The Issue Whether petitioner was required or entitled to enroll in the Florida Retirement System at any time prior to March of 1989?
Findings Of Fact In the winter of 1979, petitioner DeWayne Manuel began performing building inspection services for Gulf County. He had responded to a newspaper advertisement entitled "JOB OPPORTUNITY," which stated, "Work will be under supervision of Building Inspector . . . Equal Opportunity Employer." Respondent's Exhibit No. 9. On the recommendation of E. F. "Red" Gunn, then head of Gulf County's Building Department, the Board of County Commissioners engaged him "temporarily" as a building inspector on March 13, 1979. Testimony of Manuel and Gortman. In the view of Commissioner Jimmy O. Gortman, Mr. Manuel was treated no differently than any other county employee. But Gulf County's Building Department was funded from permit fees, rather than from general county revenues. The building department was not "on the ad valorem tax budget." Testimony of Gortman; Stipulation. For the period March 13, 1979, to September 30, 1979, Gulf County paid petitioner $1,525.52. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1980, Gulf County paid petitioner $3,840.83. Effective December 1, 1980, petitioner became responsible for all building inspections in Gulf County, not just those on projects north of the intracoastal canal. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 11, pp. 366-7. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1981, Gulf County paid petitioner $13,319.83. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1982, Gulf County paid petitioner $22,188.00, which represented permit fees from which a telephone expense of $24.00 a month, aggregating $288.00, had been deducted. Before the fiscal year ended September 30, 1982, Gulf County had deducted no expenses from permit fees, in calculating petitioner's compensation. Deposition of McCroan. At a county commission meeting on January 11, 1983, Mr. Gunn gave "an oral report on . . . problems" "with Building Inspector DeWayne Manuel's job performance," "fired Building Inspector Manuel and then resigned himself." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 12, p. 305. But, before the meeting concluded, "Mr. Gunn agreed to continue working as Building Official . . . and he then rehired Mr. Manuel as Building Inspector." Id., p. 306. When the county commission met on May 24, 1983, Mr. Gunn resigned, effective June 1, 1983, and "recommended the Board hire DeWayne Manuel as the Building Official." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 12, p. 381. At the same meeting, the Board voted unanimously to accept this recommendation. Id. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1983, Gulf County paid petitioner $18,894.40. At its meeting on September 13, 1983, the "Board agreed to pay DeWayne Manuel . . . $1,130 per month as long as funds are available from the Building Permit Revenues," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 12, p. 447, thereby "capping" his compensation from the Building Department for the first time. Perhaps because he also served an eight- or nine- month stint as acting mosquito control director, however, Gulf County paid petitioner $41,985.28 during the fiscal year ended September 30, 1984. Testimony of Manuel; Deposition of McCroan. On November 13, 1984, the Board voted to pay "DeWayne Manuel $35,540 per year on a contract basis." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 13, p. 215. Although the Board voted changes in his rate of compensation thereafter, his income no longer depended on Building Department collections. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 1985, Gulf County paid petitioner $36,532.01; and for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1986, Gulf County paid petitioner $39,011.98. McCroan Deposition. During calendar year 1986, Gulf County paid petitioner $39,315.91. During calendar year 1987, Gulf County paid petitioner $41,929.77. During calendar year 1988, Gulf County paid petitioner $44,891.75. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 to Deposition of Lister. On May 24, 1988, in response to audit criticisms, the Board entered into its first written contract with petitioner, which provided: Revenue source - All monies received from the sale of all types of building permits and interest earned on funds received from the sale of building permits in Gulf County shall be the revenue source for all costs and expenses of the Building Inspection Department. Separation of Costs and Expenses The Board of County Commissioners (Gulf County) shall pay or provide the following expenses or resources out of the above mentioned revenue source: secretary, office space, office supplies, administrative costs for operation of department utilities, telephone expenses (except for telephone expenses listed in Section II. B. 1. below) errors and omissions insurance coverage and a contract price of $40,905.00 to the Building Official for FY 87-88 (paid monthly). Contract price is calculated in the following manner. A $40,000.00 figure was established by the Board of County Commissioners for FY 86-87 (Book 14 Page 119). The contract price was increased for FY 87-88 by the same amount that all other Court House employees received, $455.00. In FY 87-88 the contract price was increased by $405.00 represents 2% of $22,500.00 which was estimated to be the salary after the deduction of expenses (listed in section B. 1., 2., 3., and 4. below). Building Official - Out of the $40,905.00 contract price, the Building Official is to pay the following: Basic (monthly) mobile telephone expenses In-county travel expenses All benefits (i.e. F.I.C.A., retire-ment, vacation, health and life insurance) All income tax withholdings Contracted services to be performed by the Building Official Be available (in office, on inspections, in meetings, or etc.) a minimum of 40 hours per week. Be responsible for the operations of the Building Department. Be responsible for all inspections required by the Standard Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Gas, Swimming Pool, and the National Electric Codes, as well as such other codes which may be adopted in Gulf County. Be responsible for the duties of the Local Administrator as defined in the Gulf County Flood Ordinance. Such other duties as may be directed by the Board of County Commissioners of Gulf County. This agreement shall expire September 30, 1988 and may be cancelled at an earlier date by either party for good cause, by giving thirty (30) days notice. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8 to Lister Deposition. The contract provisions reflected the relationship that had existed between petitioner and Gulf County for some time before it was actually signed. Later the same year, petitioner's status was called into question. On September 27, 1988, Mr. Manuel was a topic of discussion at the County Commission meeting. Chairman Birmingham stated that he is satisfied with the present system, and stated that if the Building Department contract is not valid, he will vote to hire Mr. Manuel as a full-time County employee. Commissioner Branch stated that he has no problem with Mr. Manuel, and stated that he is very dedicated to Gulf County. Commissioner Traylor also stated that Mr. Manuel has done a fine job. After discussion, Chairman Birmingham requested that Attorney Rish check to see if different arrangements need to be made concerning this position (make him a permanent County employee, etc.). Upon inquiry by Ms. Arnold about the contract ending on September 30, 1988, and about being able to apply for the job, Attorney Rish stated that anyone could apply at any time. Upon further inquiry by Ms. Arnold about Mr. Manuel having a life-time contract, Chairman Birmingham stated that, as far as he is concerned, Mr. Manuel has the job unless he messes up. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, Book 15, pp. 698-9. Two additional entries in board minutes reflect pertinent developments on February 14 and 28, 1989, respectively: Commissioner Gortman moved that the Board hire Building Inspector Manuel as a permanent County employee, under the direction of the Board (to negotiate salary, travel, etc.), effective March 1, 1989. Chairman Birmingham gave the Chair to Vice Chairman Peters, and seconded the motion. After discussion about the history and the financial situation of the Building Department, Commissioner Creamer stated that he would like an opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Manuel before making a decision. Chairman Peters stated that he is under the same impression as Commissioner Creamer, and he is also concerned about whether or not the job should be advertised. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Gortman, Attorney Rish reported that it would be legal for the Board to hire Mr. Manuel as a regular County employee, if Mr. Manuel is agreeable (he also stated that he will need to read the existing contract). After discussion, the motion passed with the following vote: Commissioners Birmingham, Creamer Gortman, and Parker voted yes. Chairman Peters voted no. Chairman Peters returned the Chair to Commissioner Birmingham. Chairman Birmingham then requested that Commissioner Gortman and Commissioner Parker work out the details of Mr. Manuel's duties and his salary, travel, etc., and report back to the Board at the next regular meeting. Upon inquiry by Commissioner Gortman, Attorney Rish reported that the Board has no problem with breaking the contract, if Mr. Manuel has no problem with it. . . . Commissioner Gortman moved that the Board hire DeWayne Manuel as a County employee with duties as Building/Fire Official (putting the Building Department under the direction of the Board) for the remainder of this fiscal year at $16,380.00 - salary, $1,230.00 - social security, and $2,356.00 - retirement, which totals $19,966.00 plus $.17 per mile for in-County travel not to exceed $4,760.00, which will give a grand total of $24,726.00 (to re-negotiate next fiscal year). He also included in his motion that Mr. Manuel will work 40 hours per week (and on weekends, if needed) under this salary, doing the Building Department work plus anything the Board directs him to do. Commissioner Gortman stated that Mr. Manuel is to have 10 years seniority, and is to be allowed to participate in the State retirement program (he will have to pay any back retirement). Upon inquiry by Commissioner Creamer and after discussion about the rate per mile for other County employees. Commissioner Gortman also included in his motion that the Board pay all County employees $.17 per mile for in-County travel and that the revenue from the inspections will go into the Building Inspector's budget. