STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY )

LICENSING BOARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-2356

)

ZDISLAW S. SZARAPKA, )

a/k/a STAN SZARAPKA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held pursuant to notice, on September 25, 2000 by Barbara J. Staros, assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Bunnell, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: William Oglo

Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 north Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

For Respondent: Zdislaw S. Szarapka, pro se

63 Cimmaron Drive

Palm Coast, Florida 32137 STATEMENT OF 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.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), filed an Amended Administrative Complaint on May 23, 2000, with eleven counts of professional violations against Respondent, a Certified General Contractor. Following the presentation of evidence, Petitioner withdrew Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner withdrew Count VIII of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

Respondent disputed the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint and petitioned for a formal hearing involving disputed issues of material fact. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about June 2, 2000. A formal hearing was set for September 25, 2000.

At hearing, Petitioner presented oral testimony of Jim Collins, Jeanette McKnight, Roy C. Brand, Tim McCaulley and Kazimierz Charchut. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 4 and Exhibit 7 were admitted into evidence. Counsel for the Department requested official recognition of Sections 489.119, 489.126, 489.129 and 489.1425, Florida Statutes, (1995) and Rule 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code (12/21/92)(Copies of these statutes and rules had been marked as Petitioner's exhibits 5 and 6). No opposition was stated to that request and the request was

granted. Respondent testified on his own behalf and Respondent's Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence.

At the request of the parties, the time for filing post- hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript. A Transcript, consisting of one volume, was filed on October, 17, 2000. On November 16, 2000, Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Recommended Order which has been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

Respondent has not filed any post-hearing submission.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20,

   455 and 489, Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. At all times material to the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent was licensed in Florida as a Certified General Contractor, having been issued license number CG C018621, and authorized to engage in the practice of general contracting as an individual. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's license had been suspended.

3. At no time material was Respondent licensed to practice contracting in Florida through Florida East Coast Properties, Inc.

4. On or about November 13, 1995, Respondent, doing business as Florida East Coast Properties, entered into a contract with Kazimierz and Maria Charchut (the Charchuts) for construction of a single family residence to be located at

   8 Farmsworth Drive, Palm Coast, Flagler County, Florida. The original contract price was $124,000. At the time of the signing of the contract, the Charchuts lived in Brooklyn, New York, and continue to reside there.

5. The Respondent's license number does not appear on the contract.

6. The Respondent's notification of the Construction Industries Recovery Fund does not appear on the contract.

7. Between September 13 and November 28, 1995, the Charchuts paid Respondent a total of $44,000 of the contract price towards construction of the residence. This amount constituted more than 10% of the contract amount (10% of the contract amount would have been $12,400).

8. A closing on the construction loan was scheduled for October of 1995. Respondent called Mr. Charchut a couple of days before the first scheduled closing telling him they could stop the closing so that they could get better interest rates.

   Between October 1995 and June of 1997, Respondent failed to appear at a total of three scheduled closings on the construction loan.

9. The Charchuts wrote several letters and made several phone calls to Respondent expressing concern that the closing had not yet occurred although they had already paid him a substantial amount of money.

10. The closing finally took place in October of 1997. Because of some change orders that were to be made to the house, including wooden floors and a longer driveway, the Charchuts paid an additional $14,813.75 at the closing bringing the total cost of the construction of the home to $138,813.75. Included on the Change Order form was an amount of $2,001.75 for water and sewer assessments, which comprised part of the $14,813.75 total additional moneys paid by the Charchuts.

11. The closing agent testified that this closing was atypical, because the bank was concerned that Respondent held too much money in the construction project. She testified that the bank requires that builders have no more than ten percent deposit. Consequently, Respondent was required to reimburse the bank $16,786.25 of the Charchut's $44,000 deposit at the closing. This was accomplished by Respondent bringing a check to the closing in the amount of $25,000 and receiving a refund overage check from Flagler County Abstract Co., (written to Florida East Coast) in the amount of $8,213.75, resulting in Respondent paying a net amount of $16,786.25 at the closing.

