The Issue The issue presented is whether the Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and therefore, in violation of Sections 489.127(1)(d) and 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Byron K. Godwin, Jr., is a certified plumbing contractor and a certified air conditioning contractor, having been issued license numbers CF C019153 and CA C020205. On July 6, 1978, the County Court Civil Division of Hillsborough County, Florida, entered a final judgment for Gorman Company of Tampa Inc., against the Respondent and Robert ,L. Hatfield in the amount of $2,252.36, including costs. On September 25, 1978, the Circuit Court, of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Polk County, Florida, entered a final judgment for Peninsular Supply Company, Inc., against the Respondent, and Hatfield in the amount of $12,164.60, including costs. These judgments were based upon unpaid past-due bills resulting from the operation of Godwin and Hatfield, a construction company jointly owned by the Respondent and Hatfield. As of December 30, 1980, these judgments had not been satisfied by the Respondent, by Hatfield, or by anyone else. On March 11, 1980, a federal tax lien was filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida, against the Respondent and Hatfield in the amount of 73,712.19. On May 8, 1980, the Respondent and Hatfield entered into an installment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service for the purpose of repaying the tax lien. Although both the Respondent and Hatfield knew about their tax deficiency, neither the Respondent nor Hatfield knew that the tax lien had been filed. Both men were advised by a representative of the IRS that a tax lien would not be filed if they agreed to pay the taxes due in installments. The Respondent attached a letter of explanation regarding the tax deficiency to his application. As of December 30, 1980, the tax lien had not been satisfied by the Respondent or Hatfield. On December 26, 1980, the Respondent made application to the Construction Industry Licensing Board to become a certified plumbing contractor. On his application, the Respondent answered in the negative the following question, 7(c): Are there now any liens, suits, or judgments of record or pending as a result of the construction operations of any person named in "(i) below" or any organization in which -- such person was a member of the personnel? On his application, the Respondent also answered in the negative the following question, 7(d): Are there now any unpaid past-due bills or claims for labor, materials or services as a result of the construction operations of any person named in "(i) below" or any organization in which any such person was a member of the personnel? The Respondent admitted that he was aware of the outstanding judgments, and, from the, application, it, is clear the outstanding judgments related to him as the applicant. In the space following question 7(i), the Respondent signed as applicant and then as corporate president and noted there was no vice president.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.127(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by knowingly filing an application Containing false information, and thereby being guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) , Florida Statutes, and in consideration of the facts in mitigation, it is recommended that the Board take no action against the Respondent's air conditioning contractor's license, which was not related to the application in question in this case. It is further recommended that the Board administratively revoke the Respondent's plumbing contractor's license with leave to file a complete and correct application for the Board's consideration. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary Ann Stiles, Esquire One Mack Center, Suite 1604 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The basic facts are not really disputed. Petitioner has many years experience as a plumber. The law is controverted. The agency says the required experience as a contractor must be with a fire sprinkler contractor. The Petitioner argues the statute does not define "contractor," and its common meaning would include plumbing contractor. Evidence was received that the agency has long held "contractor" to be limited to fire sprinkler installation contractors, and that this is based upon the special expertise required in design and installation of these systems. The argument of the Respondent that "contractor/ contracting" as it is used in the statute generally applies to fire sprinkler contractors is more persuasive based upon the evidence. The parties have submitted posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Frederick Hagen applied with the Department of Insurance, Office of the State Fire Marshal, to take the written examination for a license to engage in the business of designing and installing fire protection systems as a Contractor II, type 7, class 12, as defined by Section 633.021(5)(b), Florida Statutes. On July 8, 1985, his original application was hand- delivered back to him for failure to submit the appropriate application fee and the appropriate application form. Mr. Hagen's application was denied by the Department of Insurance, Office of the State Fire Marshal because he did not submit evidence of four years proven experience as required by Section 633.521(3), Florida Statutes. On August 8, 1985, Mr. Hagen requested a formal hearing on