Next question. I've got I have become Reliance.
Madam Secretary, are we still waiting for the computer to It's up to We will wait a couple minutes here. Make sure everything is running properly. Excuse my voice this morning. I I don't have anything contagious for all you guys up here. You're in good shape.
Worst case, I'd start right. I've got cold water. They tell me it's supposed to be better. Ready? Some beautiful waves. Oh, I see now.
Okay. So, we ready. We call this meeting to order of the Scampi County Compsy Board, March 4th, 2026. If you would, let's all stand together and do the pledge of 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.
Madam Secretary, do we have a determination of quorum today? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, with seven members present, we do. And do we have proof of publication of a meeting? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, it was published on Thursday, February 26, 2026 in the Pensacola News Journal. Thank you. And do I have a motion for approval of minutes from the February 4th meeting? Make a motion. Second.
Second. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. See none, hear none. Motion is approved and thank you for Mr. Patel for making sure that meeting went good. Uh our next part is the public forum. If there's anybody here today that would like to speak during the public forum session, we have a threeminut allowance as per the commissioners meeting for this. If anybody is here today would like to speak. I didn't receive any speaker request forms chair. Okay. Is there
anybody in the audience that did not sign up that are here to speak in public forum? Seeing none, we will move on. Board uh secretary status report. Yes, sir. Chair, I have a request for an add-on. It's an application for reinstatement of license. Uh he came in just after I published the agenda. Um his name is Brian David Erdman. So, if I could get approval to add this on. So, moved. Is there a second? Second. Motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand.
Oppose. Same sign. See none. Motions approved. You have papers for us. Thank you. Yes, sir. That is all I have. Okay. Thank you. And we will move him to number four on the contractor applications to give everybody time to look over as well. Okay. Good morning, guys. Good morning. Absolutely.
Our first applicant appearing before you today is Mr. Dalton Walker Hike. Mr. Walker Hike, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Good morning. Good morning. Uh my name is Dalton Walk and state your address for Oh, 2519 Valley Road, Florida 32566. Thank you,
sir. All right. Mr. Walkerhike is applying for the residential contractor examination and appears before you today with 14 years of experience in the state of Maryland with uh MHIC contractor license number 79756 with his company A Bellacasa LLC from 2011 to 2025. This information was provided to us by the division of occupational and professional licensing of Maryland home
improvement commission HMIC and this along with his certificate of completion for Florida advanced building code in 2021 uh according to the documents provided and that and they can be found in the agenda items and also uh Mr. Walker Hike worked as a independent residential contractor for Veteran Built Homes LLC under the supervision of Joseph Marillo who holds a MHIC class A contractor license, you know, with license number 270517
8294. And Mr. Walker Hikes responsibilities include, but are not limited to, completing residential construction, remodeling and repair work within agreement to timeline, coordinating work schedules, and communicating progress or delays and correct deficiencies related to the task at hand. And um with Mr. uh uh Walker Heights experience verification and in consideration, uh staff recommendation is uh approved for examination.
Good morning, Mr. Heck. Would you like to share anything with us this morning? Well, um I moved to the state of uh Florida in 2021 and um kind of live in the DC, Maryland, Virginia area where I did most of my residential work. um own some homes over there, renovated some homes, rental homes, and uh my wife and I decided, well, we got tired with the 495 and 95 traffic. and we visited some
friends here and saw this place and decided, well, why don't we just move out here, find a place, and then we found a land up in Navar off PGA Boulevard um through Adam Homes. We got a 3,000 square foot home. That's where we live. Own two couple of rental homes right now in uh Penn City of Pens Dakota on East Blunt and East Hill. So, um, trying to get my lights in and see what best that I was
doing in Maryland, DC, Virginia to bring that uh to this beautiful city of Pensacola. Wish I can see this a lot of homes, lands need renovations and work. And uh, with that experience, I hope I can get a license and do the right thing. go through the license procedure permit inspections.
Any questions from the board? I was just going to see does staff have a recommendation or did I miss that part? Uh yes sir. Uh staff uh recommends approval for the applicant for examination. Anybody else have any questions? Take a motion. Motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Second. I have a motion and a double second. All in favor raise your Any discussion with that. All in favor raise
your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none. Hear none. Post approve. Congratulations and hope you do well. Thank you so much. Thank you for your time. Yes, sir. Have a good day. Good morning board. Um, our second applicant to appear before you today is Miss Melissa Freeman. Miss Freeman, if you would please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, please. Ma'am,
Melissa Freeman, 224 Payne Road, Pensacola, Florida 32507. Um, if I may just remind the board, initially Miss Freeman was approved to test for roofing. Um after that meeting we were contacted by Santa Rosa County and found out that she had actually already tested uh through Santa Rosa County. So that did change the process. Um I did contact Miss Freeman and let her know that we would need to proceed with the reciprocity process which is why she's appearing today. Um so having said that we will we will move forward. Um
you will find contained within her packet the application for reciprocity, her state registered license, a copy of her competency card, her letter of reciprocity with test scores, corresponding insuranceances uh and the experience verification forms which were previously approved um under her application for examination. She did also provide the financial history which was also considered in the last hearing. Uh, Miss Freeman was previously approved, but again, because this is reciprocity, it does need to appear before you. Uh,
and being reciprocity, we will defer to the board for approval or denial of this application. Good morning. Would you like to tell us anything about what you're doing here? Yeah, I think I've said it all before. I got you. So, you're um you're not us you're not uh qualifying the Freeman roof and you're starting your own, right? Yeah. I had resigned from Freeman um in April is April 29th of 2025. So, okay.
Any questions from the board. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none. Hear none. Motion is approved. Thank you, Mr. Freeman. Thank you.
All righty. Uh, our next applicant appearing before you today is, uh, Mr. Billy Gray. Um, Mr. Gray, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Billy Gray, 824 Linda Drive, Mariestester, Florida 32569. All right. And Mr. Gray is applying to reciprocate his Okaloosa County Sprinkler irrigation contractor license with license number PLC 11167 and appears before you today with 18 years of experience. Mr. Gray worked as
owner of his company, Irrigation Innovations LLC, from 2008 to the current date. And his responsibilities include, but are not limited to, installing irrigation systems, invoicing, and estimating according to the application provided in the agenda items. Now, uh, by this being an application for reciprocity, uh, staff will defer to the board for the final decision. Good morning, Mr. Gray. Morning. Anything you'd like to tell the board this morning
to tell us? Um, no. I just uh have several realtors who've been asking me to come to this county to service and install systems and um so here I am today to hopefully have the opportunity to to service this area. Any questions from the board? No, sir. Don't Oh, please questions. Do I have questions for the board? It's okay. I apologize. They're they're pretty pretty good today. Sometimes I would rather not them ask you to. So
Okay. Do I have a motion? Motion to approve. Second. Second. Have a motion. Second. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. Oppose. Same time. See none. Motion approve. Congratulations. Thank you. Uh board, that'll take us to our final item, which was the add-on, Mr. Brian David Erdman, uh for reinstatement of delinquent license. Mr. Man, if you would please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record, sir.
Brian Erdman, 4550 Boral Drive, Pensacola, Florida 32504. The documents which were provided to you earlier uh will contain a copy of the reinstatement for delinquent license application along with the explanation letter provided by Mr. Erdman. Uh Mr. Urban has he appears before you today requesting to reinstate his doors, windows and sighting license, license number DWS00087. Uh the license was scheduled to be renewed on November 5th, 2017. However, it was not renewed. This makes total delinquency as of today's date 8 years,
3 months, and 27 days. Uh, Mr. Urban has paid the fee to appear before the board. He has submitted his application for reinstatement, and pending the board's approval is willing to pay the remainder of the fees. He has submitted all needed documents, including his business tax receipt, insuranceances, driver's license, and has updated all demographic information. Uh staff did verify the financial criminal history record which was clear and we will defer to the board for approval or denial of the reinstatement of this license. Good morning, Mr. Urban. Good
morning. Would you like to address the board this morning? Tell us. Well, I don't have too much to say. I've been working in Escambia County as well as Santa Rosa and Okaloosa for 24 years um subcontracting and I've been in business um incorporated anyway. Um since I think 2005, so 21 years um incorporated and I'm kind of want to go out on my own and stop this subcontracting
So, you've been working with local uh licensed? Yes, sir. Subcontracting work from them? Yes, sir. This has been 17 years. Have I been l was it the original license? I believe so. Yeah. Was it 10 year elaps? Nine years. Nine years. Nine laps. Did staff verify the uh involvement in the business of irrigation for the irrigation is what you're looking for, right? What license? Doors, windows, doors, windows. So,
did we verify the uh employment history or subcontractor history? Uh we did not. In this case, the license was appropriately issued. So, that's not typically something we would do for reinstatement. We would if it were not beyond the three years then we would pay the due fees and and reinstate that license with the exception of financial and criminal history of course. So we're taking his word which is understandable that the last eight years he still has been active
in this because I obviously there's code issues Mr. Bobby's changed in the last eight years and stuff that if he's been involved he would know but if not um a lot of changes happen in that period of time. They sure have. So you've been involved every day. Every day. Yes, sir. So we do have a form that we make our applicants fill out, right? We do. It's it's uh the one which was provided to you, sir. Um if it was a a couple of months, they would check the first box. If it's short of three years, it's the second and then the third
is is when it appears before the board with additional fee. But that is our process for reinstatement. So there's no um experience verification form like you would see with reciprocity or with examination. We just haven't had one. We haven't not to this point. No sir. Any other questions? you okay with it? Yeah, we don't have a problem with him. You may want to So other areas that you
can explore as a board, you can find out whether or not he was licensed in other areas. You can ask him what he was actually doing in that in the time since that if you're because this is your decision and it seems like you have a little hesitation because you don't have more information, but you can ask him anything you want to ask him right now regarding his history and his experience. Can you give us a little bit of detail of who you worked with or Absolutely. I went through I think four owners at Window World. I was there 17 years. Um the last being Michael Brian Tilman and
um then I started working for Eco View and I have been there ever since. And and they just changed ownership. So now I don't currently work I haven't worked in the last week. out of the out of the 24 years, this is the first week I've had off. Okay. Any other questions? I'll entertain a
motion if somebody wants to step up. Motion to approve. Do have a second. Okay, I have a motion to second. Any discussion up here, no discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign, send motion's approved. Thank you. Good luck, man. Thank you so much, board. That'll conclude our applications for today's meeting. So, uh, before we Yes, sir. Turn it over. So, is it possible for us to have a employment or
subcontractor history for even when they're coming in when their license is expired? If it's been a number of years that that's a simple we can add that form to the packet if we could do that the direction of the board. Yeah. I don't want Mr. Urban I think would question his uh integrity or anything like that but that length of time I feel like there is a concern. I mean it could be that he just was out fishing for eight years you know and uh there was a lot going on in the business world of of you know that he would not be up to date with. So I think that would be a great
thing. I concur with that. We'll get that added to the packet, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Durman. Okay, moving to the probable cause hearings. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, our first item for probable cause is Jacqueline Jackie Roberts doing business as right now roofing LLC. State certified license number CCC 1331763. Contractor competency board complaint number 2512115 COOM.
It's in regard to David Dave Gilbert complain it at 308 Beayshore Drive Pensacola Florida 32507. Mr. Roberts, are you present today? MS and you're a representative of right now. And what is your name, sir? Mr. Kent. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Gilbert, are you present today? Yes. And uh gentlemen, are you going to provide testimony for this hearing? At this time, I'm going to have both parties sworn in and as well as investigator
Reber and Miss Reber will remain sworn for the duration of these hearings. Thank you. Swear from the testimony. So, um, we're just going to take you through the investigation report. Miss Rebra, was a complaint filed in regard to this case and on what date was it filed?