12. At the closing, the bank received a check from Flagler County Abstract Co. for $31,600 to put in the construction loan account. This amount was composed of the Charchut's payment of

    $14,813.75 plus Respondent's payment of $16,786.25.

    
    

13. Mr. Charchut wrote to Respondent in March of 1998 expressing concern that the closing had taken place in October of 1997 but the construction of his home had not yet begun.

14. Respondent replied to Mr. Charchut in a letter dated April 8, 1998, stating that he was sorry for the delay in beginning construction of the home and that he intended to begin construction the week of April 20, 1998.

15. Respondent applied for the building permit on May 7,

    
    

    1998.	Respondent applied for water and sewer service on May 5,
    1998.	He began construction of the house in June or July of
    1998.

    
    

16. By the end of July 1998, Respondent finished the slab foundation and rough plumbing of the Charchut's home. Consequently, the mortgage company paid $14,769.40 out of the first draw payment on the construction loan to Respondent's company. Of that amount, $3,485.86 was for reimbursement for payment to subcontractors. In addition to the amounts paid to Respondent, the mortgage company paid Mastercraft Plumbing $1,894 and $5,656.60 to CRS Rinker Materials Corp. The total first draw was $22,320.

17. After payment of the first draw in August of 1998, little if any work was done on the construction of the Charchut's home.

18. After the initial work on the slab, Respondent stopped construction and told the Charchuts that he did not want to continue to build their home and was looking for another contractor to finish the house for them.

19. After being told that Respondent did not want to work on the home, the Charchuts wrote to Respondent on October 5, 1998, notifying Respondent to stop doing further work on the property and asking him to notify the Building Department so a transfer of the construction permit to another builder could take place.

20. The Charchuts subsequently engaged another contractor, Mr. V. M. Zarbo. Mr. Charchut testified that he paid approximately $160,000 for the house to be built, including the money paid to Respondent.

21. Mr. Charchut testified that when Mr. Zarbo began his work, Palm Coast Utility asked him to pay the impact fee for water and sewer. Despite the Charchut's having paid Respondent

    $2,001.75 toward water and sewer assessments, Respondent's check for that amount made out to Palm Coast Utility Company was returned for insufficient funds. Consequently, the Charchuts had to pay $2,116.75 for this fee again through their subsequent

    general contractor, notwithstanding Respondent claiming that he had incurred this expense.

22. When added together, the Charchuts paid Respondent a total of $51,650.50 for the work Respondent did on the house. The total is composed of the sum of $27,213.75 (the net Respondent retained on the original down payment), $14,769.40 paid to Respondent from the first draw, and $1,894 and $5,656.60 paid to Respondent's suppliers/subcontractors from the first draw. Additionally, the Charchuts paid $2,116.75 for payment of the utility impact fee that the Charchuts had to pay twice.

23. The Charchuts asked their subsequent contractor to prepare an estimate of the cost of the work that Respondent performed on the home. His written estimate was for a total of

    $21,536.68. The Charchuts included that written estimate in a letter to Respondent dated November 16, 1998, asking for a refund of amounts they paid in excess of his costs.

24. Roy Brand testified as an expert witness for Petitioner. Mr. Brand has been a certified commercial contractor for about 20 years. He reviewed the estimate of Respondent's expenses that was provided by the Charchut's subsequent contractor. It was Mr. Brand's opinion that the cost estimate was appropriate and, if anything, Respondent's expenses might have been less.

25. Respondent testified that he spent more on some items that were listed in the estimate. Respondent, during the investigation leading up to this case, was given an opportunity to provide receipts to Petitioner's investigator of expenditures made to the house. The receipts supplied to Petitioner's investigator do not total an amount in excess of the estimate made by the Charchut's subsequent builder.

26. Based upon Respondent's failure to provide receipts to prove that the estimate total was too low, Mr. Zarbo's good faith estimate of building expenses made after his inspection of the property, and testimony of Petitioner's expert witness as to the reasonableness of the estimate, the estimate of expenses for Respondent's work in the amount of $21,536.68 is accepted as appropriate. Thus, Respondent has failed to account for or return to the Charchuts $30,113.82, the difference between the amount paid by the Charchuts and the estimate of expenses.1

27. As of September 20, 2000, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled

    $1,498.66.

