Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing August 22, 2025 9:00AM - Aug 22, 2025

Good morning. My name is Jeff Fuller. I'm the Special Magistrate who has been assigned to the Pinellas County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Agenda for August 22, 2025. Welcome to Pinellas County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearings. Special Magistrate is charged with conducting hearings to determine whether an alleged violation of the county code has occurred. In order to meet that obligation, all parties or their representatives will be allowed an opportunity to be heard on matters relevant to the alleged violations. All witnesses offering testimony or presenting evidence will be required to swear or affirm that the testimony they provide is the truth. The order of presentation will begin with the county presenting their evidence of the alleged violations, and then the respondent shall present his or her case. Both parties shall have an opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses. The Special Magistrate may question any witness. The clerk will announce the names of the cases from the agenda. When you hear your case called, please respond by coming to the podium with your representative and or any witnesses to be sworn in. We don't always follow the exact order or numbers on the agenda, so listen for your case to be called. When addressing the Special Magistrate, please speak clearly into the microphone. Any person who decides to appeal the decision of the Code Enforcement Special Magistrate with respect to any matter considered this hearing will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. The record is not provided by Pinellas County. Caroline, would you call Item No. 3 from the... Item 3, continued from July 25, 2025, Department PCCLB, Matter Unlicensed Contracting Code Violation, Advertising Code Violation, Case Number CLB-MG25-00288, CLB-MG25-00289, CLB-MG25-00290, CLB-MG25-00291, CLB-MG25-00292. Investigator J. Padgett, citation number CLB-MG25-00294, CLB-MG25-00295, CLB-MG25-00296, CLB-MG25-00297, CLB-MG25-00298. Defendant Allison N. Webb, notice address Allison N. Webb, 151 7th Street South, number 313, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, and Michael Hayworth, Esquire, Attorney for Defendant, Hayworth Legal, PLLC, 10300, 49th Street North, Suite 214, Clearwater, Florida 33762, and Paula Lapierre, Plaintiff's Witness, 332 2nd Avenue North, number 2205, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701, PJLapierre1996, at gmail.com, and PCCLB Investigator J. Padgett, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida 33756, and Yardley Collette, Esquire, Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB, and Kara Vicaterina Scannelli, Legal Secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Ycollette, at pinellas.gov, violation address 746, Pruitt Drive, Madero Beach, Florida 33708, and PMBpropertyimprovements.com, Yelp, Google, Nextdoor, and 1110, 8th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701. Who is here for that case? Jared Conn standing in. All right, we'll move on then. Would you please read item number 4? Item 4, Department PCCLB, Matter Advertising Code Violation, Case Number CLB-MG25-00397, CLB-MG25-00398, Investigator Jay Padgett, Citation Number CLB-CT25-00490, CLB-CT25-00491, Defendant Kenneth Park, Notice Address Kenneth Park, 2732, 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33712, Ken at 5starGuttersFlorida, or FL.com, and PCCLB Investigator Jay Padgett, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 6th Street, 31 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756, and Yardley Collette Esquire, Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB, in care of Ekaterina Scagnelli, Legal Secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th Floor, Clearwater, FL 33756, Violation Address, 801 South 64th Street, St. Petersburg, FL 33707, and 5starGuttersFL.com, Yelp, Facebook. Who is here for that case? Please come to the podium. You wish us both. At the beginning. Either side? Either side. Don't want to break protocol. Got a mic on each side. Yeah. I was born with a mic, so I don't think that'd be a problem. Thank you very much. Who's appearing for the county? Jared Kahn. With Officer Padgett, Investigator Padgett. And would you state your name? Yes, Kenneth Park. Investigator Padgett and Mr. Park, would you raise your right hand? You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. I do. All right. Mr. Park, you may have a seat while the county presents their case, and then we'll call you up and forward you an opportunity to cross-examine and present your case. County may proceed. Okay. Please state your name for the record. Investigator Padgett. And what do you do for the county? I'm a contractor licensing investigator. And were you working on 7-3 of this year? Yes. And during that time, did you have an occasion to go to an address located at 801 South 64th Street in St. Petersburg? I did. And did you do an investigation based upon that visit? Yes, I did. Can you tell me a little bit about what started that investigation? So on July 3rd of 2025, we'll investigate another case in the South Pasadena Mobile Home Park. I observed a sign advertisement for the company Five Star Gutters. The sign advertised services within the scope of the specialty structure and veneer specialty contractor licenses with no license number displayed on the sign. And the company was also advertising online in Pinellas County. I obtained photo evidence and pulled the sign. Do you have that sign with you? I do. Is it one of the signs that are sitting back there? Yes. And did you take photographs of this sign? I did. And is that a part of the evidence pack that's been presented to Mr. Park? Yes. Is this the photograph that you took? That's correct. And on it, as you said, that there is no license display? That's correct. I observed the sign and the author of services which required a license. I did not see a license number displayed on the sign and I initiated my investigation into the company. Can you tell me a little bit about that investigation? In the field, I did a quick search for the company. I didn't find that they held any license with the county or with the state. And then later in the office on July 7th, determined that the company was owned by a Kenneth Park of St. Pete who did not hold any license with the county or the state. And did you do this affidavit of non-licensure? I did. What else did your investigation include? Part of our procedures, we looked to see if there's any online advertising in the county. I did determine that the company had a website, that they were advertising services in Pinellas County and additionally on yelp.com and on Facebook. And do you have screenshots of those websites? I do. And what was the day that you visited those websites? July 7th of 2025. And as of July the 7th, 2025, was professional gutter, was five-star gutter still not licensed here in Pinellas County? They were not. And as a result, did you issue citations? I did. I issued two citations, one advertising via signage in Pinellas County and one for advertising via online. And did you send those out via certified mail? I did. Did they come back returned? No, they were accepted. Do you have anything further? I did reach out to the company inquiring about licensure and I received the email back from employee Darren Highsmith who stated that they focus mostly on gutter, soffit, and fascia, which as far as he knew didn't require a contractor's license for. And he stated that they only use subcontractors for any carports or any other work. And I informed him that that work required a license in Pinellas County. Anything further? No, we can go through exhibits if you'd like. Sure. So, exhibit one, these are the photos from the field at the South Pasadena Mobile Home Park July 3rd in St. Petersburg. This is where I observe the sign advertisement for five-star gutters. The company, gutters that can handle Florida storms, offering repairs, installs, fascia, soffits, carports, metal roofs. And that is in violation of Pinellas County Code? It is. Okay, we'd ask for that photograph to be admitted. Any objection to exhibit one? No, sir. Exhibit one will be admitted into evidence. Will you present the screenshots that we were previously talking about regarding the website investigation? So, after I determined the company was not licensed, I did an online search for the company. These are captions from their webpage. five-star gutters.com, professional gutter installation. Also listing fascia, soffits, carports on the website. Further caption of the services, installation, repair, soffit repair, fascia boards, carports, and metal roofs. Their business location, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. Schedule a free estimate. This is from yelp.com, location of St. Petersburg, listing the company five-star gutters. Gutter services with their business address of St. Pete. Services offered, gutter addition, gutter installation, gutter replacement, gutter repair. While we're on that, while we're on that, services offered as per Yelp, does it indicate who is verifying that those services are in fact being offered? On here, it's verified by the business. I take that to be five-star gutters. Okay. And service area being St. Petersburg, Florida. Captioned from the Facebook page for the company, five-star gutters, listing St. Pete as location, services such as fascia and soffit installation and repair gutters, listing themselves as a contractor with their business address of St. Pete. Also service areas of Clearwater, St. Pete Beach, St. Petersburg and Safety Harbor. And those areas that you're describing are within Pinellas County? That's correct. And they're unincorporated? Some are incorporated, some are unincorporated. But they're all areas that PCCLB deals with? Correct. We have jurisdiction in the whole county of Pinellas. Okay. I'd ask to admit composite two. Any objection to exhibit two? No, sir. Exhibit two will be admitted into evidence. All right. Exhibit three, my research into the company, did a search on Sunbiz. I found a company, Five Star Gutters LLC that matched the business address of the online advertising, listing Kenneth Park on that company and furthermore, listing him as the president of Five Star Gutters LLC. In addition to him being the president, according to Sunbiz, is he also the registered agent? Yes. And he's the title manager? Correct. We'd ask to admit this as exhibit three. Any objection to exhibit three? No, sir. Exhibit three will be admitted into evidence. All right. Exhibit four, I did a clear report on the phone number listed on the sign and the online advertisement and that it came back to Kenneth Park. And clear as a investigative database that we use during our investigations. Can we mark this as exhibit four and admit it? Any objection to exhibit