Contractors Examining Board Meeting (2024-09-18)

Contractor Licensing Board Minutes – Draft September 18, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. St. Lucie County Administration Board of County Commissioners Commission Chambers PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Contractor Licensing Supervisor…………………………………………………… Danielle Williams Interim Building Official………….…………………………………….……………. Michael Jerrahian Assistant County Attorney………………………………………………………….. Katherine Barbieri Code Compliance Manager……………………………………………………….. Monica Graziani Contractor Licensing Investigator………………………………………………… Michael Winkler Board Recorder……………………………………………………………………... Roxann Johnson A. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 8:32 a.m. B. ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS: The roll was called. C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 15, 2024 Contractor Examining Licensing Board Meeting Motion was made by Mr. Pride to approve the Minutes of the May 15, 2024 meeting. Mr. Jerger seconded and the motion carried unanimously. D. SWEARING IN OF STAFF: The following staff members were sworn in by the Recording Secretary: Danielle Williams, Michael Jerrahian, Michael Winkler, Mirlande Moise and Monica Graziani. E. PUBLIC COMMENT: Chairman Leonard asked the audience if anyone present wanted to speak to the Board under public comment. There being none the Board moved on to Applications to be approved. F. APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED BY CONSENT VOTE: Motion was made by Mr. DiFrancesco to approve the applicants recommended by Consent vote. Mr. Pride seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The names were read into the record: Chairman.…………………………..................................................................... Travis Leonard Vice Chairman………………………………………………………………………. Tony Jerger Secretary……………………………………………………………………..……… Michael DiFrancesco ………………………………………………………………………………………… Michael Pride ………….…………...………………………………………………………………… Gary Morris ………………………………………………………………………………………… Michael Kauffmann …..……………………………………………………………………………………. Roger Priest ………………..……………………………………………………………………….. Adam SampsonAdam Sampson ………………………………………………………………………………………… Sheila McCarthy-Taylor

2 Qualifier Business Name Type of Contractor Testing Agency Ishmael A. Gutierrez N/A Journeyman Electrician Prov Abdon Etienne N/A Master Plumber (Non-Contractor) Prov Reinier Perez Treasure Coast Fencing LLC Fence Contractor Prov Joel M. Guettler N/A Master Electrician (Non-Contractor) Prov William M. Jones N/A Journeyman Electrician Prov Henry Williams HW Road Construction LLC Paving Contractor Prov Glen Storey Storey Roofing LLC Roofing Contractor Prov Everton Miller N/A Master Electrician (Non-Contractor) Prov Andres Y. Montoya C/F Air Conditioning LLC Class B Air Conditioning Contractor Prov APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY RECIPROCITY: Motion was made by Mr. Pride to approve the applicants recommended by Reciprocity vote. Mr. Jerger seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Qualifier Business Name Type of Contractor Bernardo Mercado Florida Coast Roofing & Repairs Inc. Roofing Contractor Yismel Castillo Bello Castillo’s Electrical Services LLC Electrical Contractor Anthony Graziano Strictly Doors Inc. Siding, Window & Door Contractor Cody J. Mahany DC Door Company LLC Siding, Window & Door Contractor Brandon Kiernan Ardent Roofing Inc. Roofing Contractor Leonel Villarreal G & D Screens Inc. Aluminum with Concrete Contractor Miguel E. Massot Window Works Impact Glazing Inc. Glass and Glazing Contractor APPLICATIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY BASED ON RECIPROCITY FROM THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE OR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE: The applicant’s names were read into the record. THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR REVIEW BY THE BOARD: 1) Mr. Josue Sainte-Juste – Paving Contractor Chairman Leonard: Thank you very much. Next, we have one for review by the Board. I'm