    
    

    Previous disciplinary action

    
    

28. At hearing, the Department offered proof that, on two prior occasions, Respondent had been subjected to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the Board). The first occasion is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, (Final Order No. BPR-2000-01399) dated April 4, 2000,

    which found Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes, by making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations to a client; Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes,2 by acting in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as set forth on the issued certificate or registration; Section 489.129(1)(h)1, Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer; Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing a statement with respect to a project or contract with false information; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting and imposing the penalties of placing Respondent on probation for two (2) years and payment of an administrative fine, costs and restitution to a customer.

    The second occasion that Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action is reflected in the terms of a Final Order of the Board, (Final Order No. BPR-2000-01443) also dated April 4, 2000, which found that Respondent violated Section

    489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in the capacity of a contractor under a certificate or registration other than in the name of the certificateholder; Section 489.129(1)(h)1 and 3, Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a

    customer; Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing a statement with respect to a project or contract falsely indicating that payment had been made for all subcontracted work; Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting; and Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; and imposing the penalties of probation, payment of fines, costs and restitution.

29. Respondent apparently did not satisfy the fines and costs imposed by the foregoing orders as Respondent's license was suspended on May 17, 2000, for non-payment of fines, costs or restitution.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

30. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Sections 120.569, 120.57(1) and 120.60(5), Florida Statutes.

31. Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the specific allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d

    292 (Fla. 1987); Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996).

32. Section 489.129, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part:

    1. The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant: place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the

       issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent or is a secondary qualifying agent responsible under s. 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts:

       * * *

       
       

       1. Acting in the capacity of a contractor under any certificate or registration issued hereunder except in the name of the certificateholder or registrant as set forth on the issued certificate or registration, or in accordance with the personnel of the certificateholder or registrant as set forth in the application for the certificate or registration, or as later changed as provided in this part.

          
          

       2. Committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to a customer. Financial mismanagement or misconduct occurs when:

       . . . 2. The contractor has abandoned a customer's job and the percentage of completion is less than the percentage of the total contract price paid to the contractor as of the time of abandonment, unless the contractor is entitled to retain such funds under the terms of the contract or refunds the excess funds within 30 days after the date the job is abandoned; or 3. The contractor's job has been completed, and it is shown that the customer has had to pay more for the contracted job than the original contract price, as adjusted for subsequent change orders, unless such increase in cost was the result of circumstances beyond the control of the contractor, was the result of circumstances caused by the customer, or was otherwise permitted by the terms of the contract between the contractor and the customer.

       * * *

       
       

       1. Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this part or violating a rule or lawful order of the board.

          
          

       2. Abandoning a construction project in which the contractor is engaged or under contract as a contractor. A project may be presumed abandoned after 90 days if the contractor terminates the project without just cause or without proper notification to the owner, including the reason for termination, or fails to perform work without just cause for 90 consecutive days.

       * * *

       
       

       1. Committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting.

          
          

       2. Committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.

       
       

       ***

       
       

33. Section 489.126, Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part:

    489.126 Moneys received by contractors.---

    
    

    1. A contractor who receives money totaling more than 10 percent of the contract price for repair, restoration, improvement, or construction to residential real property must:

       
       

       1. Apply for permits necessary to do work within 30 days after the date payment is made; and

          
          

          * * *

          
          

    2. (3)

    (a) A contractor who receives money for repair, restoration, addition, improvement, or construction of residential real property in excess of the value of the work performed

    shall not, with intent to defraud the owner, fail or refuse to perform any work for any 90-day period.

    
    

34. Count I of the Amended Complaint charges Respondent with violating Section 489.129(g), Florida Statutes (1995), by acting in the capacity of a contractor except in the name as set forth on the issued certificate or registration. As Respondent was licensed as an individual and yet acted in the capacity of a contractor through Florida East Coast Properties, Petitioner has met its burden of proving Count I.

