Findings Of Fact The Warwick Condominium Association, Inc., operates a swimming pool at its condominium located at 5100 DuPont Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The swimming pool is licensed as a commercial swimming pool, and it has satisfactorily passed the inspections conducted by Respondent over the past two years. The Warwick pool has a perimeter gutter system which meets Respondent's regulations. The Condominium Association plans to renovate the pool. The renovation plans, which must be approved by Respondent, involve changing the pool from the approved gutter system to a recessed automatic surface skimmer system. The pool dimensions are approximately 25' x 46', and the pool surface water area is approximately 1,035 square feet. Respondent's rules prohibit the use of recessed automatic surface skimmers for pools larger than 800 square feet and for pools wider than 20'. Therefore, Petitioner's proposed modifications to the pool do not meet existing rule requirements for commercial pools. The pool renovation plans were not approved by Respondent since the plans do not meet the standards set by the Department's rules. Petitioner submitted its proposed plans to the independent Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board, and that Board recommended to the Department that Petitioner's request for a variance from the Department's rules be granted. The Department denied Petitioner's request for a variance. There is no evidence that the Department considered the Advisory Review Board's recommendation to approve a variance, and there is no evidence as to what standards the Department has used in approving variances, if any variances have been approved. The location of the Warwick pool is unique and causes the Warwick to experience extraordinary problems in maintaining the cleanliness of the pool. The Warwick pool is located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway and a bascule bridge crossing the Waterway. The pool receives an extraordinary amount of highway soot and dirt due to its location next to the elevated highway and bridge. Additionally, grease and oils from boats idling next to the swimming pool waiting for the bridge to open are deposited on the surface of the Warwick swimming pool. Swimming pools at nearby condominiums are not located directly on the Waterway. They are located either on the roofs of those condominium buildings or on the other side of those buildings away from the Waterway. Accordingly, the location of the Warwick pool is unusual. A prevailing southeast wind blows across the Waterway and across the Warwick pool. It then hits the wall of the condominium building and reverses its direction. It creates a great deal of turbulence on the surface water of the pool, pushing the water and the debris on the surface of the water to the south wall of the pool which is located at the pool's deep end. The dirt, debris, grease, and oil deposited by the vehicular and boat traffic accumulate at, and adhere to, the south wall of the pool at the deep end. Cleaning the tile at the south end of the pool requires constant effort. The accumulation of grease and oil at the deep end of the swimming pool is unusual. The perimeter gutter at the deep end of the Warwick pool is slightly higher than the gutters around the other three sides of the pool. Accordingly, the surface water does not overflow the gutter at the deep end except when there are a number of bathers in the pool, thereby altering the water level and creating additional turbulence. At such times and during heavy rains, the gutters flood, and the debris and grease are carried back into the pool where they come in contact with bathers. There is no guarantee that attempting to lower the level of the south gutter will make the perimeter gutter system ideally level. The condominium manager and one of the condominium owners, each of whom have substantial expertise and experience in constructing and operating swimming pools, have determined that the unique problems of the Warwick pool can be resolved by the installation of recessed automatic surface skimmers at the south end of the pool. All witnesses in this proceeding agree that proper skimmer location is determined by the prevailing wind. The amount of surface water removed is the same for both the perimeter gutter system and the recessed automatic surface skimmer system. The accessibility to debris is greater with a gutter system than with the skimmer system since the skimmer system collects debris and retains it in baskets which are then manually emptied. There are greater losses of water with the gutter system than with the skimmer system. Department employees visited the Warwick pool on one occasion for approximately 45 minutes. They placed the gutter system into operation and found that it was working. They testified that the Warwick's system is operational and therefore should simply be improved. The Warwick's witnesses agreed that the system is operational but have shown that the system does not operate properly based upon their extended familiarity with that particular swimming pool. The opinion of the experts with extended experience with the Warwick pool has been given more weight than those who visited the pool on one occasion for less than-one hour, particularly since the Department's witnesses admitted that the conditions at the Warwick during their site visit were not the normal conditions. Although the Department's witnesses clearly have a preference for gutter systems over recessed skimmer systems, no evidence was offered to show that the skimmer system (allowed by the Department in smaller swimming pools) would pose a threat to the health or safety of the bathing public should a variance be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 day 9th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH CASE NO. 88-3045 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 4, 5, 7-14, 16, and 17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3 and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4- 6, 10, and 11 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Lois J. Minetti, Manager Warwick Condominium Association, Inc. 5100 DuPont Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2421 Southwest Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