the denial of his application. At the hearing on November 12, 1985, Mr. Hagen submitted an original application and the appropriate fee to the Department of Insurance, Office of the State Fire Marshal. Petitioner's application was denied in accordance with long-standing agency policy because he did not submit evidence to show that he had the requisite experience as a fire sprinkler installation contractor or the educational background, or a combination thereof to be allowed to sit for the examination. (Transcript pages 16,17; Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At all times material herein, Frederick D. Hagen held a license from the Construction Industry Licensing Board and has been a plumbing contractor for over 12 years. (Transcript pages 25, 26) As a licensed plumbing contractor, he has been involved in the supervision of and actual installation of fire line stand pipes and fire sprinklers to the extent authorized by law. Petitioner submitted no evidence at the hearing of his education and experience in the design of sprinkler installations. Petitioner indicated that he considered the design of these systems as similar to design of a plumbing system, given the building codes and plans. Design of sprinkler installations is integral to the work performed by a Contractor II, type 7, class 12. Design of sprinkler installations is based upon codes plus experience received in working in the profession. Employees of these specialized contractors receive special educational training in design of systems. Experience of a plumbing contractor in reading codes and applying them in installing plumbing systems would be inadequate experience to qualify one to design a sprinkler system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Mr. Hagen's application for examination to engage in the business of fire protection systems as a Contractor II, type 7, class 12, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of December 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December 1985.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner violated Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.022(1)(b)2, 64E-6.022(1)(d), and 64E-6.022(1)(p) by making repairs to an on-site sewage disposal system without a permit, and by missing required inspections of the system, as outlined in the citation issued by the Respondent Agency dated August 29, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The State of Florida, Department of Health and Duval County Health Department (Department) is an Agency of the State of Florida, charged with enforcing the statutory and regulatory provisions regarding septic tank and drain field installations and repairs, in Florida, in accordance with Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64E-6. The Petitioner is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for All Florida Septic Tank Service, Inc. (All Florida). He holds registration number SR00011389. He has 15 years of experience in the field of septic tank system construction and repair. All repairs of on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (septic systems), are required to be performed under the supervision and control of a registered septic tank contractor. Mr. David Adeeb is president of United Properties of North Florida, Inc. He owned property (a residence) at 375 North Cahoon Road, in Duval County Florida. He was informed by his tenants at that residence that the septic tank and drain field were malfunctioning and needed to be repaired or replaced, sometime in April 2004. He therefore contacted All Florida, asking them to inspect the septic system at that residence and advise what repairs might be needed. He was advised by some representative of All Florida that the drain field needed to be replaced and was quoted a price of $2,000.00. All Florida requested that payment be made before the work was performed. Since Mr. Adeeb was out-of-town at the time he asked his tenant to temporarily pay All Florida for the cost of the repairs and/or installation, which they agreed to do. All Florida then issued a contract/proposal to United Properties on April 12, 2004. It was signed by a representative of All Florida, Michael Carver. Mr. Carver was an employee of All Florida. The contract/proposal indicated that a 360 square foot drain field would be installed at 375 Cahoon Road, for a price of $2,000.00, to be paid in cash. The contract/proposal was on All Florida letterhead and included a warranty. Mr. Adeeb was told by his tenant that the Petitioner, who is personally known to that tenant, was on the property while the work was being performed. No one applied for a permit to make any repairs to the septic system and the work was completed without a permit being obtained. Some five months later the system began leaking sewage from the new drain field. It had malfunctioned. Mr. Adeeb therefore again called All Florida to demand that they repair any malfunctions pursuant to the warranty. All Florida informed Mr. Adeeb that a new drain field with a mounded system and pump was needed. When Mr. Adeeb told a representative of All Florida that they had just replaced the drain field in April of that year, he was told that another $2,000.00 would be required to correct the drain field problem. Mr. Adeeb had just recently entered into a contract to sell the property at 375 Cahoon Road so, time being of the essence in closing the sale of the property, he felt he had no choice but to ask All Florida