Findings Of Fact Melnikoff is the holder of a certified pool contractor's license, having been issued license No. CP C032540. Melnikoff used this license to qualify Ken-Mel Enterprises and license no. CB C029067 was issued to Melnikoff qualifying Ken-Mel Enterprises. Ken-Mel entered into a contract with John and Edythe Milton to construct a residential pool at 7336 Pineville Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. Melnikoff applied for a building permit with the City of Jacksonville to construct the pool for the Miltons. His application included a set of plans and a site plan to be approved by the City of Jacksonville. The City of Jacksonville issued a building permit and provided an inspection sign-off card to be placed at the residence where the pool was to be constructed. Melnikoff and Ken-Mel constructed the pool and were paid in full. Melnikoff failed to request or obtain any inspections of the pool construction. This is a violation of the City of Jacksonville Building Code, Section 320.504. The pool is constructed in such a way that it is flawed, deficient and hazardous. Specifically, the water slide is hooked to a potable water system and to the hot water, which is both a serious code violation and a serious and hazardous condition. The water slide is positioned improperly and attached incorrectly, such that there is a danger of injury and this is a hazardous condition. The marcite is very rough and has started to peel away from the gunnite. The marcite is stained from the finish of the pool deck. The slurry from the gunnite and pool deck is buried near the pool and is improperly disposed of. Persons are mildly shocked when touching the railing in the pool, indicating that the pool is not properly bonded, which is a hazardous condition. The pool is not level or symmetrical and there are many imperfections in the continuous curve of the wall. Steel reinforcing bars are actually protruding through the concrete near the top of the pool. Building Code requires that there be a minimum coverage of 1 1/2" of concrete. The ceramic tile is falling off the wall and it is a very poor ceramic tile job. The expansion joints are improperly placed. The main drain cover has not been fastened down, which is a very dangerous situation and a code violation. There is no means or plan for discharging water from the pool, in violation of code. Part of the deck drain is under the slab of the Milton's house which is a serious problem. The pool is deeper than the plans indicated, in violation of the building code. The pool deck is very rough in places, does not drain away from the pool, and is cracked from improper compaction and improper placement of expansion materials. All of these defects and hazardous conditions establish that Melnikoff was grossly negligent and incompetent in the construction of this pool.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order finding Steve A. Melnikoff guilty of the violations charged and revoking Melnikoff's license as a certified pool contractor. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 29th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0567 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3-5(3); 6(4); 7(5); and 8 & 9 (6) COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Attorney at Law 1343 E. Tennessee St. Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steven A. Melnikoff 710 Rosedale Drive Stephens City, VA 22655 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1975, Collier County adopted Ordinance No. 75-57 which required, among other things, swimming pool contractors to be licensed by the county or state after establishing their competency. Prior to this time swimming pool contractors did not need certificates of competency to construct swimming pools. Anthony Schmidt had been engaged in the manufacture and installation of swimming pools for several years before opening a swimming pool business in Collier County. On April 22, 1976 Schmidt entered into a contract (Exhibit 1) to construct a swimming pool for John Dottore in Naples, Florida. Shortly thereafter Schmidt was issued a violation by an investigator of the FCILB for starting a different pool without a license. Schmidt contacted friends to ascertain who he could get to "pull" the permit needed to construct Dottore's pool, and was subsequently introduced to George C. Moyant, Respondent, a resident of Hollywood, Florida. He was introduced to Moyant at Moyant's house at a meeting arranged by mutual friends. The alleged purpose of this meeting was special tutoring of Schmidt by Moyant to prepare Schmidt for the pool contractor's exam and no other subject was discussed at this meeting. No final arrangements for such tutoring were made. Respondent holds Pool Contractor's License # CP C009205 and General Contractor's License #CG C001828 issued by the FCILB. He is president of Allstate Construction College, Inc. and prepares applicants for the various examinations required for registration with the FCILB. Subsequent to the meeting at Moyant's house Schmidt contacted Moyant regarding Moyant pulling a permit for Schmidt to construct Dottore's pool, and on a subsequent visit by Moyant to Naples Moyant, in company with Schmidt, submitted an Application for Building Permit (Exhibit 4) prepared and signed by Schmidt, showing the contractor to be George C. Moyant, License #CP C009205. At the same time Collier County Permit (Exhibit 5) was issued to Moyant as contractor for the construction of a swimming pool for Dottore. Immediately thereafter, at the Collier County Courthouse parking lot Schmidt gave Moyant a check dated May 4, 1976 in the amount of $500. Moyant's testimony that the payment was an advance for tuition is not credible. Moyant admits that Schmidt called him around the first of May for help in getting a permit for the swimming pool for Dottore and that he, Moyant, was "very reluctant" but assented to come to Naples to help Schmidt out and in fact, pulled the permit. Moyant recognized that his actions were in violation of the laws unless "one does things correctly." He advised Schmidt that his brother or the mutual friend, both of whom have general contractor's licenses would act as his, Moyant's, agent "if any problems come up". Before Schmidt completed the pool an investigator for the FCILB became aware of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the permit and the investigation and administrative complaint followed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner constructed a pool for public use at its condominium development in Palm Beach County during 1980 and applied for a permit authorizing its use. The Respondent denied the permit because of the dark tile border used around the top of the pool and the Petitioner initiated this proceeding. Mr. Lee Reed supervises the inspection of public or commercial swimming pools in Palm Beach County. He is familiar with the pool constructed by the Petitioner and inspected it, or a similar one, for purposes of applications for permits. Mr. Reed is responsible for the denial of the permit in this case. He took this position because dark tile was used when the rule in his view requires that the walls and floors of the pool be a light, pastel color; and, further, that they be easily cleaned and not conceal algae, dirt or the typical "grease line" caused by the accumulation of suntan oil or lotion on the sides of the pool at the water surface. The Respondent denied the permit on the basis that the walls should be smooth and easily cleanable and that non-decorative tile should be used on the theory that decorative tile tends to camouflage dirt deposits. The Respondent took the position that any tile on the vertical surface of the pool walls is part of the wall; and, therefore, as Mr. Reed enforces the rule, the tiles must be of a light pastel color. Many commercial pools serving members