CLB Minutes 03/12/2010 R
March 12,2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
OF COLLIER COUNTY
Naples, Florida
March 12,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractor Licensing
Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Thomas Lykos
Richard Joslin
Michael Boyd
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Robert Meister
Patrick White
ALSO PRESENT:
Patrick Neale, Attorney for the Board
Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney
Michael Ossorio, Contractor Licensing Supervisor
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
DATE: FRIDAY - MARCH 12,2010
TIME: 9:00 AM.
W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING
(ADMINISTRATION BUILDING)
COURTHOUSE COMPLEX
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. ROLL CALL
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2010
V. DISCUSSION:
(A) End of the Month Report - February 2010
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(A) Rolando Alvarez - Waiver of Examination
(B) Gregory Westgate - Qualify 2"' Entity
(C) Cory Maile - Review of Construction Experience Affidavits
(D) Eric J. Baker - Waiver of Examination (Reinstatement)
(E) Leonard Allen - Contesting Citation
(F) Robert James Wayne Jr. - Waiver of Examination(s) (Reinstatement)
(G) Todd Grup - Review Building Contractor License per Order of the Board
(H) Orders of the Board (Signing)
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
(A) Adam S. Sandifer - Review of Credit Report (Six Month Review)
(B) Peter Geresdi - Request for an Extension to Pay Board Fines
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(A) Case #2010-01
(Continuation)
Maharay Borrego
D/B/A: Mary's Kitchens & Interiors, Inc.
IX. REPORTS:
X. NEXT MEETING DATE:
WEDNESDAY APRIL 21, 2010
W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR
(COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM)
3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL
NAPLES, FL 34112
(COURTHOUSE COMPLEX)
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, I'm going to call to order the
meeting of the Collier County Contractor Licensing Board. Today is
Friday, March 12th, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.
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 want to remind everybody to speak one person at a time and
make sure you speak clearly into the microphones.
We'll start with roll call, beginning on my right.
MR. JERULLE: Terry Jerulle.
MR. LANTZ: Kyle Lantz.
MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Tom Lykos.
MR. WHITE: Patrick White.
MR. BOYD: Mike Boyd.
MR. MEISTER: Robert Meister.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Staff, any additions or deletions to the agenda?
MR. JACKSON: No additions or deletions to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
I need a motion to approve the agenda.
MR. JOSLIN: So moved, Joslin.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
Page 2
March 12,2010
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
I need approval of the minutes from the February 17th meeting.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we approve the minutes
from the February 17th meeting.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Okay, discussion. End of the month report.
MR. OSSORIO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record,
Mike Ossorio, Collier County Contractor Licensing Supervisor.
The end of the month report is for February. And it's there if
you'd like to discuss it. I have nothing further to say about it.
And while we're reviewing the monthly report, I want to
recognize Mr. Robert Meister. He's a certified general contractor.
He's been appointed by the City Council to sit on this Contractor
Licensing Board, and it was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners on Tuesday. And I welcome Mr. Meister to the
licensing board.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Welcome. Thank you for serving.
Michael, one comment. We had asked previously to have the
Page 3
March 12,2010
budget alongside the actual for our monthly report.
MR. OSSORIO: We're going to work on it.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: One other item I'll try to add, the last meeting I
believe that we as a board motioned or wanted Mr. French to come
back in and give us an analysis of the fee increases, of where they
were going and what was happening. He was going to give us a
report.
MR. OSSORIO: I believe the budget is being worked on as we
speak.
Just remember, the makeup of licensing, our fee-base related
issues, typically our fees, you won't see a huge increase in our fees.
The 40 percent would be in September, June, July and September, due
to the fact that we're going to be doing our renewing. So he's going to
have to account for that. So this is a long process. So I'm sure Mr.
French will be here in the next couple of months and discuss those
issues with you.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Do we want to discuss the remaining more progress in the
workshop, or do you want to save that for the end of the meeting?
MR. OSSORIO: The workshop as in for the amendment of the
ordinance?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: The workshop for the board.
MR. OSSORIO: We haven't come up with when we're going to
do the workshop. We had our first meeting with the county attorney,
Pat Neale, and it's going well. I suspect that we'll probably have a
workshop in May.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: And that if it is a workshop, it will be a strictly
workshop at our office. It will be open to the public, you know, open
for the public. And we'll just have that workshop. We won't have any
Page 4
March 12,2010
other agendas or anything, old business or new business to discuss,
other than just a quick workshop in and out of the office to discuss it,
with the cooperation with CBIA, the industry itself. So that's what
we're looking at.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Mr. White just reviewed the minutes and saw that Mr. French
was going to be here in April after the first quarter, so he could do a
review of the first quarter financials and come back to us in April. So
thank you, Mr. White.
MR. WHITE: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other questions or comments for
Michael under the discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, moving along. New business.
Mr. Rolando Alvarez.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Alvarez, you're here because you
want a waiver of the examination requirements to obtain your license;
is that correct?
MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
Ian, are you taking this?
MR. JACKSON: No.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: I'll take it for you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: No problem. Just--
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Ossorio, I'll go ahead and swear
youm.
Would it be all right if I swear them in for the day so I don't need
to re-swear?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: That's fine with me.
Page 5
March 12,2010
(Mr. Ossorio and Mr. Jackson were duly sworn.)
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Alvarez is a licensed company; am I
correct? You have a cabinet company?
MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: So he has a cabinet and he also has a floor
covering license?
MR. AL V AREZ: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: So he's been doing business here for quite a
while. Unfortunately on the -- when you look at the ordinance, the
floor covering and the cabinet installing license only requires a
business procedure test. Mr. Alvarez is going for a painting license,
which includes a trades test. And when you do a trades test that
means you have to take the exam for a trades test.
And Mr. Alvarez is here to tell you that he's taken the painting
exam -- how many times?
MR. AL V AREZ: Three times.
MR. OSSORIO: And he has unfortunately failed three times.
And he's here to talk to you about his experience as a painter and see
if you could give him some kind of relief towards that exam.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Am I correct?
MR. ALVAREZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, Mr. Alvarez, you want to give us
some background on your experience and tell us why you're here
today, please.
MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, sir. I'm start painting since I got 18 years
old. Also not here, in Europe. And then I come here and I start, you
know, working in the construction. And, you know, keep painting,
which is the most what I can do.
And when I start try to get my painting license, you know, I fail
the first time. It was about couple years ago.
And the second time it was -- the first time was closed book.
Page 6
March 12,2010
And then when they start coming to open book, I come and I failed the
second time. But I keep, you know, reading, like in my letter say. I'm
not from here, and also I don't came from the school from here. And
also the English what they use on that test, I'm not familiar with that.
I'm just familiar with the construction English, you know,
two-by-four, beam, stuff like that, not specific things that they say in
there.
I also for that reason, when I keep my painting license and also to
support my family, I got to move to Georgia. And Georgia, I also
have my remodeling company, which is I got here for the county what
I work there. Comply with all these law. But still I move here.
Also, when I start living in Georgia, I fly here to Fort Myers to
get my test again. And I still fail, you know. And then the -- what I
say, I got like almost 20 years doing the same thing.
And like Mr. Ossorio said, it's not -- I can do the whole business
without -- like I can start your door, but I cannot paint the door. You
have to hire a painter. Which is, you know, not something -- normally
I could do it because I like to please the whole, you know, project.
And I been working for so long time, and I keeping my -- I don't have
my license. It has to be by law. I don't want to work with no license,
which is ain't right. And that's why I came here.
Because I knew if I go there, it's going to be the same thing, you
know. You know, every time they make the -- I go into the test, it's
another different, you know, words and they change the language and
the same thing, pretty much. I gonna be stuck in the same hole for
who knows.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Questions for Mr. Alvarez?
MR. JOSLIN: Just one -- I guess one to explain it. The problem
with you taking the test is that you don't understand the language or
the way they're giving the test in the language that you speak, is that
the case?
Page 7
March 12,2010
MR. ALVAREZ: Yes, the language, the terminology they use in
there, I don't understand what they say. And then if you don't
understand the whole thing, how can I answer? Because one word
change the whole thing.
MR. JOSLIN: Is it the problem with the English language--
MR. ALVAREZ: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: -- that you don't understand the English language?
What language do you speak?
MR. ALVAREZ: Spanish.
MR. JOSLIN: Spanish.
Mr. Ossorio, I've just got a question for you. I think a long time
ago that we have a testing company that does give the test in Spanish
if it's requested, isn't (sic) it?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, we have actually two testing companies.
One is a nationwide testing company, Prometric, and the other one is
Gainesville Independent. And Gainesville Independent is -- does offer
it in Spanish. The books are in English, but the test could be in
Spanish. And you have to drive to Ocala, a what, four and a half hour
drive to take the exam. So that is an offer.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm not saying the painting is a license or
something that is -- I don't know how you say it, a Tier 1 category
license, but -- for painting. But I'm just trying to find a way that he
could take the test in Spanish rather than in English, if he doesn't
understand the English language.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: You've taken the exam three times, sir?
MR. ALVAREZ: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. WHITE: What were your scores? Because I've looked
through the packet and there's nothing in here that tells me what the
grade you got was and what the passing grade is.
MR. ALVAREZ: I don't have that paperwork because it's a
Page 8
March 12,2010
couple years ago. But it's 70,69, something like that. And I believe
they ask for 75 percent. I don't know if they changed already.
MR. WHITE: So you were close but not quite there.
MR. ALVAREZ: Well, the last time was 75 percent.
MR. WHITE: But your scores were close but not passing.
MR. ALVAREZ: Well, sometimes not even close. In the sixties.
MR. JOSLIN: At least you're honest.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, the passing
grade by the ordinance is 75.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: I believe he's got a 50 and a 60 and maybe a 70
in there. So--
MR. JOSLIN: And this is all been taken in English, right, you've
taken the test?
MR. ALVAREZ: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: I actually have two questions: One, have you
gone to any other construction schools like Cam Tech or, I don't
know, there's a thousand of them out there. Have you attended any of
those?
MR. ALVAREZ: No.
MR. LANTZ: Okay. So a comment on that. I would
recommend you do that.
And then my other question is just a stupid technicality, but I saw
that your corporation and your stocks and everything are on Real
Handyman and Carpentry, Inc., but your application is Real
Handyman and Finish Carpentry, Inc. I'm just wondering what the--
MR. ALVAREZ: Yeah, is once when I open the -- that business
account, I open on that, because I also got the handyman license too.
But when I apply, Ossorio, Mike Ossorio told me I cannot do that
because I'm not a carpenter. And that way I have to make an
amendment to Tallahassee to change carpentry for finish carpentry,
Page 9
March 12,2010
because I'm not licensed.
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. You know, typically, you know,
when somebody comes in and says I'm going to be -- the name of my
business is Michael Ossorio's Carpentry, we have a carpentry license,
and he's going for a cabinet license or a finish work, so technically we
just don't like that kind of verbiage in there. So he had to do an
amendment to the corporation, so that's why you see a little difference.
MR. LANTZ: I just saw the corporate shares and all the
corporate stuff that was in our packet said carpentry, not finish
carpentry. So I was just wondering what the difference is, that's all.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other questions for Mr. Alvarez or
for staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, so if! may summarize, Mr.
Alvarez, you've got several years of experience doing painting. You
also have licenses in other trades. But because of a language barrier,
you cannot pass the painting exam. However, you've been informed
today that you can take the test in Spanish, and there are also
construction classes that you could take that would maybe familiarize
you more with the terminology that you might need to understand to
pass the test. Does that sound like I summarized it pretty well?
MR. JOSLIN: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, if there are no other questions or
comments from the board, I'm going to need a motion.
Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: I move we deny his request and --
MR. WHITE: Second.
MR. LANTZ: -- require him to take the test and pass it.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
MR. WHITE: Under discussion, Mr. Chairman, I would simply
recommend to the applicant that he consider attending one of the
Page 10
March 12,2010
schools, and also pursue taking the exam in Spanish if he feels that
that is the real problem here.
From my point of view I didn't see enough effort on your part to
find other ways to get through the exam other than to just have us
waive it.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, I have a motion, I have a second.
All those in favor of declining the request, say aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Motion carries, thank you.
Okay, Gregory Westgate, qualifying a second entity.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: Mr. Westgate currently qualifies Southern
Coast Painting and is in front of the board today to qualify a second
entity, Classic Painting of Naples.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman, just to let you know, I've
worked -- or he has worked for me a long time ago. I don't think it's
going to affect my decision, but just want for the record to let you
know.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you, Mr. Jerulle.
And also I have a relationship with Mr. Westgate and his
company, Southern Coast Painting, and I will abstain from voting on
this request. Okay.
Page 11
March 12,2010
Mr. Westgate, explain to us why you're here, sir.
MR. WESTGATE: I'm transitioning over to -- actually
expanding with a partner to another aspect of painting, which is more
focused on repaints and residential, opposed to new construction. I
want to continue to pursue new construction and commercial work,
and my partner is going to pursue a -- more of a residential repainting
sector of the business.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: Is your partner here?
MR. WESTGATE: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: Could you point him out for us?
MR. WESTGATE: Mr. Vallenueva.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Do you have questions of his partner?
MR. JERULLE: No, just curious. Not yet, anyway.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Westgate, could you spell his
last name for me, please?
MR. WESTGATE: V-A-L-L-E-N-U-E-V-A.
THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: How long has this company been in business, Mr.
Westgate?
MR. WESTGATE: Well, it's not current. We're in the process of
completing all the documents and paperwork.
MR. JOSLIN: No, you're qualifying a second entity, you said.
MR. WESTGATE: Correct.
MR. JOSLIN: What's the first entity? How long has it been in
business?
MR. WESTGATE: Since 1996.
MR. JOSLIN: Mr. Ossorio, has there been any other problems
with this company? Michael?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Michael?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes?
MR. JOSLIN: Has there been any citations or problems with this
Page 12
March 12,2010
company?
MR. OSSORIO: Nothing I know of, no.
MR. JOSLIN: What is your feeling on it?
MR. OSSORIO: I read it and I reviewed it and it looks fine to
me.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious, do you have -- do you currently
have workers' comp coverage, or are you working on an exemption?
MR. WESTGATE: No, I'm covered with workman's compo
MR. LANTZ: And the second company will be compo or
exemption?
MR. WESTGATE: Don't know. It's not been -- we're going to
start off the business with Bill doing the work himself. In efforts to
expand, we would hire a management company to do payroll and
outsource that and take advantage of the coverage that is provided by
the outsource company at that time.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Jerulle?
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Chairman, as the board knows, I'm not in
great favor of having one company qual -- or one person qualify two
different entities, especially if those entities are the same. I guess I
don't understand why you want to qualify a second entity when you
have an entity that paints.
It doesn't make a difference if the painter is commercial or
residential, you still have a license to paint, correct?
MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, but his focus is going to be
predominantly on a different part of the industry than mine.
MR. JERULLE: So why can't you bring him into your existing
entity?
MR. WESTGATE: Well, we did talk about that. And he's got
more ambitions than to do such that. You know, he wants to grow and
be more of an acting member than an employee. And I -- you know,
he proved to be, you know, financially responsible to fund that. And
Page 13
March 12,2010
he's ambitious and wants to -- wants to, you know, partner and do
things right and achieve what everybody else is trying to achieve.
And I thought it was a good opportunity for myself as well him --
MR. JERULLE: So then it begs the question, why not sell him
part of your company and let him do that, or work out an arrangement
with him to give him part of your company --
MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, we talked--
MR. JERULLE: -- to do that?
MR. WESTGATE: We talked about that.
MR. JERULLE: I just don't understand why you need two
different -- you need to have two different separate painting
compames.
MR. WESTGATE: We talked about that as well. And I don't
want to give up my shares of my existing company.
MR. JERULLE: Okay.
MR. LANTZ: What sort of role are you going to have in the new
company?
MR. WESTGATE: Management.
MR. LANTZ: Like job site supervision management or
overseeing the books management or --
MR. WESTGATE: Overseeing the books.
MR. JOSLIN: If! may?
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Sir?
MR. JOSLIN: I'd just like to call the board's attention to the
credit application in the back of the packet.
Mr. Westgate, I found it -- I've got -- well, I'm seeing five
different collection accounts on you in '09. Not a sizeable amount of
money on them, except for one that's a foreclosure. Can you kind of
give me an idea on what's going on with that?
MR. WESTGATE: And which -- where is that at?
