The Issue The legal issues raised and the status of the parties in this cause are seemingly complex due to the manner in which the case was presented on the initial pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At bearing, it was determined that Fairways was seeking approval of a permit for use of its swimming pool. This application had been denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the grounds that the pool failed to meet the requirements of Rule 100-5.50, Florida Administrative Code. In order to place the parties in their proper positions, the Respondent, Fairways, was determined to be the movant party and its cross-petition considered to be the petition. The ultimate issue presented is whether the subject pool meets the requirements of Rule 100-5.50 and its use should be approved. PRELIMINARY RULINGS Fairways collaterally attacks the manner of application of the rule by the Department to its pool, asserting that the manner of application of the rule constitutes an unpromulgated rule. Fairways also alleges in its proposed findings that Rule 100-5.50 is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority, and that the Department is estopped to assert the pool fails to comply with Rule 100-5.50 because of a failure to communicate properly the conditional approval of construction of the pool. The allegations that the Department's application of Rule 100-5.50 constitutes an unpromulgated rule and that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid are raised for the first time in Fairways' proposed findings. The original petition (cross-petition) makes no allegation that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid, and makes no allegation that the manner of measurement is an invalidly promulgated rule. These allegations would not be properly raised within the context of a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding. Although invalidity of the rules on constitutional grounds is preserved in the record for appellate review, the nature of the allegations in this instance are not grounded in a constitutional challenge. Having failed to raise these issues in their pleadings under the appropriate provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, these attacks will not be considered in determining the issue presented in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a six-building complex containing 13 condominium units, each building being situated on a separate lot circumscribed by property lines outlining the property within the exclusive possession and control of the occupants of the condominiums. The pool in question is located upon jointly held property and is not intended to be and has not been open for use by the public or persons other than the occupants of the condominiums and their guests. On April 2, 1979, Fairways submitted a site plan (Joint Exhibit number 4) to Petitioner at the Manatee County Health Department. The site plan showed the proposed location of the pool in relation to the condominium buildings. Approval of these plans by the Department was necessary in order for a construction permit to be issued for the pool. By a letter dated May 30, 1979 (Joint Exhibit number 2), Mr. O. P. Randle, Jr., Engineer for the Department, granted approval for the pool plans with the condition that "Wet facilities shall be provided within two hundred (200) feet of the pool." Between April 4 and May 30, 1979, Ms. Rosemary Wiley, Engineering Technician with the Department, orally informed Fairways' "project engineer" that several units were more than 200 feet from the proposed pool and that wet facilities would be required. During this period, Wiley also informed Fairways' pool contractor of the same condition and requirements. A construction permit for the pool was secured by Fairways' pool contractor on June 4, 1979. Construction of the pool began during the first week of June, 1979, and was substantially finished by July 5, 1979. Shortly after June 17, 1979, Fairways contacted the Department's local pollution control director, who visited Fairways and measured the distance between the water's edge of the pool and the farthest building. The method of measurement employed by the Health Department was to measure the shortest distance between the edge of the pool and the structure of the building. The method of measurement used by the Department has been in use 16 years and evolved because measurement from the pool to the actual sanitary facility located within a building is impractical. The only building which was not within 200 feet of the water's edge of the pool was Building 6, containing two dwelling units, which was 241 feet from the edge of the pool. Part of Building 5 is more than 200 feet from the edge of the pool; however, its closest edge is within 200 feet of the pool, meeting the requirement for wet facilities. The only toilets and lavatories constructed at this site are those contained in the individual condominium units. These facilities are not open to use by the public or other condominium owners. By letter dated June 23, 1979, the local pollution director, at the request of the Health Officer, requested from the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services an interpretation of the method of measuring the 200 feet provided in Rule 100-5.50. The request of the Health Officer was precipitated by a request for section interpretation by Fairways' agent. The request dealt specifically with what was required to be within the 200-foot radius of the pool. The interpretation of the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services was contained in his letter dated July 5, 1979, addressed to the District VI pollution control director. This interpretation advised that the building's edge must touch or fall within a 200-foot radius of the pool. This letter also advised that the Department had no power to consider or grant variances or exceptions to the rules. The information contained in this interpretation was communicated to Fairways' agent. Other proposed findings of fact presented by the Petitioner and Respondent are specifically rejected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department deny the application of the applicant for a permit of use. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 Janice Sorter, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 David Paul Montgomery, Esquire 2103 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Wilbur A. Sellars is licensed as a residential pool contractor by the Construction Industry Licensing Board through license number RP 0045541. Mr. Sellars was first licensed in 1975. At all times material to this case Respondent has owned and operated in Tallahassee, Florida, a pool contracting company called Pro Pools Service and Supply or Pro Pools, Inc. Cabana Construction In November 1977 Respondent entered into a contract with Dr. Frank S. Bilek to construct for him a 20' by 40' vinyl lined pool and a 20' by 40' cabana building. The contract price for the pool was $11,166.10. The price for the cabana was $14,517.30. The pool and building were constructed as provided in the contract. The cabana sits on an 800 square foot slab with footings and consists of three separate rooms. One room is a small bathroom containing a lavatory, water closet, and shower. Another room is fully enclosed by finished walls and sliding glass doors. The third room is open on two sides, one of which faces the swimming pool. The walls are typical stud construction with plywood siding on the exterior and