of the public in Palm Beach County have been approved with dark tile. The Respondent demonstrated no instances where the use of dark colored tile around or near the top of pool walls had resulted in a health hazard to the users of pools. Additionally, Mr. Reed is aware of public swimming pools approved and permitted in other counties with brown tiles installed. Finally, Mr. Reed admitted that public swimming pools have customarily been approved in Palm Beach County by the Respondent, which are designed to AAU specifications with dark or black tile installed in the bottom as lane markers for swimming competition. Mr. Reed and the inspectors in his employ have noticed "grease lines" in hundreds of pools--some with dark tile--some with light tile. It is somewhat easier to see some types of contaminants in a grease line on light-colored tile. The Petitioner presented the testimony of four contractors who have constructed and maintained commercial or public swimming pools for a substantial number of years in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. The so-called "grease line" caused by suntan oil residue on the surface of pools, as well as algae, is readily visible even on dark tile; especially since algae, when it is killed by the chlorine in swimming pool water, is of a greyish color which is easily discerned on dark brown tile. These witnesses have seldom observed algae to be a problem inasmuch as the glossy, slick tile prevents it from adhering readily. Further, the deposition of any type of dirt is an insignificant problem on such a six-inch band of tile on the upper portion of a pool wall, since it is readily observable and easily reached for cleaning. There is no dispute that the major portion of swimming pool walls should be of white marsite because it is a non- slip, roughened sort of surface on which algae will adhere readily and is farther beneath the surface of a pool and thus more difficult to clean. The white color would tend to render algae more observable and removable at an early stage. Such a problem does not occur, however, with the glossy type of tile which is involved here. Several of these witnesses have constructed commercial or public pools in other counties and have never had them disapproved because they used dark tile near the tops of the pool walls. Such a narrow band of dark tile would have no effect on preventing detection of a swimmer in distress. Additionally, the Department requires the dark tile on the edges of swimming pool steps to establish a contrasting color to show where the edges of the steps are located for safety purposes. The band of dark tile around the top of the swimming pool wall is also a positive safety feature, in that when a person is in distress it shows where the edge of the wall is for purposes of obtaining a safe handhold. It also tends to prevent people from running into the wall with their head. Mr. Reed's counterpart in Broward County, David Bissett, the Respondent's Director of Public Pool Programs for Broward County, testified on behalf of the Petitioner on the basis that he considers tile on the top edge of a swimming pool wall to be a design on the wall of the pool, and permissible, rather than part of the wall structure, which is designed to retain water in the pool. Many approved pools in Broward County have dark tile around the perimeter of the pool at water level. Through frequent contact with his counterparts in other counties, he knows of a substantial number of commercial pools approved by the Respondent with similarly installed dark tiles. In all his experience he has observed no health hazard attributable to the installation of dark tiles around the top of the swimming pool walls; and, indeed, some kinds of dirt can be better seen against a dark tile background. Some forms of dirt would not show up as well, but all types of dirt or sediment are readily observable, even against a dark background. The tile has been shown to be a design, rather than a part of the wall itself. It performs no function of a wall in retaining water in the pool, but is merely decorative. Thus the issue of whether algae or dirt is easily detectable and cleanable and whether a person in distress is easily noticed is the pivotal consideration herein. Since the tile involved is a relatively narrow band located near the top of the pool, and since dirt is readily observable when it adheres to the tile, then the accessibility of the tile to easy cleaning, as well as its slick, glossy surface, renders its accumulation of algae or dirt to the extent of forming a health hazard virtually impossible. Such a design does not prevent ready detection of a swimmer in distress. Mr. Bissett would approve the pool in question if it was in his territorial area of responsibility, and has approved similar pools on other occasions in Broward County. Only the Department's personnel in Palm Beach County so stringently attempt to preclude the use of dark tiles in the design of swimming pools, as compared to all other counties within the Respondent's jurisdiction. Mr. K. G. Stamos, the engineer who designed the subject pool, put on evidence of a test he performed regarding the question of the visibility of dirt adhering to swimming pool tiles. Mr. Stamos used dark brown, dark blue, light blue and light tan tiles and a mixture of dirt and suntan oil. The suntan oil was clearly observable on the dark tiles and less observable on the light colored tiles. Dirt sprinkled on the tiles after the oil had adhered to them showed up somewhat better on the light tiles, but the white grout between the tiles showed all forms of dirt clearly, regardless. Every other county wherein he designs and has approved swimming pools approves pools such as that here in dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel; it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the petition herein be granted and that a permit authorizing operation of the swimming pool at the location herein for the use of the public be issued to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 16th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell Jay Beers, Esquire Admiralty Building, Suite 409 4440 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 K. C. Collette, Esquire District IX Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue, Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed general contractor and pool contractor. He is employed by Sally Dysart, Inc., and is currently the qualifying contractor for that company. Additionally, Respondent has served as qualifier for ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc. On June 6, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Theresa Pica to construct a swimming pool at her North Lauderdale residence. On June 9, 1981, Respondent obtained a permit from the City of North Lauderdale to construct the Pica pool. The permit indicated that ARK Swimming Pool Service, Inc., was the contractor. The contract specified that the pool would measure 16 x 32 x 3 x 6 1/2 feet, with stainless steel walls. The contract allowed "minor variations in dimensions . . ." and provided that, "Dysart is authorized to use its discretion in making changes or additions if the customer is not immediately available." The pool as installed was 8 feet rather than 6 1/2 feet deep, and the walls were of aluminum rather than stainless steel. These changes were not approved by Theresa Pica and she complained to Petitioner regarding these changes and other problems which are not relevant to the charges herein. This was an 18 inch change in pool depth and could not be considered a minor variation in dimensions, nor could the change in materials be considered insignificant. Respondent should have, but did not, obtain the owner's concurrence before substituting the 8 foot aluminum pool for the 6 1/2 foot steel pool, which the contract called for. This installation was also held to be in violation of Broward County Ordinance Section 9-14(b)(9), by the local board having jurisdiction. Respondent was not properly registered as the qualifying agent for Sally Dysart, Inc., at the time of this project. He was registered as the qualifier for Ark beginning in 1977, but his application to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., was not received by Petitioner until November 1981 and not issued until December 1981. A Julius Kaplan was also a qualifier for Sally Dysart, Inc., but his application was not received by Petitioner until October 1981. Sally Dysart, Inc., was therefore not qualified by a licensed pool contractor at the time this company undertook the Pica project. The permit was improperly drawn on Ark Pool Service, Inc., by Respondent since Ark was not a party to the Pica contract. Respondent demonstrated that the administrator for Sally Dysart, Inc., was attempting to secure a qualifier for this company between April and December 1981. Thus, while some effort had been made to qualify Sally Dysart, Inc., this had not been accomplished at the time the Pica project was undertaken. Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with James J. Mirrione to install a spa for him at his residence in Boca Raton. The permit was obtained by Respondent on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., on April 23, 1981. As noted above, Respondent was not a qualifier for Sally Dysart until December 1981. No final inspection of the Mirrione installation was ever made. Respondent believed that officer personnel at Sally Dysart, Inc., had arranged for such inspection, but it was either not requested or requested but not performed. On June 25, 1981, Warren Schober contracted with Sally Dysart, Inc., to construct a pool at his Miami residence. He negotiated the contract with a Milton Wolf who he understood to be the sales manager for Sally Dysart, Inc. The project was completed, but Schober encountered problems with a defective light and leaks in the pool. The difficulties were eventually corrected and Schober is now satisfied with the installation. In late August 1981, Milton Wolf agreed to sell Dr. Ronald Scott a swimming pool for $5,970. Scott made an initial payment of $3,970 to Milton Wolf by cashier's check dated September 8, 1981. Scott believed he was dealing with Sally Dysart, Inc., since Wolf held himself out as a representative of that company. Although he had some reservations about making the check payable to Milton Wolf personally, he had contacted a Better Business Bureau to determine that Sally Dysart, Inc., was a reputable company. Further, Wolf was available when he telephoned him at the Sally Dysart, Inc., offices. Sally Dysart, Inc., later disclaimed the Wolf agreement but offered to honor it if Scott would turn over the balance due. However, Scott rejected this offer and it was later withdrawn. He did not receive the pool or return of his initial payment. The evidence did not establish whether or not Sally Dysart, Inc., approved the contract for sale of the pool negotiated by Wolf. However, there was no construction contemplated and therefore no active involvement by Respondent in his capacity as construction supervisor. On July 31, 1981, Milton Wolf, on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., contracted with Mr. William D. Black for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at the latter's Miami resident. By check dated August 28, 1981, Black made an initial payment of $4,585 to Wolf. Black left the payee portion of the check blank at Wolf's request on the representation that he would use a stamp to supply the Dysart firm name. Wolf later filled in his own name, cashed the check and absconded. Black had no reason to distrust Wolf as he had communicated with Wolf at Sally Dysart, Inc., and had checked on the company through the Better Business Bureau. Wolf held himself out as sales manager and this was not repudiated by Sally Dysart, Inc., until after Wolf absconded. Respondent obtained a permit for the Black project on October 13, 1981, and some of the initial approvals were made. However, by letter dated September 22, 1981, Sally Dysart, Inc. (by its president, Sally Dysart), advised Black that the company would attempt to complete the project only if he would pay the balance of all payments due. This letter also disclaimed responsibility for Wolf's representations. In response, Black demanded that Sally Dysart, Inc., honor the contract and proposed that remaining payments be placed in escrow pending satisfactory completion. This proposal was rejected, and Black did not obtain the pool nor was his $4,585 "deposit" returned. Respondent sought to establish that Milton Wolf was not authorized to act on behalf of Sally Dysart, Inc., but that he was merely present in the Dysart offices as a potential business partner. His contact with customers was purportedly limited to investigation of leads and company business potential. However, the testimony of a former Dysart employee established that Wolf did make sales and brought in cash receipts to the company prior to his defalcation. Therefore, regardless of any private understanding between Sally Dysart, Inc., and Milton Wolf, the latter was holding himself out to the public as a company representative with the knowledge and approval of Sally Dysart, Inc.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's contractor licenses for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of May 1984.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified pool contractor, holding license number CP CO27486. Respondent obtained his certificate in October, 1983. His only prior discipline consists of a letter of guidance in late 1989 or early 1990. At all material times, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gold Medallion Pcol, Inc. On March 27, 1986, Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Don Burson entered into a contract for the construction cf a swimming pool at the Bursons' residence. The Bursons had purchased the residence while it was still under construction in May or June, 1985. The lot was low and had required fill. Clearly visible behind the lot is a large marshy wetland. The contract called for the Bursons to pay $16,315 for the construction of a 20' by 40' concrete lap pool with depths of 3' at either end and 6' in the center. Paragraph 4 of the contract provides: The Owner is responsible for increased costs incurred by the Contractor due to underground conditions which may be encountered during construction, such as but not limited to, muck, inadequate soil-bearing capacity, and excessive ground water. The Contractor, upon encountering such conditions, shall notify the Owner of their existence and give him an approximate cost estimate to rectify the problem. The Owner shall have five (5) days from the receipt of the approximate cost estimate to instruct the Contractor not to proceed with the pool. . . . If the Contractor determines that additional testing is required prior to furnishing approximate costs estimates to determine the exact nature or extent of the underground condition encountered, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of all testing and/or engineering required by the Contractor. Paragraph 8.D states that the Owner warrants that there [is] no . . . mock . . . in that portion of the owner's property which the contractor will construct the pool [and] decking . . .. The owner is responsible for the removal, repair or replacement of any underground conditions . . . encountered during construction unless he elects to terminate the contract and pay damages to the contractor as set forth in the clause on underground conditions. Paragraph 11.A provides: Contractor warrants to the original owner for the lifetime of the original purchaser, the swimming pool structure, the