The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 31st day of October, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made. At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Steven Ary, was a licensed air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CA CO36888. On October 20, 1987, a company named Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Lauderhill Mall, Lauderhill, Florida, to install three 3 1/2 ton air conditioning units for the sum of $7,875. Jenni Temp was to provide the three separate permits required by the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the installation. Joseph Roturra, the owner of Jenni Temp Refrigeration Company, Inc., and Respondent had, prior to October 20, 1987, entered into negotiations whereby Respondent would become employed by Jenni Temp as its qualifying agent so that Jenni Temp could engage in air conditioning contracting. Those negotiations ended before any formal efforts were made to have Jenni Temp licensed with Respondent as the qualifying agent. In late 1987, before his negotiations with Jenni Temp broke down, Respondent signed three blank application forms for electrical and air conditioning permits. Respondent then gave the three signed application forms to Joseph Roturra. Respondent knew that neither Joseph Roturra nor his company was licensed for air conditioning work. Joseph Roturra completed the signed blank application forms he received from Respondent and made application with the City of Lauderhill, Florida, for the three permits required for the job at Lauderhill Mall. The name of the applicant on the applications as completed by Joseph Roturra was All Star Service, Inc. Respondent served as the qualifying agent for All Star Service, Inc. The City of Lauderhill did not issue the permits for which Roturra applied using the forms signed by Respondent because permits had been previously issued to another company for the same job. Jenni Temp completed the Lauderhill Mall job without the permits required by local law and without further assistance from Respondent. Respondent did not supervise the job at Lauderhill Mall. There was no final inspection of the work as required by local law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes and which imposes an administrative fine on Respondent in the amount of $500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that there not be a separate fine for the violation of Section 489.129(1) (m), Florida Statutes, because the conduct that establishes that violation is the same conduct which constitutes the violation for which the administrative fine is recommended. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, l0, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Steven Ary 1217 N. E 4th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33306
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John L. Horn, applied for and took the February 22, 1980, examination for a Class B air conditioning contractor's license, having been qualified, and meeting all preliminary requirements to sit for this examination. Mr. Horn answered Question 6 of the exam by selecting multiple choice Answer E. Question 6 of the February 22, 1981, examination was as follows: The contractor for the classroom and office building shown on Drawing AC-3 is required to accurately measure the air flow from each of the air handling units. Which of the following methods should be used? A magnehelic gauge with the high pressure port connected to the supply duct and the low pressure port connected to the return duct. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse at several points in the supply duct to determine the mean velocity. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse in the centerline of the supply duct to determine the actual velocity. A rotating vane anemometer located in the supply duct air stream. A velometer located at each sidewall outlet. All answers except Answer B were graded as incorrect, including the answer submitted by Mr. Horn. The February, 1980, Class B air conditioning contractor's examination was developed by American Community Testing Services, located in Jacksonville, pursuant to a contract with the Department of Professional Regulation. Question 6 was prepared by Mr. Larry Simmons for the testing service. This question seeks multiple Choice Answer B as the correct answer. Each examination question is written by an expert in the field, and is then checked by another expert for accuracy. The questions are then reviewed by a consultant to the testing service who is a professor of mechanical engineering. These internal review procedures are utilized to minimize the existence of errors. Prior to the time an examination question is used, it is subjected to Departmental review to assure that any grammatical errors are corrected. Subsequent to the examination, Question 6 and the various answers given by examinees were analyzed. Based upon testing criteria, Answers C and D in Question 6 were judged to possibly be correct, in addition to Answer B. Based on this same testing criteria, however, Answers A and E were not possibly correct. A discrimination index disclosed that Question 6 was a difficult question. Nevertheless, every examinee is qualified by experience to sit for the examination, which is designed for competition among peers. The post-examination review procedures used by the Department are for the purpose of assuring that there is not another correct answer. This review is performed by the writer of the question and an expert in the field being reviewed. The preferred method for measuring air flow is to use a pitot tube traverse, as suggested by Answer B. Other methods