The Issue The issue is whether the swimming pool permit no. 46-181-84 and spa permit no. 46-241-87 for Fords Gym and Health Spa should be revoked pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-5 and Chapter 514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Larry Ford owns and operated a swimming pool and a spa (whirlpool) in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. On May 10, 1988, and September 29, 1988, Mr. Ford's pool and spa were inspected and found to be in violation of Florida law. It was necessary to close the pool and spa on both of these occasions because there were several violations pertaining to the chlorine level and ph level, and also required equipment was disconnected or inoperable. Mr. Ford's pool was inspected on September 27, 1990, and the inspector found the chlorine and the ph feeder were disconnected. Also on September 27, 1990, the spa chlorine was below adequate level and the temperature was too high. The chlorinator and ph feeder were disconnected. The spa was closed based on these violations. On November 30, 1990, the spa was found to have inadequate chlorine and the chlorinator was disconnected. Due to these violations the spa was closed. On March 13, 1991, violations were found in the spa. The chlorine feeder was disconnected, the chlorine was low, the ph was below the adequate level and the ph feeder was disconnected. The spa was then closed. On April 11, 1991, the pool was inspected based on a complaint and found to have several violations of the Florida Administrative Code to include water level too high, no depth markers, broken scum gutter, inoperable underwater lights, missing "no diving" signs, and toilet seats without open fronts. On January 14, 1992, the spa was closed because of no chlorine and the chlorinator and the ph feeder were disconnected. Mr. Ford's pool and spa were closed again on March 2, 1992, due to violations. The facilities were reinspected on March 5, 1992, and remained closed because the violations had not been corrected. These violations included: No chlorine in the pool PH level was low. Automatic chlorinator and automatic ph feeder were not connected. On March 19, 1992, the HRS investigator was denied access to the pool and spa during an inspection visit. When the pool and spa were inspected on March 24, 1992, both the pool and the spa contained several violations to include no safety line in the pool, disconnected chlorinator and ph feeder; missing depth markers were missing, missing "no diving" signs, water level was too high, and the drinking fountain was clogged. On May 20, 1992, the HRS inspector was denied access to the pool and spa for a routine inspection. HRS, Okaloosa County Public Health Unit, had closed Mr. Fords pool in August 1991. Mr. Ford instructed an employee to pull down the signs in which HRS had posted to close the pool and he further allowed clients into the pool during the time that it was closed. During 1991, Mr. Ford did not utilize a chlorine or ph feeder as required by the Florida Administrative Code and instructed employees to hand feed the pool, bypassing the feeder system. On April 1, and April 2, 1992, Mr. Ford allowed clients to use the pool. During this time HRS had closed the pool due to violations. During the months of January and February, 1992, Mr. Ford's engineer drafted proposed modifications for the swimming pool filtering system and replacement of the chlorinator. According to Mr. Ford this work was completed; however, HRS never received notice of completion of the modification from the pool engineer as required by the Florida Administrative Code. As a result the pool was never inspected by HRS after the modifications were made and recertified.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revoke pool permit No. 46-181-84 and spa permit no. 46-241-87. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX A Both the parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of the proposed findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings: Proposed Order: Paragraph 1-12 Paragraph 1-12 Respondent's Findings: Proposed Order: Unnumbered Paragraphs in Rejected as the Findings of Fact Arguement. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Wade, Esquire 468 North Main Street Post Office Box 785 Crestview, Florida 34536 Frank C. Bozeman, III, Esquire HRS District 1 Legal Office Post Office Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-8420 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether the pool at issue is a special purpose pool, and (2) Whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance to use recessed automatic surface skimmers in the pool at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the variance request of Tamtech Pool Builders and denying special purpose pool status for the pool built by Tamtech Pool Builders. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 10th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4443 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Tamtech Pool Builders Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(49) and 9(39). Proposed findings of fact 1, 4, and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, and 12 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 3, 10, and 11 are rejected as being irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 8 is rejected as being irrelevant because this action is not a rule challenge proceeding. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 5-7(4-6); 9-11(7-9); 12(9); 13(10); 14-34 (10-30); 36-43(31-38); 46-53(40-47); and 56-58(50-52). Proposed findings of fact 4, 8, 44, 45, and 55 are rejected as being irrelevant or unnecessary. 3 . Proposed finding of fact 54 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. 4. Proposed finding of fact 35 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Smithson HRS District I Legal Counsel 160 Governmental Center P. O. Box 12836 Pensacola Florida 32576 Mark E. Walker Attorney-At-Law 723 N. Eglin Pkwy., Suite 2 Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 3254 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of provisions of law relating to the licensing of construction contractors and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is registered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a residential swimming pool contractor. The Respondent holds licenses numbered RP A027187 and RP 0027187 issued by the Board. During 1979 and 1980, the Respondent was registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board as the licensed qualifier for "Cowboy Pools, Inc." Cowboy Pools, Inc., was owned by Jim Anglin. During December, 1980, the Respondent and Anglin experienced difficulties in their business relationship. The difficulties resulted from Anglin's failure to pay for work performed for Cowboy Pools by subcontractors and by Anglin's issuing checks to the Respondent which were not honored by the bank. In early January, 1981, Respondent became concerned that he was unable to control the flow of money at Cowboy Pools. He advised Anglin that he would no longer serve as the qualifier for Cowboy Pools. On January 8, 1981, the Respondent called the office of the Construction Industry Licensing Board and inquired as to steps that he needed to take to withdraw as the qualifier for Cowboy Pools. On that same date, he wrote a letter to the Board stating: This is to inform you that I am no longer associated with Cowboy Pools and will assume no responsibilities whatsoever for Cowboy Pools. The Respondent wrote that same letter to all persons that he knew had contracts with Cowboy Pools. The letter was received in the Department of Professional Regulation offices on January 12, 1981. At the Department's request, the Respondent forwarded proper forms to withdraw his qualification of Cowboy Pools. In his letter, he stated: I hereby certify that I have not been able to bind the construction moneys for Cowboy Pools and saw no hope that I would be allowed to do so in the future. Therefore 1 have withdrawn my association from Cowboy Pools as I have previously notified you. This letter was received in the offices of the Department of Professional Regulation on January 22, 1981. The Department requested that Respondent send the Board his qualifying licenses, which he did on January 28, 1981. The licenses were received in the Department's offices on February 2, 1981. On approximately January 14, 1981, Anglin asked the Respondent to obtain a permit so that Cowboy Pools could construct another swimming pool. Anglin was apparently unable to obtain permits on his own behalf. The Respondent refused to obtain such a permit and has had no business dealings with Cowboy Pools since January 8, 1981. Anglin continues to owe money to the Respondent. During 1980 and 1981, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Mosca owned a residence in Longwood, Florida. On December 26, 1980, they entered into a contract with Cowboy Pools, Inc., to construct a swimming pool at their residence for a sum of $6,800. The contract was negotiated on behalf of Cowboy Pools by Jim Anglin. Anglin signed the contract for Cowboy Pools. The Moscas paid Anglin a $100 deposit on December 26. By checks dated January 5, 1981, and January 21, 1981, the Moscas paid Cowboy Pools and Anglin an additional $4,736 on the contract. On December 27, 1980, Anglin had the pool area at the Moscas' property staked off. Nothing was done for several weeks, and the Moscas contacted Anglin, who advised them that a permit would be obtained soon. On January 14, 1981, a permit was obtained, and a crew from a company known as "Virgil Brothers" dug the hole for the pool and put in wire. Officials from Seminole County inspected that work on January 20. The following day, a crew from Virgil Brothers gunited the pool. There was a pile of dirt left from the dig. The Moscas asked Anglin about it, and he advised that it would be leveled. Approximately a week later, that was done, but no further work was done on the pool. The Moscas were not aware that there were any difficulties with completion of the pool until January 30, when a man visited their house and asked if they knew where Anglin might be. The man indicated that Anglin had left town. The same day, the Moscas received a notice from Virgil Brothers indicating that they had not been paid by Cowboy Pools. The Moscas went to the Cowboy Pools office that evening. All of the furniture had been removed. They were told by a secretary where Anglin lived. They went to his house and discovered that it was a rental house that had been vacated a couple of days before. Anglin has apparently not been seen in the central Florida area since that time. The Moscas ultimately had their pool completed by another contractor. It cost them $2,600 above the contract price to complete the pool. The building permit for the