shell, will not leak due to cracking. . . . This Limited Structural Warranty does not cover damage to the pool shell caused by fluctuations of the water table, construction in the vicinity of the pool site, or natural phenomenon. . . . The contractor's responsibility under this Limited Structural Warranty shall be to repair the shell so that it holds water without cost to the original owner. . . . The method of repair shall be at the discretion of the contractor. THE CONTRACTOR MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN REGARDS TO THE POOL STRUCTURE, THE SHELL. Paragraph 11.B.2, which further describes the limited warranty, states: It is anticipated the concrete deck and deck coatings may crack due to settling of deck or weather. Cracks one-quarter inch or less with no substantial deviation in elevation are not covered. . . . The plot plan, which is part of the contract, shows the pool located on the east side of the house. The pool is oriented in a north-south direction. The southern end of the pool runs toward the back of the lot, which is on a steep slope. The southern end of the pool adjoins the widest section of decking, which Respondent constructed at the time of the construction of the pool. The plot plan also shows that excavated dirt was to be placed just south of the decking on the south end of the pool. Shortly after pulling a building permit from the Seminole County Building Department on March 27, 1986, Respondent began construction of the pool. The actual construction was performed by Mid-Florida Pool Company, which is a major pool construction company in Central Florida. Construction was completed on April 23, 1986, and the Bursons paid the amount required under the contract. Prior to commencement of construction of the pool, this area of the Bursons' lot had been filled with about 2 1/2 to 3 feet of dirt. In order to construct the pool, Respondent or his subcontractors added another 2 1/2 to 3 feet of fill, at least to the southern end of site of the pool and decking. It is at this point that the land begins to slope most steeply toward the marsh in the back. Neither Respondent nor any of his subcontractors conducted any soil tests prior to commencing construction or compressed or compacted the soil beneath the pool prior to installing the shell. This omission constitutes a departure from sound contracting practices under the facts cf this case. Respondent constructed several pilasters under the southern end of the deck, but these structural supports were designed to support the deck, not the pool. In general, the depth of the excavation had to exceed the depth of the pool by one foot in order to accommodate the shell. Thus, the extreme southern end of the shell required a hole only about four feet deep. An excavation of this depth did not exceed the combined depth of the old and new fill. There is no indication that Respondent or his subcontractors encountered muck during the excavation or construction of the pool. Likewise, there is no indication that Respondent or any of subcontractors was aware that mucky, unstable soils underlaid the location of the pool, especially the southern end. The pool was completed to the initial satisfaction of the Bursons. However, within 90 days of completion, the southern half of the shell developed five or six major cracks as a result of the settlement of the southern end of the pool. This portion of the pool settled because the underlying muck had been compressed by the weight of the shell and water. Gradually, the water loss from the settlement cracks, which were mostly below the waterline, became significant. At Respondent's suggestion, the Bursons agreed to wait through the winter before commencing repairs in order to allow the cracking to stabilize. In the spring of 1987, the Bursons drained the pool at Respondent's direction. Respondent then scored the cracks with a screwdriver and applied a filling compound in order to seal any leaks. As directed by Respondent, the Bursons then refilled the pool, but before more than two feet of water had been added, the filling compound fell out of the cracks. When the Bursons informed Respondent of the failure of the repair, he responded that he had performed under the contract and had no further obligation. The Bursons exercised their right to arbitrate, as provided in the contract. The arbitrators conducted a limited investigation. Expressly noting that they were not soil engineers and thus could not determine why the soil under the pool failed to support the shell, the arbitrators determined that the contractor was not responsible for any damage to the pool, "which was built to industry standards." The Bursons next contacted various pool contractors about repair options. Most of the contractors suggested a V-cut about 2 1/2 inches deep followed by the injection of hydraulic cement. When the Bursbns informed Respondent that this type of repair appeared necessary, he refused to undertake such work. By this time, one of the contractors documented that five of the cracks, which ranged from 1/16" to 1/4" wide, were pulling water out of the pool at a rate of 1-3" daily. This contractor charged the Bursons $125 for his services. After contacting the Seminole County Building Department, the Bursons learned that the pool had never passed a final inspection. When they had an inspector visit the site on September 13, 1991, he failed the job due to, among ether things, "massive deck cracks." At the insistence of Seminole County officials, the Bursons obtained expert opinions as to the cause of the cracks in preparation for the local hearing on the Bursons' charges against Respondent. In July, 1990, the American Testing Laboratories, Inc. conducted tests and opined that the south end of the pool had settled due to muck at a level of five feet below the bottom of the shell. Additional testing found muck at depths of 3-7 feet at two points just east of the south end of the pool. These tests cost the Bursons $498. When the Seminole County officials insisted upon further testing, the Bursons hired Jammal & Associates, Inc., which performed soil borings on August 23, 1990. The boring sites were just east of a point about midway along the southern half of the pool and a point just south of the southern end of the pool. The latter boring site revealed muck after penetrating about six feet of fill. At the request of Respondent, a Jammal employee returned to the site on November 13, 1990, to determine the potential cause of the cracking of the pool shell and deck. Jammal concluded that the cracking is the result of consolidation of the highly compressible peat layer found in the [southern] boring. Based upon the [cracking] observed, we suspect the southern 1/3 or so of the pool and deck area are underlain by the buried peat layer. The remainder of the pool and deck are most likely underlain by sandy soils. Because of the nature of the buried organic soils, the pool and deck will probably continue to settle at a diminishing rate for several years. Addition of new loads such as placement of additional fill around the pool and deck area, or a significant drop in the groundwater table could cause additional and accelerated settlement of the pool and deck. Jammal offered three repair options. The first was to patch the cracks. Jammal assumed that, although continued cracking could be expected, it would occur at a lesser rate because most of the settlement of the buried muck had already taken place. The second option was to remove the pool and then remove the underlying muck. The third option was to install inside the shell a fiberglass liner. The last option had been first suggested by Respondent. If not rigidly attached to the shell, the liner probably would not reflect further cracking of the shell. The Bursons paid Jammal the sum of $300 for its services. Ultimately, the Bursons decided