Findings Of Fact Kermit R. Kruger was employed on or about October 5, 1976 by Structural Stud Products at an hourly wage rage of $6.15 per hour. According to his testimony he was engaged primarily in welding on this job. He was involved in installing steel wall stud units made from 12 to 16 gauge steel in the Fine Arts Building of Hillsborough Community College. Although his primary function was as a welder, he did assist in loading and moving these wall units from the point where they were unloaded on the job site to where they were put in place. Structural Stud Products is a company primarily engaged in the fabrication of steel wall units. They had entered a contract with the general contractor to provide such units for installation in the Fine Arts Building. Shortly after interior construction began, the dry wall subcontractor who was installing these units abandoned this project. Structural Stud Products took over this contract and not only supplied the materials but installed these units. Kermit Kruger was hired by the job supervisor and plant manager to assist in the installation of these units. He was hired as and was paid wages as a laborer. According to the Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates applicable to the construction of the Fine Arts Building at Hillsborough Community College, welders were to receive the prescribed rate for the craft performing the operation to which the welding was incidental. See Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates. No evidence was received that the installation of steel wall units requires any specific expertise peculiar to any building trade. Testimony was received that such units are installed by carpenters, dry wall installers, and laborers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the complaint be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Harrison C. Thompson, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 Mr. Kermit R. Kruger 160 East Floribraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Mr. Luther J. Moore Department of Commerce Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Drive East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue It is necessary to resolve the following issues in this proceeding: Whether Mr. Taft violated Section 471.025(3), F.S. and thereby violated Section 471.033(1)(a), F.S., by signing and sealing plans depicting work that he was not licensed nor qualified to perform; Whether he violated Section 471.033(1)(j), F.S., by signing and sealing plans that had not been prepared by him or under his supervision, direction or control; and Whether he violated Section 471.033(1)(g), F.S., by misconduct in the practice of engineering for the same acts alleged in a) and b), above.
Findings Of Fact Barrett L. Taft, P. E. has been licensed in the State of Florida as a professional engineer since 1968, holding license number PE 0013208. Mr. Taft graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1940 with a degree in metallurgical engineering. For the first 27 years he practiced mostly metallurgical engineering, with some, but admittedly very little building experience. After moving to Florida he took the engineers' exam in metallurgical engineering and was licensed. Since being licensed in Florida, he has worked as a sole practitioner in the Maitland-Central Florida area. His primary business activity since 1968 has been the operation of a metal die casting business with a die casting machine that he invented and patented. The contractor who built Taft's plant in Casselberry, a pre-engineered metal building, asked Taft to help him work on foundations for metal buildings. In this way Taft started doing building projects, primarily metal buildings. Harvey Spears was one of the contractors Taft worked with. Spears is a licensed contractor who owns Spears General Contractors, Inc. in Eustis, Florida. J. C. Woliver is an employee of Spears, Inc. He is a draftsman and prepares estimates for the company. Neither he, nor Harvey Spears, nor the company are licensed in architecture or engineering. Sometime in 1985 and 1986, J. C. Woliver prepared drawings for two buildings to be constructed in Eustis by Spears. One was a 2,567 square foot insurance company building, the Talmadge Building; the other was a small strip shopping plaza, Bay Street Plaza. After the drawings were completed and approved by the owners, Harvey Spears took them to Taft's office for his review. Taft reviewed and sealed the drawings. Building permits were obtained; both projects were constructed and they are now occupied by the owners' businesses. Barrett Taft never met with the owners prior to sealing the drawings, nor did he ever meet or talk with J. C. Woliver during preparation of the drawings. Neither Woliver nor Spears were employed by Barrett Taft and he had no supervisory relationship with these individuals. Taft did not do engineering calculations for these two projects, as in his view they were very simple. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Woliver and checked them against the standard building code. No changes were made prior to Taft's application of his seal and return of the drawings to Spears. The plans for the Bay Street Plaza were signed, dated and sealed by Mr. Taft in his capacity as a professional engineer on August 5, 1985. The Talmadge Building plans were signed, dated and sealed by Mr. Taft in his capacity as a professional engineer on May 6, 1986. The drawings sealed by Taft for both projects are very sketchy and lack essential detail. No engineering calculations are included, and it is impossible to review the drawings to determine compliance with fire and life- safety codes. Because these buildings are used and inhabited by the public, they should have been designed by an architect. Architects, not engineers, are trained and tested in the requirements of the various building codes, including the fire and life-safety codes. Barrett Taft is not a licensed architect. Taft argues that he was providing a service to the public and the customers are satisfied. His arrangement with Harvey Spears with regard to sealing Woliver's drawings was that he would not handle anything complicated and the contractor would follow the building code. He felt that the buildings were little more than house-like structures which would not require an engineer's calculations or a seal. Barrett Taft was disciplined previously by the Board of Professional Engineers. In an Order dated May 25, 1984, and amended July 31, 1984, the Board imposed a fine of $1,000.00 and one year probation. The order was entered after an informal hearing requested by Mr. Taft. The Board found in that case (DPR #0034220) that Mr. Taft was guilty of negligence; that he lacked training, experience and education to perform the services provided; and that he affixed his seal and signature to drawings that were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervision or direction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Barrett L. Taft, P.E., guilty of violations of subsections 471.025(3), 471.033(1)(a), (g) and (j), and imposing the following discipline. Reprimand. (b) $1,000.00 fine. One year suspension. Two years probation, following suspension, under conditions to be determined by the Board, relating to limiting Mr. Taft's practice to a field in which he is qualified to work and limiting the use of his seal to his own work. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Barrett L. Taft 2940 Cove Trail Maitland, Florida 32571 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida at all material times. He held license number CG-C028693. As of May 20, 1988, this license was delinquent for nonrenewal and had been since June, 1987. At all material times while licensed as a certified general contractor, Respondent served as the qualifying agent for Quigley Homes, Inc., which is located in Palm Bay, Florida. In March, 1985, Ronald and Rita McCarty contacted Respondent after seeing a model house that he had constructed in the area. After negotiations, in May, 1985, Respondent, on behalf of Quigley Homes, Inc., entered into a contract with Mr. McCarty for the construction of a house at a price of $89,900. The contract included several pages of specifications and stated that completion was due within four months of commencement. The parties agreed to a set of blueprints shortly after the contract was executed and thereby satisfied the only contingency to the contract. Shortly thereafter, Respondent began preliminary work, such as ordering windows, site clearing and preparation, and obtaining necessary permits. In October, 1985, Mr. McCarty lost his job and his mortgage application was rejected. Respondent therefore ceased working on the house. At the time, the McCartys had paid Respondent the sum of $4495, which had been spent on start-up expenses. In July, 1986, Respondent resumed construction, under the same contract, shortly after being told that Mr. McCarty had applied for another mortgage after obtaining a new job in January, 1986. In August, 1986, a subcontractor poured the concrete slab for the house. The day prior to the pour, Mr. McCarty discovered that certain plumbing, which had to be in place before the pour, was missing. Unable to reach Respondent, Mr. McCarty himself informed the plumber of the omission. The plumber installed the necessary plumbing before the pour. A day or two prior to the pour, Carrol Smoot, Building Inspector for the Town of Indialantic, had inspected the form and reminded the subcontractor in charge of the pour that J- bolts needed to be added before the pour. J-bolts are anchoring devices around which the concrete is poured. Once the concrete is set, the wall plates are placed under the hook of the J- bolt in order to secure the house to the slab. Notwithstanding Mr. Smoot's reminder, the pour proceeded without the J- bolts in place. The pour had several other problems. A portion of the concrete garage floor was not square because the form had been off by about 4" at the time of the pour. The rear porch floor sloped too steeply toward the house. The slope of the front porch was also too steep. There were various "bird baths" or depressions in the slab. On August 27, 1986, Respondent and the McCartys met with Mr. Smoot at the work site. Following the meeting, Mr. Smoot sent a letter to Respondent dated August 29, 1986, in which Mr. Smoot required Respondent to take certain corrective action. The letter required two probe tests of the concrete in place, the installation of stud wall anchor bolts, the correction of the out-of- square corner, the topping of low spots in the slab with Ardex, and the repair or replacement of the incorrectly sloped rear porch. In September, 1986, two portions of the slab passed by considerable margins separate probe tests designed to test the strength of the concrete. Shortly after the August 27 meeting, Respondent suggested to Mr. Smoot that Hilti nails, rather than anchor bolts, be used to secure the wall plates to the slab. Hilti nails are an acceptable, but less desirable, alternative to J- bolts. However, after the slab is poured, it is much easier to install Hilti nails than J-bolts. Both Mr. Smoot and the McCartys