Findings Of Fact 11. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 6, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 11, 2009, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 15, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-059-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On March 6, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On March 6, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 11, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $23,054.38 against CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. On March 11, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 11, 2009, CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE signed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty in Case No. 09- 059-D7. A copy of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On March 11, 2009, the Department issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order in Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. _ On March 27, 2009, CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE filed a Petition for Formal Hearing Under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 with the Department. The Petition for Formal Hearing Under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 13, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-1841. 8. On October 15, 2009, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $5,599.61 against CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On October 16, 2009, the Department filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. The Administrative Law Judge entered an Order on October 19, 2009, which granted leave to amend the order of penalty assessment and filed for record the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the ‘Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On November 2, 2009, CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Subsequently, on November 4, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction to the Department for final agency action. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue Whether Petitioner North Fort Myers Homeowners Association, Inc. (Homeowners) participated in DOAH Case No. 91-6436 for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact On September 11, 1991, Homeowners filed its Petition for Administrative Hearing and Request to Consolidate with Administrative Hearing set for November 7, 1991. The Petition alleged that Homeowners' interests would be adversely affected by Bradley's request for a permit for construction of a wastewater collection system that it planned to connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant. It was further alleged that Florida Cities current violations of federal water quality standards would increase as a result of such a connection. Bradley responded to the Petition by filing a Motion to Dismiss for failure to State a Claim/Or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 31, 1991, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum granted Bradley's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The Hearing Officer found that the Petition did not allege that the application for a wastewater collection system permit failed to comply with the agency's relevant rules and criteria. The Hearing Officer also ruled that the Petition did not identify when such criteria would be unmet by the project. Homeowners was given leave of ten days to file an Amended Petition. Homeowners timely filed its Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing on November 13, 1991. This Amended Petition continued to focus upon whether Bradley's wastewater collection system should connect to Florida Cities Water Company's Sewage Treatment Plant and the federal water quality issue as it relates to discharge after treatment. After Bradley filed its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Petition and Homeowners replied, Hearing Officer Quattlebaum entered a Recommended Order of Dismissal on December 12, 1991. The basis for the recommendation was that Homeowners had "failed to allege that the application for permit failed to comply with the relevant criteria as set forth in statute and rule which govern issuance of the permit." The Temporary Operating Permit under which Florida Cities was operating expressly allowed Bradley's wastewater collection system to connect to the sewage treatment plant upon satisfaction of the Department's permitting requirements for such a collection system. Homeowners lost its opportunity to address whether such a connection was proper when it failed to timely challenge this Temporary Operating Permit. The only agency action subject to challenge in this case was whether Bradley's application to construct the wastewater collection system complied with the Department's permitting requirements for the system. Florida Cities anticipated actions were irrelevant to this particular proceeding because final agency action had already been taken on the question of whether the connection could take place. Throughout this proceeding, Homeowners failed to comprehend that it had waived its opportunity to pursue a challenge to the connection of Bradley's wastewater collection system to the sewage treatment plant when it did not timely challenge Florida Cities' Temporary Operating Permit. The Order granting Bradley's Motion to Dismiss dated October 31, 1991, did not affirmatively set forth that the connection issue could not be pursued in DOAH Case No. 91-6436. Homeowners' lack of comprehension on this issue remains evident in the Amended Petition, the Motion for Reconsideration filed after the Recommended Order of Dismissal, the Response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees and the testimony presented at hearing. Lack of comprehension is a neutral condition which neither proves nor disproves that the Petition and Amended Petition were filed for improper purposes, as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. No direct evidence of