December 21st, 2025. And was a case number assigned to this case? Yes, it was. 2512115 COOM. Who is the subject of uh the complaint? Jack Jquelyn Jackie Roberts. Doing businesses right now roofing LLC. And what license number does Miss Roberts hold? CCC1331763. State Certified Roofing Contractor. What was the address on file for Miss Roberts? 3890B
Pasco Street, Pensacola, Florida 32505. And in the backup for the agenda was is your notice that was sent to the respondent? Yes, there is. Who is the complainant? Dave G. Gilbert. During your investigation, were you able to assign any alleged code violations? If so, please state that your justification and any supporting documentation. I was code section 1837C1,
disregard or failure to correct building code violation or any municipal or county building code ordinances or laws of the state of Florida. Justification is the failure to obtain a passing roof final supporting documentation is investigators exhibit F inspection report. Uh can you give us a brief synopsis of the complaint? Gilbert and Roberts of Right Now Roofing Tampa entered into an agreement on April 28th,
2025 to install a new roof. The total amount of the agreement was 2,91848. Gilbert states that Roberts has failed to finalize the permit and obtain a past inspection. Robert states that they were not paid for the project. A search for the permitting history on the subject property reveals a roof permit was obtained by Right Now Roofing LLC on August 5th, 2025. Inspection on permit failed on August 27th, 2025 due to failure to get an inrogress inspection
resulting in the need for an engineers affidavit. Gilbert terminated the permit on December 12th, 2025. And quickly board, we're going to run through the exhibits that are attached. Uh you will see the complaintants exhibit A the complaint b the release of contractor investigators exhibit uh the notice of probable cause that's a b is the certified return receipt and c is the subcontract agreement uh d is the unpaid invoice e right now roofing the permit f is the inspection report
is the contractor's response and then at At the very end, we have the history of the permitting. Staff requests that these items be moved into evidence for this hearing. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor, raise your right hand. Oppose. Same sign. And a motion is approved. Both parties are present. It's at the discretion of the board. Well, Mr. Kent is present as representation for Miss Roberts. So, I'd like to just
make note that this next item rolls into this. Is that correct? That is correct. Uh, we received one complaint and then they flipped it and complained from the other side as well. Okay. Just so the board can be aware when we come that they kind of rolled together somewhat. Okay. So, Mr. Roberts is not here. Is this some uh she lives in Okay. Would you like to address the board today
on her behalf? Would you come to the microphone and state your name and address? Personal address. Your personal name and your personal address. Perfect. Um Keith Kent, uh 1250 Barmell Street, Pensacola, Florida 32534. Um we there was a clerical error when we filed for the permit initially. We filed for a re-roof permit instead of a new construction permit. Uh the reason that there is no inrogress inspection is because we were not hired to do the nailing of the roof
deck or the dryin. That was already done before we came on site. All we were hired to do was install drip edge, seal the perimeter of the roof, install the shingles, hip and ridge shingles, and the flashing where the new shingles were to meet the old roof. Uh, Mr. Gilbert's company, uh, his framers that built the addition onto this house are the ones that nailed the decking. Um, this information was given to the permitting office. Um, I'm not sure why we're not allowed to change it from a re- roof to a new construction. We did give or my office was supposed to have sent
them the um passing report for the nailing and strapping that um renovation masters already had done when they built the addition. So that's why we could not get a mid roof inspection because or an in progress inspection because we did not do the nailing of the roof deck and we did not do the dryin process. And Mr. Can can you um just let the board know your affiliation with Right Now Roofing LLC? I'm a manager for Right Now Roofing LLC, a project manager, and I was the installer for this
job. I need some help. Mr. Bobby, you can help me some of this. How long have you been project manager in this area for roofing? Six years. Six years. in progress roofing inspection has to do with the shingle install, not decking. Is that correct? So, it it can be both. Um, so when I first got on here, the wind load inspection would used to be a roof in progress inspection as well,
pump, but recently, probably a couple years back, it's changed where now it's um you got to have a separate roof in progress inspection, right? So while the shingles are being installed, an inspector has to be on site during the install. Yes, sir. Check that under layment nail pattern. Right. And that's been going on for the last couple years. Okay. Normally, we in uh we have been requested to send if they can't get an inspector out there, we send in pictures of the nailing pattern, which I have sent in pictures of the I sent pictures
of the nailing pattern of the drip edge. Um we do it's four inches of roofing cement. We do 8 inches of roofing cement around the perimeter and then the nailing pattern for the starter shingles and then also the nailing pattern for the field shingles. Right. Those should have been sent in with I understand that. But that would be at again, Mr. Bobby, he's representing the building department here. Yes. That would be at the discretion of the inspector whether they send pictures or he would have to do a a visual site inspection. just for record purposes,
we still have to have that inspection called in even if the inspector is willing to accept the pictures because it's his license. He's signing off on so it's still at the at his discretion, but we still have to have for record purposes that roof in progress scheduled and called in. It was I believe it was scheduled. You just said that you didn't have to have one because you guys didn't do the plywood. That's what I'm trying to I'm trying to establish with you. What was your last name again? Kent. Mr. Kent. I'm trying to establish with you that that inspection was still
necessary regardless of whether you guys did the plywood. Because from what I heard you say from the beginning, you did not have to have it because you did not do the plywood. I want to establish you did have to have it because that's not the plywood. That is the shingles. Now, correct? Right. Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. I just want to establish that up front because you did have to have this inspection. Yes, sir. I understand that. Um I'm not sure exactly how the process had
because my office handles most of the processing. Uh the office our home office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Um when I was handling it here prior to the change, I was handling everything here before they had it set up in Tulsa. uh we would schedule everything and we would submit everything with a roofing affidavit with pictures. Now, over the past three years, the office in Tulsa has been handling it and I've been out of the loop on that side of it. So, I was not aware of the change. Mr. Listister, if I may, uh affidavit are really only for re- roofs only and not new roofs,
right? Yeah. I was I was Thank you. Sorry. that and that this is the first we 99% of what we do is re- roofs. We generally don't do brand new construction. So, this was one of our first foray into new construction, but if um I mean we we do have the photos of the nailing pattern on the shingles. We have photos of the nailing pattern on the drip edge. have photos of the So, let's let's
I'm I'm looking I'm looking back at the synopsis here and it says that you uh Mr. Gilbert states that Mr. Roberts Roberts has failed to finalize the permit and obtain a past inspection. Was there a final inspection passed on this job? I don't know if Miss Jennifer M. the final inspection. What they did is they submitted an affidavit. So, um it was failed. Now, it needs engineering,
but since then, the contractor has terminated the permit. So, it's kind of a midpoint. Okay. But the and you guys feel free to chime in, it so they did fail to finalize the permit and they did not pass and in progress inspection because it wasn't scheduled. So those are legitimate items is what I'm hearing. That's correct. Okay. Everybody
kind of clear with understand. So we we did we had to go schedule to schedule the final. We had to schedule the in progress. So I think our office scheduled the in progress, but it was after the job was already done. And we sent pictures of the nailing of the shingles, but when we spoke with the permitting office when they kept kicking it back, we were told is because there was no nailing of the roof deck. That's why I brought it up the first time. The reason they told us that they would not pass the in progress was not because of the nailing of the shingles or
having someone come out to inspect it because I would have gladly gone out and pulled up three, four, five, six shingles, however many I need to pull up to show the nailing pattern. They told us that the reason that it was failed was because there were no pictures of the roof deck reail. Did y'all get a name of the clerk that might have told you that? I generally don't when when speaking. Sometimes I would imagine somebody in the office just reading something would not quite they would they could say because of the nailing and not understand if it's plywood or shingles.
So sometimes whenever the inspector on site uh they may do a strapping and nailing or wind load, but they didn't necessarily um check the roof decking because it it used to be included in in our wind load as part of it. But now that since we have a separate inspection just for that, they may have not have verified that. So that's that's probably what he was told by the inspector or somebody in the office. Somebody in the office. Just to add another component, I'm going to bring up the inspection report and draw to your attention the details. It was actually Bobby that
um failed the inspection per our deputy building official. So the deputy building official looked at the pictures and made that determination that it will need an engineer's affidavit. So it wasn't just the inspector. It was the deputy building official at the time that made that determination. And to do that, of course, you have to have an engineer letter. Y'all never attempted to do that? We don't really have um that's something my office normally handles. I I generally don't
reach out to engineers. So, I'm not sure if they did or not. Anybody here have any questions? Just trying to make sure we understand the scope of everything here. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kemp, for your time. Mr. Gilbert, would you like to address the board? Morning.
Morning. Morning. You need your name and address first, please. Uh David Gilbert, 4857 Southside Drive, Gulf Breeze, 32563. Okay. What would you like to tell the board today about this? Um in short, we did we hired Right Now Roofing to do this roof. and you've heard, you know, his side of things or what they did. From my perspective, they never were able to pass that final inspection and they did not get the engineered letter they needed for that that roof scope. But there was
also another another spot that the final didn't pass because there was flashing missing at another level. And um when we tried, you know, I had my attorney reach out to them. They did not respond. So, I got an engineer to come out to try to get the engineer letter to move this forward and he came out, they did an inspection of the roof and they because they were going to assume the permit and just kind of come in and help me finish this up. They didn't they didn't approve of the installation. So, now I what I did was I canceled that permit and I hired this other company,
South Bay Construction, and they're in the process right now of uh redoing the roof and getting it right so we can pass final inspection. So, that's that's where I'm at with it. Um, and we just we couldn't close the permit out without that final. So, I was stuck for several months here and so Okay. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Gilbert? Not at this time. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Okay. So, what I'm understanding is that we have a final inspection that has not been passed. I read somewhere in there regarding payment also, but we're not going to tackle that because that's not in our scope. Yeah. Uh so, without that final, we've got another contractor that's come in now and he's going to redo what he needs to get redone and then see if we can't get a final for the homeowner. Am I correct in saying that? It sounds
so our options today are to move it into disciplinary or Yeah, we're looking at to see if there is probable cause to move it to a disciplinary hearing next month. Your chairperson's correct. Thank you. I don't know if there's any other discussion happening on the council. Anybody else have any discussion? Anybody want any input, thoughts, speak now or forever? Right.
Okay. Do I have a motion of which way to go with this? Make a motion to move to probable cause hearing. Move to disciplinary. Yep. Move to disciplinary. And I have a second. Do I second? Okay. I have a motion, a second to move to pro uh pro calls to disciplinary hearing. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. Seeing none, hear
none. Motion's approved to move to disciplinary hearing. What's the date of the next hearing? That will actually be April 1st. Lovely. First Wednesday of the month. I can't help it. There will be a lot of fun at that meeting. Oh boy. Okay. Our next uh probable cause hearing is is tied into it. Yep. David G. Gilbert
doing business as Renovation Masters LLC. State Certified License number CRC 1332519. Contractor competency board complaint number 2512118 COOM. It's in regard to James Roberts the complainant. 308 Beayshore Drive, Pensacola, Florida 32507. Um we know that Mr. Gilbert is present today. Um Mr. Roberts, are you present?
Mr. Kent, Mr. Kent again is present. Um, do I need to have them reworn since they were previously sworn? Yes. Both parties, as Christie just stated, you are and still remain sworn from the previous hearing. Um, so I'm going to bring up our investigation report. And again, Miss Reber, was a complaint filed with our office in regards to what date was
it filed? Yes, it was January 8th, 2026. And did you assign a case number to the complaint? I did. 2512118 COOM. And who was the subject of the complaint? Dave G. Gilbert doing businesses renovation Masters LLC. And what is the address on file for Mr. Gilbert? 4857 Soundside Drive B, G Breeze, Florida 32563. What is Mr. Gilbert's license number? CRC1332519.
That's a state registered residential contractor. State certified residential contractor. Sorry, state certified. Yes, ma'am. And who was the complainant in this case? James Roberts. And during your investigation, were you able to assign any alleged violations? If so, please state the code section, your justification, and any supporting documentation. Code section 1837D8, mismanagement or misconduct causing financial harm to a customer. First violation is $100 to $5,000.
