The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner for registration as an electronic repair dealer should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Jack Resnick d/b/a Smart Service petitioned for an administrative hearing upon receipt from the Respondent of a Notice of Intent to Deny License or Registration. The hearing was scheduled for November 27, 1978 at 2:00 p.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. Prior to the hearing the parties requested that the Hearing Officer write a Recommended Order upon submission of "Stipulation of Facts and Questions of Law" filed jointly by the parties, copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. The instruments filed in this case reflect that in February, 1978 Petitioner Jack Resnick applied to the Respondent, Division of General Regulation, for an electronic repair dealer registration under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. In April, 1978 the Respondent notified Petitioner of its intent to deny said application for registration for the reason that applicant Jack Resnick intended to employ one Arthur Resnick as a repair work person In the business. Previously, in 1976 Arthur Resnick had been denied a registration certificate as an electronic service dealer by the Respondent, having been determined to be unfit and ineligible to be registered as an electronic repair service dealer. The Recommended Order entered in that cause, which was adopted as Respondent's final order, made the following; findings of fact: Arthur Resnick caused to be advertised in local (Florida)newspaper advertisements which would the public believe Arthur Resnick Television Repair Service was registered with the Bureau of Electronic Repair when, in fact, it was not. Arthur Resnick had been asked to disclose on his application for registration whether he had been convicted of a felony, misdemeanor, or any infraction other than traffic viola- tions to which Arthur Resnick answered "no" when, in fact, Arthur Resnick had been convicted of three counts of theft by deception involving the repair of television sets by the Court of Common Pleas in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The Hearing Officer concluded that: The acts and conduct of the Petitioner in operating without a registration; advertising in a leading and deceptive manner; making false statements as an inducement to the public to authorize repair, and his failure to answer truthfully to certain questions on his sworn application for registration is good and sufficient cause for the director of the Department of Business Regulation, Division of General Regulations to deny the Petitioner a registration certificate as an electronic service dealer. The order of the Respondent adopted the Recommended Order noting that it had received no exceptions to the Recommended Order from either party and thereupon denied the application for registration as an electronic service dealer filed by Arthur Resnick. The application of Petitioner Jack Resnick indicates that he is to be the sole proprietor of the business Smart Service. It indicates that Arthur Resnick, who has the same address as the Petitioner, is to do repair work with a possible employee named Jerry Cohen. Respondent gave no other reason for the denial of Petitioner's application except for the indicated employment of Arthur Resnick.
Recommendation Retract the Notice of Intent to Deny License or Registration which was based on the fact that Arthur Resnick was the prospective employee of the Petitioner. Grant Petitioner's application for registration as an electronic repair dealer providing he presently meets the requirements of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Hudson, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Depariment of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Alexander M. Siegel, Esquire 1303 North State Road 7 Margate, Florida 33062 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF GENERAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION JACK RESNICK and SMART SERVICE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1687 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF GENERAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner held a Registered Electrical Contractors license, No. 13012890, and a Registered Alarm System Contractors I license, No. 12000229, that authorized him to engage in the same in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner's licenses are active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. Petitioner operates a business named "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., in Pompano Beach, Florida. In the case styled State v. Terrance Davis, Case No. 082026CCFICA, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Petitioner was charged with burglary of a structure with assault or battery and felony battery. Petitioner's unrefuted testimony was that after his arrest in October 2008, he was detained without bond pending his trial.1/ On November 17, 2009, the Florida Department of Revenue ("DOR") issued to Petitioner a Notice of Non-Compliance with Support Order and Intent to Suspend License for the nonpayment of a previously existing child support order. The notice was sent to 7906 Southwest Seventh Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At the time the notice was sent, Petitioner claims to have been detained in the Broward