are available alternatives, but are not given as choices in the answers to Question 6. Answer A is incorrect because it measures static pressure and not air flow. Answer D is not correct because of the large hole that would have to be cut in the duct in order to insert the instrument, and after sealing the duct no reading could be taken. Answer E is also incorrect because it would allow air to flow into the room. Answer C could be correct in a small duct, but not in the duct shown on the drawing accompanying Question 6. The question seeks the best answer among the five choices; Answer B is the only acceptable choice and the correct answer. Twelve of the 14 persons who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination answered Question 6 correctly, by choosing Answer B. Only 7 of the 19 persons who scored in the lower 27 percent on the examination answered this question correctly. This difference produced a discrimination index of .47 percent, which is within professional testing standards as an accurate measure of the validity of the question. This evidence was not controverted. Thus, based upon generally accepted testing criteria, the discrimination index shows Question 6 to be a valid question, and Answer B to be the correct answer. Mr. Horn's contentions are not supported by the weight of the evidence presented. The burden of proof is upon an applicant for a license to demonstrate that he meets all standards for eligibility. Mr. Horn did not present sufficient evidence to meet this burden of proof, and the Board established by substantial, competent evidence the validity of Question 6 and the correctness of Answer B.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John L. Horn for a license as a state certified Class B Air Conditioning Contractor be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15th day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 15th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Horn 114 Willow Branch Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of failing to discharge his supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, in violation of Section 489.11 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of making misleading, deceitful or untrue representations, in violation of Sections 489.129(1)(c) and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of gross negligence, incompetence, misconduct, fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent is guilty of exceeding the scope of his state registered mechanical contractor's license, in violation of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts were found: Respondent, Arwood Hollins, in 1986 held a mechanical contractor's license (RM0016479) with the State of Florida. Respondent owned a 50% interest in All Florida Air Conditioning, Refrigeration, Heating and Ventilation, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "All Florida"), a Florida corporation. The Respondent has resided in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida for approximately 15 years. The main offices of All Florida are located in Lake Jem, Lake County, Florida, with a branch office in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. In 1986 the Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for All Florida. Pursuant to the Respondent's mechanical contractor's license with the State of Florida, he is required to comply with all local license requirements. Respondent has never held nor applied for a license in Seminole County to practice mechanical contracting. The Respondent holds a certificate of competency in Lake and Orange Counties, and inactive certificates for Dade and Sumter Counties, but does not hold a certificate in Seminole County. In 1986 All Florida advertised in the Donnelly Directory for United Telephone (Exhibit 2) in the Central Florida area. Said ad depicts All Florida as being a repair specialist. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, resides at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida. All work performed by All Florida on the Complainant's air conditioning system was performed at the Rockingham Court address in Seminole County, Florida. Respondent testified that although he has lived in Central Florida for 15 years, he is unfamiliar with Seminole County and practices only in Lake and Orange Counties. Seminole County has enacted an ordinance (Number 83-15) which requires that before any person can be issued a license to practice mechanical contracting in Seminole County, they must meet certain requirements. Between January 28, 1986 and August 3, 1986, Robert Hollins, the son of Respondent and an employee of All Florida, traveled to the Complainant's house at 105 Rockingham Court, Longwood, Seminole County, Florida on at least six (6) occasions to perform inspections and/or repairs on the Complainant's air conditioning and heating equipment. Five (5) of the visits, between March 17, 1986 and August 3, 1986, involved problems with the cooling of the air conditioning system. Complainant, Janis Chamberlin, contacted All Florida after she found the company in a Yellow Page and in the Donnelly Directory phone book in late January, 1986 regarding problems with her heating system. Robert Hollins travel led to Mrs. Chamberlin's house at 105 Rockingham Court in Longwood, Seminole County, Florida and made repairs to a circuit breaker. Mrs. Chamberlin again contacted All Florida on or about March 17, 1986 due to a problem with her air conditioning unit. Mrs. Chamberlin spoke with Robert Hollins and gave him directions to her house. Mr. Hollins did not ask if she resided in Seminole County. Robert Hollins advised Mrs. Chamberlin that there was an