The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner Gary L. Neal, is qualified by virtue of experience, training and education, in accordance with the provisions of Section 633.521, Florida Statutes, to sit for the Fire Protection Systems Contractor V examination for licensing.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Gary L. Neal seeks to take a written examination for purposes of ultimate licensure as a "Fire Protections Systems Contractor V." The Contractor V license enables a license holder to install underground water mains that are connected to a fire protection system, such as a sprinkler system. The Petitioner presently holds a Certified Plumber's License in the State of Florida and has been so licensed since March 11, 1981. He also holds a Master Plumber's License for the State of Georgia. Prior to the creation of a separate license for installation of underground water mains connected to Fire Protection Systems, the Contractor V license for which the Petitioner seeks to be examined, installation of these water mains was performed by certified plumbing contractors, including the Petitioner, and by underground utility contractors. Underground water mains installed for potable water and fire protection systems were once one and the same, before Fire Code changes mandated that these be separate lines. Even after the creation of the Contractor V license, local code enforcers took the position that plumbers and underground utility contractors could perform this work, so long as they did so under the supervision and control of Fire Protection Contractors, which practice continued until 1996. The Petitioner established that, as a Certified Plumbing Contractor since 1981, he has installed underground water mains for many years, including water mains connected to fire protection systems, as well as those connected to potable water systems. His testimony was corroborated by the sworn deposition testimony of persons who have supervised his work. See Exhibits 43, 44 and 45, in evidence. The trenching, excavation and pipe assembly skills required for installing underground water mains are the same whether the water main is used for Fire Protection Systems or used for potable water. The only substantive difference is the materials used and the testing procedures. For water mains connected to Fire Protection Systems, materials and testing are controlled by the National Fire Protection Association Code (NFPA), as adopted by the State of Florida. Knowledge of that fire code is tested on the Contractor V examination, which the Petitioner seeks to take. All other aspects of installing underground water mains, whether for use by Fire Protection Systems or for potable water, are governed by the National Plumbing Code, which applies to the work of Certified Plumbing Contractors such as the Petitioner, Certified underground utility contractors and Fire Protection Contractor V contractors. Both Florida and Georgia allow persons holding plumbers licenses to install underground utilities, work that may also be performed by underground utility and excavation contractors in Florida. Both Florida and Georgia require plumbing contractors to take continuing education courses in subjects that include the installation of underground utilities and excavation. In Florida these courses include NFPA Code material. The Petitioner demonstrated, through un-rebutted evidence that he has satisfied the continuing education requirements (annually) of both Florida and Georgia through taking formal classroom education courses in subjects that have included course work in trenching, excavation and installation of underground water mains. These classes have included course work in the National Fire Protection Association Code governing the installation of components of fire protection systems. Prior to obtaining his Certified Plumber's License in 1981, the Petitioner was employed by various underground utility and excavation contractors, including Junger Utilities, as well as certified plumbing contractors who performed underground utility and excavation contracting. The Petitioner's experience included excavation for and installation of underground water mains. The Petitioner's experience with these companies was established by his un-refuted sworn testimony since these companies are no longer in existence and could not have a representative to testify or supply letter documentation. The Petitioner has established a total experience of more than 28 years in the installation of underground water mains and other underground utilities, including the installation of water mains connected to fire protection systems. This was established through the un-rebutted testimony of the Petitioner and corroborated by the deposition testimony of witnesses Thomas M. Brown, Dale R. Cowie and Jimmy Patrick Riley. This experience was gained both as an employee of companies performing underground utilities work and through directly contracting for such work by virtue of holding a license that authorized him to contract for underground utilities work. (Certified Plumber's License). The Petitioner is employed by Professional Plumbing of NWF, Inc., as President, Chief Executive Officer, as well as qualifying agent. Professional Plumbing of NWF, Inc., the Petitioner's own corporation, is a company that, because of the Petitioner's certified plumbers license, is authorized to perform and does perform trenching, excavation and installation of underground water mains as part of its underground utilities work. The Petitioner has been employed in that position since 1987. The Petitioner's 28 years of experience in performing layout, design, excavation and underground pipe assembly has included, without limitation, the same work for which he seeks to sit for an examination; i.e., the installation of the underground components of Fire Protection Systems. The fact that the Petitioner has successfully performed not only closely related work involving installation of underground water mains, but has successfully performed and completed the very same work for which he seeks to be licensed (by virtue of his Certified Plumber's License) is relevant to the issue of whether he has demonstrated sufficient education and experience to qualify him to sit for the Contractor V examination. During the Petitioner's 28 years in his profession he has worked as a laborer, a foreman, a project superintendent and a qualifying agent for a company (Professional Plumbing of NWF, Inc.) that installs underground water mains. His experience has included layout, design, financial administration and project management for underground utilities work. The Petitioner, by virtue of being a State Certified Plumber, has gained experience in "laying-out, fabricating, installing, inspecting, altering, repairing, or servicing fire protection systems" for purposes of qualifying for the "highest level" or scope of fire protection systems license, the Contractor I license. Although such experience is not a prerequisite to qualify for the lowest level or scope of fire protection license, the Contractor V license which the Petitioner seeks; the fact that the Department recognizes by Rule 4A-46.010, Florida Administrative Code, that the Petitioner, as a plumber, gains such experience is relevant to whether the Petitioner is qualified to sit for the Contractor V examination. The Department has conceded that a Contract I License is a "higher license" or higher or broader scope of license than that of a Contractor V, the license which the Petitioner seeks. The Department also concedes that a Contractor I, without holding a separate Contractor V license, may nonetheless perform every aspect of the work that may be performed by a Contractor V. Thus a Contractor V's license is a "lesser included" license to that of a Contractor I or a Contractor II. Similarly, it has been established that an underground utility and excavation contractor's license is a "lesser included" license to