Findings Of Fact Petitioner Scott Eric Baker ("Petitioner"), took the Certified Air Conditioning Class A Contractor examination in June 1991. The examination consists of two parts, Part One on business and financial management, and Part Two on actual air conditioning system mechanics. The Petitioner informally challenged the scoring of certain questions and received additional points but his total score of 68% was below the minimum passing score of 69.01%. Part One, Question 6 of the June 1991 directs the applicant to estimate the cost of refrigeration piping and related hardware shown in a related schematic. The schematic illustrates proposed refrigerant piping between a 15 ton air-cooled condensing unit and an air handler unit. Pipe joint connections are identified by standard symbols. The question states as follows: Refer to the Refrigeration System shown in Figure 1. Estimate the cost of the Refrigeration Piping. Add 6% Florida State Sales Tax to the total cost. The multiple choice list of possible answers to the question are: Less than $500.00. (B) Between $500.00 and $600.00 (C) Between $600.01 and $700.00 (D) More than $700.00 The pipe joint segments identified by the symbols on the schematic are 90-degree elbow joints. Elbow joints can connect pipe segments which have different elevations. Elbow joints can also be connected to construct a "swing joint" which provides for pipe alignment. Swing joints do not change the elevation between the pipe segments connected at the joint. According to the schematic, the first pipe segments, (two feet two inch pipes), run from the air-cooled condensing unit to a joint. The schematic does not identify the elevation of the air-cooled condensing unit or of the first pipe segments. The second pipe segments lie at an elevation of 104 feet 4 inches and connect via a pipe joint to the third pipe segments, which lie at an elevation of 104 feet 0 inches. The third segments connect via a pipe joint to the fourth pipe segments which are at an elevation of 103 feet 8 inches. The fourth segments connect to the pipe segments leading from the air handling unit (AHU 1). The correct answer to Question 6 is (B). The total cost for piping and hardware shown on the schematic is approximately $557. There are 83.3333 lineal feet of 1 and 3/8 inch diameter pipe at $3.96 per lineal foot, totaling about $330.00. There are 75.7527 lineal feet of 7/8 inch diameter pipe at $2.35 per lineal foot, totaling about $178.02. There are fourteen 90-degree elbows, (seven 1 and 3/8 inch elbows at 1.71 each and seven 7/8 inch elbows at .79 each) totaling 17.50. The total of materials is 525.52. Inclusion of the 6% tax results in an estimated cost of $557.05. Because there was no elevation shown for the first pipe segment between the condenser unit and the pipe joint, the Petitioner assumed that the pipe joint symbol indicated an elevation change and that the condenser unit could be located substantially above or below the identified 104 feet 0 inches elevation of the second segment. Accordingly, his answer to Question 6 was "(D) More than $700.00." The Petitioner's answer is based, not on the information provided in the schematic, but on unreasonable assumptions as to the condenser unit location, and is incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order dismissing Scott Eric Baker's challenge to the grading of his responses to the June 1991 examination for licensure as a Certified Air Conditioning Class A Contractor. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, unnecessary. 10-14. Rejected, recitation of testimony. Respondent The Respondent did not file a proposed recommended order. Copies furnished to: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Scott Eric Baker 13438 Caribbean Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida 33095 Vytas J. Urba, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified air conditioning contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent has been a certified air conditioning contractor, having been issued license number 1133613 on December 27, 1985. Petitioner's licensure file reflects that Respondent's license is held as follows: "Michael J. Morrow d/b/a ATM A/C & Refrigeration, Inc." (ATM). Respondent has never applied for a certificate of authority for ATM pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.119, Florida Statutes. On December 12, 1998, Carmen Schneider contracted with Sun Coast to install an air conditioning and heating unit at her residence located in Miramar, Florida. At no time has Sun Coast been a licensed air conditioning contractor. Respondent had no agreement to do any work for Ms. Schneider, and he had no agreement to subcontract the work for Sun Coast. The City of Miramar issued permit 98121104 for the Schneider job. According to its computer records, Respondent, d/b/a ATM pulled the permit for the Schneider job. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that neither Respondent nor his corporation pulled the permit for the Schneider job1 as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent enabled Sun Coast to engage in uncertified or unregistered contracting in violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III. Petitioner presented an affidavit establishing that its costs of investigation of Respondent (absent attorney time) totaled $705.03. That affidavit does not state the cost of investigation for each count. On February 2, 1998, Petitioner entered a Final Order in Case Number 98-12100 that disciplined Respondent's license because he assisted an unlicensed person or entity engage in the uncertified and unregistered practice of contracting and because he proceeded on a job without a permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order. It is further recommended that for