Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Edward W. Horsman, filed an application August 14, 1984, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, for certification by examination as an electrical contractor. On October 12, 1984 Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the basis that he lacked sufficient experience in the trade to qualify for the licensure examination. Section 489.521, Fla. Stat., and Rule 21GG-5.02(1), F.A.C. Petitioner filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has 20 years experience in the electrical construction industry. From 1965-1980 Petitioner was employed by Spaulding Electric Company, an electrical contractor in Detroit, Michigan. While employed by Spaulding, Petitioner worked as a wireman for one and one-half years, a foreman for one and one- half years, a field superintendent for four years, an estimator for one and one-half years, chief estimator for one and one-half years, and as manager of electrical construction for five years. Petitioner's managerial and supervisory experience included supervision of draftsmen in plan preparation, bid estimates, negotiation of contracts, overall supervision of construction, scheduling and purchasing. From 1980-1982 Petitioner was employed by Lastar Electric Company, an electrical contractor in Madison Heights, Michigan. Petitioner's managerial and supervisory experience at Lastar comported with his duties at Spaulding. In December 1982 Petitioner was laid off by Lastar, due to an economic recession which plagued Detroit, Michigan. From December 1982 until February 1984, Petitioner operated his own consulting firm in Rochester, Michigan, providing estimating and project management services for electrical contractors. Business was poor, and few contracts were acquired. In February 1984 Respondent relocated to Englewood, Florida, and undertook his current employment with Baldwin Electric, Inc. Respondent seeks to be licensed as the qualifying agent for Larry's Electric, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Baldwin Electric, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is General Manager and President of Modern Air Conditioning, Inc., (hereafter "Modern Air" or "Corporation"), and R. L. Anderson, Inc., Mechanical Contractors. He has held these positions with Modern Air since April 1965. The Petitioner has held journeyman's cards in air conditioning, as well as union structural iron worker's, competency and electrical journeyman szzz cards. The Petitioner has been a member of several municipal and county licensing boards and is presently serving a third term on the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Modern Air is or has been licensed as an electrical contractor in Lee, Charlotte, Glades, Collier, Hendry, and Sarasota counties and the cities of Sanibel, Naples, and Punta Gorda. Modern Air employs six full-time and three part-time journeymen electricians. Among the representative electrical contracting jobs which the Corporation has performed over the past three years are wiring schools, homes, condominiums, and small commercial businesses. In addition to air conditioning and rewiring, the Corporation employs individuals to perform plumbing and insulating work. Modern Air is a solvent corporation with assets in excess of one and a half million dollars. Its net income for 1978 was $118,967.00. Corporate retained earnings for March 31, 1977 through 1978 were $463,936.00. The Corporation is bonded with the American Insurance Company for one million dollars per single occurrence with a three million dollar maximum limit. Modern Air and Petitioner have high credit ratings and enjoy excellent reputations in the community. On December 18, 1978, Petitioner submitted an application to the Florida Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board to sit for the state electrical contractors examination in his capacity as qualifying agent for Modern Air. By letter dated March 15, 1979, the Board, upon the advice of its application committee and through its executive director, denied Petitioner's application. The denial was due to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate "unlimited" experience in the field of electrical contracting. At the hearing Petitioner explained the experience portion of his application and particularly the method which he used to demonstrate the value of each particular job listed. For example, as to one job, Collier County Public Schools, the value listed on the application was $33,000 yet the actual value of the total job to Modern Air was in excess of a quarter of a million dollars. The $33,000 was solely electrical with the rest being subcontracted while Modern Air remained prime contractor. The job information furnished which included auditoriums, cafeterias, gymnasiums, industrial arts labs, and homes was noted on the application as being indicative or representative of the corporate activity over the preceding three years. During the hearing, the Board's expert witness stated that if he had served on the application committee he would have returned the application and requested additional information in order to determine qualifications rather than simply deny the application.
