What did you say? We know that very well. That's bad. Okay.
Attorney, you know who told her that? No. No, she is. That's so funny. Oh, wow. So, a lot of NFL players
with a brooch. I already have the brooch. We have I mean I have some lady wire for my grandmother Yeah, I have
the instruction. Oh, I've seen
bothers me. I don't care what they say. You know what I do know about you? Every County January 7 26. Let us all stand for the allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. She's coming. Madam Secretary, do you have anything for our board rules today? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, please silence all cell phones. If you wish to speak, please let the board secretary know in
advance. Otherwise, raise your hand for the board chair to recognize your request. When the chairman calls you to speak, come to the podium, adjust the microphone, and state your name and address for the record. You are requested to keep your remarks brief and factual. Both parties of an issue will be granted uniform maximum time to speak, which usually runs between 3 to 5 minutes. This hearing is considered quasi jud judicial. conduct is formal and profane or derogatory comments will not be tolerated. Thank you. Do we have a determination of quorum this morning? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, with six members present. We do. Uh,
Miss Luna is on her way. Good deal. Thank you. And proof of publication for our meeting. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. It was published on January 1st, 2026 in the Pensacola News Journal. And I will entertain a motion for approval of minutes from the November 5th meeting. Motion to approve. Second. Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none here. None. Motion is approved. Our public forum session is next. We have a
threeminut limit for anyone that would like to speak. Is there anybody here today that would like to speak during public forum? I didn't request I didn't receive any uh speaker request forms but and I think all members here are on agenda items. Good deal. Anybody here for public forum? Okay. Our board secretary status report. Welcome to the new year. Good report. It's going to be a good year. Okay. We're moving now into contractor applications. Good morning, guys. Good morning and
u happy new year board. Um our first applicant to appear before you today is Mr. George Castello. And Mr. Castello, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Morning. Morning. My name is George Castello, owner of Westside Glass, and my address is 9943 Lifeline Court Mobile AMA 36608. Yes, indeed. Mr. Castello is applying for
the doors and window and siding examination and appears before the day with 14 years and two months of experience. According to the application provided, Mr. Castello has provided W2s for part of his experience verification using ownership of his company Westside Glass LLC from 2021 to 2025 in the state of Alabama. Now, he has received his aluminum storefront glass and glazing license in the state of Alabama in 2023 and is currently in active status with license number S58415
issued by the state of Alabama licensing board and that's found in the agenda items. And uh Mr. Castello's uh responsibilities include but are not limited to overseeing the day-to-day operations on various residential projects, assigning work to glazers, measuring for installation on residential windows, showers, and doors, as well as bidding on commercial projects. Now, by this being an outofstate application, staff will defer to the board for final decision. Good morning, sir. Would
you like to address the board with anything? Uh, not really. I I appreciate the opportunity. Uh, anytime I can speak before it, I aboard, I always like to, but uh, I've been in business since 2010. Uh, we do a lot of subcontractor work and we're trying to expand in Florida. Um, matter of fact, we got an upcoming job for a I believe it's an espresso maybe. I don't know. But anyway, subcontractor for for a general contractor. And they asked us if we had our had our stuff together here. And I said, "Well, let's do it." And that's how I got here. But yeah,
we like to do uh commercial glass and residential work. So, we like to work over here all we can. So, you've been in business since 2010, 2011, somewhere in that area. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And you just uh received license in 2023. Is that correct? Uh we got certification 23. We've been licensed ever since 2010. Uh we did aluminum certification license in 2023. Uh, don't they done a lot of I'm pretty impressed by what he knows. I've forgotten some of that.
So, did they not require that license for what you were doing before? I'm just looking at the window from 2010 to 2023. There was no license required for what you were doing. Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Any questions? Anybody? Do I have a motion? Make a motion. Second to approve. Okay. Sorry. Yes. To approve. Pardon me. I have a motion to approve in a second. All in any questions? All in favor? Raise your right
hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. No. Motion approved. Good luck with everything. Yes, sir. Thank y'all. Yes, sir. Have a blessed day. Yes, sir. Appreciate all you, too. Alrighty. Now, our next applicant appearing before you today is Mr. uh Jeffrey Napdale. Uh Mr. Nefell, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record.
Morning. Uh Jeff Nafel. address is 2222 Highway 196 Molino, Florida 32577. All righty. Uh, Mr. Napel is applying for the master plumber with gas examination and appears before you today with 8 years and 5 months of experience. Mr. Napail received his journeyman's plumbing license in 2001 with Kentucky license number 13480 issued by Kentucky Department of Housing,
Building and Construction. He worked as owner operator in the Bowling Green, Kentucky with his uh company professional plumbing services with master plumbing license number M6979 in 2006. He has also held a specialty contractor license which is required by ordinance 91-58 WC and 91-25BG with active status from 2020 to 2025. And this also was issued by Bowling Green War
County Contractor Licensing Board which can be found in the agenda items. Um Mr. Napdale's responsibilities include, but are not limited to uh managing all aspects of daily operations with new construction, residential service repairs, and supervising 13 employees on numerous projects. And again, by this being a out ofstate application, um the staff will defer to the board for the final decision. Good deal. Mr. Ael, would you like to address the board this morning? I don't really
have anything. No, sir. just looking to get get my master license here. So in Florida. Yes, sir. And chair, Mr. Nafal works for Escambia County in our facilities department. Um and so that urged him on to to get his license. Okay. I was going to ask it's a good answer then your employment from the plumbing stopped in 2021 there and I was just asking what were you currently involved in? But if it's facilities maintenance, then you're still still got your hands in it there somewhere. Yes,
sir. I actually was lucky enough I sold my business in Kentucky back in 21. Um, so we moved down here and uh just kind of did nothing for a little while, but got back into the workforce and working here at Scambia County. Left the Corvettes to come to the Florida. Yes, sir. Florida, right? Bowling green. Sounds good. Do any questions from anybody on the board? Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Have a second. Second. Have
a motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor? Raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. Motion to approve. Good luck with everything, man. Yes, sir. Uh, good morning board and happy new year. Yes, sir. Um, our final applicant to appear before you today is Mr. Wilmer Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez, if you'll please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record, sir. Good morning. Happy New Year. Uh my name is Wilmer Rodriguez and I live in Fort Walton Beach
uh 100 Love Joy Road um 32547. So Mr. Rodriguez appears before you today uh requesting to reciprocate his Okaloosa County residential contractor's license to Escambia County. He appears before you today three years and 10 months of experience working under LPRICE building company license holder Lacy Price license number RR282812182. His experience was listed as a skilled framer and supervisor. Um, his experience form has provided
a list of jobs and experience signed off on by the former license holder. I did reach out by phone to the license holder. She stated that Wilmer was hired on initially as a framer. He was very skilled in his trade and is of great character. Uh, he was responsible for framing all projects and for overseeing all employees. uh to account for the remaining time needed to meet the four-year requirement set forth by state statute 48911. He has provided a master's degree of science, this has been provided for the board's consideration. Staff did not find
any financial or criminal history while processing the application and because this is a reciprocity, staff will defer to the board uh for decision. Good morning, sir. Would you like to say anything to the board this morning? Uh, no. Uh, just uh, well, I got my license uh, 2024 and I've been trying to reciprocate in all the four counties that I'm allowed to, and uh, Nocaloosa and Walton County right now. So, that's why uh, we're keep expanding and growing mostly doing cosmetic remodelings interior and uh, we have a few customers contacting us from this
area that will require our, you know, license to be valid here in Scambian. That's why I'm applying and chair just to let you know he's reciprocating from Okaloosa. Okaloosa has the same requirements as Escambia County for lure. Gotcha. So the license transferred to our county is the same as what we would would be requiring and um so you've already been in business over there for a year and something. Uh no uh since 2020 we we started business. Yes. You've had
your license since 2020? No, the license we got in 2024 before we were working under Yeah. A little over a year. You had your license? Yeah. Mhm. Good deal. Any questions for me? Anybody? I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to accept. Sec. Second. Motion is a second. Uh any discussion? All in favor? raise your right hand. All oppose.
Same sign. See none here. None. Motion is approved. Congratulations, ma'am. Thank you guys for doing a good job again all the research and everything. Thank you all. Hey, we thank you all so much. Moving into the probable cause hearings. Yes, sir. Chair. Uh, our first item is Saul D. Spade doing business as LM Construction and Roofing LLC. State certified license number CGC1535248.
Contractor competency board complaint number 2550876 COOM. It's in regard to Melissa Sheay, the complainant at 7170 Klondike Road, Pensacola, Florida 32526. Proper notice was sent to the respondent. Mr. Spade, are you present today? Let it be noted that Mr. Spade is not present. And Miss Sheay, are you present today? Miss Shay, are you going to be providing testimony for this hearing? At
this time, I'm going to have Miss Sheay and our investigator, Melissa Reber, sworn in. Um, we're going to just quickly go through our investigation report. Miss Reber, was a complaint filed with our department and on what date was it filed? Yes, there was August 1st of 2025. And what was the assigned case number? 25876
COOM. What licensed contractor was this complaint filed against? Uh Saul D. Spade doing business as LM Construction and Roofing LLC. And what is his address? Uh according to our contractor licensing department, 2579 Pine Forest Road, Canto, Florida 32533. What type of license does Mr. Spade hold? Heo owns a uh state licensed general contractor CGC1535248.
