The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health properly denied Petitioner’s application for a master septic tank contractors (MSTC) registration.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the agency responsible for the registration of septic tank contractors, the authorization of septic tank companies, and the enforcement of the statutes of rules pertaining to the registration and authorization of septic tank contractors and companies pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part 3, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The registration as a master septic tank contractor was recently enacted by the Legislature. Master septic tank contractor is held to a higher standard of scrutiny by the Department because a MSTC can perform certain functions in the field without Department of Health supervision. Further, a MSTC can advertise his special certification to the public. Gregory Thompson, Petitioner, applied to the Department of Health to be registered as a MSTC. At the time of his application, Petitioner was registered with the Florida Department of State as the president of Rayco Properties, Inc. At the time the cases against the corporation referenced above were brought, the Petitioner was the president of Rayco; however, the requested contractor who was the company’s qualifier was Donald P. Roberts, who was the sole qualifier for the company. See paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Recommended Order in Case Numbers 95-5973 and 96-0573 Final Order issued 2/28/97. At the time of the Petitioner’s application for MSTC, Rayco had been found guilty of several septic tank contracting violations and an enforcement action was taken by the Department against Rayco and Donald R. Roberts. See DOAH Case Numbers 95-5973 and 96-0573. Pursuant to the Final Order, penalties were assessed against Rayco including a fine of four thousand four hundred fifty dollars ($4,450.00) and suspension of the corporation's Certificate of Authorization for one hundred-twenty (120) days. At the time of the application by the Petitioner, neither of these penalties had been resolved. The previous action was against Rayco and its qualifier, Donald R. Robert. As the Administrative Law Judge concluded in paragraph 82 of her order, “Revocation of the company’s authorization would effect the livelihood of numerous company principals and employees not directly involved in any of the proven violations.” The Department denied the Petitioner’s application for MSTC for three (3) reasons. The Petitioner’s corporation had been adjudicated guilty of minor or moderate infractions pertaining to on site sewage treatment and disposal systems (See paragraph 82 of the Recommended Order in Case Numbers 95-5973 and 96-0573), a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1. There was an outstanding fined assessed against Rayco Properties and the one hundred-twenty (120) day suspension of Rayco had not been resolved as required by the Florida Administrative Code. At the time of the formal hearing, the fine had been paid and the corporation had served and completed the one hundred-twenty (120) days' suspension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department grant the request for certification by the Petitioner for master septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 3rd day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory B. Thompson Post Office Box 251307 Holly Hill, Florida 32135 Charlene Petersen, Esquire Volusia County Health Department 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Connie H. Sanders ("Mrs. Sanders") violated provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6, and, if so, whether revocation of her septic tank contractor's certification is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for, inter alia, enforcing the provisions of chapter 381 and chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in chapter 64E-6, as those statutes and rules relate to septic tank contractor registrations. Mrs. Sanders has been a registered septic tank contractor since 1993. She has been in the septic tank business since 1982. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mrs. Sanders operated under the name Lehigh Septic, Inc. She has since begun operating under the name AAA Lehigh Septic Tank Service. Mrs. Sanders' husband is also a registered septic tank contractor. When Mrs. Sanders began operating her new business, Mr. Sanders took over Lehigh Septic, Inc. Both Mrs. Sanders' business and Mr. Sanders' business operate from the same office and share administrative staff. Mrs. Sanders generally remains in the office to handle the business aspects of the two entities. Mr. Sanders goes into the field and conducts the hands-on, practical aspects of the businesses. The charges against Mrs. Sanders arose from the provision of services to a group home or assisted living facility (the testimony at final hearing referenced it both ways) located at 413 Richmond Avenue, Lehigh Acres, Florida, and referred to herein as the "Property." On January 18, 2011, George Harris called Mrs. Sanders' office seeking septic services at the Property. He said he had a problem with "smells" at the Property, which he attributed to the septic system. Mrs. Sanders, or her secretary, took the message and gave it to Mr. Sanders for follow-up. Harris called back the following day as well. On that day, a note was made on the phone log that