MR. JOSLIN: It's from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
Foreclosure procedure. And you're delinquent 180 days.
Page 14
March 12,20]0
MR. WESTGATE: That was a short sale. That's a short sale on
a home that I lived in.
MR. JOSLIN: What is MINTEX, Inc.?
MR. WESTGATE: I'm not sure.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm not sure what it means. It's a company of
some sort. M-I-N-T-E-X, Inc.
MR. WHITE: They look like they're a collection company, but
the original creditor was Collier County W aste. Would that be not
having paid for your solid waste pickup?
MR. WESTGATE: What solid waste?
MR. WHITE: Garbage.
MR. WESTGATE: No, it's all in my taxes. I guess when you're
delinquent on payments and you're delinquent on property tax in the
situation where you've not made the payment, then the taxes are
responsible of the owner, which would be the bank.
You know, I don't really want to get into the logistics of how a
mortgage is foreclosed on, nor that I would feel it was relevant to
question me on my, you know, short sale or foreclosure process of my
primary residence.
MR. WHITE: Well, I appreciate your--
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Excuse me, Mr. White.
Mr. Neale, why don't you clarify for us. There are some
guidelines for us whether we take the business credit or personal credit
into consideration in these circumstances, if you'd clarify that for us,
please.
MR. NEALE: Right. And since his business has been in the
business that he currently has, has been in business for over a year,
you're to look to his business credit, not to his personal credit in
determining whether he has been responsible. And you're to look
primarily at construction debts, not at personal debts.
So, you know, ifhe had a house foreclosed on and it was his own
house, as long as he's running his business well and paying his
Page 15
March 12,2010
business debts, in today's economy particularly I don't think that's
something that anybody should throw big rocks at him about. You
know, ifhe's able to keep his business squared away, and particularly
since both the Florida Administrative Code statute and the rules all say
that it's whether they're paying their contracting debts, not their
personal debts.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. JOSLIN: What's the -- one other question then. According
to the business credit report I'm showing something for Chicago
Municipal Company for a debt that was filed in 11/20 of '03 for
$9,200?
MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, that's been satisfied.
MR. JOSLIN: Why is it appearing on your credit report? I don't
see anything that says it's satisfied, that's why I'm asking.
MR. WESTGATE: That was a business consulting company that
was -- that was sent in as well. It was requested that that be sent in,
the documents qualifying that that was satisfied.
Is it in your packet? Because it was provided.
MR. JOSLIN: No, that's why I was looking for it.
MR. WESTGATE: That was provided, right, Bill? That was the
MR. WHITE: There's a satisfaction release of judgment for the
amount of$9,239--
MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, that's correct.
MR. WHITE: -- from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
which is Chicago.
MR. WESTGATE: That's it.
MR. JOSLIN: Where did you find that, Mr. White?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Joslin, it's three pages up from the credit
report.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: It's in front of the business report, credit
Page 16
March 12,2010
report.
MR. JOSLIN: Sorry.
MR. WHITE: I knew I'd seen it, but--
MR. NEALE: And one other point on the Rule 61G4 is that the
consumer credit report should not disclose any unsatisfied judgments
or liens against the applicant. So if there are any outstanding
judgments or liens against the applicant, those can be grounds to
disqualify. But this is a satisfied judgment.
MR. WHITE: Is that on both the business and personal or just--
MR. NEALE: Business and personal. The specific language is
-- this is 61 G4-15 .006. The financial responsibility ground on which
the board shall refuse to qualify an applicant is failure to provide a
current consumer credit report, which consumer credit report does not
disclose any unsatisfied judgments or liens against the applicant.
MR. WHITE: Just one question, Mr. Chairman, to clarify about
the workers' comp, if I may?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Westgate, you indicated that your company
Classic was going to file for exemptions, or not?
MR. WESTGATE: Upon the approval of this we will consult
with a -- with In Balance -- actually, we've consulted with them
already as far as the payroll -- use the numbers of payroll service, and
them providing the workmen's compo for the employees as they're
signed on.
MR.OSSORIO: Mr. White, if you look on the back of the page,
it says notice of election to be exempt. His partner is going to be
owners (sic) of a company, obviously he's going to have to get a
workers' comp exemption, be incorporated. It's either/or, workers'
comp exempt with a payroll service --
MR. WESTGATE: Well, most of the work that's required,
except for outside of condos, is no -- you can use an exemption for
personal residences. Condos you need to be -- even if you're the
Page 17
March 12, 2010
owner, it's required you are covered. I don't --
MR. OSSORIO: That's not true.
MR. WESTGATE: -- believe that they accept -- or they accept
exemptions?
MR. OSSORIO: No, it's up to the condo association. Some of
the condo associations don't like exemptions, but there's no restriction
on the exemptions. Workers Comp under 440, if you are exempt,
you're exempt from commercial/residential. A lot of companies don't
like exemptions because it's easy to cheat, so they like to have a
payroll service or some kind of a policy.
MR. WESTGATE: Right. And in the work that he is, you know,
following, that we haven't needed to go to that step yet.
MR. WHITE: So the point of my question was to clarify whether
your intention is to file for the exemptions or to have the coverage.
I'm not sure I got a clear answer either way.
MR. WESTGATE: It will be done by the payroll company. But
at this time the plan is to have Bill exempt from Workmen's Compo
MR. WHITE: You're saying the president, Mr. Bill Vallenueva?
MR. WESTGATE: Correct.
MR. WHITE: And the Notice of Election to be Exempt that you
filed and is in our packet, what about that?
MR. WESTGATE: I've been exempt.
MR. WHITE: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: I'm not sure I understand. Excuse me. You're
going to be exempt from both entities?
MR. WESTGATE: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: And he'll be exempt from the second entity as
well ?
MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, that's correct.
MR. JOSLIN: Are you going to have employees besides
yourself? Besides yourselves.
MR. WESTGATE: Hopefully there'll be future growth. That's
Page 18
March 12,2010
the whole plan here.
MR. JOSLIN: That's why you're going to use the payroll service
then?
MR. WESTGATE: That's right.
MR. LANTZ: And is there another person exempt from your
current company? Is it just you?
MR. WESTGATE: Just me, yes. I've always been the sole
owner.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other questions for Mr. Westgate or
for staff?
MR. JERULLE: Are you still going in the field, Greg, and
painting?
MR. WESTGATE: No.
MR. JERULLE: I have no other questions.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Then I need a motion.
MR. BOYD: I make a motion we approve it.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion to approve. I need a
second.
MR. MEISTER: Second.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you, Mr. Meister.
I have a motion, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
MR. JERULLE: Yeah, I still have a problem with ifhe's trying
to qualify a second entity that does not do painting, I would agree,
most likely, if everything was in order. But to have two painting
companies doing the exact same thing, it just doesn't -- I just have a
hard time with it. I don't think that we're serving the public or
ourselves well by doing that. So personally I have a problem with it
and I'm going to vote no.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What are your specific concerns, Terry?
Page 19
March ]2,2010
MR. JERULLE: You have a painting company that can do -- his
motive was to have one do residential and one do commercial. He can
do residential and commercial now. There's nothing preventing a
painting company from doing either one. So he's trying to create a
second entity for a purpose that I still don't understand why. Just to
create another entity.
And I just think there's things that could happen. Not saying that
will happen, but in my mind there's things that can happen by having
two different entities when you can only -- when you still only need
one. So in my mind I just disagree with it.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you for your comments.
Any other comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, we have a motion and a second to
approve. I'm going to call the vote. All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those opposed?
MR. JERULLE: Nay.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
THE COURT REPORTER: Could I see a show of hands?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: In favor, raise your hand, please.
MR. WHITE: (Indicating.)
MR. BOYD: (Indicating.)
MR. MEISTER: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed, raise your hand.
MR. JOSLIN: (Indicating.)
MR. LANTZ: (Indicating.)
MR. JERULLE: (Indicating.)
THE COURT REPORTER: And you're abstaining.
Page 20
March ]2,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I'm abstaining.
So we had a motion to approve and we have a vote of 3-3, which
means the vote does not carry, correct?
MR. NEALE: Right.
MR. WESTGATE: Can I--
MR. WHITE: Make a motion --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Excuse me one second.
Mr. Neale, is that correct?
MR. NEALE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Based on the motion that was made and
based on a tie vote, the motion does not carry --
MR. NEALE: Right.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: -- because it was not voted on by a
majority.
MR. NEALE: Correct. Mr. White I believe wants to --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. White?
MR. NEALE: -- make an alternative motion.
MR. WHITE: Ifthe applicant wanted to make a comment, I'd let
him go first.
MR. WESTGATE: Yeah, in respect to Mr. Jerulle's, you know,
disconcern (sic) with my business practice and the personal feeling
behind why he doesn't understand why this individual would want to
take on the responsibility of business ownership, I think that's pretty
unfair in your part.
You're a business owner. As a business owner, you strive to
perform more so. Mr. Lykos took on a business partner, multiple
business partners. So as yourself. I don't want to have a partner in my
business that I've established for so long.
Mr. Vallenueva is ambitious enough to consult with me, go
through the process properly in order for him to be able to achieve
ownership of a business and feel good about that and have passion
behind that.
Page 21
March 12,20]0
And I have somewhat of a disgust that you can't understand as a
business owner why Mr. Vallenueva wouldn't want to have the
passion to achieve ownership of a business. It was as win/win for
myself and Mr. Vallenueva.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Joslin --
MR. WESTGATE: That's why we did this.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Joslin, you have a comment?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
Did Mr. Vallenueva ever work for you?
MR. WESTGATE: Yes, he has.
MR. JOSLIN: For how long?
MR. WESTGATE: Off and on for a number of years.
MR. JERULLE: So if Mr. Vallenueva would like to own a
business, there's nothing that we've done that would prevent him from
starting and owning his own business.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
MR. WESTGATE: You know, the choice is--
MR. JERULLE: There's nothing preventing him from going out
and getting a painting license.
MR. WESTGATE: Well, there's nothing from him--
MR. JERULLE: -- starting an LLC or an S Corporation and
starting his own company.
MR. WESTGATE: When conjoining with another individual
that's established, there's a lot of benefit with that.
MR. JERULLE: And that's what I'm saying. Make him a
partner.
MR. WESTGATE: I don't think that's -- you know, that's a
personal choice.
MR. JOSLIN: In other words, you trust him enough to put your
license on the line to qualify him to be in business, but you don't trust
him enough to be in your business. That's the problem I have.
MR. WESTGATE: Well, it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of
Page 22
March ]2,20] 0
conflict. And I don't, you know, want to have a partner in my
business. I grew my business, it was my business.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, Mr. Westgate, thank you for your
time today. If you'd like, you can contact Mr. Ossorio, find out what
your other options may be. Mr. Vallenueva can contact the licensing
department, find out what other options you may have.
If you decide you want to apply again under different
circumstances and come back in front of the board, you certainly have
that option as well.
MR. WESTGATE: The circumstance isn't going to change.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Well, the board has voted. And unless I
have a motion that somebody wants to start this process all over again,
I don't even know that I would even accept that motion, but you do
have other options, Mr. Vallenueva has other options.
MR. WESTGATE: Was it not explained?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Well, my point is--
MR. WESTGATE: Just because somebody has a
misunderstanding for themselves the answer is well, I just don't
understand why you're doing this? I mean --
MR. JOSLIN: It's not understanding, Mr. Westgate. Understand,
there are three board members that denied it and there are three that
approved it. I'm sorry that's the way it fell, but that's the decision that
the board has made.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. White, you have a comment?
MR. WHITE: No, actually, I was going to make a motion to
continue it to next month for further consideration. I would like the
opportunity to give the gentleman a way to present his case slightly
different, come back with perhaps some more explanation and
rationale as to why that might satisfy the three votes against. If that's
not agreeable and there isn't a second, then it fails. But I at least
wanted to give him an opportunity.
And although it was a very close question in my mind, and I
Page 23
March ]2,2010
almost voted against this as well, I have to say that I made the decision
to vote in favor of it, one, because there is a process that allows him to
do this. Two, he qualifies for all aspects under that process. And in
my mind, although I may not agree with the philosophy or the
business practice, until such time as there's demonstrated proof that he
doesn't qualify or subsequent to approval and having his license
demonstrate that he's not worthy to have that license, I think we have
to go along with what it is that I signed up to do which is to basically
follow the rules.
So in this case although I didn't like the answer to some of the
questions and the way that some the questions were answered, I
wanted to give the gentleman an opportunity to come back next
month, both with something potentially in writing in his packet and
otherwise to address the concerns of my fellow board members.
But again, that's a motion I put out there for that effort, and that's
all I have to share at this time, Mr. Chairman.
MR. WESTGATE: Bill has--
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
MR. WESTGATE: Bill has contacts that I don't have. And that
as well is a large part of why, you know, we're doing this. He doesn't
want to give up those contacts. He doesn't want to completely turn
those contacts over to me. And he wants to grow a business and build
contacts.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Westgate, Mr. Vallenueva, the board
heard the case, the board has voted.
Mr. White sounds like he has recommended that you assemble a
package with some other information in it and perhaps come back
with a different plan. You're certainly open to coming back perhaps
next month with another package or another request, but at this time
the board has voted, and --
MR. WHITE: Well, it appears my motion has failed for lack ofa
second, Mr. Chairman, but --
Page 24
March 12,2010
MR. NEALE: There was a motion made. I don't know if there
was even a call for a second, so --
MR. WHITE: Do you want to call for a second, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I will call for a statement. Why don't
you restate your motion and I'll call for a second.
MR. WHITE: Motion is to continue to have the applicant return
with whatever additional written materials he would like to provide for
the matter to be reconsidered next month.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion. Is there a second?
MR. BOYD: I'll second it, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not -- just point of order, Mr.
Chairman. I don't know if you're going to remove yourself from this
vote or not, but I certainly can't see any reason why you'd have a
conflict to vote whether we would continue it or not. And I'd ask Mr.
Neale to --
MR. NEALE: I agree with Mr. White, I think the Chair has to
vote on this one.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. WHITE: So if you want to call the question.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I will call the vote again.
All those in favor of continuation till next month.
Page 25
March 12,20]0
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: So--
MR. JOSLIN: Motion fails.
MR. WHITE: Motion fails.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: -- the motion fails.
Again, Mr. Westgate, you can come back to us next month or any
time thereafter with another proposal for us to consider, another
request for us to consider. Thank you for your time this morning.
Cory Maile. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Sorry for that.
Mr. Maile, if you'd please be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Maile, you are here for review of
your construction experience affidavits; is that correct?
MR. MAILE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any background from staff on this?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Maile is not
uncommon. I think you've heard testimony or similar cases in the
past. Mr. Maile is a homeowner that has elected to take the business
procedure test to be a pool cleaning contractor. Unfortunately he's
never actually worked for a pool cleaning contractor. He has owned
many homes and done his own work and so he has petitioned the
board to waiver the experience, or show experience to the board.
MR. MAILE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Maile, why don't you give us some background information
Page 26
March 12, 2010
on yourself.
MR. MAILE: Real estate investigator, real estate broker. I've
owned three real estate investment companies and brokerage
companies in Collier County. Currently I have sold all three of them
and now a broker with another company.
But mainly I do maintenance and manage my own properties, my
own 12 or 13 properties in Collier County. I service -- I'm currently
serving six pools that I own, which I have been for quite a while, as
well as I've been servicing the pools for the last 12 years since I came
here in 1998.
Prior to 1998 I was a real estate investor and broker in
Minnesota, which I did the same thing, as well as -- there wasn't as
many pools there; I only had two pools because of the weather. But I
did service the pools while I was in management in Minnesota.
Currently own Realty Net Real Estate which is the entity that
houses most of my homes. And I manage that as well as do vacation
rentals. I currently have six vacation rentals that I rent out on a
weekly basis in Collier County, and I manage the rentals and the
properties and the pools and the lawns and all that. That's my job for
my properties.
And I would like to expand that to properties that I don't own and
service pools on properties that I do not own. So I'd like to ask the --
incorporate my 12 years of experience in managing my own properties
to incorporate a business of adding a few that I don't own from friends
and relatives and future business.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Questions for Mr. Maile?
MR. WHITE: None for Mr. Maile, Mr. Chairman. One for staff.
What is the experience length of time that's supposed to be
demonstrated?
MR. OSSORIO: It's 24 months.
MR. WHITE: Twenty-four months.
