Loading...
CLB Minutes 02/16/2000 RFebruary 16, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, February 16, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' 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: CHAIRPERSON: Gary Hayes Les Dickson Daniel Gonzalez Bob Laird Robert Meister, Jr. Carol Pahl Sara Beth White NOT PRESENT: Richard Joslin Arthur Schoenfuss ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the board Thomas Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Bob Nonnenmacher, License Compliance Officer Page 1 February 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I want to call this meeting to order February the 16th, at approximately 9:10 a.m. Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record indicates that testimony and evidence upon which an appeal is to be based. Roll call. MR. GONZALEZ: Daniel Gonzalez. MR. MEISTER: Robert Meister. MR. LAIRD: Bob Laird. MR. DICKSON: Les Dickson. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Gary Hayes. MS. PAHL: Carol Pahl. MS. WHITE: Sara Beth White. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Nonnenmacher, do you have any additions or deletions to the agenda? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anybody from the board? MR. DICKSON: I approve the agenda. MR. GONZALEZ: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All in favor-- agenda. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: All right, I have the minutes from December 15th. MR. MEISTER: I make a motion we accept the minutes as presented. MR. LAIRD: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well. New business. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Bob Nonnenmacher, .contractor licensing investigator Page 2 February 16, 2000 with Collier County. With the approval of the board, what I would like to do is go to old business, number one, take it out of order. Mr. Anderson is represented by an attorney. And with your permission, I would like to go out of order with this one. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just by way of a few brief introductory comments, my name is Rich Yovanovich. I am with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, and I represent Scott Anderson. This case has been dropped and there are no pending charges against my client. However, my client has agreed to come to the Contractors' Licensing Board, because I believe you had some questions. And we also agreed to come here so you would understand, staff's decision not to go forward with any charges is the correct decision under the facts. I want to thank staff for, you know, meeting with me and meeting with my client and in taking the time to investigate this matter and deciding to not prosecute this case, because I believe this is not a case that should have been brought before the Contractors' Licensing Board. I believe you'll understand that my client, as Mastercraft Homes, did what a responsible qualified owner would do when qualifying a company. I think there are important dates you need to keep in mind when considering this matter and having your questions answered. My client was hired in June of 1998 to work for Mastercraft Homes. And in that employ he served as their qualifier. Throughout his employment, he had concerns about how quickly the company was growing and his ability to supervise the construction of the site and had many meetings with management regarding wanting more in-field supervision and more control over what was happening. I believe all of you would have that same concern and would work with the company in an attempt to get what you needed for your job to the best of your ability. In fact, somebody was hired to help him, but when that person was hired it was brought into the fold that person was a Page 3 February 16, 2000 warranty person and doing punch list work. When Scott realized he was not going to get the support he needed to do his job correctly, he resigned. He resigned on January 8th, 1999. He had a contract with the company that basically said you had to give him 90 days to resign, so he gave him the 90 days to give them an opportunity to get a replacement qualifier. He stayed on the job, he did his job, he supervised construction. The company assured him they were finding a replacement for him. And actually, there's plenty of correspondence that he was going to take the test. Came April 8th, 1999, the day he was supposed to resign, they did not have a qualifier in place. Scott agreed to stay on and serve as the qualifier, only because there were several homes, you know, a couple hundred homes already in production, and he felt that those homeowners should get the home that should be delivered. If he walked away from the job at that point, everything had to stop. And that was his concern, rightly or wrongly. Had he come to me, I would have said get out of there. But, you know, he had a genuine concern for those homeowners who were paying money to a company. He wanted to see those things done. So he stayed on. That was the date he was supposed to be gone. What's important for this board to know is the violation that ultimately was found and repaired occurred on May 5th, 1999. So he had already taken steps months in advance to try to get out of the situation and make sure they were done properly. So he had taken the necessary steps as the qualifier to ensure quality control. And when they didn't, he left. I'm sure everybody on the board would have done the same in this situation. What's also important is Mastercraft Homes did what needed to be done. They inspected the homes, they went to the county and discussed any violations and repaired them. That's the ultimate goal of this board is to make sure that people take their responsibility seriously as contractors and take their responsibility as builders. Page 4 February 16, 2000 I would submit to you that both my client and Mastercraft Homes did take their jobs seriously. I think staff -- and I think Bob will tell you that staff had -- Bob had a stomach ache on this case. I don't think he believed that my client did anything wrong. He believes that my client worked hard at doing the right job and just didn't have the resources and worked it out to the best of his ability, and when the situation wasn't going to be resolved, he did what he should do, which was leave the company. The company learned its lesson. I believe they put other quality control measures in place. Unfortunately they didn't do it when my client asked for them to do it, but they did do it. I think you got the results that you wanted in this case, which was making sure you had a contractor that was not renting his license. He was not renting his license to the company. He was on the job, he was doing the best he could, he was taking control and accepting responsibility. And you've got a company that was growing too quickly, didn't want to turn the money away, but ultimately learned their lesson and has taken the necessary steps to make staff happy. At this point, I want to again thank staff for their courtesies in this matter. I want to thank Tom Palmer for his courtesies in this matter and also Pat O'Neale for his courtesies. I think the right thing happened when the charges were dropped. When you want to hear some more further testimony from my client, you'll see staff did the right thing in this case and they got a good result for Collier County, and they protected Collier County. This was not a case that really needed to result in a formal prosecution against a qualifier of the company. If you have any questions of me or my client, we're here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I appreciate you coming in and talking with us. I'm sure that after reviewing the case and looking at it from all the directions that we have, that we on this board probably have some concerns and thoughts and other questions. What I am going to say, that since the County Attorney Office themselves and staff themselves has also reviewed this from beginning to end and felt that it is not necessary to pursue Page 5 February 16, 2000 it is the reason that we're going to feel that -- feel comfortable that staff has done everything they can do to remedy the situation. And I don't think we need to take any further action on it. MR. DICKSON: I just had one comment. And you know because you used to sit in that chair, our biggest concern was the way this case was handled, that it not become a precedent setting case, to where another large company that has financial means once caught could rectify themselves. And I think by the fact -- talking with Mr. Perico, the fact that we're not hearing this case, there's no precedent set. Am I correct? Because we didn't hear the case. MR. PALMER: We feel that there is no precedence whatsoever. And no inappropriate message is being given to the industry. I think that somebody at some level tried to pull a fast one on the county. Obviously the people who thought they were going to get away with this and not get caught pulled a fast one. Mastercraft knows they can't pull that on Collier County. Then they had to go spend tens and thousands of dollars to rectify the problem, including those that we did not know about, and had to have all of the improper tasks re-engineered or re-architected. That's not the way to make money. And I don't think anybody is going to try to pull that again. I think they just thought -- they underestimated the competency of our inspectors and our staff. And staff thought that even if this case was tried fully, that the proper remedy would have been -- recommended to the board would have been just a reprimand with referral to the state with no further action. We thought that was just inefficient use of effort and time. We do believe that once they were called up short, that they fully cooperated with us, and the end result, which is what counts, is an excellent end result for the county and for the people that we are here to protect. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Dickson, as you know, I've sat in that chair and Mr. Palmer's chair, and I can tell you honestly, if I thought my client had committed a violation, I would not have Page 6 February 16, 2000 taken the case. MR. DICKSON: We have done a lot to stop the renting of licenses by the financial qualifiers. You know, I'm glad it got rectified. MR. MEISTER: Is Mr. Anderson still qualifying Mastercraft? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, he's not. He left. I forgot the exact date. MR. ANDERSON: Mastercraft acquired a new license holder in July of 1999. MR. YOVANOVICH: So he did leave, yeah. MS. WHITE: Mr. Southern? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Southern is not the qualifier. It was actually an employee of the company who was actually superintendent for them agreed to convert his license over to the qualifier. CHAIRMAN HAYES: For the record, if can I have his name. MR. ANDERSON: Chris Jarrett. J-A-R-R-E-T-T. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is he a state certified contractor? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, he is. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale, do you have any comments? MR. NEALE: No, I think this is a very appropriate resolution to this matter. The state in 489 -- the legislature has actually said in Chapter 489.1317(a) that it's the policy of the state that the purpose of regulation is to protect the public by obtaining compliance with the policies established in law. Fines and other penalties, blah, blah, blah, in order to ensure compliance. However, the imposition of penalties are intended to be secondary to the goal of obtaining compliance. And I think in this case certainly compliance was attained. The imposition of fines and penalties would serve probably no · purpose other than revenge, for lack of a better term. I think this gentleman and Mastercraft have gone above and beyond what we have seen at this board in many other cases to remedy what was a bad situation is now a good one. So it turned it into a good one. So I think it's completely appropriate and a non-precedent setting decision by the board and by the county staff and county attorney. Page 7 February 16, 2000 MS. WHITE: Excuse me, Mr. Neale, what happened to the supervisor on those jobs? MR. ANDERSON: He's also not employed with Mastercraft any longer. And the supervisor for those jobs was hired after I had resigned, so I wasn't even -- I was not sure who was supervising those specific jobs, because Mastercraft had so much turnover that they kept changing, so I wasn't really sure who was supervising the job at that time. MS. WHITE: I meant supervisor that was with Mastercraft at the time the violations occurred. MR. ANDERSON: He's gone. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's no longer employed by the company. MR. PALMER: I would like to add one other point. In the unlikely event that Mastercraft should try anything like this again, it would not preclude the evidence from being presented to the board. It isn't like we're waiving it with any statute of limitations on it. And I believe that Mastercraft has gotten the message and is not going to pull a stunt like this again. MR. NEALE: Being that the board has taken no action is not to dismiss the matter. Everything that is presented, as well as the complaint, is part of the record and can be brought forth as future record. So it's a good decision by the board and staff and county staff. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I would entertain a motion from someone. MR. NEALE: You really don't need to take any action. This is more informational than anything else. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Good enough. All right, Mr. Yovanovich, appreciate you coming in. Okay, Mr. Nonnenmacher, can we go on to new business? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mario Rodriguez, request to qualify second entity. Mr. Rodriguez, are you present? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Would you come up to the podium, Page 8 February 16, 2000 please. I hope that you're aware of the fact that we don't have a PA system today, so you're going to have to speak loudly. Our reporter is going to have to listen to every word without the assistance of the mike. I need to have you sworn in for the record. (Speaker was duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir, for the record? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Mario Rodriguez. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your request this morning is? MR. RODRIGUEZ: To qualify a second company under my license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Why would you want to do that? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Well, sir, it's my own company that I have started. The second company that I'm referring to, it's really a couple of installers with helpers right now. It's not going to be, in other words, a concern in the sense that I'm going to have to be supervising another 30 job sites. We're talking about additional one or two job sites that are going to be handled by the second company, which I'll be supervising personally, along with the other ones that I'm already responsible for. MR. MEISTER: Who is K.C. Marble, and what's your association with him? MR. RODRIGUEZ: K.C. Marble is the company I'm currently working for, and I supervise the job sites, along with the president and vice president. MR. MEISTER: You're the qualifying? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm a qualifier and supervisor for the job sites. I also from time to time help in the sense that I get involved in laying out the floor plan and reading the plans and making sure the work is done according to the plans, as well as supervisor, making sure everything is getting done by code. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, so you currently qualify K.C. Marble? MR. RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you're asking to qualify Elite Stone and Marble? Page 9 February 16, 2000 MR. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Who's the -- is this your company, your business? MR. RODRIGUEZ: I'm the president of the corporation. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do you own it? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Rodriguez, I notice -- I heard you say, I believe, that you're only going to be having about three or four employees in this new company? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir. MR. NONNENMACHER.' Okay. And are the employees that you're hiring, are they licensed, or you're -- MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, they're going to be on payroll. MR. NONNENMACHER: Are you dealing with a leasing company, getting employees from a leasing company? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No, I'm getting it through past contacts in our field of work. MR. NONNENMACHER: No, but is a leasing company paying for the insurances and everything that are required on these? MR. RODRIGUEZ: No. MR. NONNENMACHER.' Because I notice in your folder here, you have a number of elections to be exempt from Workers' Comp. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I'm personally exempt, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Personally exempt. MR. NONNENMACHER: What's going to happen with the employees? Are you going to have Workmen's Comp.? MR. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, I do. You should have a copy of my Workmen's Comp in there. MR. DICKSON: Ever been any complaints against Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. MR. DICKSON: Everybody's in order. Mr. Chairman, I move that the request to qualify a second entity be approved. Everything's in order. He's got his insurance, credit report is in order. MR. LAIRD: Second. Page 10 February 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, Mr. Rodriguez, it's a done deal. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Rodriguez, one thing. You'll be able to come in tomorrow to do the paperwork and pick up your license, because we have all the folders here and the girls couldn't get it done today. MR. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Kelly, are you present? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Come up to the podium, please. I'm going to ask you to be sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name? MR. KELLY: Kenneth Kelly. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here? MR. KELLY: I'm here today because I'd like the board to reconsider and reinstate my license that was suspended two years ago, due to a small problem on my part, which I openly admit was my fault. I understand what I did wrong, why I did it, and I promise the board that nothing like that will happen again. For the last couple of years, three years or so, I've actually run my parents company. I've been their supervisor, sometimes their salesman, everything from product ordering to job site completion. I've done all the hiring of men and all the quality assurance. MR. NONNENMACHER: If I may interrupt at this point. There's extenuating circumstances here. As Mr. Kelly has stated, for the last year or so, maybe more, Mr. Kelly has actually been out in the field running the business. His mother was the license holder and became very sick and eventually passed away. On 12-20 of '95, this board made him take a test, and he took it and he passed it. And they said that he could reapply on Page 11 February 16, 2000 1-17-96. The board informed him that he may reapply after six months from that date to have his license reinstated. Apparently he chose not to do that and he is choosing to do it now. And under the circumstances, we have monitored him for the last six months, and there has not been a complaint against him. The company now is pretty much in a stagnant position due to the fact of his mother passing on, and she was the license holder. And staff would have no objection to him getting his license back and in fact would recommend that this board reinstate his license. MR. DICKSON: Is this Deborah Ann Kelly? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. I think he has paid his debt to society. It's been since '96, and this board said he could reapply in six months from that date. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What reason was his license suspended for in the first place, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: Failure to promptly correct faulty workmanship. License was revoked for two years. May reapply after six months to the CLB. And that was -- that order was given on 1-17 of '96. So even if he went through the full revocation of the two years, which wasn't the decision of this board, he could reapply in six months. We would be at 1-17-98 for a full two-year revocation. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So we would be doing nothing more than following through on what they said in 1995. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. And I'm here to tell you that we've had no complaints against this company. I know for a fact that Mr. Kelly has been running the company for quite a long time. And like I said, it's staff's recommendation that this board approve his request. MR. DICKSON: What name are you going to operate under? Deborah Ann Kelly? MR. KELLY: I own the fictitious name of Kelly Roofing. I've kept that current. Although, in mom's memory, we're thinking about filing another fictitious name and keeping the Deborah Ann Kelly Roofing name. It's been impeccable. It's been credible for Page 12 February 16, 2000 If I may make a statement on my own behalf. The problem that went wrong originally wasn't that I didn't follow up on workmanship, it's that I was young and too full of pride to admit to a customer that I made a mistake. I was young. I was 19 years old at the time. I've learned a lot since. I've finished my schooling. And it's not me and my family that I'm responsible for, it's my eight employees and their families that I'm responsible for today. In reference to mom, it really opened my eyes. When you measure success, you don't do it in monetary amounts, you do it in your legacy and how your reputation turns other people's lives. When I sat in the funeral parlor and saw customers, 10, 20 customers at that time come through the door and say, "I'm really sorry to hear about your mother," that really touched me. Because that's something I didn't expect. We go do a roof and we're out on that job only two or three days, so there's no time to build a reputation. That's what's really important to me. So as far as keeping the name, I think I am going to keep the name Deborah Ann Kelly. I can use Kelly Roofing, though, until I get the fictitious name, because I do own that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other comments from the board? I'd like to entertain a moment. MS. WHITE: I'll make a motion. MS. PAHL: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN HAYES: To approve his reinstatement? MS. WHITE: Yes. MS. PAHL: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, Mr. Kelly. MR. KELLY: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Good luck. Richard Baker, request to qualify second entity with financial responsible officer. Page 13 February 16, 2000 Mr. Baker, are you present? Would you come up to the podium, please. MR. BAKER: Excuse my lameness, I seem to hurt my back this morning. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We'll have you sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir, for the record? MR. BAKER: Richard Baker. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your reason for being here this morning? MR. BAKER: To qualify a second company. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What company do you currently own? MR. BAKER: Baker & Price Painting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You're looking to qualify Gregg Price Painting? MR. BAKER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: May I ask why? MR. BAKER: He's a friend of mine, and we used to own Baker & Price together, but we didn't generate enough money to support two families, so we went on our own, and I just want him to be able to make a living for his family. CHAIRMAN HAYES: He's a friend of yours, but you want to qualify. MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do you have any ownership in this company? MR. BAKER: No, I don't. MR. MEISTER: You're going to run his business independently? MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. MR. MEISTER: He's going to supervise his own work? MR. BAKER: Yes, sir. MR. MEISTER: You don't have anything else to do with it? MR. BAKER: Well, I do as a qualifier. That's my responsibility as a qualifier. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Excellent response. MR. BAKER: And I do have my credit reports. The credit Page 14 February 16, 2000 MR. BAKER: MR. NEALE: Mr. Price? MR. BAKER: company did not get them to the county on time, so I brought them with me, copies for all of you. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Neale, this being a corporation, doesn't he also have to be an officer? MR. NEALE: Well, he doesn't necessarily have to be an officer. My question is the way the -- the way I read the application here, if I'm looking at the right thing, is that this is a qualification with a financially responsible officer? Is that -- MR. BAKER: Actually, there was a form I guess that's new. And I saw that I am not financially responsible for Gregg Price Painting, Inc., but I also have to be on the payroll on this company -- MR. NEALE: I think-- MR. BAKER: -- so I would be covered under Workmen's Comp under Gregg Price Corporation. I'm also covered under my own company. It was kind of confusing. I was confused by the whole thing, too. MR. NEALE: There might have been some confusion in the application process is the way I'm reading it, at least. If I may ask Mr. Baker a couple of questions. Do you intend to be financially responsible for the second entity you're qualifying? No, I'm not. So the financially responsible party would be Yes. MR. DICKSON: So we have a problem. MR. GONZALEZ: Do we have an application on financially responsible officer? MR. NEALE: Yeah, this is the first one of these that's come before the board, as far as I know. It appears -- I reviewed this last night. It appears that the application is correct in form. I don't know if Mr. Palmer feels the same way, but I think so, as to having Mr. Price qualify as the financially responsible officer for the second entity. Because of that, that changes some of the rules as far as Mr. Baker's responsibility for the financial operation of the second entity. However, it does not change the Page 15 February 16, 2000 rules as far as what the qualifications to be financially responsible officer are. And if I might review those with the board. The financially responsible officer must present evidence of financial -- obviously financial responsibility, logically. But that evidence must include an ability to demonstrate a minimum net worth of $10,000, a minimum cash availability of $10,000, and the ability to post a $50,000 bond, okay? All of those are necessary for someone to be a financially responsible officer. And in brief review of this, I did not see evidence presented as to that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: As to actually posting the bond or being able to qualify to post a bond? MR. NEALE: Well, either one or both. Plus if you'll look at the page, what's Page 4 of the application, the financially responsible officer application, in the first sentence underneath the lead-in it says, "The minimum requirement for the applicant to demonstrate financial stability is the ability of having and maintaining a minimum net worth of $10,000 and having a minimum cash balance of $10,000." So this board needs to evaluate whether that is -- MR. BAKER: Can I ask a question? When we went to the county and tried to have these things explained to us, the first thing was they didn't know. And the second thing was painters weren't even listed on this application to have to have those requirements to qualify as the financial -- to be financially responsible. There's drywall and there's a list of others, but no painting at all. That's why we didn't understand. They said when we get to the board, to have you guys figure it out, I guess. MR. DICKSON: If can I explain the problem. You can't just because you have a license point and say I want to qualify this company. You have no control or involvement in that company. In the past we've looked for this being a corporation for the qualifier to be a director. Doesn't have to be a stockholder. There's no big difference there. But to have some control and involvement in the company for which they're qualifying, which you know you can lose your license by actions that it takes. You don't want to be financially responsible officer so, Mr. Page 16 February 16, 2000 Neale, the way I see to resolve this, he will amend his Articles of Incorporation and become a director, then there's no problem with -- MR. NEALE: Well, except Mr. Baker will then have to be willing to take on the financial responsibility for the second entity. MR. DICKSON: Which he will automatically do as a director. MR. NEALE: No, not necessarily. MR. DICKSON: But if he is a director, then there's no requirement for a financially responsible officer; is that correct? MR. NEALE: No, because the definition of what we can -- and I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just want to make sure we're clear -- that in order for someone -- we go back to the -- if we remove this from the realm of financially responsible officer, we