Largo, Florida, September 15, 2015

Transcription

1 Largo, Florida, September 15, 2015 The regular bimonthly meeting of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (PCCLB) was held in the Board Conference Room, Belcher Road, Suite 102, Largo, Florida at 1 :29 P.M. on this date. Members Present: MEMBERS Paul J. Skipper, Chair Thomas Tafelski, Vice-Chair Thomas Burket Bruce Cooper Kevin Garriott Larry Goldman Alan Holderith Jack Joyner Mike Kelly Stephen Lee Paul Renker Sharon Spicer Gerald H. White Fritz Wolf CLASSIFICATION Building Building General Contractor General Contractor Mechanical Commercial Pools Architect Roofing Contractor Electrical Residential Not Present: Rick Dunn David Feddon MikeRodde James Rosenbluth Danny Sandlin Steve Strong Peter Vasti Plumbing Fire Marshal Building Fire Marshal Consumer Also Present: Rodney Fischer, Executive Director Brendan Mackesey, Assistant County Attorney Anne Maddox, Department Administrative Manager, PCCLB Paul Roberts, Investigator, PCCLB Other interested individuals Jenny Masinovsky, Board Reporter, Deputy Clerk

2 September 15, 2015 Pledge of Allegiance/Roll Call/Swearing In The meeting was called to order at 1 :29 P.M. by Chair Skipper; whereupon, he led the Pledge of Allegiance and administered the Oath to persons planning to give testimony, and Mr. Fischer conducted the roll call of the members. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. II. CONSENT AGENDA- APPROVED Mr. Fischer presented the Consent Agenda items as follows: A. Minutes ofpcclb meeting of July 21,2015. B. Examining Committee Reports - July to August, C. Minutes for Special Magistrate Hearings - April 21, 2015; July 14, 2015; and August 18, D. Stipulations (Section (3), Florida Statutes): Stipulations were reached regarding the following cases and recommendation by the Executive Director would be to enter a Final Order as follows: Approve and adopt the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. If the terms and conditions of the Stipulation have not been complied with or satisfied within 30 days of a final order, a fine may be assessed up to $1,000 for each case and license/registration will be suspended. 1. Keith Andrews 2. Joseph William Crews I-CCC I-CGC E. The following cases were forwarded to the PCCLB from various building departments for disciplinary action by the Board due to expired permits and were not resolved within the requested 30 days after notification by the Board. The cases were then presented to the Probable Cause Committee whereby probable cause was found and an Administrative Complaint was served upon each of the 2

3 September 15, 2015 following cases, and violations remain. The contractors have been notified of the hearing, and the recommendation by the Executive Director is to accept the allegations as filed in the Administrative Complaint as findings of fact and to enter a Final Order as follows: Reprimand for permit violation; Fine of $500; Administrative fees and costs; and Immediate suspension of license/registration of all respondents not appearing for today's hearing under Agenda Item El, Expired Permit Violations Spreadsheet EXPIRED PERMIT VIOLATIONS SEPTEMBER 15,2015 BOARD MEETING Lawrence Patrick Abell A Douglas Scott Hazeltine A Kevin Michael Bass A Kevin Vincent Hodges AI5-496 Jack Leonard Holt A Alan Ladale Beasley A Alan Ladale Beasley A Alan Ladale Beasley A Todd Allen Beal A Tommy Lee Graham, Jr. A David Chadwick Norris A Manuel F McAlpin A Laszlo Istvan Harangozo A Frankie Roman A F. Financial Reports: Balance Sheet, BCC Revenue and Fund Balance Report, and Budget Expenditure and Encumbrance Reports for July and August After consideration and upon motion by Mr. Joyner, seconded by Mr. Cooper, the Board unanimously approved the Consent Agenda. All stipulations are Final Orders of the Board in accordance with Section (3), Florida Statutes. 3