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Commissioner Peters stated that he feels this job should be advertised. Commissioner Parker stated that Mr. Manuel has been working without a contract since September and if he has worked this long without a contract, he should have the benefit of the doubt. The motion then passed with the following vote: Chairman Birmingham and Commissioners Creamer, Gortman, and Parker voted yes. Commissioner Peters voted no. Jean Arnold discussed that she is opposed to the Building Department funds not being controlled in the past, and is opposed to Mr. Manuel being the Building Inspector. . . . On March 1, 1988, there was no change in petitioner's hours, duties, job description or the number of people working in the Gulf County Building Department. The separate fund containing building permit fees was abolished, and petitioner began to be paid from general revenues, including ad valorem taxes. He also enrolled as a regular member of the Florida Retirement System on March 1, 1989. Testimony of Gortman and Birmingham. Gulf county prepared and filed 1099 forms reflecting moneys paid petitioner for the years 1985 through 1988, and for the first two months of 1989. Before 1985, the county did not prepare either a W-2 form or a 1099 form or otherwise report petitioner's income to the Internal Revenue Service. The only W- 2 form the county produced for him covered the period from March 1, 1989, until he left Gulf County's employ on September 30, 1989. Asked why she had not produced W-2 forms for petitioner before March 1, 1989, Donna R. McCroan, the county payroll clerk, explained that "[h]e had not gone through my payroll system, and that unless you run them through - - put his figures through my payroll system, my figures wouldn't balance." Deposition of McCroan, pages 14 and 15. At different times, Gulf County paid petitioner weekly, bi-weekly and monthly. Petitioner was listed as a vendor, rather than as an employee, for some time before March 1, 1989. At first, petitioner received compensation equivalent to the building permit fees Gulf County took in, during the pertinent period, on account of construction permitted in Gulf County, north of the intracoastal canal. Eventually added to this sum was a fraction of the fees Gulf County collected on behalf of Wewahitchka and Ward Ridge; and fees from permits issued for Gulf County south of the canal. Originally, petitioner's compensation was never based on invoices he submitted. For each pay period, the county clerk's office prepared a voucher listing the building permits that issued during that pay period. Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7. Because applicants for building permits paid fees as or before permits issued, before inspection services were needed, petitioner's compensation varied from period to period, not with the number of inspections or other work that he performed, but with the number of building permits "pulled." At no time was he paid for inspections as piecework. At county expense, petitioner was trained as a building inspector. He performed building inspection services under Mr. Gunn's supervision until the latter's retirement. Petitioner was obliged to follow the methods of inspection prescribed by the building code, but free to determine whether or not code requirements were met in a particular case. He had to use certain receipt and other forms, and keep records in a prescribed fashion to facilitate audits. No written job descriptions defined the duties of Building Department employees. Even when petitioner answered to Mr. Gunn, the Board of County Commissioners sometimes assigned him tasks directly, in areas unrelated to the building department. Petitioner helped obtain a permit from the state Department of Environmental Regulation for the county landfill, dealt with the state Department of Transportation on questions concerning bridges, dealt with the state Department of Corrections in connection with the county jail, secured a mosquito control grant and various other grants for Gulf County, and performed other jobs as directed. When working on things other than building inspections, the county commissioners often told him "exactly what to do." Testimony of Birmingham. When Gulf County hired him, Mr. Manuel sold his Western Auto Store and, beginning in April of 1979, devoted 40 hours or more a week to county duties. He never took vacations. His compensation was not reduced the only time he missed work for illness. Except for time in the field, he did all his work on Gulf County's "premises," in an office the county supplied. Gulf County provided not only an office but, eventually, a secretary and other building inspectors. Petitioner supervised these county employees. The county paid workmen's compensation premiums for petitioner, furnished office supplies and equipment, including a computer; and equipment for use in the field, including piling boring equipment and an electrical inspection tool known as a Megger. Until petitioner acquired a mobile telephone, Gulf County paid all telephone expenses the Building Department incurred. Afterwards, it paid telephone expenses except for the basic mobile telephone charge. Gulf County reimbursed petitioner for travel out of the county on the same basis that it reimbursed all county employees. Building inspection services petitioner or county employees under his supervision performed for Wewahitchka or Ward Ridge occurred under the terms of intergovernmental agreements, and on behalf of Gulf County. Otherwise, petitioner performed no building inspection or other services for any person or entity other than Gulf County while he worked for the county. Upon Mr. Gunn's departure, petitioner assumed supervisory responsibilities for the Gulf County Building Department, and served as department head.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent grant petitioner regular membership in the Florida Retirement System for the period April 1, 1979, to February 28, 1989. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 1st day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 and 2 refer to a county ordinance not in evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9 pertains to a subordinate matter. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4 through 8 and 10 through 16 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the fees were for building permits, not for inspections as such. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence showed he took sick leave. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, there was testimony that the County's payroll clerk prepared the vouchers. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 De Wayne Manuel P.O. Box 7593 Daytona Beach, FL 32116 De Wayne Manuel 212 Tapper Drive P.O. Box 305 Port St. Joe, FL 32456 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Steven Bruh, is entitled to be registered with the Florida State Board of Architecture, based upon an examination of the allegations by the Respondent that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is of continuing good moral character, as specifically shown by his, (1) engaging in the practice of architecture without being registered by preparing plans and specifications for a townhouse in Palm Beach, (2) by advising Mr. and Mrs. Cope that he was a registered architect and holding himself out to them as being a registered architect.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the petition filed by the Petitioner, Steven Bruh, dated February 14, 1977. The issues established by the petition were further described by the letter of the Petitioner's attorney, Gary I. Zwickel, dated March 2, 1977 in which the reasons for denial of the Petitioner's registration before the Board of Architecture were suggested as being based upon (1) Mr. Bruh's engaging in the practice of architecture by preparing plans and specifications for a townhouse in Palm Beach, and (2) that Mr. Bruh advised Mr. and Mrs. Cope that he was a registered architect and held himself out to them as a registered architect, as constituting the reasons for denial. The letter of Mr. Zwickel was responded to by Selig I. Goldin, attorney for the Respondent in which Mr. Goldin agreed that the two specified reasons were an accurate depiction of the allegation of the reasons of the Florida State Board of Architecture denying the registration of the Petitioner, in that these two reasons cause the Florida State Board of Architecture to conclude that the Petitioner did not demonstrate that he is of continuing good moral character, which is a requirement for registration. The original of the Zwickel letter and a copy of Mr. Goldin's letter, aforementioned, are made a part of the record herein. In July, 1973 Steven Bruh began working for Jeffrey Ornstein, an architect licensed by the State of Florida. Ornstein later merged with two other architects and the architectural firm was thereafter known as Anstis, Vass and Ornstein. This merger occurred on August 18, 1975 and that architectural firm has been practicing in Palm Beach, Florida since that date. During his employment for Ornstein and later for Anstis, Vass and Ornstein, Mr. Bruh was employed as a draftsman. Among the clients of Jeffrey Ornstein and later Anstis, Vass and Ornstein was one Bradley Taylor Ray. Ornstein was the architect directly working for Mr. Ray and Steven Bruh