Loading...
CLB Minutes 03/20/2013 CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD Minutes March 20 , 2013 March 20, 2013 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD MEETING March 20, 2013 APR 1 2013 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: District 1 District 2 [district 3 District 4 Dlstrlct 5 c. -orres: Date: Item #: Copies to: ALSO PRESENT: Chairman: Richard Joslin Vice Chair: Patrick White Members: Michael Boyd Ronald Donino Terry Jerulle Kyle Lantz Thomas Lykos Robert Meister Jon Walker Michael Ossorio — Supervisor, Contractors' Licensing Office Jeff Wright, Esq. — Assistant County Attorney James F. Morey, Esq. — Attorney for the Contractors' Licensing Board Ian Jackson — Licensing Compliance Officer March 20, 2013 Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the Appeal is to be based. I. ROLL CALL: Chairman Richard Joslin called the meeting to order at 9:01 AM and read the procedures to be followed to appeal a decision. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. Nine voting members were present. H. AGENDA — ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: Continuations: • Undcr Itcm VIII, "Public Ilearings:" (A) Case # 2013 -04: BC'C vs. Allen G. Reeves, d/b /a "A G Reeves, LLC," was continued to the April mecting. (C) Case # 2013 -06: BCC vs. Alberto L. Diaz, d/b /a "A & M Professional Home Services, LLC," was also continued to the April meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Thomas Lykos moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Kyle. Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 20,2012: Corrections: • Page 15 (3`d paragraph): Change "under" to "until" • Page 15 (4th paragraph): Change "$64.000" to 11$64,000" ( 2nd bullet point ) Vice Chairman White moved to approve the Minutes as amended. Second by Thomas Lykos. Motion carried, 6 — "Yes " /3 — "Abstentions." Chairman Joslin, Michael Boyd, and Ronald Donino abstained from voting because they did not attend the February meeting. V. DISCUSSION: (None) VI. NEW BUSINESS: (Note: Regarding cases heard under Section VI and Section VIII, respectively, the individuals who testified were first sworn in by the Attorney for the Board.) 2 March 20, 2013 A. Kenneth A. Corr — Waiver of Examination(s) Kenneth A. Corr: • Returned to Florida after a 3 -year absence • Continued working in the trade in New Hampshire (2010 — 2012) and maintained his Continuing Education requirements during that time • Has petitioned the Board to reinstate his license in Collier County • Obtained his Journeyman's license in 1993 and became a Master Electrician in 1996 • Passed the Master Electrical Contractors exam and the business procedures test in 2002 • Was licensed in Collier County from 2002 through 2009 • His license in New Hampshire is current Michael Ossorio provided the following information: • Mr. Corr's Certificate of Competency expired in 2009 • Maintained his registration with the State of Florida • Has requested to waive the exams • He is required to obtain Workers' Comp insurance since he will be a sole proprietor and will not be exempt Mr. Corr confirmed he obtained a Worker's Compensation policy as well as full liability insurance coverage. Mr. Ossorio stated the County recommended that the Board grant his application to waive the requirement to re -take the exams. Thomas Lykos noted Mr. Corr had asked the Board to waive the requirement to take the Business Procedures test and the specific trade exam. Thomas Lykos moved to approve waiving the requirement to take the Business Procedures test and the electrical exam. Second by Ronald Donino. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. B. Seth Hollander — Waiver of Examination(s) (Hollander Construction Company, Inc., d/b /a: SML Striping and & Signage) Seth Hollander: • Allowed his license to lapse in 2010 due to the down -turn in the economy • Petitioned to reinstate his license Michael Ossorio: Mr. Hollender applied to reinstate two Certificates of Competency, i.e., for excavating and for sealing /striping. There are two test requirements, i.e., Business Procedures test and the exam for excavating. March 20, 2013 Chairman Joslin questioned the Applicant concerning his future plans under his licenses. Seth Hollander replied civil site development under the excavating license, and he would continue the sealing and striping business. Mr. Hollander stated he had been employed by South Florida Excavation from 2004 through 2008. • "General Operations" — all phases of the business and operation of all equipment Michael Ossorio explained the Applicant had been licensed as an excavator since 2007. The licensed was allowed to lapse in 2010. The Applicant falls under the "renewal" category and is required to take the exams. He stated the Applicant was to explain what he had been doing in the trade since his license lapsed. Chairman Joslin noted the Applicant had been an Engineering student at Florida Gulf Coast University ( "FCGU ") raid gained on -site experience. Seth Iollander stated from 2010 through 2011, lie did not work. From 2011 through 