Page 27
March 12,20]0
MR. MAILE: And I have completed two. I have completed the
Collier County pool certification class, and I also have completed a
Florida certification class that is put on by the Aquatic Training
Institute, and I have completed that as well. Which is not mandatory
for this, but it's just additional experience that I have.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry?
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Ossorio, do you have a recommendation?
MR. OSSORIO: I thought about this -- Ian and myself thought
about this at length. And I try to be consistent with our business and
how we conduct and how we recommend, but in this particular case,
Mr. Maile has zone shown to me that he's owned businesses, he's
owned homes. We've checked. He's been in business in this
community for quite a long time. And he has taken the necessary
courses, the CPO courses that will go towards his experience. Not all
of it, not even half of it.
So my recommendation is, is that he -- six month probation, give
him a license only for residential homes, no condos. That would be
my recommendation.
MR. JOSLIN: And pool cleaning only?
MR. OSSORIO: That's what his license he's going for is pool
cleaning.
MR. MAILE: Yeah, I'm only trying to get a pool cleaning
license and I have no intentions of doing licenses.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: We happen to have a pool guy with us.
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Richard.
MR. JOSLIN: Unfortunately you're in luck today.
The license that we're trying to give him is one of the A, B or C
classes, is that what you're trying to say? So if he gets a swimming
pool servicing contractor licensing, is what we're going to give him,
then he's going to be able to do servicing on any residential pool plus
repair.
Page 28
March 12,2010
MR. OSSORIO: No.
MR. MAILE: No, just residential cleaning and pools.
MR. OSSORIO: Remember we've talked about this is the--
when you read this 489, that's different from ours. Ours is pool
servicing and cleaning. We're going to clean it up in our next budget
-- I mean, our next workshop. However, he's going to for pool
cleaning only --
MR. MAILE: No service.
MR. OSSORIO: -- and all he can do is servicing --
MR. JOSLIN: We're just going to restrict the license to just pool
cleaning only?
MR. MAILE: Correct.
MR. JOSLIN: Is that the --
MR. WHITE: And the residential --
MR. NEALE: The new license will be just pool cleaning.
MR. MAILE: No service, no--
MR. NEALE: But this one will be a restricted--
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, there's two people
talking.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: One person at a time.
MR. NEALE: This one would be a restricted license, based on
staff recommendation. But when the new ordinance is aborne, it will
have the cleanup between the -- of the discrepancy between the state
and the county license and it will have a straight pool cleaning license.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, that's what I --
MR. OSSORIO: For pool cleaning -- to clean pools in Collier
County requires a business procedure test. There's no trades test.
MR. JOSLIN: Correct.
MR. OSSORIO: This is why the county staff and myself and Ian
and Robert Zachary look at his experience. We look for experience,
and it's 24 months. However, in light of his business, he's been in the
community, he's also had many properties in town, I'd recommend that
Page 29
March 12,2010
since he's taken the necessary certificate courses and I recommend he
go on six-month probation with a restricted to residential homes, no
commercial. That's my recommendation.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. White?
MR. WHITE: Just a question.
Mr. Ossorio, what are we going to do six months from now if we
grant him a six-month probationary? What are we going to be looking
for six months from now?
MR. OSSORIO: Six months, I believe he'll petition the board
again, he will tell his story of what kind of business he's doing, how's
he doing, how many accounts he has and if there's been any
complaints.
And my assumption would be if he meets those criterias then
he'll be off probation and be just a swimming pool cleaning contractor,
restricted to residential pools.
MR. WHITE: And there isn't the potential six months from now
to make that a full license without the limitation to residential only?
MR. OSSORIO: That's up to the board.
MR. WHITE: I understand. But just trying to understand where
you're going with it.
MR. JOSLIN: What is the ATI training, Aquatic Training
Institute? Where is that out of?
MR. MAILE: It's just a nationwide institution to -- Collier
County has their own health department test. This is more of a Florida
test. So the State of Florida would -- if the Collier County didn't have
their own test, the State of Florida would require this test. But Collier
County has their own test as well, so I took both.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. You do understand that the Collier County
Health Department is governed by the State of Florida.
MR. MAILE: Well, yeah, but this --
MR. JOSLIN: It's Collier --
MR. MAILE: -- it's a national thing. But it meets all the
Page 30
March ]2,2010
requirements of the State of Florida as well.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: I have -- first I have a comment. I like the way
you did your packet. I just want to -- we get a lot of them that are
junk. You did a really nice job spelling everything out. I appreciate
that.
I appreciate the fact that you took all the classes and it seems like
you're ready to go. You've never worked for a pool contractor. In my
opinion, that's irrelevant. I personally feel you have the experience.
My question is, Michael is suggesting restricting you to
residential only, no condos. Are you happy? Do you care about that?
MR. MAILE: I do not care. I have no intentions of doing
condos.
MR. LANTZ: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Give me one second.
Any other questions or comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we approve the license for
the pool cleaning and restrict it to residential pools only, and a
probationary period of six months, where he'll come back before the
board and bring us some kind of an update on how he's doing and the
business, how it is doing.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a second from Mr. Lantz.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
Page 31
March 12,2010
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Congratulations, sir.
Eric Baker, waiver of examination.
Mr. Baker, please be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn).
MR. BAKER: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Good morning, sir. How are you today?
MR. BAKER: Fine.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Good. Staff, quick background on this?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Baker has been a long-time member of the
community. He's been a cabinet installer for many years. And
unfortunately that he forgot to renew his certificate. And when you
don't renew your certificate in a certain amount of time, testing is
required. Unfortunately he's here to get -- ask for a waiver of test.
Which we have heard before from other applicants.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Baker?
MR. BAKER: Well, there appears to be some circumstances
involved in this that are a little different. It appears that when the
occupational license renewals and the cabinet installer renewals were
mailed, they were mailed together up to, what, 2008, I think.
Then when I went to the Horseshoe Drive, I was told that those
had been separated, that the occupational license was sent out
separately from the contractor licensing renewal. And for some
reason our name was left off the list. So we didn't get the renewal for
the cabinet install license. So it wasn't that we invertently ( sic) -- you
Page 32
March 12,2010
know, didn't renew it, we didn't get a notice that it was time to renew
it, because it didn't come in the same package as the occupational
license.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you -- Mr. Baker, I'm
sure you are being honest with me and the licensing board, but we
have never commingled licensing business tax receipts and our
certificates with them.
We used to send them out very similar, within a month. We have
not changed how we send our certificates out in years. It's always
been in September.
The business tax license several years ago moved it farther up
into the months. June. So you'll get your business tax receipt first and
then you'll get your certificate in September. But no way, shape or
form, Mr. Baker's unfortunately misspoke, that we've never
commingled our certificates with the business -- I wish we would, it
would save money. But that is a business tax that is a tax collector,
and we are -- we work for -- we do certificates.
We used to be very similar in sending out renewals, so that's the
difference. So maybe he's just getting confused.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
MR. BAKER: I may have my information incorrect, with the
fact that they -- I thought they came together, okay, so maybe they
came at the same time.
(Microphone came out of holder.)
MR. BAKER: Can I fix that for us?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Please do.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. Baker's been licensed for many,
many years. As a matter of fact, he's been licensed so long that I don't
think he ever even took the business procedure test. I believe he was
grandfathered in.
MR. BAKER: I don't know how this works, gentlemen, you'll
have to help me.
Page 33
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you, Ian.
MR. BAKER: Oh, there it is.
Any questions for staff or for Mr. Baker?
(No response.)
MR. BAKER: May I make some more comments? We did try
to put all the information together, as was requested. We brought all
of the financial information.
There appeared to be an issue with our credit report. We did
have a lien that was filed by the Department of Revenue for unpaid
sales tax. We had an agreement with the sales tax people to pay that
sales tax on a monthly installment.
We took the information to Horseshoe Drive, told them that that
was in process and that we were not able to satisfy the requirements
until we had a release of lien from the State of Florida.
We didn't get the release oflien until January of'10. And when
we took it there, then we were told that the -- you know, the time
frame had expired. And that's why I'm here now, to ask about the
waiver of the test.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Terry?
MR. JERULLE: You've been in business a long time and I have
no doubt about your qualifications, but I'm just curious, why not just
go take the test as opposed to coming here? It's--
MR. BAKER: Because I've never taken a test before and the
word test is -- yeah, that's what I say, test?
MR. JOSLIN: This tax lien you're saying is paid off now?
MR. BAKER: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: It's all done and taken care of.
MR. BAKER: Yes.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify Mr. Baker's
statement, he's actually correct, if he didn't have the tax lien and he
proceeded before January 1st, then he would fall under the category of
not retesting. Since he fell after January 1st, he fell in a different
Page 34
March 12,2010
category on the renewal period and the test required. So you can see
by the application year ending 2009, this is an old application. He
came in to reapply and unfortunately he fell in between the January
1 st and December. He finally got the certificate what (sic) he needed
to and then he fell into the retesting.
MR. JERULLE: So Mr. Ossorio, he has to come in front the
board, that's not a decision that you can make?
MR.OSSORIO: Yeah. After December -- after January 1st, the
renewal period, he doesn't have to go in front of the board, but it says
that if you haven't taken the test within three years of your null and
void license, then you have to retest. Unfortunately Mr. Baker, I don't
think he ever took the exam; am I correct?
MR. BAKER: No, I --
MR. OSSORIO: He's been unlicensed forever.
MR. BAKER: -- was one of the fortunate people that were here
when --
MR. JERULLE: Do you have a recommendation?
MR. OSSORIO: He paid his tax lien. And ifhe paid it before
January 1st, he wouldn't have to retest. So he did everything I asked
him to do. I recommend that we waive the test.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, I have one--
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Excuse me one second.
MR. JOSLIN: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious, had he paid his tax lien
December 29th, he'd be here and --
MR. OSSORIO: He would not be here.
MR. LANTZ: He'd have a license, he'd be all set.
MR. OSSORIO: He'd be fine.
MR. LANTZ: So, I mean, basically it was your choice to wait
until January to finish paying it, as opposed to paying it a week or two
earlier.
Page 35
March 12,2010
MR. BAKER: Well, actually it was, you know, us getting it in
the mail from the State of Florida. I mean, the tax lien was actually
paid prior to the end of the year, but of course it has to go through all
of the motions at the state. Then they will then issue a release of lien.
MR. JOSLIN: If I'm not missing something, but isn't it law, state
law -- Mr. Neale could tell us this -- that any contractor that does
contracting business doesn't pay taxes, he pays taxes when he buys the
material?
MR. BAKER: Well, if you're tax exempt as we are, okay, we
buy materials tax exempt, we charge the customer sales tax and then
we pay the state sales tax.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I understand now.
MR. BOYD: And this was probably a result of an audit, the lien?
MR. BAKER: It was an audit and --
MR. BOYD: Yeah. I've been audited twice. And each time I
can guarantee you, you're going to pay something. There's no
question about it.
MR. NEALE: I can say for my client that every client who's ever
been audited by the state for sales tax ends up writing a check.
MR. BOYD: Yeah. And both times I've been audited, neither
one of the auditors had the same answers to any questions.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other questions of staff or Mr.
Baker?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, then I need a motion.
MR. WHITE: Motion to approve.
MR. BOYD: Second, Boyd.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
Page 36
March 12,2010
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Motion carries.
Thank you, sir.
MR. BAKER: Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. JOSLIN: No test.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Is Leonard Allen here?
Please come up, sir, be sworn in.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Leonard (sic), you're here to contest
a citation?
MR. ALLEN : Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Will you please explain why
you're here.
MR. ALLEN: The reason why I'm here is first off! asked for the
hearing to explain the business cards that was mailed into your -- to
the builder's office, which was falsifying that I'm a contractor, I
suppose is what I -- how I was told.
And two, I didn't -- I don't have the money to pay the ticket. It's
just -- I've currently moved up north Florida to Tallahassee where I
was from originally before I moved south here in Collier County.
Let me explain a little bit about my company, and then I'll-- if
you don't mind, then I'll tell you about the business card.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Please go ahead.
MR. ALLEN: Ace Carpentry is a limited liability company,
organized under the laws of the State of Florida. And it was filed in
October 27th, 2006. All the fees have been paid.
Page 37
March 12, 2010
I've moved back to Tallahassee due to -- I just don't know any
contractors, I don't know anybody here, and it's so seasonal. It seemed
like every time I would establish a job with a company, this off season
would come and here I am out of work again. Well, I'm married and I
have three children, and right now we're living on -- excuse me, I'm a
little nervous; I'm not usually talking in front of an audience, or you
gentlemen.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: That's okay, take your time.
MR. ALLEN: Okay. And we have three children, which living
off only my wife's income, which isn't very much.
Let's see. The business card was basically a sample card. I give
it to some family members, a few friends. Me and my wife had split
up there for a little while, we had some problems. And an
ex-girlfriend of mine had gotten the card. Along with a couple of
contractors that I have met since I've been living in Marco Island.
I don't know which one of those cards made it into you guys, but
I'm assuming -- I'm really leaning towards the ex-girlfriend, because
she's trying to get to me in a lot of different ways. I'm just saying that
because that's the way I feel anyway.
You know, I know I put -- listed a few jobs or duties, occupations
on there. And basically the card was printed off my computer in order
to get the opinion of different people of what the card looked like and
whatnot. And then the contractors that -- the couple contractors that I
did let see the card and give the card to told me that no, this was -- you
know, I needed to obtain other licenses and -- to have this on my
business card.
So -- and now I've went to Leon County. I went to make sure my
business license was up to date. And now they don't require a
business license, they've done away with the county business license
for carpentry. All you now have to have is a limited liability
exemption and then be covered, bonded by insurance to work
carpentry like home repair and whatnot. So they don't require a
Page 38
March 12,2010
business license. I didn't know if you guys new that. Tallahassee
doesn't require a county business license for carpentry anymore.
And I'm sure you -- I found out that you do. But I really wasn't
working under my license here anyway. And it had actually fell
behind, but I got it up to date. Because I'm hoping to get in touch with
some of the contractors I had worked for previously in Tallahassee.
I guess I'm asking for this fine to be waived due to the fact that I
don't have any money to pay it. And I would have been late had I not
asked for this hearing after the 10 days of being given the ticket.
I'm aware that several of the occupations that were on the card
were requiring an additional licensing, but -- and when I put it on
there, I was not planning on doing plumbing and electric. I merely
meant to pass it on to a company who did. Because I don't care -- my
insurance company wouldn't care for me to go in and wire somebody's
house or change receptacles and whatnot anyway, or to do their
plumbing. And God knows, I don't want to go into a condo or
someone's home and cause a leak. I see it every day with -- or had
seen it a lot of times with working with ServPro and some of the other
water restoration companies in this area, how easily you can flood out
a building by leaving a toilet unhooked or whatnot. I've seen millions
of dollars that insurance companies would have to payor I guess
would be -- the company would be liable, whoever caused the
problem.
But it was basically a sample card and it only made it to a few
people. I didn't go handing it out door-to-door or take it to condos and
passing out the card. It was someone trying to get revenge on me, and
it was a sample card.
And I am aware that things that I listed on there are requiring a
different licensing. But you got one of them and I'm here and I've
been fined $300 that I really don't have. I don't have the money to pay
it.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Thank you for
Page 39
March 12,2010
your comments.
Mr. Jackson?
MR. JACKSON: On February 1st our office received the
business card through the mail. The envelope didn't have a return
address. I believe it just contained the business card.
The morning of February 3rd, I spoke with Mr. Allen by
telephone, explained that I had received the card and that it's an issue.
And during that conversation on the phone, Mr. Allen did mention to
me that he had placed the cards at a paint store and at the farmer's
market.
Arranged a meeting with Mr. Allen later that morning at his
home and explained the violation, explained what he can do with his
Leon County business tax receipt, and issued the citation there on-site.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Allen, is it true that you distributed the cards at the farmer's
market and at a paint store?
MR. ALLEN: Well, at the paint store I knew the person there.
And I didn't really distribute them. That was another opinion I got,
along with Cindy from Frow's (phonetic) Plumbing is someone I've
met since I've been here. And basically it was not to distribute.
And as far as the farmer's market, there was a friend of mine
there who sells stone crabs there. And I did leave him some cards.
But I haven't -- and I told Mr. Ian -- Mr. Jackson, that if needed right
then and there, I would change my phone number, I didn't plan on
doing any work in Collier County, and that these cards I do know need
-- now I do know they require different licensing, and Collier County
licensing. But Leon County doesn't require a business license, they
require an LLC exemption and to be bonded by insurance.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, I understand, thank you.