And who was the complainant for this case? Melissa Sheay. During your investigation, were you uh were you able to determine any alleged violations? If so, can you please inform the board of those and your justification? I was. Code section 1837 C11 finding that a contractor is guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. Justification is the contractor continued to receive wires,
draws working unpermitted and continues to qualify L&M Construction and roofing LLC. The supporting documentation you have in your file is complaintance exhibit B, proof of payments, complaintance exhibit C. There is Martin's uh Martin arrest in Department of Business and Professional Regulations Investigations. Code section 1837C8, termination of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged
or under contract shall be considered to have been abandoned after 90 days. At justification, a stop work order was issued April 3rd, 2025. It was an expired permit and no permitting obtained for trusses, roof, and additions onto the building. Code section 1837D15 C. Job finished without a permit having been pulled or no permit until caught after job or
late permit during the job resulting in mis inspections or inspections. Uh justification is uh trusses were built, there was roof installation, there was concrete poured and they begin framing of walls to add onto the building. Supporting documentation investigators exhibit C, which is project photos. Yes, it is. And we also have Madam Secretary, I don't think your mic is on. I can usually project pretty
well. Just in case they need it for official records. Yes, sir. Um, also included in the backup items of the agenda, um, there are the actual complaint form, the stop work photos, um, expired permit, and a response to the complaint along with um, notice of the probable cause. Correct. That is correct. Steph would request that these items be moved in in as
evidence. Do I have a motion to move uh items in evidence? So moved. Have a second. Second. I have a motion to second. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none here. And the motion is approved. And Miss Reber, can you take us through a brief synopsis of of what happened during your investigation? Uh, Scambia County Building Services staff received a formal complaint from Malicious Shea alleging that Saul Spade, qualifier for LM Construction
and Roofing LLC, and Logan Martin, owner of LKM Construction and Maintenance, failed to obtain the required permits for the construction project performed for the construction project, performed unpermitted work, and subsequently abandoned the project after a stop work order was issued on April 3rd, 2025. Sheay further alleges that LKM retained all funds paid for incomplete work. According to Sheay, her husband John Sheay, operating through
Tucker Property Services, Inc. entered into a business agreement with LKM Construction and Maintenance to perform rehabilitation work at 7170 Klontike Road. The property, a fire damage motel, was to be converted into an eight-unit apartment complex. The Shaes purchased the property in September 2024 for $150,000 with an assessed rehabilitation cost of $384,800.
Sheay reports that an initial payment of $40,000 was wired to LKM Construction and Maintenance on February 6, 2025 for roofing work, followed by an additional wire transfer totaling 45,000 on March 10th and March 19th, 2025. On April 2nd, 2025, Escambia County Building Services received a report from Escambia County Fire Safety regarding roof and truss replacements
occurring at the property without approved engineering plans or permits. Upon inspection, staff determined that the building was also being expanded. The only active permit found for the site was a window and door permit issued to LM Construction and Roofing LLC. The qualifier Saul Spade was contacted regarding the unpermitted work and a stop work order was issued on April 3rd, 2025. No plans, permit applications, or further communications have
been received from the contractor since that date. Further findings discovered in an investigation. Saul Spade still registered as qualifier for LM Construction and Roofing LLC despite loaner owner Logan Martin having been previously arrested for unlicensed contracting and the Department of Business and Professional Regulations having ongoing cases against Martin. Sheay states that an additional $40,000 payment was wired to LKM Construction and Maintenance on April 22nd,
2025 after the stop work order had been issued without her knowledge of the enforcement action. A record search confirmed that LM Construction and Roofing LLC was issued a window and door permit on February 20th, 2025. The permit had no inspections conducted and is currently in an expired status. Miss Shay is present. U Miss Shay, would you like to approach the board? And and before we do that, uh Madam Secretary, I need to make sure everybody up here is clarified. This
is a statelicicensed contractor. That is correct. So, um, for us to be proceeding with this as a state license contractor when we, uh, deal with the, um, local registers, what the disciplining from my understanding of a state certified goes through the CIB DBPR. It it
can I think Tim may want to expand on that. There is um if it were to go to disciplinary action, some uh action can be taken against a state license. I just want to clarify of us being involved in a state certified license. This board has the ability to suspend or revoke permitting privileges for state certified contractors. Right. So that's I just want to clarify everybody up here why we're uh addressing this is that we have the ability to suspend permitting privileges. We can't
suspend license correct. No sir, we cannot do any action to their license. Right. That would go through DBPR. And this is any action you take would only be for Eskeami County for Skimi County. Right. So I just want everybody to be aware of what we're doing. This is permitting privileges only, nothing to do with license, etc. Uh, in Escambia County only. Just make sure everybody's aware. Thank you for letting me clarify that. Just to make sure everybody's aware of that. I'm sorry.
Uh, Miss Sheay, would you like to approach the board and give us some insights here? Uh, thank you. Good morning, board. Um, I've been working with Melissa Reebar on this because we were um my husband had purchased the property. We had hired um LMK Construction, LM Con uh construction to um do the construction work on there. We did give him a deposit. We did
have a a a estimate of work to be done. We gave him multiple draws. He assured me that he had his all his licenses. He assured me that he pulled the roofing permit. there was an expansion done to the property. He said that he had an architect do the drawings. None of the permits were ever submitted. None of them. This is costing um this is a great hardship to me and my family because not only is there violations that are very costly now attached to this property, but they have attached
it to every other property we own and that is not allowing us to refinance to pull out any money to allow to repair this or get another contractor. So, we're asking for your help in this regards. We've been working with other violations. Um, he did do work on other properties. He has been paid for those and all of them have violations because permits were not pulled. There's currently um 11 cases pending before DBPR, if I'm saying that correctly, DBR um against Paul Spade and Logan
Martin. That's all. Um and yeah that just that um he's been paid for all these activities before. So under exhibit D kind of a extensive letter deal here. Um this one. Yes ma'am.
Miss Shay and Mr. Martin with I'm in the second paragraph with Mr. Spade who is the one that's has the license here the qualifier been a complex business relationship since early 2023 complete numerous projects together. Mr. Logan would research properties present Miss Shay with proposed projects. Miss Shay would then decide on funding for the projects. Mr. Logan would handle all the logistics and the work to upgrade and repair the property at cost with the province of sales project being split between Miss Shay and Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin was the registered
agent on Miss Sha's Florida companies until she severed their partnership. Wire transfers came into Mr. Martin. They were deposited in a general account. The initial transfer was not earmarked. Multiple projects um concerning Kleike Road, there was never a contract. Is that correct? No. There was uh he gave a scope of work. He gave a scope of work for every project. And I know he keeps giving this rhetoric to everybody and then they just throw it out as civil and it's not helping
our case, but there has never been any written agreement as per any joint ventures or anything of that nature. My husband between my husband who actually owns the properties and Mr. Logan. And so he keeps saying this just so that you guys dismiss it and do and he has no accountability for anything. He was hired as a contractor. He was paid as a contractor. Who Who was hired as the contractor? Logan Martin. Mr. Martin was hired as the contractor. Do you have a contract with Mr. Martin? I have the scope of works that he would send us and the invoices he would send us.
And you paid Mr. Martin for these? Yep. Okay. And he said he had licensing and he uses Saul Spades licensing. And you knew that he was using his license and which was okay. He just said he was licensed. He didn't tell you who he was using. No. Not until I met Mrs. Leear um Rebar did she explained who the licensing was under how he was pulling. It seemed like I just want to dig in this a little bit because it's it's there's more than the surface of what we were hearing at first there. That's uh um a little convoluted. Yeah. The project. Okay. So, it never was a contract.
This project began just as all the others did. After the project is underway, Miss Sheay made a very serious false allegation, decided to sever her relationship with Logan. Work seats at this point. To our knowledge, there's only one permit open for Klondike Road for windows and doors. Uh there's a lot to this, isn't there? Well, there was a lot of projects. I think it's very I'm talking about there's a lot to the mechanics of this. I don't see it that way. He was hired as a
contractor and he did the contracting work and we paid him as a contractor. He sent us a bill for it. There was never any splitting. There was one project we did in 2023 where we felt he did really good as a contractor and we did give him some of the profit because it was very low construction on that and the project did very well. But all the other projects we my husband kept those projects and there's not I would challenge him to produce anything between my husband and him saying that
they had some kind of agreement like that. That's that's what I'm leading into there. Is there any type of agreement? Was there any type of contract? No, not between my husband who owns the properties and Mr. Logan. Okay. There's nothing. But was there a contract with him on this property? There's there's a things of a written agreement and a verbal agreement and this is beyond this uh board but right there's a difference in a verbal agreement and an oral agreement and it
works the legal system is beyond what we're doing here to decide if that's a contract or not. So, I'm not trying to, you know, intertwine anything with that as much as I'm trying to find out was there legitimately a contract between you and your husband and Mr. Martin for contracting of work for this work on Klein Dyke Road. There is a the work that was um submitted into us and the payments that were made to him on this. Do we have a copy of the scope of work in the It's it's in
the backup and that's what I have right here. That's what that was going to be my question. Could this be inferred as a contractual agreement since it has everything stipulated out including letterhead address of the property stipulates the property itself and then the entirety of the scope of work outside inside bathroom kitchen and then other. Can you tell us which exhibit you're looking at? So, I'm looking at page 169 of 314. It is after all of the wire transfers.