2013, he was employed by Commercial Concrete. He performed whatever tasks he was assigned and did striping work, as necessary, for Commercial Concrete. Thomas Lykos noted the Board was trying to ascertain if Mr. Hollender continued to work within the trade during the time his license had lapsed in order to determine whether or not to waive the testing requirement. He asked the Applicant to provide specific responses. Mr. Hollander detailed his experience: • Footers - footer excavation • Grading for slabs • Arthrex project — building out at Ava Maria for Commercial Concrete o Ran crews of up to 15 Mr. Lykos noted the application outlined Mr. Hollander's experience: • from 2006 to the present — employed by Hollender Construction • from 2008 to the present — employed by SNL Striping and Signage • the commercial construction experience was not listed Seth Hollander stated it was an oversight and that he was still employed by Commercial Concrete. Chairman Joslin requested an explanation of the items on the credit report that had not been satisfied and the reasons. The Applicant stated he was not paid for three jobs at the end 2010 and was owed approximately $250,000. He was financially unable to pay a vendor. He returned the equipment (tractors, trucks, etc.). He also filed liens to recover the monies owed to the subcontractors. He noted the company was a local firm. Mr. Hollander explained if his licenses are reinstated, he can work and continue to pay on the judgment. He has made payments as his finances have allowed. 4 March 20, 2013 Michael Ossorio stated the Board could waive the testing requirement for excavation but, due to the credit issues, could require the Applicant to take the Business Procedures test within three months. There were no complaints filed concerning the Applicant's excavating workmanship while he was licensed. The trade test has not changed. Chairman Joslin suggested the Applicant could be placed on probation for a short period of time to ensure that payments would be made against the judgment. Vice Chairman White concurred. He stated his concern was not as much about the business mechanics as the credit report and supported imposing a six month probationary period during which time the Board expected to see improvement. Vice Chairman White moved to approve waiving the requirement to take the trades tests for excavation and striping as well as the Business Procedures exam for each but placing the Applicant on probation for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the probationary period, tl :e Applicant is to appear before the Board to present current personal and business credit reports for review. Second by Jon O'alker. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Thomas Lykos advised the Applicant to purchase a thorough credit report to present to the Board at the end of the probationary period. Vice Chairman White suggested two credit reporting services (" Bxperian" and "Trans- Union ") provided the information required by the Board. OLD BUSINESS: A. Orders of the Board Thomas Lykos moved to approve authorizing the Chairman to sign the Orders of the Board. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Case #2013 -05: BCC vs. Irene Lee, d/b /a "IJ Remodeling, Inc." Chairman Joslin outlined the manner in which the Public Hearing will be conducted: • Hearings will be conducted pursuant to the procedures contained in Collier County Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, and Florida Statutes, Title XXXII, "Regulation of Professions and Occupations, " Chapter 489. • The Hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. • Formal "Rules of Evidence" shall not apply. • Fundamental fairness and due process shall be observed and shall govern the proceedings. • Irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative evidence shall be excluded. • All other evidence of the type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the Courts of the State of Florida. March 20, 2013 • 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. • 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 parry called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • The Chairperson or, in his/her absence, the Vice Chair, shall have all powers necessary to conduct the proceedings at the Hearing in a full, fair, and impartial manner, and to preserve order and decorum. • The general process of the Hearing is for the County to present an Opening Statement to set forth the charges and, in general terms, how the County intends to prove the charges. • The Respondent will present his/her Opening Statement setting forth, in general terms, defenses to the charges. • The County will present its Case in Chief by calling witnesses and presenting evidence. • The Respondent may cross - examine the witnesses. • After the County has closed its Case. in Chief, the Respondent may present his/her defense as described previously, i.e., to call and examine witnesses, to introduce Exhibits, to cross - examine witnesses, to impeach any witness regardless of which party called the witness to