that of a Certified Plumbing Contractor, as a Certified Plumbing Contractor can perform all aspects of underground utilities and excavations that may also be performed by the holder of that "lesser" license. The minutes of the Construction Industry Licensing Board in evidence, together with the associated letter in evidence, establishes that that Agency, which is charged with the jurisdiction of regulating licensure and practice of both Certified Plumbing Contractors and underground utility and excavation contractors, interprets the latter license as being a lesser included license to that of Certified Plumbing Contractor and that a Certified Plumbing Contractor can perform all aspects of underground utility and excavation contracting. See Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 4, 36, 37, 38 and 42, in evidence. The Department's witness at hearing conceded that the Petitioner's more than 20 years of experience as a Certified Plumbing Contractor was the "equivalent of" the experience that would be gained from "working for" an underground utility contractor for four years. Given that concession, and in determining whether the Petitioner qualifies by the combination of education and experience method contained in the statute relating to qualification for the Contractor V examination, it must be determined whether the "education" he has attained is equal to that he would have gained in the "employment of" a Certified Underground Utilities Contractor." In this regard, given his acknowledged 28 years of experience, the Department acknowledged that the amount of education that the Petitioner would need to demonstrate would be minimal. The Respondent has also acknowledged that the "education" that the Petitioner must show to sit for the Contractor V examination would be the type of education the Petitioner would have gained by working for an underground utility contractor for four years. It was established that the type of education that could be expected from working for an underground utility contractor for four years would not be college education or necessarily formal classroom education but rather acquiring that body of knowledge required to install underground utilities including water mains through education on the job and through continuing education courses. Even if it were assumed that the Petitioner's Certified Plumbing Contractor's license is not at least "equal to" that of an underground utility and excavation contractor's license, which therefore would automatically qualify the Petitioner to sit for the examination, the Petitioner amply demonstrated at hearing that he had obtained the same body of knowledge, i.e., "education," at a minimum, that he would have obtained by virtue of being employed for four years by a company holding the "lesser included" license, i.e., the underground utility and excavation contractor's license. The Petitioner established that he acquired the "equivalent to" education through on-the-job training during more than 28 years in the business of installing and supervising the installation of underground utilities, as well as through attending more than 100 hours of formal classroom education in subjects that taught the skills required for the bidding, estimating, layout, design and performance of underground utilities work. The Petitioner established this education through his sworn testimony, as well as documentary evidence. He introduced into evidence, supplemented by his sworn testimony, all of the documentation of these courses within his possession and control. These continuing education courses are not graded, therefore, there could be no "transcripts." Although not specifically required by the governing statute, Chapter 633, the Petitioner demonstrated that his formal classroom education includes some 53 hours of instruction in the National Fire Protection Association Code governing fire protection contractors. He demonstrated that he has obtained formal classroom instruction in courses teaching the skills required for the performance of underground utilities work. In fact it was established that Certified Plumbing Contractors such as the Petitioner and Certified Underground Utility and Excavation Contractors, such as Lee Brown, who testified for the Petitioner, often take the same continuing education courses, in the same subject, due to the overlap in their scope of work. These courses are typically taught by industry professionals who know their subjects, rather than by local colleges. In fact, the Petitioner has more than 100 hours of classroom education on subjects including course material in the NFPA Codes, as well as technical issues relating to the installation of underground utilities.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent Agency allowing the Petitioner to sit for the Contractor V examination. It is further, RECOMMENDED that if the Petitioner seeks to pursue a claim for attorney's fees and costs on the basis that the Respondent Agency's position was not substantially justified, that a proper petition within the time constraints of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, must be filed, which has not been accomplished, since no final order has yet been entered in this matter. Thus the purported claim for attorney's fees and costs cannot be addressed at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward M. Fleming, Esquire McDonald, Fleming, Moorhead, Ferguson Green & Smith, LLP 4300 Bayou Boulevard Suite 13 Pensacola, Florida 32503-2671 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, ADI and Youngquist Brothers were licensed well drilling contractors and qualified to bid on Bid Request No. 9237 issued by Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD" or "District"), Respondent. On July 23, 1992 the District mailed packets for bid requests to ADI, Youngquist Brothers, Inc., and others. On August 12, 1992 a mandatory pre-bid meeting for Bid Request No. 9237 was conducted at the District office. Representatives of ADI and Youngquist attended the pre-bid meeting. Responses to Bid Request No. 9237 were opened by the District on August 26, 1992. ADI's bid was for $159.50 per hour, and Youngquist's bid was for $200.00 per hour. Greg McQuown, District Manager of the Geohydrologic Data Section prepared the technical portions of this bid request and, following the bid opening, visited the facilities of both ADI and Youngquist as provided in Section 2.1.1.19 of the bid specifications to observe the equipment they proposed to use. Request for Bid No. 9237 requested bidders to submit an hourly rate for furnishing an experienced crew, the drilling rig and all equipment, materials, fuel and services necessary for the proper operation and maintenance of the drilling rig to be used in drilling numerous monitoring wells as directed by the District. Although the bid is for one year, it is renewable for two additional years. Drilling contracts on an hourly basis are not frequently used in water well drilling contracts, but for this project, this type contract appeared preferable to the District due to the wide variations in well depths and drilling conditions. Speed of drilling is a very significant element in an hourly rate drilling contract. Section 1.17 of the general conditions of Request for Bid No. 9237 provides in pertinent part: If bids are based on equivalent products, indicate on the bid form the manufacturer name and number. * * * The bidder shall explain in detail the reason(s) hoe (sic) the proposed equivalent will meet the specifications and not be considered an exception thereto. Bids which do not comply with these requirements are subject to rejection. Bids lacking any written indication of intent to quote an alternate brand will be received and considered in complete compliance with the specifications as listed on the bid form. Section 1.11 of the general specifications provides: 1.11 BID DATA. Bidders shall furnish complete and detailed Bid Data as specified on the Request