four? No, sir. Exhibit four will be admitted into evidence. The email communication that we had spoken about previously, is this the email that we spoke about previously? Correct. So I reached out to the company inquiring about licensure for the company. I received an email back from a Darren Highsmith. He said, Good morning, Jamie. We focus mostly on gutters, soffit, and fascia, and we subcontract carports for other work. We would ask to admit this as exhibit four? Five. Five. Sorry, I spoke. Any objection to exhibit five? No, sir. Exhibit five will be admitted into evidence. All right. Exhibit six. This is my affidavit of non-licensure for Kenneth Park, stating that I did a thorough search for him and did not find that he held a contractor's license with the state or with the county. Yes, and this is the affidavit of non-licensure that we were referencing earlier, correct? Correct. We ask to admit this as six? Any objection to exhibit six? No, sir. Exhibit six will be admitted into evidence. And just for reference, these are the license classifications that we require in Pinellas County, veneer specialty contractor. Contractor who specializes in and is limited to the installation, repair, replacement, alteration, and maintenance of aluminum and vinyl gutters, siding, soffit, and fascia. And additionally, that scope of work falls under the specialty structure license as well. Yes, Your Honor, we would ask to admit this as composite seven. That's not really evidence. That's the law that I'm going to be applying. Correct. We will mark it for identification. And Your Honor, we have nothing further. All right. Mr. Park, this is your opportunity to cross-examine Investigator Padgett if you have any questions for him. If you don't, then you may proceed with your case. I do not have any questions. Okay. You may proceed. I've put my documents in pretty folders for you, so I'll give those to her when I get them. For the record, I just want to state that I totally accept that those are our signs. I totally accept that we are online advocating for services, but I think that there's a simple misunderstanding as to the services we provide. We are not ever presenting ourselves as a contractor, neither towards the homeowner nor the market. We are a lead and project management organization. I'd like to present the mission statement that we hand to every customer when we start a job. That's evidence. Is that the right way? Sorry, I'm not... Yep, that works. And if I could, I would just like to read the short version. At Five Star Gutters, our mission is to be Tampa Bay's trusted concierge for gutters, fascia, soffit, and carport installation and repair. We are locally committed to curating the area's best contractors to deliver bespoke, high-quality solutions for homeowners. Through direct, one-to-one communication, personalized attention to before and after every project, and a steadfast dedication to craftsmanship and thorough cleanup, we strive to elevate the home improvement experience, making it seamless, reliable, and tailored to each customer's needs. I'd like to submit this. Any objection to Defendant's Exhibit 1? Sir. So you would stamp it with the red stamp and then just with your pen put one. Exhibit 1, Defendant's Exhibit 1 will be admitted into evidence. God, I'm looking like a rookie. Just take off the part. There you go. Don't judge me on my inability to use the stamp. We had to do that, too. It's okay. Okay. I should have gone a course before I came. Perfect. And you would just set it there. Just keep it up. Thank you. Number two, like I said, I think this is a simple misunderstanding of the services we provide. Here is a list of services that are provided of a similar nature, both nationally and locally. Thumbtack, Angie, House, Porch, BuildZoom, Bark, Networks, ServiceDirect, Snaps. These are all companies that basically curate leads. They then provide the customer with a list of contractors. The customers are freely able to decide which contractor to use or not use. And then they proceed to collect reviews from those customers so that the customers have a satisfaction of being able to provide the best possible service or, excuse me, these companies provide the best possible contractors for that job. There's also a series of local businesses that are lead generation businesses. They basically curate leads for a wide variety of craft-based programs including gutters, including soffit, including fascia, and including carports, roofing, and also major contracting services. I'd like to submit this. Any objection to Exhibit 2? Object to the rights of it? Objection overruled. Exhibit 2 will be admitted into evidence. We do have a water fountain outside if you want to go real quick. Once again, stamps and presenting evidence. New for me. Secondarily, I wanted to be very specific as to the services that those, and this will answer the relevance, the services that we all do, meaning all of those companies on that page, including Five Star, we provide homeowners with a list of pros and contractors, we provide homeowner contact information to local contractors, we provide homeowners with one to five choices in contractors, we provide reviews, photos, and testimonials to homeowners that have used the services, we create trust and confidence in the quality of those services, and we provide an opportunity to review and share their experiences online. What we do and they don't, we contact homeowners within 24 hours by phone of their inquiry, we provide free no-obligation assessment and estimate of projects, cost, we provide personalized project management, we oversee the entire project, we provide clear and easy phone and text communication throughout the project to the homeowner, we provide guarantees of the workmanship, we provide customer service before, during, and after the project, and we create a buffer between the homeowner and the contractors so they have a safe representative that can talk to this quality of the services. What we do not do, install or employ any tools on their home, we do not work on their home at all. We tell them, we never tell them we are or even suggest that we are a contractor. As you notice in all the earlier exhibits, we do not present a contractor in number because we are not a contractor, we are a lead service, we are a marketing company, and we are a project management company. We have never presented ourselves, including in any of those further documents that were presented, as a contractor. There is nothing on our site that says such a thing, and we would never do that. We clarify to the homeowner that we are acting as a project manager on their behalf to make sure that they get the best quality possible. I'd like to submit this, please. Any objection to Exhibit 3? No objection. Exhibit 3 will be admitted into evidence. That's Defendant's Exhibit 3. I think in this industry and what we're trying to prevent is homeowners and consumers being defrauded, having poor, shoddy workmanship at their site to contract someone and all of a sudden they disappear mid-job, they disappear without cleaning up after themselves, et cetera. We play the role of policing that as a project manager to the project. And as a representation, and I'm sorry, I didn't know I was going to have to spread these out, I have three pages just to show that we have impeccable consumer and homeowner ratings that I think are also shown on their earlier documentation. So that is a testament to the quality that we provide our customers. On Google, you can see we're five stars with 38 reviews. On Yelp, we are four and a half stars with four reviews but listed amongst the top ten five-star gutters, or excuse me, gutter companies. On Thumbtack, we are in the top three gutter installers, and we have 23 exceptional reviews, all 5.0. And more importantly, the list of customers' responses that basically will emphasize the fact that our communication and customer service is top-notch, and that is what we focus on. That is what we're trying to provide our customers. We are trying to make sure they get a great contractor specific to their job, specific to the solution they're seeking, that has a track record of quality, and we make sure that they deliver what is intended on the service order. Should I stamp all of these even though they were stapled? You may, I'll give you a paper clip. Okay, sorry. You probably don't have a stapler there, and we'll make them a single exhibit. Exhibit number four, any objection to exhibit number four? Exhibit four will be, that's defendant's exhibit four, will be admitted into evidence. And then lastly, while I do not dispute any way, shape, or form, Darren, who is my partner and brother-in-law, his response to the inquiry by Investor Padgett, Investigator, Investor Padgett, Investor sounds not right, Investigator Padgett. In fact, this is a letter that I sent to Investigator Padgett and also included in my response to the court or to the magistrate as far as an explanation that we do not perform these services that I tried to explain. We weren't aware that we needed to have a veneer contractor's license given the services that we are providing. And we also made it, we were willing to go out and get the veneer contractor's license if it was deemed appropriate for our business, but I don't think, I'm here today to basically suggest and hopefully reinforce that we're not in the business of providing contracted services at all. So this was a letter that was sent to the court and to Investigator Padgett. There was, to be noted and without negativity, no follow-up directly with me on this. This is five, I believe. Any objection to Exhibit 5? None. Defendants Exhibit 5 will be admitted into evidence. And my last statement is a very simple one. I think this is just a misunderstanding of our services. We show up on-site within 24 hours to talk to homeowners to assess the best solution for their gutter needs, fascia needs, soffit needs, et cetera. We then go about choosing the best materials. We don't buy them. The contractor buys them, but we identify the materials that they should be using. We then choose the best contractor for the job based on the relationship we have with a portfolio of contractors. We then make sure that we are adhering to the best time frames for the homeowner so that the contractor shows up and is expected on time, is there on time, and we oversee that. And lastly, we ensure that their customer satisfaction is satisfied, that the contractor provided the services and that they were to the standard that they had expected. We even, in many instances, have shown up ourselves to clean up shoddy workmanship that was left, whether it's, you know, nails or other things on the yard. We would go there ourselves and pick those up so that they feel like there's immediate attention to their needs. And then we have gone about firing and no longer using certain contractors if they don't adhere to the standards that we present the customer. So I don't believe that there's anything but a misunderstanding of what our services are. It is a new category. We saw an opportunity in the marketplace to fulfill a need by the homeowner. The companies I showed you earlier provide contractor services, but they never directly communicate with the consumer. They never directly follow up on the project. All they're basically doing is making money from the introduction of a series of contractors to the homeowner. We felt that there was a need in the marketplace to have a trusted source, someone that could represent the homeowner and also represent the contractor. Many of the contractors as we know in the area that are providing services or at least the crews that show up do not speak perfect English. So we provide communication services to make sure that the homeowner feels as though their needs and their concerns are being addressed in a timely manner. That's all I have to share. Okay. Any cross-examination? Yes. I'd like to get all of his exhibits. Yes. Yeah, they should be in order. And they're all in red. I actually have a whole set if you want them. Just use the ones that are admitted. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Park, you indicated that you submit bids. Is that correct? We create estimates. What's the difference between a bid and an estimate? We present a price to the consumer and the homeowner and then the homeowner decides if they would want it and then we market it to the contractors. Okay. So the contractors then look at our price that we've negotiated which we believe is a fair representation of going rates and the homeowner's needs and then the contractor can either accept or reject it. The mission statement that you talked about, exhibit number one, you read that to us. Is that located on your website? No, it's not. Is that located on your Facebook? No, it's not. Is that located on your Yelp? There is no position for that, no. Okay. So you don't have your mission statement laid out to the public? No, we provide it to every customer upon arrival. So it's after you've already solicited them for business? Yes. Your competition, have you reported any of these entities for unlicensed contracting? That's not my job. But you would agree that they're committing the same acts that your business does? I agree that they're in the marketing of leads, yes, 100%. Your services, the services that you list on this page, you would agree that they're inconsistent with the services that you list on your social media, correct? I would not agree with that. So within your social media, is this your website right here? Yes, it is. And within your website, do you agree that you are advertising professional gutter installation? We are using the terms professional gutter installation, yes we are. And you're advertising that people can reach out to you for a free, no obligation quote? As the other providers do, yes we do. And once again, on your website, you are advertising that you do gutter guards, installation, repair, soffit repair, we represent those categories, yes. You talked about your five-star reviews, I believe, and you shared some of the ones that you have on Google, correct? Yes, I did. The first Yelp review that I was able to pull up, it's from an individual named Michael Gisseldo. Have you seen this review before? I haven't seen it individually, but no. Can you read it to us? Great company, great prices, and they work within my budget. Quick response and estimate to a start date, working ship sales and quality of materials are the best. If you need gutters, soffits, or everything like me, one-stop place, they offer all. Ask for Scott for estimate and experience the great relationship. I'm a very pleased customer for sure, Michael. Five stars. And this is one of your proud five-star reviews? It is very much one of our proud five-star reviews. And you acknowledge that Michael, who posted this review, is of the belief that you provided him all of these services? No, he says it very specifically that we're a one-stop shop. You're a one-stop shop for providing all of these services? Yeah, so we oversee all of those services, yes. When you receive payment from an individual like Mr. Gisseldo, how does that occur? Do they pay you directly or do they pay the contractor? They pay us directly and then we pay the contractor based on the agreed-upon rate. You had said something before. If a job, if a contractor is messy, you will go out there and clean up the site afterwards, is that correct? If a customer is dissatisfied with the service, we will contact the contractor first. But if it's something as dangerous as nails being on the grass and it's nine o'clock at night and the contractor is not available, we will then go out and pick up those nails, yes. So people from five-star gutters will go out onto a site where they are not licensed and they will do cleanup for a job, which they were also not licensed to do? We will pick up nails and I don't believe there's a license required for picking up nails and cleaning up, unless I'm not aware of a license that is required for cleaning up a yard. Okay. I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Anything further? Mr. Park? No. No, sir. All right. I'm going to allow closing statements in this matter. Closing statements are telling me what you think the evidence showed and tell me what you want me to do. We'll proceed with the county first. Yes, Your Honor. We're here for two citations. The first citation is unlicensed advertising for veneer services. I think that the evidence and the testimony has hashed out that there was, in fact, advertising for structure of veneer contractor services via signage in Pinellas County. You heard the testimony of the investigator. You saw the sign. The second citation that we have is for unlicensed contractor advertising of a specialty structure and veneer contracting services via website, Yelp, Facebook. You saw the advertising. You heard the testimony of Mr. Park. Although he misunderstands what his advertising means, he clearly says that his company has held itself out as doing services. They accept money for those services. They will go out to the property. They will physically do work if the contractor's work is subpar, including cleaning up nails and other things. We believe that this is a very straightforward case and the evidence that's been presented along with Mr. Park's admissions here today support a finding of guilt and we would ask you to uphold the citations. Thank you. Mr. Park, you have an opportunity to make a closing statement. Yes. I came here today so that I can introduce a new concept and a new idea into the contracting business and that is a party that intermediates between contractor and homeowner. It's a new category. It's not covered by any statute. I can attest to the fact that the county of Pinellas has used Five Star to provide those services to their own sites, picking the contractor and doing those things. So we've always believed that we're in the right. We never tried to do anything wrong. In fact, when I was contacted about the signs, we went out and took down the signs and have not put up any signs since. But both citations are specific to advertising. Every one of the sites and every one of the companies that I put on that list advertises those services to the marketplace. They use the web. They use all the different resources that they just mentioned, Google, Facebook, etc., to advertise those services, to solicit, you know, leads, and then to provide those leads to the appropriate contractors. We're doing exactly the same with an added layer benefit of actually intermediating with the consumer and the homeowner on their behalf. So I would say that this is a misunderstanding. And while I do not deny the advertising was done, the advertising was done for services that are being misunderstood in a category that's brand new to the market and that serve the end goals of the homeowner, do not take advantage of homeowners, do not take advantage of contractors, but actually try to ensure that both have a better experience. So I would ask that these be dismissed. And if for whatever reason it is deemed that we do need to have a contractor's license in this category, then we will take the necessary steps to do so. But I wanted to come and at least make the, you know, plea that I don't think this category should be a contractor license, you know, oversight. It should be basically something that's looking out for the best interest of the consumer. Thank you. Did you guys return the exhibits up here? I did. Okay. Can I see the defendant's exhibits, Nicole? He didn't use the... Did I use the red? Did you use the red stamp? Those are his, though. It's okay. We'll use them. I have other copies if you'd like me to box stamp them. I wanted to look at real quick. Thank you. Sorry about that. It's okay. I'll keep it for a minute. Oh. All right. As to citation CLB-CT25-00490, I find that there is a violation of Code Section 22-14, subsection 6, and we'll issue a fine in the amount of $500. As far as citation number CLB-CT25-00491, I'm going to find there is a violation of Code Section 22-14, sub 6, an issue of fine in the amount of $500. To provide a little reasoning, you're acting like a general contractor. That's what general contractors do is what you do. You get the money, you farm it out, and so whether you need a general contractor's license or a veneer license or a specialty license, I'm not here to give you advice, but what distinguishes you from your competition is what you're saying that you do and they don't. No obligation assessment and estimate of the project. Angie doesn't come out and do that or those similar things. You get the money and then you pay the contractor. You guarantee the workmanship. I can think of some other charges that could have been made but weren't, but that's basically my reasoning. Okay, we'll take a 10-minute recess while we prepare an order. You'll get a written order and you feel free to wait to get it. It'll be about 10 minutes or she can mail it to you, whichever you'd like. We mail it and we'll send you an email because we have your email address. Okay, you're welcome. Panelist County Communications, please stop recording. Caroline, would you read item number three from the agenda? Okay, three. We're commencing again. Item three continued from July 25, 2025. Department PCCLB. Matter unlicensed contracting code violation, advertising code violation. Case number CLB, CLB-MG25-00288 CLB-MG25-00289 CLB-MG25-00290 CLB-MG25-00291 CLB-MG25-00292 Investigator Jay Padgett Citation number CLB-CT25-00294 CLB-CT25-00295 CLB-CT25-00296 CLB-CT25-00297 CLB-CT25-00298 CLB-CT25-00298 The defendant is Allison N. Webb. The notice address is Allison N. Webb, 1517th Street South, number 313, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701 and Michael Hayworth, Esquire Attorney for Defendant, Hayworth Legal, PLC, 10300, 49th Street North, Suite 214, Clearwater, Florida, 33762 and Paula LaPierre, Plaintiff's Witness, 332, 2nd Avenue North, number 2205, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701, TJLapierre1996 at gmail.com and PCCLB Investigator Jay Padgett, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida, 33756 and Yardley Collette, Esquire Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB in care of Ekaterina Scagnelli, Legal Secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th floor, Clearwater, Florida, 33756, YCollette at pinellas.gov, Violation Address, 746 Pruitt Drive, Madera Beach, Florida, 33708 and PMBpropertyimprovements.com, Yelp, Google, Nextdoor and 11108th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. Who is here for that case? Michael Hayworth on behalf of Ms. Webb, Jared Kahn on behalf of Pinellas County Construction and Licensing Board and Inspector Padgett and Ms. Allison Webb. Client. Okay. Would Investigator Padgett and Ms. Webb, please raise your right hands. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? All right. County may proceed. Before we get started, Your Honor, I think that Mr. Hayworth wants to address the court. Yes. I wanted to first kind of maybe provide a little context and ask for something a bit unorthodox in a situation like this. There are a number of citations and what I'm ultimately going to ask the court to do is to run the citations concurrent with CT2500297. And the reason is this, is the bulk of the expensive citations come from a, relating to an unlicensed contracting. I think there are some things in this case that, you know, we go to a hearing, will be borne out that I think serve as mitigation to Ms. Webb so that maybe the court can see her liability in this is, I don't want to say de minimis, but it is significantly lower than some other parties in this. Ms. Webb bought this company back in 2024. She then sought a David Gayhart to be the licensed contractor, the qualifier for her company. She also went into business with a gentleman named Alex Nordenholt. It's all in the articles of incorporation. I understand what's on Sunbiz, but there are articles of incorporation that include David Gayhart and Alex Nordenholt and others that show that there were more than just Ms. Webb. Ms. Webb is really at her core. She's a 25% stakeholder in this company and she was really just the money. Alex Nordenholt did the advertising. David Gayhart did the contracting. In fact, there is a qualifier agreement that David Gayhart signed when he first became employed with PMB in which he signed an agreement that he was going to qualify the company. After some disagreement or confusion, Ms. Webb even contacted David Gayhart to make sure that he was doing what he said he was going to do and what he had signed a contract to do. Obviously, it turns out he didn't, but he on multiple occasions misrepresented to Ms. Webb that everything was fine. I'm qualified. We're good. Here's my number. In fact, it's the number that the county is going to put on or is going to show in the advertising. Ms. Webb even got the qualifier agreement. Ms. Webb kind of took every step that she could that as a lawyer, I would tell her, go to a lawyer, get a qualifier agreement, get this guy to sign it. I don't really know what more Ms. Webb could have done if, you know, between doing the agreement and then even confronting Mr. Gayhart. Obviously, there was a falling out, which kind of led to all of this. That's not entirely relevant, but I think does go to Ms. Webb's responsibility in this in that, you know, Alex Norenholt was the one that's advertising. David Gayhart was the one that was supposed to be doing the contracting. Ms. Webb was really just kind of behind the scenes doing human resources and admin stuff. Never went to the sites, never held herself out personally, never sold the bids. That would have been Paula DePierre. Never did any of the things that we would think of as contracting. Again, just kind of a behind-the-scenes thing. And then as far as the advertising, that would have been Alex Norenholt. And I have documents that were discovered over by the county that show that Alex Norenholt was the point of contact. Ms. Webb didn't even have access to the advertising material. Like, she couldn't go in Google Ads and make the changes herself. That would have been Alex Norenholt. So, Ms. Webb understands that her name's on Sunbiz. And I think if we go to a hearing, I would argue that in the Articles of Incorporation, it's not as clear as it is on Sunbiz. But Ms. Webb is prepared to accept her portion of responsibility and pay her portion of a fine, which I think in equity in all of this would not be the $7,000 that's potentially out there if these citations are upheld. I think it would be a much, much lower amount, which is more commensurate with her role in all of this, which was just kind of a behind-the-scenes person. Obviously, she can restructure things. She has restructured the business. It's now not a C-Corp. Now it's an LLC. They are now qualified from a gentleman named Niall Nickell. I've spoken with Mr. Nickell. I think in equity, this should be run... I don't think we need to go through a whole hearing. I think the more equitable solution here is to just run concurrent with one of the lower fines so that Ms. Webb can continue to operate above board, doing things the right way now. I don't think she should be punished for buying a business and then punished so severely, I should say, for buying a business, trying to do the right thing and kind of getting the raw end of the stick by someone who was a licensed contractor who represented to her that he was qualifying them and doing the right thing but actually didn't. What says the county? Your Honor, we would stand silent as to what's being requested. I'm not a court of equity so I'm going to proceed with the hearings on all five citations. Okay. All right. So they're going to go up. The county may proceed. Okay. Please state your name for the record. Investigator Jamie Padgett. And Investigator Padgett, have you had an occasion to issue citations related to Ms. Webb who's here today? Yes, I did. And can you tell me how many citations you issued? Five. Can you tell me what those five citations were for individually? So they were for unlicensed contracting, presenting the license of another while engaging in a remodel, holding herself out to a homeowner as being licensed, advertising, full remodel and renovations via website and various other online platforms and advertising via signage in Pinellas County. Okay. And how did you become aware of this matter? So this complaint was received by our office from a former employee of Allison Webb's, a Paula LaPierre. And can you tell me how Ms. LaPierre reached out? She filed a complaint online through our agency, which initiated our investigation. And what did the complaint state? So she stated that Ms. Webb had contracted with multiple homeowners, specifically flood victims of Hurricane Helene throughout the county without the proper licensure in Pinellas County. And based upon that complaint, did you do an investigation? I did. Can you tell me a little bit about that investigation? So on March 26th of 2025, I called and spoke with the former employee, Ms. LaPierre, who stated that she used to work for PMB Property Improvements and the company was contracting in Pinellas County without a license. She provided multiple locations throughout the county of homeowners who had contracted with PMB. and I conducted site visits of those locations and spoke with one homeowner, Ms. Tomales, was one of the homeowners who had contracted with PMB. And when speaking with Ms. Tomales, did she indicate that, what did she indicate to you? She found, so when I spoke with her, she found PMB online on Angie's list. At that time, she stated there was a license number displayed on the listing. So she thought the license, or she thought the company was licensed when she contracted with them for flood repairs at her home in Madeira Beach. So did you end up seeing, what else, what else, what else did you see during the course of your investigation? So on April 28th, I conducted a site visit to the business location of PMB. That's when I observed the sign advertisement for the company. And then on April 29th... What is the sign that you saw? It was an advertisement, the sign here today for PMB property improvements, advertising renovations and home improvements. Did you take pictures of that sign? I did. And can you show them, Bill? I'm going to mark this as Exhibit 1. And is this the sign that you saw while going out to PMB's business? That's correct. On April 28th, 2025 in St. Petersburg. And can you tell me what the sign is stating? So it lists the company PMB property improvements with their website and states that they are Tampa Bay's leading home remodeling and renovation company since 1997. Is there a license number that's attached to the sign? There is not. Is there a requirement that a license number be attached to the sign? Yes, there is. Yep. Did you call the number on the sign? I did. And did anyone answer? No, they did not. I left multiple messages and emails. Nobody from the company contacted me. And did you do any sort of research based upon that phone number? I did. And I believe it just came back to the company. Tell me more about your investigation. So when I visited with Ms. Tomales in Madeira Beach, she stated that she had paid PMB $22,000 to initiate home repairs for her house and she was waiting on permitting through the city of Madeira Beach. I requested copies of the estimate and the payments to PMB from Mrs. Tomales which she provided to me. Do you have copies of that today? I do. Can you show me that? Yes, I'd like to admit this as Exhibit 1? Mr. Hayworth, any objection to Exhibit 1? No, yeah. Exhibit 1 will be admitted into evidence. So this is the email I received from Patricia Tomales and this email was attached. The estimate And the estimate is from PMB property improvement? Correct. And the estimate provided by Ms. Tomales had a license number displayed on that estimate services listed on that estimate drywall, plumbing, interior doors. The services that are listed on this estimate which include electrical and plumbing do these require a contracting license? Yes, they do. And I do see that you referenced or you mentioned that there was a contractor's license that is attached to this. Did you investigate into that contracting number? I did and that was assigned to a David Gerhart who qualifies the company Central Builders Group. And was David Gerhart a licensed contractor? He's a state licensed contractor, that's correct, or building contractor. And was he associated with PMB at this time? I believe when my conversations with Mr. Gerhart he stated that originally he had a 10% stake in the company and he intended to qualify the company however he never officially