Findings Of Fact Martin R. McAndrew is a licensed general contractor and licensed pool contractor holding general contractor's license number RG 0020560 and pool contractor's license number RP 0024861. Martin R. McAndrew was provided notice in accordance with the applicable rules and statutes of the formal hearing to consider the allegations of the administrative complaint filed against him by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Ray Dowell identified a notice of violation served on McAndrew by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. This notice of violation related to the construction undertaken by McAndrew for Lynn McMillan. Melvin C. Huebschman entered into a contract with McAndrew for the construction of a pool. The contract price for the pool was $5,000.00. Huebschman paid McAndrew $2,000 in two payments. The first payment was in the amount of $300.00 to cover the cost of transportation of the pool materials to Pensacola, Florida. The second payment in the amount of $1,700.00 was for the first phrase of construction on the pool. Subsequent to receiving payment McAndrew provided no materials or labor pursuant to the contract. Huebschman talked with McAndrew concerning completion of the work pursuant to the contract and McAndrew failed to perform under the contract throughout the spring and summer of 1977. In August, 1977, Huebschman wrote McAndrew advising him that it had been over ninety days since they entered into the contract and McAndrew had not performed any services pursuant to the contract. Huebschman gave McAndrew thirty days within which to commence work. McAndrew did not respond to this notice. McAndrew did not return any portion of the $2,000.00 paid to him by Huebschman. Lynn McMillan entered into a contract, identified as a portion of Exhibit 4, with McAndrew. This contract called for the construction of a pool for a contract price of $5,800.00. Pursuant to that contract, McMillan paid to McAndrew $4,350.00. Subsequent to payment of the third draw, McAndrew failed to complete the job. The last work performed by McAndrew on this construction project was on May 17, 1977. Prior to May 17, 1977, all materials for completing the pool were on the site and installed. Before abandoning the project, McAndrew removed from the building site all portions of the pool construction except the poured concrete and vinyl lining. McMillan subsequently entered into a contract with Surf Side Pools for the completion of the pool. The contract price was $1275.00, which included $800.00 for equipment and materials necessary to complete the pool. In addition, McMillan found it necessary to pay $230.00 to O'Brian Enterprises to remove stumps and spoil left on the construction project by McAndrew. McMillan also paid $200.00 to Warrick Electric Company to satisfy a claim by Warrick for materials and labor provided by Warrick to McAndrew. Finally, American Ready Mix Concrete filed a claim of lien in the amount of $436.80 against the property of Lynn McMillan for labor and materials provided under the contract with McAndrew which McAndrew did not pay. On May 27, 1977, McAndrew wrote a letter to McMillan advising that he would like the opportunity to finish the pool and was invited to do so. However, McAndrew did not return to the construction site or provide any further labor or materials pursuant to the contract. Sarah White Witt entered into a contract with McAndrew for the construction of a pool at a contract price of $4,500.00. Witt paid McAndrew $500.00; however McAndrew did not finish the pool construction. Subsequently, Witt was advised by the materialmen and labors of various liens against her property totalling $2,200.00. Daryl Jernigan, electrical and pool inspector for Escambia County, inspected the work done by McAndrew on the McMillan pool. He found that the pool had been filled with water but that the equipment necessary to recirculate and chlorinate the water had been removed from the pool, thereby permitting the water to stagnate. This inspection was conducted in June, 1977. Prior to that time, Jernigan had found it necessary to order work on a pool begun by McAndrew halted because McAndrew had failed to acquire a building permit prior to commencing construction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke the licenses of Martin R. McAndrew as a general contractor and as a pool contractor, and further fined a sum of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Michael E. Egan, Esquire Attorney at Law 217 South Adams Tallahassee, Florida Martin R. McAndrew 3313 N. 17th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32502