The justification is failure to pay subcontractor. Supporting documentation complaintants exhibit C. Unpaid invoice from right now roofing Tampa dated 7225 in the amount of $3,16848 which includes a $250 late fee. Can you take us through a brief synopsis? Gilbert and Roberts of Right Now Roofing Tampa entered into agreement on April 28th,
2025 to install a new roof. The total amount of the agreement was 2,91848. Roberts alleges that after the roof was completed, Gilbert failed to pay for the work. Gilbert states that Roberts failed to finalize the permit and obtain a past inspection. A search of the permitting history on this project reveals a roof permit was obtained by Right Now Roofing LLC on August 5th, 2025. Inspection on permit failed on August 27th, 2025 due to failure to
get an inrogress inspection resulting in the need for an engineers affidavit. Again, board parties are present. This is the same job address as the previous one. And I do want to take you through our exhibits so we can move them into EV evidence. Uh we have complainants exhibit A the complaint uh exhibit B subcontract agreement exhibit C the unpaid invoice our investigators exhibit A the notice uh B the certified return receipt uh C the permit D uh the inspection report E
again the response to complaint and then the history of permitting for uh Mr. Gilbert. Um staff would request that all of these items be moved into evidence for this hearing. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. Motion is approved. Okay. Uh would the board like to hear from those again or is this what
basically what we're what it appears is the roofing company wants to be paid by Mr. Gilbert and that's the reason for the complaint and of course we understand why it's where it's at right now based on the previous uh account. M Christie, should we at least let them Well, you can do two things. You can have them come forward and testify, or you can um accept the testimony that's already been given um in the previous case since they were set on the same
set of facts and see if there's any additional information that the parties would like to Let me Yeah. But Mr. Gilbert, you're the subject here. Would is there anything you would like to add to what you've already said in your previous testimony as to why you not paid these guys? Okay. Just if you if you're going to speak, I need you to come to mic. Sorry. Public meeting. Yes, sir. Uh yeah, just that I tried to get an engineer out there who also
is a has a roofing license to get the situation moving forward and our communication with right now roofing was completely ignored. So, we weren't getting any feedback from them. So, I felt like for the sake of our clients and homeowners to get this settled out, we had to move forward and make a decision. So, that would be it. Okay. Anybody want to ask question? Question. Who paid for the materials? I did. This is labor. No, they paid for the materials. Yes, sir. That's right.
So, you don't think you need to pay them for that? If you're not going to tear it out and redo it, we are tearing it out and redoing it. Yes, sir. That's that's happening right now. Actually, according to the inspection from South Bay, the nailing pattern on the shingles, the flashing and the tying was uh holding water up where uh they tied into the other roof because there was an existing roof that was tied into. So
all that failed according to their inspection. So that's what we decided. We're just going to start from scratch and make sure everything's right and all the inspections are right. Mr. Kent, did you know that? I did not. And you did have a you've done an engineering report? No, sir. Just an inspection. Just an inspection. Yes, sir.
Anybody else have any questions for But they pulled they've pulled a new permit on it, a new roofing permit. So now we're in the process of them they should be getting that in process inspection here. I'm guessing it'll be today or tomorrow. I guess my question is that so you had a subcontractor that did the roof, didn't do it right for whatever reason, didn't pass inspection. You've got another subcontractor now that's come in that's going to do the roof. Yes, sir. And in any business, obviously the new guys always going to say everything needs to be redone 100%. So,
did you not do a report stating that, hey, what defaults do we have from the first subcontractor that did it and then just minimize that cost and just do that portion of it or you just having the whole re-roof done without an engineering report? Yes. So, they're according to their inspection, the engineers inspection. When you say engineer, who's engineer? uh Larry Scapeki. So, is he with a roofing company or is it Yes, both. Okay. They're engineers, but they're also a roofing company and construction company. Okay. And according to their inspection, they had lifted up several tabs throughout and said that the nailing pattern on the shingles would eventually
leak water and they wouldn't they weren't going to assume responsibility for that. So, and I'm taking you documenting all this. Yes, sir. Yeah. Yes, sir. Yeah. We've at this point The homeowners have attorneys involved trying to finish it out and so do I. So, we're documenting everything and just trying to get it finished out. And you were the contractor that was hired by the homeowners? Yes, sir. And then you hired the subcontractor to come? Yes, sir. Yep. Uh, just has the homeowners paid you for the job? No, sir. For the roofing? No. Or wait,
that's another part. So, they haven't paid you in turn. You didn't paid for. Yes, sir. Mr. get your microphone. What kind of effort did you extend towards um the other the uh roofing subcontractor to come out and do the work? Was there any communication between the um both between right now roofing? That's right. Yes, sir. We um we mailed them when we after the inspection
now that this attorney is communicating. So, my attorney communicated with theirs directly. Hey, these things have failed. Are you gonna come out and fix it? No response. And then we communicated with them, no, we're going to need to we're going to tear off and redo it. Do you want to come remediate this? And this was not with probably not with Mr. Kemp, but with their attorney in their office. And there was no response to that either. So, they've had time to respond in my opinion. About how much time was that? Month. And then the last one was about a week. We gave him a week on
the um but this has been going on for several months before that. Okay. So, thank you. Yes, sir. And this the first time you've used a subcontractor or have you? No, that we've used on a couple other ones also. Those went okay. Yeah, a couple of them did. We do have another one, a larger one that around the same time as this is not going okay. So, same company. Yes, sir. I don't have any other questions. Any other questions for Mr. Gilbert?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gilbert. Thank you, Mr. Kent. Would you like to address the board any on this? We give you an opportunity. I just uh I just want to say that I was not made aware of any communications. Uh, in fact, we had reached out a couple of times um to see what the holdup was, why we weren't getting paid, what was going on. And we also did not receive any reciprocity. He did not speak to my office. He didn't when I I've shot text messages or made phone calls. He will respond to text messages,
but they're in generalities. So, we know I I don't I'm not aware. Like you said, if it's attorneys come communicating, they're probably not going to communicate with me, but I was not made aware of any of those issues. Um, so I had no idea. The flashing was holding water and I know for a fact they were wrong about the nailing pattern on the shingles because they're hand driven and I would have liked to be out there while that inspection was going on to see what they were talking about. I'm sure you've taken pictures of your Absolutely.
Okay. Anything else you like to say, Mr. K? Anybody have a question for Mr. Kenton? Thank you, sir. So, options. Yeah. You're at the juncture where you would decide whether you wanted to take this to disciplinary hearing or not based on what's been provided to you. the information that you received today um indicated that there was additional documentation that hasn't been presented to this board. So you could your other option is to continue the
probable cause hearing on this issue on this one um and see uh because you appear to have hesitation. Um so you could continue it and see if you can get the additional documentation that you've been told about today. Thank you. Before you make a probable cause determination. I was curious about that because even though the engineer slashroofer has not given a report, there was an inspection done and surely there's some documentation of that nail pattern etc. So I I feel like there's more information I see everybody's head and also there there
was mention of communications. Um yes, that's the second part between the companies. Yeah, I think the board you'll stop me if I'm off. Definitely some type of uh verification of this inspection whether or not it be a complete report so we can know more about these nail patterns and second of all some type of uh evidence of the communication between the attorneys to let them know that they did have a window because Florida has laws that the subcontractor builder has um
a right to fix it themselves before it moves into anything else. So, we want to make sure that we're not over overriding some stuff here. So, then you would just need a motion to continue the probable cause hearing and then ask for this information. So, I'll make a motion to continue the probable cause hearing and to request additional information uh that we can use for success. Second. All right. I have a motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor? Right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See? Motion is approved. We will move that stay it until next month for public calls.
And you guys can get with Miss Reber and she can get more of what we'll need from y'all. Okay. Thank you'all. Our next item before the board today is Dustin A. Von doing business as your local construction of the Emerald Coast uh Inc. Local license number RR 22 282812247 contractor competency board complaint number 2601 5OM. It's in regard to TJ Thompson
uh 7 Casino Beach Boulevard, Pensacola Beach, Florida 32561. Mr. Vaughn, are you present today? And I I believe you have representation with you, correct? And Mr. Thompson, are you present today? Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh Christie, both parties have representation with them today. Yep. Uh and at this time, we're going to have both parties sworn in.
And just a reminder, Miss Reeber remains sworn. Uh we're going to just go through the investigation report real quickly. Uh Miss Reber, was a complaint filed with this board and on what date was it filed? Yes, on January 8th, 2026. And what was the case number assigned? 26015 COOM. And who was the subject of the complaint? Dustin A. Vaughn doing business as your local construction
of Emerald Coast. And what is the address on file for Mr. Vaughn? 802 Largo Drive, G Breeze, Florida 32561. And what is the license number of Mr. Vaughn? RR282812247. That's a state registered residential contractor. And who is the complainant? TJ Thompson. During your investigation, were you able to assign any alleged violations? If so, please state the code section, your justification, and any supporting documentation. Code section 1837D9B,
contracting beyond scope of practice allowed by license, no safety hazard. The first violation is $500. Justification, a residential contractor cannot perform work on a commercial building. My supporting documentation is investigators exhibit C estimate dated 8, excuse me, August 11th, 2025 from Vaughn to the Santa Rosa Island Authority to re-roof a commercial building with a standing seam system. Can you take us through a brief synopsis of your investigation?
On August 11th, 2025, Dustin Vaughn, doing business as your local construction of the Emerald Coast, submitted an estimate to the Santa Rosa Island Authority to re- roof a commercial office building with a standing seam roofing system. Vaughn was awarded the project and subsequently subbed the project out to a statelicicensed roofing contractor, Condor Construction LLC. Condor Construction alleges that his company performed the work utilizing his own crew.
A search of the permitting history on this project reveals a roof permit issued to Condor Construction on October 1st, 2025 with the final passing inspection performed on October 9th, 2025. and board. Um, the backup for the agenda includes uh, complaintants. Exhibit A, the complaint, exhibit B, the SRIA application, exhibit C, correspondence with contractors and SRIA investigators. Exhibit A, the notice of cause hearing, B, the certified return receipt,
uh C, the contractor's proposal to the Santa Rosa Island Authority, D, the contractor's response. E, the condor construction permit and inspection. And finally, the history of the permitting for Mr. Vaughn. Staff will request that these items be moved into evidence for this hearing. So move second. Second. All in favor raise right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none here. That motion is approved. Both parties are present along with representation.