Findings Of Fact All parties involved concurred that there is a necessity for expanded generating capacity to serve Gulf's customers and that the two initial units of 500mw each can meet this requirement. The parties stipulated that the power plant site certification application submitted by Gulf (Exhibit 1) deals sufficiently with the issue of operational safeguards and further that DER's proposed conditions of certification contain a condition that adequately addresses that issue. All agencies involved recommended certification; however, DER's recommendation was predicated upon Gulf complying with the general and special conditions or certifications contained in Exhibits 4 and 5. Gulf agreed to all those conditions but three, viz: 1. That the water intake and return lines to the river cross the wetlands on a trestle instead of the causeway proposed by Gulf; 2. A more extensive monitoring program and without termination date than the fixed period monitoring program proposed by Gulf; and 3. Restrictions upon use of herbicides to clear transmission line corridors in excess of those placed by federal and state authorities. In addition DER proposed in general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) to modify in the future the conditions of certification by any new or more stringent department rule enacted pursuant to Chapter 120 F.S. Gulf objected to this condition of certification and submitted a brief in opposition thereto. I With respect to Item number 1 the proposed causeway will occupy some 8 acres of wetlands. It is proposed to commence the causeway at elevation + 58 feet (above MSL), which is the 25 year predicted high water flood level in the Choctawhatchee River flood plain, and continue the causeway some 2400 feet at this elevation tot he river bank. The base of the proposed causeway will have a maximum width of 130 feet at a point near the river's edge where the causeway height will be 23 feet (T91). The top width is roughly 60 feet (T90) of which 18 feet will be paved surface. To the north of the access road will be a buried electrical service to carry electricity to the pumps. In the causeway to the south of the access road will be buried two intake lines of 30 inch diameter and one water discharge line. Near the river end of the causeway a vehicle turn-around area will be provided. The causeway across the wetlands will run in a southwesterly direction from plant site parallel to the principal direction of flood water flow when the river is out of its banks. Five oval-shaped culverts will be placed in the causeway at the lowest points of natural contour and permit water to pass through the causeway to equalize levels on both sides of the causeway. These culverts will be 6 feet wide by 3 feet 8 inches high. During the wet season water will be standing in most of these culverts. If the causeway were built in the same location, but without culverts, so as to block any flow normal to the causeway, the build up of water on the north side of the causeway would be only 1 or 2 inches at full flood stage of 57 feet (T146).1 Accordingly, the causeway would have little, if any, effect on the water flow in the wetlands over which this causeway passes; and, but for the 8 acres of wetlands eliminated by the construction of the causeway, the ecological function of these wetlands will be virtually unimpaired. As a collector of sediment from the flood waters the flood plain would also be unimpaired by the construction of the causeway (T154). The cost of constructing the causeway as proposed is $216,000. As a condition of certification (Ex 5 D 1 b) DER prescribed "a trestle shall be used for access to the platform for all areas west of station 14 + 00." This includes the access across the wetlands and presumably it is DER's position that the intake and discharge pipes from the Choctawhatchee River shall be placed upon a trestle structure rather than upon a causeway. The only evidence presented with respect to the cost of the trestle structure was presented by Gulf that a concrete pile trestle to support the pipes and access road would cost some $900,000. A creosoted pile trestle to perform the same function would cost approximately $600,000 and to provide fire protection for the piling would cost another $250,000, which would place the cost of either type trestle some four times the cost of the causeway. No maintenance costs or useful life comparisons of the trestle and causeway were presented. Both trestle and causeway would require the same corridor to be cleared thus the construction of either would result in the same ecological damage. Thereafter, however, the vegetation and other indicia of wetlands could return under the trestle. While evidence was presented that the causeway would occupy 8 acres of former wetlands no evidence was presented of the area occupied by the piling of the trestle. It is obvious that this would be a small fraction of the area occupied by the causeway, but not necessarily insignificant. Gulf opposed the trestle concept for two additional reasons. The exposed pipe on the trestle, if of steel, would require painting and would conduct heat from the sun to the water passing through the pipe. Testimony was presented that ecologists not present had evaluated wetlands in general as having an ecological value of between $1,000 and $20,000 per acre per year. If these figures have economic reality all wetland should have a market value of at least $10,000 per acre. Regardless of this if we assume the values presented are real and the cost for the