FILED

1111lll(VT'leM.af ,mi: al ul!tion

Deputy A.gene:, Gferk

....

CLERK

Doto

8ranclim Nh:ihQlli

10/13/2009

STATE OF FLORIDA

FLORJDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

FILED

FLORJDA ENGINEERS

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Petitioner,

l'klrida Engl111!111ts Management Cp

DE Al·E "E7Q= Q

1. FEMC Case No. 2009015308

   JULIO C. BANKS, P.E.,

   
   

   Respondent.

   ---------------'/

   
   

   ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT

   COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner," and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Professional Engineers against Julio C. Banks, P.E., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent". This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding concerning this complaint shall be conducted pum1ant. t<.i Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following:

   1. Petitioner is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board of Professional Engineers pwsullllt to Section 471.038, Florida Sw.tutes ( I997). The Board of Professional Engineers is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes.

   2. Respondent is and has been at all time material hereto a licen5ed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 46544. Respondent's last known address is P. 0. Box 880187, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34988.

      \

      
      

   3. On November 14, 2007, a Final Order was entered by the Board in FEMC Case Nos. 2005004859, 2005014473 and 2006041480. lbe Final Order incorporated a Stipulation igned by Respondent on July 30, 2007. The Final Order required that the parties "adhere to and abide by all of the terms of the Stipulation."

   4. Paragraph 12b of the Stipulation provided in material part:

      
      

      Respondent shall submit to the Board a list of projects completed by the Respondent at six (6) and eighteen (18) month intervals from the date that the Final Order adopting this Stipulation is filed with the Agency Clerk. A FEMC Consultant will select two (2) projects from each submitted list for review. Respondent is responsible for promptly furnishing MY set of completed plans (signed, sealed and dated) and calculations requested by the Consultant. .. . Should the Consultant return an unfavorable report concerning Respondent's projects, that report shall be submitted to the Probable Cause Panel for determination of whether additional disciplinary proceedings should be initiated.

      
      

   5. On July 14, 2008, Respondent submilted an initial list of projects to FEMC as required by the terms of the Final Order and Stipulation. From that list, a FEMC consultant picked two projects for review. The projects which were reviewed are those set out below in Paragraphs 9-12.

   6. Under the terms of the Final Order and Stipulation, Respondent was required to

      
      

      submit his second list of projects to FEMC by May 14, 2009. However, by email to FEMC dated May 14, 2009, Respondent stated that he had no new engineering work to submit. As per paragraph J 2c of the Final Order and Stipulation this disclosure would have meant that respondent's probation would be extended for up to one (1) year.

   7. Respondent's May 14, 2009 statement was false. On April 4, 2009, Respondent signed and sealed al set of structural engineering documents for a concrete gazebo to be constructed at 7343 Gullotti Place, Port St. tucie, FL (Persaud Project).

      
      

      FRPE v. Julio Ranks, P.E.. C sc No. 200901$308

      2

      
      

   8. Under the terms of Paragraph 12c of the Final Order and Stipulation, Respondent was required to "... submit to the Board a list of projects completed by the Respondent. By not submitting a list that included the Persaud Project, Respondent did not comply with the tenns of the Final Order and Stipulation.

   9. On July 31, 2008 Respondent signed and sealed a set of engineering documents for a Residential Addition project at the Leconte-King residence located at 426 SW Holden Terrace, Pt. St. Lucie, FL, 34952 (Leconte-King Project).

   10. Respondent's engineering documents for the Leconte-King Project are materially deficient in that:

1. A section at the bottom left comer of drawing A-4 titled "COVERED ENTRY SECTION" shows 2 - #5 reinforcing bars extending from a masonry column and embedded into a concrete beam above the column. The section fails to set forth the embedment length of the #5 reinforcing bars into the concrete beam above and fails to specify or detail standard reinforcing bar hooks that anchor the beam to the column. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately detail and define the beam column connection as required by Ruic 61Gl5-30.003(1) and Ruic 61G15-31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

2. The section at the bottom of drawing A-4 titled "REAR COV. PATIO SECTION (Left Elevation)" is incorrectly tilled as the section actually occurs at the New Covered Entry. The section shows the existing and new slab resting on the new column footing. The section at the bottom left comer of drawing A-4 titled "COVERED ENTRY SECTION" shows the top of the slab and the top of the new spread footing at the same elevation. The foundation plan for this area shows interference between the new spread

   "8PE v. Julio Bonk,, P.E., Case No. 2009015308

   MAR-21-2011 16:14 From:850 521 0521 Paoe:lJ/21

   
   

   footings for the masonry columns at the new covered entry drawing A-1 interfore with the existing slab/foundation. Additionally, the top of footing and top of slab elevations arc not provided in the drawings. Insofur as the drawings fail to set forth the top of slab and top of footing elevations and graphically present conflicting elevation information, Respondent has failed to adequately detail and define this new to old construction interface as required by Rule 61G15-30.003(1) and Rule 61Gl5-31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

