CLB Minutes 10/17/2012 October 17,2012
MINUTES OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD
MEETING @NOICRWIrp
DEC 20 2012 Liji
October 17, 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 Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present:
Vice Chair: Richard Joslin
Michael Boyd
DTerry Jerulle
Kyle Lantz
Henning Thomas Lykos
Coyle Robert Meister
Cnlct ,rtyS
Patrick White
Excused: Jon Walker
Resigned: Lee Horn, Chairman
ALSO PRESENT:
Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office
Jeff Wright, Esq. —Assistant County Attorney
James F. Morey, Esq. —Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board
Misc.Cones:
Date: Li I Ci 13
1 Item
Copies to:
October 17,2012
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 and read the procedures to
be followed to appeal a decision.
Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Seven voting members were present.
Michael Ossorio noted Board Member Jon Walker had been excused.
II. AGENDA—ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS:
(None)
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Patrick White.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 19,2012:
Patrick White requested to amend the September 19th Minutes to include Form 8-B,
entitled"Memorandum of Voting Conflict for County, Municipal and Other Local Public
Officers," as part of the record concerning the action pertaining to "Global Maintenance
and Restoration, Inc."
Patrick White moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Carried unanimously, 6—0.
(Note: Michael Boyd could not vote to approve the Minutes because he did not attend
the September 19th meeting.)
V. DISCUSSION:
Michael Ossorio announced Chairman Lee Horn had resigned, effective October 10t.
Lee Horn accepted a position in Central Florida. Mr. Horn sent his regrets that he could
not complete his term as well as his best wishes to the Board.
Mr. Ossorio reminded the Board that a new Chairman and Vice Chairman are usually
elected during the December meeting. He stated he could place the item of"Elections"
on December's Agenda or the Board could discuss their options during the current
meeting. He further stated the Vice Chairman is permitted to conduct the meeting in
the absence of a Chairman.N He concluded by stating the Board would not meet in
November.
Terry Jerulle suggested electing a Vice Chairman to serve only for the month of
December as a back-up in the event that Vice Chairman Joslin was absent in December.
2
October 17,2012
There was a brief discussion concerning options.
Terry Jerulle nominated Thomas Lykos to serve as Temporary Vice Chairman for
December, 2012. Second by Patrick White.
Mr. Lykos accepted the nomination and agreed to serve for the December meeting.
Carried unanimously, 6—0. Mr. Lykos abstained from voting.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
(Note: Regarding cases heard under Section VI, the individuals who testified were first
sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.)
A. Angela W. Rogers—Waiver of Examination(s)
Vice Chairman Joslin noted Ms. Rogers was present and had requested a Waiver of
Examination.
Ms. Rogers:
• She had allowed her license to lapse because she moved out of state for a
period of approximately two years,
• She has returned to Collier County and wishes to reinstate her license,
• She initially obtained her license in 1999,
• License: "Painting and full finish"
Michael Ossorio:
• Ms. Rogers was originally licensed on April 29, 1999
• Expiration date: September 30, 2010,
• Ms. Rogers took/passed the Business Procedures test and the Painting Exam,
• The Painting Exam has been updated to reflect the new 2012 Florida Building
Code while the Business Procedures test has remained the same.
Patrick White brought up a Point of Order regarding the Agenda item and for the
individual cases that followed. He stated it was difficult to determine which exam
was requested to be waived—the Specialty Trades test, and/or the Business&Law
Exam, or both if applicable—and suggested the information should to be clearly
stated on the application or through the Staff's remarks.
Mr. White asked Ms. Rogers if she was requesting to waive both tests and her
response was, "Yes."
Mr. Ossorio stated Ordinance 2006-46 clearly defined the requirements for Painting
under Section 1.6.3.30, a Painting Contractor is required to take/pass the Business
Procedures test and an approved Trades test. He further stated he will note the
Ordinance requirements in the future.
3
October 17, 2012
Vice Chairman Joslin noted one test was passed in 1998 and the other in 1999.
Kyle Lantz asked the applicant what she had been doing while out of state—if she
had continued to work as a painter and her response was, "Yes."
Ms. Rogers stated she was licensed and continued to work in Enterprise, Alabama
and in Dothan, Alabama.
Mr. Lantz asked if she considered herself to be "up on the trade" regarding the
business aspect, and her response was, "Yes."
Q. "Are Alabama's laws similar to Florida's laws regarding liens and licensing.?
A. "They are pretty much the same but Alabama has an extra state tax that Florida
doesn't have, and you have to pay those taxes monthly."
Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Ossorio if Staff had a recommendation.
Michael Ossorio replied the County did not object and stated:
• Staff recommended approving Ms. Rogers' Certificate for reinstatement,
• She is to pay all necessary fees,
o Reinstatement fee: $205
o Renewal late fee (2010-11): $185
o Renewal late fee (2011-12): $185
o Renewal fee for 2012-13: $125
• She has taken the necessary exams,
• She attended the Hearing to discuss the Board's concerns.
Kyle Lantz asked if the Board was required to examine Ms. Rogers' personal credit
report since her business was closed in Florida.
Michael Ossorio noted the application included a business credit report for"Tom
and Angie's Custom Painting and Full Finishing,"which was the previous company
that she qualified. The Ordinance states if the company to be qualified is less than
twelve months old,the credit reports for the previous company are to be submitted.
He continued, stating the application was a"full" application and Ms. Rogers
personal credit report may be reviewed by the Board.
Mr. Lantz stated the score of the personal credit report was not very good and asked
if there was not an exam issue, would the Applicant still appear before the Board for
a credit issue.
Mr. Ossorio stated he reviewed the credit report and noted there was a medical issue
which the Board has typically recognized that payment of medical bills have no
bearing on whether or not Contractor—related bills are paid. He further stated in
terms of the Ordinance, he would probably approve the application.
Patrick White noted a question about one of the answers on the application and
requested additional information. He referred to Page Two: "List all debts which
you or any company associated with you refused to pay, and the reasons for the
refusal to pay."
He further noted the answer was, "Personal credit cards."
4
October 17,2012
Ms. Rogers stated she was in the process of paying all of the bills.
Q. "You didn't refuse .... You just weren't able [to pay]?"
A. "Yes."
Mr. White stated he had additional questions for the Applicant to answer.
Q. "The credit report listed other names that you were known as. Have you ever
contracted using any of those names?"
A. "No,just under the license name."
Q. "The credit report listed a number of collections—the amount for medical was
relatively small. But there was a substantial sum, approximately$12,000,to
Chase Bank, USA and also under an account known as the `Midland Fund.'