Christy, maybe you can help us out with that. Okay. as far as an he would have emailed us the scope of work.
I don't know that I see that. Maybe I just didn't scroll down far enough. It's on your screen. I just didn't scroll down far enough. I'm sorry. My bad. I don't know if this helps, but we had a lender who was involved that we would have had to submit all this paperwork to them to get approval to get the funding. So, did you have any contact contract at all with Mr. Spade?
With Mr. Spade. No. Yes, ma'am. Saul D. Spade, who is doing business as L&M Construction Roofing. Did you have anything with him? Everything was with Mr. Martin. Everything was m with Mr. Martin and the licensing was under Mr. Spade. And Mr. Spade did not pull permits. They did. He did pull permits. Yes, there were permits
obtained. A permit obtained a permit under Mr. Spade's license for the window and doors. That is his connection to this, but not for the plywood and roof and all that stuff. No. Oh boy. Why did I call in sick today? The problem you were asking about these this whether or not it's a contract. problem is that Florida requires specific in their construction contracts as you're aware there's specific requirements that have to be laid out before
you can say before you can before it would to be enforceable on the contractor side right and so while they have an agreement and oil and I I think this is more of an oil agreement and I know that Mr. Treywick is here to speak on behalf of I guess Mr. LM construction LM construction of the construction the uh LM construction company. Um so he may be able to lay out more and he may have more documentation than we currently do. But as far you know there's a problem when you have a contractor who's not providing the the you just have to cross
you know with construction you have to cross all the T's. So that's what you're looking at here. Um is even even an oral agreement would be enforceable at contract law, but it's not necessarily going to survive your scrutiny, right? Not from the not from her perspective, but from the contractor's perspective, right? You're dealing with the, you know, I think you get pretty deep into contract law and the ability of the parties to contract, right, their sophistication. Um and that's not really something that you're going to look at. You're
going to look to see if they met the requirements of Florida contract law for construction. Do you know if Mr. Martin had um like the ability to pull permits for Mr. Spade or anything? He said he was registered on Okay. which would qualify him to be able to work in uh the name of that contractor. Can may I ask a question? Sure. Just for clarification, so the monies were deposited
in Mr. in L&M Construction's account. Yes. And Mr. Spade, who holds the license, knew about those monies in his account? He was made aware of it when we called. Mr. Spade isn't present to answer that question. There was a phone call. um uh Melissa Reebar and myself made from this office to Mr. Spade in which we told him about the monies and so he was made aware of it on that phone call.
We could have Miss Weaver um testify to that if you if you want additional information. And I Okay. But so would that phone call have been recorded or transcribed in some way? No, ma'am. It wasn't. It was strictly when I notified her that how qualifier works and let her know this is who the case is going to be against is Saul Spade despite the fact the owner of LM
Construction Maintenance or LM Construction Roofing LLC being Logan Martin that Mr. Spade ultimately is responsible since he qualifies the business. And so that's when she learned about him. I called him. He happened to answer. I said reminded him he had a stop work order on the property and what had gone on and she was able to have a conversation with him then explaining his business, you know, been paying money, right? But but the money went into Mr. Spades
account. No. No. Okay. That's what I was trying to Her agreement was with Logan Martin. Okay. So, the money went to Logan Martin, not Mr. Spade. Correct. Thank you. As the owner of the business. Sorry for clarifications again though, but the subject here says Saul D. Spade doing business as. So, is Mr. Spade own L&M Construction? So, Mr. Spade with his license, his CGC license qualifies
L&M Construction and Roofing LLC. Was he listed as a owner of the It says here doing business as he is state certified, right? So, he went through the state, right, to qualify that company. Qualifi qualify that company. The state requires certain methods of a partnership, um, corporation, things like that. that you have to be affiliated with the company. We do not know exactly how that works. We know for Escambia County Mhm. he registered with us and is qualifying that company.
Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Treywick? Uh for Miss Shay? Anybody else? Thank you, M. We'll probably call you back again. So, thank you, Mr. Treywick. Would you like to Thank you, Mr. Speak to me. I appreciate uh you listening to me. Uh John Treywick. I represent LM Construction and I represent Mr. Martin. Um and if you'll excuse me, I've got some documents that I'm going to uh provide to you all that I think will shed some light on this. Unfortunately,
a lot of the information I'm going to give you is going to uh make this a little bit more convoluted than it already is. Thank you. And I'll I'll tell you in the front end, the reason this is convoluted is this is a dispute between owners of a business who have been involved in multiple properties that they were flipping that they were developing. And this dispute belongs in a courtroom. You're being asked to basically adjudicate something a court would adjudicate. That's for courtrooms, not for this room. And I'm going to explain to you why. The first thing I' I'd like for you to consider is this property has never been owned by Miss Shay. Never been
owned by her husband. Not today, not yesterday, never. This property was owned by Tucker Property Services. And what's interesting, and she's apparently affiliated with Tucker Properties, but so too is Logan Martin. Can you give those papers to Miss Christie, please? I will. While you're doing that, I pulled up on Sunbiz L&M construction and roofing. Only Logan Martin is listed.
It does. Okay. Okay. All right. I thought it actually had to be a legitimate partner corporation. And board members, what I'm going to do is give you an overview and then I'm going to call Mr. Martin to testify and give you more details. It might make more sense that way. And then of course you'll have an opportunity to ask him any questions. But I'd ask you first, I'm going to I'm providing a uh an operating agreement for Tucker Property Services, Inc. Again, that was the owner of this property. And I want you to understand, too, this property was owned by Tucker Property Services, Inc. from August of 24 until April of
25. They don't own the property anymore. And I'm going to provide you deeds which show that Tucker Property Services bought the property for 150,000, sold it eight months later for over a million. They made $900,000 on this property, didn't lose a dime, made almost a million dollars on this property in eight months. So it the the impression that you got initially that this was Mich's property or her husband's property is not accurate. Instead, it was a corporation's property that was owned for eight months that they flipped and
made almost a million dollars on. Um, and you're going to see in the operating agreement for Tucker Properties, which I'm providing to you. It's the operating agreement is actually signed by Logan Martin. Logan Martin's identified in the operating agreement as a man. You may. I'm so sorry. Yeah, we do. We need a motion for to submit that in evidence first. Yes. So it is what he describes it. Do I have a motion to submit the provided evidence? So move information and evidence. So
move. Second. Raise your hand. Just want to make sure we do it legally before we start. So board members, you'll see at the very beginning of the operating agreement, it says it's operating agreement for Tucker Property Services, Inc. Again, that was the property owner. No longer the property owner was the property owner. It's dated 7th day of February, 2024. And you'll see the managers are Hollis Tucker and Logan Martin. You'll see at the last page that the agreement is
also signed by Logan Martin. Now, Melissa Sheay is referred to in this agreement, and you'll see her referred to in article two under 2.02, which is on the second page. It says Melissa Sheay is also an authorized signer and can sign any legal documents including sales of properties, deeds, tax documents, or loan documents on behalf of the company. And then you'll see in article three under part 3.02, it says the manager may appoint Melissa Sheay and any other officers with duties
and compensation as the manager deems appropriate from time to time. So again, what you've got here is somebody, Miss Melissa Shay, affiliated with Tucker Properties, Inc. making a complaint against one of the managers of Tucker Properties, Inc. about a deal that they were working on for Tucker Properties, Inc. again, which bought the property for $150,000, sold it for almost a million dollars eight months later. And we're I'm going to explain to you this that the arrangement
they had was part of a much larger arrangement that's referred to. Arty McGra was the original uh attorney for the company. Already sent the case to me. Um but what he was referring to is that there were multiple deals that they were working on. Tucker Properties, Inc. was one of several entities that Miss Shay and Mr. Martin were involved in. They were buying properties. They were flipping properties. they were renting some properties out. Um, this was part of a much bigger network and like a lot of business arrangements, it fell apart. It fell apart
in May or June of 2025. And as a result of that, this complaint arose later again. It was filed by Miss Sheay as if she were the owner of the property. She never was. Her she had indicated to you when she was up here that her husband bought the property. He didn't buy the property either. property was bought and I'll provide you. In fact, let me go ahead and give those to you now. Sorry to make you work, Kristen.