to go ahead with the repair work on the system which All Florida had been asked by him to repair five months previously in April of 2004. After the new system was installed Mr. Adeeb found that a permit had never been obtained for the first drain field work which he had requested from All Florida and that All Florida had done the work incorrectly. Mr. Adeeb objected to paying another $2,000.00 for the second repair job, performed in approximately September of 2004 and after much discussion with All Florida's representatives agreed to pay $1,000.00 dollars for the second stint of repair work. He made the payment and he received a warranty from All Florida for one year, good through September 22, 2005. The warranty was signed by Mr. Wayne Joyner, operations manager for All Florida. Mr. Joyner is also the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for AA Septic Tank Service, Inc., apparently a second corporation domiciled at the same facility and address as All Florida Septic Service, Inc. In May of 2005 Mr. Adeeb was again contacted by the now former tenant who had purchased the property from Mr. Adeeb. He was thus informed that the system had failed again and sewage was leaking onto the surface of the property from the drain field. Mr. Adeeb again contacted All Florida on May 23, 2005. A representative of All Florida informed him that he should fax a copy of the paid receipt and the warranty to them and that they would take care of the problem. On June 20, 2005, the home owner again contacted Mr. Adeeb and told him that no one from All Florida had repaired the drain field as yet. A faxed copy of the paid receipt and warranty was requested once again by All Florida. After numerous phone calls with representatives of All Florida, Mr. Adeeb was told that the problem was not due to All Florida's repair work and that Mr. Adeeb would need to get someone else to repair the system. The Petitioner, James L. Smith, the registered qualifying septic tank contractor for All Florida, testified that Michael Carver had performed the initial repair job in April of 2004 for Mr. Adeeb without the knowledge of the Petitioner or All Florida. He claims that Michael Carver never worked for All Florida. He introduced into evidence a letter purported to be from Michael Carver which was dated September 30, 2005, but signed on October 5, 2005. That letter states that Mr. Carver performed the first drain field repair job without the knowledge of All Florida and that he had created the receipt form which was apparently given to either the tenants at the residence in question, or to Mr. Adeeb, on All Florida letterhead without the knowledge of any officer, employee, or representative of All Florida. That letter, however, was not authenticated because Mr. Carver was not present at the hearing and could not be examined concerning it, or the details of Mr. Carver's involvement with the initial repair project. Moreover, the Petitioner was unable to explain how Mr. Carver would have known about the job at all if he had never worked for All Florida. This is because Mr. Adeeb established that in obtaining all of the repair work during 2004-2005 he had only contacted representatives of All Florida. He had never had contact with Mr. Carver. The Petitioner denied ever telling counsel for the Department in a telephone conversation that Michael Carver had worked for him during the week (i.e. All Florida) but that he let Mr. Carver do "side jobs" on his own on weekends. He claimed that Mr. Carver did the job in question in April of 2004 because the tenants knew him personally and arranged for him to do the work. The testimony of Mr. Adeeb and the Department's evidence in the form of its composite exhibit, is accepted as more credible than the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, and it is found that All Florida and the Petitioner were responsible for the repair jobs at issue in this case because Mr. Adeeb contracted with All Florida for the work in question. Even if the initial job was performed by Mr. Carver, it is determined that he did so as employee or agent of All Florida and the Petitioner. Under the authority cited herein the Petitioner was responsible, as the qualifying, registered septic system contractor for All Florida, with performance and supervision of the work in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Respondent Department finding that the violations charged have been established and that a fine of $2,500.00 dollars be imposed for the violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Smith 8300 West Beaver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32220 Catherine R. Berry, Esquire Department of Health 515 West Sixth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4311 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reason alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent acknowledges the accuracy of the allegations in the first seven paragraphs of the administrative complaint, including the allegation that he holds a certified residential contractor's license, No. CR C027268. He has been licensed in Florida continuously since October of 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On August 14, 1986, respondent Stratton, doing business as Stratton Construction Company, executed a written contract with Aaron Lee and Valerie Patrice Cobb to renovate their home at 5017 Pearl Street in Jacksonville, Florida. He had actually begun work nine days earlier. The contract