access corridors are correct, the following economic comparisons can be made. The difference in the cost of the causeway and trestle is approximately $700,000. If this money is borrowed by Gulf at 8 1/2 percent interest the interest cost is almost $60,000 per year. Since this would be a valid capital expense this interest cost will be reflected in the rates of Gulf's customers. If the wetlands are ecologically worth $7,500 per acre per year the 8 acres here involved would also have a value of $60,000 per year. In this connection it should be noted that DER's condition of certification specifying trestle across wetlands was based solely on ecological factors and cost was not considered (T308). During the course of the hearing considerable evidence was presented regarding a third alternative for piping water to and from the river, viz. in pipes buried across the wetlands. This evidence was insufficient in numerous aspects to give it viability; however, several aspects of this proposal are worthy of note. Any pipe that is used to carry cooling water requires some degree of slope to permit the pipe to be drained. From a position near SR 179 (where if underground pipes are used the pumps would have to be placed to provide access for maintenance) the pipe could be buried; but, at some point in the flood plain, the pipe would have to be placed upon a trestle to maintain slope to the river's edge (T287). Burying pipes across the wetlands would have the least ecological impact upon the wetlands. Once the pipe path was trenched, suitable bearing material placed in the trench to support the pipe, the pipe laid and the trench back filled the wetlands would return to natural state and the area involved resume most of the characteristics of wetlands. Problems associated with this proposal include providing all-weather access to the inside of the pipe; obtaining suction on pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 + feet above the level of the water to be pumped; long periods of shutdown in case a section of pipe required replacement; and routine engineering problems in obtaining a constant slope upon installation. Regardless of the path taken by these pipes some difficulties with corbicula clams are expected. These creatures are endemic to the Choctawhatchee River and will be entrained in the pipe. There they will attach themselves and as they grow restrict the flow in the pipes. Although chlorination at the inlet is expected to help control this problem periodic cleaning of the intake pipes may be required. Accordingly, access to these pipes at all stages of the water level in the flood plain is an important concern. While testimony presented that it was possible to obtain suction with pumps located 2400 feet laterally and 12 feet higher than the level of the water to be pumped, it was also acknowledged that this 2400 feet of 30 inch pipe would "probably" have to be primed before the pumps could pick up suction. (T305-306). Cost and feasibility of providing all weather access to the buried pipes, and of providing capability to prime the remote pumps was not presented. Furthermore the cost associated with burying the pipes across the wetlands was not presented. Accordingly this concept should not be further considered. II With respect to the biological monitoring program to be carried out by Gulf to determine the effects of the power plant on river organisms, DER, as a condition of certification, proposes a program that will continue for the life of the plant regardless of the conclusions reached from such monitoring. Gulf, on the other hand, proposes a monitoring program to commence prior to the operation of Unit I to determine the base line conditions and continue for one year after commencement of operations of Unit I. Thereafter when Unit II comes on line the monitoring program would be reinstituted and continue for one more year. Since Unit II is scheduled to come on line one year after Unit I the monitoring program proposed by Gulf would actually be continuous for about 2 1/2 years. All parties generally agreed that monitoring is required to ascertain the ecological effects of the plant on the aquatic life in the river. One type monitoring is needed to determine the effect of impingement and entrainment at the intake. The intake structure is designed so the plant of the intake screen is parallel to the current flow. This largely eliminates impingement of fish and other aquatic life on the intake screen as the current flow would tend to wash aquatic life off the screen. Since water is drawn into the intake at a speed of 1/2 foot per second those aquatic life in the volume of water entering which are small enough to pass through the screens will be entrained and killed in the filters. It is to determine the quantity and composition of the aquatic life so destroyed that this part of the monitoring program is intended. The second part of the monitoring program involves ascertaining the aquatic life in the river above the plant and below the point of discharge of the returned cooling water in order to ascertain the effect of the discharged water on the aquatic organisms. With respect to the entrainment monitoring there was considerable confusion in the testimony regarding anticipated findings. Gulf's witness stated that at low river and low flow conditions the greatest number of organisms would be entrained. While