half-inch drywall on the interior. The roof is supported by 2/12 2x4 prefabricated trusses with shingles on top. The ceiling inside the cabana is the same as would be found in a residential home and the floor is a cement slab covered by carpet. There is one overhead ceiling fan in the open room and another in the fully enclosed room. For all practical purposes the construction techniques and materials used in the cabana are the same as would be used in a residential dwelling, although they may not meet the code standards which would be applicable to a dwelling in the Killearn residential area where Dr. Bilek's home is located in Tallahassee, Florida. The cabana is equipped with plumbing for the bathroom and also for a wet bar in the kitchen area of the cabana. No pool accessories were located in the cabana at the time Petitioner's witness inspected the facility, however as with any other structure of its size, pool equipment such as vacuuming hoses, wands, etc., could be placed inside it. The original design for the cabana included large solar panels located on the roof. The purpose of these panels was to provide heating for the swimming pool water. After the panels were installed they malfunctioned and have since been removed from the cabana roof. Typically in home swimming pool installations such panels are placed on house roofs or are independently supported by a special structure located near the swimming pool. The swimming pool water recirculation pump and filter for Dr. Bilek's pool were not located inside the cabana in issue, but were located nearby out in the open. The cabana was not designed for the purpose of housing this equipment. It appears from the furnishings found in the cabana, its orientation with respect to the pool, and from its equipment that the cabana along with the pool coordinate to create a unified entertainment complex. Neither is essential to the other, however. The cabana could host a cocktail party without there being a drop of water in the pool and the pool can function perfectly without the cabana. Criminal Convictions On May 18, 1979 Respondent sent a work crew to Cairo, Georgia, for the construction of a residential swimming pool for Mr. and Mrs. Vanlandingham. The crew was using a dump truck to haul excavated dirt from the pool site to a dumping site several miles from the Vanlandinghams' residence. An inexperienced driver was operating the truck. Upon arrival at the dumping site he engaged the bed lift to dump the dirt but forgot to release the safety chains. As a result the chassis of the truck broke. Members of the crew called Mr. Sellars to give him the bad news. He instructed them to burn the truck, which they did. Respondent then submitted an insurance claim for the loss of his truck due to an accidental fire. As a result of this false claim he was convicted of insurance fraud as defined in Section 817.234(1)(a), Florida Statutes. He entered a guilty plea and judgment was entered on June 7, 1982. On the same date Respondent also pled guilty and was convicted on another count of insurance fraud arising from his filing a false claim for the alleged theft of three mobile radios from trucks operated and owned by Pro Pools Service and Supply. The radios had in fact not been stolen. Since his conviction Mr. Sellars has obtained insurance coverage for the business of Pro Pools including automobile liability, physical damage, general property and general liability insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Wilbur A. Sellars guilty of Counts One, Two, Three and Four in the Amended Administrative Complaint and impose discipline in the form of an administrative fine of $200 and suspending Respondent's license as a residential pool contractor for a period of three months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 23rd day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wesley Ash, currently holds license number CP C015871 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to authorize Ash to engage in the pool contracting business. Dodd Complaint (Count I). Respondent, Wesley Ash, doing business as Wada Pools, Inc., contracted with Jerry Dodd on or about June 17, 1981, to build a pneumatic concrete pool with skimmer and recirculation system. The contract did not include installation of the concrete deck around the pool. Dodd decided to contract with another independent contractor to install the deck at a lower price than Ash wanted for the job. Ash completed his work by approximately August 1981. He installed the concrete pool shell, finished the inside surface and installed tile along the water line. He then attached the skimmer assembly, plumbing it so that it was level and attaching it to the concrete pool shell by means of the skimmer's PVC plumbing piping. After Ash finished his work, Dodd's other contractor came behind Ash. He used some of the dirt Ash had excavated from the pool site to raise the ground surrounding the pool by approximately six inches above grade. He then poured the concrete deck but failed to encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete in the process of pouring the concrete deck. It was not Ash's practice to make any special arrangements to stabilize the skimmer assembly when he installed both pool and concrete deck. He relies on the skimmer assembly plumbing to stabilize the skimmer assembly until the concrete deck is poured. In pouring the concrete deck, Ash encases the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete to stabilize the skimmer assembly and prevent leakage. In the case of the Poland pool (paragraphs 17 and 22, below), Ash used this method to install both the pool and the concrete deck, and Poland has had no complaint of leakage at the skimmer (nor was there any evidence of leakage at the skimmer). In the case of the Priests' pool (paragraphs 11 through 13, below), Ash followed the same procedures as he did with the Dodd pool, and another contractor poured the concrete deck. As with the Poland pool, there have been no complaints (nor was there any evidence) of leakage at the skimmer. Within approximately one and one-half years after installation of the Dodd pool, Dodd began to notice what he thinks is a leak in his pool. The water level in the Dodd pool drops approximately one-quarter inch per day. But the Department's own expert witness conceded that water loss of between one-eight and one-quarter inch can be explained by evaporation. It was not proved that the Dodd pool is leaking at all. If there is a leak causing a small increment of water loss above loss through normal evaporation, the leak would have to be very small and would be very difficult to detect. Ash and others have tried but have been unable to find a leak at the skimmer of Dodd pool. In approximately summer 1985, Dodd himself dug a hole under the concrete deck to expose the bottom of the skimmer assembly. The excavation revealed an unusual amount of moisture that might be the result of a leak at the skimmer. It also revealed that the contractor who poured the Dodd concrete deck did not encase the skimmer assembly as Ash had thought he would. The Department's expert - a professional engineer with a B.S. degree in civil engineering, an M.S. degree in structural engineering and a Ph.D. degree in environmental engineering - gave his opinion that a residential pool skimmer assembly should be either (1) encased with the concrete of the pool shell or (2) encased with deck concrete which is structurally tied to the concrete pool shell. He opined that the latter method