The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material to the instant matter, registered as a septic tank contractor with the Department. In July 2002, Respondent entered into a contract with Pro Gold Investments Corp. (Pro Gold), whose president and sole owner is Emerico Kemeny Fuller. The contract provided that Respondent would install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold at 453 Blue Road in Coral Gables, Florida (Blue Road Property) for $4,600.00, a job that should have taken only a "few days" to complete. Pro Gold gave Respondent a "job deposit" of $2,300.00. In July 2003, Pro Gold, by Warranty Deed, conveyed title to the Blue Road Property to Maurits de Blank's company, Mortgage Lending Company LLC (MLC), and it also executed a Bill of Sale, Absolute and Assignments of Contracts, which read as follows: PRO GOLD INVESTMENTS CORP, as Seller, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other valuable consideration paid to it by MORTGAGE LENDING COMPANY, LLC, as Buyer, the receipt of which is acknowledged hereby sells, assigns, grants, transfers, and conveys to Buyer all of Seller's right, title, and interest in the following described goods, contracts and personal property: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A- PROPERTY" AND EXHIBIT "B- CONTRACTS ASSIGNED" Seller covenants and agrees that it is the lawful owner of goods, contracts, rights or interests transferred hereby; that they are free from all encumbrances, except for outstanding amounts due, if any, to those parties set forth on Exhibit "B," and that it has the right to sell, transfer and assign the goods, properties and rights set forth in the attached Exhibit "A," and the right to transfer and assign the contracts, rights or interests shown on Exhibit "B," and will warrant and defend same against the lawful claims and demands or all persons. The "attached Exhibit 'A- Property'" read, in pertinent part, as follows: (Regarding transfer of 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables, Florida, "the Real Property") (Mortgage currently in favor of Mortgage Lending Company, LLC "the Mortgage") All property rights of any kind whatsoever, whether in property that is real, fixed, personal, mixed or otherwise and whether in property that is tangible or intangible, including, without limitation, all property rights in all property of any kind whatsoever that is owned or hereafter acquired by the Company and that is associated with, appurtenant to or used in the operation of the Real Property or is located on, at or upon the Real Property and is associated with or used in connection with or in operation of any business activity conducted on, at or upon the Real Property, and including, without limitation, the following: * * * All right, title, and interest in those certain contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit "B," which are hereby transferred and assigned to Mortgage Lending Company LLC. Among the "contracts and agreements [set] forth in the attached Exhibit 'B,'" was the aforementioned July 2002, contract wherein Respondent agreed to install a "new septic system" for Pro Gold on the Blue Road Property (Septic System Contract). This contract was still executory. Respondent had not done any work on the site in the year that had passed since the contract had been signed. In the beginning of August 2003, Mr. de Blank met with Respondent and advised him that MLC was the new owner of the Blue Road Property and that MLC had also received an assignment of the Septic System Contract from Pro Gold. In response to this advisement, Respondent stated "he did not do assignments." Following this meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent documentation supporting the assertions he had made regarding MLC's ownership of the Blue Road Property and its having been assigned the Septic System Contract. Mr. de Blank then attempted, unsuccessfully, to make contact with Respondent by telephone. He "left messages," but his telephone calls were not returned. These efforts to telephonically communicate with Respondent having failed, Mr. de Blank "decided that it may make some sense to start a letter writing program." As part of that "program," on September 8, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables As background, and in chronological order: Pro Gold Investments purchased the above cited property and obtained a construction loan from our firm. One of the conditions was that all construction contracts would be assignable to our firm in the event of default. Pro Gold Investments entered into contract with your firm to install a new septic tank and drainfield at 453 Blue Road. Pro Gold Investments defaults and forfeits title in lieu of foreclosure. The deed was recorded on August 4, 2003, at Bk/Pg: 21484/4283. Not recorded but attached for your reference is an assignment of contracts to include the contract Pro Gold Investments entered into with your firm. See further attachment. The original can be inspected in my office. At this point, I request you proceed with the work as soon as practical and under identical conditions as originally agreed with Pro Gold Investments. Please call me at . . . to confirm a start date. Mr. de Blank did not receive any response to his letter. He finally was able, however, to reach Respondent on the telephone. During this telephone conversation, Mr. de Blank made arrangements to meet Respondent at the Blue Road Property to discuss Respondent's doing the work Respondent had agreed to do in the Septic System Contract. This meeting between Mr. de Blank and Respondent took place on September 11, 2003. During the meeting, Mr. de Blank went over with Respondent "what the job [was] going to be." Although Respondent indicated that he was "going to put in th[e] septic tank" per the Septic System Contract, Mr. de Blank had his doubts that Respondent would be true to his word. Following the meeting, Mr. de Blank sent Respondent the following letter: Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables We met today to discuss the above referenced job. My understanding is: You will start the job no later than the first week of October and will complete the job no later th[a]n the last week of October. I will obtain a copy of the approved permit. You indicated you will not need a survey.[1] Should you change you[r] mind, you can always refer to a survey I keep on site. You will have your insurance agent mail to my address a certificate of insurance. Though not discussed: I would like a partial release of payments made to date for the job. See further the attachment. Assuming you concur, then please send a signed and notarized copy to Maurits de Blank, Mortgage Lending Company, Post Office Box 430336, Miami, Florida 33143. Note that I prefer for various legal reasons that you use the release form as provided. Once the job has been started, I would like a list of firms supplying materials to the job. Notwithstanding that he had promised Mr. de Blank that he would "start the job no later than the first week of October," by the middle of October Respondent had yet to even "pull a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables" (that was needed before any on-site work could begin).2 In an attempt to find out from Respondent what was the cause of the delay, Mr. de Blank started a "calling campaign," but Respondent neither answered the telephone when Mr. de Blank called nor returned Mr. de Blank's calls. On October 19, 2003, Mr. de Blank sent the following letter to Respondent (by certified United States Mail, return receipt requested): Re: 453 Blue Road, Coral Gables I need a firm commitment when you will start and finish septic tank at above address. If you cannot perform the work, then I will need a refund of the deposit given to your firm. Please call to discuss. The end of the month was fast approaching, and Respondent had neither contacted Mr. de Blank nor begun the Septic System Contract on-site work. After paying a visit to Coral Gables City Hall and learning that Respondent had still not even "pull[ed] a septic tank construction permit from the City of Coral Gables," Mr. De Blank found another septic tank contractor, Westland Septic Tank Corp., to do the installation work for MLC that Respondent was contractually obligated to perform. MLC paid Westland $4,400.00 to do the work. Westland