someone was to do the work "today." A price of $350.00 was written in the margin of the note. Mr. Sanders went to the Property on or around the period including January 18 through 21, 2011, and pumped out a 900-gallon septic tank. Mr. Sanders had actually done septic tank work at the Property in 2008, but he has done work on thousands of tanks and does not have a specific memory as to what he did at the Property three years earlier. On January 24, 2011, Mrs. Sanders' telephone log indicated receipt of another call from Harris. This time, Harris said there was a problem with the septic tank "we [pumped out] last week." Harris said there was a defective drain field associated with the septic tank and wanted to know the "next step" and how much it would cost to repair it. On the following day, there was a note in the telephone log concerning the Property. The note indicated the call was about a "tank cert[ification]" and that someone needed to call the County Health Department regarding the size of the tank at the Property. On or about January 31, 2011, a DH Form 4015, entitled Department of Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Existing System and System Repair Evaluation, was completed, in part, by Mr. Sanders. Specifically, the certification section of the form was filled out by Mr. Sanders. He listed the following existing tank information: 1350 gallons septic tank, made of concrete and baffled; and An approximately 350 gallons dosing tank, made of concrete. Mr. Sanders also certified that "[t]he listed tanks were pumped on 1/24/11 by Lehigh Septic, Inc., have the volumes specified as determined by [method of determination left unchecked], are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [type of filter not checked] installed." The certification was then signed as Connie H. Sanders, Lehigh Septic, Inc., but Mr. Sanders actually wrote the signature. Under the signature were the words, "[i]nstalled in series,"2/ and then the form is dated January 31, 2011. This form will be referred to herein as the "January 31 Certification." Mr. Sanders was authorized by Mrs. Sanders to sign documents on her behalf, so the January 31 Certification is essentially Mrs. Sanders' certified statement. Mr. Sanders delivered the January 31 Certification to Harris, assuming the certification was needed as part of Harris' licensure application for his assisted living facility or group home. Mr. Sanders believed he had provided such a certification for the Property in the past, and he often provided certifications to other group home type facilities. Mr. Sanders avers that he was not hired to do any additional work on the septic system at the property. Harris then apparently had some repair work done on his septic system by another company, Southwest Environmental, LLC. A permit application was filed at the Department on or about February 4, 2011, by Trinity Property, Inc. (apparently the entity which owns the Property), which sought approval to replace the drain field at the Property. Attached to the application was the January 31 Certification completed by Mr. Sanders. Neither Mr. Sanders, nor Mrs. Sanders, had knowledge the permit application was going to be filed at the Department as part of a repair permit application. Upon receipt of the permit application by the Department, it was quickly ascertained that the January 31 Certification was in error concerning the septic tank information. The 1350-gallon septic tank identified by Mr. Sanders did not exist. In fact, the Property had a 900-gallon septic tank, a 450-gallon septic tank, and a 400-gallon dosing tank. On February 10, 2011, Sabins contacted Mr. Sanders to let him know about the discrepancies on his DH Form 4015 related to the Property. Mr. Sanders indicated he would go out and pump the other two tanks, then submit a corrected certification form.3/ Mr. Sanders pumped the remaining tanks the very next day. Mr. Sanders also called the Department and spoke to Whelan. It was at that time that Mr. Sanders was advised that he could use the tank certifications he had done in 2008, because the certifications are good for up to three years. Mr. Sanders then submitted two more certifications to the Department. He submitted the certification from his 2008 visit (the "2008 Certification") and a revised certification dated February 11, 2011 (the "February 11 Certification"). The 2008 Certification identifies the two septic tanks and one dosing tank that existed on the Property. Mr. Sanders had pumped out at least one of those tanks on October 6, 2008. Invoices for that work indicated that Mr. Sanders had pumped the 900-gallon tank, but had not pumped the other two tanks. He went back on October 8, 2008, and pumped the remaining tanks. The invoice for the additional work says, "Pump dosing tank & cleaned sludge [no charge] per David/Driver. Didn't know other tanks were there." Under the quantity column on the invoice, however, 500 gallons is listed for the October 8, 2010, visit, even though there was a 450-gallon septic tank and a 400-gallon dosing tank that were allegedly pumped. The 2008 Certification is then signed and dated as of February 11, 2011, the same day as the other corrected certification. The February 11 Certification indicated that the Property had a 900-gallon septic tank, a 450-gallon septic tank, and a 400-gallon dosing tank. The certification said that all three tanks were pumped on February 11, 2011; however, Mr. Sanders actually