probably going to butcher this name. Joji Saint-Juste? Is that person here in the audience? Officer Williams: I do not see him here, no. And he was told to attend today's meeting. Qualifier Business Name Type of Contractor Horatio V. Lewis FL Boys Plumbing LP Plumbing Contractor Alan D. Patterson A & B Fence Co. LLC Fence Contractor John M. Harbison AAA Accent Garage Doors Inc. Garage Doors James O. White Row Plumbing Inc. Plumbing Contractor Erica Makarowa Abstract Aluminum Works LLC Aluminum with Concrete Contractor Qualifier Business Name Type of Contractor Josue Saint-Juste Saints Concrete Asphalt Paving LLC Paving Contractor

3 Chairman Leonard: Thank you, Ms. Williams. I appreciate that. Anybody have an opportunity to review the packet that was sent to us? Chairman Leonard: Do we have any questions on the packet that was sent to us? Any discussion on whether or not we should provide this person a license by the board who is not in front of us? Or do you want to table this until that person comes in front of us? Mr. DiFrancesco: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a motion to table this case until he has a chance to get in front of us and explain himself. Mr. DiFrancesco made a motion to continue case to the November 20, 2024 Contractor Licensing Board meeting. Mr. Jerger seconded and the motion carried unanimously. G. WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A HEARING FOR FAILURE TO PAY OR APPEAL THE CITATION 1) Case No. 2405-0000077 – Ryan C. Alcock and/or Ryan Rescreens LLC Chairman Leonard: Next up, we have a waiver right of hearing for failure to pay or repeal the citation for Ryan Alcock and or Ryan's Rescreens LLC. Chairman Leonard: Is Ryan here? Ryan is not here. Anybody have an opportunity to review the packet that the staff has so kindly put together for us? Chairman Leonard: Do we have the homeowner here? Officer Moise: The homeowner is not here. Chairman Leonard: The homeowner is not here either? No. You would think missing a meeting in July, people would be more apt to show up in September. Chairman Leonard: Okay. Any discussion by the board? You would think if I got a hearing for a citation, I'd actually want to show. Chairman Leonard: Do you have a motion? Officer Williams: Mr. Chairman, the Board? Would you like to hear a summary from Mirlande and pictures? You can. It's up to you. Chairman Leonard: Sure. She's so kind. She's got a smile on her face. Let's go ahead. Why not? Sorry. Officer Moise: You’re welcome. Officer Moise addressed the Board and stated for the record, she is submitting eight (8)photos dated May 10th, 2024. On May 2nd, 2024, she received a complaint affidavit from the property owner of 5717 Palmetto Drive. Officer Moise stated the owner of the property located at 5715 Palmetto Drive hired Ryan Alcock to do some work on a screen enclosure. I contacted the property owner to discuss the complaint. On May 10th, 2024, she met with the owner to inspect the property to determine the scope of work that was performed by Mr. Alcock. After reviewing the information provided and my inspection, she determined the work done by Mr. Alcock did not require a permit but required a licensed contractor to perform the work. Mr. Alcock was not licensed. she checked DBPR and our database, and he was not licensed. Officer Moise stated on May 13th, 2024, she contacted Mr. Alcock. she informed him who she was and of the complaint received. He stated he is licensed. Officer Moise stated she searched our system again and informed him he is not in our system. She informed him he is not allowed to be replacing doors because he is unlicensed. She informed him it is not allowed for an unlicensed person to be doing any aluminum work or replacing of the aluminum. Officer Moise stated Mr. Alcock was informed that a $500 citation was going to be issued. He stated he was not going to pay for it. Citation number 439 was issued on May 13th, 2024, with a compliance date of May 23rd, 2024, for being in violation of Section 10-99, engaged in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified.

