The Issue The issues in this cause are those promoted by the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the Department of Professional Regulation accusing the Respondent of various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Should the Respondent be found guilty, this action contemplates the imposition of a penalty against Respondent's license as a commercial pool contractor in Florida.
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondent, at all times relevant to this inquiry, was a registered commercial pool contractor having been issued license number RP0041725. This is a license issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 2..On November 18, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract under the name Kennedy Pool and Construction Co., an entity for whom Respondent serves as a qualifying agent in the commercial pool contracting business. This contract was with one Marie Robertson; however, the contract was not for the purpose of construction of a pool. It was for construction of a 20' by 24' block garage. This structure was to be free-standing and would be located adjacent to Ms. Robertson's residence, which is also used in her business. Petitioner's exhibit number 2 is a copy of the contract and reflects the $4,800.00 contract price. Robertson has paid the full amount of the contract and the garage construction was completed in January, 1984. Respondent personally built the garage. Respondent built the garage without obtaining a building permit from the City of Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent also failed to submit plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville, which set forth the design and placement of this garage structure. Having failed to request a permit or to submit plans and specifications, Respondent made no request of the City of Jacksonville Building Department to inspect the construction related to the garage. Finally, Respondent in his licensure with the State of Florida, and license recognition with the City of Jacksonville, was not authorized to serve as a building contractor engaging in the construction of structures such as the garage in question. The project at issue entailed the pouring of a foundation; the erection of block walls the erection of a roof truss system and the installation of a roof covering of shingles. All of these items were beyond the license recognition which respondent held with the State of Florida and the City of Jacksonville. When the City of Jacksonville discovered the existence of the garage, it made the owner aware that the structure was in violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code related to the need for obtaining a building permit, and the fact that the garage structure violated the city's set-back requirement. This later item pertained to the fact that given the commercial utilization of the property, on the part of Ms. Robertson, the garage was too close to the city street. As a consequence, Robertson was put to the inconvenience of obtaining and paying for a building permit and gaining a variance from the set-back requirements mentioned. Had the City of Jacksonville been presented with building plans and specifications, this would have alerted the city to the fact that the placement of the garage was too close to the street. When confronted with her difficulty, Ms. Robertson contacted the Respondent to gain his assistance in obtaining a building permit. The Respondent indicated that it was her problem and said that he could not get a permit because the property was business property and not private property. The Respondent was charged by the City of Jacksonville through a notice of violation of local zoning requirements related to the failure to obtain a building permit and the fact that the Respondent was not licensed by the City of Jacksonville to construct a garage at the Robertson residence. Attempts at serving the violations were not successful in that calls to the Respondent and issuance of notice of violations through certified mail, return receipt requested, were not acknowledged by the Respondent.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been certified by Petitioner as a building code administrator in the State of Florida. On April 5, 1993, Respondent began his employment with Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, as the permit control division chief in the County's Department of Building & Zoning, now known as the Department of Planning, Development and Regulation. Carlos Bonzon was the head of the County's Department of Building & Zoning and also served as the County's Building Official. The Port of Miami is another department within Metropolitan Dade County. At all times material hereto, Carmen Lunetta was the head of that department. The County desired to expand Terminals 8 and 9 at the Port of Miami to accommodate a Carnival Cruise Lines mega-cruise ship, anticipated to arrive in March 1996. The County was concerned that if it could not offer the taller terminal required for such a large ship, the ship would utilize Port Everglades instead of the Port of Miami. For purposes of construction, Terminals 8 and 9 were "threshold" buildings. A threshold building is one which is of such magnitude or complexity that the construction requires continuous inspections. Those continuous inspections are performed by the on-site "threshold inspector," the engineer of record, who keeps a log of the on-going inspections. The expertise required of a threshold inspector is beyond that of most County field inspectors. When a threshold inspector is involved, the County's inspectors check to make sure the log is being kept up-to-date and on-site. On January 27, 1995, a pre-submittal meeting was attended by representatives of Dade County, of the architect, and of the engineer. Respondent was one of the attendees. The meeting was chaired by Jose Cueto, the "special assistant" to Bonzon. Saul Suarez, the project architect, explained the project, and Cueto advised the attendees that the construction needed to begin even without the County's approval of building plans and the issuance of a permit and that County inspectors would perform "courtesy inspections" to make sure the work was being performed according to the architectural plans. Further, the inspectors were not to stop the construction work although there were no approved plans and no permit. While the South Florida Building Code does not provide for courtesy inspections, it was understood that the courtesy inspections referred to by Cueto were the same as "field visits." In a field visit a County inspector will travel to the job site, observe the construction, and meet with the contractor, engineer, or architect to discuss any concerns they may have. A field visit is not an official inspection required by the South Florida Building Code. Construction work began on Phase I, the foundation for Terminals 8 and 9. By letter dated February 10, 1995, Port Director Lunetta wrote to Building & Zoning Department Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for the project, allowing the construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." By letter dated June 29, 1995, Port Director Lunetta again wrote to Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for Phase II of the project, allowing construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." There is no such permit as a conditional permit under the South Florida Building Code. In July 1995 Cueto conducted a meeting regarding Phase II, the superstructure, which was attended by Respondent and other Building & Zoning Department representatives, the architect, and Port of Miami representatives. Cueto acquainted the attendees with Phase II of the construction and advised that the work would exceed the drawings and approved plans. Cueto outlined the procedures which were set up by Director Bonzon and specified that, in addition to the threshold engineer's inspection, County inspections were to be performed only by the Chief Inspector in each of the trades since the chief inspectors would have the most experience. Cueto also advised that he personally would be in charge of coordinating inspections and plans review as a result of the procedures established by Director Bonzon for the project. As the head of the Department of Building & Zoning and as the County's Building Official, Bonzon had the authority to re-assign duties for the Department's employees. Although Cueto was not certified to review plans and had had no authority over the County's plans review and inspection processes, Respondent and the others attending the January 1995 meeting and the July 1995 meeting understood that Bonzon had delegated to Cueto the responsibilities for ordering inspections and overseeing the processing of the building plans for the project. On July 7, 1995, a building permit was issued for the project. The permit was restricted to "foundation only." Throughout 1995 County inspectors visited