OA~ YBOF STATE OF FLORIDA mo tay DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Wy a? CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DIVISION I . ayy DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 2000-08686 GEORGE N. SPANO, D/b/a Spano Construction, Respondent. / ee ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint before the Construction Industry Licensing Board, against GEORGE N. SPANO, ("Respondent"), and says: 1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a Certified Building Contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CB C014309. 3. Respondent's last known address of record is 9925 Ridge Crest Drive, Riverview, Florida 33569. 4. Respondent is licensed to practice contracting in the capacity of an individual only. 5. On or about December 29, 1998, Respondent, d/b/a Spano Construction, entered into a contract with David Petsche, (hereinafter, "Petsche"), whereby Spano Construction was to build a commercial structure at 1411-1413 Hobbs Street, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. 6. Tim Spano, the Respondent’s son and employee of Spano Construction, was responsible for the project, and was the person with whom Petsche was in contact until Tim Spano terminated employment with the Respondent d/b/a Spano Construction. 7. On or about December 14, 1999, the parties modified the contract to reflect a revised draw schedule and increasing the total contract price to $172,410.00. 8. Petsche paid Respondent a total of $120,889.00, which, according to the modified contract, represents payment of the third draw, plus partial payment of the fourth draw. 9. On or about October 29, 1999, Respondent obtained permit number COM00594, for the foundation only, from the Hillsborough County Building Department. 10. | Work commenced on the construction project in late November of 1999, and proceeded beyond the foundation permit even though the Respondent had not obtained the additional, required permits. | 11. Onor about late November of 1999, Tim Spano terminated employment with the Respondent, then ceased work on the Petsche project on or about January of 2000, when it became necessary for the Respondent to step in and attempt to complete the project. Respondent was unfamiliar with the project and as a result, the project did not meet specifications and delays mounted. 12. Onor about February 28, 2000, a valid lien in the amount of $4,858.00 -was recorded against Petsche’s property by S&J Home Builders, Inc. (“S&J”), a subcontractor. 13. The S@J lien was not paid within 75 days of recordation and remains unpaid. 14. Onor about March 31, 2000, Petsche terminated the Respondent from the project. 15. Petsche hired another contractor to complete the project at a total cost of $54,829.00 in excess of the price of the contract with the Respondent d/b/a Spano Construction. 16. Onor about July 12, 2001, in case number 20000606, the Hillsborough County Development Services Division, Building: Board of Adjustments, Appeals and Examiners, disciplined the Respondent for, among other things, proceeding on the project without the applicable permits, assessed a fine of $500.00 and suspended the Respondent’s permitting privileges for 5 years. COUNT I 17. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through sixteen as though fully set forth herein. 18. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under any certificate or registration issued hereunder except in the name of the certificateholder or registrant as set forth on the issued certificate or registration, by contracting in the business name of Spano Construction rather than as an individual as set forth on his certificate. COUNT It 19. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through sixteen as though fully set forth herein. 20. Based-on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(0), Florida Statutes, by proceeding on the job without first obtaining the applicable local building department permits, as in this case, by failing to obtain a permit prior to proceeding with work beyond the foundation. COUNT Il 21. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through sixteen as though fully set forth herein. 22. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting, by, among other things, failing to properly supervise and be familiar with the project. COUNT IV 23. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through sixteen as though fully set forth herein. 24. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(g)1., Florida Statutes, where valid liens have been recorded against the property of a contractor's customer for supplies or services ordered by the contractor for the customer's job; the contractor has received fands from the customer to pay for the supplies or services; and the contractor has not had the liens removed from the property, by payment or by bond, within 75 days after the date of such liens. COUNTY 25. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through sixteen as though filly set forth herein. 26. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(g)3., Florida Statutes, where the contractor's job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor, was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer. COUNT VI 27. Petitioner realleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs one through sixteen as though filly set forth herein. 28. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, having been disciplined by Hillsborough County. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: place on probation, reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or ail penalties delineated within Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 489, 455, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. PCP: February 26, 2002 (‘thief Construction Attorney Chung/Lambert fF COUNSEL FOR DEPARTMENT: roto otal b El D latio DEPUTY CLERK eon Patrick L. Butler Assistant General Counsel asl i W712 { } Department of Business and Professional Regulation ’ DATE 4-2-2002 _ Office of the General Counsel 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2202 (850) 488-0062 PLB/omr Case # 2000-08686 Ob FAC

Docket for Case No: 02-004309