I. Call to Order Chairman Damian Curtis called the meeting to order. a. Roll Call: Ms. Teresa Mullins conducted roll call.

Transcription

1 MINUTES ARE NOT VERBATIM OKALOOSA COUNTY CONSTRUCTION COMPETENCY BOARD MINUTES September 27, 2017 The regular meeting of the Okaloosa County was held Wednesday, September 27, 2017, at 3:00 p.m. at the Okaloosa County Administration Complex, 1250 Eglin Parkway N., first floor Commissioner s Chambers, Shalimar, Florida. Board members in attendance were Fay Seketa, Damian Curtis, Buddy Gordon, Skip Miller, Mike Chesser, Skip Royster, Linda Flowers, Jason Buck and Randy Wise. Jimmy Henderson was not present. Jeremy Stewart arrived during the meeting in progress. Growth Management staff in attendance were Elliot Kampert, Growth Management Director; Renée Lucas, License Specialist; and Teresa Mullins, Administrative Assistant II. Assistant County Attorney Kerry Parsons was also present. I. Call to Order Chairman Damian Curtis called the meeting to order. a. Roll Call: Ms. Teresa Mullins conducted roll call. II. Acknowledge Guests Chairman Curtis welcomed staff and applicants to the meeting. III. Approval of Minutes: July 26, 2017: Motion to approve the minutes as written made by Skip Royster; second by Skip Miller; approved unanimously. IV. OPEN TO PUBLIC (For any item not Quasi-Judicial on this Agenda) V. Announcements: Ms. Lucas informed the Board that there will only be one regular meeting left in this calendar year, that meeting date being November 15, VI. Old Business: Mr. Mike Chesser asked about the Open to the Public statement noting that the way it is stated implies that the Quasi-Judicial portion of the agenda is not open to the public. Assistant County Attorney Kerry Parsons stated that the Quasi-Judicial portion of the meeting is open to the public. Attorney Parsons further stated that the statement refers to Florida Statute 286, which requires that, on any item that is not Quasi-Judicial, public comment must be allowed before the Board takes any action on the issue. Attorney Parsons further stated that the statement refers to any item that comes before the Board but does not appear on the meeting agenda. Attorney Parsons stated that staff could clarify the statement if the Board deems it necessary. 1

2 VII. New Business a. Swearing in applicants/speakers: Ms. Mullins swore in all those wishing to address the Board. b. Candidates for Testing Approval: 1. Glenn M. Cormier Residential Contractor Mr. Glenn Cormier was present to answer questions from the Board. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Cormier to tell the Board a little about himself and his experience. Mr. Cormier stated that has been in the construction business since 1980, beginning locally at the local Air Force base working in civil engineering. Mr. Cormier further stated that he has been an Electrician his for his working life; however, he has also worked in other facets of construction for most of his life. Mr. Cormier stated that about 10 years ago he and his wife began investing in real estate, both locally and in Massachusetts. Mr. Cormier further stated that they have hired general contractors to do any structural work other than the electrical work which he is licensed to do himself. Mr. Cormier stated that he and his wife have been buying decrepit properties and fixing them up to rent or sell. Mr. Cormier further stated that the reason he is seeking to get his Florida Residential Contractor s license is so that he will be in charge instead of having to rely on a general contractor who may have time or other conflicts. Mr. Cormier stated that he would like to be able to pull his own permits and be in control of all of the work done on these jobsites. Mr. Cormier further stated that, regarding their rental properties, they rent to military families first. Board Member Jeremy Stewart joined the meeting in progress. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Cormier if he lives locally. Mr. Cormier stated that the letter in his file was written in March, but they have just recently moved to Shalimar. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Cormier if his goal is to renovate houses. Mr. Cormier stated that his intent is to renovate homes either as rental properties or to sell. Chairman Curtis noted Mr. Cormier had stated that he was doing renovations now and asked who was currently pulling the permits for him. Mr. Cormier stated that the contractors they use have been pulling permits; however, most of the homes they have updated have not needed work that required permits to be pulled. Mr. Cormier further stated that his intent in getting this license is to work on homes that require more to be done and to remain in control of the work and the jobsite. Motion to approve made by Skip Miller; second by Mike Chesser; approved unanimously. 2