would require either a very rough surface on the pool shell concrete or steel extending from the pool shell in order for the structural tie to be accomplished. But he also conceded that it is possible for deck concrete encasing a skimmer assembly to be sufficient to stabilize the skimmer assembly even without taking any extra measures to accomplish a structural tie. There was no evidence that any building code would require a pool contractor to take these measures to accomplish a structural tie between the pool shell and skimmer assembly. Nor was there any evidence that a reasonably prudent pool contractor (as opposed to a professional engineer) would be expected to take these measures. Based on this evidence, together with all the other evidence taken as a whole, the Department did not prove that Ash was either incompetent or grossly negligent in not taking any extra measurers to accomplish a structural tie between the concrete pool shell and the skimmer assembly. Based on the evidence in this case, the contractor Dodd hired to pour the concrete deck was either incompetent or grossly negligent (assuming he was even a licensed pool contractor a fact not shown by the evidence.) He did not encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete, allowing it to "float" unprotected in the fill under the concrete deck. Settling of the fill could have caused the deck to settle and crack, moving the skimmer assembly and causing a small leak. Ash may have been able to prevent this by warning the contractor to be sure to encase the skimmer assembly with deck concrete when he poured the concrete deck. But there was no evidence that Ash had a duty to advise the other independent contractor Dodd hired or was responsible for the other contractor's incompetence or gross negligence. Ash's failure to advise the other contractor was not incompetence or gross negligence on Ash's part. Dodd has no other complaints about the pool Ash built for him. Priests' Complaint (Count II). On or about October 11, 1984, Ash contracted with Joseph and Rita Priest to build them a pneumatic concrete pool. The Contract included a warranty that the labor, materials and workmanship would be free of defects for one year and that the shell would be structural sound and capable of holding the water for ten years. Like Dodd, the Priests contracted with another independent contractor to install the concrete deck around the pool. Ash was responsible only for placement of decorative "river rock" on top of the deck. Ash finished his work in February 1985. Like Dodd, the Priests complained of water loss from the pool although the Priests noticed the water loss sooner than Dodd (approximately March, 1985). The water level was dropping approximately one-quarter inch per day more than it was dropping in a bucket used as a control. In response to the complaint, Ash sent his employees to the Priests' pool on several occasions. They found no leak at the skimmer. To determine whether the pool's "caretaker system" 1/ was leaking, Ash's employees plugged all but one pair of the caretaker heads. After waiting a period of days, they would try to see whether the rate of water loss changed. They tested all four pairs of caretaker heads on the bottom of the pool and the pair in the spa attached to the pool. No leaks could be found. They did not replace the last two (in the spa), and Mr. Priest had to replace them. As with the Dodd pool, the Department did not prove that the Priests' pool is leaking at all. The Priests continue to complain of water loss of approximately one-quarter inch per day, within the range of water loss from normal evaporation. As with the Dodd pool, a leak responsible for a small increment of water loss above water loss from normal evaporation would be very small and difficult to find, especially if the leak were in the caretaker heads or pipes under the pool leading to the heads. Now the Priests suspect a water leak at the filter. But the Department's expert witness could not find a leak there large enough to account for much water loss. The minor leak at the filter is a normal maintenance item for a pool as old as the Priests' pool. There was no evidence how long it has existed, and there was no evidence that the Priests ever told Ash there was a leak at the filter. The Priests now also complain that one of the caretaker heads does not re-seat properly. But this has nothing to do with the leakage complaint to which Ash is charged with not reasonably responding. Taken as a whole, the evidence did not prove that Ash committed misconduct or deceit by failing to make reasonable response to warranty service requests within a reasonable time, as charged. Nor does the evidence prove misleading or untrue representations, gross negligence, incompetence or fraud in connection with the Priests' pool, as charged. Poland Complaint (Count III). On or about December 9, 1981, Ash entered into a contract with James Poland to build Poland a pneumatic concrete pool and concrete deck. Poland contracted with another independent contractor to build a screen enclosure around the pool. Before construction began, one of Ash's employees asked Poland to sign an addendum to the contract for an additional $235 to pay for foundation footers required to comply with Lee County building code provisions for the screen enclosures. Before Ash signed the initial Poland contract on December 9, 1981, he was unaware of the Lee County Aluminum Code, adopted March 18, 1981. The code requires eight inch foundation footers for "aluminum additions." Another part of the code addresses "screen enclosures with screen roofs known to the industry as birdcage swimming pool enclosures." The language of the code is not explicit that screen swimming pool enclosures are required to meet the foundation requirements for "aluminum additions," and at first Lee County did not interpret the code that way. With a change of personnel in code enforcement, Lee County began to interpret the code that way, and screen swimming pool enclosures Ash had under construction began to fail building inspection for inadequate foundation footers. Ash inquired why and was told about the aluminum code and how it was being interpreted. Ash argued that the interpretation was erroneous but, failing to dissuade enforcement personnel, began to comply. As part of his compliance efforts, Ash had his employees try to secure the contract addendum from Poland. Poland refused to sign the contract addendum, insisting on an opportunity to verify that the additional foundation footers were indeed new building code requirements. There still is a dispute between the parties whether Poland ever agreed to pay the additional $235 after he verified that the footers were being required. (He never signed the contract addendum.) But, in any event, the evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct in connection with the additional $235 charge. 