Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ocala contractors board imposes $100 fine on Tampa Bay HVAC, drops reprimand after permit action
Summary
The City of Ocala Contractors Board accepted staff recommendation and levied a $100 fine against Tampa Bay HVAC for unpermitted work on an ADA ramp; staff rescinded a proposed letter of reprimand after the contractor paid prosecution costs and completed permit steps.
During a City of Ocala Contractors Board hearing on 2025-12-26, the board voted to accept staff recommendations and impose a $100 fine on Tampa Bay HVAC for performing contracting work without a required permit, while declining to issue a letter of reprimand after the contractor paid fees and the permit moved toward issuance.
Dale Hollingsworth, the duly appointed chief code official for the City of Ocala's code enforcement division, told the board the case (Con205-0048) began when the fire marshal discovered an ADA ramp installed without a required permit in May 2025. "This case that we're going to hear for the contractors board is my case," Hollingsworth said, describing contacts with the contractor that began in July 2025 and a permit application that stalled on required corrections. "The fees were paid online," he added, and staff reported the permit now "appears to be ready for issuance."
Hollingsworth said staff's original recommendation included a fine, prosecution costs and a letter of reprimand but that he was asking the board to rescind the reprimand portion: "I don't feel it's necessary nor appropriate any longer to issue a letter of reprimand or any kind of negative connotation against this contractor license," he said, recommending instead that a fine and prosecution costs suffice. He noted the $100 fine had not yet been entered into the system but requested the board's determination on that penalty.
Board member Michael Korder moved "that we agree with staff recommendation as amended, including the $100 fine." After a second and vocal "aye" responses from the board, the chair announced, "Motion passes." The transcript also records the motion in the meeting minutes as entered by "mister Kreuter" with a second by "Mr. Gunseth," an inconsistency reflected in the record but not affecting the announced outcome.
Following the vote, Hollingsworth requested that the evidence and testimony be included in the contractors board record; the board approved that request. Hollingsworth said the city would allow the contractors board to open the code enforcement board matters next, and the contractors board concluded its portion of the session.
The board's action imposes a $100 administrative fine in addition to prosecution costs already paid by the contractor; the transcript does not specify the dollar amount of the prosecution costs. The permit application dates and related enforcement history were described on the record but no additional disciplinary letter will be issued.