testify, and to rebut any evidence presented against the party. • After the Respondent has presented his/her case, the County will present a rebuttal to the Respondent's presentation. • When the Rebuttal is concluded, each party is permitted to present a Closing Statement. • The County is allowed a second opportunity to rebut the Respondent's Closing Statement. • The Board will close the Public Hearing and begin deliberations. • Prior to beginning deliberations, the Board's Attorney will give a "charge" to the Board, similar to the charge given to a jury, setting out the parameters on which the decision will be based. • During deliberations, the Board can request additional information and clarification from the parties. • The Board will decide two different issues: o Whether the Respondent is guilty of the offense as charged in the Administrative Complaint. A vote will be taken on the matter. o If the Respondent is found guilty, the Board must decide the sanctions to be imposed. March 20, 2013 • The Board's Attorney will advise the Board concerning the sanctions and the factors to be considered. • The Board will discuss the sanctions and vote. • After the matters are decided, the ChairNice Chair will read a Summary of the Order to be issued by the Board. The Summary is a basic outline of the Order and may not reflect the same language contained in the Final Order. • The Final Order will include complete details as required under State laws and procedures. Ian Jackson, Licensing Compliance Officer, requested to have the information packet placed into evidence. Vice Chairman White moved to approve entering Case No. 2013 -05, Collier County Board of County Commissioners vs. Irene Lee, d/b /a "I JRemodeling, Inc., " License Number 33229, consisting of the Administrative Complaint and Exhibits Into evidence. Second by Kyle Lantz. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. The information packet was entered into evidence as County's Exhibit "A." Ian Jackson presented the County's Opening Statement: • The County was prepared to show Ms. Lee violated Ordinance #90 -105, as amended, Section 22.201(6), by violating Florida State Insurance Statute 440.10(1)(a) by not providing Workers' Compensation coverage to her employees, Edwin Pineda and Domingo Lux, on February 22, 20 13. He noted Ms. Lee had provided a statement to be distributed to the Board which was not listed in the Table of Contents because it was not part of the information packet provided to the Board by the County. Vice Chairman White moved to approve entering the statement (not dated) provided by the Respondent into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Second by Thomas Lykos. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Respondent's Opening Statement: • Ms. Lee admitted guilt and that she was "taking steps." • She stated, "This will never happen again." • She was not contesting the Citation. • She confirmed the company had received two previous Citations for the same offense. Terry Jerulle asked the Respondent if she understood she had the opportunity to be represented by an attorney but chose not to, and the response was, "Yes." County's Case in Chief Ian Jackson referenced County's Exhibit "E -2" entitled Code Case Details. 7 March 20, 2013 February 22, 2013: • On -site inspection of new home construction located at 1266 Gordon River Trail. Builder/Permit Holder: Vincent Borelli, Borelli Construction of Naples, Inc. o Borelli subcontracted the flooring installation to Taylor Carpet One o Taylor Carpet One subcontracted the carpet installation to I J Remodeling, Inc. o Irene Lee is the qualifier of IJ Remodeling, Inc. (flooring certificate) • Present at the site: Yong Lee, Edwin Pineda, Domingo Lux • Yong Lee stated he was a subcontractor of Taylor Carpet One and identified the two men as employees of Taylor Carpet One • Representatives for Taylor Carpet One claimed that no payroll employees were at the site • Workers Compensation coverage: exemptions for Yong Lee and Irene Lee but no coverage for additional workers • Research was conducted: • Citation #5563 was issued on 05 -27 -2010 to Trene Lee ■ Violation: no Workers Compensation coverage for employees, Domingo Lux was one of the employees • Citation #5987 was issued on 01 -13 -2011 to Irene Lee ■ Violation: no Workers Compensation coverage for employee, Edwin Pineda • The fines for each Citation had bccn paid in full. • A "Stop Work" Order was issued. February 25, 2013: • Irene Lee was contacted and informed of the violation. • She was advised a hearing would be scheduled for March 20, 2013. February 26, 2013: • Notice of Hearing was sent, via certified mail delivery, to 3186 Antica Street. Fort Myers, Florida 33905 • Proof of delivery on March 1, 2013 was provided by the U.S. Postal Service Mr. Jackson noted the "Stop Work" Order had been lifted. Respondent's Case in Chief: Ms. Lee stated: She had been out of town when the "Stop Work" Order was issued Workers' Compensation coverage has been obtained for I J Remodeling, Inc. • The Workers Compensation office imposed a penalty and a down