contemplated installation of a pier under an unsupported sill end, replacement of 17 windows and two doors, hanging a screen door and a storm door, shortening and capping the chimney, adding a roof over the front stoop, reshingling the entire roof, painting the outside of the house, and putting hose bibbs in the front and the rear of the house. In addition, the contract called for extensive work inside the house, replacement of sheetrock, installation of insulation, congoleum, carpeting, paneling, cabinets, new kitchen and bedroom appliances, a new central heating system, and numerous other improvements and repairs. The contract price totalled $18,600, including $2,071 for a utility room. ("Remove back porch and drop flooring to allow enough height to construct 8 foot by 8 foot utility room ... inside walls unfinished ...") Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Exclusive of plumbing, electrical, heating, and the utility room, the value of the repairs and renovations exceeded $200.00. As "Stratton Const." respondent contracted with Williams Plumbing Co., Inc. (Williams) on September 8, 1986, to re-pipe, install a working machine drain and furnish a water closet. Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Respondent or Williams on his behalf obtained a plumbing permit from the City of Jacksonville, No. 25997, at or about the time Williams began work, but Williams "left town" (T.43) before the project was inspected by the City. On October 2, 1986, respondent contracted with Wayne Conn Plumbing (Conn) to do additional plumbing work. In order to obtain a plumbing permit for the additional work, respondent cancelled the first permit. (T.34) The same day he signed the contract with Conn, respondent obtained a second plumbing permit, No. 28215. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Conn finished the plumbing work, and it passed inspection by the City. Earlier, on September 5, 1986, respondent or a subcontractor obtained a City permit authorizing electrical work at 5017 Pearl Street. On October 8, 1986, respondent or a subcontractor obtained a mechanical permit for the house's new heating system. In due course, the work authorized by these permits passed City inspections. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Before he began work on the Cobb's house, Mr. Stratton had only built new homes in Florida. He was unaware of any requirement to obtain a permit to effect repairs to the interior of a house other than those he did in fact obtain. He was aware, however, of the need to secure a building permit for construction of the utility room, involving, as it did, alterations to the foundation. Nevertheless, he only applied for this permit on June 11, 1987, long after the work had been completed, and after he had become embroiled in a dispute with the Cobbs. Jacksonville's Building Code, Part 4, makes it unlawful to begin work to contract, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish a building or structure, or a part thereof ... without having first filed an application with and obtained a permit therefor from the Building official, except that, for general maintenance or repairs, not involving replacement of components specifically requiring permits, which do not change the occupancy or affect the electrical, plumbing or mechanical systems, the value of which does not exceed two hundred dollars ... no permit shall be required ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, p. 5. In beginning work without a permit to remove the back porch or to replace it with a utility room or to effect general repairs the value of which exceeded two hundred dollars, respondent violated applicable provisions of a local building code. The evidence suggested that the requirement that contractors obtain permits to effect general repairs with a value in excess of two hundred dollars is more honored in the breach than in the observance. In fact, respondent testified that somebody told him no permit is needed "if you don't change the size of the building," (T.46) i.e., alter the foundation. The Building Code also calls for mandatory inspections of foundations and framing as they are completed, but a building inspector testified that inspection of pre-formed concrete piers like those on which the utility room stands would have been foregone. Because the addition stood on (new) piers and because its interior walls remained unfinished, it was possible for the City to inspect both the foundation and the framing, even after the work was finished. John Carlton Sturdevant, a field inspector for Jacksonville's Building and Zoning Department, saw nothing wrong with the framing, nor was there evidence of any problem with the foundation.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner violated the provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, referenced herein, by allegedly illegally connecting a second dwelling to an existing, approved septic system.