performed some of the drawing on single family residences and duplex apartments designed for Ray. In November, 1975, Ray wanted a fourplex designed to be located on Australian Avenue and Coconut Row, in Palm Beach; contingent on a successful option to purchase the property on which the fourplex would be located. Because of some prior problems receiving payment from Mr. Ray, it was the decision of the firm of Anstis, Vass and Ornstein that a signed contract and retainer be obtained from Mr. Ray prior to doing any other work. As a result of this policy all that was done on the Australian Avenue project were preliminary study sketches to see if the proposed building would fit on the property that was being considered. These sketches were done by Steven Bruh. Beyond this preliminary work Steven Bruh had been specifically told not to work for Bradley Ray unless the firm had a signed contract and retainer. In addition, Steven Bruh had not been told that he could work for Bradley Taylor Ray on Bruh's own private time. The last work that the firm of Anstis, Vass and Ornstein did for Ray on the project was in January, 1976. On March 3, 1976 Jeffrey Ornstein and James Anstis, partners in the architectural firm, discovered tracings on Steven Bruh's drawing board in the firm's office which pertained to a triplex project for Bradley Taylor Ray in the name Quest Construction Company. This project was being located on Chilian Avenue and Coconut Row in Palm Beach. A copy of these tracings which are a replica (prints) of the tracings, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit #1, admitted into evidence. There had been no prior discussion in the firm by any of the principles or Steven Bruh concerning the design of tracings/plans for the Chilian Avenue and Coconut Row Project, which is Petitioner's Exhibit #1. Moreover, no discussion had been entered into about transferring the work from the Australian Avenue, Coconut Row location to the Chilian Avenue, Coconut Row location or that the project, would be reduced from four units to three units. Steven Bruh admitted drawing the plans which are Petitioner's Exhibit #1, and attempted to justify this decision based on a conversation he had with Jeff Ornstein. In that conversation, Bruh asked Ornstein if it would be permissible to do work found in Petitioner's Exhibit #1 in his home. Ornstein's only reply was, "you must be crazy". No further discussion was entered into about the matter and based upon the prior understanding between the principles of the firm and Steven Bruh, the work which Bruh did on the Chilian Avenue Project was done without supervision and without permission. This work by Bruh constituted the planning and design for the erection, enlargement or alteration of a building for another and was the practice of architecture. This work was done at a time when Steven Bruh was not admitted to practice architecture in the State of Florida. In December, 1975, Bradley Taylor Ray introduced the Petitioner to Dorothea Cope. At that time Steven Bruh identified himself to Mrs. Cope as being an architect, employed by Anstis, Vass and Ornstein. This introduction took place in Palm Beach County, Florida. Bruh was employed to do certain drawings on a residence belonging to Mrs. Cope and her husband. In the course of this work, he continually told Mrs. Cope that he was an architect and on at least one occasion when asked if he was registered, told Mrs. Cope that he was a registered architect. In fact he was not a registered architect, although he was holding himself out to be registered, while undertaking to prepare plans and specifications for the remodeling of the Cope's residence. By his actions in working on the Chilian Avenue Project and by his actions of calling himself a registered architect and by holding himself out to be a registered architect, the Petitioner has shown himself to be lacking in the good moral character necessary to be an applicant for the architectural examination administered by the Florida State Board of Architecture. Those proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order as submitted by the parties have been examined and those portions of those proposals found to be meritorious are incorporated in this recommended order. The facts shown in paragraph three, 3., four, 4.; six, 6.; seven, 7.; eight, 8.; and the later sentence in paragraph nine, 9. in the Petitioner's findings of fact are rejected. The Petitioner's conclusions of law and recommended order are rejected. The facts shown in paragraph three, 3., beyond the semicolon in the Respondent's findings of fact are rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended, based upon the facts of this cause, that the Petitioner, Steven Bruh, have his application for registration to practice architecture in the State of Florida rejected due to a lack of good moral character. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Gary I. Zwickel, Esquire 219 North Dixie Highway Lake Worth, Florida 33460 Selig I. Goldin, Esquire Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified by endorsement as a standard building inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that certifies standard building inspectors pursuant to the provisions of Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (consisting of Sections 468.601 - 468.633). By application dated November 7, 1996, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector. This application contemplated that Petitioner would sit for the certification examination. Respondent determined that Petitioner was qualified to sit for the Principles and Practice portion and the Technical portion of the certification examination. Petitioner did not achieve a passing score on the certification examination. Consequently, his application for certification was rejected. By application dated December 22, 1997, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector without having to take the licensure examination. This was properly construed by Respondent to be an application for certification by endorsement. Petitioner requested Respondent to waive the certification examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 468.613, Florida Statutes, which provide as follows: The board shall examine other certification of training programs, as applicable, upon submission to the board for the consideration of an application for certification by endorsement. The board shall waive its examination, qualification, education, or training requirements to the extent that such examination, qualification, education, or training requirements are determined by the board to be comparable with those established by the board. By his application dated December 29, 1997, Petitioner sought certification based upon his qualifications1 and upon what his counsel referred to as "substantially equivalent" exams. The "substantially equivalent" exams to which counsel for Petitioner referred were to the examinations Petitioner passed in order to be licensed as a general contractor and as a roofing contractor. Petitioner's application reflects that he passed licensure examinations during 1983 in Broward County and in Dade County in the general contractor category. Petitioner passed a similar examination in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 1986. Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, was created by Chapter 93-166, Laws of Florida. Prior to 1993, there was no state-wide certification of building inspectors. There was no evidence as to the contents of the examinations Petitioner passed in 1983 and 1986, and there was no evidence as to the contents of the certification examination administered by Respondent to candidates for certification as building inspectors. Consequently, there is no basis upon which a comparison of these examinations can be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for certification by endorsement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of April, 1999.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent's proposed award for ITB 09-22 for Building 14B renovation is contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid.
Findings Of Fact The University of North Florida published its Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal in reference to ITB #09-22 entitled "GC's for Building 14B Renovation" on December 19, 2008, with a submission deadline of January 27, 2009. The opening date was eventually extended to January 30, 2009. There were four addendums to the ITB #09-22 Project. The Notice of Bid/Request for Proposal document contained the following provisions: This project consists of the following scope of work: The work includes all labor, supervision, equipment, and materials required to execute the Contract Documents in two phases for the tenant build-out of the existing UNF Building 14-B (approximate square footage 9742). The work includes, but is not limited to, demolition of all interior walls, finishes, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and communication components as well as a new exterior curtain wall system. Exterior construction will include new glazing in aluminum curtain wall. Interior construction will include new gypsum wallboard partitions with metal stud walls, millwork, suspended acoustical and gypsum wallboard ceilings, wood and metal doors in hollow metal frames, coiling overhead grilles, toilet partitions and vanities. Interior finishes include carpeting, resilient tile, ceramic tile, painting, and window treatments. Mechanical work includes installation of new Owner provided HVAC units with ductwork and all necessary connections to the UNF Central Plant chilled water system. Plumbing includes new piping and fixtures for the tenant build-out and renovation of the group male and female restrooms. Electrical work includes new wiring, devices and lighting for the new tenant build-out. Successful bidders must have demonstrable previous experience with the described systems and technical requirements. All bidders must be qualified at the time of the bid opening in accordance with the Bidders