CLB Minutes 09/19/2012 September 19,2012
MINUTES OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
MEETING
September 19, 2012
Naples, Florida
BY: .......................
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 Co lex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Fiala
Hiller
Henning Vice Chair: Richard Joslin
Coyle Terry Jerulle
Coletta Kyle Lantz
Thomas Lykos
Robert Meister
Jon Walker
Misc. Corres: Patrick White
Date: \\c \%'3
Excused: Lee Horn, Chairman
Item#: T 2`PS Michael Boyd
Copies to:
ALSO PRESENT:
Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
,/Jeff Wright, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Jeff Letourneau— Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor
1
September 19,2012
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.
ROLL CALL:
Vice Chairman Richard Joslin 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. Seven members were present.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
Additions:
• Under Item VI, "New Business:"
(B.) Angela Rogers, d/b/a"Thomas W. Rogers Painting Service"—Waiver
of Examination
Mr. Ossorio explained that, due to a scheduling error, Ms. Rogers traveled from
Alabama to appear at this month's meeting. Since the Agenda was not full,he
asked if the Board could review her paperwork and consider her application rather
than requiring her to return in October. He stated he would present the information
packet to the Board for their review if they agreed.
Deletions:
• Under Item VII, "Old Business:"
(B.) Case#2012-03: Linda Curiale, d/b/a"Global Maintenance and
Restoration, Inc." (The request to withdraw was made by Staff.)
Discussion:
Thomas Lykos restated his objection to making additions to the Agenda on the day
of the meeting. While he understood the circumstances,he remained opposed to
reviewing an information packet on such short notice.
Vice Chairman Joslin suggested first approving the changes to the Agenda and then
discussion options.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Patrick White moved to approve the Agenda as amended by Staff. Second by Jon
Walker. Motion carried, 6—"Yes"/1— "No." Mr.Lykos was opposed
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he understood Mr. Lykos' objection, even though the
Board had allowed last minute additions to other Agendas in the past. He suggested
reviewing the information packet to determine whether or not to proceed.
Patrick White requested to review the materials at the conclusion of the Agenda's
other business since Ms. Rogers was not present and he did not want to inconvenience
the other Applicants who were present.
2
September 19, 2012
Michael Ossorio stated the County had no objection to amending the order in which
the Items were heard by the Board. He concurred the Board could wait to review the
packet until the Applicant appeared. If she did not,the case would be presented in
October.
Vice Chairman Joslin agreed to "table"Item VII-B.
Patrick White moved to approve changing the order of the Agenda to allow
Item VII-B to be heard as the last item of business. Second by Thomas Lykos.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 15,2012:
Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Minutes as submitted Second by Robert Meister.
Carried unanimously, S—0.
(Note: Kyle Lantz and Patrick White could not vote to approve the Minutes because
they did not attend the August 15th meeting.)
V. DISCUSSION:
A. Repealing County Ordinance Number 82-20, as amended.
Michael Ossorio stated:
• The County Attorney's Office has been reviewed the Ordinances to
eliminate redundancies.
• He explained the old process under#82-20: a Judge would review the
Citations,referred to then as a"Notice to Appear,"in Civil Court
o under the codified version of Ordinance 2006-46, as amended,
the Contractors' Licensing Board is the Hearing Official for
Citations.
• The"Notice to Appear"is one of several obsolete forms that are no
longer used.
• The request to repeal Ordinance 82-20, as amended, will be presented
to the Board of County Commissioners for review.
Mr. Ossorio reviewed the Ordinance together with Jamie French, Director
of Operations&Regulatory Management, Growth Management Division,
and the recommendation was to repeal Ordinance 82-20 with the exception
of Section 1 (A), entitled"Designations,"and Section 2 (A), entitled"Duties."
Section 1 (A)reiterates the Contractors' Licensing Office is part of the Building
Department, while Section 2 (A) correlates the differences between the Building
Department officers, the Zoning Department officers, and the Contractors'
Licensing Board officers.