go back to Section 22-182 of the Ordinance No. 12(I). And in proof that the qualifying agent is legally qualified to act for the business connected with its contracting business, proof that he's legally qualified to et cetera, et cetera, training and supervision of employees, hiring and firing of employees or other actions indicating active involvement in the business. So just being a director doesn't get him over that hump. You know, it indicates real -- our requirement in the ordinance is real involvement in the business and actually direct hands-on supervision. Simply a directorship, because of the limited liability nature of the corporation, it doesn't expose him to any liability at all, unless he actually takes on the liability. So he would have to be willing to take on the liability for the new company, you know, and just be a straight up qualifier, if the board doesn't approve the financially responsible officer application. MS. WHITE: Excuse me, I'm confused here, because the financially responsible officer application in my packet is blank. MR. DICKSON: Because he said he's not going to do that. MS. WHITE: He's not going to do it. MR. NEALE: Because I've got a fully filled out financially responsible application. CHAIRMAN HAYES: There's no application packets. MS. WHITE: I know, but one doesn't have it at all and the Page 17 February 16, 2000 other one has the blank one. That's where I'm confused. MR. DICKSON: That's what we have, Mr. Neale. We don't have one that's filled out. MS. WHITE: Yeah, I don't think we have one filled out either. MR. NEALE: I've got one filled out and signed and has financial statements attached to it and letters from banks and everything else. MR. MEISTER: It's quite a ways back. MR. GONZALEZ: Mr. Baker, what's keeping Mr. Price from getting his own license? MR. BAKER: The test. You have to take the test and go through the process, which I would imagine, you know, he's willing to do that, but right now he wants to take care of his family. It does take time and money to do those kind of things. Took me a couple of times to pass mine, so I know what it's like. I had someone help me, so I'm willing to help him. Like I said, we're good friends. Our company before us didn't generate enough money to support two families. MR. PALMER: As I understand the matter, we just approved Item No. 2, whereby Mr. Richard Baker became the qualifying agent. That position assumes that obligations of financially responsible officer a matter of law, unless a financially responsible officer is put in place to assume those obligations. MR. NEALE: We haven't approved Baker at all. It was Kelly that we approved. MR. PALMER: Well, it says name of qualifying agent is Richard H. Baker. KELLY: We didn't have anything in the packet on it -- PALMER: Well, I've got the Kelly application again. MR. MR. Gregg -- MR. MR. NEALE: That's not the Kelly application. PALMER: It isn't? MR. NEALE: No. There was nothing in my packet on Kelly at all. That's -- all the information as far as Gregg Price begins with Gregg Price Painting, Inc., and then as the financially responsible officer application, is all regarding Item 3. MR. PALMER: All right. As things stand right now then, Page 18 February 16, 2000 unless a -- well, the same result. Unless a financially responsible officer is appointed other than Mr. Richard H. Baker, Mr. Baker would be the -- assume the obligations of a financial responsible officer. So the situation here is unless somebody else qualifies as financially responsible officer, Mr. Baker will be assuming obligations he does not wish to assume if this application is approved without somebody being designated financially responsible officer. MR. DICKSON: I was confused because I didn't see the second part of the application. MR. NEALE: It's confusing because it's stapled in two places. MR. DICKSON: I've seen them sign the form, fill it out. Playing a little bit on the net worth requirements. Plus I'm questioning the painting was actually worth $10,000. I may be wrong with that. So he's assuming financial responsible officer. MR. NEALE: Well, he is assuming that. However, he still needs to meet all the tests. He still needs to put up the $50,000 bond. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Or be qualified to do so. He doesn't necessarily have to get the bond, does he? MR. NEALE: Bond has to be there. Remember when we went through this on this whole financially responsible officer thing? We had a fair amount of discussion on the fact that this is a very high hurdle to jump over, to become a financially responsible officer. And it's not likely that somebody's willy nilly going to become one just for the heck of it. You've got to show you have $10,000 net worth, $10,000 in cash and put up a $50,000 bond. All those have to be there or you're not a financially responsible officer. You're somebody that wants to be one. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's correct. And I think that -- if we can remember our issues were the license holder, if the license holder was involved with the problem or situation that came up before the board, then the license holder is where we go to. And of course then we can recommend punitive damages or recoveries to that individual. Page 19 February 16, 2000 But if we have a financial responsible officer other than the license holder, we need -- we want to make sure that that financial responsible officer can live up to those obligations. And I think that's what Mr. Neale's getting to is that according to the application itself, that's not so. MR. DICKSON: So what I would suggest to the board is -- and I certainly don't want to prevent these gentlemen from being able to go forward and operate their businesses, or force them into operating a business without a license -- is that they sit with staff and maybe Mr. Palmer or myself or someone during the period between now and the next meeting, that they contact a surety agency or a bonding agency about obtaining a bond, come back with evidence that they can obtain one, and then maybe come back next month and the board would have a fuller picture and they'll have a clearer understanding of what their rights and responsibilities are. Because I would suggest that it's not -- probably not the best thing for this board to make a decision on a matter where there seems to be a bit of confusion on everyone's part. MR. DICKSON: A second. Or get with the surety and get the bond, or become financially responsible by being a director or officer of the company with check signing privileges, and you can avoid financial responsibility requirement. MR. NEALE: That's it. I mean or, you know, the options are Mr. Baker can decide to become the true qualifier without a financially responsible officer for the second entity. And that's something that I think maybe the gravity of this decision wasn't clearly explained or, you know, they didn't clearly understand. So I would suggest that rather than rushing to judgment ears, we take another month and let these gentlemen ponder their fate a little bit. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't have a problem with that. Yes? MR. BAKER: I was just -- when I went through this application, like I said, I didn't see anything on there about painting. I think there was different levels to what kind of money you had to have for the bank. I think drywall guys were what, Page 20 February 16, 2000 around 2,500 bucks? Wasn't that in that application? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I will have to review that with everyone. I don't remember being that big a separation between the trades. So we'll talk about that on the board. The individual behind you acts like he wants to say something. MR. BAKER: That's Gregg Price. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. I'm going to have to have you sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name, sir? MR. PRICE: Gregory A. Price. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you want to speak? MR. PRICE: Yes. On the form, we went down to the county to try to have this put together correctly and right. But you just said switch the forms over to copy the state forms. And like Richard had said, the categories on it was 20,000 GC license, they had a category of 10,000 for another set of license, and at the bottom was 2,500 cash or equivalent bond for a drywall, pool companies, et cetera. And when we talked to them, nobody knew, because it was the first time he used the form. And Rich, there's no problem doing it the last way you -- you know, he can sign checks and we can do it that route. I just figured it would be easier for him and me to be sole sufficient and financially responsible. I do have -- I can put up -- first off, on the $10,000 cash, there's not a paint contractor having $10,000 cash laying around. I do have a $5,000 CD. I can't get a surety bond. But like I said, when we went to the county, nobody was sure. That is why. I've already met with my banker. Everything's laying right there. It could be done within 24 hours. MR. DICKSON.' But do you understand that the $10,000 is not an issue here? He's pretty well supplied that. We don't want a surety bond from you and we don't want your money from you -- MR. PRICE: Right. MR. DICKSON: -- because you don't have a license in your pocket, okay? So that's out. He's -- we're now to the point to Page 21 February 16, 2000 where he's satisfied the financial responsibility requirement if you get the bond or change the application. MR. NEALE: Well, no, I mean, Mr. Price would be the financially -- he's proposing to be the financially responsible officer, because he's the non-licensed person. Financially responsible officer cannot be the qualifier. That's very specific. MR. DICKSON: Oh, Lord. MR. GONZALEZ: Only when using going this form. MR. NEALE: Yeah, only -- financially responsible officer cannot be the qualifier if they are the financially responsible officer. Or, in the alternative, the qualifier is the financially responsible person. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Without the form. MR. NEALE: Without -- well, without the form and a lot more. I mean, there's other hoops to be going through. But if you are a financially responsible officer, you cannot be the qualifier. MS. WHITE: I bet Mr. Baker doesn't understand the importance of financially responsible officer either. I mean, the intensity of that responsibility. Or does he? MR. NEALE: Well, you know, I think-- MR. PRICE: Yes, I do. MR. NEALE: Yeah, Mr. Baker understands -- my interpretation -- I would want to question the gentleman further, but my interpretation of what we're hearing here is that Mr. Baker thoroughly understands that if he were to become the qualifier for the second entity and take on full financial responsibility, that he would be fully financially responsible for it. My understanding, and maybe these gentlemen can speak to it better, is that he's willing to allow -- he's willing to qualify this second firm, but he wants the gentleman who's going to be operating it to be the financially responsible officer in that firm who does not have the license, who is not the qualifier, which is -- meets with state standards and county standards. MR. MEISTER: And that can happen if he can come up with the $50,000 bond. MR. NEALE: It could happen. If he comes up with the bond, it can happen, if he meets all the other financial tests for being a Page 22 February 16, 2000 financially responsible officer. But he may not be the qualifier, if he is the financially responsible officer. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Laird? MR. LAIRD: Mr. Chairman, as a public member of the board, if -- we don't know what's going on, the staff doesn't know what's going on. Let's not be too difficult on these gentlemen. MR. NEALE: Well, and that's why I'm proposing to the board that we continue this matter for a month to allow members of the staff, county attorney, myself and these gentlemen to meet, resolve the issues, come back to the board with a -- something that's a bit more cogent and a bit more understandable for everyone. MR. LAIRD: Just so it appears that we're helping them and not putting them in a bad light. MR. NEALE: That's exactly what I'm proposing, is that we act to assist these gentlemen in getting what they both appear to want to do and both appear to be able to do. We just want to not -- what I don't want to do is have this board come to closure today. I would not recommend that you come to closure on this issue today without everyone understanding exactly where they stand in the legal realm. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. PALMER: I would just make a couple of points. Number one, these requirements are statutorily required. They're not a local -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. MR. PALMER: -- thing, so they've got to be met. The other thing is, is that there are two bonds that are required. One of them is either a letter of credit -- or it's not a bond but security -- a letter of credit or a bond for $5,000, where the beneficiary is this state fund. I don't have the exact language; I gave my package to Ms. White. And the other one is an additional $50,000 bond, which protects the customers of the company. So they're different protections. I did not know there was any problem about this. Nobody contacted the County Attorney's Office, and I don't understand Page 23 February 16, 2000 why somebody didn't call the state and get a knowledgeable person on the phone and get these things cleared up, if in fact they exist. Which we can certainly do. But this is the first that the County Attorney's Office has heard about any confusion whatsoever in regard to this matter. MR. DICKSON: If I can make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. We've looked at his application. Sorry if we didn't call the County Attorney's Office, but we've looked at his application, everything's in order once we get past this point. Knowing that these guys probably don't want to wait another month because they've got work ready to go, can we not approve this based upon you guys getting with him and satisfying the requirements? MR. PALMER: Yes. Mr. Dickson, you can do that if we can get a specific list of the subsequent matters that must be cleaned up. And that may be one, two, and three. And you can then delegate and say subject to these things happening, consider the matter approved by the board. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Nonnenmacher, do you understand that? MR. MR. with Mr. clarified MR. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, I understand that. NEALE: And I promise the board that I will get together Palmer and Mr. Perico and his staff and we'll get this all for everyone -- DICKSON: I'll make a motion, Mr. Chairman? NEALE: -- to avoid any future confusion. MS. WHITE: And then Mr. Baker and Mr. Price will be back here again in a month? MR. DICKSON: No. MR. MEISTER: No. MS. WHITE: No, they won't come back. MR. NEALE: They will not be back here in a month unless -- and I do want to make this; it would be my recommendation -- unless there is -- they are unable to demonstrate compliance with any of the statutory requirements. Then they may have to come back, because it may end up that the approval is -- these gentlemen work it out between themselves, that Mr. Baker becomes the fully-blown qualifier for the second entity. So, you Page 24 February 16, 2000 know, that's still an issue. If the financial tests are not met statutorily -- MS. WHITE: So whatever work occurs this month, before we have our answer in another month, the homeowners or whatever are not going to be any problem whatsoever -- MR. NEALE: Well-- MS. WHITE: -- you know, because of what we're doing here. MR. NEALE: -- I must admit, that is a concern of mine that I wanted to put on the table is we're going to permit these gentlemen to operate for a month with no financially responsible officer -- MR. DICKSON: That's not at all what I said. That's not at all what I said. What I'm getting ready -- in fact, let me make a motion. I move that we approve Mr. Price -- I'm sorry, Mr. Baker, qualifying the second entity of Gregg Price Painting, Incorporated, based on the following: That you get with the county attorney, the contractor licensing board investigators and Mr. Neale to work out whether or not you are going to become a financially -- Mr. Price would become a financial responsible officer and meet the requirements of same, or you amend your application to be a true qualifier of Gregg Price Painting, Incorporated. And in the motion I will apologize to you, because you're the first one to come to us with these new requirements, and we're confused. But you meet every other requirement. And if you can work it out with these gentlemen, they have the board's approval to go ahead and give you your license after you meet these requirements. A long -- follow my motion? MR. MEISTER: I do. Second. MS. WHITE: That's the longest motion I've ever heard. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Calling for the vote, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well. What we're hoping for here Page 25 February 16, 2000 is some clarification and some cooperation between all parts of staff to reconcile the ambiguities presented to us with a dual application, financial officer, qualifying agent. As long as all those qualifications are met per the motion, then we don't have a problem with approving the second entity qualification. Any questions from anyone? MR. DICKSON: Could we request that this case be on old business next month, just so you tell us what happened? MR. PALMER: Yes, that would be a follow-up. MR. NEALE: I think that's an excellent idea. MR. PALMER: And I would recommend that when it's resolved, that you people be notified immediately. Because if you missed it, it may take a couple of days. In other words, this matter may be resolved in a day or two. But if you plan on getting that wrapped up by the next meeting, we could tell you this matter is resolved and it's done as a formal matter of the record. MR. DICKSON: And their presence wouldn't be necessary under old business next month. MR. PALMER: If everything is in place. MR. DICKSON: If everything gets put in place. MR. NEALE: And just one caveat, and I want to make this for Mr. Baker's benefit, is Mr. Baker, you understand that for the next month or until we get all this resolved, you are responsible for anything he does. So if you mess up, he's going to be after you. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Chairman, I have one question. Is it this board's determination that a restricted license is going to be issued to these people today, pending the proper paperwork and proof that a financial officer can be appointed to this -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't think so. I don't understand the issuance of a license. The man has a license. MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay. We are not issuing him a license then today? MR. NEALE: No, what -- MR. NONNENMACHER: He's not going to be -- Page 2 6 February 16, 2000 MR. NEALE: No. MR. NONNENMACHER: -- out there working? MR. NEALE: Price Painting or-- I'm sorry, I forgot the name. Gregg Price Painting, Inc. will be qualified .by Mr. Baker from this day forward. He will be the qualifier for both that and Baker-Price Painting. So that's what -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay, we just approved a second entity without a financial -- MR. DICKSON: No, that was not my-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Let me make a -- MR. NONNENMACHER: I'm thoroughly confused on what we approved. That's what I'm trying to find out. MR. NEALE: I understand-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Let me -- one at a time. Let me try to explain to you, Mr. Nonnenmacher. Forget Gregg Price exists. MR. NONNENMACHER: Done. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It's a totally done deal under Richard Baker's original license to qualify the second entity, and he is the financial responsible party as of this moment. Should they properly meet all the obligations of the financially responsible officer, Mr. Gregg Price, come in here -- or come to your office and prove all of this stuff, then he can take over the responsibility of the financial officer. MR. NONNENMACHER: Very good. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. NONNENMACHER: And one other question I have on this meeting with the County Attorney's Office and staff. I would like to request that this meeting take place at our building. Sometimes Mr. Palmer doesn't realize what Judy and Maggie do. They renew licenses, they give new licenses, they check insurance. It's a never-ending job. Half the times they don't eat lunch. So it's not a matter of them neglecting their duties at all. If we could have this meeting at our building, one of us could fill in for them or another girl could fill in for them, they could go to the meeting, try to learn as much as they can and get back to what they're doing. Page 27 February 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Palmer, do you have a problem with that? MR. PALMER: Not at all, except I was not talking about any specific employees. As a matter of fact, if somebody had called me, I would have contacted the state and gotten this cleared up. It doesn't limit it to two people. I did not know there was a problem, in the abstract or in the specific case. This is the kind of thing that could have been cleared up with a lO-minute phone call to the state. And to say -- to imply that I'm criticizing two employees because they're overworked is -- I never did any such thing. MR. NEALE: What I would propose we do, gentlemen and ladies, is when we conclude this meeting and get everybody up to speed, is also we'll come up with a cheat sheet, for lack of a better term, for Judy and Maggie to use at the deck. So if somebody comes in and they ask for an FRO, Financially Responsible Officer application, that they can have it in the file with the applications, that they can answer, you know, sort of a frequently asked questions kind of thing, so that they'll have responses to those questions. Because I've been in the building a lot and I know how hammered they are. And having a quick reference sheet for them I think would be an appropriate thing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale, Mr. Nonnenmacher, I'd like to finish our business at hand first. Do you have any further questions of what we're proposing to you? MR. PRICE: No, I understand everything. I just wondered when we'll know the exact qualifications that the state requires so I can either put it together or we can go the other route. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think staff is going to have to answer that. It's just a matter of whenever we can resolve some of the questions that we have at this point and then perhaps notify you for you to come in and make those applications. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, if I'm not mistaken, they are going to be included in this meeting that we're going to have; is that correct? So as soon as -- and again, I resubmit my request that the meeting take place at our building. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is that right, Mr. Neale? I'm going to Page 28 February 16, 2000 suggest that staff needs to work everything out and work all the details, and then include this applicant. This applicant is just one of the general public that's going to need to be put in the proper process. And what we're -- all we're looking at doing is preparing the proper process. MR. NEALE: What I would suggest we try and do, because everybody's schedules are pretty full, is set it so that we have a meeting of staff and the attorneys, and then immediately thereafter schedule these gentlemen to come in so that we can do it all in one day. We'll have everything wrapped up and we can get it-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you, that's what I'm trying to get at. Is that satisfactory, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Excellent. Okay, so staff will be in contact with you at a time that they're going to propose a meeting so that you can settle the issue. MR. NEALE: We'll try and get it done in the next week. MR. DICKSON: Can I make a comment, because there is confusion here? Prior to this happening, Gregg Price Painting, Incorporated does not have a license to work. MR. PRICE: Correct. MR. DICKSON: Okay? You understand that? MR. PRICE: Yes. MR. DICKSON: And the only reason we did this, even though it causes so much confusion, was to try to maybe get you a license before the next month's meeting. MR. PRICE: Correct. MR. DICKSON: Okay? MR. PRICE: I understand that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All right? Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BAKER: I would like to say one more thing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes. MR. BAKER: That when I was down -- I would like to tell that when I went to the county and dealt with Maggie, she was Page 29 February 16, 2000 as helpful as she possibly could be. She -- you know, it's a new thing, obviously everybody's confused, so I wouldn't hold anything against her as far as the county office is concerned. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, thank you, sir. I would like to discuss this issue further, but I think I'm going to suggest that we hold it off to the discussion portion of our meeting and go on with our regular business at this point. Any objections? Okay, Brian Kraus, request to reinstate floor covering license without having to retest again. Mr. Kraus, are you present? MR. KRAUS: Yes. I'm Brian Kraus. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, I'd like to have you sworn in, sir. (Speaker was duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, Mr. Kraus, your request? Your reason for being here this morning? MR. KRAUS: Yes. I moved up north last November of '99 -- or '98. And the year '99 I didn't have my license reinstated because I moved up there and couldn't handle the cold, of course, and I just locked my house up. And then I have a fiance up there and I eventually moved her down in November. That's why I didn't have my license reinstated. I have my real estate license so I was doing a little bit of that. And I just decided to go back into doing floor covering. And when I called Maggie and Judy in, I think it was June or July, she said well, you might as well just wait, because I wasn't active doing anything until September, to come down and reinstate it. Well, you know, I was back and forth up north helping my dad with his house. When I came down in October, she said I had to take that business and law test again, which I already had. I was grandfathered in originally from having to take the test. But, you know, then I went into the line of business and nobody ever told me that I had to keep my license active when I'm not working, so I don't have to do all these different things that -- as the county changes them. Page 30 February 16, 2000 So I took the test and I got a 90 on it. That was about I guess in '96, I think. And then ~when I came back to get reinstated again, got my insurance and all that, I sent Maggie and Judy the credit report, she said that I had to take the test again because it's been over three years. Well, I never heard nothing of all that. So I just think that's sort of unfair. I never had a problem with my license in the 10 years that I've -- since I got it, since I was young. I've been here 25 years in town. I went to school here. I've seen the town grow tremendously. And I just think that that's not fair for me to have to go all through that again. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Let me make sure I understand, Mr. Kraus. You have let your license expire -- MR. KRAUS: Expire. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- twice? MR. KRAUS: Yeah, I let it expire because I wasn't working back in '95, I guess it was. And then I moved up north. I wasn't living here, why do I need a license? You know, that's why it didn't expire, I just didn't choose to renew it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: It says on the original application and on the original information given with the license that it will be either rendered inactive or maintained regularly, or it will lapse. So you've been told. And you've done it twice. MR. KRAUS: Yeah, twice. But still the thing is, I'm trying to -- I've got a lot of business going now and jobs that I'm going to be doing, and if I have to sit there and go through this process, two-month process, to try and get my license back -- I'm not asking you to -- I mean, if you can't see it in your heart to give me -- reinstate my license, maybe give me time again so I can get it reinstated so I don't lose all my work. The reason that I didn't go up -- back up north is I found out I was diabetic, and I figure if I'm down here working and keeping active, it's better for my health and, you know, I just don't need all this stress. That's why I'm trying to get without having to go through all this stuff again. And I moved back down here where it's warm, where I have less problems than when I was up north. So believe me, I'd like Page 31 February 16, 2000 to be in real estate where I -- without having to work hard doing carpet. But unfortunately that's just not the case. I didn't get caught, I didn't get in trouble for it, I'm not asking you for it after the fact. I'm asking you before I get in trouble, you know, give me a chance to get it off-- I got my insurance and credit report. I should have took care