Well, just in case you might have this too, that needs to be uh copied. Is there an agreement? Because it's former Tucker Properties and now it's Logan Martin with Melissa and John. I'm sorry, Miss Luna. Tell me, ask your question. Is Tucker Properties no more or does Tucker Properties continue? Uh, it's a Delaware entity. I I I couldn't tell you for sure whether it's still technically uh around. Okay. I I don't think it's operating in in the form that it did. Certainly not operating with the two of them as it did before, but you know how it is. Company. Is
there any agreement that's between Yes. Is there any agreement between Melissa, John, and Logan like similar to this? But I'm going to have I'm I'm going to have uh Mr. Martin testify as to what their agreement was. It But there's nothing else. It's an oral agreement uh to do various things including the Klondike Road property. It was this was one of their projects that they did. Yes. Excuse me for as well, but can you give me some insight into article six? If Miss Sheay and and is just a manager, how do we come upon this in the death cap incapacity beneficial
interest transferred to the surviving spouse of bless or John? I I don't uh I'm trying to wrap my brain around how a manager of a company gets all of everything. Uh I read I read that article as well and scratched my head over that as well. I I didn't prepare this document. Um something's not smelling right. Right. That's why I was also asking if there was some sort of contractual agreement because indemnification like further moving into Yeah, there's a lot more. There's more
and I'll have Mr. Martin testify to that. Um, and and again, that gets to the gist of my argument, which is that there's a lot going on here. This was not simply a property owner that bought a property and hired a contractor and then the contractor was paid and didn't do the work. That's not what this is. And again, I'll have Mr. Martin explain that. But what I provided to you board members is um the deeds. You'll see there there are two deeds. I'm sorry. They have to accept it. Oh, they haven't done a motion on it. Do I have a motion to accept the information
provided into evidence? So moved. Second. Second. Have a motion. Second. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none here. None. Motion approved. Additional copies are coming in. And I I just want to remind and I appreciate that. I know that this is deeper um than than what they're really touching on. But I want to make sure that we don't get this board too far a field of what they're looking at, which is unpermitted discuss uh construction. I think that your point that this is should be in a civil is a civil case then that's different. But just
so we don't get them too far in the weeds with they can't make a decision on I understand and and to clarify because there were allegations made against LM Construction that it misappropriated funds that it somehow mismanaged funds and that Mr. Martin did that. That that's part of the allegations here. That is what I'm addressing. Um I'm Mr. Spade is not here. I do not represent Mr. Spade. We were hoping he was going to attend. He's not here. He couldn't be here. Um I simply wanted because when there are these type of allegations, these type of things can be referred to the state
attorney's office. They can get legs and do other things. I wanted the record to be very clear what this was so the board could determine appropriately what LM Construction's role was and what Mr. Martin's role in this was. From the outset, um, I get that L&M is protected by the fact that they have somebody pulling permits for them is what we classified as who's doing the permitting. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Spain was the qualifier for LM. Under to Miss Christiey's point,
that's what we have to focus on. There is a civil flag of a company getting money and not doing the work. That's that's a whole another arena that uh unfortunately we don't have Mr. Spade here to uh give us information on where these monies went, what happened to him because he would be the one that's the license holder for us to seek that information from. Is this correct, Miss Christie? Well, he could certainly regardless of what happens with the money go back to this is
a state contractor, right? So you can only focus on the permitting issues. Right. Right. So you can't get into these other But the reason we would take his pering permitting privileges away is because he has violated one of our statutes which would include the misappropriating of funds. Correct. Receive chair. I just want to draw your attention back to what the alleged violations were. The permit. It had to do with um receiving monies and then working unpermitted. That's
right. Um having a stop work order issued, right? Obtaining a late permit, missing inspections. So, we just don't have him here to determine if the money really got to him or not or anything. We are looking at these items that are a simple item of permitting, lack of permitting, we'll call it. Yes. There are two, two documents, two more. Yes. Yes. There's a there's the initial deed to Tucker Properties showing $150,000 that Tucker Properties paid. Then there's the subsequent deed from Tucker Properties when it sold it for over a million. Um and and Mr. Listister, I'll have Mr. Martin
address the funds. He can speak to those um in within a certain capacity. And I'll I'll try to rein this in a little bit more. I I understand the allegations. I don't mean to burden this uh board with a lot of details that would ordinarily be sifted out in a courtroom, which again is is kind of uh my argument, but what I'd like to do um without belaboring this further is to have Mr. Martin testify uh to explain what LM Construction did and and why this ended up the way it was.
I think we, you know, we can entertain that idea, but and again, I asked Miss Christie for some of your uh advice here. Mr. Martin is not the license holder. Um anything that he says here today is what um value can this board take from that means he's not the guy who's uh the complaint is against. He's not listed as the complaintant. Well, he's I think what
he's explaining is he's a witness in this case. regardless of whether or not he's the complainant, he may be he may be a witness with relevant information. The question has to, you know, that's your, you know, he can brief you on what he would say, which I think is what he was trying to do on what you could expect him to say. Um, you're coming back to the the pering question, right? And that's why I just keep that's why we keep trying to draw it back because it's very civil cases are very easy to get down a long road, right? if in fact that's where this should be,
right? Um but as far as you can't you cannot take any actions against Mr. Um spa I mean yes against spade you can take action against his licensing but his client which is the corporation is not before you. Yeah I so you can listen to keep everything in line with our witnesses that it's to the permitting process. That's the main thing. And I understand what he's trying to do. He's trying to make sure the record's clear that it's not and I get that. I I we I'm on to what he's doing. We
just don't want to pay for ourselves. But if you wanted you know one of the things Hold on just a second. One of the things you could consider is just keep it ask him to keep it limited so that you can move this process along because you do have you know if it's if it's not something that's before you then it's not relevant for your decision today which is only probable cause at this point and I apologize miss Oh no no no you're fine no that's perfect um because I was going to go into because there's so many our word of the day convoluted things here um but with Tucker Properties I looked it up it's actually Coleman Alabama not Delaware although there is a New York
address. So, you know, I think it's clear that there's a lot of Delaware Corporation. Delaware Corporate. Yeah. Yeah. There's many nuance and details here. So, and I would um I would caution the board as to that information. Um as far as investigations, you can direct investigations, but um we shouldn't be um doing them here while we're in process. So, be careful about that. Okay. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't really affect what's happening here because ultimately we're back to it's a permitting question, right? And that's what exactly I was trying to
All right. Am I am I free to may I call Mr. Martin? Yes, sir. We need to swear him in because of being a witness. Yes, we need to swear him in. Mr. Council, Mr. T. I do. I do. Mr. Martin, if you'd step up. I'm just going to stand here. I usually speak pretty loudly. Um, tell the board what your role was with regard to Tucker Property Services. So, I was one of the managing members to be able to purchase and rehab the property or units or
whatever it was to be able to resell or rent out the unit um across the board along with multiple other entities. Was this the only property that you were involved in with Melissa Sheay or her husband? It was not. How many other properties were you involved in that were either rehab, renovation, remodeled or flipping between Florida, Alabama, Connecticut in New York? Over 60 properties. Okay. Regarding this property, Klondike Road property, what was the intention and
what was the plan as far as the work that was to be done on it? So, originally we went through, there was no 100% scope that we ever had actually end up putting out there saying that we needed to end up doing. We purchased the property cash. Then we went through and say stated that we needed to clear up all the violations was the first thing. There was code a ton of code enforcement violations for years that was on that property and we went through and the first thing that we did that's the reason there was a window door permit was to be able to get all the windows and doors fixed and secured because of that was stated by um the officer that there was a big nuisance with
homeless there and that was one of the big things to be able to keep the code enforcement case open rather than go in front of the magistrate was to get that closed up and be able to lock up the units. Okay. this property. What was this property? Was what was this when you bought it? It was just a place that caught fire, burnt. I I was told motel many times. Um but I'm not sure exactly as you know what it was. It was just a seven or eight unit property. Okay. So, you bought the property. How was the work going to be performed? What was the arrangement as far as the work that
was being performed? The renovation work it was going to be I just like multiple other projects. I ended up I fronted the cost of the rehab would go through and start getting into the project whether it was we were fully renovating the property or doing something as simple to be able to get it ready to rent out or to sell. And so it would go through and we'd have a full cost report of the entire job and then we'd end up going through and Melissa and I would end up resolving all that financials towards the end as we would go through and sell the property or rent the property up. Okay. You say we who who was going to be doing the work. Can you describe the relationship of LM
Construction which is a different entity? Correct. Okay. And LM Construction is a contractor. It is. Yes. And who's the licensed qualifier? Saw Spade. Okay. Um what was the arrangement as far as what LM Construction was going to do and what did LM Construction do on this project? So, LM Construction, just like the other properties that we would do, we'd go through and as because of needing a contractor, licensing and everything to be able to do the work that we performed on many properties was to take care of the property, the full renovations, LM and myself being the owner
would go through and fund the entire renovation on it, and then that's when we'd go through and and figure out on the back side the the f the full financials. All right. So, briefly, what was the work that was going to be done and what permits were going to be required? So we actually we did file. So Melissa Reber did come. She called Saw Spade. I ended up reaching out to Melissa Reber when that stop work order is put on same day in April and we fully got everything submitted over to an architect. Everything that was being needed to be done or was being done from there.
