Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Donald J. Jernigan, possessed Florida Electrical Contractor's License No. ER0007589. Kenneth L. Smith is a general contractor in Lakeland, Florida. Respondent worked for him on occasion as a subcontractor in the electrical area. In early March 1983, Smith hired Respondent to do some electrical work on a duplex he owned which had been damaged by fire. At the time, the apartment was under contract for sale, and Mr. Smith had until April 1, 1983, to fix it up for transfer. Mr. Smith emphasizes that he had an express understanding with Respondent that all work had to be done by April 1, 1983, or he would lose the sale. Respondent, in a late-filed exhibit, presented a letter from William S. Chambers, III, a real estate agent who was involved in the proposed sale of the property in question. Mr. Chambers acknowledges that the sale was not consummated but, while not detailing the actual reason for the sale falling through, contends that at no time was the fact that the repairs were not completed given or used as a reason for the failure of the sale to go through by either party. This does not alter the fact that Mr. Smith requested that the repairs be completed by April 1, 1983. Smith called Respondent several times prior to April 1 to insure that the electrical work was done on time. At a point late in the sequence of events, he understood that the dry wall was due to be installed and the required electrical inspection had not been accomplished. When he pointed this out, Respondent told him to go ahead and hang the dry wall, as the City could inspect from up in the ceiling. Mr. Smith did this based on the representation of the Respondent; and when the final inspection was done, the inspector would not pass the property because preliminary inspection had not been accomplished. He indicated that a different electrical contractor would have to examine the work and certify that it was done properly before it could be passed without pulling out all the dry wall for a visual inspection. At this point, Mr. Smith hired Lamar Smith of Southeastern Electric to accomplish this inspection and discharged the Respondent. When Lamar Smith arrived at the apartment and turned on the power, the only things that worked in the entire apartment were the dishwasher, the disposal, and two kitchen receptacles. In the course of his inspection, he found that several home runs were left out (several feeder lines were not present) ; numerous junction boxes in the attic were not made up properly (wires were left out and not put in the boxes as required); no junction boxes in the attic were grounded; some breakers were left out in the master panel; and the door bell did not work. According to Mr. Smith, at first glance from the inside of the apartment, the electrical work looked as though it were complete; but in reality, all the rough-in had not been accomplished, and it took him two days to do the work properly. According to Mr. Meeks, the electrical inspector for the City of Lakeland and the individual who wrote the permit for this particular work, Respondent called in for the rough-in inspection on March 31, 1983. When Meeks went out to the property to conduct the inspection, he found that the dry wall was already in and he could not accomplish it. Meeks told Respondent at that time he would have to either remove the dry wall or have another registered electrician certify the wiring before they would permit that work to continue. When an apartment or any property is damaged by fire, a permit is required to rewire the damaged premises for power. This permit is required by Lakeland City Ordinance. Meeks also indicated that if a remodeling job required added wiring without tearing out the wall, the inspectors would inspect by going into the attic and crawlways if possible. However, if they were called to inspect the area that was previously open for inspection and was improperly closed in prior to inspection, they would not go up into the attic or into the crawlways to accomplish the inspection. That is policy of the Inspectors' Office. In that regard, according to Harold G. Brooks, a city permit inspector who inspected the property in question immediately after the fire to see if power in the unburned area could be turned on, the majority of damage to the burned area was in the kitchen ceiling and in the hall. This description is consistent with that of Mr. Ken Smith, the owner, who indicated that the dry wall was required in the kitchen and dining room. For some reason, the dry wall was also replaced on the living room ceiling and the back room ceiling. Respondent contends that he was trying to do this job as quickly as possible consistent with the work load he had at the time. He agrees that it was in early March when he agreed to take on the job. He looked at the house the day after it burned and presented a proposal for repairs that afternoon or the next day. He started work on the project right away and stayed on the project from the time he started work up until the inspection problem. Respondent does not recall Mr. Smith setting any deadline for completion, only a need to finish the job as quickly as possible. Mr. Jernigan admits he