Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of currently active General Contractor's license No. RG-0023888. On January 18, 1977, Norwood W. Hope (hereinafter "Developer") entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a commercial swimming pool. Respondent was to have been paid the amount of $43,346.40 under the contract for construction of the pool. The contract amount was to be paid pursuant to a five-stage draw schedule as follows: 1. Framing and steel draw paid $10,836.60 2. Gunite draw paid 10,836.60 3. Mancite draw 7,224.40 4. Equipment set draw 7,224.40 5. Final approval draw 7,224.40 Respondent made application for an Alachua County building permit for the swimming pool project on February 23, 1977. The permit application was approved on February 25, 1977, and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, the project received Alachua County approval on a temporary power pole inspection on June 1, 1977. An interim inspection of the property was made by Alachua County officials on November 7, 1977, with no deficiencies noted. A final inspection on the electrical work on the project was made, with satisfactory results, on November 8, 1977. The Alachua County Building Code, by incorporation of the 1973 Southern Standard Building Code, 1974 Revision, provides, in part, as follows: 108.2--INSPECTIONS REQUIRED The Building Official shall inspect or cause to be inspected at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building or structure upon completion, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Section 109. * * * (c) The Building Official upon notifica- tion from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections of buildings and such other inspections as may be necessary, and shall either approve that portion of the construction as completed or shall notify the permit bolder or his agent wherein the same fails to comply with the law: * * * Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. (Emphasis added). The contract entered into on January 18, 1977 between the Developer and Respondent called for Respondent to construct the swimming pool according to the plans and specifications admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Associated construction, including construction of concrete pool decking, a pumphouse and a fence surrounding the swimming pool site were either completed by the Developer or by other sub contractors. By invoice dated October 12, 1977, Respondent requested a final draw on the project in the amount of 87,000, which, if paid, would have left only $224.40 unpaid under the contract. This draw request indicated that a balance due for extra time and materials would be billed ". . . upon acceptance of total pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4). On October 25, 1977, the Developer paid $6,000 of the $7,000 requested to be paid by Respondent's invoice of October 12, 1977. The Developer contested Respondent's expressed intention to bill for additional time and material, asserting that the Developer had not approved any additional sums for extras. In remitting the $6,000 payment to Respondent, the Developer indicated that "[t]his leaves a balance on our account of $1,224.40, which will be paid upon checking out the pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). (Emphasis added.) An invoice for back charges on the swimming pool project in the amount of $274 was forwarded to the Developer by Respondent by invoice dated November 8, 1977. In addition, on November 8, 1977, Respondent also invoiced the Developer for a final draw on the project in the amount of $1,224.40. At some time after notification from the Developer's representatives that tile targets in the racing lanes of the pool were improperly located, Respondent returned to the job site after November 9, 1977 to relocate the targets. Respondent performed this work as a result of a written request from the Developer dated November 9, 1977. Respondent completed primary construction of the pool prior to submission of the final draw request of October 12, 1977. At that time, back- filling around the exterior of the pool structure preparatory to the pouring of the concrete pool decking had not been completed. Although by October 12, 1977, Respondent had removed much of the excess dirt and debris from around the edges of the pool. There were still areas of exposed piping which would, in due course, be covered with back-fill and tamped by the decking subcontractor. Respondent did not attempt to back-fill or tamp any areas around the pool's piping system. At some time subsequent to October 12, 1977, which date is not clearly reflected in this record, a separate sub- contractor completed back-filling work around the pool, and poured the concrete decking. Neither the Developer nor his subcontractor advised Respondent that the back-filling had been accomplished and that the deck was to be poured. Prior to October 12, 1977, Respondent "pressure tested" the pool's piping system, and determined that the pool would hold water at a level above its scum gutters. The results of this testing indicated that, at least as of October 12, 1977, there was no leakage from the pool. Standard practice in the pool construction industry dictates that a minimum of three pressure tests be made of a pool's piping system during the course of construction. The first of these tests should occur immediately after installation of the pipes, and a second test should be performed immediately before final back-filling to cover the pipe system. A final pressure test should be conducted after tamping of the fill and prior to the pouring of concrete for the pool deck. The obvious