The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not Respondent failed to properly supervise a pool construction project, willfully violated local laws, is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting and failed to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent in violation of sections 489.129(1)(d), (m), (j), and sections 489.119 and 489.105 (4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered pool contractor in Florida, holding license no. RP0015329 and served as the qualifying agent for Paradise Pools, Inc. (Request for Admission, responses 1- 4). Petitioner is the regulatory agency in Florida charged with the authority to regulate contractors and to determine compliance with applicable state and local building code requirements. On May 31, 1986, Respondent entered into a contract with Alex and Theresa Nitu for the construction of a swimming pool at the Nitu's residence at 9550 Lisa Road in Dade County, Florida. The following day, the Nitus were approached by John Davis, a partner of Paradise Pools, Inc. Davis identified himself as the owner of Paradise Pools and told the Nitus that Respondent was the company salesman. Davis is not a licensed contractor. During construction, Davis supervised the work for the Nitus' pool. Mrs. Nitu was ill and remained at home on the day the workers laid reinforcing steel for the pool shell. Mr. Nitu, an electrical contractor, took off work and was at home during the two days when the gunite work was done for their pool. Respondent was not present on the job site on those days. The day after the concrete deck was poured, the Nitus noticed that it contained several low spots which collected water and that rocks were protruding through the deck's surface. Additionally, a portion of the deck sloped toward the pool rather than away from it. The following day, the Nitus returned home from work to discover that the "whitecoat" for the deck surface was completed and their water hose, weighted down by a rock and a rag, was filling the pool. The pool was filled with water before the Nitus had completed a fence to secure the pool. At Mr. Nitu's request, James Tucker, a Dade County Building Inspector, inspected the pool on August 6, 1986. Tucker issued a notice of violation to Respondent for allowing water to be put in the pool without proper safety barriers in contravention of section 33-12, Dade County Code; for allowing the deck to slope toward the pool in contravention of section 5003.1 of the South Florida Building Code and for using concrete of less than 2500 psi strength in contravention of section 5003.1(a), South Florida Building Code. In an attempt to correct the low spots and improper slope of the patio, Davis poured an additional layer of cement over the pool deck and scored the surface to create the appearance of keystone. Thereafter, the Nitus discovered hollow areas under certain parts of the keystone. Eventually, the keystone began to separate from the original deck exposing large areas of the deck. Ben Sirkus was tendered and accepted as an expert in pool construction. Sirkus inspected the Nitu's pool on September 24, 1987, at Petitioner's request. Sirkus observed low spots in the pool deck which held water and contributed to the growth of algae. He also observed that large areas of the imitation keystone had separated from the original deck; that portions of the deck still drained towards rather than away from, the pool; that coping mortar had been left on the sides of the coping and the pool shell; that areas of the whitecoat were unusually rough and that the pool pump was off level, which in time could cause scoring of the bearings in the pump. Sirkus opined that the deficiencies observed could not have gone unnoticed by a pool contractor of average skill and ability; that deficiencies indicate poor supervision or gross negligence or that Respondent exhibited incompetence in contracting for the Nitu's pool. John Davis, Respondent's partner and the person who was usually on the site during all facets of the construction, credibly testified that when the angles were laid out for the sloping of the decks surrounding the Nitu's pool, Alex Nitu requested that his employees angle the deck toward the pool such that it would mesh with his patio. This required that Respondent's employees reslope the angles in accord with Mr. Nitu's wishes and contrary to the manner in which they originally sloped the deck. Mr. Davis also attempted to correct the problems that had surfaced surrounding the deck in accordance with the concerns expressed by the Nitus. However, the Nitus vehemently refused access to Respondent's employees and the matter therefore, remained unresolved. Respondent Reise was at the construction site on numerous occasions during the major facets of the construction. In addition to being the principal salesman for Paradise Pools, Respondent Reise has extensive experience in the construction of pools and frequently consulted with his partner, John Davis, about the ongoing construction of the Nitu's pool. Respondent Reise also attempted to gain access to the pool to attempt to correct the problems and other concerns expressed by the Nitus, to no avail. In this regard, a meeting was held at the Nitu's residence on January 30, 1987, by Jim Tucker and Robert Denery, employees of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, a Mr. Wolf, Petitioner's investigator, Respondent and his partner, John Davis. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that all problems were to be resolved which included (1), repair and patch the keystone on the east end of the pool and (2), rework the slope on the northside of the pool to pitch away from the pool and (3), submit test results from an engineering test lab as to the structural strength of the patio slab and final approval by the electrical and plumbing departments of Dade County. Respondent agreed to correct the above-referenced items and agreed to do so as quickly as feasible. The Nitus refused to allow Respondent's employees back on the site to correct the problems. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). John Davis and Respondent's other employees denied that they started filling the Nitu's pool prior to the time that the Nitus had completed a fence to secure it. Their denial in this regard is incredible and is not worthy of belief. The Nitus, in this regard, credibly testified that they were at all times concerned about the safety of the pool and would never have started filling it prior to the time that it was secured. Respondent's employees, on the other hand, were in fact interested in completing the job and it is therefore believed that they started the water running into the pool and weighted the hose down with a rock and a rag as the Nitus found it when they returned home from work on the day that the "whitecoat" was completed. In all other respects, based on the Nitus' failure to permit Respondent's employees to return to the site to complete the deficiencies and other concerns noted, the undersigned finds that Respondent should have been afforded an opportunity to correct such deficiencies and cannot be held liable 1/ for the allegations that he improperly sloped the pool deck, used improper concrete or was otherwise negligent, incompetent, engaged in misconduct and other allegations of improper supervision, as alleged. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Respondent be issued a written reprimand for allowing his employees to fill an unsecured pool in violation of the local building code. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 19th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times here involved Respondent held a general contractor's license No. CG C011375 and a pool contractor's license No. CP C010307 issued by Petitioner. Respondent was the owner and qualifying contractor for Player Pools, Inc. In late 1975 Player Pools, Inc. entered into a contract with Robert Pereux, a general contractor, to construct a pool at a residence Pereux was building for Carl Reichenbach. Plans submitted with application for permit were approved by the City of Coral Springs Building Inspection Department and construction of the pool was commenced early in 1976 and completed in May 1976. The pool passed all inspections except the electrical inspection, which has not passed on 3-26-76. Had. the electrical discrepancies been corrected immediately, the pool would have passed final inspection. Respondent completed the major portion of the construction and, while the general contractor was backfilling the pool, a large vertical crack some 4 inches wide appeared in the wall of the pool adjacent to the house. The general practice in Broward County is for the general contractor to back-fill the pool after' the floor and walls of the pool have been completed by the pool contractor. No evidence was presented showing who corrected this large vertical crack or what caused the crack. Respondent's contention that this crack was caused by the vertical weight of the tractor used to back-fill, while adjacent to the wall, is not credible. Had the tractor hit the wall while back-filling, a crack could have resulted. Apparently this large vertical crack from the floor to the coping was repaired by someone and the pool was subsequently filled with water in June 1976. When this occurred, hairline cracks near the cove of the pool appeared and the pool leaked. Cove was defined as the part where the wall joins the floor of the pool. Respondent, pursuant to a verbal agreement with Pereux, attempted to repair the cracks but apparently without success. Pereux died early in 1977 and the provisions of this verbal agreement were not presented. A dispute between Pereux and Respondent arose regarding payment for the work Respondent had done on the pool and Respondent filed a mechanic's lien against the property. A copy of release of lien against Reichenbach's property was admitted as Exhibit 8. The amount satisfied by Exhibit 8 is the same amount Respondent claims was owed him by Pereux in his demand for payment dated May 7, 1976 (Exhibit 7). Following receipt of a complaint, the City of Coral Springs issued Notice of Violation to Respondent, charging violations of sections 2301.1(b) and 5001.2(b) South Florida Building Code (Exhibit 2).
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 Respondent is the holder of currently active General Contractor's license No. RG-0023888. On January 18, 1977, Norwood W. Hope (hereinafter "Developer") entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a commercial swimming pool. Respondent was to have been paid the amount of $43,346.40 under the contract for construction of the pool. The contract amount was to be paid pursuant to a five-stage draw schedule as follows: 1. Framing and steel draw paid $10,836.60 2. Gunite draw paid 10,836.60 3. Mancite draw 7,224.40 4. Equipment set draw 7,224.40 5. Final approval draw 7,224.40 Respondent made application for an Alachua County building permit for the swimming pool project on February 23, 1977. The permit application was approved on February 25, 1977, and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, the project received Alachua County approval on a temporary power pole inspection on June 1, 1977. An interim inspection of the property was made by Alachua County officials on November 7, 1977, with no deficiencies noted. A final inspection on the electrical work on the project was made, with satisfactory results, on November 8, 1977. The Alachua County Building Code, by incorporation of the 1973 Southern Standard Building Code, 1974 Revision, provides, in part, as follows: 108.2--INSPECTIONS REQUIRED The Building Official shall inspect or cause to be inspected at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building or structure upon completion, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Section 109. * * * (c) The Building Official upon notifica- tion from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections of buildings and such other inspections as may be necessary, and shall either approve that portion of the construction as completed or shall notify the permit bolder or his agent wherein the same fails to comply with the law: * * * Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. (Emphasis added). The contract entered into on January 18, 1977 between the Developer and Respondent called for Respondent to construct the swimming pool according to the plans and specifications admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Associated construction, including construction of concrete pool decking, a pumphouse and a fence surrounding the swimming pool site were either completed