3. The section at the bottom of drawing A-4 titled "REAR COV. PATIO SECTION (Left Elevation)" fails to set forth the embedment/anchorage of the masonry column reinforcing steel into the concrete beam above the column. Respondent has therefore failed to provide for continuous anchomge from the roof to the foundations as is required by Chapter 1604.8.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

4. The section at the bottom of drawing A-4 titled ''REAR COV. PATIO SECTION (Left Elevation)" shows a reinforced concrete bond beam supported by fill inadequately detailed connection to an existing 2"x 4" wood frHmed wall. In that no details of the connection are set forth in his engineering drawings, Respondent bas failed to adequately detail and define this connection as required by Rule 61GJ5-30,003(1) and Rule 61015- 31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

R. There is significfillt interference between the existing roof trusses and the new BIS roof trusses over the New Covered Entry that is not addressed in the drawings. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately detail and define this condition in his

f9PE v. Julio Hanks, P.E., Cos• No. 200901530S

4

drawings as required by Ruic 61015-30.003(1) and Rule 61G15-31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

1. The required design compressive strength for the reinforced masonry components, fm, and the grout type are not set forth in the construction documents. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately define the required construction materials for the masonry clements in his engineering drawings as is required by Rule 61G15-30.003(1), Rule 61015-31.002(5), Chapter l.2.2(c) of AC! 530-02 and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

2. The construction of the ceiling at the new covered entry is not specified or detailed in the drawings. As is set forth in the truss design engineering, the de ign strength of the new trusses over the new covered entry is dependent upon continuous bracing of the bottom chord of the trusses. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately detail and define such bracing in his drawings as is required by Rule 61Gl5-30.003(1) and Rule 61015-31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.1.l of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

11, On July 31, 2008, Respondent signed and sealed a set of engineering documents

for the construction of a new residence project referenced as the Suggs Residence, located at 1520 Pineburke Lane, Ft. Pierce, FL (Suggs Project).

1. Respondent's engineering docwnents for the Suggs Project are materially

   
   

   deficient in that:

   
   

   1. On drawing A-2, the location of the filled, reinforced cells in the exterior masonry walls is not set forth. Dimensioning of these elements is not provided and a maximum spacing of the filled ce.11s is not specified. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately

      FBPf. v. Julio Barilcs, P.l=:., Case No, 2009-015:l0S

      
      

      detail an<l define this condition in his <lrawings as is required by Rule 61G15-30.003(1) and Rule 6JG15-31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

   2. The required design compressive strength for the reinforced masonry components, f'm, and the grout type are not set forth in the construction documents. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately define the require<l construction materials for the masonry elements in his drawings as is required by Rule 61G15-30.003(1), Rule 61G15-31.002(5), Chapter J.2.2(c) of ACI 530-02 and by Chapter 106.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

   3. The lintel size and reinforcing for the two windows in the garage is omitted on drawing A-8. Respondent has therefore failed to adequately detail and define this condition in his drawings as is required by Rule 61G15-30.003(1) and Ruic 61GI5- 31.002(5) and by Chapter !06.1.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

D_ The design soil bearing pressure of 2500 psf as set forth on drawing A-8 of 12 is

an assumed value that was not verified by a geotechnical engineer/report as was Respondent's stated intention. Respondent failed to set forth in writing his intent to delegate the verification of the design soil bearing pressure to a geoteclmical engineer in his engineering drawings as is required by Rule 61Gl5-30.005(1). In that Respondent foundation designs for the Riggs project are based on an assumed value, Respondent has failed to ensure that the foundation designs meet the strength requirements of Chapter I604.2 and/or Chapter 1805.4.1 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006

Supplements.

rBPE v. Julio Bank<, P.E., Cm No. 200001,308

6

MAR-21-2011 16:15 From:850 521 0521 Paoe:16/21

E. Details on drawings A-10 and A-11 set forth '/2" diameter x 6 inch bolts at 32"

o.c. to anchor the interior wood stud bearing walls. The type of bolt, grade of material and embedmcnt length for these bolts is not set forth in the details. Respondent has failed to provide the necessary details and/or specification to adequately detail and define this condition in his drawings as is required by Rule 61015-30.003(1) and Rule 61015- 31.002(5) and by Chapter I06.!. l of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

F_ The walls supporting the trusses as indicated on drawing S-2, in the vicinity of the "Lanai", are not shown on the foundation plan or the floor plans. Details or specifications are not provided in the plans indicating how and of what materials these walls are to be constructed. Respondent has failed to provide the necessary details and/or specification to adequately detail and define this condition in his drawings as is required by Rule 61015-30.003(1) and Rule 6IG15-31.002(5) and by Chapter 106.Ll of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

0. The bending moment induced in the wall/column element between the garage doors by the design wind loading significantly exceeds the allowable bending moment capacity of the element. Respondent therefore has failed to proportion this structural element to meet the strength require menls of Chapter 1604.2 of the 2004 Florida Building Code with 2006 Supplements.