purpose of this system of pressure testing is to discover any water leaks before concrete pool decking is poured to avoid having to cut out sections of the concrete in order to locate leaks. Because the Developer and his subcontractor failed to notify Respondent of further work being done on the pool. Respondent was unable to perform a pressure test either after back-filling was completed, after the back- fill had been tamped and before the concrete deck was poured. By letter dated January 17, 1978, Respondent was furnished by the Developer with a "punch list" indicating several areas of deficiency that needed to be corrected in the pool. In that letter the Developer requested that Respondent complete the necessary work within seven days. The Developer forwarded a second letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978 advising Respondent that the punch list items had not been corrected, and urging Respondent to complete the work described in the punch list as soon as possible. From receipt of the punch list in January of 1978 through the middle of March, 1978 Respondent had workers on the job intermittently making the corrections indicated in the punch list. Respondent satisfactorily corrected fifteen of the eighteen items listed as defective n the punch list. Some of the items were repaired by other subcontractors. Respondent had difficulty obtaining some items of equipment, which he was required to back-order. When the back-ordered equipment was slow in arriving, the Developer opted to obtain these items from a source other than Respondent. Respondent replaced a defective pump associated with the pool construction at some time subsequent to January 18, 1977. The last work performed by Respondent on the pool project occurred some time between March 10 and March 16, 1978. At no time thereafter was Respondent ever advised by the Developer that any work performed under the contract was either unsatisfactory or incomplete. The pool received a final State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services inspection on July 13, 1978, at which time all necessary permits for operation of the pool under applicable regulations were issued. Respondent at no time requested that Alachua County officials come to the job site to conduct the necessary final inspection of the project, nor did he advise the Developer of the necessity to do so. At some time during 1979, subsequent to the completion of the swimming pool project, the Developer discovered that the pool was losing water at a rate of approximately 2,100 gallons per day. During this period, the water level inside the pool would drop to a level equal to the piping running around the exterior of the pool shell and under the pool decking. When the Developer was unable to ascertain the cause of the leak, an outside subcontractor was hired to check the pool. This sub- contractor performed pressure tests on the pool's piping system in an attempt to determine whether the leakage was occurring through the pipes. These tests apparently showed no leakage through the piping system. The Developer then caused the concrete decking around the edge of the pool to be removed in order to more closely inspect the interior piping. At this point it was discovered that there existed flaws and breaks in the neoprene piping surrounding the exterior shell of the pool. After repairs to the damaged piping, the pool decking was repoured and there has been no subsequent leakage problem in the pool. The Developer incurred expenses in the amount of $2,288 in removing the decking around the pool and repairing the neoprene piping. Because of the fact that several subcontractors in addition to Respondent worked in the pool area during construction of the pool project, it is impossible on the basis of this record to determine the cause of the damage to the neoprene piping. Respondent's testimony is uncontroverted that pressure testing performed prior to the conclusion of primary work on the pool in October of 1977 showed no leakage through the pool's piping system. Further, at the conclusion of the primary work in October, 1977, much of the pool's piping system was left exposed and could have been damaged either by the Developer's own workers or by employees of other subcontractors in the course of back- filling and tamping fill material preparatory to pouring concrete decking. The Developer's failure to advise Respondent of the schedule for back-filling, tamping and pouring of concrete deprived Respondent of an opportunity to properly pressure test the piping system at appropriate stages of construction. Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or as not having been supported by the evidence.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 8th day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Henry J. Tinkler was licensed by petitioner as a swimming pool contractor, holding license No. 0024949, under the name of "Henry J. Tinkler." At one time, Fred C. Charlton worked as a "salesman" of swimming pool construction contracts for a Ft. Lauderdale construction company. When the Ft. Lauderdale company failed, several contracts to build swimming pools remained unexecuted. So that his "sales" would not have been in valid, Mr. Charlton organized Aquapool in late 1978 or early 1979 to step in to the shoes of the Ft. Lauderdale contractor. He has been president of the corporation since its inception. He knew that he could not pull building permits himself; and Mr. Charlton did not involve himself in the actual construction of the pools. Respondent became vice-president of Aquapool and held this office until September of 1979. Respondent has built several