The Issue Whether or not the Respondent's activity and conduct in the performance and completion of several construction projects constitute unreasonable or dilatory practices and also whether Respondent's workmanship on such projects was of such an inferior quality that it would indicate proof and continued evidence of gross negligence or misconduct by Respondent in the practice of contracting within the meaning of Chapter 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979). 2/ Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, the memoranda submitted, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint signed April 27, 1981, Petitioner, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to revoke Respondent's license to practice the profession of contracting and to impose a civil penalty based on conduct set forth hereinafter. Respondent, Charles H. Bromley, is a certified pool contractor holding License No. CP-007871 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1). During times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint herein, Respondent was a qualifying agent, pursuant to Section 489.119, Florida Statutes, for both Wands Construction Company, Inc., and for Magic Wands Pools, Inc. Respondent's testimony established that he was part owner of Wands Construction Company, Inc., was an officer of that company and deemed himself responsible for its activities. Respondent testified that he owned no stock in the predecessor company, Magic Wands Pools, Inc., nor was he an officer of that corporation and was not directly responsible for contracts undertaken by that company. Respondent's position is that at least two of these construction projects (Derfler and Dubovick) were projects undertaken by Magic Wands Pools, Inc., and completed by Respondent, doing business as, Wands Construction Company, Inc., inasmuch as Magic Wands Pools closed its doors in late 1979. Wands Construction Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Mariner Village, Inc., to construct a pool at a condominium site being developed by that corporation. The contract was dated September 6, 1979, and called for completion of the pool within six weeks from the date of issuance of a permit. The permit for pool construction was issued on November 6, 1979. Respondent was unable to complete construction of the pool at Mariner Village, inasmuch as problems developed after the pool was filled which caused the pool walls and decking to crack and leak. Respondent attempted to correct the deficiencies in the pool until approximately August of 1980, at which time he was ordered off the job by Mariner Village, Inc. Robert Hamilton, the developer and president of Mariner Village, was the person with whom Respondent negotiated the contract to build the pool for Mariner Village. During the course of time in which Respondent was attempting to correct the problems at Mariner Village, its president, Robert Hamilton, sent approximately six mailgrams to Petitioner reciting his contention that Mariner Village considered Respondent's actions to be a breach of its contract; that the pool was not completed in a professional-like manner and that Respondent's overall performance, or lack thereof, constituted negligence. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 3 and 4.) When Respondent completed the construction phase of the pool, neither the city nor the county would issue a certificate of occupancy to allow the residents of Mariner Village to use the pool. While it was noted that the county initially issued Respondent a certificate of occupancy for its construction of this pool site, that certificate was immediately revoked due to surface cracks in the pool on the north, east and west ends of the pool once it was filled to capacity. Robert Hamilton, president of Mariner Village, testified that at this time (during the hearing) he thought that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy was imminent and that while the price called for in the contract between Respondent and Mariner Village was $20,450.00, it (Mariner Village) had expended or was obligated to expend sums totaling $70,000.00 to complete the pool. Mr. Hamilton ordered two engineering studies to examine and report on performance in the Respondent's construction of the pool. According to Hamilton, the reports revealed that the pool was erected on "good" pilings. Respondent and Leslie Derfler entered into a contract on June 9, 1978, to construct a pool at his residence. The contract price was paid in full and the pool was completed, however, during the spring of 1979, Mr. Derfler detected an opening around the tile grout near the leaf-skimmer. The matter was immediately called to Respondent's attention. Failing to get a prompt response to his complaint, Mr. Derfler contacted the Better Business Bureau after which Mr. Derfler was able to communicate with Respondent during March of 1980. Respondent dispatched a repairman to regrout the tiles in the area around the leaf-skimmer, however, the repairman failed to regrout the tiles which he replaced. As a result, the door of the skimmer became inoperative and separated from the skimmer. Repeated attempts by Mr. Derfler to contact Respondent were unavailing and Mr. Derfler called another company (Boca Pool-Trol Laboratories, Inc.) to finish the necessary work. In this regard, evidence reveals that Respondent reimbursed Mr. Derfler for the monies paid to the Boca Pool-Trol Laboratories, Inc. Respondent and Lindberg Development Company, through its assistant project manager, Taisto Pistkan, entered a contract on January 31, 1980, for the installation of a commercial swimming pool at Shore Heights Condominiums in Lantana, South Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent commenced construction on the pool during August, 1980, and the pool was not completed, such that it could be used, until June, 1981. Mr. Pistkan had to make repeated requests of Respondent to correct numerous problems, including leaks, falling plaster and tiles. When Respondent initially completed construction of the pool and it was filled, during September, 1980, leaks surfaced and approximately nine months later (June, 1981) Respondent completed construction of the pool and a certificate of occupancy was issued. In this regard, Respondent admitted during the hearing that it took an inordinate amount of time to make the necessary repairs to get the Lindberg pool certified. On August 10, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Melvin Dubovick entered into a contract with Magic Wands Pools to construct a pool at their residence in Delray Beach, Florida. This contract called for the completion of the pool within six weeks from the date that the permit was issued. In October of 1979, an agent of Wands Construction, which agent had previously been an agent of Magic Wands Pools, informed Mr. Dubovick that he would have to enter into a new contract due to a reorganization of the pool company. As a result of that advice, the Dubovicks and Respondent entered into another contract with Wands Construction Company, Inc., on October 25, 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11.) According to Mr. Dubovick, the second contract was signed to "straighten out the paper work." Mr. Dubovick was advised that all of the material terms of the new contract would remain unchanged and that the work would be completed within approximately eight weeks. However, the contract with Wands Construction Company does not contain a completion date. Excavation for the pool was made during the middle of October, 1979. Thereafter, no further work was done during that year and the wooden deck of the Dubovicks' home, which was adjacent