the job site. They viewed the construction and verified that the threshold inspection log was on-site and up-to-date. The inspections were not recorded as official inspections because the County's computer would not accept inspection entries before a permit had been issued. The inspectors kept notes regarding their courtesy inspections or field visits. All mandatory inspections under the South Florida Building Code were conducted, both before and after the issuance in July 1995 of the building permit with the restriction limiting construction to foundation only. At the end of 1995 the County re-organized some of its departments, including the Building & Zoning Department. Director Bonzon and his special assistant Jose Cueto were transferred to the transportation department, and Bonzon was no longer the County's Building Official. On January 10, 1996, Respondent was certified by the Secretary of the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals, subject to approval by the Certification Subcommittee at the January 30, 1996, meeting, to become the County's Building Official. As of that date, Respondent considered himself to have assumed the duties of that office. He did not also become the head of the Department; he remained in his position as Permit Control Division Chief. In either the first or second week of January, Respondent went to the offices of Bonzon and Cueto, who were in the process of moving to their new offices, to say good-by. In Cueto's office, Respondent saw a set of building plans lying on Cueto's window ledge. He asked if those were the plans for Terminals 8 and 9, and Cueto answered in the affirmative. Respondent took the plans and personally delivered them to the Chief Construction Plans Examiner, Frank Quintana. He directed Quintana to do whatever was necessary to expedite the County's review of those plans. Quintana divided the required two sets of plans so two reviewers could be processing them at the same time and personally took them from reviewer to reviewer in order to expedite them as quickly as possible. The expedited review process Respondent directed to occur resulted in the foundation- only restriction being removed from the permit on February 6, 1996. On that date, the construction at Terminals 8 and 9 was 85 to 95 percent complete. Prior to the removal of the foundation-only restriction from the permit on February 6, subcontracting permits for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work had not been, and could not have been, issued. Respondent immediately reported his discovery of the plans in Cueto's office and his decision to expedite their review to his superiors, Guillermo Olmedillo and Ray Villar. Respondent did not order the construction stopped. He knew that the threshold inspector had been performing on-going inspections, the architect had been regularly on-site, and that County inspectors had been visiting the job site on a regular basis. He also knew that all mandatory inspections had been conducted on schedule. He had no reason to believe that any of the construction was unsafe or that there was any danger to the public as a result of the construction having proceeded without proper permitting. He believed that the work itself was in compliance with the South Florida Building Code. On January 18, 1996, the project architect forwarded to Respondent a request that certain mandatory inspections be made. On January 20, Respondent ordered those inspections to be made. Those were the only inspections which Respondent ordered to be performed. In early March shop drawings were reviewed for a pre- fabricated stairwell. Although the stairs were safe for use by the construction workers, the County reviewer questioned the adequacy of the stairs for use by the public using the terminals. Based upon his concerns, repairs were made to the stairs to strengthen them, and they were subsequently approved as complying with all requirements to insure the public's safety. On March 8, 1996, a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for Terminals 8 and 9. There was never any danger to the public as a result of the construction of Terminals 8 and 9.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Seymour Stern, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Gary B. Goldman, Esquire Law Offices of Gary B. Goldman 20700 West Dixie Highway, Suite 100 North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ila Jones, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material hereto, Respondent was a certified pool contractor, holding license no. CP-C033753, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent's certified pool contractor's license qualified Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about May 19, 1986, Respondent, d/b/a Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. entered into a contract with Joseph and Joyce Malinoski for the construction of a swimming pool at 31 Sea Harbour Drive, Ormond Beach, Florida for a contract price of $9,737.75. The contract required a down payment of ten per cent (10 percent) of the contract amount ($973.78) which was paid by the Malinoskis on May 19, 1986. The Malinoskis resided in Massachusetts at the time they contracted for the swimming pool with Respondent and had contracted for the construction of a home in Ormond Beach, Florida to begin upon the pool shell being in place. The Malinsokis returned to Massachusetts upon execution of the contract expecting Respondent to commence work on the pool two weeks after he was notified by the builder that the survey was completed and the benchmark in place. On or before June 18, 1986, Respondent contacted the Malinoskis by phone to advise them that the pool was under construction, that Respondent was ready to start pouring concrete, and that he needed the next two (2) installments (20 percent due on day of excavation and 35 percent due on day of concrete shell installation) in the amount of $5,355.76. On or about June 18, 1986, the Malinoskis forwarded a cashier's check in the amount of $5,355.76 made payable to Respondent with the understanding from Respondent that the pool was under construction. On or about June 25, 1986, the Malinoskis were advised by their building contractor that the pool was not under construction. On or about July 5, 1986, the Malinoskis returned to Ormond Beach and found that the pool was not under construction. Although the business phone at Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. had been disconnected, the Malinoskis ultimately located the Respondent but were unable to resolve the problem until after a complaint had been filed. In early August, 1986, an agreement was reached with the Malinoskis, Respondent and David Larsen whereby Respondent would furnish the labor to build the pool, Larsen would pay the bills and the Malinoskis would pay the balance owed on the contract to Larsen and at end of construction Larsen would give the Malinoskis release of liens. The pool was constructed without the Malinoskis having to pay any additional money on the contract. The money used by Larsen to purchase materials above the amount paid to Larsen by the Malinoskis was repaid to Larsen by Respondent. Respondent supplied all the labor to construct the pool. The testimony of Respondent, which I find credible, was that the funds received by Respondent were frozen due to an Internal Revenue Service levy on the Respondent's business account which resulted in the IRS taking all the funds in the bank account, including the money from the Malinoskis. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent diverted the Malinoskis' funds or that the Respondent was unable to fulfill the terms of the contract. On or about November 15, 1985 Respondent, d/b/a Artistic Pools and Spas, Inc. contracted with John and Louise McGowan for the construction of a swimming pool and spa at 1266 Robbin Drive, Port Orange, Florida for an original contract price of $11,500. These were 2 addendums to the original contract bringing the total contract price to $13,005.75. The contract provided for the spa to be 7 feet long by 5 feet wide with a depth ranging from 18 inches to 36 inches. As constructed, the spa was 5 feet long by 5 feet wide with a depth of 44 inches. The spa was also unlevel resulting in water spilling on to the deck rather than into the spillway to the pool. The therapy jets were located too deep in the spa to allow them to function properly. The spa has never been operational. Respondent was aware of the deficiencies in the construction of the spa but failed to correct them. The deck around the pool was not properly finished in that it is uneven and rough in several locations and is pitched toward the pool rather than away from the pool. The deck also has several facial cracks (not structural) which indicate a nonuniform thickness. As contracted, the pool was to have 3 return fittings of which only 2 were installed. The contract called for the installation of a heater by the Respondent. Although the heater was installed, it was improperly placed resulting in the inspector putting a "red tag" on the heater and having the gas company disconnect it. The McGowans have paid all but $575 of the contract price but refuse to pay the balance until corrections are completed. Respondent was aware of the deficiencies in the construction of the pool but failed to correct them. The evidence is clear that Respondent failed to properly supervise the construction of the McGowans' pool and spa, thereby resulting in poor workmanship in the construction of the pool and spa.