pumped out the 900-gallon tank earlier (in the January 18 through 21, 2011, time period) and pumped the other two tanks on February 11, 2011. Neither the February 11 Certification, nor the 2008 Certification, is completely accurate in all respects, but they are sufficiently accurate to provide the Department the information it required. The purpose of a septic tank certification is to ensure that the tank is free from observable defects or leaks. As of October 6 through 8, 2008, Mr. Sanders believed the three tanks at the Property were in good condition. He did not have any knowledge whether they were in good condition as of the date he provided the January 31 Certification to the owner of the Property. However, Mr. Sanders could have relied upon his 2008 Certification at that time, thus, no further inspection was absolutely necessary. There is no evidence that Mrs. Sanders was personally aware of the errors made by Mr. Sanders concerning the activities at the Property; nor is there evidence that Mrs. Sanders had any knowledge that Mr. Sanders had prepared a certification (or three of them) containing her signature. However, Mrs. Sanders authorized Mr. Sanders to act on her behalf and must be held accountable for his actions in that regard. There were three prior disciplinary actions taken against Mrs. Sanders by the Department: In July 2003, the Department entered a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000.00 for failing to properly abandon a septic tank and creating a sanitary nuisance; in May 2009, a Final Order was entered fining Mrs. Sanders $1,000.00 for failing to remove the entire contents of an onsite septic sewage treatment and disposal system and for doing business under an unauthorized name; and in June 2007, a Final Order imposed a fine of $1.000.00 for failing to remove the entire contents of an onsite septic treatment and disposal system. There is no evidence in this case that consideration of the three prior offenses would be necessary in order to prove a material fact in the present action. Mrs. Sanders became a septic tank contractor after marrying her husband. It has become her life's work and is the only thing she is qualified to do in order to make a living. She is responsible for operations of both her and her husband's businesses, and if she is not certified, both businesses could fail. Her husband is not in good health, and Mrs. Sanders is concerned that loss of her certification would be financially devastating for her and Mr. Sanders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Health, imposing a fine against Respondent, Connie H. Sanders, in the amount of $500.00 and that a letter of warning be issued stating the potential penalty for any repeat violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The petition in this matter was filed pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, seeking fees and costs arising from an underlying proceeding (DOAH Case No. 93-5526) in which the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services entered a Final Order adopting the hearing officer's recommendation that the administrative complaint against Wayne H. Crotty, d/b/a Crotty Septic/Roto- Rooter, be dismissed. The parties have stipulated to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, the total of which exceeds the statutory $15,000.00 maximum. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, contests entitlement to the award and argues that Petitioners are not prevailing small business parties and, further, that the agency had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time its complaint was filed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Wayne H. Crotty is, and at all relevant times has been a licensed septic tank contractor in the State of Florida. Crotty Unlimited, Inc. was formed in 1987 as a holding and management company for several small, diversified corporations held by the Crotty family. One of those companies was Crotty Septic Service, Inc., which was involved in septic contracting and related businesses since 1972. In the early 1990's the other small corporations were sold, and when only Crotty Septic Service, Inc. was left, it was dissolved and was later registered as a fictitious name under which Crotty Unlimited, Inc. was doing business. From March 1992 until approximately June 1994, Crotty Septic Roto- Rooter was registered as a fictitious name owned by the corporation, Crotty Unlimited, Inc. Wayne H. Crotty is currently a director and president of Crotty Unlimited, Inc. Prior to Fall of 1994 he was vice president and secretary of the corporation. He is now, and was at all relevant times, a minority shareholder. In 1992 and 1993, Wayne H. Crotty filed applications for septic tank contracting authorization pursuant to Chapter 489, part III, Florida Statutes, for the business "Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter." The certificates were issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services under that designated business name. Wayne Crotty never applied for or received a certificate of authorization for septic tank contracting under the name, "Crotty Unlimited, Inc." Prior to 1992 the business authorization was in the name, Crotty Septic Services, Inc. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), through its state health program officer, is the state agency with statutory responsibility for licensing septic contractors, and monitoring and disciplining those contractors. The program office relies on the field staff in local county health units to conduct inspections and investigate complaints. The Underlying Proceeding In 1993 Wayne Crotty had an application pending for a permit from HRS for a septage disposal service, temporary system service and septage treatment and disposal facility. The application designates the business as "Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter" and the owner as "Crotty Unlimited, Inc." The application describes a lime stabilization facility on Southport Road in Osceola County (the Southport facility). The purpose of the facility was to receive pumped-out sewage effluent, treat the effluent through lime stabilization and spread the treated effluent in a designated field at the facility. Michael Napier, assistant director of environmental health in Osceola County conducted a series of inspections of the Southport facility in April, May and June of 1993. Mr. Napier noted what he considered were violations of Chapter 386, Florida Statutes, relating to sanitary nuisances and rule chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, relating to the treatment and disposal of septage and the standards of practice of septic tank contracting. He spoke with Wayne Crotty and corresponded with him regarding the inspection findings and he also consulted with Gerald Briggs, an environmental manager with HRS' state health program office in Tallahassee. Gerald Briggs drafted the administrative complaint in July 1993 based on the consultations with Michael Napier, the correspondence between the Osceola County health unit and Wayne Crotty and the inspection reports, photographs, or other supporting documentation. Throughout several months' time period Briggs felt from the tone of the letters that the corrections would be made. By July when Michael Napier said that the plant was handling a large quantity of septage in a very unsanitary and sloppy manner, Briggs agreed the facility should not be permitted as he was concerned about the impact on public health and the threat to ground and surface water in the area. Once Gerald Briggs decided to pursue an administrative complaint he determined that the respondent should be Wayne Crotty as the licensed septic tank contractor. The file on Wayne Crotty's certificate of authorization indicated that Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter was the authorized business name. Wayne Crotty had in early 1992 informed Gerald Briggs that he had purchased a Roto-Rooter franchise and wanted to be able to advertise under that name. Briggs advised that as an individual septic tank contractor he could only qualify one authorized business and the business he advertised would have to be the one that was authorized by the agency. Briggs advised that Wayne Crotty could amend his authorization to change the business name from Crotty Septic Service, Inc. to Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter. When Gerald Briggs drafted the administrative complaint alleging violations found by Michael Napier and the Osceola County field staff, he relied on the information in his files and named Wayne Crotty as the responsible septic tank contractor and what he understood was Crotty's business: Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter. The respondent throughout the underlying proceeding was designated as "Wayne H. Crotty, d/b/a Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter." No corporate party appeared in that underlying case (DOAH number 93-5526) by intervention or otherwise. Richard G. Hunter, Ph.D., HRS Health Officer for Environmental Health and Statewide Services signed the administrative complaint based on his examination of the packet prepared by his program and legal staff and the information from the field. The complaint sought to impose $2,500 in administrative fines on Wayne H. Crotty for violating regulations concerning disposal of stabilized septage and for creating or maintaining a sanitary nuisance. Wayne Crotty denied the allegations and requested a formal hearing. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, was assigned DOAH number 93-5526 and was heard on February 3-4, 1994. Included in the recommended order was this ultimate conclusion: 94. At most, the department established some intermittent sloppy practices by the Respondent -- practices that resulted primarily from the failure to have proper equipment available (the dumpster), and from untrained staff (Norm's admission about the cows). In the absence of clear advance notice of violations and an opportunity to correct the violations as provided by section 386.03, Florida Statutes, and with Respondent's evidence of reasonable attempts to cooperate and to obtain more appropriate equipment and train staff, those isolated practices should not be subject to penalty. (Recommended Order entered 6/28/94) In a Final Order entered on August 22, 1994, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services adopted the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the hearing officer and dismissed the administrative complaint against Wayne H. Crotty, d/b/a Crotty Septic/Roto-Rooter. The Elements Required for an Award of Fees and Costs Respondent, Wayne H. Crotty, thus prevailed in the underlying action. Wayne Crotty was an officer, minority shareholder and, according to his testimony, an employee of Crotty Unlimited, Inc. (transcript, p. 58). He was not a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business; he was not a small business party. At the time that the complaint was filed the agency had a reasonable basis to claim that violations were occurring or had occurred. However, its initiation of the proceeding was fatally flawed by its failure to provide statutory notice and an opportunity to correct the violations. When the complaint was filed the parties were still engaged in free-form discussion and correspondence regarding operations at the lime stabilization facility.