Any questions or comments from the board?
MR. BOYD: Have you done any work in Collier County?
MR. ALLEN: I have as far as with contractors on the books.
Page 40
March ]2,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What do you mean by that? Do you
mean as a subcontractor or as an employee?
MR. ALLEN: As an employee.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What companies have you worked for as
an employee?
MR. ALLEN: Sunup Construction is the only contracting
company I've worked for.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What work are you doing now?
MR. ALLEN: None. I'm in -- relocated in Tallahassee.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Any other questions or
comments?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Neale, can you read us from the
ordinance how -- what our options are in addressing this situation?
MR. NEALE: Certainly. As soon as I get down to it here.
Okay, once the citation is issued, they shall hear -- each one's a
separate offense, but the board basically has the option to -- either to
find the citation valid or invalid. But if the person that's issued the
citation or his or her designated representative shows that it's invalid
or that the violation's been corrected prior to appearing before the
licensing board or designated special magistrate, the enforcement or
licensing board may dismiss the citation, unless the violation is
irreparable or irreversible.
But that's a may, that's not a shall.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I understand, thank you.
Any other questions or comments?
MR. ALLEN: I do want to say one other thing. I apologize.
I worked as an employee and I did get some checks that didn't --
that he didn't withhold some taxes from Sunup's. But again, I worked
under -- I did have liability insurance, I'm exempt and have been, and
I have this LLC. And Leon County didn't and still doesn't require
occupational business license for carpentry anymore. They did, and I
Page 41
March 12,2010
had one up until they no longer require --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: With all due respect, Mr. Allen, our
concern is not what Leon County does or doesn't require. We're
concerned with what happens in Collier County and our responsibility
to the citizens of Collier County.
MR. ALLEN: I should have checked into Collier County's
licensing prior to doing any work here, I know that.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. ALLEN: But I just took what I knew from Leon County.
And I really haven't worked here much at all.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Michael, does Mr. Allen have any kind
of an active license in Collier County now?
MR. OSSORIO: None that I know of.
MR. JOSLIN: I think it's --
MR. NEALE: Just one other point that I'd like to bring up in the
statute is it says, if the enforcement or licensing board or designated
special magistrate finds that a violation exists, then the enforcement or
licensing board may order the violator to pay a civil penalty of not less
than the amount set forth in the citation but not more than $1,000 per
violation.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Richard?
MR. JOSLIN: I think it's pretty much clear evidence, because
he's admitted that he did this. I'm not real happy about the fact that he
has listed so many items on this card and how it got out. I'm telling --
I'm hearing him say that someone did it to him or sent the card out to
somewhere because of the revenge or what it may be.
But I think under the circumstances we're voting here or we're
going to vote on whether he's guilty or not, and that's really the only
thing that we can attest to.
So in my opinion, I'm ready to make a motion to find that he is in
violation. How he pays it is immaterial. I mean, I can't -- we can't
Page 42
March 12,2010
come up with a method of payment, I don't think.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Are you going to make a motion?
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that we uphold the citation that
was issued to Leonard Allen, number 5293.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor, say aye.
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, the motion carries, the citation is
upheld.
MR. ALLEN: Can I -- how long do I have to pay it? I really
don't have money to pay right now. Can I work out -- do you know if
I can go down and work out a payment plan?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I understand. You'll have to have that
conversation with Mr. Ossorio; is that correct?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. Mr. Allen, just stop by my
office Monday morning or sometime today in the afternoon and we'll
go over your plans.
MR. ALLEN: Where would I --
MR. OSSORIO: At Horseshoe Drive. At 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive. Just stop in and ask for Mike Ossorio. Okay?
MR. ALLEN: Thanks. Thank for your gentlemen's time.
Page 43
March 12,2010
MR. JOSLIN: You're welcome.
Is Mr. Robert James Wayne, Jr. here?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman is coming
up, I'm going to try to -- this is not uncommon, we've had several of
these before. Blue Line Corporations, he's an electrical contractor,
registered. He forgot to renew his certificate, but his state registration
is current. He kept all his continuing education classes; am I correct?
MR. WAYNE: Yes, sir.
MR. OSSORIO: My recommendation, that we approve his
certificate.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, Mr. Wayne, we've heard from Mr.
Ossorio. Comments?
MR. WAYNE: I've got -- obviously you see the little jot down
letter, the real quick letter that I wrote.
Yes, I am delinquent. Yes, it has gone delinquent, obviously
over a year.
At the point of the economy obviously taking a downturn, I got
an office job as -- in the same field as an electrical estimator. At that
point there really was no need for my license at the time. Not that I
wanted to go delinquent, but that was a couple -- some personal issues.
Just it fell by the wayside.
I'm looking to get back into the electrical business, obviously on
a smaller scale. I am -- as you can see through the paperwork that I
am applying for an exemption of workmen's compo So I'm just asking
for reinstatement of the license without retaking the test.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, if you look on the back page, I
think it's the very last one, it says registered electrical contractor,
VR13012603. It's current and active. And the only way he's going to
be current and active, if he actually continues his continuing
education; am I correct?
MR. WAYNE: Yeah. I have -- sorry, but I've, what do you call
Page 44
March 12,2010
it, taken care of all of the state requirements.
When I talked to Mr. Ossorio before, I was basically going to
take care of the state first, make sure you take care of all the fees,
delinquent fees and fines and whatnot. I did that. Kept up on my
continuing education, got the required liability, as well as the
Workmen's Compo It's in obviously a holding pattern until you
gentlemen vote on it.
MR. JERULLE: So this is -- excuse me, this is a registered, not a
certified license, Michael?
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct.
MR. JERULLE: For electrical.
MR. JOSLIN: That means just county-wise, correct, Collier
County?
MR. OSSORIO: That's the county license, registered with the
state, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And the state license is active and
current?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. The last page showing that his state is
current.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: How long has the county license been
expired?
MR. OSSORIO: Over 13 months. This is why he's -- he fell in
the category of the renewing process. It became null -- his certificate
became null and void.
We've had cases similar to this in front of you. This is not
uncommon. And the board's always elected to approve his certificate
on the notion that he's kept his current registration current and his
continuing education current with Tallahassee.
MR. JOSLIN: You have -- a registered contractor's continuing
ed. would had to been done for last year, the 14 hours, correct? Not
this year. This is a state certified year.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Right, it would be done in '09.
Page 45
March 12,2010
MR. JOSLIN: So it would have been done in '09. And you --
MR. WAYNE: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: -- brought that up to code, right, you've done
things that -- okay.
MR. WAYNE: Also, I -- couple of the -- obviously the months,
it's been 13 months, but it's been bumped. I kind of missed the cut-off
period, as we discussed earlier. So obviously this isn't the first board
meeting as well that I've got bumped so it appears longer than it
actually is. But I'm kind of past the -- I guess the proverbial crack, so
to speak, in the cut-off period, so --
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, Mr. Wayne tried to get on the last
agenda, but unfortunately the board has elected not to really add
anyone to the agenda once the agenda is set. And also the agenda last
month was large, so he just missed the cut-off.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other questions or comments ofMr.
Wayne or staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, then I need a motion.
MR. JOSLIN: Make a motion that we approved.
MR. LANTZ: Second.
MR. JERULLE: Second, Jerulle.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any
other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
Page 46
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
MR. WAYNE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Break? Okay. It's 10:21, we'll come back at 10:30.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All right, I'm going to call the meeting to
order of the Contractors Licensing Board.
Next up is Mr. Todd Grup, review of building contractor license
per the order of the board.
Mr. Grup, would you please be sworn in.
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
(Speaker was duly sworn).
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, before Todd starts into his
presentation, it's probably best if you actually look -- of course if you
can find it. It's the Certificate of Detail report. You'll probably get
more out of it than the application itself. It's called the Comment
Listing Report. It's just before the orders of the board. Case No.
2009-03. Looks similar to this.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Yeah. And you can see Mr. Grup has
been in front of this board many times. 2006/04. He was also here
5/2912008, he had a citation. And then he was in front of the board in
January.
And you can see on the bottom he was supposed to pay, it was a
$10,000 fine, $500 for investigation costs, and he was supposed to pay
$1,750 per month. And ifhe wishes to obtain another license, he
would have to go ahead and petition the licensing board.
Mr. Grup has paid a lot of his fines. Unfortunately his old license,
his carpentry license, is null and void now. But as of 2/24/20 1 0, he
did pay $4,500 for the CLB fines and the balance is 4,440.
He got a citation back in 5/29/2008. His application's in front of
you.
Page 47
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, Mr. Grup, explain to us why
you're here and what's going on.
MR. GRUP: Yes, I was just here to try to obtain a building
contractor's license. As Michael Ossorio had said, over the years I've
had a couple citations working out of my scope, my license. You
know, the license that I had wasn't really a big enough license for
qualifications that I was able to do in the projects that I was running
to.
I now have completed the building contractor exam and the
requirements to become a building contractor so that I can work in
Collier County and, you know, make a living doing what I know how
to do best. So that's really why I'm here.
The last time I was here there was some fines imposed, and I
talked with Mr. Ossorio to possibly try to get them reduced. I paid
more than half of the fines. I'm just asking if possible if I could go
back to work and earn some money so that I could pay the rest of the
fines. That's really why I'm here.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: When you were here in January, Mr.
Grup, what was it that you were found guilty of?
MR. GRUP: Working out of the scope of my license is what I
was guilty of.
MR. JOSLIN: I remember I signed this order and I can't recall
exactly what the reason for the large amount of the fine was for.
Was there homeowners that were damaged in the process of this
also?
MR. GRUP: No, sir.
MR. JACKSON: No homeowners were damaged.
If I'm not mistaken, the amount of that fine was based upon the
fact that Mr. Grup had been in front of the board for the same
violation previous to that, served a probationary period. So essentially
this was the second time he was in front of the board for the same
violation.
Page 48
March 12,2010
MR. OSSORIO: That's correct. If you actually look through that
comment list, you'll see in 2006, Case No. 2006-04 he violated 4.1.2.
And you'll see in the bottom of the page guilty, 4.1.2, revoke license,
pay $10,000 fine within six months. So his license was revoked.
And to Mr. Grup's credit, he has been in communication with me
on a monthly basis. He's been in the office, he's been candid with he
me. He's paid as much as I guess he can.
I've talked to his father, his father's been communicating with me
as well. And his father wishes to help out with his bills and get him
back on track so that he can become a building contractor.
To his credit, we haven't had any complaints when he was
licensed on his workmanship, only that he worked outside of the scope
of his license.
MR. JOSLIN: Was what the actual license?
MR. GRUP: Carpenter, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: You were operating with a carpentry license is
what you had that was revoked?
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: And you were probably doing things that required
a building contractor's license, is that the case?
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
MR. JOSLIN: That's what I thought.
MR. OSSORIO: Just to clarify real quick, he has a cabinet
license, which is a business procedure test, not a carpentry license. It
was --
MR. GRUP: Cabinet millwork.
MR. OSSORIO: -- cabinet millwork.
So he's taken the business procedure test. He hasn't taken the
trades test for carpentry. I think in 2006 it was my case, it was over in
Neapolitan Way, and he was in contract to do a tile roof, and he was
found in violation, of course.
But he's been coming to the office, Todd. He's persistent. He's
Page 49
March ]2,2010
been coming in the office and, you know, staying in communication
with our office. He knows he's in violation, he knows his license was
revoked. He knows that he has -- he didn't come up with the 1,750 per
month. I think it was Joslin's recommendation that he come up with a
payment plan. And he has tried, and his family's tried to help him out.
So he's here today to talk about to two issues: One, that he wants
to give authority to me issuing him a building license so he can
register with the state. And two, somewhat either to have a reduction
of fine or alleviate and let him have more time to pay it off. Those are
the two issues.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Terry?
MR. JERULLE: And that was my question, why is he here, for
either one of those or for both of those? And I think you just answered
it, Michael, he's here for both.
So I'm a little confused now on whether you're asking for us to
reduce the fine or give you a license so you can payoff the fine.
MR. GRUP: I'd like to obtain my building contractor license so I
can go back to work and pay the fine. And if possible, I'd like to
possibly get them reduced, if I could, the fines. If I can't get them
reduced, then possibly put it over a payment plan so that I can pay it
off over maybe this next upcoming year or six months or whatever the
board approves.
MR. JERULLE: So the license that you're looking for is what
again, can you explain?
MR. OSSORIO: It's a registered building contractor.
Now, there's two categories: There's, you know CBC, Certified
Building Contractor, and then obviously there's a registered building
contractor. And he's asking for a building license to be registered,
locally licensed with our office, registered with Tallahassee. He's
taken the exam. Am I correct?
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
MR. JERULLE: And the license you had prior was the cabinet?
Page 50
March 12,2010
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir, cabinet millwork license, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: So you want to break this down into two
parts and go at them one at a time?
MR. LANTZ: Sure.
MR. NEALE: I think that's probably a good --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What's the pleasure of the board to deal
with first?
MR. LANTZ: The license.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: The license? I guess you got to deal
with that if you're going to deal with how he's going to pay back the
rest of the money.
Okay, we'll deal with the license.
MR. NEALE: You can do it either way.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: First -- I was not here in January, so if
you don't mind I'm going to ask some questions to get some
background on what's transpired in your history, okay?
MR. GRUP: Okay.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: In 2006 you were cited for working
outside of the scope of your license. And that was a project where you
did a roof; is that correct?
MR. GRUP: That was a -- it was a repair. We were replacing
some broken tiles. And we were cited for repairing the broken tiles.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Did you have somebody working with
you?
MR. GRUP: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Was that an employee?
MR. GRUP: Yes. They were workers' compo They were on my
workers' comp and payroll.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: So you had -- they were on your payroll
and they had workers' comp coverage.
MR. GRUP: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Okay, good.
Page 51
March ]2,2010
And then in 2008 --
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: -- you were cited again for working
outside the scope of your license. What were the circumstances
surrounding that?
MR. GRUP: 2008? I'm not sure what the 2008 one was. I
believe that's the one -- maybe Mike could shed some light on that
one. I'm not sure.
MR. OSSORIO: That was done in 2008 by one of my officers,
Allen Kennette, and he was acting as a carpentry contractor. Allen--
MR. GRUP: That's the most recent one, right?
MR. OSSORIO: In 2008. Unfortunately Mr. Todd Grup has
probably escaped -- if Allen knew what he knew back in 2006, there
wouldn't have been a citation, there would have been another referral
back to the board.
Now this is why the board in 2009 -- we knew about the 2008,
we knew about 2006. This is why the board fined the maximum of
$10,000 and revoked his license, which is uncharacteristic of this
licensing board. I don't think we've ever -- we've probably done it
before, but it's unusual we reinvoked (sic) the $10,000 and revoked his
license and asked him to pay over time the 1,750.
So Todd knows what he did in 2006 wasn't proper. And 2008 he
knew in 2009 wasn't proper as well. So--
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And Mr. Grup, what was it that you were
guilty of doing in 2009?
MR. GRUP: We were installing roof trusses on a builder, a -- the
home builder permit. So the homeowner had pulled a permit for an
addition on his house, and we were setting roof trusses.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, the homeowner pulled an owner/builder
permit and hired Mr. Grup to go ahead and do the installing of the
trusses, which would be a carpenter contractor, not a cabinet install.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And did you have employees with you at
Page 52
March 12,2010
the time?
MR. GRUP: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Were they on your payroll, covered by
worker's compensation?
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What else were you hired to do on that
job?
MR. GRUP: That's what all that we had done. I was merely just
helping out a friend, quite honestly, just to get on the roof for him.
They had it up to the block stage and we were just going to close it in
for him, and that's all that we were going to do. Get it on there in the
drive.
MR. OSSORIO: I believe he was a -- I mean, this might not
have any bearing on it, but I believe he was a retired something,
colonel or --
MR. GRUP: Yes, he was. He was -- the gentleman was a retired
colonel. I was -- based on that, I mean, I was prior military myself, so
I was just trying to help out a buddy, get this thing on the roof.
And at the time I thought I was doing the right thing because I
was co-working with Jack McNair, who has a state license, state CBC
license. But our paperwork wasn't in order. It was my workers' comp
and it was my liability insurance, and -- so technically they were my
employees that were working on the job, so working under Jack
McNair's license. I wasn't a qualified entity, so that's where the
problem resulted in not being able to do the work. We didn't have all
our paperwork together correctly.
