The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Stephen Wesley Williams, d/b/a Superior Design Construction, Co. Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CRC 045849 and CPC 56443 respectively. His licensure status for the Residential Contractor license is designated as "Current, Active." His licensure status for the Pool/Spa Contractor license is designated as "Delinquent, Active." On or about December 19, 2001, Respondent, doing business as Superior Design Construction Company, Inc., entered into a contract with Thomas and Denise Shinn (the Shinns) for construction of a residential swimming pool and pool enclosure to be located at 4050 Retford Drive, Jacksonville, Florida. The contract price was $40,000.00. Respondent obtained a building permit for the job in question as "Superior Design Const Co." The contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. The Department's records establish that Respondent's Certificate of Authority for Superior Design and Construction as a Contractor Qualified Business was issued on May 9, 1997, but has been null and void since August 31, 1999. Construction on the project began around January 2002. Work on the project ceased in or around March 2002. The construction was substantially completed when work ceased on the pool. Mr. Shinn described it as "98 percent of it was finished except for the heater." Other than the heater not being installed, Mr. Shinn considered the few other items that were not completed as minor. The contract specified the installation of a heat pump called an Ice Breaker. This type of pump was specified because it can both heat and cool a pool, which is what the Shinns wanted. Mr. Shinn paid Respondent a total of $38,050 for the job. According to Mr. Shinn, he withheld the final payment of $1,950 because the Ice Breaker heat pump was not installed. According to Respondent, he did not put in the heat pump because he had not been paid the remaining $1,950. The portion of the contract entitled Contract Price & Payment Schedule requires a payment of $1,000 at contract execution and four subsequent payments: Payment #1 - 35% due at Excavation; Payment #2 - 30% due at Gunite; Payment #3 - 30% due at Deck; Payment #4 - 5% due at Plaster. The amount listed for payment number 4 is $1,950. Included in the General Terms and Conditions portion of the contract is the following: PAYMENTS & COLLECTIONS. Contractor reserves the right to stop work at any time past due payment occurs. Owner hereby expressly agrees to such work stoppage and any such work stoppage shall not constitute a breach of contract by contractor. If collection is required of any amounts due under the terms of this contract, or any subsequent approved schedule, owner expressly agrees that he shall be responsible for 18% interest and reasonable attorney's fees for trial, appeal and all costs. Mr. Shinn contacted Respondent several times regarding completion of the contract. While Respondent did not answer many of Mr. Shinn's calls, he did come to the Shinn's home at one point to resolve the situation. However, the heat pump issue remained unresolved. Out of frustration, Mr. Shinn contacted an attorney who wrote a demand letter to Respondent. On or about October 31, 2002, the City of Jacksonville, Department of Public Works, Building Inspection Division, sent a letter to Mr. Shinn notifying him that Respondent had not obtained any inspections for 180 days and that state law could consider this project abandoned. The letter suggested that he contact Respondent immediately to attempt to rectify this situation. Mr. Shinn continued to attempt to contact Respondent but was unsuccessful. Respondent did not notify the Shinns in writing that he was canceling the contract. He did not go to the city to cancel the permit. One work item that was not completed when Respondent ceased working on the job was an unfinished electrical socket near the pool. Mr. Shinn hired Thompson Electric to complete this electrical work that was contemplated by the contract. As a result, Mr. Shinn paid $207.50 to Thompson Electric to have this work completed. In January of 2004, Mr. Shinn contracted with Pinch- A-Penny to install a heater in the pool as one had never been installed. He paid Pinch-A-Penny $3,777.09 to install a pool heater. Mr. Shinn chose to install only a pool heater and not the heating and cooling system specifically referenced in the contract (Ice Breaker) because the Ice Breaker would have cost him $5,500 from Pinch-a-Penny. The amount needed to complete the job as contracted totaled was $5,707.50, which includes $207.50 for Thompson Electric and $5,500.00 for the Ice Breaker heat pump, which is what Pinch-a-Penny charges. Subtracting the $1,950 that the Shinns never paid Respondent leaves a balance of $3,757.50 that the Shinns paid or would have to pay to get the completed pool as contemplated by the contract. As of June 2, 2005, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $614.77. Respondent's construction company went out of business on a date that is not clear from the record although Respondent described this job as "about the last pool I built." Clearly, he was no longer in the construction business on the date of the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425; issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e); impose fines in the amount of $500 for abandonment of a construction job; $500 for misconduct; and $100 for failure to put his license number on the contract; pay $3,757.50 in restitution; and require Respondent to pay $614.77 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 11th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian Elzweig, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Stephen Wesley Williams 3146 Brachenbury Lane Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Tim Vaccaro, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue At issue is whether an order recommending denial of the subject permits and variance should be rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing statement of the case and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue the subject permits and variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29 day of January 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On January 9, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in Baker County, Florida, filed his application with the District requesting that he be allowed to sit for the water well contractor examination. The requirements for qualification to take the examination are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that an applicant present "satisfactory proof of two years experience in the water well construction business." This requirement is normally met by the applicant providing a list of at least ten water well jobs he has completed during a consecutive 24-month period (together with their locations, major use, and approximate depth and diameter), the name and address of the owner of the well, and the approximate date the activity took place. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.300(6)(a). If the work has been completed in Florida, the applicant is also required to submit copies of completion reports for each of the ten wells. Id. Completion reports are filed by the contractor with the District within thirty days after the work is completed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-3.411. Finally, the applicant must submit letters from three persons attesting to the length of time the applicant has been working in the water well construction business as a major activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.600(6)(a). Alternatively, an applicant may present "satisfactory proof of equivalent experience," which may be accepted by the District "on a individual basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 531.300(6)(b). While this option has rarely, if ever, been used by any applicant, at hearing the District suggested that this provision would allow an applicant to submit other credible documentary evidence, such as affidavits, attesting to the applicant's equivalent experience. Mr. Julian C. Varnes, Jr., a District water resource representative III, is in charge of reviewing water well contractor applications in four northeast Florida counties, including Baker County. Mr. Varnes reviewed Petitioner's application and concluded that he had failed to submit proof of two years' experience in the water well contracting business or satisfactory proof of equivalent experience, as required by the rule. In this case, Petitioner submitted ten completion reports with his application, but none of the reports indicated that he had been involved on those projects, and Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he could not recall if he was even present on the job site. This is probably because the reports related to jobs performed between November 10, 1982, and July 31, 1985, by his father, a licensed water well contractor, when Petitioner was less than fifteen years old. In addition, the reports submitted by Petitioner covered work performed over a 32-month period, rather than over a 24-month period, as required by the rule, and some of the reports did not have the complete address of the location of the well. By letter dated February 4, 2004, the District advised Petitioner that his application was deficient because he had failed to submit the information required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300(1)(b) and (6) relative to experience. The letter advised Petitioner that he must submit an "acceptable list of ten wells together with their completion reports, for wells that [he had] constructed, repaired, or abandoned, with completion dates distributed over a consecutive 24-month time period." Further telephonic discussions between Petitioner and District personnel concerning the request for additional information occurred on March 25 and 29, 2004, but they did not resolve the District's concerns. On June 15, 2004, the District staff again notified Petitioner in writing that he must submit the requested information within 30 days or his application would be denied. When no response was received from Petitioner, on July 27, 2004, the staff issued a Technical Staff Report recommending that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 531.300(1)(b) and (6). On August 23, 2004, a Notice of Staff Intent to Recommend Denial of Water Well Contractor Application No. 7300 and Notice of Rights was issued by the District. Petitioner's request for a hearing was then filed. After his first request for a hearing was dismissed, on November 18, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended request for a hearing. In that request, he alleged that the District was "not capable of locating completion reports filed by [Petitioner] and/or his father"; that the experience of he and his father was well known to two District staffers; that he had purchased a well drilling company from another individual and operated under the seller's license for over a year; that he is entitled to licensure because he has satisfactory equivalent experience; and that his father has paid all outstanding fines previously imposed by the District. As relief, Petitioner has requested that he be allowed to take the contractor's examination. At hearing, Petitioner explained that his father was in the water well contracting business for twenty years, and that beginning in 1983, when he was thirteen years old, he had helped his father on "hundreds of jobs" until his father's retirement in 1994. However, Petitioner cannot recall the names and addresses of customers who were serviced by his father's business, which is necessary in order for the District to retrieve completion reports presumably filed by his father. Because of the large number of completion reports filed by contractors throughout its multi-county jurisdiction, in order to retrieve one, the District must have the following information: the year the job was completed, the county in which the job was performed, and the address (township and range) of the well's owner. Petitioner is unable to provide this information.1 In addition, Petitioner stated that he had purchased a water well contractor's business (from Tim Johnson) shortly after his father retired in 1994 and that he operated the business under Mr. Johnson's license for a little more than a year. Although Petitioner produced no documentation concerning jobs he may have performed under Mr. Johnson's license, even if he had, that work would still constitute less than 24 consecutive months of experience, as required by the rule. Petitioner further asserted that Mr. Varnes, who oversees the water well contractors in Baker County, personally "knows" that he is an experienced well driller (having gained such experience through working for his father for many years) and that he possesses the skills necessary to take the examination. However, Mr. Varnes did not agree with this assertion. Finally, Petitioner asked that he be allowed to take the examination, which would be the best indicator of whether he possesses the necessary knowledge to be a contractor. He also pointed out that each completed project must be inspected by a District employee, and that such inspections would verify and ensure that his work is satisfactory. However, the rules require that before the examination can be taken, certain requirements must be met. Petitioner has not satisfied those requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2005.
