, Contractor Licensing Board on August 19th, 2009 for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against Robert Gonzalez, d/b/a Master Gutters, Inc. Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended. Board having at this hearing heard 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 Roberto Gonzalez, d/b/a, Master Gutters, Inc., license number -- is the holder of record of License No. 27736. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant in this matter. That the board has jurisdiction of the person of the respondent. And that Robert Gonzalez Page 139 August 19, 2009 was present at the public hearing and was not respected by counsel at the hearing on August 19th, 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 of Collier County ordinances and is the one who committed the act. That the allegations of fact as set forth in administrative complaint as Count I in Ordinance Section 4.1.6 are to be found supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in administrative complaint as to the Count I of 4.1.6 are approved and adopted and incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section 4.1.6, disregards or violates in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of the building/safety/health/insurance or workman's compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinances of this county, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the sections set out in the administrative complaint with particularity. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in the Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, by a vote of six in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is ordered by a vote of six in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, that the following disciplinary action and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier contractor's certificate No. 27736. That Robert Gonzalez, d/b/a Master Gutters, Inc., is going to be placed on a one-year probation. He's required to take a business test within one year. He's to be ordered to pay a restitution fine of $1,000 to be paid -- MR. NEALE: Not restitution, just a fine. Page 140 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry, just pay a fine of$l,OOO within 60 days. And ordered to pay $258 in investigative costs and not to be paid within 60 days. And you understand that? MR. GONZALEZ-FORTAN: Yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And that's the order of the board. I wish you better luck. Don't take those minor little jobs unless you've got the insurance and stuff to go with it, because that's what's going to happen. Good luck to you. MR. NEALE: One more motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Almost. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we have one other business real quick. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: When's the meeting for September? MR. OSSORIO: It says next meeting, it says October 21st, 2009. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: We have a new meeting scheduled for September 17th at 10:30 in the CDES building. That's going to be short, one agenda, for fees. September 17th at 10:30 at CDES in 609-610. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. 10:00? MS. CLEMENTS: 9:00. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 9:00? Jennifer, which day is it? What time will it be? JENNIFER: It's on the 17th, 9:00 to 10:30. MR. OSSORIO: Sorry. It says 10:30. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I already (sic) go to the person that knows the answers. MR. L YKOS: Before we wrap up, I want to say, Karen, this report was unbelievable. This was a very complicated case and it was easy to kind of go through this and you did a great job preparing this. Thank you. Page 141 August 19, 2009 MS. CLEMENTS: Mr. Carr actually put that together and we put that together and did the receipts. MR. L YKOS: I'm sure this was very time-consuming. It was very helpful to understand this case and so it was very good. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's one of the easiest ones we've had laid out in front of us, that's for sure, as difficult as it was to answer. All right, there's no other reports. Anything else? Nobody's got anything to say? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No vacations coming up soon? We're going to try to have as much quorum as we can have for the September 15th -- 17th meeting for these fees. And also, one last thing, I guess Mr. Dunn's going to contact either myself or Mr. Lykos about this -- MR. L YKOS: Through e-mails. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Through e-mails on when we're going to go to this meeting? MR. OSSORIO: Yep. I believe he already told me that you'd be getting some invite today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Invite, okay. MR. OSSORIO: So if you don't get it today, call me tomorrow, or I'll call you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, ifnothing else I need a motion. MR. WHITE: Motion to adjourn. MR. L YKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. L YKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. Page 142 August 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? Aye. Later. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :39 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY 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. Page 143