CLB Minutes 06/20/2012R
BY: auu••••• ••••uu••.c
MINUTES OF THE
COLD COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
MEETING
Fiala
Hiller
June 20, 2012 Henning
Coyle ✓
Naples, Florida Coletta &
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:
CHAIRMAN:
Vice Chair:
Excused.
ALSO PRESENT:
Lee Horn
Richard Joslin
Michael Boyd
Terry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Thomas Lykos
Jon Walker
Patrick White
Robert Meister
Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Steve Williams, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney Misc. Corres:
Ian Jackson — Licensing Compliance Officer per: `n \a \%Z
Item 21q—'}
Copies to:
June 20, 2012
NOTE: 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 9:04 AM and read the procedures
to be followed to appeal a decision.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Eight members were present.
II. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
(None)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as presented. Second by Thomas Lykos.
Carried unanimously, 8 — 0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 16,2012:
Chan es:
James F. Morey, Esq., Attorney for the Board, noted that during the May 16th
meeting, Mr. Lykos stated he would abstain from voting during Case #2012 -07,
Robert E. Elwell, d/bla Service Star Cooling & Heating, LLC, due to a possible
conflict of interest.
o Mr. Lykos stated he had no direct financial connection with
the Respondent's company, but the company has a history with
one of his ( Lykos') clients. While the project was completed
approximately two years ago, Mr. Lykos' company performs
regular maintenance for his client.
• Mr. Lykos signed the "Memorandum of Voting Conflict" on May 30. 2012 and
circulated it to the Board members.
Mr. Morey requested to include Form 8 -B, entitled "Memorandum of Voting
Conflict," in the Minutes (at Page 9) and referenced it as County's Exhibit "A."
Chairman Horn called for a motion to add Form 8 -B to the Minutes as the County's
Exhibit "A."
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve adding Form 8-B to the May 16th Minutes.
Second by Kyle Lantz.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes "12 — Abstained. Mr. Lykos abstainedfrom voting.
Mr. White could not vote because he did not attend the May 16th meeting.
2
June 20, 2012
Thomas Lykos read the following "Disclosure of Local Officer's Interest" into
the record:
"A Hearing was held on an Administrative Complaint against Robert E.
Elwell, d/b /a Service Star Cooling & Heating, LLC, the "Contractor').
My company had been retained by a consumer who had recent dealings
with the Contractor for which we had taken, or would be taking, remedial
measures.
Since there may be a private gain due to my company's involvement with
the Consumer, I abstained from voting in that matter."
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve the Minutes of the May 16, 2012 meeting as
amended Second by Kyle Lantz.
Motion carried, 7 — "Yes " /1— Abstention.
Patrick White could not vote to approve the Minutes because he did not attend the
May-16' meeting.
V. DISCUSSION:
Vice Chairman Joslin provided copies of a brochure on the installation of heat pumps
for swimming pools and the Contractors who were allowed to do so.
Michael Ossorio stated he understood mechanical contractors could install heat pumps
while air- conditioning contractors cannot, but he will confirm this information with the
State's Contractors' Licensing Board.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he thought the language in the Ordinance was clear, i.e.,
that only pool contractors may install heat pumps.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(None)
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Kyle Lantz moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the
Board Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
(Note: In the following case, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the
Attorney for the Board.)
A. Case #2012 -08: Daman Keath Sharp,
d/b /a "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc."
Chairman Horn noted Mr. Sharp was not present at the Hearing.
June 20, 2012
Chairman Horn outlined the general process of the Public Hearing:
• The County will present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and,
in general terms, how it 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, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, introduce Exhibits,
cross - examine witnesses to impeach any witness regardless of which party
called the witness to testify, and 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:
• Whether the Respondent was guilty of the offense(s) charged in the
Administrative Complaint, and a vote will be taken on the matter.
• If the Respondent was 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.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve entering the packet for Case No. 2012 -08,
Board of County Commissioners vs. Damon Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and
Decking, Inc., "License # C.C. #23844, into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Carried unanimously, 8 — 0.
Chairman Horn entered the information packet into evidence, marked as
County's Exhibit `B."
Attorney Morey referred to Page 2 of the Administrative Complaint and noted the
reference to the Florida's Workers' Compensation Statute 440.10(1)(a) was correct.
Compensation Insurance" and not simply "compensation."
June 20, 2012
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to approve including the clarification, "Workers'
Compensation Insurance, " in the information packet as admitted. Second by
Terry Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 8 — 0.
In response to Chairman Horn's question concerning proper notification, Mr. Jackson
referred to Exhibit E -12, "Notice of Hearing," mailed on May 22, 2012, and to Exhibit
E -13, "Certified Mail return receipt," signed by Jeanette Sharp on May 31, 2012, as
proof of proper service upon the Respondent, Daman Keath Sharp.
He further stated Mr. Sharp obtained a copy of the Evidence Packet on June 13, 2012
at the County's Horseshoe Drive office.
Patrick White asked if Mr. Sharp had notified Mr. Jackson that he would not attend
the Hearing, or if he had requested a Continuance in the matter.
Mr. Jackson replied the Respondent had not contacted him.
Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, presented the County's Opening
Statement:
• The County will show through sworn testimony and documented facts that
Daman Sharp, "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.," violated Collier County
Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, as follows:
o Section 22- 201(2): "Contracting to do any work outside of the
scope of his competency " by contracting for the construction of
a paving driveway which is not included within the scope of a
of a Registered Residential Swimming Pool Contractor;
o Section 22- 201(6): "Disregards or violates, in the performance
of his contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety,
health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation Laws of the State, "
by not providing Workers' Compensation Insurance coverage to his
employees, pursuant to Florida Statutes 440.10(1)(a);
o Section 22- 201(10): "Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship"
in relation to the paving block driveway.