by the Developer or by other sub contractors. By invoice dated October 12, 1977, Respondent requested a final draw on the project in the amount of 87,000, which, if paid, would have left only $224.40 unpaid under the contract. This draw request indicated that a balance due for extra time and materials would be billed ". . . upon acceptance of total pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4). On October 25, 1977, the Developer paid $6,000 of the $7,000 requested to be paid by Respondent's invoice of October 12, 1977. The Developer contested Respondent's expressed intention to bill for additional time and material, asserting that the Developer had not approved any additional sums for extras. In remitting the $6,000 payment to Respondent, the Developer indicated that "[t]his leaves a balance on our account of $1,224.40, which will be paid upon checking out the pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). (Emphasis added.) An invoice for back charges on the swimming pool project in the amount of $274 was forwarded to the Developer by Respondent by invoice dated November 8, 1977. In addition, on November 8, 1977, Respondent also invoiced the Developer for a final draw on the project in the amount of $1,224.40. At some time after notification from the Developer's representatives that tile targets in the racing lanes of the pool were improperly located, Respondent returned to the job site after November 9, 1977 to relocate the targets. Respondent performed this work as a result of a written request from the Developer dated November 9, 1977. Respondent completed primary construction of the pool prior to submission of the final draw request of October 12, 1977. At that time, back- filling around the exterior of the pool structure preparatory to the pouring of the concrete pool decking had not been completed. Although by October 12, 1977, Respondent had removed much of the excess dirt and debris from around the edges of the pool. There were still areas of exposed piping which would, in due course, be covered with back-fill and tamped by the decking subcontractor. Respondent did not attempt to back-fill or tamp any areas around the pool's piping system. At some time subsequent to October 12, 1977, which date is not clearly reflected in this record, a separate sub- contractor completed back-filling work around the pool, and poured the concrete decking. Neither the Developer nor his subcontractor advised Respondent that the back-filling had been accomplished and that the deck was to be poured. Prior to October 12, 1977, Respondent "pressure tested" the pool's piping system, and determined that the pool would hold water at a level above its scum gutters. The results of this testing indicated that, at least as of October 12, 1977, there was no leakage from the pool. Standard practice in the pool construction industry dictates that a minimum of three pressure tests be made of a pool's piping system during the course of construction. The first of these tests should occur immediately after installation of the pipes, and a second test should be performed immediately before final back-filling to cover the pipe system. A final pressure test should be conducted after tamping of the fill and prior to the pouring of concrete for the pool deck. The obvious purpose of this system of pressure testing is to discover any water leaks before concrete pool decking is poured to avoid having to cut out sections of the concrete in order to locate leaks. Because the Developer and his subcontractor failed to notify Respondent of further work being done on the pool. Respondent was unable to perform a pressure test either after back-filling was completed, after the back- fill had been tamped and before the concrete deck was poured. By letter dated January 17, 1978, Respondent was furnished by the Developer with a "punch list" indicating several areas of deficiency that needed to be corrected in the pool. In that letter the Developer requested that Respondent complete the necessary work within seven days. The Developer forwarded a second letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978 advising Respondent that the punch list items had not been corrected, and urging Respondent to complete the work described in the punch list as soon as possible. From receipt of the punch list in January of 1978 through the middle of March, 1978 Respondent had workers on the job intermittently making the corrections indicated in the punch list. Respondent satisfactorily corrected fifteen of the eighteen items listed as defective n the punch list. Some of the items were repaired by other subcontractors. Respondent had difficulty obtaining some items of equipment, which he was required to back-order. When the back-ordered equipment was slow in arriving, the Developer opted to obtain these items from a source other than Respondent. Respondent replaced a defective pump associated with the pool construction at some time subsequent to January 18, 1977. The last work performed by Respondent on the pool project occurred some time between March 10 and March 16, 1978. At no time thereafter was Respondent ever advised by the Developer that any work performed under the contract was either unsatisfactory or incomplete. The pool received a final State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services inspection on July 13, 1978, at which time all necessary permits for operation of the pool under applicable regulations were issued. Respondent at no time requested that Alachua County officials come to the job site to conduct the necessary final inspection of the project, nor did he advise the Developer of the necessity to do so. At some time during 1979, subsequent to the completion of the swimming pool project, the Developer discovered that the pool was losing water at a rate of approximately 2,100 gallons per day. During this period, the water level inside the pool would drop to a level equal to the piping running around the exterior of the pool shell and under the pool decking. When the Developer was unable to ascertain the cause of the leak, an outside subcontractor was hired to check the pool. This sub- contractor performed pressure tests on the pool's piping system in an attempt to determine whether the leakage was occurring through the pipes. These tests apparently showed no leakage through the