um and ended up getting those plans done and sent back and we got them submitted to the building department and then ended up waiting and that's when all this kind of started going down was in the process of filing all that paperwork to be able to obtain the permit was the whole business. So what permits were obtained the windows and door permit. All right. There were other permits. What were the other permits that would have been involved and would have been pulled for a full renovation uh and structural um changes. Okay. and explain again why that work stopped because
of there was work that was done that should have been permitted before it was it was started. No, why didn't you continue this? Why didn't why did this project finish? Because of the business dispute in the mix of getting those permits. Okay. And this was a dispute involving this project or other projects? It was revolving around multiple projects. Okay. Um there was I I believe you've seen there were wire transfers of approximately I think it was exactly rather $125,000. You saw those wire transfers, correct? Explain that please. Where did that money go? So on any all the
money that ever ended up coming into the account, there was never anything that when Melissa and I were designated on a certain funds, it was always going through and processed into a general account and then it would go through for any projects that we went through month, two months, three months, six months prior that was still owed. We're waiting on refies to happen or sales to happen to get me caught back up on funds. So that money was sent in a general account. There was never anything designated monies for a certain job or a certain project. Okay. So you had multiple
projects going on where loans were being pulled for the work. Correct. That money was coming in and that money that came in on a particular project for particular loan. Some of that or all of it might go to that particular property or it might get split and put on other properties. Correct. All right. 125,000 that came in was how did you what work did you did Ellen Construction do first tell me the value of that? Yeah the biggest thing so we did over $70,000 in work that was already actually performed on it between all the original cleanup we had over 20 dumpsters
out there uh violation stuff we had overgrowth tons of overgrowth that we had end up clearing per code code enforcement. So we ended up doing a ton of cleanup was the original cleaning it out windows and doors and then getting the whole property secured 100% was the biggest expense. So just to clarify, John, you asked LM. Are you speaking specifically to LM or LKM? LM. So LKM is a null and void. It's not it's not a it's not an active thing going on and no active uh work being done under LKM. Nothing's ever there's no work as LKM. So, I'm just trying to make sure
that it's clear for me and I apologize if it if I'm taking up a little time. So, you Saul Spade is the qualifier for LM and you are what with LM? I am the owner. You are the owner. Okay. What who is Saul to you? Saul is one of our employees on payroll. So, he does all the consultation, verifies everything for the permitting, does all that. Basically, he does the full oversight of the construction projects. Okay. But you are the oversight oversaw, correct? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Can I can I interject here also? I think we uh have heard what we really need to hear.
Um correct me if I'm wrong here, but uh Mr. Martin mentioned that work was done that should have been permitted that was not permitted and then you when the stop work order then you started the procedure of getting this done. That's correct. Yes. So that's that's what we need to hear is that there was work done that should have been permitted that was not permitted and it wasn't even attempted to
until it was forced with the county I guess would be and it was all within a very quick span. I understand that. But what we have to concentrate on is what is listed here in the um complaint which is pretty exhaustive here. But um the first one is and this again we're at probable
cause. We're seeing that there's legitimacy here. Finding that a contractor is guilty of fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetence, and misconduct because they did receive wires and draws working unpermitted continues to qualify this construction company. And then there was exhibits. Second one C8 termination of a construction project which contractors engaged or contract shall be considered have been abandoned for 90 days. And then the last one is finished without a permit uh having been pulled no permit called off the job or late permitting
during the job resulting in mis inspection or inspections uh considering the trusses, roof installation, poured concrete and framing of walls. Um I I'm not trying to cut this all short, but I'm trying to come to a head with this. I I I sense that we've already got the feel that these things here were not met. Admittedly, I don't know if that's the right word to say, but by your by your uh conversation with us that this in fact has some legitimacy,
Miss Mary. Yeah. What what other properties are in Escambia County? Are there more permits outstanding? Currently there is there is how many more it's in the city limits. There's ones that are in city limits that are currently and I did get expiration notices that after all this has gone on. We haven't there's not been a single thing been done since then what we've been trying to resolve in this settlement. Where's Mr. Spade from? He's here. He's local. He's here in Florida. He's local in Florida. But what part of Florida? He lives in uh down in South Florida.
South Florida. Yes, sir. So he doesn't visit the sites? No, we have we're in multiple different we're all the way down to Miami, all the way up here to Pensacola. And Mr. Martin, you said that um those projects are only in the city limits. There's nothing in Scambia County. That's We do have multiple I know. And there is violations that are in the Escambia County that has been arosed since all this has gone on. So there is uh but we have our active permits that we do have open right now or that are not open anymore that are expired are in city limits. Okay. Any
other conversation from the board here for Mr. Martin? I've got a question. Okay. Approximately how many projects um have you performed under this arrangement with with the group that you're involved with now that we're discussing that's south of uh say um you know the Lakeland area with this with this with with with your group that we're discussing now with Melissa Shay directly none and with Saul Sade we've done probably about 30 or 40 projects down
South of Lakeland. Yes, sir. Down Tampa, St. Pete, down to Weston, Fort Lauderdale area. And about um how much does he spend up this way with your projects? So, we end up I mean directly on site. It's not not much. So, it's all 90% of everything is all virtual from office that me and him meet, fly down, he drives up, whatever on that aspect of it. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. So again, uh just to bring us back to focus, we do have we do not have any uh jurisdiction
into his license, simply the permitting ability in Escambia County. That's all we're looking at with these allegations or uh alleged violations here. Anybody else have any questions, Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Counsel. I think we got everything we need here for this. Um, I'd like to go over each one of these violations uh to to see where we're at here with these. Miss
Shay, would you like to make any comment now that we've u heard from council and Mr. Martin? I just want to say there's just a he does a lot of smoke and mirrors to distract you from what the real issue is. And I'm glad that you stayed focused on saying we're here for the permits. I personally feel that he just uses Sal Saul Spade as somebody on paper and he does whatever the hell he wants and he opens up permits because I have not just this property but many other properties in which permits were not pearled and I'm working with Escambia County to correct all those. I just
want to point to the fact that this operating agreement is totally false because it says, as she pointed out, this operating agreement says Florida. The the company is in Alabama. He doesn't know anything about this. He doesn't know who Holl Hollis Tucker is. And he put my personal address on there. So, I just want to say, take it for what it's worth. Um, I think they're just trying to confuse you to take you off the mark. And I've dealt with this constantly now with them. And that's all I want to say about that. We're trying to stay unconfused. We're trying to stay focused
stay on target, right? I understand. But uh and there's this happens throughout the state. Um people uh let their license be used by companies and uh Florida legislators trying to, you know, capture some of this from happening because this becomes a big problem. Yeah. And it's a lot of money. It's a family, my family that's being affected and financially and he got a lot of money from us. So, thank you, Mich. So, let's go back to the first violation if that's okay.
Madam Secretary, we'll just kind of go one, two, three here and individually go with these instead of all three of them together for probable cause. Is that sufficient? Yes, sir. If you want me to take you through them, I can certainly do so. The first one was 1837 C11, finding that a contractor is guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. And what was cited there is that monies were received and he was working unpermitted. Okay. Do I have any discussion on this before we entertain a motion for 18-37 C11?
Okay. Do I have a motion to find probable cause? What we're looking for is to find probable cause to move it to disciplinary hearing. Motion to find probable cause to move it to the disciplinary hearing. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor? Raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Okay. Uh motion is approved. So the second item is um 1837 C8 that speaks
to termination of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract shall be considered to have been abandoned after 90 days. Stop work order was issued on April 3rd, 2025 and then no additional work was done after that time and the complaint was filed August 1st, 2025. Okay. Do I have any discussion from the board on number two C8? Do I have a motion? Motion to find them in violation and move it to pro
uh disciplinary hearing. Do I have a second? Second. Have a motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose same sign. Okay, it has been approved. Number three, 1837 D15C. Uh job finished without a permit having been pulled or no permit until caught after job or late permit during the job resulting in missed inspection or inspections. Again,
um there was unpermitted work done. Permit was obtained late. Okay. And again, I just want to remind the board that these uh allegations and what we're looking at has nothing to do with the civil aspect that that of you know the type of partnership or whatever. This is just simply did the contractor do these items or not. That's that's our responsibility. So any discussion the motion motion to find them in violation and move it to disciplinary hearing. Do I
have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. Motion is approved unanimously on number three to move it forward into disciplinary hearing. Thank you everyone here today concerning this for your input. Okay, next one. Our Before we start, I need to recuse myself on this case. Yes,
sir. We'll get you that form. Our next Thank you. Our next item is Brett Smith doing business as Apex Plumbing LLC, state registered license number RF1106 7884, contractor competency board complaint number 2550993 COM. Uh it's in regard to Frank Janet Janisk complainted at 1815 Klondike Road, Pensacola, Florida 32503.