Findings Of Fact On January 17, 2002, the Petitioner was given a written Notice of Violation and advised that an illegal sewer connection from a new or second mobile home on her property to her existing sewer system, serving her primary residence would have to be disconnected. It was an illegal second connection on a single, permitted sanitary sewer system. The second home was not occupied and could not be legally occupied until the proper sewer connection and relevant permitting was obtained. On January 30, 2002, the inspector again visited the premises and determined the illegal connection to still exist and the Petitioner was then advised that the illegal connection would have to be disconnected. On February 28, 2002, the inspector returned and found that the illegal connection had been restored to the existing system. He observed a person hurriedly disconnect the system as he approached. The relevant pipe joint had been left un-glued so that it could be readily connected or disconnected. He again notified the Petitioner, in person, that the illegal connection would have to be disconnected. The Respondent cited the Petitioner for the illegally connected sewer system and seeks to impose a $500.00 fine. The Petitioner elected to formally dispute the position of the Respondent agency and pursued a formal hearing to contest the allegations. The Petitioner failed to actually appear at hearing and contest the evidence adduced by the Respondent agency. That evidence is credible and is accepted as unrefuted and supportive of the above Findings of Fact.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida Department of Health denying the Petition of Shirley Davis in its entirety and that a final order be entered imposing a $500.00, fine for the violations described in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Davis 140 West Putnam Grove Road Oak Hill, Florida 32759 John D. Lacko, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent held himself out as a certificate holder in violation of section 468.629(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building code administrators and inspectors pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 468, Part XII, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed as a standard inspector in Florida, having been issued license number BN 5106. Respondent also held provisional licenses as a plumbing inspector and a mechanical inspector. Both licenses expired on January 24, 2009. Respondent's license as a standard inspector did not permit him to perform plumbing or mechanical inspections. Therefore, after January 24, 2009, he was not authorized to perform them. From February 3, 2003, to October 20, 2009, Respondent was employed by Wakulla County as a building inspector. The Wakulla County Building Division uses inspection cards to track information related to permits and inspections on permitted building projects. While these information cards are not required by state law, the information is a useful tool for the building division and inspectors were expected to complete them. An inspector's initials next to a particular inspection on an inspection card indicate that the inspector identified by initials performed the applicable inspection. If an inspector fails to sign the card when an inspection is completed, the card might be updated by another inspector who, after confirming the inspection had taken place, would initial for the other inspector and then put his or her own initials in parenthesis. For example, if Respondent conducted a framing inspection, he would identify the type of inspection in the "type" column and in the column titled Inspect., would put OKRN. If he failed to sign the inspection card and someone confirmed that he had performed the inspection, the notation would read, OKRN (CI). A permit was issued for a mechanical upgrade at an existing church located at 953 Sopchoppy Highway. On April 23, 2009, Respondent signed the inspection card indicating that he had performed the re-inspection of the project. A permit was issued on March 31, 2009, to install plumbing in an existing commercial building located at 2500 Crawfordville Highway. Respondent signed the inspection card for two separate inspections: the rough slab on April 1, 2009, and the final inspection on July 29, 2009. On April 23, 2009, a permit was issued to install plumbing in existing restrooms at a building located at 1362 Old Woodville Highway. On April 24, 2009, Respondent signed the inspection card indicating that slab plumbing inspection had been performed and the work had passed inspection. On June 22, 2009, a permit was issued to install plumbing for a building at 71 Riverside Drive. On June 23, 2009, Respondent signed the inspection card indicating that the rough plumbing inspection had been performed and the work had passed inspection. Respondent's provisional mechanical and plumbing inspector licenses had already expired at the time that he signed the inspection cards identified above. Respondent did not advise his supervisor, Luther Council, when his provisional plumbing and mechanical inspector licenses expired. Mr. Council testified that he, rather than Respondent, actually performed all four of these inspections and that Respondent simply signed the inspection cards. Respondent's employment with Wakulla County was terminated on October 20, 2009. On November 25, 2009, a complaint was opened by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, alleging a possible violation of section 468.629(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The complaint was assigned DBPR Case Number 2009-061682. On December 1, 2009, Respondent was notified by letter of the complaint filed against him, and was given an opportunity to file a response to the complaint. A memo was generated on January 29, 2010, regarding the April 14, 2010 probable cause panel meeting. DBPR Case Number 2009-061782 was listed on this memo, under a category described as "Cursory Reviews." No evidence was presented to indicate what directions were given regarding the complaint by the probable cause panel, or whether the April meeting actually took place. Probable cause was found June 9, 2010.