agreed to Respondent's proposal. At the same time, the excess slab at the unsquare corner was cut off and, pursuant to Mr. Smoot's orders, additional concrete was poured and attached to the original slab by means of stainless steel bolts. Respondent offered to apply Ardex to the rear porch in order to level it and improve the concrete's rough finish, which had been caused by rain during the pour. Ardex is a topping material applied to concrete in order to level the surface. Respondent also offered to apply a coat of Kool Deck, such as that found around swimming pools, over the Ardex. The McCartys rejected the Kool Deck, but agreed to the Ardex. When terminated, as discussed below, Respondent had not applied the Ardex; however, he was postponing the work so that the finish would not be marred by later construction work. Respondent removed and replaced the front porch slab. He ground the remaining slab in order to alleviate the unevenness. It is unclear whether Respondent also applied Ardex to other portions of the slab in order to eliminate the depressions. Depressions in slabs are not uncommon and grinding and topping materials are often used to level uneven slabs. Following most if not all of the concrete corrective work, a subcontractor began the framing job. At about this time, shortly after the slab grinding was completed, C. C. Holbrook replaced Respondent as supervisor of the job for Quigley Homes, Inc. Mr. Holbrook was a certified general contractor with 30 years' experience. At the time, Respondent had built only 8- 10 houses and was considerably less experienced than Mr. Holbrook. When Mr. Smoot was called to inspect the framing, he found that the Hilti nails had been driven through the wall plate improperly. Instead of having been staggered on either side of the centerline of the wood plate, each nail had been driven into the center so as to split the plate in places. This problem was later corrected by driving more Hilti nails on either side of the centerline. Similar nailing problems occurred with the roof sheathing and fiberboard. Mr. Smoot required renailing of these items and, when this was done, approved the work. When the framing was about half complete, Mr. McCarty threw the framing subcontractor off the job due to Mr. McCarty's dissatisfaction with the quality of workmanship. In specific, he objected to the fact that one or more walls appeared out of plumb. At about the same time, which was late November or early December, 1986, the McCartys announced that they would no longer accept Hilti nails, even though they had already been installed. On December 22, 1986, Mr. Holbrook, on behalf of Quigley Homes, Inc. wrote a letter to the McCartys in which he stated that the company could not proceed with the construction without written approval from the McCartys of the Hilti nails. Quigley Homes, Inc. discontinued working on the job at about that time. In mid-January, 1987, Respondent's father, who is a certified general contractor with nearly 40 years' experience, met with the McCartys to try to resolve the differences between the parties. Respondent's father, David J. Quigley, Sr., has built over 20,000 residential units. Although unaffiliated with Quigley Homes, Inc., Mr. Quigley, Sr. had lent Mr. Holbrook to his son's company during a relatively inactive period before Mr. Holbrook was needed for a large residential development in which Mr. Quigley, Sr. was involved. At the meeting, Mr. Quigley, Sr. stated that all problems would be resolved. Mr. McCarty was unappeased, which led Mr. Quigley, Sr. to ask if Mr. McCarty preferred to have someone else finish the house. Mr. McCarty responded affirmatively. Mr. Quigley, Sr. stated that Mr. McCarty should inform Mr. Holbrook in writing of the existing problems so that Quigley Homes, Inc. could take care of them. Shortly after the meeting, Mr. McCarty called Mr. Holbrook to arrange a meeting to discuss the problems. Mr. Holbrook said that Mr. McCarty should mail him a written list instead. The McCartys never sent such a writing to Mr. Holbrook or Quigley Homes, Inc. A final exchange of correspondence took place between the McCartys' attorneys, whose letter was dated January 28, 1987., and Quigley Homes, Inc., whose letter was dated February 5, 1987. In its letter, Quigley Homes, Inc. restated its willingness to finish the job or leave the job and repair the items mentioned in the letter. At the time of the termination of Quigley Homes, Inc. from the McCarty job, Mr. Smoot had approved all stages of construction requiring inspection up to that time. However, numerous deficiencies in workmanship existed for which Respondent was responsible. Nearly all of these items were of a type that would have been corrected as construction proceeded on the house. These items included the uneven rear porch floor to which Respondent had offered to apply Ardex and Kool Deck, numerous window frames at different heights, two out-of- plumb walls, one or two incorrectly sized door openings, and a wavy roof ridge line caused largely by a few trusses that had been unevenly spaced. The repairs necessary to fix these items were minor. The wavy roof ridge line is not unusual, and the out-of-plumb walls had not yet been permanently attached. Additional work was required to correct Respondent's deviation from the plans in using screening rather than aluminum soffits. Also, the tilt of one exterior wall prevented the application of one row of bricks near ground level, although the absence of these bricks is not readily apparent. Two deficiencies were more significant. First, the garage floor was removed and