He further stated Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright concurred, agreeing
the revised Ordinance will mirror the codified version of the Muni Code.
3
September 19,2012
Patrick White asked if any amendments had been made to Ordinance 82-20,
noting if there were,the amendments should be identified and also repealed.
Assistant Attorney Wright stated he was not aware of any amendments between
#82-20 and the present Ordinance, but would verify that any amendments to
Ordinance#82-20 were also repealed.
Mr. White asked if Ordinance 2006-46 was a stand-alone Ordinance or an
amendment to#82-20.
Mr. Wright stated his understanding was the Ordinances were independent of
each other; #2006-26 was free-standing while#82-20 was dormant.
Michael Ossorio stated Mr. Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Supervisor, was
present to support the repeal of#82-20 as well as to answer questions concerning
the Ordinance and Code Enforcement.
Patrick White asked about the duties of a"Zoning"Investigator versus a Code
Enforcement Investigator.
Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor, stated:
• The Code Enforcement Ordinance#2010-04 covered all of the duties of the
Code Enforcement Department and was more pertinent to 2012 than the
Ordinance before the Board.
• In 2010-04, Investigators are no longer referred to as"Zoning"Investigators
but as "Code Enforcement"Investigators.
Mr. White asked if the functions detailed in#82-20 were appropriate and should
remain operable and, if so, did the County and Code Enforcement recognize it.
Mr. Letourneau replied the duties of Code Enforcement Investigators were
specifically outlined in#2010-04. Concerning duties of Code Enforcement
Investigators in 2012, it was his opinion that Ordinance#82-20 was no longer
relevant. He continued Ordinance#2010-04 was included in the Code of
Ordinances and the duties were outlined in Sections 2-2037 through 2-2044.
County Attorney Wright verified that the title to Ordinance#2006-46 did not
contain any references to#82-20.
Patrick White moved to approve supporting Staffs recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners to repeal Ordinance#82-20, as amended, with the
exception of Section 1 (A) and Section 2 (A). Second by Thomas Lykos.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(Note: In case heard under Section VI, the individuals who testified were first
sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. David Goff—Waiver of Examination (Cabinetry License)
Mr. Goff stated the reason why he requested a Waiver was because he is financially
unable to pay the costs to attend class and take the exam. He further stated he has
4
September 19,2012
been self-employed since 2003. He has used a payroll company. His goal to work
for other cabinet companies as an installer.
Michael Ossorio provided background information:
• Mr. Goff has been licensed for so many years that he was "grandfathered in,"
i.e., not required to take any examinations.
• In 2009, his license was cancelled because he did not renew.
• Mr. Goff is to explain to the Board what he has actively been doing in the trade
of Cabinetry since 2009.
• Mr. Goff is to state if he has maintained a license in other jurisdictions even
though his license lapsed in Collier County.
Mr. Goff explained:
• In 2009,to reinstate his license,he was required to produce a credit report
and pay a fine.
• In 2008, his salary was significantly reduced("cut in half')
• By 2009, he paid himself slightly more than$3,000 for the year.
• Since that time, he has cleared up his debts and there are no judgments or
liens filed.
• He has worked as an employee for a company until it went under and closed
its doors.
Jon Walker asked Mr. Goff if he had worked locally since 2009.
David Goff replied he had not worked in any other jurisdiction and stated he
did not have any licenses in Florida other than in Collier County.
Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Goff if he made and installed his own cabinets or if he
simply installed cabinets for someone else. He asked him to explain the type of
work he had done and why he wanted to remain in the business.
David Goff responded:
• He worked for 14 years for one of Naples' largest cabinet makers.
• He began by installing cabinets but was promoted to constructing
entertainment centers and other built-ins.
• He has worked on multi-million dollar housing projects.
• He further stated he enjoyed working in wood and had been in construction
since he was 18 years old.
• He has no other skills and did not attend college.
• He has installed factory-line cabinets but most of his work has been
"custom."
Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Goff if he built custom entertainment centers and if he
intended to resume that type of work again.
The response was, "Yes."
Mr. Jerulle asked if Mr. Goff had his own shop; he replied that he had"a small
shop."
5
September 19,2012
When asked if he would hire employees, David Goff indicated he did not have
plans to hire anyone.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Goff who he had worked for recently.
David Goff stated he has constructed some built-in units and some furniture pieces.
He noted,to date, he has earned approximately$5,000 in 2012. He further stated he
needs to find more stable employment with a large company.
Terry Jerulle asked Mr. Goff if he had asked for a Waiver because he could not
afford to take a written test or if he was afraid to take the test.
Mr. Goff reiterated he could not afford to pay for the course that was required to
take the exam. He stated if the Business Law Exam was primarily tax-based,he
has never done his own taxes. He has relied on a payroll service and a CPA to
complete his tax returns.
Mr.Jerulle asked Mr. Goff if he was given some time to save money for the course,
did he think he could take and pass the exam.
David Goff said he had no idea of what the test was like—he had never taken it.
When he was initially licensed in 1990,he was required to produce proof of his
experience in the trade and good character affidavits. He confirmed he would
continue to utilize the services of a payroll company and a CPA for preparation of
tax returns in the future.
Patrick White asked for clarification concerning which tests Mr. Goff had requested
to waive.
Michael Ossorio noted it was the Business Procedures test. He stated there
is no trade test for cabinetry. In Collier County, "cabinetry"is an entry-level
construction license and only the Business Procedures test is required. For a
"carpentry"license,there is a trades test in addition to the Business Procedures
exam.
Kyle Lantz stated he had no doubt that Mr. Goff was an expert carpenter who could
construct anything in wood. He further stated he was not concerned with Mr. Goff's
carpentry skills but with his ability to run a business. To obtain a license,the
requirements are to pass the test, show decent credit, and produce proof of some
experience in the trade. He stated the Business Law exam covers more than just
payroll taxes and Workers' Compensation—it also covers the topic of construction
lien law,what work you are allowed to do under the license and what is not
permitted. He recommended that Mr. Goff take the Business Procedures test.
Thomas Lykos stated the State of Florida and Collier County have established
minimum standards to allow an individual or an entity to operate a business or to
possess a license. The standards were established to protect the public. He agreed
with Kyle Lantz's recommendation.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked if Mr. Goff could begin working for a contractor if
his license were reinstated.
6
September 19, 2012
David Goff answered that a builder he had worked for previously had returned to
Naples and indicated he would have work for him. He stated his preference was
to work as an installer for a builder or a large company—not to deal directly with
the public.
Terry Jerulle asked if Mr. Goffs license was reinstated contingent upon his taking
and passing the test within six months, would he be able to comply.
David Goff stated he thought he could if he were given enough time to acquire the
funds necessary to take the course and the test.
Michael Ossorio explained there are two exam companies that offer the Business
Procedures test:
• "Pro-Metric"which offers the test on a monthly basis in Fort Myers, and
• "Gainesville Independent"which offers the test on a daily basis in
Gainesville. The test is also available in Bonita Springs and in Miami on a
regular basis.
• The cost for the exam is $80 and$130 for the course.
He stated the County could recommend issuing a provisional license for a period
of six months to allow Mr. Goff some time to take the course and pass the test.
He confirmed that, as soon as Mr. Goff passed the Business Procedures exam,the
probation would end. He stated Mr. Goff would be able to obtain employment
immediately.
Patrick White asked if the Board could restrict the probationary license to permit
Mr. Goff to work only for general contractors or builders.
Mr. Ossorio confirmed the Ordinance allows the Contractors' Licensing Board to
restrict a Certificate(or license).
Vice Chairman Joslin supported Mr. White's suggestion.
Mr. Ossorio clarified that the license could be issued for a six-month probationary
period. If Mr. Goff passed the Business Procedures exam,the restrictions would
be removed. If he did not pass,his license would be cancelled. He stated Mr. Goff
would also have to pay a reinstatement fee, all of his back fees, and a renewal fee
as applicable.