Mr. Jackson presented the County's "Case in Chief. "
Direct Examination of Complainant, David Clark, by Ian Jackson:
Q. Are the payments shown on Exhibit E -15 the payments made to Daman Sharp
of Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.? (Total Amount: $45,000)
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Is Exhibit E -17 the bid proposal that initiated construction of your paving block
driveway?
A. It is, yes. (The document is an e -mail from Sharp Pools/Decking to David Clark;
and the price for paver block driveway: $49,019.70)
June 20, 2012
Mr. Clark stated he lives in the United Kingdom and all communication between
Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc., and himself was via e -mails and phone calls. He stated
he did not receive a copy of the signed "contract" nor did he receive a receipt for his
tax return.
Ian Jackson referred to Exhibit E -34, Florida Statues, Chapter 489.105(6),
"Contracting," for the definition of a Contract: "The attempted sale of contracting
services and the negotiation or bid for a contract on these services also constitutes
contracting. "
He continued the bid provided at $49,019.70 constitutes a contract.
Patrick White stated the email was an offer and Mr. Clark testified that he
accepted the offer and made payment on it, which is the consideration which made
it a contract.
Chairman Horn noted there was an offer and consideration.
Q. Were the photos on Exhibits E -24 and E -25 taken of the construction at
your property?
A. They were. But they were not taken by myself.
Q. Regarding Exhibit E -26, is this an email correspondence between yourself
and your Leasing Agent indicating that workers other than Daman Sharp were
performing construction on the pool and driveway?
A. Yes, that's correct. To elaborate, the Agent went `round to check on the property
for me — nothing to do with the work — she found the kitchen had been used, the
toilets were rather disgusting to put it mildly. I trusted Daman with the entrance
codes and, as it turned out, he had given that to the workers who were actually
using and abusing the place. Consequently, she took the pictures of those workers
and forwarded it to me in the UK to explain the situation."
Chairman Horn asked Mr. Clark how the Respondent represented himself during
their conversations — if he stated he could other jobs such as the driveways in
addition to the pool and decking. How did he go from being a pool contractor to a
driveway contractor?
Mr. Clark replied he was not familiar with Collier County's rules and regulations.
He stated one of the reasons why the job was delayed so much was because Daman
Sharp stated he was studying for his full Building Contractor's [General Contractor]
license, and he indicated he was also qualified to do driveway construction.
Mr. Clark further stated he would not have agreed to allow Daman Sharp to do the
driveway work if he had not been assured that Mr. Sharp was qualified.
David Clark: "I, personally, am an engineer and I was told, consequently, of how he
would fulfill that work which is, clearly, not the case."
He continued, "Most of the conversations were done by phone because, quite frankly,
trying to get Daman to write anything was extremely difficult."
June 20, 2012
Direct Examination by the County was concluded.
Questions from the Board:
Patrick White asked Mr. Clark if he was present when the photographs (E -24 and
E -25) were taken.
A. Not when these photographs were taken. I subsequently, when I came back,
I did see the said workers.
Q. Is it your opinion that these photographs, on the date they were taken, accurately
reflect the condition of the property at that time?
A. Yes, it is.
David Clark: "The only thing I would like to state is — you know, I know Ian, as
well, has given Daman every opportunity — I don't want to see anybody in the
particular work environment, as it is today, lose their ability to work. But I do —
obviously, this has caused me a great inconvenience and considerable cost because
there are other problems as well — but the simple fact of the matter is that I do feel
until things are corrected that he doesn't have the right to do further work."
He further stated, "Daman has been given every opportunity to meet and to resolve
these issues."
Chairman Horn stated Mr. Clark's comments were relevant.
Terry Jerulle asked if the work had been resolved.
David Clark: "Not only is it not resolved, I am having to resolve issues also with
the pool and many other things which I'm doing myself at my own cost, and that's
one of the reasons I'm back here is to resolve these issues because they can't be left."
Vice Chairman Joslin asked if the work on the pool had been done and completed
to Mr. Clark's satisfaction and if it had been C /O'd [received a Certificate of
Occupancy].
Mr. Clark stated it was not done and he didn't have time to add it to the complaint.
Michael Ossorio cautioned the Board to avoid confusion with another case to be
heard at another time.
Chairman Horn stated he did not want to get into the second case. He further stated
the Board had not been aware of a potential second case on the project.
Chairman Horn thanked Mr. Clark for his time and testimony, and he was excused.
GilbertAnuez, Jr., Collier County licensed Paving Block Contractor and qualifying
agent for "Accurate Pavers" was called to the stand!
Direct Examination of Mr. Anuez by Ian Jackson:
Q. How many years' experience do you have in paving block construction?
A. Twelve years.
7
June 20, 2012
Q. And how long have you been licensed and a qualifier for "Accurate Pavers ?"
A. Ten years.
Ian Jackson asked the Board for a motion to consider Mr. Anuez as an expert witness
in paving block construction.
Terry Jerulle stated he knows Mr. Anuez and is a subcontractor whom he has hired.
He did not think his relationship with Mr. Anuez would have any bearing on the
outcome of the case - he would not be swayed by the testimony. He confirmed that
Mr. Anuez is an expert at paving block construction.
Chairman Horn asked the Board's Counsel if he had an objection to Mr. Jerulle's
further participation.
Attorney Morey stated he did not because Mr. Anuez was not the Respondent in
the case and was appearing as an expert witness, Mr. Jerulle's prior relationship
would not have any bearing on the case since Mr. Anuez will be providing extraneous
information.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he wanted to question Mr. Anuez before he could
accept him as an "expert." [Vice Chairman Joslin is a licensed Pool Contractor.]
Q. A pool contractor has been hired to install a pool but has not been hired to do
the pool deck. You have been hired by the General Contractor or the homeowner
to do the pool deck portion of a contact.