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent created a sanitary nuisance by installing drainfield pipes too far apart in a septic tank drainfield and failing to seal the lid to a septic tank, failing to call for a required inspection before covering an onsite sewage disposal system, and engaging in gross misconduct by assaulting two of Petitioner's employees.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. On May 4, 1994, pursuant to a previously issued permit, Respondent completed the installation of a new drainfield at 204 West DelMonte Avenue in Clewiston. He asked Petitioner's office for an inspection for approval to cover the system. Jim Rashley, an environmental specialist employed by Petitioner, inspected the system on the morning of May 4. No one was at the site during the inspection. Mr. Rashley discovered a violation concerning the type of header pipe. He also discovered that the drain lines were more than 36 inches apart and 18 inches from the side of the field. Mr. Rashley determined that the drainfield pipes were three feet and four inches apart. Examining the septic tank itself, which Respondent had pumped, Mr. Rashley found that the lid had not been properly resealed, which would allow rain or dirt to enter the tank or effluent to escape from the tank if the drainfield failed. Returning to his office, Mr. Rashley informed his supervisor, Steve Havig, that he was failing the system and called Respondent and told him the same thing. Respondent asked Mr. Rashley to come out to the site so they could both examine the system, and Mr. Rashley agreed. When they met at the site, Respondent asked Mr. Rashley to point out the three violations, which he did. Respondent's response was to tell him that he was sick and tired of college kids telling him how to install septic tank systems. Mr. Rashley said that he could not ignore violations of the rules. After Respondent became more upset, he moved to within inches of Mr. Rashley's face and asked him if he would approve the system. Mr. Rashley answered he would if Respondent fixed the violations. While Respondent yelled at Mr. Rashley only a few inches from his face, Mr. Rashley, feeling very uncomfortable, retreated to his vehicle and started to drive back to his office. Respondent got into his vehicle and tailgated Mr. Rashley the entire way. When they arrived at Mr. Rashley's office, Respondent told the secretary to call Mr. Rashley's boss. Claiming that Mr. Rashley had unfairly disapproved the system, Respondent asked Mr. Havig to visit the site himself. Mr. Havig agreed to do so. Mr. Havig visited the site on the morning of May 5 outside the presence of Respondent. He confirmed the violations. At their closest point, the drain lines were three feet four inches apart, and the septic tank lid was not sealed. Mr. Havig left a message for Respondent with this information. At Respondent's request, Mr. Havig agreed to meet Respondent at the site at 1:30 pm. Returning from lunch with two other men, Mr. Havig stopped off at the site to meet Respondent. He found that the header pipe violation had been corrected, but the other violations had not been. Mr. Havig and Respondent talked about the separation of the drain lines. Respondent said he could not move the pipe without disturbing the elevation, which is crucial to the functioning of the drainfield. Mr. Havig said he could either move the pipe or add another line so as to reduce the maximum separation between lateral lines to below 36 inches. Respondent complained that he could not maintain the position of the flexible pipe when pouring gravel over the pipes. Respondent became angry. He grabbed a section of the plastic pipe and said that he would show Mr. Havig. The gravel fell in behind the place where the pipe had rested. Respondent declared that he would get the homeowner's approval to cover up the system rather than modify it. Mr. Havig went to his car to get a camera, and Respondent began using a lot of vulgarity. As Mr. Havig took pictures of the installation, Respondent became angrier. His face turned red and he accused Mr. Rashley and Mr. Havig of harassing him. He warned Mr. Havig that, if they did not stop, they would have to suffer the repercussions. Moving very close to Mr. Havig and pounding his fist into his hand, Respondent asked Mr. Havig if he knew what Respondent meant. Mr. Havig said yes, that it was time for him to go. Respondent covered the system up shortly after Mr. Havig departed. Respondent did not allow a reinspection of the system to determine if he corrected either the separation of the drain lines, which he admits he did not correct, or if he sealed the septic tank lid, which he claims he did correct. Respondent has worked as a septic tank contractor in the area for 18 years. The likelihood of system failure is high if a septic tank lid is not properly sealed before the system is covered and placed into operation. Respondent