qualified it. And after a disagreement with Ms. Webb he left the company and he stated that he sent her a cease and desist to stop using his license. And was that cease and desist sent prior to November 21st, 2024? I believe it was sent earlier this year from my conversation with him. I don't know the exact date though. at the time when this estimate was put into place was that license number valid for PMB property improvements? No, David Gerhart has always qualified Central Builders Group. That's where his license is assigned to. That's his company. He never officially qualified PMB property. So throughout the estimate also electrical services offered and plans and permitting with an initial deposit requested of $22,000 signed by the homeowner. And do you know who that's signed for on the bottom by PMB improvements? I do not. I believe that's Mrs. Tomales' signature, the homeowner. Okay. What happened next? So I continued to attempt to reach out to PMB with no success and I issued citations based on the violations of state statute and county ordinance. Okay. I'd like to admit this as composite exhibit two. We're going to mark it as such. Any objection to exhibit two? Exhibit two will be admitted into evidence. Exhibit three, this is the check I received from Mrs. Tomales written by her January 7th, 2025 in the amount of $22,000, $18,30 to PMB property improvement with the check being endorsed on the back. I'd like to admit this as composite exhibit three. Objection to exhibit three? No, yeah. Exhibit three will be admitted into evidence. Exhibit four, this is the property appraiser listing for Patricia Tomales listing her address 746 Pruitt Drive in Madera Beach, Florida, which is in Pinellas County. Looking at page two of the property appraiser's website, does it show any recent permits being pulled? Permitting information is at the end. Looks like the most recent permit issued by Madera Beach was a plumbing permit December 28th of 2024. And is that, was that a part of the estimate that you had provided? I don't believe it was. Okay. Nothing additional in regards to this. I'd like to admit this as composite four. Any objection to exhibit four? No. Exhibit four will be admitted into evidence. So exhibit five is a sub-biz listing for P&B property improvements filed by Allison Webb. This was filed April 14th of 2025 and became active April 30th of 2025. And this shows Allison Webb listed as the registered agent. Is that correct? That's correct. We'd ask to admit this as exhibit four, I mean exhibit five. Any objection to exhibit five? Exhibit five will be admitted into evidence. So this was email correspondence that Paula LaPriere provided. This was correspondence between her and the homeowner Patricia Tomales. The homeowner emailed her saying it's been over five weeks since I contracted with you to perform my interior restoration work as of Friday, February 7th, 2025. There has been no permit application filed with the city of Madeira Beach. This is exhibit six. Any objection to exhibit six? No, Your Honor, but I do I do want to go back to one from the property appraiser that was admitted. I can't remember if you're speaking. I'm sorry. You have to come up to the microphone. I know you're speaking loudly, but you still need it for audio. Thanks. That's fine. I do want to and I can't remember which one it was. Four. You can come up. Four. It does appear as though the most recent permit pulled is for is not what they've submitted, but instead one with a addition remodel renovation permit issued on 514-25. So I don't know what they're admitting is entirely accurate. And there is no permit violation here. So while I will acknowledge that the property appraiser's website has been updated since the pulling of the document that we admitted as exhibit four, the document we presented as exhibit four was valid at the time that the citations were issued. All right. Well, I'll admit it into evidence and if that becomes an issue, we'll... And that's all, Your Honor. I just wanted to raise that. Right. How about exhibit six? Any objection? No. Exhibit six will be admitted into evidence. All right. Exhibit seven. These were correspondence, email correspondence provided by the homeowner Patricia Tomales. These were her communications with the company PMB Property Improvements, specifically permits at PMB Property Improvements with multiple employees cc'd within that email chain, including Allison Webb. This is her continuing to request information on the permit. This was email back from permits at PMB Property Improvements. Hi, Patricia. I hope you're doing well. I want to provide you with a quick update regarding your permit. Just showing that they were actively engaged in the flood repairs for the homeowner. We'll admit this as exhibit number eight? Seven. Seven, right? Seven. Sorry. Any objection to exhibit seven? Exhibit seven will be admitted into evidence. Exhibit eight as part of our procedures we do online investigations to see if there's any advertisements online for the company. This led me to Allison Webb's Facebook page her listing the company PMB Property Improvements to operated home remodeling services in Tampa St. Pete area. This posting April 24th of last year did a thing we bought an existing remodeling and renovation company in Tampa Bay and list the company on her webpage. Mark, this is composite exhibit eight. Any objection to exhibit eight? No, no. Exhibit eight will be admitted into evidence. All right, exhibit nine, further investigation to any online advertisement for the company. Did the find the company Facebook page PMB Property Improvements listing their location in St. Pete as a home improvement company. We are a renovation and remodeling company serving the Tampa Bay area. This is from their website advertising full remodel and renovation, kitchen remodel, bathroom remodel services, top rated home improvement services in the St. Pete area. Additional captions advertising those services. Under frequently asked questions on their webpage, one of the questions, is PMB Property Improvements licensed and insured? And answering that frequently asked question says, yes, PMB Property Improvements is licensed and insured. And listing Pinellas County as one of their locations, stating themselves as a premier full renovation company in St. Pete. This is from yelp.com. PMB Property Improvements listing themselves as a general contractor offering these services, balcony additions, remodeling and further services offered new room additions, new structure construction. This is from next door with the location of St. Petersburg listing the company and listing themselves as a general contractor in remodeling services in St. Petersburg. This is from Google, listing the company as well as a remodeler listing such services as drywall to major renovations. Area serves, Seminole and nearby areas captioning Pinellas County within their service area and reviews of the company, Google reviews for the company PMB Property improvements. We'd like to mark this and admit it as composite exhibit number 9. Any objection to exhibit 9? Exhibit 9 will be admitted into evidence. Inspector Padgett, it is my understanding that as we stand here today, PMG is in fact licensed. Is that accurate? They are now qualified as of August 12th of 2025. They are qualified by Nile and Nickel, which now they are licensed and legal. And the evidence that you've presented here today, all of the admitted evidence, the websites, the research that you have done, that is all based upon actions prior to the licensure that was obtained, the qualified licensure that was obtained on 8-12 of this year? That's correct. PMB Property Improvement was not qualified before this date. Okay. If we could mark that as exhibit 10 and admit it. Any objection to exhibit 10? No, no. Exhibit 10 will be admitted into evidence. So, during my research into the license number that was being utilized on the estimate, CBC 1266-673, I found that this was assigned to a David B. Gayhart, who qualifies Central Builders Group Incorporated, and this was the SunBiz for Central Builders Group Incorporated listing David Gayhart as the president of that company, and I did not see any connection between PMB and Central Builders Group. If we could mark this as exhibit 11. Any objection to exhibit 11? I was waiting for you to move it into evidence. Oh, sorry. Thank you. We'd move it into evidence. Exhibit 11 is admitted into evidence. All right. So, we're up to 12. So, this is my affidavit of non-licensure, stating that I did a thorough search for Ms. Webb, and I didn't find that she held a contractor's license with the state or with the county. We'd ask to admit exhibit 12. Any objection to exhibit 12? 12 will be admitted into evidence. So, you have talked to me about a citizen who you met with and got documents on whose home had remodeling done? Well, they were still in the state of repair. They were waiting on the permit to be issued. At that time, the home was just mitigated. It was not, no repairs were done. But, at that time, a bid had gone out with a license number that did not belong to PMG, is that correct? Yes, correct. The homeowner had contracted with PMB and paid them a deposit of $22,000 for home repairs. Everything that you've talked about today has occurred here in Pinellas County? That's correct. And, based upon your research, PMG is holding itself out to do work here in Pinellas County, whether it be incorporated or unincorporated? At the time, yes, because they were not licensed. The homeowner did believe they were licensed. However, they were not properly licensed in Pinellas County. Do you have anything you wish to add? No, I believe that's it. Nothing further. Cross-examination. Okay. So, I have here what I think are... You're okay. I have here what I believe are all the citations. If you could please just make sure my records match your records before I go too far. Whatever you need. Yeah, whatever you need. Yes, that's correct. Okay, great. And you have exhibit five, which has Allison Webb on sub-biz. You have that as looks like date filed 430-2025. Is that right? Correct. Okay. And it looks like it was a rejected filing on 414, but... Originally, yes. As of 430, it seems like whatever issue there was was corrected. So, as of 430, Allison Webb is the agent of PMB. Correct. And all of these citations predate that, right? Yes. Okay, so 1-7, 11-21, 11-21, 3-26, and 4-28. Okay, so I believe on direct, you had put Ms. Webb as a registered agent at the time. I determined that she had ownership of the company. Right. I was the owner of the company. As of 430, her Sunbiz says Allison Webb is the owner of registered agent, whatever. She's the head honcho, the one in charge. Yes. Okay, but you would agree with me that 430 is after all of these citations? That is correct. Yes, she bought PMB Painting last year and then turned it into PMB, but she hadn't established it as a company with