35. Count III of the Amended Complaint charges Respondent with violating Section 489.129(1)(h)2., Florida Statutes (1995), by committing financial mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to the consumer when he abandoned a job and the percentage of completion was less than the percentage paid to him. Petitioner proved that Respondent clearly abandoned the project at an early stage, having been paid more than the value of the completion of the project. Thus, Petitioner has meet its burden of proving Count III.

36. Count IV charges Respondent with violating Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes(1995), by abandoning a construction project in which the contractor was engaged or under contract as a contractor. Petitioner proved that Respondent abandoned the project and has met its burden of proof for Count IV.

37. Count V charges Respondent with violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing fraud and deceit in the practice of contracting. Petitioner proved that Respondent, after accepting money to build the Charchuts' home, delayed construction for more than two years and gave false assurances to the Charchuts over a long period of time as to the timetable of building their home. Thus, Petitioner has met its burden of proving Count V.

38. Count VI charges Respondent with violating Section 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), by committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. Petitioner proved that Respondent repeatedly delayed construction of the Charchuts' home for a period of over two years and repeatedly failed to attend scheduled closings, and has met its burden of proving Count VI.

39. Count VII charges Respondent with violating Section 489.126(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1995) (and thereby violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1995), by failing to comply in any material respect with the provisions of Chapter 489), by receiving, as initial payment, money totaling more than ten percent of the contract price without applying for permits necessary to do work within 30 days after the date payment is made. Petitioner proved that Respondent received more than ten percent of the total contract price over two years before

    applying for the necessary permits and has met its burden of proving Count VII.

40. Count IX charges Respondent with violating Section 489.126(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), by refusing to perform work in excess of the value of the work performed for any 90-day period (which is a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1995), by failing to comply in any material respect with the provisions of Chapter 489). Petitioner proved that Respondent stopped working on the job and did not reimburse the Charchuts for the money he retained in excess of the work performed and met its burden of proving Count IX.

41. Count X of the Amended Complaint charges Respondent with violating Section 489.119(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), for failing to place his license number on the contract (which is a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1995), by failing to comply in any material respect with the provisions of Chapter 489). Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to include this disclosure of the contract and met its burden of proving Count X.

42. Count XI of the Amended Complaint charges Respondent with violating Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes (1995), for failing to disclose the existence of the Construction Industry Recovery Fund on the contract (which is a violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1995), for failure to comply with Chapter 489). Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to

    include this disclosure on the contract and has met its burden of proving Count XI.

43. Rule 21E-17.001, Florida Administrative Code (1992), sets forth the normal penalty ranges for the offenses determined herein, and provides in pertinent part:

    21E-17.001 Normal Penalty Ranges.

    (7) 489.129(1)(b), 489.119: Failure to

    qualify a firm, and/or acting under a name not on a license. First violation, $100 fine; repeat violation $750 to $1,500 fine.

    
    

    (8) 489.129(1)(h): Mismanagement or misconduct causing financial harm to the customer. First violation, $750 to $1,500 fine and/or probation; repeat violation,

    $1,500 to $5,000 fine and probation, suspension, or revocation.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. 489.129(1)(j): Failing in any material respect to comply with the provisions of

       Part I or Chapter 489.

       (e) 489.119: License number not appearing in advertisement. First violation, $100; repeat violation, reprimand and $250 or

       $1,000 fine.

       
       

    2. 489.119: Abandonment. First violation, $500 to $2,000 fine; repeat violation revocation and $5000.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. 489.119(1)(m): Committing fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting.

       (a) Causing no monetary or other harm to licensee's customer, and no physical harm to the person. First violation, $500 to $1,000 fine; repeat violation, $1,000 to $1,500 fine and probation, suspension or revocation.

       
       

    2. 489.129(1)(n): Being found guilty of incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting.

    * * *

    
    

    (c) Violation of any provision of Chapter 21E, Florida Administrative Code. Violation,

    $500 to $1,000 fine; repeat violations $1,000 to $5,000 fine and/or probation, suspension or revocation.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (16) 489.129(1)(p): Proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building department permits and/or inspections.