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes and for such violation it is Recommended that the Board assess the respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's pool contracting license for a period of two (2) years, stay the suspension, and place Respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years, provided the Respondent pays the administrative fine of $500.00 within sixty days of the date of the Final Order. It is further Recommended that the charges of violating Section 489.129(1)(h) and (k), Florida Statutes be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September, 1987.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based on the Administrative Complaint of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, now referred to as State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint are as found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order and that discussion in the issue statement is incorporated into the Findings of Fact and made a part hereof. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is an agency of the State of Florida, which has the responsibility to regulate those individuals who serve the public in the capacity of contractors in the State of Florida. This regulatory function carries with it the obligation to prosecute those individual licensees whom the regulatory agency believes to have committed offenses as defined by Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The possible outcome of such a prosecution carries with it the potential revocation or suspension of the license of those persons regulated by the agency. On this occasion, by Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner has charged E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., with violations of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, as set out herein. The Respondent has replied to the Administrative Complaint by reguesting a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which de novo hearing was held on the date and at the time and place set out above. E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., is the holder of a Certified general Contractor's license, No. CG C004577, held with the Petitioner. That license was current and active in October, 1975, and continued as an active license until the year 1977 when the license became inactive and it remains inactive at this time. The facts reveal that the Respondent in 1975 entered into a discussion with Dr. Thor Brickman about assisting Dr. Brickman in obtaining a building permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, Dade County, Florida. This permit was to allow the construction of certain office alterations of Dr. Brickman's office located at 1136 N.W. 119th Street, Dade County, Florida. The plans and specifications for such alterations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. After some discussion, the Respondent and Dr. Brickman concluded an arrangement by which the Respondent would act as a contractor on the job, in the sense of having the overall responsibility for its construction. This included the responsibility to pay the workers, sub contractors and material man. The agreement between Pollock and Brickman was one in which Pollock was acting in his individual capacity as opposed to through affiliation with a contracting firm. However, at the time Pollock entered into this agreement with Dr. Brickman, his Certified general Contractor's license had been transferred to an affiliation with Miami Advertising, Inc. The Respondent had made this transfer in anticipation of a job to be performed for Miami Advertising, Inc., and in fact certain preliminary matters had been concluded with Pollock acting as manager for the project for Miami Advertising, Inc. Miami Advertising, Inc., was without knowledge of the contract between Pollock and Dr. Brickman. Notwithstanding the lack of knowledge on the part of Miami Advertising, Inc., and the representations to Brickman that the Respondent was acting in his individual capacity when he contracted to remodel Brickman's office, the Respondent applied for a building permit to be issued by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and in doing so he indicated that he was securing that permit as a qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc. This can be seen in the petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the building permit application as issued on October 31, 1975. Pollock commenced the work and Dr. Brickman paid Pollock directly for the work that was being done. The parent checks were endorsed and cashed by Pollock. The amount Pollock received totaled $6,797.22. Sometime in December, 1975, the owner, Dr. Brickman, became disenchanted with some of the workers whom Pollock had on the job in the sense that those workers had been drinking while on the job. Brickman advised Pollock of this and indicated to Pollock that he did not want those persons on the job without supervision. Nonetheless, the owner continued to advance money to Pollock to pay for the job as contracted for. In January, 1976, the Respondent left the job and Brickman was of the impression that the roof on the extension was finished and that there was no problem with the roof, but this impression was wrong because in February, 1976, one of the owner's tenants began to complaint about the roof leaking and those complaints continued until the tenant moved out due to water damage. This caused Brickman to lose moneys in rentals. When Brickman spoke with Pollock about the leaking roof, Pollock sent a roofer to the job to see about the problems but Brickman was not satisfied with that roofer and declined to have him make any corrections to the roof job. (Although the Respondent denies the responsibility for the completion of the roofing work on the Brickman project, the testimony clearly reveals that he had accepted that responsibility as a part of the contract.) The roofer spoken of, whose name is Montgomery, came to the job in March, 1976. Subsequent to Montgomery's visit, problems continued to occur with the roof and the condition of the roof in April, 1976, and the interior of the building may be seen in the Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner, which is a series of photos depicting the roof and interior. Pollock would not return and complete the job and Dr. Brickman made a complaint to cause administrative charges against the Respondent. This original complaint was dropped and in November, 1977, Pollock called about completing the job which was still unfinished. Brickman agreed to have Pollock cane and complete the job. Pollock did not return to the job as he stated he would do. In December, 1978, a representative of the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department went to the project and found that the job was closed and found that no framing inspection had been requested by Pollock and completed as required by Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code. Other matters within the job site were found to be deficient. The original building permit had expired and the required roofing permit had never been granted. The condition of the project as it existed at the time of the inspection may be found in certain photographs taken by the Building Inspector which may be found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The problem with permits was subsequently rectified; however, based upon the inspector's evaluation, notices of violations were filed in January, 1979, against the Respondent Pollock. The violations spoken to above were for violations of the building and zoning code, particularly Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code No. 305.2, failure to call for inspections between October 31, 1971, and January 4, 1979, and Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code Section No. 304.4(b), failure to construct office alterations according to plans between October 31, 1975, and January 4, 1979. (These provisions are part of the South Florida Building Code which is used by Metropolitan Dade County.) The charges were made through a two-count information in Case 79-53600 in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida. For the former violation, the Respondent was adjudged guilty and received a fine of $750.00 with $25.00 court costs, and for the latter count Pollock was sentenced, with the sentence