Loading...
CLB Minutes 06/21/2000 RJune 2t, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida, June 21, 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 Richard Joslin Bob Laird Carol Pahl Arthur Schoenfuss Sara Beth White NOT PRESENT: Robert Meister, Jr ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Attorney for the board Robert Zachary, Assistant County Attorney Bob Nonnenmacher, License Compliance Officer Page I AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD DATE June 21,2000 TIME: 9:00 A.M. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING COURTHOUSE COMPLEX ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THAT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. ROLL CALL II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: DATE: April 19, 2000 NEW BUSINESS: 1. Robert A. Dampier- request to qualify 2nd entity. 2. Richard Ray Burkholder- wants to appeal citation #0618 issued to him by Mike Ossorio, for hiring unlicensed sub-contractors 3. Kendall William's - req. to qualify 2"a entity. VI. OLD BUSINESS: VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: VIII. REPORTS: IX. DISCUSSION: X. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 17th, 2000 June 21,2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'd like to call this meeting to order of the Contractors' Licensing, June 21st at 9:10 a.m. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes that testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. I'd like to start with roll call at my right. MR. GONZALEZ: Dan Gonzalez. MR. LAIRD: Bob Laird. MR. DICKSON: Les Dickson. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Gary Hayes. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. MS. PAHL: Carol Pahl. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Arthur Schoenfuss. MS. WHITE: Sara Beth White. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Bob Nonnenmacher, licensing compliance officer. We have a few additions and deletions. Under new business, No. 2, Richard Ray Burkholder has been deleted and has been dismissed altogether per county attorney and per State DMV. Addition to discussion is the memo from Mr. Palmer dated 4-27. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Say that again? MR. NONNENMACHER: Under discussion, staff would like to discuss with the board's attorney and the board Mr. Palmer's memo dated 4-27. MR. NEALE: There's two memos that Mr. Palmer issued on the 27th. One -- MR. NONNENMACHER: It's the first one. MR. NEALE: Which is? Because there's -- I can't tell which is first and which is second here. Because there's one -- MR. NONNENMACHER: On qualifying a second entity. MR. NEALE: Okay. I think it would be -- if I may suggest, it would be appropriate probably to discuss both of them -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay. MR. NEALE: -- both the qualifying, second entity and local Page 2 June 21,2000 specialty contractors and other CLB issues. Because both of them have some relevance. And I think Mr. Hayes -- I had mentioned to Mr. Hayes that possibly discussing the first one, the qualifying a second entity, is something we might want to do before discussing qualifying second entities today. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, I would agree. Except the entities that are requesting to qualify a second today are not state registers. MR. NEALE: Right. And I just reviewed that and I think you're right. So, you know, whatever is the board's pleasure. It doesn't make any difference. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Not a big deal then. We can probably go on with the -- MR. NEALE: We can go on. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- agenda in the order it's written in. MR. NEALE: Okay. MR. NONNENMACHER: And finally, next meeting date, delete May 17th, 2000 and add July 19th, 2000. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other additions or deletions to the agenda? I need a motion for approval. MR. JOSLIN: So moved. MR. GONZALEZ: So moved. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor?. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, let's move on into new business. Robert Dampier, request to qualify second entity. Are you here, sir? Would you come up to the podium. For the record, I'm going to ask that you be sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: If you'll bear with me just a minute, I've made an error here. Just stand still for a minute. I have the minutes of April 19th in front of us. I failed to ask for approval of those minutes. I hope we've reviewed them. And if so, I need a motion for approval. MR. LAIRD: So moved, Mr. Chairman. MS. PAHL: I'll second it. Page 3 June 21,2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: backwardness. I have a motion and a second. All in Very well. Apologize for the Okay, you've been sworn in. Your name, sir? MR. DAMPIER: Robert A. Dampier. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here this morning? MR. DAMPIER: To qualify a second entity. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What business do you operate currently? MR. DAMPIER: Painting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What business name? MR. DAMPIER: Gulf Stream Painting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you're qualifying Gulf Stream Painting currently? MR. DAMPIER: No -- I'm qualified, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You're qualifying that company currently? MR. DAMPIER.' No, Warner Painting is what I'm qualifying. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I'm -- MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. How long have you done that? MR. DAMPIER: Painting business? CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, qualified Warner Painting. MR. DAMPIER: The one that's getting qualified today is Warner Painting. The one that I'm qualified already for is Gulf Stream. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. You currently qualify Gulf Stream Painting? MR. DAMPIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: How long have you done that? MR. DAMPIER: About six months. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And now you're asking to qualify a second company? MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: May I ask why? MR. DAMPIER: I took a partner out on the second company. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Be your competition in your first Page 4 June 21,2000 company? MR. DAMPIER: To an extent, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Our packets are without a credit report. When you fill in the applications to qualify a second entity, part of the instructions is that you supply us with a credit report. MR. DAMPIER: I -- when I went down and gave her the entire packet, everything was included. She checked it all off. I had a credit report then. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You do have a credit report? MR. DAMPIER: I had one in that packet when I gave it to her. I might have one in the car right now, if you want me to go get it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Oh, you did have a credit report? MR. DAMPIER: Yes, I did have-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: It just failed to get in our package. MR. DAMPIER: Yes, it did. She had everything. And I was -- had everything and I was going to come last month, but the meeting didn't happen, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, I hate to put you out and I hate a delay, but I'm going to tell you this: This board will probably not grant you a second qualification without a review of a credit report. So we can either proceed and not allow you to do that until we see that credit report, or you can go down to your car and get that credit report and we can review it. MR. DAMPIER: I might have the credit report in the car, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Now, is there any other comments on that from the board? Perhaps we'll let this gentleman go and get his credit report? Okay, and in the meantime -- MR. NONNENMACHER: I have one question, Mr. Hayes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, sir. MR. NONNENMACHER: The company you're with now, Gulf -- MR. DAMPIER: Stream. MR. NONNENMACHER: -- Stream? MR. DAMPIER: Yes. MR. NONNENMACHER: Are you the owner of that? MR. DAMPIER: I'm -- yes, owner of both. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Why is that company not listed under Item 9 in the application? It says list all business firms which you've been associated during the last 10 years, and I don't see that company listed there. MR. DAMPIER: I don't know why I didn't put it in there. I Page 5 June 21,2000 probably skipped over it and missed it. Not on purpose. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We got a problem letting this gentleman go and get his credit report? MR. LAIRD: No. CHAIRMAN HAYES: If you would do that, sir, we'll patiently wait for you. MR. DAMPIER: Okay. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, just come right back. In the meantime, Mr. Zachary, I'd like to have you introduced to the board, and let the record know that you're part of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing group. I hope -- you're temporary or you're going to be here with us a while? MR. ZACHARY: Well, I think I'll be here a while. The changes that we made in our office are permanent. Sorry, let me introduce myself. I'm Robert Zachary. I've been with the County Attorney's Office for about two years. Mr. Palmer and I have sort of switched roles. He took some things that I was doing and I took over -- specifically Mr. Weigel wanted to make some changes in the office to give some people some more opportunity to do some things they hadn't been doing. Right now I think I'm doing everything. We had a -- we have a -- one of our members of our office is out on maternity leave, Marni Scuderi -- I don't know if any of you are familiar with her -- and we had Melissa Vasquez leave. So I'm Melissa, Marni and me, temporarily. But this is going to be as permanent as it gets. I mean, I plan on doing the function that Tom Palmer was doing and trying to learn from him. Because I know he was rather emersed in that. My background before coming to the County Attorney's Office, I was in the State Attorney's Office, a prosecutor for eight and a half years. So if there's anything that has to be brought before the board that you all need to have presented, I'm sort of familiar with how to present evidence and how the courts work and what have you, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Good. Appreciate your presence. We've found out a number of years ago that county attorney's presence, our attorney's presence are somewhat necessary for some of the hearings that we've been known to partake in throughout the years. There's sometimes a difference in perspectives and point of views. And I don't think anybody on the board has got a legal Page 6 June 21,2000 license to practice law, and it's nice to have some input from somebody that does have a license to practice law. So we appreciate you being here. MR. ZACHARY: I do have a background in construction as well. I was involved in that business for several -- this is about my third life, this lawyer business. I worked for -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Used to be a plumber, right? MR. ZACHARY: Well, I worked for Eastern Airlines for 10 years and so I'm sort of a plumber. I was in maintenance and engineering. And before that I did some carpentry work and contracting work. So -- I've built a house, so I know what goes on and what needs to be done, back of my mind somewhere; so therefore, my interest in this. And Tom is willing to take a little break, so here I am, CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Well, welcome aboard. MR. ZACHARY: Thank you. MR. NEALE: We could probably move on to Mr. Williams while we're waiting for Mr. Dampier to get back with his credit report. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yeah, that's possible. I don't see a problem with it, if you wanted to move on with Kendall Williams. Let's do that. Mr. Williams, are you here? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Would you come up to the podium. I'm going to have you sworn in also. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Your name? MR. WILLIAMS: Kendall Williams. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And your reason for being here? MR. WILLIAMS: To qualify a second entity. I need to get these to you. I've got a package. I was told I could give them to you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: For the record, the addition to the packet is just the affidavit affirming the requirements of the Collier County ordinance to be met. Again, as was pointed out on the previous application, Item No. 9, it says list all businesses, firms, entities and contracting businesses you have been associated in the past 10 years, and you write "none." Page 7 June 21,2000 What business are you currently qualifying? MR. WILLIAMS: My office did that. I apologize. Debbie, my office manager, did that. Metro Tile and Marble. I currently-- I've been 18 years here in Collier County. Metro Tile and Marble. And I currently qualify that company. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And you're looking to qualify a company called Tile One? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Is that a new company? MR. WILLIAMS: Actually, about five years now. I've had previous qualifters to qualify the company in the past who have moved on. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What's the difference between the two companies? MR. WILLIAMS: Metro Tile and Marble has been around for 18 years. It's primarily a wholesaler through the years. I established Tile One about four and a half years ago to do the retail side of the business. In our industry, things have changed through the years, and I chose to form this company to pursue the retail side of the business, installation side of the business, while trying to maintain my existing place in the industry as far as European factories, where I can buy material through European factories through Metro Tile and not confuse the two. The primary reason I'm doing this is basically this: We have both companies in the same location, separate offices, separate accounting office and so forth, but my customers are confused sometimes who they're dealing with. When they call the county and ask for Judy or Maggie to verify status, sometimes they'd ask for Metro Tile, which was not qualified till recently. They'd ask for -- and of course they would reply to them that Metro Tile is not licensed. So it caused a problem for me at that level. What I'm trying to do now is get both of them qualified so they can call and ask at any time of each company which one's qualified and so forth. You understand that; I'm sure you do. MR. DICKSON: Never had any complaints on them, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir, not at all. Page 8 June 21,2000 MR. DICKSON: If you notice in your packet, everything he's saying is correct. His original incorporation of Tile One is 1995. Also, his Articles of Incorporation. Beautiful credit report. Mr. Chairman, I move that the approval be granted. MR. JOSLIN: I have one question. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I need a second on the motion, first. MR. LAIRD: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. We have discussion? MR. JOSLIN: I just have a question. On the insurance certificate, I see-- MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: -- Tile One is an installer? Would it be installer or is it -- MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. MR. JOSLIN: -- sells retail out of the store? MR. WILLIAMS: Tile One will actually do the install of the tile as Tile One, yes. MR. JOSLIN: Okay. MR. WILLIAMS: Is that -- MR. JOSLIN: That's what I thought it was. MR. WILLIAMS: Virtually what it is, is that I've got Tile One basically doing the retail business. Walk-in customers and so forth come into the showroom, that becomes a Tile One customer. We still sell wholesale to the builders and trade and design community. MR. JOSLIN: So therefore then Tile One is going to install tiles that Metro Tile possibly could sell? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. Actually Tile One -- Metro -- Tile One is a customer of Metro Tile. We sell tile to Tile One. MR. JOSLIN: Right. Okay, I have another question, though. MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. MR. JOSLIN: Is -- is -- do you have -- Does Tile One have employees? MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. The general manager-- MR. JOSLIN: The question I have then, is that on your certificate of insurance I see no Workmen's Compensation. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, actually the Workmen's Comp is all into one -- both the -- the same company qualifies Metro and Tile One. I mean, not actually qualifies, but has insurance written for Tile Page 9 June 21,2000 One and MR. say so. MR. MR. Metro on the same policy -- or the same carrier. JOSLIN: I understand that. But on the policy it doesn't WILLIAMS: It does not say that? JOSLIN: No. MR. WILLIAMS: On the very top? Judy questioned that also at the county. MR. JOSLIN: I take it back. I did find it, yes. I'm sorry. MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, because Judy said the same thing. And she actually -- I had faxed over another certificate from my insurance company showing that both companies are -- MR. JOSLIN: I see. MR. WILLIAMS: -- insured. MR. JOSLIN: Right. Okay, no further questions. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any other questions from any of the board? I am going to ask the questions. In '98 sometime through '9 -- from '95 through '98, your credit report shows a few charge-offs. One for Sikes Tile for $3,871, and there's a list thereafter of charge-offs. And then later on we see a satisfaction of judgment that was dated October of last year. That's quite a distance of time between '96, all of these debts, and a judgment satisfaction of '99. Would you mind explaining a little of that? MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, that was a case that was in courts for almost three years. It was into appeal. It was appealed by the appeals court. And it took that long to get to the courts. It was overturned and we won the case. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You won the case, you just didn't pay? MR. WILLIAMS: Actually -- which case are you referring to? I'm not really sure what you -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well-- MR. WILLIAMS: The Jones? CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- what I've got here is Sikes Tile -- MR. WILLIAMS: Sikes Tile. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- Merchants Association, NRS, MedCLR, Mid America, Mid America Radiology, and a few more on the back page here. And I see a satisfaction of judgment for Sikes Tile. MR. WILLIAMS: Sikes Tile, uh-huh. MR. NEALE: I don't think the ones below Sikes Tile are all charge-offs. I think only Sikes Tile is the only charge-off. Page 10 June 2~,2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I'm thinking is my point. MR. NEALE: No, that's the way it reads, at least the way I see it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. You've got a satisfaction of judgment on the Sikes Tile thing, which is business related, as far as I'm concerned -- MR. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- and that's what we're more interested in than anything else. MR. WILLIAMS: Right. CHAIRMAN HAYES: But we see a bunch of more charge-offs here. MR. NEALE: As I said, Mr. Hayes, I think the only charge-off is the Sikes Tile one. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, aren't the ones that aren't collected charge-offs? They're classified as past due as of March of 4000 -- or 2000, I mean? MR. NEALE: That's just the date of the last payment. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So maybe I'm saying the wrong thing. They're not really charged off, they're still on here as uncollected. MR. NEALE: No. I mean, from Providian Financial down, those are just current accounts. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And every one of them are listed under the past due heading. MR. WILLIAMS: May I see that, possibly, so I can look at it? MR. NEALE: I don't see it listed under past due, Mr. Hayes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I guess I'm confused or something. MR. NEALE: Because that last -- are you looking at the far right column? CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, it's not on the far right. Look at the past -- date last past due heading and go down. You see Sikes Tile that you're talking about, the 3,871. That one is there. But we have a judgment on -- MR. NEALE: But it doesn't say any of the rest are past due. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I beg your pardon. One says Merchants Association for $704. That's under the past due category. Then below that for 436, below that for 332, below that 250 and below that 154. The way I read it, all those are past due. Unless I'm confused and not reading it properly. The way I see it, there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, Page 11 June 21, 2000 eight, nine, 10 -- 10 that have been listed on the credit report as past due. And most of -- and all of them are medical related. MR. NEALE: They all look like medical bills. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yeah, I agree. But I'm just trying to confirm that I am in fact reading it correctly. MR. NEALE: And most of them look like, as you say, date back to '95, '96, '97. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Right. MR. DICKSON: Was Sikes Tile just a dispute? MR. WILLIAMS: That's correct. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I mean, Sikes Tile, the final judgment wasn't entered until October of '99. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't have any further discussion on it. Anybody else? MR. DICKSON: Call for the vote. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second on the floor. Without any further discussion, all in favor of approval? Opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well, motion carries. Not a problem. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Dampier, you want to come back up? MR. DAMPIER: Mr. Hayes, I didn't have it in the car. There's not one there. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. DAMPIER: I did check everything in with her, and there was one with it. And it's the same as the one that went with Gulf Stream when it came in, so -- MR. LAIRD: Is there any way we could check with our office to see if they have that? MR. DAMPIER: I mean, I could go to my office and get it. I probably could have done it by now if I knew you were doing him. But I didn't know I was going to take it, so -- MR. DICKSON: Why can't we call Judy and she'll fax it over here to the commissioners' office? MR. NEALE: That would be the most logical thing, yeah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What I want to do, I don't have a problem doing it that way. We can continue on with the discussion on the Page 12 June 21, 2000 rest of his packet and perhaps approve based on, or deny based on the credit report when we do get it later on into the meeting. Is that okay? Do you want to continue? MR. DICKSON: I've got a question for you. I've been on this board a long time. I'm talking to you. MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. MR. DICKSON: I've never seen anybody come before this board that has a company that's six months old and already qualifying his second one. And I want a better explanation than what I've heard so far. MR. DAMPIER: The only explanation that I can give is to receive this guy's work I had to make him a partner, so I made him a partner. So I wasn't going to give him a percent of jobs I do, but jobs he gets for me, then I'll give him a percent of. That's the only reason I'm here. MR. DICKSON: What do you mean receive his work? Is he a customer or a partner? MR. DAMPIER: Partner. MR. DICKSON: What does he do? MR. DAMPIER: He gets his work, I get my work. So when his work comes in, I do it as Warner, and when my work comes in, I do it as Gulf Stream. MR. DICKSON: And he's willing to share your work -- his work with you? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, he will because he's qualifying him. MR. DAMPIER: Yeah, you got it. MR. NONNENMACHER.' Excuse me, how long has he been in business painting? MR. DAMPIER: He's never been in business painting. Only me, MR. NONNENMACHER: Oh, so you don't even know if he has any customers then. MR. DAMPIER: He has a lot of customers, yes, he does. MR. NONNENMACHER: And who was painting for him and his customers? MR. DAMPIER: Now, nobody. That's his -- well, other painting companies are painting for his customers right now. But they aren't his partner either, so -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Hayes, I'm on hold. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Not a problem. Page t3 June 21, 2000 I'm going to continue with some of the questions. This new corporation, Warner Painting and Waterproofing, are you 100 percent owner of it? MR. DAMPIER: No, I'm only 70 percent owner of it. Actually, I'm 35 and my wife is 35. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. This other individual is not part of the ownership on this company? MR. DAMPIER: Yes, he is. He's a 30 percent of Warner Painting. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what I'm asking. MR. DAMPIER: Yes. MR. DICKSON: How long have you known Mr. Warner?. MR. DAMPIER: Probably two to three years. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Are -- you are definitely aware, Mr. Dampier, that as your qualifying agent for this new company, you are a responsible financial officer. You must make sure that all monies coming in, all bills going out will rest on your shoulders. MR. DAMPIER: I run all the books, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You run all the books. MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The quality of the work produced by Warner Painting will rest on your shoulders. MR. DAMPIER.' Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The disputes, customer disputes and everything else, will rest on your shoulders. MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You are the man. MR. DAMPIER: I am the man. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do we have any other questions from the board at this point? Any other questions from the board? MR. SCHOENFUSS: Well, we have what looks like a good application for Warner Painting; the only thing missing being the credit report we're talking about. But I don't feel we know enough about the business that you're currently qualifying, the first one. MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Is that -- MR. DAMPIER: I already qualified that business. I'm already qualified for Gulf Stream. MR. SCHOENFUSS: That answered the question? CHAIRMAN HAYES: No. We all knew that. What was your Page 14 June 2t,2000 question? MR. SCHOENFUSS: I just -- I don't understand, how active is the first company that he is qualifying? CHAIRMAN HAYES: The Gulf Stream Painting. MR. SCHOENFUSS: The Gulf Stream Painting, the one that's not listed on here, how much business is that company doing? MR. DAMPIER: Quite a lot. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Quite a lot. MR. DAMPIER: Yes. MR. DICKSON: That's immaterial. MR. SCHOENFUSS: And you are active in the management of that entity? MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. MR. SCHOENFUSS: To the same degree that you're going to be for Warner? MR. DAMPIER: Yes, sir. MR. SCHOENFUSS: Thank you. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll entertain -- I'll make the motion and see where it goes. I move that this application be approved pending Mr. Nonnenmacher's review of the credit report. If that credit report has no glaring problems with it, that it be approved. That if the credit report has excessive negative items on it, that it come back before this board at the next meeting. MR. NONNENMACHER: Yeah, maybe Bartoe has the file back in the office. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion on the floor. I need a second. MR. LAIRD: I'll second that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion before I call for the vote? MR. SCHOENFUSS: Let's wait until we hear what Mr. Nonnenmacher has to say as a result of his phone conversation. MS. WHITE: I think there's too many questions here. MR. NONNENMACHER: Apparently the file is not up front and she doesn't know where it is at this time. So I'm sure it's either back by Mr. Bartoe or in a cabinet someplace. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Thank you. MS. PAHL: Maybe behind the copier. CHAIRMAN HAYES: What was that discussion earlier?. You had -- you were saying something? Page 15 June 21,2000 MS. WHITE: I think there's too many questions here; too many holes for us to vote on it. MR. DAMPIER: Well, I mean, ! brought the packet in. I've already been held up a month. I've got jobs lined up for this company to do as soon as you approve me. I really need to get approved. So if I had known that that was missing, I would have gladly brought one. I can go to my office, send you one, fax you one, do whatever you need to do. I mean -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: We're not going to allow you to qualify this entity without review. At least as the motion on the floor, at least the licensing has to review it to begin with. I'm not going to say that if you get it to Mr. Nonnenmacher this afternoon and he review it and accept it the way it is that you can't go off tomorrow and do your thing. But I'm going to tell you that until that occurs, if we approve this motion, you're not going to be able to. MR. DAMPIER: That's fine. I don't have any problems with anybody reviewing the credit report. MR. GONZALEZ: In your opinion, how is your credit? MR. DAMPIER: There's nothing on it. Absolutely zero. I mean, everything's paid. I pay everything off. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Ms. White, what questions are you referring to? I mean, now is the time to get them out. MS. WHITE: Well, first of all, of course the credit report. Second of all, the question that was brought up about qualifying a second entity within six months of the first one. And the third one is I see -- it just seems like there's so much overlapping, I don't see why -- what is the difference in the two companies? MR. DAMPIER: The only difference between the two companies, ma'am, is I have a partner, that's all. MR. DICKSON: He just explained that. MS. WHITE: I mean, it just seems like you're competing against yourself. CHAIRMAN HAYES: No, let me try to explain the way I envision what he's trying to do here. He would like this individual to be an employee of his company, but this individual refuses to do that. He wants to be on his own. However, this individual is not licensed. So he's striking a deal with this individual saying look, I'll qualify you so that you can have a license, but I want a piece of the action. Since I can't hire you as an employee, I'll partner with you in this separate company. Page 16 June 2t,2000 Does that about sum it up? MR. DAMPIER: Pretty much sums it up. MR. DICKSON: As a license holder, he has a right to qualify a second entity, unless we have negative information to deny that right. And we have no such negative information. So therefore, my motion, assuming that the credit report is good, and Mr. Nonnenmacher will verify that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Ms. White, does that make a little more sense? MS. WHITE: Yeah, it does make more sense. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Nonnenmacher, while you were on the phone, the motion was made that we approve this, based on your review of the credit report. If there's some ambiguities or questions or you're not comfortable in reviewing that report, then you are to bring it back before the board. If, however, it's nice enough, clean enough and satisfies you as a civil credit report, then the motion has been made that we approve that second entity. Is that a problem with you? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir, it's not. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Any further discussion before I call for the vote? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well. MR. DAMPIER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All of the concerns and it's no big deal. MR. DAMPIER: Thank you. MR. NONNENMACHER: If you'd check with Judy and Maggie tomorrow -- MR. DAMPIER: I can bring one. I have a copy at my office already. I just didn't bring it with me today. MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay. If you want to drop it off with them, I'll give them an answer this afternoon around 3:30, 4:00, and you can call them and find out what my answer is. MR. DAMPIER.- Okay, no problem. MR. NONNENMACHER: But still tomorrow would be the soonest you could pick up your license. MR. DAMPIER: That's fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dampier. Page t7 June 2t,2000 Thank you, Mr. Nonnenmacher. I appreciate that. Okay, moving right along. We had an item struck off of the agenda, and as far as hearing the item, perhaps we can't formally hear the item, but I've got a couple of questions as to the reach of our arm of the law and our limitations. And with our new county attorney, Mr. Zachary, present, it might not be a bad thing to have a little discussion regarding it. I understand that the citations were issued on work on an unlicensed contractor's setting up or building mobile homes. Do you know anything about it? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Briefly what it amounted to was there was a mobile home being set up in North Naples. There were gentlemen doing, I would imagine you call it the skirt work, the aluminum work around the bottom. Mr. Asaro came upon the site and asked them for the -- the pertinent questions with licenses and how they're getting paid and Workmen's Comp and so on, so forth, and found that they were hired off the street to do this aluminum work. He cited the unlicensed contractors and he also cited the mobile home setup person as aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor. Mobile home setup is licensed by the State Department of Motor Vehicles. The only thing I can tell you is what I was told, that they are completely exempt from Statute 489. They are controlled by the Department of Motor Vehicles. They are not contractors. They are auto -- vehicle repair people. They are not required to abide by 489 or any of our local ordinances regarding contracts. The mobile home is not a structure. It's not a building. It's -- when it's being set up, the only time it becomes a residence or a habitable place to live is after a CO is issued. Up until that point, we have no control whatsoever upon that agency. They are regulated by HUD, the federal government, the state, and that's it. They are not contractors. What they do is not in the contracting business. They are licensed to do mobile home setup. And that is plumbing, electrical work, anything they have to do to make that mobile home habitable. And up until the point that the county issues a CO, it is not a structure, it is not a residence, it is a vehicle. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I'm interested in the play on words here. CO, what's that stand for? Page t8 June 21,2000 MR. NONNENMACHER: It gives a Certificate of Occupancy. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And by what authority was the permit issued that that CO follows up on? MR. NONNENMACHER: Okay, let me explain that, too. The attitude of the State Department of Motor Vehicles is you can call it whatever you want to call it. You happened to call it a building permit. We don't apply for a building permit. If that's what you want to call it, that's fine. We're not going to tell you what to call your permits. But we do not apply for a building permit. We apply for a setup, and that's what we apply for. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And the only thing that we have to accommodate that is the building department's system for building permit issuance and CO, and that doesn't do any inspection. MR. NONNENMACHER: I believe the only inspections we actually do are the connects of everything. Because everything is engineered through the manufacturer and the engineering is accepted. CHAIRMAN HAYES: But don't we require licensed plumbing contractor and electrical contractor to make those physical connections? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, the state does. Or the mobile home setup person can. They are the only trades that if the mobile home setup person does not do, that they must be licensed, the plumbing, air conditioning and electrical. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So those three -- well, in this case here where we have a utility connection to the public utilities purveyor, that being the electric and the plumbing, then those two must be permitted by a licensed plumbing contractor and electrical contractor. MR. NONNENMACHER: If the mobile home setup licensee does not do it himself. He is able to do it himself. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Under what authority is he allowed to connect? MR. NONNENMACHER: Under the State Department of Motor Vehicles. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Oh, really? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes, sir. Mr. Palmer really went into this in quite depth in -- he argued on our side all the way till the end. Then it went up to the state's attorney. And then a memo Page t9 June 21,2000 came out telling us that no, we did not have any control over that mobile home while it was in the process of being set up. CHAIRMAN HAYES: And I can go along with that until such time as it's actually physically connected to our public utilities. I can go along with it. But at that point -- MR. NONNENMACHER: At that point we do have complete control. In other words, that mobile home now is CO'd. It's a habitable residence now, okay? If those same gentlemen went back now and added a screen enclosure, we would have full authority over it. It's only during the setup process that we have no authority over anyone on that job. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The setup process I understand all on the personal property. But at the point in time where it reaches public domain, which is the county utility easement and taps into the public utilities, we start to take some authority on how it's connected, which means that it should be a licensed plumbing and electrical contractor to make those utilities connections. The actual connections, the piping and everything else prior to that connection, I can understand it where our hands are tied. But I can't imagine with all the controls and desires of controls to keep from contaminating our public utilities or electrocuting someone that we would allow anybody to hook up anything they wanted to a public utility as long as they're calling it a mobile home. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, the only thing -- the only way I can explain that to you is that when you got your license, you had to prove certain things that you were competent in the field that you want to be licensed in. Apparently the test for mobile home setup is quite stringent, according to the state. And they make sure that these people know what they're doing before they license them to do the setup. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, in that particular case then, those people that you all cited for not having a license, what license did they not have? MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, they were cited for unlicensed aluminum contractors, because the setup person was not doing it himself. And he had, quote, unquote, people off the street putting the aluminum on the mobile home. CHAIRMAN HAYES: But it was permitted under a -- what kind of license? Page 20 June 21,2000 MR. NONNENMACHER: Mobile home setup. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So there is such thing in the state as a mobile home setup licensed contractor? MR. NONNENMACHER: Yes. Which we have no control. They're vehicle repair people, okay? And it's -- it got quite nasty in Mr. Perico's office between the head of the Department of Motor Vehicles and Mr. Palmer. And we were still under the opinion that we had every right to cite those unlicensed contractors, because they were doing aluminum work without a license. MR. DICKSON: I might add, I'm kind of glad it came out the way it did, because I don't want our building department to deal with mobile homes, nor do I want mobile home issues coming before this board. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, that's exactly what Mr. Ballard said, the building official for this county. And the turnout was straight from the state and their attorney that we have no authority whatsoever on that mobile home as it's being set up. Our authority begins after it's habitated. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Interesting. I just had heard about it prior to the meeting, and I figured that there would be some interesting conversation to realize just, you know, what the direction of the state statutes are. It's not addressed basically in 489 is what it boils down to. MR. NEALE: It's truly exempt from 489. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. However, as someone that reads the code all the time, the Southern Standard Building Code addresses mobile home connections. MR. NEALE: Except that there -- and Mr. Nonnenmacher's right, I haven't researched the issue, but I've looked at it in the past, and there's this whole separate class. Mobile homes are set out as an entity almost to themselves in Florida law. They have their own sort of mystical cover. Because I believe Florida is the number one state in number of mobile homes in the State of Florida. They are more here than anywhere else in the county, I believe. And any time you've got an industry that's that large, it typically has a lot of power with the legislature, and they've created a niche for themselves where they can sell them, license them, set them up, do everything. Page 21 June 21,2000 But the test for a mobile home setup contractor apparently is a very stringent test, that they actually have to show that they know how to take wheels off and hook up pipes and do all kinds of things. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Interesting. Okay, I just wanted to discuss it a little bit there. Anybody got any other discussion on that issue? I can move along with the agenda. We don't have any old business, apparently. We have no public hearings. Are there any reports, Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, under discussion, we do have a couple of memorandums that I'm hoping that the board has read, because we definitely need to discuss both issues to make us aware of what we are burdened with and what we are not supposed to burden ourselves with. First memorandum to the Contractors' Licensing Board from Thomas C. Palmer, Assistant County Attorney, regarding qualifying a second entity. It cites the Subsection 489.119, Paragraph 7 under Florida Statutes. Basically the way I read it, if the qualifying agent for a business organization desires to qualify additional business organizations, the board shall require him or her to present evidence of ability and financial responsibility to -- of each organization. The issuance of such certificate of authority is discretionary with the board. In my opinion, the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board cannot authorize any state certified contractor or any contractor required to register with the state construction license -- industry licensing board to qualify a second entity. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Neale, this is nothing new. We never have had anyone qualify a second entity that had a state license. MR. NONNENMACHER: I think it comes up, Mr. Dickson, where we're now into this state registered. In other words, you have a county license to do a trade and yet the state requires you to register with them. MR. DICKSON: But those required -- those that are required by state be registered are your major contractors. CHAIRMAN HAYES: No. MR. NEALE: No. Page 22 June 2t, 2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: There's a lot more of them. MR. DICKSON: I thought it was just like plumbing, electrical, roofing, carpentry, that. MR. NEALE: If you'd like, and I have -- did this get sent to the board or not? I gave a copy to Balzano. This is the state application for a business -- additional business organizations. If not, I'll make sure that it does, because I gave a copy to Paul. And I think -- did he deliver one to you, Bob? MR. ZACHARY: No. MR. NEALE: Okay. It must be in the same place the credit report is. There's a fairly long list of contractors that are required to be state registered, and I'll just read them off to you. You're right, general building and residential, sheet metal, roofing, Class A air conditioning, Class B air conditioning, Glass C air conditioning, mechanical, commercial pool and spa, residential pool and spa, plumbing, underground utility and excavation, specialty structure, pollutant system specialty, solar, gas line specialty, residential solar water heating, gypsum drywall specialty, registered precision tank testers, and swimming pool and spa servicing. Those are all required to be state registered. MR. DICKSON: That still kind of follows the guideline that I was talking about, though. We're not dealing with painting, we're not dealing with stucco. Gypsum's not stucco. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Gypsum's drywall, though. MR. NEALE: It is drywall. CHAIRMAN HAYES: So a drywall contractor has got to be registered. MR. DICKSON: Read the -- MR. NEALE: It's gypsum drywall specialty, which is drywall contractor. MR. DICKSON: Okay. So it's just drywall's the one. MR. NEALE: Yeah, so I think -- and Mr. Palmer and I talked about this, after he issued the memo, quite a bit. And I talked to Rodney Hurst about it also. Any of these classes of contractors that propose to our staff that they should want to come forward and qualify a second entity, they can't do it here. MR. SCHOENFUSS: There's a question -- there's an omission here, I think. There's no reference here to county qualified electrical contractors. Electrical contractors, not state certified, Page 23 June 21,2000 but county qualified who have taken the county test and received licenses in the counties or in other municipal jurisdictions are not required by the state to register with the contractors' industry licensing board. They are required by the state to register with the state electrical contractors' licensing board, which is a different board under the DVPR. And it would seem to me that the logic would be the same, and that these electrical contractors who are required to register with the state, although a different board from what's mentioned here, would fall under the same thing. Now, in the past any number of times we've had electrical contractors come before our board, county qualified electrical contractors, asking to qualify second entities. And we have judged their qualifications to do that. And in many cases we've approved them and we've taken the authority to approve them. And in some cases we've taken the position of not approving individual cases. Now this, as I see it, is an omission here. But if we read it the way it probably should be interpreted, then what we've done in the past we can no longer do. Is that correct? MR. NEALE: I certainly would go along with your analysis. Absent doing some research on the issue, I would say that you're correct, that, you know, we prob -- this board probably has no authority over electrical contractors either because of the requirement that they -- MR. SCHOENFUSS: Well, what happens at our next board meeting when an electrician comes up and wants to qualify a second entity or an electrician walks into the office at the contractors' licensing offices with an application to qualify a second entity? MR. NONNENMACHER: Or a drywall contractor. NEALE: Well, a drywall contractor has to go to the state, MR. period. MR. MR. NONNENMACHER: Even if he's county licensed? NEALE: He's supposed to be state registered, he's got to go to the state. CHAIRMAN HAYES: This board, there's no question throughout the years, I know a couple of specific cases, has authorized electricians, plumbers and air conditioning contractors to qualify second agencies (sic) for as long as I've been on this Page 24 June 2t, 2000 board. And every one of them was an overextension of our authority per 489. MR. NEALE: That's Mr. Palmer's reading of it, and after doing my own independent research on it, I concur with what Mr. Palmer CHAIRMAN HAYES: If that's the case, then technically those second qualifying entities out there are illegal. Kind of sort of again the law. MR. NONNENMACHER: Thank God my time is in, I can retire. MR. DICKSON: Again? MR. NEALE: I agree that technically they are probably in violation. I want to get Mr. Zachary to take a look at this one, too. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Zachary, any time you talk in here, you're going to have to have a microphone. MR. ZACHARY: At first blush, it appears the same. I agree with you, that according to Mr. Palmer's interpretation, if there are second entities qualified, that where they overlap, it would appear that -- that's the case, it may be -- I don't know whether it's illegal, but -- I mean, I don't know whether there's a provision to grandfather those in or not, but I'd have to look into that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I was going to suggest that there's probably not a provision to grandfather. But what concerns me now, if this is truly the case, we, this board, has jeopardized the legal position of Collier County, because should there be a problem come up one time, if they can't be grandfathered in, they would actually lose their license to operate. We may end up being a little bit liable for losses of business. MR. ZACHARY: It appears that those liabilities may be out there. I mean, I can think of all kinds of dire consequences that could happen. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Exactly. I can, too. I'm just sitting here rolling things over in my head and I'm getting a little bit concerned. I know two or three businesses that are operating in Collier County right now that per 489 are illegitimate. MR. NEALE: Well, my sense on the issue, and I want to sit with Mr. Zachary and talk a little bit more and maybe get better heads together on this. But my sense is that typically when you've got a body that is operating under statutory authority, as this board is, and if it follows established procedures that this board has established for doing something, and just because of Page 25 June 21,2000 misinterpretation by our local attorneys, both myself and whoever is my predecessor in the County Attorney's Office, that we've allowed this board to potentially overstep its authority. I think it's something that those people are certainly operating under the color and apparent authority of this board and the apparent authority of Collier County as a subdivision of the State of Florida. And I would think that even though technically they may not be operating legally, I believe that there's some authority to say that they are operating within the color of the law and that it's something that would be their -- once it's discovered, there be an opportunity to cure. I haven't researched the issue. And it probably is an issue that's never surfaced before. But my sense is that while there may be apparent dire consequences, I think that they may not be as dire as we're first painting them. I don't know what your thought is, Mr. Zachary. MR. DICKSON: You also consider, the ones that you're thinking we're worried about are still required to register with the state. They've registered with the state. The state's accepted it. I don't really think it's an issue. MR. NEALE: Well, and the state is -- you know, the contractor, when he registers with the state, I'm sure has listed on that registration the entities that he is contracting for. So if he's put more than one entity on there -- and not to put a knock on the State Contractor Licensing Board and their staff, but -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: They would have no clue. MR. NEALE: -- I have sent more than a few pieces of correspondence, made more than a few phone calls up there, and there's this -- I think it goes directly through the office into the Atlantic Ocean in Jacksonville. Because -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Not only that, but I mean, if everybody in the State of Florida was made abruptly aware of 489, Section 119, the Contractors' Licensing Board would be inundated with just what I would be -- if I were a second qualified entity in Collier County by virtue of this and then I found 489, Section 119, I would be on the phone real quick with the state and start the procedure for that review board so that I could get legitimate. Which would make for tons of reviews. And we already know that the state's basically, what, a couple years out on their agenda? Could you imagine how long that would take? MR. NEALE: Well, and I think one of the issues is if every Page 26 June 2~,2000 swimming pool servicing contractor that wanted to qualify a second entity, or every drywall contractor realized that if he wanted to do this he would end up having to go to Palm Beach on July the 12th and would have had to get his application in by May the 8th to qualify a second entity, we'd have -- I mean, while that is in fact what they'd have to do, and I think -- you know, I would propose that Mr. Zachary and I spent a little bit of time looking at this and discussing with staff as to how to proceed from here. MS. WHITE: We may need to do something about our ordinance. Because all those things you just mentioned are listed in 1.6 that we have. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Our ordinance says we have authority over those -- MS. WHITE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: -- licenses. MS. WHITE: So if that's the case, we're going to have to do something about the ordinance, aren't we? MR. NEALE: No, this board does have authority over those contractors as far as enforcement authority. And it's divided up in our ordinance between state certified contractors. And we don't really address state registered contractors at all. We consider them to be locally licensed. And the state considers those to be locally licensed contractors. So the only ones really that are of a concern or a problem are the state certifieds, which we've always treated differently under the ordinance. CHAIRMAN HAYES: May I suggest -- MR. NEALE: But as far as second entity -- and I think -- I know from my point of view, and this is from when I first came onto this assignment is, my interpretation, and I believe it was county attorney's interpretation was when the board quote, unquote, was referred to in 489, the interpretation was it was either the State Construction Industry Licensing Board or the local board, through its assigned authority under 489. Because the board has authority transferred to it under 489, this board, to enforce the rules and laws of the -- of 489 on our local contractors. So -- and we have the ability to draft an ordinance that is more stringent. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I would suggest, though, that we do review our ordinance. And I think that there may be some amendments in line for those sections referring to second entity Page 27 June 2~,2000 qualifications, like except where not authorized under 489, the wording being added to those subsections. MR. NEALE: Or maybe even outlining it. One other issue that follows from this -- and as I say, Mr. Zachary and I will get together over the next couple of weeks and pound our heads on this one and come up with a proposal or policy, if that's okay with you. I've also got a copy -- and I'd hoped it would be in your packet, but it's not -- of the State Additional Business Organization Guidelines and Application. It's a total of nine pages. And having reviewed it several times now, it is really an excellent document as far as answering the kinds of questions that this board normally asks. Number one, it goes through an 18-point very clear guideline as to what the applicant has to put in. What -- a statement of need from the licensee for maintaining the present entity qualification while requesting to qualify an additional entity. Which is the question that's always asked here is, you know, why do you want to do this if you've already got that? A list of principal suppliers for the present and proposed entities. List of persons authorized to pull permits for the licensee. A lot of very detailed information. Now, verification of the bank balance for each entity. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Bank balance? MR. NEALE: Bank statements for the previous three months on both the present and proposed entity that reflect the minimum cash balance requirements. Because the state sets out minimum net worth requirements and minimum cash balance requirements. And the state guideline is net worth shall be defined to require showing for all contractor and licensure categories that the applicant has a minimum of 50 percent of that amount in cash. Cash is also defined to include a line of credit. So if you've got a $20,000 minimum net worth requirement, you've got to have 10 grand in the bank. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I wonder how many second entities we've qualified over the years that can meet that qualification. MR. NEALE: No, but aside from that, the application itself certainly asks the basic questions, but it also sets out minimum amounts required for general liability insurance for both entities, Workers' Comp, and then it has this questionnaire that asks a Page 28 June 21, 2000 number of points, including, you know, the question of why do you want to keep your present license, has the proposed entity been previously qualified. If it has been, explain why the previous qualifier's no longer willing to continue to qualify this business. Which is a question that this board has asked a lot of times, you know, why? Well, you know, is it because there are a lot of problems here, or what? If the proposed entity's been qualified within the last 12 months, list the last three jobs completed by the proposed entity. Include dates of completion, address, description of work, name of previous qualifter and the name of the owner. List the last three lobs completed by you under your existing license. This is for the applicant. Include the date of completion, address, description of work, name of previous qualifier, name of owner, Does the business you presently qualify or wish to qualify have any outstanding liens against them or against the property of consumers as a result of work that they had with your firm? Principal suppliers of both entities. How they're -- a question that I think is one of the more interesting ones here is, how are you being paid by the businesses you presently qualify? Salary?. Percentage of the profits? What? Which is a question that this board, I think, asks all the time is, is the guy getting $500 a month to hang his license or is he really qualifying the entity? How will you be paid by the business you're applying to qualify? Again, a question that's always asked. Not to belabor the issue -- oh, and one of Mr. Hayes' favorite questions, do you the applicant have check-writing authority for both the present and proposed entity? If yes, provide a letter from the bank. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Wow. MR. NEALE: So what I'm saying is, if this -- and Mr. Zachary and I will review this -- if this application were adopted by this board as being the application for authorized second entity qualifications here, it's my feeling that second entity qualifications would take about 30 seconds then. Because if the board had this in their packet, they'd already read it, most of the questions that this board normally asks would be already answered. And I think that's probably -- and Mr. Laird sat on the state Page 29 June 21, 2000 board, that's probably why the state did it that way is to speed up the meetings a little bit and make it easier for the board to operate. MR. LAIRD: I served on that subcommittee, and I was confused most of the time I was on it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: How often does the board meet, the state board meet? MR. LAIRD: They meet the -- each month, second week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Do they actually meet every month or do they -- MR. LAIRD: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN HAYES: They end up meeting every month. MR. NEALE: Every month except December, it says. MR. LAIRD: Right. MR. NONNENMACHER: Mr. Neale, a question on the state application to apply for a second entity on a registered contractor. The procedure would be to have that contractor fill out the application we were just speaking of, send it to the state. Would we get some kind of correspondence from the state saying he's approved, issue a license, or he's been disapproved? Will we be kept in the loop, or we won't know what's going on? MR. NEALE: Well, apparently, I mean, for all of the contractor classifications other -- you know, that are listed here, they've been doing that all along. And I don't know that we've gotten any, you know, comment from the state that, you know, John Doe qualifies both ABC Electric -- or ABC General Contractor and XYZ General Contractor. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, how could that happen? It requires another competency card. In other words, if we went out and checked the company that just qualified a second entity and he gave us that name, ABC Company, ABC Company wouldn't be licensed by us. And naturally not licensed by the state, just it would be a local license registered with the state. MR. NEALE: I mean, probably a better example is somebody that's a registered contractor, not a certified contractor. MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, that's what I'm saying, locally licensed -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, But certified. MR. NONNENMACHER: -- state registered cannot apply to Page 30 June 21,2000 this board for a second entity, according -- MR. NEALE: That's the way Mr. Palmer -- MR. NONNENMACHER: So he now applies to the state for this second entity. How are we going to know -- what kind of correspondence are we going to receive from the state? Because he would actually need another Collier County license. MR. DICKSON: He would need an occupational license, and he'll show his information when he gets his occupational license. And the county will then be aware of it. Correct? MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, we would have to issue him a license for the second entity. It's a county comp. card that he has. Just state registered, he is. He's not licensed by the state, he's just registered. He's locally licensed. MR. JOSLIN: No, he's licensed to the state. I get a license from the state. Then I bring that copy to county, and county issues me the county comp. card. My license comes from the state, not from Collier. MR. NONNENMACHER: Your registration comes from the state. You're not a state certified contractor. MR. JOSLIN: I'm a state registered contractor. MR. NONNENMACHER: State registered. MR. JOSLIN: But my license that starts the process rolling comes from the State of Florida, it doesn't come from Collier County. Then I come to Collier County, then -- with a copy of that license, and they issue me the county comp. card, that makes me legal in Collier County to work whatever. MR. NONNENMACHER: Exactly. Without a Collier County comp. card, your state registration would mean nothing to us, is that correct? We would cite you for unlicensed contracting. MR. JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. NEALE: Yeah, you have to have the county-- I mean, to be registered by the state, the process, at least according to the statute, and I'm just talking from the statute point of view, is to be registered, the applicant submits the fee and files evidence of holding a current local comp. card. So that's, you know, the process. It goes to the state, they register him and they send it back. But it's still -- in order to get that process started, they have to have a local competency card. MR. JOSLIN: Say to speak, if a second entity qualified -- or I'm sorry, a licensed holder qualifies a second entity and goes Page 31 June 21, 2000 through the process and goes through the hoops and gets that qualifying registered license, the only way that Collier would know about it apparently would be that if they came to Judy or Maggie and added that comp. card to the list of licenses that they -- MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, that's more or less what I'm saying. Let's take you in particular. You want to qualify a second pool company-- MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. NONNENMACHER: -- and you go fill out a state application now because you can't come before this board. MR. JOSLIN: Right. MR. NONNENMACHER: You go through the process and they decide that they're going to allow you to qualify this second entity. We have to get some kind of notification, because you're right now ABC Pool Company, you're going to qualify DEF Company, and you're not going to be licensed in Collier County until we issue you that comp. card. MR. JOSLIN: Exactly right. So you would have no record of it until, say, an investigator saw one of the trucks from ABC Pool Company out there working and said who is your license holder, and it would be me, and I would not be really legal at that time. So you are correct. It would be -- MR. NEALE: I mean, that-- MR. SCHOENFUSS: No, you're going to have an occupational license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: One at a time, remember. MR. NEALE: I see the problem. And I think Bob sees the same thing I'm seeing here. This is a real can of worms, because, I mean, our investigators could go out to a contractor who is legally licensed, according to the state, and cite him for not being properly licensed in Collier and be technically correct on that issue, because he's not properly licensed in Collier. Without having -- and I'm sort of thinking out loud, but, I mean, it seems to me to be a heck of a burden to put on a license holder to go to the state, go through the hoops of getting a second entity qualified, then have to bring that card back to the county, and then we have to create some sort of mechanism at the county to keep track of state registered second entity qualified contractors when the state doesn't give us an advice on that. CHAIRMAN HAYES: We already have that mechanism in the Page 32 June 21,2000 computer when it comes to issuing permits. If you try to go down and pull a permit in your new company, they don't have anything in record in there, you're not going to be issued the permit. Now, if you're doing work, if you're a license holder that doesn't require a permit, I don't know what that would be. I mean, if you're going to do drywalling or painting, you don't have to have a permit to do painting. You have to have a license to be a painter but you don't have to have a permit. MR. NEALE: The one that comes to mind immediately, and I think Mr. Joslin's got the same thing, swimming pool serving contractor, you don't need a permit to put a $150 pump in to a swimming pool. CHAIRMAN HAYES: But you do have to have a license. MR. NEALE: But you've got to have a license. MR. JOSLIN: The only thing that I do know, too, is that on the license it says that, right on the license, that you must meet all local requirements. Now-- MR. NEALE: Yeah. MR. SCHOENFUSS: But isn't the requirement for an occupational license before anyone can sell a newspaper or build an enormous building or do anything else? There's some machinery right there. Before he can do anything, he has to have an occupational license. And at that point, in order to get an occupational license in a trade which requires licensed people, at that point he has to show his license, registration, certification or whatever it is from the state or from the county. And that would take care of it right there. Before you can start your second pool company and do business, before you even apply for a permit, you have to have an occupational license. Why isn't that completing the loop? MR. NONNENMACHER: Well, it is, but it's in the process. In other words, when you're filling out the application and it's been approved and it's all typed up, then Judy and Maggie will make you go get an occupational license, bring that back, show them, and then they'll issue the comp. card. Now, on this registered, it seems to me that it would work, they would apply to the state to qualify a second entity. The state should correspond back to us saying we approve that application. Then we issue the competency card and tell you, you now have to register with the state. Page 33 June 21,2000 MR. JOSLIN: As far as I see it, the registering is already done. I have to register before I get a comp. card. I already get a license back via the mail, or if I go there. I get a license back via the mail in my hands. And then I go to Judy and Maggie, and Maggie and Judy now have record of this. And then they issue me then, send me over to get the comp. card. I come back with the comp. card and then everything is issued. MR. NONNENMACHER: So in other words, you're registering with the state a company that's not even licensed yet? MR. JOSLIN: No, it's technically licensed. I've technically passed the state examination. MR. NEALE: The registration is the contractor -- MR. JOSLIN: I'm registered with the State of Florida. MR. NEALE: The contractor registers his license with the state, and the state accepts that registration, and then if they -- and they register it for a company. If they want to get a second entity qualified under that same registration, then they have to go through these hoops. It doesn't add a new registration, really, it just adds another entity under the registration, is the way I read it. MR. JOSLIN: I think he has to have a license. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I think it just boils down to the fact that we just need to be aware, as this board, the limits to our ability to hear and grant or deny second quality entities, based on 489, Section 119. Hopefully none of our past qualifyings will bite anybody, jump up and bite anybody, and we can just move forward from here. But as a board, we are limited, it says, to -- we can authorize only locally licensed specialty contractors to qualify a second entity, and the second entity must also be such a locally licensed specialty contractor that it is not certified by the state and which is not allowed to register with the state. MR. NEALE: And the -- I think the list that I would propose that the staff work from, absent Bob and I coming up with -- Bob Zachary and I coming up with something different -- is the list that's on this additional business organizational guidelines, is that, you know, anybody that comes in to qualify a second entity that's one of these -- and as I say, I gave two copies of it to Paul -- they just get told that you've got to go to the state. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The memo goes further and says the Page 34 June 21,2000 license -- the Collier County Licensing Board is not required to authorize any local specialty contractor to qualify a second entity. MR. NEALE: Yeah, we're not required to, but it's something that this board has done with practice in the past. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, our statute says required to. MR. NEALE: It says that we're permitted to. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Oh, permitted to. So what it boils down to is that if somebody wants to qualify a second entity, they don't need to come to this board. MR. NEALE: Oh, yeah, they do. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's my point. It doesn't say we're authorized to do so by state statute, but we are required to do so by our ordinance. MR. NEALE: Yeah, by our own ordinance we -- if somebody wants a second entity qualified, they have to come here. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. We need to move on to this second memorandum. The second memorandum was issued at the same time. The Contractors' Licensing Board, from once again Thomas C. Palmer regarding local specialty contractors and other CLB issues. The primary reason behind the memo is to enlighten this board that we are not authorized to even allow or hear any state registered or state certified contractor regarding financially responsible officers. Financially responsible officers other than the original qualifter are only heard by the state board. MR. DICKSON: Well, that's just redundant of what we just spent an hour talking about. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Well, no, we're talking about financially qualified people, not just second entities. MR. DICKSON: But we're not going to hear those companies either, anyway. Because if you read the first part, a locally licensed specialty contractor, we are authorized to hear their financial responsibility. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You got it. MR. DICKSON: So what was taken away in the first memo, that's just redundant right there. Am I not correct, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Well, except that this one is more specific on the financial responsible officer issue that was being kicked around for awhile. Page 35 June 21,2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yeah, the first memo is specific about second entity qualifications. MR. DICKSON: I was just trying to avoid another hour. MR. JOSLIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All right. I don't have a problem with avoiding another hour. Is there any other reason that we need to look at this, except for the fact -- am I reading it correctly, Mr. Neale, when I say that -- what I said previously, that it is only to inform us that we have no authority over a state registered or certified contractor with regards to financially responsible officers, other than the primary qualifying agent? MR. NEALE: Uh-huh, right. CHAIRMAN HAYES: That's what this memo boils down to. Is that short enough? MR. DICKSON: You're doing great. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Zachary, do you have any thoughts on this? MR. ZACHARY: Nothing further. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Nothing? Mr. Nonnenmacher? MR. NONNENMACHER: No, I have nothing. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: All set. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anybody else on the board want to discuss them any further? MR. SCHOENFUSS: Is this going to reduce the amount of work our board will have in the future? MR. DICKSON: Hallelujah. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Kind of looks that way. MR. NEALE: A little bit, but not much. Because if you look at most of the second entity qualifications that are done, they are locally licensed contractors. I mean, today it was a tile and marble and a painting, so -- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, any other items for discussion? Any other issues? MR. DICKSON: I would. We had three things left out of our packet today that I've heard in this meeting, and one gentleman has come back and I think he's carrying in a credit report. I think we should hear him. Page 36 June 21,2000 CHAIRMAN HAYES: I don't have a problem doing that. We already have approved it based on Mr. Nonnenmacher's review. We can look at it if you want to, but I don't see a reason to reopen the case. MR. DICKSON: I would just as soon -- I would move that we go ahead and look at it just to -- in case there's anything there. MS. WHITE: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, Mr. Neale, you got any questions? MR. NEAL. E: No, I think that's fine. Go right ahead. CHAIRMAN HAYES: For the record, Mr. Dampier is handing the chairman a credit report. Mr. Dickson, would you like to review that quickly? Any other items of discussion while we're reviewing this? MR. NEAL. E: The only item that I remember from the past meetings that we had discussed was getting an ordinance revision process moving forward. And I wanted to know if that is the pleasure of the board. And I know there had been some items brought up by staff and so forth, if the board wants to start this process. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I would very much love to start the workshop. MR. NEALE: Okay. Maybe -- would you like a workshop scheduled at the next meeting in July? CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yeah, that wouldn't be a problem, unless our agenda would prohibit it with its additional length. If we don't have a large agenda next month, perhaps we could do at least a review of some of the recommended or suggested amendments by the staff. MR. NEALE: Since Mr. Zachary and I are getting together anyhow, we'll kick it around some, too. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Chairman, looking over Mr. Robert Dampier's credit report, and which, by the way, this is an original that he handed me, so I don't have any question on its authenticity. There's what one, two, three, four legal pages of credit reporting on here, and there are four -- I should say only four past due payments, and all of those were MasterCard, Visa and Discover Card, and which he went -- he was late, 30 days late. I've had more than that. So based on the credit report and based on our previous Page 37 June 21,2000 motion for approval, I now approve that the board go ahead and grant him a second entity. And anyone can look at this, if they want. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Anybody else want to review this? Would it be appropriate to make a motion? MR. DICKSON: I did make a motion. MR. LAIRD: He did, and I second the motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HAYES: I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HAYES: Mr. Nonnenmacher, you're off the hook. Thank you, Mr. Dampier. Very much appreciate you going out of your way and bringing it to us. MR. DAMPIER: Oh, I need the license. MR. NONNENMACHER: You will not be able to pick that license up until tomorrow. MR. DAMPIER: That's fine. I got the subs planned for next week, that's why. MR. LAIRD: I think Mr. Nonnenmacher-- CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thanks again, sir. MR. ZACHARY: Can I suggest that he make a copy of that and bring it with him tomorrow so they can get in in the record. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Yes, you're going to have to bring a copy. Apparently we have misplaced our copy. MR. DAMPIER: Okay. CHAIRMAN HAYES: You need to find out perhaps where that might be hidden. MR. NONNENMACHER: The file. CHAIRMAN HAYES: The file. MR. DAMPIER: Okay, I'll bring the file. MR. NEALE: It's that round file with the plastic liner in it. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Thank you, sir. MR. DAMPIER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, any items of discussion? Our next meeting at this point, Mr. Nonnenmacher, does it look like we're going to have a meeting on July 19th? MR. NONNENMACHER: So far it does. Yeah, I know we have one second entity coming up that I couldn't get his paperwork in Page 38 June 21, 2000 on time. CHAIRMAN HAYES: Okay, does anybody know now that they're not going to be here on the 19th? Okay, so our next meeting is July 19th, same place, same time. I need a motion for adjournment. MR. JOSLIN: So moved. MS. PAHL: Second. CHAIRMAN HAYES: All in favor?. (Unanimous vote of ayes.} CHAIRMAN HAYES: Very well. Done. 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 39