Qualification within the ITB 09-22 Bid documents. . . Article I, Section 2 includes a heading in bold stating "Qualification Criteria." This section states: Participants must qualify to bid on this project. UNF will utilize the following criteria to qualify the general contractors within this ITB. The information must be completed on the UNF Qualifications Form provided (page 10-11): Bonding: Demonstrates a bonding capacity of at least $2 million dollars and has an A.M. Best Rating of "A-V" or better. Licenses: Company is licensed to do business in the state of Florida and approved by the US Department of Treasury listing as an acceptable surety. Project references: Company has successfully completed at least 3 commercial construction projects of more than $1 million dollars each in the past three (3) years. List 3 such projects to include project name, client name, completion date, location, project value, role in project. Reference: Project name, owner, owner's representative name/phone number, completion date and construction cost. Years of experience: Company has a minimum five (5) years of GC experience under the current company name. The directions for the General Contractor's Qualification Summary, under Related Experience, reiterated that the bidder was to list "No more than 4 projects of comparable type, size and complexity. (1) Project must be for a college/university)." Addendum I for the Project, issued January 9, 2009, clarified that the requirement for having completed successfully a project of similar size and scope at a Florida University in the last three years is a qualification factor for this project. Addendum II, issued January 12, 2009, removed the requirement for bidders to have completed one project for a college or university. The other two addenda did not address contractor qualifications. Petitioner, Core Construction Company (Core Construction or Petitioner) bid in response to the ITB. Approximately 19 other bidders also responded. Core Construction was the apparent low bidder on the project, with a bid of $1,073,000. There was some concern expressed by the architect reviewing the bids because the bids were all within ten percent of each other for the top bidders, with the bidders 2-10 being within six percent of each other. In an e-mail to Dianna White, the Senior Buyer for UNF purchasing, Mr. Norman stated: Overall there was a 20% range in bid prices which I attribute to a significant difference in the size, quality and abilities of the contractors that bid this project. The apparently low bidder was $60,516 below the second low bidder and $83,000 below the third low bidder. This is a significant concern since there is only $46,484 between the second and fifth low bidders. I suggest the apparent low bidder be contacted and asked if they feel comfortable with their bid, because it appears to me they are missing something significant in their pricing. Purchasing should also carefully review their current financials and current bonding capacity if this is allowed. Project reference checks, price verification against the architect's construction estimate and bonding checks were performed with respect to the four lowest bidding companies: Core Construction, Pooley Contracting, Rivers & Rivers and Warden Construction. Pooley Contracting, the second-lowest bidder, was disqualified as non-responsive because its bid package did not include a bonding letter. Core provided the names of three completed projects that were valued at over one million dollars. Dianna White called each of the references provided, not only for Core but for three of the four lowest bidders. The same questions were asked of each reference for each company: 1) Was the project on time and within budget; 2) Did the project run smoothly; 3) Were project issues handled; and 4) Would you use the contractor again. Calls related to Pooley Contracting were not completed because it was disqualified as non-responsive. While the references for Rivers & Rivers and Warden were consistently good, two of the three references received for Core were not. Ms. White described them as the most "strongly negative" references she had ever received. In particular, the references indicated difficulty in completing jobs within budget and on time, which the Respondent viewed as the basis for determining whether a contractor had successfully completed a project. Two of the references indicated that they would not use the contractor again, or as one put it, "not if there was any way around it." Based on the recommendations received, the Purchasing Office for the University recommended that Core Construction be disqualified for failing to demonstrate successful completion of three projects over one million dollars that were similar in scope. Because Pooley Construction was also disqualified, the Purchasing Department recommended that the Project be awarded to the third-lowest bidder, Rivers & Rivers. The recommendation to award the project to Rivers & Rivers was accepted by the Vice President of Administration and Finance, and on February 18, 2009, a Notice of Award issued identifying Rivers & Rivers as the company receiving the award. On February 19, 2009, Core Construction notified Respondent that it intended to protest the award of the Project to Rivers & Rivers. On February 24, 2009, Core Construction provided a $10,000.00 surety bond and a written protest of the award. The basis of the protest was two-fold. First, Core Construction contended that Rivers & Rivers did not meet the qualification criteria set out in the ITB, because it was did not have a minimum of five years of general contractor experience under the current company name. Second, Core felt that the poor references received should not be a basis for disqualification. Upon receiving the bid protest, Respondent contacted Rivers & Rivers to verify its licensure status. Upon inquiry, it was determined that while the principals of the company had over 30 years of experience, the Rivers & Rivers entity had not been licensed under that name for the requisite five years. While no action has been taken while this bid protest is pending, Respondent indicated its intention to withdraw the award from Rivers & Rivers and award the contract instead to the next lowest bidder. The procedures used by the University in determining the appropriate award were not contrary to law, against the University's governing statutes, rules or policies or the specifications of the invitation to bid. It was consistent with University policy to check references for projects of similar scope and size. Therefore, it was appropriate to ask for and check references for projects of over one million dollars. There is no indication that any bidder questioned what the University would consider as successful completion of a project. The time for questioning this issue would have been when the specifications were issued, consistent with Article I, Section 7 of the ITB. Having a project come in on time and within budget is a reasonable measure of successful completion. It is not the same as "substantial completion," which generally refers to a point of time in the construction process, not the final completion of the project.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the President of the University of North Florida, pursuant to his authority under Board of Governor's Regulation 18.002, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's written protest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay H. Chung Core Construction Company, Inc. 4940 Emerson Street, Suite 205 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Paul Christopher Wrenn, Esquire University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2100 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224 John A. Delaney, President University of North Florida J.J. Daniel Hall, Suite 2800 1 University of North Florida Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32224
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Isidoro Carrillo, sat for Part II of the residential contractors examination administered in June, 1992. The Petitioner received a raw score of 62 on Part II of this examination which was amended to a grade of 63. A minimum passing score is 70. Each correct answer was worth 4 points. The Petitioner originally challenged questions numbered 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 25 on the examination. At the hearing, the Petitioner conceded the Department's answer to questions no. 18 was correct. The Petitioner did not present any evidence with regard to questions numbered 8, 19, and 25 at the hearing. The Petitioner challenged questions numbered 11, 15, and 16. Questions numbered 11, 15, and 16 were labeled as the Hearing Officer's Exhibit and determined to be confidential pursuant to Section 455.229, Florida Statutes. A set of plans was introduced and labeled as Respondent's Exhibit 1. These plans are also determined to be confidential pursuant to Section 455.229, Florida Statutes. Question No. 11 required the computation of the square area of the foyer. The portion of the house to be included within the computation of the area of foyer was to include "all adjacent interior cased openings and door ways." Sheet 3 of 6 of the plans for the structure reveal notes relating to the foyer. The annotations regarding the foyer state: "See Note No. 18" and "See Note No. 19." Sheet 1 of 6 contains the specific notes relating to the plans. Note No. 18 states: "40 (width) x 68 (height) cased opening (See (Floor Plan)." Note No. 19 states, "58 (width) x 68 (height) cased opening (See Floor Plan)." The Petitioner failed to compute the correct answer for question No. 11 because he excluded from his computations the area between the foyer and the living room which was subject to note No. 19. The Petitioner's excluded this area from his calculation because the area between the foyer and living room lacks jams and is not a cased opening. The Petitioner and Respondent's expert both agreed that a cased opening was "Any opening finished with jams and trim, but without doors." A