The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, James A. Tipton ("Tipton"), has been a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0018147, which expires on January 31, 1987. Tipton employed the services of Robert Corno as a field man for taking samples to establish soil profiles, site characteristics and existing water tables for septic tank applications prepared and filed by Tipton. Corno had actual authority from Tipton to conduct tests, site examinations and evaluations and to submit his findings to Tipton. Sometime before April 8, 1985, Tipton was retained to perform professional engineering services in connection with the preparation and filing of an application for a septic tank on lot 168, block 3, Charlotte Ranchettes Subdivision in Charlotte County ("lot 168"), owned by Joseph Duseo. Tipton sent Corno to lot 168 on April 13, 1985, to examine and evaluate the site, take soil samples and make other observations that would have to be reported to Tipton in connection with Tipton's work. Corno completed his work and reported to Tipton. Corno did not bring Tipton the actual soil samples. On April 8, 1985, Duseo's general contractor told Corno about a well on lot 168. When Corno visited the site, he observed the well. The well is an artesian well, about 3 feet high and six inches in diameter. The well is an irrigation-type well and is non-potable. The well was within fifty feet of the drain field of the septic system Tipton proposed for lot 168. The well also is approximately 5 to 10 feet from the north property line. Corno knew at the time of his visit to the site that the well was not plugged. However, Corno understood that Duseo was in the process of arranging with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to have the well plugged. Corno did not tell Tipton about the well before Tipton prepared and filed the application for the proposed septic tank. Therefore, Tipton did not know there was a well on lot 168 when he was preparing the application for the septic tank permit. Tipton did not ask Corno any questions calculated to reveal whether there was a well on lot 168. Corno held the belief that non-potable wells, especially those that were to be plugged, did not have to be shown on septic tank permit applications. There was evidence about a survey of lot 168 certified by a land surveyor employed by a firm of professional engineers which did not show any well on lot 168. However, Tipton did not have access to the survey before he prepared the septic tank permit application on lot 168. (The survey bears two dates, April 17 and April 18, and was not signed until April 25, 1985.) On or about April 15, 1985, Tipton signed and certified the septic tank permit application for lot 168. The application was filed at the Charlotte County Public Health Unit (Health Department) on April 16, 1985. The application indicates "none" in the space provided to indicate the "location of wells within 75 feet of property lines." The well on lot 168 is an important consideration which should have been depicted on the application. Septic tank drain fields could pollute a well. Even if Tipton had known that the well was supposed to be plugged, it was not plugged until July 1985. Failure to show the well was a serious omission. Tipton was negligent for relying on Corno without having an understanding whether Corno would report to him the existence of non-potable wells within 50 feet of the drain field of a septic system or within 75 feet of a property line if the well was likely to be plugged. If he had used due care, Tipton would have either made explicit inquiry of Corno sufficient to reveal the existence of the well or ascertained from Corno in advance that he would report to Tipton the existence of any well within 50 feet of the drain field of a proposed septic system or within 75 feet of property lines. Having failed to exercise due care, Tipton did not realize that Corno would not be reporting to him the existence of a non-potable well which was supposed to be plugged in the future. A few days after he filed the application, Tipton learned about the well on lot 168. But at about the same time, Duseo and his contractor began discussing construction alternatives that would change the septic system and require a new septic tank application. Therefore, Tipton did not immediately amend the April 15 application to show the well. In mid-May, Tipton filed a new application for the different septic system. The new application, not in issue in this case, showed the well. The application also contained a soil profile which probably is not accurate. However, Tipton's soil profile simply reflects the information reported to him by Corno. While Tipton's soil profile does not correspond with soil profiles from other test holes dug in the area of the proposed drain field by the Health Department and an expert witness, the information Corno reported to Tipton was well within the realm of possibilities for soil in the area of lot 168. Corno generally seemed to be a qualified and experienced field man who used proper tools to do his job. There was nothing suspicious about Corno's information, and there was no reason for Tipton to suspect that it was false or fraudulent. While it is the better practice for a professional engineer to require his field man to deliver the actual soil sample to support a soil profile report, this is not required of professional engineers if there is no reason to suspect that a field man's soil profile report is false or fraudulent. On the application, Tipton estimated the high water table on lot 168 at 2.2 feet below existing grade. While other expert witnesses estimated a higher high water table, the evidence did not prove that Tipton