Okay. Would uh Mr. Vaughn like to speak to us today or his representation? Good morning board. My name is Steve Longa. I'm an attorney with Clark Pardington representing Mr. Vaughn and your local construction company. Um, since this complaint was filed in January of 26, there's been a civil litigation complaint filed in Escambia County on the 24th of February. So,
that precludes us in the matter of keeping our legal interest and defenses open um to presenting evidence and testimony, which we do have. We do believe that we have defenses to this claim uh and the the evidence submitted as well as if not defenses full defenses we have certainly uh significant mitigation that should be apprised and presented before the board. However, with the ongoing litigation, it would be improper to to present that evidence now before your hearing. Um we would ask for this these proceedings to be stayed uh for an indeterminate amount of time for that civil procedure and lawsuit to
be rectified so that we can present a case before the board here today. Miss Christie, we are not civil. We are in a different realm. Please enlighten us. Right. You are um you're correct. Um um and you can and whatever happens in the civil world does not necessarily affect right where this case goes and your probable cause findings. You already have evidence before you. Um, you could take not necessarily testimony, but you could hear from the
attorney who may want to um who could state his client's position. He could certainly do that, but also, you know, it makes sense that his that his client would not give a sworn statement at this point when litigation is pending. So, that's up to the board. You may want to know how long they anticipate the litigation will uh will exist. Uh, you may want more information from your from Jennifer Hampton or your investigator regarding uh what's the situation, who's the victim here. Um,
I believe if I recall correctly, this is a roofing that occurred at Santa Rosa Island Authority and that roof didn't pass did pass inspection. Is that correct? Yes. Uh, that is correct. So, this project does involve the Santa Rosa Island Authority who is also a named codefendant with us in that lawsuit. Um that lawsuit is not brought on bea on behalf of any workmanship issues or any faulty there. It's a multi-count lawsuit involving criminal conspiracy, injunction relief and uh a
host of other charges that we find are illid and and without um cause. So we are going to take the proper necessary um precautions to respond to that legally. uh if not at a proceeding standpoint, we certainly feel that we have strong case to dismiss those counts at a motion for summary judgement once evidence is submitted in that civil case. I do understand and and identify the the complexity of the hearing here today and the the quagmire that we're in. Um I can answer as many questions as as I can on behalf of Mr. Vaughn and um your local construction company
with the evidence that's been presented to me. um that that will help enlighten the board and and kind of apprise them on the full situation which I think is important to have. Do you have any this this probably a very opening question time frame? That's a dangerous question. Yeah. When um it's right now we have not been served. The lawsuit was filed on the 24th. I first became aware of it when it was posted on a social media post. Um Mr. Vaughn and and your local construction has not been properly served yet. I am aware that so uh Santa Rosa Island Authority has
been served. They are preparing their defense and answer to that as we speak. Um there are at least three other parties. Mr. Gomez with Canandoandor Construction was also personally named as well as his company. Mr. Vaughn was personally named as well as his company as well. I don't believe Mr. Kandor has been served yet. I I don't know that to be certain, but um we don't have any evidence that he that he has been. So with that being said, uh typically a civil case will take about a year, year and a half to resolve. One of the things and I think we might be able to reach to the county
here, our staff to get some help with this. The case before us is the fact that a residential contractor cannot perform work on a commercial building. That is correct, chair. So in this instance and and result of the investigation um Mr. Vaughn provided an estimate for a re- roof of a commercial building. Um Mr. Vaughn's license is a state registered residential contractor.
Um and that re- roof of a commercial building is outside of the scope of the license that he holds. So that's the focus of our efforts here, not necessarily the civil litigation part. Ours is he is a registered residential contractor. Outside of that scope is commercial work, commercial roofing. So that's the that's the core of what we're looking at today.
regardless of who's hurt and who's not. That's the core of what we're looking at. Is this correct, Miss Christie? Yes, that's correct. Okay. It's a it's from what I understand about this um it is a the Santa Rosa Island Authority uh visitor center is what was re-roofed, right? Which is a commercial building. Which is a commercial building. Um and from what um and I haven't looked all the way through the exhibits and they certainly have. They can tell you who he appears from the record that he bid on it at the behest of Santa Rosa Island. That's what I was
going to bring up. He was asked to do the roofing job itself. Pardon? He did not do the roofing job. Right. Right. Right. He subbed it out. So you're you're you may want to hear from your complainant before you decide much, you know, right where you want. I'm just trying to establish the contract that uh your local construction of the Emerald Coast put together was to do work that is outside the scope allowed by his license. That's the complaint. That is what is within our code
section. Um, so regardless if he's subject to XYZ company that is licensed, his with the owner is the part that's in question accurate. He provided an estimate for work he could not perform. That's right. That's right. Under his license. I just want to make sure the board understands because it looks a little convoluted here. So I want to make sure the board understands is that's the Was the per was a permit pulled and if so, was a permit pulled under residential contractor? permit was
obtained by contractor with the required line. It wouldn't let him pull a permit. Okay. He would not be allowed to pull a permit, but the fact that he gave an estimate and got the job outside of his scope. I will I will bring up on the screen um this communication from Santa Rosa Island Authority. This is actually communication from an employee of Santa Rosa Island Authority to your local construction requesting um a quote which again we don't know is out of our scope today to
know if she knew his license capabilities etc. That is upon the responsibility of the license holder not somebody asking you. If somebody asks you to do a job, they don't know if you have the proper license or not. It's your responsibility to say that's not my that is not in my license code. I believe that what Mr. Longo is trying to explain to to the board today, and I apologize if I put words in your mouth, um is that he can't put on a proper defense for his client. Right. Right.
Right. Civil case. Um, and that's why I wanted to make sure if we didn't if we don't have anybody from the Santa Rosa Island Authority present. We do, right? Your your uh sworn witness can tell you whether or not the roof that was put on past inspection and what the situation is, what is the status? Um, and then you want to hear from your other um from your complainant to find out where they are on this as well because they may not uh they may have more insight that you're not getting because so far all of you the evidence that's been but to stay focused on what
the actual complaint is. It's not whether or not the roof was done correctly and it's not whether or not it was permitted or inspected. It's the fact that a person contracted outside of their uh scope of work. Right. I only bring that information to your attention because I know that at this point Mr. Longo is basically asking you for it. Right. Right. Right. Right. So I'm just pointing out the things that we have had contractors and uh we have sat on these meetings
before where we had contractors who were doing things that left people in horrible situations, right? Um yeah and you know Right. Right. And I don't think I just want to make sure when when someone asks for a continuence that we although we don't have to follow what's happening in you don't have to follow what's happening in the civil courts um just keep in mind that you do want to allow somebody due process of law in the right present. Right. We don't have a homeowner who's been hurt and affected by poor workmanship etc. Right. Right. And that's why I point out this is a situation that when you consider whether or not you want to continue this or you want to move
forward on this, right? You don't have somebody that's you're you're the the the building that was roofed is the defendant in the civil case. So they're going to have trouble also. Right. Right. Right. But again, our scope goes back. That's why I'm trying to make sure the board understands that's not the questions. The question is not was it roofed properly. The question was, did somebody that's not in their scope of license bid on sign a contract to do work that's outside of their realm? That's the that's the whole right. But the question that's before you right now is
whether or not Mr. Wongo can have a continuence. And you would want to hear from the other part. We will. We will. Okay. Just making I'm just making sure we understand what the continuence how it affects our our scope. Yes, sir. We're not affected by the lawsuits. The lawsuit of, you know, John Doe will call uh that might have a complaint. No, sir. This this is another scope is what we're looking at. Yes, sir. Your scope is is narrower than the the civil lawsuit, right? Right. Right. Civil lawsuit does encompass the bidding process. Oh, I'm sure it would. Yeah. It's going
to cover everything you can. You guys know how to do that, right? It's part of your job. So, I just want to make sure we had that together. Anything else you would like to tell us? Not at this time. No, sir. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time. And Mr. Thompson, you and your council. Morning. My name is Dennis Green. I'm an attorney. I represent uh Mr. TJ Thompson, Shorebreak Metal, Island Time Builders. Um and I think the board's hitting right on the the correct
uh position here. This has nothing to do with anything about uh you know uh fraudulent you know notice of acceptance that was sent into the county with the bids stating it was a Drexal metal roof so on and so forth. Uh this is simply did a registered residential contractor bid for a roof on a commercial building? Did they invoice for it? And did they get paid for it? And the answer is yes. Yes. Yes. Um, I think a stay would be improper. We're the board's not going to get into
uh the particulars and the minutia of the civil litigation like we are. You know, clearly here the only thing that's being looked at is what license does he have? Was he allowed to do that contracting? Did he perform that? That's it. So, I think a stay would be improper at this time. Litigation right now, heck, it could go on for two, three years. Who knows? Uh even though the Florida Supreme Court is trying to put their their uh foot down on that and set case deadlines and management orders that are pretty strictly complied with right now. I think we're pushing two years. So
uh we would just ask that a stay uh not be enforced. Anybody have any questions for council? Okay. Thank you guys. Thank you all. So, can we have some wisdom words, Miss Christie? No, I I No, I have no wisdom. You have wisdom. You're careful with how you disperse your wisdom. So,
what I've heard from today and and I have limited experience in civil uh in civil law. Um, but what I've heard today is that so far there hasn't been service of of the p of the documents that need to be served on the defendants. Is that correct, Mr. Longo? You haven't your client hasn't been served and that's what triggers the the time once that happens and the time starts the deadlines start. Correct. We'll have 20 days to file an answer response. Okay. So, um, and do we know how long or when did they start their case? It was filed on February 4th, I believe.
Okay. So, um you you Yes. Thanks. By the way, we have Jeff Broers here. Yeah. I was going to get you induced earlier and I forgot. M um Jeff Broers is our new Steve West, our new uh attorney uh that took Steve West position and Jeff does have experience in uh in uh much more experience in the civil war world. You know, I was used to just putting people behind the bars. So um so that's what we're talking about
is is they have up to a year to serve the second party. Um so and that hasn't occurred yet. So it could be a lengthy uh it can be a lengthy process. Uh what's in front of you now is can you do due process based on the information that you have and without your um without the person being able to defend himself based on the civil case and the advice of his counsel. So do you want civil case which is not yet officially proceeded but good chance it will
be. I anticipate that it will be. Yeah. Do we have any additional open permits on the Emerald Coast for Mr. Holland? Yes. So, there are no expired permits. There are only um three open active permits. All residential. I would have to confirm that. Um but I will tell you the license is confirmed before we issue a permit. So,
I could safely assume that they are within the scope of his license. Mr. Paul, um my concern or question is can a registered um residential contractor sign a contract or engage in work for a commercial building and not do the work? I mean, can can he contract at all and negotiate or enter? I think by Florida by Florida law, he is not
um supposed to. He's not allowed to engage in a contract outside of that scope of work that no matter performs work or not, it don't matter. He's not allowed to engage in the work because he becomes the contractor that's over that. So for sakes of you know going up the ladder they call he he can he can sub it but he can't uh if if he if his scope covers other words if he's able to
do commercial work period like if he was a uh building contractor the next level residential is simply residential. So I I would like to draw your attention to your screen this is from Florida statute 489. These are the definitions and scopes of licenses. There you go. C. You see item C there. Residential contractor means a contractor whose services are limited to construction, remodeling, repair or improvement of one family, two family or three family residences
not exceeding two habitable stories above no more than one uninhabitable story and accessory use structures in connections in connection therewith. So that is the scope of what that license can do. So as a comparison you look at B the first thing is limited commercial and the residential. I'm I'm differentiating between services and contracting and so um the services it could be construed that um that's the work of putting the roof on and contracting um you know signing an agreement. So,
in in the CGC world, I I think um it's it's clear that you can't sign a contract um for commercial work if you're a residential CRC. Um but I don't have that um knowledge of whether whether the registered historically of the cases I've heard of, they you can't have a contractual agreement outside of your scope. Okay. Regardless if you pass it on to somebody. And is there an agreement made? Yes, he has a contract. Everything. I mean to me I don't that's a black and white as you can
get. So just to verify a residential contractor cannot hire a commercial subcontractor to do a commercial job. Right. You cannot under state law and county county ordinance. You cannot contract beyond the level of your license. So, so even if you were going to get someone to because you're ultimately responsible as the contractor. So, so a general contractor can have can can contract for anything that a general contractor. Residential can only contract for anything that a
residential. So, residential can't do commercial. And um from what I understand from uh this case, it's a situation where he he even though he did contract for it, it was something where he reached out they he was contacted by the e by San Rosa Island authority to do the work. This is not a normal this is not a bidding process. um Santa Rosa's Island Authority, uh there's a there's a threshold and so normally what you so if you were above that threshold then you would put out for bid and when you put out forbid then you'd get quotes from whoever submitted them but
this is a situation that was below that threshold and being below that threshold they were able to reach out to contractors and ask contractors for bids and then they as a responsible uh government entity they would ask for the they would take the lowest bid. So that's the situate. The low is quote not a bid because this was not put out for bid. Okay. So to answer your question, yes, but they residential is limited to residential. There's three categories. General, building,
and residential. General is unlimited. Building is commercial and residential up to three stories. Residential is simply residential. Nothing in the commercial realm. Up to three stories. Thank you. It's kind of a short version. It's deeper than that, but yes, Mr. Paul, that Yeah. And I should clarify when I say um due process, I'm not talking about dedial procedural due process. If you allow his attorney to speak for him,
um he could still he could still put on a defense. You're just not going to be able to hear from um from Mr. Von, so let me ask you this. So the again going back to the focus signing a contract outside of the scope allowed. Would they be able to answer that his council any questions without meddling into the civil? And maybe your partner can help us with that some too.