jam is defined as a vertical structure with depth. Referring to the plans in question, the opening between the foyer and the living room lacks jams. Respondent's expert explained that the area between the foyer and living room was included in the computation purely on the basis of Note 19, defining the area as a cased opening. Petitioner challenged question No. 15 which required the examinee to compute the amount of time required "to lift and place all single wood trusses with a span of 21' 4" given that the truck can lift and place one full-span, single, roof truss every 15 minutes. Sheet 5 of 6 of the plans depicts the roof truss layout for the house. On the plan, there are three single roof trusses with an overall length of 25' 4" and a span of 21' 4" and one gable end truss with a span of 21' 4" which is placed on top of and runs the length of the south wall of the building. This gable end truss has a span of 21' 4" but does not span any distance because it sits atop the wall. The response expected by the Respondent was one hour with the truck lifting four trusses: the three 25' 4" trusses plus the gable end truss. The Petitioner's answer was 45 minutes because he excluded the gable end truss which sits atop the wall and does not span any distance. The Petitioner challenges question No. 16 which asks the examinee to calculate the total cost for the pressure treated 4 x 8 and 2 x 6 lumber required to construct the wood deck, excluding wood rails, and given the price per 100 board feet of the 4 x 8 and the 2 x 6 pressure treated lumber. The expected response was answer A. The candidate's response was answer D because the candidate had included 4 x 8 beams running along and parallel to the wall of the house in his calculation of the cost figures. However, the detailed drawings of the wooden deck at the top of Sheet 3 of 6 and on Sheet 2 of 6 reveal that there are no 4 by 8 beams running along and parallel to the side of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, the Hearing Officer concludes that the Petitioner was successful in challenging only one of three of the questions involved. The Petitioner's score of 67 points is insufficient for him to pass the examination. The Petitioner's records should be corrected; however, the Petitioner has not demonstrated a passing grade of 70, and therefore should not be licensed. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 30th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX A The Petitioner did not file proposed findings. The Respondent filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of those findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Respondent's Findings: Proposed Order: Paragraph 1-5 Paragraph 1-3 Paragraph 6 Paragraph 4-8 Paragraph 7 Paragraph 9,10 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 11 COPIES FURNISHED: Isidoro Carrillo Post Office Box 1896 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32170 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director DPR - Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The ultimate issue to be decided in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner C & M Building Systems, Inc. should be granted certification as a minority business enterprise. In order to make that determination it must be decided whether Maxine R. Chentnik, the president of the Petitioner corporation, and its minority group member owner, controls the management and daily operations of C & M Building Systems, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, C & M Building Systems, Inc., was incorporated in Florida on October 15, 1975. The Petitioner at that time operated under the name of Homes Unlimited, Inc. and was primarily engaged in residential construction contracting. Since that time, the name has changed to the present name of the Petitioner corporation and since at least the mid-1980's the primary business of the corporation has been commercial construction contracting. The net worth of the Petitioner corporation is under a million dollars and 60 percent of its stock is owned by Maxine R. Chentnik, an American female. Forty percent of the stock is owned by her husband Chester G. Chentnik. Mr. Chentnik has over 33 years experience in the construction business as well as a doctorate degree in business administration. For some twelve years he taught business management courses at Florida State University. Mrs. Chentnik has a bachelor of science degree in education and attended business college for approximately one year. Additionally, she has taken approximately 15 hours of college level courses in the fields of interior design and architectural drafting. Mrs. Chentnik's experience in the construction industry began when she and her husband built their own home in 1974. They served as their own contractors and Ms. Chentnik was most involved in that construction project since her husband worked full time at the university. This allowed her to gain experience in hiring and negotiating with subcontractors, arranging for payment of them, in ordering materials and supervising the construction of the home. She and her husband were in need of extra income and therefore she conceived the idea of starting their own residential construction business. When their Corporation, Homes Unlimited, Inc. formed, Mrs. Chentnik was unemployed and, since her husband was still employed at Florida State University, she devoted the majority of the time of the two owners and officers, to the operation of the business. After building their own home, various friends and other customers began engaging them to do residential building projects. Thus, from 1974 until 1982, they built approximately 12 residences. Some of these were built for speculation purposes. Mrs. Chentnik did part of the initial design of the homes, obtained prices from subcontractors, exercised supervision at the job site as to the manner of construction and maintained the books and records of the business. Mrs. Chentnik has never held a contractor's license herself. All of these projects were built using Mr. Chentnik's license. He did the estimating of materials needed, material and labor costs involved and arrived at prices to charge the owner or customer. He had similar managerial duties to those of Mrs. Chentnik. The supervision of the home construction was a joint project because Mr. Chentnik had more technical construction knowledge than Mrs. Chentnik due to his years of experience in construction. He had many years of construction experience working with his father prior to obtaining his college education. In 1982, Mr. Chentnik left his employment with Florida State University and engaged in the construction business full time. From 1983 to 1985, Homes Unlimited, Inc. was associated with Paragon Builders, a corporation which was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik and another couple. Paragon entered into a consultant agreement with Homes Unlimited by which Homes Unlimited was responsible for estimating material and labor needs, as well as job costs, for bidding purposes, and assembling, preparing and submitting bids. It was also charged with performing job site supervision of Paragon's construction projects. Mr. Chentnik performed under this consulting agreement for Homes Unlimited. Mrs. Chentnik was less active in the business operations at that time due to her child rearing duties. In 1985, the relationship between Homes Unlimited and Paragon Builders came to an end and Paragon Builders, Inc. was dissolved. Homes Unlimited had become primarily a commercial construction contracting company and as a result the name was changed to that of C & M Building Systems, Inc. in November, 1985. The initial directors of Homes Unlimited and C & M Building System corporation were Chester G. Chentnik and Maxine R. Chentnik. The articles of incorporation provide that there should not be less than two directors. The articles also provide that the initial bylaws of the corporation must be adopted by the Board of Directors, and that the Board has the power to amend them. Article 3 Section 2 of the Bylaws at present, provides that the number of directors shall be two and that the affairs of the corporation shall be managed by the Board of Directors. The Bylaws provide that the Board of Directors shall be elected by the shareholders at the annual meeting. Section 12 also provides for cumulative voting for election of the Board members, meaning that at each election of the Board, each shareholder shall have the right to vote the number of shares owned by him for as many persons as there are directors to be elected or he may accumulate his votes by giving one candidate as many votes as the number of directors to be elected, multiplied by the number of his shares, or by distributing those votes on the same principle among any number of candidates. The Bylaws provide that a majority of the directors constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. Article 4 Section 1 of the Bylaws provides for a president, vice president, a secretary, and treasurer. All must be elected by the Board of Directors. The president is the chief executive officer of the corporation, subject to control by the Board. The president may execute contracts or other documents which the Board authorizes, as can the secretary or other officers. In January, 1986, the Board passed a resolution providing that estimates of the costs of work proposed to be done by the corporation are to be prepared by the president or secretary and that any proposal submitted by the corporation must be prepared, examined by and submitted to the president or secretary. It is also required that all orders for materials are to be given in writing by the president and secretary or by either of them acting with the consent of the other. No order is valid unless signed by the president or secretary. Contracts for the performance of work are valid only when signed by the president or vice president and by the treasurer or secretary. In April, 1986, C & M, by resolution of its Board, entered into an agreement with CGC Company whereby CGC would thereafter provide "all bidding, on-site management, and "special administrative services" (subject to the ultimate management power being vested in C & M's Board of Directors). CGC is to be compensated for these services at the rate of $1,000 per month, plus a performance fee at the end of each fiscal year, as determined by C & M's Board of Directors, based upon C & M's profitability during the preceding fiscal year. Chester Chentnik is the president of CGC Company and performs the services involved in construction site management, preparation of bids and the like. Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik have alternated at being president of C & M since its incorporation (under its original name) in 1975. Mr. Chentnik was first elected president and Mrs. Chentnik was elected vice president, as well as secretary- treasurer. Mr. Chentnik was president in 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987. Mrs. Chentnik was president on alternate years beginning in 1977 and was president in 1988 and to the present. Mr. Chentnik explained that the alternating presidencies were intended to more evenly divide the workload involved in signing documents. Mr. Chentnik is currently the vice president and secretary-treasurer of the corporation. In 1986 and 1987, Mrs. Chentnik was employed with a real estate firm and Mr. Chentnik primarily ran C & M operations by himself. The Petitioner is currently working on construction projects involving the Florida A & M University President's residence, the Department of Transportation building; the computer room in the Carlton Building, a bus washing facility for the Leon County School Board, as well as a renovation project for the Florida Bar. Those projects are being performed under Mr. Chentnik's license. Mr. Richard Farrell was employed with C & M as a building superintendent and placed his contractor's license with C & M. His license was not used for any contracts presently being performed by C & M, however. Mr. Farrell is no longer an employee and is not performing work for C & M. Mr. Farrell now manages a related mill-work manufacturing company owned by the Chentniks, but is not performing any construction work or supervision for C & M. The decision to hire Mr. Farrell was a joint one by both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik. His direct supervisor was Mr. Chentnik, although both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik had supervisory authority over him. In any event, Mr. Chentnik's license is now the license qualifying the company as a construction contractor for purposes of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and the authority of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Chentnik does the estimating for the company, prepares bids for jobs, is responsible for supervision of the construction details of the business, as well as for construction site management. On those bidding situations when he does not prepare the entire bid, he generally prepares the cost estimate portion of it and the remainder of the bid, concerning the addition of "overhead", and profit increments, are prepared jointly with Mrs. Chentnik. He also deals with the architects, engineers, and subcontractors, especially at the job site, and, since Mr. Farrell's departure, has taken over his job site supervision responsibilities. Mr. Chentnik has signed contracts for the company, executed change orders, pay requests, contract amendments, purchase orders and has prepared and submitted bids on behalf of the corporation. Mr. Chentnik signed the Department of Transportation contract in June, 1988 and an amendment to that contract in December of 1988. He also signed signed certain change orders to the Florida Bar contract in both September and November, 1988. The Carlton Building computer room bid was signed by Mr. Chentnik in September, 1988, as well as a change order for the Florida A & M University project which he signed in November, 1988. Mrs. Chentnik does not hold a contractor's license herself. She does all the bookkeeping for the company, pays the bills, and deals with the banks; in terms of checking and savings account deposits, withdrawals, as well as arranging credit. She has signed certain notes and lines of credit herself. She orders supplies and takes care of the insurance needs of the business and monitors which construction projects are coming up for bid, and obtains plans for them for the company to consider. She also contacts subcontractors for prices, attends bid openings, and arranges for bonding for the company for the jobs it undertakes. She assists in preparation of bids, especially the supplying of figures for overhead and profit on bids the company submits. She shares in the supervision of employees with her husband and directly supervises one employee, a part-time clerical helper. The company secures a great deal of its business by competitive bidding. Cost estimating is an important part of the bidding process. This estimating is performed primarily by Mr. Chentnik. Mr. Chentnik also developed the computer program to assist the company in its bidding efforts. The bidding program contains a range of percentages of overhead and profit which the company can add to the cost estimates on its bid to arrive at its most advantageous bid price. Mrs. Chentnik typically chooses a percentage for overhead and profit from the ranges set by the computer program. Mrs. Chentnik does not prepare entire estimates or bids herself. In all nearly cases her husband has assisted her. Mrs. Chentnik did prepare an entire bid for a flagpole project, valued at approximately $3500. In essence then, the decisions concerning which projects the company bids and which it declines to bid on have been joint decisions of Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik. They have usually jointly prepared bids, with Mr. Chentnik doing the greater part of that effort in providing the cost estimates. Both of them have historically negotiated prices with subcontractors in order to obtain figures for costs for a given project, in the course of preparation of a bid, however. The company has a checking account, a money market account and holds certificates of deposit. Both the Chentniks have equal drawing rights on all the accounts. The decision as to what amount of money to be placed in certificates of deposit is usually a joint decision. Both Mr. and Mrs. Chentnik have previously signed as personal guarantors on debt instruments for the company. Although Mrs. Chentnik does most of the banking business on behalf of the company, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chentnik has sole control or authority over the bank accounts and the banking relationships of the corporation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the request for certification as a minority business enterprise of C & M Building Systems, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2758 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact (The rulings below relate, by number, sequentially, to the unnumbered paragraphs of the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact) Accepted Accepted Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely comporting with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not, in itself, dispositive of material issues presented. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted Rejected as unnecessary and not dispositive of material issues. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 25-29. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James O. Shelfer, Esquire Gardner, Shelfer & Duggar 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Susan B. Kirkland General Counsel Department of General Services Room 452, Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services Knight Building Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue is whether AHG Hotels, LLC's application for a Type B site plan and deviation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Background On September 11, 2002, the Development Review Committee (DRC) of Respondent, City of Tallahassee (City), approved a Type B site review application authorizing the construction of a Hampton Inn & Suites by Respondent, AHG Hotels, LLC (AHG). The DRC also granted AHG's request for a deviation from development standards contained in Section 10.6RR of the City's Zoning Code by allowing AHG to exceed the four-story height limitation and to add a fifth floor to the structure. Two other deviation requests by AHG were determined to be either inapplicable or exempt from Zoning Code requirements because of vesting, and thus they are not at issue here. On October 10, 2002, Petitioner, Capital City Hotels, Inc. (Petitioner), which owns and operates a Hilton Garden Inn near the proposed construction, timely filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings to contest the approval of the deviation request. On October 15, 2002, a determination of standing as to Petitioner was issued by the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission (Commission), which will issue a final order in this matter. As stipulated by the parties at hearing, the only issue is whether AHG failed to satisfy three of the seven criteria that must be met in order for the DRC to grant a deviation. Those disputed criteria are found in paragraphs (iii)-(v) of Section 23.3 of the City's Code of Ordinances (Code) and provide as follows: The deviation requested is the minimum deviation that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure; and The strict application of the requirements of this chapter will constitute a substantial hardship to the applicant, which hardship is not self- created or imposed; and There are exceptional topographic, soil, or other environmental conditions unique to the property; The parties agree that all other criteria for the site plan and deviation have been satisfied by AHG. In addition, a related request by AHG for a technical amendment to the boundaries of the parcel will be granted by the DRC, assuming that AHG obtains a favorable