Do you pull a Permit to put in the pool deck?
A. I do not.
Q. Who pours the footers for the pool deck?
A. The pool contractor or the General Contractor. I'm not licensed to do footers.
Q. Is it your responsibility to go in and compact that pool deck if it's been dug out and
a brand new pool has been put it — and the direct has been removed seven feet
down? And do you put in a lift or is that the pool contractor also?
A. We do. We poke around the pool and we compact. (He explained the compacting
process in detail concerning the equipment used, etc.)
We do not install the backfilling. It is seven feet down. We weren't there to do
any kind of lifting. You should be doing lifts on a pool every three inches. A pool
should be backfilled probed and compacted every three inches to get the proper lift
and compaction. Unfortunately, we're not there to do that.
When we come in to do a pool deck, we probe around the pool coping with water
jetting and we compact what we can of the upper three to four inches. If it's very
silt -y sand and you can't get the proper compaction, then we discuss about
bringing in a sub -base to harden the surface for what we need to lay our pavers on.
Q. Is your compaction test done so you know you don't have compaction?
A. On a roadway, you do need the 97% proper density. On a pool deck, there are no
guidelines — we do our own field testing as the Subcontractor.
8
June 20, 2012
Q. After six months of sitting on a pool deck and all of a sudden the paver deck
starts to settle, if you had done your job, whose fault would it be?
A. Of course — that always goes to the guy who installs the deck. Unfortunately,
it's not the paver guy.
I am very involved with the ICPI — [The Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute,
founded in 1993, is the North American trade association that represents the interlocking
concrete paving industry] — they developed the standards used for the installation of
pavers. It's basically the fault of the pool contractor who did the backfilling and
the compacting and the lifts of it.
But it's always put on the paver guy — in good faith, I usually go back and fix the
problems for the contractor just to maintain standards.
Q. So, in your opinion, do you think that there should be an inspection required for a
pool deck before the pavers go on — or at least a compaction test?
We're not talking about a driveway because driveways aren't generally dug out
to be seven foot deep and a pool is. It should be done — a compaction test —
I feel.
I've been in situations before where that's happened, and naturally the pool
contractor has to pay to have the deck removed and a new paver deck put down
because the pool contractor didn't wash it in or compact it correctly and the then
paver doesn't want to do it either — and it becomes like a "Catch 22."
A. Exactly.
Q. Are you in agreement with that?
A. As it is relative to building a pool, yes.
Q. The new codes — as far as the Statutes go — there is a new code that says you have
to have a Number 8 ground wire all the way around the pool if it's a paver deck.
Who does that?
A. The pool contractor. I don't do any bonding. It's not in my scope of licensing. I
guess that would be in the structure of forming the pool. We don't connect any
handrails — we don't do any of that.
Q. No, I understand that,
A. That has nothing to do with the paver installer.
Patrick White directed a question to Ian Jackson:
Q. Is it the intention for the gentleman to only speak to the driveway portion of the
compaction? And other issues regarding the paver blocks that were installed and
not anything around the pool? Which things is he going to talk about?
A. The intent of the County with Mr. Anuez is for him to comment/explain his
inspection and assessment of the construction of the driveway.
Q. And not the pool area?
A. No.
0
June 20, 2012
Vice Chairman Joslin stated it was the same principle and applied to the pool deck
as well.
Q. Does a driveway, that's permitted, have to have a compaction test done on it also?
A. Not in Collier County.
Vice Chairman Joslin: "Not in Collier County. That was my point."
He continued questioning Mr. Anuez:
Q. So there is no way for you to know, 100 %, if that driveway was compacted or not?
Unless you do it yourself or get a compaction test done?
A. Correct.
Chairman Horn:
Q. Your licenses with Collier County and the State — what are they in currently?
A. Paver Block.
Chairman Horn called for a motion.
Patrick White moved to accept Mr. Anuez as an expert in the area of paver block
installation and contracting. Second by Terry Jerulle.
Carried unanimously, 8 — 0.
Direct Examination of Mr. Anuez by Ian Jackson (Continued):
Q. On October 31, 2011, did you perform an inspection and assessment of the
driveway constructed at Mr. Clark's property with myself and Mr. Clark?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Could you describe the generally accepted Standard in Collier County regarding
the construction of the paver block driveway — specifically, in relation to the
Standard of base rock?
A. The Standard is — you to go and get a Right -of -Way Permit to do work in the right -
of -way — it provides six inches of base — compacted base rock. There's not
regulated, compacted test or inspection done here. But the Industry Standard is
four inches of compacted base rock for the driveway after the right -of -way.
Q. Four inches is the Industry's Standard. And the County's Right -of -Way
requirement is six inches?
A. Correct.
Q. If we could look at Exhibit E -30. Mr. Anuez, could you go over your assessment
shown here on E -30 regarding the driveway construction of Mr. Clark's for the
Board?
A. As we spoke earlier, I was invited to Mr. Clark's address at 258 Kendari Drive
10
June 20, 2012
and as we went walking over the driveway, I lifted up several — three areas in
different sections of the driveway — and dug down and there was approximately
an inch of bedding sand that was just for the pavers to be level and we did not
find any base rock or sub -base —just natural soil.
Q. The four -inch Industry Standard of base rock did not exist on Mr. Clark's
driveway?
A. Correct.
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. So, in your opinion, this was done improperly according to Standards?
A. Correct.
Patrick White:
Q. What would be the proper way to fix this?
A. To remove all the pavers, stack them, come back and excavate eight inches of soil
— dirt — remove it — re- install four inches of compacted base, compact it, install
your bedding sand, your pavers, and your concrete for extra strength, and then
finish up with a final compaction.