being suspended from day to day and term to term. This Statement of Charges and Disposition may be found as petitioner' s Composite Exhibit No 3 admitted into evidence, a copy of the Charges, Judgment, Sentence and Order of the Court. The Respondent, Pollock, was also charged by Metropolitan Dade County with a violation of the Code of Metro Dade, Chapter 10, Section 10-22 (b), abandonment of the construction project without legal authority. (The disposition of that charge is unknown to the Hearing Officer, in that it was not presented as a matter of proof in the course of the hearing and the facts of the existence of such charge came in by a stipulation of fact between the parties to this action.) The Respondent returned to the job in January, 1979, and on the date of the hearing 95 to 99 percent of the job had been completed. Still remaining to be completed were certain roofing work with metal-to-metal soldering and gravel stops to be concluded and at that time the roof was still leaking. In view of the damage to Brickman' s property, a claim was made against the liability insurance required by Subsection 468.106(6), Florida Statutes. This claim was denied by the insurance carrier because their insurance covered Miami Advertising, Inc., only, and that company had no knowledge of the contract or the job. An indication of this denial may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence, which are copies of letters denying coverage. They are addressed to Dr. Brickman and are from Parliament Insurance Company, insurer of Miami Advertising, Inc.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, E. J. Pollock, who holds his license as qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc., License No. CG C004577, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. This recommendation is made with the knowledge of the letters offered in mitigation of the penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire Sinoff, Edwards & Alford 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 H. Adams Weaver, Esquire 310 Okeechobee Boulevard Post Office Box "M" West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
The Issue Count I: Whether Rule 424.2.17.1.9 of the Florida Building, Code, through an amendment of Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it: (a) enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the statute; (b) exceeds the statutory rule-making authority of the Florida Building Commission; (c) is arbitrary and capricious; and/or (d) is not based on competent substantial evidence. Count II: Whether this Rule was adopted contrary to, and in violation of, the Florida Building Commission's stated rule- making procedure due to a prior settlement. Count III: Whether, with regard to this Rule, the Florida Building Commission failed to adopt a less costly regulatory alternative; and Count IV: Whether Chapter 515, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional.1/
Findings Of Fact The Code is a unified statewide set of building codes authorized by Chapters 98-287, 2000-141, 2001-186, 2001-372, and 2002-1, Laws of Florida. The Commission is the state agency authorized by statute to adopt, amend, promulgate and maintain the Code. The rule under challenge is Section 424.2.17.1.9 of the Florida Building Code which provides: All doors and windows providing direct access from the home to the pool shall be equipped with an exit alarm complying with UL2017 that has a minimum sound pressure rating of 85dBA at 10 feet and is either hard-wired or of the plug-in type. The exit alarm shall produce a continuous audible warning when the door and its screen are opened. The alarm shall sound immediately after the door is opened and be capable of being heard throughout the house during normal household activities. The alarm shall be equipped with a manual means to temporarily deactivate the alarm for a single opening. Such deactivation shall last no longer than 15 seconds. The deactivation switch shall be located at least 54 inches above the threshold of the door. Exceptions: Screened or protected windows having a bottom sill height of 48 inches or more measured from the interior finished floor at the pool access level. Windows facing the pool on floor above the first story. Screened or protected pass-through kitchen windows 42 inches or higher with a counter beneath. All doors providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with positive mechanical latching/locking installed a minimum of 54 inches above the threshold, which is approved by the authority having jurisdiction. Section 424.2.17.1.9, above, was adopted by the Commission by reference when it adopted Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Administrative Code. The Florida Administrative Code indicates this amendment to Rule 9B-3.047, also adopted the November 6, 2001, Florida Building Code and took effect December 16, 2001.4/ Previous amendments to Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Administrative Code, had been effective on November 28, 2000, and February 7, 2001. Although several portions of the rule were addressed at hearing, see infra., the main thrust of this rule challenge is that Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the rule discriminates against battery-powered alarms in favor of hard- wired or plug-in alarms for doors and windows accessing a swimming pool. Prior drafts of 424.2.17.1.9 and prior provisions of the Standard Building Code and other swimming pool codes relating to exit alarms do not require that exit alarms be "hard-wired" or "plug-in" type alarms. The Standard Building Code does not eliminate battery-powered exit alarms as a means for limiting access to swimming pool areas. No state besides Florida has eliminated them as an option. The rule only applies to new pools or new home construction. FPSA is a non-profit statewide construction trade association of 850 company members, with 10,000 employees, whose membership includes contractors engaged in swimming pool and spa construction, repair, renovation, and service, and whose work is regulated by the Code. It promotes the swimming pool industry through educational business-to-business programs and provides legislative and administrative rule monitoring and lobbying services on behalf of its membership. The subject matter of the challenged rule is within FPSA's scope of interest and activity as a trade association. Only a licensed electrician or alarm specialist can legally install hard-wired alarms. Anyone, including the homeowner; pool contractors, such as FPSA members; or a general contractor, such as Intervenor, can install a battery-powered window or door alarm for a swimming pool. The rule has resulted in members' potential customers delaying decisions to purchase swimming pools. The rule has resulted in FPSA pool contractors having to employ licensed electricians and alarm specialists to do work swimming pool contractors previously could do themselves. Awaiting completion of work by these specialists can delay the approval (Certificate of Completion) of the pool work by building inspectors. Only licensed electricians can legally install swimming pool pumps and pool lights. Awaiting completion of this work can also delay the Certificate of Completion. The type of alarm used affects the swimming pool contractor's cost of doing the project and ultimately impacts the swimming pool contractor's "bottom line." The record is silent about the cost of plug-in alarms. Installation of hard- wired devices currently on the market which would meet the requirements of the challenged rule have been costing FPSA members approximately $400.00-$500.00 for two windows and two doors. This expense may be increased by the number of doors and windows accessing the pool by approximately $150.00-$160.00 per extra door and $70.00 per extra window. Battery alarms cost about $40.00 apiece. Intervenor is a member of the Florida Home Builders' Association. He is a Florida-licensed general contractor. As such, he is required to comply with the Code. In recent years, he has operated through a franchise agreement with Arthur Rutenberg Homes. Ninety-eight percent of his business is construction of new, custom-built, single family residences. Approximately one-third of the homes Intervenor builds include swimming pools as an amenity. Most of his homes range in price from $300,000 to $1,200,000. Intervenor usually hires swimming pool installation sub-contractors, such as members of FPSA, who obtain a separate permit for construction of any pool. Intervenor leaves it to the swimming pool contractor to call for inspections and to see to it that the pool is compatible with all existing building codes, but Intervenor has ultimate responsibility for his new residences' final Code compliance. For a new home, Intervenor usually subcontracts to have hard-wired pool alarm systems installed for approximately $695.00 for two doors and four windows in conjunction with a home security system which itself