was negligent in his estimate. Some of the conflicting estimates were Health Department estimates which, the evidence indicates, tend to be high to be on the safe side. Others were estimates on permit applications which may have been influenced by the Health Department's desires and which may not reflect the engineers' actual estimates. Of all the estimates, only Tipton's was supported by testimony how the estimate was derived. (Tipton used what he called Darcy's Law.) Finally, Petitioner's own expert witness testified that Tipton's high water table estimate could not be called negligent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order holding Respondent, James A. Tipton, guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering under Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint (but dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint) and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah Logan Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Charles Heekin, Esq. C-1 Ocean Plaza 21202 Ocean Blvd. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX The following are specific rulings on all the parties' proposed Findings of Fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 21 and 22 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the last sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 5 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the third sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 17, 18 and 27 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that whether Alligator Creek is a "significant" drainage feature would depend on the definition of "significant" which was not established by the evidence. In addition, Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 6 through 8 are rejected as conclusions of law and because the last sentence of Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is cumulative. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 is rejected because the first sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is, subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 12, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected as subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 25 is rejected because the first sentence is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1 through 3, 5 and 12 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 8 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 9 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact that there is "no way" for an engineer to avoid relying on a field man's error such as Corno's error in omitting to report the existence of the well. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 14 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is rejected because it is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 7 is rejected because it is simply a recitation of conflicting evidence, some of which is accepted but some of which is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, it was found that Corno did not tell Tipton about the well and that Tipton did not have the survey in his possession at the time the application was filed. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 10 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of Tipton for failure to utilize due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles whether or not practicing in Charlotte County. In addition, Mr. Murray's expert testimony must be disregarded because it was given upon a hypothetical assumption that an engineer had possession of a sealed survey showing no improvements on the property as the time of the application, a fact not proved by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 13 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, personnel in the Health Department, part of the "general public," were misled. (The general public also reasonably could have been led to a fallacious conclusion, but there was no "misconduct" on Tipton's part. See Conclusions of Law.) ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2684 DPR CASE NO.0058289 JAMES A. TIPTON, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that these three rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for septic tank contractor registration in July 1996. On September 6, 1996, the Respondent issued its intent to deny his application on the grounds that he failed to meet the required qualifications listed in Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if a previous registration issued by the Respondent has been revoked within the last 5 years. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing, in which he alleged Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that these rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) formally took effect on January 3, 1995. There is no material failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in the promulgation of these rules. 9. Sections 154.06, 381.0011, 381.006, 381.0065, 489.553, and 489.557, Florida Statutes, grant the Respondent specific authority to adopt rules implementing the statutes. Petitioner does not dispute the Respondent’s rulemaking authority. Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) implement sections 154.01, 381.001, 381.0011, 381.0012, 381.0025, 381.006, 381.0061, 381.0065, 381.00655, 381.0066, 381.0067, Part I of Chapter 386, and Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), is the chapter governing septic tank contractor registration. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, are the rules pertaining to Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, which include septic tank systems. A person who becomes a registered septic tank contractor has the authority to install, maintain, repair, and perform site evaluations for repairs of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. There are an estimated 1.4 million septic systems in use in Florida. The onsite sewage treatment program impacts public health in that it prevents and corrects sanitary nuisances; prevents pollution to groundwater, which is the primary drinking water source in the state; prevents pollution to surface water; and eliminates risks to public health from exposure to improperly treated human waste. Untreated or improperly treated human waste contains many significant disease-causing organisms injurious to human health. A “sanitary nuisance” is the “commission of any act, . . . or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, . . . by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.” Section 386.01, Florida Statutes (1995). “Improperly built or maintained septic tanks” and “untreated or improperly treated human waste” constitute “prima facie evidence of maintaining a nuisance injurious to health.” Section 386.041(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The training, regulation, and registration of septic tank contractors, who install and repair such systems, is directly related to public health. An improperly installed or repaired system may result in untreated human waste or raw sewage either surfacing on the ground, backing up in the owner’s house/business, contaminating groundwater, and contaminating nearby surface water. The Respondent regularly receives complaints from citizens detailing installation problems, including complaints regarding improper workmanship, the premature failure of their septic tank system resulting in sewage on the ground around their house, and the contractor’s failure to honor his/her warranty. The impetus behind regulating contractors came primarily from the industry itself (i.e., the Florida Septic Tank Association). The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the Respondent has revoked his prior septic tank registration within the last 5 years, protects the public from sanitary nuisances caused by the improper installation and repair of septic tank systems. This qualification is, moreover, an indicator of an applicant’s “good moral character.” The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the applicant has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who have demonstrated they are not complying with the rules or statutes. The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under Chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who are not law abiding and do not follow the standards. “Good moral character” is not defined in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Each of the three qualifications established by Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) make specific or interpret an individual’s good moral character. The Department’s statutory authority for Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d), Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), and Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) comes from: (a) section 489.553(2), which requires the Department to “provide qualifications for applicants;” (b) section 489.553(4)(a), which says the applicant “must be of good moral character’” (c) section 489.558(2), which says the Department may deny registration if it determines the applicant “has violated any provision of this part [Part III of Chapter 489];” and (d) section 489.556, which authorizes the Department to suspend and revoke licenses. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) has neither filed an objection nor voted on an objection to the three rules at issue in this case. Although a staff member of JAPC, in response to Petitioner’s complaint, recently made a preliminary inquiry into the validity of these rules, the committee did not adopt the staff member’s recommendation.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Larry C. Garner, should be fined $500 for misstating the size of a septic tank and drain field.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Larry C. Garner, is the licensed septic tank contractor who owns and operates A. Carver Septic Tank. (The Citation for Violation erroneously referred to the company as “E. Carver Septic Tank,” but the error was corrected without objection at final hearing. There was no evidence to support Respondent’s suggestion that the Department may have taken disciplinary action against him because it erroneously thought Respondent was another licensee.) On December 6, 2001, an employee of Respondent pumped out a septic tank and measured a drain field located at 847 Matthews Road, Maxville, Florida. The resident there wanted to enlarge her residence and needed Respondent's services in order to obtain Department approval of the existing septic tank system for the enlarged residence. After services were provided, Respondent's office gave the resident a receipt stating that Respondent's company had pumped out a 900 gallon septic tank and that the drain field measured 360 square feet. (Respondent's office actually dealt with the resident's adult daughter.) Respondent's office staff also prepared Form 4015 (a Department form entitled “Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Existing System and System Repair Evaluation”) and gave it to the resident for use in getting approval of the system for the enlarged residence. The form stated that the septic tank was 900 gallons and that the drain field was 360 square feet. When the resident applied for approval of her septic tank system for her enlarged residence, the Department inspected the system and found that the septic tank actually was 750 gallons and the