pools pursuant to oral agreements with Charlton (acting for Aquapool), to build all pools Aquapool "sold" in Pinellas County. In these transactions, Charlton made a profit and Tinkler made a profit. Respondent never applied for any building permit under Aquapool's name. He always used his own name or the name "Hank's Custom Pools." Respondent never made application to qualify Aquapool as a registered pool contractor in Florida. Neither did respondent make application to qualify "Hank's Custom Pools" as a registered pool contractor. Not uncommonly, contractors do business under fictitious trade names like "Hank's Custom Pools." Eventually one Clay Andrews of Jacksonville made application to quality Aquapool as a swimming pool contractor in Florida until November 17, 1979. Harry George Pugh and Grace L. Pugh signed, on May 19, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their Indian Rocks Beach home. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On the building permit application form, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the contractor is listed as "Hank's Custom Pools." The application is dated June 19, 1979. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. Guy Jean and Jane A. Narejo also contracted with Aquapool to build a swimming pool at their home in Largo, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. On June 14, 1979, "H. Tinkler" applied for a permit to build the pool. The permit issued the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Willard L. Marks and Helen J. Marks signed, on May 1, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their home in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Mr. Marks never met Mr. Tinkler. H. J. Tinkler applied for a permit to build the pool on June 7, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Swimming pool contractors ordinarily subcontract electrical work. Sometimes as many as four or five subcontractors participate in the building of a swimming pool. Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been considered and proposed findings of fact have been adopted except where they have been deemed irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's registration as a swimming pool contractor for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Tampa, Florida 33609 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION/CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3043 HENRY J. TINKLER, RP 0024949 d/b/a Individual 5243 27th Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Respondent. /
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
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 22nd day of August, 2003.
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 Atlas Pools, Inc., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Thompson in May, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Thompson property for a completed price of $5,940. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, by which time the Thompsons had paid Atlas Pools $5,643. The Thompsons hired another pool contractor to complete the project at additional cost in excess of $2,000. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Perry in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Perry property for a completed cost of $5,770. Work ceased in late July, 1978, after the Perrys had paid Atlas Pools $5,474.50. The Perrys completed the project through self-help and use of another pool contractor at a further cost of $1,566. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Wolters in June, 1978, to construct a swimming pool on the Wolters' property for a completed cost of $6,980. Work ceased in mid-July, 1978, after the Wolters had paid Atlas Pools $6,631. The Wolters completed the pool through self help at an additional cost in excess of $1,300. Atlas Pools contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sentman in June, 1978, to construct a spa on the Sentman property for a completed cost of $5,500. The Sentmans paid Atlas Pools a $550 deposit after which the spa was delivered but not installed. The Sentmans completed the project by other means at an additional cost of $6,137. Respondent abandoned each of the above projects without notice to the customer, who ultimately learned of the company's bankruptcy from a third party source. Each of the four projects described above was completed at a final cost to the purchaser in excess of $900 over the contract price. The company filed a Voluntary Petition of Bankruptcy with the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on August 1, 1978. Thereafter, on March 7, 1979, the Brevard County Contractors Licensing Board revoked the certificate held by Atlas Pools for a minimum period of one year, with the requirement that financial rehabilitation be demonstrated as a condition of reinstatement. At the time of bankruptcy, Respondent was president of Atlas Pools, Inc., and owned one-third of the stock. He was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, the company's only licensed pool contractor. He is currently employed in pool construction work by a licensed contractor. Proposed findings of fact were submitted by the parties. To the extent these proposed findings have not been adopted herein or are inconsistent with the above findings, they have been specifically rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Pool Contractor's License No. RP 0018040 issued to Crawford L. Grove, be suspended until Respondent demonstrates compliance with the financial responsibility standards established by Section 489.115, Florida Statutes (1979). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1980.