costs approximately $695.00. This expense can be increased by the number of doors and windows accessing the pool. When a hard-wired alarm is installed in a house under construction after drywall has been installed, Intervenor has to tear out the drywall so the wiring for the alarm can be run in, and then he must re-install the drywall. This method becomes necessary in the few older homes he upgrades with a swimming pool and other amenities or where a new home customer decides to install a pool in mid-construction of the house after further financing has been obtained. This method and expense would not be incurred if battery-powered alarms were allowable under the Code. During the years 2000-2001, the Florida Building Commission was engaged in a marathon rule adoption procedure designed to integrate into the Code, and thereby render uniform, all the competing local building codes within the State of Florida. The purpose thereof was to fulfill the intent of the Florida Legislature that once a uniform basis was established, any amendments to specific components, such as 424.2.17.1.9, would thereafter proceed on triennial or annual cycles. To reach a uniform starting point for the rule amendments and cycles, enabling or implementing statutes were frequently amended by the Legislature to extend their effective dates so as to coincide with the Commission's adoption of the full state- wide Code, which ultimately took effect March 1, 2002. Rule- making, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, continued throughout the various time frames of the statutory amendments. As of June 8, 2001,5/ Section 44, Chapter 2001-186, Laws of Florida, directed that: The Commission shall adopt no amendments to the Florida Building Code until after July 1, 2002, except for the following: emergency amendments, amendments that eliminate conflicts with state law or implement new authorities granted by law, and amendments to implement settlement agreements executed prior to March 1, 2002. (Emphasis added) Section 25, Chapter 2001-186, Laws of Florida, also directed, in pertinent part, that: Further, the Florida Building Code must provide for uniform implementation of Chapters 515.25, 515.27, and 515.29 by including standards and criteria for residential swimming pool barriers, pool covers, latching devices, door and window exit alarms, and other equipment required therein, which are consistent with the intent of Section 515.23.... This legislation was ultimately codified at Section 553.73(2), Florida Statutes (2002). Section 1, Chapter 2000-143, Laws of Florida, had previously set out the following specific legislative findings and intent which ultimately was codified into Section 515.23, Florida Statutes (2002).6/ Legislative findings and intent.--The Legislature finds that drowning is the leading cause of death of young children in this state and is also a significant cause of death for medically frail elderly persons in this state, that constant adult supervision is the key to accomplishing the objective of reducing the number of submersion incidents, and that when lapses in supervision occur a pool safety feature designed to deny, delay, or detect unsupervised entry to the swimming pool, spa, or hot tub will reduce drowning and near-drowning incidents. In addition to the incalculable human cost of these submersion incidents, the health care costs, loss of lifetime productivity, and legal and administrative expenses associated with drownings of young children and medically frail elderly persons in this state each year and the lifetime costs for the care and treatment of young children who have suffered brain disability due to near- drowning incidents each year are enormous. Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that all new residential swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs be equipped with at least one pool safety feature as specified in this chapter. It is also the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Health be responsible for producing its own or adopting a nationally recognized publication that provides the public with information on drowning prevention and the responsibilities of pool ownership and also for developing its own or adopting a nationally recognized drowning prevention education program for the public and for persons violating the pool safety requirements of this chapter. Pursuant to the foregoing amendments, which all concerned felt would take effect much sooner than they did, the Commission had the obligation to adopt amendments to the Code to implement new authorities granted by statute, which, in part, included adoption of standards and criteria for swimming pool exit alarms, provided the standards and criteria were consistent with the intent of Section 515.23, Florida Statutes. Section 1, Chapter 2000-143, Laws of Florida, also created Section 515.27, Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2000, which provided: In order to pass final inspection and receive a certificate of completion, a swimming pool must meet at least one of the following requirements relating to pool safety features. The pool must be isolated from access to a home by an enclosure that meets the pool barrier requirements of Section 515.29; The pool must be equipped with an approved safety pool cover; All doors and windows providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with an exit alarm that has a minimum sound pressure rating of 85 dB A at 10 feet; or All doors providing direct access from the home to the pool must be equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device with a release mechanism placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor. (Emphasis added) One of the four statutorily permissible safety options was that all doors and windows that provide direct access from the home to the pool be equipped with an exit alarm which has a minimum sound pressure rating of 85 dB A at 10 feet. See Section 515.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Section 515.25(4), Florida Statutes, defines "exit alarm" as: "Exit alarm" means a device that makes audible, continuous alarm sounds when any door or window which permits access from the residence to any pool area that is without an intervening enclosure is opened or left ajar. During 2001, the Commission was mindful of Section 44, Chapter 2001-186, Laws of Florida, which had been signed by the Governor and filed on June 8, 2001. In fulfilling its mandate to adopt rules to implement the Florida Building Code, the Commission was careful to state on its tracking charts, agendas, and workshop materials that it was only considering the four exceptions for which it was permitted to adopt rules prior to July 1, 2002. The Commission employed the services of the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium to facilitate its processes. The Consortium is an entity housed within Florida State University that is legislatively mandated to perform consensus building with regard to public policy issues. In 2001, the Commission referred issues to one of three types of subcommittee: Technical Advisory Committees (TACs), Program Oversight Committees (POCs) or Ad Hoc Committees. Ad Hoc Committees were/are comprised solely of Commission members. Public comment was received by the respective subcommittees. If an issue (proposed rule amendment) received a favorable vote by at least 75% (three quarters) of the subcommittee members, a recommendation was developed and forwarded to the Commission as a whole. A 75% (three-quarters) favorable vote of the Commission was also required to adopt a rule. The failure of a subcommittee or the Commission to take affirmative action upon an issue amounted to a rejection of that issue for incorporation into a rule, but the Commission and its subcommittee did not act on motions to deny. They only voted on motions to approve the resolution of an issue. In July 2001, the Commission, sua sponte, took up provisions related to criteria and standards for pool safety measures prescribed by Chapter 515, Florida Statutes. The Commission, with the assistance of the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium, applied its procedures described above. Commission staff generated draft provisions integrating portions of a recommendation by the Building Officials Association of Florida, independent research and review, and the existing provisions of Section 424.2, Florida Building Code. No amendments were proposed directly to the Commission or its subcommittees from the public relating to pool safety measures on the form promulgated by the Commission for that purpose. On July 9, 2001, the Commission convened an Ad Hoc Committee meeting to consider recommendations for resolution of issues raised relating to implementation of the pool safety measure. Petitioner had representatives, one of whom was its Executive Director, Mr. Bednerik, attend the meeting and offer oral comments. It appears from the transcript of that meeting that