piping system. The Developer then caused the concrete decking around the edge of the pool to be removed in order to more closely inspect the interior piping. At this point it was discovered that there existed flaws and breaks in the neoprene piping surrounding the exterior shell of the pool. After repairs to the damaged piping, the pool decking was repoured and there has been no subsequent leakage problem in the pool. The Developer incurred expenses in the amount of $2,288 in removing the decking around the pool and repairing the neoprene piping. Because of the fact that several subcontractors in addition to Respondent worked in the pool area during construction of the pool project, it is impossible on the basis of this record to determine the cause of the damage to the neoprene piping. Respondent's testimony is uncontroverted that pressure testing performed prior to the conclusion of primary work on the pool in October of 1977 showed no leakage through the pool's piping system. Further, at the conclusion of the primary work in October, 1977, much of the pool's piping system was left exposed and could have been damaged either by the Developer's own workers or by employees of other subcontractors in the course of back- filling and tamping fill material preparatory to pouring concrete decking. The Developer's failure to advise Respondent of the schedule for back-filling, tamping and pouring of concrete deprived Respondent of an opportunity to properly pressure test the piping system at appropriate stages of construction. Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's products, the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder, should be approved for use in public swimming pools throughout the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner manufactures the products under review in this case: the Transfer Tier and the Easy Ladder (hereinafter referred to as the "Products"). The Products are designed and intended for use by the aged and disabled in entering and exiting swimming pools. The Easy Ladder is intended to be used by people who are able to walk but have difficulty in using a traditional swimming pool vertical ladder. The Transfer Tier is intended for use by people with more disabling handicaps. The Products are intended to be used as portable devices which are not left in the swimming pool. There is nothing to prevent purchasers of the Products, however, from leaving the Products in a swimming pool for extended periods of time. Although designed for use by the aged and disabled, either Product can be used by anyone in the same manner that steps are used. By letter dated May 7, 1986, the Petitioner requested a review of the Products by the Respondent and approval of the Products for use in Florida public swimming pools. The Respondent reviewed the Products and determined that both Products failed to meet the requirements of the Respondent's Rules. The Products are made of fiberglass. When placed in a swimming pool there are areas of the swimming pool and parts of the Products which cannot be seen. Therefore, algae and sediment in the pool can go undetected. Although the Products are intended to be used as portable devices, they can be left in the pool. Additionally, although all areas of the Products are accessible so that algae formation can be prevented, the Products would have to be removed from the pool in order to gain access. The Products are not designed to be installed as a part of a swimming pool. The front edge intersections and the treads and risers of the steps of the Products do not have contrasting colored stripes on the risers of the steps at least two inches wide. The handrails on the Products are not anchored in the pool deck or the bottom step. There are no nationally recognized standards for the Products. The Products are within limits of sound engineering practice. The metallic handrails of the Products and the metallic legs of the Transfer Tier are not to be bonded to other metallic parts of the swimming pool with copper wire no smaller than No. 8 wire. These metallic parts of the Products will be touching the side and bottom of the swimming pool. The metallic parts are not fixed to the swimming pool. They are also not separated from the pool by a permanent barrier. The Transfer Tier is not designed to fit completely flush with the swimming pool wall and floor. Additionally, either Product, if not properly placed in a swimming pool will not fit completely flush with the swimming pool floor. Therefore, the Products will not preclude entanglement or obstruction which could result in the submerged entrapment of bathers. By letter dated May 30, 1986, the Petitioner was informed by the Respondent that the Products failed to comply with the Respondent's Rules. By letter dated July 2, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest the denial of the Petitioner's application and requested a review of the Respondent's decision by the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board unanimously approved the Respondent's decision. There is a need in Florida for the type of products proposed by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying approval of the Products for use in public swimming pools in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3999 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection Deficiency No. 1 3 and 7. Deficiency Nos. 2 & 3 Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 4 and 9. Deficiency No. 4 11. Deficiency No. 5 12. Deficiency No. 6 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 Hereby accepted. 2 2. 3 5. 4 6. 4a Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4b 9. 4c 10. 4d Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4e The first sentence is accepted in 12. The conclusion of law of the second sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 4f 13. 5 14. 6 15. 7 16. 8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 9. Irrelevant. 10 The first sentence is accepted in 17. The rest of the paragraph is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Senior Staff Attorney Office of Licensure and Certification Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Frances Daly President and Marketing Director Triad Technologies, Inc. 4000 Galster Road East Syracuse, New York 13057
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