it is obvious that the greatest percentage of available water will be removed from the river during low flow conditions (since the same quantity or volume of water will be withdrawn as at high flow conditions) it is not obvious that there will be a higher density of aquatic organisms in the river at this same time; and no one so testified. In fact the testimony was that various organisms in the water may change radically (of a magnitude of 1,000 to 1) at various times throughout the year. It would appear that whatever concentration of aquatic organisms that exist in the thalweg of the river would exist in the water withdrawn through the intake pipes and be entrained. Those organisms that exist in slack water portions of the river, swim or otherwise remain out of the current passing near the intake would not be entrained. Thus a sampling point in the current near the intake would provide adequate information on the effects of entrainment. The program proposed by Gulf and contained in Exhibit 21 appears adequate for this determination. With respect to the monitoring required to ascertain the effects of the plant operation on the river ecosystems Gulf proposed sampling only periphyton while DER's condition or certification (Exhibit 5) provides for a sampling to include phytoplankton, zoo plankton, ichthyoplankton, nutrient analysis, benthos and fish. These samples would be taken at points above and below the plant intake and discharge for the obvious determination of the effects on the river ecological system resulting from the discharge of the used cooling water back into the system. In this regard it should be pointed out that the water to be discharged will be treated to remove heat, solids, and other concentrations that would affect compliance with the EPA standards. No valid cost estimates for the monitoring program proposed by either Gulf or DER was presented. One witness upon cross examination gave a ball park "guesstimate" of $50,000 per year for Gulf's proposed program and $100,000 per year for DER's program. The witness expressly disallowed any credit for the accuracy of these figures and accordingly they are disregarded. They are inserted here simply because cost of the end product, electricity, is a factor to be considered in determining under what conditions this certification should be granted. As noted above, Gulf proposes to continue the monitoring program for approximately 30 months (until one year after Unit II has come on line) while DER proposes a monitoring program that will continue for the life of the plant. The biological community sampling program contained in Exhibit 5, part II C should be followed. The time during which these programs should be continued will be discussed under Conclusions. III All parties generally agreed that the use of herbicides was required to clear vegetation from transmission line corridors in wet areas where mechanical equipment cannot operate. Gulf proposes to use Kuron, a herbicide approved by both state and federal authorities. It will be used in wet areas only at a frequency not to exceed once per year and in accordance with manufacturer's instructions admitted into evidence as Exhibit 22. At the hearing DER appeared to take the position that approval by DER should be obtained prior to each time the herbicide is used. The evidence presented clearly shows that Kuron is a safe non- persistent herbicide which, when applied in accordance with instructions, will cause no harm to untargeted vegetation. All of the transmission line routes were not finalized at the time of the hearing but when the remainder of these corridors are finalized there appears to be no reason that Gulf should not provide DER with a map of these corridors indicating thereon those areas in which herbicides will be used. IV No factual evidence regarding general conditions of certification 11(a) and (b) was presented. Accordingly these will be treated solely as a matter of law.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the application of Gulf Power Company for a power plant site certificate be granted so as to authorize the construction and operation of a coal-fired steam generating electrical power plant near Carryville, Florida in accordance with Exhibit 1. It is further RECOMMENDED that this approval be conditioned upon compliance by Gulf with the conditions of certification contained in Exhibit 4 and 5 except conditions II D 1 (b) (Exhibit 5), general conditions 11(a) and (b), (Exhibit 4), and that condition II C (Exhibit 5) be modified to provide such monitoring shall commence not less than six months prior to completion of Unit I and continue for a period of three years after completion of Unit II. At this time Gulf may petition DER for authority to discontinue said monitoring or to modify same and if such request is not approved Gulf shall be entitled to a hearing at which evidence shall be presented from which a determination can be made whether the benefits of said monitoring program justify the costs involved. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from a technical high school in Massachusetts and studied electricity at the Wentworth and Coyne Institutes. He served a three year apprenticeship and subsequently obtained the Massachusetts journeyman and master electrician licenses. He entered the electrical contracting business in 1960 and thereafter engaged in commercial, industrial, and residential electrical contracting work in Massachusetts. All projects were completed without default. Petitioner moved to Florida one year ago intending to set up an electrical contracting business here. However, Respondent denied his application for licensure by endorsement and he has deferred his business plans until the licensing issue is resolved.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Robert F. Toscano for licensure as an electrical contractor by endorsement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this day of March, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6 day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert F. Toscano Post Office Box 1563 Belleview, Florida 32620