written submissions of Petitioner's and other interested persons' concerns were also received. The draft provisions authored by Commission staff included adoption of UL2017, a standard developed by Underwriters Laboratories, and specified in Section 515.27(1)(c), Florida Statutes. At the Ad Hoc Committee meeting, FPSA's Executive Director cited the need for the Code to specify a power source for exit alarms, and specifically stated that, at the time of the meeting, some jurisdictions were allowing battery-powered alarms and some were requiring hard-wired alarms. The Ad Hoc Committee also received comment from Mr. Sparks, a building official from Sarasota. Mr. Sparks expressed a preference that exit alarms be hard-wired, and that if battery-powered alarms were to be allowed, that their use should be limited to homes for which a building permit had been pulled before October 1, 2000, the effective date of Chapter 515, Florida Statutes. The Ad Hoc Committee heard comments that batteries always ultimately fail due to limited battery life and that the date of failure cannot be predicted. The Ad Hoc Committee discussed allowing plug-in type alarms as a possible solution to difficulties with installation of a hard-wired system. Mr. Sparks informed the Committee that plug-in type alarms were available and that he had worked with manufacturers of such devices. The Ad Hoc Committee unanimously voted to recommend to the Commission, during its July 11, 2001 Rule Development Workshop, that exit alarms for new construction after the amendment's effective date be hard-wired or a plug-in type. The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation was integrated into the proposed Code amendment for the Commission's review, by providing a complete printed copy of the proposed amendment, striking through for eliminated language, and underlining for new language being added. A Rule Development Workshop was convened by the Commission on July 11, 2001. The Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation was submitted to the Commission during the Rule Development Workshop held on July 11, 2001, as a committee report. During the Workshop, Petitioner's Executive Director offered comment to the Commission urging that requiring a retrofit of existing homes was impracticable and would not comport with the "legislative intent" expressed by one of the legislators involved with the passage of Section 515.27(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Director opposed any restriction to hard-wired alarms but acknowledged that battery-powered alarms require positive action to refresh their power source. He acknowledged that Underwriters' Laboratories had attempted to mitigate this shortcoming in a chirper to alert when the battery in a battery- powered alarm runs low. Comments were heard that plug-in type alarms might be dangerous to, or deactivated, by toddlers. The Commission unanimously approved the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee with regard to limiting allowable power sources for exit alarms to hard-wired or plug-in types, inherently rejecting the comments of Petitioner's representative. The Commission also approved Committee recommendations allowing a temporary deactivation feature and an exception of specified windows from the requirement for alarms. The expressed purpose for these provisions was to address the practical effects of the exit alarm requirement without diminishing the intent of improved safety. The Commission noticed the Code revisions for rule adoption in the Florida Administrative Weekly published on August 3, 2001, with a hearing to be held on August 28, 2001. At the Rule Adoption Hearing on August 28, 2001, Petitioner's representative expressed his belief that it was the Legislature's intent that inexpensive battery-powered alarms be used everywhere and affirmatively stated that Petitioner would concur in the view that battery-powered alarms should be permitted in existing dwellings. Petitioner's representative also implied that the Commission had the authority to adopt UL2017. The UL2017 standard provides criteria and specifications for "residential swimming pool entrance alarms." It addresses requirements for alarms that are battery-powered, hard-wired, and plug-in. The standard was adopted by Underwriters' Laboratories and available in 1995 or 1996. It encompasses 85 dBA at 10 feet of sound pressure. Its concept of "continuous" means "not intermittent" or "not variable." It allows a seven-second delay before an alarm activates and then requires that an alarm activate immediately and continually. Evidence was adduced in the instant rule challenge hearing that none of the four protective options provided in Section 515.27(1), Florida Statutes, is required to be maintained after the final inspection or certificate of occupancy has been completed. Batteries expire or homeowners may intentionally remove them. In either situation, the alarm will not sound. One of Intervenor's witnesses described a study in which the main reason for failure of battery-powered smoke detectors is that the battery had discharged. The Florida Life Safety Code (Fire Code) permits battery-powered smoke detectors in older, existing homes, but like the challenged rule, requires hard- wired devices in new home construction. Hard-wired pool exit alarms can be disabled by a power outage or by deliberately flipping a circuit breaker. Plug-in alarms can be unplugged so as to be rendered ineffective. They also may present a danger to children or the elderly if extension cords are used. Some witnesses consider it inconsistent of the rule to require an alarm deactivation switch and a self-latching device that is 54 inches above the threshold but fail to specify that an electric plug for a plug-in door or window alarm also be 54 inches above the threshold, due to the potential for children to unplug plug-in alarms. Some witnesses at hearing complained that because Section 515.27(1)(d), Florida Statutes, specifies that a release mechanism switch for self-closing, self-latching doors is to be 54 inches above the floor and the challenged rule for door and window exit alarms specifies deactivation switches are to be at least 54 inches from the threshold, there is a variance between the rule and the statute, and the rule is confusing. However, a door's "threshold" as used in the rule, is a consistent place to measure the 54 inches from; is a spot that can be agreed upon by the contractor and inspectors; and is a designation which eliminates any confusion as to whether measurement is to begin from the outside or inside "floor," while serving the spirit of the statute. Some witnesses at hearing complained that the language "immediately after the door is opened and be capable of being heard throughout the house during normal household activities," as used in the rule is vague. However, it appears that any vagueness is cured by the inclusion of the UL2017 standard in the challenged rule. Witnesses who complained of confusion as to whether doors and screens must each be "alarmed" were not credible because the challenged rule clearly specifies "warning when the door and its screen are opened." (Emphasis supplied) Some witnesses complained that they thought the term "plug-in" could refer to installing a battery into an alarm. This concept defies both the first approved dictionary definition in evidence and common sense. There were a number of battery-powered exit alarms on the market when the rule was adopted and when it became effective which would make an audible, continuous alarm when a door or window which permits access to the pool area is opened, but there were no such hard-wired or plug-in devices available at that time. Acceptable hard-wired and plug-in alarms which meet the rule's requirements are available now. The Florida Home Builders Association (FHBA) had previously challenged unrelated proposed Code rules in DOAH Case No. 00-1252RP. That rule challenge was resolved by an October 17, 2000, Settlement Agreement, which was amended on November 1, 2001, after the case was closed. The FHBA Settlement Agreement provided that, in exchange for FHBA's dismissal of DOAH Case No. 00-1252RP, the Commission would adopt a rule setting forth a procedure for adoption by the Commission of any other new amendments to the Code, including creating a fiscal statement in connection with all proposed Code revisions; review by a TAC of all technical revisions; providing notice on the Internet of all proposed revisions; providing 45 days between the date of notice and consideration of an issue by a TAC or by the Commission; and providing a reasonable time period in which the Committee and Commission respectively would hear testimony on rule proposals. The FHBA Settlement Agreement did not require immediate application of the agreed rule promulgation procedures prior to adoption, by rule, of those rule promulgation procedures. It also did not require application of new statutory requirements