3 2. Mark A. Williams Residential Contractor Mr. Mark Williams was present to answer questions from the Board. Mr. Williams introduced himself and provided his business name to the Board. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Williams to tell the Board about himself and his experience. Mr. Williams stated that he has worked in the surrounding area such as Destin, Pace and Pensacola and sometimes Louisiana, while working for a general contractor. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Williams what he intends to do with his license once he attains it. Mr. Williams stated that he is interested in remodeling and repairing structural issues in homes. Mr. Mike Chesser informed Mr. Williams that he was concerned about the information shown on Mr. Williams credit report and wants to make certain that suppliers and subcontractors are all paid in a timely fashion. Mr. Williams stated that he has been working hard to get his bills paid on time and his debts caught up. Mr. Williams further stated that he makes certain to always pay his employees and bills first. Mr. Chesser asked Mr. Williams if he has been work for or as a contractor. Mr. Williams stated that he works as a sub-contractor under Mr. Bill Conner and has worked under several different contractors doing sheetrock and other work for them. Mr. Chesser asked Mr. Williams if he had anyone in his employ to handle the financial aspects of his business. Mr. Williams stated that when he was sub-contracting on the Air Force base a couple of years ago he had EMI handle his taxes and payroll. Mr. Williams further stated his wife is now helping him out with the accounting. Mr. Williams stated that his wife has been on a leave of absence for a couple of months and he has been making sure that the mortgage on their home gets paid, along with the employees, the bills and their debt. Mr. Buddy Gordon asked Mr. Williams how he could put out letterhead that lists his company name as an LLC, and his name but there is no license number to go along with it. Mr. Gordon further stated that Mr. Williams cannot advertise as an LLC without having a contractor s license per State Statute. Mr. Williams stated that he is working as a sub-contractor and carries a business tax receipt. Mr. Williams further stated that he has never worked as a sole-proprietor or tried to put himself out as anything other than a sub-contractor working for a licensed contractor. Mr. Williams stated that he had the letterhead printed up to use when writing estimates or invoices for the licensed contractors he works with. Ms. Lucas informed the Board that Mr. Williams does not have to have a license to be a sub-contractor. Ms. Lucas stated that Mr. Williams must set up a fictitious name in order 3

4 to get a business tax receipt in order to work as a sub-contractor. Ms. Lucas further stated that he needs something to use to provide invoices for his contractors. Ms. Lucas noted that the situation is no different that someone who wants to set up a home occupation as an internet service, which also requires them to set up a business or fictitious name in order to get their business tax receipt. Attorney Parsons noted that, while this is a valid concern, it is separate from the information that this Board must look at, per County Code, in order to determine whether or not this applicant is eligible to take the test that he is seeking the Board s approval to take. Mr. Jason Buck asked Mr. Williams if he has general liability and workman s compensation insurance. Mr. Williams stated that he has general liability insurance and a workman s compensation exemption. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Williams to explain the relationship he has with the person who signed off on his experience affidavit. Mr. Williams stated that he sub-contractors for Mr. O Connor. Motion to approve made by Mike Chesser; second by Skip Royster; approved unanimously. c. Purged Contractor: 1. Sean Barber Sean Barber Construction LLC Ms. Lucas informed the Board that Mr. Sean Barber is appearing before the Board to seek the Board s approval for the reinstatement of his Okaloosa County Building Contractor s Competency Card. Ms. Lucas stated that, per Licensing Division records, Mr. Barber took and passed both the Building Construction and Business & Law exams in 2002 and remained licensed with Growth Management until September, Ms. Lucas further stated that in October, 2009, after two (2) years of non-renewal, Mr. Barber s Competency Card was purged. Ms. Lucas stated that, per the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), Mr. Barber s State Registered Building Contractor s license, #RB , was placed in a Null/Void status on August 31, Ms. Lucas informed the Board that, in a statement provided to staff, Mr. Barber stated that he moved to Louisiana in June of 2007 due to the economy, in order to be able to support his family while still working in the construction trade. Ms. Lucas stated that staff have contacted DBPR and were told that, due to the number of years that Mr. Barber s State license has been Null/Void, it would be more cost effective for him to apply for a new State Registered license rather than trying to have his previous license re-instated. Ms. Lucas informed the Board that, per Okaloosa County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 6; Article VIII; Division 3; Section (g) Expiration, renewal and retired certificates: 4