2/ There was some evidence that Ash did not in fact comply with the Lee County Aluminum Code, as he was told it was being interpreted, in his construction of the Poland pool deck. In two places the foundation footers were 6 and 7 inches - deeper than the four-inch normal thickness of a concrete pool deck but short of the eight-inch requirement. But Ash was not charged with failure to comply with the foundation footer requirement. He had no legally sufficient notice that he should be prepared to defend against that charge and was not prepared to defend against that charge. Therefore, no finding is made whether Ash complied with the Lee County Aluminum Code. Ash performed the Poland contract between approximately January 27 and February 26, 1982. In September, 1985, Poland began to notice that some of the tile Ash installed at the waterline around the perimeter of the pool was coming loose. As explained by the Department's expert witness, the concrete deck settled in places, cracking slightly and rotating over the fulcrum created by the wall of the concrete shell of the pool. The rotating action pulled up on the tile attached to the inside of the pool wall in places, loosening the tile. In all, less than 10 percent of the 77 foot perimeter of the Poland pool experienced problems with loose tile. The loose tile easily can be removed and replaced. The minor deck cracking and loose tile problems at the Poland pool are within the normal range for a competently constructed pool under normal conditions of ground settlement. The evidence did not prove that Ash improperly installed the pool deck or that he was incompetent or grossly negligent in the construction of the Poland pool and deck. Besides the loose tile and minor cracks in the concrete deck, the Poland pool had no apparent defects. There also was evidence that the Poland pool was finished with a coating of marcite on the inside surface of the pool shell which was mottled gray in color instead of white. Poland complained persistently about the marcite3 and insisted that Ash make it white. But the discolored marcite was a factory defect of which Ash had been unable to know before he used it. There is no way to make mottled gray marcite white. Ash tried to explain this to Poland but the customer would not be satisfied. Taken as a whole, the marcite evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct. Nor does the evidence prove any of those violations for failure to cure the marcite problem under warranty. First, as already stated, there was no cure. Second, Ash and Poland also had a running dispute whether Poland had paid the full contract price, including the additional $235 for foundation footers, so as to entitle him to any warranty repairs. In light of this genuine dispute, failure to do warranty work, if otherwise a reasonable request, still could not be found to be misconduct, fraud or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint that has been filed against Respondent, Wesley Ash, in these cases. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Henry J. Tinkler was licensed by petitioner as a swimming pool contractor, holding license No. 0024949, under the name of "Henry J. Tinkler." At one time, Fred C. Charlton worked as a "salesman" of swimming pool construction contracts for a Ft. Lauderdale construction company. When the Ft. Lauderdale company failed, several contracts to build swimming pools remained unexecuted. So that his "sales" would not have been in valid, Mr. Charlton organized Aquapool in late 1978 or early 1979 to step in to the shoes of the Ft. Lauderdale contractor. He has been president of the corporation since its inception. He knew that he could not pull building permits himself; and Mr. Charlton did not involve himself in the actual construction of the pools. Respondent became vice-president of Aquapool and held this office until September of 1979. Respondent has built several pools pursuant to oral agreements with Charlton (acting for Aquapool), to build all pools Aquapool "sold" in Pinellas County. In these transactions, Charlton made a profit and Tinkler made a profit. Respondent never applied for any building permit under Aquapool's name. He always used his own name or the name "Hank's Custom Pools." Respondent never made application to qualify Aquapool as a registered pool contractor in Florida. Neither did respondent make application to qualify "Hank's Custom Pools" as a registered pool contractor. Not uncommonly, contractors do business under fictitious trade names like "Hank's Custom Pools." Eventually one Clay Andrews of Jacksonville made application to quality Aquapool as a swimming pool contractor in Florida until November 17, 1979. Harry George Pugh and Grace L. Pugh signed, on May 19, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their Indian Rocks Beach home. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On the building permit application form, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, the contractor is listed as "Hank's Custom Pools." The application is dated June 19, 1979. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. Guy Jean and Jane A. Narejo also contracted with Aquapool to build a swimming pool at their home in Largo, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Pugh never met Mr. Tinkler. On June 14, 1979, "H. Tinkler" applied for a permit to build the pool. The permit issued the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Willard L. Marks and Helen J. Marks signed, on May 1, 1979, a contract with Aquapool for construction of a swimming pool at their home in Clearwater, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. Mr. Marks never met Mr. Tinkler. H. J. Tinkler applied for a permit to build the pool on June 7, 1979. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Swimming pool contractors ordinarily subcontract electrical work. Sometimes as many as four or five subcontractors participate in the building of a swimming pool. Petitioner's proposed recommended order has been considered and proposed findings of fact have been adopted except where they have been deemed irrelevant or unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's registration as a swimming pool contractor for sixty (60) days. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gerald Nelson, Esquire 4950 West Kennedy Tampa, Florida 33609 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32302 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION/CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 81-3043 HENRY J. TINKLER, RP 0024949 d/b/a Individual 5243 27th Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Respondent. /
The Issue The issues are: (1) Whether the pool at issue is a special purpose pool, and (2) Whether Petitioner is entitled to a variance to use recessed automatic surface skimmers in the pool at issue.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order denying the variance request of Tamtech Pool Builders and denying special purpose pool status for the pool built by Tamtech Pool Builders. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-4443 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Tamtech Pool Builders Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6(49) and 9(39). Proposed findings of fact 1, 4, and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 5, and 12 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 3, 10, and 11 are rejected as being irrelevant. Proposed finding of fact 8 is rejected as being irrelevant because this action is not a rule challenge proceeding. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 5-7(4-6); 9-11(7-9); 12(9); 13(10); 14-34 (10-30); 36-43(31-38); 46-53(40-47); and 56-58(50-52). Proposed findings of fact 4, 8, 44, 45, and 55 are rejected as being irrelevant or unnecessary. 3 . Proposed finding of fact 54 is rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. 