to the Commission's rule promulgation procedures prior to the effective date of any new statute. The Commission did not perform a fiscal analysis/statement; have a TAC consider challenged Rule 9B-3.047 or 424.2.17.1.9; or provide 45 days' notification of Committee or Commission meetings. However, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, Internet notice of all proposed rules and amendments was provided. The procedures required by the FHBA Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to the requirement of a fiscal impact statement, plus additional procedures, were codified in Sections 553.73(2), 553.73(3), 553.73(6) and 553.73(7), Florida Statutes. These statutes originated in Chapter 2001-186, Laws of Florida, which was subsequently amended or superceded by other legislative action. The legislative history shows the effective dates of these statutory rule promulgation procedures was postponed to March 1, 2002. See the Conclusions of Law Also, similar rule promulgation procedures which equate with the FHBA Settlement Agreement were promulgated in Rule 9B-3.050, Florida Administrative Code, which the Florida Administrative Code states took effect on November 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eugene Amrhein, is a certified roofing contractor, license number CC C020238, and was the qualifying agent for Knight Roofing, Inc. at all times relevant to these cases. On or about December 16, 1982, Respondent, conducting business through Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Evelyn Nickerson for reroofing of a home at 707 N.E. 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida for a contract price of $1,485. She gave Respondent a downpayment of $785, and upon completion of the project paid the balance of $700. Respondent commenced work on the project without obtaining a permit, as required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent also failed to obtain an inspection as required by Section 305.2(a), of this code. On or about March 10, 1981, Respondent conducting business through Knight Roofing, Inc., contracted with Judevilla Geria for the rebuilding of an existing flat tile roof for a contract price of $4,100. Respondent did not obtain the required building permit, in violation of Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent did not perform the work contracted in that only a coat of paint was applied. He failed to rebuild the existing roof by recementing each tile, replacing rotten lumber, soffitt and fascia, nor did he replace approximately 50 tiles as required by the contract. However, Respondent has honored his warranty to Geria to the extent of repairing four leaks that developed subsequent to the work. On or about June 29, 1982 Respondent contracted with Golda Oxenberg to waterproof a roof at 3253 Foxcroft Road, Miramar, Florida. The contract price was $1,000. The project was completed and Respondent was paid in full. The Respondent violated Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code by failing to obtain a permit for this project. On or about August 22, 1983, Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Joseph Castellano to repair the roof of a home at 1215 1st Street, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. The contract price was $600, and included a two-year warranty. At no time was a licensed roofer present at the job site. David Ness, then an unlicensed individual, contracted for the work, performed the work, and received the payments. At no time did the Respondent supervise the work on the Castellano home. After completion, the roof began to leak. Respondent has not repaired the leak, despite his warranty. Respondent violated Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code (adopted by Indian Rocks Beach Ordinance 291) by failing to obtain required inspections. However, no evidence was presented to show that Respondent violated Section 108.2(b), Standard Building Code, since a permit was obtained. Respondent has moved, but failed to notify the Construction Board of his new address as required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C. On March 7, 1984, Respondent contracted with Ralph Huff for roofing work at 3210 N.E. 9th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The contract price was $5,725, and the work was completed. Respondent admitted at hearing that he failed to follow up on his warranty agreement. Respondent did not violate Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code since a final inspection was obtained on October 25, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Beggs, Esquire BEGGS and VECCHIO 3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George E. Feld, held certified general contractor license number CG C021801 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Feld has been a licensed contractor in Florida since June 1982. He has qualified George E. Feld and Associates, Inc. under his license and operates the business at 2131 Northeast 205th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. After submitting the low bid, on or about March 1, 1985 George Feld and Associates, Inc. entered into a contract with the City of Tamarac to construct a 5,500 square foot recreation building for the City. The negotiated contract price was $195,950. The contract called for commencement of the project within ten days after the contract was signed and completion by July 27, 1985. Sometime prior to March 20, 1985, Feld met one David P. McCall and Marvin Weiss at a motel in North Miami. McCall was interested in doing work on the Tamarac project. He gave Feld a business card with the name "Arrow Head Development Corporation, Inc." printed on it, and which stated the firm was "state certified" and "licensed" as a general contractor. Feld also noted that Weiss held a general contractor's license, and he assumed that McCall and Weiss were working together. Relying on McCall's card, and later representations by McCall, but without checking with petitioner's office to verify if McCall or Arrow Head were licensed or qualified, Feld agreed to subcontract out the shell and sewer work on the Tamarac project to Arrow Head. To this end, Feld and Arrow Head entered into two contracts on March 20, 1985, for Arrow Head to perform the shell and sewer work. On June 21, 1985 McCall submitted a written "proposal" to Feld for the shell work on the job. The proposal had the following words and numbers typed on its face: "State License Number: #CGC 05961." It was not disclosed whose license number this was. Although McCall denied typing this document (because he does not personally know how to type), he did not deny that it was placed on the document at his direction or with his knowledge. It was not until sometime later that Feld learned that Arrow Head was not qualified by any licensee. Because of his mistaken belief that Arrow Head was qualified, Feld had never qualified that firm. Even so, there was no evidence that Feld intended to allow an unqualified firm to perform the work. Work proceeded on a timely basis as required by the contract. Feld visited the job site daily, and supervised all activities, including those performed by McCall. He routinely inspected the work, verified that it was being done according to specifications, and made corrections where needed. The job specifications called for trusses that were over forty feet in length. Because of this, and pursuant to the South Florida Building Code (Code), it was necessary for the City to hire an engineer to oversee their installation. The City hired one George Fink as engineer to supervise this phase of the project. However, Fink's responsibility was limited to just that, and once the installation was completed, Feld resumed responsibility for the remainder of the job. Trusses are a manufactured roof member and may vary in length, height and pitch. In this case, they were designed in the form of a cathedral roof, and were in excess of forty-seven feet in length. Further, because of the building's design, there were a number of trusses to be installed. The installation of the trusses was begun around 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 27, 1985 and finished by 2:00 p.m. that same day. As required by the Code, Fink was present and supervised the installation of the trusses on the top of the shell. He confirmed at hearing that they were properly installed. The problem herein arose early that day when Fink had noticed that the building plans did not provide for lateral bracing of the trusses. However, according to Fink, this was not unusual since plans do not normally provide for lateral bracing. Even so, Fink told an unnamed person who "appeared to be the fellow running the erection crew" that lateral bracing should be added to the center and two side core members and that the four trusses on each end needed additional bracing. Fink also suggested to this unnamed individual that sheathing be added "as soon as possible" to the top and outside