County jail. The criminal charge of felony battery was nol prossed on December 14, 2009. On December 15, 2009, Petitioner proceeded to trial on the remaining charge and was acquitted by a jury. On December 27, 2009, DOR issued a Notice to Suspend License for Nonpayment of Support to the Division of Professions. Said notice provided that, "[w]e gave [Petitioner] notice of nonpayment and intent to suspend license(s) more than 30 days ago. [He has] not complied with the support order, a written agreement if there is one, or timely contested the action." The notice further directed that, "[u]nder section 409.2598(5)(b), Florida Statutes, you must suspend the license, permit or certificate that allows the person to engage in an occupation, business or recreation." In January 2010, during the course of a traffic stop, Petitioner was advised by a law enforcement officer that his Florida driver's license was suspended. On February 8, 2010, Petitioner entered into a Written Agreement for Past Due Support with DOR wherein he agreed to make a lump-sum payment and additional monthly payments. DOR agreed that it would not suspend or deny his driver's license as long as Petitioner complied with the terms of the agreement. Petitioner credibly testified that thereafter, when he "resumed his Articles of Incorporation," he realized his professional licenses had also been suspended. On February 25, 2010, DOR issued a Request to Reinstate License to the Division of Professions. Said request provided as follows: The license(s) of the parent named below, was suspended for nonpayment of support. Please reinstate the license(s). The parent is paying as agreed or ordered, the circuit court has ordered reinstatement, or the parent is otherwise entitled to have the license(s) reinstated under section 409.2598(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Court Case Number: 060015893CA-06 Parent's Name: TERRENCE A DAVIS Mailing Address: 7905 SW 7th Pl, North Lauderdale, FL 33068-2123 License Number(s) and Type(s): 12000229 Reg. Alarm System Contractors I (EY), 13012890 Reg. Electrical Contractors (ER) On or about July 23, 2013, Petitioner applied for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of section 484.514, Florida Statutes.2/ Included with Petitioner's application, was a personal financial statement wherein Petitioner itemized his assets and liabilities. Petitioner's personal financial statement concluded that his personal net worth was $56,400.00. Also included in Petitioner's application was a business financial statement for "D" Electrician Technical Services, Inc., that similarly itemized Petitioner's business assets and liabilities. Petitioner's business financial statement concluded that the business's net worth was $35,945. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated October 18, 2013, the Board denied Petitioner's application for two reasons: within the previous five years, Petitioner's contracting license was suspended for failure to pay child support; and Petitioner's application failed to demonstrate that he had the requisite financial stability as required by rule 61G6- 5.005(3) and requisite net worth as required by rule 61G6-5.004. Petitioner credibly testified as to the figures supporting the itemization of both his personal and business assets and liabilities and respective net worth contained in the application. Petitioner conceded that a credit report, dated July 8, 2013, documents that he had a late mortgage payment in April 2010; that in 1997, his child support arrearage was placed in collection; and that an account, with a current balance of $3110.00, was placed for collection. Petitioner contends said account concerned a one-year lease that he was unable to satisfy at the time due to his detainment for the above-noted criminal charges. Respondent presented the testimony of Clarence Kelly Tibbs. Mr. Tibbs is a state-certified electrical contractor who served on the Board for approximately 13 years. Mr. Tibbs was not on the Board at the time the Board considered and rejected Petitioner's application. The undersigned deemed Mr. Tibbs as an expert in electrical contracting. Mr. Tibbs did not testify concerning the areas of his expertise (electrical contracting), but rather, offered opinions on the propriety of the Board's denial of Petitioner's application. Mr. Tibbs testified that, "as an ex-Board member," looking at Petitioner's personal and business financials, there were several problems. After itemizing his concerns, Mr. Tibbs concluded that, "[h]owever, looking at the financials that you've got in front of me, although I have some problems with them, I could probably go ahead and approve them."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board, enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, who was never licensed as a contractor, engaged in the unlawful practice of contracting when he entered into (and attempted to perform under) an agreement to build a dental office; and whether, if Respondent is found guilty of unlicensed contracting, Petitioner should penalize him by imposing an administrative fine and assessing investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") has jurisdiction to take punitive action against unlicensed persons who unlawfully engage in the business of contracting. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Respondent James Bresnahan ("Bresnahan") licensed, certified, or registered to do business as a contractor of any sort. In June 2007, Bresnahan entered into a contract with University Dental Health Care Center, Inc. ("University"), whereby, in exchange for University's agreement to pay Bresnahan a total of $42,350 in compensation for his work, Bresnahan promised to remodel a bay at the Shoppes of Rolling Hills ("Rolling Hills"), a shopping center located in Davie, Florida, where University planned to operate a dental office. The contract described the scope of the work that Bresnahan would perform as follows: Remove all walls per plans. Redesign interior space to reflect new office plans. New electrical per plans. New plumbing per plans. New droped [sic] ceiling and lighting per plans per Ken. Finish all walls with new paint colors per Angela. New flooring [illegible] tile to be picked by owner. Install new compressor bracket on back of building. Bring all utilities to dental chairs (vac[uum], water, electric, air and drain; five chairs per plans per Ken. Proposal is for drawings and permits and construction of office. Cabinets and installation by others. Equipment and plumbing fixtures by others per Ken. Handycap [sic] bathroom by Shops [sic] of Rolling Hills. (Quoted text reformatted from "all uppercase" to "sentence case.") Bresnahan had not previously undertaken a construction project such as this. He had, however, overseen the build-out of his wife's bakery, which was located in Rolling Hills. For that project, Bresnahan had engaged a general contractor, Johnson Beckett, Inc. ("Johnson Beckett"). Bresnahan, in other words, had been the client, Johnson Beckett the builder. Bresnahan had been introduced to University's principals by their mutual landlord, who——perhaps being unaware of Bresnahan's actual role in the construction of the bakery—— touted Bresnahan as a "builder." Bresnahan had not advertised or promoted himself as a builder, but neither did he disclaim such expertise upon meeting the principals of University; to the contrary, he ultimately offered to build a dental office for University, leading to the contract described above. On June 21, 2007, upon entering into the construction agreement with Bresnahan, University made a down payment of $10,000 to Bresnahan. Because he was not in fact a builder, Bresnahan's plan was to use this money, and other payments he would receive from University, to hire Johnson Beckett to act as the "general contractor" for all aspects of the project except the plumbing and electrical work, for which Bresnahan intended to engage separate subcontractors. Johnson Beckett would not bid a fixed price for the project, however, without a proper construction plan. Consequently, Bresnahan entered into a contract (in his personal capacity, not as an agent for University) with Johnson Beckett, pursuant to which the general contactor was to obtain a blueprint for the dental office project, appropriately sealed by a licensed engineer. For this drafting work, Bresnahan agreed to pay Johnson Beckett $5,000. As Johnson Beckett proceeded, it encountered some difficulty in obtaining information, which the engineer needed, concerning the equipment that would be installed in the dental office. Meantime, little or no work was being accomplished at the jobsite, which began to create tensions between Bresnahan and University. Nevertheless, University gave Bresnahan another check, for $5,000, on July 19, 2007. As the weeks passed, however, University became increasingly frustrated at the lack of tangible progress; it began to lose patience with Bresnahan. When Linda Commons, an owner of the company, started pressing Bresnahan for an accounting, the relationship deteriorated further. On or around August 21, 2007, Bresnahan sent University a letter that announced he was unilaterally canceling their contract. Thereupon, Bresnahan abandoned the job. As of the final hearing, Bresnahan had not refunded to University any of the compensation he received. In connection with the instant matter, the Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $209.55. Ultimate Factual Determinations Bresnahan's negotiation of, entry into, and attempt to perform under the construction agreement with University constituted the practice of contracting under Florida law. Thus, Bresnahan, who was not a licensed contractor, is guilty of unlicensed contracting, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Bresnahan's negotiation of, entry into, and attempt to perform under the construction agreement with University also constituted the practice of electrical contracting under Florida law. Thus, Bresnahan, who was not a licensed electrical contractor, is guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which: (1) finds Bresnahan guilty of (a) engaging in the business of contracting without a license and (b) practicing electrical contracting without a license; (2) imposes an administrative fine of $10,000 for these incidents of unlicensed contracting; and (3) assesses investigative costs in the amount of $209.