Homeowners' participation in the proceeding for an improper purpose was established at hearing. The attorney for Homeowners at the time the Petition and Amended Petition were filed denied that Homeowners was motivated by an improper purpose. It was seeking to protect water quality in its locale and to assure the local sewer treatment system is adequate. There was no evidence presented as to whether Homeowners has participated in other such proceedings involving Bradley and the same project for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Supplemental Final Order denying Bradley's request for attorney's fees and costs as Homeowners did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose as defined by Subsection 120.59(6)(e), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-6436 Homeowners' proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See separate order on that issue. Rejected. Pleading amended accordingly. Accepted. See HO #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See Preliminary Statement. The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. 3. Accepted. See HO #2. 4. Accepted. See HO #3. 5. Accepted. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. See HO #4. 8. Accepted. See HO #4. 9. Accepted. See HO #5. 10. Accepted. See HO #6. 11. Accepted. 12. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7 - HO #13. Bradley's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #7 and HO #8. Accept that Homeowners failed to present any justifiable issue of law or fact that could be heard in relation to this permit. See HO #7 - HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: HAROLD M STEVENS ESQ PO DRAWER 1440 FT MYERS FL 33902 FRANCINE FFOLKES ESQ ASST GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 GERI L WAKSLER ESQ PEPER MARTIN JENSEN MAICHEL & HETLAGE 2000 MAIN ST - STE 600 FT MYERS FL 33901 DANIEL H THOMPSON ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400 CAROL BROWNER, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION 2600 BLAIRSTONE RD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 2400
The Issue Whether Respondent's registered plumbing contractor's license should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Stanley Monds, held a registered plumbing contractor's license number RF 0037461 which had been placed on a delinquent status for non-renewal effective July 1, 1985 and was invalid during the 1987-89 licensing period. On June 19, 1987, Monds, doing business as Clay Well and Pump Service, contracted with Charles W. Plath to install a culvert for the sum of $341.25. The culvert was installed by Monds and Plath paid Monds in accordance with the contract. On July 10, 1987, Monds, doing business as Clay Well and Pump Service, contracted with Plath to: (a) install a 2- inch well and a 1-Horsepower Meyers pump; (b) supply fill for septic tank pad and a culvert; (c) install septic tank and culvert; (d) install a 200 amp electrical service for mobile home and pump and; (e) tie-in the water line and electricity to the mobile home and pump. The net contract price was $6,574.00 of which Plath paid $4,295.00 in advance, leaving a balance of $2,279.00. Plath's mobile home site is located in Whitehouse, Duval County, Florida. There was no written or verbal agreement between Plath and Monds concerning a completion date. However, Plath had told Monds that he needed to be in the mobile home by August, 1987. Plath understood that Monds had other jobs that he was currently working on but would get to Plath as soon as possible. Monds advised Plath that the necessary permits for the job would have to be applied for (pulled) by Plath. Plath did not object to this, and on June 19, 1987 applied for a mobile home move-on permit with the Duval County Building Department. The mobile home move-on permit was issued to Plath on July 6, 1987. An applicant for a mobile home move-on permit must show that a septic tank permit has been issued before a mobile home move-on permit will be issued. The septic tank permit is issued through the local health department. The Duval County Building Department requires the person who is issued the mobile home move-on permit to assume the responsibility for acquiring the necessary inspections, even though the work is being performed by someone other than the person to whom the permit was issued. It was Plath's responsibility to see that the necessary inspections were made, including the septic tank inspection. The well and pump were installed sometime around the last of July or the first of August, 1987. Monds subcontracted the drilling of the well. Although part of the work under the contract had been completed, such as the well and pump installation and part of the septic tank, Plath encountered difficulty in making contact with, and getting a response from, Monds concerning the progress of the job and a completion date. Therefore, in October, 1987 Plath decided to contract the work to someone else. On October 8, 1987, Plath contracted with Wilkins & Sons Electric (Wilkins) to install: (a) the 200 Amp mobile home service pole and connect to mobile home; (b) the 220 Volt, 20 Amp circuit and connect to pump and; (c) the 175 Watt mercury vapor light fixture. The total price of the contract was $850.00. However, $85.00 for a mercury vapor light fixture was not part of the original contract with Monds. Wilkins applied for and was issued the required electrical permit for the Plath job on October 6, 1987. The final electrical inspection was made on October 9, 1987. 