replaced. The floor had suffered cracking and shrinkage. Although this portion of the slab had not been tested for strength, two other portions of the monolithic pour had passed strength tests. Petitioner failed to prove that the garage floor was structurally unsound or even seriously uneven. Appearance was the primary reason for the removal of the floor. Second, the contractor who completed the job had to convert the master bedroom ceiling from a cathedral ceiling to a conventional ceiling due to problems with the truss design. However, the first truss company to which Respondent took the McCartys' plans refused to do the work, claiming that the design was impossible. The problem as to the ceiling was due to an error in planning for which Respondent was not responsible. None of the deficiencies described above, except for the omission of the J-bolts, affected the structural integrity of the house. Once the Hilti nails were properly installed, no structural deficiencies remained. Petitioner's independent expert witness and the second contractor whom Petitioner called, declined to testify that the work was grossly negligent. There is no evidence that the McCartys demanded correction of any of the defects described in Paragraphs 25-28. There is evidence that Quigley Homes, Inc. was ready, willing, and able to correct such problems. Under the circumstances, the overall work, given the nature of the deficiencies, was not grossly negligent or incompetent. Like the work itself, the supervision was sloppy at times but was not grossly negligent or incompetent. According to Mr. Smoot's testimony, Respondent's absence during the inspections and portions of the pour is typical among residential general contractors.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Adopted. 6. Adopted except that construction recommenced in July, 1986, and Mr. McCarty discovered that the plumbing was not in place on the day prior to the pour. 7 and 9. Adopted. 8. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Respondent's use of Hilti nails adopted. Remainder rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and subordinate. Adopted in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that the opening for a door in the garage was cut too small. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that certain trusses were not evenly spaced. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. The majority of the repairs and replacement done by Joyal were unnecessary. Those repairs that were necessary would have been done at no expense to the McCartys by Quigley Homes, Inc. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's personal involvement was not needed or required when Mr. Holbrook began to supervise the project. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Adopted. 3. Rejected as irrelevant. 4 and 6. Adopted in substance. 5. Adopted. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence and unsupported by the evidence, except that it rained during the pour, the slab had bird baths, the J-bolts were not installed, a meeting took place among the McCartys, Respondent, and Mr. Smoot, Respondent subsequently suggested the use of Hilti nails, and the parties agreed upon the use of Hilti nails and other corrective measures. Rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony, except that the Hilti nails were, after a reinspection approved by Mr. Smoot. Rejected as subordinate. Findings concerning the source of delays are rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Neither Petitioner or Respondent produced sufficient proof to explain the source of delays apart from the substantial delay caused by the McCartys' inability to perform under the contract. Because the burden of proof on this issue is upon Petitioner, the insufficiency of the evidence means that Respondent cannot be found guilty of untimely performance. The employment of Mr. Holbrook and his 30 years' experience are adopted. Adopted. 12-14. Rejected as subordinate. 15. Adopted. 16-17 and 21. Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 10 above. Adopted. Adopted in substance. Rejected as legal conclusion. Adopted in substance. Rejected as recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda Miller, Esquire Bruce D. Lamb Department of Professional General Counsel Regulation Department of Professional 130 North Monroe Street Regulation Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Elting L. Storms, Esquire Storms, Krasny, Normile & Dettmer Fred Seely 780 South Apollo Boulevard Executive Director Post Office Box 1376 Construction Industry Melbourne, Florida 32902-1376 Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the responsibility, inter alia, of regulating the practice of contracting and, pertinent to this case, prosecuting administrative complaints for the unlicensed practice of contracting, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Edward Irons, is not now, nor was he ever, licensed by the Department to engage in the business or profession of contracting in the State of Florida. Irons Contracting For some time prior to August 1992, Respondent's brother, Gerry Irons, was engaged in the business of contracting in the State of New York. At the time, Gerry Irons was licensed by the State of New York as a contractor, and did business as Irons Contracting. Respondent was not present in New York State during that period, and had no interest or involvement with his brother's business. Following the landfall of Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, and the opportunities it presented to the construction industry, Gerry Irons relocated