Loading...
CLB Minutes 12/16/2009 R December 16, 2009 Page 1 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY Naples, Florida December 16, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at CDES on Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Lee Horn Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Patrick White ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor December 16, 2009 Page 2 MR. YBACETA: Gentlemen, good morning. Just a little reminder, please talk into the microphone. They are directional, and we need to record everything on this meeting. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. That is very good information. Thank you. Also, by the way, gentlemen, before we start, we're going to speak one at a time, nice and clear so the court reporter can hear everything we're saying. Ready to go? I'll call to order the Collier County Contracting Licensing Board meeting of December 16th, 2009. 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'll open the meeting starting with roll call starting to my right. MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz. MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle. MR. LYKOS: Tom Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MR. BOYD: Mike Boyd. MR. HORN: Lee Horn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Gentlemen, staff, is there any deletions or additions to the agenda? MR. JACKSON: Good morning. For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing. Under new business, an addition. The board needs to vote on a motion to pay civil penalties. That would be under new business. Under new business, we have a deletion of Roy Tomasch to qualify a second entity. And to replace that we have an addition of Katherine Grant. And she's looking to qualify a second entity as an addition. That documentation I passed out just a few minutes ago. December 16, 2009 Page 3 And that concludes additions and deletions. MR. LYKOS: Motion to accept the changes, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: 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. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries for the agenda. If everyone's looked at the minutes for the October 21st meeting, I need a motion to approve. I do have one change on it. I believe in the roll call Eric Guite' was listed as being here. I don't believe he was here in October; is that correct? MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. Eric Guite' is no longer a board member. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Strike that out then. Any other changes? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a motion to approve. MR. LANTZ: Motion to approve, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a second. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. December 16, 2009 Page 4 MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Under discussion, Mr. Ossorio, we have the end of the month report from you, huh? MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor. We have the end of the month report and it should be in front of you. And it's for October/November. And we're currently working on December, of course. Just a little footnote as well, our fees did get raised in between our last board meeting. It's been approved and we are scheduled to implement our fee increase January 1st, 2010. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did the fees that we worked for so hard give you more opportunity to do your job a little better? MR. OSSORIO: It should. As far as my recollection is concerning the fee increase is that that fee increase is somewhat going to go ahead and add us another individual the next several months, the next budget cycle. So with that said, yes, it's going to help us greatly next -- 2010. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good, glad to hear that. Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Michael, can you do me a favor? When you make this report to us, I know that Gary Mully (phonetic) did some projections for this fiscal year. Could you have a column that has what December 16, 2009 Page 5 we budgeted on a month-by-month basis so we can see the performance based on the budget? Can you add that to this report? MR. OSSORIO: No problem. MR. LYKOS: Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Now, this will be probably the last time you'll see this report. This is a CD Plus report. We actually are going into what you call CityView, which is a new program for us. I don't know how it's going to look. But I understand, I will get with Gary and we'll get something to you at the next board meeting. MR. LYKOS: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so much for that. Under new business, you want to make the motion for the civil penalties right now before we get into the other items? MR. OSSORIO: For the -- just to clarify real quick, we did do a sting operation, too. I just wanted to let you know that it was highly successful. We worked with the State of Florida and we worked with The Economics Crime Unit and we got 14 gentlemen arrested. One of them you I think you might know, he was at our last board meeting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. I heard rumors on that one. I have one other question. On the citations that are listed, whenever we get a packet here, we have the nomenclature that's on it as far as the date, times and whether penalty was served and what they got as far as the citation goes. Unless it's on the back of the citation, there's nowhere on it that indicates how long they have to pay that fine or how long they have to pay that penalty. Is it listed somewhere on the back of the -- MR. OSSORIO: On the back it says that the individual has 10 days to contest it. After 10 days, it's considered -- you've been considered guilty, or been found in violation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: So you have 10 days, 10 working days to contest the violation. December 16, 2009 Page 6 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, but it doesn't say anything about the time span as far as how much time they have to actually pay the fine. MR. OSSORIO: They have 10 days. Either pay the fine or contest it. What typically -- this is a business practice. We decided that we would give the opportunity of 10 days to pay it or contest it. After 10 days we will send that individual a reminder; it's a 10-day letter which I sign. After that then we bring it back to the board for the board to find them in violation. And we've done that administratively through this office, through the board for many months now. You just sign it and then we send that to the last known address. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: That's a business issue. But they only have 10 days to contest -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ten days. MR. OSSORIO: -- it or pay it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, okay. Okay, opening with new business then. I'm looking for a Mr. Carl F. Brewer. Are you present? Would you please come up to the podium, please, and be sworn in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BREWER: Good morning. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Brewer gets started in his presentation, I want to just go ahead and bring you back several months ago. We had Mr. Palmer here, contested his citation, and contested the ability to be able to stump grind. And in the board's order that they gave Mr. Palmer 60 days to really come into compliance -- (At which time, Mr. White enters the boardroom.) MR. OSSORIO: -- and gave him a provisional certificate to be December 16, 2009 Page 7 able to go ahead and continue his business as a stump grinding (sic). And with that said, the board also said to Mr. Palmer that if you wish to waive the business procedure test, you must come back with a full application and show why that he or she, or Mr. Palmer in general, should not be able to take the business procedure, because he was in business for so many years. With that said, Mr. Palmer decided to sell his business. He didn't elect to go through the process and he sold his business to another individual that actually took the exams, passed the business procedure and the tree exam and did everything he needed to do to come into compliance. So Mr. Palmer was off the table. But Mr. Brewer was here accompanying Mr. Palmer, and Mr. Brewer is here today, that you basically said any person that had a business tax receipt saying stump grinding had the same affordability to go ahead and get a provisional. So Mr. Brewer got a provisional license to be able to continue his business. And now he is here today to waive the testing for the business procedure test, due to the fact that he thinks he's been in business for so many years. So this is why Mr. Brewer is here today. Am I correct? MR. BREWER: I think so. MR. OSSORIO: So with that -- MR. BREWER: There's a lot that has been going on for a long time. I have one more document that -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Brewer, I'm sorry to interrupt, you need to be on the microphone when you speak. MR. BREWER: I just want to introduce -- THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, but you need to be on the microphone. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson can get them from you from the podium, please. Thanks. December 16, 2009 Page 8 Just for the record, everyone that's going to come before the board -- MR. BREWER: This only goes to -- I'm sorry. This goes -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me one second. Just for the record, everyone else that's going to come before the board, just be advised that the speaking must be done at the microphone and there is no wandering around as far as the hand papers. These all have to be documented and submitted as evidence. Okay? MR. BREWER: Okay. Sorry about that. This just wasn't in the original package. This only pertains to experience, background and so on and so forth. It was -- the meetings that I attended, it just seemed as though the information that was put forth in meetings didn't filter out to the front desk in quite the manner that I anticipated. I know I provided all the documentation, backgrounding and so on and so forth that I was asked to do. I brought it into front desk out here. And then they hit me with, well, you've got to do the business law course and certification and so forth, and I said no, that's not my understanding, nor was it -- the bottom line in the meeting to my knowledge that I do have the background and the affidavits and so on and so forth that, you know, that should be -- I don't know, I hate to use the word grandfathered in, but the same as the rest of the details I was asked as far as the insurance and the experience and affidavits to that effect. The only reason I even bothered with the class transcripts there was there was some discussion at that point going back to Mr. Palmer's involvement that he did in fact have business background. In fact, the people involved were under the impression somehow or other that Palmer was a CPA. He never was, never said he was. I don't know how that came across. But bottom line is I've been up and running for five years, I've December 16, 2009 Page 9 got the background, I've got the experience. Two-thirds to three-quarters of the information in -- that's purveyed by the business law course does not apply to a proprietorship operation with one man running it without employees, et cetera. I do have all the proper insurances, I do have the background, my record is clean. And that's kind of where it stands. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'm just going to ask staff, what's your recommendation, staff? MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation is that we approve his license to restrict it to stump grinding only. And if he wishes to be a tree company or a tree contracting (sic), that he fill out a full application, show experience and credit and also retake the tree -- actually take the tree exam. MR. BREWER: Which basically I have no need for that. All I want to do is basically grind stumps and occasionally we will, you know, haul off some trash, some cut branches and so forth. But I'm a stump grinder, that's all I do. I'm the little 'ol guy that follows the guys around that cuts the trees down and grinds up what's left. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. So you're content with the recommendation that staff has given, that the only licenses you're looking for is just to have stump grinding only. MR. BREWER: Yeah, although there was some discussion at that point where they wanted to roll it at all together and -- you know, which is fine, except that I don't have any particular need for it as far as the trimming and even tree removal. But I'm certainly not wanting to go into a full tree service, so to speak. I'm not going to be climbing up trimming and -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Understanding, though, that if we approve this, that you're going to have a stump grinding license only. MR. BREWER: That's all I've ever had. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. December 16, 2009 Page 10 MR. JERULLE: And understanding that you cannot trim any trees or cut any trees down. MR. BREWER: Now trimming was always part of the deal. Cutting trees down was restricted to 12 feet or less. And occasionally that does happen with the stump grinding where they'll leave a, you know, good size chunk standing up there. But I'm certainly not going to be cutting down any full trees or anything of that nature. And you do occasionally have to trim just to make access to stump grinding jobs and so forth, but I'm not looking to go into the trimming business, so to speak. But trimming was always part of the licensure to begin with. What changed was they wanted to change or have changed my status from just a proprietor to a -- what was the term they came up with, Michael, a specialty contractor or something of that nature? As far as Palmer and I were concerned, they wanted to basically -- was that the term, specialty contractor? MR. OSSORIO: Well, under the code you are considered a specialty contractor, but you are restricted. Now, with that said, stump grinding, if we do restrict your license today, you will not be doing any trimming. There's nothing in the provision of the code that says 12 feet or less. If you trim a tree and you contract to trim a tree, then you can't do it. You need to just strictly do stump grinding. Typically for experience the tree company comes in there, takes the trees away and the stump grinder comes after and takes the stumps out. That's what we're looking at for today. MR. BREWER: Yeah, although it can happen that, you know, the homeowner will contract us directly. And we do get involved in the removal process. Not that we do it, but we arrange for it and so forth. And sometimes that gets us involved in the, you know, cleaning up the debris and so forth. But basically what we do is grind stumps. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Well, we're going to just say it the bottom line this way: Okay, your license that we're going to try to December 16, 2009 Page 11 approve here now is going to allow you to grind stumps. That's it. No trimming, no going up any distance. You're going to have a stump sitting there, you're going to go in and grind it and you're perfectly legal. MR. BREWER: Yeah, which is -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: If you get involved in trimming a tree, then don't be surprised if you get cited. Now, are we clear? MR. BREWER: Right, now -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are we clear? MR. BREWER: Yes, sir, I understand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Thank you. Can I get a motion? MR. BREWER: I was going to say, I had an additional license as well that did specifically mention tree trimming, and that was basically what you call your handyman license. Now, where do I stand there? Is this going to affect that? I don't know. I haven't heard anything on that. We haven't gone into that, frankly. MR. OSSORIO: Under the handyman exemption, and also the handyman ordinance and also the handyman checklist, it doesn't say tree trimming on there. MR. BREWER: Well, it provides for the cleanup option -- MR. OSSORIO: Which is fine. What the Chairman is saying to you is that you're not going to trim trees. Now, if the tree's down, you can surely take your chainsaw and you can cut it up in little pieces and take it away. If it's been cut. You can't trim trees for a living. So stump grinding only. And to remove -- MR. BREWER: I don't want to -- frankly I don't want to trim trees for a living. I don't picture myself climbing -- at 63 years of age climbing any palm trees. I'm not too interested. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. All right, with that said, do I hear a motion? December 16, 2009 Page 12 MR. LYKOS: I'm not convinced yet that this gentleman understands what his license is going to allow him to do and what the restrictions are. So if you're calling a vote right now -- MR. BREWER: I understand what you're -- MR. LYKOS: -- it's not going to get by me. I'm not convinced, sir, that you understand the limitations of the license that we're going to give you. MR. BREWER: I've been operating under those limitations for six years, sir. I know exactly what the license pertains to and what it means. I just had some questions that I voiced. And if that -- you know, if that concerns you, I'm sorry, but that was, you know, strictly trying to get some information here. MR. LYKOS: Well, I'm concerned because you've already expressed a lack of understanding of what this license would allow you to do. MR. BREWER: I wasn't aware that I had done so. That license allows me to grind stumps, period. MR. LYKOS: That's correct. MR. BREWER: Said and done. MR. LYKOS: You can't trim trees on the way back to a stump to have access to it. MR. BREWER: That's why I asked the question, sir, just to make sure that we're all clear on that. MR. LYKOS: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think at this moment we have given him the criteria as far as what his license is going to cover. And what he does with that license is going to fall into his hands. We're just honoring the fact that we have set up some criteria for stump grinding. And as long as -- MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- he understands it. MR. WHITE: One question. And I'm not sure who may be the December 16, 2009 Page 13 appropriate person to answer this. But is it still a tree after the top has been removed and there may still be branches on the stump of a tree? Because I don't want to get into that in some future citation case where, you know, the man's charged with tree trimming and the defense is going to be well, that's not a tree, it's a stump. I just would like to make sure it's clear, since we're going to the nth degree of detail and there are likely going to be other potential applicants under this process, to get that point out on the floor in whatever discussion is necessary to make sure we're not going to run afoul of the rules down the road. MR. BREWER: That's why I asked about that 12-foot thing. I was told that up to 12 feet there was no permit or licensure or whatever, involvement as far as, you know, removing -- some people consider anything that's been cut down a stump, regardless of what they leave. I've run into that from time to time. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio, what's your thoughts on that? MR. OSSORIO: My thought is, is that Mr. Brewer is not going to be trimming trees. If he contracts to trim a tree and to remove a stump, he'll be cited. If one of my investigators goes on the job site and he has a chainsaw in his hand and he has one little branch he's got to cut off the stump side of it, we're not going to give him a ticket for that, absolutely not. But we are going to talk to the homeowner and if Mr. Brewer is there and he is contracted to trim the tree and to remove the stump, that's when we'll be issuing him a ticket, because that's contracting. So we're on the same page. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a motion. MR. LANTZ: I move we accept the application of Mr. Brewer and waive his business exam. MR. WHITE: I'll second it. December 16, 2009 Page 14 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We have a motion and a second. All in favor -- any discussion? MR. NEALE: I would recommend as part of the motion and second that you clarify that it's a motion to grant a restricted license for stump grinding only. Even though there's been all the discussion, that should be part of the motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Correct, okay. You want to change your motion to signify that? MR. LANTZ: I move we accept Mr. Brewer's application for a license restricted to stump grinding only and waive his examination of the business and law test. MR. WHITE: Seconder agrees. That was my original understanding. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mine too. We have a motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. LYKOS: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries 6-1. Thank you, Mr. Brewer. Again, pay attention to what you're doing out there, okay? MR. BREWER: I shouldn't have any problem doing what I've been doing all along. Real quickly, temporary license -- MR. WHITE: You need to be on the microphone, sir. December 16, 2009 Page 15 MR. BREWER: I'm sorry. I was issued a temporary license. Will that just carry forth or do I need to go out and get a new one, or -- I mean, it's a regular looking license, it just says -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What you need to do is -- MR. BREWER: -- temporary typed in on it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- go before licensing, not today but tomorrow. They'll have all the paperwork here. Then you go back there and they'll explain whatever items you have to have to carry on your new license -- MR. BREWER: Okay, all right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- or your new restricted license. MR. BREWER: I wanted to know how to handle it, that's all. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, I'm looking for a Mr. John J. Puterbaugh. Would you please come to the podium and be sworn in, please. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Neale, would you like me to swear in the staff for the day? MR. NEALE: Why don't you do that, just swear them in for the day. That way we don't have to do it every time. (Mr. Ossorio, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Puterbaugh were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Puterbaugh, you're here to reinstate your license without retesting, I understand? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Elaborate a little bit more on that. MR. PUTERBAUGH: Well, I've been in business for 15 years now, and the past month -- or a couple months ago there when this all came to a head here I didn't realize that I had not gotten the renewal application in the mail to continue to fill out for my license and whatnot. As you see in my package, I've kept up everything else to do with my business: Licenses, insurance, the whole nine yards. And December 16, 2009 Page 16 somehow this, to be quite truthfully with you, slipped through the cracks. I'm usually pretty on top of things and have made changes, so this does not happen again. I'm hoping you'll see in good faith that I've been taking care of my business and doing my business with the best that I can do it and taking care of people basically like I always say, to take care of people like you'd like to be taken care of. And I just quite truthfully, like I said, this just slipped through the cracks. I don't -- I do pool service and repair and I never have had issues of pulling a license, but I was going to install a pool heater and come to find out that my license hadn't been renewed. And that's when I finally found out that -- I went down to the county there and they said it hadn't been renewed because you didn't send in the money. And I never got any application to renew at that time. And like I said, I let it slip through the cracks and I'm hoping you'll see in good faith that I've kept everything up, that I can just pay the old past due amounts and keep doing business as I have for 15 years with no citations of any kind other than I have right now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The license that you are -- have let lapse is the swimming pool license, the -- MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- swimming pool service license? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I'll just give you a quick overview real quick about the history of the board and the history of reinstating a license. There's a county license and then there's a state certificate, and I believe this gentleman has kept his state registration up; am I correct? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Everything has been kept up. MR. OSSORIO: He has his continuing education, he has continued with the state. Unfortunately that the ordinance basically says that if you don't renew your certificate within a certain amount of time and you have not taken the exam within a three-year period, you December 16, 2009 Page 17 must retest. We've in the past -- he's not the only one, but there's been several in the past said if he -- the board's opinion has been that if he's kept the state registration, he's current with the state and his continuing education, therefore we will reinstate his certificate, he can apply for a license and pay his back fees. That's been the norm. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. I just have one other question. After reviewing the packet and in your letter you stated that you kept up with your continuing education? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Everything in your continuing education really has nothing to do with pools other than Workmen's Comp, and you have one hour of credit. You realize you have to have 14 hours a year -- every other year? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So where are the other hours? MR. PUTERBAUGH: The -- I did all the hours that they -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm seeing a lot of HVAC. I'm seeing a lot of preventing and investigating accidents. A lot of these are unaccredited courses. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for my own purposes, I went through this packet and that's fine, I saw some things in there that were really not pertaining to what we're here today about. But my assumption is, is that when you deal -- maybe you can correct me, but when you renew your state license, they do not let you renew your state certificate until you show proof that you have continuing education. So therefore it would be updated. So that's my understanding. So if he is a current state registration then he's kept up with his continuing education. MR. PUTERBAUGH: I've looked through the things too, and I always try to go for certificates that are -- you know, help out my December 16, 2009 Page 18 license and my knowledge of keeping up. They didn't offer anything for swimming pool. That's why you see the HVAC, the ones I have seen in there. And if they have one, I would gladly, you know, do it. But the company, RedVector, I've used for quite a few years. I've seen nothing in there to do with pools or I would love to take something like that to keep up. And I'm always ready to further my knowledge, and there's never a day I don't try to learn something. So, I mean, if they had something, I would definitely go take it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I'm a swimming pool contractor also, and they do have items for swimming pools. You just have to look a little deeper into the -- if you're doing this on line. MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. You've dealt with RedVector? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm sorry? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Have you dealt with RedVector? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, it's in there. MR. PUTERBAUGH: Okay. Well, I definitely will look up further, because like I said, I'm always ready to do something more to further my knowledge for my -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And the reason -- MR. PUTERBAUGH: -- customers and myself. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- is because of all the new laws that are changed and all the new codes that are changed that this is information that you need to know if you're going to take care of swimming pools. MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Now, what it appears is that you have another license; is that the case? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: An HVA license? MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yep. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And by the name of the company, it December 16, 2009 Page 19 sounds like you're doing more HVAC than you are swimming pools. MR. PUTERBAUGH: Well, actually it's just the opposite. I do geothermal heating and cooling. And geothermal pool heating is a big thing down here for us, and I've been doing it for quite a few years. I've been in business for myself for 15 years, and I've worked alongside my dad for I don't know, since I've been 15 years old. And he's had his business down here about 20 some years, and that's 90 percent of his work is the geothermal, so that's why I went with the geothermal name. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Please of the board, any other questions? MR. JERULLE: You mentioned you've never been cited by Collier County? MR. PUTERBAUGH: I have just recently, here, the -- MR. JERULLE: Besides this. MR. PUTERBAUGH: No. MR. HORN: I had a question, sir. Your insurance certificate that we have in the back actually expired. Do you have a new current one? MR. PUTERBAUGH: I do have a current one. Would you like me to -- I have copies here for you, actually. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson, if you want to get one copy just to verify that it is current. And maybe if staff doesn't have it on file yet then maybe that needs to be addressed. I had one other question, though. Normally -- now, this is just on my end of it. Normally when I go to get my license renewed from Collier when I come in with my state certified license, I come in here and before I can even get a license renewed I have to go before the tax collector and pay the tax fee and also then get a comp. card, and then Maggie will then -- or one of the girls will then carry me over and issue my other comp. card number. December 16, 2009 Page 20 Is this something that may have got lost in the glitch, or -- MR. OSSORIO: No, actually, it's reversed. The business tax receipt send their notice out a month or two before ours. So typically what happens is, is that the individual, the company gets the business tax receipt in the mail and then they renew that certificate. And we send ours out in obviously September. And they don't renew it. And then they keep renewing their business tax license every year not with us and we don't get notified. We're working with the Tax Collector to fix that issue. We used to be a little closer together on our renewals. And we have actually communicated with the Tax Collector. And when they send their notice out they also say on the back of it in big, bold letters, don't forget to renew your Collier County certificate now. So we won't get that. We send ours out. Unfortunately sometimes they get -- you know, applicants or certificate holders forget to renew. And then we catch them, could be years. Because they keep renewing their certificate and not renewing ours. Because we only send out two notices. We send out the certificate and then we send out a suspension letter in January to say you've been suspended. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: I make a motion we reinstate the license without retesting. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A motion and a second that we reinstate the license without retesting. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. December 16, 2009 Page 21 MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. All set. MR. PUTERBAUGH: Thank you all. I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You know you can't do all this until tomorrow, okay? When the paperwork -- MR. PUTERBAUGH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- is back there, then anytime after tomorrow you come in and get it renewed. MR. PUTERBAUGH: You all made my year. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. MR. LYKOS: Appreciate the effort on your packet. It was a good packet. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, do we have a Mr. Leon F. Pasiuk? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, we won't be hearing this citation today. We'll withdraw it and we might bring it back at a later date. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: You're withdrawing the hearing or the citation? MR. OSSORIO: Well, let me stand up for this one. We're going to go ahead and withdraw the citation and not hear the case. So that will be dismissed. You probably won't hear this case again. I'll send a notice to the violator and let him know what the county's position is. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. December 16, 2009 Page 22 MR. LYKOS: Hold it, Michael. Why are we -- why are you rescinding the citation? MR. OSSORIO: There's been an issue with one of our investigators, and we are working with Human Resources and one of my investigators. So there might be some issues with citations with that particular one. So we're going to go ahead and dismiss this one. But I will be talking to the violator and let him know where we stand and what requires a license and what doesn't. But for right now we won't be hearing this case. MR. LYKOS: This was a pretty egregious case. MR. WHITE: I appreciate the clarification. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, how about Faustino Torres. If you'd come to the mic. and be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Torres, you are here to qualify a second entity; is that correct? MR. TORRES: That is correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And currently you -- let's see here. You owned Parisino (sic) Landscape, Inc.; is that correct? MR. TORRES: Paraisso Landscaping. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you sold it. MR. TORRES: I sold Paraisso Landscaping, Incorporated. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And what -- and you're trying to now license Watering Technologies, Inc. MR. TORRES: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is that the same kind of operation, irrigation? MR. TORRES: No, it will be irrigation only. Sprinklers, maintenance, installation only. MR. JERULLE: But you still qualify the other company? MR. TORRES: That is correct. MR. LYKOS: And you receive no compensation from the other December 16, 2009 Page 23 company? MR. TORRES: No, unless I do permit pulling or some other advice to them or some kind of physical work. Otherwise, I would not -- I do not receive any compensation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are you going to be any kind of a percentage stockholder in the company at all? MR. TORRES: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A director? MR. TORRES: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No officer? MR. TORRES: No officer, no, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Check writing abilities, no? MR. TORRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're just going to put your license out there in the wind. MR. TORRES: I actually hold a note on the sale. So actually -- you know, since I'm holding the note I have -- I wanted to monitor that. And I have an agreement with the owners that I will check in with them and have a meeting monthly to see the performances and also have the ability to go on the outside to make sure that they are all correct and doing the way it's supposed to be legally for the licenses. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Questions from the board? MR. WHITE: Just one, Mr. Chairman, if I may. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. WHITE: Does your agreement exist in writing? MR. TORRES: It is in the contract. But I don't think it spells clearly just like I said it. It's just that I -- the dilemma here is that Collier, Lee or pretty much, you know, the counties that I am familiar with, they do not issue you a license if you do not have the three-year experience. These people is from out of state so therefore they cannot get their license until they have three years of experience. So that's the reason why I'm qualifying them. December 16, 2009 Page 24 And I don't know if this is common in all the business when they sell, but the agreement verbally was that I will stay with the company for some time until they take over and they feel familiar with the company, with the business. In the meantime, they will acquire the licenses. So they ran into a big problem when they came and bought the business. I show them everything and then they said, well, okay, now it's time to start working the license. The issue came, well, do you have three years experience, do you have people to sign the three letters that is required that you have been actually in business? So they ran into that dilemma, and say well, unfortunately we're stuck. What are we going to do? So since my agreement was to help them until they take over, which was hoping to be, you know, two, three months, six months max, it's not going to happen until three years when they acquire all this experience that the licensing board is requiring. MR. WHITE: Thank you for that explanation. My point in asking the question was because you're not an owner of anything more than essentially I guess what a lawyer like me would call an equitable interest because of the note, a financial interest, you don't have any control over things that you may see that aren't being done correctly. How will that work if there's something you see that needs to be done differently and they don't agree? MR. TORRES: If they don't agree, then we'll probably go and -- I don't know. I mean, I usually just cross the bridge when I get to it. But in this case if I have to discuss it and if I have to think about it, I will say, well, I'll sit with them and say well, you know, I'm going to have to cancel my qualifying you to continue business because you -- I mean, I have the right to -- MR. WHITE: I understand. MR. TORRES: -- stop the business immediately if they're not doing what I want -- how I think it should be done. That will be my December 16, 2009 Page 25 action to that. MR. WHITE: I appreciate your answer, and I think it's an appropriate and acceptable one, at least to me. And I wanted to understand what would happen. And usually you have that percentage of ownership, or you have the position of some officer so that you have authority to direct how things are done by the company that you're otherwise qualifying. If your intention is that if they're not going to follow your direction that you will withdraw your qualification of the company, then that to me seems to be an adequate circumstance. But we'll leave that up to the rest of the board members. MR. TORRES: I may explain why it came to this. It was not intending to be that way. I said a little while ago and I will say it again, it was not intended for me to qualify them. Unfortunately since the licensing board, Collier County doesn't give a license to somebody who bought a business, I don't know. I was thinking, you know, some people out of country come and buy a business for half a million and they automatically get some kind of status, legal status to work in the U.S. I figure, you know, from somebody already here, it will be practically the same, I don't know. And that's what I assume. I assumed that I was going to be able to sell the business and walk away with a note or walk away with my money and start enjoying it. But it didn't happen that way unfortunately. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It sounds like maybe you set it up a little bit incorrectly then. Because if that's what you wanted to do, what you should have done was sold the business and you could have put in a stipulation in a contract form whereas you were going to license the business for "X" amount of time, six months, a year. MR. TORRES: I did. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And give them an ample amount of time to find a suitable license holder to go pass the test and have the same December 16, 2009 Page 26 license that you have. MR. TORRES: I did. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And after that period then you're off scot free. Right now it's just an open business where there's no bottom end to it. It could go on for -- if they don't get a license for the next 10 years, you're still licensing that company. MR. TORRES: Practically the way it is, and I may be wrong, the way it is right now, they operate in Paraisso Landscape, d/b/a Theta Landscaping, Inc., or LLC. Which they're -- right now my job with them is to make sure all their credits, all their finances go to Theta Landscape, not Paraisso Landscaping, Inc., or Paraisso Landscape, as they name it. So I know, I -- you know, I think about it every day and I try not to let it go over my head. But, you know, as soon as they can get rid of it, I mean, I'll be happy to. Unfortunately, again, I mean, if they can get their license, I think they'll be much happier, because they're probably sick of me already. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think probably this really has no bearing on the fact of us giving you the license or not, but I think it would be your best interest to maybe get ahold of someone, maybe an attorney of some sort, and try to come up with a real contract that's signed and sealed that protects your interest as well as theirs. MR. TORRES: Well, I think you're right and I agree with you. But the best thing to do is, I mean, is there any way? I mean, you are the guys who can actually make that change. Because for their own benefit, I mean, they need to get their license. And they will get their license because they wanted to operate and they wanted to work. Why cannot they get a license if they can pass all the tests, it's set. I mean, they will not have the experience working with somebody else for three years. You know, that's one of the requirements that's pretty much lacking them to get their license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I understand what you're saying. But December 16, 2009 Page 27 still, this is -- I'll just call for the members of the board to discuss further. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do we have a motion? MR. WHITE: I make a motion to approve as requested. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Torres, you are now Watering Technologies, Inc. MR. TORRES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Good luck to you. MR. TORRES: You all have wonderful holidays and appreciate it, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Same to you. MR. LYKOS: Good luck, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Gary Bloom, are you present, please? (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Bloom, you are here before us today to reinstate a license without retesting; is that correct? MR. BLOOM: That's correct -- no, I have tested. I have tested in December 16, 2009 Page 28 August and passed all my tests. MR. LYKOS: That was my big question. MR. BLOOM: I'm here because -- MR. LANTZ: That was mine, too. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, Mr. Ossorio, did he take the test and pass it, or if that's the case, then why is he here? I see an exam that was taken on 8/8 of 2009; is that what you're speaking of? MR. BLOOM: That's correct, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You got a 78 percent on it? MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And a sizeable 84 percent on your business and law. MR. BLOOM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm confused. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the agenda doesn't speak for itself, but I believe he's here because of the credit issue. I can't reinstate it because there's some credit problems on his personal. His business -- his new business is less than a year old; am I correct? MR. BLOOM: That's correct, yes. MR. WHITE: I certainly noted that, Mr. Chairman, as well. MR. LYKOS: Mr. Neale, these always get difficult. Because if I remember right, we're not supposed to consider the personal credit unless there isn't enough information on the business. Can you -- MR. NEALE: Well, you can if the business has been in business less than a year. Then you can consider personal credit. It's supposed to be only for -- the thing you're supposed to look for most is whether they paid their contracting obligations. And typically this board has looked more to have they taken care of a customer as opposed to the vendors, frankly. You know, you want to make sure the customer doesn't -- the person who contracts with them doesn't get hurt as opposed to the vendor. But typically what you look to is -- what this board has looked to December 16, 2009 Page 29 is the -- is did they pay contracting obligations and does it appear that he will be able in the future to pay contracting obligations if he is granted a license. What this board has also done in the past is grant restricted or probationary licenses for a period of time, with the person to bring back credit reports in the future. So those are options this board has undertaken in the past. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Bloom, you're I guess well aware of the credit report that's here? MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir, I am. And I've been working on that for the past couple of years. And since September I've taken care of five of those things for collection. I haven't got a new credit report yet, but I'd be more than happy to get another one and continue to send you an updated credit report every six months. I have a license in Broward County for glass and glazing, and I've retested to the standard for the licenses that I need to hold. And I want to expand my business a little bit, you know, to earn more money. And that's why I'm requesting to, you know, be approved for Collier County. I don't live in this county, I live in Broward County, and I need to get a Palm Beach license, but I have to have this one straightened out first. I used to live here and I moved over there. I lived here in the Nineties and I moved over to Broward County. And I let things lapse and I've retested and done the best that I can right now. MR. WHITE: At what point will your -- I'm sorry, here sir. At what point will your one year for business credit report be available? MR. BLOOM: In April. That's when I registered with Broward County. MR. HORN: Mr. Bloom, do you have an updated liability insurance with you for us to see? Because this expired -- December 16, 2009 Page 30 MR. BLOOM: I faxed all that over -- I think I do have one here, but I faxed all that over to Maggie, I don't know, back in -- when I renewed it on the 2nd, December 2nd. She should have the fax that I sent her. MR. HORN: Yes, sir, the policy you sent actually expired on December 2nd. MR. BLOOM: Yeah, but I sent her the new one. MR. HORN: Okay. MR. BLOOM: I faxed a new one on the 2nd, or the 3rd, probably. MR. HORN: I understand, sir, it's just in our packets we have the old one. That's all I'm saying. MR. BLOOM: Okay. Let me see if I have that with me. Here's a new one right here. Here's the receipt that I paid. MR. HORN: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And it is current, Ian -- Mr. Jackson? MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Being to the fact that you are trying to pay some of these debts off, apparently you're doing some of this in good faith before you got here. I see a lot of old ones for a lot of money, though, and that doesn't make me sit very well, beings the fact that your business is in Pompano Beach now; is that correct? MR. BLOOM: That's correct, yes -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's where you're operating out of? MR. BLOOM: Yes. The reason they're so old. Back in 2005 when I lost -- I did have a license back then and I let it expire. I lost my apartment in Hurricane Wilma, I lost my shop, and then a month later my mother died. And I just kind of just, you know -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I'm to the belief to -- MR. BLOOM: Some of the things, you know, brand new furniture and stuff was just out the door when the roof came off. December 16, 2009 Page 31 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I know we all go through hard times. MR. BLOOM: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I would be inclined -- Mr. Lykos, go ahead. MR. LYKOS: I was going to ask Michael if there was a recommendation from staff on this. MR. OSSORIO: I recommend that we approve it with restricted six months and he'll come back in April or May with a current credit report on his personal credit and also a credit on his company too as well. Because it will be over -- MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: -- 12 months. My question is when you went to Dade County -- MR. BLOOM: Broward County. MR. OSSORIO: Broward County. Did you go in front of their licensing board too with this credit or did they administratively just give it to you? MR. BLOOM: Well, evident -- I didn't have any problems over there. I went to renew everything and they just renewed everything. I went with the corporate papers, the insurance, and they gave me my competency and my occupational license with no trouble at all. I gave them the same things that you have in front of you. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? Notwithstanding the, quote, trouble, I'm confident that with the staff's recommendation that that's the form of a motion, Mr. Chairman, that I would be happy to make, and we'll see you next year, that being to reinstate with a requirement you provide us in six months the updated personal and your business credit report. And at that time we'll review your license. MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir, okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: In six months? MR. WHITE: Six months. MR. BLOOM: Six months. December 16, 2009 Page 32 MR. WHITE: And -- did you mean restricted as a time? MR. OSSORIO: No restriction -- well, the restriction would be probation. MR. WHITE: Right. MR. OSSORIO: So he'd be under my jurisdiction for six months. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Probationary license with restriction for six months. MR. OSSORIO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. WHITE: That would be the form of my motion. MR. HORN: I'll second as stated, Horn. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? MR. LANTZ: I have a question. It was stated that if he's in business for a year or more then the personal credit is not involved in the discussion on getting a license. So in six months he will have been in business for a year. So should it be just the business as opposed to the personal credit also? MR. WHITE: The reason why I agreed with the staff's recommendation is that I do want to see the personal credit to make sure that there's continuing improvement on that side. It may not get as much weight then as it has now for me. But I think that by putting it in as a stipulation under this approval, if we get that today, it gives us that latitude. And Mr. Neale, if you have a -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, the board certainly has a -- because the initial approval was based on personal credit and the board wants to review how he's handling that, certainly the board has the authority, I believe, to request it and review his personal credit again when he comes back under the same continuing order. MR. LANTZ: Works for me. December 16, 2009 Page 33 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So then we would have a credit report for the business and for the personal. MR. NEALE: Right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And we could use both of those in our analysis at that time. Okay. Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Michael, I would ask you to save a copy of the current credit report and attach that to the packet six months from now so we can see the old credit report and the new credit report and not just have the new one. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. MR. WHITE: Motion maker would agree to that modification to the motion as a condition. MR. HORN: I'll amend my second also. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I have a motion and a second. Is there any -- any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: None. Okay, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. You understand the motion. You understand what to do now, right? MR. BLOOM: Yes, sir. Thank you very much, and you all have December 16, 2009 Page 34 a Merry Christmas. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You do the same. Next we have a Roy Tomasch. MR. HORN: We took that off. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We took that off? MR. LYKOS: It's been removed, yeah. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Then lastly we have a Katherine Grant. Are you present? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Grant just gave this packet to me today, but I believe Mrs. Grant qualified two companies at one time. She dismissed one company and now she wants to qualify another company. So that's why she's here today. Am I correct? MS. GRANT: Yes. MR. NEALE: Just for the advice of the board, this board unanimously did approve Mrs. Grant to qualify a second entity in October of 2007. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so you're going to sponsor a new company, Protection Flooring, LLC? MS. GRANT: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you're currently sponsoring Grant Installation, Inc. MS. GRANT: Yes. And International Carpet and Blinds, which I want to discontinue qualifying, because they have went out of business. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You have to give us just a moment here to review this just for a second, since we just got it. MR. OSSORIO: Mrs. Grant, you're saying you have two licenses you want to qualify for tile and marble and floor covering -- MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. MR. OSSORIO: -- is that it? Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Does staff have recommendations? Have December 16, 2009 Page 35 you looked at this packet or is this new to you too? MR. OSSORIO: I have no objections. I did take a quick look at this. But what is your capacity with Production Flooring, LLC? MS. GRANT: I am the owner of Production Flooring. MR. OSSORIO: No questions. MR. WHITE: You're a manager or managing member of the LLC? MS. GRANT: Yes, I'm the owner of the company. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: With the company that went out of business -- MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- that you're not going to qualify any longer, did that have any negative effects on you as far as financially or -- MS. GRANT: No, I just -- I was working for them and qualifying the company, but no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I see. They just closed the doors? MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. MR. LYKOS: You currently are qualifying Grant Installation, Inc.? MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. MR. LYKOS: And that is a flooring installation company? MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. MR. LYKOS: And you want to qualify Production Flooring -- MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. MR. LYKOS: -- which is also a flooring installation company? MS. GRANT: It's a retail store who will sell installation with their jobs, yes. MR. LYKOS: So you're going to be qualifying two different flooring installation companies, effectively? MS. GRANT: Yes. Because in Collier County if you have a December 16, 2009 Page 36 showroom and you sell jobs that you include installation on to a homeowner, then the company needs to hold a qualification too. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: To be able to install is what she's speaking of. Right? MS. GRANT: In order to collect money from the customer for the installation. In order to include the installation in your package to sell to the customer. MR. LYKOS: I understand. MR. HORN: I have a question for staff. From looking at this packet, it looks like we have a lot of corporate info. on the company that she's trying to no longer qualify, International Carpet and Blinds. But the company you're still qualifying, Grant Installation, Inc., unless I'm missing it, I don't see any of the financial statements or reports or anything on it in here at all. MS. GRANT: They told me that I just needed to bring the stuff for International Carpet and Blinds, because that's the second entity that I have. And I'm trying to replace that with the new second entity. MR. WHITE: So the point would be that you would demonstrate a positive record with the current second qualifying company. MS. GRANT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The only other thing I'm having a problem with is the credit application. I'm seeing a lot of collections. You want to elaborate a little more on that? MS. GRANT: On the personal credit application? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: This is against Katherine G. Grant. MS. GRANT: Yes. I owned a home in Collier County, which is going through a short sale right now. So I'm not sure if that's what you're referring to. MR. OSSORIO: Actually, Mr. Chairman, it looks like it's mostly medical. We tend not to look at medical per se too much. MS. GRANT: Yeah, I don't think there's anything else negative on there that I'm aware of. December 16, 2009 Page 37 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: One is the conventional real estate for 150,000 for P&L write-off. MS. GRANT: That's my short sale that I'm in the process of going through. MR. WHITE: The foreclosure with, I don't know, BAC home loans? MS. GRANT: There is no foreclosure, it's part of the short sale. It has a first mortgage and a second mortgage. They have revoked the foreclosure process and are working on doing the short sale. MR. NEALE: All it shows is that it was filed, it doesn't show that it was a completed foreclosure. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is this correct, Mr. Neale, that actually this credit app. doesn't apply because of the fact this is a personal credit? MR. NEALE: Well, how long has the new entity been in business? MS. GRANT: Since August I believe is when I formed the corporation. MR. NEALE: Okay, so you do look at the personal credit because it's a less than one year entity. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Less than a year old. MR. NEALE: But I would suggest to the board that if someone has a short sale or a foreclosure in Collier County, they're not in a very small group of people. MS. GRANT: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Just as a point of information, staff, how will we handle administratively, assuming we approve this second entity, the disqualification, for lack of a better word, of International? I mean, does she have to withdraw that first? I mean -- MR. OSSORIO: Yes. And I believe she did already; am I correct? MS. GRANT: No, I'm not sure what I need to do in order to do December 16, 2009 Page 38 that. That was a question, do I just go see Maggie and just tell her that I want to discontinue that qualification? MR. OSSORIO: No, typically -- I was assuming that it was already been done (sic). Typically we only like to qualify two companies at a time. MS. GRANT: Right. MR. OSSORIO: There's nothing in the rule book that says you can't qualify more than two. MS. GRANT: Right. MR. OSSORIO: But typically we like to do two. So if this gets approved you'll give us a certified letter that you sent to the company saying that you disqualified their company as a qualifier for tile and marble. And then we would put that in the file. And then we start our new process of this. MS. GRANT: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: That's how we would handle it. MR. WHITE: How long do you think it would take to do that and acknowledge it and have it in your files? MS. GRANT: The letter I can -- MR. WHITE: Thirty days? MS. GRANT: Oh, I can do the letter today. MR. WHITE: Fifteen days? MR. OSSORIO: Fifteen days, sure. MS. GRANT: Yeah, I'll have it done today. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It's just a letter she has to write and it has to be -- MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. And then we put it in the file. MS. GRANT: I'll just bring it in to Maggie. MR. NEALE: I'd just like to make one statement. And Mr. Ossorio said something, I think he may have misstated that while the ordinance does specifically say under 22-182.A.2 that a qualifying agent may qualify no more than one firm practicing the December 16, 2009 Page 39 same trade without prior approval of the board and in no event more than two firms at the same time. So what I would suggest to the board, just to make things clean, is that as part of your motion in granting, if you choose to grant, is that it -- well, that it -- the motion would terminate her qualification of International and grant her approval to approve -- to qualify the new entity. MR. WHITE: I don't know that we can unilaterally do that. I think it makes more sense since she has to write a letter, according to the way that was explained a moment ago about the administrative process, I might be a bit more comfortable with an approval that becomes effective upon a letter being received and filed by the county of International having been disqualified. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I don't have a problem either way. I just the -- the fact that the second entity is a privilege, not a right. And so that the only way you can qualify a second entity is by this board's approval. MR. JERULLE: Can you read that again, Mr. Neale, please? MR. NEALE: Sure. It's qualifying agent may qualify no more than one firm practicing the same trade without prior approval of the Contractor's Licensing Board, and in no event more than two firms at the same time. MR. JERULLE: See, and I have a problem with one person having two licenses to do the same trade. It gets a little dodgy or sticky when clients somehow get two proposals that could end up from the same person. MR. NEALE: But this is specifically permitted by the ordinance. It specifically refers to same trade. MR. JERULLE: If approved by the board. MR. NEALE: Right. And that's been -- MR. JERULLE: And that's my point. MR. NEALE: That's been the normal practice of the board to do December 16, 2009 Page 40 that, so -- MR. JERULLE: To give one person two licenses for the same trade? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. Done it many times. MR. NEALE: That's the only reason someone would come in front of the board for a second entity approval, is because it was for the same trade. If it was for a different trade, they wouldn't need a second entity approval. MR. JERULLE: I still have a problem with it ethically, and I can't see -- I'm just giving my opinion is that I have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious about workers' comp coverage. Is there now going to be four exemptions or is it -- MS. GRANT: Both companies go through a payroll service which provide workers' comp insurance. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: I agree with Mr. Jerulle. I've seen these companies where one person runs two different businesses, and you can run one business into the ground or one person has the workers' comp and then one company hires the other company. And it seems like it's done more as a way to skirt around rules and regulations than it is to have two legitimate businesses operating. I've seen it before as well. So I'm with you. And you've got two general contractors here that deal with subcontractors on a regular basis. This is the kind of stuff that we see. MR. NEALE: No, understood. It's just it's specifically permitted by the ordinance, so that -- MS. GRANT: Well, to explain my situation, it's -- Production Flooring would not even need to be certified for the contracting licenses other than the fact -- I mean, Production doesn't use them. We hire licensed subcontractors to do our installations, or we will hire December 16, 2009 Page 41 licensed contractors. So it's just in Collier County if you have a showroom and you're doing retail sales, you are required to hold a license. MR. WHITE: And the nature of the business of the other entity that you're continuing to qualify? MS. GRANT: Is installation only. MR. WHITE: And therefore essentially distinctly different. MS. GRANT: Right. MR. WHITE: That's what I understood her earlier, that -- what was the circumstance with regards to International? Which of the two is International more like? MS. GRANT: Production. International was a showroom also who just had to have the license as a technicality, because that's what Collier County requires. But they also used licensed subcontractors to actually do their installations. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I think my question is to Michael. If International is only selling tile, they don't need a license. If they're selling the installation they need a license, is that -- MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. MS. GRANT: Yes. MR. LANTZ: Okay. Which is different from what you were saying. So I just want to clarify. MS. GRANT: Well, what you do is when you sell a job to a customer, you sell it to them including installation. Okay, the customer pays you for the job. You in turn pay the subcontractor -- MR. LANTZ: I understand. But to me that's not retail sales. Retail sales is you walk into Home Depot, you buy a -- MS. GRANT: Cash and carry. MR. LANTZ: -- case of tile, and so you wouldn't need a license for that. December 16, 2009 Page 42 MS. GRANT: You would not need a license to do a cash and carry, right. But if you're going to do a quote which involves start to finish process, then you -- in Collier County you have to -- the company has to be qualified. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Michael, can a flooring company hire subcontractors? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, I have no problem if a licensed floor covering company requires assistance or needs to subcontract out flooring. That particular aspect of it I have no problem with it. MS. GRANT: I believe that's what most of -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, the general rule -- MS. GRANT: -- the flooring stores do. MR. NEALE: -- is that the contractor can hire someone as a sub within the bonds of their license. MR. LYKOS: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: Now, a general contractor has the ability to the subcontract outside his trade: Electrical, plumbing, mechanical. Now, can a floor covering subcontract electrical? Absolutely not. MS. GRANT: No. MR. LYKOS: Within their own trade. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Within their trade. MR. OSSORIO: Yeah. MR. NEALE: Yeah, a flooring company couldn't go out, as Michael says, subcontractor a plumber, couldn't subcontract a -- MR. LYKOS: I just wanted to make sure they could actually sub out to another company outside of their own, versus having their own employees. MR. OSSORIO: As long as that sub is licensed and insurance and has proper insurance, yes. MR. NEALE: Yeah, it has to be a licensed sub, just like any other sub, yeah. December 16, 2009 Page 43 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call for a motion, or does staff have a recommendation? MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Talking about -- I'm sorry, I'm here for my other company, but -- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Excuse me. MR. WHITE: Sir, no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Not right now, sorry. I think we've heard enough at the moment. MEMBER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Because the company she's talking about owes my company $2,000 when they closed, so that's -- MR. HORN: I don't think it applies, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At this moment it doesn't apply. MR. WHITE: Well, do we have an objection? Is it appropriate to hear any public input on a license application? I think that's the question. MR. NEALE: I think the board -- basically the board has the ability to hear evidence presented that would be relevant to the application. MR. WHITE: If it's something that doesn't appear on a personal credit report and that is something we're entitled to give weight to, then Mr. Chairman, I'd be interested in having the gentleman sworn and hear what he has to say. MS. GRANT: If he has -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I just don't want to break the protocol here. Because I think it would become -- if there's something to do with dollars and cents of one company owes another one, wouldn't it become a civil matter and not a licensing fact? MS. GRANT: Right. December 16, 2009 Page 44 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Am I right there, Mr. Neale, or not? Or is that type of testimony something that we need to hear or don't need to hear? MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm getting the effect that that's what it's about. MS. GRANT: And if it's about International Carpet and Blinds, I was not an owner or officer of that company, so I don't see how that would affect me. But that's your opinion. MR. WHITE: Technically, Mr. Grant, that's not on the record, because I haven't heard what he said because it wasn't sworn, nor did he say it at the podium. So I just want to get it on the record, get it cleaned up, and if there's, quote, an issue about due process, to me I'd rather err on the side of hearing something that I may discuss with you -- the board may discuss later and come to the conclusion it's not relevant. But I don't know at this point. MR. NEALE: I'm just looking at the ordinance, sort of a case of first impression here. So where's out -- the ordinance specifically says that if an applicant proposes to engage in contracting as a partnership, corporation, business trust or other legal entity, the application shall apply through a qualifying agent and comply with all requirements and responsibilities contained in Florida statutes. Any business organization desiring a certificate of competency in Collier County shall submit the following information on forms provided by the Collier County Contractor Licensing supervisor. Organization name, et cetera, copy of the certificate of incorporation, list of all contracting businesses owned in the last five years, credit report. If the business organization has been less than a year, credit report on every business organization in which the applicant/qualifier was an agent is required. A list of all outstanding debts related to the business organization's contracting business which the business organization has not paid or refuses to pay and a statement of the December 16, 2009 Page 45 reasons for nonpayment. Signature of an authorized officer. The qualifier information: Name, date of birth, certificate of competency. Complete list of all outstanding debts related to the qualifying agent's contracting business which the qualifying agent has not paid or refuses to pay and a statement of the reasons for nonpayment. The only thing really is these are all statements to be presented. There's really nothing in the ordinance that provides for third-party testimony. It's really the testimony is from the applicant and the application as provided. So I don't see any provision for third-party testimony. The only provision would be if they were seeking licensure as a new application and they are looking to waive testing requirements, then the board can review other evidence presented at the hearing as far as waiving testing requirements. But as far as a straight application for qualifying an entity that exists with a qualifier that's already licensed, I don't see the provision for a third-party testimony. MR. WHITE: Nor is there any preclusion -- MR. NEALE: And plus this is not an open public hearing, so there's no opportunity for the applicant to prepare -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm going to deny the fact -- MR. NEALE: -- for testimony. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- of what you're asking for at the moment. Just to keep protocol the same. I don't think we want to get into something of this nature right now. Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Question 5-E of the application to qualify second entity says, do the business or businesses you presently qualify and/or wish to qualify have any outstanding liens against them or against the property of consumers as a result of construction work or a contract they had with your firm. So if -- and Ms. Grant has testified that the answer is no. So unless there's any proof of a lien existing on a property of a consumer December 16, 2009 Page 46 or on that business, whether somebody comes up here and says I'm owed money doesn't mean anything, because this specifically says liens on a consumer's property or on the business. So without any legal documentation, it's irrelevant. MR. WHITE: See, I didn't hear what he said so I don't know what he was going to say. MR. NEALE: And this is all under -- everything on this application is under oath and under penalty of perjury, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. HORN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And we're allowed to hear hearsay, but we can't open it to a third party -- MR. NEALE: Well, you can hear hearsay in a regular public hearing. These are not public hearings. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. WHITE: I appreciate the information and clarification. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, with that said, any other discussion, or is there a motion? MR. BOYD: I move we approve. Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion to approve. MR. WHITE: I'd second, with a request to condition that approval upon it not becoming effective until the staff has received and filed a letter withdrawing the qualification of International Carpet and Blinds, Incorporated. MR. BOYD: I'll amend my motion to say what you said. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. December 16, 2009 Page 47 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Approved 5-2. MS. GRANT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. Don't forget the letter immediately. MS. GRANT: I'll bring it back this afternoon. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Okay, we're looking for going to old business. Sonia M. Pajaro, are you here? Come to this podium, be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ms. Pajaro, you were before us I guess some time ago. MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you were required to bring back before us another credit report, correct? MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Showing that you have made efforts to try to straighten some of it out. MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Members of the board, have you taken a look at the credit report to see if there's any changes or anything question-wise you want to ask this young lady? MR. LYKOS: Well, we don't have her old credit report so we can't compare it to what it was at the time that we gave her, her probationary license. But I do see a release of judgment in here and a settlement December 16, 2009 Page 48 stipulation, so obviously she's making a concerted effort to clean up her credit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Neale, could you bring back what was in the hearing when we reviewed this case? I believe she was on a six-month probation; is that correct? MR. NEALE: Yes, she was. MR. OSSORIO: It was back on May 20th. MR. NEALE: May, okay. MR. OSSORIO: My notes are probationary period for six months, needs to return to CLB in six months for review of license. To provide a new credit report to the CLB upon review of the license at the above mentioned CLB meeting. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: Yeah, six-month probationary, credit report six months from the date of the hearing. At that board (sic) the board has three -- at this point the board has three options: Whether to get an unrestricted license, deny further licensure or extend the probationary period. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm just -- as looking through it, I have gone through this already and I see where you've got $1,397 paid off and a release on it. Also, this must be a stipulation of some type of a settlement agreement? MS. PAJARO: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: For a $4,000 debt, thereabouts? MS. PAJARO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Which you've entered into a stipulation to try to make payments to pay this off? MS. PAJARO: Exactly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And then also one last one that apparently appears to be a -- your attorney's applying for you for a notice of appearance. MS. PAJARO: Right, right. We're working on several one of December 16, 2009 Page 49 them. That one, I want to say that they wanted a settlement and I didn't agree with it, and my attorney is still working on it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Pleasure of the board? I would -- I'd recommend that we just continue the probation for another six-month period and see if this credit application just continues to be reduced and we move along. MR. WHITE: If that's a motion, Mr. Chairman, I'd second it with one additional requirement, that we get a copy of this credit report attached in the one attached to what we get six months from now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll amend my motion. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Michael, you can do that? MR. OSSORIO: Makes sense to me. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, thank you. MR. LYKOS: How about one more amendment to that before we move on to call the vote. The -- there's one stipulation for settlement in here that the payments have to be made on a monthly basis. Of course we want to confirm that those payments are being made. Because something could happen right before she appears before us, and we wouldn't know that the payments weren't being made. So I'd like confirmation of the fact that any of the settlements that include regular payments, that those payments are being made. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll amend my motion to say that. MR. WHITE: Second. And I'm assuming those are paid by check? MS. PAJARO: Money orders. MR. WHITE: You could provide copies of those? MS. PAJARO: Sure. MR. WHITE: That would be -- I'd request that as a form of December 16, 2009 Page 50 proof. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle, do you have -- MR. LANTZ: I just have a question again towards Michael. To me her credit report looks pretty good. I'm wondering what the number is. If someone were to come in with a new application, what the number is where we'd come to the board as opposed to just automatically being approved. MR. OSSORIO: There is no finite number. If the applicant -- if the applicant -- this is in general terms. If the applicant is seeking a license, a certificate, and the business has been open for 12 months, I weigh heavily on the business application. If it's less than 12 months and the credit appears to be related to a housing issue or a medical issue, I don't weigh too heavy on those. But if it's a credit card issue, not paying your debts and your credit card bills or other items, then I refer those to the licensing board. On this particular case if this applicant was just applying for a license with no 12 months with a business, I probably would refer this back to the board in the first place. So we're back to where we started. MR. LANTZ: Okay. I'm happy. MR. OSSORIO: If that makes any sense. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, I've got a motion with its amendments. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: No. I'll call for the vote. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. December 16, 2009 Page 51 MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries unanimous. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we take a break for a few minutes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. You're all set. MS. PAJARO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Another six months, come back, okay? MS. PAJARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And don't forget to bring some of the paperwork back that we need that -- MS. PAJARO: Okay. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- canceled checks to be making those payments and then you'll be good to go. MS. PAJARO: Thank you, I'll do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. All right, we'll take a short what, 15 minutes? Okay, and we'll be back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call back to order the Contractor Licensing Board meeting of December 16th, 2009. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing. Hearing No. 2009-11, Patrick H. Atchison, d/b/a Patrick H. Atchison Carpentry, Inc. Are you present? MR. ATCHISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Would you please come up to the podium to be sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn). CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Before we get started, Mr. Ian Jackson, you're already sworn in, correct? MR. JACKSON: Yes. December 16, 2009 Page 52 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Before we get started, I'm just going to give an insight, because we have two other cases, and I'll say this one time, that way I can just read it once for you so you all understand what's going on here. Are the other two respondents here for the other two cases? Okay, just so you have an idea. The hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in the Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, and the 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 or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. But all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a 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 a finding unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in civil actions in court. The rules and privileges 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 witness before the board. Each party to the proceedings 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 rebut any evidence presented against the party. The chair person shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in full, fair and impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum. December 16, 2009 Page 53 The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an opening statement where it sets out charges and in general terms how it intends to prove them. Respondent then makes his or her opening statements, setting out in general terms the defenses to these charges. The county then presents its case in chief, calling witnesses and presenting evidence. The respondent may cross-examine these witnesses. Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent puts on his or her defense. They may call witnesses and do all things described earlier; that is, call and examine witnesses, introduce exhibits, cross-examine witnesses to impeach any witness, regardless of which party called the witness to testify, interview 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 and the county getting a second chance to rebut after the respondent's closing argument. The board then closes public hearing and begins deliberations. Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will give them a charge, much like a charge to a jury, setting out the parameters on which they base 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 offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on this matter. If the respondent is found guilty, then the board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. The board attorney at this point will advise the board of the sanctions which may be imposed and the factors to consider. The board will discuss sanctions and take a vote on those. December 16, 2009 Page 54 After the two matters are decided, the Chair, or in his absence the vice chair, will read a summary to the order to be issued by the board. This summary will set out basic outline of the order but will not be exactly the same language as the final order. The final order will include the full details required under state law and procedure. With that being understood, Case No. 2009-111, Board of County Commissioners County (sic), Florida, versus Patrick H. Atchison, d/b/a Patrick Atchison Carpentry, Inc. License No. 21277. Mr. Atchison, you are charged with Count I, 4.1.2, contracting to do any work outside of the scope of his or her competency as listed on his or her competency card and as defined in this ordinance or as restricted to the Contractor Licensing Board. With that said, Mr. Jackson, would you like to open with your opening statements, please. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing, Collier County. I would first ask that that packet be entered into evidence. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a motion to do so. MR. LYKOS: So moved, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And a second? MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second that this packet be entered into -- Case No. 2009-11 into evidence. All signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? December 16, 2009 Page 55 (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries unanimous. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. MR. JACKSON: As said, we're dealing with a contractor working out of the scope of his or her license. And the county will show that Mr. Atchison contracted, performed and was compensated for roofing as a carpentry contractor, which is of course prohibited. Thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You're welcome. Mr. Atchison, do you have an opening statement regarding your complaint? MR. ATCHISON: Well, they -- it started out as doing a favor for a friend and thought I was doing him a favor. They said they needed some plywood replaced on a roof because it was all rotted out. And I talked to the people the first time and I said, well, why don't you have -- you know, they said they had other roofers that repaired their roof. And I said, well, what's the time limit on that? And they said it was still under warranty. And I said, well, you need to contact them again. And two weeks later they called me back up and said that they wanted me to come out and replace some plywood that was rotted. So I told them, well, you know, I would do it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So under testimony of oath, then you are admitting to the charge that you were guilty of the charge, that you did the work? MR. ATCHISON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Jackson, you want to begin your producing of the case? MR. JACKSON: Well, with what has just transpired, I'll try to make it as efficient as possible. Page E.4 in the evidence packet is the written contract showing December 16, 2009 Page 56 explicitly roof, showing a payment of $1,100. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: On that note, I have just one last question. In the -- with maybe a civil premium. But was the contract paid in full, or do we know that? MR. JACKSON: The $2,500 contract I believe was amended, and I think that amendment is on E.5, to exclude some work on a door that was supposed to be done. That was a deduction of 200, which would have brought the contract to 2,300. So to answer your question, the complete price of the contract was not paid. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Was not -- the final end of the final amount. MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Continue. MR. JACKSON: I'd like to point out on E.7 we have the definition from the Collier County Ordinance of what a roofing contractor can perform. And E.8, showing what a carpentry contractor can perform, to clarify who's responsible for certain aspects of roof work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. MR. JACKSON: And I will rest at that and be happy to answer any questions that the board may have. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. White. MR. WHITE: Looking to the scope of work under both roofing and carpentry, can you give me your assessment of whether the removal of roofing materials is covered under either/or one -- or either/or both of those somehow? What I'm trying to get to, Mr. Jackson, is it unlicensed under a carpentry designation to remove roofing materials? Because I don't see it as part of roofing, so I'm just looking for some clarification. Trying to break this down into pieces. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. White, to answer your question, not related December 16, 2009 Page 57 to this issue, the act of working on a roof and removing the roofing items is considered a roofing job. And we look at what he contracted to do and we look at what a carpentry company can do. In other words, if it's a flat deck, it's a roof and there's some sheathing issues, typically what ends up happening is that if the carpentry contractor was removing some of the roofing material and replacing the sheathing and then that job was completed, he gets paid for that work. And then the roofing company puts the flat deck on. That obviously didn't happen here. He did the A to B to C and finished and contracted and got paid for (sic) compensated for it. So I would answer your question is we look at all those items. But the act of carpentry is replacing the sheathing. The act of roofing is repairing the roof and/or maintaining the roof. MR. WHITE: I appreciate the clarification, thank you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: By the pictures, Mr. Ossorio, where there actually was no sheeting (sic) or any roofing materials removed that don't show in the pictures. Is that true? MR. OSSORIO: If you look at E.9, and maybe Mr. Jackson will be able to elaborate a little more, that is the finished product of what Mr. Atchison did. So obviously he took some sheathing and replaced some sheathing, whatever it is, and the price of 1,100, and put the roofing material back on. The 90-pound whatever it is, a roll on, and then put the bricks on top to secure it. And you can look at E.10, and that when a licensed company went in after and repaired it. Now, the county's not seeking for any restitution, because the homeowner's really not affected by it because the homeowner didn't finish the contract and the roofing company went out there and did the roof at no charge. So there is no -- we don't need to hear testimony on that particular item. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Jerulle? December 16, 2009 Page 58 MR. JERULLE: Safe to say that no permit was ever pulled, no demolition permit, no roofing permit? MR. JACKSON: That is accurate, no permit. MR. WHITE: You're saying by Mr. Atchison. But did Affordable? MR. JACKSON: To my knowledge Affordable did the roof repair without a permit. Now, whether there was one required for that extent of a repair, I don't believe there was. MR. OSSORIO: Now, everyone knows about -- and I'm not going to elaborate, but everyone knows on a detached single-family home if it's under $1,500, then it's not -- obviously then it would be exempt, no permit is required. And we're trying to follow the same premise with this. Obviously this took place prior to the new ordinance that came into effect. But it's one of the things we'll be talking to the homeowner about. But that is a homeowner's issue, because the homeowner hired an unlicensed contractor and the homeowner bears the responsibility of getting a building permit. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Atchison, do you have anything you want to ask, or question the case against you on? MR. ATCHISON: I just have the pictures of when I did pull the materials off and replaced it with the plywood. There was several very rotted areas. And that's basically what I was -- you know, told them I would do and put the roll roofing back on the way it was. And when -- like there was a door issue. The reason I told her she didn't need the door is because the door and the jam was a solid aluminum. There was no damage to the door. I tried to explain that to her. And she -- because the door didn't -- the little window in the door didn't slide right, she wanted a new door, so -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I don't believe that the door is really an issue at the moment. MR. ATCHISON: No, not really. But, I mean, they wanted me to do it. I asked them to go to their roofing company in the first place. December 16, 2009 Page 59 And I don't know what the reason was, but she called me back and said that she wanted me to do it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Are you aware, Mr. Atchison, of what your license allows you to do as a carpenter? MR. ATCHISON: I am now. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You weren't then? MR. ATCHISON: Well, I thought because I was working with the wood that I was under my, you know, realm of work, doing carpentry work. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think like Mr. Ossorio said, if it was only the plywood, you'd have been all right. But when you went into the tarpaper, that's what got you. MR. ATCHISON: Yeah. Well, I wasn't that much on the law, I guess. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions of the board? (No response.) MR. JERULLE: Michael, did he have to take the business exam when he received his carpentry license? MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, he took the trades test and he also took the business procedure test. MR. JERULLE: Mr. Atchison, do you know what date that was when you took that test? MR. ATCHISON: Maybe four or five years ago. MR. JERULLE: Do you remember everything in the test or in the exam? MR. ATCHISON: I mean, at that time I probably did. I'm a carpenter, I'm not really that much on law. I know better now. MR. LYKOS: Motion to close the public hearing. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on that? Any further questions? December 16, 2009 Page 60 (No response.) MR. HORN: Do we need to hear closing statements or no? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. We'll hold on the motion just for one second. Mr. Jackson, would you like to give a closing statement first? MR. JACKSON: I'll make a brief closing. Again, E.4 is fairly explicit as to what was contracted for, what was compensated for and what was performed, which is clearly out of the scope of a carpentry contractor. And with that, I'll conclude my closing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Atchison, do you have any closing statements you'd like to say? MR. ATCHISON: All I can do is apologize and I'm not going to do anything again other than what I do as a trim carpenter. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I have a motion and a second on the floor to close the public hearing. Any other discussion on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Public hearing is closed. At this point the board will go into deliberation. MR. NEALE: Let me just lead off here. And what I propose we December 16, 2009 Page 61 do, since we have three hearings today and short circuit things, most of the charge to the board will apply to all of the hearings, with the exception that the charges that the board is to consider will be different in each of the hearings. So in the sake of time, instead of going through this whole charge on every hearing, I request that the board allow me to just go through it this one time and then if you have questions on other areas, just go ahead. So if that's okay with the board, I'd -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sounds perfect to me. MR. NEALE: In this matter the board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded to the respondent. However, pursuant to Section 22-202.G.5 of the Collier County Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in the Florida Statutes shall not apply. The board in this matter shall consider solely evidence presented at the hearing in the consideration of this matter and shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony, as Mr. Joslin spoke of earlier. It shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct of their affairs. And this is whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a court of law or equity. Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement other evidence, but by itself is not sufficient to support a finding in this or any other case, unless it would be admissible over objection in a civil court of law or equity. The standard of proof in this case where the respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the complainant, in this case, Board of County Commissioners, must proof the complaint's case in a clear and convincing manner. This burden of proof on the complainant is a heavier burden than the preponderance of evidence standards set out in standard civil cases. The standard and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the December 16, 2009 Page 62 charges set out in the complaint as the Collier County Ordinance Section 4.1.2 and as set out in the complaint, which is contracting to do any work outside the scope of his or her competency, as listed on his or her competency card, and as defined in this ordinance or as restricted by the Contractors Licensing Board. In order to support a finding that the violation -- that the respondent is in violation of the ordinance, the board must find facts to show the violations were actually committed by the respondent. The facts must show to a clear and convincing standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of the relevant section. These charges are the only ones that the board may decide upon, as those are the only ones to which the respondent had the opportunity to prepare a defense. And any damages awarded must be related to those charges. The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this hearing and is effective upon being read. The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, as set out in the Collier County Ordinance and in the Florida Statutes and Rules. If the board for some reason is unable to issue a decision immediately following the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a nature that the decision may not be made at this hearing, the board may withhold its decision until a subsequent hearing. The board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation, adopt the Administrative Complaint. The board shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the charges set out in the complaint. The board now will enter into deliberation on the liability phase. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. First point of order would be to December 16, 2009 Page 63 determine if the gentleman, Mr. Atchison, is guilty. MR. LYKOS: Based on his own admission, guilty. I make a motion that we find the respondent guilty. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. LANTZ: I second it. Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And I have a second for the guilty factor of Count I. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Mr. Atchison, you have been found guilty of Count I. Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yes. Since the board found the respondent in violation of the Collier County Ordinance, it now has to decide on sanctions to be imposed. The sanctions available to be administered in this matter are set out in Section 22-203.B.1 of the ordinance, or Section 4.3.5. The sanctions which may be imposed include: Revocation of the Certificate of Competency; suspension of Certificate of Competency; denial of issuance or renewal of the Certificate of Competency; a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the contractor's licensing -- contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the board and/or participation in a duly accredited program of continuing education. Probation may be December 16, 2009 Page 64 revoked for cause by the board at a hearing noticed to consider such purpose. Restitution may be ordered. A fine not to exceed $10,000 per incident may be imposed. A public reprimand may be issued. A reexamination requirement may be imposed. Denial of the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of the permits with conditions. And an award of reasonable legal and investigative costs. In imposing these sanctions, the board shall consider certain factors: One being the gravity of the violations; second, the impact of the violation; third, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; four, any previous violations committed by the violator; and any other evidence presented at the hearing by the parties that is relevant as to the sanction that is appropriate for the case, given the nature of the offense. The board shall also issue a recommended penalty for the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. The penalties that may be recommended may include: A recommendation for no further action; a recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the registration; or a fine to be levied by the State Construction Licensing Board. Now the board should deliberate on sanctions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, any recommendations? Any recommendations from staff? MR. JACKSON: County has a recommendation. A civil penalty or a fine of $2,000; investigative costs of $750; one-year probation; and the civil penalty and investigative costs paid within 10 days or revocation of license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any more comments from the board members? Kyle, sorry. MR. LANTZ: I would like to say I agree with most of that. However, Mr. Atchison flat out admitted many times that he's not familiar with the laws that govern his license, so I think we have to add something in there, either continuing ed. or -- December 16, 2009 Page 65 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Retest. MR. LANTZ: -- retest or something to that effect to familiarize him with it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: At least with the trade test anyway, right? MR. LANTZ: I don't know which test tells you what you can do and what you can't do. I don't -- MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, from what we've heard from the defendant, I think there's a need for both tests to be redone, for his safety and the consumers. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Julie (sic). MR. JERULLE: Mr. Jackson, you came up with $2,000 plus 750 is what you're recommending? MR. JACKSON: 750 investigative cost. MR. JERULLE: May I ask how you arrived at the $2,000? Just a number you came up -- now I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm just asking. MR. JACKSON: Understood. MR. OSSORIO: The maximum fine is 10,000, and we took that and divided it up, you know, four or five different ways, and it came to A, he's present here, B, he admitted that he did wrong. But then again, there was a complainant involved. And so therefore it was a $2,000 fine. That's how we came up with it. It wasn't a number we sat around and threw around, it was a number that we did from -- we started from 10,000 and we worked our way down to 2,000. MR. JERULLE: Because personally I like the probation and I like the continuing ed. I agree with the fine. I'm not sure I'm at $2,000. And I agree with the reimbursement for the investigative costs. And I would also -- I don't think there's any action needed to the state. MR. JACKSON: Correct. December 16, 2009 Page 66 MR. JERULLE: And I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I don't feel that there is, and I didn't remember you saying that. MR. JACKSON: I did not. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What's your -- MR. OSSORIO: Just be ware that if we did notify the state, there could be some serious issues for him in the future. This is a Tier 2 license in the State of Florida, a roofing contractor. If we did turn this over to the state, there could be some serious issues for him in the future. MR. JERULLE: May I ask a question? Have you had any citations -- MR. ATCHISON: No, sir. MR. JERULLE: -- previously to this? I get the impression that he's a good guy that made a mistake. And, you know, personally I would like to see a smaller fine. MR. WHITE: Would you be okay with a public reprimand and paying the administrative investigatory costs? MR. JERULLE: That's a good question. I'll think about that while we're discussing this. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I honestly think there is a fine involved. There is a fine due, I mean, just for the fact that it is a Tier 2 contractor. And I think that's something that we need to address for sure. Maybe not to the point of the $2,000, but some type of a suitable fine. There could have been some serious issues with this if it had gone further, no doubt. And he should know better. He's been in business here a long time. But he made a mistake. I would go along with more on the $1,500 range. Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: I agree with Mr. Jerulle, I think $2,000 plus 750 investigative costs, that's too much for the offense. I'll throw out for discussion a $750 fine, then you have 750 in investigative costs, that's December 16, 2009 Page 67 $1,500. That's more money than he even got as a deposit on the job. He never got the balance of the contract. So you're looking at $1,500 out of pocket. Plus I agree with Mr. Lantz, business and law test and the trade test. It's going to take him some time and cost him some money to recover from this. That's my recommendation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, I disagree. I don't think we're here to make a -- we're here to help someone out because they did something wrong. MR. WHITE: I started from the point of view, Mr. Chairman, that a public reprimand probably was appropriate. So I'm not adverse to the suggestion of a $750 fine. I think the thing I'd like to know is I'm assuming that he had to pay for the materials as well, so he's out of pocket for those too, you know. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I'm one usually who is into a lower fine than a higher fine. And I think this is a case of a good guy who's -- from what he said, he's a trim carpenter by trade, got offered to do work that was probably more than he should have done. Probably being on the roof fixing the sheathing if he's a trim carpenter by trade is probably pushing the limits, and then when you add the roofing on top is really pushing the limits. Jobs are tight right now, people are taking whatever they can get. And I think he's one of half the people in Collier County who are in the same situation. That being said, I understand where he's coming from and I think he's a pretty good -- seems like a pretty good guy from what I've known him from the last five minutes. But I think there should be some kind of deterrent on there, because he's one of many who do the same thing. And if he gets away with just an investigative fee and no fine, then there's no deterrent for the next guy. December 16, 2009 Page 68 I mean, take a look at Craig's List. You know, all you see is I'll build your house for you for nothing. And I think if there's no deterrent, then there's no reason for somebody else to -- there's no reason for somebody to make the right choice. And that's why I feel it should be a -- I'm happy with the $2,000 fine. It could be a little bit lower, but far from a public reprimand. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any further discussion? Any other ideas? MR. BOYD: I personally like the 750, 750 and continuing education. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do you think that's enough for a determent to stop someone from doing it again? MR. BOYD: Hopefully. But we've had people that come in here before and didn't even admit they did anything wrong and we've let them off with less. MR. WHITE: There's two kinds of deterrents. There's a specific deterrent to this individual and then there's a general deterrent. I don't think if we imposed a $10,000 fine on this gentleman that it would deter generally other folks who would seek to try and subvert, get past the rules. To me the specific deterrent here I think is the thing I'm comfortable with, the 750. The gravity of the violation, the means by which it was resolved, the impact on the consumer, who are not here to complain. The fact that they were stated to be friends, that he tried to get them to do the right thing, the fact that he has admitted to the wrong doing, to me all in combination with the fact that there's no prior violations, makes me feel that this specific deterrent of 750 is adequate. And it's almost Christmas. MR. LYKOS: Well, that's not relevant. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, sometimes it is. For Christmas people it's revellent (sic). I need some kind of a motion then. Let's put it before a motion, December 16, 2009 Page 69 let's see what happens. Sounds like we have a kind of meeting of the minds with the 750 -- MR. LYKOS: Well, we have a 750. MR. JERULLE: I'm still thinking. I'm still listening. MR. LYKOS: I think we may have a little more work to do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: A little bit more in the center. MR. LYKOS: Before we call a vote, yeah. MR. WHITE: I'd make the motion, Mr. Chairman, that we -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, be careful now, because it might fail. See, we don't want to do that either. MR. NEALE: Well, that's okay. MR. LYKOS: Yeah, the motion could fail. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. NEALE: Yeah, that's not an issue. MR. WHITE: They don't cost anything, as far as I know. I make a motion that based on the finding of guilt, that a fine of $750 be imposed; the investigative cost of $750 be levied as well, both to be paid within 10 days; that within I would say 90 days to take and complete the business and law, as well as the carpentry trade exams and pass them both; and that there be no action taken with respect to the State CILB. MR. HORN: Probation? MR. WHITE: And probation until such time as the law and trade exam are passed? Was that the staff recommendation, or was it for longer? MR. JACKSON: 12-month probationary period was the recommendation. MR. WHITE: I'd agree to a 12-month probationary as part of the motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And the time span for the fine and the investigative cost to pay -- MR. WHITE: I believe the recommendation is 10 days to have December 16, 2009 Page 70 them paid. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Ten days. And also take the business law within 90 days. MR. WHITE: And pass. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And pass the test. MR. HORN: And the carpentry? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, the carpentry -- MR. HORN: Trade exams. MR. WHITE: Business law. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And complete the carpentry test with business and law. MR. WHITE: Agreed, yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a motion. MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Everyone understands that motion? I have a second from Mr. Boyd. Any further discussion? Mr. Jerulle? MR. JERULLE: No, I'm good. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Then I'll call for the vote. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just want to clarify the motion one last time. Fine of 750. Cost of 750. Business test and December 16, 2009 Page 71 trade test passed within 90 days. 12-month probationary period. Pay the fine and the cost within 10 days. There was no penalty if it's not paid within 10 days, I believe, in the motion. MR. WHITE: I think that the traditional way I've understood these motions is that his license would be revoked if not paid within 10 days. MR. JACKSON: Thank you. And no recommendation to the state. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Or it could be suspended until paid. MR. NEALE: Well, you need to -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's just a toss-out. MR. NEALE: Yeah, but that needs to be part of the motion. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Which one would you rather have, is it revoked if he doesn't pay it within 10 days or is it suspended until it is paid? MR. WHITE: Would I have the ability to ask the violator, the respondent, if he can pay it within 10 days. MR. NEALE: Certainly. MR. ATCHISON: No, sir. MR. WHITE: No, sir? MR. ATCHISON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, that's the reason why I asked the question. MR. WHITE: Then I would recommend it be suspended until paid. MR. NEALE: Do you want a date certain on -- MR. JERULLE: Can I ask -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there -- okay. I was going to ask, is there one more option we can give him as far as the 10-day time span to pay this? Could it be done over a longer period of time, considering that this is Christmastime. And if we give him 10 days and he can't do December 16, 2009 Page 72 it and his license is suspended, if he does gets more carpentry work then we're still not going to get the dollars and cents through. So would we be advisable to maybe extend the payment time just a shade longer? MR. NEALE: The board has -- MR. LYKOS: Passed a motion. MR. NEALE: Well, has passed a motion. But the board can -- either the motion or the seconder can request that the motion be reopened and that it can be voted upon again. So what I would say is that the board in the past has used broad latitude in deciding how long someone has to pay a fine. It's been everything from 10 days to multiple months, depending on the size of the fine and the circumstances of each individual case. So I think the board has broad latitude in deciding when the terminal date is for the fine. MR. JERULLE: So a motion to reopen the motion? MR. NEALE: Uh-hum. MR. LYKOS: Second, Lykos. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second to reopen the motion on the floor. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, let's revisit. MR. WHITE: May I inquire of the respondent, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure. December 16, 2009 Page 73 MR. WHITE: Mr. Atchison, you've heard the dialogue and discussion here. Can you help us out? The thing I'd like to focus on is making sure that the first $750 for the county's cost be reimbursed as soon as possible. That's my personal preference. I don't know how the other board members feel. But in answering the question on your ability to pay this over time, I'd ask you to keep that in mind. MR. ATCHISON: Well, right now I'm not working, and the people that I do work for, I don't foresee anything for the next two months anyway. My wife is working, I'm not. You know, the -- the amount of problems here is I thought maybe a reprimand would have been fine, because I'm -- I know I did wrong now. I just can't afford it right now. MR. LANTZ: I would be happy with six months. But that's just me. MR. JERULLE: For both or -- MR. LANTZ: For the total fine to be paid within six months. He still has to pay to take the test, I believe, right? That's not free, right? MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. LYKOS: That's correct. MR. WHITE: And he is otherwise on probation. If it's not paid, then theoretically we would have the case back before us again within, say, seven months for failure to have paid. MR. JERULLE: I do like your idea, though, of having him reimburse the county as soon as possible. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Jackson, go ahead. MR. JACKSON: We've had previous cases where fines upwards in the amount of the -- approaching the $10,000 range being required to be paid within 60 days, for what that's worth. MR. JERULLE: And those are from -- MR. JACKSON: Different companies. MR. JERULLE: -- contractors that -- December 16, 2009 Page 74 MR. JACKSON: Different violations. MR. JERULLE: -- do a larger amount -- MR. JACKSON: Certainly. MR. JERULLE: -- or a larger volume -- MR. JACKSON: Certainly. MR. JERULLE: -- of work than a single carpenter does, so -- MR. NEALE: The board has also provided for payment plans on fines in the past, too, so -- MR. LANTZ: That's a good point. MR. ATCHISON: If I could say one thing? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's hear what you have to say, sure. MR. ATCHISON: Mr. Jackson -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What could you do? MR. ATCHISON: -- you know, when I talked to you -- MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. ATCHISON: -- and you told me that there's a lot of people that got into situations like this and you told me that it could be a wrist slap, because they've had some like that. And I didn't think it was that strong that what I did to cause me, you know, $2,000, basically. Because it's $1,500 you're asking for this and then my schooling, the time off. I was I felt a little misled. MR. JACKSON: May I address that? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Sure, Mr. Jackson. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Atchison, I don't think I would have ever used the word wrist slap. MR. ATCHISON: I'm sorry, you did. MR. JACKSON: I covered what the potential penalty from the board could be, which is stated on the notice of hearing that you were issued, which at the lowest level would have been an oral reprimand, which you could consider a wrist slap. And then worst case scenario, revocation of your license and monetary fines. And I know I covered that. Thank you. December 16, 2009 Page 75 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Two comments. First, Mr. Atchison, one of the things that we have to consider is the potential risk to the homeowner. And in doing a roof repair, there's a lot of damage that could occur from an inappropriate repair. Water leaks that could damage the structure and really put the property and the owner at risk. So this is different from not building a fence well. This is -- okay, so we have to consider that. I think you can tell from our conversation that there's really two things we're trying to weigh. One is the gravity of the situation and your ability to pay. Because if we give you a fine that you can't pay then we don't achieve what we're trying to achieve. The other thing is if it's too lenient, then what's to stop you the next time you have a situation arise from doing it again? So we have all those things we're trying to weigh. MR. ATCHISON: I already know what the answer to that is. I wouldn't do it. MR. LYKOS: I understand. But you should have known not to do it the first time. So we have a lot of things we're trying to weigh. And my point is, if we don't ask for your input, don't give it to us. Because at this point I don't think you're helping yourself. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How about we put the time span on 90 days for payment and resolve it? It's paid, it's paid. MR. WHITE: If that's the form of a motion amending the prior vote, I'd second it, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I didn't make the motion but I'm just throwing it out. I think Kyle, did you make the motion originally? MR. WHITE: He had said six months. MR. NEALE: If you have it as a motion and a second, you can continue to discuss it and -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, I'll put it out as a motion then, that December 16, 2009 Page 76 this is a $750 fine and $750 investigative costs to be paid within 90 days; to take the business trade and law test for carpentry within 90 days; 12-month probation; and he be -- license would be then suspended if the payments are not made within these parameters. MR. WHITE: And no action to the state. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And no action to the state. MR. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. Okay, I think you can well see we've leaned over quite a bit from the numbers that we had come up with originally. Appreciate it as a I guess Christmas gift in a sense. Do what you can to try to pay it. If not, try to do something to make payments on it but do something with it. Okay? MR. ATCHISON: All right. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, in the Case No. of 2009-11, License No. 21277, Board of Commissioners, petitioner versus Patrick H. Atchison, d/b/a Patrick Atchison Carpentry, Inc., this cause came on or before public hearing before the Contractor Licensing Board on December 16, 2009 Page 77 December 16th for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against Patrick H. Atchison and d/b/a Patrick Atchison Carpentry, Inc. Service of the complaint was made by certified mail, personal or hand delivered publication in accordance with Collier County Ordinance, 90-105, as amended. The board, having 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 Patrick H. Atchison is the holder of record of Certificate of Competency No. 21277. That the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida is the complainant in this matter. This cause -- whoops. That the allegations as set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.2, contracting to do any work outside the scope of his or her competency as listed on his or her competency card and as defined in this ordinance, or as restricted by the Contractor Licensing Board are found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Conclusions alleged and set out forth (sic) in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I: Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his or her competency as listed on his or her competency card and as defined in this ordinance or as restricted by the Contractor Licensing Board are approved, adopted and incorporated herein to wit: The respondents (sic) violated Section 4.1.2 of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Order of the board: Based on the foregoing finding of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes in Collier County, Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, a majority December 16, 2009 Page 78 vote of the board members present, the respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is ordered by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of board members present at the following disciplinary action, sanction and related orders are hereby imposed upon the holder of contractor Certificate of Competency No. 21277. The sanctions are: $750 fine and $750 investigative cost to be paid within 90 days of today's date; that Mr. Atchison be required to take the business and trade test for carpentry license within 90 days of today's date; he be placed on a 12-month probationary period; and that no further action with the state be imposed. And that's so ordered. And we'll move right along to the next case. I need Mr. Daniel Sago (sic), d/b/a Magic Flooring (sic) Finishing, LLC. Case No. 2009-14. Against license No. 31305. I need to motion to enter this packet into evidence, please. MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I need a second. MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Saro, you've been charged with Administrative Complaint Count I of 4.1.6, you disregard or violates in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance or Workmen's Compensation laws of the State of Florida or ordinances of this county. December 16, 2009 Page 79 I'll open the case with Mr. Jackson, you're going to present this one also? MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. JACKSON: For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor Licensing for Collier County. My opening statement: You'll hear testimony showing that Mr. Saro had violated the Workers' Compensation laws by recruiting an individual to assist him in his contracting business without providing the required Workers' Compensation coverage. And that will conclude my opening. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. Mr. Saro, would you like to give an opening statement, please. MR. SARO: I had a repair job on actually removal of old flooring, and because of the times and I'm just working with my colleague. I needed someone to help me to remove it because of the time frame we had for the job. And I asked my friend to advise me somebody who can help removal. So I did. He help me actually with the removal. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So according to the charge that was presented against you, you hired someone and then didn't have any Workmen's Comp insurance on him; is that correct? MR. SARO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: And you're admitting to that charge? MR. SARO: I do. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Jackson, do you have anything further you'd like to add or continue with the case, please. MR. JACKSON: Again, I'll try to make this as brief as possible, considering where we are now. Mr. Saro provided a written statement that was included in your packet, explaining what had happened. December 16, 2009 Page 80 Again, on October 14th, I met with Daniel Saro at the job site where he had an employee working, utilizing electric chipping equipment and of course no Workers' Comp coverage for this individual. I had previously met with Mr. Saro with the same issue which was, forgive me, March of -- no, December of 2008, where he was issued a citation for the same violation by Allen Kennette. MR. SARO: I'm sorry, I did not meet you then. MR. JACKSON: I'm sorry? MR. SARO: You said you met with me about it. It wasn't you. MR. JACKSON: That was Mr. Kennette, Investigator Kennette who Mr. Saro met with for a Workers' Comp violation. I'll rest there and answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So through your testimony, this is his second time that he's had the same violation? MR. JACKSON: Second time, to my knowledge. MR. SARO: May I say -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Has there been any other, Mr. Ossorio? MR. OSSORIO: Thank you, Chairman. Ian, I've just got a couple of questions for you. When you were on the job site, Mr. Saro was there; am I correct? MR. JACKSON: Correct. MR. OSSORIO: What did he tell you about the other individual working there? MR. JACKSON: He initially told me that that was his business partner, Peter Campbell, the other managing partner of the LLC who has an active current Workers' Comp exemption through the company. MR. OSSORIO: Was that Mr. Campbell? MR. JACKSON: That was not Mr. Campbell. MR. OSSORIO: No other questions. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Ian, what specifically did you see the two men December 16, 2009 Page 81 doing on the job site? MR. JACKSON: They were utilizing electric chipping hammers removing flooring. MR. LYKOS: Both gentlemen were doing that? MR. JACKSON: Both gentlemen. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead, Mr. Julie (sic). MR. JERULLE: Was a permit required for this work? MR. JACKSON: No, not for this job. MR. JERULLE: Single-family home? MR. JACKSON: Single-family home. Flooring. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So am I hearing the testimony correctly, that when you approached these two gentlemen, that the person that was actually doing the work said that he was someone else? MR. JACKSON: The gentleman that was recruited to help Mr. Saro, initially I was being led to believe that that was Mr. Campbell, the managing partner who also has an exemption. And then when I asked the individual, what's your name, he told me Campbell. And with my previous knowledge of Mr. Saro and Campbell, I knew that wasn't Peter Campbell. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: So he was trying to basically tell you a lie so that he wouldn't be in trouble. And Mr. Campbell would have been okay if it would have been Mr. Campbell. MR. JACKSON: Had that been Mr. Campbell -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We wouldn't be here. MR. JACKSON: -- no issue. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Gotcha. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, I have a question then probably for our attorneys then. Being that that's a false statement to a government official, do we have another criminal issue here to recommend to some other venue? MR. NEALE: That really is within the purview of the staff I think to make that recommendation, if that's the case. But certainly December 16, 2009 Page 82 it's evidence that the board can consider in this matter. Within the bounds of the fact that what you're getting is hearsay. MR. HORN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other questions? Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Just -- you've read the gentleman's statement. In it he says that he not only takes full responsibility, he says he will make sure it will not happen in the future. What confidence do you have in that statement? MR. JACKSON: With the information that I gave Mr. Saro on how not to have this happen again, and I hope my -- I hope it's not blind faith, but I would trust that he would take the information that I gave him and utilize it and not have this happen again. Utilizing day labor organizations when he needs temporary type labor. If we have a certificate from a day labor organization showing coverage, again, no issue. MR. JERULLE: What happened last time he was caught? MR. JACKSON: The initial time, according to the county database, he was issued a citation by Allen Kennette for a Workers' Comp violation, first offense. Second offense is when -- is this offense. Based on the circumstances, it's appropriate to schedule a board hearing for this. MR. WHITE: Do you know under that citation what any of the facts were? And were they, if you do know, somewhat similar to these? For example, it could have been he didn't have insurance or it lapsed or -- MR. JACKSON: I don't know the details to the first case. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. BOYD: I've got a question. According to the history, he was here before us in March of 2008, requesting to qualify a second company, and we approved it. Did we know about this previous? MR. OSSORIO: No. As you can see, if you look at E.5, it says December 16, 2009 Page 83 3/19/2008 went before the board. MR. WHITE: Some six and a half -- or almost six months later he got the citation. MR. OSSORIO: That's right. MR. BOYD: So he has another company he's qualifying. MR. JACKSON: He qualifies two companies, correct. The company that was contracted for this job was Magic Floor Finishing, LLC. MR. WHITE: Do we know as to the December, '08 citation what entity that was? Was it Magic Flooring or was it different, the other qualified entity? MR. OSSORIO: That I can find out in a few minutes for you. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It might be helpful if we know that, probably. Any other questions? MR. WHITE: Not of the staff, no. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Jackson, do you have anything else at the moment? MR. JACKSON: The county rests. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Saro, do you have anything in response as far as the allegations you've heard against you? MR. SARO: I question -- the citation was done on the same company. The thing was, was the person was not working on the job, he was helping me deliver the materials for the job. And when the gentleman, I forgot his name, approached us, he saw the person on the job. But at that time we were really busy, he send me the citation and I just paid it. I didn't really went to Michael or anybody to dispute it, because I just didn't have the time, so I just paid it at that time. But it was in the same company, yes. The other company I qualify has a tile and marble. This is a floor covering. It's wood and carpet and stuff like that, so -- December 16, 2009 Page 84 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: How many people do you have under the marble company? Employees. MR. SARO: It's just in each one I have one partner. Managing partner. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Same partner or different partner? MR. SARO: No, it's different partners. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Different partner. MR. SARO: Um-hum. One is a tile guy, one is a wood guy. And me. I do both. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: So I'm just making assumption here, you have three Workers' Comp exemptions -- MR. SARO: Yes. MR. LANTZ: -- under your license, theoretically? MR. SARO: Yes. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. HORN: Mr. Saro, I just want to make sure, do you understand the reason for having Workmen's Comp insurance, to protect individuals and corporations and why it exists? MR. SARO: Yes, I do. MR. HORN: Okay. I just want to make sure you understand it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'm not so sure he does -- MR. SARO: It what I did not know is -- MR. HORN: It's his second violation. MR. SARO: What I did not know, that I can use laborers, like Ian explained me after the -- so next time I will definitely use the laborers, because it was exactly what I needed it for, just one day help me with the removal of an old flooring. And like you also asked, we really do not need a license for that. So, I mean, I know I am licensed and I was on the job, so I understand that it was my responsibility to get a Workers' Comp on December 16, 2009 Page 85 the gentleman. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. White? MR. WHITE: This is a tough question, okay. Having lied to one public official in a premeditated way, why should I believe that you're now being truthful in your statement that says you'll make sure this won't happen in the future? Especially in light of the fact that there was a violation a year ago of almost the same law. MR. SARO: I did this job for almost four years and I always make sure that the customer and everybody around is happy. And I've been doing my job 100 percent. I can get you hundreds of statements from customers which are happy with my work. I understand that at this time, you know, this one day I did not play by the rules. But I just wish I knew that I could use the laborers and use them, because it's -- you know, right now we are not that busy that I can really hire someone and pay him on a payroll, but the laborers would be really something which I could use sometimes. MR. WHITE: Mr. Saro, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you answered my question. I wasn't asking you about the quality of your work or the satisfaction of your customers, I was asking you about why I should believe you as saying you're going to not have this happen in the future is a truthful statement. You have gone ahead and in a predetermined way, with a laborer you had, told that person what they were supposed to do to try to avoid the law. So why should I believe you are now telling the truth when you've lied intentionally to a public official? We're essentially a volunteer board, public officials. How do I know you're not lying to me today? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The other thing is I can't honestly believe, Mr. White, that he actually didn't know that he couldn't use other laborers. Otherwise there would have been no reason for him to try to tell that man to tell a county official he's somebody else. I mean, he knew or he wouldn't have said that. I mean, he would have just got December 16, 2009 Page 86 flat caught. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I understand your point. The point of my question to you, Mr. Saro, has to do not so much with what I'm pretty certain based on you volunteering that you violated the law that you're charged with breaking, but the actual punishment. So I encourage you to give me the best answer you can muster on the question of why we should believe you today. Because it bears greatly on my sense of what an appropriate level of deterrence is, as well as other aspects of what we would impose as punishment. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just a quick question. I'll give you the history on 12/3 of 2008, Allen Kennette, one of my investigators, I'll read you his report on a quick note. Daniel Saro, qualifier of the company, working at 980 Eighth Avenue South with a third worker, showing no coverage for insurance. Stated that he had it and would show up in our office before 10 days are up or pay ticket and get proper insurance. So obviously he communicated with Mr. Kennette. Mr. Kennette told him he needed Workers' Comp insurance on the individuals, and I guess he stated to Mr. Kennette that unfortunately that I have coverage but it's in the office and I'll return. And obviously he didn't so he paid his ticket within 10 days. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, so it was the same company, it was the same charge. MR. OSSORIO: It appears to be Magic Floor Finishing, LLC, that is correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I think the rest of this is a moot point. The gentleman's already pretty much admitted guilt. So let's move right along. MR. LYKOS: Let's move to closing statements. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Let's get this off the books here. Mr. Jackson, I ask for your closing statements, please. December 16, 2009 Page 87 MR. JACKSON: The county rests. I don't have anymore closing statements. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Mr. Saro, do you have any closing statements that you'd like to add -- MR. SARO: No. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: -- in response? No. Okay, then I'll ask for a motion to close the public hearing. MR. LANTZ: I move we close the public hearing. MR. WHITE: Second, White. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion and second twice. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Close the public hearing. MR. NEALE: As noted before, you know, I've already given the board the normal charge. The offense here is different. It's 4.1.6, disregarding or violating in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers' Compensation laws in the State of Florida or the ordinances of the county. MR. LYKOS: Based on the respondent's admission and the evidence presented, I make a motion we find the respondent guilty. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The motion is he's found guilty. MR. JERULLE: Second. MR. BOYD: Second. December 16, 2009 Page 88 MR. JERULLE: Jerulle. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call for the vote. All those -- signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries. All right. And the same sanctions? MR. NEALE: Yeah, same information as far as sanctions. If you want to ask any questions. MR. BOYD: I've got a technical question for Mr. Neale. How does this affect the other license? MR. HORN: The other company he qualifies? MR. BOYD: Right, the other qualifying entity. MR. NEALE: Well, if his license were suspended, revoked or whatever, both entities go. Because if he's the qualifier for two, he's the licensee on two, he loses his license, they both lose their qualifier. MR. SARO: But they're two different licenses. MR. HORN: I'm sorry? MR. SARO: I think they are two different licenses. One is for flooring covering, one is for marble and tile. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. But what you've done is you've qualified a second entity. In other words, your one license qualifies December 16, 2009 Page 89 the second company, correct? So they both tie together. So if you lose one, you lose the other one. MR. NEALE: What I would suggest to the board, though, is that any sanctions that the board may find that you make sure in the record to refer to whether you want these sanctions to apply to one license or both licenses. Because you have the respondent up here, and while the charges were specific, you do have the person, the respondent here, and it's him that is licensed. And I think you want to refer to one or both licenses in any deliberation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Is there a way to find out relatively quickly which one is the primary and which one is the second? MR. NEALE: As far as? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Or do we know which license was first? MR. NEALE: It -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: It doesn't matter? MR. NEALE: -- really -- I don't think it's relevant. It's just he's licensed in both trades. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. MR. HORN: I have a question actually for Mr. Lykos or Mr. Jerulle. Because as a consumer, you know, hearing both your expertise in past cases. As a contractor when they're not using Workmen's Comp when they should, I just want to make sure I understand this right for the record. That gives them the ability to underbid other contractors, and if something were to happen to one of those individuals not insured, they would have the ability to sue besides the person they're working for, the place they're working and would have obvious financial harm to all parties. I just wanted to make sure that's -- MR. LYKOS: Absolutely. MR. HORN: -- my correct understanding. MR. JERULLE: That's right. That's right. And time limit is not -- whether you're delivering materials or December 16, 2009 Page 90 working on the job, you set foot on that property, the liability starts. MR. HORN: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just -- Mr. Chairman, a question for the staff. To what trade does License No. 31305 relate and apply? MR. JACKSON: We're in the process of getting that information. I believe that is a floor covering license, but I'll be able to verify that in just a minute. MR. WHITE: Thank you. I appreciate you anticipating the question as well. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What are the thoughts from the board as far as -- MR. LYKOS: Well, do we have a recommendation from staff? MR. OSSORIO: If you look -- Mr. White, if you look on E.4. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: I guess have should have reviewed this. But obviously it says floor covering contractor. MR. WHITE: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: And the certificate of 31305. 31305 on your top left. So this is floor covering. MR. WHITE: Uh-huh. My point for the record was I'm not disputing what Mr. Neale said, I just know that we've charged a particular license and licensee with these violations. And although it may have some impact on the other qualifying company, I don't know that it necessarily has an impact on the other license, so I think that's the distinction. MR. NEALE: Yeah, and I think the issue that I'm -- the way I'm approaching it is since the licenses are personal to him and that if he's found in violation as a person then it would impact -- potentially impact both of his licenses, even though only one license is charged under this particular case, I can see arguments on either side, but I think it's the personal nature of the license that I'm looking to here. MR. WHITE: Then I guess the other part of my question to staff December 16, 2009 Page 91 would be as to his other license, what specialty contractor or what contract type of license is that? MR. OSSORIO: Okay, just a quick background. You have a floor covering license and you have a tile and marble license. This gentleman has a floor covering license all by itself. He came to the board some years ago to qualify Royal Floor Covering and CSI Improvement Company under his tile and marble license. And then he came back in front of the board and he qualifies CSI Improvement, LLC for floor covering. So I would say to you that his Royal Flooring Covering and his CSI Improvement for tile and marble are separate. But I would say to you that the Magic Floor Finishing, the floor covering license and the floor covering license he qualifies for CSI Improvement would be relevant. We didn't take his tile and marble license to the board because he was actively laying tile, he was removing tile. And his company at that particular time was Magic Flooring. So there was no charge of working outside the scope of his license, because we did not witness him putting the flooring down. But obviously he's a certified company with our office, he has a worker there, it's Magic Flooring. There's a Workmen's Comp. violation. So therefore this is why his floor covering license is here today. So I would say to you that the only thing we're looking at is his floor license, which would be his CSI and his Magic Flooring Finishing. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: While you're there, what are the recommendations from staff? MR. JACKSON: The county's recommendation is a fine of $2,500 paid within 10 days or a revocation of the license; $250 cost; one-year probation; and business and law passed within 90 days. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, $2,500 fine to be paid within 10 December 16, 2009 Page 92 days. Revocation of the license if not paid? MR. JACKSON: Correct. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: $250 administrative cost. And to pass the business and law. And trade test also, or just business and law? MR. JACKSON: Just the business and law. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Within 90 days. MR. JACKSON: Within 90 days. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: What was the last part? MR. JACKSON: One-year probation. MR. JERULLE: May I ask? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Go ahead. MR. JERULLE: And maybe I didn't hear you. You said 250 or 750? MR. JACKSON: Cost of 250. MR. JERULLE: And the difference between the 250 in this case and the 750 in the other case? MR. JACKSON: I spent three times the amount of work on the previous case as I did on this one. MR. JERULLE: Okay. MR. OSSORIO: There's a difference. Unfortunately the previous case there was a complainant, and we interviewed the complainant at length at the home, in the office, home, office, and so there was a difference in time. MR. JERULLE: Got it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I have a question for staff. I'm just curious because I don't know how it works. But do you guys go to the Division of Workers Comp and do a complaint and file it over to them, or is this something only handled in-house or -- MR. JACKSON: I'll touch on that. MR. LANTZ: -- how does that work? MR. JACKSON: Division of financial services, a state agency December 16, 2009 Page 93 for workers' comp, typically needs to physically see them working on the job site for them to take action. If the people are on a job site and having lunch and they don't have workers' comp coverage, I don't think the state's going to take action. And this has been addressed with the state. If we have a finding from a board such as yourselves showing that they were in violation, would that substantiate a violation at the state level? And they said no, we need to physically see them doing the work. MR. OSSORIO: But the good news is, is that I know they beefed up the Workers' Comp agents. Supposedly we have four in Collier County. And I don't know where they're at, but there's four. And they also have a GPS in their vehicles. So in other words, they need to be out in the field. So I was told by the director of the Workers' Comp agent that you're going to see a big difference within the six months, so we'll see. MR. WHITE: Do you have their cell phone numbers? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, we do. MR. JERULLE: No, they're on my jobs. And they're out. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yeah, I know. They've been on a couple of mine. MR. JERULLE: Which is good. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: Couple of comments on staff's recommendation. Number one, I think the fine is way too low. This is a second offense. The gentleman lied to Mr. Jackson when he arrived at the site. I think those two points are extremely relevant. So I think the fine should be at least $5,000. Number two, the -- this appears to be a business philosophy of this gentleman, not just of this company, because he has more than one business. And I think we need to definitely do something about his other license and the other business. This is about how this man runs his company -- companies. This is not -- I don't think this is just December 16, 2009 Page 94 an isolated incident, I think this is about a business philosophy. So I think we need to address a larger fine and we need to address his other license and the other business entity. MR. JERULLE: I agree. MR. OSSORIO: Well, Mr. Lykos, I will tell you that the fine, we did look at the fine and see if there was any difference. We try to be consistent. I know that previous cases, if it was a second offense I think it was 2,500. And pertaining to the line of what we just said, as my friend Paul Balzano told me years ago, 15 years ago, he said how do you know when a contractor's lying and I said what. And goes, when their lips are moving. So that's not uncommon that -- unfortunately when you go to a job site the first initial when you're communicating with someone is not being truthful. So it happens. I take no offense to it. I understand what Mr. White is saying, but I don't take offense to somebody lying to me. If you did, we couldn't do this job. So we try to be consistent. And that was the nature of the 2,500, it was a previous. If it's a second offense typically it's a $2,500 fine. MR. WHITE: May I comment, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You sure may. MR. WHITE: I'm glad to hear that that statement is made about professionals other than lawyers about their lips moving, number one. This isn't personal with me. I view it as a statement made essentially, although I'm not a public official, per se, to a public body. And I look at the facts which are that a year ago he fabricated a statement about having Workers' Compensation when he knew he did not. Lie number one. When approached in this case he not only had a prefabricated story worked out, he compelled a laborer, quote friend, end quote -- I don't treat my friends that way -- to again tell an untruth to a public official, premeditated. December 16, 2009 Page 95 And the third time today when asked why I should believe what he's telling us in his written statement, there was no adequate answer. So I'm certainly of a mind that in looking at a specific deterrent in this case that $2,500 doesn't come close for me. And to attempt in a written statement to play upon one's generosity of spirit in the Christmas season to me I find inappropriate. So a $5,000 fine to me, we're starting to get warm. But it ain't personal. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Lykos? MR. LYKOS: The other comment I would make, and I asked Mr. Jackson about this earlier, here we have somebody who is not covered by Workman's Comp, who is operating electronic chipping equipment to remove flooring. So not only is somebody not covered by Workers' Comp -- Mr. Saro, did you take the time to train your friend in how to use equipment and how to operate safely in this environment? MR. SARO: Yes. MR. LYKOS: You had training. You taught him how to use this electrical trimming equipment before you allowed him to start doing the work? MR. SARO: Yes. MR. LYKOS: You just didn't have Workers' Comp for him. MR. SARO: Yes. MR. LYKOS: Okay. I guess I should believe that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Absolutely. MR. WHITE: Under oath. MR. LYKOS: So I understand your point, Michael, about being consistent in how we apply penalties, but this one is a little bit more offensive than others. MR. OSSORIO: What I mean I don't take -- I mean, board, you should take personal note that if somebody lies to you. But unfortunately in the licensing field I don't take it personally and that's what I meant. December 16, 2009 Page 96 MR. HORN: If we're only suspending and not revoking, based on what you said, Mr. Lykos, about -- from previous cases I recall we had a gentleman with similar types of problems where we had required them to call in every job to the office, and then obviously they're busy, but on occasion they might show up and check them on the job. That might be a possible part of the solution, if we're not revoking. I just wanted to suggest that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: The motion I believe was revocation. That was the recommendation of staff. MR. HORN: Oh, I understand. MR. LYKOS: We haven't made the motions yet. That's a good point. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Anybody want to take a stab at a motion? MR. WHITE: I'll resist the temptation. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Well, let's see if the dollar and cents factor falls into it then. Does the board agree that the $5,000 is a reasonable fine? MR. WHITE: From my perspective, Mr. Chairman, it has to do to some degree with the time frame that's given to pay it and what happens if it's not paid within that time frame. To his license. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Second point would be then if it does effect the time payment, effects the license, is it going to effect all of his licenses? MR. WHITE: Well, certainly his floor covering license and both of the qualified entities would seem to be the nature of the discussion we've had so far. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: I'll make a motion, unless that's what Terry's hand's up for. December 16, 2009 Page 97 MR. JERULLE: No. May I ask -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: We're still in discussion. MR. JERULLE: Before you make a motion, may I ask a question? Would you please repeat your recommendation again? MR. JACKSON: $2,500 fine, paid within 10 days or revocation. We can make that revocation of the flooring license, which would affect both companies that are qualified. A cost of $250. One year probation. And business and law passed within 90 days. MR. JERULLE: So you do not recommend to suspend his license for a period of time? MR. JACKSON: No. A probationary period of one year where if there is a violation, it would be immediately scheduled for a hearing in front of the board to substantiate the violation, and then the board could take appropriate action there. MR. JERULLE: And what has the board done in the past regarding suspension of license? Is it because of a second case or because of a third case? Is there some sort of rule of thumb that the board has done, made a ruling of? MR. OSSORIO: Typically when a respondent is present for the licensing board, we don't ask for a suspension. Typically don't, unless the board deliberates on that. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Normally we have -- normally in the past what we've done is we've given parameters of payment for the fine sections. And if the fines generally are not paid within a period of time, that's when the license would be suspended. Which normally that's the way it's been for the past 10 years I've been on the board. We don't necessarily always go to try to suspend a license, because that stops -- that takes the dollars and cents from maybe ever coming in. MR. JERULLE: And the difference between suspension and revoke is? December 16, 2009 Page 98 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Suspended is a suspended license until action takes occur -- till it happens. Revocation is immediately it's gone. And then he has to go through the whole process of testing and coming back again to reapply. MR. OSSORIO: Which we have done. We've revoked licenses in the past and then years later that applicant is back in front of the board and we reinstate his license. MR. JERULLE: And suspension would mean that it's gone from a certain date until he does something -- CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. MR. JERULLE: -- and then comes back without taking the test. MR. NEALE: Well, suspension can be set out with any particular terms that this board decides are the triggering events for that, the termination or beginning of the suspension. And the board's had a fairly broad scope in terms of -- I just looked, I've been doing this for 13 years now. And the board has a pretty broad scope and has utilized that scope in terms of creating and the triggering event for a suspension, both of what causes a suspension and what removes the suspension. MR. JERULLE: So as an example, we could suspend today until the $5,000 fine was paid. MR. WHITE: Exactly. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. And normally in that suspension factor in the past we have always let that testing result be part of that process, so that he must take the test or be suspended or he must pay the fines or be suspended. So there's a lot of criteria added to it so that we were able to keep a handle on that particular charge and get the fine paid before it was suspended. And if he didn't do it then the license was suspended. MR. NEALE: One factor the board has taken into account here as far as suspensions is whether the board -- whether the respondent will be able to pay the fine if the license is suspended. In other words, December 16, 2009 Page 99 will they be able to generate the cash flow to pay the fine. And so the suspension is typically -- has often been withheld until such time as the fine is paid, or at some time certain during which the time can be -- the fine can be paid. MR. JERULLE: And we're talking about just applying this to one license, because he still has another license that he could be actively working on and generating income. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. Now, the suspension factor could be changed or could be added to it also, though, because the suspension could also apply to the other license if this particular license is not taken -- honored and this particular offense is not taken care of, it could also apply to the second license, if we deem it that way in the motion. MR. NEALE: The board certainly -- it's my opinion that the board would have it within its purview to say that if a certain event does not take place, i.e., completing a test or paying the fine, that he would come back at that hearing; the board could specifically state that both licenses would then be under review. MR. JERULLE: Okay. MR. WHITE: Just one question, if I may, of staff. It has to do with whether there are any types of training offered by the division of financial services with regards to Workers' Compensation laws. In other words, something beyond simply the business and law aspect of it. I want to give the gentleman the benefit of the doubt that he can learn as much as possible about how those laws operate. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Continuing education is the best way. MR. OSSORIO: We had a case last year that you specifically ordered that gentleman to take a Workers' Comp class. I believe that was through either CBIA, they offer some, or on-line courses. So there is a method, if you wish to. MR. WHITE: Can you elaborate on the CBIA process? I'm not comfortable with on-line. I want -- I would prefer that there be an December 16, 2009 Page 100 interaction with others able to measure the level of interest and commitment in participating in that process. So what is the CBIA aspect? Can you -- MR. OSSORIO: Well, the CBIA, they have -- I mean, maybe Mr. Lykos can elaborate, but I know that they have speakers and they have courses on particular items that you train on for continuing education. This particular gentleman, if I remember correctly, there was a Workers' Comp course in Fort Myers and he drove up there for three or four hours. So it was a three-hour course that he had to come with to get it. So there are courses out there. One of the things that you can put in your motion, that you can't take an on-line course, you physically have to go through some kind of training and certificate to show back to the board or to the licensing supervisor. MR. LYKOS: Just for the record, CBIA doesn't have any classes scheduled till April of next year. MR. LANTZ: On another note, Workers' Comp is one of the few things that are required for state licenses as what you do. So if you look around, there's thousands of Workers' Comp continuing ed. classes out there. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right, yes. MR. LANTZ: It's the one thing that if you're looking for a continuing ed. class, you can always find a Workers' Comp class. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That's one of the primary continuing education classes that are offered nine times out of 10 for any trade, just about. MR. WHITE: Certainly it was a recurring theme both on my service to this board as well as my time with Lee County and Cape Coral. So yeah, it's a primary for misunderstanding, I guess. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay, where were we? MR. LANTZ: I'll make a motion. December 16, 2009 Page 101 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Recommendations? Okay, one more mention of discussion here just before we get into it: The dollars and cents, number one, the time span for payment to happen. The staff's recommendation of the $2,500 paid within 10 days, or if it's a $5,000 or however many dollars the board decides on, to be sure you indicate the number of days he has to pay this. Undering (sic) the fact that if we're going to fine him, we need to collect the money. So let's get it to the point where we can make it somewhat simple to try to do both. I mean, I'm not trying to give him any -- cut any corners with him, but I just want to make sure it does get paid if we're going to do this. You all ready? MR. LANTZ: I'm ready. All, I move that we fine him $500 -- MR. NEALE: Five hundred? MR. LANTZ: Oh, I'm sorry, $5,000. $250 for admin. costs, which have to be paid within 45 days. Also, he is subject to passing the business and law test within 90 days and two hours of Workers' Comp continuing ed. class within 90 days. If any of these are not done in that time frame, both of his licenses and both of his businesses should be suspended until they are done. However, if none of them are done by the next license renewal cycle, then they should be revoked at that time. As well as given one-year probation. MR. WHITE: I second, with a request to consider amending your motion that each of his jobs, while he's under probation, would have to be called in for both of his licenses. MR. LANTZ: Sounds good to me. MR. WHITE: That would be for tile and marble and for floor covering license jobs. COMMISSIONER HORNIAK: Recommendation to the state, or -- December 16, 2009 Page 102 CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Do we have the other license number? Because I want to read this into the motion eventually. We have the 31305, but I don't have the other one. If we're going to keep those both licenses going into effect. MR. WHITE: That's second to his amended. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) MR. OSSORIO: May I approach? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, sure. MR. OSSORIO: Does it make sense? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. MR. OSSORIO: This one, this one, and this one. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll just give them all. Thank you. Okay, I've got a motion and a second on the floor for the motion. Everyone understands the motion, right? I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. MR. LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Motion carries unanimous. MR. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, may I go over the motion one last time for clarity? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: You certainly may. I'm going to read it in -- you can read it right into the minutes, if you'd like. MR. JACKSON: Five thousand dollar fine. $250 cost, paid within 45 days. Business and law exam and two hours continuing December 16, 2009 Page 103 education within 90 days. If any of those items don't happen, the license is immediately suspended. One-year probationary period. Call all the jobs in. If the license is suspended and nothing happens with the fines or the testing, the license is revoked at the end of this licensing term, which would be October 1st of 2010. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Right. And that would be license numbers 31305, 31891, 32841 and 32842. MR. HORN: Mr. Jackson, just to be clear, I believe that's on both his licenses he needs to call in, not just the -- MR. JACKSON: Understood. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: That covers all the licenses he holds. MR. NEALE: All his licenses, yeah. MR. WHITE: I apologize, did you say one-year probation? MR. JACKSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right, we're finished. MR. SARO: What is the time I have to pay, 90 days? MR. NEALE: Forty-five days. MR. SARO: Forty-five days? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: All right. And the order of the board is: This cause came on before public hearing for the Contractor Licensing Board. Hereinafter on December 16th for consideration and Administrative Complaint filed against Daniel Saro, d/b/a Magic Flooring Finishing LLC. Service of the complaint was made in accordance with the 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 findings of fact, conclusions of law and order of the board as follows: That Daniel Saro, d/b/a Magic Flooring, LLC, is the holder of record of License No. 31305, 31891, 32841, and 32842. December 16, 2009 Page 104 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 Daniel L. Saro was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing on December 16, 2009. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered. The respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County ordinances and is the one who committed the act. That the allegations as set as forth (sic) in Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.6, disregards or violates in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County any of the building, safety, health or insurance of Workers' Compensation laws in the State of Florida, or ordinance of this county are to be found supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Conclusion of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I are approved, adopted and incorporated herein: To wit, the respondent violated Section 4.1.6, or 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 of Collier County, and Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business. Order of the board: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, the respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is ordered and by a vote of seven in favor and zero opposed, or a majority vote of board members present, that the following disciplinary actions and sanctions and related order are December 16, 2009 Page 105 hereby imposed upon the holder of contractor's Certificate of Competency No. 31305, 31891, 32841 and 32842, that Daniel Saro, d/b/a Magic Flooring (sic) Finishing, LLC is to pay a $5,000 fine and a $250 administrative cost to be paid within 45 days; to require to be -- take a business and law test for the Magic Floor Finishing trade; and also to take two hours of Workmen's Comp continuing education classes within 90 days; facing one-year probation from today's date; and each job is to be reported to staff at contractor licensing. And if none of these items are done within the times set out that (sic) within the parameters of payments schedules, that his license -- all licenses, number 31305, 31891, 32841 and 32842 are immediately suspended. And it's so ordered. MR. NEALE: And? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Did I miss something? MR. NEALE: Yeah, and also if none of this is done by the next license cycle, that his licenses are revoked. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. And if all these items are not done by the next license cycle, that the licenses then are hereby revoked. And so ordered. Thank you. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chair, can we take a 10-minute break? CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes, we can. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: I'll call back to order the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board, December 16th, 2009. Meeting back to order again. At this moment I'm going to step down as chair and I'm going to turn it over to my vice chair who is going to present this next case. Mr. Tom Lykos. Only because of the possibility of Mr. Lykos being elected to the chair as coming up for the new year. So at this time, Mr. Lykos? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So I get to practice. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Yes. December 16, 2009 Page 106 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKSON: There's that practice again. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: There's that practice again. Okay, we'll call Hearing No. 2009-15. Is Mr. Peter Geresdi here, please? Please step up and be sworn in. (Mr. Geresdi and Ms. Clements were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MS. CLEMENTS: Okay. The packet -- I would like to have the packet entered into evidence. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, I need a motion, please. MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz. MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MS. CLEMENTS: This is another case of the Workers' Comp violation. I was on a job site on November 13th, 2009 and Mr. Geresdi here had himself and a worker on job site. They were using power saw and tools installing a cabinet. It was like a desk, floor to ceiling, and it kind of wrapped around the room cabinet. And I checked and there was no Workers' Comp for the employee. December 16, 2009 Page 107 I also have a statement from him. It's E.2 in the evidence -- I'm sorry, E.9 in the evidence packet that states that Yanos Szauer was the employee and that he didn't have Workers' Comp for him and that he is being paid salary. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Geresdi, opening statement? MR. GERESDI: Yes. Yanos Szauer became a part of our company actually about a year and a half ago. He was an officer. And by that time my wife and our accountant did all the paperwork and somehow we -- or they misfile or something for his exemption. A company only three person, actually, two now, me and him. And I went down to the office in Fort Myers. Because I been telling her and I saw her, Yanos has exemption because he's a officer. That's why we put him on the corporation back then. And I find out his name was misspelled. The papers didn't show correctly. But basically we have the exemption for him in the present, so I don't know. Back then I thought we have it, which we didn't apply, I guess. About a year and a half ago, so -- so I don't know what happened then. We put him on the corporation, and from that point on I believe he didn't apply for the exemption, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Karen, you want to go ahead and proceed with your case? MS. CLEMENTS: Well, the day that I was out there, the gentleman, the employee didn't have his driver's license on him. No identification. When I checked SunBiz I didn't see -- my computer goes in and out in the area where I was, so I couldn't get whether he was actually there or not on corporate papers. I called into the office and I have bad phone connection in that area also, so they were trying to call me back, I guess, and I didn't -- when I finally did get the computer to work again, I could not find under the spelling that he had given me a Workers' Comp exemption December 16, 2009 Page 108 for Yanos. So at that point I knew, you know, that there was no Workers' Comp. But like he's saying, apparently his name was misspelled on corporate papers to begin with, and their accountant didn't follow through apparently with Workers' Comp paperwork. This is a third violation also. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I understand. And what is it that -- what paperwork did you bring with you that Mr. Ossorio is getting copies of? MR. GERESDI: The exemption, Workman's Comp. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, we need to see that to see what the date on that is. MR. HORN: Mr. Lykos, in here he states that at that time of the event when Ms. Clements questioned him, he wasn't covered, unless I'm reading all this wrong. MS. CLEMENTS: On E.9. MR. HORN: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: Well, he wouldn't have been covered under Workmen's Comp insurance. MS. CLEMENTS: No, exemption. MR. JOSLIN: But if he did have a valid exemption that was misfiled by the state through a spelling error, that would be a clerical error. So I'm not sure that we could pursue too far. MR. OSSORIO: Okay, Mr. -- just to clarify real quick, there are two issues. The first issue is, is that he's stating the fact that the gentleman is part officer of the corporation. With that being said, we could not find that. You could be an officer of the corporation and not be exempt. So therefore you become a statutory employee of the company. So our theory is, is what transpired is, is that indeed the gentleman on the job site could have been an officer of the corporation, but he didn't have the exemption. I believe the date -- if December 16, 2009 Page 109 he puts it in evidence, you'll see when the effective date of the exemption. MR. GERESDI: Yeah, it's 11/30. MR. OSSORIO: 11/30. And when were you out there, Karen? MS. CLEMENTS: The 13th of November. MR. OSSORIO: Okay. So approximately two weeks later you did go up to the Fort Myers office and pursue getting the exemption that you are needed to do to be able to work as pursuant to the Statute in 440. MR. JOSLIN: Okay, one more question then. On the exemption that he's speaking of saying that he had applied for an exemption but the name was misspelled, do we have any record of the state or Workmen's Comp having an exemption form that had been filed before the new one came out? MR. GERESDI: No, it's not for the Workmen's Comp. That's for the company. But the -- MR. OSSORIO: We're not here about the company. We're not here about corporations. We don't enforce anything corporation. We -- he could have been an officer of the corporation, I'm not disputing that. I'm not here to talk about that. That's what he says, okay, I believe him. However, in the Workers' Comp exemption database, he's not there. He did do it after we told him to. So there's -- one issue is the corporation has nothing to do with us. If that's what he says, I tend to believe him. That might be. But the exemption he didn't get till after Karen issued a stop work order and told him to get the exemption for his corporate officer. That's where the Workers' Comp lies. MS. CLEMENTS: I'm sure he went pretty much right that day, because it takes two weeks to get it. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Get it, right. So there was never really an exemption form filed before that incident happened. December 16, 2009 Page 110 MR. GERESDI: That we thought we had. That's why I been telling her, you know, he had paperwork. Because back then the accountant did it and my wife did all the paperwork and all that, so I had nothing to do with it. So she told me -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Give me one second, Mr. Geresdi. Could you please just slow down a little bit. It's a little bit hard to understand with your accent. Could you just slow down a little bit? MR. GERESDI: Okay. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. GERESDI: Okay. A year and a half ago when he got part of the company, I thought we did all the paperwork. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: One moment. One moment. A year and a half ago what happened? MR. GERESDI: He became the part of the company. Like he's been officer of the company. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: He became an officer of the company a year and a half ago. MR. GERESDI: At that time I thought we applied for his exemption as I did myself. And Andrea. And somehow it skipped and I find out the office down in Fort Myers, they couldn't find his name, not after his social. So probably in the past year and a half he didn't have either a Workmen's Comp or the exemption. So now as soon as I find out, I did it. So from the 11th afterward we have everything set for him. But before, it wasn't, basically. MR. JOSLIN: When he applied -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Hang on. MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry? MR. JERULLE: Just so I -- and correct me if I'm wrong. On 4/2/08 you were cited for Workman's Comp, or lack of Workman's Comp, correct? December 16, 2009 Page 111 MR. GERESDI: For him, right. MR. JERULLE: On 5/6/2009 you were also cited. And then again on 11/13/2009 you were charged. So this is the third time. MR. GERESDI: Yeah. MR. JERULLE: Okay. And you're the owner of the company. MR. GERESDI: Uh-huh, yeah. MR. JERULLE: And you're responsible for all aspects of that company. MR. GERESDI: Yes, basically. MS. CLEMENTS: I think the dates are wrong. It was January 28th, 2008 he received a citation. That was given by Allen, I believe -- or Andy. It was Andy. And then 4/30/09 was a citation issued by me. MR. JERULLE: I'm looking at the paid dates. MS. CLEMENTS: Oh, okay. MR. JERULLE: I see it now. 1/28 was the citation, 4/30/09 was a citation. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Jerulle, you're absolutely correct. If you actually look at those pay dates, you'll see they've got a clerical issue. 300 and 300. The first offense is 300. Usually the second offense, if it's a Workers' Comp issue, we forward to the licensing board. Unfortunately Karen Clements, at the time when she issued the $300 citation, either the system wasn't up or it wasn't operating or we didn't do our homework, that she issued a $300 penalty thinking that this was the first time that they've communicated. But unfortunately it wasn't. So he paid it. So we left it as-is. And this is the third time he's back. So this is where we are today. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Kyle? MR. LANTZ: Are all three violations for the same guy? MR. GERESDI: Yeah. Yeah. MR. LANTZ: Why didn't you get it -- I would have thought after the first time a year ago you would have known that it didn't -- December 16, 2009 Page 112 MR. GERESDI: The re -- I don't -- actually we went, and I -- probably my wife called in and they -- like I said, the name was misspelled, we just find out. So it's -- the whole thing was kind of a mix up from our part, of course. But I don't know. I really don't know. And now I did -- I went in personally first time, you know. So I basically straightened out the whole situation what been happened, so -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Geresdi, in January of '08 you were cited for not having Workers' Compensation for this person. In April of '09 you were cited for not having Workers' Comp for this person. You're telling us there was either a spelling mistake or a clerical error. Do you have any documentation with you to prove what it is that you're saying to us today? MR. GERESDI: Other than the new one, no. He didn't have it. I know he didn't have it. That's the problem. I know it now -- by now I know, because I went in and we couldn't find his name on the system. Either after his name, after his Social. So they told me if he's on the -- you know, he had an exemption, should come up with the Social Security numbers. But they couldn't find it. So the thing is when they put him on the corporation like an officer, we kind of missed to apply for the exemption of the Workmen's Comp. So within a year and a half or two years, yeah, he did not have the coverage or the exemption. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Let me explain what we're trying to accomplish. MR. GERESDI: Sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: At this stage what we're trying to figure out is whether or not you are guilty of the charge brought against you. MR. GERESDI: Yeah, I guess I'm -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: So the question is whether or not you had Workers' Compensation coverage for this gentleman. If you December 16, 2009 Page 113 applied for it and there was a spelling error, then I think the board would be willing to listen because you put an effort in. If you don't have any proof for us that you made attempts to get this gentleman either covered with Workers' Compensation or to get his Workers' Comp exemption recorded, then we are not -- we're left with a question of whether or not you're guilty of not having Workers' Comp. MR. GERESDI: That's -- I know, I got it. The only thing, I really can't prove it because the Workmen's Comp couldn't find anything. So the thing is the time we put him on the corporation, which is about two years, a year and a half before today, but that part we didn't have any coverage. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, thank you, Mr. Geresdi. MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look at E.7, top left-hand side. And we're not disputing that might be an issue. You see where that could cause a problem? MR. WHITE: Uh-huh. MR. JOSLIN: What page was it again? MR. OSSORIO: E.7, top left-hand side. MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Procedurally we're at a point where I could ask a question of the staff? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: Do you have copies of the document he gave you earlier about -- MR. OSSORIO: I do. MR. WHITE: Can you distribute those? I'd like to compare the spellings and the dates, and if I understand correctly. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do I need a motion to have this entered into evidence? MR. JOSLIN: Yes. MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. December 16, 2009 Page 114 MR. WHITE: So moved. MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion we enter this new paperwork into evidence. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. WHITE: Well, they got some of the letters right. MR. JOSLIN: If I could just ask one question here. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Joslin? MR. JOSLIN: This is where I'm a little confused, or I'm a little -- maybe understanding what might have happened. In order to be able to file a Workmen's Comp exemption form, you have to be an officer of the corporation, correct? Until you're an officer of the corporation, and it's listed with SunBiz or the Department of State, even if you file for an exemption form, it's not going to go through, because you're not an officer of the corporation. So it would be declined. When he filed to have him being placed on as an officer of that corporation, if the name came back improper or it was spelled wrong, then even if the man would have applied for a Workmen's Comp exemption form, he wouldn't have gotten it, because the spelling of a corporate officer was incorrect. So my question is, is I guess is this something that is really this December 16, 2009 Page 115 gentleman's fault, in an essence? Now, maybe it is as a license holder or as a business owner to have followed up on it to get the form in his hands, but there is definitely a clerical error, you can see it, in the two different spellings. MR. NEALE: One point I would like to make is that you can be an officer of a corporation without being listed on the SunBiz records. I mean, I've got lots and lots and lots of clients that have numerous officers that are never put on SunBiz. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: It certainly is not the only proof. MR. JOSLIN: Right, I understand. MR. NEALE: You know, the corporate records, the internal corporate records are really the only valid source of information as to who is a corporate officer or not. SunBiz is interesting, but Mr. White can probably comment on this as well as I can, if not better, it certainly is not an accurate depiction of who is a corporate officer and who is not. MR. WHITE: Mr. Geresdi, what is the correct spelling of the last name of the gentleman we're referring to as Yanos. MR. GERESDI: Szauer. S-Z-A-U-E-R. Just like you have it on the new exemption paper. MR. WHITE: So the exemption is correct -- MR. GERESDI: Yeah. MR. WHITE: -- and the SunBiz record for the Department of State is incorrect. MR. GERESDI: Yeah. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. HORN: Or Chairs, excuse me. This is the third violation in a two-year period, so as the owner and license holder, it's their responsibility to make sure he gets that exemption done, even if there's a mistake on the records. I don't see December 16, 2009 Page 116 how we can blame the state when it's your own due diligence when it's your own company and it's, excuse the expression, your butt on the line. I don't see how we're talking about how it's the state's fault because if they made a mistake, he never followed up for two years and three violations later. Just my opinion. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Good point. MR. WHITE: Well, one of the things I also note, gentleman, is that Count I of the violation says the very first word, disregards or violates in the performance of. There's a degree of disregard here that the repeated violations make evident to me more likely than not that the gentleman's guilty. But we're not to that phase in the process. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right. MR. WHITE: I just haven't heard him acknowledge that. He doesn't need to. But on the other hand I think that the records are proving a point. MR. HORN: As we discussed in the previous case, you had for two years no Workmen's Comp that you're paying on your employee, was that due to your bidding process with your competitors also. Something to keep in mind, as you gentlemen know better than I will, so -- MR. JERULLE: Good point. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Karen, do you have any other evidence to add to this case? MS. CLEMENTS: I know he wholeheartedly told me he was covered. I genuinely think that he thought he was. But then after he signed his statement I think he realized he wasn't licensed. I mean, he states right here in E.9. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Geresdi, do you have any other evidence to enter in this case? MR. GERESDI: No, that's all I have. MR. JERULLE: Is this the only entity that you license? MR. GERESDI: No. I'm a painter too. I have three licensing: December 16, 2009 Page 117 Two for Collier, one for Lee. MR. JERULLE: And do you have exemptions in those other entities? MR. GERESDI: Yeah, all of them, sure. There's only two of us, so I do exempt for Workmen's Comp. MR. JERULLE: You have the same partners in the -- MR. GERESDI: Same, yeah. MR. JERULLE: -- other two entities? MR. GERESDI: Yeah, Yanos and me, and my wife, actually. MR. JERULLE: Just one company, two licenses, correct? MR. GERESDI: Yeah, that's right. No, never had employees or something like that. It's only two of us. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Karen, closing remarks? MS. CLEMENTS: I don't have any. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Mr. Geresdi, closing statement? MR. GERESDI: No, thanks, that's it, thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, is there any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. MR. LANTZ: So moved, Lantz. MR. JOSLIN: Second, Joslin. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. December 16, 2009 Page 118 MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. Okay. MR. WHITE: I'd make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that there be entered a finding of guilt in this case with respect to Count I. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have a motion. I need a second. MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? MR. JOSLIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, motion carries 6-1. Okay. Do I read now or I don't read till after we -- MR. JOSLIN: No, Mr. Neale, he's already read that. MR. NEALE: Yeah, at this point, you know, we're just reiterating what was said previously as far as the deliberations of the board and so forth at this point. Again, this is essentially the same charge as was made last time, the 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 ordinances of this county. So that's the charge that you're considering at this point. December 16, 2009 Page 119 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Recommendation from staff? MR. OSSORIO: We seem to get this wrong part of the time, so I -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It's a starting point. MR. OSSORIO: I understand his dilemma, as I think he is telling the truth referencing having that gentleman be on corporate records with him. But unfortunately there was a clear violation of Workers' Comp, because that officer is a statutory employee of the company and he has a duty to response (sic) to make sure he's protected on the job site. Three times. So we recommend a $5,000 fine, $250 investigative cost, one-year probation. MR. JERULLE: Any exams or testing? MR. OSSORIO: No. MR. JERULLE: And no action to the Florida state? MR. OSSORIO: None. MR. LANTZ: Well, I'll start off. I personally think $5,000 is too high of a fine. I understand the third offense. I think truly he felt he was not doing anything wrong. I think he should have some -- either take the business and law test or take some Workers' Comp continuing ed. to understand what the rules are that he was breaking. But I think $5,000 is too high of a fine. MR. JERULLE: I respectfully disagree. Because it may be the second offense, but if you're running a business, which he's doing, not just installing cabinets, but he's running a business and two other businesses by his own admission, you've got to know you need Workmen's Comp. And you have to know. And who fills out the form? If -- my understanding is if you're filling out a Workmen's Comp application, you have to fill it out, nobody else can fill it out for you, right? I think you have to sign it. You cannot sign your own -- you cannot proofread and get your own name right if that were the case? I just have some questions that -- in my mind that I tend to agree December 16, 2009 Page 120 with the recommendations of the staff. MR. GERESDI: Can I speak, sir? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yes, sir. MR. GERESDI: The exemption is every two years. So you fill it out once, we don't -- you know. And back then I didn't do it personally, my wife did it. She was the bookkeeper. So I have no, you know, control over it. So that mean I thought we have everything set. But basically not. It's not something every day I do for filling out paper. MR. JERULLE: But the person that's exempt has to sign it, correct? MR. GERESDI: Yeah, he's filing the paper. MR. JERULLE: He has to proofread it before he signs it, correct? MR. GERESDI: Yeah, two years ago, actually. Because mine is -- MR. JERULLE: And the bookkeeper is writing checks to this person, correct? MR. GERESDI: Yeah. But that's not -- MR. JERULLE: You would think that the name wouldn't -- of all the things that would get messed up, you would think the name wouldn't be one of them. MR. GERESDI: Yeah, okay. MR. OSSORIO: Just be aware that on April of this year he was informed of what he needed to do in April. So five months later or seven months later we've still got the same problem. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I have two comments. One is you see this document that you gave us today that shows Yanos's -- well, if you thought he was Workers' Comp exempt two years ago, how come you didn't have one of these two years ago? If you've got one for yourself -- MR. GERESDI: Right. December 16, 2009 Page 121 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- wouldn't you think you needed to have one for him, if he was exempt as well? MR. GERESDI: I know, that's what I'm saying, I clear everything up personally. Before that I didn't do anything of -- any paper thing, nothing. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Well, as the owner of the company -- MR. GERESDI: So now I did. Well -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: What happens between you -- MR. GERESDI: -- wife and husband company -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- and your wife is a family issue, but in business you're the owner of the company, you're responsible. MR. GERESDI: I understand. I understand. Sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: The other comment I was going to make, which sometimes we lose sight of when we talk about Workers' Comp, is if that gentleman would have gotten hurt and he goes to the hospital and because of your misunderstanding about how the law works his medical bills would not be covered and his only recourse may be to have to sue you and to sue the homeowner. And that's what this is about. This isn't about filling out paperwork so you can run a business. This is about protecting your clients and protecting the employees of your company. This isn't just about filling out some paperwork because that's what the law tells me to do. That's critically important. And that's what the issue is here, not whether or not somebody's name was spelled right and the paperwork was filled out correctly. Any other comments from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I don't have a motion, or do I have a motion? Did you make a -- no, we didn't make -- no, nobody made a motion. We have a recommendation from staff but we don't have a motion yet. Well, here's what's on the table: $5,000 fine, $250 in December 16, 2009 Page 122 investigative costs, one-year probation, and a Workers' Comp continuing education class. Those are the topics that have been brought up. MR. HORN: Mr. Chair, I think there might be a need for a business and law exam, just so he's aware of all laws and protection for him and his employees and his clients, just to be safe. It's a good reminder. MR. JERULLE: Michael, did you give a recommendation as to payment, the terms? MR. OSSORIO: Our recommendation was payment within 10 days, but obviously that might change. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Does anybody feel that this case is dramatically different from the one we just heard previously? MR. WHITE: I think the difference, Mr. Chairman, may be in intent. But the effect, there is no difference. And if the underlying rationale for the law and the purpose for it being complied with strictly are as we've said and as we've said repeatedly to many people who have appeared before us, then I don't know that the intent matters. The first word in it, I repeat, is disregard. Disregard means you let somebody else do -- you don't regard as you being responsible. Something that you ultimately can be held accountable for. Today's the day that you're being held accountable for disregarding twice before what it was you needed to then do. And the specific deterrent here to me is less important than a general deterrent to other people who for the third time would choose to disregard the law. And so although I understand Mr. Lantz's point, I tend to agree with maybe what may be the majority view of staff's recommendation of the fine amount. But I don't believe that the time frame for its payment is probably something I'm comfortable with. But that's my only comment. Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, the previous case we had a $5,000 December 16, 2009 Page 123 fine and $250 in investigative cost that was due within 45 days, we had one year probation, we had Workers' Comp continuing education class and the business and law test and passed within 90 days. And we had suspension if these time lines were not met, and revocation if the time lines were not met by the time the licensing cycle changed, which was October 1 of 2010. Is that pretty much what we had on the last one? MR. HORN: And calling in the jobs. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And calling in the jobs, that's right. Is everybody comfortable with the comparable discipline for this case? MR. LANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Well all somebody's got to do is make a motion and we can be done. MR. WHITE: The difference I see, Mr. Chairman, is again going back to intent. And because there isn't that intent here, I don't know that there's the necessity of calling in the jobs, number one. But I think -- I otherwise agree with what we did in terms of sanctions in the last case applying in similar fashion to this case. There was a specificity I think of two hours of Workers' Comp. I don't know how that actually plays out in terms of the courses that are available or not. But there ought to be something that definitely demonstrates compliance with a Workmen's Compensation course. So that said, I would otherwise be comfortable if someone made a motion in that regard. MR. JOSLIN: I think too, wasn't the time span for the payment 90 days? MR. WHITE: It was 90. MR. JOSLIN: Ninety days, right. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: And I though it was 45 days for payment and 90 days for the classes. MR. JOSLIN: Yeah, that's right, I'm sorry. December 16, 2009 Page 124 MR. NEALE: Payment was 45 and 90 days for the course. MR. JOSLIN: Ninety days for the classes, that's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Mr. Jerulle? MR. JERULLE: I'll try to make a motion of a fine of $5,000 payable in 45 days. Fine of $250 for the admin. costs, payable within 45 days. One year of probation. Two hours of Workman's Comp to be completed within 90 days. One hour of business law to be completed within 90 days. Am I missing something? MR. HORN: I think you said one hour of business law. MR. JERULLE: Yes. MR. LANTZ: As opposed to the test? MR. JERULLE: Oh, excuse me, I got carried away. The retaking of the business test. MR. WHITE: And that if those time periods are exceeded, the license would be suspended until they were completed. And if they were not otherwise complied with by October 1, 2010, the license would be revoked. MR. JERULLE: Yes. MR. WHITE: And I would, if you'd accept those as amendments, make that second. MR. JERULLE: Correct, I do. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, so I have an amended motion, I have a second. If I could make one more amendment to that motion. Because we have a multiple license holder again, if we attach this to all licenses as we did previously. MR. WHITE: I considered that, Mr. Chairman, in seeking to amend the motion. I think again going back to the intent question that this is probably an adequate deterrent, given the dollar amount of the fine. And because there isn't that intent, I don't see the necessity of it being connected to other licenses. December 16, 2009 Page 125 If he's going to do this again and not get the message, maybe so. But going back to the idea of giving him the opportunity to be able to earn the income to pay the fines timely, I chose to not expand it into the other licenses in amending my second. MR. NEALE: I would also suggest to the board that if his license becomes suspended and he is brought back in front of this board to consider that as suspension, that the board then could expand the hearing at that point in time to reach to all of his licenses. So I think the result would end up being effectively the same. Do you agree, Mr. White? MR. WHITE: I do agree with that, and it factored into my thinking on it as well. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: It was your motion, are you fine with that? MR. JERULLE: Yes. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. Then I have a motion, I have a second. Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, all those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Motion carries. Now I read. MR. JOSLIN: Yes. December 16, 2009 Page 126 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors Licensing Board on December 16th, 2009 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against Peter Geresdi, d/b/a Euro Trim, Incorporated, License No. 25371. Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90-105, as amended. The board having at this hearing 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: Peter Geresdi is the holder of record of License No. 25371; 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 Peter Geresdi, d/b/a Euro Trim, Incorporated was present at the public hearing and was not represented by counsel at the hearing on December 16th, 2009. All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered. The 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 the Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.6, 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 are found to be supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. The conclusions of law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count I, 4.1.6, 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 are approved, adopted and incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated December 16, 2009 Page 127 Section 4.1.6 of Collier County Ordinance 90-105, 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. Order of the board: Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions 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 seven in favor and zero opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, the respondent has been found in violation as set forth above. Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of six to one -- I'm sorry, six in favor and one opposed by a majority vote of the board members present that the following disciplinary action and related order are hereby imposed upon the holder of the contractor's Certificate of Competency No. 25371. MR. NEALE: Just one point. I think, if I'm not mistaken -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I switched them? MR. NEALE: -- the vote on the sanctions was unanimous, the vote on the guilt was 6-1. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: I think you're right. So do I need to restate it? MR. NEALE: Just make the correction. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Just correct it? All right, thank you. The sanctions are: $5,000 fine, payable within 45 days; $250 investigation fees, paid within 45 days; one-year probation; a two-hour Workers' Comp continuing education class which must be completed within 90 days; completion of the business and law; a passing grade on the business and law test to be completed within 90 days. That if the deadlines above are not adhered to, the license will be suspended. And if they're not completed by the end of the licensing cycle, which is October 1 of 2010, the license will be revoked. December 16, 2009 Page 128 So ordered. MR. JOSLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you, sir. MR. GERESDI: Will I get this in the mail? I got to mail out all these, or -- CHAIRMAN LYKOS: You want to contact the licensing office tomorrow and they'll have all the information for you on exactly what you need to do. MR. OSSORIO: What typically happens is that you'll come see me, we'll sit down, we'll come up -- we'll draw up some kind of a solution for you. And then when we get the finding of facts, we send those certified and we put that in your file. But we'll be -- come see us tomorrow, talk to Karen and we'll take care of it. MR. GERESDI: All right. Thank you. MR. JOSLIN: Thank you. Very good. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Thank you. MR. JERULLE: We're adjourned? CHAIRMAN LYKOS: No, we're not adjourned. I have one more item of business. We need to elect a vice chair for next year. So who has an interest in being vice chair next year? MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Jerulle, you were originally I believe -- MR. JERULLE: I would like to nominate Kyle Lantz. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Do you accept that nom -- does anybody else have an -- MR. LANTZ: Sure. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: -- interest in being vice chair? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: No. Do you accept that nomination? MR. LANTZ: Sure. December 16, 2009 Page 129 CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, all those in favor of having Kyle Lantz serve as vice chair next year, say aye. MR. BOYD: Aye. MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. MR. JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Congratulations, Mr. Lantz, you're vice chair next year. MR. LANTZ: All right. Do I get a pay raise? MR. WHITE: Double what you got last year. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Yeah, you get a meal expense and traveling expenses. It's a great deal. MR. NEALE: As long as you pay them yourself. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Right, as long as you pay them yourself. I just had a note. Michael, we're skipping January? MR. OSSORIO: Yes, there will be no board member in January, but we are going to be heading up in February and in March, probably. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, we are back here in February? MR. OSSORIO: February we'll be in the main complex. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay. I need a motion to adjourned. MR. LANTZ: So moved. MR. JOSLIN: So moved. MR. JERULLE: Second. MR. WHITE: Second -- third. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: All those in favor? MR. BOYD: Aye. December 16, 2009 Page 130 MR. LANTZ: Aye. MR. JERULLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN JOSLIN: Aye. MR. WHITE: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Aye. MR. HORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Merry Christmas everybody. Enjoy your holidays and your families. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:20 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD ________________________________ RICHARD JOSLIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on ___________ as presented ____ or as corrected_____. Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.