for Bid Form. Bids furnished without data, or incomplete submissions may be rejected at the discretion of the District. Exceptions to the requirements, if any, shall be noted in complete detail. Failure by the bidder to detail each exception to a bid specification or a requirement results in the bidder being required to meet each specification or requirement exactly as stated. Section 2.2.2.3 under Contractor Equipment and Services (exhibit 2) lists the following equipment: API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, no hard banding, square shoulders acceptable, 1,400 feet. API 4 3/4 inch steel drill collars 10,000 lbs. (approximately 200 feet). API 7 to 7 1/2 inch steel drill collars, 13, 500 lbs. (approximately 100 feet) are acceptable equivalent. Rig equipped with hydraulic torque equipment for drill collars and drill pipe. The drilling contemplated by this Bid Request is reverse air drilling in which an air hose is inserted inside the drill pipe and air from this hose facilitates a removal of the material through which the drill bit penetrates. ADI's Bid Proposal (exhibit 4) under Equipment List provides in pertinent part: Drill stem 4 1/2" flush joint 2 1/8 ID Collars 2 @ 3 1/2" X 20' 1 @ 6" X 20' -2 @ 7 3/4" X 30' * * * Above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools. The inside diameter (ID) of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe is 2 11/16 inches. This size pipe will allow use of a 3/4 inch air hose and still provide adequate area for the drilled material to be excavated from the hole being drilled. Further, this Bid Request proposed the use of 6 inch PVC casing to be provided by the District. Thus, the drill pipe and drilling equipment needed to pass through this size casing. The function of the drill collar is to provide weight on the drill bit to insure a straight hole as well as increase the speed of drilling. All else being equal (especially speed of rotation of drill bit) the greater the weight the faster the drilling. Standard API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe has an outside diameter of 4 3/4 inches and is the largest standard drill pipe that can be used in the 6 inch casing here proposed. Not only does the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed for use by ADI have a smaller ID than API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe specified, but also this is not a constant ID but constricts to this 2 1/8 inch ID where pipe sections are connected. This constriction can increase the turbulence in the pipe and slow the removal of the drilled material. The cross section area of a 2 1/8 inch ID pipe is 5/8 the area of a 2 11/16 inch ID pipe. Accordingly, drilling with the API 3 1/2 inch pipe can be much faster than with a drill pipe with a 2 1/8 inch ID due solely to the greater volume flowing through the 3 1/2 inch pipe. The 4 1/2 inch drill collars listed in ADI's bid proposal weighed in at 1100 pounds in lieu of the 4 3/4 drill collars and 10,000 pounds specified in Request for Bid. ADI contends that by adding the words "above listed tools available, we will make available any other specified tools" they clearly intended to provide all equipment demanded by the District. This is the type language which leads to contract disputes. All of Petitioner's witnesses testified that they intended to commence the work, if awarded the contract, with the equipment listed on their bid proposal. On an hourly drilling contract this equipment is inadequate. All of these witnesses also testified they would use the equipment listed in the Request for Bid specifications if required to do so by the District. Neither Dave Robinson, Petitioner's superintendent who prepared its bid and attended the pre-bid conference, nor Jerry C. Howell, President of Petitioner who modified and approved the bids submitted, had ever used API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and were not familiar with the dimensions of that item. Yet they did not check to ascertain how the inside diameter of that drill pipe compared with the inside diameter of the 4 1/2 drill stem flush joint they had on hand. Petitioner further contended that the cost of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe was insignificant in determining the bid price submitted, and therefore, this discrepancy was immaterial and should not lead to rejection of the bid. Petitioner's bid failed to comply with General Conditions 1.17 in that it failed to explain in detail the reasons the 4 1/2 inch drill stem proposed for use meets the specifications which required a drill pipe with a substantially larger minimum interior cross section area. Petitioner's challenge to Youngquist's bid proposal as being non- responsive for not listing the API 3 1/2 inch pipe is without merit. Youngquist's bid complied with the provision of Section 1.11 of the General Specifications and McQuown's visit to Youngquist's facility confirmed that Youngquist had on hand all of the equipment specified in the Request for Bid Proposal. Petitioner was represented at the compulsory pre-bid conference by David Robinson, ADI's superintendent, who prepared ADI's bid package. Robinson testified that at the pre-bid conference he asked Mr. McQuown what was the inside diameter of the API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe and McQuown responded 1 7/8 inches. Several other witnesses, including McQuown, testified that no questions were asked at the pre-bid conference about the API 3 1/2 inch pipe and all of these witnesses were fully aware that the pipe has an ID greater than 2 1/2 inches. McQuown's testimony that Robinson asked only about the inside diameter of the 4 3/4 inch drill collar shown in the bid specifications and he responded 1 7/8 inches to that question is deemed the more credible evidence. Robinson testified that he thought McQuown has misspoke when he said 1 7/8 inches but did not check available catalogues to determine the actual ID of this pipe to shed some light on the adequacy of the 4 1/2 inch drill pipe proposed in ADI's bid. The more credible testimony is that Robinson was not misinformed about the ID API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe at the pre-bid conference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the formal bid protest filed by American Drilling, Inc. to challenge the award of Bid Request 9237 be dismissed and that the contract be awarded to Youngquist Brothers, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1993, 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 15th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6618BID Proposed findings listed by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below. Those neither noted below nor included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. 16. Rejected. Although there can be a slight variation in the internal diameter of API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe, there is no API 3 1/2 inch drill pipe with an inside diameter less than 2 1/2 inches. 18. Rejected as contrary to the credible evidence. Rejected. ADI fully intended to use the drill pipe and collars listed on its bid unless or until the District mandated a change to the equipment or tools specified. Both of Petitioner's principle witnesses believed the 4 1/2 inch drill stem listed could satisfactorily perform the required drilling. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted as a fact that after ADI learned it was low bidder inquiries were made to locate a source for the specified drill pipe and collars. At McQuown's visit to ADI, Jerry C. Howell assured him that ADI wanted to fully cooperate with the District in carrying out the contract when issued. Rejected that ADI's response was clear and complete as required by the specifications. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant. Diversified was not a party to these proceedings. Rejected. Youngquist's bid complied with the bid specifications. By not responding to those items in the bid specification, Youngquist, pursuant to the General Bid Specifications, agreed to provide exactly the equipment specified by the District in the Request for Bid. 32. These omissions have never been deemed by the District to be grounds for rejecting bids. 33 -34. Rejected as immaterial. 36. Although McQuown testified that he did not pay a lot of attention to the general (boiler plate) conditions in the bid proposal, he recognized that the failure of a bidder to list equipment different than that contained in the bid proposal meant that the bidder intended to supply the equipment specified. See 36 above. Rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as immaterial. First sentence rejected. Rejected. First sentence rejected. 46 - 49. Rejected as immaterial. 51. Rejected insofar as Youngquist's bid is concerned. 53. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as improper and inaccurate interpretation of the contract provisions. Moreover, this is a question of law, not of fact. The bid specifications speak for themselves. Interpretation of these specifications is a legal not a factual matter. Last sentence rejected. Last sentence rejected. Rejected as fact, accepted as a conclusion of law. See 36 above. 63 Generally accepted. However, it is found that all parties recognize that it was not necessary for bidders to have on hand all equipment requested in the bid specification, and that ADI representatives indicated that they would like to start work with the equipment on hand and would do so unless otherwise directed. Proposed joint findings submitted by Respondent and Intervenor are accepted. Those not included in the Hearing Officer's findings were deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Manson, Esquire Mary Catherine Lamoureaux, Esquire Post Office Box 499 Tampa, Florida 33601-0499 Richard Tschantz, Esquire A. Wayne Alfieri, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Mark R. Komray, Esquire Thomas Smoot, Esquire Suite 600 12800 University Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner violated the provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, referenced herein, by allegedly illegally connecting a second dwelling to an existing, approved septic system.
Findings Of Fact On January 17, 2002, the Petitioner was given a written Notice of Violation and advised that an illegal sewer connection from a new or second mobile home on her property to her existing sewer system, serving her primary residence would have to be disconnected. It was an illegal second connection on a single, permitted sanitary sewer system. The second home was not occupied and could not be legally occupied until the proper sewer connection and relevant permitting was obtained. On January 30, 2002, the inspector again visited the premises and determined the illegal connection to still exist and the Petitioner was then advised that the illegal connection would have to be disconnected. On February 28, 2002, the inspector returned and found that the illegal connection had been restored to the existing system. He observed a person hurriedly disconnect the system as he approached. The relevant pipe joint had been left un-glued so that it could be readily connected or disconnected. He again notified the Petitioner, in person, that the illegal connection would have to be disconnected. The Respondent cited the Petitioner for the illegally connected sewer system and seeks to impose a $500.00 fine. The Petitioner elected to formally dispute the position of the Respondent agency and pursued a formal hearing to contest the allegations. The Petitioner failed to actually appear at hearing and contest the evidence adduced by the Respondent agency. That evidence is credible and is accepted as unrefuted and supportive of the above Findings of Fact.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida Department of Health denying the Petition of Shirley Davis in its entirety and that a final order be entered imposing a $500.00, fine for the violations described in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Davis 140 West Putnam Grove Road Oak Hill, Florida 32759 John D. Lacko, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Scott Eric Baker ("Petitioner"), took the Certified Air Conditioning Class A Contractor examination in June 1991. The examination consists of two parts, Part One on business and financial management, and Part Two on actual air conditioning system mechanics. The Petitioner informally challenged the scoring of certain questions and received additional points but his total score of 68% was below the minimum passing score of 69.01%. Part One, Question 6 of the June 1991 directs the applicant to estimate the cost of refrigeration piping and related hardware shown in a related schematic. The schematic illustrates proposed refrigerant piping between a 15 ton air-cooled condensing unit and an air handler unit. Pipe joint connections are identified by standard symbols. The question states as follows: Refer to the Refrigeration System shown in Figure 1. Estimate the cost of the Refrigeration Piping. Add 6% Florida State Sales Tax to the total cost. The multiple choice list of possible answers to the question are: Less than $500.00. (B) Between $500.00 and $600.00 (C) Between $600.01 and $700.00 (D) More than $700.00 The pipe joint segments identified by the symbols on the schematic are 90-degree elbow joints. Elbow joints can connect pipe segments which have different elevations. Elbow joints can also be connected to construct a "swing joint" which provides for pipe alignment. Swing joints do not change the elevation between the pipe segments connected at the joint. According to the schematic, the first pipe segments, (two feet two inch pipes), run from the air-cooled condensing unit to a joint. The schematic does not identify the elevation of the air-cooled condensing unit or of the first pipe segments. The second pipe segments lie at an elevation of 104 feet 4 inches and connect via a pipe joint to the third pipe segments, which lie at an elevation of 104 feet 0 inches. The third segments connect via a pipe joint to the fourth pipe segments which are at an elevation of 103 feet 8 inches. The fourth segments connect to the pipe segments leading from the air handling unit (AHU 1). The correct answer to Question 6 is (B). The total cost for piping and hardware shown on the schematic is approximately $557. There are 83.3333 lineal feet of 1 and 3/8 inch diameter pipe at $3.96 per lineal foot, totaling about $330.00. There are 75.7527 lineal feet of 7/8 inch diameter pipe at $2.35 per lineal foot, totaling about $178.02. There are fourteen 90-degree elbows, (seven 1 and 3/8 inch elbows at 1.71 each and seven 7/8 inch elbows at .79 each) totaling 17.50. The total of materials is 525.52. Inclusion of the 6% tax results in an estimated cost of $557.05. Because there was no elevation shown for the first pipe segment between the condenser unit and the pipe joint, the Petitioner assumed that the pipe joint symbol indicated an elevation change and that the condenser unit could be located substantially above or below the identified 104 feet 0 inches elevation of the second segment. Accordingly, his answer to Question 6 was "(D) More than $700.00." The Petitioner's answer is based, not on the information provided in the schematic, but on unreasonable assumptions as to the condenser unit location, and is incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing Scott Eric Baker's challenge to the grading of his responses to the June 1991 examination for licensure as a Certified Air Conditioning Class A Contractor. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, unnecessary. 