the violation found for Count I, Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 and that his license be suspended until such times he pays the administrative fine and complies with the requirements of Section 489.119, Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 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: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 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 31st day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Ary, was a licensed air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CA CO36888. On October 20, 1987, a company named Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Lauderhill Mall, Lauderhill, Florida, to install three 3 1/2 ton air conditioning units for the sum of $7,875. Jenni Temp was to provide the three separate permits required by the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the installation. Joseph Roturra, the owner of Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., and Respondent had, prior to October 20, 1987, entered into negotiations whereby Respondent would become employed by Jenni Temp as its qualifying agent so that Jenni Temp could engage in air conditioning contracting. Those negotiations ended before any formal efforts were made to have Jenni Temp licensed with Respondent as the qualifying agent. In late 1987, before his negotiations with Jenni Temp broke down, Respondent signed three blank application forms for electrical and air conditioning permits. Respondent then gave the three signed application forms to Joseph Roturra. Respondent knew that neither Joseph Roturra nor his company was licensed for air conditioning work. Joseph Roturra completed the signed blank application forms he received from Respondent and made application with the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the three permits required for the job at Lauderhill Mall. The name of the applicant on the applications as completed by Joseph Roturra was All Star Service, Inc. Respondent served as the qualifying agent for All Star Service, Inc. The City of Lauderhill did not issue the permits for which Roturra applied using the forms signed by Respondent because permits had been previously issued to another company for the same job. Jenni Temp completed the Lauderhill Mall job without the permits required by local law and without further assistance from Respondent. Respondent did not supervise the job at Lauderhill Mall. There was no final inspection of the work as required by local law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes and which imposes an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that there not be a separate fine for the violation of Section 489.129(1) (m), Florida Statutes, because the conduct that establishes that violation is the same conduct which constitutes the violation for which the administrative fine is recommended. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Steven Ary 1217 N. E 4th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33306
The Issue The issues are whether the existing and proposed provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.005, as identified in the next paragraph, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gold Coast School of Construction, Inc. (Gold Coast), engages in the business of offering courses to individuals who seek to become certified or registered contractors in Florida. Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses for prospective general contractors, building contractors, residential contractors, Class A air conditioning contractors, Class B air conditioning contractors, Class C air conditioning contractors, and roofing contractors. Enrollment in these classes ranges from 200-600 students annually. For the trades in which Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses, Gold Coast is substantially affected by the proposed rule, which would substantially raise the net-worth requirements imposed on prospective contractors, reduce the number of persons who could qualify for certification, and reduce the number of persons who would enroll in Gold Coast's prelicensing courses. Petitioner Douglas L. Gamester (Gamester) has passed the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Respondent) examination for certification as a general contractor. After he filed his rule challenge, Respondent granted him a general contractor's certificate and approved his qualification of a business entity. Gamester is not substantially affected by the rule or proposed changes to the rule. Although Gamester may, in the future, attempt to obtain other contracting certificates in other trades, any finding of such plans at present would be based entirely on speculation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.005 provides: 61G4-15.005 Requirements for Certification and Registration. In order that the Board may carry out its statutory duty to investigate the financial responsibility, credit, and business reputation of a new applicant for certification or registration or a change of status of a certification or registration, an applicant shall be required to forward the following to the Department for a review by the Board: A credit report from any nationally recognized credit agency as defined in subsections 61G4-12.011(13) and (14), F.A.C. A financial statement, not older than 12 months, which shall contain information indicating the current assets, current liabilities, total assets, total liabilities, and total net worth, and which shall report all material financial changes occurring between the date of the financial statement and the date of the application. As a prerequisite to issuance of a certificate, an applicant shall, in addition to the submissions required in subsections and (2) above, submit