5 The board may give special consideration in purged license cases concerning family illness and military deployment, and other circumstances as the board deems appropriate. Ms. Lucas stated that, with this Board s approval of the reinstatement of his Competency Card, Mr. Barber will apply to the State for his State Registered Building Contractor s license. Ms. Lucas further stated that, should the Board approve the reinstatement, staff requests that all back fees and penalties, totaling one thousand six hundred seventy- four dollars and ninety-seven cents ($1,674.97), be paid and that a payment deadline be established and made part of the Board s motion. Ms. Lucas noted that, as of July 6, 2017, it is now a requirement that purged applicants pay a $ fee to appear before this Board; however, that $ does not and cannot be used toward the back fees and penalties. Ms. Lucas further stated that this Board appearance fee is not refundable even if the Board declines the request to reinstate his Competency Card. Mr. Skip Miller noted that Mr. Barber has roughly ten (10) years of non-licensure and asked if staff was aware of any continuing education or work in the trade that has been done throughout that time. Ms. Lucas stated that staff is not aware of Mr. Barber having done any continuing education during the time his license has been Null/Void. Ms. Lucas noted that, even if Mr. Barber tried to reinstate his Null/Void license and it was approved, the license would be placed in an in-active status, he would only have to provide fourteen (14) hours of continuing education in order to reactivate his license. Ms. Lucas further stated that Mr. Barber did work in the trade as a sub-contractor. Mr. Skip Royster noted that Mr. Barber s license was purged, not retired and in his opinion, going 10 years without a license, Mr. Barber needs to go back and test as a new applicant. Mr. Royster further stated that Mr. Barber doesn t meet the criteria of being in the military or having medical issues; therefore, he doesn t meet the requirements of County Code. Ms. Lucas reminded the Board that County Code includes and other circumstances as the board deems appropriate. Ms. Lucas stated that she would like to bring Mr. Barber forward to address the Board if there are no more questions for staff. Mr. Chesser noted that the applicant has not taken any refresher courses to date and, if approved by this Board, will not have to take any refresher courses in order to get his State license. Mr. Chesser further noted that the Florida Building Code has changed greatly in the past 10 years, so how should the Board make sure that the candidate is up to date in his knowledge of the Building Code without requiring that the applicant take some refresher education. Ms. Lucas stated that the Board could, in their motion, make it a requirement that Mr. Barker take and pass 12 or 14 of continuing education or as much as the Board deems appropriate prior to applying to the State for his license. Ms. Lucas noted that Mr. Barber, in his statement to staff, did say that he worked as a job site superintendent, therefore, he would be aware of the current Building Code requirements. 5

6 Attorney Parsons informed the Board that they could not condition the approval of his request or delay submission to the State pending the meeting of a condition; however, the Board could consider asking him to do the education while continuing the request to reinstate his Competency Card to another meeting. Chairman Curtis asked if he was understanding correctly in that the Board could tell the applicant to take a certain number of continuing education credits, and then once he has successfully completed those, return to the Board, without having to pay another two hundred dollars ($200.00) to request the reinstatement of his Competency Card. Attorney Parsons stated that the Board cannot specifically require the applicant to take the continuing education; however, the Board can ask if the applicant is willing to do so and continue or table the request to another meeting. Attorney Parsons further stated that the Board should check with the applicant; because if the applicant wants a decision to be made at this meeting then the Board must then decide whether to approve or deny the request based on the information provided at this meeting. Chairman Curtis asked staff to explain the amount of one thousand six hundred seventyfour dollars and ninety-seven cents ($1,674.97). Ms. Lucas stated that the amount of one thousand six hundred seventy- four dollars and ninety-seven cents ($1,674.97) is the total amount of his back fees and penalties dating back to the time his Competency Card expired and extending through to the end of June, Mr. Buck noted that a credit report is required and included in new applicant s packets for the Board; however, in purged license cases there is no requirement for a new credit report in our Code. Mr. Buck stated that the issue with credit reports might be something staff and the Board should look into in terms of purged license cases. Ms. Lucas stated that Mr. Buck is correct, there is no requirement in the County Code for a new credit report in a purged license case; however, Mr. Barber will have to provide a new credit report to the State when he applies for his State license. Ms. Lucas further stated that the State will look at the credit score as well as look for any liens or judgements, etc. which the applicant will have to thoroughly document. Ms. Lucas stated that, if the Board so desires, staff can add the requirement for a credit report to the list of requirements for any applicant seeking to have a purged Competency Card reinstated. Attorney Parsons noted that adding the requirement for a credit report in purged license cases would require a change to the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Chesser stated that, at one time, the only allowance for reinstatement had to do with military service or medical issues or some other major reason. Mr. Elliot Kampert noted that the language and other circumstances as the board deems appropriate was added to the Code several years ago at the specific request of this Board. Mr. Kampert noted that the Board could choose to deny his request but allow him to come back as a new applicant, or, if he chooses to take some continuing education, 6