4 After nonpayment, a notice to appear was issued and sent certified mail on May 28th, 2024, for the July 17th, 2024, code board meeting. Sorry, contracted licensing board meeting. The notice was received and signed on May 30th, 2024. That meeting was canceled. Therefore, another notice was issued. One moment. Officer Moise stated another notice was issued on August 30th, 2024, for the September 18th, 2024, Contractors Examining Board Meeting. The notice was signed as of September 18th, 2024. Officer Moise stated she has had no contact with Mr. Alcock and the citation has not been paid. Staff's recommendation is for the 500 citation to be paid within 30 days of the date of this board meeting and authorize staff to place a lien against the contractor if not paid within 30 days. Mr. Difrancesco made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation of $500.00 citation fee (1 st offence) to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this Board meeting and authorize staff to place a lien against the contractor if not paid within thirty (30) days. Mr. Pride seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Leonard asked for a roll call vote. Mrs. Taylor – Yes, Mr. Sampson – Yes, Mr. DiFrancesco – Yes, Mr. Jerger – Yes, Chairman Leonard – Yes, Mr. Pride – Yes, Mr. Morris – Yes, Mr. Priest – Yes, Mr. Kauffman – Yes. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A HEARING FOR FAILURE TO PAY OR APPEAL THE CITATION 2) Case No. 2407-113317 – Anthony Oliver and/or Anthonys Tree Company Chairman Leonard: Next up, we have Anthony Oliver and/or our Anthony's Tree Company. You go ahead and we'll hear from staff first. Office Moise addressed the Board and stated for the record, she is submitting four (4) photos dated July 12, 2024, taken by Code Enforcement Officer Josh Guevara. Two photos dated September 6, taken by herself on July 12, 2024, she received in an email with an attachment of photos from Code Enforcement Officer Josh Guevara of a stop worker order issuance for unpermitted removal of a tree. During her investigation, she found that the work was performed by Anthony's Tree Company, Anthony Oliver. Officer Moise stated Mr. Oliver is not a licensed contractor. Therefore, citation number 466 was issued on July 17, 2024, with a compliance date of July 27, 2024, for being in violation of Section 10-99, engage in business or act in the capacity of a contractor without being duly registered or certified. Section 10-99, proceed on any job without first obtaining applicable local building permits, inspections, or perform of any work for which a building permit is required, without such building permit being current. Officer Moise stated after nonpayment, a notice to appear was issued and sent certified on August 15, 2024, for the September 18, 2024, Contractor Licensing Board. The notice was not signed. Therefore, a notice to appear was issued and posted on the property at 203 Tumlin-Cling Road for the September 18, 2024, Contractor Licensing Board meeting. Officer Moise stated she has had contact with Mr. Oliver and his mother. As of September 17, 2024, the citation has not been paid. Staff recommendation is for the $1,000 citation to be paid within 30 days of the date of this board meeting and authorize staff to place a lien against the contractor if not paid within 30 days. Chairman Leonard: Thank you, Ms. Moise. And I believe we have Anthony Oliver's mother here. Chairman Leonard: Thank you. Ms. Oliver, would you please come up, state your name, address, and be sworn in. Ms. Laura Goldstein Oliver was sworn in by the Recording Secretary Chairman Leonard: Good morning. Thank you for being here. Hi. The reason why Anthony couldn't be here is? Ms. Oliver: Yes, sir. On the invoice, it says 10-6 of October. That will be paid by October 6th. Yes, I know what it is. And I didn't know you – well, I don't know what to – I don't want to say too much. Chairman Leonard: That's okay. Listen, we're okay. We're just having a conversation. Do you have any – do you have intentions of paying the citation? Ms. Oliver: Absolutely, sir. Do you want to get with staff? Chairman Leonard: And can we have staff take care of that?