to install a fiberglass liner and entered into a contract on November 19, 1990, with Fibre Tech for the work. The total cost of the project was $5415. This cost excludes the cost of replacing a pool vacuum for which Respondent does not appear responsible. The liner was later installed, and the Bursons paid the contract price. In the meantime, at a meeting on October 16, 1990, the Seminole County Swimming Pool Contractor's Board revoked Respondent's County certificate of competency until he repaired the pool or made restitution to the owners. This action was based upon a violation of Seminole County Code Section 40.151 and 40.34(2) and (9). Section 40.151 provides that "[a]11 completed pools shall be absolutely watertight." Section 40.34(a) allows the Board to revoke a certificate of competency if the contractor: (2) Continue[s] performance of building work in a negligent, incompetent or unworkmanlike manner. (9) Violate[s] any provision of this Chapter. The determination of the Seminole County Swimming Pool Board became final when Respondent failed to take a timely appeal of the order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $2500 and suspending Respondent's license until he makes restitution to the Bursons in the amount of $6338. ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Craig M. Dickinson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Merwin C. Carter, pro se 611 Ensenada Avenue Orlando, FL 32825
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of provisions of law relating to the licensing of construction contractors and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is registered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a residential swimming pool contractor. The Respondent holds licenses numbered RP A027187 and RP 0027187 issued by the Board. During 1979 and 1980, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as the licensed qualifier for "Cowboy Pools, Inc." Cowboy Pools, Inc., was owned by Jim Anglin. During December, 1980, the Respondent and Anglin experienced difficulties in their business relationship. The difficulties resulted from Anglin's failure to pay for work performed for Cowboy Pools by subcontractors and by Anglin's issuing checks to the Respondent which were not honored by the bank. In early January, 1981, Respondent became concerned that he was unable to control the flow of money at Cowboy Pools. He advised Anglin that he would no longer serve as the qualifier for Cowboy Pools. On January 8, 1981, the Respondent called the office of the Construction Industry Licensing Board and inquired as to steps that he needed to take to withdraw as the qualifier for Cowboy Pools. On that same date, he wrote a letter to the Board stating: This is to inform you that I am no longer associated with Cowboy Pools and will assume no responsibilities whatsoever for Cowboy Pools. The Respondent wrote that same letter to all persons that he knew had contracts with Cowboy Pools. The letter was received in the Department of Professional Regulation offices on January 12, 1981. At the Department's request, the Respondent forwarded proper forms to withdraw his qualification of Cowboy Pools. In his letter, he stated: I hereby certify that I have not been able to bind the construction moneys for Cowboy Pools and saw no hope that I would be allowed to do so in the future. Therefore 1 have withdrawn my association from Cowboy Pools as I have previously notified you. This letter was received in the offices of the Department of Professional Regulation on January 22, 1981. The Department requested that Respondent send the Board his qualifying licenses, which he did on January 28, 1981. The licenses were received in the Department's offices on February 2, 1981. On approximately January 14, 1981, Anglin asked the Respondent to obtain a permit so that Cowboy Pools could construct another swimming pool. Anglin was apparently unable to obtain permits on his own behalf. The Respondent refused to obtain such a permit and has had no business dealings with Cowboy Pools since January 8, 1981. Anglin continues to owe money to the Respondent. During 1980 and 1981, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mosca owned a residence in Longwood, Florida. On December 26, 1980, they entered into a contract with Cowboy Pools, Inc., to construct a swimming pool at their residence for a sum of $6,800. The contract was negotiated on behalf of Cowboy Pools by Jim Anglin. Anglin signed the contract for Cowboy Pools. The Moscas paid Anglin a $100 deposit on December 26. By checks dated January 5, 1981, and January 21, 1981, the Moscas paid Cowboy Pools and Anglin an additional $4,736 on the contract. On December 27, 1980, Anglin had the pool area at the Moscas' property staked off. Nothing was done for several weeks, and the Moscas contacted Anglin, who advised them that a permit would be obtained soon. On January 14, 1981, a permit was obtained, and a crew from a company known as "Virgil Brothers" dug the hole for the pool and put in wire. Officials from Seminole County inspected that work on January 20. The following day, a crew from Virgil Brothers gunited the pool. There was a pile of dirt left from the dig. The Moscas asked Anglin about it, and he advised that it would be leveled. Approximately a week later, that was done, but no further work was done on the pool. The Moscas were not aware that there were any difficulties with completion of the pool until January 30, when a man visited their house and asked if they knew where Anglin might be. The man indicated that Anglin had left town. The same day, the Moscas received a notice from Virgil Brothers indicating that they had not been paid by Cowboy Pools. The Moscas went to the Cowboy Pools office that evening. All of the furniture had been removed. They were told by a secretary where Anglin lived. They went to his house and discovered that it was a rental house that had been vacated a couple of days before. Anglin has apparently not been seen in the central Florida area since that time. The Moscas ultimately had their pool completed by another contractor. It cost them $2,600 above the contract price to complete the pool. The building permit for the Moscas' swimming pool was obtained by Kelly Slusher, a registered swimming pool contractor. Slusher did not supervise the work and apparently, in effect, allowed Cowboy Pools to use his contractor's license to obtain the permit. Slusher did not become the qualifier for Cowboy Pools and was apparently not involved in the operation except to obtain the permit to construct the Moscas' swimming pool. Slusher has been the subject of disciplinary action initiated by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. When work on the Moscas' swimming pool was abandoned, the Moscas obtained a copy of the building permit and learned that Slusher had obtained the permit. When they contacted Slusher, he disclaimed any responsibility. The Respondent was not, until sometime in February, 1981, aware that Anglin had contracted with the Moscas to construct a swimming pool. Anglin did not tell him of the contract and was not allowing Respondent access to the company's records and books. The Respondent made a good-faith effort to advise all persons that were doing business with Cowboy Pools that he was no longer associated with the company. He wrote to all of the persons who had contracts with Cowboy Pools on January 8, 1981. He was not aware of the Mosca contract, and so he did not write to them. The Respondent did not obtain the building permit for the Moscas' swimming pool. He was asked by Anglin to obtain a permit, but refused. If Slusher had not agreed improperly to obtain a building permit for the Moscas' swimming pool, Cowboy Pools would not have been able to commence construction on the pool, and the Moscas would not have made payments to Cowboy Pools beyond the $100 deposit. The Moscas did not learn that the Respondent had any connection with Cowboy pools until sometime in February, 1981. The Moscas learned through other persons who had contracted with Cowboy Pools that the Respondent was the qualifying registered swimming pool contractor. The Moscas did contact the Respondent about the abandoned work, but it does not appear that they formally demanded that he complete the work on behalf of Cowboy Pools. No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Respondent diverted any funds in connection with the construction of the Moscas swimming pool. Indeed, it appears that he was totally uninvolved with the project.