David Goff stated if he were issued a probationary license, he would be able to
contact builders and contractors to obtain employment. He did not want to pursue
any offers until the Board had made a decision regarding his request. He again
stated his goal was to work as a subcontractor performing installations.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve issuing a conditional or probationary license for
a period of six months to allow Mr. Goff to take and pass the Business Procedures
exam. Mr. Goff will be restricted to working for licensed builders and he must
pay all back fees. At the end of the six-month period,Mr. Goff is required to
appear before the Board to ver*that the conditions have been met At the time,
the Board will make a determination regarding the disposition of his license.
7
September 19,2012
Vice Chairman Joslin stated if Mr. Goff met the conditions that had been imposed,
he should not be required to appear before the Board because Staff could issue an
unrestricted license automatically.
Patrick White stated he would second the Motion but requested the restriction to
working only for a licensed builder to remain. He stated it would not be necessary
Mr. Goff to appear before the Board unless he were to request removal of the
restriction so he could deal directly with the public.
Thomas Lykos explained the intent of his Motion: to issue a six-month license to
Mr. Goff and at the end of the period, he is to return before the Board to verify that
he took and passed the test and paid all required fees. The Board would decide at
that time what to do concerning the restriction of working solely for licensed
builders. He reiterated if Mr. Goff did not meet the conditions,his license would
be cancelled.
Mr. Lykos stated the purpose of his Motion was to avoid grey areas. At the end of
the six-month period,the Board will decide to either extend the probationary period
or offer Mr. Goff a full license, but nothing will be"automatic"—the determination
will be made solely by the Board.
Mr.White withdrew his second in support of the Motion.
Jon Walker offered to second in support of the Motion.
Discussion:
Kyle Lantz asked if there were other issues for the Board to discuss, i.e.,problems
with Mr. Goff's credit report.
Michael Ossorio stated if the application were on his desk and Mr. Goff had taken
and passed the Business Procedures test and paid the required fees, an unrestricted
license would be issued if his credit were in order because Mr. Goff had been
working in the industry for a long time, had been licensed previously, and had
provided affidavits. He confirmed that,under those circumstances, Mr. Goff would
have been issued an unrestricted cabinet license.
Mr. Lantz questioned when, in the process, the fees would be paid?
Mr. Ossorio stated the fees must be paid before even a provisional or restricted
license would be issued.
Discussion ensued between Mr. Lantz and Mr. Lykos regarding the timing for
payment of the fees by Mr. Goff.
Michael Ossorio reminded the Board that it does not have the authority to waive
fees but it can make recommendations to the BCC concerning fees. He continued,
stating in the past,the Board has never made a decision concerning payment of fees
because it is understood they must be paid first.
Vice Chairman Joslin reiterated the matter before the Board was Mr. Goff's request
8
September 19, 2012
to waive taking the examination in order to reinstate his license. He posed a
question: If Mr. Goff were to amass the funds necessary to pay the County's fees
and the fees for the course and the exam by next week or next month—and he was
passed the exam—would he still have to wait six months for his license or would it
be issued to him immediately upon his satisfying the conditions of the Motion.
Patrick White stated the point of his second was to allow Mr. Goff the opportunity
to have a restricted license once he passed the Business &Law exam—and he would
have up to six months to pass the exam. If at the end of six months,Mr. Goff had
either not applied to take the test or had not passed the test, his restricted license
would be suspended. Regardless,the license would have been restricted. The only
point in time, within the six-month period,that Mr. Goff would be required to return
before the Board would be if he wanted to remove the restriction based upon the fact
that he has passed the exam.
He concluded by reminding the Board that it could choose to do whatever best fix
the circumstances.
Thomas Lykos concurred, stating the Motion was trying to accomplish something
that the Board does not typically do. He stated he would withdraw his Motion
because he didn't consider the requirement to pay the fees first. He was attempting
to give Mr. Goff six months to do everything necessary to come into compliance.