did not request a roof end inspection when the basic wiring was completed before dry wall. He states that this house is the type of house that may have had boxes already installed that could not be found. He does not feel that it was his responsibility to give authority to cover up the walls or the ceiling and that that decision was made by Mr. Smith, the owner. The work that he did, he contends, could have been checked through the attic shuttle, and he claims he would have corrected any deficiencies found. He further claims he was never given an opportunity to remove the dry wall for inspection prior to the final inspection and the requirement to have another electrician certify the work. Whatever the delay, it was occasioned by Respondent's failure to get the roof end inspection performed. According to Ordinance No. 2304 of the City of Lakeland, Florida, a master electrician (Respondent was a master electrician), shall request any required inspections. By Subsection (2), an inspection is required prior to wiring being concealed, and failure to timely request such an inspection constitutes a violation of the City Code. This inspection was not requested by Respondent as required by the ordinance. At a special meeting of the Building Code Board of Examiners for the City of Lakeland, Florida, held on April 25, 1983, a complaint against Respondent was considered. Respondent was charged by the electrical inspectors with negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the doing of electrical work and a willful and deliberate disregard in violation of the City's Electrical Code. On May 24, 1983, the Chairman of the Board, on behalf of the Board, entered an Order finding that the Respondent was guilty of negligence in the performance of electrical work and willful and deliberate disregard in violation of the City of Lakeland Electrical Code. The Board went on to suspend for 90 days the Respondent's Certificate of Competency issued by the City of Lakeland and required that he pass an appropriate examination at the end of the 90-day period prior to receiving a new Certificate of Competency.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of contractors and electrical contractors operating within the State of Florida. During the period at issue in this case, the Respondent was not licensed as a contractor or as an electrical contractor. Beginning in 2003, the Respondent provided home remodeling and repair services for houses owned by Ms. Enid Shaw. Ms. Shaw, a resident of New York who visits Florida regularly, apparently planned to permanently relocate to Florida at some time in the future. The Respondent met Ms. Shaw during one of Ms. Shaw's visits to Florida, when he was working on the house of an acquaintance of Ms. Shaw. Between 2003 and 2006, Ms. Shaw paid approximately $30,000.00 to the Respondent for the work he performed on her homes. Some of the work performed by the Respondent was outside the jurisdiction of the Petitioner. The Respondent submitted written estimates and invoices to her and, other than a $3,500.00 wire transfer referenced elsewhere herein, Ms. Shaw paid the Respondent by personal check. Ms. Shaw did not obtain receipts from the Respondent, but retained the estimates, invoices, and the processed checks. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 3411 Silverwood Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Silverwood"), and desired to have some repair work performed on the house. Ms. Shaw contacted the Respondent who agreed to meet her at the Silverwood house and tour the house. As they walked through the house, the Respondent made suggestions about how to remedy the deficiencies in the structure. They agreed that he would commence the repair work. Because she did not reside locally, Ms. Shaw was not always present at the home when the work was being done, and she provided a key to the Respondent so that he could enter in her absence. There were water stains on the family room ceiling, and Ms. Shaw knew that, when it rained, water came through the ceiling and would be collected in buckets. The Respondent advised Ms. Shaw that the roof was leaking and offered to repair the roof. Roof repairs were supposedly made, but the roof continued to leak during rain. The Respondent eventually called Ms. Shaw and told her that the entire roof needed to be replaced, that he had already ordered the materials required to replace the roof, that he had already secured the services of an assistant, and that the roof replacement would commence on the day following the telephone call. He informed Ms. Shaw that, because the work was commencing immediately, he needed to have payment by a wire transfer into his account. Ms. Shaw wired $3,500.00 to the Respondent's bank account as requested by the Respondent, but the Respondent did not replace the Silverwood roof on the next day, or on any other day. When the roof repair did not occur, Ms. Shaw began to ask for the return of the $3,500.00, but the Respondent failed to return the money. Though he did not explain his entitlement to retain the money, the Respondent told Ms. Shaw that someone to whom he had loaned his truck had abandoned the vehicle and that his tools had been stolen from the truck. There was no evidence to suggest that the Respondent was entitled to retain the $3,500.00 transfer from Ms. Shaw to his bank account. The Respondent did not replace Ms. Shaw's roof or return the funds to her. Additionally, the Respondent performed other work for Ms. Shaw at the Silverwood home. The Respondent installed a ceiling fan purchased by Ms. Shaw to replace one supposedly removed by previous residents from the Silverwood dining room. Ms. Shaw observed the Respondent turn off the power to the house and connect the fan to the existing electrical wiring. The Respondent also repaired a range hood ventilation fan and replaced a leaking faucet in the Silverwood kitchen. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 6001 Denson Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Denson"). She asked the Respondent to perform repairs on the Denson property, and, as they had done at the Silverwood house, they toured the home, and the Respondent made suggestions as to the work that needed to be done. The Denson roof was not functioning properly. The ceiling was water-stained in several rooms, and a wall in the screen porch was water-damaged. The Respondent repaired the roof deficiencies and the damage caused to the house by the water intrusion. Although Ms. Shaw was not always present at the time of these repairs, she observed the Respondent on one occasion taking a container of an otherwise unidentified black substance to the roof to patch one of the leaks. The interior water damage repaired by the Respondent included removal and reinstallation of ceiling fans and light fixtures in the rooms where the ceiling was repaired. The stove in the Denson kitchen was not functional, and Ms. Shaw purchased a replacement appliance. Although the stove purchased by Ms. Shaw apparently had an electrical plug incompatible with the existing outlet, Ms. Shaw observed the Respondent install the appliance by cutting into the stove's electrical cord and splicing the wiring into the existing outlet, after turning off the power to the house. Ms. Shaw was also present when the Respondent installed a jetted bathtub into an area previously occupied by a bathroom shower stall. The installation included turning off the water supply and the removal and replacement of plumbing lines. At the hearing, Ms. Shaw admitted that the tub she bought was incorrect for the installation location, apparently because the repair access area was on the wrong side of the tub and placed against a wall. She complained that the Respondent installed it nonetheless and that any repairs to the tub will require removal of a portion of a bedroom wall. Ms. Shaw also observed the Respondent remove and replace a bathroom toilet at the Denson house. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent replaced a malfunctioning swimming pool "generator" at the Denson house, but the testimony presented on this issue was not sufficient to establish the actual nature of the pool equipment replaced, if any, by the Respondent. The Petitioner also asserted that the Respondent replaced an electric garage door opener at the Denson house, but the evidence failed to establish that the Respondent did anything other than replace an existing opener with a new opener and plug the power unit into an existing electrical outlet. Ms. Shaw owned a house located at 5006 Tam Drive, Orlando, Florida (hereinafter "Tam"). As at the other houses, Ms. Shaw asked the Respondent to tour the property and make the repairs on which they agreed. At the Tam house, the Respondent replaced a bathroom toilet and sink. As at the Denson house, the Petitioner asserted that the Respondent replaced an electric garage door opener at the Tam house, but the evidence again failed to establish that the Respondent did anything other than replace the existing opener with a new one and plug the power unit into an existing electrical outlet. There is no credible evidence that Ms. Shaw ever asked the Respondent whether he was licensed by the Petitioner; however, based on the Respondent's statements related to another customer, she believed he had some sort of license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Donald Whyte violated Subsection 489.126(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $10,000.00, and, further, violated Subsection 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $3,000.00, for a total administrative fine of $13,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Leigh Matchett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Donald Whyte 6811 Thousand Oaks Road Orlando, Florida 32818 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The primary issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent, Bruce P. Boston, engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida without being certified or registered in violation of Chapter 489, Part II of the Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed that violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent's address is 18204 Southwest 200 Street, Archer, Florida 32618. At no time material hereto was Respondent certified or registered in the State of Florida to engage in the practice of electrical contracting or to perform electrical