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.
The Issue Whether construction permit No. AC41-6819 issued to Manatee Energy Company, dated June 8, 1978, should be amended, as proposed in construction permit No. AC41-6819A, dated November 7, 1978.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: The Manatee Chapter of the Isaak Walton League of America ("Isaak Walton League") is a non-profit corporation, organized and existing under Florida law. The Isaak Walton League's address is 5314 Bay State Road, Palmetto, Florida 33561. Manatee Energy Company ("Manatee Energy") is a Florida corporation, whose address is 108 Appleyard Drive, Post Office Box 867, Tallahassee, Florida 32302, and was formerly a subsidiary of Belcher Oil Company. The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the regulation and control of air and water pollution under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, whose address is Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The specific agency action at issue in this proceeding is DER's issuance of a revised permit to Manatee Energy to modify a crude oil splitting facility and modified or additional rundown tankage at Port Manatee, Florida. The facility at issue will be located in North Manatee County near the Hillsborough/Manatee County line in Port Manatee. On November 7, 1978, DER issued Manatee Energy Permit No. AC41- 6819A. The validity of the permit is disputed by the Petitioner. Manatee Energy has undertaken construction of the crude oil splitter and associated tankage under either Permit No. AC41-6819 and Permit No. AC41-6819A. (Exhibit 1) On June 8, 1978, after administrative proceedings conducted under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, DER issued construction permit AC41-6819 to Manatee Energy for the construction of a 15,000 BPSD crude oil splitter at Port Manatee, Florida. The permit stated that the oil splitter is to separate crude oil by distillation into three fractions; i.e., LPG, jet fuel and bunker "C." It further provided that combustion devices were to be fired with LPG or fuel oil with a sulfur content of 0.7 percent or less. Various conditions were attached to the issuance of the permit, including analysis of samples of fuels to be burned in the furnace and boiler, performance testing of stacks after startup of the facility, emission limits for the furnace and boiler, and periodic monitoring and reporting of heat content and sulfur content of fuel oil combusted in the boiler and furnace. In addition, condition 5 required that all fugitive dust generated at the site be adequately controlled, and conditions 12- 13 required that steps be taken in conjunction with the Manatee Port Authority to correct any ambient particulate violations, such as paving of roads, parking lots and the like, prior to issuance of an operating permit. The Chapter 120 administrative proceedings resulted in a determination that the proposed facility would not release air pollutants exceeding ambient air quality standards, or significantly degrade applicable base line air quality. (Exhibits 1-2) On October 27, 1978, Manatee Energy applied to DER for revision of the existing permit. The proposed revision was prompted primarily by the fact that Manatee Energy had been sold by its parent company, Belcher Oil Company, and had become an independent operator subsequent to the issuance of the original permit. This change in ownership created a need for accurate recording and accounting of product volume and quality before its transfer to Belcher's storage tanks which are adjacent to the crude oil splitter facility. To accomplish this purpose, Manatee Energy proposed the addition of two 10,000 barrel JP-4 "rundown" tanks for jet fuel, and one 10,000 barrel diesel "rundown" tank in lieu of previously permitted tank No. 410. Also, a 33,000 barrel slop oil tank to temporarily receive and hold off-specification product, and a 40,000 barrel waste water tank replacing a 35,000 barrel tank previously permitted (tank No. 409), were proposed to be added. In view of the above proposed changes, the nine storage tanks owned by Belcher (tanks Nos. 401-409), four of which are leased by Manatee Energy (tanks Nos. 406-409), will store different products except for tanks Nos. 405 and 407 which will remain unchanged. Under the original permit, two 80,000 gallon tanks were to be used to store JP-4, (tanks Nos. 403-404), but under the new proposed arrangement, only one will be used for that purpose (tank No. 406). Tank No. 403 will be used exclusively by Belcher for asphalt storage. Tank No. 409 will he converted from a waste water tank to a No. 6 fuel oil tank. Based on revised determinations of hydrocarbon emission factors by the Environmental Protection Agency after Manatee's application for the original permit, secondary seals on internal floating roof tanks will be deleted, but existing floating roof tank No. 407 is proposed to be modified by adding secondary seals to reduce such emissions. Revised calculations by the applicant as to hydrocarbon emissions show that the proposed changes in tank service and design will offset expected emissions from the proposed new tanks. Such emissions from the revised facility are expected to be 16.8 tons less than the currently permitted tankage emission rate of 75.4 tons per year. (Testimony of Hutchinson, Borie, Exhibits 4, 6-9) Additional modifications to the existing permit proposed by Manatee Energy are to relocate the emergency flare stack, move the process heater, boiler and control room approximately 150 feet each from their previously contemplated locations, and to raise the crude tower approximately 16 feet. The tower produces no emissions and the change is designed to improve the distillation process. Movement of the flare stack and the other process equipment and control room are proposed for safety reasons and do not alter the process configuration or increase emissions. Finally, a Merox treating unit was added for the purpose of extracting impurities from jet fuel. This process does not involve any