Moscas' swimming pool was obtained by Kelly Slusher, a registered swimming pool contractor. Slusher did not supervise the work and apparently, in effect, allowed Cowboy Pools to use his contractor's license to obtain the permit. Slusher did not become the qualifier for Cowboy Pools and was apparently not involved in the operation except to obtain the permit to construct the Moscas' swimming pool. Slusher has been the subject of disciplinary action initiated by the Construction Industry Licensing Board. When work on the Moscas' swimming pool was abandoned, the Moscas obtained a copy of the building permit and learned that Slusher had obtained the permit. When they contacted Slusher, he disclaimed any responsibility. The Respondent was not, until sometime in February, 1981, aware that Anglin had contracted with the Moscas to construct a swimming pool. Anglin did not tell him of the contract and was not allowing Respondent access to the company's records and books. The Respondent made a good-faith effort to advise all persons that were doing business with Cowboy Pools that he was no longer associated with the company. He wrote to all of the persons who had contracts with Cowboy Pools on January 8, 1981. He was not aware of the Mosca contract, and so he did not write to them. The Respondent did not obtain the building permit for the Moscas' swimming pool. He was asked by Anglin to obtain a permit, but refused. If Slusher had not agreed improperly to obtain a building permit for the Moscas' swimming pool, Cowboy Pools would not have been able to commence construction on the pool, and the Moscas would not have made payments to Cowboy Pools beyond the $100 deposit. The Moscas did not learn that the Respondent had any connection with Cowboy pools until sometime in February, 1981. The Moscas learned through other persons who had contracted with Cowboy Pools that the Respondent was the qualifying registered swimming pool contractor. The Moscas did contact the Respondent about the abandoned work, but it does not appear that they formally demanded that he complete the work on behalf of Cowboy Pools. No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Respondent diverted any funds in connection with the construction of the Moscas swimming pool. Indeed, it appears that he was totally uninvolved with the project.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the holder of currently active General Contractor's license No. RG-0023888. On January 18, 1977, Norwood W. Hope (hereinafter "Developer") entered into a contract with Respondent for the construction of a commercial swimming pool. Respondent was to have been paid the amount of $43,346.40 under the contract for construction of the pool. The contract amount was to be paid pursuant to a five-stage draw schedule as follows: 1. Framing and steel draw paid $10,836.60 2. Gunite draw paid 10,836.60 3. Mancite draw 7,224.40 4. Equipment set draw 7,224.40 5. Final approval draw 7,224.40 Respondent made application for an Alachua County building permit for the swimming pool project on February 23, 1977. The permit application was approved on February 25, 1977, and a building permit was issued. Thereafter, the project received Alachua County approval on a temporary power pole inspection on June 1, 1977. An interim inspection of the property was made by Alachua County officials on November 7, 1977, with no deficiencies noted. A final inspection on the electrical work on the project was made, with satisfactory results, on November 8, 1977. The Alachua County Building Code, by incorporation of the 1973 Southern Standard Building Code, 1974 Revision, provides, in part, as follows: 108.2--INSPECTIONS REQUIRED The Building Official shall inspect or cause to be inspected at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building or structure upon completion, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, as required in Section 109. * * * (c) The Building Official upon notifica- tion from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections of buildings and such other inspections as may be necessary, and shall either approve that portion of the construction as completed or shall notify the permit bolder or his agent wherein the same fails to comply with the law: * * * Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. (Emphasis added). The contract entered into on January 18, 1977 between the Developer and Respondent called for Respondent to construct the swimming pool according to the plans and specifications admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Associated construction, including construction of concrete pool decking, a pumphouse and a fence surrounding the swimming pool site were either completed by the Developer or by other sub contractors. By invoice dated October 12, 1977, Respondent requested a final draw on the project in the amount of 87,000, which, if paid, would have left only $224.40 unpaid under the contract. This draw request indicated that a balance due for extra time and materials would be billed ". . . upon acceptance of total pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 4). On October 25, 1977, the Developer paid $6,000 of the $7,000 requested to be paid by Respondent's invoice of October 12, 1977. The Developer contested Respondent's expressed intention to bill for additional time and material, asserting that the Developer had not approved any additional sums for extras. In remitting the $6,000 payment to Respondent, the Developer indicated that "[t]his leaves a balance on our account of $1,224.40, which will be paid upon checking out the pool." (Respondent's Exhibit No. 2). (Emphasis added.) An invoice for back charges on the swimming pool project in the amount of $274 