As a rule the back fees must be paid in advance. He suggested starting over or
finding a simpler solution.
Thomas Lykos moved to withdraw his previously stated Motion. Jon Walker
withdrew his second in support of the Motion.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve waiving the requirement to take an examination for
a period of six months and issue a restricted license permitting Mr. Goff to work
only for a licensed builder or company. If Mr. Goff passes the exam and submits
proof to the Contractors'Licensing Office, the restriction on his license will be
removed. He will become fully licensed to install cabinets. If Mr. Goff does not
pass the exam within six months, his license will be suspended or become "null
and void"
Second by Patrick White.
Thomas Lykos suggesting amending the Motion to reiterate that the fees must be
paid first and then a conditional license would be issued.
Mr. Lantz concurred,stating the fees must be paid, and Mr. Goff must show proof
of insurance, etc. He clarified the six month period will begin running from
September 18"`. If it takes Mr. Goff three months to pay his fees, the time clock is
not re-set
Mr. White stated he understood and agreed.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Goff if he understood the conditions being
imposed by the Motion.
9
September 19,2012
Mr. Goff questioned the time line.
Vice Chairman Joslin explained that if he paid all the fees, and if he passed the test
before the end of the six month period,provided he submitted proof to the
Contractors' Licensing Office, the restriction would be removed from his license and
he will be issued a full cabinet installer license. The license will be restricted until
the fees are paid and he has passed the exam.
Vice Chairman Joslin called for a vote on the Motion.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Kyle Lantz moved to approve authorizing the Vice Chairman to sign the Orders
of the Board. Second by Robert Meister. Carried unanimously, 7—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#2012-10: Linda Curiale,
d/b/a "Global Maintenance& Restoration,Inc."
Vice Chairman Joslin noted Ms. Curiale was present and was represented by
Attorney Patrick Neale.
Vice Chairman Joslin outlined the general process of the Public Hearing:
• Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier
County Ordinance#90-105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII,
"Regulation of Professions and Occupations,"Chapter 489.
• The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature.
• Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply.
• Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and govern the
proceedings.
• Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded.
• All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent
persons in conducting their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such
evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida.
• Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining
any evidence but shall not be deemed sufficient by itself to support a Finding,
unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in
Court.
• The"Rules of Privilege" shall be effective to the same extent that such Rules
are now, or hereafter may be, recognized in civil actions.
10
September 19,2012
• Any member of the Contractors' Licensing Board may question any witness
before the Board.
• Each party to the proceedings shall have the right to call and examine witnesses,
to introduce Exhibits, to cross-examine witnesses, to impeach any witness
regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any
evidence presented against the party.
• The Chairperson or, in his/her absence,the Vice Chair, shall have all powers
necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and
impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum.
• The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening
Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms,how the County
intends to prove the charges.
• The Respondent will present an Opening Statement setting forth, in general
terms,his/her 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:
o Whether the Respondent was guilty of the offense(s) charged in the
Administrative Complaint, and a vote will be taken on the matter.
o 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 which
may be imposed and the factors to be considered.
• The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote.
• After the matters are decided,the Chair/Vice Chair will read a Summary of
the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the
Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order.
11
September 19,2012
• The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws
and procedures.
Patrick White advised the Board that he would abstain from voting; he spoke with
the Board's attorney, and completed Form 8-B entitled"Memorandum of Voting
Conflict for County, Municipal and Other Local Public Officers."
He read the"Disclosure of Local Officer's Interest" into the record, as follows:
Mr. White stated his law firm had been retained to represent
Mr. and Mrs. Patrick J. Martin in a matter involving
"Global Maintenance & Restoration, Inc."
He further stated there is a potential, since disciplinary action
is being considered, that could inure to their special gain or loss.
Mr. White confirmed he will participate in discussion but will
not vote on the matter.