contracting work. Mrs. Dawn Wingert is the owner of the residence located at what is currently designated as 16675 Southwest 143rd Avenue, Archer, Florida. Mrs. Wingert, as lawful owner, had the authority to enter contracts regarding the residence. The Wingert residence was previously known as 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida, prior to the assignment of the current address. Wingert entered into a contract with Respondent to perform construction of a carport and perform electrical contracting work at Wingert’s residence subsequent to assignment of the address of 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida. Respondent received compensation for the contracted work directly from Wingert via personal check, which Respondent then cashed. Terry Vargas, a licensed electrical contractor having been issued license number ER 13012448, was subsequently contacted by Respondent to perform the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence. Vargas installed an electrical outlet on the back porch, put a flood light on the back porch, moved the switch board to a more convenient location, and put a security light in the front of Wingert’s residence. All work required electrical fixtures to be permanently affixed and become a permanent part of the structure of the Wingert residence. Although Vargas completed the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence, Wingert paid the Respondent for the services because the work was contracted for through Respondent. At no time pertinent to this matter did Terry Vargas contract with Wingert to complete the electrical services enumerated above. After he completed the work at Wingert’s residence, Vargas invoiced Respondent for the electrical contracting work. Respondent, however, refused to pay Vargas for the electrical contracting work performed, despite having received compensation for the work from Wingert.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, in accordance with Section 489.533(2)(c), Florida Statutes, requiring that Respondent pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Boston Post Office Box 331 Williston, Florida 32696 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner held a Registered Electrical Contractors license, No. 13012890, and a Registered Alarm System Contractors I license, No. 12000229, that authorized him to engage in the same in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner's licenses are active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. Petitioner operates a business named "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., in Pompano Beach, Florida. In the case styled State v. Terrance Davis, Case No. 082026CCFICA, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Petitioner was charged with burglary of a structure with assault or battery and felony battery. Petitioner's unrefuted testimony was that after his arrest in October 2008, he was detained without bond pending his trial.1/ On November 17, 2009, the Florida Department of Revenue ("DOR") issued to Petitioner a Notice of Non-Compliance with Support Order and Intent to Suspend License for the nonpayment of a previously existing child support order. The notice was sent to 7906 Southwest Seventh Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At the time the notice was sent, Petitioner claims to have been detained in the Broward County jail. The criminal charge of felony battery was nol prossed on December 14, 2009. On December 15, 2009, Petitioner proceeded to trial on the remaining charge and was acquitted by a jury. On December 27, 2009, DOR issued a Notice to Suspend License for Nonpayment of Support to the Division of Professions. Said notice provided that, "[w]e gave [Petitioner] notice of nonpayment and intent to suspend license(s) more than 30 days ago. [He has] not complied with the support order, a written agreement if there is one, or timely contested the action." The notice further directed that, "[u]nder section 409.2598(5)(b), Florida Statutes, you must suspend the license, permit or certificate that allows the person to engage in an occupation, business or recreation." In January 2010, during the course of a traffic stop, Petitioner was advised by a law enforcement officer that his Florida driver's license was suspended. On February 8, 2010, Petitioner entered into a Written Agreement for Past Due Support with DOR wherein he agreed to make a lump-sum payment and additional monthly payments. DOR agreed that it would not suspend or deny his driver's license as long as Petitioner complied with the terms of the agreement. Petitioner credibly testified that thereafter, when he "resumed his Articles of Incorporation," he realized his professional licenses had also been suspended. On February 25, 2010, DOR issued a Request to Reinstate License to the Division of Professions. Said request provided as follows: The license(s) of the parent named below, was suspended for nonpayment of support. Please reinstate the license(s). The parent is paying as agreed or ordered, the circuit court has ordered reinstatement, or the parent is otherwise entitled to have the license(s) reinstated under section 409.2598(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Court