extensive freon leak in her air conditioning unit and that her ECU unit on the air conditioner would need to be disconnected to insure that all the leaks would be stopped. Thereafter, Robert Hollins assured Mrs. Chamberlin that all of the leaks had been taken care of. She was charged $245.45 for the visit for labor and materials, which she paid. Approximately two months later, on or about May 19, 1986, Janis Chamberlin heard noises from the air conditioning unit. Robert Hollis was called and he traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house and charged her a total of $28.00 for the visit and the air conditioning unit stopped making noises. Approximately two months later, the same air conditioning unit was failing to cool properly and Mrs. Chamberlin again called All Florida. Robert Hollis traveled to the Chamberlin residence and advised that the condenser fan motor had quit working and needed to be replaced. Mrs. Chamberlin authorized the work and thereafter Robert Hollins assured her that he had replaced the condenser fan motor with a new one. Mrs. Chamberlin was charged a total of $248.50 for the new fan motor, other materials and labor. On August 3, 1986, Mrs. Chamberlin noticed a loud screeching noise coming from the air conditioning unit. She called Robert Hollins who arrived at Mrs. Chamberlin's house on the same day. He left the Chamberlin residence before telling Mrs. Chamberlin what was wrong with the unit. Mrs. Chamberlin noticed that the noise she had heard earlier had stopped temporarily. By approximately 9:00 p.m. on the same day, the noise returned and she noticed that there was a decrease in the cooling of the unit. By the following morning, the air conditioning unit was not working. Mrs. Janis Chamberlin contacted All Florida on August 4, 1989. Mrs. Chamberlin advised Robert Hollins that if he would not work on the unit that day, she would have to get someone else to do the job and to call her by 5:00 pm. that day to let her know. Robert Hollins did not call or come to her home by 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Chamberlin called Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. to repair her air conditioning unit. William Pierce, an employee of Four Seasons Air Conditioning and Heating, Inc. in 1986, serviced the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence on August 5, 1986. Mr. Pierce inspected the unit and found that the crank shaft was wrung off inside the compressor. There was a refrigerant leak and oil was visible all over the front of the condenser coil. Also, the fan motor was running backwards. Mr. Pierce's inspection of the condenser fan motor indicated rust around the shaft and fan hub. According to Mr. Pierce, if a fan motor is put on backwards, or rotates in the wrong direction, this would cause the head and back pressure to go up and could eventually internally overload the compressor. It did not do so in this instance, since the crankshaft was wrung off and the compressor froze up. Janis Chamberlin took pictures of the air conditioning unit (Composite Exhibit 10). These photographs were taken after William Pierce had pulled apart the air conditioning unit in preparation for installation of a new unit. The fan motor appears to show rust. The entire air conditioning unit in question was replaced by Four Seasons. Janis Chamberlin requested in writing that All Florida refund her the money paid to All Florida for repairs made to the air conditioning unit in the total amount of $516.95. The letter was dated August 12, 1986 and requested the refund by August 18, 1986. All Florida did not refund the monies. The Respondent never traveled to Mrs. Chamberlin's house to inspect the air conditioner in question or discuss with Mrs. Chamberlin the problems with the air conditioning unit. Robert H. Adams was accepted as an expert witness in the area of service of residential units in air conditioning and the responsibilities of a qualifying agent. Robert H. Adams is a certified residential contractor and he held a City of Jacksonville Master Heating and Air Conditioning license since approximately 1968. A qualifying agent is responsible for the conduct and supervision of the business, the supervision of it and the actions of its employees. The test for a freon leak in a residential unit is relatively simple. This includes looking for oil around any of the fittings, tubes and condensers. It normally takes only one service call to repair leaks. However, it is not unusual for a service technician to make more than one service call in order to locate all of the leaks. If a leak cannot be repaired, the serviceman should tell the client that it is not repairable. Unless a fan motor was exposed to chemicals or salt water, there would be no reason in a three week time span as to why it would rust. If an employee of a qualifying agent told a customer he was installing a new motor which turned out to be untrue, this would be the equivalent of deceit and fraud. Answering complaints from a customer is a distinct responsibility of a qualifying agent. If the fan motor installed in an air conditioning unit similar to the one installed at the Chamberlin residence has an improper rotation, this would affect the air conditioning unit. This would include causing an increase in pressures, inadequate cooling and could damage the compressor. During the period between March and July, 1986 and following three service calls, it is incompetence to fail to find freon and oil leaks. The Respondent received a minimum of three phone calls from his son, Robert Hollins, on July 15, 1986 concerning repairs needed to Mrs. Chamberlin's air conditioning unit. The Respondent spoke with his son, Robert