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors dismiss the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 28th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Larry Noles 62 Quail Run Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner possessed a valid master plumbers license issued by New York City. There was no evidence that New York City had ever issued Petitioner a plumbing contractors license, or that the master plumbers license was the same as a plumbing contractors license in New York City. At all times material to this proceeding, the State of New York did not administer a plumbing contractors licensing examination or a master plumbers licensing examination, having delegated this responsibility to the several municipalities within the State of New York, including but not limited to New York City. A plumbing contractors license or a master plumbers license issued by New York City or other cities within the State of New York are not valid in any jurisdiction other than the issuing jurisdiction. Petitioner has some 40 years experience in the plumbing business within New York City. Florida's Plumbing Contractors Examination prepared and administered by National Assessment Institute in accordance with Rule 61G4-16.001(13), Florida Administrative Code, consists of two parts: Part I, Business and Financial Management; and Part II, General Trade Knowledge. Part I is comprised of the following major content areas. The number in parentheses is the approximate percentage of the examination devoted to that content area. Maintaining Cash Flow (15 percent) Estimating and Bidding a Job (20 percent) Negotiation and Interpretation Contracts and Agreements ( 5 percent) Processing Change Orders ( 5 percent) Purchasing Control ( 5 percent) Contract Scheduling ( 5 percent) Controlling Costs of Fixed Assets ( 5 percent) Obtaining Insurance and Bonding (10 percent) Complying with Contracting Laws and Rules (15 percent) Personnel Management ( 5 percent) Complying with Payroll and Sales Tax Laws ( 5 percent) Interpretation of Financial Statements and Reports ( 5 percent) Under each of the major content areas are listed the tasks and the knowledge required to perform them. There are approximately 49 different tasks listed under Part I. Part II of the examination consist of three questions each of which tests the applicant's knowledge of design, installation, and maintenance of several different systems. Approximately 40 percent of the examination is devoted to question one and 40 percent to question two and 20 percent to question three. Under Part II the applicant is tested on the design, installation and maintenance of 27 different systems. Petitioner submitted several examinations (some were not complete) that he contended were master plumbers licensing examinations given by New York City in 1970, 1972, 1974 1976, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1991. However, only one or two were marked as to the source or origin. The number of questions on the examinations ranged from 16 to 70 questions. The only major content area listed in Part I of the Florida plumbing contractors examination covered by the examinations submitted by the Petitioner was "Estimating and Bidding a Job". However, the coverage of "Estimating and Bidding a Job" in the tests submitted was cursory at best. The examinations submitted by the Petitioner covered Part II in somewhat more detail than they did Part I. Question one of Part II was covered fairly extensively whereas Question two was somewhat less extensive than Question one, with Question three's coverage being only slight. The design, installation and maintenance of only three out of nine systems listed in Question two, and only one out of eleven systems listed in Question three were covered in the examinations submitted by the Petitioner. All of the systems listed in Question one were covered to some degree by the examinations submitted by the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner was unable to submit a copy of the master plumbers examination administered by New York City in 1952, a determination of whether that particular examination is "substantially equivalent" to the Florida Plumbing Contractors licensing examination currently in use cannot be made. However, even assuming that the New York City examinations submitted by the Petitioner were the same as the examination taken by the Petitioner in 1952, the New York master plumbers licensing examination is not "substantially equivalent" to the Florida Plumbing Contractors licensing examination currently in use..
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying the Respondent's application for certification as a plumbing contractor by endorsement. RECOMMENDED this 4th day January, 1995, in Tallahassee, 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 4th day of January, 1995. law. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4184 The parties did not file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of COPIES FURNISHED: Phillip Suna, Pro se 2301 Gulf of Mexico Drive Apt. 93-N Longboat Key, Florida 34228 Clark Jennings, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Departmemt of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Ste. 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