4. Proposed finding of fact 35 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Smithson HRS District I Legal Counsel 160 Governmental Center P. O. Box 12836 Pensacola Florida 32576 Mark E. Walker Attorney-At-Law 723 N. Eglin Pkwy., Suite 2 Ft. Walton Beach, Florida 3254 Gregory Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent practiced beyond the scope of his certified commercial pool/spa contractor’s license and proceeded on a job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and inspections, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the nature of the sanctions to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the construction industry, including pool and spa contractors and electrical contractors, pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed as a commercial pool/spa contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CPC 05661, 1457406, and 1458031. Respondent was the primary qualifying agent of Cox Building Corporation, d/b/a Cox Pools (Cox Pools). Respondent has been registered, certified, or licensed as a swimming pool contractor since 1978. Over the course of his almost 40 years as a swimming pool contractor, Respondent has replaced thousands of pool lights and pool pumps. He believed that the replacement of pool equipment, which he understood to include pool lights, was within the allowable scope of work as a swimming pool contractor. On or about September 12, 2014, Cox Pools entered into a contract with John Patronis to replace four pool light fixtures, a booster pump, and other miscellaneous services for $4,681.17 at the Subject Property. The Subject Property falls within the jurisdiction of the Bay County Building Department. Respondent did not obtain an electrical permit for replacing the pool light fixtures at Subject Property. Mr. Carnley testified that the Bay County Building Department requires that pool light replacement be performed by a licensed electrician, and with a county-issued electrical permit. The permit must be obtained by an electrical contractor or a homeowner. Bay County would not have issued a permit to Respondent, because he was not an electrical contractor. The Bay County Building Department also requires an electrical permit for the replacement of a circuit breaker in the electrical box serving a swimming pool. A pool contractor is not authorized to replace circuit breakers. No permits were obtained to replace circuit breakers at the Subject Property. On September 15, 2014, during the course of replacing the pool light fixtures, an employee of Cox Pools, Joshua Cook, was electrocuted. The precise cause of the electrocution was not established, though no plausible basis exists for it being related to anything other than the replacement of the pool lights. After a period of several days following the accident involving Mr. Cook, Respondent returned to the Subject Property to complete the job. He personally went into the pool, put the light in the fixture and screwed it in, and left. The light was thereafter wired and energized by a Cox Pool service technician. Given the circumstances, Mr. Patronis was not asked to complete payment for the services performed. Nonetheless, it is clear that, but for the accident, Mr. Patronis would have been expected to pay for the services for which he contracted. The photographic evidence in this case demonstrates that between September 15, 2014, and some indeterminate time in 2016, a circuit breaker was replaced in the electrical box serving the Subject Property’s pool. The circuit breaker that existed on September 15, 2014, was a ground-fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). By 2016, the GFCI has been replaced with an arc-fault circuit interrupter (AFCI). Had Bay County performed an inspection of the electrical box with the AFCI, it would not have passed inspection. Respondent testified that he did not change the circuit breaker, that Cox Pools keeps no inventory of circuit breakers, and that service technicians do not carry circuit breakers on the trucks. Respondent acknowledged his understanding that replacing a circuit breaker is a job for an electrical contractor. At some time “recently,” Williams Electric was called to the Subject Property, at which time Mr. Williams “swapped out a breaker or two that was an incorrect type of breaker for the application.” Mr. Patronis was not clear whether an arc breaker was replaced with a ground breaker, or vice versa. Pool lights are sealed units. The light and its power cord come as a single unit. To replace a pool light, the main circuit breaker at the swimming pool sub-panel is turned off. The wires to the existing light are disconnected (unscrewed) from the circuit breaker. A lead is tied to the end of the wire. The light fixture is removed from the pool opening, and the wire is pulled through the existing conduit from the pool side. When the old fixture and wiring unit has been removed, the lead is removed from the end of the old unit’s wire, tied to the wiring of the new light, and drawn back through the conduit to the circuit breaker box. The new light is screwed into the fixture, and then energized by connecting the wires back into the existing circuit breaker. The point of connection of the light to the circuit breaker is the “load side” of the circuit. The experts who testified in this proceeding were all competent and qualified in their fields, and had served in leadership positions with the CILB (Mr. Weller, Mr. Del Vecchio, and Mr. Lenois), the Electrical Contracting Licensing Board (Mr. Tibbs), or the Florida Swimming Pool Association (Mr. Garner and Mr. Pruette). However, despite the relative simplicity of the statutes at issue, their opinions as to the allowable scope of work under a swimming pool contractor license were at odds. Respondent acknowledged, and the evidence in this case establishes, that electrical work associated with new pool construction is a task that is within the scope of work of an electrical contractor. Initial construction involves substantial work in bringing power from the main residential panel to the new pool panel, installing a junction box and circuit breakers, installing the wiring, and performing other electrical work of significantly greater complexity than that involved in the installation of equipment into a pre-constructed electrical system, which involves only the disconnect and reconnect of wires to the load side of a circuit breaker. As discussed by Mr. Lenois, a pool contractor can contract for the entire pool, but cannot self-perform the electrical components pursuant to section 489.113. As to the replacement of existing equipment, Petitioner’s experts testified that pool light fixtures differ from other pool-related equipment, e.g., pool pumps, in that the light fixtures have direct contact with the water, whereas other components do not. Lights are changed out in a submerged condition, which makes them extremely dangerous. As stated by Mr. Weller, “the whole area of electricity around pools gets complicated, between the bonding, the grounding, and all the other stuff.” It was Mr. Weller’s opinion that, although pool contractors can contract for pool light replacement, they cannot self-perform the work. Rather, the electrical work involved in replacing pool light fixtures should be subcontracted to an electrical contractor because “you can make mistakes in plumbing, and you can make mistakes in other areas, but with electricity, it's pretty non-forgiving, especially if you're around water.” Mr. Lenois distinguished pool lights, which he characterized as accessories since all pools do not have them, from pool equipment, which includes pumps and filters, heaters, specialty filters, and salt generators, which are mounted at the pump and filter area. Respondent’s experts were