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Legal Affairs ("Petitioner"), is the enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Beginning in 1974, and until its involuntary dissolution in approximately May, 1980, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., was engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and installing fiberglass swimming pools to the consuming public. To induce the public to enter into written contracts for the purchase of these pools, Respondent, Gold Key Pools, Inc., disseminated promotional brochures and "fact sheets" which contained representations as to the quality, nature, durability, and characteristics of its pools. Specifically, the following representations in promoting the swimming pools were made: That the pools were constructed with fiberglass and inert materials that never deteriorate; That the pools are resistant to cracking, leaking, and erosion, as well as fading mildew, rotting, rust, shattering, breaking or tearing apart; That the color in the pools is permanently molded and resists fading and never requires painting; That each pool was factory made to perfection from a perfect mold; That the pools are stain-resistant and virtually maintenance free; That the pools' high quality, one piece construction contained no seams, guaranteeing that the pools would never leak; That no need would ever exist to replaster or repair cracks or holes in the pools; That the non-porous surface of the swimming pools would stay bright and beautiful; and No professional maintenance service would ever be needed on the pool During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed concerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: During the course of its active conduct of business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., manufactured and installed approximately 3,000 pools in the State of Florida. Sometime in 1975, it came to the attention of officials of Gold Key Pools, Inc., that problems existed con- cerning the jel coat which had been applied over the fiberglass shell of the pool. Problems associated with the jel coat manifested themselves by the development of "blisters" on the pools' surface, and the actual cracking of the jel coat surface itself in some instances. Problems associated with the jel coat did not affect the structural integrity of the fiberglass pool shell. However, in response to these problems, Gold Key Pools, Inc., inserted a provision in its 25-year warranty providing that the jel coat portion of the pools was not warranted. However, as far as can be determined from this record, the following specific warranty is contained in Gold Key Pools, Inc.'s standard form contract: The contractor warrants that all material used in completing the installation con- tracted herein will be new and that all work will be done in a workmanlike manner; that if any substantial defect occurs in workmanship, it will be remedied without cost to the owner if written notice is given the contractor within one year after pool completion, provided pool and equip- ment have been maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the contractor; and further provided that such defect is not the result of an act of God or the sub-soil or strata of the ground or the water table or circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. . . . In addition, Gold Key Pools, Inc., also made the following warranty on its pools: Gold Key Pools, Inc. warrants that all Gold Key Pools, Inc. fiberglass pool shells shall perform in a satisfactory manner with normal usage and proper care and will not rip, rust, or tear apart under normal conditions for a period of 25 years from the date of installation. This warranty shall apply only when the pool is installed by an authorized Gold Key Dealer, in accordance with our installation instructions, or by the homeowner with our supervision as per installation procedures. Within 1 year of original purchase, the factory or an authorized factory service center will repair or replace for the original purchaser any part of the fiberglass pool shell which is defective, at no costs to the original purchaser. After one year, but within 25 years of date of purchase the factory or an authorized service center will repair for the original purchaser any part of the pool shell which is defective, but the cost of Labor will be borne by the original purchaser. . . . On or about October 12, 1977, Gold Key Pools, Inc., entered into a contract for the installation of a pool and pool decking with Donald F. Planasch. Within three months after the pool was installed, the purchaser began to experience problems including cracking of the decking and hairline cracks in the pool, with consequent water loss. Gold Key attempted repairs on eight to ten occasions, but was unsuccessful. Gold Key stopped responding to complaints from the purchase in early May of 1979. On or about July 29, 1978, Gold Key entered into a contract with Edward Simmon for the installation of a pool and deck. Almost immediately after installation of the pool, the purchaser began to experience problems which included cracking of the pool shell. Gold Key attempted repairs on two or three occasions, each of which was unsuccessful. The purchaser subsequently effected repairs to the pool with another contractor. In August of 1977, Gold Key entered into a contract to install a pool and concreted decking with Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Rickert. Soon after the pool and decking were installed, the Rickerts began to experience the cracking in the concrete decking area immediately surrounding the pool. Gold Key was notified of the problem, but never effectively repaired the deck. On or about April 20, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with James March to install a pool on his property. Within six to eight months from the installation of the pool, cracks and holes developed in the surface of the pool. Gold Key was notified of these defects, but no repairs were ever attempted by Gold Key. On August 23, 1979, Gold Key entered into a contract with Terry Rose for the installation of a pool and decking. Shortly after installation, the purchaser experienced problems with the development of holes in the surface of the pool, some of which were almost one-inch deep, and cracks in the decking. Although Gold Key was advised of these problems, no repairs were made to them. On or about July 9, 1975, Gold Key entered into a contract for the installation of a pool on the property of Charles Young. Within one year of the installation of the pool, the purchaser experienced cracks in the surface of the pool, with consequent leakage of water from the pool. Despite having received notification, Gold Key never sent anyone to examine the problems with the pool. At all times material hereto, Respondent, Arnold F. Morris, was a shareholder, president and director of Gold Key Pools, Inc. Respondent, John Perez, was the secretary of the corporation from 1975 until his resignation in 1980. Respondent Perez was never a shareholder of Gold Key, and had no responsibility over sales, marketing, or the preparation of contracts related to sales of pools. No evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that any pool purchaser ever spoke to either Respondents Morris or Perez prior to the purchase of their pools. Sometime in 1979, Gold Key Pools, Inc., experienced a serious fire, which destroyed its manufacturing capacity. From the standpoint of manufacturing, Gold Key Pools, Inc., essentially went out of business shortly thereafter. However, Gold Key Pools did maintain a service force of employees to service pools which it had already sold for sometime after the fire. In approximately May, 1980, Gold Key Pools, Inc., ceased doing business at all. At the time it ceased doing business, Gold Key Pools, Inc., for all intents and purposes had no assets.