Loading...
CLB Minutes 01/18/2012RECEIVMry 1s, 2012 FEB 2 2 2012 Board of Count/ MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING January 18, 2012 Naples, Florida LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Fiala Hiller -� Henning Coyle -�•'.� Coletta X., ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: Lee Horn Richard Joslin Michael Boyd Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Patrick White Jamie French, Director — Operations & Regulatory Management, GMD Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Michael D. Gentzle, Esq., and James F. Morey, Esq., Attorneys for the Contractors' Licensing Board Steve Williams, Esq., Assistant County Attorney Mist Comes: Rob Ganguli, Licensing Compliance Officer Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer Item tjL Z 2 Copies to: January 18, 2012 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Lee Horn called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. All members were present. II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Deletion: Under Item VII, "Public Hearings" — Case #2012 -02, Raymond V. Trotta, was removed from the Agenda. The case will be continued. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Kyle Lantz moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 21,2011: Corrections: Page 4, Item VII (A.) — the Board member is Patrick White Page 8 and Page 12— the consulting firm is Turrell, Hall & Associates Page 12 o 1St Paragraph, 8th Line — the word "correct" was changed to "corrected" o 2 Paragraph, 4th Line — the word "refusal" was changed to "failing" Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes of the December 21, 2011 meeting as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. V. DISCUSSION: Thomas Lykos stated at the December meeting, he requested back -up information for the financial statement distributed by Ken Kovensky. Since he had not received it, he again requested the information. Michael Ossorio stated he contacted Ken Kovensky. As soon as the documentation has been received, Mr. Ossorio will forward it via email to the Board. VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: In each of the cases heard under this Section, and Section VIII, "Public Hearings, " the individuals who testified were sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) A. Robert Walters — Contesting Citation(s) (Mr. Walters was not present.) 2 January 18, 2012 B. Michael Reglar — Contesting Citations(s) Citations: #6772 (Working Outside Scope) and #6773 (No Building Permit) Date: December 8, 2011 Fine: $300.00 each Description of Violations: (6772) Engage in the business or act in the capacity of a Contractor, or advertise self or business organization as available to engage in the business of, or act in the capacity of a Contractor, without being duly registered or certified. (6773) Commence or perform work for which a Building Permit is required pursuant to an adopted State Minimum Building Code, without such permit being in effect. Michael Regular stated: • The Citations were excessive • He was hired to replace drywall (20 sheets) in a condo (2- story) which he thought he was licensed to do because it was a "residence" • He is a Certified Residential Contractor • He obtained the proper permitting after Citation 6772 was issued • He obtained a second license at a cost of $700 Michael Ossorio, Supervisor - Contractors' Licensing Office, suggested reviewing each Citation separately. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the following background information: • December 8, 2011 — Conducted a site visit and observed molding being cut outside the condo unit • He spoke with Michael Reglar, Michael Reglar Carpentry Contracting, Inc., who stated he installed approximately 20 boards of sheetrock, plaster, molding, and interior doors. • He advised Mr. Reglar that he was working outside the scope of his license • Citation #6772 and a "Stop Work" Order were issued. • Mr. Reglar sent a letter contesting the Citations to the Contractors' Licensing Office • A Permit was applied for on December 9th and issued on December 21St to Benson Homes of Florida, LLC • A Certificate of Completion was issued on January 5, 2012 Michael Ossorio: • Mr. Reglar came to the Office promptly and we reviewed the applicable Florida Statutes and the County Ordinance • He obtained the necessary Building Permits • The homeowner was inconvenienced — his move into the unit was delayed January 18, 2012 Thomas Lykos: • There are two separate Citations — one is for working outside the scope of his license and the second is for working without a Permit. Patrick White: • Mr. Reglar testified that he made a mistake — he admitted to the violation • The relevance is how could someone operate under the false impression that working on a 2 -story condo could be considered "residential" and within the scope of his license Kyle Lantz: • A residential contractor can't just do any job he wants —I learned that the hard way and had to upgrade my license • It is clear in the Code what "residential" is and a condo is not a residence Vice Chairman Joslin: • Ascertained the development was identified by signage and more than one building was located at the address • Asked Mr. Reglar how he could consider the project as a "residence" when there was more than one building — residential means a single