I I mean what's uh you'd have to ask his attorney and see how if he's comfortable with that. So you you understand what we're trying to uh if you could re ask it I Okay. So we're we're trying to do the zero in focus and not catch all that's going on around it. Yes, sir. focus of a residential contractor signed a contract, implemented the contract, finished the contract,
got paid for the contract outside of his scope of work. Yes, sir. Okay. Would you be able to give us any input in just that arena? We're not we're not trying to get into all the civil stuff. That's not our that's not where we belong. Yes, sir. I mean, I some of some of the statements that I would touch on are part of the evidence and I feel comfortable discussing that. Part of it is the the the quote process of why we're there. Um, obviously this complaint was not made by the person who paid for our services, got the roof done. It's a third party. It's made by somebody
else who who lost out on that process and now they're angry, right? So that that's why we're here today, right? Um, it again, we I think the evidence supports it and shows it that Mr. Vaughn didn't proactively seek this job. it was sought upon them and and it was performed by somebody who was licensed to perform the work. Um, so those while they may not be complete defenses under law, they are certainly mitigating factors that I want I think is important for the the board to hear. Um, and that's that's kind of the crux of what I would go into in a more elaborate sense if the board would need it or wanted to. Um, and certainly we could have the island authority here
and give a statement if they would be uh so moved to do either through council or their director. Um, I've had communications with them as well, discussing the project, discussing this complaint, discussing the lawsuit. So, Mr. Paul broke it right in and that's this is probably the main crux of where we would be looking at and would you be able to offer input into the fact that yeah, they were asked by a party that we don't know if they know what kind of license he has or not, but that's not again that's not our scope. But it was accepted by a gentleman that is not able to
do that scope of work. So what we want to know is you know the process uh did he not even know that he couldn't do it? How you know and that there's a lot of veins off of that. There are um and and I'm not trying to be koi. I'm no answer without being careful both of us. Yes, sir. um the there there is a bit of um ignorance I guess as far as that and there there's a little bit of um again
it was is being proactively asked upon us and and we we went through the proper channels to one have it permitted two have it performed and a happy customer. So I think again it's retroactively going back to what you're asking as far as the the initial scope and the ability to to bid on that process um as the world moves and as as all of you all know it's it's a fastmoving process and I think that's um there is a little bit of ignorance there um but certainly nothing to avoid it there was no malfeasance no fraud or anything of that nature that I I think um should be considered upon
when when y'all are making your probable cause and if So, disciplinary hearing as well. Um, so I know I'm I'm not trying to tie you down, but I am trying to zero. Would y'all be able to uh address testimony, whatever you call the fact of operating outside of that without compromising? Yes, sir. Um, there's been several good discussions brought up today. One thing that I personally would like to do as representation would look into any precedent um that Mr. Sims brought up as far
as services verse contracting. See if there are any gray areas there. Um the determination of the building as well. Those are things that I have not had time to prepare for given the short notice of the hearing. Um they may be fruitless efforts, but they're certainly something that I would like to do as well as far as legal counsel and presenting the board a full scope of what we can do and answer the questions. So you could present that at a disciplinary hearing for us to decide whether or not there is a reason to discipline or not to discipline. You think that's something that would
not compromise as far as legal precedent and and findings? Yes, that's that's certainly something I could do. Um, you as far as moving into the stages and and I apologize about my unfamiliarity with with the process and uh once a case moves to the disciplinary hearings. Um, if one I don't know I know that the penalty up there is a fine of 500. I don't know if there's any discretion in that or not. It may be black and white as Mr. Sims says. Um, so it may be something that you don't want
to hear upon, but it's certainly things that I think in order for us to pres present a full case, we would want to look into. See, we you have to there's a there's a dual role we're at here. We want to respect where you guys are at in the civil thing, but at the same time, we owe it to the citizens of Escambia County to make sure that our licensed contractors perform properly. Yes, sir. This is a a minor thing compared to some of the stuff we hear, you know, obviously. And
I don't take that lightly. Yes, sir. But at the same time, we have to be consistent. If not, you know, we'll have every John Doe out here contracting for stuff and, you know, really getting in a mess then. So, we have to be consistent for our citizens at the same time. So, that's why I'm trying to So, I think we're hearing enough. Anything else you say with that? No, sir. And I sympathize obviously with the board. It is a unique circumstance from what I've heard today uh given the complexity of a civil lawsuit out there. Thank you. Then sir, so we just need to decide.
Do we go ahead and go to disciplinary and allow them to bring information to us? Do we postpone this a month and see where everything shakes out? I mean what all are So you had a motion basically a motion to continue and it sounded indefinite. um the board does not sound like they're in favor of doing that. So then um you would want to have you would want to deny the motion to continue if the board is not in favor of that and then have someone determine that uh whether or not there is probable cause to put uh put forward a motion whether or not there is probable cause take this
to disciplinary. Um if Mr. Lewango needs more than a month, he may request more than a month to prepare for a disciplinary hearing. There are additional considerations that this um um that sentencing that is a that is available under our um Escambia County code that um we can make you aware of the the final paragraph in the disciplinary we can make you aware of that give you some uh give you Jennifer has all of that information um because there's other things that that can play into this um so that would be the thing so if he feels like he needs more than
a month to prepare then the court would want to the board would want to consider that uh if you're not going to allow him a continuence, an indefinite continuence at this time. And I will tell and if you're going to find probable cause and I will tell both parties that the historically this board when we moved into anything if there was a real contentious area of the civil we've been respectful at times and actually backed off at that moment. So, you know, we're very conscious that Miss Jennifer was there. Go ahead, Christie. I was just going to correct myself because I do
that often. Um it's uh we're talking two months, not one month for disciplinary. So you would have two months to prepare for disciplinary and what Christie is speaking about is is the proper time to dra draft the administrative complaint, get it reviewed and have time to meet the timing requirements of notice, right? So it does take uh a couple of months to get that. Gotcha. So the first order would be we were asked for a continuence uh no time frame of this whole case. So I need a motion of whether or not to do that to accept or to deny. So I'll make a motion
to deny the continuence with no time frame. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign here. None. Motion is approved. Okay. Secondly, do we have probable cause to move this into disciplinary hearing? I'll make a motion to move it to disciplinary hearing. Okay. Second. And I have a second. Okay. Discussion. Does anybody have any questions or This will allow them
enough time to get whatever we need to us. And I think you mentioned 60 days, usually two months from now. Yes, sir. Uh Mr. Patel, it does take about two men. It would be queued up for the next uh hearing two months from now. Yes. Understood. Thank you. And then you'd want to know is that sufficient for Mr. Lango would to prepare a defense for this? Yes. Would that be sufficient? Thank you. Do we have a date for that? I can give that to you. That would be the May 6th hearing.
Okay. And Mr. Longo, if you have any questions regarding the remainder of the penalties that are available to this board, um you can contact uh you can contact the B. Jennifer Hampton can give you those additional. Anybody else here have any discussion? Okay. All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none. None. Motion is approved. Not unanimously.
All right. That ends our probable cause and we will move into disciplinary hearings. Thank you guys for your time. I I um I need to make a record for Miss Jordan. I believe that she's recused herself in this. I don't I know that Mr. Listister. Um, you were not made aware of that, but we'll get the proper forms. I was not aware of that. Okay. I thought she was just taking a break. Well deserved. Well deserved break. I'm just kidding. Understood. Okay.
Our next item, we're moving into disciplinary hearings now. Um, this first one 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. Mr. Spade,
are you present today? For the record, Mr. Spade is not present. Miss Shay, are you present today? And are you going to provide testimony for this hearing today? At this time, I'm going to go ahead and have you sworn. And just a reminder that Miss Reaver remains sworn. So, I'm bringing up the administrative complaint in this case. At the probable cause hearing, the board determined that there was probable cause to believe that the respondent violated code section 1837 C11, finding that a contractor is guilty of
fraud, deceit, or gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The board cited that the respondent received funds for the project, performed unpermitted work on the project, and failed to complete portions of the project that funds were provided for. Code section 1837C8. Um, termination of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract shall be considered to have been abandoned after 90 days. Uh,
board cited that the respondent failed to perform any work on the project after the stop work order was issued and exceeded a period of 90 days. Code section 1837 D15C 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. Uh board cited that the respondent failed to obtain the required permitting for the roof replacement and truss repairs.
Uh just a reminder to this board that this uh contractor is a statecertified contractor and the board is limited um in disciplinary action to suspension or revocation of permitting privileges. And Mr. Spade was not here for the probable cause hearing either. Correct. Not been present at either hearing. Gotcha. Miss Shay, would you like to address the board? Um this this action caused by um this contractor and the one allowing and continues to allow Logan
Martin to pull permits in other counties is causing severe financial hardships to families like mine. This has caused us to have to sell our home in Maryland and relocate. I want you to understand that this is a really serious matter and just to slap on the wrist that he can't pull permits in one county, I'd like to see this escalated to DS DBPR and have this noted. So, he needs to be stopped. He's hurting a lot of families in this county. And that's all I'd like to say. Thank you, Mich.
So count one 1837 C11 finding chair. Before we go through the counts, I would like to um all the testimony provided at the probable cause hearing as well as all of the evidence at the probable cause hearing. We did not receive any new evidence. Uh and of course we just received new testimony, but I would like all of those items from the probable cause hearing be moved into evidence for this hearing. So moved. Do you have a second? Second. All in
favor raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Seeing none motions approved. Would you like to go through the counts with us? Yes, sir. Count one. Does the board find the Sorry. Does the board find the respondent in violation of code section 1837 C11, finding that a contractor is guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligent, competency or misconduct in the practice of contracting?
Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to find in violation. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All the oppos same side. See none here. Bush is approved. Count two. Does the board find the respondent in violation of code section 1837 C8 termination of a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract shall be considered to have been abandoned after N. Make a motion to uh find in
violation of count two. Second. Any discussion? All in favor raise right hand. All oppose. Same sign. See none. Motion is approved. Count three. Does the board find the respondent in violation of code section 1837 D15C. 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. Make a motion v in violation of count three. Second motion second. Any discussion? All in
favor raise right hand. All oppose same sign. See none. Motion is approved. Now we're limited to in your last paragraph there. This board is limited and what they what disciplinary action they can take and it's only relative to permitting privileges in Escambia County. So we can revoke his privileges for permitting. Um can we make a res a recommendation to the CIB?
You would take that and do your recommendation after you determine your disciplinary action, right? But we can include the if you want to combine the two together, you can and make one motion. That is up to the board. So, I'll make a motion to revoke any licensing uh peritting privileges permitting privileges uh for Escambia County and also make a recommendation to the BPR CIB CB of the same second. So, your recommendation to the CIB would be in regard to his license.
Correct. Uh so to clarify that would be revocation of priv privileges here and then revocation of license to the C CIB. Is that correct? That is correct. So, um, on your revocation, if you make the decision that if the board um concurs that it should be a revocation of the contractor certificate of competency and their ability to pull the permits in Escambia County, then it would be um no less than a year and no more than five for revocation. So, you'll have to make a determination of how long you want that revocation to stand. One to five years. More than five years.