13 On October 13, 1987, Plath contracted with AA Septic Tank Service, Inc. to finish the partially completed septic tank which Monds had failed to complete for $300.00. Although the septic tank permit was issued before the mobile home move-on permit was issued, there is no evidence that anyone made a septic tank inspection. Although Monds was hampered by the rain during the period of time Monds worked on the Plath site, there was insufficient evidence to show that Monds was prevented by the rain from completing the work under the contract before Plath decided to contract with someone else because of the delay or that Monds advised Plath of the reason for the delay. Plath did not prevent, or prohibit, Monds for completing the work under the contract. Monds failed to pay Tim Prep, Inc. for 15 loads of fill ordered and used by Monds on the Plath job. As a result of Monds failure to pay for the fill, Tim Prep, Inc. filed a Notice Of Intention To Claim A Lien in the amount $1,181.25 against Plath's property. Monds had not paid Tim Prep, Inc. for the fill at the time of the hearing. The work on the on the Plath job was completed in late October or early November, 1987. Monds was still working on the Plath job as late as September 1, 1987 when Tim Prep, Inc. delivered fill to the Plath site for Monds. Although Plath never paid Monds the $2,279.00 balance, Plath was required to pay other contractors $1,075.00 ($850.00 minus $85.00 plus $310.00) and will be required to pay $1,181.25 to Tim Prep, Inc. to remove the lien from his property which comes to a total of $2,256.25, leaving a balance of $22.75. This does not take into consideration any compensation for the delay suffered by Plath. Although probable cause was found against Monds by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board) on January 7, 1988 and a letter of guidance issued in apparently another matter, there was no evidence concerning the violations or the charges involved.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and Rule 21E- 17, Florida Administrative Code, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, Stanley Monds guilty of violating Section 489.115(3)(a), Section 489.119(3), and Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $750.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint of violating Section 489.129(1)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 18th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-0464 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: 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 & 2(1); 3(2- 5); 4 & 5(3); 6(6); 7(9); 8(10); 9(9); 10(11); 11(13); 12(18); 13(17); 14(6 & 12); 15(6 & 8); 16(12); 17(16); 18(2 & 3); 19(1). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: 1. Respondent did not submit and posthearing proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Stanley Monds 326 West Macclenny Avenue Macclenny, Florida 32063 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this action, Respondent was and presently is a registered plumbing contractor having been issued License No. RF0038438. On August 18, 1981, the Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board revoked Respondent's competency card to practice plumbing in Collier County. The revocation was based upon Respondent's violation of Sections 4.1.10 and 4.1.17, Collier County Ordinance No. 78-02. Respondent failed to appear at the public hearing held before the Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board on August 18, 1981.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a registered plumbing contractor be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Xavier J. Fernandez, Esquire Nuckolls, Johnson & Fernandez Post Office Box 729 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Danny E. Fox Route 1, Box 54 Pleasant Shade, TN 37145 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact James Paleveda, one of the Petitioners, took the examination for a plumbing contractor's license on February 10 and 11, 1983, and failed the examination. He was the only witness to testify on behalf of the Petitioners. Some of the other Petitioners took a different examination on different dates than the examination complained of in these proceedings, but no evidence was presented identifying those Petitioners and no evidence was presented relative to those exams. Petitioners presented no evidence that any or all of them gave incorrect answers to the questions complained of, and, but for those incorrect answers, they would have passed the examination. The sum and substance of the testimony presented by the Petitioner Paleveda was that, in his opinion, most of the questions in Exhibit 1, the examination Paleveda took, were not appropriate to determine if the applicant is qualified to be a plumbing contractor. Paleveda has never been a plumbing contractor and has little experience in the contracting field. He is also nearly 57 years old and, although fit, conceded the long examination for a man his age and background was much more tiring than it would be for a younger man fresh out of school. Questions 1 through 27 of Exhibit 1 deal with social security taxes withheld and paid by employers for their employees; federal income taxes withheld; Florida mechanics lien law; workers' compensation law; unemployment compensation law; Florida Construction Industry Licensing law; accounting and cost-keeping procedures; and general contract provisions. Petitioners contend that although some knowledge of these subjects is desirable, a contractor can always hire accountants and lawyers to handle these problems. Respondent, on the other hand, presented the testimony of plumbing contractors who have been in the business for many years who testified that knowledge of the cost of social security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, contract provisions, and all costs associated with the performance of plumbing contracts are essential if a plumbing contractor is to remain solvent. This latter testimony is deemed more credible and is factually accepted. Questions 28 through 93 generally involve questions form the Plumbers Handbook and Mathematics for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. Petitioner's primary objections to these questions are that in some cases the answers from the Plumbers Handbook is different from the local codes. Respondent presented evidence that there are some differences throughout the state in the plumbing codes and this is the