Can you tell me what kind of debt that is?"
A. "That was a business card—my husband's business card. It was one that he
had in his name but I am working on paying them off because I have to."
Q. "Because they were joint accounts?"
A. "Yes. He had his card and I had my card. And, that way, I knew exactly where
everything went and what was spent on what."
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Ms. Rogers if her husband was still involved in the
Company and her response was, "Yes."
Mr. White continued:
Q. "There is also a substantial amount—$6,400—through Citibank for Sears—
LVNV Funding? Can you tell me whether that card was used to purchase
anything relative to the business or not?"
A. "I don't think that one was for the business. I'm almost positive. Actually, I
think that was a riding lawn mower."
Vice Chairman Joslin ascertained there were no further questions from Board
members and requested a motion.
Terry Jerulle noted the current Agenda included other cases with the same issue,
i.e., requesting a Waiver of an Examination, and as the economy improves, other
individuals would try to come back into the business. He stated his problem was
determining where to "draw the line" for examinations—one year or two years?
He suggested the Board decide a"rule of thumb"concerning how long would be
acceptable between examinations.
Michael Ossorio stated:
• A number of returning contractors have chosen to re-take the exam to refresh
their knowledge,
• Every applicant has the right to petition the Licensing Board for a full review,
• Each application should stand on its own merit,
• The Board has decided on both sides of the issue (whetherr or not to waive an
examination) on a month-by-month basis,
5
October 17, 2012
• The Board of County Commissioners set the standard:
o If an applicant has not taken an exam in three years,
he/she must appear before the Licensing Board to explain
what he/she had been doing professionally during that
period of time.
• Some applicants have been"grandfathered"in due to their experience,
• Others have taken only one exam because that was the requirements when
they were initially licensed,
• Six years ago, the testing was split into two components—a comprehensive
exam for business procedures and a comprehensive Trades test.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked if there was a continuing education component
attached to the Painting Exam and the response was, "No."
Ms. Rogers stated she has been painting for twenty-nine years. She explained when
she was in Alabama, training on the subject of lead and lead poisoning was required
—anyone who was licensed after 1974 was required to take the training.
Mr. Ossorio clarified if there has been a licensing lapse of three or more years, a
Waiver is not automatically granted. The applicant must appear before the
Licensing Board to explain why the license was allowed to lapse and provide proof
of continuing work in the trade.
Thomas Lykos asked if the pertinent portion of the Ordinance could be entered into
the record. He also asked if a license had been inactive for less than two years, if the
re-testing requirement still applied.
Michael Ossorio:
• Each licensed Contractor must renew his/her license by September 30th of the
renewal year.
• A Contractor who has not renewed the license by December of that year is
considered to be delinquent and a late fee of$20.00 per month is charged in
addition to the renewal fee.
• If the late fees and the renewal fee have not been paid by January 1st of the
following year, the Contractor's license is suspended.
• If a license has been suspended, a reinstatement fee of$205 is charged plus
a limited application is to be submitted to verify name, business address and
contact information.
• If a license is suspended for a period of twelve months or longer, it is then
considered to be null and void.
• To renew at that point, if the applicant has not been tested for a period of three
years, he/she must sit for an exam in order to reinstate the license. Most
Contractors determine to take the exam.
Mr. Ossorio stated while Ms. Rogers' certificate with Collier County had lapsed,
she continued to remain active in her trade by working in Alabama.
Mr. Lykos asked if the local Ordinance was based on State law.
6
October 17, 2012
Mr. Ossorio clarified it was a local requirement—not a State requirement—and
noted Ms. Rogers had a specialty license which is regulated by the Board of County
Commissioners and the Licensing Board.
Patrick White stated he will weigh the following concerns before making a
decision:
• The length of time between exams;
• Whether there are one or more exams required than previously taken;
• What is the current standard;
• The scores of the previous exams;
• The relevant testimony about what has been done in the trade and business
aspect of operating that trade here or somewhere else;
• The period of time when the license was not active in Collier County;
• And the general rapport of the applicant—demeanor, accuracy of knowledge
when responding to questions asked by the Board.
He concluded that he was prepared to make a motion to approve waiving the
re-testing requirement.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Applicant stated she had been going through a
divorce and asked if the divorce was final.
Ms. Rogers replied she and her husband had reconciled.
Mr. Joslin asked if Mrs. Rogers' husband had been involved in the business
previously and was still involved in the business, why was it necessary to change the
name from"Tom and Angie's Custom Painting and Full Finishing."
Angela Rogers replied it was less expensive to place her license under"Thomas W.
Rogers Painting"than to renew using the old company's name.
When asked if additional debts had been incurred by the former company, she stated
there was only the one card and payments were being made.
Mr. White asked if the debt was a personal one or if it had been incurred by the
business entity.
Ms. Rogers confirmed that she and her husband owed the debt on the card.
Patrick White moved to approve the application to waive retesting of the business
and trades exams. Second by Thomas Lykos.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1— "No." Kyle Lantz was opposed.
Attorney James Morey confirmed that Mr. Ossorio had outlined the time line
contained in Section 22.191. He stated the Ordinance noted if a request was made
to reactive a dormant license,the testing requirement could be waived by Staff if
the applicant proved that he/she had been active in the trade in another jurisdiction,
or had been active as an Inspector or Investigator in the trade, or for other valid
reasons.
7
October 17,2012
B. Terry Gouker—Waiver of Examination(s)
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Mr. Gouker to explain why he had applied for a
Waiver of Examination.
Terry Gouker stated:
• He did not like to take tests;
• His licenses in Cape Coral and Lee County remained active but since he did
not have any work in Collier County, he allowed his Collier license to lapse.
• He confirmed he has remained working in his trade.
• He recently bid on a job in Collier County but cannot begin work until his
license is renewed.
Michael Ossorio:
• The application is for a tile and marble.
• The Ordinance requires both a Business Procedures exam and a Trades test.
• The applicant initially received his license in 1992.
• He may not have taken the Business Procedures test,just the tile and marble
exam.
Mr. Gucker stated a business component had been included in the exam.
Mr. Ossorio continued:
• The applicant took the Tile and Marble exam on April 4, 1992.
• He chose not to renew his license in Collier County in 2010.
• His license has been current in Lee County for many years.
Vice Chairman Joslin noted the Applicant's license in Lee County expired on
September 20, 2012. He asked Mr. Gucker if the license was concurred and he
confirmed that it was. He stated both the Lee County and the Cape Coral licenses
had been renewed prior to the end of September.