So I then decided to take the exam. You guys had said well, if
you take the exam and meet the requirements for the county and pay
the fine, you could come back and get a license that you're qualified --
for the work that you're qualified to do, and that's what I've done. I'd
like to go back to work.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, in 2006 the board pretty well made an
Page 53
March 12,20]0
order that if Mr. Todd Grup was ever going to get another license,
they want to look at his application. So I'm only applying what the
2006 order reads. And then obviously we have to deal with these
penalties, you know.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, the 2006 order was Case 2006-04. He was
put on a two-year probation and a $1,000 fine, and then it was specific
that the board said that if he was to apply for a new license he would
have to come to the board, no matter what license it was.
MR. JOSLIN: There's still a lot of issues in your credit report I'm
looking at.
Who do you work for now?
MR. GRUP: I'm not working.
MR. JOSLIN: You're not working?
MR. GRUP: No.
MR. JOSLIN: How are you able to come up with this money to
pay these off -- to pay fines that you've already been given (sic)?
MR. GRUP: I was in a car accident and had a couple surgeries,
and I got a lawsuit and a settlement. And I used that money to pay the
board the 4,500. That was paid in January, I believe. That's how I
come up with most of the money.
But there were a few payments made prior to that. I think I made
around $7,000 in payments, I believe, maybe more.
MR. LANTZ: I'm just curious as to what staffs recommendation
IS.
MR. OSSORIO: Staffs philosophy is to interpret and enforce the
Florida Building Code and also the ordinance as written. But I'm also
a firm believer that Mr. Todd Grup has actually been in my office for
almost a year now, and he's been persistent, and I believe that it's up to
the licensing board.
His credit is -- you know, is not good. But it probably relates to
his medical issue. You know, he took some of his medical payments
and paid the penalties off for the fines. I have no opinion other than
Page 54
March 12,2010
he's here on his behalf.
MR. JOSLIN: I somewhat feel I guess in some ways, just after
your comment, Mr. Ossorio, that, you know, he has shown good faith.
This was a pretty severe fine, it was a severe penalty. And I know the
issue was pretty drastic when we did it. But there was a reason why
we did it.
I'm just not real comfortable with the fact of now giving you a
builder's contracting license. Although in some ways I'm saying to
myself maybe a probationary license of some sort to give you a
chance to try to pay some of this off.
Reducing the fines, I don't know if I'd comfortable with that. I'm
a little confused right now, to tell you the truth.
MR. JERULLE: Yeah, this is a tough one. And I appreciate
your comments, Mr. Ossorio, and I appreciate, Mr. Grup, that you're
here and that you've been trying.
But I thought I heard someone say that it was contingent him
coming back, passing the test and paying the fines off before we
would give him another license; is that true?
MR. NEALE: Really was more just that the board wanted the
opportunity to review whatever had happened in the past. It did not --
wasn't specific that he had to payoff the fines.
MR. JERULLE: It wasn't --
MR. NEALE: Because the license in the 2009 matter was a
straight revocation. Which once someone's had their license revoked
they have to come before this board for review.
MR. JERULLE: And the fact that he's taken the test and he's
persistent, he's coming back, I appreciate that. And if he wants to be a
contractor, I'm not sure I would have a problem with it. But I would
like to see the fine paid off prior to us giving him his license, as
opposed to us giving someone a license that is a repeat offender and
still hasn't paid off the fine, I guess is what I'm kind of struggling with
in my mind.
Page 55
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I agree with you, Terry, I don't know
that it's our responsibility to give him a license so he can pay his fine.
Our goal is not to get the fine paid. So I don't think using the payment
of the fines should be the impetus behind giving him a license. We're
not here to collect money.
So I think I'm kind of agreeing with you that I would rather see
the fines paid off and then we're either agreeing to issue a license or
not based on the merits of his abilities and his efforts to that point.
And it has nothing to do with whether or not the fines are paid. I'd
rather see that gone and then deal with the license issue strictly on the
merits of whether or not he should have a license. And then I think
when you look at his efforts you feel good about giving somebody a
license under those circumstances.
MR. JOSLIN: How does the board members feel about a
reduction of the fine? I mean, as far as the balance that's left.
MR. JERULLE: Is that -- you know, I've only been on the board
a couple of years. Is there a precedence that the board has -- I mean, I
don't want to be giving out fines and then allowing them to come back
and reducing the fines. Is there a precedence?
MR. NEALE: The board could probably reopen the prior case,
reduce the fine -- you know, find the -- make a finding that the fines
were reduced and then come back and look at it from -- look at the
new case.
MR. WHITE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman?
Would the same be true in your opinion, Mr. Neale, if we were to
modify the payment plan under the order?
MR. NEALE: Certainly I think, you know, the payment plan
could be modified. You know, you would go back, essentially reopen
the case and say that, you know, pursuant to Case 2009-03, I think is
the number, the board has reviewed evidence presented at this hearing
and made the decision to modify the payment plan to reduce the fines
in that case, and then make that finding and then go forward with
Page 56
March 12,2010
another consideration of -- with a consideration of his licensure at this
point.
Because, you know, I do agree that there's two tracks you're
looking at: One is the treatment of the fine from the previous case.
The second track is his current application for licensure today, which
pursuant to the 2006 order any of his licensure subsequent to the 2006
order would be subject to the review of the board.
MR. WHITE: So theoretically we could, if we chose to, by
reopening that order in -- let's say we were to give him a six-month
payment plan, roughly $770 a month, we could do that. And we could
tie a grant of his license in a probationary way to making those
payments on time.
MR. NEALE: And the board has done sort of a similar thing in
the past. I don't have the exact case cite in front of me, but the board
has set up automatic triggering mechanisms in the past where a
probationary license or something was issued contingent upon the
satisfaction of certain terms. If those terms were not satisfied, then
without recourse to coming back to the board the license was
automatically terminated or automatically lifted from probationary
status, depending on what the action of the -- because then really the
onus --
MR. WHITE: Which wouldn't be a bad thing. (Phonetic.)
MR. NEALE: Yeah, then the onus is completely on --
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. White, you need to be on your
microphone, please.
MR. WHITE: I'm sorry.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, then the onus is completely on the
respondent to perform, as opposed to placing an additional burden on
the board or on staff.
MR. WHITE: Just one question, gentlemen.
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
MR. WHITE: Ifwe were to consider and approve a plan to
March 12,2010
extend the payments, do you feel that on a month-to-month basis
you'd be able to meet what would be roughly a $775 payment for
those fines?
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir. Yeah, I would be able to do that.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: Well, I'm just giving my opinion, I don't really
have questions, but I'm severely tom on this one. His actions in the
past, you know, I mean, three strikes and you're out as far as I'm
concerned.
You know, I mean, I can understand the first time, okay, I didn't
understand. The second time -- you know, my father told me when I
was a kid, you know, screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice,
shame on me.
Kind of feels like there's a pattern. And then the third time -- I
mean, if you haven't -- if you didn't learn it the first two times, I don't
know if he'll ever learn the difference. But -- so that's my personal
feeling against approving anything.
But then the fact that he -- you know, Michael said -- Michael
doesn't want to say he's doing a good job, but Michael's been saying --
you know, alleging towards that, you know, he's been coming in every
month, he's been, you know, really trying, really doing whatever he
can, he already took the test. You know, persistence pays off, you
know. Maybe he did learn. You know, he's learning to get a building
contractor's license rather than just a carpentry contractor's license.
He's already taken the test and passed it.
So I could go either way. I would more react towards either
giving a license or reducing the fine, but definitely not both. That's
just my personal opinion. I'd have no problem with the payment plan.
But I think I'm leaning more towards approve a license on a pretty
strict probation and possibly, you know, lengthening out the payment
plan but not reducing the fine.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Well, we can't make any changes to the
Page 58
March 12,2010
previous order of the board without reopening the case.
MR. NEALE: Right. What you would do is move to reopen the
case, make a new finding. We would issue a new order of the board
modifying the prior order, so it really would be an amendment to the
prior order. Then that finding would be made.
And then the board would make a second finding upon this
license. So that's the way I would -- for good order sake, I think that
would be the cleanest way to do it.
MR. JOSLIN: I think the whole question here is that he had six
months to pay this all off and it's not all paid off. That's the real
question here, right?
MR. JERULLE: Twelve months, right?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Six months.
MR. NEALE: I think it was six months.
MR. JOSLIN: So we would have to then reopen it to extend it at
all or to make up a different payment plan or however we're going to
do that. He's in violation after six months.
MR. NEALE: I mean, he currently is in violation. Because--
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
MR. NEALE: -- that was -- you know, that order was issued
back in January of'09. So technically he was in violation of that order
as of July of last year.
MR. JERULLE: So he's in violation of not paying that as we
speak.
MR. NEALE: Right. He's currently in violation of the January,
2009 order in terms of the payments -- actually, that would have been
in August, 2009, because the payments -- no, it was July, because it
was to be paid within six months of the date of the hearing with equal
monthly payments to begin within 30 days of the date of the hearing.
He did -- the one portion that appears -- there was administrative
costs of $500 to be paid within 30 days, and I think that was
accomplished.
Page 59
March 12,2010
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Yeah, that was paid.
MR. JOSLIN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Well, I'm trying to get my arms around
what we're going to -- what we can possibly accomplish today and
what -- I think the sense is that we want to deal with this original case
somehow.
Are you here as a -- I'm trying to -- I mean, are we dealing with a
formal request to do something with his license today? Because our
agenda says review. Review the building contractor license per the
order of the board. So I don't know that we have a formal request in
front of us that we need to approve or deny.
MR. NEALE: He has submitted an application, so I think the
board has within its authority to accept that application for review and
make a decision on that application.
The -- making any decision on the prior order, the 2009 order, is
purely at the discretion of the board at this point.
MR. JERULLE: So if I were to make a motion to open up the
prior issue, could it be contingent upon something, or is it just a
motion to open it?
MR. NEALE: It would just be a motion to reopen, and then --
MR. JERULLE: We couldn't make it contingent upon just
reviewing on extending the time period for payment, it just would
open up the board to vote on whatever?
MR. NEALE: You could -- I mean, I think -- you could make a
motion to reopen the case for the purpose of reviewing the payment of
the fine. I think that would be something I would be willing to --
yeah, I could recommend to do that.
MR. JERULLE: Because my thoughts are -- and I'm thinking
out loud if! may, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Please do.
MR. JERULLE: And I would need some help with this, but
Page 60
March 12,2010
opening this up, extending his period so that he's not in violation, and
keeping the fine the same but making -- as Mr. White agreed, to
making some sort of payment schedule for him to pay the fine out.
And then hear his license on a different time or different day.
Have him come back with a formal request after the fine were (sic)
settled where we come to an agreement on the fine schedule. And
then hear his plea for a license on a separate day is what I'm thinking.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Boyd?
MR. BOYD: I prefer to get it all done today. And my thinking
is is the guy's persevered. He's trying to do the right thing, finally. I
guess he got our message when we took his license away.
You know, I'd like to see us give him a probationary license,
reporting to Mike, give him the monthly payment he's got to make. If
he doesn't make the monthly payment, his license is suspended.
Give the guy a chance to make -- you know, make some money,
pay the fine, do the right thing. I mean, he's obviously, you know,
trying to do the right thing.
MR. WHITE: The only thing I feel differently than Mr. Boyd on
is that if the monthly payments weren't timely made, that rather than
his license being suspended, it would be revoked automatically.
MR. BOYD: I'd go along with that.
MR. LANTZ: Works for me.
MR. JOSLIN: That would work for me also because of the fact
we are extending it now in giving him a payment plan. So if he can't
live with this payment plan then it's three strikes, like you said.
This would be pretty much in your court, I mean, as far as what
you're going to want to do. Can you do this?
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir, I can.
MR. BOYD: Just don't agree to something -- don't agree to $700
a month if you can't afford it. Agree to $500 a month if you can
afford that. Don't -- you know, don't get yourself in a pickle. Because
Page 61
March 12,2010
we're going to take the license, then you'll never get it back.
MR. WHITE: That's why I asked him the question and he
answered it now twice, so I believe him.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just for thought -- and maybe
Todd and I won't agree on this. But I hate to give someone a building
license knowing that there's fees out there, due to the fact that he's
starting his business already in the red.
My recommendation is that you look at his application, if it
meets the merit of the application give the county staff approval to
issue the certificate, once Mr. Todd Grup has paid his penalty. See if
he can pay it.
Once the fine has been paid, it could be a month, two months, six
months, I can go ahead and issue the certificate under a restriction
basis for six months, period. Maybe Mr. Grup will pay the penalty
within a month or two. Maybe he can get some things together and
pay for it, and then you can look at his application, his merit and you
can restrict it, whatever you wish to do with it. But at least you're
starting off fresh with a building license with no red tape or no monies
owed to the county.
MR. WHITE: I appreciate Mr. Ossorio's input, and maybe
there's some merit to doing things in a lump sum and clean way, but
I'd still prefer the idea that month-to-month if he doesn't bite off and
chew and swallow the payment, he doesn't have the license.
And what I was intending to do is to give him to the end of the
first month to make that first payment. He would have the license
essentially for 30 days to go find some work, get it under contract and
make the payments. And any month that that did not happen, the
license would be automatically revoked and pretty much I don't know
that we'd ever see Mr. Grup again.
The thing that I think pushes me in that direction is certainly his
persistence. But persistence in the particular regard of getting the type
of license that if he had all along none of these other problems would
Page 62
March 12,2010
be on his back today in terms of his record.
So the real question to me only here today that's maybe the
threshold question for me today is, is he otherwise qualified for the
type of license he's asking for. And there hasn't been much discussion
about that. But it certainly seems from the application package that he
would. There's never been anything about it in any of the prior cases
that said he didn't do the work that was outside of his scope properly,
it was just that he was working outside the scope of the licenses he
then had.
So if we're comfortable with granting him the type of license
because his application meets the criteria, then I think we can work
out the other pieces of it to put him in a position where he essentially
has the keys to his own success or the lock to his own failure.
And I'm very comfortable giving people, especially ones who
may have had a couple of strikes, the opportunity to recognize that
you either succeed or it's game over.
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Neale, is there any legal requirement or
guidelines, since he is in violation of not paying the fine, of us voting
on whether we can give him a license because he is in violation?
MR. NEALE: Well, I think that's why we pose that you dispose
of the issue of the 2009 fine first, resolve that, then provide some kind
of approval on -- approval or denial on the current licensure
application. Potentially contingent on payment of obligations,
potentially contingent on some kind of payment plan, potentially
contingent on whatever, you know, that the board has within its power
to restrict or make contingent the license.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I like Michael's thought about trying to
get this done quickly and not having us to keep coming back to this
case over and over again because we drag it out. So I like Michael's
thought in that regard.
At the same time, I think it's important that the fines get paid
before we give somebody a license. And if we can find a way to tie
Page 63
March 12,2010
that all together quickly, then I'd be for that. But if the only way we
can do that is to reopen the case, as much as I hate having to bring this
back in front of us or doing it now or having to bring it back next
month, I don't like second-guessing a previous board's
recommendations or findings. I don't like doing that. We don't know
all the circumstances surrounding what happened at that time, we don't
know the conversation that occurred. And I don't like second-guessing
what a previous board did.
Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: Would you be comfortable -- I'm very tom on
this. Would you be comfortable with approving his license, however
it does not get approved until his fine is paid in full. If he pays it in
six months, then it gets approved, ifhe pays it tomorrow, then it gets
approved. No action from the board. As soon as he pays it, Michael
can do whatever he needs to do.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I like that solution. Because then we're
done with it.
MR. WHITE: I certainly understand, as I said before, the clean
approach to it. The problem I have with it is, is that he's sworn under
oath that he isn't working and he doesn't have a present means to work
because he doesn't have a license.
It's almost as ifhe could have paid the fine already, he certainly
would have, because then he'd be before us just with the request for
the license. So logically it doesn't make sense to me that he'd want to
do both unless he thought there was some chance we'd reduce the
fines.
But what he had asked for in his initial comments was to either
reduce them or extend them over time because of the circumstances
he's in.
And I think, as I said before, we're going to tie the reopening of
the former case to a monthly payment, that if it's not made on time we
would essentially reinstate the findings of violation and all of the
Page 64
March 12,2010
monies that were then not yet paid would be due.
So to me, if we reopen the case, put a payment plan on, monthly
requirement, if it isn't paid at the end of the month the whole thing's
due and he's in violation. We could then move to consider his license
and tie the payments under a probationary period month to month, in
the same way to the findings of violation if it's not paid. And
furthermore never have to hear the case again unless he makes all the
payments and comes back in six months and has done what he needs
to do to grant him a full license.
