STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY CONSTRUCTION ) LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE No. 92-5606

)

DEAN EDDY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on December 10, 1992, at Clearwater, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire

Pinellas County Attorneys Office

315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616

For Respondent: Made no appearance

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent violated provision of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, as more specifically alleged in Counts One through Four of the Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1992 and the First Amendment of the Administrative Complaint, dated November 9, 1992.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1992 and the First Amendment of the Administrative Complaint, dated November 9, 1992, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (PCCLB), Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline the license of Dean Eddy, Respondent, as a certified electrical contractor. As grounds therefor, it is alleged that Respondent, as the qualifying contractor of record for Perfection Electrical Contractors, Inc., performed electrical work authorized by the Pinellas County Building Department under permits 52848, 54454, 49943 and 52304, that the electrical work under permit 52848 was inspected on April 27, 1992 and found to be not in compliance with the National Electrical Code, that Respondent failed to respond to the red- tags issued by the Pinellas County electrical inspector and failed to correct the noted code violations, that the electrical work under permits 54454, 49943 and 52304 was inspected on June 18, 1992 and found to be not in compliance with the National Electrical Code, that Respondent failed to respond to the red-tags issued by the Pinellas County electrical inspector and failed to correct the

noted violations, and that such practice evidenced gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting in violation of Section 24(2)(d)(j)(m) and (n), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended.

At the hearing, Petitioner called three witnesses and six (6) exhibits were admitted into evidence. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are adopted herein.

1. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified electrical contractor having been issued license No. C-3269 and was the qualifying contractor of record for Perfection Electrical Contractors, Inc. (Exhibit 1).

   
   

2. Respondent was authorized by the Pinellas County Building Department under permit 52848 to perform electrical work on a pool at 8056 Sumerset Drive, Largo, Florida. (Exhibit 4.)

   
   

3. Pinellas County Building Inspector, Alan Lewis:

   
   

   1. initially inspected the above site on April 27, 1992 and found the electrical work on the pool equipment to be in noncompliance

      with Article 680.25(b)(1) and (d) of the National Electrical Code;

      
      

   2. inspected the site six time subsequently, has issued a total of seven (7) red tags, and

      to the best of his knowledge, the code violations have not been corrected; and

      
      

   3. spoke to the Respondent on the telephone informing Respondent of the above noted code violations. (Exhibits 3 and 4.)

      
      

4. Respondent was authorized by the Pinellas County Building Department under permits 54454, 49943, and 52304, to perform electrical work at 349 Hedge Row Lane, Tarpon Springs, Florida; 329 waterford Circle East, Tarpon Springs, Florida; and 373 Hedge Row Lane, Tarpon Springs, Florida, respectively. (Exhibit 5.)

   
   

5. Pinellas County Building Inspector, John W. Sheesley:

   
   

   1. initially inspected the above sites for final inspection at the request of the Pinellas County Building Department because Respondent never called for a final inspection, and the six month time period during which the permits were active, had elapsed;

      
      

   2. initially inspected the above sites on June 18, 1992 and found the electrical work on the pool equipment to be in noncompliance with Article 680.25(b)(1) and (2) of the National Electrical Code;

   3. inspected the sites twice subsequently, issued 3 red-tags per site for a total of 9 red-tags, and the code violations have not been corrected; and

      
      

   4. left messages on the answering machine of Respondent informing Respondent of the above noted code violations. Exhibits 3 and 5.)

      
      

      CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

      
      

6. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. In these proceedings, Petitioner has the burden of proving the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

   
   

7. Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, Section 24(2), as amended, provides in pertinent part, that the following acts constitute cause for disciplinary action:

   
   

   (d) Willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building codes or laws of the state, this board, or of any municipality or county of this state;

   (j) Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part;

   1. Being found guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting;

   2. Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections.

   
   

8. The evidence is clear and convincing that:

   
   

   1. Respondent, under Pinellas County Building Department permits 52848, 54454, 49943, and 52304, performed electrical work on pool equipment and pools which was not in compliance with Article 680.25(b)(1)(2) and (d) of the National Electrical Code; was issued 19 red-tags for such work; and has not corrected the code violations. This constitutes violation of Section 24(2)(d)(j) and (m) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended.

   2. Respondent, under Pinellas County Building Department permits 54454, 49943 and 52304, failed to call for final inspections on the electrical work performed on the pool equipment and pools

      in violation of Section 24(2)(n) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended.

      
      

9. Section 24(5) of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, authorizes the Petitioner to suspend the certificate holder or registrant from all operations as contractor for a fixed period of time, to revoke a certificate of registration, and impose an administrative fine or penalty not to exceed

   $1,000.00 per count on any contractor found guilty of the above listed offenses.

10. Section 24(6) of 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, authorizes the Petitioner to remove the suspension of a certificate on proof of compliance by the contractor with all conditions prescribed by the Board for removal of suspension.

RECOMMENDED:

It is RECOMMENDED that an administrative fine of $1,000.00, $250.00 per count of the Administrative Complaint, be imposed on Respondent, Dean Eddy, and that his license as an electrical contractor be suspended for a period of one year from the date of the execution of the Final Order.

DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1992.

COPIES FURNISHED:

David Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney

315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616

Mr. Dean Eddy

7615 Deer Foot Drive

New Port Richey, Florida 34653

William J. Owens Executive Director Custodian of Records

Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102

Largo, Florida 34643-5116

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 92-005606

Orders for Case No: 92-005606