Kyle Lantz questioned Mr. Ossorio:
Q. "If Mr. Gucker never had a Collier County license, would the Board see the
application or would it have been handled administratively with reciprocity?"
A. "At the very minimum, he would have to provide a letter outlining what he had
been doing. If it was related to his construction activity,the Board would see
the application."
Q. "The exam would be a non-issue. It would be a credit or . . . ."
A. "Exactly right."
Q. "So he's basically being penalized for having a previous Collier license?"
A. "No,he's not being penalized. He chose not to renew his license and fell into •
the category that Mr. Morey explained to you earlier. If this had been a full
application and he had taken the Business Procedures test and the Trades test,
there would be some serious questions about his bankruptcy. He would have
to explain in writing why it happened."
8
October 17,2012
Mr. Ossorio asked the Applicant if his business had been open for many years and
the response was, "Yes."
He also asked if the bankruptcy was individual
Mr. Gucker confirmed the bankruptcy was personal in nature.
Mr. Ossorio explained the Board would need to determine if Mr. Gucker's bills
were being paid through the company or if his company had any assets that were
kept separately.
Terry Gucker stated his business had no debt and the only assets were a truck
and his tools.
Michael Ossorio noted the previous Counsel to the Board had stated a bankruptcy
"wiped the slate clean"—it cannot be factored into account—and he noted licenses
had been issued to individuals who had bankruptcies that were discharged by the
Court.
Thomas Lykos stated there was a distinct difference between Mr. Gucker and the
previous Respondent in that the previous Respondent left the State of Florida and
was working in a different part of the country which was why the license was not
renewed, The Respondent chose not to renew his license in Collier County—it was
a conscious decision a business decision. The situations were not the same. The
Applicant's situation warranted a different thought process because Mr. Gucker
chose not to renew in Collier County while he did in Lee County and Cape Coral.
There should be more challenges to the process than coming before the Board and
requesting to waive everything in order to resume working again.
Kyle Lantz stated the exam was the same. If the Respondent never had a license
in Collier County but had been licensed elsewhere in Florida, he would be able
to appear before the Board and request a waiver. Due to reciprocity with Lee
County, he would not be required to re-take the exam—just provide a letter from
Lee County. Because the Respondent had a previous license with Collier County,
he was "being punished" because he allowed the license to lapse.
Michael Ossorio clarified that even with reciprocity, the test score would not
be accepted because the Ordinance had changed and the Applicant would be
required to take the Business Procedures. Each jurisdiction was different—what
is allowed in Orange County is different from what is allowed in Miami-Dade
County. The State requires a passing grade of 70%while some counties require
a score of 75%to pass. The Board of County Commissioner and the Licensing
Board approved imposing a back fee several years ago.
Patrick White stated both applicants had made clear choices. One was a personal
decision to not renew since she was not in the State of Florida while the other was
a business decision. However if there is a point in the future when work becomes
available, one must recognize that the back fees will be due. That's the process.
9
October 17, 2012
The issue: Which exams existed previously, and what has the applicant been doing
in his business practice since his license lapsed.
Mr. White asked the applicant to describe the type of bid that had been awarded to
his company—was it a local or state government agency or a private contractor.
Mr. Gucker confirmed it was for a contractor. He further clarified the company
was incorporated and he was vice president while his son was president. He owned
50% of the share of the corporation.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked the Applicant to produce a copy of his current licenses
in Lee County and Cape Coral.
Mr. Gucker stated he submitted his application to Collier County prior to renewing
his licenses which is why they were not attached to the application.
Thomas Lykos asked for the costs to renew a license.
Michael Ossorio stated the fee is $125 and a license is renewed on an annual basis.
Q. "How long has his license been null and void."
A. "Since January of this year but his back fees would be $185 times two plus the
renewal fee of$205."
Vice Chairman Joslin asked the Applicant if he was prepared to pay the fees if his
application was approved and the response was affirmative.
Mr. Ossorio explained the applicant had been advised of all fees and his options in
the process, i.e.,he could take the exams prior to appearing before the Board.
Thomas Lykos suggested including the applicable fees in each packet in the future.
Discussion ensued concerning whether the payment of the back fees should be
considered as sufficient penalty or if another fee should be imposed.
Mr. White observed it was less expensive to renew the license on a yearly basis
even if the applicant were not working in Collier County than to let it lapse and
then renew. He stated, "It will cost [you]to get back into the game."
Vice Chairman Joslin stated assessing an additional penalty was not fair because
the individual made a business decision not to renew his license in Collier County
while he was not working here. If the license had lapsed for three years or longer,
a complete packet should be submitted and the applicant should be required to take
the two tests. He further stated there are rules to be followed.
The Vice Chairman re-iterated his requirement that the Applicant provide copies
of his current licenses from Lee County and Cape Coral to the Board.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve granting the application for a Waiver of
Examination provided the applicant furnish proof of his current licenses from
Lee County and Cape Coral. Second by Patrick White.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1— "No." Terry Jerulle was opposed.
10
October 17,2012
C. Jessie Carcamo—Qualify 2°d Entity
Michael Ossorio stated Gary Harrison was present to speak on behalf of the
Qualifer.
Jessie Carcamo stated she was applying to qualify Abbey Carpet of Naples as a
Second Entity. She is also the Qualifer of S-R Tile,the marble and tile company
begun by her father. She wished to become the Qualifier of Abbey Carpet in order
to provide for her family. She is an employee of Abbey Carpet but not an owner.
She is also an employee of S-R Tile. She is not the current Qualifier of Abbey
Carpet of Naples.
Patrick White noted the application was not complete and did not list some of the
previous jobs or the names of the previous Qualifiers or the owner of the Abbey
Carpet of Naples.
Ms. Carcamo stated they had been and are still working for Classic Homes of
Naples and Divco on various projects, each with a different completion date. They
are larger projects and she stated a complete list with addresses will be provided.
She clarified that S-R is a small family-owned company that takes on enough jobs
to maintain her family. Abbey Carpet is a larger company with larger contracts. She
stated it would not be difficult to oversee the two companies.
• S-R Marble and Tile is owned by her family who has worked for many years
and has strong ties with Abbey Carpet and has developed a relationship with
Abbey Carpet.
• There are only a few jobs per month that S-R does for Abbey Carpet.
• She can oversee the jobs that S-R Marble& Tile accepts.
• She would have time to oversee the Abbey Carpet jobs to ensure that the
work is done correctly.