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James Bresnahan 4950 Southwest 70th Avenue Davie, Florida 33314 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 G.W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all time material hereto, Respondent, Ronald J. Gurney, has been registered as an electrical contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ER0004532, and held certificates of competency as an electrical contractor issued by Dade County and Broward County, Florida. By letter of July 25, 1989, Metropolitan Dade County charged the respondent with violating various sections of Chapter 10, Dade County Code. Specifically, such letter charged that between August 22, 1988, and June 16, 1989, with regard to jobs at 1520 Euclid Avenue and 531-41 16th Street, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida, the respondent did: . . . violate Section 4505.5(a) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the mandatory rough inspection of work performed under Permit . . . said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative conditions of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. . . . unlawfully violate Section 10-22(b) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County . . . [by] abandon[ing] without legal excuse . . . [such] . . . electrical job[s]. . . . . . . unlawfully violate Section 10-22(g) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County . . . [by] fail[ing] to fulfill . . . [his] . . . contractual obligation to complete . . . [such] . . . electrical job. . . . Such letter further advised respondent that a formal hearing would be held on September 5, 1989, before the Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) to consider such charges, and what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken. On September 5, 1989, respondent appeared for the hearing, as scheduled, however, because the complaining witnesses did not appear, the CTQB continued the hearing. Thereafter, the hearing was rescheduled for November 21, 1989, and respondent did not appear. Notwithstanding, the CTQB proceeded with the hearing, and following its consideration of the evidence found that respondent had violated Sections 10-16(a), 10-22(b) and 10-22(g), Dade County Code, and issued a reprimand, fined respondent $2,500.00, suspended his certificates for three years, and revoked his certificates. By letter of December 1, 1989, Dade County advised respondent of the foregoing decision, and advised him of his right to appeal the decision of the CTQB. Respondent did not appeal such decision but, rather, filed a motion, through counsel, with the CTQB to vacate its decision based on respondent's contention that he did not receive notice of the November 21, 1989, hearing. Such motion was denied on January 9, 1990, and respondent did not appeal or otherwise seek review of such decision. At hearing, respondent offered proof, which is credited, that as a consequence of the action taken by Dade County he lost his position as Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Hialeah; a position that paid $50,000.00 a year. Here, there was no suggestion or proof that respondent had previously been the subject of any prior disciplinary proceeding. To the contrary, the only proof of record on this issue was offered by respondent, and demonstrated that the action brought by Dade County was his first offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which finds the respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 489.533(1)(n), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine against him in the sum of $250.00, and which places his license on probation for a period of two years. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of November 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of November 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 1. 3-7. Addressed in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as unnecessary detail. Addressed in paragraph 3. Rejected as not supported by competent proof. 10-14. Addressed in paragraph 3. 15-19. Addressed in paragraph 4. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1620 Medical Lane, Suite 148 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Ronald J. Gurney 11201 Southwest 55th Street Box 79 Miramar, Florida 33025 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Joseph Potts has been licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. He has been a professional engineer for 40 years. On September 23, 2005, and December 13, 2005, Respondent sealed, signed, and dated engineering documents for the construction of an aluminum screened pool enclosure to replace one which had been damaged in Boca Raton, Florida (the Hacker Project). The documents consisted of a hand-drawn design of the enclosure, a handwritten sheet of specifications sealed on September 23, 2005; and three handwritten pages of engineering calculations sealed on December 13, 2005. Structural engineering documents intended to be submitted for the issuance of building permits, such as those prepared for the Hacker Project, normally are composed of several types of engineering work. The engineer creates (1) calculations, which represent the analysis used by the engineer in making the design decisions for the structure; (2) the design of the structure itself, which encompasses a visual representation of the proposed structure with notations conveying design information in varying levels of specificity depending on the type of project, and (3) specifications, which delineate the methods and prescribe the materials by which the design is to be completed by the builder/contractor. The calculations must justify the engineer's design and specification decisions and must be consistent with the information