was forwarded to the Developer by Respondent by invoice dated November 8, 1977. In addition, on November 8, 1977, Respondent also invoiced the Developer for a final draw on the project in the amount of $1,224.40. At some time after notification from the Developer's representatives that tile targets in the racing lanes of the pool were improperly located, Respondent returned to the job site after November 9, 1977 to relocate the targets. Respondent performed this work as a result of a written request from the Developer dated November 9, 1977. Respondent completed primary construction of the pool prior to submission of the final draw request of October 12, 1977. At that time, back- filling around the exterior of the pool structure preparatory to the pouring of the concrete pool decking had not been completed. Although by October 12, 1977, Respondent had removed much of the excess dirt and debris from around the edges of the pool. There were still areas of exposed piping which would, in due course, be covered with back-fill and tamped by the decking subcontractor. Respondent did not attempt to back-fill or tamp any areas around the pool's piping system. At some time subsequent to October 12, 1977, which date is not clearly reflected in this record, a separate sub- contractor completed back-filling work around the pool, and poured the concrete decking. Neither the Developer nor his subcontractor advised Respondent that the back-filling had been accomplished and that the deck was to be poured. Prior to October 12, 1977, Respondent "pressure tested" the pool's piping system, and determined that the pool would hold water at a level above its scum gutters. The results of this testing indicated that, at least as of October 12, 1977, there was no leakage from the pool. Standard practice in the pool construction industry dictates that a minimum of three pressure tests be made of a pool's piping system during the course of construction. The first of these tests should occur immediately after installation of the pipes, and a second test should be performed immediately before final back-filling to cover the pipe system. A final pressure test should be conducted after tamping of the fill and prior to the pouring of concrete for the pool deck. The obvious purpose of this system of pressure testing is to discover any water leaks before concrete pool decking is poured to avoid having to cut out sections of the concrete in order to locate leaks. Because the Developer and his subcontractor failed to notify Respondent of further work being done on the pool. Respondent was unable to perform a pressure test either after back-filling was completed, after the back- fill had been tamped and before the concrete deck was poured. By letter dated January 17, 1978, Respondent was furnished by the Developer with a "punch list" indicating several areas of deficiency that needed to be corrected in the pool. In that letter the Developer requested that Respondent complete the necessary work within seven days. The Developer forwarded a second letter to Respondent dated February 23, 1978 advising Respondent that the punch list items had not been corrected, and urging Respondent to complete the work described in the punch list as soon as possible. From receipt of the punch list in January of 1978 through the middle of March, 1978 Respondent had workers on the job intermittently making the corrections indicated in the punch list. Respondent satisfactorily corrected fifteen of the eighteen items listed as defective n the punch list. Some of the items were repaired by other subcontractors. Respondent had difficulty obtaining some items of equipment, which he was required to back-order. When the back-ordered equipment was slow in arriving, the Developer opted to obtain these items from a source other than Respondent. Respondent replaced a defective pump associated with the pool construction at some time subsequent to January 18, 1977. The last work performed by Respondent on the pool project occurred some time between March 10 and March 16, 1978. At no time thereafter was Respondent ever advised by the Developer that any work performed under the contract was either unsatisfactory or incomplete. The pool received a final State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services inspection on July 13, 1978, at which time all necessary permits for operation of the pool under applicable regulations were issued. Respondent at no time requested that Alachua County officials come to the job site to conduct the necessary final inspection of the project, nor did he advise the Developer of the necessity to do so. At some time during 1979, subsequent to the completion of the swimming pool project, the Developer discovered that the pool was losing water at a rate of approximately 2,100 gallons per day. During this period, the water level inside the pool would drop to a level equal to the piping running around the exterior of the pool shell and under the pool decking. When the Developer was unable to ascertain the cause of the leak, an outside subcontractor was hired to check the pool. This sub- contractor performed pressure tests on the pool's piping system in an attempt to determine whether the leakage was occurring through the pipes. These tests apparently showed no leakage through the piping system. The Developer then caused the concrete decking around the edge of the pool to be removed in order to more closely inspect the interior piping. At this point it was discovered that there existed flaws and breaks in the neoprene piping surrounding the exterior shell of the pool. After repairs to the damaged piping, the pool decking was repoured and there has been no subsequent leakage problem in the pool. The