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a registered pool contractor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP 0029202. (Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, Item 2: Pet. Exh. C) On or about December 5, 1984, Respondent, d/b/a Miller Pools, contracted with Terry Kilpatrick to construct a pool at the Kilpatrick residence. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 9-10) The contract provided for a contract price of $10,963 for the construction of the pool and $1600 for the installation of fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10) Under the provisions of the contract and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent was responsible for all aspects of the pool construction and Kilpatrick was responsible for the installation of the fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10-11) As part of the contract, Respondent gave Kilpatrick a one-year warranty on the construction of the pool. (T. 19-20) The Kilpatrick residence was located in Putnam County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 37) In December 1984, the 1982 Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect in Putnam County, having been adopted by county ordinance. (Pet. Exh. E, F; T. 40- 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 required that a building permit be obtained before the commencement of construction of a swimming pool at a residence in the county. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 42) Respondent obtained the necessary building permit for the Kilpatrick pool job. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 also required that certain inspections be done during the course of the construction of a swimming pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 43) Among the required inspections was an electrical inspection and a final inspection. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44-45) It was the responsibility of Respondent as contractor to request the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department to conduct the necessary inspections of the pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44) The purpose of requiring the various pool inspections, including the electrical and the final, was to make certain that the pool had been constructed and was operating correctly and safely. (T. 45) Respondent was aware that certain inspections were required by local law. On three occasions, December 19, 1984, January 7, 1985 and January 10, 1985, inspections were performed on the Kilpatrick pool at Respondent's request. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43) Respondent did not make arrangements for the electrical or final inspections to be performed on the Kilpatrick pool. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43-44) During the construction of the Kilpatrick pool, Respondent was at the job site infrequently. (T. 12-16, 18, 19, 22) Almost immediately after the pool construction was completed, Kilpatrick began to experience problems with the pool, problems which included pitting of the marcite finish, leaks in the tiled area of the pool, and chipping of the brick and coping. (T. 24-35) The problems experienced by Kilpatrick were problems related to the construction of the pool and were covered by the one-year warranty on the pool given to Kilpatrick by Respondent. (T. 19-20) Respondent failed to take any action to correct the problems until after Kilpatrick had contacted the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department and the Department of Professional Regulation to complain about the problems with the pool. (T. 25-28, 35-36, 46-50) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Kilpatrick continued to experience problems with the pool leaking around the tile. (T. 31-31, 34) By Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed an administrative fine of $1000 and suspended Respondent's registered pool contractor's license for five years as a result of Respondent's default in a disciplinary case in which Respondent had been charged with failure to supervise a swimming pool construction project and/or performing said construction in a grossly negligent and/or incompetent manner. (Pet. Exh. C)
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1000, and that his license be suspended for an additional year after the suspension imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Terry, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jimmy G. Miller 706 Southeast 35 Avenue Ocala, Florida 32671 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondent is Phillip Whitaker, Jr., holder of certified pool contractor license number CP-C008325 at all times pertinent to these proceedings. He is the qualifying agent for the business known as Sunshine State Pools pursuant to requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He is responsible for actions of that business relating to construction of the swimming pool which is the subject of this proceeding. His address of record is Miami, Florida. The customer, Ken Gibson, signed a contract with Sunshine State Pools on September 15, 1986. The contract called for construction of a residential swimming pool at 15840 S.W. 155th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The total contract price was $12,700. Testimony adduced at hearing establishes that Sunshine State Pools completed the layout of the customer's swimming pool and the excavation of soil from the proposed pool site by October 1, 1986. These tasks were accomplished under the Respondent's supervision. Metropolitan Dade County issued a building permit for construction of the swimming pool in response to a permit application bearing the signature of Phillip E. Whitaker. The permit and application are both dated October 10, 1986. At hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that initiation of construction prior to pulling the permit and termed this action an "oversight." Based on the candor, demeanor and experience of the Respondent, his explanation of the failure to timely obtain the construction permit is not credited. Initiation of construction for a swimming pool prior to obtaining permits constitutes a violation of part 301.1(n), of the South Florida Building Code and, by stipulation of the parties at hearing, the building code of Metropolitan Dade County. The Respondent was responsible for supervision of the actual pool shell construction. After completion and removal of the wood forms used in the process, steel rods or "rebar pins" required as support during the construction process were not removed. These rods extended some distance above the ground and posed a substantial hazard to Respondent's children while playing. Finally, the steel rods were removed by the customer a week after he requested the Respondent to remove them. Respondent admitted some of these reinforcements could have been left by his subordinates. Respondent admits responsibility for the "back fill" process completed on October 25, 1986. This was originally a responsibility of the customer under the contract as the party responsible for deck construction. The "back fill" process consists of