Mr. White asked who would pull permits for Abbey.
Ms. Carcamo replied she is the only person authorized to pull permits.
When questioned about the owners of the company, she stated Phillip Gutierrez is
the owner of the corporation, and Gene Presley is the Vice President of Abbey
Carpet of Naples.
Kyle Lantz:
Q. "What is your position at S-R Marble and Tile?"
A. "I do all the contracting work,the administrative work, and accounting work as
well."
Q. "So you sell jobs,pay the bills, and schedule ..."
A. "Invoices ...pulls ... yes."
Q. "Okay."
Vice Chairman Joslin asked Ms. Carcamo if she was compensated by S-R Marble
and her response was, "Yes."
11
October 17,2012
Kyle Lantz:
Q. "How many hours per week do you currently spend working for S-R?"
A. "On the administrative work and the accounting, probably 20 and the rest on
invoicing, quoting, going to job sites ... about 10 to 15 hours per week."
Q. "You are spending about 35 hours per week for S-R and they do just a handful
of job. Now you're going to qualify them and Abbey Carpet of Naples. What
will your duties be at Abbey Carpet?"
A. "Just the contracting work—overseeing all the contracting work."
Q. "What does that mean?"
A. "Going to job sites to make sure that everything is done correctly, overseeing
who is working on each job,making sure that everything is correct for all
documents."
Q. "How many hours per week do you expect that to take?"
A. "At S-R, my father is in the process of obtaining his own license to make my job
there a little less so I can dedicate more time to Abbey Carpet."
Q. "That didn't answer my question."
A. "How many hours?"
Q. "Right now you have a 35-hour per week job at S-R and they only do a handful
of jobs. Now you're going to go to Abbey Carpet who is a huge fish in the pond
and who has more than just"a handful of jobs"—I don't know how many hours
you are going to work, hut ,... I understand you're not going to do the payroll ...
but if it takes you 20 hours per week to oversee the contracting for a `handful of
jobs,' plus you still have the 15 hours of other stuff—will you actually being
doing stuff or just acting as a `Qualifier' so that they have a Qualifier?
A. "Yes, I will actually be doing ..."
Q. "So how many hours a week do you think you will be spending overseeing
Abbey Carpet's jobs?"
A. "As long as it takes. 20 to 30 hours. I am not married. I don't have children. I
can do it."
Q. "Okay. Are you looking to qualify Abbey Carpet with all of your licenses or ...
A. "Just the Tile and Marble."
Q. "... and not with the floor covering?"
A. "Not with the floors."
Thomas Lykos referred to Question 5-B of the application: "Has the proposed
entity been previously qualified? If so, explain why the previous Qualifier is no
longer willing to continue to qualify this entity. "
The Applicant's answer: "The proposed entity simply wants to make a change
because of the working relationship."
Q. "Who is the previous Qualifier and why is that relationship being terminated?"
A. "His name is Christian Bronson and it's more of a working relationship type of
thing."
Ted Duglokienski was sworn in.
12
October 17,2012
Thomas Lykos:
Q. "Can you please answer the question regarding the current Qualified and why
that relationship has been terminated?"
A. (Ted Dlugokienski) "Yes. The current Qualified is Chris Bronson but we have
a stronger relationship with Sergio and with Jessie. And, for business purposes,
just wanted to make the change. Chris has been our Qualifier for 5ive or six
years."
Q. "What other role does the current Qualifier have in the company?"
A. "He does some contracting tile and marble work for us as well—his company
does."
Q. "So he's another subcontractor who acted as a Qualifier?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "And you're asking a different subcontractor to now serve as your Qualifer?"
A. "Yes."
Q. "I just want to understand why there is a change in the Qualifer so the Board
know there is not a situation where there is a problem with the business and
you're just switching out Qualifiers rather than addressing the problem with the
business."
A. "Right. While I can't speak for Mr. Bronson's business financially, I am not
aware of any financial issue that he has. We certainly don't have any financial
issues on our end."
Patrick White:
Q. "Do you know if Mr. Bronson is aware of this application going forward?"
A. "No, he is not aware of the application at this point."
Q. "Is there a reason that you can share with us as to why he would not be made
aware of it?"
A. "He will be made aware of it as soon as we are approved. Obviously, we do not
want to put ourselves in a situation where he decides to no longer qualify us ....
From our standpoint, we want to make sure that we are always licensed and
properly qualified. We are properly qualified under his license and when we
move to their license, we will be in a position to have a discussion with him."
Q. "Ms. Carcamo, if you were in Mr. Bronson's shoes, what would you recognize
as your obligation under that circumstance?"
A. (Jessie Carcamo) "If I were to find out that the company I'm qualifying is
changing Qualifiers?"
Q. (P. White) "Yes, and you were about to be essentially replaced. "
A. "Well ..."
Q. "What would your obligations be?"
A. "First of all, to speak to the company but, in this case, I do understand where
they are coming from. I wouldn't personally do it but I would see how another
Qualifier might take it to the worst and try to damage the company because,
obviously, he will no longer be paid for the work. And I do understand why we
would wait until your approval to let him know that he's no longer the Qualifier
of the company."
13
October 17,2012
Q. "But as the business entity's Qualifier, what obligation do you have to
continue?"
A. "To continue working with the company?"
Q. "Yes, prior to the new Qualifier coming on."
A. "To make sure that the jobs are taken care of, that we disclose information about
current jobs to the Qualifier coming in to be able to maintain everything in order
and have a smooth transition."
Q. "Ted's point was he was concerned about Mr. Bronson quitting on them. My
question to you is what is your understanding of you, as a Qualifier, in that same
situation ... being able to quit or not."
A. "You would have to write a letter to the Board to let them know that you were
no longer qualifying the company—that you no longer seek to do that. And
once that is approved, you are out which would leave the company without a
Qualifer."
Ted Duglokienski
• "I think what you're saying is, basically, he has an obligation to us even if I
did have that conversation with him this morning or yesterday, that he has an
obligation—and I would suspect that he does have an obligation—but that
doesn't make it any easier."
Patrick White:
• "The point of the question goes to the degree in which the Applicant knows and
understands the rules, and understands how to effectively manage those rules. A
close relationship between the two business entities—she will be on both sides of
the working relationship and will be faced with any number of these rather
unusual sets of circumstances, from my perspective, that most people who
qualify two entities are not going to find themselves having to face."
Mr. White noted there were two different handwritings that responded to various
questions on the application. Can you explain to me whose handwriting it is and
why it was done that way since there really is only one Applicant?"