to the hole dug for the pool, collapsed on New Years Eve, 1979. Thereafter, there were a number of problems with the construction of the pool, including the fact that a spa was not built as called for in the plans for the pool which necessitated that the Respondent remove a portion of poured gunite around the pool's deck; the filter was improperly installed and leaks surfaced when the pool was filled, causing Respondent to place numerous patches and filter outlets in the pool. Additionally, the slope of the pool decking was improper and caused a flooding condition around the Dubovicks' patio. The dimensions of the pool were not completed according to plans in that the length of the pool as completed is 30 feet, 3 inches, whereas the plans called for the pool to be 34 feet in length. The contract provides that the pool would have a 15,000 gallon capacity whereas Mr. Dubovick contends that he has never been able to measure more than a 10,000 gallon capacity while he filled the pool. The pool was completed in July of 1980. Kim Parker, a certified pool contractor, testified on behalf of Petitioner concerning two of the projects complained of in the Administrative Complaint. Consultant Parker is a licensed pool contractor and has been certified approximately two years. He is presently the general manager for Almar Pools. Mr. Parker has supervised pool construction in excess of two years. Mr. Parker visited the Mariner Village project on August 28, 1981, and noted hairline cracks in the plaster around the pool. Those cracks indicated to him that the plaster was either improperly applied or cured. He also noted a return fitting protruding into the pool, which he considered to he evidence of "shoddy" workmanship. Mr. Parker also noticed that the pumps in the pump room were not installed in a "professional" manner. During this time period, Mr. Parker also visited the Dubovicks' residence and he noted that an air leak existed at the filter pump, which caused a loud noise and that the pool was situated approximately three inches above the patio which created a drainage problem. In this regard, the Dubovicks testified that two doors were ruined due to water drainage problems around the pool area. Mr. Parker considered the workmanship around the Dubovick pool to be professional in its appearance although he did note that the pool was not constructed to the measurements provided for in the contract. Respondent's Defense Respondent, Charles Bromley, qualified Magic Wands Pools during 1978. He did so, according to him, based on "bad legal advice." Respondent encountered numerous problems completing pools that were under construction for Magic Wands Pools while he also was handling the day-to-day affairs of the successor corporation. Respondent has completed all except two out of forty-two pools that remained incomplete when he took over and Magic Wands Pools ceased operations in late 1979. Respondent contends that the former owner dumped "problem" pools on him which included the Mariner Village pool. William Sheldon, a professional engineer who has acted as a consultant in the design of numerous pools (in excess of 1,000) was called as a witness to testify on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Sheldon visited the Mariner Village pool and studied the design. He concluded that inadequate pilings were the source of the problems with the Mariner Village pool. That is, he considered the pilings failed to give adequate support and that this was of no fault or could not result in any liability on Respondent's part, inasmuch as the pool contractor was not responsible for the pilings erected to provide support for the pool. Mr. Sheldon noted that the pilings were driven to substantially less depth than other short piles in the area which led him to conclude that the developers used "soft" piles which had a low-blow content. He concluded that this caused cracks to radiate out of the east end of the pool creating leaks. Mr. Sheldon's examination of the elevations around the pool indicated that the gutters were level; that the problem was therefore one relating to the pool's substructure and not due to any construction deficiency. Also, Mr. Sheldon noted that, based on his calculations, without the usual allowance in calculations for an approximate ten percent (10 percent) deviation in a pool's volume capacity, his calculations indicated that the pool would hold approximately 11,872 gallons whereas the plans called for an approximate gallonage capacity of 10,500 to 11,000 gallons. Finally, Mr. Sheldon indicated that his review of the pool construction at Mariner Village only indicated that there existed one extrusion which he considered not to be critical in view of the overall construction and the pool's layout. Respondent testified that construction at Mariner Village progressed at a reasonable pace indicating that on May 8, 1980, the pool was marble coated, however, the equipment was not completed in the pool room and therefore work could not proceed as scheduled. According to Respondent, the earliest time that the equipment was in place, by other subcontractors, was approximately August 18, 1980, and work commenced rapidly thereafter by Respondent's employees. Respondent testified that an engineer inspected the gutters on July 16, 1980, at which time the gutters were properly erected and that within four days, i.e., on July 20, 1980, the gutters were "low" and the tiles had sunk. Respondent replaced the gutters without cost, however, he refused to do further work on the pool until the substructure was solidified. During this period, Respondent also testified that Mariner Village failed to timely honor draw payment requests which forced him to stop work until funds were received according to the schedule for draws. Finally, Respondent testified that the pilings and related substructures were obligations contracted for and hired independently by the general contractor. For this reason, the Respondent offers that he was not obligated for the failures surrounding the pool at Mariner Village. Respondent admits that the Dubovick project caused problems in that it was one that was left from the predecessor entity, Magic Wands Pools. He admits to delays in construction, however, he testified that he labored as faithfully as he could under the circumstances and further that all corrections and/or repairs were made that were called to his attention. As to the contention that the pool was constructed smaller than the 15,000 gallon volume capacity as reflected in the plans and specifications, Respondent indicates that the 15,000 gallon capacity was an error and further that the Dubovicks never indicated to him that there was any discrepancy or deviations from requirements in the plans and specifications as he was required to do according to the terms of the contract. Respondent indicates a willingness to negotiate with the Dubovicks respecting this omission. Finally, Respondent testified that he never met the Derflers, although he did dispatch a repairman out to remedy their problem. Respondent considered that the problem had been resolved and was unaware that it had not until the subject complaints were filed. Respondent has, however, refunded the Derflers' monies which were expended to hire an outside contractor. Throughout the time in which Respondent was attempting to complete or correct projects which had been started or initiated by Magic Wands Pools, he labored to do so with as much dispatch as possible under the circumstances. Respondent indicates that money was due and owing Magic Wands Pools by many customers who refused or was slow to pay. Respondent has been in the pool construction business in excess of twenty years and based on the experience gained and the nature of that business he (Respondent) refuses to guarantee a completion date for a pool due to weather and other uncertainties beyond his control. He again acknowledged that the repairs took a great deal of time to complete, however, he stressed that he labored to perform those repairs in as much dispatch as possible under the circumstances. Concluding, Respondent offered that part of his problem with the Dubovick pool had to do with his attempt to stay within the setback lines of the Dubovicks' property which prompted him to make minor deviations from the plans and specifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, who holds certified pool contractors License No. CP- 007871, be placed on probation by Petitioner for a period of one year. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of January, 1982, 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 26th day of January, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced beyond the scope of his certified commercial pool/spa contractor’s license and proceeded on a job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the construction industry, including pool and spa contractors and electrical contractors, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a commercial pool/spa contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CPC 05661, 1457406, and 1458031. Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of Cox Building Corporation, d/b/a Cox Pools (Cox Pools). Respondent has been registered, certified, or licensed as a swimming pool contractor since 1978. Over the course of his almost 40 years as a swimming pool contractor, Respondent has replaced thousands of pool lights and pool pumps. He believed that the replacement of pool equipment, which he understood to include pool lights, was within the allowable scope of work as a swimming pool contractor. On or about September 12, 2014, Cox Pools entered into a contract with John Patronis to replace four pool light fixtures, a booster pump, and other miscellaneous services for $4,681.17 at the Subject Property. The Subject Property falls within the jurisdiction of the Bay County Building Department. Respondent did not obtain an electrical permit for replacing the pool light fixtures at Subject Property. Mr. Carnley testified that the Bay County Building Department requires that pool light replacement be performed by a licensed electrician, and with a county-issued electrical permit. The permit must be obtained by an electrical contractor or a homeowner. Bay County would not have issued a permit to Respondent, because he was not an electrical contractor. The Bay County Building Department also requires an electrical permit for the replacement of a circuit breaker in the electrical box serving a swimming pool. A pool contractor is not authorized to replace circuit breakers. No permits were obtained to replace circuit breakers at the Subject Property. On September 15, 2014, during the course of replacing the pool light fixtures, an employee of Cox Pools, Joshua Cook, was electrocuted. The precise cause of the electrocution was not established, though no plausible basis exists for it being related to anything other than the replacement of the pool lights. After a period of several days following the accident involving Mr. Cook, Respondent returned to the Subject Property to complete the job. He personally went into the pool, put the light in the fixture and screwed it in, and left. The light was thereafter wired and energized by a Cox Pool service technician. Given the circumstances, Mr. Patronis was not asked to complete payment for the services performed. Nonetheless, it is clear that, but for the accident, Mr. Patronis would have been expected to pay for the services for which he contracted. The photographic evidence in this case demonstrates that between September 15, 2014, and some indeterminate time in 2016, a circuit breaker was replaced in the electrical box serving the Subject Property’s pool. The circuit breaker that existed on September 15, 2014, was a ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). By 2016, the GFCI has been replaced with an arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI). Had Bay County performed an inspection of the electrical box with the AFCI, it would not have passed inspection. Respondent testified that he did not change the circuit breaker, that Cox Pools keeps no inventory of circuit breakers, and that service technicians do not carry circuit breakers on the trucks. Respondent acknowledged his understanding that replacing a circuit breaker is a job for an electrical contractor. At some time “recently,” Williams Electric was called to the Subject Property, at which time Mr. Williams “swapped out a breaker or two that was an incorrect type of breaker for the application.” Mr. Patronis was not clear whether an arc breaker was replaced with a ground breaker, or vice versa. Pool lights are sealed units. The light and its power cord come as a single unit. To replace a pool light, the main circuit breaker at the swimming pool sub-panel is turned off. The wires to the existing light are disconnected (unscrewed) from the circuit breaker. A lead is tied to the end of the wire. The light fixture is removed from the pool opening, and the wire is pulled through the existing conduit from the pool side. When the old fixture and wiring unit has been removed, the lead is removed from the end of the old unit’s wire, tied to the wiring of the new light, and drawn back through the conduit to the circuit breaker box. The new light is screwed into the fixture, and then energized by connecting the wires back into the existing circuit breaker. The point of connection of the light to the circuit breaker is the “load side” of the circuit. The experts who testified in this proceeding were all competent and qualified in their fields, and had served in leadership positions with the CILB (Mr. Weller, Mr. Del Vecchio, and Mr. Lenois), the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board (Mr. Tibbs), or the Florida Swimming Pool Association (Mr. Garner and Mr. Pruette). However, despite the relative simplicity of the statutes at issue, their opinions as to the allowable scope of work under a swimming pool contractor license were at odds. Respondent acknowledged, and the evidence in this case establishes, that electrical work associated with new pool construction is a task that is within the scope of work of an electrical contractor. Initial construction involves substantial work in bringing power from the main residential panel to the new pool panel, installing a junction box and circuit breakers, installing the wiring, and performing other electrical work of significantly greater complexity than that involved in the installation of equipment into a pre-constructed electrical system, which involves only the disconnect and reconnect of wires to the load side of a circuit breaker. As discussed by Mr. Lenois, a pool contractor can contract for the entire pool, but cannot self-perform the electrical components pursuant to section 489.113. As to the replacement of existing equipment, Petitioner’s experts testified that pool light fixtures differ from other pool-related equipment, e.g., pool pumps, in that the light fixtures have direct contact with the water, whereas other components do not. Lights are changed out in a submerged condition, which makes them extremely dangerous. As stated by Mr. Weller, “the whole area of electricity around pools gets complicated, between the bonding, the grounding, and all the other stuff.” It was Mr. Weller’s opinion that, although pool contractors can