conveyed in those documents. In the pool enclosure industry it is accepted practice for the actual design of the enclosure to be rendered in a fairly schematic and simplified manner. However, because of this practice, the specifications for the pool enclosure are vitally important and must be clear and consistent in the information imparted to the builder/contractor. It is through the specifications that the intent of the design engineer is conveyed to the builder, and the amount of discretion left to the builder is permitted or circumscribed. Indeed, since in the pool enclosure industry the specifications are generally intended to negate the necessity of an engineer in the design, the specifications must be sufficiently complete and correct so that the builder is able to utilize the information provided in the specifications with the assurance that all reasonable construction decisions will be structurally adequate. Because of the uses to which they are put in the pool enclosure industry, the specifications are "product evaluation documents." Some of the engineering documents for the Hacker Project were submitted to the Palm Beach County Building Department to obtain building permit approval on October 4, 2005. The calculations were submitted in December. The documents for the Hacker Project contained several deficiencies when they were reviewed by employees of the Building Department. These included, among other things: lack of bracing, inadequate depiction of connection, and inappropriate stress increases. The Building Department referred the Hacker Project documents to the Aluminum Association of Florida for review. The Association prepared a report which was forwarded to the Building Department. The report confirmed the Building Department's concerns with Respondent's engineering work on the Hacker Project. As a result, the Building Department rejected the permit application for the Hacker Project and filed a complaint against Respondent with the Board of Professional Engineers. Upon receipt of the Building Department's complaint, Petitioner had the Hacker Project engineering work reviewed by a professional engineer retained for that purpose, Joseph Berryman, P.E. That expert has extensive experience in structural engineering design in general and, in particular, the review of aluminum pool enclosure design documents for compliance with the Florida Building Code and with other engineering practice requirements and standards. While Berryman was reviewing the documents that Respondent had produced for the Hacker Project, Respondent submitted a revised set of sealed and signed design drawings, specifications, and calculations to Berryman in February 2006 but not to the Palm Beach County Building Department. The calculations provided with these new documents were also reviewed by Berryman with respect to the issues raised in his review of the 2005 Hacker Project documents. There were numerous errors and deficiencies in the design and specifications documents prepared by Respondent and filed with the Palm Beach County Building Department. The details for the lap beam connections in Respondent's specification document are unclear. The fasteners for the connections are not adequately indicated as to whether they are to be placed on both sides of the beams or are simply the total number of fasteners without directions for placement. As a result, following the specification literally could result in an interpretation by the builder of the screen enclosure that would cause overstressing in a structural member. The details for Respondent's mansard connection specifications are also deficient since Respondent gave a choice between a one-foot plate and a one-foot-four plate but did not indicate the criteria to be used by the builder in choosing which of the listed plates to use for the job. That failure is a material deficiency since the longer plate produces less stress in the fastener groups, and a builder needs direction as to which plate to use. Further, the detail does not show the H distance (the distance from the outermost fasteners to the edge of the plate material), which should be shown on the documents. Based upon the alloys noted on the specification drawing, the bearing stress on the bolt holes on the largest plate exceeds the allowable stress. Additionally, the beam and column schedule (setting out the maximum lengths and heights which can be achieved with the different sections at given spacing) in the specification drawing allows a builder to select combinations of beams and columns that would be overstressed by factors of from 15 to 90 percent, an improper result. Since builders have a financial incentive to utilize the least expensive size and thickness of structural elements permitted, it is quite possible that the overstressed combinations would be chosen by a builder. The specification details addressing steel reinforcement and concrete strength are also deficient in that the existing foundation's concrete compressive strength is not specified. Absent that detail, the proper cover of steel reinforcing as prescribed by the concrete code is left to the choice of the contractor. Moreover, since the foundation for the Hacker Project would have been placed on existing concrete, unless the strength of the concrete was known, or unless testing was required, or unless the design value was placed on the documents showing that the design was