Form 8-B will be included as part of the Minutes of the Meeting.
Vice Chairman Joslin accepted Mr. White's signed declaration.
Attorney Patrick Neale stated:
• On behalf of his client, he entered into discussion with Michael Ossorio
prior to the beginning of the Hearing.
• His client has agreed to enter into a Stipulation and Agreed Order on
the matter to resolve the matter.
Mr.Neale stated he would distribute of the document to the Board Members
for their review. He requested the Board:
• confirm that his client agreed to the Stipulation, and
• adopt the Stipulation and Order.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve accepting Respondent's Exhibit "A"into
evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz Carried unanimously, 7—0.
Michael Ossorio noted the Stipulation and the Order were from the first case,
Number 2012-03, which had been heard in March, 2012.
Mr.Neale stated the Stipulation was specifically designed to resolve the issues
that were outstanding in both cases (2012-03 and 2012-10). He further stated
the only relevant issue before the Board was to determine whether or not his client
accepted the terms of the Stipulation.
He read the terms of the Stipulation into the record as follows:
12
September 19,2012
" BEFORE THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING
BOARD
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,
CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD, Case#2012-03
Petitioner,
License No.:
vs. CGC 1508972
and
LINDA CURIALE, CC#27333
d/b/a "Global Maintenance& Restoration,Inc.,"
Respondent.
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Agreed Order
Linda Curiale and the Board of County Commissioners,Collier County,
Florida, Contractor's Licensing Board (hereafter"the Board"),hereby
stipulate and agree:
1) Respondent admits the allegations in the Administrative Complaint for the
purpose of this Stipulation and settlement of this matter.
2) Respondent and the Board hereby agree that her permit pulling privileges in
Collier County and the cities of Marco Island and Naples,Florida,will be
permanently suspended.
3) Respondent and the Board further agree that this Stipulation and Order shall
be forwarded to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board with a
recommendation that the State Construction Licensing Board perform a full
investigation of this case.
4) The Respondent agrees to voluntarily pay$500.00 investigative costs in this case
within thirty(30)days of this Order.
Executed this day of September, 2012.
lsl Linda Curiale /sl Michael Ossorio
Linda Curiale Michael Ossorio
Respondent Contractors' Licensing Supervisor
13
September 19, 2012
Order Adopting Stipulated Settlement Agreement
THIS BOARD BEING FULLY ADVISED on the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement, it is hereby:
ADJUDGED that the foregoing Stipulated Settlement Agreement is adopted
in its entirety, and the parties are ordered to comply therewith.
DONE AND ORDERED at the regularly-set Contractor's Licensing Board hearing
at Naples, Collier County, Florida, on this day of September, 2012.
Lee Horn,
Chairman,
Contractors' Licensing Board "
Mr. Neale asked his client if she read the Stipulation and understood the terms.
Her response was, "Yes."
Mr. Neale asked his client if she agreed to the terms of the Stipulation as a voluntary
act.
Her response was, "Yes."
His client stated her name for the record, "Linda Michele Curiale."
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Ms. Curiale if she was the license holder of CGC
1508972 and 27333, and her response was "Yes."
Kyle Lantz noted the Stipulation was against Ms. Curiale personally—not against
the business—and asked if she could hire another General Contractor to pull permits
for her.
Michael Ossorio stated if the Corporation petitioned the State Licensing Board to
obtain a new qualifier, it would be under a totally different certificate and separate
CGC license. He clarified the Stipulation and Order pertained only to Ms. Curiale.
Thomas Lykos questioned the references in the Stipulation.
Attorney Morey concurred and stated the case number for the Stipulation should
be changed to 2012-10,not 2012-03.
Attorney Neale stated the correct case number appeared on the documents
presented to the Board. He agreed the Stipulation was specific to Case#2012-10.
Michael Ossorio verified the correct paperwork had been submitted to the Board.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted, "for the record,"that the correct Case number
(2012-10) appeared on the document presented to the Board by Michael Ossorio.