One to five. Oh, five years. you're but now so so permanent revocation can be determined by this board but it has to be a unanimous decision of the board. Okay. So I'm gonna let me hold you up on that. When you do that you have to determine that they were um um that the case or conduct constituted egregious circumstances and the contractor competence board is convinced that the safety of the public demands permanent revocation. So you need to make a finding as to the safety of the public and um and and the egregious circumstances. You may want a record
made of that by your prosecutor or your witness based on the previous evidence that's already been introduced. You want to put you'll have to bring it up. If that's where this board wants to go. So, we'll make a a recommendation for five years, relocation for five years. So I have a motion to revoke permitting privileges for five years. Second and
a recommendation to the CIO for revocation of license. That is correct. Okay. And I have a second. accepted. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. It is unanimous for So, I just want to clarify for the board that they have um there was three counts involved and
the the the unanimous decision of the board is that for those three counts, it will be a five-year suspension to cover all three counts. All three counts. Mean a five-year revocation to cover all three counts. Correct. Thank you. Get them all at one time. That concludes that disciplinary hearing. Uh our next item is Brett Smith doing business as Apex Plumbing LLC, state registered license number RF11067884.
Contractor competency board complaint number 2550993 COOM. It's in regard to Frank Genjic, the complainant at 1815 Klondike Road, Pensacola, Florida 32503. Mr. Smith, are you present today? And are you going to provide testimony? And Mr. Janichek, are you present today? Mr. Janich is not present. Uh, at this time, I'm going to have Mr. Miss Warren, you swear affirm
the testimony about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and truth. So, help you God. Okay. So, count ones. I'm going to take you through the administrative complaint really quick. At the probable cause hearing, um, board determined that was probable cause to believe that the respondent violated code section 1837 D15C, proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable
local building per department permits and/or inspections, job finished without a permit having been pulled. board uh cited that the respondant violated this code section by failing to obtain uh the required permitting prior to completing the plumbing installation. Penalty guidelines because this is a uh locally licensed contractor state registered uh for this violation would be a first violation of $500 to a $1,500 fine. Uh Mr. Smith is present today. There was one additional item
uh added to this agenda. Um along with uh the testimony provided at the probable cause hearing and the items provided at the probable cause hearing. Uh so staff would request that those items be moved into evidence for this hearing. So moved second. The new item is the actual past final plumbing inspection that was performed on February 18th, 2026. So, just to draw your attention to that additional one item. Uh, again, Mr. Smith is present. If you'd
like to hear an update from him, Mr. Smith, would you like to address the board on this? Oh, M. Did we swear Mr. Smith? You did. Okay. Oh, Brett Smith. Uh, this is the permit that like slipped through the cracks on us. Um, we filled up for the venting. Went out there, fix the vent and pass inspection. Um, yeah. I don't know what else to say. We went I don't know. I ain't good at all this talking. You,
if if we remember correctly, you were given the opportunity to get with the owner and make it right. And you did. Yes, sir. But the permit was not pulled. It was pulled. But I just didn't have it pass inspection before the court date or the the hearing date. So it's like we got our inspection and then So So just just a reminder, Mr. Smith applied for the permit and it went unpaid. Correct? Yes. It went unpaid. And so then at his first hearing,
he paid for the permit. You continued it. give him time to get the inspection and inspection failed, needed corrections, and he ultimately passed that inspection just after our last board meeting. So, it is passed and finalized at this time. It is a passed inspection. Okay. Anybody have any questions for M. Smith? Okay. Thank you. So to take you to to the count count one, does the board find the respondent in violation of
code section 1837D15C? Proceeding on any job without obtaining the applicable local building department permits and/or inspections. Job finished without a permit having been pulled. I know this case has been going on for a little bit now, right? So, I may have missed a meeting or two, but from what I'm understanding, it was a timing issue and that we had our meeting and we moved it into the disciplinary and then he went ahead and paid and everything was That is correct,
sir. Okay. So everything is finished and final out now. That is correct. Uh in your backup documentation there is the past inspection report. Right. So our options here today are to find him not in in guilty. Yeah. Or if he is um in excuse me violation not guilty. Mhm. But if he is in violation then uh some type of fine or whatever is chosen you know if if there is any
wisdom go ahead Mr. Waters. Go ahead. I was just going to the language is very clear um on the on the on the code. Is the 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? Your first violation is $500 to $1,500. Okay. And in this situation, suspension and revocation, I don't think she has it in here,
but in this situation, suspension and revocation is not one of the um um it's specifically not included uh in this section because it would be if it were a second or subsequent um suspicion, the fine and suspension or revocation would be um required. And the minimum penalty is 500 and the maximum is 1500. Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Waters, I was going to ask about the penalty. We have to
do the minimum 500 as a minimum or can we just say we're not doing it? I don't know who would be. It doesn't look like we have an option, but I just wanted to ask you. Let me look. I think the board has a lot of discretion and and usually these things come down to is um if if you were found if he's found in violation um you could do two things. You could find him not in violation now that everything's been brought into code. Um that's really couldn't
be challenged by anybody. um you could find that he did violate um and you want to do the $500 fine. I think this board has discretion to determine if they believe that a fine is appropriate in this given circumstances. If you want to find that he is in violation, but you don't think that a fine would be appropriate because it just doesn't reach that level of violation. I think this board has that kind of discretion. I make a motion to find him in violation but no fine.
Second. So I have a motion in violation of Ski County Code section 1837D15C with no penalty. Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose same side. The only other item before this board for this hearing is the CIB recommendation. Do we have any recommend Your options are listed in that final sentence of this
paragraph. They can be for no further action, a fine, suspension, revocation, restrictions, or any combination thereof. Motion for him to have no further that. I'll second that. That's right. All in favor? All in favor? Raise right in. I think Mr. Smith, you've learned the situation here. This has been a tough one, but hopefully this is one of them in the past. Never come back. We don't want to see you. All right. Thank you.
That concludes that disciplinary hearing. Our last item today is Aaron Burgess doing business at as parurch builders, Inc. State Certified License number CBC 1258877 contractor competency board complaint number 2512119 COOM it's in regard to Pastor Willstone First Baptist Church of Cantoment the complainant at 298 Morris Avenue can Florida 32533 Mr. Burgess, are you present today? And are you
going to provide testimony for this hearing? And Pastor Stone, are you present today? And are you going to provide testimony for this hearing? Thank you. At this time, I'm going to have both parties sworn. Well, and uh just a reminder, Miss Reber remains sworn. Okay, I'm going to bring up the administrative complaint for this hearing.
At the probable cause hearing, the board determined that whether there was probable cause to believe that the respondent violated 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. The board cited that the respondent violated that code section by falsifying invoices and lean releases for the project to obtain draw money and failing to install the required storm water management systems resulting in violations. Also, code section 1837 C6 uh financial mismanagement or
misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. The board cited that the respondent violated code section uh by failing to pay equipment rental companies for equipment, subcontractors for work performed and suppliers for materials. And again, this is a certified so we can't there's no finding look only permitting privileges. That is correct. Any action would be against uh the respondents permitting privileges within Escambia County. Okay.
Mr. Burgess, would you like to speak to the board? My name is Aaron Burgess. I live at 394 Old Phoenix Road, Eaton, Georgia 31024. Um, first of all, I apologize even have to be here and it's very difficult for me. Um, 2008 I was hired
by parurch builders who was owned by my uncle and my employment terminated there in 2018. Um, since then, unbeknownst to me, uh, he has been pulling contract permits. uh under my name. One that I can find. Um and this one being with Mr. Stone. Up until today, I didn't even know what Mr. Stone looked like. Um and I didn't know it until he just recognized itself. I had no idea. I've never been to this church. I've never been anywhere on this property and had no knowledge
of what was going on as far as financially or contracting. After I left Part Church Builders, I continued contracted in the state of Georgia. um residentially and I also started a commercial door and hardware company. So to say that I did not know that this church project was going on would not be true. Uh I did provide the commercial door and hardware for this project to which I have not been compensated for. Um however uh that is not the church's problem. That was between me and my uncle. Um, and I did not even know that there was a problem until Pastor Stone contacted me and told
me that he was missing some materials from the door side and asked me would I send him, which I did. Um, even though again I did not get paid for them from the contractor that was there. Um, it was not until later this of last year that I got notice from Miss Reverber that there was a problem and uh, my name was involved. So when I see this respondent uh Aaron Burgess doing business as part of church builders is very uh disheartening because I never owned the company.
Um I was employed by the company and I did take the contractor's exam and qualified that company. My failure was to change my license status to inactive. Um which I did immediately as soon as I found out. I withdrew my privileges in Escambia County for this contractor to pull permits as well as um I contacted an attorney last week after I got this notification that I would be required to be here today. Um and he said, "Well, your state licenses is not revoked either." And I said,
"I didn't realize that." So, I did that immediately and I have those documents for each of you here. I went on during that tenure at Park Church Builders, we were licensed in six states. I was the qualifying agent. and I took all the tests and exams for all of those uh states. I have since instructed my staff to go and file revocation for every licensing. We only found one to be active and that was in the state of Georgia which we revocated last actually we revocated it on Monday. Um this is a failure of mismanagement on my part for to inactivate my
license. Um, I've seen some of the documents that was provided to the county to obtain this permit. I do believe I understand how they got there. Um, in early 2016, I believe there was a permit pulled in Scambia County for Liberty Church. Um, it was during that tenure I was using my I was invoking my exit strategy. I'd been with the the uh building company for a long time. Uh I was going through a divorce at the time and starting another company. Didn't want to travel, had young
children. So I was on a very limited basis for the last two years. I did sign on a forcia county to pull that permit. Um I expeditedly exited the company almost a year early uh because of some of the business practice that was happening and that that particular incident ended up in a lawsuit. Um, so I I actually seen a copy of my license in one of these documents that I was like, how did they get my license that was issued in 22 and it was because of that lawsuit. Um,
but I did not sign for this and I I I apologize to the church and I I'm I'm devastated by the actions that happened, but my name in my opinion shouldn't be there. It should be Wayman Harden, which is the owner of the company. Um, at this time I'd have I'd be glad to take questions and I'd show you as soon as I found out what I did to try to revocate. I mean, try to uh satisfy this. I think I heard you say that you you understand it now. But sure, by the fact that you were the
lying qualifier. Yes, sir. Automatically you are responsible. I understand that. You say you provided the doors. I did. And at what time in the process was that you and you didn't know that your license was on the line for it then? No sir, I did not know that. I did not know that he had used he had hired three other people after I left and I was told that two of those people went and set for
the test and actually obtained license for the state of Florida, Georgia and as well as uh Massachusetts. Your uncle ordered the doors from you? He did. That's really strange. So, how long ago was it that you got the doors? I'm just trying to see. I've actually seen this
church. I built a house around the corner from it. I've observed them working over there. So, how long ago was it for the doors that I supply the doors to the church? I'm going out with just a complete memory. I think the initial order it comes in phases. It would come in frames and then I believe he ordered prehungs and then doors and hardware maybe sometime in July, August maybe. And you say you haven't been paid? I have not. Did you file a lean? I did not. Do you normally file
leans when you don't get paid? I do normally, but honestly, in since I've been in the construction, I mean in the uh door and hardware business, I've only been not paid one other time. Um, and I did file a lean in that thing, but I do not I would not ever file a lean against a church. Okay. It's personal preference, I guess. No, it's a personal conviction. Yeah. I do not conduct. still a commercial business even though it's a church. I understand that.
Anybody else have any questions for Mr. Burgess? I do. Um, what kind of business relationship do you have with your uncle? None. just you just um bought doors from him because he called you up or I've only sold him doors three times since I've been in business. This was one of them. This was a church and he knew I did I guess he get I don't know what he does out outside of that, but my understanding with my uncle right now is he's in a dire straits
of financial strain obviously due to to his actions. I think he's almost homeless. Um, I have not been in any type of business relationship with him since 2018. Thank you. So, you have revoked your own license. Is that what you said you did for the state of Florida? I think the correct term is to move them to an active status. Active status. Yeah. In Georgia, it was a disassociation uh with that company.