4 September 15,2015 III. REGULAR AGENDA A. The Board conducted informal administrative hearings in accordance with Section (2), Florida Statutes. The respondents elected informal hearings, defaulted by not executing an Election of Rights, or failed to respond and were therefore scheduled for informal hearings by the Board to resolve the complaints. The actions taken are Final Orders of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. Rodney S. Fischer appeared in the cases for the petitioners. 1. Kevin Wells, a General Contractor, did appear with regard to Administrative Complaint AlS-600. Mr. Fischer provided background information, noting that this case was heard two months ago; that the recommendation at that time was reprimand for abandonment, financial mismanagement, lien, and misconduct; Administrative Fine in the amount of $500 plus Administrative and Investigative costs; and suspension of the respondent's license, which would be stayed for a one-year probation if the respondent paid the fine and costs and provided proof of resolving the complaint within 30 days. Mr. Fischer indicated that the case should not have come to the Board before today; and that the respondent has assured him that the complaint has been resolved; whereupon, responding to query by Chair Skipper regarding the investigative process, Mr. Fischer stated that staff communicated with customers, and they are still not satisfied. Mr. Wells related that Wells Builders, LLC was contracted to remodel and refurbish the house; that the roof was replaced by a sub-contractor in December of 2014; that he informed the customers that due to discovered wood damage, the wood for the roof, walls, and plywood decking needed to be replaced; and that some plumbing, air conditioning, and electrical work was done, for which the inspection failed due to minor issues. In response to queries by the members, Mr. Wells indicated that the contract amount was approximately $38,000 and was not paid in full; that the permit is still active; that final inspections did not take place because the work is incomplete; and that because the bid was based on a set of plans, it did not anticipate unforeseen damages. He pointed out that upon verbally informing the customers of a change order related to wood replacement and framing, they refused to provide additional funds until the work was done; and that some work was completed in advance of payment to satisfy the customers. 4

5 September 15,2015 With regard to a history of complaints against him, he indicated that they span over nine years and a few have been resolved; that he always strives to make his customers happy and believes that he went above and beyond to satisfy the customers in the present case; and that he does not have any outstanding building violations. In response to the Chair's call for the complainants, Vemell Carroll appeared and provided background information, presenting copies of checks written to Mr. Wells in the total amount of $30,000 and photographs of the property, indicating its poor condition. She related that Mr. Wells did not replace the siding or complete window replacement as agreed; and that he did not weatherproof the house; whereupon, responding to queries by the members, Mr. Wells explained that the second floor was protected, but the first floor was left uncovered due to upcoming inspections, and Mr. Cooper opined that leaving the house unprotected from the weather for months was irresponsible. Mrs. Carroll related that she and her husband received two letters from IROK Construction Services, LLC warning that a lien would be placed on their property if the $8,760 roofing bill was not paid; whereupon, responding to queries by the members, she confirmed that there is no lien; that she insisted that Mr. Wells pay the bill and received a confirmation of payment from IROK; and that while the Carrolls did not have an agreement directly with IROK, they realized their responsibility for the bill; however, they had already paid Mr. Wells $10,000 at that time. She further indicated that Mr. Wells did not inform them about a $10,000 rebate, and they may have missed the deadline to receive it because the project was not completed on time; that they had to retain an attorney in order to discuss the plans for completion with Mr. Wells; and that at this time they would like Mr. Wells to finish the renovations. Responding to queries by the members, Mr. Wells indicated that he would like to complete the job; that it would take at least 90 days because his subcontractors' schedule would need to be considered and the change orders for framing, plumbing, and electrical work would need to be agreed upon prior to resuming work. He said that the only change order submitted to the customers was for framing, in the amount of $3,500 in February or March via , a copy of which he could provide at a later date; whereupon, Mr. Wolf 5