Hollins, on May 19, 1986 concerning the service call at the Chamberlin residence. Robert Hollins in 1986 did not have a license to practice mechanical engineering in Seminole County, Florida and did not hold any license with the State of Florida other than a driver's license. In 1986, Robert Hollins resided in Leesburg, Florida, but was the sole employee at All Florida's branch office in Orlando, Florida. Although Robert Hollins would drive through Seminole County to and from work each day, he stated he was not familiar with Seminole County. Respondent testified that he had instructed his son to use a map in order to avoid performing any work in Seminole County, Florida. Robert Hollins did not examine a map to verify if the Chamberlin residence was in Seminole County, nor did he ask Mrs. Chamberlin which county she resided in. Every time Robert Hollins went to the Chamberlin residence for a service call, he checked in with the Respondent. On July 15, 1986, Hollins inspected the air conditioning unit at the Chamberlin residence and advised Mrs. Chamberlin she needed a new fan motor. Robert Hollins first obtains approval from Respondent before any purchase of equipment or machinery is made. On July 15, 1986, he obtained permission to purchase a new fan motor for the Chamberlin air conditioning unit. That same day Robert Hollins installed a new fan motor at the Chamberlin residence. The fan motor Hollis installed on July 15, 1986 had a 90 day warranty. All Florida warrants its work under the manufacturer's warranty. Subsequently, Chamberlin advised Hollins that the air conditioning unit was not working. He replied that if she had any problems with the unit he would rather not come out and work on it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent be found guilty of failure to discharge supervisory duties as a qualifying agent, violating Sections 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes and that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent be found not guilty of making misleading, deceitful, or untrue representations. Respondent be found guilty of incompetence, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, which caused monetary harm to the licensee's customer and that an administrative fine be imposed in the amount of $500. Respondent be found guilty of contracting in a county without a local license, in violation of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent be reprimanded. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1611 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The following Findings of Fact are Accepted: Paragraphs 1,2,3,4(in part) ,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15(in part), 16,17, (in part),18,19,20,21,24,25,26,(in part),27,28,29,30(in part),31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39(in substance),40 The following Findings of Fact are Rejected: Paragraphs 22 and 23 - uncorroborated hearsay Pargraph 15(in part) - not relevant Paragraph 17(in part) - witness cannot give expert opinion testimony, since he was not qualified to testify as an expert COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Sealy Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John E. Jordan, Esquire Wool folk, Estes and Keough, P.A. 131 Park Lake Street Post Office Drawer 3751 Orlando, Florida 32802 Richard A. Howard, Esquire Brownlee and Jacobs, P.A. Post Office Box 1448 Tavares, Florida 32778
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charlie S. Hiers is registered as a Class B air conditioning contractor and qualifier for Hiers Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Orlando, Florida. As of July 1, 1979, his license became delinquent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In December, 1981, Myrtle D. Harris, who resided at 7505 Ranchero Street, Orlando, engaged the services of Respondent to repair the air conditioning unit at her home. He had performed satisfactory air conditioning work for her on two prior occasions in 1979 and 1980. She had originally contacted him through an ad in the telephone directory under the name "Temp Control Service." On each occasion she had given him a check payable to Temp Control Services which was later endorsed in that name by Respondent. (Testimony of Harris, Petitioner's Exhibits 2-3) Respondent advised Mrs. Harris on December 2, 1981, that the compressor of her air conditioning unit needed to be replaced with a new compressor. She thereupon gave him a check in the amount of $546.00 and he provided her with a bill marked paid in that amount. Her chock, dated December 2, 1981, was made payable to Charlie Hiers, and his bill of the same date merely had his handwritten name at the top. Mrs. Harris later added the words "Temp Control" in the payee portion of the check after it had been endorsed by Respondent and returned after payment. (Testimony of Harris, Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5) Respondent proceeded to remove the old compressor and later came by Mrs. Harris' house and told her that he had had to order a replacement part. However, he never came back to her home or performed the work for which he had been paid. Mrs. Harris attempted to reach Respondent by leaving her telephone number at his answering service but received no reply. Later, sometime in January, Respondent telephoned her and stated that he had the compressor on his truck and would install it on a specified date. However, he never fulfilled his promise. Mrs. Harris attempted to reach him on subsequent occasions by telephone, but was unable to contact him. On February 1, 1982, Mrs. Harris had her nephew write a letter to Respondent requesting that he either perform the work or return the payment of $546.00. Several months later, after not having heard from the Respondent, Mrs. Harris purchased a new air-conditioner. Respondent has taken no action to perform his agreement or to return the amount which he was paid. (Testimony of Harris)