But otherwise, if he doesn't make the payments, the findings are
reimposed under the prior order and his license is automatically
revoked. So ifhe doesn't do right, we don't see him again. Ifhe does
right, we'll be back and we can evaluate how he's doing credit-wise
and otherwise, as we do with any other applicant. To me we get it
done today, we do it in the next 10 minutes and, you know, the staff
really has a very bright line to make their decision by.
MR. JOSLIN: And the other end result would be that this would
be all done within six months.
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. JOSLIN: Because if we set him up on a six-month payment
plan in six months his probationary license is going to be over. Ifhe's
paid this off in time, like you're speaking of, then basically he'll have a
full license and all the fines are paid.
MR. WHITE: Potentially, yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: That's the theory now. Now, that's something that
I don't think this board has ever done before that I know of. I've been
on this board for 10 years.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Terry?
MR. JERULLE: Mr. Grup, convince me that you'll be an
honorable contractor and you'll pay your fines if the board so elects.
MR. GRUP: I most definitely will pay the fines and be an
honorable contractor. I mean, I've done this work ever since I was 13,
Page 65
March 12,2010
14. So I know. And I enjoy it. And I'll do whatever I need to do to
get back to work. I know that I can pay the fines. If you impose the
$750 a month I would be in agreement with that. And I would--
MR. JERULLE: May I ask how you will pay those fines?
MR. GRUP: Well, I would hope to secure some work if I had --
if you guys were able to issue me a license. I did have some
discussions with my family that if I needed to borrow some money
that we could -- you know, they would help me so that I can go back
to work.
My father was talking with Mike regarding that. But we -- we
were hoping to possibly get the fines reduced. But if not, then I'll do
whatever you guys wish and pay them off.
MR. LANTZ: If the board were to request that you payoff all
your fines before you got a license, would you be able to do that, get a
loan from somebody or --
MR. GRUP: Yeah. Yes, sir.
MR. LANTZ: I'm ready to make a motion, if anybody (sic) else
is.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Lantz?
MR. JOSLIN: One thing, now. In the motion make sure we
know we can do -- if we're going to do anything with the reduction or
extension of fines --
MR. LANTZ: That's not in my book.
MR. JOSLIN: -- or payments, then you have to open this up.
MR. LANTZ: I move that we approve Mr. Grup's application
and allow them to do whatever needs to be done to be registered,
contingent on the fact that all his fines are paid in full. The second his
fines are paid in full, it automatically gets approved and moved on.
I also approve that he's on a two-year probationary period with
monthly reporting in to Michael to explain what's going on.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion. I need a second.
MR. WHITE: I'll second.
Page 66
March 12,2010
Just for the purposes of clarification, what on a monthly basis
would we be expecting to have Mr. Grup report to Mr. Ossorio?
MR. LANTZ: Just to tell him what's going on and make sure --
he's been doing it for the last six months, it appears, just to make sure
everything's -- I feel that he should have a pretty strict probation.
MR. WHITE: I agree. And I'm trying to get to the precision of
it. Would it be contracts he's entered into with the addresses so they
could verify that proper permits were pulled, et cetera, et cetera, et
cetera.
MR. LANTZ: I would leave that up to Michael's discretion.
MR. OSSORIO: Typically when we have our meetings where
people are on probation, we go over contracting 101. You know, we
look at your permits, have you failed any inspections, what are you
doing out there, what jobs you're on and so forth.
There has been the past that the board put restriction on people,
putting people on probation and making them call the office when
there's -- particularly where they're going to be for their next job or
when they're going to pull building permits.
So I'm pretty confident that Todd will be in my office every
month. He's been there every month for the last six months anyway,
so what's another two years?
But the fines should be paid, you're absolutely right.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. So if I can rephrase the motion,
the motion is that we grant the license on the contingency of the fines
being paid, and that there's a two-year probation with a monthly
reporting to licensing department.
MR. LANTZ: Correct.
MR. JERULLE: May I ask, what happens if he gets a citation
during the probation period?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Well, he's on probation for two years, so
what does that mean?
MR. JERULLE: So that means he comes back here or his license
Page 67
March 12,2010
goes away or --
MR. NEALE: And what would happen, since he's on probation
then he's under, quote, unquote, under the supervision of the
Contractor Licensing Board. And so at that point if he trips and
stumbles, he's back here. And then the board can review his license at
that point.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I need a second.
MR. WHITE: I--
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Sorry, I apologize, I did have a second. I
apologize.
I have a motion, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
Opposed?
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: One opposed.
Okay, Mr. Grup, when you pay your fines, you'll have a
contractor's license. And you'll be on probation for two years.
MR. GRUP: Okay.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And you need to report to Michael on a
monthly basis.
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: If you trip up in any way, a citation, if
Michael thinks that there's something inappropriate going on, you'll be
back in front of us.
Page 68
March 12,2010
MR. GRUP: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay?
MR. GRUP: I appreciate your time. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Good luck.
MR. GRUP: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, on the agenda is orders of the
board. Those are the documents I signed earlier this week?
MR. JACKSON: That's correct -- no, that's not correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: That's not correct.
MR. JACKSON: These orders of the board are the continuing
process for the payment of citations.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. And you have those?
MR. JACKSON: We have them. Mr. Neale has them.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, I need a motion to approve my
signature on those orders.
MR. WHITE: So moved.
MR. JOSLIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion --
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, who was the second, Mr.
Joslin?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Joslin.
All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Neale, I'll sign those at the end of
Page 69
March 12,2010
the meeting, after the meeting. Thank you.
MR. NEALE: Just so the board understands, particularly we've
got a new member, what he just approved is on the citations, if they --
the citations that the staff issues, if -- there's a typical penalty of $300
per citation. If the person does not pay them, the statute in our
ordinance allows the board to issue an order on that fine, which then
can be recorded and it constitutes a lien on the person's property.
So if these are recorded in the public records and the person goes
out to sell a house or whatever, it's a lien that's going to have to be
satisfied at the time of sale. And the lien can be foreclosed on. So
that's a little explanation what that all is about.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
All right, old business. Adam Sandifer, review of credit report.
Is Mr. Sandifer here?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sandifer was supposed to--
was on a provisional license. The board wished to see him within six
months for a credit report.
We've tried to contact Mr. Sandifer and we sent a letter, certified
letter. We had no response.
My recommendation is, is that we suspend his certificate and
move on.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Does everybody understand?
So we granted Mr. Sandifer a license under probation, is that
correct, probationary license?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes. And he needed to report back to the board
within six months with a new credit.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And you contacted him?
MR.OSSORIO: We tried to.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Certified mail?
MR. OSSORIO: Certified mail, call --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Phone calls.
MR. OSSORIO: Stopped by his house, I believe we did.
Page 70
March 12,2010
Everything we possibly could.
So I'd like to go ahead and just put it on -- suspend him for a
period of several months, until January, and then it becomes null and
void. Ifhe comes in between now and January, then we can -- you
can petition the board with his new credit report and you can
reevaluate at the time.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. NEALE: What I would suggest the board do in really an
excess of caution is make a motion and vote upon the fact that Mr.
Sandifer has been found in violation of his probation. So make a
finding that he's in violation of his probation.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I understand. Okay.
So I need a motion.
MR. JOSLIN: I make a motion that we find Mr. Adam S.
Sandifer in violation of the findings of fact that was documented on
August 19th, 2009.
MR. WHITE: I amend that with the second to say order of the
board rather than the findings.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry, order of the board. Yes.
MR. WHITE: And additionally, that based on that we would
suspend his license until January, 2011.
Does the motion maker agree?
MR. JOSLIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Motion maker agrees. I have a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
Page 71
March 12,2010
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN LYKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Peter Geresdi, request for an extension to
pay board fines.
Mr. Geresdi?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, just while he's going, this is
another which we've never done before --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Michael, one second.
Mr. Geresdi, if you'd please be sworn in, please.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I'm sorry, Michael, go ahead.
MR. OSSORIO: Obviously the licensing board took the action
2009-15 on 12/16/2009 last year. It was a $5,000 fine. He needed to
pay the fine off within 45 days. If the fine was not paid up within 45
days, his license would be suspended until January, 2011. In January,
2011 it would be null and void.
I've talked to this company before, I've talked to I think his wife
at length. It's not the money. They want to pay the fine. They need
more time. But unfortunately the 45 days has expired, and his license
is suspended, there's nothing I can do.
So I recommend that the company come back in front of the
board, see ifhe can extend the pro -- extend it for 45 days or 85 days
or three or four months so the fine can be paid. That's my
recommendation.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Geresdi, you have a proposal to make to us today?
MR. GERESDI: Yeah. I was able to pay $2,000, which was like
1,000 each month till today. And plus the 250, the county fee. So I
have 3,000 left.
Whatever days or extension I can have will help. I can do the
Page 72
March 12,2010
most probably 1,000, keep doing that for couple months, three more
months, and then that's all I ask, basically.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle?
MR. LANTZ: Part of your requirements were that you took
some classes and some tests. Have you already done that?
MR. GERESDI: Yeah, I signed up for the test, actually. It was a
little thing going on with that too. I applied in December 21 st, and I
got my first test date in March 20th, which is coming up.
The reason was two times the paper wasn't signed by county, the
-- and they sent it back. And of course they don't do anything on fax
or e-mail, everything is posted. So it was like a four-week turnaround.
So that's why I was not able to do it in February. So -- but I'm on.
You know, I'm scheduled for March 20th, so --
MR. LANTZ: And that would still be within the 90 days that
was --
MR. GERESDr: Well, that's going to pass the 90 days from
December, I think.
MR. NEALE: It's outside the 90 days, but --
MR. LANTZ: That would be --
MR. GERESDI: So that's another issue.
MR. NEALE: -- so a month.
MR. LANTZ: Then you took the workers' comp class or you
haven't --
MR. GERESDI: Oh, not yet. Not yet. Not on that.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Neale, can you read the order of the
board?
MR. NEALE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I'm sorry, it's in our packet.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, it is in the packet.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Sorry.
MR. NEALE: The order was to -- he's on probation for 12
months. That he was to pay a fine in the amount of $5,000 within 45
Page 73
March 12,2010
days of the date of the hearing. Administrative and investigative costs
in the amount of $250 to be paid within 45 days. Taken pass (sic)
with grades meeting Collier County standards. The business and law
exam within 90 days of the date of the hearing. Attend a two-hour
workers' comp course within 90 days.
And if the fines, costs, education examination requirements not
performed within the required time limits, the license shall be
suspended without hearing and the license on the suspension shall be
held at the next regularly scheduled board meeting. If they're not
completed by the next license renewal cycle, it will be revoked, so this
is --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And the next renewal cycle is January,
2011.
MR. OSSORIO: Yeah, the renewal period ends January 1st,
2011.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. NEALE: And this is really pursuant to part six. This is the
hearing on the suspension. Because at this point his license is in
suspension, according to the order of the board.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Well, it's pretty close to 90 days.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. I mean, he's --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: He has to take all of his classes and pay
all of his fines tomorrow -- Monday.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, by Monday he'd have to do everything or
he's out, so yeah.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. White, you have a comment or
question?
MR. WHITE: Just one question. And then I think maybe a
proposal.
Mike, within the next say roughly 30 days, would, if he took the
exam on the 20th, he have the results so he'd know whether he passed
or not?
Page 74
March 12,2010
MR. OSSORIO: Unfortunately I believe he took the -- he signed
up to take the Prometric exam. Within the Gainesville exam, if he
took our Gainesville testing, he could go up tomorrow and know the n
he can know the test results by tomorrow. So there's an avenue for
him if he had to get testing.
But to his defense, unfortunately one of my staff members did
not sign that appropriate document so he could take the exam in an
appropriate period of time, so that was on staffs fault. So I'm not
going to --
MR. WHITE: I understand that. But if we were to extend the
time frame to 120 days instead of90, both for the workers' comp and
for the business and law, would we have the results back --
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. WHITE: -- within that time frame?
MR. OSSORIO: Yes.
MR. WHITE: Okay. Then, Mr. Chairman, favoring the idea of
reopening the order and making a finding that there's no violation of
the order so long as the respondent pays the fines within I would think
90 days, three months to pay $1,000 per month, and also that there's
no vio -- that we would amend the order to grant 120 days rather than
90 days, both for the time period to take the business and law
examination under paragraph four and the two-hour worker compo
class under paragraph five. And that we wouldn't consider him to be
suspended so long as those three circumstances were timely met.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: That was a proposal, not a motion.
MR. WHITE: That was a proposal I'm just floating.
MR. JERULLE: The proposal for the 90 days was from today to
pay the fine?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: And the proposal for the workmen's comp was
120 days backdated--
MR. WHITE: From December --
Page 75
March 12,2010
MR. JERULLE: -- backdated.
MR. WHITE: December 16th, yes.
MR. JERULLE: Would you be comfortable with just doing 90
days for all three going forward?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: We have business and law and workers'
compo There's two separate classes.
MR. JERULLE: Yes.
MR. WHITE: Surely that's not a problem. I mean, 90 days from
today.
MR. JERULLE: To do the workmen's comp, the business law
and pay the fines.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: That's June -- say June 30th. Yeah, that's
90 days. End of June would be 90 days.
MR. WHITE: Yeah, I used my fingers. Lawyer math.
That would be agreeable, yes.
So if you wanted to make a motion, that --
MR. JOSLIN: Is this a payment schedule set up too, that $1,000
a month? Did you include that?
MR. WHITE: That's what I was suggesting in that if the
payments weren't timely made he would be again in status of a
violation of the order.
MR. NEALE: And just my interpretation ofMr. White's motion,
and just make sure I'm clear on it, is what -- it doesn't necessarily lock
him to $1,000 a month. What it says is he's got 90 more days to pay
it. Ifhe walks in on the 89th day and throws down $3,000, he's
satisfied it.
MR. JOSLIN: Right. Okay.
MR. WHITE: Well, my intention, Mr. Neale, was to have him at
least make the $1,000. He could conversely come in and pay the
3,000 within the first --
MR. NEALE: I just wanted to make sure that was clear so that
we had that correct in the order, so --
Page 76
March 12,2010
MR. JOSLIN: And say okay if we set this into a motion, though,
at $1,000 per -- say per month, what happens ifhe doesn't make the
thousand dollars?
MR. WHITE: He's in violation again --
MR. JOSLIN: He's back to violation.
MR. WHITE: -- and he's again suspended.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Right. So you have --
MR. JOSLIN: You have two ways he could do this.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: You either give him 90 days to do
everything, in which case we would postpone the suspension until the
end of the 90 days, regardless of when he made the payments --
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: -- or you say it's $1,000 a month, in
which case his suspension could kick in at the end of --
MR. WHITE: 31st.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: -- April ifhe doesn't pay $1,000 at the
end of May, ifhe doesn't pay -- so it seems like that's really the issue
here is (sic).
Do you want to make the -- an actual payment plan or just say
everything is due in 90 days?
MR. WHITE: I would prefer the payment plan. Because one, his
testimony was that he could pay the 1,000, and I want to hold him to
his word, and I don't want to have him out there operating ifhe has not
kept his word.
And if I give him -- if we give him 90 days, then his license
hasn't been suspended, we've essentially, you know, found him to not
be in violation of an order that he's already in violation of.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I like that argument.
MR. NEALE: First payment by April 30th?
MR. WHITE: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: Is that acceptable with you?
Page 77
March 12,2010
MR. GERESDI: Sure.
MR. JERULLE: Is that something that you --
MR. GERESDI: Yeah.
MR. JERULLE: -- think you can do?
MR. GERESDr: I can do it.
MR. JERULLE: All three of those items, the workman's comp,
the business and law --
MR. GERESDI: Yes.
MR. JERULLE: -- and then pay the $1,000 a month?
MR. GERESDI: That's fine. Great.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I see heads shaking, so I need a motion.
Or I guess I see heads nodding, not shaking.
MR. NEALE: Mr. White could convert that into the form of a
motion.
MR. WHITE: I would move at this time that we reopen Case
No. 2009-15 pertaining to license number 25371 to find that the
respondent is not in violation of the order so long as payments of
$1,000 per month beginning on April 30th, 2010 are made and the fine
is paid in full within 90 days.
Two, that the respondent is given 90 days from today to meet the
requirement to take the business and law examination.