of it back in September and then I wouldn't had to do it. It's just, you know, I built my dad's house up there over the summer and moving my fiance back down, I was just pretty well booked up. You know, I didn't know I was going to have to go through the test, and of course I would have took care of it. And she didn't tell me that when I called her down in June. I guess it wasn't her obligation to mention that to me, but I didn't know. MS. WHITE: Are you -- you're working now for yourself? MR. KRAUS: Yes. I've been working up in Fort Myers. But now I've got lobs coming up that I was -- I had in the next month or so that I'm bidding on, that if I don't have my license, you know, I might lose them. You know, that or have to go through somebody else and have them run it through their business. You know, that -- I don't want to have to do all that. That or I got to take my time out and go up to Gainesville and take the test. And I've already took it once. I mean, the issue ain't letting my license lapse, the issue's having to take the business and law exam again, which, you know, I was grandfathered in, like you say, and I let my license lapse because I went into a different field of work. You know, I didn't -- MR. DICKSON: Were you working in Collier County in '94, first part of '957 MR. KRAUS: No, I'm not sure. I got a house up north, so I go move -- I go back and forth up north a lot. So when my license was active, I was working, yeah. That or I was working for somebody, I'm sure. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You're currently working in Fort Myers? MR. KRAUS: No, I'm currently now -- I was selling real estate. And I'm going back -- I'm going to be working at Hadinger's -- I have been working at Hadinger's. So I'm not in compliance now. I tried to get it straightened up, tried to get it Page 32 February 16, 2000 taken care of, then I've got to take that business and law exam and trying -- I just think that I shouldn't have to take that test again. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I agree, you probably shouldn't have to take the test again, Mr. Kraus. But neglect of your license is -- MR. KRAUS: I didn't neglect it, I moved. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, yeah, but -- MR. KRAUS: I had to pay tools and money for taxes and stuff, and tools from the county assessing my business that I don't even have a license for. CHAIRMAN HAYES: In this room on the board of the license holders, does anybody here know that if they are not going to use their license, that they need to apply for an inactive status? MR. GONZALEZ: Absolutely. MR. MEISTER: Yep. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's as simple as that. All you have to do is file it as an inactive license. That's all you got to do. You don't even have to pay the big fees for renewal. You have to pay some of the fees. But I thought that was a given for every license holder in the state, that if you're not going to use your license, you either relinquish it or you render it inactive. And you have to make an application to the state there, too. MR. KRAUS: Yeah, I'm sure that is, but I'm up north, you know, I'm not living here anymore. That's sort of-- MR. DICKSON: Let me -- MR. GONZALEZ: You didn't think you were going to come back? MR. KRAUS: No, I found out I was diabetic in November when I got sick, and sweating and keeping active and laying carpet keeps my sugars down so I don't have to take medicine and stuff, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: I would have thought, though, after losing your first license that you would have learned the lesson that you need to render it inactive. MR. KRAUS: Yeah, I guess I just figured I'd be rendered inactive. I didn't know I would have to -- I figured I'd just have to Page 33 February 16, 2000 pay the reinstatement fees. I mean, that's no big deal. I didn't know I was going to have to go take the test again or I would have kept it. You know, I figured, well, if I have to pay a little bit more money, so what, when I need to come back and get it. MR. DICKSON: Can I -- let me take the opposing view. I'll go to battle for him in a minute, see how you all feel. I've been trying to figure out who this guy was and now I know, because he's who I think he is, and I recognized him. I had him do some carpet work for me in the Vineyards, and it's like early '94, somewhere in there. MR. KRAUS: Yeah, I've been all through town. I never had a problem. MR. DICKSON: If he's who I think he is, and I'm pretty sure he is, he came in with a team and laid an entire house in one day, and it was absolutely phenomenal. So it -- then it kind of reminds me of my kids, I already told you once before not to do this and now you've done it a second time. But yet we're talking a business and law test which he's already scored 90 on. He's worked in the county. And I can see when you move away you don't plan on coming back. I'm just wondering, what's the big deal? CHAIRMAN HAYES: I agree with you, I don't see a big deal either. In fact, if I had to say anything about it, if you've passed it once, you've passed it permanently. I agree with you. However, it is a matter of, in my opinion, neglect, just plain and simple neglect. And personally I'm hard pressed to be able to -- you're absolutely right, to say to my children, no, you've been told this and you've made this mistake before, now you've made it again and you expect me not to apply the rules this time as well. I have a problem with it, so I'm not going to be the one to make a motion for approval. MR. DICKSON: I will, and I'll see where it goes. I move that MS. WHITE: One question? I -- MR. GONZALEZ: Can I say something? Go ahead. MS. WHITE: I'm confused. It says he took the law exam, he got a grade of 90 percent, after being grandfathered from taking Page 34 February 16, 2000 the business and law exam. MR. KRAUS: What you're saying, I let it lapse the first time. That's the reason why I had to take the test. Originally I didn't have to take the business and law test. MS. WHITE: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Ms. White, he has let two licenses lapse. MS. WHITE: I got it. It was grandfathered the first time, the second time he took it and got 90 percent. MR. KRAUS: Yeah. And nobody told me at that time that I had to keep it active. And the second time I didn't keep it active because, of course, I moved. I was in another state. I mean, why do I need to keep something active that I'm -- wasn't planning on coming back and doing? I was planning -- I took my appraisal license for real estate up there, and I was going to do that; wasted $1,500 doing that and found out, well, I'd better stay down here where it's warm and I can keep active during the winter, and I'm having less problems for my health. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Gonzalez? MR. GONZALEZ: What I was thinking was let's let this guy work. Let's give him his license, but let's fine him for working right now without a license, so that maybe next time he'll remember. Give a little something with some teeth in it. Maybe a 3 or $500 fine and let him have his license. MR. NEALE: The only problem I see with that is he hasn't been charged with anything. MR. GONZALEZ: He's working without a license right now. MR. NEALE: Well, we could do that if Mr. Nonnenmacher would issue him a citation while we're sitting here, maybe. You know, but unfortun -- Mr. Gonzalez, I appreciate where you're coming from, but unfortunately, I don't see a remedy that we have in that respect. I understand your approach, but I don't see a way we can do that. MS. WHITE: Yeah, Mr. Kraus told the truth. I mean, he didn't have to say that. Page 35 February 16, 2000 MR. NEALE: He could have been like half the other people that come up here and lied. MR. KRAUS: I'm up here trying to rectify this problem once again, before the man that comes and catches me not working -- MR. GONZALEZ: I'm trying to justify saying yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I understand, Mr. Gonzalez. MR. MEISTER: Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Yes. MR. MEISTER: What would happen if we gave him his license contingent upon within a six-month period taking the test? MR. NEALE: That -- certainly the board can do that. It's a restricted certificate with a contingency. You know, I think from him having scored a 90 the last time, he certainly should not have problems passing the exam. MR. LAIRD: Is there not a motion on the floor, Mr. Chairman? MR. MEISTER: We don't have a motion yet -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, sir, what -- MR. MEISTER: -- we're still -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: One at a time, please. No, sir, there was not a motion at this point. He had some discussion. MR. LAIRD: I beg your pardon. CHAIRMAN HAYES: If he wants a motion, we'll go with it. MR. MEISTER: One question for Mr. Nonnenmacher. Isn't the business and law test done here? He doesn't have to go to Tallahassee, does he? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, it's given in Ft. Myers, Naples, any day of the week in Gainesville. Wherever he wants to go. I don't know the schedule of the testing without the sheet in front of me, but -- MR. NEALE: But it's pretty frequent. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah. MR. DICKSON: I'm going to make a motion. I move that the requirement for the test be waived, the man be given his license based on his previous test. Page 36 February 16, 2000 MR. LAIRD: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion on the motion? All in favor? Any opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, I -- MR. KRAUS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Sounds like you've got your license back. I'm not going to condone your neglect, but I'm going to tell you that you have formally been told that if you don't want to use your license, you either render it inactive or it disappears and yOu're -- MR. KRAUS: But when I -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- going to have -- let me finish, sir. When you let it lapse again, you will have to go through every single thing it takes to maintain that application. MR. KRAUS: Yes, sir. MR. NONNENMACHER: And Mr. Kraus, if I can remind you, you cannot do this today. All the paperwork is here. Tomorrow you can go in and see Judy and Maggie and take care of it. MR. KRAUS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other discussion on the issue? MR. KRAUS: Free to go? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. That concludes new business. Under old business, we've already satisfied it. Public hearings. Anything for public hearings? We don't have any. Reports? Mr. Nonnenmacher, are there any reports from staff? MR. NONNENMACHER: None from staff, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And discussion. MR. DICKSON: What's this that Mr. Neale gave us? MR. NEALE: Yeah, the -- I just heard Mr. Dickson's question. What I provided to each of the board members, I think everybody's got one. If they haven't -- is the codified version of Page 37 February 16, 2000 the ordinance as issued by the Municipal Code Corporation, What this is, is allows us to cite to it, and when I cite to it, everyone knows what we're talking about. The only part that might be confusing is the way I collated it. The first page should be flipped over, if you actually had them in order. But it was -- I felt it was easier to read by having it show building trades instead of something about ladders and handrails staring you in the face. But what this is, is actually the amended ordinance that we're currently working from. And it's the codified version. Just thought it would be something easier for everyone here to work with. I've also provided a copy to the court reporter, so when I start reading from it at a very rapid rate, she can use the citation to get the correct language. CHAIRMAN HAYES: For the information of the new board members, we have two versions of our ordinance. What is our ordinance, 95 -- the ordinance that we cite all the time, actual ordinance number? MR. NEALE: 90-105. MR. PALMER: 90-105 as amended. MR. NEALE: Yeah, 90-105 as amended. CHAIRMAN HAYES: As amended. That is a written ordinance. This is a codified version of that exact same ordinance. So from time to time you will hear one of us or any of us resort back to a section in 90-105, specific numbered section, and it seems simple enough to find it in that ordinance, because that's what you had a copy of. And then on the next hand you'll hear the attorneys elating (sic) to Section 22.162, and you're going to go, that's not in the ordinance numbers we're talking about. That is the codified version. In essence, it's the same thing. It's just been codified. So when you refer back to the ordinance, one minute we may refer to 90-105 and the next time Section 22.161 or something. MR. NEALE: I will typically refer to this. I will typically refer to the codified version. MR. DICKSON: What is this? Page 38 February 16, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: This is the ordinance. MR. DICKSON: But look at the number. CHAIRMAN HAYES: 99-45. MR. NEALE: Right, 99-45 amended. 90-105. The reference is 99-105 as amended, which is a rather odd way of doing it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Still the same way. MR. NEALE: Yeah. And what this -- what I've provided you is the codified version of 99-45. So what this does is it allows -- when they codify it, they don't necessarily codify it in exactly the same order that it's in in that ordinance. So sections are a little skewed. They also leave out all the preamble, they leave out all the whereas's, they leave out the, you know, approved by the secretary of the state and all that kind of staff. So all that's out of here. This is just the meat and potatoes of the ordinance. MR. DICKSON: Let me ask you this: Do I need to hang on to this then? MR. NEALE: No. MR. DICKSON: I don't like carrying it every meeting. MR. NEALE: Not really. I mean-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: You can use the codified version to carry at every meeting. MR. NEALE: The codified version is certainly easier to move around. MR. DICKSON: Got it. Thank you. MR. NEALE: And that's why I put it in your notebook. MR. DICKSON: Paper reduction act. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, thank you, Mr. Neale. It was a few months ago that this board actually requested that you do this, so I appreciate you coming around with it. MR. NEALE: I missed the last meeting -- or I missed the December meeting and we. didn't meet last month, so I wanted to make sure I had it here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, on into discussion. I don't remember when we reviewed the financial responsible officer there being anything alluding to any specific or particular trades. Maybe I'm just in la la land, but I thought it was a general form. MR. NEALE: I myself, I was confused by that, because I Page 39 February 16, 2000 didn't see anywhere in any of the documentation that I had in my packet, nor do I remember in any of the documentation that I reviewed from the state, any differentiation between trades. And I -- there is a differentiation in net worth requirements -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: For the license itself. MR. NEALE: -- for the license itself. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you. And that's what I was thinking was getting confused into the issue here. So the license, each license itself has a financial qualification requirement within the application of the license itself. Not as any definitions that I'm aware of in the financial responsible officer. MR. PALMER: I'll have to look at that. It's in the Florida Administrative Code, as I recall. But this has to do with the personal wealth of the person, be he the qualifying agent or the financial responsible officer. And quite apart from the bonding requirement. They shouldn't be confused. But there is a sliding scale. As he said, some smaller businesses have a lower bar. But this has to do with the personal wealth of the person. And the bonding requirements are firm, and they stay the same amount, irrespective of the amount of the personal wealth that the qualifier, the responsible person, must have. I want to keep those separate. MR. NEALE: And Mr. Palmer, my recollection of it, and again, we'll have to review the code, is that was only for the license holder. The financially responsible officer numbers were firm. MR. PALMER: They may be fixed as well. MR. NEALE: They were fixed, not by trade but by if you want to be a financial responsible officer-- MR. PALMER: These are minimums -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, you've got to be -- MR. PALMER: -- irrespective. MR. NEALE: -- you've got to be in this box. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I believe that's-- MR. PALMER: We'll get that clarified. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I believe that's the way I understood it, Page 40 February 16, 2000 too, Mr. Palmer. MR. PALMER: And actually, this is the kind of an issue that can be resolved in a matter of minutes, just getting the proper materials in front of one and taking a look at them. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think so, too. I think before it's over with, this is not going to be as big a rotten egg as it appeared this morning. There are always some clarifications in any new procedure, I guess, for anybody. And until such time as we physically sit down and outline those procedures and policies, there's always going to be ambiguities and differences of opinions and differences of application of policies and procedures. MR. PALMER: Well, you might recall that we had this problem a couple of months ago before we finalized this about whether the bond was $5,000 or $10,000. And Mrs. White said about it, because the rule itself is confusing and is internally ambiguous. Well, I called the state and very quickly got to somebody that was in the know about this, a hands-on individual, and she gave me a definitive answer right over the telephone. But I think if we had something we can't resolve locally, we can get somebody up in Tallahassee who does it day in and day out and tell us the way the state does it in a sort of a definitive response. It isn't an open question. Though I think that most of the things we can't resolve amongst ourselves, we can get somebody up in Tallahassee who can give us the straight answer. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Mr. Perico, do you have anything to add to that? MR. PERICO: No. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other discussions before the board? Okay, our next meeting is March 15th at this point in time. Do we have agenda items yet, Mr. Nonnenmacher? Do we know we're going to have in fact a meeting on March 15th? MR. NONNENMACHER: We have no agenda items as of yet. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. I'm just making that because I will be absent on March 15th. So if we're going to have a meeting, then I'm going to have to ask Mr. Dickson to fill in for Page 41 February 16, 2000 me. If we're not going to have a meeting, then no damage done. MR. DICKSON: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, anybody else got a problem with March 15th, should we have a meeting? Okay, good. Any other order of business this board wants to bring up? Then I'd entertain a motion for adjournment. MR. MEISTER: Motion. MR. GONZALEZ: I second it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Done deal. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:30 a.m. CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD GARY HAYES, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, RPR Page 42