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's motel license should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a motel license, number 2200031. The motel is located at 4140 West Highway 90, Lake City, Florida. On June 9, 2003, and on June 16, 2003, a division inspector inspected the Respondent's motel premises and specifically inspected room 207. The inspector noted five alleged deficiencies on June 9, 2003. On June 16, 2003, the inspector noted that three of the five alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected, while two of the alleged deficiencies were corrected during the June 16, 2003, re-inspection. The three uncorrected alleged deficiencies consisted of exposed insulation around the air conditioning unit in room 207, food buildup present in the microwave in room 207, and heavy lint buildup present in the lint filter of the motel's commercial clothes dryer. The two alleged deficiencies corrected during the re-inspection were the use of an electrical extension cord and an unsecured electrical outlet cover. Room number 207 was available for rent and was rented to the public by the Respondent on May 31, 2003, and again on June 19, 2003. During the interim time and at the time of these inspections, the room was not rented because it was undergoing repairs. During this time, the room was being used primarily as a handyman workroom for ongoing repairs. Part of the repairs being done to room 207 was to replace the permanent air conditioning unit in that room. Because the air conditioning unit did not work, Respondent had temporarily installed a window air conditioning unit. The window air conditioning unit did not fit the window it was in, therefore, Respondent had placed insulation around the unit. The insulation was exposed. The insulation was not a furnishing supplied with the room but was a temporary part of the building’s window/wall system intended as a prelude to replacing the air conditioning unit. Since the insulation was not a furnishing, its exposure did not violate Rule 61C-3.001(5) that addresses the cleanliness of room furnishings such as drapes. An extension cord was being used to power the window air conditioning unit in room 207. Even though Respondent unhooked the extension cord during the re-inspection, the use of the extension cord to power the air conditioning unit was a fire hazard and violates Chapter 509. Additionally, one of the electrical outlet cover plates was attached, but was loose. However, it did function as a barrier. There was no evidence regarding the space requirements for an electrical outlet or how the outlet cover impacts that space other than as a barrier. The evidence did not show that a loose outlet cover violates NFPA 70,110.32 that deals with the space requirements around electrical equipment. Finally, the microwave in room 207 had old food buildup on its walls. The microwave is a furnishing and is required to be kept clean. Such food buildup does not meet the cleanliness requirements of Rule 61C-3.001(5). Outside of room 207, the inspector personally observed the lint buildup in the dryer. Petitioner does require that the dryer’s lint trap be cleaned once a day. However, either the trap had not been cleaned or the dryer had received heavier use on the days of the inspection. The lint is a flammable material and the dryer trap must be kept free of such flammables. The accumulation of the lint was a fire hazard and is a violation of Rule 61C-1.004(7).
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding Respondent guilty for violating Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Kana Baleswaran, pro se Piney Woods Lodge 4140 West Highway 90 Lake City, Florida 32055 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license of John Arena (Respondent) based upon violations of Sections 489.105(4), 489.119 and 489.129(1)(e) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a certified residential contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CR-C021139. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to Chapters 120, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes, and rules adopted thereunder. During March, 1988, the Respondent's license was issued in an active status qualifying Classic Industries, Inc., and this licensure status was effective until September 1989, when the Respondent's license was placed in inactive status. On or about September 23, 1988, Dorothy G. Fields entered into a contract for residential repairs and construction with Classic Industries, Inc., for her residence located at 4361 Southwest 23rd Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. At the time of this contract, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Classic Industries, Inc. However, the Respondent never personally spoke with Dorothy Fields, or anyone acting on her behalf, concerning this contract. Fields' contract with Classic Industries clearly reflects her understanding that the work to be completed included window repair, the installation of an air conditioner, and insulation, for which she was to pay $6800. However, Respondent understood that the only work to be performed for Fields was window repair, and accordingly, he pulled a permit on September 27, 1988 only for the repair of her windows, and not for the air conditioner or insulation work. There is no evidence in the record which would support the Respondent's understanding, and it