10-14. Rejected, recitation of testimony. Respondent The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. Copies furnished to: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Scott Eric Baker 13438 Caribbean Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33095 Vytas J. Urba, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondents, Anthony Crescenzo and Johns by John II, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(g), (k), (l)2., and (p), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), pursuant to chapters 381 and 489, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. Respondent Anthony Crescenzo is a resident of the State of Florida and holds DOH registration number SR0061541, to provide septic tank contracting services in Florida. Mr. Crescenzo owns and operates Johns by John II, Inc. (Johns by John), a Florida corporation located at 6252 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, Hernando County, Florida. Johns by John is authorized by the Department to provide septic tank services under Business Authorization number SA0041171. Johns by John provides OSTDS services pursuant to rules adopted by the Department and under the license, registration, and direction of Anthony Crescenzo. Winston and Dianne Wescott reside at 2245 Ring Road in Spring Hill, Florida, and have done so for approximately 19 years. Sometime in April 2014, Mr. Wescott noticed a depression and some saturated soil in his yard, near his septic tank. Mr. Wescott was concerned because of prior sink hole activity. After some telephone calls and an inspection by the insurance adjuster, Mr. Winston called Johns by John. On or about Saturday, June 7, 2014, a worker from Johns by John came to the residence and pumped out the drainfield. At that time, waste was coming out of the ground but was not backing up into the home. After the pump-out was complete, Mr. Wescott showed the technician the depressed area, and an exposed area that revealed that the outlet pipe to the septic system’s distribution box (D-box) was defective. The area had been exposed by either the insurance adjuster or the homeowner before the technician arrived. The technician telephoned Mr. Crescenzo, who advised that he would come out the following Monday or Tuesday to inspect the system and see what additional repairs were necessary. Mr. Wescott paid $205.72 for the pump-out of the drainfield. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014, Mr. Crescenzo met with Mr. Wescott to assess what repairs were necessary. When he arrived, the homeowner had already dug around the area, leaving the tank and the D-box at least partially exposed. Mr. Crescenzo advised that a new drainfield might be necessary, but did not state that it was absolutely required. He also explained that the repair would require a permit, and that they would do what they could to repair, as opposed to replace, the existing system. Mr. Crescenzo also explained that because of the need to obtain a permit, it might be four to six weeks before the job was completed. Mr. Crescenzo prepared, and Mr. Wescott signed, a Work Order/Proposed Drainfield Estimate form. Under “Job Description,” the following handwritten notation was provided: D-box collapsed down [illegible] point may have to replace entire system $2,500-$3,500. System will need to go in the front due to site conditions 4 bedroom house deposit required $1,000. The preprinted text on the form provided the following statements in bold-faced type: * NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SPRINKLERS, WIRES, BROKEN PIPES, YARD, SOD OR DRIVEWAY DAMAGEDeposits are non-refundable. The form also provided for a 10-year warranty of any work performed. Although the language of the form is not clear, Mr. Crescenzo testified credibly that the warranty was applicable to repairs of the existing system as well as to replacement of the system. While the maximum the homeowner might have to pay is clearly indicated on the form, the costs of a repair short of replacement is not listed. Mr. Crescenzo testified that a $1,000 deposit is required for any job requiring a permit, as the permit itself is $300, and that he told the homeowner that he would not know the extent of the repair needed until he started the work. Mr. Wescott signed the estimate. Despite the language on the estimate that a new drainfield may be needed, Mr. Wescott understood that his drainfield would be replaced. While he admits signing it, he did not recall seeing the statement that deposits are non-refundable, notwithstanding that it is printed in bold type. His understanding appears to be based, in part, on a discussion between Mr. Wescott and Mr. Crescenzo about the continued vitality of the D-box. Mr. Wescott understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the life of the septic system was approximately 19 years (the age of his home), and that if the drainfield was not replaced, the Wescotts would in all likelihood be calling him back in a matter of months to replace it because it was nearing the end of its expected life-span. He also understood Mr. Crescenzo to say that the D-box was obsolete and would not be replaced when the drainfield was replaced. Mr. Crescenzo, on the other hand, testified that he always maintained that they would try to repair the existing drainfield but may have to replace it. In the event that the system was replaced, D-boxes are no longer used and the existing one would not be replaced. Mr. Crescenzo denied stating that the life of a drainfield is 19 years, stating that drainfields do not have a standard life expectancy.1/ Mr. Crescenzo also emphasized that the work performed, whether a repair to the existing drainfield or a replacement, was subject to a 10-year warranty, thus making any statement that the company would just have to come back in a few months nonsensical. Mr. Crescenzo’s testimony is credited. Mr. Crescenzo applied for a permit on June 18, 2014, which costs $300. The permit application was to repair or replace the distribution box, not to replace the drainfield, and noted that the D-Box had collapsed. Mr. Crescenzo stated on the application that it may be possible to fix the D-Box and remove roots. The permit was issued for OSTDS repair on June 20, 2014. According to Stephen Kataro, an engineer for the septic tank program for Hernando County who approved the application and inspected the repair, the permit gave the option to replace the drainfield if necessary, based upon what was found during the repair. This approval is consistent with Department policy. On approximately July 3, 2014, Jeremiah Blake, a technician for Johns by John, went to the Wescott home to work on the septic system. Mr. Blake drove a Johns by John truck equipped with the standard equipment to install a drainfield. When he arrived at the home, the system was already uncovered. Mr. Blake discussed the repairs with Mr. Wescott, stating that he could do the drainfield or fix the D-Box. He determined that replacement of the outlet pipe leading to the D-Box addressed the problem, and that there was no need to replace the drainfield, as all drains were taking water. Mr. Blake completed the repair and used Mr. Wescott’s garden hose with a jet-spray nozzle to spray inside the D-Box and clean out the lines. There is an alternative repair method referred to as “jetting” that requires a separate permit that Respondents did not obtain. Jetting requires specialized equipment that Respondents do not own. The unrebutted testimony of both Mr. Wescott and Mr. Blake is that Mr. Blake used a simple garden hose to clear the lines. He is familiar with what the Department refers to as jetting, but has never operated jetting equipment. He uses the term “jetting” because it is an easier way to describe what he does with a simple garden hose to clear the D-Box of sand. When Mr. Blake replaced the pipe leading to the D-Box, he broke sprinkler lines in the area. Sprinkler lines are often, if not always, damaged in OSTDS repairs. Respondents had arranged the day before for a timed inspection, for which they paid an additional fee. The purpose of a timed inspection is to be able to complete the job and have it inspected as soon as it is finished. Mr. Kataro came out to the property at approximately 9:00 a.m., inspected the work performed, determined that it met permit requirements to restore function, and approved it.2/ Mr. Kataro left the site before Mr. Blake covered the system, consistent with standard practice. While Mr. Wescott was present when Mr. Kataro arrived to inspect the work, there was no testimony to indicate Mr. Wescott advised the inspector that he was unhappy with the scope of work performed. Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises for use in covering the area. He testified that he covered the system, including the broken sprinkler pipes, and that he always does so and then notifies the homeowner about the need to fix the sprinkler pipes. Both Mr. Blake and Mr. Wescott testified that Mr. Wescott asked Mr. Blake to remove some sod for him nearby, and paid him cash for doing so. According to Mr. Blake, Mr. Wescott seemed satisfied at this point. It seems inconceivable that Mr. Wescott would be willing to pay additional funds for Mr. Blake to remove sod if he had not covered the system he was supposed to cover and if he was unhappy with the work (or lack of work) performed, and yet not say anything to Mr. Blake about covering the completed repair. Mr. Wescott expected that since the drainfield was not replaced, he would receive some portion of the $1,000 he paid back. Had he realized that the repair would cost that much, he would have gotten estimates from other contractors. He viewed replacing the drainfield as preventative maintenance. Based on this belief, after Mr. Blake left the premises, Mr. Wescott called Mr. Crescenzo and asked about a refund. He did not complain, however, about the system not being covered. Mr. Crescenzo informed him that there would be no refund, as the work order clearly indicates that deposits are non-refundable. The Wescotts called the Johns by John office to get an itemized receipt for insurance purposes. There was some delay in receiving a receipt, so they went to the office to obtain it in person. Initially, they were given a receipt stating that the D- box had been replaced. When they questioned this and told the person working in the office that the D-box had not been replaced, she made some phone calls to verify the work performed. The office worker prepared a new receipt while speaking to someone, presumably Jeremiah Blake, on the phone. The new receipt stated, “connected tank to distribution box. Leveled D-Box to drainfield. Jetted drainfield lines.” The change in the description appears to have occurred more because the person working in the office misunderstood the scope of work performed, rather than any nefarious intent to defraud. Further, the reference to jetting was consistent with both Mr. Blake and Mr. Crescenzo’s shorthand notation for cleaning the line with the garden hose, as opposed to the alternative repair method requiring additional permitting. As noted in paragraph 16, the sprinkler lines were broken during the repairs. Mr. Wescott replaced the broken pipes, and placed bricks underneath them to hold them in place. He was still unhappy about not having a new drainfield in place, and felt that he had been defrauded. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Wescott filed a complaint with Albert Gray, the Environmental Manager at the Department. At the very end of his two-page letter, Mr. Wescott stated that the broken irrigation pipes have been repaired and the hole is still wide open with the tank cover exposed. The Department does not regulate the prices to be charged for repairs or installation of new systems: that is between the contractor and the homeowner. There is more involved to complete the job than the time that the workman is on the premises actually performing the repair. For example, in addition to the cost of the permit application, additional time is necessary to perform a site evaluation and soil test. Whether or not the drainfield must be replaced, the materials must be available to install should it be necessary, as well as the skilled workman and equipment (truck, backhoe, etc.). Further, it is clear that, had Respondents installed a new drainfield, the cost would have been much higher than what the Wescotts actually paid, not only to pay for the drainfield, but also to replace a large section of sod and a larger portion of the sprinkler system. Regardless of whether a new drainfield is installed, contractors are required to cover the OSTDS when they work on it. As a result of the Wescott’s complaint, Inspector Kataro went back out to the Wescott home to inspect the site. He found that the D-Box was lying open and exposed, with no earth covering the system. He took pictures of the area, which were admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibits J and K. The pictures show two exposed sprinkler pipes, supported at one end by bricks. One picture shows a bucket positioned over the distribution box, while the other shows the box sealed but not covered. Mr. Kataro testified that the pictures look similar to what he saw when he inspected the property after the repair was completed in July 2014. However, he could not say whether the sprinkler system pipes were broken before, or whether the bricks supporting the pipes were there previously. The testimony is clear that, after the job was inspected, Mr. Wescott made repairs to the sprinkler system that would require the area to be uncovered and Mr. Wescott acknowledged that he placed the bricks under the sprinkler pipes. Mr. Kataro recalled that Mr. Blake had a backhoe on the premises at the time of repair, but Mr. Kataro left the site before the area would have been covered. There is credible testimony that Mr. Blake covered the area and credible testimony that he did not. Other evidence presented is more consistent with a finding that the area was covered, at least minimally. The equipment for covering the area was by all accounts on site, and Mr. Blake used that equipment to remove sod for Mr. Wescott. It makes little sense for him to use the equipment to remove the sod but not use it for covering the D-Box and surrounding area. Moreover, had Mr. Blake covered the area, it would have to be uncovered to fix the sprinkler pipes. The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blake, as an agent of Respondents, failed to cover the D-box. Respondent Crescenzo happened to be at the Department on August 14, 2014, picking up permits when he learned of the complaint from Mr. Wescott. He was very upset about the complaint and immediately wrote a response while still at the Department. In his response, he denied stating that the drain field would definitely be replaced, and emphasized that by repairing the pipe leading to the D-Box the homeowner saved a substantial amount of money, including not only the cost of installing the drain field, but the re-sodding of his yard and more substantial repair of his sprinkler system. Although clearly unhappy about the complaint, Respondent Crescenzo stated, “If the homeowner wants the system just replaced they should have said that at the time of the job. Or we could still do it if they insist for the original agreed price.” Mr. Wescott has not elected to accept Respondents’ offer. In his response, Crescenzo also referred to “jetting,” but used it in the same informal manner as Mr. Blake. His informal reference did not change the unrebutted testimony regarding the scope of work performed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Richard and Clara Marron have an in-ground, fiberglass pool at their home in Zephyrhills. The pool is approximately 25 years old. In December 2005, the Marrons' pool service company told them that the pool had a leak. The pool service company referred the Marrons to Coral Isle Pools and Spas (Coral Isle) in Zephyrhills. Coral Isle was owned and operated by Richard Delafield--the father of Respondent Scott Delafield--until his death on January 31, 2006. Richard Delafield was a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, registered plumbing contactor, and the qualifying agent for Coral Isle. On or about March 29, 2006, the Marrons went into Coral Isle's store and talked to Scott Delafield about fixing the leak in their pool.2 Mr. Delafield determined that the pool was leaking around the underwater light fixture and that the light needed to be replaced. He agreed to perform the necessary repairs for $858.55. The invoice prepared by Mr. Delafield described the work to be performed as follows: "dig under deck redue [sic] electrical conduit" and "labor to install light and do diagnostic on transformer." On May 6, 2006, the Marrons made an initial payment of $250.00 to Coral Isle. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool. Mr. Delafield did not obtain a permit from Pasco County before commencing the work on the Marrons' pool.3 The work was done in four stages. First, a trench was dug under the pool deck to provide access to the back of the light fixture. Second, the existing light was removed and replaced with a new light. Third, the wire for the new light was routed through PVC conduit pipe Mr. Delafield laid in the trench. Fourth, Mr. Delafield connected the wire to the "junction box"4 adjacent to the pool deck. The trench under the pool deck was dug by Carl Lind or Mark Pickett, not Mr. Delafield. Mr. Lind and Mr. Pickett were subcontractors of Coral Isle. Mr. Delafield removed the existing light by removing the screws on the front of the light fixture. He then installed the new light and ran the wire for the light through new PVC conduit pipe to the junction box. On May 17, 2006, the Marrons paid the balance of the invoice, $608.55. Mr. Delafield did not perform any work on the higher voltage electrical wires between the junction box and the breaker box at the house. Mr. Delafield did not drain the pool to replace the light. He was able to access the light fixture from the front because the water level in the pool was below the fixture as a result of the leak in the pool. At some point after Mr. Delafield completed his work on the pool light, Mr. Lind and/or Mr. Pickett drained the Marrons' pool in order to "patch" the fiberglass bottom of the pool.5 The light installed by Mr. Delafield works, and the pool no longer leaks. Indeed, the Marrons acknowledged in their testimony at the final hearing that the work done by Mr. Delafield fixed the leak and that the pool now "holds water." Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle were not licensed, registered, or certified to perform electrical contracting work at the time Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool light. In April 2006, the Department issued temporary emergency certifications to Mr. Delafield as a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, and registered plumbing contractor. The certifications authorized Mr. Delafield to complete Coral Isle's "projects in progress" at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The certifications did not authorize Mr. Delafield to enter into new contracts, nor did they authorize him to perform electrical contracting work. The Marrons' project was not in progress at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The agreement to perform the work was not entered into until several months after his death. In June 2006, the Marrons filed an unlicensed activity complaint against Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle. The Department incurred costs of $206.69 in its investigation of the complaint, not including costs associated with an attorney's time. In February 2007, the Marrons made a claim for $150,000 against Richard Delafield's estate in which they alleged that their pool and deck were "rendered useless" due to the negligence of Coral Isle. They also filed a civil suit against Mr. Delafield and others for damage to their pool. The Marrons did not pursue the claim against the estate, but the civil action is still pending. Coral Isle is no longer in business. Mr. Delafield testified that he planned to pursue licensure so that he could keep the business operating after his father's death, but that he never did so. Mr. Delafield was unemployed at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Mr. Delafield guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 489.531, Florida Statutes; Imposes an administrative fine of $1,000 on Mr. Delafield; and Requires Mr. Delafield to pay the Department's investigative costs of $206.69. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2008.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether sufficient grounds exists for the Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, to terminate Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr.'s employment with the Authority because of the matters alleged in the Letter of Termination dated February 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Authority, was a governmental agency with membership held by Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. It is charged with the responsibility of providing water resource management for its members. In November, 1994, the Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr., then employed for 9 1/2 years by the Authority as a maintenance technician, was under the supervision of Ben Nevel, lead supervisor for his crew and Harry Vogel, the facilities maintenance supervisor at Cypress Creek pump station. Just before Thanksgiving that year, his crew was given the responsibility of removing certain supposedly above ground aluminum pipe belonging to Pinellas County and replacing it with buried PVC pipe on the county's well field on Cross Bar Ranch, owned by Pinellas County. On the last day of the project Respondent was working by himself at the job site doing those things necessary to complete the project. This included removing three aluminum pipes and replacing them with three PVC pipes. In the course of the removal of the aluminum pipe, two pipes were damaged by Respondent because they were buried and he could not see them. When Respondent attempted to bury the three pieces of PVC pipe, he found that he needed some pipe lubricant in order to get them joined and called the pump station to have someone bring it. The lubricant was brought to the site by Mr. Vogel about noon, and the two men talked about the project. According to Mr. Vogel, Respondent made no mention of any damaged pipe nor did Vogel see any damaged pipe while he was at the site. Vogel adamantly denies that he ever, either that day or at any other time, told Respondent that he could throw away damaged pipe. The instructions that Vogel had left with Mr. Nevel for transmittal to the crew was that the removed pipe was to be placed in storage at the north end of the ranch because it belonged to Pinellas County, not to the Authority, and even if the pipe was damaged, the ends might be used for fittings. It is not clear whether Respondent knew the pipe belonged to the county or to the cattle company which had originally owned the ranch. Notwithstanding, Respondent took the two damaged pipes back to the Cypress Creek pumping station where, without speaking to anyone about what he proposed to do, he placed them in the trash dumpster for disposal. The following day, after completing his day's work, Respondent noted that the pipe was still in the dumpster and, without seeking approval from anyone, removed it from the dumpster, placed it in his truck, and that same day, sold it to All American Metal Recycling in Land O'Lakes, Florida, for $29.00 which he kept for his personal use. He collects scrap aluminum and copper in order to sell them. Respondent admits that as an Authority employee, he did not have the authority to take property owned by the Authority or its members for his own use. Ordinarily, he admits, the disposal of Authority-owned property had to be approved. The authority for approval, as contained in the agency's standard operating procedure for disposal of Authority assets, dated February 14, 1994, was