structure Thomas Keegan: • There were two buildings, two stories, four units in each building, with a common area between the buildings Patrick White: • There is no question that it was a condominium • But Mr. Reglar did what he needed to do and did it before the date of the Hearing • There is some potential — from what is suggested on the forms and information supplied by a Board member — that there is some basis for a degree of confusion or lack of information • There are options to consider when disposing of the Citation • There is no doubt in my mind that there is a violation and the Citation is valid • Mr. Reglar stated he thought the Citation was excessive — not that he thought it was wrong Vice Chairman Joslin: • There are two separate issues • We are discussing unlicensed activity — a Contractor working without a proper license — that's number one. • The second Citation may reflect on what Mr. White has said — a permit was applied for and obtained prior to the Hearing January 18, 2012 Michael Reglar: • I also obtained the extra license I needed — I needed a Cabinetry License in addition to my Certified Residential Contractor's license • I finished the trim work — baseboards — under my new license • The drywall was already done Karin Reglar: • Co -owner of Michael Reglar Carpentry Contracting, Inc. • We know we can't work outside a or build a condo — or anything • We weren't moving walls — we were doing repair work — that was it • We know you don't need a permit to hang drywall — that's why the permit wasn't there • We didn't think we were doing anything wrong — we were 100% cooperative when this gentleman [Investigator Keegan] came in • We didn't think it was "commercial" because it was inside a residence • But that's how we got messed up • We know 100% now and we call the County to double -check to make sure because there's no way we are going to be in this situation again — nor have we before Patrick White: • In this instance there seems to be a lack of awareness that is your responsibility — that's no excuse • You are not coming in here stating the Citations aren't valid • My point is given the value of the job and the amount of the fines per Citation, that you think they are excessive • The facts discussed are applicable to both Citations Michael Reglar: • Before he hired me, the homeowner called the County to make sure that I was properly licensed • He asked if I needed a permit for the project and he was told "no" • There was confusion — it was wrong Jon Walker: • What type of work did you do in the residence> Michael Reglar: • He had a flood — another Contractor came in and removed four feet of drywall, approximately 20 sheets • I installed the new drywall — replaced one to one — and the baseboard Thomas Lykos: • A permit is required to replace drywall. 5 January 18, 2012 • I understand that there might be some confusion as to whether this is residential or commercial, but it is critically important that the people who are licensed to do this type of work actually do the work. • In a multi - family environment, there are fire -rated walls separating the condo units. • If someone without the proper experience or license goes in and does those repairs, a situation could be created where a fire starts in one condo and spreads to another. • The intention of the current laws, Ordinances and Building Codes is that a fire should not spread from one unit to another — the units are meant to be separate entities from each other. • If somebody who doesn't understand the Codes goes in and makes repairs, a fire break between one condo unit and another could be removed creating a situation where the attached residence is at risk. • It is critically important that you have an understanding of what your license does and does not allow you to. It is not necessarily how the space is used — it quite often has to do with the construction of the building. • Regardless of how the interior space is used — it isn't about the value of the work — it isn't about whether or not you are even capable of doing the work — it's about understanding the type of construction — of how the space is being used. • The fact that you came in here today and said that you don't need a permit for drywall is exactly why your license doesn't allow you to do this kind of work. • 1 understand that our Ordinance allows this Board to waive the Citation if the proper steps were taken prior to the Hearing — but I do not want to glance over the severity of why you were given the Citations to begin with. • We don't know the type of firewall that existed — that separates one unit from another — and it sounds like you did a lot of drywall work. I have no doubt that you ended up working on a fire wall in that building. • Fortunately, a permit was issued, inspections were done, and any fire walls that may have been impacted were properly addressed. But this is exactly why there are limitations on the different types of licenses that are issued — whether by the County or by the State. • It is critically important that we do not allow a fire /safety issue to occur when we have the chance to address it using proper procedures. Michael Reglar: • We did get the proper fire inspection. Terry Jerulle noted the Board did not have the authority to reduce the amount of the fine — it could either waive the Citation or increase the amount of the fine. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve upholding Citation #6772 and the $300 fine as issued. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. January 18, 2012 Chairman Horn called for discussion of the second permit ( #6773). Vice Chairman Joslin stated in the past similar incidents were heard by the Board. He reminded the Board that the Permit had been obtained and the work completed/inspected prior to the Hearing. There were no damages to the home owner. He further stated the Board has the ability to waive the Citation and he suggested doing so. Kyle Lantz asked who was the General Contractor who pulled the permit and how he became involved. Michael Reglar stated Steve Benson was a friend who pulled the permit as a favor. Kyle Lantz objected to a Contractor pulling a permit who was not under contract to the homeowner. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Reglar, as the Residential Contractor, was ordered to find a General Contractor to pull the permit. He hired the GC to do it for him. Mr. Ossorio reiterated it was not a case of aiding or abetting an unlicensed contractor. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve dismissing Citation #6773 and the $300 fine. Second by Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. C. Jay C. Hollinger — Application to Reinstate License without Re- testing • He is petitioning to reinstate his painting license • He was licensed from 1985 to 2005 • He moved to Highlands County in 2004 and let his license lapse although he did painting and pressure washing — a license was not required • He returned to Naples in 2011 and has an opportunity to resume his painting business • Corporate Name: Hollinger Enterprises, Inc. • D/B /A: Hollinger Painting and Decorating. Michael Ossorio: • No complaints on record • Recommend reinstatement • Re- testing would be superfluous • Mr. Hollinger will pay back fees before his license is issued Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Hollinger about his credit problem. Mr. Hollinger stated that, due to his finances, there was a foreclosure and short sale of his personal home. It had nothing to do with the construction business. Chairman Horn concurred the only negative on Mr. Hollinger's credit report was the foreclosure. Kyle Lantz asked Mr. Hollinger if he was familiar with the EPA's RRP Rule for lead paint. January 18, 2012 Jay Hollinger stated he was familiar with the lead paint, especially in older homes, checking to make sure the paint is not lead based. He further stated he had never experienced a lead paint situation in his painting career. Kyle Lantz noted Mr. Hollinger had been inactive in the painting industry for a number of years. One of the big changes that affected painters more than any other profession is the EPA's Lead: RRP ( "Renovators, Remodelers & Painters ") Rule. Mr. Hollinger stated he would need to update himself on the Rule. Mr. Lantz suggested that Mr. Hollinger enroll in the EPA's one -day class. Thomas Lykos stated he is RRP- certified. He noted Mr. Hollinger was tested approximately 27 years ago. Federal laws have been enacted concerning the treatment of lead paint. He further stated the fines for improper removal of lead paint are very steep — thousands of dollars per day for violations. He mentioned another concern — the treatment and remediation of mold and the newer technologies, policies and procedures to be followed. He stated it was in Mr. Hollinger's best interest to do some research and take the test again. Mr. Hollinger stated he can conduct research on the changes. He stated he deals with Sherwin Williams and Florida Paint and there are very helpful. He confirmed he will educate himself to become current. Patrick White asked if there were any educational requirements for painting contractors. Mr. Lykos stated you cannot even test for lead unless you are RRP- certified. When you test, you must file reports with the Federal government. Mr. Lantz said if Mr. Hollinger only works on post -1979 projects, it is not necessary. Chairman Horn stated it was a good suggestion but it could be too much of a burden to require that he become RRP- certified. Robert Meister noted the information packet contained a letter from the manager of a Sherwin - Williams store where Mr. Hollinger worked. He had knowledge of the various paints. Terry Jerulle moved to accept the County's recommendation and approve the application for reinstatement without requiring re- testing. Second by Robert Meister. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " /1— "No." Mr. Lykos was opposed. A. Robert Walters — Contesting Citation(s) Chairman Horn again announced the case and Mr. Walters was not present. Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Walters requested the Hearing pursuant to Florida Statutes and had received notice of the date /time. He further stated Mr. Walters will be sent a letter informing him of the Board's order that fines will be imposed. Vice Chairman Joslin asked if a motion was required. Mr. Ossorio confirmed a motion was not required. January 18, 2012 VII. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve the signing of the Orders of the Board by the Chairman. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: B. Case 2012 -01: Gregory Leonov (D/b /a: L & L Enterprises SW FL, Inc.) Michael Ossorio noted the Respondent had called the Contractors' Licensing Office on January 17th and stated he would not attend the Hearing due to medical issues. He requested a continuance. Mr. Ossorio confirmed the County was ready to proceed, the County's witness was available, and the Respondent had been properly served with notice. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, confirmed he received a call from the Respondent who stated he had been involved in a car accident and could not attend the Hearing. Mr. Leonov also stated he would send the re- application to the County. Michael D. Gentzle, Esq, Attorney for the Board, noted the Respondent was a State - certified Electrical Contractor. He stated the Board had the power to proceed and revoke the Respondent's permit- pulling privileges. The action would be reported to the State with a recommended penalty. He further stated given the severity of the penalties, it is the Board's decision to place the case on the next Agenda or proceed with the Hearing. Chairman Horn confirmed the Board had the power to proceed without the Respondent being present. Attorney Gentzle reiterated proper notice had been sent and received by the Respondent. Patrick White stated the Respondent requested a continuance due to a car accident. He asked if proceeding would prejudice the Board and deny the Respondent due process. James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Board, stated he had concerns about the issue of due process based on the representation of a medical issue. Since the Respondent is a State - certified Contractor, the sanctions are severe. Granting the request for a continuance would be more cautious. Chairman Horn asked if the request for a continuance was due to the medical issue or to obtain a permit. Michael Ossorio stated he called the Respondent prior to the Hearing to confirm the information given to Investigator Keegan. He stated the County's position was the Respondent had been properly served and the County is ready to proceed. Patrick White noted there was a risk of a potential appeal. He stated if the Board was prepared to accept the risk, he would support proceeding with the Hearing. January 18, 2012 Steve Williams, Attorney for the County, confirmed it was within the Board's discretion to continue. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Board had decided to grant the continuance in a prior case with similar circumstances. If there are medical issues, he would prefer to continue to the next month. Thomas Keegan stated the Respondent had not been hospitalized -- he called from his office. Terry Jerulle asked if the Respondent had pulled other permits for job within the County. Mr. Keegan stated the Respondent had a long history of this type of action. Chairman Horn supported granting a continuance. Patrick White reiterated the County was ready to proceed — there was nothing in the record to demonstrate that a physical reason prevented the Respondent from attending the Hearing — there was no formal request for a continuance. He stated given the risk that another circumstance could arise, he preferred to hear the case. Michael Boyd stated he holds the same license as the Respondent. He noted the Respondent was cited in August but had done nothing in the interim to clear up the problem. It was his own fault that he was cited. He supported proceeding with the Hearing. Robert Meister concurred, stating the Respondent had a serious case of "the dog ate my homework" syndrome. Jon Walker noted even if there was a long history of similar actions, testimony was presented by Mr. Keegan that the Respondent claimed to have a medical issue. Chairman Horn stated the medical issue was not the reason for requesting a continuance — the Respondent stated he wanted additional time to obtain a permit. He stated if the request was solely due to medical issues, he would agree to continue the Hearings. Patrick White reiterated that nothing had been presented to the Board — there was no formal request for a continuance. He stated he was prepared to hear the case. Chairman Horn outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII, "Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489. • The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. • Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply. • Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and govern the proceedings. • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons 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 deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. 10 January 18, 2012 • The "Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules 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 Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all 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 to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense as described previously, i.e., 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. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case, the County will present a rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. 11 January 18, 2012 • After the matters are decided, the Chair/Vice Chair will read a Summary of the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order. • The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering Case No. 2012 -01, State License Number ES0000345 and Collier County License #CC 22007, Board of County Commissioners vs. Gregory Leonov, d/b /a L&L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., into evidence. Second by Patrick White. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence as County's Exhibit "A. ,` Michael Boyd asked if he should abstain from voting since he holds the same license as the Respondent and is a competitor of the Respondent. He stated he had never met the Respondent although he was aware of the Respondent's company. Attorney James Morey noted if Mr. Boyd had no direct dealings with the Respondent, no personal knowledge, and was not bidding on the same job, there was no conflict. There were enough members of the Board to hear the case if Mr. Boyd declined to do so. Patrick White stated even if Mr. Boyd abstained from voting because he felt there was a direct conflict or the appearance of a conflict, he could still participate in discussion of the issues. Attorney Morey concurred, stating by broaching the issue, Mr. Boyd's actions did much to dispel the appearance of impropriety. Chairman Horn concluded Mr. Boyd could make his decision at the time of the vote. Thomas Keegan, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening Statement: • Gregory Leonov was the qualifier of L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., located at 913 SW 15th Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida 33990 • State License Number: ES0000345, Collier County Certificate #22007 • Mr. Leonov, the Respondent, was not present at the Hearing. • The Respondent was not represented by Counsel. • Violation: Ordinance #2006 -46, Section 4.2.2 — Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. Case in Chief On August 9, 2011, Mr. Keegan received a complaint from Diana Compagnone, Signs Plan Reviewer for Collier County. Ms. Compagnone stated four open permits had been canceled or expired because inspections were not conducted and C /Os were not obtained for the permits issued to L & L Enterprises. 12 January 18, 2012 • The following permits were issued: • Permit #2009111338 -- 1552 Lake Trafford Rd, • Permit #2008120150 -- 2314 Immokalee Rd, • Permit #2008021004 -- 5431 Airport Rd N, • Permit #2010121633 —1427 Pine Ridge Rd. • Mr. Keegan called Mr. Leonov on August 9th and advised him of the Building Code violation. • Mr. Leonov requested that Mr. Keegan fax copies of the expired permits to him and the documents were faxed prior to the close of business. • From August 20 to September 12th, there were phone conversations with Mr. Leonov during which he stated that he would re -apply for the permits. • On September 15th, 2011, Michael Ossorio spoke to Mr. Leonov and advised that he will be charged with a willful Building Code violation and a hearing would be scheduled before the Contractors' Licensing Board. • On September 12th, Mr. Keegan received a call from Mr. Leonov who stated he was meeting Ms. Compagnone on September 23`d to resubmit plans for the permits. • Mr. Leonov did not attend the scheduled meeting. • Mr. Keegan's last conversation with Mr. Leonov was on September 12th • The issue has not been rectified. • On December 29, 2011, Mr. Keegan received a letter from Interim Chief Building Official Thomas DeGram confirming that Mr. Leonov's failure to comply was a willful violation of the Building Code. Mr. Keegan noted he also spoke with the Respondent on January 17, 2012. Patrick White referred to Page 7 of County's Exhibit "A" which was a copy of the notification letter sent to the Respondent and proof of delivery provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Mr. Keegan confirmed the letter was sent via certified mail, return receipt. Mr. White noted the "green card" indicated "G. Leonov" received the document on November 23, 2011. The letter notified the Respondent that a Hearing was scheduled for Januaryl8, 2012 and specified the time and location. It further instructed the Respondent that he could present evidence at the Hearing and be represented by his attorney. The Respondent was provided with a copy of the County's information packet. He was instructed to prepare a defense packet and given submittal instructions. Mr. White noted the Respondent did not submit a defense packet nor formally request a continuance of the Hearing. He concluded the Respondent received more than adequate due process. Michael Ossorio called the County's witness, Thomas DeGram, to testify, and referred to Mr. DeGram's memorandum dated December 29, 2011 (E -15). Mr. Gram confirmed that the document was his memo and confirmed it stated his opinion that the Respondent willfully violated the Building Code. 13 January 18, 2012 Patrick White noted the memo stated the "applicant's failure to comply" was the basis for the willful violation. He asked, "You don't know that it is willful on the applicant's part. You are inferring that from the fact that he failed to comply after repeated opportunities to come into compliance." Thomas DeGram concurred. Thomas Keegan stated the signs were installed, permits were applied for, but no inspections have taken place. Chairman Horn asked Michael Boyd about the risk to the public since the signs have not been inspected. Michael Boyd replied the signs have been installed on walls that are probably not accessible to the public. He stated everything was to be built to UL Standards and he hoped that they