Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contractor Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Pierce board approves two contractor certificates, tables two others over missing documents and credit issues
Summary
At its regular meeting, the Board of Examiners for Contractors approved two certificate-of-competency applications and tabled two hearings because applicants were absent or had deficiencies in their financial or credit documentation.
The Board of Examiners for Contractors in Fort Pierce approved two certificate-of-competency applications and tabled two other applications at its regular meeting after staff identified missing notarizations and credit-report issues and the applicants were not present to explain them.
Staff recommended approval of agenda items C and D — BOGAX Ventures and Lafferty Aluminum and Screening — and the board approved those two applications by roll call. Board Member Brandon Noble, Board Member Don Bergman and Consumer Representative Ryan Collins each voted yes on that motion.
Staff presented two contested hearings. For the applicant listed in the agenda as Esnet/Unity Electrical Service, staff told the board that a revised financial statement had not been notarized and that an individual credit report for a co-applicant (identified in the record as Mirlande) had not been provided. Staff reported that the commercial credit report showed several accounts placed for collection and recommended the applicant appear to explain the entries. A staff summary noted a mathematical error in an earlier financial statement and stated: "The total asset should have been $132,912.85." The applicant was not present, and the board voted to table the hearing until the next meeting and ask the applicant to reappear.
For application B (listed as Jack Jason Jack; Triple J AC LLC, air conditioning contractor), staff again reported several accounts marked past due on the applicant's credit report and asked the applicant to clarify whether those accounts were student loans, medical debt or related to the construction trade. The applicant was not present; the board voted to table that application until a representative can appear to answer questions about the past-due accounts.
The board also approved the June meeting minutes by voice vote earlier in the meeting. Board staff said they would notify the applicants of the requests for additional documentation and the requirement that absent applicants appear at the next meeting to proceed.
The record shows the board took no disciplinary actions at this meeting and had no contractor complaints or unlicensed-contractor matters on the agenda.