Jessie Carcamo replied the second handwriting was Ted. She stated she met with
Ted and asked him to complete certain questions. They discussed the answers but
she thought those particular questions could be better answered by Ted since he is
an officer of Abbey Carpet of Naples. She further stated she was completely aware
of his answer to the questions.
Ted Duglokienski concurred and further stated they sat in his office on a couple of
occasions and worked through the questions.
Thomas Lykos stated he had a question regarding the relationship between the two
businesses. He stated the usual procedure for someone to qualify a second entity is
for businesses that are in similar trades—not for businesses that do business with
each other.
Q. "What would you do in a situation when there's a dispute between Abbey
Carpet of Naples and S-R? How are you going to be able to separate yourself?"
14
October 17,2012
Mr. Lykos explained his concern: Ms. Carcamo's answer to Question 5-A ("State
the reason that you wish to maintain your present license and qualify the additional
license. ') was to ensure that her family was provided for. He again asked, "What
are you going to do when there's a dispute between Abbey and S-R?"
Jessie Carcamo:
• "I believe in following the law. If there is something concerning technicalities or
laws, or the way that work is being done—and we've never had a problem with
S-R Marble & Tile at all—because everything has always been done the way it
has to be done. Concerning this particular situation—my father contracts and
does work independently—apart from Abbey Carpet and he thinks the same as
I—that if there were a dispute that S-R would step aside so there would not be a
dispute with Abbey Carpet. I would rather keep them separate if it came to that
point."
She clarified:
• "If there was a particular job and there was a problem—I would rather have other
workers come in than have a problem where S-R has to be affected by it."
Thomas Lykos:
Q. "What if there's a dispute involving the quality of the workmanship and payment
on a project? You are put in a position where, as a Qualifier for Abbey, you
have obligations there. As a Qualifier for your family's business, you have
obligations. How you are qualifying an entity, Abbey,that has a financial
dispute with your family and your ability to provide for your family is in
jeopardy."
A. "What would I do?"
Q. "Yes."
A. "Like I said, following the law. If it was a mistake on the part of S-R Marble&
Tile,then I would make sure that it was fixed. If it was a mistake on Abbey
Carpet's part,then I would make sure that it was absolutely done correctly if it
was the quality of a job. If it involved payment,we have strong ties with Abbey
and I would definitely be able to go—they have always done"right"by us—to
go and make sure that it's done and paid correctly as well,that payment is
received."
Patrick White stated he was satisfied that she was not going to be in that aspect of
the business as to Abbey. There is a degree of independence and separation with
Ted being in charge of finances. I am comfortable with her answer.
Thomas Lykos stated he has been a contractor for 30 years. He asked, "How many
times has a dispute been black and white?" He further stated his concern was that
Ms. Carcamo has not grasped the gravity of the circumstances that may come up.
Q. "What happens when there is a dispute between S-R and Abbey? What if a
member of your S-R family comes to you and says, `You need to make this right
—you need to find a way to fix this, or says, `I can't believe you still work for
15
October 17,2012
them knowing what they did to us.'
It may never happen, but the point is that situation may occur and I want to hear
you say that you understand and are prepared to handle that situation."
Jessie Carcamo:
A. "Sir, absolutely, and as S-R Marble and my father,the owner,knows—I work
independently which is why I'm doing this. If I wanted to continue working just
with the family,then I would do that. This is to further my career independently
in the construction industry. I am seeking to continue qualifying them [S-R]just
so that he has a Qualifier in the meantime while he gets his own license—but this
is my career and my business and I am going to run it the way that I need to."
Thomas Lykos:
Q. "Okay, I accept that answer."
Patrick White:
• "There seems to be a pattern in practice from each of these two business entities
that from each end, they are comfortable having the same person as their
Qualifier. To me,there is an opportunity for quality and efficiency that benefits
the customer to flow down through the contracting process."
• "I feel we've asked the right questions and we've gotten to the appropriate types
of answers."
Terry Jerulle:
• "I agree with Mr. White. I don't believe that Page 4 of the application has been
filled out fully and correctly."
Q. "What will your title be at Abbey Carpet?"
A. "Qualifier of the company."
Q. "You are not going to have a title?"
A. "As an officer—no. And I don't have any percentage of ownership in Abbey
Carpet."
Q. "So you are basically just a license for hire?"
A. "I will be working with them. I would be involved in the jobs."
Q. (Thomas Lykos) "Will you be an employee of the business?"
A. (Ted Duglokienski) "She will not be on the payroll."
Terry Jerulle: "Question 5-J states, "You will be paid by the business you are
applying to qualify as a monthly fee."
Ted Dlugokienski: "Right."
Mr. Jerulle: "A license to hire."
Jessie Carcamo: "I don't understand what you mean when you say that."
Mr. Jerulle: "You have a license and you are basically getting a fee to qualify a
company."
Ms. Carcamo: "But I am working—I will make sure that the job is getting done."
16
October 17,2012
Mr. Jerulle: "But you don't have a title from the company?"
Ms. Carcamo: "Titles are given to officers, sir. I am not an officer of the
company."
Vice Chairman Joslin: "And you have no interest in the company then, either?"
Jessie Carcamo: "No ownership."
Ted Duglokienski: "She has no ownership in the company."
Thomas Lykos: "Titles are also given to employees. You do not have to be an
officer to have a title."
Jessie Carcamo: "Okay—we can make up a title—Supervisor."
Terry Jerulle: "The reason why I am asking is and what I want to make sure you
understand is that, as a Qualifier,there are certain responsibilities ... We have had
people come before the Board who, as a Qualifier, had left a company because the
Qualifier had no control over what the company was doing."
Jessie Carcamo: "In what sense? In the contracting work or in accounting?"
Mr.Jerulle: "In the permitting side of it. I'm trying to understand if you are going
to have any control over what Abbey Carpet does with your license."
Ms. Carcamo: "I am not going to have any control over what they do with my
license?"
Mr.Jerulle: "That is what I am asking."
Ms. Carcamo: "I will absolutely have control over what they do with my license. I
am not going to allow my license to be used for ..."
Mr.Jerulle: "And how are you going to stop that? How will you know that?"
Ms. Carcamo: "I have to oversee the work—the same way I do for S-R."
Mr. Jerulle: "What if Ted sends a crew to a job site that requires a permit but he
send them there without pulling a permit—how will you handle that?"
Ms. Carcamo: "First of all, no one can pull permits without my approval."
Ted Duglokienski: "You're saying that I just sent them out there without ...?"