Sunbiz until April. Okay, is there anything, I understand that there were some Facebook posts and things like that that she said, I bought this thing. Did you do an investigation into who she bought it with or what the terms were? I spoke with the previous owner of PMB Painting. This was Patrick Berger. I spoke with him May 1st, and he stated that he sold the company to Allison Webb in April of 2024. Okay, and I got this from Discovery, so I can show you what I got for the cover letter. This is what I have. Do you have a different one or anything that's different? Okay. I am going to show you what I have in Discovery. If you could take a moment and just kind of review that. I believe I've seen this, but I'll look. Okay. You'd agree that this is an article of incorporation, or articles of amendment to articles of incorporation for, I guess it would be bold block LLC, and is that the company that she bought? I'm just trying to understand the investigation here. Yes, so when she bought PMB Painting, I believe it was through her other company at the time, Bold Block LLC, and I think she had various business partners at that time, but it was my understanding that she held the majority stake in the company. Okay, so on here we have, you agreed with me that it says cover letter, Bold Block LLC, and then we have all correspondence concerning this return to Alexander Nordenholz. He's on page one, his telephone number is there. Then we go to page two, it's Bold Block LLC, and it doesn't appear to have anyone's name on here. But then we go here to page three, and it would be David Gayhart, and it looks like MGR is manager, and then Sergio is also a manager, is that? Yeah, and they were removed from the company. Okay, so at some point they were, at least as of, I guess this would have been back in May, or sorry, March 18, 2024. Prior to that, it looks like they were on there, because why would they be removed if they weren't on there? Right. Okay. Yeah, it was my understanding that David Gayhart originally had a 10% stake in the company, and he was supposed to be the qualifier, but he never officially qualified the company. There was a disagreement, and he left the company. Did your investigation, did you ever talk to David about that? I did, yes. Okay. Did he inform you that there was a separation agreement that he was supposed to sign? No, he said that there was civil litigation going on between him and Miss Webb. He didn't. Okay. According to him, there was a financial disagreement. So, as far as you knew, he represented to you that he was no longer an employee there? I don't believe he was ever an employee. I think he had a 10% stake in the company, from my understanding, and then he left the company. That's what he indicated to me. I don't have any documentation showing if he was an actual W-2 of the company or not. Okay. I was going to say, well, then, how does that differ from what we have for Miss Webb representing, obviously, PMB just as much as David Gayhart, right? I mean, if he's got a 10% stake, he's at least in some way connected to the company, right? Yes. Originally, yes. Okay. And he was, you even indicated, and I don't intend on getting it in through you, but there was an agreement, at least, that he recognized with you where he was supposed to qualify the company. I never saw that agreement. I understand that, and I'm not going to show you and admit it that way, but you would agree with me that he did acknowledge that there was an agreement where he was supposed to do that. He said there was an agreement where he was supposed to be the qualifier of the company. Okay. And you had referenced Paula DePierre as the one that brought you the complaint initially, right? Yeah, she was the complainant. Did she ever indicate to you that she knew that the company was not licensed? She, you know, I asked her why she left the company, what happened. She said that she has a construction background, she's experienced in the construction industry, she realized that things were not being done properly, that PMB had signed multiple contracts throughout the county, and they weren't properly licensed in the county or the state. Did she tell you when she became aware of that? Uh, she did not. Okay. Um, I think Vince, it's an email from Ms. DePierre. It looks like maybe you and DBPR are included on this, at least a Lauren Ouellette and Paula DePierre, and then I believe she forwarded on to you. Um, do you see on here where, and I've bracketed it because I unfortunately left my highlighter in my office, um, but I bracketed where it said maybe did the rest, all licensed contractors on this job, and that would have been from March 16, 2025? The email looks like it's from March 16, 2025 from Paula LaPierre, that's correct, to Lauren Ouellette, who is an investigator for DBPR. So at least as of March 16, 2025, Ms. DePierre, um, was not aware that the company was not accurately qualified before she brought you the investigation. I guess where I'm going with that, it seems disingenuous that she's bringing you an investigation, saying hey, this company's not doing it the right way, um, when she is herself holding it out as, yeah, we're doing things the right way, it's, it's all licensed. So I guess, I'm curious, what in your investigation revealed a change? When did, when did she become aware of that? I believe it, I don't have a specific date, but I believe it was earlier this year, um, that she, according to her, you know, she put the complaint in, so she put it in because she realized that PMB was not properly licensed. Did she reference any, any issue that she had with the, um, did, any issue that she had either with Allison or Alex or someone at the business prior to her bringing you an investigation? Um, I think it was, it was over a period of time. I don't know the exact period of time. Um, and she, you know, she, at the time she put in the complaint, she had already left the company. Okay. Okay. When did your investigation start? Let's see. I'd have to pull up the exact date of the complaint. Okay. Um, but when I initially spoke and made contact with Paula was March 26th of 2025. That's according to my notes. I could pull up the complaint to see when she initiated it. Okay. I'd have to do that on my laptop. Okay. All right. So March 26th would have been on or around the time that she would have contacted you, which is pretty close in time to this email. I believe I got that saved. Yeah. Okay. So around that time. Okay. Yep. So even at this point, she's holding PMB out as licensed, at least in some way, right? Even on the day that she initiates the investigation. Well, it's my understanding she was an owner of a company. She was just an employee. Sure. A W-2 employee. It's more going to knowledge and sort of representation to Allison and Alex and all the people that it seemed as though Mr. Gayheart had represented to everyone that it was, we were qualified. Basically, he was telling everyone that we're good to go. I never heard those conversations. Okay. But my point is everyone's actions seemed to indicate that Mr. Gayheart, that had indicated that it was good. He acknowledged that there was an agreement where he was going to qualify and it seemed like all of the employees, one of whom was Ms. Webb, but also Paula, were operating under the auspice that he had qualified and that he had upheld his contractual obligation. I don't know that for sure. Okay. When I spoke with him, he said that he was originally supposed to qualify the company and that never happened. Fair enough. And then this, this is also from Discovery turned over by the county. It does appear as though this might be some sort of Instagram ad. I'm only basing that on the app icon right there. Right. But it appears as though this is some sort of ad in which Alex at PMB is the individual who could be contacted or was responsible at least in some way. Yeah. he was, when I spoke with Ms. LaPierre, she indicated that he was a business partner. So I was trying to get contact with him to get more information about the company, licensing, and I attempted to make contact with him with no success. So I do want to go back to the Articles of Incorporation. Do you happen to have the unamended, the original Articles of Incorporation? Yeah. So the, the, at the time I initiated my investigation, PMB property improvements wasn't, um, uh, they didn't have a Sunbiz, uh, listing. So here's, at the time that's PMB Painting, uh, which was owned by Bullblock LLC at that time. I believe this was, uh, March 26th of 2025. Okay. Yep. Within those, uh, documents, uh, it's the same ones that you have. Okay. The Articles of Incorporation. I, I guess, I guess where I'm going with that is, so we have Bullblock LLC and it looks like at least in some material way, Alex Nordenholdt appears to be the, the one in charge, the name party on, for the, like if, if we were basing our investigation off of, off of these documents, the one would be Alex Nordenholdt and not until 430 of 2025 do we get Alison Webb's name. So I guess I'm curious how we connect Alison Webb to citations back in, um, back, back then, but for Paula DePierre pointing the finger at, at, um, Alison Webb. Yeah. Because it seems like the citation should have gone to Alexander Nordenholdt if we're saying Bullblock is the, is the company, uh, or at least the responsible party during the period in which these citations were issued should have gone to Alexander Nordenholdt, but instead the investigation begins after Alison Webb had, had registered on Sunbiz. Is that, well, the investigation started before she registered PMB on, on Sunbiz. Okay. It was, uh, around March. Okay. Fair, right. Fair enough. I, and so, you know, all my conversations with, uh, David Gayhart, former employee Paula LaPierre, uh, indicated that Alison Webb was the, she was running the show. She was the top dog of the company. Right. And that's from, that's from David Gayhart and Paula DePierre. Correct. Okay. All right. Um, but as far as, but, but you'd agree with me though, that, that if we're, if we're basing this on bold block at the time, at least up here, bold block would have been the responsible party during the time that these are, uh, these are occur, these violations are occurring and Alexander Nordenholdt, and in fact, nowhere on here is Alison Webb. You'd agree with me? Well, she's a registered agent right there. Okay. But on, sorry, right. But on the articles of incorporation, she's not anywhere on here. On these documents? No. Okay. Your Honor, actually at this point, can I, um, can I move these, these were discovered over to us by the county. I'd, I'd like to move the articles of incorporation into, into evidence. Any objection, counsel? Defendants exhibit one will be admitted into evidence. I guess the sunbiz, we can do these as well. We can call this two if that, does that satisfy the court? Yes. Any objection to two? No. Okay. Defendants exhibit two will