Q. Is that process essentially what you provided as an estimate on Page E -32?
A. It is.
Chairman Horn:
Q. That applied to the entire driveway? There were no sections that were exceptions
that were done properly and didn't need to be re -done?
A. Not that I could find.
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. How many areas did you check?
A. I would say between three and five. I'd say three as a low number and I checked
in various locations. I think there were more, but we'll just go with three.
Chairman Horn:
Q. Have you already finished this job for the homeowner?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Once you re -did it and things shifted as you went down a little deeper, was there
any need to purchase new materials or to add to it — to this estimate — or did
everything work out?
A. By new materials, do you mean the proper base rock?
Q. Yes. But I was thinking of the pavers.
A. We were going to purchase more brick pavers because as you lift them you lose —
so you would try to match the brick pavers.
11
June 20, 2012
Q. So you don't foresee any future additional costs, then, on top of this?
A. No.
Direct Examination by the County was concluded.
Ian Jackson requested the Board to review Exhibit E -33. i.e., a "Notice of Order
to Correct" which was issued to Mr. Sharp and was signed for by Jeanette Sharp
at the Horseshoe Office on January 24, 2012, explaining the steps that would be
required to have the faulty work promptly corrected per the Code. He noted the
steps have not been taken and the Respondent has had from January 24th to
June 20th to correct the condition.
Chairman Horn noted Jeanette Sharp was the same person who signed for the
information packet.
Patrick White asked if the nature of relationship between the Respondent and
Jeanette Sharp was known.
Ian Jackson stated Mr. Sharp indicated his wife would pick up the Notice from the
County's Horseshoe office.
Michael Ossorio stated he was present when Jeanette Sharp came in and signed for
the copy of the Notice. She stated she was Daman Sharp's wife.
Vice ChairmanJoslin directed his question to Ian Jackson:
Q. On Pages E -7 and E -8, there is a timeline that you had written as part of the
investigation. Does that accurately express the amount of times that you
contacted Mr. Sharp?
A. The notations on E -7 and E -8, I will testify that they do not accurately depict
the correspondence that I had — there's far more correspondence than what is
indicated here.
Q. Is it the minimum amount of time, then?
A. At a very minimum.
Patrick White:
Q. But what's there is accurate?
A. What is there is accurate. The language in those documents is accurate.
Ian Jackson: "I would also like to point out between the issuance of the "Notice
of Order to Correct" on January 24, 2012 and approximately April 9th , I had
extensive correspondence via telephone with Mr. Sharp explaining the process
that would be required and arranging for a new Contractor to come in and provide
the County with documentation on how to correct the driveway, coordinating with
Mr. Clark the homeowner — possibly twice a week — I would touch base with Mr.
Sharp and try to make sure that he knew what he was required to do."
Jon Walker asked if Mr. Sharp was cooperative and if he wanted to resolve the
issue.
Ian Jackson confirmed the Respondent showed an interest in correcting the
driveway. Since he was not licensed to do the work, the County was not in a
12
June 20, 2012
position to allow him to correct it. That's why an arrangement was made with a
licensed Contractor.
One option mentioned was for Mr. Sharp to work as an employee of a licensed
General Contractor or Paving Contractor who would do the work on the driveway.
The responsibility for the reconstruction would fall upon the General Contractor.
Michael Ossorio explained the General Contractor or Paving Block Contractor
who have a signed contract at no cost to Mr. Clark. He stated Mr. Sharp was very
aware and that he communicated with him several times. He further stated Damon
Sharp wanted to do the work but did not have any money.
Ian Jackson confirmed the telephone conversation during which Mr. Sharp admitted
he was not in a fmancial position to correct the faulty workmanship took place on
April 9".
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. In the contracted amount for the driveway — was that am t of money paid in
full to Mr. Sharp? l
A. Exhibit E -15 shows the payments made by Mr. Clark o Mr. Sharp.
David Clark was recalled to the stand
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. Mr. Clark, all the monies that have been paid by you paid for all the work that
was done on your property under contract — including the pool, the driveway —
everything was included in the monies that you have paid so far?
A. Correct.
Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Jackson to review the three Counts contained in the
Administrative Complaint and to provide all the evidence and/or documentation
with regard to each Count individually.
Ian Jackson:
Count 1: "Contracting to do any work outside the scope of his competency as
listed on his competency card and as defined by this Article or as restricted by
the Contractors ' Licensing Board. "
o Evidence:
• Exhibit E -17 — the emailed bid/proposal for the construction of the
driveway;
• Exhibit E -34 — Florida Statues, Chapter 489.105(6), "Contracting:"
"The attempted sale of contracting services and the negotiation or
bid for a contract on these services also constitutes contracting. "
Thomas Lykos asked if the Respondent's license was as a "Registered Residential
Swimming Pool Contractor" and, based on the documents provided in Exhibit E -19,
13
June 20, 2012
the construction of a paver block driveway was not included in the Scope of Work
allowed for a Residential Swimming Pool Contractor (Ordinance 06 -46, Section
1.6.2.8).
Ian Jackson: "Correct."
Michael Ossorio referenced Exhibit E -10, "Certificate Detail Report," which is
Mr. Sharp's actual License, his "d/b /a," and his Competency Card (Certificate of
Competency) stating he is a Registered Residential Swimming Pool Contractor.
Patrick White asked if the purpose of Exhibit E -20 was to indicate the Scope of
Work that was performed, relative to the paving blocks in the driveway, and that
the proper type of Contractor to perform this type of work would have been a
Paving Block Contractor (under Section 1.6.3.29).
Ian Jackson: "Correct."
Count 2: "Disregards or violates, in the performance of his contracting
business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance or
Workers' Compensation Laws of the State or Ordinances of this County. "
[Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 20](6)]
o Evidence:
■ Exhibits E -24 and E -25 — photographs of the workers
Ian Jackson stated Mr. Sharp was unable to provide payroll records showing
that there was coverage for the employees and he subsequently acknowledged
the fact that he was not providing coverage to them.