uniform in their opinions that the act of disconnecting and reconnecting pool lights, as well as other pool equipment, at the load side of a breaker does not constitute electrical contracting. Mr. Pruette testified that disconnecting and connecting a pool light at a circuit breaker is not a difficult or complex task, and can be easily performed with a little training. Mr. Del Vecchio testified that the disconnection and connection of pool lights at the circuit breaker is no different than that performed by a plumber in replacing a hot water heater, or an air-conditioning contractor in replacing a piece of air-conditioning equipment. Almost all of the experts either replaced pool lights as part of their routine scope of work or knew of pool contractors who did so, a practice that appears to be commonplace. Furthermore, several of the witnesses worked in areas of the state in which county building officials did not require permits, electrical or otherwise, for the replacement of pool lights, though the evidence in that regard was generally hearsay. Mr. Lenois, who testified on Petitioner’s behalf, stated his opinion that reasonable people could differ as to the meaning of the statutory language placing the “installation, repair, or replacement of existing equipment” within the scope of work of a pool/spa contractor. The issue of the extent to which electrical work is subsumed within the statutory scope of work of a pool/spa contractor of “installation, repair, or replacement of existing equipment” has been the topic of considerable discussion in the industry. In that regard, the Florida Pool and Spa Association has filed a Petition to Initiate Rulemaking with the CILB seeking, among other things, to “clarify[] the scope of a certified pool contractor’s license to include the installation, repair, and replacement of pool equipment, up to and including the electrical connection on the demand side of the power source.” There was no evidence as to the disposition of the petition. Respondent argued that Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-16.001(9), which establishes that five percent of the written certification exam for commercial pool/spa contractors is to cover “electrical work,” is evidence that electrical work is within the scope of work for a pool contractor. Electrical work associated with pool construction includes grounding for the pool shell itself. Thus, a degree of knowledge of basic electrical work and codes would be warranted, regardless of whether equipment electrical connections are within the scope of work for a pool/spa contractor. The parties introduced a series of DBPR-approved course outlines and instructor applications for a three-hour class, sponsored by the Florida Pool and Spa Association, entitled “Basic Electricity and the NEC [National Electric Code] for Swimming Pools,” and a one-hour class, sponsored by the Florida Pool and Spa Association, entitled “Basic Electrical Requirements for Pools.” The course outline prepared by the Florida Pool and Spa Association for each of the approved courses provides, in bold font, that: Instructor is aware that electrical work does not fall within the scope of work of licensed pool/spa contractors. No instruction on how to perform electrical work will take place. Course will provide much needed understanding of the basics of electricity as well as those aspects of the NEC as they pertain to pools and spas. Instructor will also emphasize the importance of using a licensed electrical contractor to perform required work.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding that Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One; and sections 455.227(1)(o) and 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two, but only as that count pertains to the replacement of pool lights. It is further recommended that: Respondent be subject to a fine of $1,000 for a first violation of section 489.129(1)(o); Respondent be subject to a fine of $4,000, and that Respondent’s commercial pool/spa contractor licenses be subject to a period of probation for two years for a first violation of section 455.227(1)(o) and section 489.129(1)(c); and Respondent be required to complete an approved, live seven-hour continuing education course, in addition to any otherwise required continuing education, with an emphasis on chapter 489 and the rules enacted pursuant thereto. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Martin R. McAndrew is a licensed general contractor and licensed pool contractor holding general contractor's license number RG 0020560 and pool contractor's license number RP 0024861. Martin R. McAndrew was provided notice in accordance with the applicable rules and statutes of the formal hearing to consider the allegations of the administrative complaint filed against him by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Ray Dowell identified a notice of violation served on McAndrew by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board which was received into evidence as Exhibit 1. This notice of violation related to the construction undertaken by McAndrew for Lynn McMillan. Melvin C. Huebschman entered into a contract with McAndrew for the construction of a pool. The contract price for the pool was $5,000.00. Huebschman paid McAndrew $2,000 in two payments. The first payment was in the amount of $300.00 to cover the cost of transportation of the pool materials to Pensacola, Florida. The second payment in the amount of $1,700.00 was for the first phrase of construction on the pool. Subsequent to receiving payment McAndrew provided no materials or labor pursuant to the contract. Huebschman talked with McAndrew concerning completion of the work pursuant to the contract and McAndrew failed to perform under the contract throughout the spring and summer of 1977. In August, 1977, Huebschman wrote McAndrew advising him that it had been over ninety days since they entered into the contract and McAndrew had not performed any services pursuant to the contract. Huebschman gave McAndrew thirty days within which to commence work. McAndrew did not respond to this notice. McAndrew did not return any portion of the $2,000.00 paid to him by Huebschman. Lynn McMillan entered into a contract, identified as a portion of Exhibit 4, with McAndrew. This contract called for the construction of a pool for a contract price of $5,800.00. Pursuant to that contract, McMillan paid to McAndrew $4,350.00. Subsequent to payment of the third draw, McAndrew failed to complete the job. The last work performed by McAndrew on this construction project was on May 17, 1977. Prior to May 17, 1977, all materials for completing the pool were on the site and installed. Before abandoning the project, McAndrew removed from the building site all portions of the pool construction except the poured concrete and vinyl lining. McMillan subsequently entered into a contract with Surf Side Pools for the completion of the pool. The contract price was $1275.00, which included $800.00 for equipment and materials necessary to complete the pool. In addition, McMillan found it necessary to pay $230.00 to O'Brian Enterprises to remove stumps and spoil left on the construction project by McAndrew. McMillan also paid $200.00 to Warrick Electric Company to satisfy a claim by Warrick for materials and labor provided by Warrick to McAndrew. Finally, American Ready Mix Concrete filed a claim of lien in the amount of $436.80 against the property of Lynn McMillan for labor and materials provided under the contract with McAndrew