ruling in this case. History of the Property The property which is the subject of this case is identified as lot of record 454 and fronts on the west side of Lonnbladh Road, lies south of Raymond Diehl Road and several hundred feet east of Thomasville Road, and is just southeast of the major intersection of Interstate 10 and Thomasville Road in Tallahassee. The zoning for the property is Commercial Parkway (CP), a mixed-use zoning district which applies to areas exhibiting an existing development pattern of office, general commercial, community facilities, and intensive automotive commercial development abutting urban area arterial roadways with high traffic volumes. Among the numerous permitted uses in that land use category are hotels and motels. The property is part of a 7.1-acre site originally owned by Kingswood Land Partners, Ltd. (Kingswood). In January 1990, Kingswood obtained from the City a minor subdivision approval, dividing the 7.1 acres into three lots of record, including lot of record 454. The three lots consisted of a 2.44-acre lot running along most of the western portion of the property with the exception of a small area on the southern end, a 1.68-acre lot on the northeast portion of the property, and a 2.98-acre lot on the southeast portion of the property (lot of record 454). In November 1990, Kingswood received from the City a verification of vested status (vested rights certificate) for the 7.1-acre site. The vested rights certificate provided that the 7.1-acre site was exempt from the consistency and concurrency provisions of the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and was vested for an 89,887 gross square foot commercial non-medical office building and a 135- unit hotel/motel. In 1991, Kingswood utilized the vesting for a 135- unit, five-story hotel and constructed what is now known as the Cabot Lodge on the 2.44-acre lot. It also constructed on part of the southeastern 2.98-acre lot a paved area with parking places. In 1992, Kingswood conveyed to Twin Action Hotels, Inc. (Twin Action) the 2.44-acre lot which included the Cabot Lodge Hotel, but not the paved parking area on the 2.98-acre lot. The same year, Kingswood also conveyed to New Horizons Unlimited, Ltd. (New Horizons) the remaining two lots, which two lots were vested for a commercial non-medical office six- story building of 89,887 gross square feet. At the time of the conveyances of the New Horizons property and the Cabot Lodge property to New Horizons and Twin Action, respectively, these parties entered into a Grants of Reciprocal Easements dated June 23, 1992, recorded in Official Records Book 1570, at page 1072 of the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. Around 1994, the Florida Department of Transportation acquired .333 acres of the northernmost lot owned by New Horizons for a project which included realigning and four-laning Raymond Diehl Road and relocating the eastbound entrance ramp to Interstate 10, immediately in front of the Cabot Lodge lot. This acquisition reduced the New Horizons 1.68-acre lot to 1.347 acres. On October 14, 1998, the City approved a vested rights transfer request submitted by New Horizons, which provided that the New Horizons property could be used for a 107-room, four-story business hotel and 59,162 gross square feet of commercial non-medical offices, instead of the vested 89,887 gross square feet of commercial non-medical offices. Since the acquisition by New Horizons of the two remaining lots, that property has remained vacant and unimproved with the exception of the westernmost portion immediately south of the Cabot Lodge building, on which is located pavement and parking spaces. The parking spaces are not legally available to Cabot Lodge for use. The property located immediately west of the Cabot Lodge 2.44-acre lot is property which is referred to as the Thomasville Road Executive Park (Executive Park) property. On an undisclosed date, this property was divided into three separate lots by a minor subdivision approval consisting of Parcel A on which was constructed the Unisys Building and parking spaces, Parcel B which is now improved with a Hilton Garden Inn owed by Petitioner, and Parcel C which remains undeveloped. In 1996, Petitioner filed its site plan application to develop Parcel B. Included in the site plan application was a request for a technical amendment to adjust the boundary lines between Parcels A and B of the Executive Park property. Like AHG has done here, Petitioner also requested a deviation to the then height limitation of 45 feet, requesting that the City allow it to build the building 50 feet high, rather than the required 45 feet. Although the property on which the Hilton Garden Inn is now located was vested for a three-story commercial office building, subject to CP zoning, the City agreed that the vesting could also be used for a hotel use consisting of four stories rather than three stories. The City granted Petitioner's request to allow it to build a four-story hotel on Parcel B. It also granted Petitioner a height deviation so that the midpoint or peak of the roof would be not higher than 50 feet. However, the top of the roof is 59 feet, 6 inches. The facility has 99 rooms. No objection was made by Cabot Lodge, Unisys, or New Horizons to Petitioner's application for approval of its site plan, the technical amendment adjustment to boundary parcels, the use of the property for a four-story hotel instead of a three-story office building, or the granting of a height deviation. In April 2002, AHG entered into a contract with New Horizons for the purchase of 2.23 acres of the southeastern property owned by New Horizons for approximately $1.5 million. The 2.23 acres is part of the 2.98-acre lot of record known as lot 454. The application On July 5, 2002, AHG filed with the DRC its site plan application to construct a 122-room, five-story hotel on the 2.98-acre lot. On the same day, it filed a Deviation from Development Standard Request asking that it be allowed to construct a five-story hotel on the parcel rather than being limited to a four-story hotel, as required by the development standards for the CP zoning district in which the property is located. New Horizons has also requested a technical amendment to the boundaries of the 1.68-acre lot and the 2.98- acre lot that would result in the 2.98-acre lot on which the hotel will be built being reduced to 2.23 acres. The DRC intends to approve that request, assuming that AHG prevails in this proceeding. AHG's site plan uses the largest footprint for construction of the hotel building that is allowed under current applicable Code restrictions relating to the amount of impervious surface allowed to be constructed on a 2.23-acre lot, as well as the required amount of green space which must be maintained. If current zoning rules and regulations are strictly applied, AHG would be unable to have more than approximately 107 rooms in the hotel, utilizing the maximum footprint and only four stories on the 2.23 acres. The only way to accommodate the construction of 122 rooms is to obtain a deviation from the current restriction of four floors and allow a fifth floor to be built. The proposed height of construction of the five- story hotel will be 53 feet, 10 inches, except for several small areas of parapet walls which will be no higher than 58 feet, 4 inches. The subject site is relatively flat, with no excessive slopes, and it has no remarkable features from an environmental standpoint. It is unique in the sense that it is flat, barren land. It does not have wetlands, pristine water bodies, or other protected conditions. Also, it has no endangered plant species requiring special protection, no patriarch trees, no protected trees, and no native forests. Should the Deviation be Approved? A deviation under Section 23.3 is an amendment to a "set requirement" in the Code, such as a setback or height restriction. Between 60 and 75 percent of all applications filed with the DRC for a site plan approval are accompanied by a request for a deviation from a development standard, which are standards prescribed for each zoning district in the Code. One such development standard for the CP District is a four- story height limitation on structures found in Section 10.6RR of the Zoning Code. The DRC is a four-person committee comprised of representatives from the City's Utility Department, Public Works Department, Growth Management Department, and Planning Department; it is charged with the responsibility of deciding whether to grant or deny a deviation request. For at least the last six years, and probably much longer, the DRC has consistently applied and interpreted the deviation standards in Section 23.3 in the same manner. Although Section 23.3 provides that "the granting of deviations from the development standards in this chapter is not favored," they are not discouraged since more than half of all applicants cannot meet development standards due to site characteristics or other factors. Rather, the intent of the provision is to prevent wholesale deviations being submitted, project after project. Requests for a deviation are always approved, when justified, in order to give both the City and the applicant more flexibility in the development process. Here, AHG's application was treated the same as any other applicant. This case represents the first occasion that an approval of a deviation has been appealed. After an application for a deviation is filed, it is forwarded to all appropriate City departments as well as members of the DRC. Each reviewing agency is requested to provide information to the DRC members on whether or not the request should be recommended for approval. In this case, no adverse comments or recommendations were made by any City Department. After reviewing the Department comments, and the justification submitted by AHG, the DRC approved the deviation. Under Section 5.1 of the Code, the City's land use administrator, Mr. Pitts, has the specific responsibility to interpret all zoning and development approval regulations, including Section 