payment of 10% was paid • Have been cleared to resume work by the State of Florida Will be using "Labor Finders" to purchase Workers Compensation coverage on a weekly basis for employees March 20, 2013 She further stated Yong Lee did not understand the Investigator's question due to a language barrier and did not intend to incorrectly identify the employees, Edwin Pineda and Domingo Lux. Michael Ossorio requested the total amount of the penalty. Irene Lee stated it was $18, 453.87. The down- payment was paid on March 5d' and monthly installment payments will be made for the next five years until the full amount of the fine is satisfied. (The proceedings were paused while the company's Bookkeeper produced confirmation of the monthly installment payment, i.e., $276.80.) Ms. Lee confirmed the company employs two individuals, Edwin Pineda and Domingo Lux, on an "as needed" basis. It was noted if a payment is not made, a "Stop Work" Order would be issued and would applicable to the entire State of Florida. Chairman Joslin explained the offense of not providing Workers Compensation insurance coverage for employees is one of the most serious offenses an employer can commit. He expressed concern that the offense had been repeated three times. Thomas Lykos noted both Edwin Pineda and Domingo Lux had worked for I J Remodeling for the past three years as needed without Workers' Compensation coverage. Vice Chairman White confirmed as part of the penalty imposed by the Workers Compensation Office, I J Remodeling was prohibited from employing either Edwin Pineda or Domingo Lux in the future. Irene Lee stated a completely new crew was hired. Mr. White expressed concern that, due to the failure of I J Remodeling, Inc. to follow the law, the two men lost their jobs. He stated, "You, in a sense, caused them harm by not operating your business under the law." He further stated the degree of irresponsibility on the part of I J Remodeling was very serious and demonstrated that the management of the business was not what it should be. Ms. Lee stated she had been previously unaware of the existence of Labor Finders until the Workers Compensation Office explained the option was available. Mr. White asked why she didn't investigate other possibilities two years ago to avoid incurring the same violation in the future. He stated by not obtaining proper insurance coverage, she put the risk on the shoulders of her competition and found it was not the type of conduct expected of a business owner. Terry Jerulle asked Ms. Lee when she took the Business Procedures test and her response was, "Four or five years ago." He noted the individuals supplied by Labor Finders are not skilled workers and she must now train them to perform job that requires skilled laborers. March 20, 2013 Ms. Lee confirmed if the individuals obtained through Labor Finders remain with the company for a minimum of a month, she will hire them permanently and provide Workers Compensation coverage through a private insurance company. Kyle Lantz noted Ms. Lee could provide her own workers and Labors Finders would insure them for as long as necessary to complete a job. Thomas Lykos stated part of the Board's role was to bring violators into compliance. He further stated when a license is issued, the owner should know exactly what the requirements are to operate the business within the laws of the community. It should not have taken three Citations to be issued and placing people at risk for injury before Ms. Lee explored her options. He questioned if Ms. Lee's company had not been "caught," how much longer would the practice of not providing insurance coverage to workers have continued. Ian Jackson stated the County would not be presented a Closing Statement. Ms. Lee reiterated that Labor Finders would provide Workers Compensation insurance until she hired a permanent crew and would then provide coverage through an insurance company. Chairman Joslin moved to approve closing the Public Hearing. Second by Vice Chairman White. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Attorney Morey outlined the Charge to the Board: • The Hoard shall ascertain in its deliberations that fundamental fairness and due process were accorded to the Respondent • Pursuant to Section 22- 203(g) (5) of the Codified Ordinance, the formal Rules of Evidence set out in Florida Statutes shall not apply. • The Board shall consider solely the evidence presented at the Hearing in its deliberation of the matter. • The Board shall exclude from its deliberations irrelevant, immaterial and cumulative testimony. • The Board shall admit and consider all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their affairs, whether or not the evidence so admitted would be admissible in a Court of Law or Equity. • Hearsay evidence may be used to explain or supplement any other evidence but hearsay by itself is not be sufficient to support a Finding, unless such hearsay would be admissible over objection in a civil action in Court. • The Standard of Proof in actions where a Respondent may lose his/her privileges to practice his/her profession is that the evidence presented by the Complainant must prove the Complainant's case in a clear and convincing manner. • The Burden of Proof on the Complainant is a larger burden than the "Preponderance of Evidence" Standard set in civil cases. 