And three --
MR. JOSLIN: And pass.
MR. WHITE: And pass.
And three, similarly, with the workers' compensation two-hour
class, to take that and pass within 90 days from the date of this
hearing.
MR. JOSLIN: Second the motion.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
Any further discussion?
MR. WHITE: Just one thing that occurred to me in the making
of the motion as to the timing of the 90 days from today and the
Page 78
March 12,2010
completion of the payment. If we start him on April 30th and go 30
days apart, I think it's probably more than 90 days, but --
MR. NEALE: What I would suggest is that basically -- I'll play
with the language, but I understand that the board's intent is basically
extend it to June 30 as the time to pay, for all the thing. Time to pay,
time to complete is June 30 for all of this.
MR. JOSLIN: Right.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Hold on a second. Do we already have a
second? Yes, we're open to discussion.
MR. NEALE: Joslin's got a second.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Why don't we have it so it's all done by
our June meeting? That's closer to the real 90 days.
MR. WHITE: That was exactly what I --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Because if we go to June 30th, we won't
know for sure if this is done until our July meeting. Now, you're only
talking a couple more weeks, maybe two or three weeks, but --
MR. LANTZ: Would staff need time to get something ready for
the meeting, or would --
MR. NEALE: Because if he comes running in the day before the
meeting --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Yeah, so let's leave it. We'll know in
July.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, June 30th makes it easier.
MR. WHITE: And I would modify the motion to reflect
whichever occurs first, the 90 days or June 30th, 2010.
MR. JOSLIN: And you had the $1,000 per month--
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Joslin, I'm sorry, I cannot hear
you.
MR. JOSLIN: I'm sorry. I said Mr. White had the $1,000 per
month payment plan also indicated per month?
MR. WHITE: Yes, such that if it were not timely paid,
beginning April 30th, the license would be suspended because he
Page 79
March 12,2010
would be found in violation.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay. I'll amend the second.
MR. NEALE: Because the June meeting is looking at --
assuming it's on normal schedule, it's June 16th.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: So we're fine the way we've got it.
Okay, I have a motion, I have a second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Mr. Geresdi, you got 90 more days.
MR. GERESDr: Thank you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, we're going to move into public
hearings. Should we take a break or are we going to get through this
quickly?
MR. JOSLIN: Do it.
MR. OSSORIO: I hope to get through this pretty quickly.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Is this actually going to be a
public hearing? There's no respondent here.
MR. NEALE: Well, you still have to open the public hearing --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. NEALE: -- and we'll have to put testify on that she was
notified of the hearing and that she chose not to appear.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
Page 80
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Patrick, should I read the opening
statement before we start the public hearing?
MR. NEALE: Mayas well, yeah.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. All right. So before we begin,
these hearings are conducted pursuant to the procedures set out in
Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105, as amended, and Florida
Statutes Chapter 489. These hearings are quasi judicial in nature.
Formal Rules of Evidence shall not apply, but fundamental fairness
and due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings.
Irrelevant, immaterial 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 of privilege shall be effective to the same extent that
they are now or hereafter may be recognized in civil actions.
Any member of the Contractors 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 or in his absence the vice chair person shall
have the powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the hearing in
a full, fair and impartial manner and to preserve order and decorum.
The general process of the hearing is for the county to present an
opening statement where it sets out the charges and in general terms
how it intends to prove them.
Page 81
March 12,2010
The respondent then makes his or her opening statement, setting
out in general terms the defenses to the charges.
The county then present its case in chief, calling witnesses and
presenting evidence.
The respondent may cross-examine these witnesses.
Once the county has closed its case in chief, then the respondent
puts on his or her defense. They may call witnesses and do all the
things described earlier; that is, call and exam 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.
After the respondent puts on his or her case, the county gets to
present a rebuttal to the respondent's presentation.
When the rebuttal is concluded, then each party gets to present
closing statements, with the county getting a second chance to rebut
after the respondent's closing arguments.
The board then closes the public hearing and begins
deliberations.
Prior to beginning deliberations, the attorney for the board will
give them a charge, much like a charge to a jury, setting out the
parameters on which they base their decision.
During deliberations the board can ask for additional information
and clarification 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.
After the two matters are decided, the chair or in his absence the
Page 82
March 12,2010
vice chair will read a summary of the order to be issued by the board.
This summary will set out the 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.
Okay, we'll begin and we'll have the county present their opening
statement.
Ian?
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, this was -- obviously this was a
continuation from last meeting. And I believe we're in the public
hearing process.
Do you want us to go ahead and go through the whole procedure
agam or --
MR. NEALE: At this point what I would suggest, if! may, that
what the board had directed staff to do in the prior case last month was
simply to report back at this point.
The order actually stated that the -- that the matter's continued
until the next regularly scheduled board meeting at which time the
Collier County Contractors Licensing staff and the respondent shall
make a report to the board and the board shall issue a decision on the
matter at that time.
So it was really purely a mechanism whereby you were going to
receive a report from staff and the respondent, if the respondent
appeared, as to the circumstances surrounding it and make a decision
based on that, because you had heard the matter before.
I believe that six of the board members who are here today were
at the last meeting. The one board member that cannot vote on this
today is Mr. Meister, because he's new and he did not have the
opportunity to hear this at the prior hearing.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. JOSLIN: Do we have to open up this case and enter it into
evidence again?
MR. NEALE: It's my view that since it was a continuation as
Page 83
March 12,2010
opposed to a closing of the hearing is that you're simply -- you're just
continuing on what you were doing before. So I would opine that you
don't have to reopen the hearing because it was never closed.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to present our findings
of Mrs. Borrego.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Jackson will present his findings.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you.
Ian?
MR. JACKSON: For the record, Ian Jackson, Contractor
Licensing for Collier County.
I'll remind the board that Mrs. Borrego was given the opportunity
to perform this installation by obtaining her license through our office
and arranging for the execution of the contract.
As of this morning, I checked in our county database. There is
no change in the status of the license. There is no license that was
obtained by Ms. Borrego, and I would like to ask Ms. Laczi whether
she has -- Ms. Laczi, have you heard anything from Ms. Borrego
regarding the execution of the contract since the last board meeting?
MS. LACZI: No.
MR. JACKSON: Thank you.
MR. OSSORIO: Ms. Laczi, may I just ask you one question.
You did give Mrs. Borrego a check for $5,750; am I correct?
MS. LACZI: Yes.
MR.OSSORIO: Would you have known if that -- would you
have written that check $5,750 if you knew that license was in a
delinquent status?
MS. LACZI: No, I wouldn't have.
MR. OSSORIO: Would you have used that money into a money
market account or a savings accounts, creating interest for your own
Page 84
March 12,2010
financial gain?
MS. LACZI: That money was in a money market certificate.
And that's why we gave her two checks, because we didn't have
enough in our checking account. So my husband had to go and
transfer money.
MR. OSSORIO: And she has not contacted you?
MS. LACZI: No.
MR. OSSORIO: No further questions.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
The respondent's not here, so the respondent can't present a
defense or rebut the evidence provided today by the county.
MR. WHITE: Before we move too far from the county's case, if
there's nothing further that the county wants to put on, I do have a
question for you, ma'am, if! may.
I think I know the answer to this. Your money from either/or
both of those checks has not been returned to you?
MS. LACZI: No. She never contacted me. She -- I saw her last
when we were here.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: The last time you saw Ms. Borrego was
when -- was at last month's hearing here in front of the licensing
board?
MS. LACZI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Is that the last time you've had any
contact with Mr. Borrego at all?
MS. LACZI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Ian, if you wouldn't mind -- I guess you can answer from there.
If I remember right, one of the key issues to this case was that Ms.
Borrego could fulfill the job. We understand that special order
cabinets take time and jobs like these, there might be a delay between
when a contract is signed and when the work proceeds. But that if
Ms. Borrego did not come in and reinstate her license, she would be
Page 85
March 12,2010
unable to fulfill the contract; is that correct?
MR. JACKSON: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And she has made no attempts
whatsoever with the licensing department to reinstate her license?
MR. JACKSON: I believe the attempt that was made was
picking up an application, either the day of the last hearing or -- I
believe it was the day of the last hearing. She came to the office,
picked up a new application, and have heard nothing since.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
And also for clarification, when Ms. Borrego signed the contract
with Mr. and Mrs. Laczi, her license was suspended at the time; is that
correct?
MR. JACKSON: The status of her license at that time was
delinquent.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Delinquent.
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. And since then it has gone null
and void?
MR. JACKSON: Since then, as of January 1st of this year, it
went suspended.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Suspended. Okay, thank you.
MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, I've got a couple of questions
for the witness.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Please.
MR. ZACHARY: Ma'am, you stated that you had paid Ms.
Borrego the down payment for the job of over $5,000; is that correct?
MS. LACZI: $5,750.
MR. ZACHARY: Okay. And to date there hasn't been any
attempt to perform any of the work, as far as you know?
MS. LACZI: No.
MR. ZACHARY: And so you would consider that the
percentage of the work that's been done so far is practically zero.
Page 86
March 12,2010
MS. LACZI: None.
MR. ZACHARY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Mr. Boyd, question?
MR. BOYD: If I remember right, she was doing business out at
the Big Cypress Marketplace. Have you been out there at all to see if
she's still operating?
MR. JACKSON: I have not. She -- it's my understanding that
she is not there, physically there on a regular basis. I believe the
facility is open a couple days a week, weekends, and she may for lack
of a better term, pop in periodically.
MR. WHITE: I have a question for Mr. Neale, if! may, Mr.
Chairman?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Sure.
MR. WHITE: In looking at the complaint, Mr. Neale, one of the
things we talked about last month was the phrase that says the practice
of contracting. And I'm just wanting to be sure that someone who's
licensed is delinquent can still be contracting in the same fashion that
someone's in the practice of contracting, even if they were operating
outside the scope of a particular license.
Because of the way that this particular rule is written, my
understanding of the count is that the nature of the mismanagement
here seems to be that at least if! understand the county's theory of the
case, because she signed a contract while her license was in a
delinquent status, one, that's still the practice of contracting, but it is
doing so in a manner that is committing mismanagement or
misconduct.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MR. WHITE: I mean, in order for us to find a violation of guilt,
those elements would have to be met.
The thing that wasn't in evidence last month in my mind was the
notion of some financial harm. And that's I think been satisfied for
me.
Page 87
March 12,2010
The only other piece that's out there is the potential for the
contractor to perform within some time frame that was set forth in the
scope of the contract. So when I look at the contract, I see that in the
small print that's hard for my aging eyes to read, it's still pretty clear
that there were things that were supposed to have been done by now
that have not taken place within the time -- rough time frames that are
set forth. They're stated in terms of four to six weeks and then two to
three weeks for granite countertops.
And I'm just wanting to make sure that we have a complete
record here. Not only do I see that there is the financial harm, the
deposits not returned, the money's lost that could have otherwise been
earned on the dollars had they not been given over to the deposits. I
see that there's mismanagement to the degree that the contract has not
been performed.
For me personally, I don't need the element that the county is
looking to put forward that it's mismanagement or misconduct merely
to have signed the contract. But I do need to make sure that somehow
we under either of those theories have the practice of contracting that.
And is it your opinion that under either or both of those the
practice of contracting is taking place?
MR. NEALE: I certainly feel that the practice of contacting was
taking place. And particularly if you refer to 489.128 whereby it
states the contracts entered into by unlicensed contractors are
unenforceable; however, they are only unenforceable by the contractor
themselves.
Subsection three of that specifically says this section shall not
affect the rights of parties other than the unlicensed contractor to
enforce contract lien or bond remedies. It shall not be a defense to any
claim that the contractor is unlicensed.
So while the contractor may be -- may not be -- frankly the
contractor put themselves in a very bad place, because by being
unlicensed they can't en -- if she had not paid, she could not enforce
Page 88
March 12,2010
her remedy against the homeowner. But the homeowner can enforce
her remedy against the contractor. So it's a -- it was a matter of public
policy, as set out in the ordinance.
Further, I believe that this board could easily find that a
subsection of the same ordinance 4.1.8.l.B, which consists of
abandonment, that this certainly could be deemed to be abandoned,
because she has paid, by her own testimony, almost 50 percent of the
value of the contract, received zero value. And if they don't perform
to that level within 30 days of the payment, the job is considered to be
abandoned. And certainly it's been more than 30 days since this board
last heard it, or about 30 days. So it's certainly -- it's considered to be
abandoned.
So I think the short answer is yes, certainly she was practicing
contracting, or at least holding herself out to do so and that the
contract certainly is enforceable, even if she were not a licensed
contractor.
MR. WHITE: And under your reference to the abandonment
provision, would it not also be committing mismanagement in the
practice of contracting to abandon the project?
MR. NEALE: Well, under the same section of the ordinance,
just a broader reading of that same section of the ordinance, because
this is 4.1.8. But 4.1.8.1. which is a subsection of 4.1.8. specifically
says that one of the parts of mismanagement is this abandonment, so --
MR. WHITE: Well, you know the reason I ask you the question
is because all we have under Count I is just the beginning portion of
4.1.8. We do not have 4.1, the subsection about abandonment.
MR. NEALE: And I believe the board certainly could find or
could infer that the subsection 4.1.8.1.B is incorporated in that because
that's one of the things in the charge itself, it says included but not
limited to any of the following. And from a logical reading of the
statute, you would then drop to the subsection and then go to the
section which most is applicable, which is B, which is abandonment.
Page 89
March 12,2010
And this is -- I would opine that this is -- certainly the board
could find meets the test of abandonment and therefore it would meet
the test under the charge.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Thank you. Thank you for the
clarification.
Ian, does that complete your -- the presentation of your case?
MR. JACKSON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, does anybody have questions of
staff or witness?
MR. JERULLE: I have a question.
Does the staff want to add abandonment to the count? We don't
-- I asked the question if the staff wanted to add abandonment to the
count.
MR. NEALE: At this point they can't.
MR. JERULLE: Oh, they cannot.
MR. WHITE: And that's the reason why I wanted to go the
whole route around, to make sure that although it's not specially
stated, it is certainly one of the things under the rules, if the facts are
there, which clearly it seems there are those facts to me, you can read
into what we already do have in writing as the count that it is
mismanagement or misconduct on the part of the county.
MR. NEALE: The reasonable test that the board can -- you
know, as reasonable people can infer that other portions -- they can
look to definitions of financial mismanagement that are well
supported, and certainly that's a definition of financial
mismanagement that's well supported.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Yeah, keep in mind that we're here to
- discuss and come to conclusions based on reasonableness. And I think
we certainly addressed the fact that it's reasonable to continue on with
that part of the ordinance and include those other parts of the -- those
subsections of the ordinance in this case.
Okay, thank you.
Page 90
March 12,2010
Are there any other questions of staff or of the witness?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. The respondent is not here to
reply, so we'll move on to closing statements.
MR. JACKSON: Again, the county I believe has shown that
there was misconduct, mismanagement committed by the contractor,
causing financial harm to the homeowners here.
And I'll conclude it with that.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
We have no closing statement by the respondent, so I need a
motion to close the public hearing.
MR. BOYD: So moved.
MR. JOSLIN: Second.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, public hearing is closed.
And now we need to discuss a deliberation on guilt and we need
to be -- direction from Mr. Neale.
MR. NEALE: Yes. In this case the board shall ascertain its
deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were afforded
to the respondent.
Page 91
March 12,2010
In this particular instance I would suggest that the board make a
finding that the respondent was present at the earlier portion of this
hearing, the respondent chose not to appear at this hearing and make a
finding that she had adequate notice of this hearing in order to
ascertain that due process was afforded to the respondent.
But pursuant to Section 22-202(G)(5) of the Collier County
Code, the formal Rules of Evidence as set out in Florida Statutes do
not apply to this matter.
The board shall exclude solely evidence presented at this hearing
and the hearing last month in consideration of this matter and shall
exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative
testimony. It shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type
commonly relied upon by a reasonably prudent person in the conduct
of their affairs. And this is whether or not the evidence would be
admissible in a court oflaw or equity.
Hearsay may be used to explain or supplement any other
evidence in a manner such as this, but it is not sufficient to support a
finding in this or any other case unless it would be admissible over
objection in a civil court.
The standard of proof in this type case wherein the respondent
may lose her privileges to practice her profession is that the evidence
presented by the complainant must prove the complainant's case in a
clear and convincing manner.
This burden of proof on the complainant's a larger burden than
the preponderance of the evidence case standards set out in civil cases.