completed the job some time prior to November 4, 2003. The work passed all of the necessary inspections. Upon learning that MLC had contracted with Westland, Respondent sent Mr. de Blank a letter complaining that Mr. de Blank had not given Respondent an adequate opportunity to meet his obligations under the Septic System Contract. In the letter, Respondent offered to return only $500.00 of the $2,300 down payment he had received from Pro Gold. Mr. de Blank subsequently informed Respondent that this was not satisfactory and that he wanted the "full deposit back." He added that if he did not get it, he would "go to court." Not having received any portion of the "deposit back," Mr. de Blank, acting on behalf of MLC, in mid-November 2003, filed suit against Respondent in Miami-Dade County Court. On May 14, 2004, a Final Judgment was entered in Miami-Dade County Court Case No. 0313813 in favor of MLC and against Respondent "in the amount of $1,675.00 plus court costs in the amount of $121.00." As of the date of the final hearing in this case, Respondent had not made any payments to MLC. In view of the foregoing, it is found that Respondent abandoned for 30 consecutive days, without any apparent good cause, a project in which he was under contractual obligation to complete; and his failure to go forward with the project, combined with his failure to return any of the deposit he had received, caused monetary harm to a party to whom he was contractually obligated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of the misconduct alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him therefor by fining him $500.00 and suspending his registration for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lois Green, is a resident of Florida and owns the property known as the Nichols Post Office located on Highway 676 in Nichols, Polk County, Florida. There is one employee stationed at the post office and members of the public use the post office for U.S. mail purposes. On October 11, 1990, Petitioner advised Respondent that the source of water that she used to supply the post office building did not comply with the requirements of the Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, on September 23, 1991, Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint to Respondent, advising of Petitioner's notice of intent to assess a fine of $100.00 per day until the corrections were made or for 30 days, whichever occurred first. At the hearing, Petitioner orally amended paragraph 4 of the Administrative Complaint to change the reference "December 22, 1989" to "October 4, 1990." Following service of the Administrative Complaint on Respondent and for 30 days thereafter, the water source for the post office building was a well located behind the post office on Respondent's property. In approximately December of 1991, Respondent disconnected the well which was presently serving the post office and connected to another well located adjacent to the property which supplied a residential home. The well which provided water to the post office was originally drilled as an irrigation well. The well head was located approximately 50 ft. to the closest septic tank and restroom pipe outlets. That well had no raw sample taps or a pressure tank with an inlet or outlet. Additionally, there was no surface protection pad nor were quarterly bacteriological samples taken to measure the water quality samples. Finally, the well was not approved by Petitioner prior to placing it into use by Respondent. Sometime subsequent to 30 days after Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint to Respondent, Respondent abandoned the well without notifying the Petitioner and connected to a residential well which also contravenes the setback requirements contained in Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, that well is approximately 30 ft. from the on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank) and is in violation of Rule 17- 555.302, Florida Administrative Code, formerly Rule 17-22.615(2), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's agent, Mark Fallah, during times material, was employed in Petitioner's Code Enforcement Section and was charged with investigating the problems surrounding Respondent's supply of water to the Nichols Post Office. Throughout the course of employee Fallah's involvement with the investigation of this matter, there have been several proposals and counter-proposals which have been exchanged by and between Petitioner and Respondent. Petitioner's agent Fallah attempted to see if a variance could be obtained whereby Respondent could continue to use the then existing well despite the fact, however, that it was in violation of the setback requirements. Additionally, Fallah attempted to get Respondent to make certain minor changes and modifications to the existing well which were not successful. Throughout the course of the parties negotiations in an effort to resolve this matter, there has been certain concessions made by both sides; however, the well which supplies the post office is a water system which is noncompliant with applicable statutory and rule requirements. Petitioner, through its employee Fallah, checked with a local well drilling company, Dunham Well Drilling Company, to obtain an estimate for a well. That company gave an estimate of approximately $2,000.00 to $3,500.00 to install a water supply system to the post office which would comply with Petitioner's requirements.
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 total amount of $3,000.00 of which amount $2,500.00 shall be suspended pending Respondent's initiation of a plan to construct and install a water well system to provide the Nichols Post Office which complies with Petitioner's requirements enunciated in Chapters 403 and 381, Florida Statutes and Rule Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the event that Respondent fails to initiate a plan of correction and complete the installation of the well within sixty (60) days of the date of Petitioner's entry of its Final Order, then Petitioner shall be authorized to impose the full administrative penalty of $3,000.00 without further administrative proceedings. Respondent shall submit to Petitioner the five hundred dollar ($500.00) administrative fine within thirty (30) days from the entry of Petitioner's Final Order. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of April, 1992, 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 day of April, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Asst District Legal Counsel HRS District VI Legal Office 4000 W Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Tampa, Fl 33614 Mygnon Evans, Esquire 5600 US Highway 98 N Lakeland, Fl 33809 Richard S. Power Agency Clerk Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee, Fl 32399 0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee, Fl 32399 0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes, specifically Sections 386.041, 381.0061, 381.065, and 386.03, and Rules 10D-6.043(2) and 10D-6.0571. If the Respondent committed the charged violations, it must be determined whether a fine should be imposed and the amount of any such fine.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the installation and continued maintenance of OSDS's, within the guidelines of the statutes and rules cited below. In the event violations of the rules regarding the safe operation and maintenance of OSDS's are detected, HRS has the authority to require correction of the unsafe, human-health conditions involving such systems and to impose penalties for the failure to adequately correct such unsafe health situations. In order to secure enforcement of the statutes and rules concerning the installation and operation of OSDS's, HRS has the authority to issue Administrative Complaints initiating formal enforcement proceedings such as the one at bar. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida and owns the property located at 835 N.W. 109th Drive in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The Respondent owns and operates an OSDS on that property which serves her personal residence for the on-site containment, disposal and treatment of sewage generated by that residence. In the spring of 1992, the Respondent detected problems with the OSDS on her property. The problems were noticed because of a difficulty in flushing the toilets in her home and the unusual greening of the grass in a pattern of rows above the septic tank's drain field. The abnormal greening of grass in this pattern indicates that the OSDS is malfunctioning by allowing incompletely treated sewage effluent (waste water) to escape upward towards the surface of the ground instead of percolating in a downward direction into the underlying soil, for appropriate filtration and treatment, which is the pattern of effluent disposal if such a system is operating correctly. Mr. Ron Meyers of Meyers Septic Tank Company was contacted for correction of the problem by the Respondent. On April 15, 1992, he applied for an OSDS repair permit to the Alachua County Public Health Unit of HRS on behalf of the Respondent. The permit application described that the repairs for which authority was requested would be to the existing system which was a below-ground-level septic tank and drain-field system (conventional system) in the Respondent's front yard. Mr. Dennis Chesky is an environmental specialist with the HRS Health Unit for Alachua County. He conducted a site inspection of the OSDS site on April 16, 1992 and determined that a repair of the existing system would not result in compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code cited below. He made a determination that a mounded drain- field system would be required in order to comply with HRS rules. HRS rules require that when repairs are made to an existing OSDS and inspection reveals that proper percolation and other indicia of soil-borne treatment of the effluent will not be adequately performed in accordance with HRS rules, then alterations to the OSDS, including the requirement of a mounded drain-field system, so as to acquire a sufficient treatment zone of appropriate fill soil, can be imposed. Mr. Chesky had noted that a sanitary nuisance existed due to insufficiently treated effluent escaping to the ground surface and pooling on the surface of the ground, rather than percolating downward below the drain field, as a properly operating system would perform. In accordance with the permit application and the results of Mr. Chesky's inspection, a repair permit with specifications requiring a mounded septic tank and drain-field system was issued by Mr. Chesky on April 16, 1992. The permit required the system to be installed in the Respondent's front yard. Because such a mound in the Respondent's front yard would destroy the aesthetic character of the Respondent's property and landscaping, Mr. Meyers requested, on the Respondent's behalf, that the permit be modified to allow installation of the mounded system in the backyard of the Respondent's property. On April 22, 1992, this request was granted by Terry Shipley, Mr. Chesky's supervisor, and the relocation was duly noted on the permit. The permit issued was valid for a period of ninety (90) days. The letter transmitting the permit to the Respondent informed the Respondent, as permittee, that she had ninety (90) days to correct the problem which caused the need for the repair permit. The letter also advised the Respondent that if a sanitary nuisance was present on the property, the problem should be rectified as expeditiously as possible. The permit expired without the repairs having been performed. Mr. Shipley, therefore, directed that a member of his staff visit the Respondent's home to inspect the situation. Mr. Paul Meyers visited the Respondent's home on July 22, 1992 and noted that raw sewage was still existing on the surface of the ground in the form of waste water from the septic tank. Mr. Meyers took photographs of that condition. The photographs were introduced into evidence. One photograph depicted that an area of the ground at the end of the drain field had collapsed or subsided, leaving a hole through which waste water was seeping to the ground surface. Mr. Meyers thereupon issued a notice to abate a sanitary nuisance on July 23, 1992. It was received by the Respondent on August 1, 1992. On August 3, 1992, the problem still existed with effluent being observed on the surface of the site by Mr. Chesky. On August 25, 1992, he returned to the site and observed evidence that a large area of the front yard, over the drain-field location, had been disturbed. He determined that the ground and the grass had been disturbed in such a way that repairs had obviously been made to the existing drain field. This was contrary to the permit that had been issued, which had required that a mounded system be installed as a means of effecting necessary repairs. The repaired area had been covered without notification of the repair to HRS. A notice of intended action was issued on September 16, 1992 and received by the Respondent on September 19, 1992. This notice gave the Respondent three (3) days to take action toward correcting the problem. The Respondent was thus advised that if the problems and violations were not corrected, then an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a fine would be issued. Within several days of receipt of that notice, the Respondent's husband called Mr. Shipley and Ms. Wilson of HRS to advise them that repairs had been delayed by the necessity of removing some trees in the backyard of his property where the mounded system would have to be placed. The Petersons were also having difficulty securing the necessary financing to pay for the installation of the mounded system required by HRS during the summer and early fall of 1992. Although Mr. Peterson advised HRS of the delay caused by the necessity to remove some trees with attendant expense, apparently HRS was not advised of the financing problem at that time, although the Respondent's testimony shows it to be the case. During this period of time, on September 22, October 1, and October 22, 1992, inspections by HRS revealed that the problem of effluent escaping on the surface of the ground had not yet been corrected. Since repairs had not been visibly commenced by the time of the last inspection on October 22, 1992, HRS elected to seek imposition of a fine and issued an Administrative Complaint to the Respondent, which was received by the Respondent on November 5, 1992. The Complaint sought a fine in the amount of $200.00 per day dating from the receipt of the Administrative Complaint until the date the violation was corrected. The Respondent obtained a second contractor to begin construction of the required mounded system which was completed on November 10, 1992. The contractor on that day called for an inspection by HRS. The inspection was conducted on November 12, 1992, but final approval could not be issued although all essential work was completed because the required sodding and stabilization measures had not yet been completed on the surface of the mound. Final approval was granted on November 17, 1992 by HRS. Installation of a new below-ground, drain-field system, as originally requested, similar to the one which was already installed and malfunctioning, would have cost approximately $1,000.00. The mounded system required by HRS' permit, pursuant to the relevant rules cited below, cost approximately $5,000.00. In addition to the approximate $5,000.00 expended for the installation of the mounded system, the Respondent had to expend approximately $7,000.00 related to tree removal and re-landscaping of their yard to repair damage caused by installation and the requirement to install a facility to pump sewage from the front yard outlet to the mounded system in the backyard. The Respondent apparently attempted to repair the existing below-ground system after receiving the notice regarding sanitary nuisance in August of 1992 in order to avoid the high costs related to the mounded system. The effluent pooling on the ground surface, as it was on the Respondent's property at times pertinent hereto, can pose a threat to public health. In order to adequately treat sewage effluent, it must filter in a downward direction through at least 24 inches of suitable soil medium in order to be sufficiently decontaminated. Improperly treated effluent on the surface of the ground can cause the transmission of human pathogens to persons who come into contact with the effluent in and near the area of the discharge. There is no evidence to indicate that any such harm came to any specific persons or to the public's health generally, in the