contract for pool light replacement, they cannot self-perform the work. Rather, the electrical work involved in replacing pool light fixtures should be subcontracted to an electrical contractor because “you can make mistakes in plumbing, and you can make mistakes in other areas, but with electricity, it's pretty non-forgiving, especially if you're around water.” Mr. Lenois distinguished pool lights, which he characterized as accessories since all pools do not have them, from pool equipment, which includes pumps and filters, heaters, specialty filters, and salt generators, which are mounted at the pump and filter area. Respondent’s experts were uniform in their opinions that the act of disconnecting and reconnecting pool lights, as well as other pool equipment, at the load side of a breaker does not constitute electrical contracting. Mr. Pruette testified that disconnecting and connecting a pool light at a circuit breaker is not a difficult or complex task, and can be easily performed with a little training. Mr. Del Vecchio testified that the disconnection and connection of pool lights at the circuit breaker is no different than that performed by a plumber in replacing a hot water heater, or an air-conditioning contractor in replacing a piece of air-conditioning equipment. Almost all of the experts either replaced pool lights as part of their routine scope of work or knew of pool contractors who did so, a practice that appears to be commonplace. Furthermore, several of the witnesses worked in areas of the state in which county building officials did not require permits, electrical or otherwise, for the replacement of pool lights, though the evidence in that regard was generally hearsay. Mr. Lenois, who testified on Petitioner’s behalf, stated his opinion that reasonable people could differ as to the meaning of the statutory language placing the “installation, repair, or replacement of existing equipment” within the scope of work of a pool/spa contractor. The issue of the extent to which electrical work is subsumed within the statutory scope of work of a pool/spa contractor of “installation, repair, or replacement of existing equipment” has been the topic of considerable discussion in the industry. In that regard, the Florida Pool and Spa Association has filed a Petition to Initiate Rulemaking with the CILB seeking, among other things, to “clarify[] the scope of a certified pool contractor’s license to include the installation, repair, and replacement of pool equipment, up to and including the electrical connection on the demand side of the power source.” There was no evidence as to the disposition of the petition. Respondent argued that Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-16.001(9), which establishes that five percent of the written certification exam for commercial pool/spa contractors is to cover “electrical work,” is evidence that electrical work is within the scope of work for a pool contractor. Electrical work associated with pool construction includes grounding for the pool shell itself. Thus, a degree of knowledge of basic electrical work and codes would be warranted, regardless of whether equipment electrical connections are within the scope of work for a pool/spa contractor. The parties introduced a series of DBPR-approved course outlines and instructor applications for a three-hour class, sponsored by the Florida Pool and Spa Association, entitled “Basic Electricity and the NEC [National Electric Code] for Swimming Pools,” and a one-hour class, sponsored by the Florida Pool and Spa Association, entitled “Basic Electrical Requirements for Pools.” The course outline prepared by the Florida Pool and Spa Association for each of the approved courses provides, in bold font, that: Instructor is aware that electrical work does not fall within the scope of work of licensed pool/spa contractors. No instruction on how to perform electrical work will take place. Course will provide much needed understanding of the basics of electricity as well as those aspects of the NEC as they pertain to pools and spas. Instructor will also emphasize the importance of using a licensed electrical contractor to perform required work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One; and sections 455.227(1)(o) and 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two, but only as that count pertains to the replacement of pool lights. It is further recommended that: Respondent be subject to a fine of $1,000 for a first violation of section 489.129(1)(o); Respondent be subject to a fine of $4,000, and that Respondent’s commercial pool/spa contractor licenses be subject to a period of probation for two years for a first violation of section 455.227(1)(o) and section 489.129(1)(c); and Respondent be required to complete an approved, live seven-hour continuing education course, in addition to any otherwise required continuing education, with an emphasis on chapter 489 and the rules enacted pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, George W. Boukater, was a certified general contractor, license number CG C012598, and a registered pool contractor, license number RP 0032042. Respondent was the qualifier for Swimming Pools by M.J. Donohue, Inc. (Donohue), under license number RP 0032042, from February 1979 until June 30, 1985. On July 29, 1984 Donohue contracted to construct a swimming pool at the residence of Ms. Loretta Hunley in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the sum of $6,400.00. Respondent, on behalf of Donohue, applied for and received the building and plumbing permits for the pool. Apart from securing the permits, Respondent had no contact with the job and never inspected its progress. By August 30, 1984, Donohue had substantially completed the pool. All that remained to be done was to marcite the pool, hook up the pool light and plumbing, and install the pumps. However, before these items could be completed it was necessary that the area surrounding the pool be backfilled, the patio poured, and the electric installed. Under the July 29, 1984 contract Ms. Hunley did not contract with Donohue for any patio, electric or fence work. She expressly retained responsibility for that work in an effort to save money on the pool construction. The area surrounding the pool was not backfilled and the patio slab approved by the Broward County Building and Zoning Department (County) until September 14, 1984. As of September 5, 1985, the fence work was still in violation of the County code. The electric work received the County's final approval on January 8, 1986. In October 1984 demands were exchanged between Ms. Hunley and Donohue. Ms. Hunley demanded that the pool be completed. Donohue demanded adequate electrical service so the pool could be pumped and cleaned for marciting, and dates when someone would be available at the premises. In November 1984 Donohue got its pumps in operation, however Ms. Hunley disconnected them in the evenings. Consequently, the pool could not be drained and cleaned to marcite it. In November 1984 Ms. Hunley ejected Donohue from the job site. Subsequently, Ms. Hunley and Donohue formally settled their dispute.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts were found: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent held two active contractor's licenses issued by the State of Florida, RP 0033354 and CP 015029. Respondent's current address is 1316 Hoffner Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32809. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent owned the firm Family Pools and did business as a pool contractor under that name. At no time did Respondent ever qualify his firm, under whose name he did business, with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). On some date not specified, in June, 1980, Alphonse J. and Pauline L. Rodier contracted with Family Pools to build a pool at their residence at 601 Michigan Avenue, Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida for a price of 6,700. The contract was signed by Respondent for Family Pools. The pool price was to include a screened enclosure and deck, and the entire package was to be completed by July 4, 1980. The pool was paid for by two checks from Coast Federal Sayings and Loan Association in Sarasota from the proceeds of a home improvement loan and by a final check in the amount of $900 from the Rodiers, direct, on October 13, 1980. Respondent subcontracted the pool enclosure to Climatrol Screen Company of Enqlewood, Florida, for $2,065 but failed to pay this subcontractor. As a result, on November 26, 1980, Climatrol filed a lien against Rodier's property which was released only when the Rodiers paid an additional $790 which had not been satisfied by the Respondent. Respondent had satisfied part of the debt to Climatrol by relinquishing title to a truck he owned. On July 3, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Elmer J. and Carla T. Taylor, of Bunnell, Florida, to build an above-ground pool on their property for $4,800.00. The pool was to have a one year warranty against defective parts and a 20-year prorated replacement policy. According to the contract, the pool price included the pump, liner, filter, and walls, along with all other parts. The pool was constructed by employees of Family Pools about three or four weeks after the contract was signed. Not long after the pool was completed and filled, Mr. Taylor noticed that the vinyl liner was protruding out beneath the bottom of the metal retaining wall. His calls to Family Pools were never answered by Respondent with whom he asked to talk and repair work on this problem was not accomplished by the Respondent or Family Pools. Mr. Taylor had to do the work himself and Family Pools would not honor the warranty. Respondent offers the completion certificate executed by the Taylors on August 21, 1980,as evidence the pool was installed properly and the Taylors were satisfied. Mr. Taylor indicates he signed that certificate in blank under pressure from Respondent's agent, who cajoled him into doing it on the basis that if he did not, Family Pools could not be paid by the finance company under the installment sales contract. Also, during the period of the one year warranty, the pool pump burned out. Mr. Taylor had to replace that and pay for it himself, as the warranty was not honored. Respondent contends only a 90-day warranty on the pump, but that appears nowhere in the contract, which, in its description of the pool covered by the one year warranty, includes the pump. On August 29, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Janice Conover to build a swimming pool at her home in Venice, Florida for $4,780. The pool was to be completed approximately 30 days after excavation at the site. Between August 29, 1980, and December, 1980, Ms. Conover paid Family Pools a total of $4,741 by checks which were endorsed by "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools" or "Pasquale M. Vescera." On October 2, 1980, Respondent pulled a permit No. 7330- N from the Sarasota County Building Department, in his own name, to construct Ms. Conover's pool. In February, 1981, when the pool was only about fifty percent complete, Respondent ceased work on Ms. Conover's pool without giving her any notice or reason therefor. When Respondent stopped work, he had only dug the hole for the pool. The liner had been delivered but was not installed. The braces were there but not affixed, notwithstanding Ms. Conover had paid almost in full for the pool. As a result, she contracted with Richard Thompson, Respondent's former employee, to finish the work Respondent had started because at this point she could not find the Respondent. Thompson installed the brackets, the liner, and the deck. She had to pay extra for the pump, the chemicals, and the sweep--all of which, except for the sweep, she had paid for when she paid Respondent's price. Respondent never returned to complete Ms. Conover's pool. On July 7, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Robert A. and Florence L. Peipher to build a pool at their property in Port Charlotte, Florida, for a price of $6,900. Between July 7 and November 28, 1980, the Peiphers paid Family Pools, by checks, the sum of $6,905. All checks-were endorsed for deposit, "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools." The pool price was to include a screened pool enclosure and in September 1980, Family Pools contracted with Climatrol to build the screened enclosure for Peipher's pool for $1,807. Respondent and Family Pools failed to pay Climatrol for the enclosure and as a result, Climatrol filed a lien against the Peipher's property for $1,807 which was satisfied on March 9, 1981, by the Peiphers who paid Climatrol the amount owed. On March 2, 1981, the Peiphers filed a complaint against Respondent with the Contractor License Division of the Charlotte County Building Department because of Respondent's failure to pay Climatrol and the resultant cost to them. As a result of this complaint and the subsequent investigation into the allegations, the matter was referred to the Charlotte County Building Board which, at its meeting on May 7, 1981, after notice to Respondent, voted to revoke Respondent's permit privileges in Charlotte County until he made restitution to the Peiphers and to notify the State of Respondent's actions requesting state action against his license. Respondent suffered severe financial setbacks just about the time of these incidents. He was hospitalized for a period of five or six weeks and upon his return to his business found that he had been "robbed" of approximately $50,000 worth of fully paid for inventory. When he reported the shortage to the local law enforcement officials, they told him that since there was no evidence of a breaking in, they could do nothing about it. In addition, he could not recover from his insurance company for the same reason. There was no evidence other than Respondent's sworn testimony that there was a shortage or that he reported the loss to either agency. Respondent has been in the pool business in Florida for five years and in New Jersey for 32 years before that. He feels the cause of his problem is the fact that he trusted the people who worked for him who took advantage of him. During the entire period of time he was in business in Florida he took no money from the company for his personal use, living instead on income from a mortgage he owned in New Jersey. He subsequently filed for bankruptcy on March 9, 1981. The $15,000 in current accounts receivable he had on the books at that time was utilized in the bankruptcy proceeding to pay creditors. He got-none of it. He is now working in Orlando, Florida, for a pool rehabilitation company owned by his wife and her father. Respondent alleges that on July 15, 1980, he paid Richard Thompson $1,100 to complete work started on several pools, including that of Ms. Conover. Review of the prior findings of fact, however, shows that the contract with Ms. Conover was not entered into until approximately 45 days after Respondent supposedly made this payment to cover the work left undone on her pool. In light of that development, I find his contention completely without merit or basis in fact. Respondent admits that people were hurt as a result of his actions and he regrets this. However, he claims these few incidents are insignificant when compared with the over 500 satisfied customers he alleges he has served over the years. Finally, Respondent contends that early in 1980, after being advised that he had passed the test to be a certified pool contractor, he wrote to Petitioner and, after advising how he was registered and doing business, asked if he needed to make any changes in license registration. He did in fact do this and received no reply. He thereafter assumed he was acting correctly in that regard and that appears to be a justified assumption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a contractor be suspended for two years and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Pasquale M. Vescera 1316 Hoffner Avenue Orlando, Florida 32809 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Henry C. Hollenbeck was licensed as a swimming pool contractor. In February of 1980, respondent, doing business as Acme Pools, entered into a contract with Loren Bjornson to construct a swimming pool at Bjornson's residence for a total purchase price of $8,300. Construction of this pool was completed on or about June 30, 1980. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for the Bjornson pool until January 5, 1981. Prior to the construction of a swimming pool in Ft. Walton Beach, a building permit is required. No inspections were performed by the City during construction of the Bjornson pool. Many items, such as the plumbing, walls, drain system, etc., cannot be adequately inspected after construction is completed and the pool is filled with water. Almost immediately upon construction of the Bjornson pool, a crack in the wall at the center of the pool appeared. This was repaired by respondent. Then, in July of 1980, the pool started losing one inch of water per day. In August, 1980, the pool started losing two inches of water per day. Mr. Bjornson repeatedly contacted respondent about this problem, but respondent did not respond to the calls because he felt that Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson retained another pool company to make repairs on his pool to prevent it from leaking. The three repair bills amounted to slightly over $200 and none of the repair jobs could be guaranteed. In order to make a guarantee, the service and sales manager of Aqua Pools estimated that repairs amounting to $11,365 would be necessary. It was his opinion that the repair work would involve a major rebuilding of the pool, including the removal of the pool deck and tiles and the reinforcement of walls. At the time of the hearing, the Bjornson pool was not presently leaking. By contract dated August 10,1979, respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Walter Parker. Construction was competed in October of 1979 and leaking problems began almost immediately. Respondent came back on at least four occasions to do the repair work. The corners were patched and other repair work necessitating the complete draining of the pool was performed. Each time, the Parkers were charged for labor and parts. At the time of the hearing, the Parker pool still leaked approximately one inch per day. It was estimated that it would cost about $1,000 to repair the Parker pool adequately so that a one-year warranty against leaking could be given. Respondent testified that he did not respond to Mr. Bjornson's calls for repair work because Mr. Bjornson still owed him money. He believed the Parkers also owed him money. He felt that he could repair both pools adequately for a nominal sum of money.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner find respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and suspend his pool contractor's license for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 December 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry C. Hollenbeck Rt. 1, Box 196 F-G, Circle Drive Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Mr. Samuel Shorestein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a registered and certified pool contractor having been issued license numbers RP 0023613 and CP 0012607. Respondent's license number RP 0023613 has been delinquent since June 30, 1983, but his license number CP 0012607 was active and in full force and effect until he ceased doing business in approximately September, 1985. Respondent conducted his pool contracting business in the name of Hallmark Pools for approximately 14 years. The business entity "Hallmark Pools" was properly qualified and named on the Respondent's license. In 1985, the Respondent began to enter the business of designing outdoor patios and fountains, as well as pools. He wished to retain the good will he had gained operating under the name "Hallmark Pools" while gaining good will in the new name under which he planned to conduct business in the future, "Aquatic Environments, Inc." During this transition period, and until he closed his business, the Respondent's contracts and letterhead contained the names "Hallmark Pools" and "Aquatic Environments, Inc.," but that name never appeared on his licensure. On or about March 12, 1985, Respondent, through Hallmark Pools/Aquatic Environments, Inc., contracted with customers Mr. and Mrs. Allan Schaeffer to construct a screened-in pool and spa at their residence located at Archer Street, Lehigh Acres, Florida, for a contract price of $20,000. Later approximately $1,700 of extras were added to the contract. On or about March 21, 1985, the Schaeffers paid the Respondent $2,000 on the contract. On or about May 23, 1985, the Schaeffers paid another $17,000 on the contract. Approximately, $2,600 remained owing on the contract. The customers reside part of the time in New Jersey. In the contract, Respondent promised a June 15 completion date. When the customers arrived in Florida on or about June 14, they found that the project was not complete. When the customers contacted the Respondent, the work was resumed. The pool was quickly completed and was usable by the beginning of the July 4th weekend. Some punch list items remained to be done, but the Schaeffers preferred that the Respondent wait until after they returned to New Jersey in August, 1985. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent promised a June 15 completion date while knowing that he would not be able to finish the work by that date. During the summer of 1985, personal problems the Respondent was facing at the time mounted, and eventually he decided he no longer could continue to operate his business. He began to plan to close his business and have all pending matters either resolved by himself before he went out of business or resolved by his brother Chad Jackson, also a licensed pool contractor, after going out of business. He did this by assigning pending contracts to his brother. He also attempted to insure that all suppliers were paid either by himself before he went out of business or by his brother out of payments due under the contracts assigned to him. Except for the Schaeffer job, the Respondent's arrangements to close out his business did not result in any complaints. Near the end of August, 1985, the Schaeffers gave the Respondent a punch list of work still due under the contract to be done while the Schaeffers were in New Jersey. The Respondent called and told Mr. Schaeffer that he was closing his business but that the punch list items would be taken care of. At the time, the Respondent also knew that approximately $1,300 was owed to Jones Industries Screen Enclosures, Inc. The Respondent expected his brother to pay Jones out of the $2,600 due on the Schaeffer contract, leaving $700 to compensate his brother for the punch list work and any warranty work. In fact, there also was $2,705.12 owed to a company named FAFCO Solar, which