competent, substantial evidence to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board demonstrating the following: Net worth as listed below for the following categories of contractors: General Contractor, $20,000; Building Contractor, $20,000; Residential Contractor, $20,000; Sheet Metal Contractor, $10,000; Roofing Contractor, $10,000; Class A Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Class B Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Class C Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Mechanical Contractor, $10,000; Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor, $10,000; Residential Pool/Spa Contractor, $10,000; Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing Contractor, $2,500; Plumbing Contractor, $10,000; Underground Utility and Excavation Contractor, $10,000; Solar Contractor, $10,000; Residential Solar Water Heating Specialty Contractor, $2,500; Specialty Structure Contractor, $10,000; Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor, $10,000; Gypsum Drywall Specialty Contractor, $2,500; Gas Line Specialty Contractor, $10,000; or Glass and Glazing Specialty Contractor, $10,000. Possession of either a letter of credit or a compliance bond established to reimburse the appropriate parties for diversion of funds, abandonment, and all other statutory violations, said instruments to be issued in the same license classification to dollar ratio listed in paragraph (a), above. The aforementioned instruments are not to be construed as performance bonds. Net worth shall be defined to require a showing for all contractor licensure categories that the applicant has a minimum of 50 percent (%) of the amount in cash. Cash shall be defined to include a line of credit. On February 6, 2004, Respondent published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 30, Number 6, proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code 61G4-15.005(3)(a), so that the new net-worth requirements would be as follows (new language is underlined and old language is stricken): Net worth as listed below for the following categories of contractors: General Contractor, $80,000 20,000; 20,000; 10,000; 10,000; Building Contractor, $40,000 Residential Contractor, $20,000; Sheet Metal Contractor, $20,000 Roofing Contractor, $20,000 Class A Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Class B Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Class C Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Mechanical Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Residential Pool/Spa Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing Contractor, $10,000 2,500; Plumbing Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Underground Utility and Excavation Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Solar Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Residential Solar Water Heating Specialty Contractor, $5,000 2,500; Specialty Structure Contractor, $20,000; 10,000; Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor, $20,000; 10,000; Gypsum Drywall Specialty Contractor, $5,000; 2,500; Gas Line Specialty Contractor, $20,000 10,000; or [sic]. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, divides contractors into Division I and Division II. Division I contractors are general, building, and residential contractors. Division II contractors are all other contractors. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, defines Division I contractors as follows: "General contractor" means a contractor whose services are unlimited as to the type of work which he or she may do, who may contract for any activity requiring licensure under this part, and who may perform any work requiring licensure under this part, except as otherwise expressly provided in s. 489.113. "Building contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction of commercial buildings and single-dwelling or multiple-dwelling residential buildings, which commercial or residential buildings do not exceed three stories in height, and accessory use structures in connection therewith or a contractor whose services are limited to remodeling, repair, or improvement of any size building if the services do not affect the structural members of the building. "Residential contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction, remodeling, repair, or improvement of one-family, two-family, or three-family residences not exceeding two habitable stories above no more than one uninhabitable story and accessory use structures in connection therewith. In contrast to building and residential contractors, a general contractor is unlimited in the scope of work that he or she may under take, subject to Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, which requires a contractor to subcontract out electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool, and air conditioning work, unless the contractor is certified or registered in the particular trade. Building contractors may undertake work on residential or commercial structures not more than three stories high, and residential contractors may undertake work on limited residential structures not more than two stories high. Although Petitioners identify various small jobs that require a general contractor's certificate or registration, such as the construction of small communications towers, balcony repairs in parking garages, and door repairs in high-rise apartments, the record generally supports the finding that the scope of jobs undertaken by general contractors is more extensive than the scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors, and the scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors is more extensive than the scope of jobs undertaken by residential contractors. This case involves one of the requirements imposed on persons seeking to become certified as contractors in specific trades. Certification is distinct from registration. Section 489.105(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, defines "certificate" as a certificate of competency issued by Respondent and a "certified contractor" as a contractor who may practice anywhere in the state. Section 489.105(9) and (10), Florida Statutes, defines "registration" as registration with Respondent and a "registered contractor" as a contractor who may practice only in the local jurisdiction for which the registration is issued. Section 489.115(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits any person from engaging in the practice of contracting without first obtaining a certificate or registration in the appropriate trade. Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, provides: (b) In addition to the affidavit of insurance, as a prerequisite to the initial issuance of a certificate, the applicant shall furnish a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant and evidence of financial responsibility, credit, and business reputation of either himself or herself or the business organization he or she desires to qualify. The board shall adopt rules defining financial responsibility based upon the applicant's credit history, ability to be bonded, and any history of bankruptcy or assignment of receivers. Such rules shall specify the financial responsibility grounds on which the board may refuse to qualify an applicant for certification. * * * (6) An initial applicant shall, along with the application, and a certificateholder or registrant shall, upon requesting a change of status, submit to the board a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant or certificateholder or registrant. The credit report required for the initial applicant shall be considered the minimum evidence necessary to satisfy the board that he or she is financially responsible to be certified, has the necessary credit and business reputation to engage in contracting in the state, and has the minimum financial stability necessary to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct. The board shall, by rule, adopt guidelines for determination of financial stability Although testimony at the hearing suggested that "history of bankruptcy" meant an inability to generate sufficient cash flow to pay debts owed, it is more likely that a "history of bankruptcy" is a record of filing for bankruptcy. Like the appointment of a receiver, the filing of a petition for bankruptcy is an action that is easily detected, as opposed to the inability to pay debts as they matured or the existence of liabilities in excess of assets--either of which, for most natural persons, is difficult to determine, especially historically. The "credit report" mentioned in Section 489.115(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the "credit report" mentioned in Section 489.115(6), Florida Statutes, is the same credit report. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.011(11) and (12) defines the credit report as follows: A “credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant, certificateholder or registrant”, shall for the purposes of Section 489.115(6), F.S., mean a credit report that provides full, accurate, current, and complete information on the following items in a manner which allows the Board to determine the credit worthiness of the applicant: Payment history; Credit rating; Public filings in county, state and federal courts; Bankruptcies, business history, suits, liens, and judgments, all on a nationwide basis; Location of business, number of years in business; Social security numbers, if available, of all corporate officers, owners and partners, and all federal employer identification numbers, if available, held by the applicant or any business entity that he currently qualifies or is applying to qualify; and UCC filings. A “nationally recognized credit agency” shall mean a credit agency that: Obtains credit information both within and outside the State of Florida; Validates, updates, and maintains the accuracy of credit information obtained; and Obtains credit reports from at least two (2) credit bureaus. The statutory requirement of a credit report focuses upon an individual's creditworthiness, based on his or her use or abuse of credit and payment history. The closest that these statutes come to specifying net worth as a criterion of certification are the requirements of "financial. . . responsib[ility]" and "the minimum financial stability necessary to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct," which is the cause of about 70 percent of all disciplinary proceedings against contractors. However, these statutory references guide Respondent in the authorized use of the credit report, which does not warrant the imposition of a net-worth requirement. First, the credit report lacks net-worth information. Second, the credit report presents a subject's financial history--most of which is of no use in establishing the subject's present net worth. In contrast to these provisions in Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, Section 489.1195(1)(d), Florida Statutes, expressly authorizes Respondent to adopt rules imposing "net worth" and "cash” requirements on individuals seeking to qualify as financially responsible officers (FROs) for construction businesses. The Legislature clearly evidenced its ability to require net worth as a condition to certification as an FRO, which are not involved in this case, and obviously elected not to impose as onerous a requirement upon contractors themselves. Respondent determined the new net-worth requirements in the proposed rule by two means. Respondent had not changed the net-worth requirements for Division II contractors for 20 years, so Respondent estimated that the effects of inflation justified the increases set forth in the proposed rule. Respondent had raised the net-worth requirements for Division I contractors from $10,000 to $20,000 in 1998. Respondent derived the new net-worth requirements for general and building contractors based on estimates of weekly salaries for these respective contractors, not inflation. The present record contains no evidence of the rate of inflation during any relevant period of time, nor any evidence of average weekly salaries paid by Division I contractors. Nor does it appear that Respondent considered such data when determining the new net-worth requirements in the proposed rule.