which McAndrew did not pay. On May 27, 1977, McAndrew wrote a letter to McMillan advising that he would like the opportunity to finish the pool and was invited to do so. However, McAndrew did not return to the construction site or provide any further labor or materials pursuant to the contract. Sarah White Witt entered into a contract with McAndrew for the construction of a pool at a contract price of $4,500.00. Witt paid McAndrew $500.00; however McAndrew did not finish the pool construction. Subsequently, Witt was advised by the materialmen and labors of various liens against her property totalling $2,200.00. Daryl Jernigan, electrical and pool inspector for Escambia County, inspected the work done by McAndrew on the McMillan pool. He found that the pool had been filled with water but that the equipment necessary to recirculate and chlorinate the water had been removed from the pool, thereby permitting the water to stagnate. This inspection was conducted in June, 1977. Prior to that time, Jernigan had found it necessary to order work on a pool begun by McAndrew halted because McAndrew had failed to acquire a building permit prior to commencing construction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke the licenses of Martin R. McAndrew as a general contractor and as a pool contractor, and further fined a sum of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Michael E. Egan, Esquire Attorney at Law 217 South Adams Tallahassee, Florida Martin R. McAndrew 3313 N. 17th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32502
The Issue The issue is whether the swimming pool permit no. 46-181-84 and spa permit no. 46-241-87 for Fords Gym and Health Spa should be revoked pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-5 and Chapter 514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Larry Ford owns and operated a swimming pool and a spa (whirlpool) in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. On May 10, 1988, and September 29, 1988, Mr. Ford's pool and spa were inspected and found to be in violation of Florida law. It was necessary to close the pool and spa on both of these occasions because there were several violations pertaining to the chlorine level and ph level, and also required equipment was disconnected or inoperable. Mr. Ford's pool was inspected on September 27, 1990, and the inspector found the chlorine and the ph feeder were disconnected. Also on September 27, 1990, the spa chlorine was below adequate level and the temperature was too high. The chlorinator and ph feeder were disconnected. The spa was closed based on these violations. On November 30, 1990, the spa was found to have inadequate chlorine and the chlorinator was disconnected. Due to these violations the spa was closed. On March 13, 1991, violations were found in the spa. The chlorine feeder was disconnected, the chlorine was low, the ph was below the adequate level and the ph feeder was disconnected. The spa was then closed. On April 11, 1991, the pool was inspected based on a complaint and found to have several violations of the Florida Administrative Code to include water level too high, no depth markers, broken scum gutter, inoperable underwater lights, missing "no diving" signs, and toilet seats without open fronts. On January 14, 1992, the spa was closed because of no chlorine and the chlorinator and the ph feeder were disconnected. Mr. Ford's pool and spa were closed again on March 2, 1992, due to violations. The facilities were reinspected on March 5, 1992, and remained closed because the violations had not been corrected. These violations included: No chlorine in the pool PH level was low. Automatic chlorinator and automatic ph feeder were not connected. On March 19, 1992, the HRS investigator was denied access to the pool and spa during an inspection visit. When the pool and spa were inspected on March 24, 1992, both the pool and the spa contained several violations to include no safety line in the pool, disconnected chlorinator and ph feeder; missing depth markers were missing, missing "no diving" signs, water level was too high, and the drinking fountain was clogged. On May 20, 1992, the HRS inspector was denied access to the pool and spa for a routine inspection. HRS, Okaloosa County Public Health Unit, had closed Mr. Fords pool in August 1991. Mr. Ford instructed an employee to pull down the signs in which HRS had posted to close the pool and he further allowed clients into the pool during the time that it was closed. During 1991, Mr. Ford did not utilize a chlorine or ph feeder as required by the Florida Administrative Code and instructed employees to hand feed the pool, bypassing the feeder system. On April 1, and April 2, 1992, Mr. Ford allowed clients to use the pool. During this time HRS had closed the pool due to violations. During the months of January and February, 1992, Mr. Ford's engineer drafted proposed modifications for the swimming pool filtering system and replacement of the chlorinator. According to Mr. Ford this work was completed; however, HRS never received notice of completion of the modification from the pool engineer as required by the Florida Administrative Code. As a result the pool was never inspected by HRS after the modifications were made and recertified.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services revoke pool permit No. 46-181-84 and spa permit no. 46-241-87. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX A Both the parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of the proposed findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Findings: Proposed Order: Paragraph 1-12 Paragraph 1-12 Respondent's Findings: Proposed Order: Unnumbered Paragraphs in Rejected as the Findings of Fact Arguement. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Wade, Esquire 468 North Main Street Post Office Box 785 Crestview, Florida 34536 Frank C. Bozeman, III, Esquire HRS District 1 Legal Office Post Office Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-8420 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts were found: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent held two active contractor's licenses issued by the State of Florida, RP 0033354 and CP 015029. Respondent's current address is 1316 Hoffner Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32809. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent owned the firm Family Pools and did business as a pool contractor under that name. At no time did Respondent ever qualify his firm, under whose name he did business, with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). On some date not specified, in June, 1980, Alphonse J. and Pauline L. Rodier contracted with Family Pools to build a pool at their residence at 601 Michigan Avenue, Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida for a price of 6,700. The contract was signed by Respondent for Family Pools. The pool price was to include a screened enclosure and deck, and the entire package was to be completed by July 4, 1980. The pool was paid for by two checks from Coast Federal Sayings and Loan Association in Sarasota from the proceeds of a home improvement loan and by a final check in the amount of $900 from the Rodiers, direct, on October 13, 1980. Respondent subcontracted the pool enclosure to Climatrol Screen Company of Enqlewood, Florida, for $2,065 but failed to pay this subcontractor. As a result, on November 26, 1980, Climatrol filed a lien against Rodier's property which was released only when the Rodiers paid an additional $790 which had not been satisfied by the Respondent. Respondent had satisfied part of the debt to Climatrol by relinquishing title to a truck he owned. On July 3, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Elmer J. and Carla T. Taylor, of Bunnell, Florida, to build an above-ground pool on their property for $4,800.00. The pool was to have a one year warranty against defective parts and a 20-year prorated replacement policy. According to the contract, the pool price included the pump, liner, filter, and walls, along with all other parts. The pool was constructed by employees of Family Pools about three or four weeks after the contract was signed. Not long after the pool was completed and filled, Mr. Taylor noticed that the vinyl liner was protruding out beneath the bottom of the metal retaining wall. His calls to Family Pools were never answered by Respondent with whom he asked to talk and repair work on this problem was not accomplished by the Respondent or Family Pools. Mr. Taylor had to do the work himself and Family Pools would not honor the warranty. Respondent offers the completion certificate executed by the Taylors on August 21, 1980,as evidence the pool was installed properly and the Taylors were satisfied. Mr. Taylor indicates he signed that certificate in blank under pressure from Respondent's agent, who cajoled him into doing it on the basis that if he did not, Family Pools could not be paid by the finance company under the installment sales contract. Also, during the period of the one year warranty, the pool pump burned out. Mr. Taylor had to replace that and pay for it himself, as the warranty was not honored. Respondent contends only a 90-day warranty on the pump, but that appears nowhere in the contract, which, in its description of the pool covered by the one year warranty, includes the pump. On August 29, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Janice Conover to build a swimming pool at her home in Venice, Florida for $4,780. The pool was to be completed approximately 30 days after excavation at the site. Between August 29, 1980, and December, 1980, Ms. Conover paid Family Pools a total of $4,741 by checks which were endorsed by "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools" or "Pasquale M. Vescera." On October 2, 1980, Respondent pulled a permit No. 7330- N from the Sarasota County Building Department, in his own name, to construct Ms. Conover's pool. In February, 1981, when the pool was only about fifty percent complete, Respondent ceased work on Ms. Conover's pool without giving her any notice or reason therefor. When Respondent stopped work, he had only dug the hole for the pool. The liner had been delivered but was not installed. The braces were there but not affixed, notwithstanding Ms. Conover had paid almost in full for the pool. As a result, she contracted with Richard Thompson, Respondent's former employee, to finish the work Respondent had started because at this point she could not find the Respondent. Thompson installed the brackets, the liner, and the deck. She had to pay extra for the pump, the chemicals, and the sweep--all of which, except for the sweep, she had paid for when she paid Respondent's price. Respondent never returned to complete Ms. Conover's pool. On July 7, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Robert A. and Florence L. Peipher to build a pool at their property in Port Charlotte, Florida, for a price of $6,900. Between July 7 and November 28, 1980, the Peiphers paid Family Pools, by checks, the sum of $6,905. All checks-were endorsed for deposit, "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools." The pool price was to include a screened pool enclosure and in September 1980, Family Pools contracted with Climatrol to build the screened enclosure for Peipher's pool for $1,807. Respondent and Family Pools failed to pay Climatrol for the enclosure and as a result, Climatrol filed a lien against the Peipher's property for $1,807 which was satisfied on March 9, 1981, by the Peiphers who paid Climatrol the amount owed. On March 2, 1981, the Peiphers filed a complaint against Respondent with the Contractor License Division of the Charlotte County Building Department because of Respondent's failure to pay Climatrol and the resultant cost to them. As a result of this complaint and the subsequent investigation into the allegations, the matter was referred to the Charlotte County Building Board which, at its meeting on May 7, 1981, after notice to Respondent, voted to revoke Respondent's permit privileges in Charlotte County until he made restitution to the Peiphers and to notify the State of Respondent's actions requesting state action against his license. Respondent suffered severe financial setbacks just about the time of these incidents. He was hospitalized for a period of five or six weeks and upon his return to his business found that he had been "robbed" of approximately $50,000 worth of fully paid for inventory. When he reported the shortage to the local law enforcement officials, they told him that since there was no evidence of a breaking in, they could do nothing about it. In addition, he could not recover from his insurance company for the same reason. There was no evidence other than Respondent's sworn testimony that there was a shortage or that he reported the loss to either agency. Respondent has been in the pool business in Florida for five years and in New Jersey for 32 years before that. He feels the cause of his problem is the fact that he trusted the people who worked for him who took advantage of him. During the entire period of time he was in business in Florida he took no money from the company for his personal use, living instead on income from a mortgage he owned in New Jersey. He subsequently filed for bankruptcy on March 9, 1981. The $15,000 in current accounts receivable he had on the books at that time was utilized in the bankruptcy proceeding to pay creditors. He got-none of it. He is now working in Orlando, Florida, for a pool rehabilitation company owned by his wife and her father. Respondent alleges that on July 15, 1980, he paid Richard Thompson $1,100 to complete work started on several pools, including that of Ms. Conover. Review of the prior findings of fact, however, shows that the contract with Ms. Conover was not entered into until approximately 45 days after Respondent supposedly made this payment to cover the work left undone on her pool. In light of that development, I find his contention completely without merit or basis in fact. Respondent admits that people were hurt as a result of his actions and he regrets this. However, he claims these few incidents are insignificant when compared with the over 500 satisfied customers he alleges he has served over the years. Finally, Respondent contends that early in 1980, after being advised that he had passed the test to be a certified pool contractor, he wrote to Petitioner and, after advising how he was registered and doing business, asked if he needed to make any changes in license registration. He did in fact do this and received no reply. He thereafter assumed he was acting correctly in that regard and that appears to be a justified assumption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a contractor be suspended for two years and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 16th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Pasquale M. Vescera 1316 Hoffner Avenue Orlando, Florida 32809 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