Patrick White noted Exhibit E -10 indicated a Workers Compensation Insurance
exemption was claimed for Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc. He asked if the only
person who could be considered "exempt" was Mr. Sharp.
Ian Jackson: "Correct."
Patrick White stated the photographs showed other employees of the Corporation.
Exhibit E -27 is a document from the State's Department of Financial Services and it
showed, as of June 11, 2012, there was no history of coverage.
Ian Jackson: "No coverage history — correct."
Mr. White noted Exhibit E -10, a County document, did not contain any information
concerning the expiration date of any insurance coverage. He stated his comment
about not filing an Annual Report was to indicate that the Corporation would probably
be administratively dissolved by the Department of State's Division of Corporations.
He further stated there was only one director or officer who could fall under the
Statutory exemptions allowed was Mr. Sharp as the only employee and only officer.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. On the Division of Finance page, if his employees were leased, would his company
be listed or would the leasing company be listed?
A. The leasing company and the insurance company who provided coverage to the
leasing company would be listed there. But there are circumstances where that
will not show up on the State's website."
14
June 20, 2012
Mr. Jackson stated it was his understand that a leasing company is not required to
provide the information to the State for inclusion on the website.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. Did he ever mention that he hired subcontractors? Could those employees be the
employees of a subcontractor?
A. In the meeting at Horseshoe Drive with Mr. Sharp, Michael Ossorio and myself,
we touched on subcontractors and Mr. Sharp indicated they were not
subcontractors — they did not work for a subcontractor — he initially said that they
were "day laborers." We asked Mr. Sharp to provide documentation or certificates
from the day labor organization but he was unable to provide those. Ultimately, he
acknowledged he did not have coverage for those employees.
Q. In your experience, are day labor companies pretty good about keeping records?
A. The day labor organizations keep their own records and also provide Contractors
with individual certificates for their day -labor workers. There is a record.
Patrick White:
Q. Is your testimony that you requested those [records] and were told that none
existed because those were his employees?
A. Mr. Sharp was unable to provide the County any documentation to show that there
was either daily coverage or coverage through a leasing company or a blanket -type
of insurance policy covering those employees. Mr. Sharp, in acknowledging not
having the coverage, took responsibility for them as his employees.
Chairman Horn:
Q. Did he tell you how he compensated them — cash or check?
A. No.
Ian Jackson continued:
Count 3: "Failing to promptly correct faulty workmanship or promptly replace
faulty materials installed contrary to the provisions of the construction contract.
Faulty workmanship means work that is not commenced, not continued, or not
completed in accordance with all specifications ofthe applicable written
agreement. Faulty workmanship includes any material flaws) in the quality
and/or quantity of the unfinished work product, including any item that does not
function properly as part of the entire project. If there is no written agreement
provision regarding the specific faulty workmanship issue, faulty workmanship
exists if the work process, product or part thereof does not meet generally
accepted standards in Collier County in relation to the entire project. Faulty
workmanship does not include matters of aesthetics unless the aesthetically
related item clearly violates a written contract specification directly related
thereto. "
[Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, Section 22- 20](10)]
o Evidence:
15
June 20, 2012
■ Sworn testimony from Mr. Gil Anuez, an expert witness, that the
construction of the driveway did not meet the generally accepted
Standards for that type of construction in Collier County
Patrick White stated he did not remember Mr. Anuez making a specific summary
statement. He suggested Mr. Anuez could clarify his expert opinion.
Gilbert Anuez was recalled to the stand.
Patrick White:
Q. Mr. Anuez, is it your expert opinion as a paving contractor that the work you
inspected on the subject site does not meet the generally accepted Standards in
Collier County for that type of work?
A. Correct.
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. When you arrived at the home to do the inspection, was the work totally, 100%
completed?
A. It was completed. Yes.
Q. When you arrived there, what defects or flaws did you see on your own? Or were
you advised to remove the pavers and check the substrate?
A. There were depressions in the driveway.
Q. It had already begun to sink?
A. Yes.
Chairman Horn stated Mr. Jackson had thoroughly shown evidence on all three
Counts.
Michael Ossorio noted, as stated in Exhibit E -33, the Code is very specific about
"failing." He stated it was not enough to perform faulty work — it was also failing to
correct it. He further stated Mr. Sharp was given Notice that he needed to correct.
He failed to correct and that was the basis for the Hearing.
Vice Chairman Joslin:
Q. Mr. Clark, what was the reason to begin with — in the very beginning — of why
the driveway pavers — the original pavers — were taken up, redone, and then put
back down?
A. Where the garage was installed — basically, there was an original drive for the
garage — this was an extension of that area to the edge of the where the pool screen
and pool deck were.
Q. This was a brand new add -on to an existing installation?
A. Yes.
Terry Jerulle:
16
June 20, 2012
Q. Just to verify, Mr. Clark, you testified that you did hire Daman Sharp, Sharp Pools
& Decking, Inc., to do the driveway?
A. Initially, to do the pool. Then he offered to do the driveway.
Q. You hired him to do the new pavers in the driveway?
A. Correct.
Q. And you paid him to do the pavers in the driveway?
A. I most definitely did.
Ian Jackson stated his Closing Statement was to be offered in support the three
Counts which was done.
Ian Jackson concluded the County's presentation and its case.
Vice Chairman Joslin moved to close the Public Hearing. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Carried unanimously, 8 — 0.
Discussion:
Patrick White questioned what the Respondent may have done in his own defense.
He asked if anyone in the County had been asked to provide a defense packet on
behalf of the Respondent.
Ian Jackson spoke with Mr. Sharp on Tuesday, June 12'', and advised him that the
packet to be distributed to the Board would be ready for distribution on June 13th.