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's license should be disciplined pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statues. At the hearing, Petitioner presented five witnesses and offered five exhibits into evidence. Respondent did not appear at the hearing held on March 26, 1990. However, after the March 26 hearing, Respondent informed the hearing officer that he did not receive adequate notice of the hearing. Based on Respondent's representations the hearing was re-opened to allow Respondent to present evidence on his behalf. The re-opened hearing was held on June 15, 1990. All parties were present. Respondent testified in his own behalf. Respondent did not offer any exhibits into evidence. Petitioner filed a Proposed Recommended Order on June 15, 1990. Respondent did not file a Proposed Recommended Order. The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been considered and utilized in the preparation of this Recommended Order except where such proposals were not supported by the weight of the evidence or were immaterial, cumulative or subordinate. Specific rulings on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are contained in the appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Sometime around July, 1987, Respondent inquired of Leon County, Florida, officials on the requirements for obtaining a heating and air- conditioning contractor's license. At that time, Respondent was advised that he would have to take an exam for the license and was given the necessary application forms. Respondent never took the examination. However, on September 28, 1987, a new employee in the County's Office responsible for issuing such licenses erroneously issued Respondent a heating and air-conditioning contractor's license. The employee's error was caught around May, 1988. Respondent was notified of the error and the invalidity of his license by letter dated May 3, 1988. Respondent, on two separate occasions, was also verbally notified of the invalidity of his license by two other employees of the County's Building Department. After the County had erroneously issued the Respondent his license and after he was notified that the license had been issued in error and was invalid, Respondent, by application dated September 1, 1988, applied for state-wide registration based on his County licensure. The erroneous letter of licensure from the county was attached to the application. Respondent claimed that he attached the county's letter of licensure to his application on the advice of an unknown employee of the Board in its Jacksonville office. However, Respondent did not present any evidence corroborating his hearsay testimony regarding his telephone conversation on this matter. Without such corroboration such evidence is unreliable and cannot formulate the basis of a factual finding that such a conversation took place and or the content of that conversation. The reason Respondent attempted to obtain his state licensure was that by the time he was notified of the county's error he had incurred about $30,000 worth of debt to his business suppliers. Additionally, Respondent's business had financed his wife's business and supported their four children. Respondent did not believe he was in a position to simply go out of business. Respondent's priorities were simply different than those of the State. He did not perceive that his actions were wrong since he had been doing air conditioning and heating work for the past 15 years and was otherwise qualified to engage in the contracting business. State registration may be obtained from the Board once a local government issues a license to an individual. On September 22, 1988, based on Respondent's representation that he held a valid County heating and air-conditioning contractor's license, the Board issued Respondent a state license, License #RA0057606. After issuance of the license, the Board was notified by the City that Respondent did not have a valid license. Based on that information, the Board, through its investigator, contacted the Respondent on several occasions in order to rectify the situation. During several of these contacts, Respondent admitted that he knew his County and State licenses were invalid. The best evidence of Respondent's knowledge was that he signed a cease and desist order stating that he would no longer conduct a heating and air-conditioning contracting business until such time as he was lawfully licensed. Respondent continued to engage in the heating and air-conditioning business. Respondent, also, plead to criminal changes of perjury and conducting a business without a license as a result of the above facts. On November 2, 1988, the board issued an emergency suspension of Respondent's license based upon the foregoing facts. The evidence was clear that Respondent was given several opportunities to obtain both his County and State licenses. However, for unknown reasons, Respondent failed to follow up on any of these opportunities even though he had indicated to the respective officials that he would take such a course