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on March 14, 1960. At the time of this hearing he was 22 years old. Petitioner moved to Florida from Arkansas in March, 1981, and subsequently applied for and was issued a State certificate as a general contractor in February, 1982. While in Arkansas, Petitioner obtained a license as a master electrician (Exhibit 1) and his company, American Enterprise Electric, was licensed as an electrical contractor (Exhibit 2). The electrical contractors' license was obtained without examination, as Petitioner was doing electrical contracting when the Arkansas licensing law was passed in 1979. Petitioner started working for his father, a general contractor in Arkansas, at an early age and was doing electrical work in his early teens. He took over the electrical end of his father's contracts, prepared bids, supervised, and did most of the electrical wiring on several apartment buildings, office buildings, and single family residences through his late teens. In 1978 Petitioner started his own business as an electrical contractor in Arkansas. He subsequently added air conditioning and electronics work. Operating as Allgood Electric, Petitioner did the electrical work on residences, apartment buildings and office buildings in which others were the general contractor. In his application, Exhibit 4, Petitioner dates 3/30/78 as the start of his electrical contracting company. The last job reported on Exhibit 4 is dated 9/1/80, shortly before Petitioner moved to Florida. From 3/7/78 through 9/1/80 Petitioner lists on Exhibit 4 a total electrical contractor dollar value of $60,000 with two of these jobs accounting for $35,000. Petitioner holds no local license as an electrician or electrical contractor. No evidence was presented of the electrical contracting done by his company in Florida, although he testified he has a qualifying agent to allow his company to do electrical contracting.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
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 the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact A.P. Jerguson III is the sole shareholder of Jerguson Electric, Inc., applicant herein, and is the qualifying agent for the applicant. He has been a master electrician in Dade County since 1972 and formed his own electrical company in October, 1972. Prior to obtaining his master's license he was employed by L & M Electric Company and Lund Electric Company. While working for the latter contractor he was electrical foreman on the construction of a Holiday Inn at 79th Street Causeway in Miami. Since forming his own business Jerguson has performed all types of electrical work from equipment installation to electrical wiring. After forming Jerguson Electric he made little or no money the first two years. During the past two years the company made approximately $4,000 net profit each year after paying to the sole shareholder some $18,000 annual salary. In 1975 the applicant did approximately $66,000 in gross sales. The credit information submitted on both Jerguson and the applicant contains no adverse comments and shows both Jerguson and Jerguson Electric to pay bills promptly, have no judgments against them and to be currently solvent. Representative jobs performed by applicant are contained in Exhibit 1. These show routine wiring jobs, commercial and residential electrical work, and freezer and air-conditioning installations. These jobs varied between $500 and $8,000 in price and totaled some $60,000 over a three year period. However, as seen from the financial statement for 1975, where the total work performed amounted to some $66,000 these were representative jobs over the three year period and not all jobs performed during this three year period as the form on which they were submitted seems to indicate. At the hearing Respondent stipulated that the qualifying agents' qualifications were not in question and that the agent was denied the right to take the examination because the applicant did not show enough major jobs to demonstrate its qualification and business experience in handling large jobs. The Executive Director of the Board further testified that upon this basis the Board would deny certification of any new business organization, regardless of the expertise of its qualifying agent or agents and the financial status of the organization, simply because the new business could not show a sufficient number of jobs completed. Apparently if the qualifying agent had previously been certified by the board a new business could be certified pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21GG-2.01(2) F.A.C.