Well, unfortunately it again goes back to in Florida the one that is the lendee and we deal with this probably too much in here that people who are the licensed feel like they've been taken advantage of by an owner of a company that they qualified but ultimately they are the responsible party. I understand and um I can understand from what you're saying I wouldn't want my name there either but um at the end of the day it does fall back to you. I understand.
So account one again all we're able to do here is permitting privileges. That is correct. This is uh Mr. Veris is state certified. Uh so you are limited in what you can do. You also have um another witness present that you may I don't know. Right. Right. Right. Right. Okay. I'm just trying to make sure we stay in line here. And you've already said you've revoked your Florida license. I I moved to enact. Yes, sir. Did you say you have copies
of that? I do. I don't know how many copies you need, but I got I'll see if it works. Make sure Okay. No other questions for Mr. Burgess. Thank you, sir. Mr. Stone, I get a copy. Name and address. Uh, Willstone, 2523 Avalon Street, Cantonment, 32533.
Mr. Stone, what would you like to tell us today? I I I just want to make sure I heard the question about filing lean against the church cuz church church has paid every bill we've ever been submitted. In fact, I paid numerous bills three two times. U so uh I don't want us to leave here today thinking that we haven't paid for these doors because these doors were paid for. uh uh the person we paid that's supposed to be paying his uh subcontractors just didn't pay his bills. Um so
uh you know my I'm I agree with Mr. Burgess. I've never met Mr. Burgess before in my life. We've talked on the phone a couple of times. Uh when we got to the door part of our church building u uh I tracked down through invoices where the doors came from and got in contact with him. He u uh I don't I don't know what happened with the doors initially were sent to us. Uh for all I know, Mr. Harden took them with him when he left town. Uh that wouldn't surprise me at all either. Um but u I just know that uh West Harden and Par Church builder is going to do a lot of harm
wherever they go. Uh they have hurt this church. Um we've had to go back and rebarorrow another $500,000 to try to finish a building. Um we're still in the process of trying to get done in a building we should have been in a year year and a half ago. and uh it's brought a hardship on us and whoever he touches is going to bring a hardship on them. Uh I understand we're not going to get a penny out of this thing and that's not the thing. It's just the point of him hurting someone else. Whether you're here in Scambia County, we have filed with the state as well on this and
um so I just want to make sure he doesn't do to other people what he's done to us. And um so that's uh that's why that's why I'm here. I'm like you guys. I could do be doing a lot of other things this morning, but uh just to make sure that somebody else hasn't done the same harm that we're that's been done to our church and our congregation. Thank you. Go ahead, pastor. Clarification. When I asked him if he filed a lean, what I was getting at was if I wasn't paid and I filed a lean, I'm going to find out who the license
hold who the contractor is on this job. That's I was trying to establish thought that it will cuz other other people that have filed that we get the notices that they're filing against you know when when they start sending invoice then they'll send something saying okay we're and so I've had a couple of mechanical leans for his rental equipment company. Um there's another company that I found out just this week in Robertsdale that he owes about $3500 to Geocon Engineering. That was a bill that was in 2024 that he hasn't paid yet. So, I get a new surprise from this guy every day. Uh,
and it seems like he's just a gift that keeps on giving as a joke around my church. He just every day there's something else. So, yes, sir. I didn't mean any I didn't mean any disrespect about that. I just want to make sure everybody knows we're paying our bills. Um, Miss Christie, you might be able to tell me this. Florida has a construction recovery fund. It's pennies. It's pennies, but you might qualify for $50,000.
You can see one of us afterwards. From what I've been told, that's residential only. That is correct. It's only It does include any commercial stuff. Okay. No. So, you know, when we're when this whole thing is going to be finished, I'm going to be in what was going to be a little over a million dollar contract. Mr. hardness going end up being about a $2 million. Uh we're going to be that far behind trying to catch up with everything. This has been uh you know every day there's a bill for three thou it's not it's not a couple hundred dollars, it's two
or $3,000 and uh this thing just keeps dragging on and on and on. And uh again, my my ultimate goal is to stop him from doing this to whomever we can stop him doing to doing this to again. Any other questions for Mr. Stone? Stone. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Okay. This is not fun. Question. Is there any way we can find out if another contractor has qualified this guy's business? So, that's what while y'all were uh discussing that just a moment ago, I looked in our records to see uh because Mr. Burgess mentioned that um that there was supposed to have been other qualifiers. So within our records, within our database for our licensed contractors, there is no other qualifier. Um
I can also check the state if you would like. Yeah, I don't want to hold up. Okay. I'm just going to ch search by the organization. Well, let me narrow that down.
And so as you can see it's it's only the one I'm trying to bring up the related license for that. And then uh someone mentioned a Wayne Harden. Wayman Harden
and I actually had up the application for the um it goes back because he's as an authorization on that. I think you hit back. Oh, did I? By accident. Yes, ma'am. Hit search this out. Hit search. So no, Wayman Harden is not licensed. Now on the permit application for Park Church builders in this actual project, Wayman is listed as the applicant and Mr. Burgess as the contractor,
the authorized signer, I'm assuming. And and that's that's what I was well if all this was going on, I was uh looking at additional documents and I see in October of 2025 where Mr. Burgess did remove all po uh persons off of his license to be able to obtain in Escambia County. So his LOA I pulled it up on the screen and he put none. Um so he took all authorized persons off of his license. It was obviously way after this project. Yeah. This
shows this shows qualified businesses also. Repeat that Mr. Waters. This website here, it shows qualified businesses also. It can. Yes. Do you want me to search Mr. Burgess to see if he qualifies? I'm trying to make sure that his uncle is still in there some kind of way. If you you revoke your license, right? Mhm. So the qualified business is that showing revoke.
Right. So here is his here's the only license. and he took it inactive. So it does confirm that it is being that he's the qualifier if he puts his license in inactive that basically shuts down qualified business. That's right.
Was the application signed? They have an initial application for um for that permit for the church. Go ahead. So, so once I in October when I found out there was a problem, that's when I notified scam. Looking at some of these documents that that's not even my signature. Um, I did, again,
I did fill out one of these forms for the Liberty Church campus in 2016, I believe. Since then, I have not filled out anything. So, the document that I seen, and I don't know if you I'm sure y'all got a copy of it because I that's how I looked at it, but that's not my signature, and I'm assuming that that document was in some way forged some some type of way. And to clarify on the payment, there has been a couple things that pastor has paid me for like some extras,
but what I mean is the initial door order that I know they paid him because he told me he did and I believe him that that he didn't pay me on that. Not that the church didn't pay me. It wouldn't be because the applicant was So on your screen you have uh the initial application which is the pre-construction. Uh the applicant was Mr. Harden uh and and signed Um, and I can pull back pull up the previous element. What about the actual building permit? So, that's
the interesting thing. That doesn't even look that look the other signatures. Mhm. That's correct. So, this is preconstruction, but what about the actual you look in the permitting history? It wasn't until um the replacement contractor pulled an actual new construction permit. So, they got underway under a pre-construction site permit. Kept going. Didn't get Well,
how were they able to obtain inspections? They they got inspection under pre-construction site and inspection in pre-construction site. Sound like we have a little loop that we need to close there then internally. Right. So that they can't just without the actual permit. Mhm. Because by looking at this he's not the uncle is not even guilty of pulling a permit because he never had a
permit building permit building permit. project was initiated with a pre-construction permit which gives him the ability the underground the Right. Right. But the structure itself Well, well, he is guilty of of building he's right. Right. But yeah, without a permit without He didn't. Right. There is a there there's a lot of Don't get into the guilty discussion. Not guilty of signing for a permit because it was no permit. He didn't sign for a permit. You're correct.
boy. Oh, the web we weave. So, our options today are so we can find either in violation or not in violation of these two counts and then submit something to CILB. It's already been put inactive. So basically what we do is going to be of no effect but it's a formality. Okay, which is good to follow through with I got a question
or maybe some something for discussion in each of these counts that says misconduct incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. And I I that's that's the big question for me. Was he was he even contracting? So the final the fine line of the law again all help me from my experience is the license holder that qualifies the company is automatically held liable. We've had guys come
here and say we never saw the books. Well, that's your fault because if you are the licensed holder, that is your responsibility to look at the books of the company to make sure to know that it's, you know, everything's getting paid. And if not, you're the one that's stuck out there. Um, Jennifer, can you make sure no one's pulling permits under my license?
You know what I'm saying? is like how do you know? Uh so so what triggers somebody to have the ability to pull permits under a qualifier license is that letter of authorization that uh form has to be filled out by the license holder. It can only be signed by the license holder and we compare that signature. It is notorized, mind you, but we know stuff happens. So, we compare that signature to the signature that's on a driver's license that is supplied by
the license holder as well. So, the LOA um Mr. Irwin, whoever you allow and put on that form, and those people have to sign that form as well. So, whenever they come in and they obtain permits, we can compare their signature to the signature on the form that you provided to me. So, um, that's what gives somebody the ability to to do things under your license. So, really, it should
be pretty hard, almost impossible for a contractor not to know based off of that. If you're giving a person the ability to perform actions under your license, then you should know. Yes, sir. Okay. So back to number one 1837 C11 find that a contractor is guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligence in competency or misconduct in the practice of contracting
I don't necessarily think that fraud or deceit or so before you get started on this uh I I need to move into evidence all the testimony ony, all of the backup documentation that was from the probable cause hearing. Um, and that included that that large packet that the church provided, including um documentation um of the invoices, lands, and things like that. So,
that whole pack packet I I need to move that into evidence for this hearing. Do I have a motion to move all the evidence in the record? So, move. Second. Second. All in favor raise right hand. All oppose same sign. Motion is approved. May I make a suggestion as you go forward in this? Yes, please. Um I would be very clear on the record because we're talking about two different things here. We're talking about a this par con uh church builders and a contractor. So if you find that the contractor is or is not responsible for something, then you say it's the contractor. If
it's par construction or par church builders that you clarify. So, if we're looking at fraud, even though you can't hold them accountable because that corporation is not here in front of you, um, then but I would make the record clear whether or not it applies to the contractor or to the parurch builder. That's what I was trying to decipher a while ago when I was going through it. As the individual contractor, was there fraud on his part, deceit, gross negoty,
or misconduct on his part, not this company, but on the contractor, right? And you can also recommend, although it's not here, you can um and I I I think we've already had this discussion, anything that you think that should be uh turned over to the state attorney's office for investigation, you can make that recommendation as far as PAR is concerned based on your findings, even though the the the weight of your determination won't affect that. So, do I have a motion on count one as in violation or not in violation?
You want me to read it in really quickly? Please. As to count one, does the board find the respondent in violation of 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? Should it be I'm sorry, but should it be part church builders rather than contract? This is so our administrative complaint solely relates to the contractor. Understood. Aaron purchases the word um is one and the same, right? He qualified the business
and as a business contractor qualifying the business, you're responsible, right? What you're determining is whether or not he even as the even as the B he's the contractor did the contractor participate in the fraud. That's the question. Regardless of who qualified the business, did the contract did your contractor? It's based on the wording of the code. It's not because the work it's church. It's part church builders.
that from what we've heard is part church builders the one that committed the fraud or is it the contractor that committed the fraud? You can only consider whether or not the contractor committed the fault. But again, from if I'm got this correct, the license holder is responsible for overseeing our church builders, the qualified company. He may not have done it, but he's still responsible. Yes,
that's the key. It it is it becomes Mr. Burgess's responsibility to oversee, look into the books, etc., etc., to make sure that fraud is not taking place because it is his license. I understand what you're saying, but aren't we splitting hairs? Because how is he supposed to
know that this person pulled the permit under his license? I I just I mean that would mean how I mean I could go pull a permit under your name, Mr. Listister. Now what? Not if you don't have a letter party. If you have a letter, right, but if I'm crafty enough, you just build that out. Yeah. Right. No. If I'm crafty enough, I can figure it out. I'm not. But yeah, well in those cases you would prove that somebody forged your signature that you was you had no, you know, connection to it. That that's what you would prove there. So I do want to I do want to
draw your attention to 1837 C. The contractor competency board may revoke, suspend or deny issuance or renewal of the certificate certificate of a contractor impose fines. Um, skip forward to or any combination thereof. If the contractor or if the business entity or any general partner, officer, director, trustee or member of a business entity for which the contractor is a qualifying agent is found guilty of any of the acts as outlined in this article. So,
that's where it pulls in any of the persons acting on his behalf. I know because that's been the question kind of and that's where this ties in in our actual code of ordinances. So we go back to count one.