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 The issue at the hearing was whether Respondent's pool contracting license should be disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed pool contractor in Panama City, Bay County, Florida, holding license number RP 0053231. Respondent was registered as an individual with the Board. The address given on his pool contractor's license was 3414 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida. National Pools of Panama City, Inc. was not registered or certified as a contractor with the Board. National Pool's address was 3416 Jenks Avenue, Panama City, Florida. No clear and convincing evidence was presented as to whether Respondent had any knowledge of National Pool's unregenerate and incertitude status. On February 16, 1988, Robert D. Hay entered into a contract with National Pools of Panama City, Inc., for the construction of a pool on his property located at 1000 Kimberly Lane, Lynn Haven, Florida. The price of the pool was $9,310.92. The contract established a schedule of payments for the construction of the pool. Each payment was made upon completion of a certain portion of the construction work. The contract also provided that National Pools would pay for all work and materials used in the construction of the pool. A building permit was obtained for the construction of the pool. No evidence was submitted on who actually pulled the construction permit. The contractor listed on the building permit was Respondent and the construction was supervised by Respondent. The pool was completed to Mr. Hay's satisfaction and he paid the last installment payment to National Pools. 1/ Mr. Hay received a release of lien from Vance White. Mr. White was the president of National Pools. However, Mr. Hay later learned That National Pools had not paid for some materials which had been used in the pool's construction. The supplied of the materials filed a lien In the amount of $1,718.49 on Mr. Hay's property. Mr. Hay attempted to get National Pools to pay the lien. However, the lien was never satisfied by National Pools. Eventually, Mr. Hay was forced to pay the lien plus attorney's fees and court costs or else have the lien foreclosed on his property. The amount Mr. Hay was forced to pay in order to clear the title to his property was $2,615.41. There was no substantial evidence submitted which demonstrated Respondent's relationship to National Pools. The fact that Respondent's name appeared on the building permit does not support a finding that Respondent is the primary contracting agent for National Pools. Likewise, the fact that Respondent's address on his license was next door to National Pools does not support a finding that Respondent is the primary contracting agent for National Pools. It is just as likely an inference that Respondent was not the qualifying agent for National Pools, but was its subcontractor and it is National Pools and its officers who are violating the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
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 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of August, 1990.
Findings Of Fact In 1975 and 1976 John Morris, d/b/a Morris Pool Service, maintained the swimming pool at the Sunland Center in Miami, Florida under a contract with HRS. The contract for the year commencing July 1, 1976 and expiring June 30, 1977 (Exhibit 1) provided generally for Morris to maintain the Sunland Center pool for which he would be paid $520 per month. This contract further provided that a representative of Morris Pool Service check each day except Saturday and Sunday with Ms. O'Donohue, the Director of Training, or her successor. Recreation personnel at Sunland Center hoped to open the pool on Memorial Day; however, an impeller for the pump needed replacement and the pool was inoperative for some six weeks in May and June awaiting this part. During this time petitioner did little or no maintenance and the pool's condition was bad enough for the Superintendent to become involved and request a report from the Programs and Services Director (Exhibit 4). When the impeller did arrive in mid-June, 1977, the pool was in such bad shape it was necessary to drain the pool, scrub, and acid-wash the walls and floor of the pool to remove the accumulated algae and scum. Even a colony of frogs had taken up residence in the pool during this period. As a result of additional delays the next hoped-for opening date of July 4 was also missed. The pool was finally ready for operation and was opened the week following July 4, 1977. Although opened the water in the pool was not properly maintained by cleaning and chlorinating. In the latter part of July the gas chlorinator became inoperative and the pool's condition deteriorated as no chlorine was being added to the water. Under the contract Petitioner was to provide materials necessary to keep the pool water in a balanced condition. This contract expired on June 30, 1977. Nevertheless, Petitioner purported to continue working under the expired contract, pending the issuance of a new contract for 1977-1978. While the gas chlorinator was inoperative Petitioner did not hand-feed chlorine to the pool to maintain the proper chlorine level and to keep algae from growing. By early August, 1977, the pool had become so bad the supervisory personnel at Sunland Center called the Dade County Health Department to inspect the pool. A report of that inspection showing the pool unfit for use was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. Following the Superintendent's inquiry to Ms. Titus about the condition of the pool in June, 1977, she contacted Petitioner, who told her the pool would he hack in operation as soon as the impeller was received. Ms. Titus was the successor to Ms. O'Donohue and she told Petitioner to keep her advised regarding the status of the pool. Although the contract (Exhibit 1) required Petitioner to report to Ms. Titus daily (except Saturday and Sunday) she did not see him again, nor did she receive any report that he came to her office. Petitioner contends