were, but without an inspection, there is a potential for electrical or structural issues. Mr. DeGram noted Permit #2009111338 was failed — the method of installation or attachment was not approved but the electrical did pass inspection. Thomas Lykos asked when the permit applications were originally submitted. • Permit #2009111338 —expired on May 24, 2010 —applied for in 2009 • Permit #2008120150 — expired on June 3, 2009 — applied for in 2008 • Permit #2008121004 — expired on June 19, 2008 — applied for in 2008 • Permit #2010121633 —expired on July 26, 2011 — applied for in 2010 Patrick White noted the expirations reflected a pattern of conduct indicating a disregard for the rules. By 2010, a degree of non - compliance was established because the Respondent failed to file a simple Notice of Commencement. He asked the other members to explain the degree of difficulty involved in filing a NOC and abate the expired permits. Discussion continued. Michael Ossorio concluded the process was simple and payment was required when the re- application was filed. He stated the County case was concluded. Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Chairman Horn read the Charge: Violation of Ordinance 42006 -46, Section 4.2.2: "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. " • Permit #2009111338 Violation address: 1552 Lake Trafford Rd, • Permit #2008120150 Violation address: 2314 Immokalee Rd, • Permit #2008021004 Violation address: 5431 Airport Rd N, • Permit #2010121633 Violation address: 1427 Pine Ridge Rd. 14 January 18, 2012 Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board: • The Board shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent • Pursuant to Section 22- 203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of this matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay by itself is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his privileges to practice his profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in civil cases. • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the only ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. It was noted the violation pertained to 2007 Florida Building Code, Section 109.1. Kyle Lantz moved to approve that, in Case #2012 -01, Collier County Board of Commissioners versus Gregory Leonov, Respondent, doing business as L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., State License #ES0000345 and Collier County Certificate of Competency #22007, the Respondent was found guilty of violating Count I — "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County. " Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes " /1— "Abstention. " Michael Boyd abstained from voting. 15 January 18, 2012 Attorney Gentzle stated the Sanctions were set out in Section 22- 203(b) (1) of the County's Ordinance, as follows: (1) The Board may deny the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building Permits or require the issuance of Permits with specific conditions; (2) Notification of information concerning such Permit denial shall be submitted to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation within 15 days after the Contractor's Licensing Board made its decision. Attorney Gentzle advised the Board that when imposing disciplinary sanctions on a State - certified Contractor or person who was found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) The evidence presented at the Hearing; (2) The gravity of the violation; (3) The impact of the violation on public Healtb/Safety or Welfare; (4) Any actions taken by the Respondent to correct the violation; (5) Any previous violations committed by the Respondent, and (6) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation or the violator. He continued, stating in addition to any action that the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board may take against the individual or business, and any fines that may be imposed, the Board shall issue a recommended penalty to the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. The penalty may include: a. A recommendation of "no further action "; b. A recommendation of suspension or revocation or restriction of the registration; c. A fine to be levied by the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board. d. Any combination of the above. Michael Ossorio confirmed the limit /maximum for the fine is $10,000. Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Respondent's business is located in the City of Cape Coral and asked if the Board had the authority to notify the municipality of the result of the Hearing. Attorney Gentzle responded the Board will notify the State and the State can forward the information to another jurisdiction. Chairman Horn requested recommendations from the County and a report of the Respondent's prior history. Michael Ossorio stated the goal is to obtain compliance. iG January 18, 2012 The County recommended restricting the Respondent's license to the four outstanding Building Permits for a period of one month. Mr. Ossorio stated, if directed by the Board, a notification letter will be sent within 15 days to the State of Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board concerning the restriction or suspension of the Respondent's permit pulling privileges within the City of Naples, Marco Island, and unincorporated Collier County, and recommending