subject situation. Ms. Wilson, the supervisor responsible for issuance of the Administrative Complaint, decided to seek a fine of $200.00 per day after considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the statutory authority cited herein, contained in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. HRS has fining authority in the amount of up to $500.00 per day for each of the claimed violations. The unrefuted evidence establishes that the violations occurred and persisted over the period time described in the above Findings of Fact. In fairness to the Respondent, however, it should be pointed out that the Respondent and her husband were not in Florida for most of the summer of 1992 because their work required them to be in Dallas, Texas. Even so, they had secured the services of an OSDS contractor to attempt to alleviate the problem. Due no doubt to the high cost and their reluctance to be encumbered by it, they delayed actual installation of the mounded system, however. It is also true that they had difficulties obtaining financing for such a costly system but ultimately did so and satisfactorily completed the work. They ultimately expended approximately $14,000.00 for all phases of the work involved, including site preparation, re-landscaping and related expenses. They have thus have undergone a severe cost burden to alleviate the inoperable condition of the previous OSDS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by HRS imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7376 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as immaterial in this de novo proceeding. 17-25. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, although the evidence does not reveal the bank's posture with regard to ownership of the property. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as to its material import because the repairs and installation were not effected until after the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Robert Peterson 835 Northwest 109th Drive Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, 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 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Sapp is the owner of Lot 24, Tara Farms Subdivision, located at Doctor's Inlet, Clay County, Florida. Sapp's request for septic tank permit was denied by HRS in its letter of November 28, 1978, for the following reasons: Soils of unsatisfactory quality beginning at ground level and con- tinuing to entire depth of soil log. Impervious soils as identified under the "Unified Soil Classification System" as inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays, inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. Percolation test rate exceeds fifteen (15) minutes per inch run-off. History of septic tank failures in this subdivision. In its letter, HRS contends that the foregoing reasons for denial constitute a failure to meet the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, standards for individual sewage disposal facilities. Understanding that the soil was unacceptable in its natural condition, Sapp employed a consulting engineer, Mr. H. C. Stone, to design a plan that would conform to state regulations. Mr. Stone recommended that a 40' X 70' X 3' compacted free-draining sand fill be employed to provide an adequate filter bed for the septic tank. Mr. Stone further recommended that the drain field consist of not less than 300 feet of drain pipe (perforated or open joint) installed in the middle of the fill area. Stone further recommended that the laundry facilities be discharged through a separate 225 gallon tank with a separate drain field consisting of 75 feet of drain tile and a 15' x 40' X 3' compacted free draining sand fill. The depth of the water table during the wettest season of the year from the surface is 20 inches. Installation of the sandfill to a depth of 3 feet would create soils of satisfactory quality and characteristics from the surface to the water table at the wettest season of the year and would eliminate objectionable impervious soils from the system. The percolation test rate for the natural soils exceeds 15 minutes per inch run-off, but the proposed drain field would have a percolation rate of only 1.2 minutes per inch. While evidence of septic tank systems failures in the same subdivision was introduced, none of the examples of failure occurred in systems with the same specifications as those proposed by Sapp for use on his property. Of the three examples given, all contained a significantly lesser depth of free- draining sand fill.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor, registration number SR0041456. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services through the corporation "Anytime Septic Enterprise, Inc.," authorization number SA0091662. The Respondent has advertised his services to the public as a septic tank contractor and has engaged in the business of providing septic tank services since at least September 2010. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was permitted to provide septage disposal services via permit number 36-QA-28986 issued by the Lee County Health Department. On or about September 13, 2010, the Respondent was hired to pump a septic system located at 2710 Northwest 5th Street, Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida, by another septic tank contractor. The employing contractor had been hired to service and repair the septic system, but did not have the ability to pump the tanks. On September 13, 2010, the Respondent pumped out the septic tank. The Respondent did not pump out the "dosing tank," a part of the septic system connected to the septic tank. After pumping out the septic tank, the Respondent completed a "DH Form 4015," signed and dated on September 13, 2010. The form collected information on the evaluation and repair of the septic system, including identification of system components and tank capacities. The contractor servicing the system is required to complete the form and identify the services provided. The Respondent identified the components of the referenced septic system and the capacities of both the septic and dosing tanks. The Respondent signed and dated the certification statement. As completed by the Respondent, the certification statement stated as follows: I certify that the listed tanks were pumped on 9/13/10 by Anytime Septic, have the volumes specified as determined by legend are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [solids deflection device/outlet filter device] installed. Although the Respondent certified that he pumped the dosing tank on September 13, 2010, he did not pump the dosing tank on that date. The Respondent certified the dosing tank to be free of observable defects or leaks; however, the failure to pump the dosing tank prevented proper observation of the dosing tank, and it is highly unlikely that an accurate evaluation of the condition of the dosing tank was possible under the circumstances. Under the applicable rule, a pumper may perform an incomplete pumpout under certain circumstances, but the rule requires that the pumper must provide written documentation to the system owner identifying the reason for the incomplete pumpout, the gallonage pumped from the system, and the material left in the tank. The Respondent failed to provide such documentation to the system owner. An inspection by an employee of the Petitioner on September 16, 2010, revealed that the dosing tank had not been pumped and that the tank lids had not been sealed after the service. The Respondent was notified on September 20, 2010, that the dosing tank should have been pumped at the same time as the septic tank. On that same date, the Respondent returned to the site, pumped the dosing tank, and then completed, signed and dated a second "DH Form 4015" certifying that the dosing tank had been pumped. The Respondent recorded additional information on the form to indicate that the remaining work would be performed by the septic tank contractor who had employed the Respondent. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that upon the initial inspection of the property, the Respondent observed that the septic tank conditions were non-standard, that he communicated such information to the contractor who had hired him, and that the Respondent's services, including certification of the tanks, were provided in accordance with the requests of the contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $1,500 fine against the Respondent for falsely certifying the work performed on September 13, 2010, and the condition of the dosing tank; for failing to fully pump the system without providing appropriate documentation; and for failing to properly seal the tank lids. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Duque, Esquire Southwest Alliance of County Health Departments 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Stephen M. Maher, Esquire Stephen M. Maher, Attorney at Law, P.A. 2077 First Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Secretary, State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue to be decided is whether William Going failed to obtain a permit before installing water wells in Palm Harbor, Pinellas County, Florida, as required by the statutes and rules administered by the District under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2007)1, and, if so, whether the District’s proposed penalties are reasonable and appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The District is the regional agency charged with the power and duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 373, Part III, Florida Statutes, entitled “Regulation of Wells,” and the rules the District has promulgated pursuant thereto in Florida Administrative Code Title 40D-3. Respondent William Going is a licensed water well contractor, holding License No. 1564. On June 1, 2007, the District received a complaint alleging that Respondent had constructed water wells at 5068 Kernwood Court in Palm Harbor without first obtaining a well construction permit from the District. A subsequent inspection by the District disclosed that six “sand point” irrigation wells had been constructed at the Palm Harbor property, which is the residence of Stephen and Susan Althoff. The District had no record of a permit application for the wells and no well construction permit had been issued to Respondent to construct the wells at the Althoff property. Respondent admits that he constructed the wells at the Althoff property on June 1, 2007, and that he did so without first obtaining a well construction permit for the work. The District maintains a website where water well contractors can apply for water construction permits by filling out an on-line application. The District’s software program can automatically issue the permit if the information submitted by the applicant meets certain programmed parameters. Respondent testified that his wife attempted to access the website and to apply for the permit to construct the wells at the Althoff property, but she was unable to do so because she is not familiar with computers. Neither Respondent, nor his wife, telephoned the District to speak to the District’s permitting staff before the work was commenced at the Althoff property. Section 373.313(1), Florida Statutes, provides that in any geographic area where the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) determines that prior permission to construct a water well would cause “undue hardship,” prior permission will not be required. Respondent made reference to this statute, but he did not show that the Althoff property is within a geographic area where DEP has declared that prior permission is not required for the construction of water wells. William Permenter, the District’s Field Technician Supervisor, has been regulating water well construction for many years, but is unaware of any such areas being designated. Respondent contends that if he had waited to obtain a permit before constructing wells at the Althoff property, it would have created a hardship for him because (1) water well construction in Pinellas County is very competitive and he probably would have lost the Althoff job if he had not done the work immediately; and (2) he would have paid the wages of his helper without a benefit (to Respondent). Section 337.326, Florida Statutes, establishes a procedure to seek an exemption from District rules to avoid an undue hardship. Respondent did not request an exemption from the District regarding the water wells constructed at the Althoff property. The competitive disadvantage that a water well contractor might face in waiting a day (or hours) to obtain a permit is not an undue hardship. Respondent’s potential loss in having to pay an employee for “down time” is not an undue hardship. On June 12, 2007, Respondent submitted an application to the District for a well construction permit for the wells at the Althoff property and the District issued Respondent a permit the following day. The Pinellas County Licensing Board issued a citation against Respondent pursuant to Section 489.127(5), Florida Statutes. The citation issued by the Board pertained to the same water wells that are the subject of the District’s enforcement case. A hearing was held before a Special Master designated by the Board and was prosecuted by a County employee. The Special Master issued a final order dismissing the case against Respondent. On or about August 15, 2008, the District issued its Complaint against Respondent, which seeks an administrative fine of $500 and the assessment of five points against Respondent’s water well contractor license. These penalties are consistent with the disciplinary guidelines that have been adopted by rule by the District.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District issue a Final Order that imposes the penalties set forth in its Administrative Complaint and Order, dated August 15, 2008. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 11th day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service is a company authorized by the State of Florida to perform septic tank construction and repair services. All of its contractors and other employees have practiced in the septic system business for many years. The registered contractor, who is the company qualifier, is the person responsible for all contracting services performed by the septic company and for compliance with the applicable regulatory statutes and rules. Donald P. Roberts is a registered septic tank contractor for Woody's Septic Tank Service. At all times material to these causes, he was the company's sole qualifier. At all times material, he was responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for the company. DHRS is the agency responsible for septic contractor registration, septic tank company authorization, and the enforcement of the statutes and rules pertaining to registration and authorization pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part III, F.S. and Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C. This includes the authority to cite, fine, and to suspend or revoke registrations and authorizations. Donald P. Roberts has never previously been cited by the agency. Before 1991, permits were not required for repairs to septic systems. However, at all times material to these causes, repair, installation, and abandonment permits had to be obtained from DHRS, usually through its local units in the respective county public health unit offices. These offices take septic system permit applications, perform site evaluations, issue permits, and perform final inspections. At all times material, no permits were required for replacing dosing pumps, fixing cracked dosing tanks, maintenance of existing systems or service of existing systems. No permits were necessary for replacing a D (or distribution) box, which is a non-mechanical, non-electrical item that serves as a distribution point for pipes. At all times material, the act of installing a dosing tank was a repair that required a permit. At all times material, the act of abandoning a septic tank (pumping it out, punching a hole in it, filling it with dirt and covering it or hauling it away) also required a permit. The standard operating procedure for obtaining a septic system permit is as follows: 1) the contractor or landowner submits a permit application with a plot/site plan to the agency's county office; 2) the agency conducts a site evaluation, sometimes including soil borings and/or a percolation test; 3) the agency reviews and issues the permit; 4) the contractor performs the permitted work; 5) the contractor calls the agency for inspection before covering up with