be admitted into evidence. Um, so at this point, I don't think I have any additional questions I'll reserve for, for our case in chief. Thank you. All right. Anything further? All right. Respondent may proceed. All right. Good. Still morning. Good morning, Miss, uh, Webb. Um, just state your name, spell it for the record. Allison Webb. Okay. And A-L-L-I-S-O-N? Correct. Yes. W-E-B-B. Okay. And, um, you, what is your role with PMB? I'll cut right to the chase. What's your role with PMB? Um, I work three full-time jobs, and when we signed this operating agreement, I agreed to 20 hours maximum per week in an assisting capacity. Alex is the full-time operator. David Gayhart is a 15% owner. And that goes back to March 18, 2024, when you initially purchased? Till this day. Okay. Because none of the documents have been signed by David Gayhart to absolve himself from the company. Okay. Um, and in fact, there is, and I don't want to get into that, but there is currently litigation between Mr. Gayhart and PMB, and actually PMB, I guess, counterclaimed against Mr. Gayhart. Is that? To this day, Bold Block LLC owns PMB Painting Ink that I, that I converted to PMB Property Improvements. When did you do that? That, the conversion happened in, I think that was April? Yes. April 30th. And the reason being is DBPR would not accept, uh, the, the new qualifier that I found to replace David Gayhart because it said that an entity cannot be a responsible party. It has to be an individual. And that is why I changed my name so that we could get the qualifier, uh, submitted to DBPR. Now, with these articles of incorporation that, that I'm showing you our, our exhibit one, what, um, what was Alexander Norton Holt's role and yours back during the, the purchase with Bold Block? Uh, Alexander is the CEO and COO, and I am the assistant to him. He runs everything day to day. Okay. So you're on the Sunbiz for, for Bold Block. Can you explain that discrepancy? Um, I'm the secretary. I, to file the paperwork. Okay. Okay. But have you, but as far as the business goes, he, he does everything. He's the, he's the head of the business? Yes. Okay. Um. And he was taking a salary. Okay. Were you taking salary? No. Okay. Um, did, um, did David ever, um, okay. I never received a cease and desist from David Gayhart. Okay. So I'd like to, I'd like to talk about David Gayhart. Or did, do you recall, um, him signing a qualifier agreement when he first came on with, um, PNP? Before we ever closed the entity, we all agreed to, um, roles and responsibilities that were drafted by an attorney. And that, uh, qualifier agreement that's stated here is drafted by an attorney, um, for David Gayhart's equity position in the company. Okay. So to, to let you know, I do intend on admitting this to evidence, so I want to talk a little bit about the qualifier agreement. So what is this on page one? Um, it looks like it's a qualifier agreement with PNP and David Gayhart. Were you present or were you at least aware that this was formulated and being signed? Yes. Do you know who it was prepared by? George Pappas with Pappas Law Group. Okay. And you were aware that it was being, being created? Correct. Okay. Um, in your role as assistant or admin or HR or whatever? Mm-hmm. Okay. Um, and what is your, in your review, what is your understanding that Mr. Gayhart was supposed to do under this agreement? Do you mean today or at the time of the agreement? At the time of the agreement. Um, that he was supposed to qualify the company, um, with his license. Okay. So can I speak to that really quickly? Sure. I need to show that. I had pure ignorance of the understanding of what it means to be a qualifier. I thought getting your license as a builder or a general contractor means you can do, do anything and everything. What I didn't realize up until April when we found a replacement qualifier is that that person has to name each entity in order for it to be in compliance. I don't think it's clear enough in this state and you can see that from the previous gentleman that just left this hearing that people understand that even if you have a license, it needs to be attached to each entity because he's an owner in the company and has a license. Therefore, we operated under the assumption that we're licensed. And I would also like to, I would also like to say that before I do that though, your honor, I'd like to admit this qualifier agreement into evidence as states, or defense three. Old habits die hard as a former state attorney. Defendants exhibit three will be admitted into evidence. I do want to, I do want to bring up something because there is this whole idea that, that, you know, the, the concept of the buck stops with you, right? That's, that's where these citations come from. Did you ever confront David about, hey, there's an issue with the qualifier, even though you, you just, as you just said, you didn't understand the, the full scope of, of what it meant to be a qualifier. Did you ever ask David like, hey, can you fix this or this is an issue? Do you recall confronting him about that? We never confronted him because we did not realize that it wasn't in compliance. Did you, do you remember sending him a message on, uh, September 24th or do you recall Alex sending him a message on September 24th, 2024? Sorry. Yeah. Um, this was brought to my attention recently. This was a conversation that Alex and David had without me a party to it. Well, who's me in this scenario? Objection overruled. Okay. So my, my point with, with asking you these questions is did someone from the company, whether it was you or whether it was Alex, confront David about either not qualifying or needing to sort things out and then he made representations to you that either they were sorted out or everything was fine and you could continue operating as though he, he was qualifying you. Yes. Alex and David discussed and then Alex reported back to me that we were in compliance. compliance. Okay. So as far as you know, um, as far as you know, you were in compliance because that was a representation that David Gayhart made to you. That is correct. Okay. And I want to also emphasize that I don't even think he understands that we weren't in compliance from those text messages. Okay. So, um, I'm also going to show you a Paula DePierre. Um, do you, do you recall Paula working for PNB? Yes. Okay. And what was her role? Just briefly. She was, um, basically acting as general manager. Okay. And did she go out and solicit bids or, or make the bid on projects on behalf of PNB? Before we brought Paula on, we were only a painting contractor. When we brought Paula on, she was the one that encouraged us to pursue larger renovations and remodels. And that is when her and Alex got together to put together an advertising campaign with the license number that David provided and spend a lot of money on SEO to have Paula, Alex, and Greg Marsala go out and represent PNB as a, um, license remodeler. And we have video of David overseeing multiple meetings we would meet by monthly to go over the projects and go over the status. Okay. And so David appeared on those and was just operating as though he was the contract, he was qualified and he was. Okay. And so did you ever have any doubts that there were any issues? Did you ever get, do you ever personally get a citation or a cease and desist prior to these citations? No. Okay. So no one came and told you, Hey, you're not in compliance. You're not doing this the right way. That's correct. Okay. Do you know if Alex ever got one? No, I don't know. Okay. You don't know, which is a perfectly acceptable answer, but you personally never knew or became aware prior to getting these citations that you were not in compliance. Correct. Okay. Um, what is it, your understanding that Paula also believed that the company was qualified? The day after she quit, David and her got together. He was trying to hire her for his other entity. And from my understanding, they formed, I don't know what this is called, but, um, a plan to create a, uh, what is this called when you like try to take clients and business from one entity by creating, um, a bad relationship and bringing it somewhere else? Are you describing a breach of fiduciary duty? Yes. Okay. So while she was still employed, do you, did you ever become aware that while she was employed, she was soliciting business from other, other people? I wasn't aware at the time. I found out after because she was forwarding all of her, uh, all of the PMB emails to her personal email so that she could then hand all of those con those, um, conversations and clients over to David Gayhart for his central builders group. Okay. And so is she now an employee at central builders group? I don't, I don't know. That's fine. I can strike that one. Um, okay. So at the time when these, I just kind of want to wrap up at the time when these citations were issued. Okay. So this would have been from September of last year in 2024 up until March 28th of this year. What was your role with PMB? I was a passive managing member member. I was contributing 20 hours per week and I was, I was only there to act as an advisor and what do you mean advisor in a business capacity such as hiring key personnel, how to do payroll, things like that, payroll, making sure taxes are filed, making sure we're renewed on Sunbiz. Okay. But as far as day to day operations thing, is that any sure that would have been Alex? That would have been Paula, Alex, and David. Okay. Okay. Um, did you ever go to the sites or, um, do you lift up a single nail or brick? I have not ever met with a single client. I have, they don't have my phone number. I don't even have an email specific to this entity. They don't know I exist. In fact, the only reason that I am, I feel I am named here today is because I asked Paula for more accountability and she did not like that answer. So then she quit, brought all of the relationships that she sold on behalf of David, tried to move them over to his entity and then call the investigator in a retaliatory capacity. I don't have any other questions. Cross-examination. On the date of the citations, January 7th, 2025, um, what was your relationship with PMB? Managing member. Okay. And you were also, uh, you were also an equity owner? Correct. I have 37% equity. Alex Norton Holt has 37% equity. David Gayhart to this day has 15% equity and Sergi Taberta has 10% equity. So as of January the 7th, 2025, when you received these citations, you were an owner of the property or you were an owner of the business, you were a registered agent of the business. Is that correct? As of that date, Bold Block LLC was the registered agent. Okay. And as far as, um, listed with Bold Block LLC as the title manager, correct? Yes. And so is Alex Norton Holt. Okay. But I just want to confirm you were listed as the title manager, you were also listed as the registered agent. Correct. On January 7th, 2025, did, uh, did your