appears to have been a responsible contractor. Based on these facts, there is enough doubt on the lid-sealing issue to preclude finding that Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not seal the lid before covering the system. The pipes constituting the drain lines are manufactured to allow 18 inches of effluent to escape from either side of the pipe. By installing lines with more than 36 inches between each other or 18 inches between a line and a side, Respondent reduced the efficiency of the drainfield because parts of the drainfield, which lies beneath the lines, will not receive as much effluent as other parts of the drainfield. For awhile, due to safety concerns, Petitioner had to send two inspectors to inspect Respondent's work sites. Respondent never apologized to either Mr. Rashley or Mr. Havig until, acknowledging his unprofessional behavior, he apologized during the hearing. Respondent also noted that Petitioner has dealt with him professionally since the incidents in question. Petitioner and Respondent have had troubled dealings in the past. On one occasion, Petitioner insisted on the placement of a drainfield adjacent to an existing, failed drainfield, even though the existing and proposed drainfields drained directly into a canal. Respondent wanted to locate the drainfield well away from the canal. Unable to secure approval locally, Respondent took an appeal to Petitioner's representatives in Tallahassee, who approved Respondent's original, more sensible plan to relocate the drainfield. On the other hand, Respondent violated the minimum- separation rule for drain lines in 1993. Petitioner fined Respondent for the violation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 10D-6.056(4)(b) and thus 10D- 6.075(2)(a) by installing a drainfield with excessive separation between drain lines, Rule 10D-6.075(4)(d) by failing to call for a required inspection, and Rule 10D-6.075(4)(l)1 by engaging in gross misconduct in his behavior toward two of Petitioner's employees. It is further recommended that the final order impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500. ENTERED on July 14, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Floirda 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 14, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings All adopted or adopted in substance except that Respondent failed to seal the septic tank lid, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Mastin Scott Senior Health Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 60085 Ft. Myers, FL 33906 Attorney Melanie A. McGahee 333 S. Commercio, Suite B Clewiston, FL 33440 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Martha Valiant, M. D. Director, Hendry County Public Health Unit P.O. Box 70 LaBelle, FL 33935
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, James A. Tipton ("Tipton"), has been a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0018147, which expires on January 31, 1987. Tipton employed the services of Robert Corno as a field man for taking samples to establish soil profiles, site characteristics and existing water tables for septic tank applications prepared and filed by Tipton. Corno had actual authority from Tipton to conduct tests, site examinations and evaluations and to submit his findings to Tipton. Sometime before April 8, 1985, Tipton was retained to perform professional engineering services in connection with the preparation and filing of an application for a septic tank on lot 168, block 3, Charlotte Ranchettes Subdivision in Charlotte County ("lot 168"), owned by Joseph Duseo. Tipton sent Corno to lot 168 on April 13, 1985, to examine and evaluate the site, take soil samples and make other observations that would have to be reported to Tipton in connection with Tipton's work. Corno completed his work and reported to Tipton. Corno did not bring Tipton the actual soil samples. On April 8, 1985, Duseo's general contractor told Corno about a well on lot 168. When Corno visited the site, he observed the well. The well is an artesian well, about 3 feet high and six inches in diameter. The well is an irrigation-type well and is non-potable. The well was within fifty feet of the drain field of the septic system Tipton proposed for lot 168. The well also is approximately 5 to 10 feet from the north property line. Corno knew at the time of his visit to the site that the well was not plugged. However, Corno understood that Duseo was in the process of arranging with the Southwest Florida Water Management District to have the well plugged. Corno did not tell Tipton about the well before Tipton prepared and filed the application for the proposed septic tank. Therefore, Tipton did not know there was a well on lot 168 when he was preparing the application for the septic tank permit. Tipton did not ask Corno any questions calculated to reveal whether there was a well on lot 168. Corno held the belief that non-potable wells, especially those that were to be plugged, did not have to be shown on septic tank permit applications. There was evidence about a survey of lot 168 certified by a land surveyor employed by a firm of professional engineers which did not show any well on lot 168. However, Tipton did not have access to the survey before he prepared the septic tank permit application on lot 168. (The survey bears two dates, April 17 and April 18, and was not signed until April 25, 1985.) On or about April 15, 1985, Tipton signed and