He stated Mr. Sharp was advised that if he had a defense packet, he was to bring it
with him to the County's office at Horseshoe Drive the next day when he picked up
his copy of the County's packet.
Mr. Jackson further stated Mr. Sharp was aware of the fact that he had the option to
provide a defense packet.
Mr. White asked if anything had been provided.
Mr. Jackson responded that none had been provided.
Chairman Horn called for a motion.
Thomas I.ykoc moved to approve finding the Respondent guilty on all three Counts.
Second by Jon TValker.
Attorney Morey reminded the Board that he had not read the Charge to the Board and
outline the Charge as follows:
• 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 do not apply.
• The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its
deliberation of this matter.
17
June 20, 2012
• 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, in and of 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 ordinary 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 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.
Chairman Horn noted a Motion was on the floor and he called for a vote.
Motion carried unanimously, 8 — 0. The Respondent was found guilty.
Chairman Horn asked Mr. Morey to present possible Sanctions.
Attorney Morey stated if, after a Hearing has been conducted, the Contractors'
Licensing Board finds there has been misconduct by the Contractor within the
meaning of Section 22 -201, the Board may, but shall not be required to, impose
any of the following Disciplinary Sanctions individually, or in combination:
(1) Revocation of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
(2) Suspension of a Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency,
(3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of a Collier County (or City)
Certificate of Competency,
(4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed
two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be
18
June 20, 2012
under the supervision of the Contractor's Licensing Board, and/or
participation in a duly- accredited program of continuing education directly
related to the Contractor's contracting activity. Any period of probation
or continuing education program ordered by the Contractors' Licensing
Board may be revoked for cause by said Board at a Hearing noticed to
consider said purpose.
The Board may order:
(5) Restitution;
(6) a Fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000);
(7) A public reprimand;
(8) Re- examination requirement;
(9) Denial of the issuance of Collier County (or City) Building permits
or requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions;
(10) Reasonable investigative and legal costs for the prosecution of the
violation.
Attorney Morey further advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible
Disciplinary Sanctions on a Contractor holding a Certificate of Competency or a
State - certified Contractor who has been found to have violated the Ordinance, the
Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following:
(1) All of the evidence presented at the Hearing;
(2) The gravity of the violation;
(3) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare;
(4) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s);
(5) Any previous violations committed by the violator, 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(s) or the violator.
Chairman Horn posed the following questions to the County:
1. Did the gentleman have any prior complaints?
2. Were there any outstanding Permits?
3. What sanctions does the County recommend?
Michael Ossorio stated:
• The County did not have an on -going investigation of Sharp Pools and
Decking, Inc.,
• There were no pending cases concerning Mr. Sharp;
• There were no previous cases or violations concerning Mr. Sharp other than
some issues with expired Building Permits (not closed out properly);
• There are no active Building Permits that he is working on but there may be
some expired Building Permits that have not yet been found.
Mr. Ossorio stated the County incurred investigative costs of $1,024.00 (Ian
Jackson's time = 32 hours x $32.00).
19
June 20, 2012
County's Recommendations:
• Count I — Working Outside the Scope:
o Imposition of a Fine of $1,500 to be paid within thirty (30) days;
o A recommendation to the State of Florida to conduct a full
investigation;
o Probation for a period of two years; and
o Payment of investigation costs: $341.33
Count 2:
• Imposition of a Fine of $1,500 to be paid within thirty (30) days;
• Re -take and pass the Business Procedures Test within six (6) months;
• Payment of investigation costs: $341.33;
• A recommendation to the State of Florida to conduct a full
investigation; and
• Probation for a period of two years.
Count 3:
• An Order of Restitution requiring paying to the homeowner in the
amount of $4,202 within thirty (30) days;
• Payment of investigative costs: $341.33;
• A recommendation to the State of Florida to conduct a full
investigation; and
• Probation for a period of two years.
Jon Walker asked if the figure of restitution was based on the estimate for repairs by
"Accurate Pavers" and Mr. Ossorio responded, "Yes."
Mr. Ossorio further recommended revocation of the Respondent's license:
• If payment is not made, on all three Counts, within thirty (30) days, and
• If the Respondent has not taken and passed the Business Procedures Test
within six months (in Count 2).
Michael Ossorio will write to the State requesting a full investigation and revocation
of the Respondent's license, if necessary, as well as the imposition of probation.
Thomas Lykos agreed with the County's recommendation except for Count 2. He
stated the amount of the fine was not sufficient — it was not a significant enough
deterrent. He stated the Contractor had placed the workers and the homeowner at
great risk by not providing Workers' Compensation Insurance Coverage.
Mr. Ossorio responded the recommendation and the amounts were the same as were
handed down to a painting contractor during a previous Board Hearing — the only
difference was that the painting contractor was permitted six weeks for repayment.
(See: April 18, 2012 Minutes - Case #2012 -06: Walter Paesano, d/b /a Paesano's Painting, LLQ
Mr. Lykos stated he did not agree with that decision, either.
20
June 20, 2012
Chairman Horn stated the total amount of money was over $8,000 which he did not
think the Respondent would be able to pay. He stated an additional fine, even though
it may be warranted, would probably be useless.
When asked about other options available to Mr. Clark, Michael Ossorio stated he
could pursue the matter in Civil court using the Findings of Fact of the Hearing as a
basis for bringing suit, but it was the intention of the Contractors' Licensing Office for
the Respondent to adhere to whatever decision the Board made.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Respondent did not file an Annual Report for his
Corporation and did not attend the Hearing which he thought indicated the Respondent
would probably not cooperate with any decision of the Board. He further stated if
the Respondent cared about his business and reputation, he would have attended the
Hearing to "face the music." He stated he did not think it would matter whether or
not the Board revoked the Respondent's license at the Hearing or in the future.