Findings Of Fact James Paleveda, one of the Petitioners, took the examination for a plumbing contractor's license on February 10 and 11, 1983, and failed the examination. He was the only witness to testify on behalf of the Petitioners. Some of the other Petitioners took a different examination on different dates than the examination complained of in these proceedings, but no evidence was presented identifying those Petitioners and no evidence was presented relative to those exams. Petitioners presented no evidence that any or all of them gave incorrect answers to the questions complained of, and, but for those incorrect answers, they would have passed the examination. The sum and substance of the testimony presented by the Petitioner Paleveda was that, in his opinion, most of the questions in Exhibit 1, the examination Paleveda took, were not appropriate to determine if the applicant is qualified to be a plumbing contractor. Paleveda has never been a plumbing contractor and has little experience in the contracting field. He is also nearly 57 years old and, although fit, conceded the long examination for a man his age and background was much more tiring than it would be for a younger man fresh out of school. Questions 1 through 27 of Exhibit 1 deal with social security taxes withheld and paid by employers for their employees; federal income taxes withheld; Florida mechanics lien law; workers' compensation law; unemployment compensation law; Florida Construction Industry Licensing law; accounting and cost-keeping procedures; and general contract provisions. Petitioners contend that although some knowledge of these subjects is desirable, a contractor can always hire accountants and lawyers to handle these problems. Respondent, on the other hand, presented the testimony of plumbing contractors who have been in the business for many years who testified that knowledge of the cost of social security, workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, contract provisions, and all costs associated with the performance of plumbing contracts are essential if a plumbing contractor is to remain solvent. This latter testimony is deemed more credible and is factually accepted. Questions 28 through 93 generally involve questions form the Plumbers Handbook and Mathematics for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters. Petitioner's primary objections to these questions are that in some cases the answers from the Plumbers Handbook is different from the local codes. Respondent presented evidence that there are some differences throughout the state in the plumbing codes and this is the principal reason for utilizing a standard that can be applicable to all candidates. The candidates are told that the correct answers to those questions are those given in the Plumbers Handbook and the examinees are allowed to have this book in the examination room. Questions 94 through 100 are taken from the Solar Water and Pool Heating Manual and Petitioners contend these questions are too hard. Petitioners further contend that any plumber should check with the manufacturer for specific instructions before installing a solar water heating system. All plumbing contractors are authorized to install a solar water hearing system and each should be required to demonstrate a rudimentary knowledge of such a system before being so licensed. Accordingly, Petitioner's objections to these questions are without merit. The first 27 questions to which the Petitioners object are very similar to the questions given to all building contractors for a statewide license. Those questions cover areas that a contractor must know to remain financially solvent. Most contractors initially starting a business do not have sufficient capital to hire attorneys and accountants to advise each time a question arises regarding these fields. A contractor can hardly afford to hire an attorney to file a $200 mechanics lien.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the COMPLAINT and other contentions of Petitioners regarding the unfairness of the February 11 and 12, 1983 examination for plumbing contractors be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July 1984 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 20th day of July 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Steinberg, Esquire 2055 Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33609 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Moody, Esquire 199 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Daniel Frank Molinari (Respondent) was a certified plumbing contractor, being licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) and having been issued license numbers CF C021437 and CF C041671. On or about March 20, 1990, the State Attorney of Dade County, Florida charged Respondent by Information with an attempted offense against intellectual property in violation of Sections 815.04(3) and 777.04, Florida Statutes, a misdemeanor: "[Respondent] on the 19th day of February 1990 . . . willfully, knowingly, without authorization, attempt to disclose or take data, programs, or supporting documentation, to wit: The CONTENTS of a CONTRACTOR'S LICENSING EXAMINATION, which is confidential as provided by law, residing or existing internal or external to a computer, computer system, or computer network. . ." On or about July 30, 1990, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the misdemeanor charge. Based upon Respondent's plea of nolo contendere, the Dade County Judge entered a judgement finding Respondent guilty as charged, withholding adjudication and imposing costs in the amount of $300.00. In the Dade County judicial circuit, a judge usually makes a finding of guilt when a defendant pleads nolo contendere even if adjudication is withheld. Typically, items in a CILB examination are reused on subsequent exams. However, each examination must contain a certain percentage of new items. Because of Respondent's attempted act, the CILB considered the items on the contractors examination in 1990 to be compromised and, therefore, unusable for subsequent examinations. The 1990 CILB examination consisted of two hundred and twenty-one (221) items. Consequently, 221 new items had to be developed at a cost of approximately $100.00 per item. On or about June 10, 1993, Respondent submitted to the CILB a Certification Change of Status Application (Application) to activate his inactive certified plumbing contractor license (license number CF C041671). Question 7(H) of the Application inquired whether Respondent had ever "Been found guilty of any crime other than a traffic violation". He responded "no" to the question. The Application required an affirmation, and Respondent so affirmed, that "these statements are true and correct and I recognize that providing false information may result in a fine, suspension, or revocation of my contractor's license." Respondent's request for activation could have been denied if he had responded "yes" to question 7(H) of the Application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Dismissing Count II of the administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 94-5259; Dismissing all counts of the administrative complaint in DOAH Case No. 95-0199; Revoking Respondent's licenses; Imposing costs for the investigation and prosecution to be determined by the construction Industry Licensing Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 29th day of August, 1995.