Developer incurred expenses in the amount of $2,288 in removing the decking around the pool and repairing the neoprene piping. Because of the fact that several subcontractors in addition to Respondent worked in the pool area during construction of the pool project, it is impossible on the basis of this record to determine the cause of the damage to the neoprene piping. Respondent's testimony is uncontroverted that pressure testing performed prior to the conclusion of primary work on the pool in October of 1977 showed no leakage through the pool's piping system. Further, at the conclusion of the primary work in October, 1977, much of the pool's piping system was left exposed and could have been damaged either by the Developer's own workers or by employees of other subcontractors in the course of back- filling and tamping fill material preparatory to pouring concrete decking. The Developer's failure to advise Respondent of the schedule for back-filling, tamping and pouring of concrete deprived Respondent of an opportunity to properly pressure test the piping system at appropriate stages of construction. Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are not incorporated in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as being either irrelevant to the subject matter of this proceeding or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Henry C. Hollenbeck was licensed as a swimming pool contractor. In February of 1980, respondent, doing business as Acme Pools, entered into a contract with Loren Bjornson to construct a swimming pool at Bjornson's residence for a total purchase price of $8,300. Construction of this pool was completed on or about June 30, 1980. Respondent did not obtain a building permit for the Bjornson pool until January 5, 1981. Prior to the construction of a swimming pool in Ft. Walton Beach, a building permit is required. No inspections were performed by the City during construction of the Bjornson pool. Many items, such as the plumbing, walls, drain system, etc., cannot be adequately inspected after construction is completed and the pool is filled with water. Almost immediately upon construction of the Bjornson pool, a crack in the wall at the center of the pool appeared. This was repaired by respondent. Then, in July of 1980, the pool started losing one inch of water per day. In August, 1980, the pool started losing two inches of water per day. Mr. Bjornson repeatedly contacted respondent about this problem, but respondent did not respond to the calls because he felt that Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson had not paid his bills. Apparently, the financial dispute concerned work on a neighbor's driveway for which Mr. Bjornson was never billed. On three different occasions, Mr. Bjornson retained another pool company to make repairs on his pool to prevent it from leaking. The three repair bills amounted to slightly over $200 and none of the repair jobs could be guaranteed. In order to make a guarantee, the service and sales manager of Aqua Pools estimated that repairs amounting to $11,365 would be necessary. It was his opinion that the repair work would involve a major rebuilding of the pool, including the removal of the pool deck and tiles and the reinforcement of walls. At the time of the hearing, the Bjornson pool was not presently leaking. By contract dated August 10,1979, respondent agreed to install a swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Walter Parker. Construction was competed in October of 1979 and leaking problems began almost immediately. Respondent came back on at least four occasions to do the repair work. The corners were patched and other repair work necessitating the complete draining of the pool was performed. Each time, the Parkers were charged for labor and parts. At the time of the hearing, the Parker pool still leaked approximately one inch per day. It was estimated that it would cost about $1,000 to repair the Parker pool adequately so that a one-year warranty against leaking could be given. Respondent testified that he did not respond to Mr. Bjornson's calls for repair work because Mr. Bjornson still owed him money. He believed the Parkers also owed him money. He felt that he could repair both pools adequately for a nominal sum of money.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner find respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and suspend his pool contractor's license for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry C. Hollenbeck Rt. 1, Box 196 F-G, Circle Drive Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Mr. Samuel Shorestein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency responsible for licensing and regulating pool contractors operating in the State of Florida. Respondent was previously licensed as a Certified Pool Contractor by Respondent, holding license number CP C21422. On March 15, 2004, Respondent's license was revoked and was void at all times material to this case. On June 3, 2005, Respondent entered into a contract with Luis Vargas and Maria Rivera (Customers) for construction of a pool at their home located at 1524 Southeast 8th Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida. The total cost of the proposed construction was $21,500. The name of Respondent's company as identified on the contract was Gulfshore Pool and Spa, Inc., 207 Center Street, Tarpon Springs, Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent was the president and owner of Gulfshore Pool and Spa, Inc. During the sales presentation to the Customers, Respondent provided a copy of his license to the Customers that showed an expiration date of August 31, 2004, and told them that it was being renewed. The contract contained