based upon a certain strength with a requirement that the contractor verify the information, it was not possible to know the capacity of the designated fastener. The specification details for typical footings and bracing are deficient. Respondent did not provide sufficient details indicating how the ends of the braces are connected to the frame or the dimensions or configuration of the plates. The details of how the fasteners are attached to the frame of the structure are not provided, and since the screen specification should be the document the builder relies on to tell him how to put together the elements that are specified in the site- specific drawing, the missing details are material errors. The specification details are deficient in the limitations on the rise and run of the mansards. Since allowable stresses are based on unbraced length, it is important to provide limitations on the length of mansard members. However, the calculations provided with the drawings, with only one or two exceptions, are based upon short members wherein no reduction for unbraced length is taken. Because there is no indication as to what the maximum unbraced lengths are in the specification document, a contractor could run members as long as desired, which means, potentially, using a member that has less allowable stress than the design contemplated. Additional errors and omissions existed in the calculations Respondent produced for the Hacker Project. The calculations must be consistent with the specifications in order for the information given to the user in the specifications to reflect the engineer's design decisions. First, the calculations were based on a stronger aluminum alloy than was specified in the screen specifications. If a weaker alloy were used, as allowed by the specifications, it would be likely to be overstressed. Next, the calculation of the distribution of the loading to the individual fasteners and the fastener group at the mansard knee connection is not in accordance with accepted elastic bolt group theory. As a result, the fasteners are not designed for the maximum load that will be placed upon them, and the bearing stresses on the holes in the metal from the fasteners exceed allowable stresses. In addition, on the long-span mansard on Respondent's design drawing shown as 37 feet, 4 inches, the length of the bay spaces is inaccurately calculated. With a mansard beam of this type that is uniformly loaded, as prescribed by the code, the torsional force (twisting) is greater at the center of the beam. Respondent calculated the bays based upon 84 inch spacing, whereas the actual spacing in the largest bay is 108 inches, which means an increased torsion load on that bay which was not calculated by Respondent. Moreover, the fasteners do not all receive the same load. The fasteners on the outside of the group, the ones with the farthest distance from the centroid (the center of gravity of the group), receive the largest portion of the torsional load. In Respondent's calculation, the loading to all the fasteners is averaged, i.e., each fastener gets the same torsional load, which does not comply with accepted engineering theory. The effect of Respondent's calculation decision is that the fasteners are not designed for the maximum load they will receive. In the February 2006 revised documents which Respondent likely created in an attempt to stave off this prosecution and which he provided to Berryman but not to the Palm Beach County Building Department, many of the same errors and omissions appeared as appeared in the documents filed with the County. Additional errors and inconsistencies with the Hacker Project design are found in the February 2006 calculations. Those calculations indicate an allowable tension pull- out for a tapcon anchor at approximately 1,800 pounds per connector. This pull-out value is four to six times as much as is allowed by the product evaluation of those fasteners. Thus, since the value used by Respondent is erroneous, it is not possible to know what the allowable design capacity of the connection is. In addition, the calculations for the K brace indicated a required bracing member that had wall thickness almost double what the original specification had required. Therefore, the February 2006 calculations indicated that Respondent had concurred that the Hacker Project specification was not adequate as far as the size of the brace. While the February 2006 documents were useful in confirming Respondent's design analysis and the errors and omissions contained therein, the documents filed for public record with the Palm Beach County Building Department stand on their own and must meet acceptable engineering standards. Similarly, the revised documents Respondent provided to Petitioner in July 2007, shortly before the final hearing in this cause, are irrelevant to the determination of whether the documents filed with Palm Beach County in 2005 and the documents provided to Petitioner in February 2006 contained errors and deficiencies. Respondent's 2005 calculations submitted to Palm Beach County call for aluminum alloy 6061-T6 in eleven places on the calculation sheets and aluminum alloy 6063-T6 once on the calculation sheets and once in the notes on the beam and column schedule. Alloy 6063-T6 would not be adequate for good engineering standards. Although Respondent testified that this was a typographical error, that explanation for the hand-written entries is not convincing in view of the numerous other deficiencies in the Hacker Project documents. Respondent agrees that the Hacker Project documents are product evaluation documents. He also admits that he did not include on those documents the required information regarding the suitability of the use of the drawings by a contractor as opposed to a licensed architect or engineer. Respondent has previously been disciplined twice for providing substandard engineering services and twice for failing to comply with the final orders entered in those cases involving substandard services.