Case Number: 060015893CA-06 Parent's Name: TERRENCE A DAVIS Mailing Address: 7905 SW 7th Pl, North Lauderdale, FL 33068-2123 License Number(s) and Type(s): 12000229 Reg. Alarm System Contractors I (EY), 13012890 Reg. Electrical Contractors (ER) On or about July 23, 2013, Petitioner applied for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 484.514, Florida Statutes.2/ Included with Petitioner's application, was a personal financial statement wherein Petitioner itemized his assets and liabilities. Petitioner's personal financial statement concluded that his personal net worth was $56,400.00. Also included in Petitioner's application was a business financial statement for "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., that similarly itemized Petitioner's business assets and liabilities. Petitioner's business financial statement concluded that the business's net worth was $35,945. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated October 18, 2013, the Board denied Petitioner's application for two reasons: within the previous five years, Petitioner's contracting license was suspended for failure to pay child support; and Petitioner's application failed to demonstrate that he had the requisite financial stability as required by rule 61G6- 5.005(3) and requisite net worth as required by rule 61G6-5.004. Petitioner credibly testified as to the figures supporting the itemization of both his personal and business assets and liabilities and respective net worth contained in the application. Petitioner conceded that a credit report, dated July 8, 2013, documents that he had a late mortgage payment in April 2010; that in 1997, his child support arrearage was placed in collection; and that an account, with a current balance of $3110.00, was placed for collection. Petitioner contends said account concerned a one-year lease that he was unable to satisfy at the time due to his detainment for the above-noted criminal charges. Respondent presented the testimony of Clarence Kelly Tibbs. Mr. Tibbs is a state-certified electrical contractor who served on the Board for approximately 13 years. Mr. Tibbs was not on the Board at the time the Board considered and rejected Petitioner's application. The undersigned deemed Mr. Tibbs as an expert in electrical contracting. Mr. Tibbs did not testify concerning the areas of his expertise (electrical contracting), but rather, offered opinions on the propriety of the Board's denial of Petitioner's application. Mr. Tibbs testified that, "as an ex-Board member," looking at Petitioner's personal and business financials, there were several problems. After itemizing his concerns, Mr. Tibbs concluded that, "[h]owever, looking at the financials that you've got in front of me, although I have some problems with them, I could probably go ahead and approve them."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 7th day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an electrical contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board) was the county agency responsible for the certification of members of the construction trade and the regulation of that trade in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Gabriel Varro, was certified as an electrical contractor by the Board and held such certification at all times pertinent hereto. On June 18, 1998, Nicholas Sasso, a building inspector with Pinellas County, visited a construction site at 24698 U.S. Highway 19 in Clearwater, Florida, where Respondent was engaged in electrical work. Mr. Sasso was supposed to conduct an inspection of electrical work done by the Respondent at that site but when he arrived at the construction site, at 11:45 a.m., was unable to gain entry to the site. At that time, Mr. Sasso called Respondent by telephone and left a message for Respondent to call back to reschedule the inspection. Respondent did not call in for re-inspection until October 23, 1998, over four months later. In response, however, Mr. Sasso again went to the site for an inspection on that day, where he found at least five violations of the building code for which he issued red tags (requirements for correction). At that point, Respondent had 15 working days to take corrective action, pay the red tags, and call for re-inspection. Mr. Sasso also called Respondent and left a message on the answering machine, but Respondent did not call back. On December 8, 1998, the Building Department's computer produced a notice of Respondent's failure to take sufficient corrective action or pay the red tags. Mr. Sasso returned to the site on November 16, 1998, for a follow-up and found that the Respondent had failed to take the required corrective action. Mr. Sasso returned to the site on December 8, 1998, and found the violations had still not been corrected. On December 30, 1998, the computer again indicated Respondent's failure to correct or pay the red tags, so Mr. Sasso went to the site, saw the deficiencies had not been corrected, and issued to Respondent, a Notice of Violation for failure to take corrective action and to pay red tags, and for electrical violations of the National Electrical Code and/or the standard building code which he had observed on