imposition of a fine of no less than $5,000. Mr. Ossorio explained after the four Permits have been closed, the Respondent may petition the Contractors' Licensing Board within 20 days for a re- hearing for reconsideration. He stated the Respondent's permit history will be reviewed with the Building Official and the Respondent. Patrick White suggested: • denying the Respondent's permit pulling privileges with the exception of the four expired permits, • imposing a fine, • if compliance is not achieved by a certain date — enhancing the fine, and • requiring him to take and pass the Business and Law exam before his permit pulling privileges will be reinstated by the Board. Mr. Ossorio reminded the Board the only option available was to restrict, modify, or revoke a State - certified Contractor's permit pulling privileges. The Board can also recommend sanctions to the State to impose. He explained: • the Respondent's permit pulling privileges would be restricted for 15 days. • If the issues with the four expired permits are resolved and compliance is achieved, the Respondent may petition the Board for a full review. • If there is no compliance after 15 days, his privileges will be revoked indefinitely. A lengthy discussion ensued. Concern was expressed regarding the 15 -day limitation. Mr. Ossorio explained the Respondent was to submit a re- application for the expired permits within 15 days — "issue status." He reiterated the Respondent's license would be suspended and his permit pulling privileges restricted to the four expired permits. After 15 days, if compliance was not obtained, the Respondent's license would be revoked. Attorney Williams noted Mr. Ossorio's obligation was to notify the State of the results of the Board's decision. The State will notify other jurisdictions. Mr. Ossorio confirmed the State will open a file in the matter. 17 January 18, 2012 Chairman Horn summarized the Board's recommendations: • Suspend the Respondent's permit pulling privileges, except for the four expired permits and permits currently open as of January 18, 2012; re- applications ( "issue status ") are to be submitted within 15 days; • Request that the State Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose a of a $5,000; • Request that the Respondent is required to test and pass the Business/Law exam; • Issue a public reprimand; • After compliance has been achieved, the Respondent may petition the Board for reinstatement of his permit- pulling privileges; • If the Respondent fails to achieve compliance after 15 days, his permit pulling privileges will be revoked. Michael Ossorio noted the State may or may not consider imposing the educational requirement. Discussion continued concerning the recommendations. Patrick White moved to approve the following recommendations: • Suspend the Respondent's building permit pulling privileges for 15 days or until all expired permits and currently active permits (as of January 18, 2012) are inspected, approved, and closed out, • The State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose a fine of not less than $5,000, • Mandate taking and passing any testing consistent with the Building Industry Business/Law exam prior to reinstatement of permit pulling privileges; • Issue a public reprimand, • If the Respondent fails to address the expired permits within 15 days, his permit pulling privileges will be revoked. Second by Vice Chairman Joslin. Motion Carrie 8 — "Yes "Y — " bstained." Mic ael oyd abstained from voting. Foyer - eep4n2' �,�It was noted the ent must apply to the Contractor's Licensing Board for a hearing to reinstate his permit pulling privileges. Chairman Horn reminded the Board that the State is not required to accept its recommendations. Chairman Horn stated: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on January 18, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed against Gregory Leonov, d/b /a L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc., the holder of record of State License #ES0000345 and Collier County Certificate #22007. 18 January 18, 2012 • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, therefore issues its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findinzs of Fact: • Gregory Leonov, d/b /a "L &L Enterprises of SW FLA, Inc.," is the holder of record of State License #SES0000345 and Collier County Certificate #22007. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing Board is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Gregory Leonov, was not present at the Public Hearing held on January 18, 2012. • The Respondent was not represented by Counsel. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, have been properly issued and were personally delivered • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinance and is the one who committed the act • The allegations set forth in Administrative Complaint as Count I, under Section 4.2.2, "Willfully violating the applicable Building Codes or laws of the State, City, or Collier County, " have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing Conclusions of Law: o The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as Count I have been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: o The Respondent violated Section 4.2.2 of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity. Order of the Board: Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of 8 in favor, none in opposition, and one abstention, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of 8 in favor, none in opposition, and one abstention, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of State License #ES0000345 and Collier County Certificate of Competency #22007. 