principal reason for utilizing a standard that can be applicable to all candidates. The candidates are told that the correct answers to those questions are those given in the Plumbers Handbook and the examinees are allowed to have this book in the examination room. Questions 94 through 100 are taken from the Solar Water and Pool Heating Manual and Petitioners contend these questions are too hard. Petitioners further contend that any plumber should check with the manufacturer for specific instructions before installing a solar water heating system. All plumbing contractors are authorized to install a solar water hearing system and each should be required to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of such a system before being so licensed. Accordingly, Petitioner's objections to these questions are without merit. The first 27 questions to which the Petitioners object are very similar to the questions given to all building contractors for a statewide license. Those questions cover areas that a contractor must know to remain financially solvent. Most contractors initially starting a business do not have sufficient capital to hire attorneys and accountants to advise each time a question arises regarding these fields. A contractor can hardly afford to hire an attorney to file a $200 mechanics lien.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the COMPLAINT and other contentions of Petitioners regarding the unfairness of the February 11 and 12, 1983 examination for plumbing contractors be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of July 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Steinberg, Esquire 2055 Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33609 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Moody, Esquire 199 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certificate as a plumbing contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board) was the agency responsible for the certification of plumbing contractors and the regulation of the plumbing trade in Pinellas County. Respondent was certified by the Board as a plumbing contractor, but his certification had been suspended by the Board on August 8, 1999, for failure to provide proof of required liability insurance. Ernie Martin Plumbing (EMP) has been in business in Pinellas County, Florida, since the 1940's. The business was started by Respondent's father, with whom Respondent worked until he took over the business. Respondent operated the business until, due to the demands of health, he relied on two employees, Charlie Pierce and Greg Rowe, to do all the work commencing in the mid-1980's. He actually sold them the business in the late 1980's. Since neither Pierce nor Rowe was a licensed plumber, in October 1984 Respondent changed the status of his certificate to qualify the company on those jobs where certification was required. Because he was not satisfied with the way the business was being run, however, on August 8, 1999, Respondent went to the offices of the Board for the purposes of having his certificate and name removed as the qualifying certification for EMP. At that time he was advised by a clerk at the Board office that his certificate had been suspended for a failure to maintain the required liability insurance for the company. Because of this, Respondent erroneously believed his license was no longer active and could not be used by the company, so he took no further action. On November 8, 1999, Doris Ruttledge called EMP to fix a leak under her kitchen sink in her home at 3800 Fifth Avenue South. A representative of the company came to her home and purportedly fixed the leak. Ms. Ruttledge paid the fee required. She soon found out that the leak had not been properly fixed and still existed. She called EMP several times to come fix it, speaking each time with Greg Rowe, but the repair was not done. She finally had another plumber complete the required repairs. Somewhat earlier, on July 31, 1999, Arthur Arendt experienced problems with the sewer line exiting his home located at 501 36th Avenue North. The line was blocked and sewage was backing up. Arendt called EMP and asked what it would cost to repair the problem. When he was quoted a price of $100.00, he agreed to have the work done, and a representative of EMP came to the house to do it. After digging down about five feet from the house, the plumber determined that the line was clogged and broke through the pipe to remove the blockage. Once the blockage was removed, the plumber asked Mr. Arendt for an empty two-liter soda bottle from which he cut a curved section which he placed over the opening in the pipe as a patch. The plumber then covered the patch with dirt and declared it fixed. The following day, Mr. Arendt noticed that the pipe was leaking at the patch. He called Greg Rowe, the representative of EMP, who said he would fix it but did not do so. Finally, on September 30, 1999, after no-one from EMP had come out to repair the leak, Mr. Arendt repaired it himself. Several weeks later, in November 1999, Mr. Martin came to the Arendt home, examined the repair and Arendt's modification to it, and determined that further work needed to be done. Mr. Martin contacted Greg Rowe and told him he wanted the line repaired correctly and he wanted it done immediately. The required corrections were made. According to Kenneth Klotz, the chief plumbing inspector for St. Petersburg, the use of a piece of plastic bottle is not an acceptable means of repairing a broken sewer line. A seal must be watertight to prevent leakage of sewage from the line into the surrounding ground. Within those parameters, small repairs may be made by patch, but larger repairs require the replacement of the broken pipe section. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order in this case revoking Respondent's certification (License C-985(RF0040714))as a plumbing contractor in Pinellas County without prejudice to apply for re-certification after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 9th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Ernest J. Martin 5050 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