of action. On these facts, there is no question that Respondent's license should be revoked since it was issued based on an invalid County license. Further, there is no question that Respondent knew his County license was invalid and misrepresented that material fact to Petitioner. The County license is a mandatory precondition to the issuance of the state license. Given Respondent's willful misrepresentation in conjunction with the business position he was placed in due to the County's error, Respondent should be assessed a fine of $1,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board should enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's heating and air-conditioning license and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0494 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. Copies furnished: George W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James Nolan 829 West Tharpe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of failing to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, in violation of Section 489.11 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of making misleading, deceitful or untrue representations, in violation of Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of exceeding the scope of his state registered mechanical contractor's license, in violation of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts were found: Respondent, Arwood Hollins, in 1986 held a mechanical contractor's license (RM0016479) with the State of Florida. Respondent owned a 50% interest in All Florida Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, Heating and Ventilation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "All Florida"), a Florida corporation. The Respondent has resided in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida for approximately 15 years. The main offices of All Florida are located in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida, with a branch office in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. In 1986 the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for All Florida. Pursuant to the Respondent's mechanical contractor's license with the State of Florida, he is required to comply with all local license requirements. Respondent has never held nor applied for a license in Seminole County to practice mechanical contracting. The Respondent holds a certificate of competency in Lake and Orange Counties, and inactive certificates for Dade and Sumter Counties, but does not hold a certificate in Seminole County. In 1986 All Florida advertised in the Donnelly Directory for United Telephone (Exhibit 2) in the Central Florida area. Said ad depicts All Florida as being a repair specialist. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, resides at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. All work performed by All Florida on the Complainant's air conditioning system was performed at the Rockingham Court address in Seminole County, Florida. Respondent testified that although he has lived in Central Florida for 15 years, he is unfamiliar with Seminole County and practices only in Lake and Orange Counties. Seminole County has enacted an ordinance (Number 83-15) which requires that before any person can be issued a license to practice mechanical contracting in Seminole County, they must meet certain requirements. Between January 28, 1986 and August 3, 1986, Robert Hollins, the son of Respondent and an employee of All Florida, traveled to the Complainant's house at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida on at least six (6) occasions to perform inspections and/or repairs on the Complainant's air conditioning and heating equipment. Five (5) of the visits, between March 17, 1986 and August 3, 1986, involved problems with the cooling of the air conditioning system. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, contacted All Florida after she found the company in a Yellow Page and in the Donnelly Directory phone book in late January, 1986 regarding problems with her heating system. Robert Hollins travel led to Mrs. Chamberlin's house at 105 Rockingham Court in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida and made repairs to a circuit breaker. Mrs. Chamberlin again contacted All Florida on or about March 17, 1986 due to a problem with her air conditioning unit. Mrs. Chamberlin spoke with Robert Hollins and gave him directions to her house. Mr. Hollins did not ask if she resided in Seminole County. Robert Hollins advised Mrs. Chamberlin that there was an extensive freon leak in her air conditioning unit and that her ECU unit on the air conditioner would need to be disconnected to insure that all the leaks would be stopped. Thereafter, Robert Hollins assured Mrs. Chamberlin that all of the leaks had been taken care of. She was charged $245.45 for the visit for labor and materials, which she paid. Approximately two months later, on or about May 19, 1986, Janis Chamberlin heard noises from the air conditioning unit. Robert Hollis was called and he traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house and charged her a total of $28.00 for the visit and the air conditioning unit stopped making noises. Approximately two months later, the same air conditioning unit was failing to cool properly and Mrs. Chamberlin again called All Florida. Robert Hollis traveled to the Chamberlin residence and advised that the condenser fan motor had quit working and needed to be replaced. Mrs. Chamberlin authorized the work and thereafter Robert Hollins assured her that he had replaced the condenser fan motor with a new one. Mrs. Chamberlin was charged a total of $248.50 for the new fan motor, other materials and labor. On August 3, 1986, Mrs. Chamberlin noticed a loud screeching noise coming