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
Findings Of Fact Brian E. Michaels, the Codes Administrator for Putnam County testified that he regulates the building codes in Putnam County and is in charge with the effective administration thereof. He testified that the pertinent regulations and codes relative to the construction of swimming pools in Putnam County are Ordinances 73-6 and 75-4. (See Petitioner's Exhibits number 2, and number 3, received in evidence). Michaels testified that after seeing an advertisement in the Palatka Daily News on august 6, 1975, his office advised Respondent's office on two occasions to apprise him of certain local laws regulating contractors and the business of contracting. When Respondent failed to respond to approximately three phone calls to its office, Michaels advised Respondent by certified letter dated August 28, 1975, that swimming pool contractors desiring to operate in Putnam County must be locally certified even if they hold state registration. He advised Respondent that if he in fact was state certified that he could send a copy of his certificate for Putnam County official files and to discuss with their office procedures for obtaining a certification in Putnam County. He further advised that the county had adopted the standard swimming pool code, 1974 edition, which requires a plot plan as well as a plan approved before a pool permit could be issued. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 5). Michaels explained the procedures for complying with the County's certification process which included the filing of an application; taking an exam and receiving a score of at least 70 percent; posting of a $5,000.00 bond; payment of a $50.00 fee which should be included with the application which should also have included a recent photo and the issuance of an occupational license. Additionally, he advised that it was necessary to comply with registration and requirements of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under Chapter 468; Florida Statutes, within 90 days. Michaels testified that Respondent received his certified letter dated August 28, 1975, the following day. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 5). Section 1020 of Ordinance No. 75-6 of the zone ordinances of Putnam County states in pertinent part that building and related permits issued by the chief building official are required in advance of the construction, erection, demolition, moving, destruction, or alteration of any building or structure with a completed evaluation of $1,000.00. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 6). On May 27, 1975, the Putnam County Board of County Commissioners enacted Putnam County Ordinance no. 75-4, which ordinance adopted by reference the Southern Standard Swimming Pool Code, 1974 edition, which provided for the adoption of a fee schedule and charges for the issuance of permits to "defray the costs of inspections". (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 7). Jerrell Sparks of Crescent City, testified that he contacted Respondent regarding the construction of a swimming pool during the fall of 1975 following his visit to a building show. On October 21, 1975, Sparks entered into a contract with Terry Michaels, a partner of Respondent, Steve Klapach, d/b/a Starfish Pools for a total price of $5,150.00. At the execution of the contract, Sparks paid Respondent $200.00 and agreed to pay an additional $1,300.00 on November 5, 1975. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 8, received and made a part herein). Sparks testified that Respondent made the financial arrangements with a mortgage broker in Jacksonville and that Respondent was paid $4,650.00. The construction completed by Respondent consisted of the excavation for the pool and delivery of the pool shell. He testified that he obtained a homeowner's permit but that Respondent did not obtain a permit for the installation of the swimming pool. Tom McConnell of Palatka, testified that he contacted the Respondent regarding a $2,000.00 pool kit which he had seen advertised. He testified that Respondent's partner, Tony Michaels, visited his home on October 14, 1975, at which time he executed a contract for the installation of a pool for a total price of $5,714.00. When the contract was executed, McConnell secured it by an advance payment of $500.00 and he thereafter was never able to contact Respondent. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 9, received in evidence and made a part hereof). Kenneth L. Rue of Ormond Beach contacted the Respondent based on an ad which appeared in the Sunday supplement of the Daytona Beach News Paper. On August 21, 1975, Rue entered into a contract with Respondent's partner, Tony Michaels and a Mr. Charles Van Dent for the construction of a pool for the total price of $5,200.00. He paid Respondent $500.00 when the contract was executed and paid an additional $4,200.00 when the pool was delivered. He testified that Respondent removed shrubbery and palm trees where the pool was to be positioned and thereafter the excavation and the necessary site preparation was readied. Thereafter the pool was positioned and the plumbing and electrical-fixtures were connected. He testified that the pool did not comply with the specifications as called for in the contract which by its term called for a kidney shaped pool with dimensions of 27' X 13' and a depth of a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 feet. He testified that the actual dimensions of the pool installed was 25' x 11' and the depth ranged from 26" to 47". He testified that after the pool was installed it began leaking around the "circulation area" and that when he contacted the Respondent, the pool was removed and Respondent agreed to install any size pool that he desired. The pool called for in the contract was a fiberglass pool however Respondent opted for the installation of a vinyl liner pool. On November 11, 1975, Respondent sent two employees out to make forms for the construction of the pool but since that time, he has had no further contact with Respondent despite repeated attempts. He paid Respondent approximately $4,700.00 of the $5,200.00 contract price and paid another contractor an additional $2,300.00 to complete construction of the swimming pool. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit number 10) Brian Michaels was recalled and testified that Respondent never was issued building permits for the McConnell or Sparks projects. The Board introduced into evidence documents showing that Respondent, Steve A. Klapach, RP22049 was registered with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as an active swimming pool contractor during 1975 in the period September, 1975 to December, 1975. (See Petitioner's Exhibit number 1).