Mr.Jerulle: "She's the Qualifier of the company. Ted is the owner of the company
for argument's sake ...
Ted Duglokienski: "Right"
Mr. Jerulle: "... Ted sent a crew out to a house to do tile—didn't pull the permit
and that house needs to have a permit—what are your ramifications? What can you
do about that? Since you have no ownership in the company—no title in the
company—I'm just trying to get an understanding. In a sense, he's putting your
license in jeopardy.
Ms. Carcamo: "Okay."
Mr.Jerulle: "I don't know if you understand that. What are you going to do about
it if he does do that? Or what can you do about it? What is the relationship going to
be?"
Ms. Carcamo: "Well, I have open communication with them, absolutely. That's
just how it's always been, so I would definitely ... immediately ... first of all, I don't
expect that to happen. But I would immediately go and ..."
17
October 17, 2012
Mr. Jerulle: "Nobody does ... nobody does. It's simply because he doesn't want to
pay the cost of the permit and sends a crew out there to make some extra money.
You may not even know about it at first."
Ted Duglokienski: "I would suspect when she finds out that's when she would step
up and say, `It can't happen.' Again,knowing that it won't happen—but if
something like that did happen ..."
Mr. Jerulle: "We had a case here with an HVAC company just recently where,
basically, we took the guy's license away because of what the company was doing."
Ted Duglokienski: "And, I guess, ultimately that would be her responsibility to
come back to you, all and ..."
Ms. Carcamo: "Alert ... "
Ted Duglokienski: "Alert you and then you take that position with us and pull
our ..."
Mr. Jerulle: "Basically, it's just a license for hire ... in a sense. She has no
responsibility in Abbey Carpet. She has no say in Abbey Carpet. She has no
ownership in Abbey Carpet."
Ms. Carcamo: "Sir, I think that anyone who is qualifying a company and would
have zero percent ownership that they would be able to find themselves in that
position. Anyone, if their owner decides to go and send work to be done without
them being aware of it. It's just a matter of that person, once finding out,putting a
stop to it immediately and alerting you guys that that is going on."
Ted Duglokienski: "I mean, she will still be the `police' if you will ... "
Ms. Carcamo: "Yeah ... and overseeing ...."
Mr. Jerulle: "But you're still ... you still have the opportunity to jeopardize her
license."
Ted Duglokienski: "I certainly have the ability to do that I guess ... if I have the
license personally as an employee and the Vice President, I still have no ownership
in Abbey Carpet of Naples. It's certainly,hypothetically, in the realm of possibility
that the owner of the company or another officer in the company could send Crew
"X," "Y,"or"Z"out and I'm in the same position—even though I'm an employee
and an officer, that I would have to, basically, stop them."
Terry Jerulle asked Attorney Morey to read the Code concerning qualifying a
second entity.
Thomas Lykos asked the Board's Counsel to also review the Ordinance for
references to the phrase, "selling your license" or"renting your license."
Patrick White: "I think it's fair to say that, in a business sense, every Qualifier
in the marketplace is `selling' their license. And I understand that we're drilling
down on what those differences are but I just don't want the basis to be focused
on the idea that it's a `license for hire' because if your license wasn't for hire and
you weren't getting paid, nobody would do it anyway. This isn't an altruistic
non-profit—this is a business entity. And everybody is there just to try to make a
living."
Terry Jerulle: "And my point to Ms. Carcamo is—I'm not sure she fully under-
stands what she is ... the responsibility she is giving Abbey Carpet and how it
can damage her in the future. I'm more concerned with her and her license."
18
October 17,2012
Jessie Carcamo: "I understand, sir. I understand what's at risk. Why not?"
Attorney James Morey reviewed the following definitions for the Board:
• Primary Qualifying Agent: A person who possesses the requisite skill,
knowledge and experience and has the responsibility to supervise, direct,
manage and control the contracting activities of the business or organization
with which he/she is connected; who has the responsibility to supervise,
direct,manage and control the construction activities on a job for which
he/she has obtained a building permit and for financial matters—both for
the organization in general and for each specific job; and whose technical and
personal qualifications have been determined by investigation or examination
as provided in the Code and a vetted by the Department.
Vice Chairman Joslin: "That clarifies what Mr. Jerulle was getting at and I
concur with him also. There's a lot of`window' open here for you to be in some
serious trouble. I'm not saying that it would happen. I'm not saying that it could
or should. But we're talking about control of a business and we're talking about
the financial responsibility that you could have—it could back to haunt you."
Vice Chairman Joslin directed his question to Mr. Duglokienski:
Q. "Back in July, 2010,there was a tax lien filed against Abbey Carpet. I know
it's been released. Can you explain why?"
A. "Actually, it was a sales tax. It was a sales tax payment that went in but was
never cashed. We didn't catch it and as soon as we were notified,we paid it."
When again questioned as to how she"would go" in a dispute between Abbey
Carpet and S-T Tile, Jessie Carcamo stated she would support whomever was
right in the eyes of the law.
Michael Ossorio reminded the Board that there are policies and procedures for
Second Entities. He stated Ms. Carcamo has demonstrated that she will follow
the Ordinance with respect to any misconduct. The County recognizes that there
are many Qualifiers who are not part of the company they are qualifying which
is why the company must sign the Letter of Authorization that was approved by
the Contractors' Licensing Board.
He further stated Mr. Bronson was in the same situation five years earlier. Mr.
Bronson did not own any part of the company and was a subcontractor to Abbey
Carpet.
He continued the County had not received any complaints concerning Abbey Carpet
or Mr. Bronson.
Thomas Lykos stated he still had reservations but the Board was directed by the
Ordinance. He asked Attorney Morey to read the section concerning approving a
Second Entity.
19
October 17,2012
Michael Ossorio stated the Board could issue the Certificate based on the full
application. State changed the Statutes recently to allow a State-certified General
Contractor to qualify more than two companies. The process is to complete and
submit an application which is sent to a Licensing Board for investigation—a full
hearing. The application for a Second Entity goes through the full application
process.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated the point of his comments was to ascertain that Ms.
Carcoma was fully aware of what she was taking on as the Qualifer.
Jessie Carcoma reiterated that she understood.
Thomas Lykos stated he wanted the section of the Ordinance read into the record
before the Board voted. If the decision were ever challenged,the language of the
Ordinance would be on the record.
Attorney Morey referenced Section 22-165, "The Contractors' Licensing Board,"
(c) "Duties and Power,"
(1) Upon reference by The Contractor Licensing Supervisor or
petition by an applicant, the Board shall have the power to determine
the qualifications of applicants for the various categories of Contractors'
Certificates of Competency as measured by standards stated in this Article.