10 March 20, 2013 • The Standard of Evidence is to be weighed solely as to the charges set out in the Complaint. • The only charges the Board may decide upon are the ones to which the Respondent has had an opportunity to prepare a defense. • The damages awarded by the Board must be directly related to the charges. • The decision made by the Board shall be stated orally at the Hearing and is effective upon being read, unless the Board orders otherwise. • The Respondent, if found guilty, has certain appeal rights to the Contractors' Licensing Board, the Courts, and the State Construction Industry Licensing Board ( "CILB "), if applicable, pursuant to Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. • The Board shall vote upon the evidence presented in all areas and if the Respondent is found in violation, shall adopt the Administrative Complaint. • The Board shall also make Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the charges set out in the Complaint. Deliberation: Thomas Lykos noted Phase I was "finding of guilt" and stated the Respondent admitted she was guilty of the violation. Vice Chairman White stated the County's testimony and the packet, was clear and convincing evidence that a violation, as cited, occurred. Chairman Joslin read Count I from the Complaint: "Disregards or violates in the performance of his/her contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance or Workers' Compensation laws of the State or Ordinances of the County." Thomas Lykos moved to approve finding the Respondent, Irene Lee, guilty of Count I of the Complaint. Second by Ronald Domino. Carried unanimously, 9 — 0. Attorney Morey noted when a County Contractor has been found to be guilty of misconduct under Section 22 -203 of the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board may impose any of the following Sanctions: (1) Revocation of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (2) Suspension of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (3) Denial of the issuance or renewal of the Collier County (or City) Certificate of Competency, (4) Imposition of a period of probation of reasonable length, not to exceed two years, during which the Contractor's contracting activities shall be under the supervision of the Contractors' Licensing Board. (5) Participation in a duly- accredited program of continuing education directly related to the Contractor's contracting activity or other reasonable restrictions during the probationary period. (f) Imposition of a fine, not to exceed $5,000. 11 March 20, 2013 (7) Restitution. (8) Public reprimand. (9) Imposition of a re- examination requirement. (10) Denial of the issuance of Collier County or City building permits or requiring the issuance of such permits with specific conditions. (11) Imposition of reasonable investigative costs incurred by the County for the prosecution of the violation. Attorney Morey further advised the Board that, when imposing any of the possible Disciplinary Sanctions on a Contractor holding a Certificate of Competency who has been found to have violated the Ordinance, the Contractors' Licensing Board shall consider the following: (1) The gravity of the violation; (2) The impact of the violation on public Health/Safety or Welfare; (3) Any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation(s); (4) Any previous violations committed by the violator, and (5) Any other evidence presented at the Hearing by the parties relevant as to the Sanction which is appropriate for the case given the nature of the violation(s) or the violator. Comments: Kyle Lantz noted his payroll includes himself and one employee. The cost for Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for a two -week period was $223.32. Over the past three years, he has paid approximately $17, 419.00 which I J Remodeling has not paid. He considered the tine imposed by the Workers' Compensation Office ($18,453.00) to be back taxes. The fines imposed for the two previous Citations ($250 each) was the cost of doing business. He stated if he could work for a year and only pay $250 for Workers Comp coverage, he would be a rich man. The $18,453 should have been paid over the past three years. He concluded by stating he would support the imposition of a fine by the Board. Vice Chairman White stated whether due to a lack of knowledge or intent, the Respondent did not demonstrate appropriate business management experience. He supported imposing: • the maximum probationary period permitted, • a requirement to complete and pass the Business Procedures exam within a reasonable period of time, and • the maximum fine allowed. He further stated if there was a repeat violation, the Respondent's license should be immediately revoked upon a finding of violation. Thomas Lykos: • Two employees lost their jobs, • Entities (the Contractor