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 the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause, reprimanding Respondent, placing Respondent's license on probation for two years with appropriate conditions for this case, and imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 26th day of September, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Joseph Potts, P.E. 4440 Northeast 13th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Patrick Creehan, Esquire Chief Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent does business under the name South Florida Construction Group. At no time relevant to this proceeding has Respondent or his business entity been registered or certified to perform electrical contracting or any other contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent holds only an occupational license from the City of North Miami. The residence owned by the homeowners (the subject property) sustained roof damage as a result of Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. The homeowners planned to replace their damaged roof after their insurance claim had been processed. In the interim, temporary repairs were made to the roof by a roofing contractor the homeowners located through a local Home Depot, Inc., store. This roofing contractor was identified only as the Home Depot roofing contractor. The homeowners were dissatisfied with the work of the Home Depot roofing contractor. In early August 2006, Mrs. Ugokwe mentioned at a beauty salon that the Home Depot roofing contractor had failed to prevent her roof from leaking. Shortly thereafter, Respondent learned of the homeowners’ dissatisfaction with the Home Depot roofing contractor. On August 9, 2006, Respondent visited the subject property and told the homeowners that he was a general contractor. Respondent gave them his business card that contained Respondent’s name, address, telephone number, and fax number. In addition, the business card contained the name “South Florida Construction Group” underneath which were the words “State Certified General Contractors” and the following license number “CGC 1510133.” The business card advertised the following services: “Home Improvement & Repairs, New Building Construction, Residential & Commercial Pools, Asphalt Paving & Sealcoating [sic], Site Development & Drainage, and Notary Public Service.” The homeowners believed Respondent to be a licensed general contractor. Respondent and the homeowners discussed Respondent performing work on the damaged roof, including placing blue tarp on the roof (the tarp work) to prevent further leaks until the re-roofing could be completed. They also discussed the subsequent re-roofing of the property. Respondent estimated that the re-roofing would be between $30,000.00 and $33,000.00. After inspecting the subject property, Respondent told the homeowners, among other things, that an electrical connection to a pump on their drain field needed to be repaired. Respondent testified that the electrical connection had been damaged when he backed his truck up while attempting to remove some debris from the subject property. At the meeting on August 9, 2006, Respondent and the homeowners agreed that Respondent would perform the tarp work. On August 11, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent a down- payment of $50.00 cash for the tarp work. On August 12, 2006, Respondent’s crew completed the tarp work. On August 13, 2006, the homeowners paid Respondent the sum of $659.28 for the balance of the materials and labor for the tarp work. The total amount paid for the tarp work was $709.28. On August 13, 2006, after he received payment for the tarp work, Respondent produced a building permit application, which he had Mrs. Ogokwe sign in blank. Respondent explained that he had not finished his proposal for the complete re- roofing and that he wanted her to execute a blank permit to expedite the permitting process. On August 14, 2006, Respondent presented a signed permit application to the building department of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pertaining to the re-roofing of the subject property. Ms. Ugowke’s signature had been notarized. When Respondent presented the permit application to the building department, the contractor’s name was listed as F L Construction, Inc. The qualifying contractor’s name was listed as being Charles Lennox with the contracting licensing number CGC 1510133. That was the same number listed on Respondent’s business card. The value of the work was listed as being $6,200.00. On the morning of August 15, 2006, Respondent returned to the subject property with a person Respondent told the homeowners was an electrician. Mrs. Ugokwe asked Respondent how much the repair of the electrical connection would cost before