from the air conditioning unit. She called Robert Hollins who arrived at Mrs. Chamberlin's house on the same day. He left the Chamberlin residence before telling Mrs. Chamberlin what was wrong with the unit. Mrs. Chamberlin noticed that the noise she had heard earlier had stopped temporarily. By approximately 9:00 p.m. on the same day, the noise returned and she noticed that there was a decrease in the cooling of the unit. By the following morning, the air conditioning unit was not working. Mrs. Janis Chamberlin contacted All Florida on August 4, 1989. Mrs. Chamberlin advised Robert Hollins that if he would not work on the unit that day, she would have to get someone else to do the job and to call her by 5:00 pm. that day to let her know. Robert Hollins did not call or come to her home by 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Chamberlin called Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. to repair her air conditioning unit. William Pierce, an employee of Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. in 1986, serviced the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence on August 5, 1986. Mr. Pierce inspected the unit and found that the crank shaft was wrung off inside the compressor. There was a refrigerant leak and oil was visible all over the front of the condenser coil. Also, the fan motor was running backwards. Mr. Pierce's inspection of the condenser fan motor indicated rust around the shaft and fan hub. According to Mr. Pierce, if a fan motor is put on backwards, or rotates in the wrong direction, this would cause the head and back pressure to go up and could eventually internally overload the compressor. It did not do so in this instance, since the crankshaft was wrung off and the compressor froze up. Janis Chamberlin took pictures of the air conditioning unit (Composite Exhibit 10). These photographs were taken after William Pierce had pulled apart the air conditioning unit in preparation for installation of a new unit. The fan motor appears to show rust. The entire air conditioning unit in question was replaced by Four Seasons. Janis Chamberlin requested in writing that All Florida refund her the money paid to All Florida for repairs made to the air conditioning unit in the total amount of $516.95. The letter was dated August 12, 1986 and requested the refund by August 18, 1986. All Florida did not refund the monies. The Respondent never traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house to inspect the air conditioner in question or discuss with Mrs. Chamberlin the problems with the air conditioning unit. Robert H. Adams was accepted as an expert witness in the area of service of residential units in air conditioning and the responsibilities of a qualifying agent. Robert H. Adams is a certified residential contractor and he held a City of Jacksonville Master Heating and Air Conditioning license since approximately 1968. A qualifying agent is responsible for the conduct and supervision of the business, the supervision of it and the actions of its employees. The test for a freon leak in a residential unit is relatively simple. This includes looking for oil around any of the fittings, tubes and condensers. It normally takes only one service call to repair leaks. However, it is not unusual for a service technician to make more than one service call in order to locate all of the leaks. If a leak cannot be repaired, the serviceman should tell the client that it is not repairable. Unless a fan motor was exposed to chemicals or salt water, there would be no reason in a three week time span as to why it would rust. If an employee of a qualifying agent told a customer he was installing a new motor which turned out to be untrue, this would be the equivalent of deceit and fraud. Answering complaints from a customer is a distinct responsibility of a qualifying agent. If the fan motor installed in an air conditioning unit similar to the one installed at the Chamberlin residence has an improper rotation, this would affect the air conditioning unit. This would include causing an increase in pressures, inadequate cooling and could damage the compressor. During the period between March and July, 1986 and following three service calls, it is incompetence to fail to find freon and oil leaks. The Respondent received a minimum of three phone calls from his son, Robert Hollins, on July 15, 1986 concerning repairs needed to Mrs. Chamberlin's air conditioning unit. The Respondent spoke with his son, Robert Hollins, on May 19, 1986 concerning the service call at the Chamberlin residence. Robert Hollins in 1986 did not have a license to practice mechanical engineering in Seminole County, Florida and did not hold any license with the State of Florida other than a driver's license. In 1986, Robert Hollins resided in Leesburg, Florida, but was the sole employee at All Florida's branch office in Orlando, Florida. Although Robert Hollins would drive through Seminole County to and from work each day, he stated he was not familiar with Seminole County. Respondent testified that he had instructed his son to use a map in order to avoid performing any work in Seminole County, Florida. Robert Hollins did not examine a map to verify if the Chamberlin residence was in Seminole County, nor did he ask Mrs. Chamberlin which county she resided in. Every time Robert Hollins went to the Chamberlin residence for a service call, he checked in with the Respondent. On July 15, 1986, Hollins inspected the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence and advised Mrs. Chamberlin she needed a new fan motor. Robert Hollins first obtains approval from Respondent before any purchase of equipment or machinery is made. On July 15, 1986, he obtained permission to purchase a new fan motor for the Chamberlin