    (a) Late permits. Contractor pulls permit after starting job but prior to completion and does not miss any inspections. First violation, $100 fine; repeat violation, $500 to $1,000 fine.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    1. For any violation occurring after October, 1988, the board may order the contractor to make restitution in the amount of financial loss suffered by the customer, subcontractor, or materialman. Such restitution may be ordered in addition to the penalties provided by the guidelines without demonstration of aggravating factors set forth in rule 21E-17.002, and to the extent that such order does not contravene federal bankruptcy law.

       
       

    2. The absence of any violation from this chapter shall be viewed as an oversight, and shall not be construed as an indication that no penalty is to be assessed. The Guideline penalty of the offense most closely resembling the omitted violation shall apply.

    
    

44. Rule 21E-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, speaks to aggravating and mitigating circumstances and provides in pertinent part:

    Circumstances which may be considered for the purposes of mitigation or aggravation of penalty shall include, but are not limited to the following:

    1. Monetary or other damage to the licensee's customer, in any way associated with the violation, which damage the licensee has not relieved, as of the time the penalty is to be assessed. (This provision shall not be given effect to the extent it would contravene federal bankruptcy law.)

    2. Actual job-site violations of building codes, or conditions exhibiting gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by the licensee, which have not been corrected as of the time the penalty is being assessed.

    3. The severity of the offense.

    4. The danger to the public.

    5. The number of repetitions of offenses.

    6. The number of complaints filed against the licensee.

    7. The length of time the licensee has practiced.

    8. The actual damage, physical or otherwise, to the licensee's customer.

    9. The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed.

    10. The effect of the penalty upon the licensee's livelihood.

    11. Any efforts at rehabilitation.

    12. Any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

45. With regard to aggravating circumstances, the two prior final orders of the Construction Industry Licensing Board establish aggravating circumstances. Many of the violations determined herein are repeat violations. Respondent's license is already on probation and is in a suspended status. Respondent shows no evidence of rehabilitation.

46. Petitioner seeks revocation of Respondent's license, awarding the Charchuts restitution in the amount of $30,113.82, imposing costs of the investigation in the amount of $1,498.66, and imposing fines in the total amount of $11,250, comprised of

    $750 for Count I, $1,500 for Count III, $5,000 for Count IV,

    $1,000 for Count V, $1,000 for Count VI, $500 for Count VII,

    
    

    $1,000 for Count IX, $250 for Count X, and $250 for Count XI.

    
    

47. The penalties proposed by Petitioner are within the permissible range established by Rules 21E-17.001 and 21E-17.002, Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, there being no reason to deviate from Petitioner's recommendation, its proposed penalty is accepted as appropriate. Walker v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 705 So. 2d 652, (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).

48. Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (1995), authorizes Petitioner to assess costs of investigation and prosecution, in addition to the penalties provided above.

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 adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and which, as penalty for the violations found, imposes an administrative fine in the total sum of $11,250, revokes Respondent's license, orders that Respondent pay restitution to the Charchuts in the amount of $30,113.82, and assesses costs of investigation and prosecution (through September 20, 2000) in the total sum of $1,498.66 against Respondent.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

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 12th day of December, 2000.

ENDNOTES

1/ Despite the fact that the home had not been built yet, a lease was signed between the Charchuts and Respondent in June of 1996 for the home to be used as a model home by Respondent. The lease was for three years with a monthly rent of $850. Respondent asserts that he had paid the Charchuts $9,350 in rent for the Charchut's property. In a letter to Petitioner's investigator, Mr. Charchut stated that Respondent stopped payments after 11 months. This lease arrangement was a separate business transaction and, accordingly, the rent moneys paid by Respondent to the Charchuts should not be used as an offset in the calculation of any restitution to the Charchuts.

2/ Many of the statutory references have since been renumbered.

COPIES FURNISHED:

William Oglo, Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Zdislaw S. Szarapka

63 Cimmaron Drive

Palm Coast, Florida 32137

Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and

Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300

Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 00-002356

Orders for Case No: 00-002356