19 January 18, 2012 • Sanctions: o Suspend the Respondent's building permit pulling privileges for 15 days or until the four expired permits and all currently active permits (as of January 18, 2012) are inspected, approved, and closed out; o Request that the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board impose a fine of not less than $5,000; o Mandate taking and passing any testing consistent with the Building Industry Business /Law exam prior to reinstatement of permit pulling privileges; o Issue a public reprimand; o If the Respondent fails to address the expired permits within 15 days, his permit pulling privileges will be revoked. o Respondent must apply to the Contractor's Licensing Board for a hearing to reinstate his permit pulling privileges. Chairman Horn noted the case was closed. IX. REPORTS: (None) X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, Administrative Building "F," 3rd Floor (Government Complex), 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 11:1 ' L COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD Lee Horn, Chairman 20 January 18, 2012 The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on 92011, "as submitted" [ I OR "as amended" [_]. 21 APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) • A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency. • The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: • You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. • You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediately to the other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST Michael Boyd , hereby disclose that on January 28 2012 . (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) Q inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate,— inured to the special gain or loss of my relative, inured to the special gain or loss of by whom I am retained; or inured to the special gain or loss of which is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. (b) The measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: The respondent that was the subject of the complaint in questions holds the same license and provides the same services as I do. The respondent did not attend the public hearing and did not provide testimony. While I am not aware of any direct special benefits I would receive by the possible disciplining of the respondent, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety or subsequent argument by the respondent that I may have voted in such a way to take advantage of a business opportunity and thus obtain a special benefit, I disclosed my concerns orally at the meeting on January 18, 2012 prior to participating in any of the discussions. Moreover, I decided that abstaining from the vote on the measure was proper under the circumstances. -J > . 31 Za s�- Date Fled NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM 813 - EFF. 1!2000 PAGE 2 FORM 813 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS LAST NAME —FIRST NAME — MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE Boyd, Michael Collier County Contractor Licensing Board MAILING ADDRESS THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY OR COMMITTEE ON 5340 Tamarind Ridge Drive WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: ❑CITY [Z]COUNTY ❑OTHER LOCAL AGENCY CITY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: Collier County Naples, Collier County, 34119 DATE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: January 18, 2012 ❑ ELECTIVE APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 813 This form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, commission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non - advisory bodies who are presented with a voting conflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES A person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures to his or her special private gain or loss. Each elected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a mea- sure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained (including the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or to the special private gain or loss of a business associate. Commissioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 163.357, F.S., and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one -acre, one -vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that capacity. For purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father -in -law, mother -in -law, son -in -law, and daughter -in -law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business enterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation are not listed on any national or regional stock exchange). ELECTED OFFICERS: In addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: Although you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you must disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made by you or at your direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: • You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side)