and the subcontractor) had been put at risk, • The license holder appeared unprepared for the hearing, 12 March 20, 2013 • The Respondent lacked an understanding of her responsibilities as a Qualifier and was not aware of the Company's responsibilities to the employees as well as to the community, • There is a history of previous violations, • No harm was done to anyone. He supported suspending Ms. Lee's license until the existing penalty imposed by the Workers' Compensation Office was paid in full. He stated the Respondent must be made to suffer the consequences of her actions before she understands the gravity of the situation. Paying the down payment and the monthly installment is the cost of doing business. If the company was prevented from conducting business until the State's penalty was paid, it would impact their actions in the future. Michael Ossorio confirmed the investigative costs totaled $525.00. Vice Chairman White stated because no evidence harm was presented, he suggested imposing a fine of $5,525.00 to be paid within 90 days or the license would be suspended. He noted the State was comfortable putting the company on probation via a payment plan for five years in order to pay the fine. If the license is revoked, the company will be unable to earn the money to pay the fine. Chairman Joslin stated the Business Procedures exam should be taken and passed within thirty days. Mr. White also supported providing notice to the community of the violation and the resulting sanctions. Michael Boyd stated he pays approximately $5,000 per month for Workers' Compensation insurance and supported revoking Ms. Lee's license. If the State had not become involved and the company received another $300 fine from the County, the situation would have continued. "The State shut them down and got their attention." The $18,000 was not a real penalty — it was the cost that should have been paid for the past three years. He stated it would be difficult to support a motion that did not revoke the license. Kyle Lantz asked the Respondent if she dealt directly with consumers. Irene Lee stated the company is a subcontractor for Taylor Carpet who provides the majority of her company's work. Chairman Joslin asked if the standard practice for a Contractor was to maintain certificates of insurance on file for its subcontractors. Taylor Carpet should have known that I J Remodeling did not have Workers' Compensation insurance coverage for its employees. He did not understand how Taylor allowed I J Remodeling to work on a job site. He stated aiding or abetting an unlicensed contractor was a serious violation. Thomas Lykos reminded the Board that I J Remodeling had an unfair advantage against its competitors when bidding for a job since it did not have the expense of 13 March 20, 2013 Workers' Compensation insurance premiums. It also allowed Taylor One to operate at a lower cost against its competitors. The unfair competition went all the way up to Borelli Construction because its flooring contractor operated outside the law. He asked what kind of message did the Board want to send to the business community. Vice Chairman White suggested a compromise: • To suspend Ms. Lee's license until the Business Procedures exam is passed and any fine imposed by the Board is paid. • The probationary period would continue for two years with the understanding that another violation would result in an immediate suspension of the license until a hearing was scheduled before the Board. • The Board would determine at such a hearing whether or not to revoke the license. • If Ms. Lee chose not to take the exam or pay the fine, the suspension would become an immediate revocation. Chairman Joslin stated the Respondent must provide proof that Workers' Compensation insurance coverage had been obtained from an insurance company, and not from Labor Finders, as part of the sanctions. Michael Boyd noted the Respondent stated she took the Business Procedures exam three or four years ago — he stated the first violation occurred three years ago. He further stated the Board could revoke the company's license to conduct business within Collier County. Thomas Lykos reminded the Board that it was not obligated to ensure the company was able to make a living or pay the fine imposed by the State. Jon Walker stated the first offense may have been due to a lack of knowledge, the second time — he gave her the benefit of the doubt — but the third offense was a willful violation. It should have been understood from the first and second offenses that Workers' Compensation coverage was required. The third violation was due to a conscious decision to cut corners. He further stated he was not sure if he could support revocation. He questioned whether the company could move forward. He was not comfortable with the company's plan to obtain unskilled labor from Labor Finders and training them in the hope the employees would remain before committing to obtaining Workers' Compensation insurance coverage. Michael Ossorio stated Staff would not offer an opinion to the Board but only requested reimbursement of the investigative costs. Robert Meister stated he was torn between revocation and the fact that the company would not be able to make the money necessary to pay the fines or secure Workers' Compensation insurance coverage. He supported Vice Chairman White's proposed compromise. 