The Issue Whether Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that these three rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for septic tank contractor registration in July 1996. On September 6, 1996, the Respondent issued its intent to deny his application on the grounds that he failed to meet the required qualifications listed in Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if a previous registration issued by the Respondent has been revoked within the last 5 years. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing, in which he alleged Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that these rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) formally took effect on January 3, 1995. There is no material failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in the promulgation of these rules. 9. Sections 154.06, 381.0011, 381.006, 381.0065, 489.553, and 489.557, Florida Statutes, grant the Respondent specific authority to adopt rules implementing the statutes. Petitioner does not dispute the Respondent’s rulemaking authority. Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) implement sections 154.01, 381.001, 381.0011, 381.0012, 381.0025, 381.006, 381.0061, 381.0065, 381.00655, 381.0066, 381.0067, Part I of Chapter 386, and Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), is the chapter governing septic tank contractor registration. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, are the rules pertaining to Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, which include septic tank systems. A person who becomes a registered septic tank contractor has the authority to install, maintain, repair, and perform site evaluations for repairs of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. There are an estimated 1.4 million septic systems in use in Florida. The onsite sewage treatment program impacts public health in that it prevents and corrects sanitary nuisances; prevents pollution to groundwater, which is the primary drinking water source in the state; prevents pollution to surface water; and eliminates risks to public health from exposure to improperly treated human waste. Untreated or improperly treated human waste contains many significant disease-causing organisms injurious to human health. A “sanitary nuisance” is the “commission of any act, . . . or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, . . . by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.” Section 386.01, Florida Statutes (1995). “Improperly built or maintained septic tanks” and “untreated or improperly treated human waste” constitute “prima facie evidence of maintaining a nuisance injurious to health.” Section 386.041(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The training, regulation, and registration of septic tank contractors, who install and repair such systems, is directly related to public health. An improperly installed or repaired system may result in untreated human waste or raw sewage either surfacing on the ground, backing up in the owner’s house/business, contaminating groundwater, and contaminating nearby surface water. The Respondent regularly receives complaints from citizens detailing installation problems, including complaints regarding improper workmanship, the premature failure of their septic tank system resulting in sewage on the ground around their house, and the contractor’s failure to honor his/her warranty. The impetus behind regulating contractors came primarily from the industry itself (i.e., the Florida Septic Tank Association). The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the Respondent has revoked his prior septic tank registration within the last 5 years, protects the public from sanitary nuisances caused by the improper installation and repair of septic tank systems. This qualification is, moreover, an indicator of an applicant’s “good moral character.” The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the applicant has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who have demonstrated they are not complying with the rules or statutes. The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under Chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who are not law abiding and do not follow the standards. “Good moral character” is not defined in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Each of the three qualifications established by Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) make specific or interpret an individual’s good moral character. The Department’s statutory authority for Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d), Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), and Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) comes from: (a) section 489.553(2), which requires the Department to “provide qualifications for applicants;” (b) section 489.553(4)(a), which says the applicant “must be of good moral character’” (c) section 489.558(2), which says the Department may deny registration if it determines the applicant “has violated any provision of this part [Part III of Chapter 489];” and (d) section 489.556, which authorizes the Department to suspend and revoke licenses. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) has neither filed an objection nor voted on an objection to the three rules at issue in this case. Although a staff member of JAPC, in response to Petitioner’s complaint, recently made a preliminary inquiry into the validity of these rules, the committee did not adopt the staff member’s recommendation.