5 Ms. Oliver: I did. I talked to someone yesterday because I had the invoice, and they kept telling me. I was told that I – to be here, that there would be a Chamber of Commerce meeting, and it would be advised, you know, to come. Officer Williams: Well, if the board will give her more time. She's here today because she didn't pay today. That's why she's on the agenda. Maybe you guys can give her more time to pay the citation, like 30 days, or make a motion to do so. There was discussion among the Board, Staff and Ms. Oliver regarding the citation. Mr. Difrancesco made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation of $1,000.00 citation fee (2nd offence) to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this Board meeting and authorize staff to place a lien against the contractor if not paid within thirty (30) days. Mrs. Taylor seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Leonard asked for a roll call vote. Mrs. Taylor – Yes, Mr. Sampson – Yes, Mr. DiFrancesco – Yes, Mr. Jerger – Yes, Chairman Leonard – Yes, Mr. Pride – Yes, Mr. Morris – Yes, Mr. Priest – Yes, Mr. Kauffman – Yes. The motion carried unanimously. WAIVER OF RIGHT TO A HEARING FOR FAILURE TO PAY OR APPEAL THE CITATION 3) Case No. 2407-113284 – Larry Botkin and/or Vero Fence LLC Chairman Leonard: Next up, we have Larry Botkin and/or Vero Fence LLC. Officer Winkler addressed the Board and stated for the record, he is submitting two (2) photos taken July 9th, 2024. Officer Winkler stated that he issued an NTA in citation 406. Permit number FENC-2206-000133 in drawings. Sunbiz.org information, United States Postal Service tracking information. On July 8th, 2024, inspection 8202 Fort Pierce Boulevard, he found a fence had been installed. Permit FENC-2206-000133 was originally on hold for a zoning issue, which since has been resolved. The permit is now on hold due to Vero Fence LLC insurance has expired. Officer Winkler stated citation 406 was issued and sent certified mail to Larry Botkin, Vero Fence Company, on July 9th, 2024, and given until July 9th, 2024 to pay the civil penalty. Citation was for section 1099, violation number nine, proceeding on a job without first obtaining applicable local building permits, inspections, or perform of any work for which a building permit is required without such a building permit being current. Officer Winkler stated since the citation was not paid by July 19th, 2024, a notice to appear was sent out on July 24th, 2024, by certified mail for the September 18th, 2024, St. Lucie County Contract Licensing Board. United States Postal Service tracking system stated the item was delivered to an individual at that address on July 29th, 2024 in Vero Beach. Officer Winkler stated as of this morning, September 18th, 2024, the citation has not been paid. Staff's recommendation is a $500 citation be paid within 30 days of the date of this board meeting and authorize staff to place a lien against the contractor if not paid within 30 days. Chairman Leonard: Michael, thank you. So if I heard you correctly, a permit was applied for, but was never issued? Officer Winkler: Correct. There was discussion among the Board and Staff regarding the citation. Mr. Difrancesco made a motion to accept staff’s recommendation of $500.00 citation fee (1 st offence) to be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of this Board meeting and authorize staff to place a lien against the contractor if not paid within thirty (30) days. Mr. Morris seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Leonard asked for a roll call vote. Mrs. Taylor – Yes, Mr. Sampson – Yes, Mr. DiFrancesco – Yes, Mr. Jerger – Yes, Chairman Leonard – Yes, Mr. Pride – Yes, Mr. Morris – Yes, Mr. Priest – Yes, Mr. Kauffman – Yes. The motion carried unanimously. J. OLD BUSINESS: None. K. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion on Chapter 1 – Administrative Amendments. Chairman Leonard: Thank you, staff. No old business, but I was handed a very thick packet for new business. Who is going to be conversating?

6 Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: Yes, I'll go ahead and start. For the record, Assistant County Attorney Kathryn Barbieri. We are bringing forward administrative amendments, Chapter 1, to the Land Development Code. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: I believe it was sent to each of you individually. You had a chance, and we've received some feedback. I'm sure the building official will be jumping in. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: The proposed Appendix F has received a lot of negative feedback. Staff has not. Just so everybody knows, we're not going to proceed with that one. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: So when we go to planning and zoning, we are going to be leaving out Appendix F now. So that's where all your comments are. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: But the rest of it, we are planning to go forward, and obviously you are our board with expertise in this matter, and this is our chance where you're together. So if there's any other comments, we would value it. And I'm not sure if the Building Official has anything else to add. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: Nothing additional. But if there's any questions or comments or anything that I can address, I'd be more than happy to. When is this up for discussion in front of the county administrators? Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: We went yesterday for permission to advertise. It will go to the Planning and Zoning Board October 17th, and then it's hopeful to go one board meeting, the board meeting, like the 12th, the Tuesday in November, and then the second where they would actually vote would be the first Tuesday in December. Chairman Leonard: Okay. So, it's not pressing, but it's pretty close is what we're saying. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: Yes. For us, that is actually an expedited schedule because the way they meet, and we like to do these at night, so if there's anybody that wants to attend and has a regular 8 to 5 job, they're able to attend. Chairman Leonard: Are you able to tell me why there's so much negativity against Appendix F when we decided to take it out? Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: I think maybe the building official can help. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: So, the biggest comment for Appendix F was because of the regulation on the irrigation systems for residential. Just as it stands now, it's minimal in what's required. And when you talk about Appendix F, there is some things that could be seen as being overbearing for a So we're trying to find additional records and operation and maintenance records for that. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: I did try to look at some ways to mitigate that. Unfortunately, I can't make it less stringent than it already is. And we do have, I believe anyways, within the Florida building code, we have enough to cover residential to where it's not a pressing matter where it has to be adopted for any kind of life safety or property safety issues. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: No, we would agree on that. Chairman Leonard: You took the words right out of my mouth as well as I'm sure a couple of the board members up here. The last thing we want to do is cause additional constraints to the consumer, additional constraints to the contractor that cause more money to the consumer at the end of the day. That is just unnecessary and unneeded. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: And I know down in some other jurisdictions, the main reason they use that is just to make sure that the non-potable water being used for the irrigation systems, more so in a commercial application, are being marked and tagged regularly. But there's other ways to make sure that that happens without putting the bearing on residential systems that don't need such, like I said, an overbearing regulation. Chairman Leonard: Yeah, I'm on the 2026 building code for swimming pools task force right now, rewriting the codes. And you're trying to separate the commercial from the residential, and FDC sometimes doesn't do that very well. No, they don't. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: And we've had actual positive input and almost a request for the appendix Q on the tiny houses. So that's why that was being added. Yeah. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: Because of the square footage, and again, the building official can address why he wasn't able to do tiny houses before. But with this, he'll be able to permit them. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: Yes. Because of the size restrictions and everything on the tiny houses being so small, most of them with their bedrooms and stuff, and the little lofts they put up top wouldn't be able to meet the standard building code. So, kind of without that appendix, there's really no way to properly allow or permit a tiny house to be built.

7 Chairman Leonard: Sure. I just think that's the world we're living in now is dictating that because people are looking for it and want it and it's affordable. Exactly. People are building. Mr. Priest: Mr. Chair, may I ask a little more information about the irrigation appendix? To my knowledge, I don't pull a permit, and I certainly don't inspect any commercial irrigation system currently in the St. Lucie County. Why were we going there? Mr. Priest: Is it part of the Florida building code that is forcing the county to go there? I'm curious. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: It is. It should have been required to be permitted. There are requirements in the Florida building code for irrigation systems. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: And of course, as we know, without a permit, there's really no way to inspect it to make sure it's getting installed properly. Again, as far as appendix F goes, the biggest thing that I have used it for, and I've seen other jurisdictions use it for, especially down in Palm Beach County, is just when you have an irrigation system with that non- potable water to make sure that the sprinkler heads are tagged properly, make sure that there's signage up that's required to make sure it's known that it's non-potable water. Unfortunately, in appendix F, there is a lot more regulation than just that. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: It gets into zone sizing, and it also gets into keeping, like I said, those operations and records and all kinds of plans. For a commercial project, there really should be plan sets and permits being pulled for irrigation. Just off the top of my head, make sure that people aren't watering the parking lot. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: I mean, it's really for water efficiency, and that would be the biggest reason for it. And again, just to make sure that they're abiding by the Florida Building Code for what does minimally cover the irrigation systems, and they're making sure there's backflows on things. Now, in a residential sense, when we go out for a building final, we can check to make sure if there's an irrigation system, there's some kind of backflow on the system, and they're off the building where they're supposed to be. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: And I'm sure that it's being looked at to some degree on commercial application, but just like anything else, without that exact record showing that, yes, we did go out there and specifically look at that, anyone could challenge that if it became an issue in the future and say, well, why didn't the county look at this? They're spraying water on the side of my house. Why didn't anyone look at this to make sure that it's not being directed in an area that it's not supposed to be? Mr. Priest: So, I understand water efficiency, conservation, I understand all that. The code is written, obviously, for efficiency. It's morphed into that. Mr. Priest: But it started for protection of life and property. And my concern from reading the appendix was, man, we're going far beyond that. We're worried about the depths of pipes. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: And that's why it made more sense to just pull it than to try and force it to work because the portion that covers that protection of property and life is already written into the building code where we can enforce it and make sure that it's being abided by. So, adopting the appendix was just overkill. Mr. Priest: Leave it alone. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: So, it made more sense to just pull it. Chairman Leonard: I think you saved a lot of discussion by telling us it was not going to be adopted. So that helps a lot. Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: We tried to listen to the feedback staff does. And like I said, we had gotten some feedback and understood that it wasn't a positive addition. Chairman Leonard: As a contractor, I'm thankful and grateful for codes. And I'm thankful and grateful that we have to build to a certain standard. But when you start forcing things that I believe are totally unnecessary and that consumer now has to fork over thousands upon thousands upon thousands of additional dollars, that's when you're going to start seeing some pushback. And clearly that's the case. So, thank you guys for listening. No, absolutely. Mr. DiFrancesco: Did I read the amendment in the amendment that the, they can require plans for single family residences also? Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: Yes. For it's like generally speaking or a plan for irrigation. Under appendix F it was required. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: That's what I had looked at to see if we can kind of exclude residential from that. And there's no way for me to make it less stringent than what it is. So, if it point blank says it needs to be for residential and commercial, there's no way for me to say this doesn't apply to residential.