14 March 20, 2013 Vice Chairman White noted that as part of the sanctions, the company is to be supervised by the Contractors' Licensing Office. Before the company will be allowed to accept a job, Ms. Lee must report the potential opportunity and provide proof to Mr. Ossorio that proper coverage has been obtained for the company's employees. If Labor Finders is used to provide workers, Labor Finders will provide the required proof. Kyle Lantz moved to approve: • Suspending Ms. Lee's license until the Business Procedures test is passed, • Imposing a fine of $5,000 to be paid in equal installments of $1,000 per month; • If a payment is not made, Ms. Lee's license will be immediately suspended until she appears before the Board, • Reimbursement to the County of $525 for investigative costs to be paid before Ms. Lee's license is reinstated; • Probation for a period of two years during which time Ms. Lee is to report all potential job opportunities to the Contractors' Licensing off ice on a weekly basis; • If the Contractors' Licensing Supervisor finds any issues or if any of the conditions are not met, Ms. Lee's license will be immediately suspended Second by Vice Chairman White. Michael Ossorio requested clarification: • Ms. Lee's Certificate would be suspended as of March 20, 2013 pending the passing of the Business Procedures test; • A fine of $5,000 to be paid within 5 months ($1,000 per month); • Reimbursement of $525 to the County for investigative costs prior to activating her license after passing the Business Procedures test; • A two—year probationary period is imposed with weekly notification to the Contractors' Licensing Office; • If the conditions are not met, Ms. Lee's license will be automatically suspended until she appears before the Board. Mr. Lantz clarified: • Ms. Lee's license will be suspended until she passes the test and pays the $525 to the County. • The first installment payment of the $5,000 fine will be due thirty days after the she passes the test and reimburses the County. • If the second payment is missed, Ms. Lee's license is automatically suspended until she appears before the Board. Attorney Morey stated if a Respondent was on suspension, revocation would not be automatic until the Respondent could appear before the Board. The terms of probation permit the Respondent to return to the Board for a hearing on further action. Mr. Lykos expressed his concern that the punishment was being "watercd down." 15 March 20, 2013 Attorney Morey cautioned the Motion must be properly worded and not tie in suspension and revocation with the probationary period. It must be a separate part of the Board's Order. Chairman Joslin reiterated: • Testing within 30 days; • Payment to the County of $525 in 30 days; • Payment of $5,000 in 30 days; • Probation of two years; • If all conditions are not met, the license is suspended. Terry Jerulle suggested the Respondent should be on suspension until the test is passed and all fees are paid. Vice Chairman White withdrew his second in support of the initial motion made by Mr. Lantz. Kyle Lantz withdrew his motion. Thomas Lykos suggested revising the motion to require the Respondent to appear before the Board after the criteria have been met. At the hearing, the Board will decide whether or not to impose a probationary period. Attorney Morey clarified automatic revocation could not be tied in with the probationary period. He stated if the Respondent passes the test, pays the $525 and the $5,000, the suspension will be lifted. Then a probationary period will be imposed. If a violation occurs while on probation, the license will be automatically revoked. Vice Chairman White moved to approve: • Immediate suspension of the Respondent's license, • Within 30 days, the Respondent is required to take/pass the Business Procedures test, pay a fine of $5,000, and reimburse the County in the sum of $525 for investigative costs; • If the three conditions are not met, the Respondent's license will be revoked • If the conditions are met, a two-year probationary period would begin requiring weekly reporting of all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office. • If the reporting requirement is not met, the license will be immediately suspended pending a hearing before the Board • A public reprimand will be issued within 30 days. Second by Kyle Lantz. Motion carried, 8 — "Yes, " /1— "No." Mr. Boyd was opposed Ms. Lee asked if she did not pass the exam within 30 days, her license would be revoked and the response was "Yes." Vice Chairman White explained to the Respondent that she must also pay the fines within 30 days. She will then be on probation for a period of two years and must report all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office on a weekly basis. If she does 16 March 20, 2013 