the following notation: Company is being retained for services of design, consultation and assistance in construction. Customer is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits required for the pool construction. Respondent testified that he told the Customers he would arrange for all subcontractors and would add a fee of ten percent as his fee for "overseeing" management of the project. The Payment Schedule for the contract required that "progress payments" in an amount totaling the cost of the pool were to be made to Gulfshore Pool and Spa, Inc. The Customers obtained the construction permit. Respondent made all arrangements for site clearing and excavation. Respondent made all arrangements for acquisition and delivery of pool construction materials to the job site. All materials invoices were billed to Gulfshore Pool and Spa, Inc. Respondent made all arrangements for the laborers who appeared at the job site and was responsible for paying laborers. Respondent made arrangements for all inspections and for correcting any problems resulting from the inspections. The Customers paid a total of $20,500, by checks, made payable to Gulfshore Pool and Spa, Inc. The Customers withheld the remaining $1,000 payment for reasons that are immaterial to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Michael D. White violated Subsections 489.127(e) and (f), Florida Statutes (2004), and impose a total administrative fine of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 3rd day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Smothers, Esquire Wright, Fulford, Moorhead & Brown, P.A. Post Office Box 2828 Orlando, Florida 32801-2828 Michael D. White, Jr. Michael D. White, Jr., d/b/a Gulf Shore Pool & Spa, Inc. 306 East Paris Street Tampa, Florida 33604 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Zed Lucynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a pool contractor should be disciplined and, if so, what penalty to recommend.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto John A. Bennett, Respondent, was licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a residential pool contractor, having been issued license number RP 0033592. He is the qualifying contractor for Quality Pools and Products, Inc., 2912 Forest Wood Drive, Seffner, Florida 33584 (Exhibit 2). On or about January 25, 1988, Evelyn L. Dittmer and James W. Dittmer entered into a contract with Quality Aquatech Pools & Spas (Quality Pools), 1500 N. Parsons Avenue, Brandon, Florida, to replace the liner and repair the bottom of the pool (Exhibit 5). This contract was signed by the Dittmers and Andy Priess, presumably the foreman of Quality Pools. The Dittmers never met Respondent, but they "understood" he owned the pool company. Printed on the bottom of Exhibit 1 is Respondent's state registration number. Employees of Quality Pools arrived on the site and removed the old liner. At this time, the bottom of the pool was in bad shape, but the workers attempted to replace the liner without repairing the bottom of the pool. They were stopped from replacing the liner and departed as they had brought no equipment with which to repair the bottom. Workers returned for the next several days to attempt to repair the bottom of the pool. Due to excessive ground water entering the pool, this task was onerous. The initial contract provided that if it became necessary to establish well points to keep excess water out of the pool, an additional fee of $200 would be required. The Dittmers paid this fee, but well points were not established. An addendum to the contract was prepared for additional work needed to get the bottom of the pool back in shape (Exhibit 1) and was signed by John A. Bennett. This provided for an additional payment of $600, but was not accepted or signed by the Dittmers. The new liner was ultimately installed, but was torn in the process and the unnatural hole in the bottom of the pool was not repaired. Although the Dittmers had paid Quality Pools the full contract price of $2700, which included a $200 charge for installing well points, the work was never satisfactorily completed, and Quality Pools failed to perform the work for which they had contracted. The project was finally abandoned by Quality Pools, and two of the pumps used to dewater the pool were left on the site. At no time did anyone from Quality Pools obtain a permit from Sarasota County where this work was done, and Quality Pools was not licensed to work in Sarasota County (Exhibit 3). After it became evident Quality Pools would not complete the repairs for which they had contracted, the Dittmers hired another contractor to whom they paid an additional $2945 to restore the pool to an operating condition (Exhibit 7).
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against John A. Bennett arising out of the contract between the Dittmers and Quality Aquatech Pools & Spas be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4839 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted with the exception of findings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are rejected for the reason that the evidence submitted does not show Respondent to be the owner or qualifying contractor of Quality Aquatech Pools and Spas with whom the Dittmers contracted. Findings of fact cannot be founded in uncorroborated hearsay evidence not admissible over objection in civil proceedings. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire 206 E. Mason Street Brandon, FL 33511 John A. Bennett 1500 Parsons Avenue Brandon, FL 33511 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 =================================================================
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.