that he attempted to report to Ms. Titus but was unable to find her in her office and after a few attempts stopped trying. Ms. Titus and her assistant were both equipped with beepers and could be contacted any time of day by their office if they were out of the office. Following the Health Department's inspection on August 9, 1977, the pool was closed for several days, then reopened around mid-August after the chlorinator was repaired. When the pool was reopened in August its condition was barely satisfactory. Shortly after Labor Day the pool was again closed and remained closed throughout the balance of 1977. By October, the Sunland Center officials decided they should notify Petitioner that his contract would not be renewed for the 1977-1978 year and a letter dated October 27, 1977 (Exhibit 2) was forwarded to him by registered mail. This letter was mailed to an old address for Petitioner, was returned to the sender and remailed to the proper address. As a result, the letter was not received by Petitioner until December 14 or 15, 1977. Petitioner submitted bills to Respondent for services for the period July 1, 1977 through December 15, 1977, the approximate date he received Exhibit 2. Following August 10, 1977 some of Respondent's employees in the maintenance department saw Petitioner in the cafeteria at Sunland Center and on the premises, but none of them reported seeing Petitioner do any work on the pool. Petitioner contends he worked on the pool on a daily basis, however, the condition of the pool casts serious doubts on this testimony.
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 Whether Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. This proceeding arises out of Respondent's alleged failure to remedy defects in a swimming pool that she built in 1981 which resulted in disciplinary action by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board; for failing to remedy defects in another pool that she built in 1981 whereby she allegedly made fraudulent representations and failed to honor a warranty; and for constructing a pool in 1982 after her Certificate of Competency had been revoked by the Leon County Contractor's Licensing and Examination Board. Respondent appeared at the hearing without counsel, and was thereupon advised of her rights and the procedures applicable to an administrative proceeding. She indicated that she understood such rights and elected to represent herself. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of nine witnesses and submitted 22 exhibits in evidence. Respondent testified in her own behalf, but did not submit any documentary evidence. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order has been fully considered, and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact, and are specifically rejected.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Laura H. Eubanks is a state registered commercial pool contractor who operates Eubanks Company Big Bend Pool Builders, Tallahassee, Florida. She was originally licensed in 1975 and remained licensed at all pertinent times relative to this proceeding, but her license was in a delinquent status as of July 1, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) On May 2, 1981, Respondent entered into an agreement with Thomas V. and Barbara J. Mulqueen, Jr., 6719 Johnston Loop, Tallahassee, Florida, for the sale and installation of a swimming pool at their residence for the amount of $6,725.63. On September 22, 1981, Mr. Mulqueen filed a complaint against Respondent with the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board. Mr. Olin Williams, Supervisor of Inspections for the Board, investigated the complaint and found that staples were protruding underneath the pool liner, that a water pipe leaked at the pump, apron or deck concrete cracks were caused by curing tension at inside corners, about 35 percent of the concrete deck was darker in color than the remainder of the deck, an improperly placed outlet for the pool drain permitted seepage under the pool liner, and that repairs to a neighbor's fence and the owner's driveway had not been completed. He classified those discrepancies as pertaining to workmanship. In addition, he determined that there had been a violation of the health code in that a septic tank had been broken by workmen and waste sewage had flowed into the pool excavation for a period of several days. The owner was seeking to have Respondent correct the problems and complete the job. Inspector Williams contacted the Respondent on October 12, 1981, and, although she told him that she would come to his office that day and bring the individual responsible for the job, she failed to do so. No final inspection of the work had been requested by Respondent. (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) By letter dated November 12, 1981, Respondent was advised by the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board that a formal hearing had been scheduled on the complaint for December 3, 1981. A copy of the complaint and the Building Inspector's Report was enclosed, and she was advised of her right to be represented by counsel at the hearing. In fact, the hearing by the Board was held on December 4, 1981, at which the Mulqueens were present and presented their complaint, and Inspector Williams informed the Board of his investigation and subsequent