Ocala Contractors Board of Examiners and Appeals Meeting - January 8, 2026
Ocala Contractors Board of Examiners and Appeals Meeting - January 8, 2026
The Contractors Board of Examiners and Appeals held a hearing on Thursday, January 8, 2026, at 5:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers. The board considered a single enforcement case brought by the City of Ocala against Tampa Bay HVAC (Jason Spicola) related to unpermitted work and alleged fraud/deceit/negligence. The meeting included an invocation, proof of publication (published December 26, 2025), swearing in of officers, and the hearing.
New Business: Case CON25-0048 – City of Ocala vs. Tampa Bay HVAC
- Case Details: Violations of Sections 22-151(a)(12) (proceeding/completing contracting work without a required permit) and 22-151(a)(15) (committing fraud, deceit, or negligence). The violations stemmed from an ADA ramp built inside Play It Again Sports at 1805 E. Silver Springs Blvd., discovered by the fire marshal in May 2025. The building department notified the contractor in July 2025; a permit was applied for that month but stalled with corrections needed. As of the meeting date, the contractor had paid fees online and the permit appeared ready for issuance.
- Staff Presentation: Dale Hollingsworth (Chief Code Official) presented the case. He noted that despite six months of contact, the permit had not progressed until recently. He stated that the contractor had already paid the prosecution costs in good faith and that a $100 fine remained unpaid pending board ruling. He also rescinded the earlier staff recommendation for a letter of reprimand, deeming it no longer appropriate given recent compliance.
- Board Deliberation: Board member Michael Kroitor moved to accept the staff recommendation as amended, including the $100 fine. Bruce Gonseth seconded the motion. The board voted unanimously in favor (all ayes, no nays).
- Evidence and Testimony: A subsequent motion by Michael Kroitor and seconded by Shirley J. Wright to accept the evidence and testimony into the record also passed unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- The board approved the staff recommendation (as amended): a $100 fine and prosecution costs (already paid). No letter of reprimand was issued.
- The permit is now ready for issuance; the contractor must call for final inspections to close out the case.
- The board concluded the contractors board portion of the meeting, then moved to the code enforcement board agenda.
Meeting Transcript
Of examiners and appear uh appeals um administrative hearing is now in session. Um sorry, let me bring the soft can we um yeah I'm gonna skip to that. I didn't know what this was all right. We have a proof of publication 0108 2026 1730 published December 26, 2025. Could we have the swearing in the officers, please? The whole truth and nothing but quick easy when it's uh only my case will re swear in all of the officers and staff for the code board when you guys open that up. Uh for the contractors board, the only case tonight is case number C O N 25-0048. And I'm sorry, a quick uh introduction. My name is Dale Hollingsworth. I'm the uh duly appointed chief code official for the City of O'Callis Code Enforcement Division. Um this case that we're gonna hear for the contractor's board is my case. It's the city versus Tampa Bay HVAC. Uh the violations were 22151A twelve proceeding indoor completing any contracting work without a required permit. And 22151A15 committing fraud or deceit or just negligence. Um in this particular case, just a quick overview. Uh this was one where it was discovered by the fire marshal back in May of 2025, an ADA ramp built inside a play it again sports without a required permit to cover that scope of work. Building department was notified, the building department reached out to the contractor that they knew was involved with uh other um other work in the area. Umtact uh with the contractor in July of 2025. Fast forward through six months of contact back and forth. We had a permit applied for back in July, but until recently the permit was not proceeding forward. We were uh weren't getting any issuance on the permit. However, we did maintain contact with the contractor uh but just still wasn't getting any compliance on the permit moving whatsoever. It was stuck with corrections needed at their uh level, uh not at staff level. Uh the good news is as of today that permit is now uh appears to be ready for issuance. The fees were paid online. So at this point it appears we're only at a point now of staff uh permitting staff getting that permit issued so he can call for final inspections and get it closed out. Unfortunately, due to the time that elapsed, the amount of communication we had to try to avoid the hearing, it ultimately still led us here tonight. Uh I am pleased to say that even the fees that we're seeking today in this code enforcement hearing have already been paid in good faith in advance as of today. Um so at this point um there is a staff recommendation, and I want to point out a line in there where uh line one was for a fine, line two is for prosecution cost. Line three, um it's not numbered, but it it requests a letter of reprimand. I feel at this point in time I'd like to rescind that particular part of the staff recommendation. I don't feel it's necessary nor appropriate any longer to issue a letter of reprimand or any kind of negative connotation against his contractor license. It does appear things are moving forward now. I think a fine and the prosecution cost would suffice. He understands where we're at, why we're at where we're at. Um I will note the hundred dollar fine has not been input into the case, so so far the good faith payment he's made towards a case was the prosecution cost, that hard cost. We're asking for an additional hundred dollar fine, but I will leave that up to the board to determine whether or not there that remains appropriate. Uh but for now that would be our request. The only thing remaining is that additional one hundred dollar fine, which is the penalty in addition to that prosecution cost that he has already paid. Lastly, again, removing that line for the letter of reprimand. We don't feel it to be appropriate any longer. He is in attendance, however, uh we spoke briefly before the hearing, understands where we're at, what we have. Uh I don't think there's any um concern on his part. He does have the ability to come up and speak, he's aware of that, but I think at this point we're both deferring to the board. All right. Would you have one would you like to speak, sir? Uh would you like to you don't have to, but Dale, your recommendation is is with the additional hundred dollars? Correct. That's the only part that hadn't been paid because we haven't input it into the system yet, pending your ruling for it. We knew the prosecution cost, so that was input and he paid that in good faith in it.
openpublica.com