8 Mr. DiFrancesco: So, you didn't realize that, that for just a single family residence, but people are just barely afford to build a house nowadays. It says here where required. It says. Mr. DiFrancesco: Most homeowners for us to have a design professional. You're on a set of irrigation plans. Or a single- family residence. Mr. DiFrancesco: Going to be about four, four to $5,000 extra on a, on a, on a house. It's a house. And you got all these houses for St. Lucy. How are they? How are they? They're on 8,500 for lots. And you want. And they're going to require landscape plans. Irrigation plans. Mr. DiFrancesco: It's impossible. You're driving to cost us also on a small job like that on, on the, on the residential, they lay the pipe and they, they covered up the same day. So how are we going to lay the pipe? Mr. DiFrancesco: And because they're only buried eight inches, eight inches, 12 inches, where the, where the, you know, where the. Driveways going or something like that, but. Chairman Leonard: That's the reason why they're not adopting it. Thank God. Mr. DiFrancesco: So, for us to bury that, to lay that pipe and it comes down with rain like it does every day. That pipe is going to, going to float up. So, it's costing and according to my irrigation guy, he has to come back a second time just to cover the things. Mr. DiFrancesco: Then he's got to charge an extra charge also. So, we're talking about more than $4,000. You know, it's, it's, we've been doing this for how long? Mr. DiFrancesco: I know. They're trying to save water or whatever they're doing there, but. It doesn't make sense to put that burden on a customer. Chairman Leonard: I think that was Rogers. You know, like you opened a door with, Hey, let's, let's conserve energy conservation and yeah, we're all like, great. Let's save water. Chairman Leonard: All of a sudden. I've got a full engineer set of plans. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: I was like, we're saving $300 worth of water and spending $5,000 on drawings. Yeah. I mean, I don't know necessarily. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: I mean, the plumbing contractor would have been fine to draw that. And I don't think a plumbing contract, none of the plumbing contractors I've worked with are charging $4,000 to draw a simple irrigation plan for residential. Mr. DiFrancesco: What does the plumbing contractor know about irrigation? He doesn't do irrigation. So, you're putting a burden on somebody else. Mr. DiFrancesco: You passed the kicking. He's got a license to do irrigation in order to, in order to draw this out. Mr. Sampson: There is some crossover there. We supply as a plumbing contractor, whether it be residential or commercial, we supply the water for, for the irrigation. If it's, if it's being supplied from the municipal water, which I actually had a question because. Mr. Sampson: And it's something that we see a lot is, is really the lack of backflow prevention on the irrigation systems, which I agree, you know, wholeheartedly that, that, you know, people's budgets and it need to be considered in this. But at the same time, we have to protect the public water supply. So is there any look at adding in a requirement or at least an inspection to make sure that if the irrigation is being supplied from the potable water source, that it is backflow prevented. Mr. Sampson: Yes. That those backflows are being tested and repaired. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: It's being looked at to find, again, a way to do that without causing an overburden on contractors or owner builders like to make sure that we are checking that to make sure the systems are installed properly. Because again, our goal is to protect not only safety of the person, but also the property that includes water. But again, we don't want someone to have to go out to pay $5,000 for plans just to go look at a backflow. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: So, it is being looked at and evaluated to see the best way to make sure that that is being done. Again, without being over overbearing essentially.