drain field actually was only approximately 110 square feet. The Department issued the Citation for Violation based on the magnitude of the discrepancy. Respondent denied that he personally had any contemporaneous knowledge of the services provided by his employee or the receipt of Form 4015 prepared by his office, and there was no evidence that he did. Respondent personally investigated after issuance of the Citation for Violation. At final hearing, Respondent questioned whether the Form 4015 actually stated that the septic tank was 900 gallons. From the handwriting on the form itself, it appears possible that the number could read 700, not 900. But based on the written receipt, which either was prepared contemporaneously with the Form 4015 or was the basis for preparation of the Form 4015 by Respondent's office staff, the greater weight of the evidence was that the Form 4015 stated and was intended to state 900 gallons as the size of the septic tank. As further support for this finding, Respondent himself testified to a conversation he had with his employee during which the employee explained that he sized the septic tank at 700 gallons based on its apparent depth and Respondent admonished him that the employee knew better--i.e., knew it was necessary to measure height, width, and depth to accurately measure the size of a septic tank. Respondent also attempted to explain how his employee may have made a forgivable error in measuring the drain field. According to the Form 4015, the employee measured the drain field as a rectangular bed, 12 feet by 30 feet. Actually, the drain field consists of two trenches (one 26 feet long and the other 29 feet long), which the Department's inspector measured as being two feet wide. Respondent testified that the drain field began at a distribution box and was approximately ten feet wide within a few feet of the distribution box. Respondent testified that it would be easy to incorrectly assume that the approximate ten-foot width continued as a bed for the entire length of the drain field, as his employee apparently did. However, the greater weight of the evidence was that the employee's error was not reasonable; to the contrary, to determine the configuration and size of a drain field, it is necessary to probe the ground at more than just one distance close to the distribution box. When Respondent himself went to the site to investigate the allegations against him, he probed both near the distribution box and further away southeast of the distribution box. He testified that he found solid rock ten feet in width near the distribution box; to the southeast, his probing revealed a trench which Respondent measured at between three and a half and four feet in width. Based on those measurements, Respondent assumed two trenches approximately 30 feet long and four feet in width each, for a total of approximately 240 square feet. It is difficult to reconcile Respondent’s testimony as to the width of the southeast trench with the testimony of the Department's inspector. The Department's inspector probed approximately ten feet and 20 feet from the septic tank and found two-foot wide trenches in four different places. The Department's inspector also testified without contradiction in response to Respondent's questions on cross-examination that backhoes used at the time this drain field was installed in 1973 generally had two-foot wide excavation buckets. Based on the greater care taken by the Department's inspector in measuring the drain field, and the kind of backhoe in general use in 1973, it is found that the Department's inspector's measurements were more accurate. Even if Respondent's measurements were accurate, and the Department inspector's were inaccurate, the measurements recorded on the receipt and on Form 4015 still would have been seriously overstated. While not seriously disputing the inaccuracy of the Form 4015 submitted in this case, Respondent stated "anyone can make a mistake" and that the Department should have asked Respondent to re-check the measurements instead of issuing a citation, especially in view of Respondent's disciplinary record in 29 years in the business in Clay County. (Respondent testified that his only "issues in Tallahassee" were one incident--not fully explained--involving a cow on someone's property and another when he had someone take a re- certification examination for him at a time when his mother was ill. The Department did not controvert this testimony. As already mentioned, there was no evidence to support Respondent's initial suggestion that the Department may have taken disciplinary action against him because it erroneously thought he was another licensee.) But the Department's witness testified that issuance of the citation was appropriate and consistent with agency policy because of the magnitude of the discrepancies on the Form 4015. Respondent testified that the employee involved in this case was his stepson, who has worked for Respondent for 14 years, since he was 11 years old, seven to eight years as a full-time employee. Respondent also testified that he recently fired his stepson, but the reasons for firing him were not directly related to his conduct in this case. Respondent also testified that he felt compelled to insist on a hearing although he knew the Form 4015 was inaccurate because he perceived the Department to be acting in this case as if it had "absolute power" over him. He apparently viewed his request for a hearing as a necessary challenge to government's assertion of "absolute power" over him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Respondent guilty as charged and imposing a fine in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ______________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 John D. Lacko, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Larry C. Garner 13950 Normandy Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32221