The standards and evidence are to be weighed solely as to the
charges set out in the complaint as Ordinance 90-105, as amended,
Section 4.1.8. And that was committing mismanagement or
misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to
a customer.
Financial mismanagement or conduct includes but is not limited
to any of the following. We're to refer back to the earlier discussion as
Page 92
March 12,2010
to how it can infer, what to go to for that definition.
The standard is just as set out in the charge. And in order to
support a finding that the respondent is in violation, the board must
show facts that the violations were actually committed by the
respondent, and the facts must show to a clear and convincing
standard the legal conclusion that the respondent was in violation of
this section.
As this charge was the only one that the board may decide
because it's the only one the defendant could have a -- had the
opportunity to prepare a defense. So that's why it's important that we
define which -- the charge and why you couldn't add on another
charge.
Any damages found must be directly related to those charges and
it may not be for matters that may have been heard here but are not
directly related.
The decision made by this board shall be stated orally at this
hearing and is effective upon being read by the board.
The respondent, if found in violation, has certain appeal rights to
this board, the courts and the State Construction Industry Licensing
Board as set out in the ordinance and/or Florida Statutes and rules.
If the board is unable to issue a decision immediately following
the hearing because of questions of law or other matters of such a
nature that a decision may not be made at this hearing, the board may
withhold its decision until a subsequent meeting. Essentially that's
what the board has done today.
The board shall vote based upon the evidence presented on all
areas, and if it finds the respondent in violation it shall adopt the
Administrative Complaint.
It shall also make findings of fact and conclusions of law in
support of the charges set out in the Administrative Complaint.
Now the board should proceed with deliberations.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
Page 93
March 12,2010
The first order is to deliberate on guilt with regard to the count.
And once that's done, depending on our findings, we'll move into the
sanctions phase.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to move that the
board find in violation of Count I, as stated in the complaint.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I have a motion, I have a second. Any
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, the board has found Maharay
Borrego, d/b/a Mary's Kitchens and Interiors, Incorporated, guilty of
Count I, 4.1.8.
And now we move into the deliberation on sanctions.
MR. NEALE: Right. And the sanctions are set out in the
codified ordinance in Section 22-203(B)(1), and in the ordinance in
Section 4.3.5.
The sanctions which may be imposed include a revocation of the
Certificate of Competency; suspension of the Certificate of
Competency; denial of issuance or renewal of the Certificate of
Competency; probation of a reasonable length, not to exceed two
years, during which the contractor's contracting activities shall be
under the supervision of the board and/or participation in a duly
Page 94
March 12,2010
accredited program of continuing education.
Probation may be revoked for cause by the board at a hearing
noticed to reconsider such purpose.
Restitution may be ordered; a fine not to exceed $10,000 per
violation; a public reprimand; a reexamination requirement; denial of
the issuance of permits or requiring issuance of permits with
conditions; and an award of reasonable legal and investigative costs.
In imposing these sanctions, this board shall consider, one, the
gravity of the violation; two, the impact of the violation; three, any
actions taken by the violator to correct the violation; four, any
previous violations committed by the violator; and five, any other
evidence presented at this hearing by the parties relevant as to the
sanction that's appropriate for the case, given the nature of this matter.
The board shall also issue a recommended penalty to the state.
That may include a recommendation for no further action or
recommendation of suspension, revocation or restriction of the
registration, or a fine to be levied by the state.
Is this a registered license, Mike?
MR. OSSORIO: No.
MR. NEALE: So then there's no state requirement at this point.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, thank you.
So I think we need to do restitution, I think we need to revoke the
license, and I think there needs to be a fine as well. Investigative
costs.
I think it's the full list of sanctions. The question is to what
extent.
MR. BOYD: There's no license to revoke, is there?
MR. NEALE: Yes, there still is, because it's in delinquent status,
so --
MR. BOYD: I thought it was suspended now.
MR. NEALE: It really wasn't. It's -- what, it's in delinquent
status, Mike, or is it in suspension?
Page 95
March 12,2010
MR. OSSORIO: It is suspension. But it's the suspension that if
she comes in, she can pay a small penalty and get the license back.
MR. NEALE: It's not a suspension imposed by the board, it's a
suspension by action of the ordinance. So she could -- as Mike said,
she could come back in and pay and submit an application.
MR. BOYD: We gave her that chance.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Excuse me one second, guys.
Ms. Laczi, you're free to sit down. We've closed the public
hearing.
MS. LACZI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Ifwe need you, we'll call you back up
again, okay?
Does anybody have a problem with revocation of license?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, so that's on the table.
I think restitution's appropriate for the full amount that was taken
as a deposit.
MR. BOYD: Plus interest.
MR. WHITE: Plus interest.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Plus interest.
Investigation costs.
MR. JOSLIN: $1,000.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Do you have a dollar amount for that?
MR. JACKSON: $1,000.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. And we can impose a fine. And
what are the -- what's the ranges on the fine, Mr. Neale?
MR. NEALE: Up to $10,000.
MR. BOYD: Maximum fine.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: What else do we have?
What else do we have available to us as a sanction? We have a
fine, we have investigative costs, we have restitution and revocation of
the license.
Page 96
March 12,2010
MR. NEALE: You could issue a public reprimand, have her take
an exam, deny the issuance of any permits in the future.
We don't have public flogging on here, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: But if we revocate her license, she's
going to have to come back to get a new license.
MR. NEALE: Right.
MR. JOSLIN: Automatically.
MR. NEALE: And obviously she can't get any permits if she has
a revoked license, so -- you know, some of them are sort of redundant.
They're --
MR. WHITE: The scope of a public reprimand, what form does
that take? The thinking I have simply here is that is there some way to
make known to more than just the record what has taken place?
MR. NEALE: It's something that I don't think the board's ever
done, but certainly one thing the board has had staff do in the past is
send letters to all nearby licensing bodies about this finding.
Probably -- I mean, a public reprimand could be as much as --
you know, I don't know if there's still building block still goes out or,
you know, something like that. It certainly could be put in there that
the board has issued a public reprimand to Ms. so and so, and --
MR. JERULLE: Your thought is --
MR. NEALE: -- put it on the website even.
MR. JERULLE: -- to prevent other people from using --
MR. WHITE: Well, number one, there's that specific deterrent,
but there's also the idea of a more general deterrent to those folks who
would consider taking this kind of action and conducting themselves
in such an irresponsible and harmful fashion to others.
MR. NEALE: And I would think it would be certainly -- as part
of a public reprimand, and I'm just sort of winging this one because it's
a first impression for me, but I would think that the county could issue
a press release sent to the media that the Contractor Licensing Board
has found this and has issued -- aside from finding the fines, the
Page 97
March 12,2010
revocation or whatever, whatever the board decides on, and has issued
a public reprimand to the respondent and the business then.
MR. WHITE: That's exactly what I was thinking. And I'm glad
to hear that there's at least the opportunity to consider it. So--
MR. JOSLIN: How would that get out? Who would -- I mean,
would you be responsible or would you take the --
MR. NEALE: They could go through the public information
office.
MR. OSSORIO: Typically we do our own press release --
MR. JOSLIN: You do.
MR. OSSORIO: -- for the licensing board. It's a form we can fill
out and we can put our ad libs in it and we can send it to John Torre,
the public relations director.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: If it's -- if we do a public reprimand,
with the Internet these days, if somebody ever looks up her name, if
there's a public reprimand, that will show up on the Internet and that's
a way to get the word out and it would be there forever.
MR. NEALE: And frankly, the county, I don't know if they do
that, but the CDES website, it could be posted on there as well under
news and notes on the CDES website.
MR. BOYD: Could we send a letter to her landlord?
MR. NEALE: That's -- I'm not sure about that one. I'd feel a
little uncomfortable, because that gets into interfering with the
business relationship that's somewhat unrelated. However--
MR. BOYD: If I owned a business like that, I certainly wouldn't
want a tenant --
MR. NEALE: That's unlicensed.
MR. BOYD: -- that's unlicensed and taking people's money.
MR. NEALE: Yeah. Well, you know, I think the public
reprimand, if it goes out in such a fashion would probably -- if they're
awake, they would know that.
MR. JOSLIN: Could that be just included in the motion that
Page 98
March 12,2010
comes out, just have Michael --
MR. NEALE: You can certainly -- you know, one of the
sanctions prescribed is a public reprimand so you --
MR. JOSLIN: We deal with how we put it out--
MR. NEALE: -- state that staff--
MR. JOSLIN: -- where we could put it out, anyplace we can
find.
MR. NEALE: Yeah, issues a public reprimand as appropriate.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
MR. JERULLE: I have another question. It's maybe a silly
question, but is there anything we can do to help them recover any
money through the contractors recovery fund?
MR. OSSORIO: (Shakes head negatively.)
MR. JOSLIN: Not a Tier 1 contractor.
MR. NEALE: They're not a Tier 1.
MR. JERULLE: There's nothing that as a board we can do to
help them?
MR. OSSORIO: No, unfortunately the State Recovery Fund is --
well, they have their own issues. But it's only for Tier 1 contractors,
general building and residential. And that's only after they go to civil
court and they follow the rules of engagement pertaining to the
recovery fund.
MR. NEALE: However, she will have -- you know, assuming
the board grants that she would have an order of restitution, which if
she takes into county court certainly is prima facie evidence that she
should be able to recover.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: On a side note, there was another
licensed contractor that pulled a permit for this job, and there was also
some drawings that were done. Without knowing the exact time
frames of everything, there's -- potentially somebody could file a lien
for the cost incurred to do drawings and for pulling a permit. The
person that pulled the permit wasn't in privity with the owner, so
Page 99
March 12,2010
they'd have to file a notice to owner first.
The time frame may already be too late, but there is a chance.
Even if somebody went tomorrow and filed a notice to owner and
tried to file a lien, the lien may not be upheld, but still, the owner's
going to have to go through that stress and aggravation of dealing with
that. I don't know that there's anything we can do about it, but there is
a -- I mean, it wasn't a lot of money, but there is a potential for that.
MR. NEALE: Well, I think the board certainly could as part of
the order give -- put in the order that there's a leave to reopen this
because the board, you know, has done this just today, to reopen the
matter to impose additional fines and/or additional restitution, if it's
shown that it's appropriate. So I think that's certainly --
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I don't think that the dollar amounts are
worth going through that process, but people can be vindictive and do
things that don't always make sense financially. But there is a
potential for that. I mean, right now there's an open permit on that
house.
MR. JOSLIN: Yeah, I was going to say.
Is it still open, Michael, right now?
MR. JACKSON: It is.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: If that permit doesn't get closed out,
nobody else can open a permit on that residence.
MR. JERULLE: Can we close it?
MR. JACKSON: We've been in communication with that
contractor. And I believe that is what's going to happen is that
permit's going to be canceled by him.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I just don't want to see Mr. and Mrs.
Laczi get an invoice --
MR. JACKSON: Understood.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: -- under permit fees and the drawings
that were done.
MR. JACKSON: We've been in communication with him.
Page 100
March 12,2010
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Well, I understand you've been in
communication with him.
MR. WHITE: Well, based on today's action, I'm assuming you're
going to call and let him know.
MR. JACKSON: I'll be in further communication with him.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. Well, seems like we hashed this
out pretty well. We just need a motion with these recommendations
and then we can move forward.
MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion that in the Case No. 2010-01,
license number 32941, Maharay Borrego, d/b/a Mary's Kitchens and
Interiors, Inc., found guilty of the charges; that her license be as of
today revoked; that she be ordered to pay $5,750 in restitution; that
she be ordered to pay $1,000 investigative costs to Collier County
Licensing; and she be also assessed a fine of$10,000; and that she be
placed on public reprimand to any extent that we can send to the
media.
MR. LANTZ: I'd like just a modification to that.
I'd like to have interest on the restitution of 18 percent a year
from the date the checks are written.
MR. WHITE: Whatever statute --
MR. LANTZ: Whatever it is.
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
MR. JOSLIN: And interest added to the restitution, the legal fee.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay, so you agree to the amendment?
MR. JOSLIN : Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: And you're seconding it?
MR. WHITE: I'll second with those changes and ask for two
other favorable ones: One, within 30 days that the rest -- that the fine
be paid -- excuse me, that the fine and the $1,000 administrative costs
be paid within 30 days. That's typically what we --
MR. JOSLIN: Okay, yes. That these -- all the fees be paid
within a 30-day period. Fines, restitutions and the investigative costs.
Page 10 1
March 12,2010
MR. JERULLE: Did you say revocation of the license?
MR. JOSLIN: Revocation of the license.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Immediate.
MR. JOSLIN: Immediate, effective today.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay. So let me restate this to make
sure we're all on the same page.
I have it in a different order than you.
MR. JOSLIN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Public reprimand; investigative costs of
$1,000 due in 30 days; fine of $10,000 due in 30 days; restitution of
$5,750 plus interest at the maximum level allowed by law due within
30 days; and immediate revocation of license.
MR. JOSLIN: Correct.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Does that sound right?
MR. JOSLIN: Yeah.
MR. WHITE: May I ask, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: So that was the motion.
MR. JOSLIN: That's the motion.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Either Kyle or Patrick seconded it. You
can pick one, whichever works for you.
Okay, is there any further discussion?
MR. LANTZ: I just have a question.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Kyle.
MR. LANTZ: If 10 years from now she applies for another
license, is it automatically going to have to go to the board --
MR. NEALE: Oh, yeah.
MR. LANTZ: -- because it was previously revoked?
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Richard will be here.
MR. JOSLIN: Probably.
MR. NEALE: I'll still be representing the board.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: A lot of people here now today will still
be here 10 years from now, God willing. Okay.
Page 102
March 12,2010
MR. ZACHARY: I'll be fishing somewhere.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Any other discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All those in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. WHITE: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors
Licensing Board on March -- should I say both dates?
MR. NEALE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: February 17th and continued to March
12th for consideration of the administrative complaint filed against
Maharay Borrego d/b/a Mary's Kitchens and Interiors, Incorporated.
License number 32941.
Service of the complaint was made in accordance with Collier
County Ordinance 90-105, as amended, that the respondent was in
attendance at the earlier portion of this hearing and had adequate
notice of the continuation to today and was not present today.
The board, having had 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: Maharay Borrego d/b/a Mary's
Kitchens and Interiors, Incorporated, is the holder of record of license
number 32941; 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 Maharay Borrego
Page 103
March 12,2010
was present at the public hearing and was not presented (sic) by
counsel at the hearing on February 17th and March 12th.
All notices required by Collier County Ordinance No. 90-105 n
.?
yes, Sir.
MR. NEALE: One thing. She was not present today, she was
present in February.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: You want me to say it again there?
MR. NEALE: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Okay.
That she was present at the February 17th meeting and was not
present at the March 12th meeting and was not represented by
counsel.
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, 4.1.8, committing mismanagement or misconduct in the
practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer.
Financial mismanagement or misconduct includes but is not limited to
any of the following. 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, 4.1.8, are approved, adopted
and incorporated herein to wit: The respondent violated Section 4.1.8
-- committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of
contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial
mismanagement or misconduct includes but is not limited to any of
the following -- 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.
Page 104
March 12,2010
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 seven in favor and zero
opposed, a majority vote of the board members present, that the
following disciplinary sanctions and related order are hereby imposed
upon the holder of contractor Certificate of Competency number
32941: That the county issue a public reprimand; that the respondent
pays investigation cost of $1,000 within 30 days; that fines be levied
in the amount of $10,000, payable within 30 days; that restitution be
paid in the amount of$5,750 plus interest at the maximum rate
allowable by law; and that the respondent's license be revoked
immediately.
MR. OSSORIO: Mr. Chairman, that's a vote of six to zero.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I'm sorry.
MR. NEALE: Mr. Meister did not.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: So a vote of 6-0.
Any other reports?
MR. OSSORIO: Wednesday, April 21st.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: That's our next meeting.
MR. OSSORIO: Correct.
MR. NEALE: It's my birthday.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: I need a motion to adjourn.
MR. JERULLE: So moved, Jerulle.
MR. LANTZ: Second, Lantz.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: All in favor?
MR. BOYD: Aye.
MR. LANTZ: Aye.
MR. JERULLE: Aye.
Page 105
March 12,2010
MR. MEISTER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: Aye.
MR. JOSLIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN L YKOS: We are adjourned. Thank you,
gentlemen and ladies.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:20 p.m.
CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD
THOMAS L YKOS, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service,
Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 106