He continued the application had been sent to the Board by the Contractor Licensing
Supervisor.
Mr. Lykos noted there was no checklist to go through to decide whether or not to
approve—it's basically a"housekeeping" step.
Patrick White asked for an explanation of why the business checking account had
been depleted by almost$200,000 in the past few months.
Ted Duglokienski responded the figures would fluctuate anywhere from $50,000
to $500,00 depending on the time of the year as was the nature of the business.
Attorney Morey provided referred the Board to Section 22-182 of the Code entitled
"Applications—General."
Under(c)—"Business Organizations:" If the applicant proposes to engage in
contracting as a partnership, corporation, business trust or other legal entity, the
applicant shall apply through a qualifying agent and comply with the requirements
and responsibilities contained in F.S. 489-119 and 289-1195. "
He stated the County's application tracks the information set out in Florida Statutes.
• The Board has the jurisdiction,
• The information is to be submitted to the Board by the applicant,
• The decision is to be made by the Board.
20
October 17,2012
Kyle Lantz stated he also had serious reservations and further stated that a Qualifer
should be an integral part of the company—actively involved in it. His concern was
that Ms. Carcoma did not know enough about the operations of Abbey Carpet to be
able to oversee the business. While Ms. Carcoma may have the best of intentions,
he was not certain that she would be able to do a good job.
He continued since Abbey Carpet has been in business for many years, any one
of its officers could probably take the test and obtain a license. To obtain his vote
of approval, Mr. Lantz stated he would like to see that Ms. Carcoma actually did
something or would have the power to do something. He stated when he read the
application, his first thought was "license for hire." He stated he was not convinced
that she had either the power or knowledge of the business operated.
Vice Chairman Joslin reminded the Board Members it was not within their prevue
to advise an applicant on how to run a business.
Patrick White asked Gary Harrison to testify.
Gary Harrison introduced himself to the Board as the former Building Official
and Chief Structural Inspector for Collier County. He stated he has had a
relationship with Sergio and Jessie over past few years; has had tile work done,
and has seen their workmanship which he classified as "impeccable."
Mr. White asked Mr. Harrison if he had any relevant comment on the discussion
and the opinions of the various Board members.
Mr. Harrison stated he met with Sergio and Jessie and explained the responsibilities
entailed and the Building Code issues. He further stated that Jessie understood.
He concluded if she was willing to accept her responsibilities and knew the limits
imposed by the law,there was no reason not to approve the application.
Mr. White asked Mr. Harrison to explain his degree of comfort based upon his
knowledge of Ms. Carcoma's work experience and her ability to supervise a tile
and marble job.
Mr. Harrison replied Ms. Carcoma is qualified and passed the exams as required.
He reiterated that S-R is very qualified and the work produce has been the best in
the area. He stated the work that S-R have done for him have been"very good"
and he is"pretty fussy." He has also had business with Abbey Carpet which he
classified as "very good."
Vice Chairman Joslin called for a motion.
Kyle Lantz moved to not accept or approve the application to qualify a Second
Entity.
Since a second in support was not offered,the Motion failed.
Vice Chairman Joslin called for a second motion.
Patrick White moved to approve the application to qualify a Second Entity.
Second by Michael Boyd.
21
October 17,2012
Discussion:
Terry Jerulle stated he was "still bothered"—he could only vote against an
application for a Second Entity if the document had not been completed correctly.
He reiterated his concern that the Applicant may not understand the gravity of the
situation—"what she is getting herself into." He continued Abbey Carpet would
have control over her life and there was no agreement to verify that she had some
control over her own destiny. He suggested she consult legal counsel.
Thomas Lykos stated that"under the law"the Board could not find a reason to
NOT approve the application. His concerns were that she was not an employee
of Abbey Carpet. He did not feel that she would be able to"supervise, manage
and control"without being an employee at the very least. Additionally, she was
applying to qualify one company that was a subcontractor of the other company.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated he would not do what the Applicant is attempting.
Vice Chairman Joslin called for a vote on the Motion.
Motion carried, 6— "Yes"/1 — "No." Kyle Lantz was opposed
Michael Ossorio requested the Board hear Item VTTT (A) under"Public Hearings"
to consider dismissing the Administrative Complaint against"Olde Naples Tile &
Marble, LLC." He stated the case had been withdrawn by both parties.
Patrick White reiterated that Staff has requested the Board hear Item VIII(A) out
of Agenda order and consider withdrawing the item from the Agenda.
Mr. Ossorio concurred. He stated since the Agenda had been approved,the Item
can only be withdrawn with Board approval.
Mr. White asked if the County was no longer proceeding with a disciplinary action
against the Respondent.
Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright replied that a dismissal was in process.
He noted the Respondent's attorney was present. The terms of the settlement were
to be agreed upon by the parties and reduced to writing. He continued the Respondent
agreed to pay an amount in restitution and the County would dismiss the Administrative
Complaint upon receipt of such funds from the Respondent. The Respondent specified
that it is not admitting any liability with respect to the alleged violations.
Vice Chairman Joslin asked if the parties had reached an agreement and would enter
into a Stipulation.
Assistant County Attorney White confirmed.
Vice Chairman Joslin suggested the Item VIII (A) should be"tabled"until the next
meeting. He did not want to dismiss it without knowing the terms of the agreement.
Attorney Morey noted a Motion for Continuance was pending which the Board could
grant.
Attorney Basil Baine appeared on behalf of Karin Sacacian and"Olde Naples Tile
and Marble." He stated a Motion for Continuance had been filed and, after discussions
with Mr. Wright as Counsel for the County, a resolution of the matter has been reached.
22
October 17,2012
He further stated `for the record"that there was no admission of liability or any type of
wrong-doing on the part of the Respondent.
Patrick White noted the Board had been asked to consider a"late filed"Motion for
Continuance. He continued if the Board granted the Motion and the case is resolved, it
would not appear on next month's Agenda.
Assistant County Attorney Wright stated`for the record"that the Respondent had
agreed to resolve the case and the terms of the agreement would be memorialized. He
was reluctant to agree to a Continuance,not because it was filed late,but because the
victims were present and had flown here from out of the country. He did not want to
inconvenience them by requesting that they return again—he wanted a resolution for
them. He confirmed the Respondent agreed to pay restitution and the County agreed
to dismiss the Complaint. He stated a Continuance would not provide any closure for
the victims.