actions. Respondent was not present at the hearing, although the certified mail receipt reflected the signature of "L. H. Eubanks." At the December 4th meeting, the Board voted to suspend Respondent's license with the provision that the Board would not consider reinstatement unless repairs to the Mulqueen pool were made within thirty days after December 9, 1981, and if not, then the Board would consider permanent revocation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5-6) By letter of January 12, 1982, the Board advised Respondent of the suspension of her license as a result of a hearing held on December 3, 1981. (No explanation was provided by Petitioner as to the discrepancy in the minutes of the Board meeting which reflected a date of December 4, 1931, and the letters sent to Respondent which stated that the hearing had been held on December 3, 1981.) Respondent was advised in the letter that the Board would not consider any application for reinstatement of Respondent's license unless repairs were effected to the Mulqueen pool within thirty days from receipt of the letter. She was further advised that if they had not been so completed, the Board would consider permanent revocation of her license, but if they had been completed within the required time, the Board would consider a written application for reinstatement at its meeting scheduled for January 28, 1982. This letter was hand delivered to Respondent's place of business on January 18, 1982. On January 20, 1982, Respondent telephoned Inspector Williams and stated that she would seek legal counsel and be at the Board meeting on January 28. She indicated to him that she had had some personal problems due to the illness of her sisters, and also had been the subject of theft (although a memo of Williams reflecting the telephone call was dated January 20, 1981, it was apparent from his testimony that the call was made on January 20, 1982.) (Testimony of Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 18) The Licensing Board met on January 28, 1982, and determined that Respondent's license would be revoked on February 26, 1982, if the previously noted defects had not been corrected. By letter dated February 3, 1982, she was advised by the Board of this fact and that the Board would meet again on February 25 concerning the matter. On February 25, the Board revoked Respondent's license. She was not present at the meeting. She was advised of this action by Letter of the Board, dated March 4, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 8-10) By contract dated July 15, 1981, Respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Rex Tyler at their residence in Tallahassee, Florida, for the sum of $23,784.91. The project included installation of aluminum fencing and a brick wall, together with various items of pool equipment. The agreement provided that the contractor would remedy any defects in workmanship without cost, provided written notice was provided within one year after connection of the filter. After the pool was built and paid for by the Tylers, it was found that several problems existed. A pool light continuously went on and off improperly, the motor of the pool sweep leaked, the bottom drain was not adequately secured and would be knocked off by operation of the pool sweep, step tiles were not complete, one tile popped loose, and water faucets leaked. The primary problem, however, was that the main drain would not circulate water on the bottom of the pool. The Respondent was notified of these problems by the owners and repaired some of them over the course of time, but was unable to fix the pool light or the main drain. In this regard, Respondent called upon Walter Swans, another licensed pool contractor, who determined that both the light and the drain were stopped up with "marble" finish. The Tylers were obliged to spend $312.74 to pay Swann's bill and for a plumber to repair the leaking faucets. (Testimony of McCausland, A. Tyler, Clemens, Swann, Petitioner's Exhibits 21-23) By agreement dated May 28, 1982, Respondent contracted with Charles and Brenda Short for the installation of a swimming pool at 3249 Baldwin Drive West, Tallahassee, Florida, for a price of $6,809.20. During the course of construction, Mr. Short inquired of Respondent as to the need for a building permit. She initially told him that she would get one, but later when Short asked her again about the matter, she told him that if he didn't want one it would be all right with her because otherwise it would hold up completion of the pool. Short told her that that was all right with him. He was not familiar with permit requirements. After the walls of the pool had been finished, heavy rains caused the sides of the pool to partially collapse. Inspector Williams was notified of the problem and he found that the work was being done without the required permit. He therefore posted a stop work order at the construction site. On September 1, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of contracting without a license in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in the Leon County Court, Case No. 82MM2702. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months. The Shorts had paid Respondent a total of $4,000 on the contract price at the time work was stopped on the pool project. They eventually settled the matter with Respondent by agreement. (Testimony of Brenda Short, Charles Short, Courtney, Williams, Petitioner's Exhibits 12, 19-20) In a civil proceeding filed by the Mulqueens against Respondent in the Leon County Circuit Court, Case No. 82-68 the parties entered into a joint stipulation of settlement under which Respondent agreed by promissory note to pay the Mulqueens the sum of $2400 with interest by 24 monthly payments of $100.00 commencing January 1, 1983. On January 27, 1983, the Leon County Contractors Licensing Examination Board reinstated Respondent's license, subject to a 12 month probationary period. By letter October 24, 1983, Mr. Mulqueen advised the County Building Inspector that Respondent had only made two payments on the settlement agreement as of March 1983. (Testimony of Courtney, Petitioner's Exhibits 13-16) Section 2C, Leon County Ordinance No. 74-22, provides that its Contractors Licensing and Examination Board has the duty to suspend or revoke "authorized contractor" certificates for violation of the ordinance, violation of the County Building and Zoning Codes, or violation of any other state, municipal, or county law upon due cause shown to the Board after a hearing. Section 1E provides that the Board must provide the certificate holder with written notice of its intent to consider the revocation or suspension of the certificate, and afford him a hearing before the Board, and that all decisions concerning suspension of revocation of certificates shall be in writing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 17) Respondent testified at the hearing that she had had continuing financial problems commencing a number of years ago when some of her employees were building pools "on the side" with her materials. During the time that problems arose in connection with the Mulqueen and Tyler pools, she was preoccupied with serious personal problems involving her sisters, one of whom died of cancer and the other having been in a mental hospital. She acknowledged that she should have corrected the customer complaints and regrets that she did not do so. Respondent further stated that although she attempted to pay her note to the Mulqueens, her financial situation was such that she was unable to continue meeting the payments. Although she received notice of the various hearings before the Leon County Contractors Licensing and Examination Board, she testified that she had not been thinking of the consequences and didn't even read the letters of notification which were sent to her. She also acknowledged entering into the contract with the Shorts because she was "desperate" for money to pay her various creditors. (Testimony of Eubanks)
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the registration of Respondent Laura H. Eubanks as a pool contractor for a period of three months. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura H. Eubanks 1421 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NOS. 21738, 20754, 25386 LAURA H. EUBANKS DOAH CASE NO. 83-2362 737 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Respondent. /
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 material times hereto, Respondent was the holder of a registered swimming pool contractors license number RP 0035739. Respondent's license was issued in the name of Malicki Pools, Terry W. Malicki. In January, 1981, Gary Wieland entered into a contract with Patrick Barr d/b/a Pool and Spa World. Barr was to construct a pool for Weiland in Port Charlotte for $7,856.00. Barr had become known to Wieland as a builder of swimming pools through a neighbor. Barr stated to Wieland that he was a pool contractor. Wieland made all payments due under the contract to Barr. Petitioner's evidence established that the Wieland swimming pool required a building permit. On March 3, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 66970 to construct a pool at Wieland's residence in Port Charlotte. Wieland's testimony established that Malicki constructed the pool at his residence. However, all of his dealings were with Barr. Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted in the Charlotte County court of acting as a contractor without being licensed. Mr. Robert Guariglia entered into a contract with Barr to construct a swimming pool for $9,500.00. The pool was to be constructed at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Petitioner's evidence established that the Guariglia pool required a building permit. On June 10, 1981, Terry Malicki d/b/a Malicki Pools obtained permit number 68962 to construct a pool at Lot 17, Block 402, Subdivision 23 or 913 Cherry Chase, Port Charlotte, Florida. Guariglia paid the first installment of his contract by check to Barr in the amount of $3,325.00. However, because the pool was not level, Guariglia told Barr or Malicki who was supervising the work that he wanted the pool redone or removed. The pool was later removed and Guariglia had to pay $1,400 to have his property restored. As noted above, Barr was not licensed as a swimming pool contractor in Charlotte County or in Florida, and was convicted of acting as a contractor without being licensed. However, the swimming pool constructed at the identified Guariglia residence required a building permit. On September 3, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board suspended the certificate of competency of the Respondent until such time as he corrected all matters which were then pending before that Board. On November 5, 1981, the Charlotte County Building Board reinstated Malicki's license.