business, um, hold itself out as being able to engage in remodels specifically in regards to citizen who you, um, who you contracted with? Can you say the date again, please? January 7th, 2025. Yes, the business did. And at that time, um, when you submitted the estimate that's previously been into evidence, that estimate had the license of a contractor who was not qualified by your business, correct? That's correct. Referring to the same dates. Um, at that time, you all held yourself out to the homeowner who, um, Ms. Tomales, um, as being a licensed contractor who was able to engage in home residential remodel and you accepted money for her in excess of $20,000? The company did. I did not. Okay. When understood, you're referring to the company specifically as opposed to you individually. Correct. Also, um, on 32625, I have a citation here for unlicensed advertising of full remodels on Google, uh, on your website or next door. Those are the photographs, the screenshots that we previously shared. Would you agree that the business was, in fact, engaging in online advertisement in the way that's laid out here in the citation? That's correct. And going on to the final citation, which is for unlicensed advertising via signage. That's the sign that we had the picture of and I believe it's sitting over there. Do you agree that, um, you all did, in fact, hold yourself out through a street signs as providing home remodeling services and renovation services here in Pinellas County? I just want to go. You said they, meaning the business. Yes. I was not made aware of that sign until the investigator brought it to my attention. I never made that sign, never paid for that sign, never authorized that sign. Understood. Um, you had testified that you were a passive manager working 20 hours per week in an advisor capacity? In a, in the business capacity. In a, in a business capacity, yes. And. But never is compliance for the company. That was David Gayhart's role, which is stated in his qualifier agreement. But you, but you were, in fact, at the time that the citations were issued, an owner of the property, you were a registered agent for, an owner of the business, a registered agent for the business. Um, you just believed somebody else should have received the citations as opposed to you. Is that fair to say? I think, if anything, the entity, I should receive the citations because I, I don't, I didn't even know until this hearing what it fully means to be a registered agent. I just thought it was the person in charge of filing the paperwork. Okay. As we stand here today, knowing what you know now, would you have done things differently? Painfully so, yes. Okay. Um, I'm going to ask to mark this as exhibit, this is the sun biz document for bold block LLC. I'm going to ask to have this marked as exhibit number 13 and to publish it or admit it. Any objection to exhibit 13? No. Exhibit 13 will be admitted into evidence. I have no further questions. Can you redirect? Any other witnesses? No. Any rebuttal by the county? Nothing, Your Honor. All right. We're going to go ahead and have closing arguments in this case. Closing arguments are where the parties tell me what they think the evidence showed and tell me what they want me to do. The county may proceed. You may have a seat, ma'am. Yes, Your Honor. We're here today for several citations. I don't think that there is a dispute as to whether or not PMG, the company that Ms. Webb has ownership in, committed the violations. I think the question that she's presenting is whether or not it's proper that she should have received those citations as opposed to them being written to someone else or the company. We did show that the acts that are cited within the citations were in fact committed. We showed the connection between Ms. Webb and the company, PMB. She was the registered agent at the time. She was also the registered agent for the prior corporation that was later on renamed. Unfortunately for Ms. Webb, she wasn't receiving proper advice is how it seems. And that caused some confusion for herself and the other owners of that corporation. I do believe that the evidence that's been presented here does show that the violations exist, that they existed at that time, that Ms. Webb was one of the owners, and that she had some sort of managerial or fiduciary responsibilities to this. And as a result, the citation should be upheld. This is your opportunity to make a closing statement. Thank you. Your Honor, I'll keep it brief. To the extent that what evidence has been admitted, I don't need to rehash it. I would just ask the court to consider, and I know what the county ordinance says, but specifically as it relates to 489.127 with the prohibition of penalties, where it's 489.1271 sub I, where it says no person shall willfully or deliberately disregard, or violate any municipal or county ordinance relating to uncertified or unregistered contractors. I think even the government is kind of acknowledging that whether she got bad advice or whether she was misled by Mr. Gayhart, I don't think there was anything willful or intentional about what she was doing. She wasn't doing it maliciously. It wasn't, in fact, until she was involved in this investigation that she became aware of much of the things that, yes, maybe should have been addressed. But again, I think that some of the liability might have been with folks that were licensed contractors in Florida or Alex Norton Holt, who was a more involved person at the time. I think just as much, if not more, blame could be apportioned there. So as, you know, just to kind of wrap up, just as to any ability for the court to consider willfulness in terms of dismissing these violations, I would ask the court to do so because I don't think there's a more clear case of someone not willfully violating these ordinances or this statute. Thank you. We're going to just take a five-minute recess. I need to review some of this stuff. Communications, please stop recording. Minister, do you need the exhibits? Start recording. As to citation number CLB CT2500294, I'm going to find a violation of Code Section 22-14, Subsection 1, and issue a fine of $2,000. As to citation CLB-CT25-00295, I'm going to find that the evidence is insufficient to show a violation of Code Section 489-127, Subsection 1, Subsection C, and we'll dismiss that citation. The use of that license number appears to me to be basically a clerical error. So, I don't think it establishes any type of intent. As to citation CLB-CT25-00296, I'm going to find that there was a violation of Florida Statute 49.127-1A, and issue a fine of $2,000. As far as citations CLB-CT25-00297 and CLB-CT25-00298, I'm going to merge those two into a single one. It's a violation of the same statute or code, and it's the same thing, advertising. So, with that, under CLB-CT25-00297, I'm going to issue a fine of $500, and CLB-CT25-00298 is going to be merged into that. There will be no separate fine for that. You going to do the order? Yes, I can do the order, and then you can either wait for it to come out, or we'll email it to you. Also, send it through USPS. Okay, you're welcome. Okay, since they're going to wait, you can go ahead and do it, and then I'm going to have you read the rest of the things on the docket, and we'll explain why they're not being heard. Okay, so we do the order first, and then we... Yeah, do the order first so that... Yeah, okay. Communications, please stop recording. Let's go live. Caroline, would you please read item number one from the docket? Item one, no pros, canceled. Department PCCLB matter. Unlicensed contracting code violation. Case number CLB-MG25-00944. Investigator C. Furlan. Citation number CLB-CT25-00515. Defendant Russell Jeffrey Miller. Notice address, Russell Jeffrey Miller. Defendant 8033. Paper Bark Lane, Port Ritchie, Florida 34668. And Hill, Ward, and Henderson, PA. Attention, Angela B. Rauber. Esquire, Attorney for Defendant. In care of Alana M. Avery, 101 East, Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3700, Tampa, Florida 33602. Angela.Rauber at hwhlaw.com. Alana.Avery at hwhlaw.com. And John Quickel, Plaintiff's Witness, 6719, Tail Weatherway, Bradenton, Florida 34203. And PCCLB Investigator C. Furlan, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, Florida 33756. And Yardley Collette, Esquire, Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB. In care of Caterina Scagnelli, Legal Secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street. 6th floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756. Violation address, 45 Baywood Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33765. Okay, is my understanding that that case has been null-prost? Yes. All right. Would you please read item number 2? Yes. Item 2, rescheduled to October 13, 2025. Department PCCLB, Matter No Permit Code Violation, Subcontracting Code Violation. Case number, CLB-MG25-00421, CLB-MG25-00422, CLB-MG25-00423, CLB-MG25-00424. Investigator Ed Nichols, Citation number, CLB-CT25-00430, CLB-CT25-00431, CLB-CT25-00432, CLB-CT25-00433. Defendant Corey D. Combs, Notice Address, Corey D. Combs, Defendant, 1027 Ball Harbor Drive, Apollo Beach, Florida 33572. Horry at SouthShoreContractorTampa.com and Deputy R. Trump, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Community Policing Unit, forward slash CBS, Trump at PCSONet.com. And PCCLB, Investigator Ed Nichols, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756. And Yardley, Collette Esquire, Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB in care of Ekaterina Sacnelli, Legal Assistant, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th Floor, Clearwater, FL 33756. Y. Collette at Pinellas.gov, Violation Address, 1440, Goff Boulevard, Bel Air Shore, FL 33786. So my understanding is that item has been rescheduled to October 13, 2025? Correct, Magistrate. Right, would you please read item number 5 from the docket? Yes. Item 5, paid prior to the hearing on August 15, 2025, Department PCCLB, Matter Advertising Code Violation, Case Number CLB-MG25-00373, Investigator Jay Padgett, Citation Number CLB-CT25-00469, Defendant Matthew J. Miller, Defendant, I'm sorry, Notice Address, Matthew J. Miller, 2550 State Road 580, Lot 205, Clearwater, FL 33761, and PCCLB Investigator Jay Padgett, Plaintiff's Witness, Pinellas County Code Enforcement, 631 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756. And Yardley, Collette Esquire, Assistant County Attorney for PCCLB in care of Ekaterina Scagnelli, Legal Secretary, Pinellas County Attorney's Office, 315 Court Street, 6th Floor, Clearwater, FL 33756. Violation Address, HighAndDryBoat.com, Facebook. It's my understanding that the fine on the citation was paid on August 15, 2025? Yes, Magistrate. All right. That concludes the items on the docket. Are there any county attorney matters? No, Your Honor. The hearing will be adjourned and the hearing is closed. Communications, please stop recording.