certified the septic tank permit application for lot 168. The application was filed at the Charlotte County Public Health Unit (Health Department) on April 16, 1985. The application indicates "none" in the space provided to indicate the "location of wells within 75 feet of property lines." The well on lot 168 is an important consideration which should have been depicted on the application. Septic tank drain fields could pollute a well. Even if Tipton had known that the well was supposed to be plugged, it was not plugged until July 1985. Failure to show the well was a serious omission. Tipton was negligent for relying on Corno without having an understanding whether Corno would report to him the existence of non-potable wells within 50 feet of the drain field of a septic system or within 75 feet of a property line if the well was likely to be plugged. If he had used due care, Tipton would have either made explicit inquiry of Corno sufficient to reveal the existence of the well or ascertained from Corno in advance that he would report to Tipton the existence of any well within 50 feet of the drain field of a proposed septic system or within 75 feet of property lines. Having failed to exercise due care, Tipton did not realize that Corno would not be reporting to him the existence of a non-potable well which was supposed to be plugged in the future. A few days after he filed the application, Tipton learned about the well on lot 168. But at about the same time, Duseo and his contractor began discussing construction alternatives that would change the septic system and require a new septic tank application. Therefore, Tipton did not immediately amend the April 15 application to show the well. In mid-May, Tipton filed a new application for the different septic system. The new application, not in issue in this case, showed the well. The application also contained a soil profile which probably is not accurate. However, Tipton's soil profile simply reflects the information reported to him by Corno. While Tipton's soil profile does not correspond with soil profiles from other test holes dug in the area of the proposed drain field by the Health Department and an expert witness, the information Corno reported to Tipton was well within the realm of possibilities for soil in the area of lot 168. Corno generally seemed to be a qualified and experienced field man who used proper tools to do his job. There was nothing suspicious about Corno's information, and there was no reason for Tipton to suspect that it was false or fraudulent. While it is the better practice for a professional engineer to require his field man to deliver the actual soil sample to support a soil profile report, this is not required of professional engineers if there is no reason to suspect that a field man's soil profile report is false or fraudulent. On the application, Tipton estimated the high water table on lot 168 at 2.2 feet below existing grade. While other expert witnesses estimated a higher high water table, the evidence did not prove that Tipton was negligent in his estimate. Some of the conflicting estimates were Health Department estimates which, the evidence indicates, tend to be high to be on the safe side. Others were estimates on permit applications which may have been influenced by the Health Department's desires and which may not reflect the engineers' actual estimates. Of all the estimates, only Tipton's was supported by testimony how the estimate was derived. (Tipton used what he called Darcy's Law.) Finally, Petitioner's own expert witness testified that Tipton's high water table estimate could not be called negligent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order holding Respondent, James A. Tipton, guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering under Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint (but dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint) and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00). RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sarah Logan Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Wings Slocum Benton, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John Charles Heekin, Esq. C-1 Ocean Plaza 21202 Ocean Blvd. Port Charlotte, FL 33952 APPENDIX The following are specific rulings on all the parties' proposed Findings of Fact as required by Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985). Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 3, 9, 10, 13 through 16, 19, 21 and 22 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the last sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 5 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the third sentence is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 17, 18 and 27 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that they are unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that whether Alligator Creek is a "significant" drainage feature would depend on the definition of "significant" which was not established by the evidence. In addition, Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 26 is unnecessary. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 6 through 8 are rejected as conclusions of law and because the last sentence of Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is cumulative. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 is rejected because the first sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is, subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact 12, 20, 23 and 24 are rejected as subordinate to Findings Of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Finding Of Fact 25 is rejected because the first sentence is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and the second sentence is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact 1 through 3, 5 and 12 are accepted as substantially factually accurate and are incorporated in the Findings Of Fact in the same or similar format to the extent necessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 4 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that the second sentence is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 8 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 9 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is in part unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 11 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact that there is "no way" for an engineer to avoid relying on a field man's error such as Corno's error in omitting to report the existence of the well. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 14 would have been included in paragraph 1 above except that it is irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 6 is rejected because it is subordinate to Findings Of Fact and is unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 7 is rejected because it is simply a recitation of conflicting evidence, some of which is accepted but some of which is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, it was found that Corno did not tell Tipton about the well and that Tipton did not have the survey in his possession at the time the application was filed. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 10 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, the evidence supported a finding of negligence on the part of Tipton for failure to utilize due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles whether or not practicing in Charlotte County. In addition, Mr. Murray's expert testimony must be disregarded because it was given upon a hypothetical assumption that an engineer had possession of a sealed survey showing no improvements on the property as the time of the application, a fact not proved by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Finding Of Fact 13 is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and Findings Of Fact. Specifically, personnel in the Health Department, part of the "general public," were misled. (The general public also reasonably could have been led to a fallacious conclusion, but there was no "misconduct" on Tipton's part. See Conclusions of Law.) ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2684 DPR CASE NO.0058289 JAMES A. TIPTON, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Hance B. Jones, is a registered septic tank contractor. The Petitioner is charged with regulating septic tanks, and may initiate charges against septic tank contractors which fail to comply with the statutes and rules regulating septic tanks. The Department's local inspector, Mr. Land, was asked by a representative of Best Septic Tank Contracting to meet with the Best representative and Ms. Inez Quiett at Ms. Quiett's home and confer about a proposed septic tank repair. On March 5, 1992, Mr. Land visited the site, observed water standing around an area which he was advised was the existing septic tank and drain field, and was asked what would have to be done. Mr. Land advised that they would have to obtain a permit, and that the new drain field would have to be separated by at least 24 inches from the wet season water table, and that this would entail placing the drain field in a mound. Mr. Land left the site expecting to have a representative of Best pick up a permit for the repairs within a few days. When Mr. Land did not see anyone come in about the permit, he drove by Quiett's, and observed disturbed soil in the area of the drain field. He stopped, went to the Quiett's house, and spoke with Ms. Quiett's son. The son advised that they had repaired the drain field. Mr. Land asked who had repaired the field, and the son advised him that Mr. Jones had repaired it. On April 22, 1992, Mr. Land then wrote a letter to the Respondent and advised Jones that he had violated the law by repairing Quiett's septic tank and not obtaining a permit for the repair. Mr. Jones spoke with Land at Land's office, and denied that he had repaired the septic tank. Mr. Jones stated he had provided the materials and equipment used to repair the tank. On April 22, 1992, Ms. Quiett called Mr. Land on the telephone, and told Land that Mr. Jones had helped her with the tank, but denied that Jones had been her contractor. The Respondent denied that he was the contractor of the job; denied he was on the site; denied he supervised the work; and denied he received any compensation from Quiett. He indicated that he knew Ms. Quiett's brothers, who were contractors, and admitted that he had provided the materials used on the job and had loaned them his backhoe. Ms. Quiett was asked about the repairs to the system and invoked her privilege against self-incrimination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: David West, Esquire District 3 Legal Office 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Bobby Kirby, Esquire Route 2, Box 219 Lake Butler, FL 32054 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