emissions. (Testimony of Hutchinson, Borie, Larsen, Exhibits 4, 6, 14-15) The revised permit application consisted of engineering drawings by the firm of Marsco Engineering Corporation, Tyler, Texas which was employed subsequent to issuance of the original permit, and a report concerning the proposed changes prepared by Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., an engineering consultant and design firm of New Orleans, Louisiana. A complete DER application form was not submitted or required by DER. Only a revised page 4 of the standard application form was submitted. There was no certification of the project by a professional engineer registered in Florida, although such a certification is required by DER rules. The application was reviewed and recommended for approval to DER by the Manatee County Pollution Control Director. Personnel of DER's Southwest District Office reviewed the application and determined that the applicant's calculations showing that proposed hydrocarbon emissions would be less than those projected under the original permit were correct. They further found that concentrations of sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions would be unchanged by the modifications to the facility. The latter determination was supported by the results of an air quality computer model programed under standard EPA criteria to estimate the impact of such emissions from pollutant sources on ambient air quality standards at ground level. The model determined the maximum impact of sulfur dioxide pollutants which would emanate from the relocated stacks at receptor points approximately .7 to .8 kilometers south of the facility. It was found that the maximum pollutant impact during the worst twenty-four hour period would not change significantly from the former configuration of the stacks and would be well within state ambient air standards of 260 micrograms per cubic meter. A separate computer model relative to particulates was not required because such emissions when extrapolated from the sulphur dioxide model would result in basically unchanged emissions compared to the originally permitted configuration. Manatee County Pollution Control has operated an air quality monitor at Port Manatee for a number of years. This device, which is used for monitoring emission of particulates, has reflected excessive emissions on a number of occasions during 1978 and 1979. However, it is a "source" monitor which is not located in an appropriate place under EPA standards to monitor ambient air quality and, accordingly, DER does not consider the site to be "ambient oriented" or the data to be usable for determinations involving air quality standards. There have been no violations of ambient air quality revealed by monitoring at other stations in Manatee County during the past year. In fact, Manatee County's annual geometric mean for 1978 for suspended particulates were the lowest ever recorded at 33.8 micrograms per cubic meter which was significantly lower than the air quality standard of 60 micrograms per cubic meter. (Testimony of George, McDonald, Williams, Koogler, Subramani, Exhibits 4, 11-13, 16-21) In 1978, subsequent to the issuance of the original permit but prior to the filing of the revision application, certain rules of the DER contained in Chapter 17-2, Florida Administrative Code, were changed. Rule 17-2.03 required the DER to make a determination of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) after receipt of an application for a permit to construct an air pollution facility in certain instances under specific criteria stated in the rule, after public notice had been given of an application which required such a determination. DER did not make a BACT determination as to the permit revision application concerning hydrocarbon emissions since it determined that there was an existing emission limiting standard for volatile organic compounds in Rule 17-2.05(5), which required known vapor emission control devices or systems in the processing and use of such substances. DER also determined that Rule 17- 2.04(6) concerning Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) did not require a BACT determination as to hydrocarbon emissions because the Rule does not apply to hydrocarbon emissions. Also, DER determined that neither the BACT nor the PSD rules were applicable to the modified facility as to sulfur dioxide and particulates because the ambient concentration of those emissions would be unchanged by the proposed modifications. (Testimony of Williams, Exhibit 13) On November 13, 1978, DER issued construction permit No. AC41-6819A to Manatee Energy for the proposed modifications. Conditions attached to the permit were the same as those of the original permit, plus conditions setting forth the modifications of the facility. Notification of the issuance of the permit revision was not made to Petitioner who had been a party to the Chapter 120 proceedings involving the original permit. Neither were the public notice provisions of Rule 17-2.04(9) complied with by DER prior to the issuance of the revised permit. The parties stipulated that opportunity for public participation and comment at the hearing held herein would cure any procedural defect in this regard. (Exhibit 5) Condition 12 of the proposed permit provides that before any startup of the facility, steps must be taken in conjunction with the Manatee Port Authority to correct any fugitive particulate problems and condition 13 states that an operating permit will not be issued until such time as the Port Authority has eliminated the "present violation of the ambient air quality standard with regard to particulates." Identical conditions were set forth in the prior permit based on findings that ambient particulate violations existed from fugitive dust created by road traffic at Port Manatee. As heretofore found above, the particulate violations at Port Manatee are not deemed to constitute violation of ambient air quality standards. Nevertheless, since the original permit was issued, various steps have been taken to reduce such