13, The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (Responsibility Rules). These Rules are contained in Chapter 61015-30 to Chapter 61015-36,

FBPE v. Julio Banks, F.E., Case: NQ. ::;i.ooQOl HOS

7

MAR-21-2011 16:15 From:850 521 0521

Florida Administrative Code. Rule 61G15-30.002(1), F. A. C., mandates that Respondent, as the engineer of record, be in responsible charge for the preparation, signing, dating, sealing and issuing of the Suggs and Leconte-King Project documents referenced in Paragraphs-.

1. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Rule 61015-19.001 (4), Fla. Admin Code, provides that negligence constitutes "failure by a professional engineer to utili7e due care in performing in an engineering capacity or foiling to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles." aule 61G15-19.001(4) also provides that "[f]ailure to comply with the procedures set forth in the Responsibility Rules as adopted by the Board of Professional Engineers shall be considered as non-compliance with this section unless the deviation or departures therefrom are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professioual judgment of the professional engineer,"

2. Respondent acted as Engineer of Record for the Suggs and Leconte-King Projects as that term is defined in Rule 61015-31.002(1), F. A. C. As such all structural documents prepared, signed, sealed and dated by Respondent must contain the information set out in Rules 61015-30.003(1) and 61015-31.002(5), F. A. C., as mandated by Rule 61015-31.001, F. A. C., setting out the General Responsibility standards for engineers designing structures. The plans and specification for the Suggs and Leconte-King Projecb fail to contain this information and thus fail to comply with the Responsibility Rules.

3. The Respondent's drawings, specifications, and calculations for the Suggs and Leconte-King Projects contain deficiencies including; but not limited to, those set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5. Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(l)(g), Florida Statutes, and Ruic 61015-19.001(4), F. A. C., by sealing, signing and dating engineering

fBPE v. Julio Banlt1i, P.E., Cmt: No. 20090l:i308

8

1111 l

documents that were i ued and filed for pllblic record when such documents were materially deficient in respect lo and not in compliance with applicable code requirements or acceptable engineering principles.

COUNTI

17, Petitioner rcallcgcs and incorporates Paragraphs One (I) through Sixteen (16) as

if fully set forth in this Count I.

1. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. Rule 6!GJ5.J9,001(4), Fla. Admin Code, provides that negligence constitutes "failure by a professional engineer to ntilize due care in perfonning in an engineering capacity or failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles."

2. As set forth in Paragraphs One (I) through Sixteen (16) above, Respondent violated the provisions of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by sealing, signing and dating engineering documents that were issued and filed for public record when such docnments were materially deficient in respect to and not in Nmpliwwe with applicable code requirements or acceptable engineering principles.

3. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering.

   
   

   COUN'l'U

   
   

4. Petitioner realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Eight (8) as if

fully set forth in this Count II.

FBPE v. Julio Bonk,, PE, Co.<e No. 2009015308

9

22, Section 471.03J(l)(k), Florid& Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for,,. "[v]iolating nny order of the board or department previously entered in a disciplinary hearing."

1. By falsely stating to the Board that he had not completed any engineering projects during the applicable period of probation, when he had sealed, signed and dated structural engineering documents for the Persaud Project, Respondent violated his terms of probation which were incorporated into the Final Order and Stipulation in FEMC Ca e Nos. 2005004859, 20050 I 4473 and 2006041480 and thus violated the terms of the Final Order.

2. Based upon !he foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1)(k), Florida Statutes.

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent's practice, imposition ofan admini trative fine, i suance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attorney's time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate.

FBPE v, Julio Banks, P.E., Case No. 2009015308

SIGNED this

Carrie Flynn Executive Director

COUNSEL FOR FEMC:

John Rimes Prosecuting Attomey

Florida Engineers Management Corporation

2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm

PCP DATE: September, 2009

PCP Member : Rebane, Charland, Halyard

CERTIFICATE OF SEE.VICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnished to Julio Banks, P.E., P.O. Box 880187, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34988, by certified mail, on the _J'f!!:_ of  009.

FBPE v. Julio Banks, P.E., C <e No. 200901,308

11

Docket for Case No: 11-001502PL