I don't believe Klondike's in the I think there's a typo on the agenda. It's 1815 Escambia Avenue, not Klondike. Uh and this is located in the city limits. So the agenda just has uh the wrong street name. Um proper notice was sent to the respondent. Um Mr. Smith, are you present today? Yes, sir. And are you going to provide testimony for this hearing? Yes, sir. Perfect. And Mr. Jennis Sek, are you here today? And are you going
to provide testimony for this hearing? At this time, I'm going to have um both parties sworn in. And just a reminder, Miss Reber was previously sworn. raise your hand. All right, Miss Rber, was a complaint filed in regard to this case and when on what date was it filed? Yes, there was September 17th, 2025. And what case number was assigned? 25993 COOM. And what licensed contractor was the complaint filed against?
Brett Smith doing business as Apex Plumbing. And what is the address on file for that contractor? 6445 Kennington Circle, Milton, Florida 32570. Who was the complainant? Frank Janichek. Um, what is the license number and what type of license does Mr. Smith hold? License number RF11067884,
state registered plumbing license. During your investigation, were you able to come up with any alleged violations pertaining to the complaint? I was. Code section 1837D15C proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and/or inspections. Job finished without a permit having been pulled. justification. Smith has failed to pull the applicable permit.
And just looking at the backup for uh this this case, we have some some photographs provided by the complainant, proof of payment, an estimate, uh his complaint form along with executed notices. um the um city permit that is not issued. Um confirmation from the city that no permit was obtained, a response from the contractor, and the permitting history for the contractor.
Correct. That's correct. Staff would request that these items be moved into evidence for this hearing. Do have a motion. So moved. Second. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none. Hear none. Motion is approved. M. Can you take us through a brief synopsis of the uh complaint and what occurred? Escambia
County Building Services staff received a formal complaint from Frank Janichek alleging that Brett Smith, doing business as Apex Plumbing LLC, installed an undersized tankless water heater on his property, leaving the project with several code violations. Genitech states he received an estimate from Smith on June 27th, 2025 to install a Navian tankless water heater. The total amount of the estimate was 2,74550.
Janich check shows that he paid a deposit of $1,9820 on June 27th, 2025 and an additional payment on July 3rd, 2025 in the amount of 148257. Smith responded to this complaint by stating that Navy tankless water heater was installed at the Janitech's home based off the estimate provided to him. Smith states that Janitech questioned the fact that the new water heater had a lower BTU than his previous unit. Smith
alleges that Janitech was not experienced any performance issues with the water heater and was receiving constant hot water as expected. Smith further alleges that he confirmed with Navian that the current unit is correctly sized for the home's needs. A search of the permitting history for this address confirmed that a permit was applied for on November 13, 2025, more than five months after the installation. However, the permit has never been issued due to non-payment.
Mr. Jennic, uh, as you are the complainant in this case, if you want to come to the podium and provide any additional details. I do not have any other additional items except during the process um I consulted with a mechanical engineer that I uh worked with and he contacted the Navy and uh reps uh and uh ran through the calculations and he said I was undersized and I should uh get the
proper unit because I start out with 199 uh,000 BTU and I have I wound end up getting 150. So, the fact I still get hot water is different in the winter time because on one uh restroom or uh bathroom a little bit further away from the unit takes a lot longer to heat up. But um that was the complaint. And then also the uh workmanship was not proper. If you looked at the
photographs at hand, the wiring was not hooked up. There's a uh a drain pipe uh for condensate condensate uh water was not installed and also I'm not able to maintain this new unit because the uh ports that allow you to clean you know pump vinegar through there with a pump uh is blocked by a gas pipe. So I can't maintain the unit and so that's my complaint. Now, uh I was
told that uh you know I had a agreement with him. He never gave me any unit size uh buyer beware or whatever. But again, the way it was installed uh is improper and I need to get that taken care of. It doesn't say um I think you mentioned this in your thing the the contract does not say a particular model size
etc. So, while I can understand that you had a 190 and need, you know, it's 150, I understand that the differences, but uh like you said, buyer beware. I guess in some point here, there wasn't a uh a thing there on it. um the the Navyian um setup. This is in the photos. Um the Navyian setup
um has this gas line port right in front of those areas where you have your purge valve. So, right, that's I mean I I I I I totally get what you're saying. Um, you know, it's that's the picture there. It's it's, you know, I guess that could be argued all over the place. The thing we're looking at today, though, is proceeding the job without obtaining applicable
local building permits or inspections and then finishing it with not having a permit pulled. So we don't have um in our wheelhouse whether or not it's the right size or whether or not this pipe is you know from Navy and put in the wrong or right place should could he have turned the port valve you know those things are not what's before us what's before us is the permitting you
know what I'm saying not not trying to take away validity of anything you're saying that's just not in what we uh as a compy board deal with this. Um and it's unfortunate was city of Pensacola and then they referred me to the state and I sent my information to the state went back to the county. Yeah. So all this time has transpired. Yeah. Um yeah, it's the system could be perfected. That's for sure. Yeah. He is a registered the state is certified the counties are registered plumbing.
So it does come through us. The previous case, the only reason it came to us was for permitting uh privileges. This one actually can be, you know, more than just permitting privileges if we chose and saw that there was a reason for anything here. But my other point is, you know, I've got wiring that's just not hooked up correctly. And I would assume a permit uh representative of the city of Pensacola would pick that up and say, "Hey, this is installed not secured properly." Yeah. Yeah,
I see what you're saying there. Again, because there was no permit, we don't even have a uh ability to look into the install of any level. Am I correct with this? That is correct. And I I had told Mr. Chanichuk, it's unfortunate until he gets that permit, right, city may come in and you know, they may make it be corrected. We But what we're looking at today is the value of not having the permit. Okay. And that I understand and I guess that's the direction we're going in. We have to
that's we're we're again that's our scope that we're limited to right here. But this if it was permitted and bad work done, Mr. Tim and his guys would be all over it. Well, actually this would be Mr. Jonathan Mr. City. Yeah, Mr. Billy. Sorry. But the the builder fish would be over it. but because we haven't reached that point yet. Okay, that's what we're looking at today. Just to for clarification, not that we're ignoring what you're saying. We're just we have to focus on this part here. All right. Anything else you'd like to tell us? Uh no, but uh thank you
for looking into this case. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Smith, would you like to address the board? address 6445 uh Kennington Circle. Um so I don't want to get into talking in front of people, but that Mr. Smith, if you could talk into the microphone, please. Thank um so that is a flush port. It just it's on a swivel. expense. Like it's um like I'm not like arguing back and forth
and anything like that. Like we have a permitting we had a permitting issue. Um there's a couple of them that like have slipped through. He was one of them. As soon as she told us we're like I was like, "Oh my goodness, we didn't pull it." Um it's a water heater. It was a direct swap out. You just unhook the gas, hook up the water, direct swap out. Um there's a con state line and he sent us pictures of this. Um so we're not electricians. So whenever there's a conduit that needs a 90 or something like that, we got to go to the buy it. Um that's all it was. It was in the process of
like, hey, can we go back on the property? Can we fix it? I'm all for it. Like pull a permit. I know we requested one. I guess we didn't pay it for it, but I'm here to do the right thing. I mean, if I need to go if he if he'll allow us to go on the property, we'll fix whatever it needs to be fixed. The con I know exactly what it needs and fix it. It's but I know there is violations, you know. What's the process of the permit at this point today? Do you know? I think all the paperwork's there. I just need to pay for it. Like you all have, you know,
all the fixture count and the gas and all that. Can you tell us why you haven't done that? Um, so I have been out. Um, we've been completely I've been completely out for about a month. I was in a hospital. I've just kind of like not really stepped away from it, but like there's we got we had to fix some things. Um, and there's a process like we're we're doing it now. Um, there's a few there's like two or three other ones that I need to pay for and you know there's we got kind of like busy busy and it it we weren't Yeah. But we're good now.
So basically, if you paid for the permit, it could be issued and this could be final out if he got a per if he paid for the permit and it was issued and he could call for his inspection if he feels like there's some things he needs to do. And Mr. Janich, Mr. Janice Sec, I'm sorry for asking you from the thing here, but from your perspective, if Mr. Smith was able to get the permit and taken care of, would he be able to come back onto your property and
get somebody to fix the wiring? In other words, these things that you feel like are not properly, would that be sufficient to you? Oh, yes, very much so. But it's ironic that it took because I also want to mention he had a prior to his installation he didn't have an answering service and once I found these problems and try to discuss with him over the phone constantly once he went to his answering service it was out so that's why I was forced to go sure it's
unfortunate it has to work this way but I never from the property allowed to go there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. What was the board? Yes, ma'am. Before you go any further, I just want to make sure that it's understood that we can't the county will not enter into what's going on. From what I understood that you were not satisfied with the size of the heater, right? I know. I understand. Okay. So, but we're just dealing um you know, you're just
talking about moving forward whether or not the the permit could be if the permit were pulled, could it be could it be fulfilled and inspected? That's what they're trying to make sure with you. Okay. So, just let it be known to the record. I did no detecting, so I'm asking, which is hard for me not to just take control and do it myself. Um but I'm just curious, does the city have a portal where permits can be paid? They do. So the city has the same portal as Escambia County. Okay. MGO connect. And yes, payments can be made within that portal. Are you able to make that payment?