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Frank Jantlick, held registered building contractor and registered plumbing contractor license numbers RB 0016816 and RF 0038428 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He presently resides at 1206 Driftwood Drive, New Port Richey, Florida and operates both Jantlick Construction and Jantlick Plumbing in the same city. Jantlick is of Polish descent. The proper Polish spelling of his name is J-a-n-c-z-l-i-k. The "Americanized" spelling of his name is J-a-n-t-l-i-c-k. Because his name has been misspelled so often he has registered with both the State and the local construction boards using the Americanized spelling of his name. In July, 1980 one Margaret L. Johnson approached respondent and asked if he would construct three triplexes on her property. Jantlick finally agreed to do so for $129,000 and a construction agreement was signed by both on August 8, 1980. The triplexes were to be constructed at 712-728 East Tennessee Avenue, New Port Richey, Florida. Respondent signed the contract spelling his name J-a- n-c-z-l-i-k even though he was registered with the State as J-a-n-t-l-i-c-k. Jantlick could not start construction until Johnson obtained a bank loan. She did so in December, 1980 and Jantlick began construction shortly thereafter. A zoning change within the city was imminent and, because of this, Jantlick was in a hurry to begin construction so the project would be grandfathered in under the old zoning law. Thomas L. Shell, a licensed plumber, approached Jantlick and asked if he could do the plumbing work on the project. Because Jantlick had known Shell's family for many years, he orally agreed that Shell could do the plumbing work. Shell pulled the City plumbing permits for the job on December 22, 1980. This was necessary since Jantlick was only licensed to do plumbing work within Pasco County, but not within the City of New Port Richey. In order to comply with the City ordinance, it was necessary for either Shell to do the plumbing work, or for Jantlick to do it under Shell's supervision. On January 10, 1981, Shell's wife, Danielle, sent a letter on the firm stationery to the city stating In part: Plumbing service was not commenced by Tom Shell Plumbing. But, rather, Mr. Janczlik had already contracted another plumber to perform rough-in and top-out plumbing, without the permission of Mr. Shell. The letter was signed by Danielle, and according to Shell, constituted notice that he was no longer the licensed plumber on the job. Shell did not furnish a copy of the letter to Jantlick and did not otherwise advise him he was quitting the job. Jantlick could not get Shell to promptly begin the rough-in work on the triplexes, and because he wanted to commence construction before the zoning law changed, he and another plumber did the initial plumbing work. The evidence is conflicting as to whether Shell inspected and supervised this stage of the work, but it is found that he did, and that Jantlick was lawfully operating within the purview of the city ordinance. It is also found that Shell had knowledge of Jantlick's work, and authorized it to be done under his license and supervision. Shell acknowledged that he performed the final stage of the job (final trim), but denied doing the second stage (tub set). However, Shell's own ledger cards reflect he received periodic payments from Jantlick during the spring of 1981 for plumbing services, and it is found that Shell performed the final two stages of the plumbing work. The administrative complaint alleges that at some unknown date after the petitioner's investigation was started, respondent approached Shell and offered to pay him if he would "falsely tell the Department of Professional Regulation investigator that Shell had done the plumbing work on the Triplexes." Shell stified that Jantlick had telephoned him and offered to "take care of him" if he could tell a false story to the investigator. But Jantlick denied this, and Shell's testimony is not deemed to be credible, particularly since he had already performed two-thirds of the job himself, inspected and supervised the other third, and received several thousand dollars in payment for his services. Therefore, it is found that Jantlick did not approach Shell and offer him money in return for giving false testimony. Jantlick did not affix his registration number to the contract executed by him and Johnson. This is required to be done by Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Jantlick is seventy years old, and has been a contractor in Pasco County for over twenty-five years. He has had no prior disciplinary charges filed against him. For all his troubles on the project, he is still owed almost $12,000 by Johnson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts V and VI of the administrative complaint and that he be given a reprimand. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel P. Rock, Esquire The Oakland Building 117 North Boulevard New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On January 9, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in Baker County, Florida, filed his application with the District requesting that he be allowed to sit for the water well contractor examination. The requirements for qualification to take the examination are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that an applicant present "satisfactory proof of two years experience in the water well construction business." This requirement is normally met by the applicant providing a list of at least ten water well jobs he has completed during a consecutive 24-month period (together with their locations, major use, and approximate depth and diameter), the name and address of the owner of the well, and the approximate date the activity took place. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.300(6)(a). If the work has been completed in Florida, the applicant is also required to submit copies of completion reports for each of the ten wells. Id. Completion reports are filed by the contractor with the District within thirty days after the work is completed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-3.411. Finally, the applicant must submit letters from three persons attesting to the length of time the applicant has been working in the water well construction business as a major activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.600(6)(a). Alternatively, an applicant may present "satisfactory proof of equivalent experience," which may be accepted by the District "on a individual basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 531.300(6)(b). While this option has rarely, if ever, been used by any applicant, at hearing the District suggested that this provision would allow an applicant to submit other credible documentary evidence, such as affidavits, attesting to the applicant's equivalent experience. Mr. Julian C. Varnes, Jr., a District water resource representative III, is in charge of reviewing water well contractor applications in four northeast Florida counties, including Baker County. Mr. Varnes reviewed Petitioner's application and concluded that he had failed to submit proof of two years' experience in the water well contracting business or satisfactory proof of equivalent experience, as required by the rule. In this case, Petitioner submitted ten completion reports with his application, but none of the reports indicated that he had been involved on those projects, and Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he could not recall if he was even present on the job site. This is probably because the reports related to jobs performed between November 10, 1982, and July 31, 1985, by his father, a licensed water well contractor, when Petitioner was less than fifteen years old. In addition, the reports submitted by Petitioner covered work performed over a 32-month period, rather than over a 24-month period, as required by the rule, and some of the reports did not have the complete address of the location of the well. By letter dated February 4, 2004, the District advised Petitioner that his application was deficient because he had failed to submit the information required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300(1)(b) and (6) relative to experience. The letter advised Petitioner that he must submit an "acceptable list of ten wells together with their completion reports, for wells that [he had] constructed, repaired, or abandoned, with completion dates distributed over a consecutive 24-month time period." Further telephonic discussions between Petitioner and District personnel concerning the request for additional information occurred on March 25 and 29, 2004, but they did not resolve the District's concerns. On June 15, 2004, the District staff again notified Petitioner in writing that he must submit the requested information within 30 days or his application would be denied. When no response was received from Petitioner, on July 27, 2004, the staff issued a Technical Staff Report recommending that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 531.300(1)(b) and (6). On August 23, 2004, a Notice of Staff Intent to Recommend Denial of Water Well Contractor Application No. 7300 and Notice of Rights was issued by the District. Petitioner's request for a hearing was then filed. After his first request for a hearing was dismissed, on November 18, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended request for a hearing. In that request, he alleged that the District was "not capable of locating completion reports filed by [Petitioner] and/or his father"; that the experience of he and his father was well known to two District staffers; that he had purchased a well drilling company from another individual and operated under the seller's license for over a year; that he is entitled to licensure because he has satisfactory equivalent experience; and that his father has paid all outstanding fines previously imposed by the District. As relief, Petitioner has requested that he be allowed to take the contractor's examination. At hearing, Petitioner explained that his father was in the water well contracting business for twenty years, and that beginning in 1983, when he was thirteen years old, he had helped his father on "hundreds of jobs" until his father's retirement in 1994. However, Petitioner cannot recall the names and addresses of customers who were serviced by his father's business, which is necessary in order for the District to retrieve completion reports presumably filed by his father. Because of the large number of completion reports filed by contractors throughout its multi-county jurisdiction, in order to retrieve one, the District must have the following information: the year the job was completed, the county in which the job was performed, and the address (township and range) of the well's owner. Petitioner is unable to provide this information.1 In addition, Petitioner stated that he had purchased a water well contractor's business (from Tim Johnson) shortly after his father retired in 1994 and that he operated the business under Mr. Johnson's license for a little more than a year. Although Petitioner produced no documentation concerning jobs he may have performed under Mr. Johnson's license, even if he had, that work would still constitute less than 24 consecutive months of experience, as required by the rule. Petitioner further asserted that Mr. Varnes, who oversees the water well contractors in Baker County, personally "knows" that he is an experienced well driller (having gained such experience through working for his father for many years) and that he possesses the skills necessary to take the examination. However, Mr. Varnes did not agree with this assertion. Finally, Petitioner asked that he be allowed to take the examination, which would be the best indicator of whether he possesses the necessary knowledge to be a contractor. He also pointed out that each completed project must be inspected by a District employee, and that such inspections would verify and ensure that his work is satisfactory. However, the rules require that before the examination can be taken, certain requirements must be met. Petitioner has not satisfied those requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of January, 2005.