earth; 6) agency inspection occurs and the project is approved OR the contractor is told of a violation, perhaps cited therefor, and must fix any problems pointed out by the agency inspector. If there is a violation to be corrected, the contractor is supposed to call DHRS for re-inspections until the problem is solved and the job is approved by the agency. Some jobs are so routine that some county offices do not do a site inspection before septic system work is done or reinspect after septic system work is done. This appears to be discretionary within the local office. However, if a violation is noted, the problem must be corrected and reinspected or negotiated out. See Finding of Fact 15. An approved plot/site plan becomes part of the permit when the permit is issued, and contractors are expected to adhere to the combined items. Permits state the requirements for the project or job. If a contractor experiences problems on a particular job, such as a well that does not show up on the plot/site plan, he is expected to contact the local public health unit to try to resolve the issue. "Resolution" has traditionally been to revise the plot/site plan or modify the permit. In past years, this has been an informal procedure, sometimes accomplished by telephone calls from the field, sometimes by negotiations in the public health office. All but one of the alleged violations (the Mahalik property) in these causes arose after DHRS decided to strictly require contractors to stop work and apply for and receive a formal modification of the permit or a new permit when unforeseen problems were encountered on any particular job. This procedure was codified in new Rule 60D-6.044(5) F.A.C., effective January 3, 1995. At approximately the same time, DHRS also adopted a policy of forbidding its personnel to discuss such field problems with, or to issue permits to, anyone other than the qualifying registered contractor for each authorized septic tank company. The agency has pointed to no specific statute or rule which provides that only a qualifying registered contractor may pull a DHRS permit or which forbids DHRS personnel discussing modifying a permit with any other company employees. However, it is clear that only registered contractors may pull permits. Two exceptions are recognized: A landowner or homeowner may pull a permit for septic system work with septic system contractors as their "agents"; and in locations where DHRS has an agreement with a city or county plumbing permit office, DHRS acknowledges the local plumbing permits and does not require owners or plumbers to also pull a separate septic system permit from DHRS's local public health unit. I. Case No. 95-5973 Deltona Hills Golf & Country Club Respondents applied for a permit to do repairs to a septic system for Deltona Golf & Country Club on August 7, 1995. A dosing tank is a mechanical device which lifts wastewater to a drainfield. DHRS issued a permit to Respondent to replace the dosing tank with a 900 gallon tank. The original tank being replaced was a 50 gallon tank. Respondents properly abandoned the existing 50 gallon dosing tank and installed the high water alarm, but they installed a 750 gallon tank, contrary to the express terms of the permit. Travis Vickers, then DHRS's Environmental Specialist in the Volusia County Health Unit, ultimately cited Respondents for not complying with the permit and for not calling for re-inspection after the discrepancy in tank size was brought to their attention. Respondents' reason for installing the 750 gallon tank was that they had used a 3:1 ratio to the drainfield which is codified in the agency rules. Thereby, they determined that a 714 gallon tank would be the ideal size tank to install. Then they simply installed the next largest size tank without reference to the permit. Respondents' employees also maintained that when Mr. Vickers notified them they had installed the wrong size tank, they contacted someone else in the local county public health unit and that person orally approved the smaller size tank they had already installed. Therefore, they did not call Mr. Vickers again for re-inspection. The person who supposedly gave the oral authorization was not called to testify, and no written permit modifications or amendment were made, as required by the agency rules then in effect. In this light, Respondents' excuses for failing to install the 900 gallon tank according to permit specifications and failure to call for a re-inspection are not credible. Therefore, it is clear that Respondents installed a smaller tank contrary to the permit specifications and received no modification of permit as required by agency rules in effect at the material time. In making the foregoing findings of fact, I have not overlooked the fact that there are several ways to calculate the appropriate size of a dosing tank; that during his testimony, Mr. Vickers, himself, demonstrated at least two ways of calculating; or that Mr. Vickers' 900 gallon figure on the permit arose in part from considerations in addition to the published agency rules, which additional considerations were the result of workshops with septic system contractors and DHRS personnel which had been reduced to written form in a document nicknamed "the memo from hell," to which Respondent had no access in August 1995. However, that memorandum was designed to help DHRS personnel interpret the code and issue the permit. Its use by agency personnel in issuing a permit does not absolve the contractor of the responsibility to install the system according to the permit as issued, nor does it allow the contractor to unilaterally recalculate tank capacity at will on some other basis. At Deltona Golf & Country Club, Respondents simply did not follow the permit requirements or replace the wrong size tank and call for re-inspection. The fact that Respondents were able to demonstrate alternative methodologies of computation does not change those salient facts. Case No. 95-5973 Pine Street, Enterprise Florida a/k/a the Gleasons' Job Respondents applied for a repair permit for 450 Pine Street, Enterprise, Florida. Mr. and Mrs. Gleason, referred to by some witnesses as "the homeowners," were actually leasing the property. DHRS issued the permit to Respondents on October 3, 1995. It was valid for 90 days. The repair job occurred during a rainy period when the water table was high. Respondents had to drill wellpoints to lower the water table. Further, they were hindered by rain, mud, muck, and debris on the property. A two days' job turned into 15 days' work. Respondents finally installed the drainfield in a slightly different location than the approved location shown on the plot/site plan. Although contrary to the permit, Respondents' installation met minimum 10D-6 F.A.C. requirements, including those for setbacks. Respondents' employees testified that they chose to place the drainfield in an unpermitted location so as accommodate the Gleasons' urgent need for a septic system, because they considered the different location necessary to comply with Chapter 10D-6 F.A.C.'s setback requirements, and because the northeast corner where the drainfield had been permitted was covered with too much muck, and too many stumps, old tires, and pieces of tin and fencing to proceed there. In the experience of Respondent Donald P. Roberts, and Willie Suggs and Jerry Thompson, who also are registered septic contractors, drainfields are not always installed according to the plot/site plan, but the location may be negotiated with DHRS prior to inspection. Respondents claimed to have received oral authorization to relocate the drainage field from an official in the local public health unit, but that person did not testify. Also, Respondents admitted they never applied for a permit modification in writing or obtained an amended permit, as required after January 3, 1995. Therefore, the concept of an oral permit modification is not credible. See, Findings of Fact 15-16. Mr. Vickers inspected the work performed by Respondents on October 17, 1995. He arrived five hours late, creating bad feelings in Respondents. On October 18, 1995, Mr. Vickers notified Respondents that they had located the drainfield in a different area than the area shown on the plot/site plan and approved by the permit. After the violation notice was issued, Mr. Vickers refused to talk to anyone associated