6 September 15,2015 stated that Mr. Wells should have made the customers fully aware of all additional costs in writing, and other members agreed. Dwight Carroll appeared and provided additional background information, noting that the contract originated from the City of St. Petersburg Rehabilitation Program; that he gave Mr. Wells a package with all rehabilitation requirements; that while additional work was verbally discussed, Mr. Wells never provided any change orders indicating the additional cost in writing; that since Mr. Wells was aware of damaged framing from the onset, Mr. Carroll did not expect an additional cost for that; and that he misinformed the Carrolls about inspections; whereupon, Chair Skipper indicated that final inspections other than roofing would not have been done because the work was not completed; and that the Board will rule on any violations of the Building Code or the Licensing Law, but if customers do not get satisfaction, they may wish to consider a different venue, as the Board does not get involved in contractual disputes. Responding to query by Chair Skipper, Mr. Fischer indicated that the staff recommendation stated earlier stands, with the exception of the lien count, and a discussion about the maximum fine allowed to be imposed ensued. Noting that the amount of work done, as indicated by the photographs, does not equal the amount of the payments received, Mr. Goldman moved, seconded by Mr. Joyner, that the Board accept the allegations of Administrative Complaint AlS-600 as Findings of Fact with exception of the allegation of lien and modification of the fine amount, and conclude that the respondent violated Sections 489:126(2) and (4) and (1)(d)(g)(j)(m), Florida Statutes; and Section 24(2)(h)(k)(m), Chapter , Laws of Florida, as amended, and imposed the following penalty: (a) Reprimand for abandonment, financial mismanagement, and misconduct; (b) Administrative Fine m the amount of $500, plus Administrative and Investigative costs, if the respondent resolves the complaint within 30 working days; and Administrative Fine in the amount of $3,000, plus Administrative and Investigative costs, if the respondent does not resolve the complaint within 30 working days; and 6

7 September 15, 2015 (c) Suspension of the respondent's license; however, the suspension is stayed and will be a one-year probation if the respondent pays the Administrative Fine and costs and provides proof of resolving the complaint with the customer. Mr. Tafelski pointed out that 30 working days is an unreasonably short timeframe and requested that the motioner reconsider it, and discussion ensued; whereupon, Mr. Holderith inquired about a distinction between abandonment and walking off the job for a contractual dispute, as well as the Board's role with regard to a contractual dispute. Mr. Fischer responded that a 30-day limit is appropriate because the respondent had time to complete the work; and that the Board does not get involved in contractual disputes and is only directing the respondent to get the complaint resolved. Thereupon, upon call for the vote, the motion, as originally stated, carried unanimously. IV. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE AND REQUESTS A. Old Business -None. B. New Business - None. C. Miscellaneous Correspondence - None. D. Citizens to be Heard: John Robinson, Accu-Cut Concrete Services, Inc. In response to the Chair's call for citizens wishing to be heard, John Robinson, Accu-Cut Concrete Services, Inc., appeared and expressed his concerns, relating that his company has been in business in Pinellas County since 1991; that its services include concrete sawing and drilling and core drilling; and that he has recently received two citations for not having licensing; however, licensing for those types of work does not exist. Responding to queries by the members, Mr. Robinson related that one citation was for not indicating a license number on a 7

8 September 15,2015 company vehicle and the other was for sawing a concrete slab on a residential property. Mr. Fischer indicated that sawing concrete should fall under a flatwork concrete license, and PCCLB Inspector Paul Roberts clarified that the citation related to vehicle signage was given because no sign at all was visible; whereupon, Mr. Fischer recommended referring both issues to the Licensing Committee for review, and Chair Skipper agreed, and Mr. Tafelski suggested that licensing requirements for a machine that breaks up ceramic tile be addressed by the Licensing Committee at the same time. During discussion and responding to queries by the members, Mr. Robinson indicated that his company carries Workers' Compensation and other liability insurance; that it always works for licensed contractors; and that other local companies doing the same type of work do not have licenses either; whereupon, in response to queries by Mr. Joyner with regard to vehicle signage, Attorney Mackasey indicated that Pinellas County Ordinance requires registered commercial vehicles to have a company name and telephone number on each side of the vehicle, and State Statute requires listing a license number as well. Thereupon, Chair Skipper advised Mr. Robinson that he will be notified when the Licensing Committee makes its recommendations, and Mr. Fischer indicated that the aforementioned citations will be placed on hold until that time. V. OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION- None. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:27P.M. / 8