the purported electrician started to work. Respondent told her not to worry since he would add the cost of the electrical work to the cost of re-roofing the subject property. The electrical repair had been made by the time Mrs. Ugokwe returned to the subject property after work that evening. On August 16, 2006, Respondent informed the homeowners that he had secured a building permit and that he had his proposal for the re-roofing. On August 17, 2006, Respondent delivered a package to the homeowners that contained his proposal and the building permit. Respondent’s proposal for the re-roofing was in the total amount of $39,672.92. The homeowners considered this proposal to be unacceptable. On the building permit Respondent gave to the homeowners, the name of the contractor (F L Construction, Inc.) had been covered with white-out and the name South Florida Construction Group had been inserted as the name of the contractor. The building permit was not otherwise altered. On August 19, 2006, Respondent presented the homeowners with a revised contract for the total price of $33,000.00. Mrs. Ugowke confronted Respondent about the discrepancy between the revised proposal ($33,000.00) and the value of the work reflected on the building permit ($6,200.00). Mrs. Ugowke also confronted Respondent about the white-out on the building permit. The homeowners refused to sign the second proposal. Respondent became angry and demanded immediate payment of $750.00 for the repair of the drain field electrical connection. Mrs. Ugokwe counter-offered to pay $150.00, a sum she believed to be fair after her husband priced the cost of the materials used in the repair. Respondent refused to take the counter-offer. By invoices dated August 22 and September 4, 2006, Respondent billed the homeowners for work that included the electrical work. Each invoice was on South Florida Construction Group’s form invoice. Each invoice reflected the general contractor’s license number CGC 1510133, which is Mr. Lennox’s number. Both invoices included a charge of $1,209.28 for installation of “new blue top, nails and labor” although the homeowners had already paid Respondent $709.28 for the same job. The homeowners refused to pay the invoices. Respondent sued them and placed a lien on the subject property in the amount of $3,839.82. In his claim of lien, Respondent affirmed under oath that he furnished the following services to the homeowners: re-roofing, electrical, and repairs. Respondent’s civil suit was dismissed on the merits. Even after that action, Respondent refused the homeowners’ request to remove the lien from their property. On September 15, 2006, Mr. Lennox sent all his sub- contractors a letter asking them to immediately stop using his contractor license number without his express permission. Respondent signed the bottom of the letter acknowledging receipt thereof, even though Respondent was not a sub-contractor. Respondent’s business primarily consists of finding customers for contractors. He deals with a customer, but has a contractor, such as Mr. Lennox, perform the work Respondent’s company has contracted to do. Had the contract with the homeowners in this proceeding gone through, Respondent intended to obtain payment from them, by having F L Construction, Inc., do the actual work. Petitioner has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $277.52. This figure excludes any costs associated with attorney’s time.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order that finds Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and assess investigative costs against Respondent in the amount of $277.52. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 4th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated provisions of statutes governing licensure of construction contractors and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of construction contracting pursuant to section 20.165, and chapters 455 and 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Unless specifically stated herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2014 version. Respondent is not licensed to practice construction contracting in the State of Florida. Neither Respondent nor his putative company, Troche’s Construction, Inc., has an active license as a construction business in this state. On or about October 31, 2012, Respondent entered into a “proposal” with Paul R. Schettino (the “Owner”) to construct a firewall across the Owner’s place of business. The proposal called for Respondent to build “an approx. 48 ft wall, to be firerocked 5/8 drywall on both sides. Studs to be 3 5/8 metal. To be built and ready for paint.” The cost of the work was to be $2,200. (One of the Department’s exhibits indicates a price of $1,650 for the work, but the actual cost is irrelevant.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, finding Respondent, Raul Troche, guilty of engaging in the business of construction contracting without a license. It is further recommended that the final order impose a minimal fine or, in the alternative, issue a notice of noncompliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Masterson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Raul Troche 70 Belleaire Drive Palm Coast, Florida 32137 J. Yvette Pressley, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Floyd E. Williams be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1983.