with the Respondent company except Donald P. Roberts, the qualified registered contractor, thereby creating further bad feelings in Respondents. To put it mildly, communication between the parties broke down completely. The Gleasons had sent a demand that Respondents complete the Pine Street project by October 25, 1995, but then, approximately October 18, 1995, they hired Acme Septic to complete the project. On October 19, 1995, Acme pulled a DHRS permit for the same repair project in which Respondents were mired at the Pine Street location. Acme then installed the drainfield in the same general area as shown on Respondents' permit's original plot/site plan. In doing so, Acme used Respondents' materials and built on their prior work. Acme successfully installed the drainfield as required by the permit and all agency rules. Under the circumstances, Respondents felt they had no duty to call Mr. Vickers for re-inspection of their discarded work. Despite considerable use of the word "abandonment," Respondents technically remain charged only with failure to comply with the permit and failure to call for re-inspection on the Pine Street Job. Case No. 96-0573 Avocado Street a/k/a The Hale Project The Avocado Street Project was a private residence to which Respondents were originally called to do repair work on a septic system. Many septic repairs do not require a permit. See Findings of Fact 8- Also, repair permits are not required where a problem is discovered on a larger project which has already been permitted, but if contractors discover a problem during the course of an unpermitted repair, which problem would otherwise require its own permit, contractors were expected, post-January 3, 1995, to stop work and obtain an (amended) permit. See Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C. and Finding of Fact 16. Replacement of "like kind" parts of a dosing tank such as a pump, do not require a permit. Repair of a crack in a dosing or septic tank does not require a permit. Replacement of an entire dosing tank or septic tank unless there is already an umbrella permit does require a new permit. See above, Findings of Fact 9 and 10. It is not standard practice for DHRS to inspect/evaluate the site before a replacement permit or an abandonment permit is issued. Such inspections are discretionary in practice and such permits are often issued on the spot at the time of application. See Findings of Fact 12 and 13. At Avocado Street, Respondents pumped out the Hales' septic tank and discovered that the dosing pump was not working. Respondents replaced the pump, but also discovered that the existing dosing tank was inadequate. Due to the inadequacy of the existing dosing tank, dosing pumps repeatedly had burned up. Respondents sent an employee to pull a DHRS permit for replacement of the existing dosing tank, which permit they felt could be pulled immediately. Then they proceeded, without permit in hand, to replace the dosing pump and install a larger dosing tank. Andrew Trapp, DHRS' Environmental Health Specialist in the Orange City office, became aware of the Avocado Street situation only because of a phone call from an employee of the Respondent company asking if a permit had ever been issued. Because a permit never had been issued, Trapp's suspicion was aroused. Therefore, he performed the discretionary onsite inspection and found the new dosing tank. The Avocado Street work of Respondents did not represent a public nuisance. The agency intentionally and violationally issued an after-the-fact permit to Mr. Hale with an employee of Respondent as Mr. Hale's agent on August 23-24, 1995. Any other suggested dates for this permit application are rejected as computer error. The project was reinspected by agency personnel who oversaw Respondents' employees repair a tank leak. DHRS finally approved the whole project. II. Case 96-0573 Clyde Morris Boulevard a/k/a The IWS or BFI Job The Clyde Morris Boulevard property was leased by IWS/BFI from the City of Daytona Beach. Mastercraft Plumbing was the prime contractor responsible for connecting an existing septic system on the Clyde Morris Boulevard property to a public sewer system. Mastercraft hired Respondents to handle the abandonment of a septic tank which Mastercraft was replacing. Abandonment is more fully described above in Finding of Fact 10. Although DHRS presented some hearsay to the effect that Mastercraft expected Respondents to obtain the DHRS abandonment permit, there is no direct evidence for such hearsay to support or explain. Contrary evidence was presented that persons within the IWS/BFI hierarchies had led Respondents to believe that Mastercraft had pulled the necessary DHRS permit or an umbrella plumbing permit which would cover Respondents' abandonment activities. See, Finding of Fact 19. However, there is no direct, competent, or conclusive evidence one way or the other. Respondents' actual abandonment work was completed on or about April 10, 1995. Respondents charged Mastercraft for the work but not for pulling any abandonment permit from DHRS, because Respondents did not pull any such permit. Once Respondents discovered that Mastercraft had not pulled the DHRS septic permit, Jerry Thompson, as an employee of Respondent company, pulled a permit as Mastercraft's agent on May 9, 1995. As previously stated, pre- inspection is not standard practice and DHRS abandonment permits are often issued in a single day. II. Case No. 96-0573 Bridal (or Briddle) Path Lane a/k/a Oakridge Acres a/k/a Mrs. Mahalik's Property Respondents were called to repair a septic tank at Mrs. Mahalik's home on Bridal Path Lane in October 1994. Most of the work did not require DHRS permits. See Findings of Fact 8-10. Respondents charged Mrs. Mahalik, among other things, for installing a new 300 gallon dosing tank. Approximately four months later, in February 1995, Mrs. Mahalik telephoned the Flagler County Public Health Unit and asked whether Respondents' repair had been permitted. DHRS had no record of it. An after-the-fact application was made for the job and a permit for the Mahalik job was issued in March 1995 to Mrs. Mahalik with Respondent company as her agent. Replacement of a dosing tank required a permit under Rule 10D-6.043 F.A.C. in 1994 but Rule 10D-6.044(5) F.A.C., requiring the stoppage of work while applying for an amended permit, did not exist until January 3, 1995.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding Respondents Donald P. Roberts and Rayco Properties, Inc. d/b/a Woody's Septic Tank Service guilty as set out in the Conclusions of Law and assessing against both Donald P. Roberts and the company, jointly and severally a total fine of $4,450 and suspending both for 120 days from the date of the final order. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996.
The Issue Is Respondent guilty of violations of Rule 10D-6.0751(l)(b) [gross negligence and incompetence] by the installation of a residence septic tank system and failure to obtain a new system construction permit with approved site plan prior to installation of a new on-site sewage treatment system, as charged in the undated administrative complaint numbered HPO-96-1003, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about November 26, 1996 and if so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Larry A. Ford is registered by Petitioner agency as a septic tank contractor, under the registered name of "L.A. Ford Septic Services." On July 31, 1996, Gary W. Thompson, agent and building contractor for Johnny Howard, Jr., applied to the Suwannee County Health Department for an Onsite Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit to install an onsite sewage treatment and disposal system for Mr. Howard's residence. The site plan specified installation of a septic system on the north side of a house which was then under construction. On August 2, 1996, Charles Bradley, Environmental Health Specialist, Suwannee County Health Department, conducted a site evaluation at the construction site. His site evaluation included taking soil samples from the location proposed for the system to determine the suitability of the soil and the seasonal high water elevation table. A permit was issued in accord with the site evaluation. Mr. Howard (owner) and Mr. Thompson (general contractor) engaged Respondent Ford to install Mr. Howard's septic