is, therefore, found that Respondent was in error when he failed to pull permits for the additional work which was to be performed on Fields' residence. Respondent visited the site of this job and determined that the window repairs had been completed according to code specifications. He did not observe any work being done on the air conditioner or the installation of insulation. Nevertheless, this work was, in fact, performed, and Fields made full payment to Classic Industries in the amount of $6800. The air conditioning work on Dorothy Fields' residence was subcontracted by Classic Industries to Carlos Jimenez, d/b/a, All American Services. At all times material hereto, Carlos Jimenez, d/b/a, All American Services, was not licensed and qualified by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in Florida. No permits were obtained for the air conditioning and insulation work, and a Notice of Violation was issued by the local building inspector on October 11, 1988. Subsequent thereto, permits were obtained on November 15, 1988, after this work had been performed. On October 4, 1990, a Final Order was filed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board involving the Respondent in Case Number 109713 (DOAH Case Number 90-1416). As a result of violations of Section 489.129(1)(d),(j) and (m), Florida Statutes, which were found in that case, the Respondent was fined $2250, and his license was also suspended for as period of thirty days, subject to this period of suspension being stayed if he paid the administrative fine within thirty days. There is no evidence in the record to indicate whether Respondent did, in fact, pay this fine within thirty days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of two years, and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted, substantially, in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Copies furnished: Robert Harris, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 John Arena 5961 S.W. 13th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issues are whether the existing and proposed provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.005, as identified in the next paragraph, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gold Coast School of Construction, Inc. (Gold Coast), engages in the business of offering courses to individuals who seek to become certified or registered contractors in Florida. Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses for prospective general contractors, building contractors, residential contractors, Class A air conditioning contractors, Class B air conditioning contractors, Class C air conditioning contractors, and roofing contractors. Enrollment in these classes ranges from 200-600 students annually. For the trades in which Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses, Gold Coast is substantially affected by the proposed rule, which would substantially raise the net-worth requirements imposed on prospective contractors, reduce the number of persons who could qualify for certification, and reduce the number of persons who would enroll in Gold Coast's prelicensing courses. Petitioner Douglas L. Gamester (Gamester) has passed the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Respondent) examination for certification as a general contractor. After he filed his rule challenge, Respondent granted him a general contractor's certificate and approved his qualification of a business entity. Gamester is not substantially affected by the rule or proposed changes to the rule. Although Gamester may, in the future, attempt to obtain other contracting certificates in other trades, any finding of such plans at present would be based entirely on speculation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.005 provides: 61G4-15.005 Requirements for Certification and Registration. In order that the Board may carry out its statutory duty to investigate the financial responsibility, credit, and business reputation of a new applicant for certification or registration or a change of status of a certification or registration, an applicant shall be required to forward the following to the Department for a review by the Board: A credit report from any nationally recognized credit agency as defined in subsections 61G4-12.011(13) and (14), F.A.C. A financial statement, not older than 12 months, which shall contain information indicating the current assets, current liabilities, total assets, total liabilities, and total net worth, and which shall report all material financial changes occurring between the date of the financial statement and the date of the application. As a prerequisite to issuance of a certificate, an applicant shall, in addition to the submissions required in subsections and (2) above, submit competent, substantial evidence to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board demonstrating the following: Net worth as listed below for the following categories of contractors: General Contractor, $20,000; Building Contractor, $20,000; Residential Contractor, $20,000; Sheet Metal Contractor, $10,000; Roofing Contractor, $10,000; Class A Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Class B Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Class C Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Mechanical Contractor, $10,000; Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor, $10,000; Residential Pool/Spa Contractor, $10,000; Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing Contractor, $2,500; Plumbing Contractor, $10,000; Underground Utility and Excavation Contractor, $10,000; Solar Contractor, $10,000; Residential Solar Water Heating Specialty Contractor, $2,500; Specialty