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order suspending the swimming pool contractor's license issued to Respondent for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Terry W. Malicki c/o Malicki Pools 1788 S.W. Sicily Avenue Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 Stephen Schwartz, Esquire 680 Aaron Street, N.W. Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 The Respondent, Caldo Corporation, d/b/a Calypso Bay Club, operates a place of business in Clearwater, Florida, where consumption on the premises is permitted under license number 62-928, Series 4-COP SRX. The licensed premises consist of some 18,000 square feet. Seven permanent bars are located within the perimeter walls of the licensed premises. No interior walls separate the bars, and they are not located in separate rooms. The seven bars are located in different parts of one large, generally open room. A customer entering the Calypso Bay Club first enters a combination foyer/seating area. From this area, a customer can see throughout the area where the seven bars are located. All seven bars in the licensed premises are visible, at least in part, from the entrance foyer/seating area, although the view to some parts of the premises may be blocked. Two of the bars are located within an unobstructed, open lower level which is generally in the center of the premises. There is a dance floor in this lower level. The other parts of the licensed premises are located on deckings that are raised to varying heights above the dance floor area. One of the bars, known as the Oyster Bar or bar number 7, is located on its own decking to one side of the dance floor area (to the customer's right on entering the premises.) It is three and a half steps, or approximately 18 inches, above the dance floor level. The other bars are arrayed on deckings on the other side (to the customer's left on entering the premises). Except for a lower, middle decking, the deckings on the left side of the premises are two steps, or approximately 12 inches, above the dance floor level. In the middle of that side, the decking is slightly lower than either the decking in front of it or the decking to the rear of it. One of the bars, known as the Fufu bar or bar number 5, is located on the middle decking. The other bars on that side are on one of the two higher deckings. The bar known as Deck 1 (bar number 4) is on a decking that wraps around to the entrance foyer/seating area. The bars known as Deck 2 (bar number 3) and the Corner bar (bar number 2) are on a decking located beyond the lower, middle decking. Throughout the premises, where the flooring changes elevation, there is a wide, flat wood rail approximately 42 inches above the floor of the raised decking. The railing sits on top of, and is supported by, thick wood posts similar to posts used in the construction of docks. Thick hemp rope, consistent with a waterfront motif, also is wound around the posts and draped between them under the rails (as Christmas garland would be draped on a stairway bannister). All except in the area of the Oyster Bar (bar number 7), a smaller slat of wood about the size of a one by four also is nailed to the posts about five inches above the floor of the decking, forming a lower fence rail as well. In some places, banners are also hung from the railing. The railing separating the different elevations serves two primary purposes. First, it is for safety to prevent customers from accidentally falling from a higher to a lower floor elevation. Second, it also serves as a counter on which customers standing or sitting on the higher elevation can set drinks or ash trays. Openings in the railing permit customers to walk from one bar area to another. The deckings are accessible from the dance floor area by six fairly wide stairways. As previously mentioned, the stairway to the Oyster Bar has three steps; the others have just two steps. Nothing separates the Corner bar (bar number 2) from the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3). Likewise, there is direct access from part of the Deck 2 bar to the Fufu bar (bar number 5). To one side of the Deck 2 bar, a railing separates the two elevations, but a railed ramp in the middle of the railing connects to two areas. It also is possible to get from the Fufu bar to the Deck 2 bar, without having to descend to the dance floor level, by walking from the Fufu bar, around a wood column, and step up one step to the area of the Deck 2 and Corner bars. The Deck 1 bar (bar number 4) is the closest to the entrance foyer/seating area of the bars on that side of the premises. There are two ways to get from the Fufu bar to the Deck 1 bar. First, there is virtual direct access between the Fufu bar and the Deck 1 bar. Bar number 5 (the Fufu bar) is in an area one step lower than the other bars on that side of the dance floor area, including the Deck 1 bar. There is a short railed ramp that goes up alongside a wood column standing between the two bars. From the top of the ramp, there is direct access to the Deck 1 bar; from the bottom of the ramp, there is direct access to the Fufu bar. There also is indirect access by walking to the side opposite the ramp side into a small seating area. The seating area is separated from the Deck 1 bar by the one-step change in elevation and by a railing and two video games. There are two gaps in the railing where one can step up into the area where the Deck 1 bar is located.