emissions in the Port area by the use of a sweeper, paving of roadway, parking and driveway areas, planting of vegetation, grass, and shrubbery in critical areas, and the like. Although these efforts have shown little success, reasonable efforts are continuing to reduce the problem. (Testimony of McDonald, Subramani, Exhibit 18) Eight public witnesses testified at the hearing. Their concerns primarily focused on such subjects as lack of technology to prevent emission of hydrocarbons, oil spills, inefficiency of small facilities, opposition to "dirty industry" in the county, lack of adequate state rules for storage of hazardous waste, and the accumulation of emissions generally in the Tampa Bay area. One witness pointed out the presence of eagle and pelican habitats in the Bay area near the site in question. A statement on behalf of Sarasota County expressed the view that the modified facility should be subject to the review process of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, concerning developments of regional impact prior to the issuance of a modified construction permit. (Testimony of Burger, Chiefari, Fernald, H. Greer, Blankenship, Morris, M. Greer, Lincer, Exhibit 22, Hearing Officer Exhibit 1)
Recommendation That a permit for the construction of modifications to the facility which is the subject of this proceeding be granted to the Manatee Energy Company, subject to the conditions heretofore proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation, dated November 7, 1978, and with a precondition that the applicant fully complies with the provisions of Rule 17-4.05, Florida Administrative Code, prior to such issuance. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary F. Clark, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Paul Amundsen, Esquire One Biscayne Tower Suite 3636 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131
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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees and, if so, the amount of the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent installs and maintains air conditioning and heating equipment for residential and commercial applications. On May 2, 2017, Respondent was installing a duct system at 3128 East Hillsborough Avenue in Tampa. Two of Respondent's employees were performing work at the site and were not covered by workers' compensation. Leslie Michaud is the president and sole shareholder of Respondent. The air conditioning installation work performed by Respondent's employees is classified by the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) as class code 5537. This code is for "Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Systems Installation, Service and Repair . . . ." During the audit period of May 3, 2015, through May 2, 2017 (Audit Period), code 5537 bore two rates. For the Audit Period, Respondent had no workers' compensation coverage for any of its employees, although it maintained an exemption for Mr. Michaud. For the Audit Period, Respondent's gross payroll was $213,327.49 exclusive of any payments to Mr. Michaud. Applying the manual rates during the Audit Period to the gross payroll yields unpaid workers' compensation premium of $14,870.43.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees during the Audit Period and imposing a penalty of $29,740.86. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Tabitha G. Harnage, Esquire Steven R. Hart Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Leslie G. Michaud L and M Airconditioning System, Inc. 49 North Federal Highway, No. 206 Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which, on the basis of facts alleged in a First Amended Administrative Complaint, Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent. It is alleged that Respondent violated Section 386.204, Florida Statutes, “by and through Section 386.207(3), Florida Statutes,” by allowing patrons to smoke in an enclosed indoor workplace.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the fourteen paragraphs of findings of fact which follow. Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Respondent is Old Cutler Oyster Company, Inc., d/b/a Old Cutler Oyster Company. Respondent holds license number 22-20655, Series 4-COP, issued by Petitioner. Michael Pace is the President of Respondent and holds 100 percent of the stock of Respondent. Lisa Tyrell was the manager and person in charge at Respondent’s licensed premises on July 9, 2003. Ms. Tyrell is currently employed by Respondent as a manager. Ms. Tyrell called Michael Pace on the telephone, then gave the receiver to Fernandez (Special Agent), who explained to Mr. Pace that violations of the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act were occurring on the licensed premises. On July 9, 2003, Special Agent Fernandez issued an Official Notice of Warning to Ms. Tyrell as a result of observing patrons smoking which, he claimed, was in violation of the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. On August 15, 2003, Special Agent Fernandez issued a Notice to Comply to Mr. Pace and told him that he had thirty days to comply with the notice or administrative charges would be filed. The notice alleged a violation of the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act by “allowing patron to smoke cigarettes on 4-COP SRX licensed premises.” Special Agent Fernandez visited the licensee a third time on September 18, 2003. At all times material hereto, Respondent held a valid retail tobacco products dealer permit issued by Petitioner. At no time did Special Agent Fernandez observe any of Respondent’s employees smoking within Respondent’s business premises. No patron received a citation for violating the Florida Clear Indoor Air Act. On July 9, on August 15, and on September 18 of 2003, Special Agent Fernandez observed patrons smoking tobacco products within Respondent’s licensed premises.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the First Amended Administrative Complaint and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2004.