several prior official visits to the construction site. Respondent was advised on the Notice of Violation that failure to correct the deficiencies within 15 working days of the citation would result in a court citation. Respondent called Mr. Sasso that same day, upon receipt of the Notice of Violation, and indicated he would comply with the requirements of the code, but he had not done so when Mr. Sasso returned to the site on February 4, 1999, to conduct a follow-up inspection, appropriate action has not been taken. Respondent claims he paid the red tags even though he did not cause the defects; and requested the Building Department to take his name off the permit. Respondent explained the mix-up by claiming the owner of the property had taken out the permit himself and put his, Respondent's, name on it as contractor because Respondent had agreed to do part of the project to correct some work done improperly by a tenant of the park which had resulted in a violation being issued to the park owner. The majority of the deficiencies discovered, Respondent claims, were located inside a structure on the property to which he never got access. Respondent also contends he limited his work to correction of an improper connection from the meter to the riser. He claims he advised the property owner that the only way he, Respondent, would call for an inspection would be if he were provided access to the structure so he could let in the inspector. It appears that because of a subsequent determination that the entire project violated the zoning laws, the job was cancelled by the owner. On February 17, 1998, Mr. Sasso also observed electrical work being carried on at an RV park in Pinellas County. Because Mr. Sasso could not recall any permit having been pulled for electrical work at that site, he stopped to see what was going on and identified himself to the workman on the job. The worker identified himself as Respondent and gave Mr. Sasso his card. Respondent advised Mr. Sasso of what he was doing, and when Mr. Sasso advised Respondent that he could not legally do the work without first obtaining a permit, Respondent indicated he was going to get it. Mr. Sasso noted that a trench had been dug near a power line, creating a potentially dangerous situation, and that five 50-watt electrical outlets had been installed on pedestals outside the front of the clubhouse. This was confirmed by the proposal submitted to the client by Respondent on September 2, 1998, and accepted by the client on December 4, 1998. The proposal called for the electrical permit to be included in the total contract price of $7,000. Respondent admits to giving the owner of the property a proposal for electrical work to be done, but claims, as the proposal form indicates, the owner was to dig the trench. The owner had the trench dug, as called for, and also placed the pedestals. The digging and the placing of the pedestals were an integral part of the project which Respondent had agreed to perform, and those actions required a permit to be issued prior to starting the work. The required permit was not obtained by Respondent or anyone else, and the work in progress has not been completed. Petitioner has suggested that Respondent be fined $750.00 for the violation alleged in Count One; $300.00 for the violation alleged in Count Two; and $750.00 for the violation alleged in Count Three. Counts One and Three are classified by statute as "major" violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, enter a final order assessing an administrative fine of $1,050.00 for the violations alleged in Counts One and Two. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Gabriel Varro 1910 Union Street Clearwater, Florida 33763-2249
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the facts involved in this rule challenge. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a large corporation operating throughout the United States. It engages in the business of manufacturing electrical components and in constructing, installing and servicing electrical control systems and other phases of electrical contracting work. As its name implies, Johnson Controls' primary emphasis in the electrical field is in selling, installing, and maintaining systems for fire, security, heating, air conditioning, and energy consumption controls. Johnson Controls is presently licensed to do electrical contracting work by 23 counties and municipalities in Florida and in 49 of the 50 states. Winfred Allen Infinger holds a B. E. degree in Technology and Construction, a journeyman electrician's license in Pinellas County, and is fully qualified by training and experience to be the qualifying agent of Johnson Controls in this application. In its letter of May 8, 1979 denying petitioner's application, Respondent, through its executive director, stated the following grounds: Your application failed to meet the qualification as that of a Florida licensed electrical contractor (468.181(5)) whose services are unlimited in the Electrical Field. The review of your application reflects that Johnson Controls, Inc., is a specialty contractor and presently Florida Statutes, Chapter 468, Part VII does not provide for licensure of specialty contractors.