the Cypress Creek storekeeper. Though it is not written, the Authority has a policy against employees taking material out of the dumpsters at the Cypress Creek facility. It was Toler's understanding, however, that old, unusable pieces of piping and wood could be thrown away, but equipment and property that had value had to be turned into Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, who would evaluate it for disposal or repair. At no time did Respondent have the authority to make that determination. Mr. Toler admits he was aware of the Authority's policy on the disposal of property as noted in the February 14 SOP, as it had been outlined at no lees than two safety meetings he had attended. He understood that if he threw property away without authority, he could be fired. In fact, he admits, Mr. Vogel had so advised him of that. In the instant case, however, he contends, Mr. Vogel told him on the last day of the project in issue, in response to his inquiry, that he should throw the damaged pipe away. This was, as stated earlier, categorically denied by Mr. Vogel. Respondent also indicates that on the second day of the project, pipe being removed was damaged. That pipe was taken to the north pasture and stacked near other, undamaged pipe. The total amount of aluminum pipe removed in this project consisted of approximate one hundred twenty foot long "sticks". Respondent well knew he could not take and sell the stacked pipe, even that which was damaged. Respondent claims that no one saw him put the damaged pipe into the dumpster. He did not think about the opportunity to salvage the pipe when Mr. Vogel told him to throw it away or even when he brought it back and threw it into the dumpster. It was not until the next day when, after work, he saw the pipe still in the dumpster, that it occurred to him to take it, he claims. Respondent admits he has taken scrap metal and sold it before and claims others have done so, too. When he put this pipe in the dumpster he realized that others might take it, so he was somewhat surprised when it was still there the next day. Respondent also admits he did not tell Mr. Vogel how he had disposed of the pipe at first. Once the situation came under investigation, however, as a result of an inquiry regarding missing pipe from the Cross Bar Ranch project, he did so. He admits that sometime after the day he took and sold the pipe as scrap, but before the investigation was commenced, Mr. Vogel asked him what he had done with the pipe, and Respondent replied he had thrown it away. A few days later, in Vogel's office, when the investigation had begun, Mr. Vogel again asked Respondent what he had done with the pipe, and this time Respondent admitted to scrapping it. In the course of the investigation, Respondent spoke with Mr. Capp, a Cypress Creek engineer, about the allegation. In that conversation, held in Mr. Capp's office while no one else was present, Respondent admitted selling the broken pipe for scrap and advised that Mr. Vogel had told him to throw it away. At that time, he offered to replace the pipe, but his offer was not accepted. Some time later, and prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, he was given a letter by Mr. Capp placing him on administrative leave pending investigation. At that time, Mr. Capp denied knowing what was in the letter. On February 8, 1995 a pre-disciplinary hearing was held with Respondent and counsel present at which time Respondent was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. At that time, he did not mention any other individuals who had taken scrap from the dumpster, nor had he ever told Mr. Vogel, Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy about that. He claims he does not know of any cases where either Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy knew of others taking scrap but not being disciplined. However, Respondent is of the opinion Mr. Vogel knows what is going on but he cannot be sure. As was stated previously, Respondent has taken scrap from the dumpster before and claims Mr. Vogel knew it. Vogel, predictably, denies that. Some time after the pre-disciplinary hearing, after Kennedy received the information regarding the incident as determined therein, he discharged Respondent for several violations of the Authority's personnel rules. These included the removal and sale of the scrap pipe owned by Pinellas County, committing a breach of public trust, and committing a breach of member government trust which was deleterious to the Authority in that, in Kennedy's opinion, it undermined the public's faith and confidence in the Authority's public service responsibilities. Kennedy asserts that the relationship between the Authority and its member governments requires that each cooperate with the other in the mission to supply water to the public. Trust and confidence are essential elements of that relationship. Employees of the Authority and its member governments frequently are in and out of each others' facilities. If a member government loses trust in an Authority employee, the Authority's ability to efficiently perform its function would be hampered. This is a reasonable and supportable position and it is so found. In the past, the Authority has discharged employees for violating employee rules which reflect adversely on Authority integrity. One was discharged for the improper use of an Authority vehicle, and others have been discharged for violations of the property disposal policy. It would appear that Mr. Toler has not been treated differently than any others who were found to have violated similar policies. Since February, 1944, when the Authority adopted its policy regarding disposal of property, three employees, including Respondent, have removed materials from the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility for their own use. Among these are Mr. Nevel who admits to taking electric wire and three discarded printers. Nothing taken by the others included aluminum pipe, however. Capp, Kennedy and Vogel all deny knowing that employees were taking scrap. Respondent cannot say that any of them did know. Consistent with that philosophy, Mr. Kennedy indicates he would have discharged Respondent for placing the scrap in the dumpster whether or not he sold it. By the same token, he would have discharged Respondent had he taken and sold the pipe, even if he had not placed it in the dumpster. Another incident arose in June, 1995, just prior to the hearing, involving the potential disposal of scrap pipe. Mr. Kennedy learned that a stick of aluminum pipe was in the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility. The pipe, owned by the Authority, had been placed there by Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, after Mr. Nevel used the ends to retrofit some piping at the Cross Bar Ranch. When this was discovered, Mr. Kennedy directed the pipe be recovered and held for possible future use or sale. Whereas Respondent contends this action was an attempt at a cover-up, it is more likely the result of an unintentional discard of potentially useful pipe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the East Coast Regional Water Supply Authority deny Respondent's Petition for Relief and Enter a Final Order discharging him effective February 15, 1995. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted but irrelevant to any disputed issue of fact. Accepted. - 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Accepted. 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel has identified his Proposed Findings of Fact by letter rather than number. For the sake of consistency in this Order they will be re- identified herein with numbers. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact but more a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire Battle & Edenfield, P.A. 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Donald D. Conn General Counsel West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621