The Issue The issue presented herein is whether or not Respondent violated the Construction Industry Licensing Law as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on June 27, 1987, to wit: proceeding to work without obtaining a timely permit, violating local law either deliberately or through improper supervision, gross negligence and/or incompetence in connection with said job or through his failure to supervise, inspect, improper electrical wiring, poor duct design, damage to a customer's ceiling, failure to supply warranty papers and inadequate cooling.
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: Respondent, Frank W. Hudgens, at all times relevant hereto was licensed as a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license number CA C032442. During times material, Respondent was the sole qualifier for Tampa Bay Cooling, Inc. On June 15, 1987, Respondent, through Tampa Bay Cooling, entered into a contract with Mr. and Mrs. Jack Davis to install a two and one-half ton York heat pump with a horizontal air handler and five kilowatt auxiliary heat strip with the required thermostatic controls and fiberglass and flex ducts, including registers, grills, refrigerant lines and PVC drain lines to the Davis residence for the sum of $3,214.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2.). Respondent installed the equipment as contracted. Respondent subcontracted with a licensed electrician for the installation of the required electrical work on the project. Respondent commenced performance of the installation prior to the time that he obtained a permit as required by local ordinance. However, Respondent applied for a permit at about the same time that the work started, in St. Petersburg, Florida, whereas the Davis' reside in the City of Pinellas Park, and it was therefore necessary for him to obtain a permit from Pinellas Park. Respondent in fact obtained a permit from the City of Pinellas Park later in the day that he commenced work at the Davis residence. When the Davis' contracted with Respondent for the installation of the central air conditioning system in their home, a major concern was that they be able to keep their "computer room" sufficiently cooled to avoid damage to the computers. Following the installation of the system by Respondent, Mrs. Davis complained to Respondent on several occasions concerning the fact that the "computer room" was not sufficiently cool. During Respondent's installation of the system at the Davis', a stop- work order was placed on the job based on Respondent's failure to have the required electrical permit and an employee was observed unwinding electrical wire that would be used to make the electrical connections for the system. Respondent was paid $1,607.00 by the Davis' on June 15, 1987, at the commencement of the installation of the system with the balance due upon completion. The Davis' had refused to pay Respondent the remaining balance for the system. Based on the Davis' refusal to tender Respondent the remaining one half, i.e., $1,607.00 for payment of the system, Respondent has refused to provide them the extended warranty papers for the system. Following Respondent's completion of the installation of the system, the Davis' contacted Donald W. Branch, a factory trained technician employed by Gorman Air Conditioning, the supplier of the system at the Davis' residence and complained about the fact that the system was not keeping the computer room as cool as the Davis' desired. Branch, who was tendered and received as an expert in air conditioning, made a survey of the Davis residence and issued a field report regarding the system. Branch found the system installed by Respondent to be producing within the factory specifications and found that the system was operating satisfactorily and in conformance with factory specifications. Branch found that there was a need for a return air grill to be added to the "computer room" area, such that, when the door was closed in that area, there would still be correct air flow. For appearance sake, Branch determined that the outdoor unit needed leveling and that the drainline from the indoor unit to the outdoors needed to be insulated, possibly, if attic temperatures are too extreme which would prevent condensate from the drainline from dripping and wetting the ceiling. While Branch questioned the appearance of Respondent's insulation of the system, he found it to be operating efficiently and in conformance to specifications. Respondent dispatched a plasterer to the Davis' residence to repair a damaged ceiling inadvertently caused by one of its employees. York Air Conditioning, the supplier of the system, replaced the compressor in the heat pump with a new one in an attempt to appease Mrs. Davis, although this was not done based on any finding by either Branch or Respondent that the compressor which was not the original compressor, was not performing according to factory specifications. Respondent, based upon the suggestion of Don Branch, installed an additional return in the computer room in an attempt