had subcontracted the solar heating on the Schaeffer contract. The Respondent had forgotten about this debt. FAFCO had billed the Respondent on July 15, 1985, but the Respondent did not pay it or arrange for its payment. FAFCO's second billing never reached the Respondent. The Respondent sent FAFC0, along with his other suppliers and subcontractors, a notice on August 22, 1985, that he was going out of business and that mail should be sent to his home address. On receipt of this notice on August 28, 1985, FAFC0 mailed a second billing to the home address but it was returned on August 30, 1985, marked: "Moved Left No Address". The Respondent's brother did the punch list work to Mr. Schaeffer's satisfaction and sent him a bill for the $2,600 balance due on the contract. Schaeffer never paid. The Respondent's brother never paid the Jones Industries bill (and never got the FAFCO bill). Jones Industries put a lien on the property at 1414 Archer Street for $1,388.75, which the Schaeffers eventually paid. FAFCO did not file a notice to owner and could not claim a lien on the property. FAFC0 never was paid. Both Jones Industries and FAFCO refused to do warranty repairs because they were not timely paid. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent inadequately supervised the Schaeffer job while he was still in business or after he went out of business. After he went out of business, he assigned the contract to a licensed pool contractor, his brother. Eventually, serious problems developed in the Schaeffer's pool at 1414 Archer Street. But the evidence did not prove that the Respondent or his brother were responsible. The serious problems of which the Schaeffers now complain should have been apparent from the outset if caused during construction of the pool. Yet complaints were not registered until much later. Meanwhile, improper maintenance of the pool by the Schaeffers or their pool maintenance contractor, or damage to the pool during maintenance, could have caused the current problems. For six months after the Respondent closed his business and left Ft. Myers, he was traveling in the western part of the country and had no mailing address and did not give one to the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Then, he returned to Florida to a St. Petersburg address which he gave to the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(g) and (m), Florida Statutes (1985), reprimand him for the violation of (g) and fine him $1000 for the violation of (m). RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee this 19th day of December, 1988. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3468 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Rejected. (The license number was left blank.) Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. The Respondent arranged for payment of the Jones debt but disputes among the Schaeffers, Jones and the Respondent's brother led to Jones imposing a lien on the property which the Schaeffers eventually paid. The Respondent did not make arrangements to pay FAFCO, and that bill remains unpaid. 4.-9. Rejected as contrary to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 500 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas Jackson 5203 109th Way North St. Petersburg, Florida 33708 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Bruce D. Lamb 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
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from some of the requirements of Rule 10D-5.097, Florida Administrative Code, regarding public swimming pools. At the hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and offered exhibits. Following the hearing a transcript was filed on March 3, 1989, and the parties were allowed until March 23, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner submitted an application for a swimming pool operating permit to the Respondent. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's request for an operating permit, whereupon the Petitioner requested a variance from the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Board recommended favorable action on the request for variance, but by letter of July 29, 1988, the Petitioner was advised that the Respondent intended to deny the request for variance. The Petitioner's request for formal hearing followed. The Petitioner operates a public swimming pool in Grassy Key, Florida. The Petitioner has never obtained a permit to operate the pool from the Respondent. The floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool are covered with glazed tile. There is no evidence that the glazed tile on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool is anything other than ordinary glazed tile. The coefficient of friction for wet glazed tile is normally between .2 and .25. Approximately twenty-one percent of the surfaces of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool consists of grout. The grout is located between the tiles. The top surface of the grout is lower than the top surface of the tiles. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of Petitioner's pool are medium blue to dark blue and black in color. Specifically, the tiles are not white or light pastel in color. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool reflect less light than would be reflected if they were white or light pastel in color. The more light present in a pool, the greater the ability to detect objects in the pool. A decrease in the amount of light in a pool increases the risk of objects in the pool not being detected. Light colors in pools also facilitate the ability to maintain proper sanitation. An epoxy coating could be placed on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool for approximately $1,500.00. Such a coating would improve the safety of the pool by making the pool surfaces more slip resistant. By reason of the glazed tile surface, the Petitioner's pool is a safety hazard to the public. It is not difficult to see people on the bottom of the Petitioner's pool during day or night operation, even though the pool is dark in color and does not have the characteristic of reflecting, rather than absorbing light. Objects on the bottom of the pool are visible from the pool deck. The color of the pool does not appear to be a significant safety hazard. The water clarity in Petitioner's pool is well above average. The color of the pool does not appear to cause any depth perception different from the depth perception problems inherent in any pool of water. Department inspection reports for the period 1981 through 1988 reveal no problems with cleaning the pool, reveal no findings of algae at all, and indicate that the operator of the pool has done a good job of maintaining the pool. The pool has been in continuous operation for over eight years and there have not been any accidents resulting from use of the pool.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that that Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order in this case denying the Petitioner a variance from the "slip resistant" surface requirement of Rule 10D- 5.097(1), Florida Administrative Code, and granting the Petitioner a variance from the requirement of that rule that the pool floor and walls be "white or light pastel in color." DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4561 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The Petitioner's expert testimony regarding the coefficient of friction of the tiles in question is not persuasive and has not been used as a basis for fact-finding in this case. The measurements made by the Petitioner's expert deviate dramatically from the measurements one would expect. There is no persuasive record basis to explain the deviation. The proffered suggestion that the amount of grout affected the measurements is not persuasive, because it is unlikely that the testing equipment came in contact with the grout, inasmuch as the surface of the grout is typically below the surface of the tiles. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (See discussion of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, above.) Paragraph 6: First clause (through the word "tiles") is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 7 through 20: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 9: Accepted in substance, but with numerous subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 10: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as not completely accurate; the tiles in the subject pool reflect less light than is reflected by a white or pastel colored pool. Paragraph 14: Rejected as irrelevant, because even though the proposed statement is true, algae detection has not been a problem in the subject pool. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: Rejected for same reason as rejection of Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17: Rejected as being somewhat of an over statement. The subject pool is, however, less safe than a pool that complies with all of the applicable rule criteria. Paragraph 18: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Although the Respondent's expert testified to the opinion proposed in this paragraph, I have not made any finding based on that opinion testimony, because the basis for the opinion is essentially unexplained in the record and appears to be more of a "feeling" than a "fact." Further, other evidence in the record indicates that depth perception in swimming pools is affected by a number of variables other than pool color. Paragraph 19: Rejected as irrelevant, as well as for the reasons discussed immediately above. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 21 through 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 25: First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as unnecessary repetition of previously proposed facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Hruska, Esquire Vernis & Bowling, P.A. Post Office Drawer 529 Islamorada, Florida 33036 Morton Laitner, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Suite 5424 Miami, Florida 33128 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 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that Petitioner's Exhibit number 1, which is the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board official records as they relate to Millard P. Hill, Jr., should be received into evidence. The parties noted further that there is little dispute as to facts, however, the Respondent contends that there is no diversion of funds based on the facts of this case. On June 10, Respondent advised Petitioner that he wished to qualify Master Pools, a corporation which he had applied to Petitioner to qualify as the name under which his pool contracting would be done to reflect the name H. B. Patten, Inc. as the name under which said contracting would be done. Petitioner changed its records to show this change. On July 12, Respondent entered into a contract with Manuel and Anna Bueno for a pool to be built at 6960 Northwest 4th Place, Margate, Florida, for a sum of $5,665. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 2 received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference. Anna Bueno testified that a hole was dug and tar paper and steel bars were erected in the hole and the work was abandoned thereafter. Prior to abandonment, the Bueno's paid approximately $4,100 to Patten Pools. To complete the construction, the Bueno's used Hallmark Pools to finish the pool which required an additional sum of approximately $5,000. As can be seen, this is approximately $3,300 over and above the contract price. The evidence also reveals that Patten Pools, Inc., through Millard P. Hill, applied for and obtained a permit for the construction of the pool for the Bueno's on August 5. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 3, received into evidence and made a part hereof by reference. On April 24, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Eskie entered a contract with Respondent for the erection of a swimming pool on their property located at 1525 Southeast 14th Court, Deerfield Beach, Florida for $6,786.00. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 4 received in evidence and made a part hereof by reference. Mr. Eskie testified that the excavation for the pool began on May 20, and on June 2 gunite services were complete. On July 9, he received a letter from Crockett- Bradley, Inc. a gunite subcontractor, indicating that it was filing a lien for $1,312 against the Eskie's property for services performed. The building permit for the Eskie project was obtained by Respondent on June 10. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 7 incorporated herein by reference. Edward Eskie paid Respondent approximately $4,778 and $1,312 was paid to Crockett-Bradley, Inc. to satisfy the lien which was placed against their property. The Eskie's completed their pool by payment of an amount in excess of $4,000 to another pool contracting firm. Prior to completing the pool and after the Respondent abandoned the project, Edward Eskie made numerous attempts to contract Respondent by phone to no avail. On June 27, Respondent entered a contract with Orlando Gonzalez for a pool to be built at his residence located at 353 Northwest 22nd Street, Boca Raton, Florida for $9,000.00. See Petitioner's Exhibit number 8 which was received and made a part hereof by reference. Orlando Gonzalez paid Respondent $3,600 through his bank toward the contract price. For that payment, Respondent dug a hole and the project was abandoned. After work was abandoned, Gonzalez made repeated attempts to contact Respondent to no avail. To complete the project, he paid another contractor approximately $6,000. On April 18, Respondent entered into a contract with Howard and Sheila Siclari for a pool to be built at their home located at 7812 Northwest 67th Avenue, Tamarac, Florida, for the sum of $4,280. To commence the construction, Respondent obtained a building permit on June 18, 1975. See Petitioner's Exhibits number 9 and number 10 received in evidence and made a part hereof by reference. The Siclari's paid Respondent $3,456.75. Thereafter they completed the work which cost them an additional $2,500 and they did most of the work themselves. James T. Anglen, a pool salesman for Patten Pools testified that he was initially employed by Master Pools until June, 1975. A reference to Petitioner's Exhibit number 1 indicates that Master Pools registered as Brian Sales Corporation as the first entity that Respondent registered with Petitioner on January 1, 1974. He was a superintendent of Patten Pools in June, 1975 when he commenced employment with Patten. He acknowledged that he received money from the Bueno's which was transmitted to Patten Pools. He also acknowledged that the Bueno's were probably hurt most of all the complaining parties in this case. Respondent discovered that its cash flow was short approximately $40,000 to $50,000 and that that amount in checks were floating with insufficient funds to cover them. He commenced efforts to try to straighten out the firms cash flow and that for a while the bank worked along with him. Anglen also acknowledged the abandonment of the Gonzalez project. He further acknowledged that monies received from projects were used to cover deficiencies on other projects to continue Respondent's operations.