Structure Contractor, $10,000; Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor, $10,000; Gypsum Drywall Specialty Contractor, $2,500; Gas Line Specialty Contractor, $10,000; or Glass and Glazing Specialty Contractor, $10,000. Possession of either a letter of credit or a compliance bond established to reimburse the appropriate parties for diversion of funds, abandonment, and all other statutory violations, said instruments to be issued in the same license classification to dollar ratio listed in paragraph (a), above. The aforementioned instruments are not to be construed as performance bonds. Net worth shall be defined to require a showing for all contractor licensure categories that the applicant has a minimum of 50 percent (%) of the amount in cash. Cash shall be defined to include a line of credit. On February 6, 2004, Respondent published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 30, Number 6, proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code 61G4-15.005(3)(a), so that the new net-worth requirements would be as follows (new language is underlined and old language is stricken): Net worth as listed below for the following categories of contractors: General Contractor, $80,000 20,000; 20,000; 10,000; 10,000; Building Contractor, $40,000 Residential Contractor, $20,000; Sheet Metal Contractor, $20,000 Roofing Contractor, $20,000 Class A Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Class B Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Class C Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Mechanical Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Residential Pool/Spa Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing Contractor, $10,000 2,500; Plumbing Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Underground Utility and Excavation Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Solar Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Residential Solar Water Heating Specialty Contractor, $5,000 2,500; Specialty Structure Contractor, $20,000; 10,000; Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor, $20,000; 10,000; Gypsum Drywall Specialty Contractor, $5,000; 2,500; Gas Line Specialty Contractor, $20,000 10,000; or [sic]. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, divides contractors into Division I and Division II. Division I contractors are general, building, and residential contractors. Division II contractors are all other contractors. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, defines Division I contractors as follows: "General contractor" means a contractor whose services are unlimited as to the type of work which he or she may do, who may contract for any activity requiring licensure under this part, and who may perform any work requiring licensure under this part, except as otherwise expressly provided in s. 489.113. "Building contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction of commercial buildings and single-dwelling or multiple-dwelling residential buildings, which commercial or residential buildings do not exceed three stories in height, and accessory use structures in connection therewith or a contractor whose services are limited to remodeling, repair, or improvement of any size building if the services do not affect the structural members of the building. "Residential contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction, remodeling, repair, or improvement of one-family, two-family, or three-family residences not exceeding two habitable stories above no more than one uninhabitable story and accessory use structures in connection therewith. In contrast to building and residential contractors, a general contractor is unlimited in the scope of work that he or she may under take, subject to Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, which requires a contractor to subcontract out electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool, and air conditioning work, unless the contractor is certified or registered in the particular trade. Building contractors may undertake work on residential or commercial structures not more than three stories high, and residential contractors may undertake work on limited residential structures not more than two stories high. Although Petitioners identify various small jobs that require a general contractor's certificate or registration, such as the construction of small communications towers, balcony repairs in parking garages, and door repairs in high-rise apartments, the record generally supports the finding that the scope of jobs undertaken by general contractors is more extensive than the scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors, and the scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors is more extensive than the scope of jobs undertaken by residential contractors. This case involves one of the requirements imposed on persons seeking to become certified as contractors in specific trades. Certification is distinct from registration. Section 489.105(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, defines "certificate" as a certificate of competency issued by Respondent and a "certified contractor" as a contractor who may practice anywhere in the state. Section 489.105(9) and (10), Florida Statutes, defines "registration" as registration with Respondent and a "registered contractor" as a contractor who may practice only in the local jurisdiction for which the registration is issued. Section 489.115(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits any person from engaging in the practice of contracting without first obtaining a certificate or registration in the appropriate trade. Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, provides: (b) In addition to the affidavit of insurance, as a prerequisite to the initial issuance of a certificate, the applicant shall furnish a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant and evidence of financial responsibility, credit, and business reputation of either himself or herself or the business organization he or she desires to qualify. The board shall adopt rules defining financial responsibility based upon the applicant's credit history, ability to be bonded, and any history of bankruptcy or assignment of receivers. Such rules shall specify the financial responsibility grounds on which the board may refuse to qualify an applicant for certification. * * * (6) An initial applicant shall, along with the application, and a certificateholder or registrant shall, upon requesting a change of status, submit to the board a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant or certificateholder or registrant. The credit report required for the initial applicant shall be considered the minimum evidence necessary to satisfy the board that he or she is financially responsible to be certified, has the necessary credit and business reputation to engage in contracting in the state, and has the minimum financial stability necessary to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct. The board shall, by rule, adopt guidelines for determination of financial stability Although testimony at the hearing suggested that "history of bankruptcy" meant an inability to generate sufficient cash flow to pay debts owed, it is more likely that a "history of bankruptcy" is a record of filing for bankruptcy. Like the appointment of a receiver, the filing of a petition for bankruptcy is an action that is easily detected, as opposed to the inability to pay debts as they matured or the existence of liabilities in excess of assets--either of which, for most natural persons, is difficult to determine, especially historically. The "credit report" mentioned in Section 489.115(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the "credit report" mentioned in Section 489.115(6), Florida Statutes, is the same credit report. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.011(11) and (12) defines the credit report as follows: A “credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant, certificateholder or registrant”, shall for the purposes of Section 489.115(6), F.S., mean a credit report that provides full, accurate, current, and complete information on the following items in a manner which allows the Board to determine the credit worthiness of the applicant: Payment history; Credit rating; Public filings in county, state and federal courts; Bankruptcies, business history, suits, liens, and judgments, all on a nationwide basis; Location of business, number of years in business; Social security numbers, if available, of all corporate officers, owners and partners, and all federal employer identification numbers, if available, held by the applicant or any business entity that he currently qualifies or is applying to qualify; and UCC filings. A “nationally recognized credit agency” shall mean a credit agency that: Obtains credit information both within and outside the State of Florida; Validates, updates, and maintains the accuracy of credit information obtained; and Obtains credit reports from at least two (2) credit bureaus. The statutory requirement of a credit report focuses upon an individual's creditworthiness, based on his or her use or abuse of credit and payment history. The closest that these statutes come to specifying net worth as a criterion of certification are the requirements of "financial. . . responsib[ility]" and "the minimum financial stability necessary to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct," which is the cause of about 70 percent of all disciplinary proceedings against contractors. However, these statutory references guide Respondent in the authorized use of the credit report, which does not warrant the imposition of a net-worth requirement. First, the credit report lacks net-worth information. Second, the credit report presents a subject's financial history--most of which is of no use in establishing the subject's present net worth. In contrast to these provisions in Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, Section 489.1195(1)(d), Florida Statutes, expressly authorizes Respondent to adopt rules imposing "net worth" and "cash” requirements on individuals seeking to qualify as financially responsible officers (FROs) for construction businesses. The Legislature clearly evidenced its ability to require net worth as a condition to certification as an FRO, which are not involved in this case, and obviously elected not to impose as onerous a requirement upon contractors themselves. Respondent determined the new net-worth requirements in the proposed rule by two means. Respondent had not changed the net-worth requirements for Division II contractors for 20 years, so Respondent estimated that the effects of inflation justified the increases set forth in the proposed rule. Respondent had raised the net-worth requirements for Division I contractors from $10,000 to $20,000 in 1998. Respondent derived the new net-worth requirements for general and building contractors based on estimates of weekly salaries for these respective contractors, not inflation. The present record contains no evidence of the rate of inflation during any relevant period of time, nor any evidence of average weekly salaries paid by Division I contractors. Nor does it appear that Respondent considered such data when determining the new net-worth requirements in the proposed rule.