Mr. Ossorio outlined the process:
• In 30 days, the Board's Chairman will sign an Order to pay which will be
attached to the Finding of Fact;
• There will be a consultation with either the Board's attorney or the County
Attorney's Office to determine the best avenue to take.
He explained the State of Florida will impose a find for full restitution with penalties
including revocation of the Certificate in the State of Florida. The revocation usually
contains a caveat that the Respondent cannot obtain a license again until such time as
full restitution has been made.
He stated it may take up to two years to make full restitution, but typically it is made
and cited a recent case that had been before the Board to restore a license.
Mr. Lykos stated the Board should not decide to impose a fine based upon the
Respondent's ability to pay it. He continued if the Board was to make a "statement"
concerning the penalty for operating in Collier County without having Worker's
Compensation Insurance coverage, the ability to pay a fine should not be relevant.
Patrick White stated while he understood Mr. Lykos' argument, he also considered
the other factors that the Board was required to weigh — i.e., the gravity of the
violation and/or the risk involved as well as the impact of the Respondent's action.
He noted no testimony concerning any type of injury was presented. He continued
nothing else was presented to indicate imposing a more severe penalty than has been
imposed in the past for a similar violation.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted the most important responsibility of the Board is to
ensure that Mr. Clark is made "whole" again by completing the repairs to his driveway
in the proper manner.
Kyle Lantz stated the purpose of the fines is to deter the Respondent from repeating
this behavior and to prevent another Contractor from committing the same violation to
another homeowner. The Board has the ability to make determinations on a case -by-
case basis. There is no set formula for determining fines.
Mr. Lykos stated the fine should be at least $2,500. He stated a Contractor who
makes a conscious decision to not obtain Workers' Compensation Insurance weighs
21
June 20, 2012
the cost to obtain the insurance coverage versus the risk of being caught and having to
pay a fine.
He continued the Contractor made a business decision. If, for example, the insurance
coverage costs $30,000 to obtain and the Board hands out fines of $1,500 for operating
without having the insurance — it is a "no brainer" decision to make, regardless of
whether or not it is an ethical business decision. If the fines are severe, a Contractor
will think twice before placing his employees and the homeowner at risk.
Vice Chairman Joslin concurred, stating there was no reason to take such a
chance — the cost to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance coverage is
approximately 16% of the dollar value of the Contractor's payroll.
He further noted if the Respondent pays the amount of $4,202 within thirty days, he
will not lose his license, especially if he is able to obtain an extension to pay the
remaining fines. He will be able to operate because Mr. Clark has been made whole.
Michael Ossorio explained as long as Mr. Sharp makes restitution to the homeowner
of the $4,202 within thirty days, he could petition the Board for relief concerning
payment of the other fines.
David Clark: "The point I would like to make — on a Saturday morning, these
workers came back with their families — I was woken up at 8:00 in the morning —
and basically found their children running around a pool with no water in it. So
what Mr. Lykos was saying about "injury" obviously was of great concern. Having
said that, Mr. Sharp's personal circumstances — having spoken with the screening
company who came back to do some repairs of their own — apparently, he has not
worked on a pool since so I gather that his business finances, presumably, are not
great."
He asked if there was another way besides fining and inquired if the Board could
order the Respondent to perform community service of some type. He further stated
he knew he was not "going to see" the $4,202.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Clark if he had received any paperwork from
other contractors or subcontractors about liens being placed against his property.
Mr. Clark stated the screening company assured him verbally that there would be
no lien against the property because they had been paid. He further stated as far as
he could determine, the cost for materials had been paid.
There was further discussion about prioritizing payment to the homeowner and
for the County to extend the deadline for payment of its costs from thirty days to
six months. It was noted the Board had the discretion to make such changes.
Mr. Ossorio confirmed the County would not object to such an extension of time
for repayment.
Discussion continued concerning the points to be considered:
• The gravity of the violation;
• The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare;
• Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); and
• Any previous violations committed by the violator.
22
June 20, 2012
Thomas Lykos conceded that the issue of liability insurance was no longer "on
the table." He stated the evidence presented concerning the abuse of the property,
the fact that the employees were not monitored, and that their families were on
site were indicative of the Respondent's apathy toward professionalism and the
careless method in which he operated his job sites. He continued the information
supported his position that the fine for not securing Workers' Compensation
Insurance coverage should be much higher as a deterrent.
Mr. White stated while he supported Mr. Lykos' position, he stated the Board's
goal should be to provide some restitution to the homeowner. He suggested extending
the time frames for Counts 1 and 2, and for payment of the investigative costs.
Mr. Lykos agreed with higher fines and an extended time period for re- payment in
deference to first making restitution to the homeowner.
Kyle Lantz asked why a fine was not imposed for County 3.
Terry Jerulle pointed out the Board had the ability to modify the County's
recommendations.
Discussion continued.
Jon Walker suggested raising the amount of restitution by $500 to compensate the
Homeowner for the additional cleanup that he was forced to do.
Attorney Morey reminded the Board that no testimony had been presented
concerning additional costs incurred by the homeowner.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated the homeowner, by giving his codes to the Contractor,
allowed for such abuse to his property to take place and became liable.
Mr. Walker stated the Board should prioritize restitution to the homeowner as the
first payment to be made by the Respondent.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve order the Respondent to:
• Make restitution of $4,202 with in thirty days and if not made within that
timeframe, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked;
• Pay a fine of $4,000 within 90 days and if the fine is not paid within the time
frame, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked;
• Pay costs of $1,024 within 60 days and if the fine is not paid within the time
frame, the Respondent's license will be automatically revoked;
• Take and pass the Business Procedures Test within 90 days, if the test is not
taken within the time frame, the Respondent's license will be automatically
revoked
Mr. Lantz continued his Motion:
The Board will send a recommendation to the State for the maximum
punishment deemed appropriate.