Oh, because Oh, no. No, not us. I'm just saying if you go into the portal like right now on your phone and pay it. She's talking about the city portal. Through the city portal. Yes. Mr. Smith, what they're talking about is the MGO connect portal that is part of our permitting software. And if you go in that portal, you can see all your permits. You can see what's outstanding, what inspections are needed, what payments need to be made. You might not uh be familiar with that. You might have an office person that handles that. Um, a lot of contractors do
and they could go in and make the payment for that permit. I was just trying to make it easy on you so you didn't have to waste a trip downtown. I can get Marissa to do it today. That's right. If we could get that done and our owner is uh you know willing for him to proceed and make it all right, I think this can be resolved without us having to what's the board's thoughts about that is to uh so at that point will we do a continuence to give 30 days for him to you
know come back to us and say it's all squared away and the owner give thumbs up or what what do we do miss Christie? So what's before you today is the probable cause. So, um you can continue continue your probable cause uh hearing um if you want to wait till the next meeting and see where things are. Just be aware that you've already taken testimony on this and whether or not right um whether or not you want to find probable cause or did you want to come back later and and have more evidence before you find probable cause. Okay. So, and the board would have to be
in agreement on that continuence. That's right. So, do I have a motion for either a continuence or yes or no in public clause? I make a motion to continue the alleged violation of 1837D15 um with the knowledge that Brett Smith is going to get this paid for and it'll continue on until our next hearing next month. So, that way it can be affirmed and confirmed that that payment has been made and that the client in question, Frank Janisk, is appeased and pleased. Okay. Was that
good? slow you down. You're just making a motion to continue and all of those Oh, I don't need to say all that. All of those other things are are findings for the next hearing. Okay. So, I make a motion to continue the alleged violation of 1837 D15 to the next meeting for next month. Do I have a second for that? I make a second. Motion second. Any discussion? I don't like it, but I'll go along with I don't want to see this guy here next.
And I think the board feels that way in general. I can sense that. So, we're we're um if I can say this properly, we're giving you a good opportunity here to Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Lot of wisdom speaking when this guy opens his mouth. Any other discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. Got 30 days to get everything together. And Miss Reber, I'm sure, will
be reaching back to you as well, Mr. Janis, to make sure everything's, you know, in proper order. If we can hold off on that for just a moment, let's get the next board date. February 4th. February 4th will uh is when this is being continued to. So if you're saying he has 30 days to get that straightened. Sorry. I' I'd use 30 days to the next board meeting. My apologies for saying that. 30 days. Okay. I'm just making sure you we uh it might be 20 something. We're just excited to be here. So we're saying more words that need to be said.
We're saying it is a fun place to be as long as you're not sitting in those chairs. So, February 4th is the next date. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you guys. Thank you for working with us. Well, I I need to excuse myself for two seconds. Do we want to take a break? Yeah, we will take a couple minute break. Okay. While we're on break,
in the hallway. Yeah. Did our Did our security lady, Miss Security lady, did you get some cake? Come on now. I told you you got to get some of that. She takes care of us. We got to take care of her. Yeah. I'm so used to
Oh, I know. It's an event. And I don't think the same cont
February. Hey Christie. Yes. Well, I thought
back into order and we will move into the disciplinary hearing stage. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, our first disciplinary hearing is David G. Rodomacher doing business as Horizon Improvements, Inc., State Registered License number RX11 066706 contractor competency board complaint number 25651 COMM. It's in regard to a complaint actually filed by this board based on um a complaint that occurred in Santa Rosa County. Um the room
actually has nobody else in it besides staff and board members, so Mr. Rodmacher is not present. Proper notice was sent to the respondent. Um if you want I will bring up the admin complaint uh just as a refresher uh of what occurred. Um the board previously determined that was there was probable cause to believe that the respondent violated code section 1837 C7. um that code
violation results from revocation or suspension of a certificate holders registration by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board or by a certificate holders certificate of competency from other jurisdiction may be considered by the board as just cause for suspension or revocation of the county's certificate of competency. Um, this hearing was previously continued pending the outcome of an appeal in Santa Rosa County. We received confirmation from Santa Rosa County that
that appeal was ultimately denied. Um, so that is why we're here today to make a determination on this violation. And we have a copy of what Senator Boza, it is all in your backup. And actually I would like to move that all the agenda items pertaining to this case into evidence. Do I have a motion to move everything into evidence? So moved. Second. Second. Motion is second. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. None. Motion is approved.
So Santa Rosa County uh denied the appeal. That's right. And uh the facts of the fi findings of the facts is listed as well. So what I'll bring up is the final order from Santa Rosa County and they actually ultimately revoked Rodmacher's Mr. Rodmacher's license. Yeah, their decision at the bottom of it is his license revoked. He's assessed a $5,000 fine and uh etc.
So, we have the ability to if we go back to our admin complaint, right? Uh the penalty guidelines for Escambia County is a $100 to $5,000 fine and such other penalty as provided with is in Escambia County Code section 1837. Now, this code section referenced uh C7 actually speaks
specifically to suspension or revocation of the county's certificate of competency. So, we have within our abilities here to do up to $5,000 fine and suspend, revoke, etc. of the license. That is correct, sir. Okay. Any discussion from anybody here? Santa Rosa County has already proceeded. We've just followed the
suit because we work together. Do I hear a motion from anyone? I I I I need clarification. I guess motion are we looking for exactly? Um so right now the board is uh is tasked with is he or is he not in violation and if you find him in violation what will be his discipline
and if he is in yeah first of all is he in violation? San Rose County has already said he is in violation and has revoked his license and charged him with a $5,000 fine. So now it's our responsibility to take action in this county. Do we find him? Uh so the question before the board based on the code section is was Mr. Rodmacher's license suspended or revoked in another jurisdiction?
And obviously it was. So we just need to and we continued this to give him the ability to appeal which he did and it came back as denied. Denied. Right. He appealed and it was denied. The other way.
Make a motion to find him in violation of count one. I'll second that. Okay. Do we include the fines and all the same first? We do it separate separate them in violation and then make a any discussion on this part. Do we need to stipulate whether it's revocation or suspension? We'll do that second. Right now, we're just finding in violation. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor,
raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign here. None. Motion is approved. Now, I will entertain for the fine of any amount or no amount and what to do with the license. I don't have to make that motion, do I? You don't have to, but somebody has to. So, you're welcome to. San Rosa County did 5,000 fine and revoking of license. I make a motion to um revoke the license and assess a fine of $5,000
in accordance with section 18-37C7. Okay. Do I have a second to the motion? Second. Have a motion second to have discussion on this part. Okay. All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none here. None. Motion is approved. The next item would be a recommendation to the construction industry licensing board. Uh your recommendation could include no further action, a fine,
suspension, revocation, restrictions on registration, or any combination thereof. And this would be against his state registration. They have a motion on which way to go with this. Just submit it to construction entry licensing board for their action.
Motion for a U revocation for to the CIB. Okay. Have a motion to recommend the CIB for revocation. Uh do I have a second? I'll second. Have a second. Any discussion? Should we say revocation or or any further action that the CILB may see appropriate and that way it's not just held to a
revocation. Would the author of the motion like to I think they're going to do that anyway. Yeah. Okay. But I will withdraw if you want to make that motion. got me. Okay. So, you withdraw your motion at this point. We did. We already had a second. Already have a second. Yeah. So,
you just amend it. Yeah. Let's just let's just go ahead and move forward with this since we already have the second with it. Okay. Any other discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. None. Motion is approved. Thank you. And that completes that hearing. Our next item is James F. Howard doing business as James F. Howard Construction Inc. state registered license number RC29027807.
Contractor competency board complaint number 2550762 COOM. It's in regard to Lily Johnson, the complainant at 2301 West Michigan Avenue. Uh number 39 Pensacola, Florida 32526. Proper notice was sent to the respondent. Again, uh the room only has staff and board members present, so no other parties are present. Um, I'll go ahead and bring up the admin complaint just to remind the board.