9 Mr. DiFrancesco: Well, I can't take the city of Fort Pierce. They have irrigation permits that are pulled by the irrigation companies, not the contractor. And the only thing they inspect is the backflow prevented to see if one was installed and installed properly. Mr. DiFrancesco: They don't inspect the pipes. They don't inspect anything else. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: Right. And like I said, that was a big part of why Appendix F was pulled because it went way overboard on what our intent of it was. If we're looking at protecting the water supply, we don't need an entire section that basically forces us to overregulate, in my opinion, other aspects of it. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: And that's why it was just pulled and not being added to the administrative amendments. Yeah. So that won't be adopted at all. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: That's not even going to be into the appendices. Don't get adopted unless we specifically put in there an adoption for them. That is completely coming out altogether. Appendix F is not getting adopted. Chairman Leonard: I'm guessing there was a lot of conversations that occurred before we even got to this point. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: Yeah, well, there's a lot of conversations even outside of just our adoption of it. I know a lot of other building officials that I've worked with in the past that work in municipalities where it's adopted. And I don't even think half of them realize some of the stuff that's in there. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: Again, the biggest thing that it's used for is to make sure that when you have a non- potable system, mainly on commercial, that they're properly marking the tops of the sprinklers with the purple and putting the signs up that it's non-potable water so that people's kids aren't going to play in recycled water. And most of them don't even know half of the stuff that's in Appendix F. Like I said, the biggest thing too on the back end is after the fact, getting those operation maintenance schedules and everything to keep track of making sure that I think it was quarterly that they're required to maintain their systems and stuff, which again, when you look at water quality sounds nice, but then you're talking burden on both sides of the fence. Building Official, Michael Jerrahian: It's more regulation from our end, which is more personnel and staff. It's more regulation on the contractor's end, the business owner's end. And it's just like a never ending cycle of money basically circulating for no reason. Chairman Leonard: Anybody have any questions on stuff that's actually getting adopted? Assistant County Attorney, Katherine Barbieri: Uh, questions for us with respect to just if, um, it would be nice to have a motion that you agree with it moving forward without appendix F, obviously. Chairman Leonard: That's a tough one. What about if I don't like the way it's written? I love it. Chairman Leonard: We're going to approve. So, it would like to go just like government work. Let's go ahead and have an 85 page document. Chairman Leonard: Let's just go ahead and approve it. We haven't read it yet. Mr. Priest: We reading it is not required. Clearly, we heard that. You don't have to read it. Chairman Leonard: Don't read. It's right. It's right. Chairman Leonard: It's correct. It's right. Go along with it. Chairman Leonard: Listen, they're going to make us do it anyway. Do I have a motion? I don't think we're going to get one from Mike, so it's going to have to be somebody else. Chairman Leonard: I think we're going to have to do it. To accept less appendix F. Come on, Mr. Priest. I need you. Mr. Priest: No chance. I did read most of it. I know you did. And I found no problem with the amendment or appendix Q. Mr. Priest: Yes sir and I'll motion that we do accept the amendments and appendix Q as they've been written. Mr. Priest made a motion to accept the Amendments and Appendix Q as they've been written. Mr. Morris seconded and the motion carried. Mr. Leonard opposed the motion.

10 Chairman Leonard asked for a roll call vote. Mrs. Taylor – Yes, Mr. Sampson – Yes, Mr. DiFrancesco – Yes, Mr. Jerger – Yes, Chairman Leonard – No, Mr. Pride – Yes, Mr. Morris – Yes, Mr. Priest – Yes, Mr. Kauffman – Yes. The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 a.m. The next Contractor Examining Board Hearing will be held on WEDNESDAY, November 20, 2024 AT 8:30 A.M. Respectfully submitted, ------------------------------------------------ Michael DiFrancesco, Board Secretary Or Travis Leonard, Chairman