not report to Mr. Ossorio, her license will be immediately suspended and she will be required to appear before the Board. Ms. Lee requested clarification regarding the requirement to obtain Workers' Compensation insurance coverage. Vice Chairman White stated she could use the labor pool of her choice because coverage would be provided by the company or if she had employees on a job, she was to prove to the County that she had obtained coverage through an insurance company. Chairman Joslin stated Ms. Lee could still use Labor Finders until she hired permanent employees. He further stated Mr. Ossorio could advise her concerning where and when the test is offered. Vice Chairman White commended the Respondent on her honesty and candor during the hearing. Attorney Morey advised the Board he would draft mi abbreviated Order and Findings of Fact for future meetings. Chairman Joslin outlined the Board's Order: • This cause came on for public hearing before the Contractors' Licensing Board on March 20, 2013 for consideration of the Administrative Complaint in Case #2013 -05 filed against Irene Lee, d/b /a "I J Remodeling, Inc.," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 33229. • Service of the Complaint was made in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended. • The Board, at this Hearing, having heard testimony under oath, received evidence and heard arguments respective to all appropriate matters, and thereupon issued its Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law as follows. Findings of Fact: • Irene Lee, d/b /a "I J Remodeling, Inc.," the holder of record of Collier County Certificate of Competency Number 33229. • The Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Contractors' Licensing I#oard is the Petitioner (Complainant) in this matter. • The Board has jurisdiction of the person of the Respondent. • Respondent, Irene Lee, was present at the Public Hearing but was not represented by Counsel at the Hearing held on March 20, 2013. • The Respondent had been properly noticed concerning the Hearing. • All notices required by Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, had been properly issued and were personally delivered. • The Respondent acted in a manner that is in violation of Collier County Ordinances and is the one who committed the act. • The allegations of fact as set forth in Administrative Complaint as to: 17 March 20, 2013 o Count 1, under Section 22 -201 (6): "Disregards or violates, in the performance of his /her contracting business in the County, any of the building, safety, health, insurance, or Workers' Compensation laws of the State or Ordinances of the County " has been found to be supported by the evidence presented at the Hearing. Conclusions of Law: • The Conclusions of Law alleged and set forth in the Administrative Complaint as to Count 1 has been approved, adopted and incorporated herein, to wit: "The Respondent violated Section 22- 201(6) of Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, in the performance of her contracting business in Collier County by acting in violation of the Section set out in the Administrative Complaint with particularity." Order of the Board. • Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and pursuant to the authority granted in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and in Collier County Ordinance 90 -105, as amended, by a vote of nine (9) in favor and none (0) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, the Respondent has been found in violation as set out above. • Further, it is hereby ordered by a vote of eight (8) in favor, and one (1) in opposition, a majority vote of the Board members present, that the following disciplinary sanctions and related Order are hereby imposed upon the holder of Collier County Certificate of Competency #33229, to wit: o Immediate suspension of the Respondent's license; o Within 30 days, the Respondent is required to take /pass the Business Procedures test, pay a fine of $5,000, and reimburse the County in the sum of $525 for investigative costs; o If the three conditions are not met, the Respondent's license will be revoked; o If the conditions are met, a two -year probationary period would begin requiring weekly reporting of all jobs to the Contractors' Licensing Office; o If the reporting requirement is not met, the license will be immediately suspended pending a hearing before the Board; o A public reprimand will be issued within 30 days of the Hearing. Ms. Lee was advised to contact Mr. Ossorio to regarding the appointment schedule. Chairman Joslin noted the case was closed. IX. REPORTS: (None) 18 March 20, 2013 X. MEMBER COMMENTS: (None) XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 Board of County Commissioners' Chambers, 3rd Floor — Administrative Building "F," Government Complex, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chairman at 11:02 AM. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD � a Richard Joslin, Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Vice Chairman on , 2013, "as submitted" U OR "as amended" [1. 19