air conditioning unit. That same day Robert Hollins installed a new fan motor at the Chamberlin residence. The fan motor Hollis installed on July 15, 1986 had a 90 day warranty. All Florida warrants its work under the manufacturer's warranty. Subsequently, Chamberlin advised Hollins that the air conditioning unit was not working. He replied that if she had any problems with the unit he would rather not come out and work on it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, violating Sections 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes and that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent be found not guilty of making misleading, deceitful, or untrue representations. Respondent be found guilty of incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, which caused monetary harm to the licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Respondent be found guilty of contracting in a county without a local license, in violation of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent be reprimanded. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1611 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The following Findings of Fact are Accepted: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4(in part) ,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15(in part), 16,17, (in part),18,19,20,21,24,25,26,(in part),27,28,29,30(in part),31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39(in substance),40 The following Findings of Fact are Rejected: Paragraphs 22 and 23 - uncorroborated hearsay Pargraph 15(in part) - not relevant Paragraph 17(in part) - witness cannot give expert opinion testimony, since he was not qualified to testify as an expert COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Sealy Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John E. Jordan, Esquire Wool folk, Estes and Keough, P.A. 131 Park Lake Street Post Office Drawer 3751 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard A. Howard, Esquire Brownlee and Jacobs, P.A. Post Office Box 1448 Tavares, Florida 32778
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's motel license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a motel license, number 2200031. The motel is located at 4140 West Highway 90, Lake City, Florida. On June 9, 2003, and on June 16, 2003, a division inspector inspected the Respondent's motel premises and specifically inspected room 207. The inspector noted five alleged deficiencies on June 9, 2003. On June 16, 2003, the inspector noted that three of the five alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected, while two of the alleged deficiencies were corrected during the June 16, 2003, re-inspection. The three uncorrected alleged deficiencies consisted of exposed insulation around the air conditioning unit in room 207, food buildup present in the microwave in room 207, and heavy lint buildup present in the lint filter of the motel's commercial clothes dryer. The two alleged deficiencies corrected during the re-inspection were the use of an electrical extension cord and an unsecured electrical outlet cover. Room number 207 was available for rent and was rented to the public by the Respondent on May 31, 2003, and again on June 19, 2003. During the interim time and at the time of these inspections, the room was not rented because it was undergoing repairs. During this time, the room was being used primarily as a handyman workroom for ongoing repairs. Part of the repairs being done to room 207 was to replace the permanent air conditioning unit in that room. Because the air conditioning unit did not work, Respondent had temporarily installed a window air conditioning unit. The window air conditioning unit did not fit the window it was in, therefore, Respondent had placed insulation around the unit. The insulation was exposed. The insulation was not a furnishing supplied with the room but was a temporary part of the building’s window/wall system intended as a prelude to replacing the air conditioning unit. Since the insulation was not a furnishing, its exposure did not violate Rule 61C-3.001(5) that addresses the cleanliness of room furnishings such as drapes. An extension cord was being used to power the window air conditioning unit in room 207. Even though Respondent unhooked the extension cord during the re-inspection, the use of the extension cord to power the air conditioning unit was a fire hazard and violates Chapter 509. Additionally, one of the electrical outlet cover plates was attached, but was loose. However, it did function as a barrier. There was no evidence regarding the space requirements for an electrical outlet or how the outlet cover impacts that space other than as a barrier. The evidence did not show that a loose outlet cover violates NFPA 70,110.32 that deals with the space requirements around electrical equipment. Finally, the microwave in room 207 had old food buildup on its walls. The microwave is a furnishing and is required to be kept clean. Such food buildup does not meet the cleanliness requirements of Rule 61C-3.001(5). Outside of room 207, the inspector personally observed the lint buildup in the dryer. Petitioner does require that the dryer’s lint trap be cleaned once a day. However, either the trap had not been cleaned or the dryer had received heavier use on the days of the inspection. The lint is a flammable material and the dryer trap must be kept free of such flammables. The accumulation of the lint was a fire hazard and is a violation of Rule 61C-1.004(7).
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty for violating Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kana Baleswaran, pro se Piney Woods Lodge 4140 West Highway 90 Lake City, Florida 32055 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