to alleviate Mrs. Davis' discomfort in the computer room and was sufficient to satisfactorily cool the computer room. A two and one-half ton air conditioning unit is sufficient to cool a home the size of the Davis residence, which is approximately 1,100 square feet in size, provided the system was correctly designed. Respondent, with the exception of having to reroute a return line from one of the other rooms, properly designed the system in the Davis residence, and additional tonnage was not required to adequately cool their home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of five hundred ($500) payable to Petitioner within thirty (30) days of the entry of its final order. Petitioner enter a final order issuing a written reprimand to Respondent based on his failure to timely obtain a permit prior to commencement of a work project where a permit is required. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 3rd day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 1107 E. Jackson Suite 104 Tampa, Florida 33602 Larry L. Dillahunty, Esquire 780-94th Avenue North Suite 108 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1977, Joe Hodges, an inspector in petitioner's employ, inspected respondent's premises in the normal course of his duties. On a form styled "Public Food Service Inspection Record," Mr. Hodges noted that respondent's refrigerators lacked thermometers; that the dishwasher needed a new temperature gauge; that a screen door opening onto the outside from the kitchen was not in good repair; that the employees' restroom had no soap and towels and had a window screen in need of repair; that the surfaces of some work tables were not smooth; that the employees' hair restraints were ineffective; and that there were many roaches. After this inspection, respondent Laramore acquired thermometers for the refrigerators, caused the area outside the premises to be cleaned, put soap and towels in the employees' restroom and caused the restroom window screen to be repaired. On March 22, 1977, Mr. Hodges returned to respondent's premises, inspected again and issued a formal directive to respondent to exterminate roaches, clean the kitchen floors, repair certain nozzles on the dishwasher, clean certain equipment, store food elsewhere than on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator, lower the temperature in certain refrigerators, provide additional refrigerator thermometers, repair the lining of a freezer lid, and furnish effective hair restraints to employees. On the following day, respondent contacted Larry Farris of Panhandle Pest Control, who regularly sprayed the restaurant for bugs, and asked him to take whatever extra steps were necessary to exterminate the roaches. On the same day, respondent contacted Easom Plumbing Company and arranged for the dishwasher to be repaired. The screen door was fixed, although it was broken subsequently by men using dollies to deliver supplies. Respondent caused the freezer lining to be replaced, certain table tops to be sanded down, a sink drain to be repaired, and the entire kitchen to be steam cleaned. On March 21, 1977, Mr. Hodges returned to respondent's premises and filled out a call back inspection report which listed the items set forth in the notice to show cause, petitioner's exhibit No. 1. On December 30, 1977, together with Mr. George Parish, Mr. Hodges made another visit to respondent's premises. Mr. Parish and Mr. Hodges found roaches, a torn screen on the back door, dirty equipment and a refrigerator containing salad and pastries stored at a temperature of 56-60 degrees. Mr. Parish saw live German cockroaches in many places, notably near an oven no longer used for cooking. This oven, certain other equipment, aswell as dish and pot storage shelves were dirty and needed to be cleaned. Mr. Parish noticed roach excrement caked alongside one of the tables in the kitchen. Mr. Parish and Mr. Hodges found that the sink drain leak had been fixed. They perceived no deficiency in respondent's employees' hair restraints, even though these did not differ significantly from restraints used in the spring of 1977. They also found that respondent's dishwasher had been repaired. At the time of the inspection on December 30, 1977, the dishwasher operator, who was washing one load after another, made a wash cycle last two and a half minutes and followed up with a rinse cycle lasting a minute and a half. The dishwasher contained a hot water heater to boost the temperature of the water used for washing and rinsing dishes in the machine. Although this was in good working order, the dishwasher was being operated with a rinse water temperature of only 172 degrees. The normal wash cycle is 30 seconds and the rinse cycle normally lasts only 12 seconds. With repeated loads of dishes and abnormally long cycles, the water used for dishes in later loads does not reach the same high temperature as at first.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793, Courthouse Marianna, Florida 32446
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