Um, at the probable cause hearing, the board determined there was probable cause to believe that the respondent violated code section 1837D8 mis for mismanagement or misconduct causing financial harm to the customer. The board cited that um the respondent possibly violated this by accepting funds for a properly installed roof covering and installing the roof covering incorrectly resulting in damage to the property owner's structure. Uh the second item was code section 1837DH
uh provides that a code violation results from failure to supervise construction activities. The board said that the respondent violated this by failing to supervise and ensure the proper installation of the roof covering. And the third item was code section 1837D13C2. Uh that is violation of any provision of chapter 489 part one of Florida statutes as amended. And within that um the board cited Florida statutes 489126 2A1. A contractor who receives as initial
payment money totaling more than 10% of the contract price for repair, restoration, improvement or construction to residential rural property must apply for permits necessary to do work within 30 days after the date the payment is made. The board cited that uh the respondent failed to apply for the required permit within 30 days after accepting the initial payment from the property owner. Um within our agenda items, we have the notice uh and the certified return
receipt, photos uh of the damages in the home, uh additional photos from uh inspector, um the permit, the complaint, the proposal, commencement, and communications between the respondent and the complainant. Uh staff would request that those items be moved into evidence for this hearing. So move. Second. Second. A second. Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor raise your right
hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none here. None. Motion is approved. Move evidence. That's all that staff has for you. With no parties being present. We're here to determine is Mr. Howard in violation and if he is what disciplinary action this board will take if you'd like for me I can go through each one one at a time. I think we should do the same thing. Yes, ma'am. We go through each count one by one here. So, does the board find uh Mr. Howard in violation
of code section 1837D for mismanagement or misconduct causing financial harm to the customer? Do I have a motion to find him in violation of the mismanagement or misconduct to harm the customer? And I believe in here she's asking for restitution also in one of these things. We'll have to go back and look at that, but I think she's asking for 4,000 something restitution.
which we will do separate but I just want to I don't think Miss Johnson turned anything she spoke about it but she's not provided anything she had wrote on her uh this is the complaint number eight in her handwriting and says I want the 4303 return so I may pay new roofer at the very bottom of that. Okay, keep going right there.
So, I'm assuming she's asking for restitution with that in item is requesting that. That's what I thought. Yeah. Yeah. So, back to our count number one. Before we even get to that, we need to uh decipher um is he found in violation?
Yes. The current one before the war is code section 1837. Okay. Do I have a motion to be found in violation of count one? I move that he is found in violation of Escambia County Code section 1837D8. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Okay. I have a motion to second discussion. Do we need to discuss this? Okay.
All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none. Hearing none. Motion is approved. Now with that, we have a pi fine of $7,500 to $1,500 and or probation. And or probation. I'm sorry. Do I have a motion on the fine and or probation?
I make a motion um for a fine of $1,500 and or probation. Just the $1,500. Just $1,500. Okay. All right. I have a motion for $1,500 fine. Second. I have a second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign, seeing none. Hearing none. Motion is approved. $1,500 fine. Count number two, uh, code section 1837DH, failure to supervise construction activities.
Okay. And I need to have a motion whether or not found in violation. I make a motion to um assert a a fine of $1,000 violation. Oh, in violation of 1837D9H. Yes. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor? Raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. None. Motion is approved. For this one,
we have a fine of 2500 250, excuse me, to a,000 and or probation. Do I have any motion for $1,000 fine? Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Have a motion and a second for $1,000 fine. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. See none, hear none. Motion is approved for $1,000 fine. Count number three. Count number three is uh code section code section 1837 D13 C2 for Florida statute 489
1262A1 a contractor who receives as initial payment money totaling more than 10% of the contract price for repair restoration improvement or construction to residential real property must apply for permits necessary to do work within 30 days after the date payment is made. Okay. So, do we have a motion for finding in violation of 1837D13C2 and Florida statute 489.1262A1.
Motion to find him in violation of code section 1837D 13C2 and Florida statute 489.1262A1. Do I have a second? Second. Two seconds. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none. Hear none. Motion is approved. Now the fine on this is 500 to a,000
motion for $1,000 fine. Do I have a second? Second motion and a second for $1,000 fine. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none. Hear none. Motion is approved for $1,000 fine. So at this time the board has assessed fines in the amount of $3,500. I need the board to provide a time frame in which those fines have to be paid and what should happen should he fail to do so. Okay. I need a motion on a time frame
for the fines to be paid and the conditions if he does not pay the fine in those time frame. Can I ask a question before the motion or do we need a motion for me to ask a question? Um I'm just curious if whenever we're making this motion are we able to is the highest revocation of permitting privileges or is there so this what's the kind
of this is a locally licensed contractor the ultimate thing that you could do is revocation of his license period if he should fail to to do as this board has required. Um we um are not allowed to use previous cases to judge this case. At the same time, we're allowed to look at the previous history. Correct, Miss Christie? So, you can for the purposes
of weighing the penalty, right? You can look at it as long as you didn't use it for determining guilt. Right. Right. Yes. That's what we're doing now is the penalty part of it. If he doesn't So, I think everybody up here has seen the name before. If you if you want any further, we could pull up past records if need be, but just want everybody to be reminded of this. So yes, we need a motion of time frame for these to be paid and then the penalty
uh if it's not been paid and the penalties listed here not uh license ro revoke revocation for a period not less than one year more than five years permanent roation revocation suspension etc. So chair, so we just need a time frame and then what should happen should he fail, right? That's what I'm saying. If he doesn't pay, then there's a lot of options here of what to do. I'd like to make
a motion that $1,500 would be required within 30 days, another $1,000 after 60 days or at 60 days, and another thousand at 90. And if he doesn't meet that schedule, revocation of his license. I think that's a very fair plan. I think that's very fair plan. The motion is for thou $1,500 in 30 days, another,60,90 if it doesn't fulfill that revocation of license. Do I have a second
to that motion? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none. None. Motion is approved. Per the complaint form filled out by uh the complainant, there's a request for restitution in the amount of $4,33. I have a motion for the
restitution in the amount of $4,33 to the complaintant. Make a motion for the restitution of $4,33 to the complaintant. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion. Second. Discussion. Anybody need to see pictures again or anything? Do we need to create a timeline for the restitution to be given to Miss Johnson or is this after this? Miss Mary, could you add or within it? Could you add a time frame to your motion? or to be paid
within I'll amend my motion to include that the restitution has to be paid within 30 days. And what should happen should he fail to do so? So, what you what you could do, if I could help you or if I can make a suggestion,
you could require the restitution be paid before the p uh penalties or fines be paid. And then um if it doesn't, of course, that doesn't as long as it's not paid, that doesn't allow him to pay the penalties or fines. And so if he can't pay the penalty and fines when that time period runs, then is it'll determine his u then the penalty for not paying the penalties and fines will all kick in. So if you just make it require it to be paid before any penalties or fines get paid, then the when the others don't happen in a timely manner, it'll take care of itself and you don't
have to worry about a specific penalty. So is that as clear as mine? Clear pretty much. But let me try one more time. restate everything or just keep amending. So what you would say is so your motion would be that the $4,33 be have to be paid before he could make any payments on his other fines and penalties. Okay, that's that's what you should do. So your f well that's what I would recommend so that it has to be paid within the 30 days and he has to make all those
and so if he doesn't pay that within the 30 days but your motion would just be okay. So, I need to restate the motion to say that I make a motion that he pay the restitution of $4,33 within 30 days before any of the fines are paid to the county. It would just be before you don't need a time window. So, it would have to be before the other fines are accepted for the county payments.
Basically, the reason why you don't need a time window is because it's going to trigger when when the other f when the fines don't get paid because he didn't pay the restitution. We just need a check box at this point, please. Okay. A motion on the floor to pay $4,3 in restitution before any other fines are paid to the county. I uphold my second. And we have our second. Now, any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. Seeing none,
hear none. Motion is approved. Thank you, Miss Christie, for keeping us straight. I don't know if I was any help. And the final item before the board is a recommendation to the construction industry licensing board in regard to Mr. Howard's state registration. I have a motion. And just to bring that back up for you to see what your options are,
this last parag last sentence here. Uh recommendation could be for no further action, fine, suspension, revocation, restrictions on registration, or any combination thereof. Do I have I make a motion for the CIB to review and upon re review a recommendation for revocation.
So your recommendation is for to review and revoke. Is that okay? Trying to say less words for you. He's asking for a review for that, right? Or for the CIB to revoke. But they'd have to review in order to revoke. That's why I said it that way. We are recommending the CLB to review it and revoke it. So I can say um recommend penalty for action by
the CLB to be revocation. Is that better? It's a I think the simplest way is a review for revocation. Yeah. Okay. So I had it right the first time. I don't need to amend. Here's what we've done in the past and that I'm not trying to formulate for you but we recommendation for revoke and any other um actions that the CIB like what I said earlier this would be here. Okay then. Yes.
So the motion on the floor from is for recommendation to the CB for revoking of license and any further action they deem necessary. Perfect. Is that your motion? I second. That is my motion. I second. All right. That's the motion on the table and we have a second. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. Thank you, Miss Christie, for keeping us safe and this motion's approved. I think you do very that you all do very well
and I know other boards actually have to have transcripts and able to get these motions in. So, I really appreciate your willingness to speak up and to say it and and not and and be um comfortable uh in your own scan at getting this right or wrong. I like it. So, thank you. Yeah, we have a great board. I want to thank you guys, everybody. I think we have a very excellent board. Thank you all for being a part of this and let's look for a great year this year. Meeting is adjourned. Thank y'all.
Make sure you tell me