Mr. White countered that Staff's request to withdraw the item from the Agenda would
also not provide any closure. He noted the Board would not reconvene again until
December.
Mr. Wright pointed out if the Complaint were withdrawn, the County would still
maintain the option to re-file the case. He stated the victims could not return to the
U.S. until April. He further stated they are key witnesses for the case. He concluded
by stating the County wanted to withdraw the case from the Agenda to work out a
settlement but would bring it back before the Board if necessary in the future.
Mr. Bain stated he filed a Motion for Continuance on behalf of his client which stated
the reasons for the request.
Mr. White noted the Board had not been advised of the Motion and had not seen the
document. He explained Staff had requested to withdrawn the item from the Agenda.
Attorney Bain stated his client did not object to the request to withdraw the Motion
based upon the understanding that a resolution was in process. He anticipated a final
Dismissal of the Complaint.
Michael Ossorio stated the County had no objection to withdrawing the item from
the Agenda while retaining the ability to re-file if necessary at a later date. He stated
since the Exhibits had not been placed into evidence, details could not be provided to
the Board.
Thomas Lykos stated the Board's goal is to bring contractors into compliance and
when the Board can have an impact on restitution, it tries to do so. But that does not
eliminate or mitigate the fact that a violation had occurred.
Patrick White explained a violation had only been"alleged"and Mr. Bain's position
is that it was not warranted. The County has had discussion outside of the Boards'
hearing and has requested to withdraw.
Vice Chairman Joslin stated the only action required by the Board was a Motion to
remove the Item from the Agenda.
Patrick White moved to approve amend the Agenda and remove Item VIII(A),
under "Public Hearings,"i.e., Case #2012-11:Karin Sacacian, d/b/a "Olde
Naples Tile& Marble,LLC,"from the Agenda. Second by Kyle Lantz.
Carried unanimously, 7—0.
23
October 17,2012
BREAK: 11:15 AM
RECONVENED: 11:30 AM
VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Continued)
E. Claudio Ferretti-Waiver of Examination(s) - Stucco Contractor license
Vice Chairman Joslin noted the case was being heard out of order because
Mr. Ferretti had an appointment in Port Charlotte.
Mr. Ferretti stated:
• The work situation is improving and he would like to be able to spend more
time in sales, estimating, and overseeing the work.
• He is aware of the fees and back fees that must be paid.
• He has been licensed in Collier County during 2009—2010.
• He is also licensed in Lee County, Sarasota, and Charlotte County.
• He was also licensed in Lakeland.
Thomas Lykos asked Mr. Ferretti if his licenses were active in the other Counties
and his response was, "Yes."
Mr. Ferretti stated due to a lack of work in Collier County, he allowed his license
to lapse. He stated he had remained active in Charlotte County, in Sarasota and in
Lee County.
Patrick White asked if the licenses had been renewed and were current.
Mr. Ferretti replied that they were current.
Michael Ossorio stated:
• Mr. Ferretti had taken and passed the Business Procedures Test and the
Stucco Exam as required,
• Mr. Ferretti's personal credit scores were"better than most,"
• There were no problems noted on his business credit report,
• He has taken some courses in scaffolding, and
• The County has no objection to approving his application for a Waiver of
Examination.
Kyle Lantz moved to approve the application of Claudio Ferretti for a Waiver of
Examination of the Trade exam and Business Procedures test. Second by Terry
Jerulle. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
D. Geraldo Martinez—Waiver of Examination(s)
Michael Ossorio stated:
• Mr. Martinez took the Tile and Marble exam in 2005. His score was 76.
• He also took the Business Procedures test in 2005 and his score was 80.
24
October 17,2012
• His license expired on September 30, 2010.
Mr. Martinez stated he allowed his license to lapse because he had been
considering quitting the business entirely due to the recession in the economy.
He admitted he made a bad decision.
Michael Ossorio asked Mr. Martinez to explain if he kept operating his tile and
marble business without a license or if he worked for someone else since 2010.
Mr. Martinez explained he has been working as an employee for a company that
does primarily mold remediation, demolition, and construction. He stated a lot of
work was done "in house"(such as tile work or anything with flooring)which he
would do because he had a specialty license. He stated he has not done any
"research"other than reading materials on the new products that are available.
Some of his responsibilities include purchasing,job estimating, he attends meetings,
i.e.,pre-bid construction, and he researched the different products that were being
used to ensure they met Code requirements and were properly applied or installed.
He was responsible for overseeing a job site for quality control.
He stated he did have Workers' Compensation insurance but it is not current—the
company leases its employees.
Mr. Ossorio noted Mr. Martinez had closed his business but now wishes to
come back into the industry. He stated the issue is can Mr. Martinez continue in
business without taking the Business Procedures Test.
Patrick White stated he understood the County's concern. He concurred that
Mr. Martinez made the hest decision he could at the time although it may cost
him more money now. He may not have been financially able to pay the renewal
fees in 2010.
Thomas Lykos noted the applicant had earned a license and actually did the work.
Thomas Lykos moved to approve granting the Application of Geraldo Martinez for
a Waiver of Examination of the Trades test and the Business Procedures exam.
Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
VII. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Orders of the Board
Patrick White moved to approve authorizing the Vice Chairman to sign the Orders
of the Board. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 7—0.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Case#2012-11: Karin Sacacian,
d/b/a "Olde Naples Tile& Marble, LLC."
(Note: This case was removed from the Agenda per unanimous motion of the Board.)
25
October 17,2012
IX. REPORTS:
• Michael Ossorio stated the renewal season was successful—approximately 1800
local contractors renewed their licenses. He stated it was the best year since he has
been in charge of renewals. He complimented the Staff and the County's "City
View"computer program.
• He further stated a report was in process which would detail the percentage of
renewals from 2011 vs. 2012. He will supply a copy of the report to the Board as
soon as it is available.
X. MEMBER COMMENTS:
• Thomas Lykos asked when the Budget for the Licensing Department would be
available for review. Mr. Ossorio replied the raw data would be available for
distribution.
• Mr. Ossorio confirmed a press release had been distributed on October 15th
concerning the opening on the Board. He stated the new applicant will fill the
position of"consumer."
XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, 3rd Floor—Administrative Building"F,"
Government Complex, 3301 B. '1'amiami'Trail, Naples, FL 34112
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned
by the order of the Vice Chairman at 12:00 PM.
COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS
LICENSING BOARD
Richard Josl in, i1 ce Chairman
The Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on , 2012,
"as submitted" [ 1 OR "as amended" ( 1.
26