of the trusses to give added stability and protect them from wind damage and the like. In this regard, at hearing Fink conceded that it was "reasonable" for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Fink thought sheathing to be particularly necessary on this job since the trusses were high pitched," "long in length," and there were "no gables or anything in between to ... add any other support." By the end of the work day, the crew had placed the proper bracing on the trusses. However, no sheathing was applied. According to Fink, who was accepted as an expert in this proceeding, a prudent and competent contractor would be aware of the need for sheathing and added bracing because of the potential hazard of high winds caused by late afternoon thunderstorms in South Florida. By failing to place sheathing on the roof, Fink opined that Feld was grossly negligent and incompetent in the practice of construction on the Tamarac project. Sometime on late Sunday night or early Monday morning, most of the trusses on the roof collapsed. Some fell on an electrical wire running to the building. However, no injuries occurred. Only five trusses on the north side of the building remained in place. The City of Tamarac then filed a complaint with petitioner against Feld. The cause of the collapse was not disclosed, and even Fink was unable to state that the lack of sheathing was the cause of the accident. There was no evidence that strong winds or thunderstorms occurred on the night the trusses fell, or that bad weather was predicted when the work day ended on Friday afternoon. Feld acknowledged that no sheathing was placed on the trusses. He attributed this to the fact that the construction crew stopped work at 3:30 on Friday afternoon, and did not return to the job site until the following Monday morning. He intended to install the sheathing the following Monday but by then it was too late. This was in accord with the standard enunciated by Fink that it was not unreasonable for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Feld also stated that he was well aware of the need for bracing and sheathing on trusses by virtue of his long experience in the construction business. Feld hinted, but did not prove, that McCall may have been responsible for the accident because of bad blood between the two. In any event, he doubted that wind would have caused the trusses in question to fall. Finally, Feld pointed out that, even though city inspectors were present, no one had come to him on Friday afternoon and said the trusses might collapse over the weekend without sheathing. Feld is a graduate of the University of Buenos Aires with a degree in architecture, and has been engaged in the construction/architecture business for twenty-two years. He presently is an instructor of construction at Miami-Dade Community College. There is no evidence he has ever been the subject of a disciplinary action by the Board on any other occasion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint against George E. Feld be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Benjamin J. Eigner, held certified general contractor's license number CG C001534 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. In 1980, Respondent was employed by the City of Tamarac as its chief building official. In that position his major function was to administrate and supervise employees who enforced the South Florida Building Code and the Code of Ordinances of the City of Tamarac. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). His duties included, inter alia, the review of qualifications and issuance of certificates of competency to contractors who wished to work within the City. On or about February 7, 1980, the Broward County Grand Jury issued a true bill or indictment against Respondent charging him with having solicited a bribe in his capacity as chief building official for the City of Tamarac. On or about July 3, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in Broward County Circuit Court to the charge of bribery. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years. As a special condition, Respondent was also required to spend one year in the Broward County Jail. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Because of health problems, Respondent was medically discharged from serving the remainder of his one year incarceration on January 26, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that his certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of nine months from the date of the final order entered herein after which time it shall be automatically reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myron B. Berman, Esquire P. O. Box 1113 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Mr. Benjamin J. Eigner 7850 Beechfern Circle Tamarac, Florida 33321
The Issue Whether the registered general contractor's license and the registered pool contractor's license of the Respondent Eversole should he suspended or revoked, or whether Respondent should be fined.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, filed a Second Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Thomas W. Eversole d/b/a Pools by Eversole, Inc. on August 24, 1978 seeking to revoke the general contractor's license and registered pool contractor's license held by Respondent and to impose a fine of $500.00. The Complaint alleged that the Petitioner would not allow Respondent to qualify Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. as an additional company under Petitioner's license but Respondent did contract and construct pools under the name of Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc.; and further that the Respondent, in violation of Ft. Walton Beach's building code, constructed a swimming pool at the residence of Dr. Eugene R. Valentine without a current city occupational license and without a permit. Respondent Eversole appeared before the Petitioner on January 14, 1977 to qualify Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. He appeared to request a change of status from qualifying pools by Eversole, Inc. to qualifying Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. After a motion to lay it on the table had been made, a new motion was made denying Mr. Eversole's request. The denial of the request to qualify Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. was for the reason that after an investigation of financial responsibility and the credit and business reputation of the individual, it was recommended that Mr. Eversole be denied the license. The motion to lay it on the table was "until such time as the judgments against Mr. Eversole have been satisfied". Subsequent thereto a contract was entered into between Dr. Valentine and Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. for the building of his pool. The City of Ft. Walton Beach issued a license and a job permit for the pool construction subsequent to March 28, 1977, the date of the agreement between Dr. Valentine and Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. Petitioner Eversole was the President of Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc., (which was not registered or certified with the Florida Construction Industry Liensing Board, at the time of the building of the pool but he was not a stockholder of that corporation. The pool was built for Dr. Eugene R. Valentine who testified that he was satisfied with its construction and had paid Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. The Hearing Officer further finds that: The parties stipulated at the hearing that Respondent Eversole holds a pool contractor's license and a general contractor's license. The subject pool was constructed by Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. Petitioner abandoned allegation in paragraph 6(a) of the Second Amended Complaint contending Respondent violated Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes, having no evidence to show a willful or deliberate violation of the Fort Walton Beach building code. Petitioner contends: Respondent is guilty of contracting without being registered. Respondent aided an unregistered person to engage in the business of contracting. Respondent contends: That he holds registration and is therefore eligible to construct pools, as well as to do general contracting work and that there are no complaints as to his work. That Gunite Contractors of Pensacola, Inc. built the pool, and that if any party violated the Florida Construction Industry Licensing law it was Gunite and not the Petitioner. That he felt Gunite was Qualified and went ahead as president of the company and built the pool.
Recommendation Suspend the certificates of registration of Respondent from all operations as a contractor until he can satisfy the board as to his financial responsibility, credit and business reputation. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Samuel W. Bearman, Esquire 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