Patrick White suggested amending the motion to include each Count separately.
The option of adding a two -year probationary period was also suggested.
Attorney Morey stated the County did recommend a two -year probationary period.
Kyle Lantz amended his Motion to add approving a two year probationary period
23
June 20, 2012
Michael Ossorio began to summary by Count but was corrected by Mr. Lantz who
stated the total amount of fines in his Motion was $4,000 which divided by three was
$1,333.33 per Count.
Mr. Lantz further stated the reimbursement to the homeowner was $4,202, and the
total cost to the County was $1,024. The fines of $4,000 are to be paid within 90 days
and the restitution was to be paid within 30 days.
Kyle Lantz clarified his Motion as follows:
• At 30 days, the restitution is to be paid; if not paid by the deadline, the
Respondent's license will be revoked;
• At 60 days, the County's investigative costs are to be paid; if not paid by
the deadline, the Respondent's license will be revoked,
• At 90 days, the fines of $4,000 are to be paid; if not paid by the deadline,
the Respondent's license will be revoked
• At 90 days, the Respondent is to have taken and passed the Business
Procedures Test or his license will be revoked;
• A probationary period of two years, and
• A recommendation to the State to conduct a full investigation and impose
whatever penalties are determined to be appropriate.
Mr. White confirmed that even if the Respondent met the other terms by the
deadlines, he will still be under probation for two years.
Patrick White offered a second in support of the Motion, as restated and clarified
David Clark stated with respect to the issue of restitution, if Mr. Sharp entered into
an agreement which stipulated he could only afford to pay "X" amount of money for
a year or two years, he would not object.
Chairman Horn stated the goal was for the Respondent to make restitution. He
further stated Mr. Sharp could present such an agreement to the Board and the terms
of the Order could be amended to reflect the agreement.
Mr. Clark clarified when he gave Mr. Sharp the access codes to his property, it was
only for Daman Sharp's use to store is equipment in the garage — the codes were
absolutely not to be given to anyone. Mr. Clark continued he was not aware that Mr.
Sharp's workers had access to his home.
Chairman Horn restated the terms of Mr. Lantz's motion and then called for a vote.
Motion carried, 7— "Yes 71— "No." Michael Boyd was opposed
Mr. Boyd asked if the Respondent was still able to pull Permits.
Attorney Morey clarified that the Respondent's probation began immediately and his
actions will be supervised by the Contractors' Licensing Office.
Mr. Ossorio explained the Building Department would "red flag" any permit
application submitted by the Respondent and would notify him. He stated he would
also inform the homeowner of the status of the Respondent's license.
24
June 20, 2012
Chairman Horn stated:
• This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing
Board on June 20, 2012 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint
in Case #2012 -08 filed against Daman Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and
Decking, Inc.," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate #23844.
• 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
issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows.
Findings of Fact:
• Daman Keath Sharp, d/b /a "Sharp Pools and Decking, Inc.," is the holder of
record of Collier County Certificate #23844.
• 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, Daman Keath Sharp, was not present at the Public Hearing held
on June 20, 2012, and was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing.
• The Respondent had been properly noticed concerning the Hearing.
• All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, had
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 of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint are as follows:
• Count 1, under Section 22- 201(2): "Contracting to do any work
outside the scope of his competency as listed on his competency
card and as defined by this Article or as restricted by the
Contractors' Licensing Board; "
• Count 2, under Section 22- 201(6): "Disregards or violates, in
the performance of his contracting business in the County, any of
the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation
Laws of the State or Ordinances of this County; "
• Count 3, under Section 22- 201(10): "Failing to promptly correct
faulty workmanship or promptly replace faulty materials installed
contrary to the provisions of the construction contract, "
have been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing
Conclusions of Law:
• The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint
as to Count 1, Count 2, and Count 3 have been approved, adopted and
incorporated herein, to wit:
"The Respondent violated Sections 22- 201(2), 22- 201(6), and 22- 201(10)
of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of
25
June 20, 2012
his contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the
Sections set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity.
Order of the Board.
• Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and
pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in
Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of eight (8) in
favor and none (0) in opposition, 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 7 in favor, 1 in opposition, a
majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary
sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier
County Certificate of Competency #23844, to wit:
• Restitution in the amount of $4,202 to be paid within
thirty (30) days, per Count 3;
• Imposition of a fine of $4,000 to be paid within ninety (90) days,
per Counts 1, 2, and 3;
• Investigative costs in the amount of $1,024 to be paid within
sixty (60) days;
• The Business Procedures Test is to be taken and passed within
ninety (90) days
• His Certificate of Competency will be placed on probation for a
period of two (2) years;
• A recommendation will be made to the State to conduct a full
investigation;
• If any of the conditions are not met or if the fines are not paid in a
timely manner as outlined above, the Respondent's Certificate will
be immediately revoked.
Chairman Horn noted the case was closed.
IX. REPORTS:
(None)
X. MEMBER COMMENTS:
• Vice Chairman Joslin suggested the County should consider instituting an
inspection program for pool decks to avoid the type of problems presented during
the Hearing.
• Patrick White noted the Building Department holds an open meeting on the 2nd
Thursday of each month commending at 10:00 AM at the Growth Management
Offices on North Horseshoe Drive.
• Michael Ossorio will send an email to the members detailing the exact time, date,
and location for the meeting as well as the meeting for the Fire Code Office.
• It was further noted the Consumer must do his/her homework by only hiring
licensed Contractors — information is available online or call the County.
26
June 20, 2012
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, 3rd Floor — Administrative Building "F,"
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 11:10 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
Lee Horn, Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/C airman on
"as submitted" OR "as amended" Ir 2012, J
27