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 January, 1992. 1/ The Petitioner also offered in evidence Petitioner's Exhibit 7, a videotape to which the Respondent objected. At the hearing, ruling was reserved. At this time, the objection is sustained. The videotape is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this case, which is whether the Calypso Bay Club "has more than three separate rooms or enclosures." See Conclusion of Law 9, below. 2/ The evidence of the legislative history in this record may not be clear and complete. No such evidence was introduced at the final hearing. The Department attached to its proposed recommended order what appear to be certified copies of committee reports on the legislation. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5784 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, the lines referred to in the last sentence did not completely separate the five bars from the two bars; the drawings included the designation of steps leading from one elevation to another. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. There are two proposed findings 6. This addresses the first of them. Subpart d. is rejected as not proven. The "small exposed part of bar 3" is not "cordoned off," and there is no wall. It is accessible from the steps from the dance floor area closest to the bar by walking from the steps to the bar, passing between the railing along the dance floor area and the partial wall (actually more like a wood column). (There also is access from the Corner bar and from the Fufu bar.) Subpart e. is rejected as not proven. There is direct access, as well as indirect access, as stated above, subpart d. Subpart f. is rejected as not proven. The "cordoned" railing has an opening through there is access to the Deck 1 bar (bar number 4). The Deck 1 bar also is directly accessible from the Fufu bar and from the entrance foyer/seating area. Subpart g. is rejected as not proven. Bar number 5 is not enclosed. It is accessible by four alternative routes. There is direct access between part of the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3) and bar number 5. There also is access to other parts of the Deck 2 bar from the steps from the dance floor area closest to the bar, as described in subpart d., above, as well as via a ramp through an opening in the railing along the change in elevation between the two bars. Finally, bar number 5 is accessible from the Deck 1 bar as described in subpart f., above. Otherwise, the first proposed finding 6 is accepted and incorporated. The second proposed finding 6 is rejected in part as not proven. As previously stated, there is direct access between the Corner bar (bar number 2) and the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3), as well as between part of the latter bar and bar number 5 (the Fufu bar.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as not proven. The televisions hang from the ceiling or are on a wood column, and the game machines are placed next to railings. Neither serves to form a separate barrier. The ropes do not in all cases, and in any case were not primarily intended to, separate bar areas. They are all along the upper level at an elevation change or are along steps or a ramp between two different elevations. 8.-9. Rejected as irrelevant to the question whether there are more than three "rooms or enclosures." See Conclusion of Law 9, above. Rejected in part as not proven (last sentence); in part, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found (first three sentences). The evidence suggested that the railings are there for two primary purposes. See Finding of Fact 6, above. The effect of the use of the railings as a bar counter was as much to join as to separate the various parts of the bar. A customer could put a drink, food or ash tray on one of the railings, or lean on it, and observe parts of the premises on the other side of the railing. Rejected in part as argument and in part as not proven. The testimony regarding shortness of funds was part of an answer to a question on cross examination as to why there were different kinds of chairs and stools on the premises. The owner's intent and desire to increase profits does not prove liability for the additional $1,000 fee. The critical issue is the existence of more than three rooms or enclosures, a fact not proven by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted but unnecessary. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as being conclusion of law or argument. First sentence, rejected in part in that it is not "completely open." Third sentence, rejected in part in that there was no evidence to prove that the ramps are "fully handicap accessible." Fourth sentence, rejected in part in that there was no evidence to prove what the building code requirements were. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-8. Rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Atkins White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard W. Scully, Director Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