7 allow him back to apply for reinstatement again. Mr. Kampert noted that the Board must allow Mr. Barber the opportunity to speak. Mr. Sean Barber introduced himself to the Board. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Barber who he had been working with as a jobsite supervisor. Mr. Barber stated that he worked for about a year and a half for Professional Building Group in Niceville. Mr. Barber further stated that he has been working as a framing subcontractor locally since Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Barber if he would be able to pay all of the back fees and penalties. Mr. Barber emphatically stated that he would be able to pay the back fees and penalties as a one (1) time payment. Chairman Curtis asked Mr. Barber if he had any judgements against him, and asked if he knew his current credit rating. Mr. Barber stated that he had no judgements against him and he believed that his credit rating was Ms. Linda Flowers asked Mr. Barber if he had considered taking any continuing education over the past several years and if not, would he consider doing so now. Mr. Barber stated that he didn t believe that he could take continuing education with a purged license; however, he has no objection to doing so if the Board so desires. Mr. Royster noted that continuing education is for those who are currently working in the field, not for someone who has been out of the business for years. Mr. Royster further stated that, given all of the major changes in the building code, he doesn t feel comfortable returning a Competency Card to someone who has been out of the business for so long. Mr. Barber stated that he has worked in the trade for twenty-six (26) years, building houses, hotels, etc. the whole time. Mr. Barber further stated that he has kept up with the building codes. Mr. Gordon asked Mr. Barber why he let his State license lapse. Mr. Barber stated that when the economy downturn hit here he moved to Louisiana, but found that his Florida license didn t reciprocate with Louisiana. Mr. Barber further stated that the construction business was good in Louisiana, and he had no plans to return to Florida. Mr. Barber stated that they moved back to Florida in 2010 because his wife said it was time to return home. Mr. Chesser asked Mr. Kampert if there was something the Board could do to help Mr. Barber while upholding their responsibility. Mr. Kampert stated that ultimately it is the Board s responsibility to make these decisions, especially given the Contractors on the Board who know what sort of knowledge and 7

8 experience are necessary. Mr. Kampert asked if the Board was willing to continue the issue until Mr. Barber can provide information to the Board that assuages their concerns regarding his competency to work under the current Florida Building Code. Mr. Royster noted that Mr. Barber returned to Florida in 2010 but is only now trying to reinstate his Competency Card and regain a Florida State Building Contractor s license. Mr. Royster stated that, had Mr. Barber appeared before the Board in 2010 after being purged in 2009, then he would have had no issue with reinstating Mr. Barber s license, however; now, too much time has now passed and too many change have been made to the Florida Building Code since he was last licensed. Mr. Chesser asked if Mr. Barber could take the test and then supply the continuing education etc. at a later date. Attorney Parsons stated that the Board cannot condition the request; however, the Board could deny the applicant s request to reinstate, and then make a second motion to have him test as a new applicant. Ms. Fay Seketa stated that Mr. Barber will have some homework to do in order to get up to speed on current Building Code anyway. Mr. Chesser asked what was involved in taking the test, noting that, if Mr. Barber was standing before the Board today, having taken and passed the required tests, he would have no problem reinstating Mr. Barber s Competency Card. Chairman Curtis asked staff if Mr. Barber would have to pay an additional two hundred dollar ($200.00) fee to appear before the Board again, if denied today and reappearing as a new applicant at the next meeting. Ms. Lucas stated that staff have already presented all of the affidavits in the past when he was licensed therefore the Board could let him test with the affidavits being provided to staff along with a new credit report and possibly have him appear at the next meeting. Ms. Lucas stated that would allow him to begin the testing process and save him time. Mr. Kampert noted that the Board could deny the reinstatement today and then immediately make a motion to allow Mr. Barber to take the test. Attorney Parsons reminded the Board that they must first decide to approve or deny the request to reinstate his Competency Card, then they can move on to a second motion regarding him testing, etc. as the Board so choses. Motion to deny the unpurging made by Fay Seketa; second by Skip Royster; approved unanimously. Motion that you [Mr. Barber] take the test and then provide to staff whatever is required and come back to the next meeting with the necessary new applicant documents and credit report made by Mike Chesser; second by Buddy Gordon; approved unanimously. 8

9 VIII. Other Business: None. IX. Adjournment Motion to adjourn made by Mike Chesser; second by Skip Miller; approved unanimously. Prepared by: Teresa Mullins, Recording Secretary