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Sandra B. Frazier was a licensed real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida, License No. 0185565, as an associate with Property Associates, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. On July 1, 1989, Howard M. Burkholz, Leslie Burkholz, and Jacob H. Schiff entered into an Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement with Property Associates, through its agent, Frazier, for the sale of a house located in Forest Green Subdivision, at 2062 Pepperidge Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Exclusive Right of Sale Agreement states in part: Seller further certifies and represents that the property has no latent defects except the following: septic tank is pumped monthly at Sellers request. [sic] Mr. and Mrs. Burkholz both told Frazier that the septic tank was not a problem, but Frazier had previous knowledge of septic tank problems in the vicinity and of the significance of needing septic tank pumping. Frazier sold the house across from the Burkholz's house. That house, at 2061 Pepperidge Way, was bought by Marcie Doolittle in December of 1988. The listing information and Notice to Prospective Buyers showed that, due to the composition of the soil and heavy rains, it was necessary to have the septic tank pumped. The seller offered an offset to the buyer for the cost of additional drainfield. Only after Doolittle bought the house did Frazier learn of the severity of the problems and the necessity for pump outs every two weeks. In a letter written by Frazier to Doolittle on February 9, 1989, Frazier indicated that "once a septic tank fails it does not correct itself. It then requires regular pumping." Frazier suggested that the only resolution was more drainfield or regular pumping. After Frazier listed the Burkholz house, she mentioned to Mrs. Doolittle that she could not show the Burkholz house during wet weather because the backyard, in which the septic tank and drainfield was located, was too boggy. Further, Frazier discussed with Mrs. Doolittle that the city was going to install sewer in the area because of the septic tank failures. In conformance with the Exclusive Right of Sale agreement with the Burkholzs, Frazier listed the house through the Multiple Listing Service. The data on the house was input on an input sheet. If there are defects, they can be listed on lines RE1-RE4 on the input form. Despite her knowledge about the Burkholz's septic tank and the Doolittle's septic tank, Frazier did not list this as a defect. Mary Wheatley, a sales associate with Bob Wolfe Real Estate, worked with Jesse and Susan Day to locate a house to purchase. She showed the Days the Burkholz house. Her only knowledge of that house came from the MLS listing, the brochure entitled Highlights of this Home prepared by Frazier, and from information verbally given by Frazier. Wheatley had no knowledge of the septic tank problems and Frazier did not tell her anything about the septic tank or the potential hook up to city sewer. After various offers and counteroffers, the Days and the Burkholtzs signed a contract for the sale and purchase of the house on November 24, 1989. The Contract states in paragraph 14: CONDITION OF PROPERTY: BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE HAS NOT RELIED UPON ANY REPRESENTA- TIONS MADE BY A REALTOR(S) AS TO THE CONDI- TION OF THE PREMISES. . . .SELLER warrants that the . . . septic tank . . . shall be in working order on the date of closing. SELLER agrees to repair any of the preceding items not in working order. BUYER agrees to inspect the property prior to closing to determine condition of said items; . . . If BUYER fails to make inspections as required, BUYER agrees to accept property in "as is" condition. BUYER and SELLER will diligently learn and disclose to each other prior to closing all facts affecting the value of the property. On December 26, 1989, the night before the closing, the Days, the Burkholzs, Frazier, and Wheatley did the final walk through. While Wheatley and Susan Day were in another room measuring for curtains, Mr. Day flushed a toilet and noted that it went down very slowly. He asked if there were septic tank problems. Mr. Burkholz indicated that there were, but that sewer hookup was coming and the septic tank was pumped out monthly by the city at no cost. Mr. Day asked about the costs and was told that the pumpouts were free and the sewer would cost several hundred dollars. There is a clear conflict in the testimony of the various witnesses about the sewer cost estimate given to Mr. Day, but the exact figure is of no consequence to the ultimate outcome of the case. Therefore the conflict is not resolved. The Days discussed the septic tank and sewer hookup and decided to go through with the closing. After the walk through, they signed an inspection sheet in which they accepted the premises as inspected, without any noted exceptions, and they relieved the sellers and the realtor from further warranty or responsibility for the condition of the property. According to Thomas Bryant, an engineer with the City of Tallahassee, in December, 1989, no one knew whether there would be sewer installed in Forest Green or the potential cost of sewer hookup. No one knew that even on the date of hearing. The city did enter into an agreement to charge $650 for sewer hookup in Forest Green, but there are additional charges and costs to the homeowner which are as yet undetermined. The septic tank problems constitute a latent defect which should have been disclosed to the buyers before a contract was agreed upon. The failure to disclose is not egregious since the regular pumping of the septic tank is done at no cost to the homeowner and results in no liability to the homeowner. The projected sewer hook up was too uncertain to have required such disclosure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order and therein: Find Sandra B. Frazier guilty of one Count of concealment in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Based on the mitigating factors set forth above and on the relatively minor nature of the offense, impose a fine of $100.00 on Sandra B. Frazier. Issue a written reprimand to Sandra B. Frazier. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6189 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Sandra B. Frazier Each of the following proposed findings of fact is 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(1). Proposed findings of fact 2-9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Janine B. Myrick Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801-1772 William J. Haley Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have an administrative fine imposed for allegedly providing septic tank contracting services without a license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Herman Campbell, operated a back-hoe service in Santa Rosa County, Florida. He presently holds no licenses with, or registrations from, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), to engage in the septic tank contracting business. In April 1997, Wayne Sullivan, who resides in Navarre, Florida, made arrangements with a local contractor, Robert Hoover, to dig up the drainfield and replace the pipe on a septic tank system at his mother-in-law's home at 8207 Laredo Street, Navarre. Hoover purchased the necessary pipe but then backed out of the job at the last minute. Sullivan then called Mary Esther Plumbing, who recommended that Respondent be used. Respondent was a former licensed septic tank contractor who had installed the original septic tank at the residence more than ten years earlier. Sullivan agreed to purchase all materials (pipe and gravel) needed for the job. Although Sullivan claims that Respondent told him he was licensed to do the work, it is found that Respondent indicated to Sullivan that he held no license or registration and could not obtain any permits. Notwithstanding Respondent's lack of licensure, Sullivan nonetheless asked Respondent to perform the work. Respondent undertook the job on or about Thursday, April 24, 1997. Charging a rate of $45.00 per hour to operate his back-hoe, Respondent replaced the pipe in the drainfield. In addition, he dug up a number of stumps in the front yard. The total charge for all work, including the stump removals, was $1,375.00, which was paid by check from the mother-in-law. The amount related to the septic tank work is not known. The following Monday, the Department received an anonymous complaint that an unlicensed person had performed septic tank contracting services for Sullivan's mother-in-law. After an investigation was conducted by a Department environmental specialist, an administrative complaint was issued. Respondent did not register with the Department before performing the work, and he did not obtain the required permit from, and inspection by, the Department. By failing to do so, Respondent acted in contravention of Department rules. Although the complaint alleges that Respondent caused monetary harm to the customer, there is no evidence that Sullivan's mother-in-law suffered any damages by virtue of Respondent's work. Indeed, at hearing, Sullivan indicated that he was pleased with Respondent's workmanship. While the Department suggests that the mother-in-law has been left with an "unauthorized drainfield," there is no evidence that this caused her to incur additional expense. Respondent contended that he was merely "digging a ditch" with his back-hoe and was not providing septic tank contracting services. However, the evidence shows that he dug the ditch, removed the old pipe, placed gravel in the bed, and laid the new pipe into the ditch, all of which relate to septic tank contracting services. While Sullivan may have assisted Respondent in performing these tasks, it does not relieve Respondent of the responsibility of complying with Department rules. Respondent also contended that he was being singled out for enforcement purposes because he is black. There was no evidence, however, to support this contention. In mitigation, Respondent believed he was working with Sullivan, as the owner of the property, in jointly performing the work, and there was no intent on his part to evade the licensing requirements. In addition, there was no danger to the public, and the customer's property was not damaged. Although the Department contends that Respondent has installed many septic tanks and drain fields "without a permit," there is no evidence in the record of specific jobs performed illegally by Respondent. Finally, the $2,000.00 administrative fine suggested by the Department would appear to have an adverse impact on Respondent's livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rules 64E-6.022(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be issued a letter of warning as to the first violation and that an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 be imposed for the second violation. The allegation that Respondent violated a third rule should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Herman Campbell 621 Oak Lane Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Willie Harmon Post Office Box 733 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