Is there a violation or not? Did you want to read it out again or we go? Finding that a contractor is guilty of fraud or deceit or gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct. I will make a motion. A second. What What is your motion? Motion to find them in violation in violation of count one. Of count one. I have a second. Have a second. I have a motion find in violation of code section
1837 C11. Any questions? All in favor raise your right hand. All oppose same sign. Okay. It is Can I make a recommendation on this? because of the because of what we've heard today and what we and what you've un what you understand and the way that the law is written that you clarify that you're finding him in violation. It's it's just a recommendation you find him in violation because
he's the qualifying agent and maybe it was the it was an officer of the corporation that committed it. So based on the you may want to clarify that just for the purposes of going forward. Um it it Understood. Yes, ma'am. I first of all, let me settle the fact that this motion has been approved. I didn't put that in the record. At the same time, Mr. Waters has a company name,
but he has a license. Even though he's the sole owner, he as Mr. Walters, the ly is responsible for what his company does. The good thing is he owns it. He's the sole proprietor, so he's got it. But it's the same purpose if you use a name of XYZ company and become the qualifier if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong, Mr. Christie. But so he still is liable according
to the law. The reason I know this, the reason I have experience that we had cases come through here like that as well as being involved at the state level knowing that we have bad actors all the time that do this kind of stuff. Sometimes it is a company that is a big corporation that they have hired a qualifier, but whenever it goes down, he's standing there all by himself. It's sad, but I just mentioned this because of the criminal implications against par the corporation itself.
Um because he hasn't been although he's been with uh as although he was the qualifying agent and I don't challenge that he failed to file the proper paperwork and remove him as qualifying agent, but there's criminal criminal implications involving PAR um which was a corporation that is inactive as of 2025. Um and he was removed from the paperwork based on the uh as far as not the not the DBPR paperwork but the state life the state paperwork the sunbiz paperwork
um in 2019. So I just that's the only reason I say draw a distinction for the purposes of the record that that he is guilty because of his qualifying agent status. Um, so would we and the acts of an officer? We can't amend the motion because it's already been approved. Okay. Correct. Robert's rule won't let me amend something's already approved. Can we have a separate motion that the previous motion was or was that not I don't No, I'm not You don't have to
amend your motion. I would just say put it on the record that that that's the reasoning behind it. But it's not that he committed the is it's he's he's the registered agent, so he's responsible when somebody else as an officer commits the fraud. So for the record, Mr. Clerk, this is not showing his guilt criminally into those items, but as a license holder qualifier of the said company. Thank you.
Count two, Mr. Jennifer, would you mind reading that for us? As to count two, does the board find the respondent in violation of code section 1837 C6, financial mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of CR contracting that causes financial harm to a customer? Well, this could be a tough one because I'm still going to say motion to find them in violation. Second.
So, I have a motion found in violation of Skimi County Code section 1837C6 as a qualifier of this part church builders. Any discussion? All in favor say I. I raise your right hand. All opposed. Okay. Motion is approved.
Yeah. I didn't say unanimously. I just said motion is approved. And I understand this is a tough thing. I have to say it ain't that we're just up here throwing our hands up. But the law does state that the qualifier is responsible. So, right, I understand all of that and based off of what's in the law in the code, I think I'm doing what need to be done. It is it is a strict it is a strict liability code. I mean, there's not a there's not wiggle
room on this and and there's a good purpose for that because we have plenty of folks coming here that needs to be strung up. They need to be found responsible for their actions. We have plenty of that. So, there's a good purpose for what's there. Unfortunately, the snare catches somebody who's, you know, u I wouldn't use the word ignorance in a wrong word, but was just ignorant to the fact that his license was being used. But regardless, he had a LOA and it was not rescended. So, by virtue,
the responsibility still lies. And I I can say that I think majority of this board sympathizes with you from what I'm hearing, Mr. But we're kind of locked into a area here. Yeah. My my only trepidation was putting um you know putting that extra language in there just for the record not to um avoid the you know the wrongdoing but um maybe um down the road um you know instead of paying getting hung or you know being able to you know maintain some you know re you know uh
your livelihood. So that that's my whole point for you know objecting. So it's a tough one. So since the license has been uh brought into inactive status since the license has been brought since the license has been brought into an an active stat status at the state. Do we not need to send anything to CILB? So, I mean, it's on the record.
License is inactive. When we looked it up, we confirmed that it's inactive with the state. Um, staff here would would uh take the license inactive with us as well. um for him to have to want to bring that back active, he would have to register back with us with you know at such time. Gotcha. You still need to make a determination as to permitting privileges. Um and an active license can made be made active relatively easily, right? So you still need to make a determination as to
uh permitting privileges. Do we want to take any action on permitting privileges of it says it is subject to suspension revocation of perision that does not mean we have to that means it's subject to correct well we and we could um we could direct that to par church builders right it's the license holder it goes against the it goes against the contractor Okay,
let me ask a question. Are you planning on going after the gentleman that used your license, criminal or civil, whatever that may be? I guess it depends on how what what happens next. I have obtained counsel um and I I was told of what could happen here today. Um, obviously, yeah, I would I'm going to strongly fight against uh any financial mismanagement that I didn't even know existed. Um, the retraction from the state license re registration in 2019. I guess that's
when it was updated because I left in 2018. Again, this is just I thought I was off the license. I I had no idea. And so, um, but yes, depending on what happens, uh, actions the church takes or, you know, to recoup their money. Yeah, I'm going to participate in that and yes, I will definitely defend um myself in that in that position. So, absolutely. So I guess my question is that um understanding the the situation and the story that so we can
make a recommendation to the state uh to revoke or suspend. Correct. So yes. So uh and again not knowing what's going to happen six months, a year from now, two years from now whether or not you're going to make your license or would want to activate your license in the state of Florida. Is there something that we can do to monitor that in the event in two years where to say suspended for two years and in two years before it goes active that there has been action taken and it's not
because again at the end of the day it's still your uncle uh it's one of those things where you know you figgive and forget and you know there's no action taken but if there's aggressive action taken from you you know I wouldn't want to see you not activate your license in Florida because you did have a qualifier that you know abused your license. So, I don't know legally whether we can do something like that or not, but it's just a question I'm asking that in order rather than just suspend it. And are you asking there be some kind of trigger or mechanism that you
want this brought before the board? Should he try to register with us again? If he tried to register again or if he wanted to make his license and register with us. Do you see what I'm trying to say? like you know instead of saying that hey just go ahead and suspend your license and we're going to require the state do the same thing for a third party's actions again you're still you're still responsible I'm not taking that away that in the event that there's action taken personally on your behalf that hey I am going after the guy that I qualified this business for and you know
you decide to say hey you know 16 months or two months from now your cases are over he is in jail whatever that scenario may be and you say hey look you know I've taken every action you know Can I, you know, uh, reinstate my license? Right. And again, I don't know the answer to that question. That's why they're discussing. I don't know exactly how to approach that. I, according to my attorney, like there's really nothing for me to go after him for at this point unless I was a named defended in something. Well, that's Yeah, but I don't know what ramifications that that entails.
Like if that's just a falsifying a document, like I have no idea. I will tell you that I I do have a business that is in the process. We applied early on like as soon as I left part church builders um to keep this license. This license was one of the hardest ones out of all the six states I got to to get. It was very difficult. I was very uh happy to know that I could just leave it inactive for a period of time and and keep it out. I do intend to be a licensed contractor under my company that
I own. Um, I don't I don't have currently have any work in Florida or anything like that going on and don't know if I will, but I own property here and sometime in the future I may. Um, so I would ask that if there was a way to to direct that towards part church builders and not me directly, I would ask for that leniency. Can we take five minutes for y'all to figure out can we do that? What do you have? Yes. Thank you. I want to make sure I understand your question. I understand what he's
saying because he's just saying take the actions against our church and not against him, which we get. So your options before you today are suspend his privileges or revoke his privileges for for permitting and that's it. Your recommendation to CI CLB could be revoke or suspend, but they're going to do what they're going to do regardless of what. And I know he has an inactive license, but he can bring that. But when he wants to bring that act, that license, when he wants to register that license in Escambia County, that could come back that's going to come back. So, can we take five
minutes for you all to discuss this and then give us a definition? But that is what you're trying to figure out. What can you do when he tries to come back? We will recess for five minutes. Thank you. Is Miss Christie still just a second? That's fine. We can wait. Yeah. Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. And
what is the resolution, Miss Christie for? Okay. So, so as far as you can, you can determine what you want the penalty to be as far as you've determined that he was in violation. You want to determine what the penalty will be, which would be how long you want to suspend or or um or revoke. Thanks. How long you want to uh suspend or revoke permitting privileges. However, if he goes back and gets his license active with the state and becomes a certified um licensed
contractor again, then you would follow the same procedure as you would with any other certified pro certified contractor. It wouldn't come back in front of you because we don't m this board doesn't look to see if certified contractors can be active in our county. They can just be active in our county. Right. So that wouldn't be that's not a decision that you have any jurisdiction over. Only thing we could do is uh deal with the permitting privileges for a specified time so that if next week he became active that what we say for the county would still if we chose anything
uh that's that's what would be that's correct. Gotcha. So, is there any appetite, any desire for some type of a suspension or revoking of permitting privileges for Mr. Burgess? It says it's subject to, which means we don't have to. Well, I think we probably need to because he can reactivate him
any time and as Mr. Patel said is his uncle. Forgive and forget, move on. So, I'm going to make a motion to suspend permitting privileges for one year. Second. All right, I have a motion and second to suspend the permanent privileges for one year in Scambia County. Any question up here? All in favor,
raise your right hand. All oppose, same sign. Okay, motion is approved. For the record, it there was two in in opposition. Yeah, it was not unanimous. When it's unanimous, I say that I try to The last item before the board would be the recommendation for the CIB. Do you have any recommendation to the construction industry licensings board?
I make a motion for the same one-year suspension. I'll second that. Have a motion second for one-year suspension to the CIB. Any discussion? All in favor, raise your right hand. All oppose. Same sign. Not unanimously, but it was approved. Okay, that concludes that hearing. Miss Christie, would you please introduce? Sure. Okay. If you
want to adjourn, we can I'd rather you introduce us to whoever's been over here whispering in your ear the whole time. You Mr. Incognito here. This is Jeff Broers. We're very blessed to have him at our um at the county attorney's office. He came over uh with very good credentials. Um and Jeff and I worked together many years ago at the state attorney's office. And uh so he has done contract law, he's done civil work, he knows uh uh real estate law. Uh so he's
been a great addition and I'm wanting him to be the person that when I'm not here, he's willing to cover. So I was trying to keep you in line so that he didn't have a bad experience, but I feel like I want to be comfortable when I'm not here that the person who's who's advising you uh is is uh interested and and well informed. He will have his hands full with this bunch. That's for sure. We will we will make sure we work your brain. Thank you. We're glad you're here with us. Pleasure to meet you. Yes, sir. As you can tell by the whispering, he won't be shy. Yep. That's good.
We need that. We depend on it. Okay. Getting well educated. Mean is a journey. Well, I got