system. In practice, septic tank installers, including Respondent, usually will contact the Suwannee County Health Department for a copy of the permit, site plan, and other particulars before beginning an installation. The record is silent as to whether that happened in this case. On August 5, 1996, Respondent completed installation of the system and contacted Mr. Bradley to do a final inspection. When Mr. Bradley arrived to inspect the system, he discovered that it had been installed on the west side of the house instead of the north side as called for in the site plan and permit as issued. In other respects, the installed system seemed to comply with the technical requirements for septic systems and Bradley issued an "in place" approval even though Respondent had failed to advise, or have Mr. Howard or Mr. Thompson advise, the Suwannee County Health Department about the change in the system's location so that the Department could conduct another pre-installation site evaluation and issue a corrected permit. If a location or any other significant factor is going to be altered by the installer, the applicable rules require that the installer first amend the permit application and get a new site inspection and agency approval/permit. In practice, a location change is simply approved or rejected by the agency during the after-the-fact inspection, without any real insistence by the agency that the change be pre-approved. However, if the ultimate installation does not accord with health standards or rule standards for any reason, the agency is authorized by rule to require that the situation be corrected and that the installer arrange for a complying permit to be issued. The following week, Mr. Howard's father, who was also the owner of the land adjacent to Mr. Howard's home construction site, complained to Larry Williams, Environmental Health Supervisor at the Suwannee County Health Department. The senior Mr. Howard's primary concern was that the drainfield for his son's new septic system extended across the property line into his property in an area he used for cultivation. A subsequent inspection by Larry Williams, who is an agency superior to Mr. Bradley, revealed that the system had been mislocated across property lines; that the septic tank was installed nearby a dryer vent opening in the west side of the house, rather than the plumbing stub-out designed for this system on the north side of the house; and that the system's elevation as installed would not allow for gravity flow as originally designed; and that the system, as installed, would require additional plumbing and a pump to operate it. The property line trespass would not have showed up in the "as is" inspection by Mr. Bradley. The testimony herein with regard to gravity backflow is sufficient to establish another technical installation violation, despite Mr. Bradley's original post-installation approval of the system, but the record is lacking in evidence to establish that there was a clear danger to public health as a result. Upon further investigation, agency personnel were confronted with at least one disputed fact. On the one hand, they had the complaints of the two Mr. Howards against Respondent and on the other hand they had Respondent's insistence that the younger Mr. Howard's wife had authorized Respondent to relocate the system to the west side of the house. As a result, Respondent denied any and all responsibility for mislocating the system. Additionally, due to the original post-installation agency approval, the Respondent refused to correct the Howard septic system in any way or to participate in agency mediation. When agency efforts to mediate the problem were unsuccessful and Respondent failed to make any arrangements to correct the problem, the County Health Unit paid $975.00 for the correction of Mr. Howard's system by another certified septic contractor. This amount came out of its discretionary funds reserved for dangers to public health. Apparently, Mr. Howard has paid nothing for the repairs. The agency then instituted this instant disciplinary action against Respondent. Respondent refused certified mail delivery of the notice of intended action. Therefore, he had to be served by the Sheriff's office. The notice of intended action advised Respondent that the agency considered his acts and omissions with regard to his installation of the septic system to be gross negligence and incompetence under Rule 10D-6.075, Florida Administrative Code, and that if he did not take corrective action within three days of his receipt of the notice, the agency intended to issue an administrative fine against him and to suspend his registration as a septic tank contractor. Respondent again denied any responsibility for his installation of Mr. Howard's system and refused to take any corrective action or otherwise to try to mitigate the problem. The agency also has cited Respondent via an August 27, 1997 Letter of Warning which had nothing to do with the Howard job. The Letter of Warning advised Respondent that he was in violation of Part III, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, punishable under Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(a) Florida Administrative Code, because his advertising used a business name (Ford Septic Tank Service) under which he is not registered, instead of his business registration name of "LA Ford Septic Tank". No timely request for administrative hearing was received to dispute the material issues raised by this warning letter, and therefore its allegations may be considered as true. This Letter of Warning also may be considered for purposes of aggravation of penalty, if any penalty is determined in the instant proceeding. The agency has had numerous other customer complaints against Respondent. Its own investigation of these other complaints has satisfied agency staff that in many instances Respondent was doing fraudulent and/or negligent septic system work. However, none of these allegations can be considered here for two reasons. First, because these other situations were not noticed nor charged in the pending administrative complaint, no findings of fact can be made herein with regard to them. Second, because these situations were never proven in a formal proceeding and were not reduced to a Letter of Warning, they may not be considered under the guidelines provided by the agency's rules to aggravate a penalty, if any penalty is determined in the instant proceeding. See the Conclusions of Law, infra. In filing the administrative complaint herein, witnesses Wilson and Melton considered the gravity of Respondent's situation at the Howard residence and his failure to take any mitigating action. They also considered, as aggravating circumstances, the many other citizen complaints discussed above. The administrative complaint for the charges surrounding Respondent's installation on Mr. Howard's permit was served on Respondent in October 1996. He timely requested a formal administrative hearing. Part of the registration procedure for septic treatment system contractors is to take an examination with regard to the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 Florida Administrative Code, including permit requirements, technical requirements for septic system installations and the conduct expected of contractors. Registered contractors who pass the examination, including Respondent, are expected to know and follow all requirements in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of one violation of Rule 10D- 6.0751(1)(b)2. and one violation of Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)2; fining Respondent $1,000.00; and revoking his certificate. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of APRIL, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax FILING (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Koch, Esquire Department of Health 2639 N. Monroe Street Suite 160-A Tallahassee, FL 32399-2949 Larry A. Ford Route 1 Box 1705 O'Brien, FL 32071 David West, Esquire Department of Health District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, FL 32601 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Bouelvard Building 6 Room 306 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Pete Peterson 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 102-E Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