14
September 19,2012
Patrick White explained why connecting the two cases, i.e., 2012-03 and 2012-10,
was important—Stipulation 2012-03 established the Board's jurisdiction in the
matter at hand because the Respondent was subject to probation.
Attorney Neale stated while the Board could not order Ms. Curiale to be subject to
probation since she is a State-certified contractor, she voluntarily agreed to it as she
voluntarily agreed to pay the County's investigative costs of$500.00. Since she
specifically agreed,the Board may incorporate the information into the terms of the
Stipulation and Order.
Thomas Lykos summarized: The 2012-03 Stipulation noted if an infraction occurred,
certain penalties would be imposed. The 2012-10 Stipulation acknowledges the prior
Agreement and permits the penalties to become effective.
Mr. Lykos stated he does not approve of the Stipulation process.
Mr.Neale pointed out that, under the terms of the Stipulation,the Respondent agreed
to the maximum penalties that could be imposed.
Mr.White clarified using a Stipulation was the most efficient way to achieve the
outcome without devoting a day to hear one case.
[The members debated the positive and negative aspects of the Stipulation process.]
Kyle Lantz moved to approve accepting the Stipulation as presented. Second by
Vice Chairman Joslin.
Vice Chairman Joslin read the terms of the Stipulation into the record [See Page 13
of the Minutes] and then called for a vote on the Motion.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1—Abstention. Patrick White abstained from voting.
Attorney Morey suggested the Vice Chair read the terms of the Order into the
record [See Page 14 of the Minutes].
Vice Chairman Joslin signed the Stipulation and Order.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(B.) Angela Rogers,d/b/a"Thomas W. Rogers Painting Service"—Waiver of
Examination
Vice Chairman Joslin noted Angela Rogers was not present.
Michael Ossorio stated the case would be added to the October Agenda.
IX. REPORTS:
• Attorney Morey referenced a previous hearing during which the Board
heard a Petition to Contest a Citation. The Petitioner asked if the Board's
15
September 19,2012
decision could be appealed. Assistant County Attorney Wright verified
that any decision of the Board could be appealed.
• There was also a discussion during the previous meeting of the possible
form (and language) of a Motion when a Citation was contested.
o If a Motion is made but does not carried,what is the inference.
• A copy of Statute 489.127 was presented to the Members.
• Mr. Morey noted 489.127is the governing Statute for Citations issued by
Investigators.
• Additional copies provided:
o A Citation(front and back)
o Several "sample"motions for consideration by the Board.
• Attorney Morey explained the process to issue a Citation and referred to
Section 5(a) of 489.127 as well as Section 1(a)through(h)which outlines the
prohibitions and what can be cited. He stated the form of the Citation currently
used by the County"tracks"the Statute.
• If a Respondent elects to contest a Citation,he/she is entitled to a
Hearing before the Board.
• If a Respondent could prove that the issued Citation was invalid or if the
violation had been corrected prior to the Hearing, the Board may dismiss
the Citation.
• The Board may impose a civil fine or penalty if it found that a violation
did exist.
• He explained if a Motion is made but does not carry, it cannot be voted on again.
• The Board may make a motion to clarify the proceedings.
• Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law will be issued by the Board based on
the hearing process.
Examples of Sample Motions:
(1) Move to dismiss the Citation on the basis that the Petitioner showed
the Citation was invalid.
(2) Move to dismiss the Citation because the violation had been corrected
by the Petitioner prior to the Hearing.
(3) Move to uphold the Citation on the basis that the violation which exists
is irreversible or irreparable.
(4) Move to uphold a Citation on the basis that the violation has not been
corrected.
X. MEMBER COMMENTS: None
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, 3`d Floor—Administrative Building"F,"
Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL 34112
16
September 19,2012
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Vice Chairman at 11:00 AM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
/44/(- a% A--4--".-
'chard Jos in, Vice Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on f / , 2012,
"as submitted" [ 1 OR "as amended" F v1.
17