23.3, which provides the criteria for granting a deviation. That provision has an apparent inconsistency between the first two sentences: the first sentence includes a phrase that all criteria set forth thereafter must be met to approve a deviation while the second sentence appears to provide that only the conditions necessary to granting a particular deviation must be met. In resolving this apparent inconsistency, Mr. Pitts does not construe the Section as requiring that all seven criteria must be met in every case. Instead, even though all criteria are reviewed by the DRC, only those that are applicable must be satisfied. If this were not true, the DRC "would grant very few deviations as part of [its] site plan or subdivision regulation [process]," and the intent of the Section would be undermined. For example, in order to justify a deviation, the DRC does not require that an applicant show that there are exceptional topographical soil features if, as here, there are no exceptional environmental features on the property. This interpretation has been consistently followed over the years, is a reasonable and logical construction of the language, and is hereby accepted. As a part of its application, AHG submitted a narrative justifying the granting of a deviation under each of the seven criteria. To satisfy the first disputed criterion, AHG indicated in its application that "[t]his deviation is the minimum allowed to make reasonable use of the property and to compete with adjacent hotels who enjoy the same height opportunity." AHG's use of the property is consistent with adjoining developments, including the neighboring Cabot Lodge, which is five stories high and has 135 rooms, and the Hilton Garden Inn, which was originally vested for an office building, but was allowed by the DRC to construct a four-story hotel. There is no other property available to AHG at this site on which to construct a hotel. The evidence shows that New Horizons initially offered to sell AHG only 2.05 acres; when AHG advised that anything less than 2.23 acres would render the project financially unfeasible, New Horizons "very reluctantly" agreed to sell an additional .18 acres. Because New Horizons intends to build a restaurant on its remaining 2.097 acres, any further reduction in the acreage would reduce its highest and best use of the property. Thus, AHG does not have the option of purchasing more property to expand its hotel laterally, as Petitioner suggests, rather than by adding a fifth floor. In addition, AHG does not have the ability to reduce the size of its hotel rooms in order to squeeze more rooms out of a four-story structure. This is because Hampton Inn (the franchisor) will not grant a franchise for a new hotel unless the franchisee agrees to build a hotel with prototypical room sizes. The present design of the hotel meets the minimum size required. There is no evidence that there is any other minimum deviation that could be granted which would make possible the use of the property for construction of 122 rooms under the standards set forth by Hampton Inn, the franchisor. Thus, the only practical adjustment that can be made is to obtain a height deviation. Accordingly, the criterion has been satisfied. To satisfy the second disputed criterion, AHG stated in its narrative that "[t]he strict application of this requirement would place this property and proposed hotel at a competitive disadvantage by a lower number of available rooms." Through testimony of an AHG principal, it was established that in order for AHG to make reasonable use of its property, the addition of a fifth floor is necessary. The evidence shows that as a general rule, a developer can only afford to pay approximately $10,000.00 per room for land cost. In this case, based on the 2.23 acres, at a purchase price of $1,500,000.00 and a hotel with 122 rooms, the projected land cost is $12,000.00 per room. This is the maximum that can be paid for land and still make AHG's project economically feasible. The strict application of the Zoning Code will make the project financially unfeasible, which will create a substantial hardship to AHG. The hardship is not self-created or imposed. At hearing, Petitioner's representative contended that "there are some companies who would find it financially feasible" to construct a four-story hotel with fewer rooms on the same site. However, the more persuasive evidence on this issue was presented by the AHG principal and shows the contrary to be true. The evidence further shows that the granting of the deviation will result in an almost equal efficiency factor of the total square footage of building versus the total square footage of the site when comparing AHG's proposed project to the neighboring Cabot Lodge. On the other hand, strict application of the Zoning Code could result in a substantially less and disproportionate efficiency factor of AHG's property as compared to the adjoining Cabot Lodge. This is because the highest point of the proposed Hampton Inn and Suites is 58 feet, 6 inches, with the majority of the hotel being 51 feet high. The adjoining five-story, 135-room Cabot Lodge has its highest point at 55 feet, 6 inches, with the majority of the building at 46 feet high. The Hilton Garden Inn has the highest roof with its maximum height at 59 feet, 6 inches, which runs across the entire peak of the roofline. 40. To satisfy the final disputed criterion, AHG indicated in its application that "[t]he absence of any environmental features on this property, or any adjacent environmental features that might be impacted[,] help support the deviation." As noted above, the property in question is unique in the sense that it is flat, treeless, and has no remarkable environmental features. If a site is devoid of environmental features, as it is here, the DRC has consistently interpreted this provision as having no application in the deviation process. This is the same interpretation used by the DRC when it approved Petitioner's application for a height deviation in 1996 to construct the Hilton Garden Inn. Like AHG's property, Petitioner's property was also devoid of environmental features. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Even assuming arguendo that this provision applies, the addition of a fifth story to a four-story building has no impact whatsoever on the environmental characteristics of the site. Finally, there is no evidence that the deviation request is inconsistent with the Plan, or that the deviation will have any adverse impact to the general health, safety, and welfare of the public. Indeed, as to any Plan implications that might arise through the construction of a hotel, the evidence shows that the project is wholly consistent with the purpose and intent of the CP land use category, which is to promote higher intensity and density in CP-zoned land and to discourage urban sprawl.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission enter a final order granting AHG's Type B site plan review application and its application for a deviation from the height restriction for the CP land use category. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 22nd day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles R. Gardner, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Shelfer, Duggar & Bist, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-7914 Linda R. Hurst, Esquire City Hall, Second Floor 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731 John Marshall Conrad, Esquire Ausley & McMullen Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0391 Jean Gregory, Clerk Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission City Hall 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
Findings Of Fact On March 9, 1973 Peterson, an architect registered in Florida, submitted a proposal "for preparation of design and construction drawings" for remodeling an existing residence to a new law office (Exhibit P-5). This was assigned on March 13, 1978 by attorney Anderson, who also remitted the required $200 retainer fee. Pertinent to this case, the contract provided for services to be rendered as: "Contract documents for permits and construction to include architectural plans (site floor plan, elevations and sections) and engineered structural and electrical drawings; "fee was $1,000 payable $200 on signing and $800 upon completed contract documents for permits." Any other services were at $20 per hour, including design changes after approval of preliminary drawings. The plans Peterson prepared showed the removal of a load bearing wall, without comment or provision for structural additions required by the demolition of the wall. Although the plans were not sealed, Anderson paid the $800 balance and bids were requested. The one bid (Exhibit R-4) was considerably more than budgeted, therefore the project was delayed. After a time, Anderson got interested in the project again but Peterson was unavailable so another architect was used and the project was completed. Thereafter, Anderson's requested reimbursement from Peterson was refused and this complaint was filed. Two registered Florida architects testified as experts for the Petitioner. Peterson's plans did not meet minimum architectural standards, particularly as to omission of substitute structural members for the removal of the load bearing wall. Although, structural changes could have been added by addendum, plans must be complete prior to obtaining permits and bids, and the acceptance of the full amount of the fee. In mitigation, Respondent agreed that he misinterpreted Anderson's understanding and desires but thought the standard procedure was followed; he indicated that this is the first time he has been in this type of situation. More particularly, Peterson intended to exercise his right to prepare an addendum that would have provided an appropriate structural substitution for the load bearing wall, after the ceiling was opened up; he considered the original plans for the wall as schematic only. He assumed the project was not going forward and the bidding process was merely to get prices.