compacting loose soil between the outside of the pool walls and surrounding earth by use of special tamping or pounding equipment. Under terms of the contract, the customer was responsible for construction of a sizeable two part deck surrounding at least sixty percent of the pool's circumference. There now exists a substantial height difference between the coping surrounding the perimeter of the pool and the deck or patio surface. The coping is elevated above the top of the patio approximately two to four inches. As adduced from testimony of Ben Sirkus (stipulated by both parties as an expert in swimming pools and swimming pool construction), coping along the top of the pool walls consists of flagstone rock in conformity with the contract terms. Some of the rocks are cracked. The rocky edge of the coping extends over the pool wall and has a dangerously sharp edge. The sharp edge of the coping overhang could have been avoided by cutting the flagstone coping smooth prior to installation, the acceptable practice among pool contractors. The bottom step to one set of the pool steps has a hazardous 19 inch riser as opposed to the 12 inch distance required by the building code. No hand rail is present. Hollow space under some of the coping stones are the result of either improper installation, dirty cement or sinking of the deck as a result of improper "back filling" upon completion of the pool shell. On one occasion, Respondent admitted responsibility for deficiencies in the pool coping to an employee named Rick Miro. The Respondent further stated to this employee that he intended to do nothing about the problem. Respondent was present during some, but not all, of the coping installation. The "skimmer," the apparatus by which debris is cleared from the pool water, is inoperable as a result of faulty construction of the pool. The failure of the Respondent, who admits to successful completion of approximately 2500 pools with only three complaints, to properly supervise job site activities was the major cause of the pool deficiencies identified at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two years upon such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and assessed an administrative penalty in the amount of $1500. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 19th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5053 The following constitutes my specific ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Included in finding 2. Included in finding 3. Included in finding 4. Included in findings 5, 6 and 7. Included in findings 5 and 6. Included in finding 8. Included in finding 10 with exception of hearsay statement. Included in finding 11.1 Included in finding 12. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Included in finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Included in finding 11. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark D. Press, Esquire 2250 Southwest Third Avenue 5th Floor Miami, Florida 33129 William O'Neil General Counsel 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 =================================================================
The Issue Did Respondent commit the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 1, 2000, and if so, what discipline is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Board is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, which is given the authority under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the license of, among others, certified commercial pool/spa contractors. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified commercial pool/spa contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-2578 (RP0023937). On September 9, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Louis Alberto and Margaret Alberto (Albertoes). The contract provided for Respondent to: Remove algae and dirt from Sand Pebble deck. Resurface entire Pebble Deck (1132 sq. ft.) with Flo-Crete. Retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. Place random pattern. Pressure clean existing deck and acid wash. The contract price was $3,600.00 with 50 percent to be paid at the beginning of the contract and the balance to be paid upon completion of the contract. Although it is not covered in the contract, both parties agreed that Respondent had verbally agreed to give the Albertoes his personal five-year warranty on the work he was to perform under the contract, which included covering the pool sand pebble deck with Flo Crete. Design Flo-Crete (Flo-Crete) is a product manufactured by Seamco Laboratories, Inc. (Seamco) and used in covering pool decks. Seamco's position on covering a sand pebble deck with Flo-Crete is as follows: Please be advised that as a manufacturer Seamco Laboratories, Inc., does not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with their product Design Flo-Crete. Going over epoxy stone would encapsulate bacteria, which could cause gases that could cause disruption of the Design Flo-Crete. Seamco is aware that some of their dealers install Flo-Crete over river rock successfully. However, Seamco's official position is as stated above. Respondent was aware of Seamco's position on the installation of Flo-Crete over river rock at the time he entered into the contract with the Albertoes and advised the Albertoes that Seamco did not recommend going over river rock (stone and epoxy systems) with Flo-Crete. However, Respondent advised the Albertoes that he had previously used Flo-Crete over river rock successfully on several jobs. Respondent's did not seal the sides of the deck which allowed the gases created by the encapsulated bacteria to escape through the sides. There is no mention in the contract that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under any condition. Furthermore, Respondent did not verbally advise the Albertoes that Seamco would warrant Flo-Crete under these conditions. Subsequent to entering into the contract, Respondent proceeded to: (a) remove the algae and dirt from the sand pebble deck by pressure cleaning and acid wash; (b) resurface entire pebble deck with Flo-Crete; and (c) retexture entire surface and seal with color of choice. There were some minor problems but those were corrected. However, the Albertoes were not satisfied with the new textured surface because it tended to show scuff marks and the color was too light. In an attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent put lines on the deck by applying tape and painting over the entire surface and then removing the tape leaving the lines. Also, in a further attempt to satisfy the Albertoes, Respondent applied a combination of two colors to darken the original color. However, the original color (bone white) continued to bleach through and was not satisfactory to the Albertoes. At this point, Respondent became convinced that he could not satisfy the Albertoes. Apparently, the Albertoes' dissatisfaction with the color of the deck resulted in Respondent not being allowed to apply the polyurethane sealer to the deck. In any event, the polyurethane sealer was never applied to the deck surface. Subsequently, the Albertoes contracted with another contractor to tear out the existing sand pebble deck and refinish the deck to their specifications for a contract price of approximately $3,600.00 There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's method of applying Flo-Crete over the sand pebble deck resulted in the disruption of the Flo-Crete or was the cause of Respondent being unable to satisfy the Albertoes as to the color and texture of the deck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: William W. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Suite 102 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Robert W. Dobson 8965 60th Street, North Pinellas Park, Florida 33782 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