to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. There he engaged in construction related activities under the name Irons Contracting, and, when joined by Respondent as discussed infra, he was engaged by Tank Mangoya, a licensed contractor, to assist in the repair of residential damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. At no time was Gerry Irons or Irons Contracting licensed or certified as a contractor by the State of Florida. The Respondent and his involvement with Irons Contracting Respondent, Edward Irons, was born December 13, 1948, and completed his formal education with graduation from high school. His training and experience post-high school, to the extent it appears of record, was shown to include boat repair (painting and varnishing), but not construction related activities (until his employment by his brother, discussed infra, in or about August 1993). At the time of hearing, Respondent was engaged in reconditioning (washing, waxing, and buffing) automobiles. Personally, Respondent presents as a well, if soft- spoken gentleman, who is pleasant, candid, and credible. At or about the time Gerry Irons relocated to southeast Florida, Respondent was residing in Venezuela with his family, aboard his boat, and had so resided for approximately one year. Previously, Respondent and his family had resided in the Bahamas for approximately five years. In or about August 1993, about a year after Hurricane Andrew struck southeast Florida, the Irons family began their return voyage to the United States. At some point during the voyage they encountered a storm, which severely damaged their boat. Fortunately, Respondent was able to run the boat aground on an island; however, the boat, as well as the family's possessions, were lost. Lacking insurance, Respondent's family was rendered homeless, and without any means of support. Responding to his brother's call, Gerry Irons offered the family accommodations at his home, and sent them money and airplane tickets for their return. Upon their return, Respondent's family resided with Gerry Irons for about six months, after which they relocated to South Carolina. In the interim, Gerry Irons employed Respondent to work in his business (Irons Contracting). At the time of Respondent's initial employment, Gerry Irons was engaged by Tank Mangoya, a licensed contractor, to assist him in repairing residential damage suffered by Hurricane Andrew. Under his arrangement with Mangoya, Gerry Irons included Respondent's time in his billings to Mangoya. Mangoya would pay the bill submitted by Gerry Irons, and Gerry Irons would pay Respondent for his labors. Toward the end of 1993, Mangoya laid-off Gerry Irons and, consequently, Respondent. At the time, or immediately prior, Irons Contracting had been working under Mangoya repairing a home for the Chasner family in southwest Dade County. The Chasner family was apparently satisfied with the work performed because when asked by a neighbor, Ms. Sally Stern, they recommended Irons Contracting. At the time, Ms. Stern was renting a home in the neighborhood, having been displaced from her residence at 10452 Southwest 114th Street, Miami, Florida, because of damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. Apparently, she had employed a number of contractors to work on the home, and at the time she approached the Irons was dissatisfied with the progress made by the current contractor. Following discussions with Ms. Stern, Gerry Irons, who was no longer employed by or working under a licensed contractor (Mongoya), approached a friend of his, Terry Klob, a licensed contractor. While not privy to the entire conversation, it was Respondent's impression that Mr. Klob agreed to be the contractor on the job and Gerry Irons (Irons Contracting) would do the actual work.1 Subsequently, Gerry Irons met with Ms. Stern to inspect the property and negotiate the scope of work to be performed, and then prepared a proposal for the repair of Ms. Stern's home at 10452 Southwest 114th Street, Miami, Florida. The proposal named Irons Contracting as the contractor, and the proposed contract price was $118,093.75. On December 29, 1993, Gerry Irons and the Respondent met with Ms. Stern, and she acknowledged her acceptance of the proposal by affixing her signature to the agreement. Signing on behalf of Irons Contracting were Gerry Irons and the Respondent. Notably, it was not customary for the Respondent to sign documents on behalf of Irons Contracting; however, in this instance, Gerry Irons prepared the contract to include Respondent as a signatory to assure Ms. Stern, who had apparently developed a sympathetic concern for Respondent's loss, that he would be employed to work on her house. At no time was Ms. Stern led to believe, nor did she ever believe, that Respondent was a licensed contractor. Rather, it was always her understanding that Gerry Irons was the licensed contractor. Not only was it not customary for Respondent to sign on behalf of Irons Contracting, it had never occurred before and never occurred again. Notably, Irons Contracting was Gerry Irons' business, and he exercised primary control over its operations. Gerry Irons operated the business from his home; owned all the tools and other equipment used in the business; conducted all negotiations with Irons Contracting customers or potential customers; signed contracts, proposals, correspondent, and all other documents on behalf of Irons Contracting; and paid the bills or debts of Iron Contracting, including Respondent's pay, by check.2 Respondent's association with Irons Contracting was strictly as an employee,3 who was paid on an hourly basis for the work he did on Irons Contracting jobs. On an average week, Respondent would usually earn approximately $400. During part of the period following the signing of the contract and April or May 1994 when work ceased,4 Respondent worked as a day laborer on Ms. Stern's house,5 as well as other Irons Contracting projects. During that period, Ms. Stern made payments totaling $35,000. Each payment was by check payable to Irons Contracting, and each check was endorsed by Gerry Irons. Respondent, apart from being compensated for his daily labors, did not share in any of the proceeds Gerry Irons received from Ms. Stern. The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, Petitioner offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, as of April 23, 1998, totaled $663.88. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order: Finding the Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent not guilty of Counts III through VIII of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative penalty of $300.00; and Requiring, pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, that the Respondent pay Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $663.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The certified general contractors examination given on February 23-24, 1993, consisted of two parts. Petitioner received a score of 71 on the first part and a score of 67 on the second part. The minimum score required to pass each part is 70. Petitioner challenged question 5 in the second part. The question related to the "angle of repose". The term "angle of repose" has been used for a number of years in the field of construction. The angle of repose is used when calculating the stability of soils for purposes of excavation. Petitioner chose answer "B" to question 5. The correct answer to question 5 is answer "D", i.e., 5 feet 6 inches. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. Petitioner also challenged question 9 relating to the extra square feet needed for fire resistant partition walls. The problem required calculating the linear feet first and then multiplying by the height of the walls after subtracting for slab thickness. The examination was open book. Petitioner was permitted to refer to the Standard Building Code. The correct answer to question 9 was "B". Petitioner chose answer "D". The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. Petitioner challenged question 10 which required a calculation of the time to lay interior masonry walls. The correct answer to question 10 was "A". Petitioner chose answer "C". The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to his score of 67 on the general contractors examination given on February 23-24, 1993. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of December, 1993. DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3938 Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It is noted below which proposed findings of fact were accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which were rejected and the reason for their rejection are also noted below. No notation is made for unnumbered paragraphs. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's paragraphs 2-3 are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent's remaining proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Asst. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Behzad Khazaree 142 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750
Findings Of Fact Triton is a Florida corporation located in Brooksville Florida, which performs land development and construction work for Gulf Coast Diversified Corporation, owned by the same people who own Triton. Triton owns an asphalt "hatching" plant which mixes sand and aggregate with liquid asphalt which is then used as paving material. All asphalt so mixed was used by Triton and no outside sales were made. Gulf Coast Diversified Corporation contracted with Triton for site development of certain realty. The contract included the construction of roads and parking lots. The contract price was computed on a lineal foot basis for the roads and on a square yard basis for parking lots. Triton, using the asphalt mixed in its batching plant, completed the work contracted for. In addition, Triton contracted with Gulf Coast Diversified Corporation for sewer construction which included the construction of manholes fabricated from concrete batched by Triton. No concrete was ever sold to any other outsiders. The cost of the concrete was included in the overall contract price and was not separately itemized. Triton's books of account show concrete sales in the amount of $168,569.36 during the audit period. This figure reflects a $20.00 per yard "market" value of concrete which Triton picked up in its books for its own internal accounting purposes. The figure represents some 8,428 yards of concrete actually sold. For sales tax purposes, Triton valued the concrete at about $13.74 per yard, a figure established by DOR in a previous audit, and remitted 4 percent of the total value of $115,835.25 of the State of Florida. During the audit, DOR noted that 4 percent of the bookkeeping entry for concrete sales was $6,742.77, while only $4,633.41 was received as sales tax. Consequently DOR assessed Triton an additional $2,109.36 plus penalties and interest. The difference, however, reflects only differential per yard valuation of the concrete and not additional concrete yardage.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the certification examination for general contractors administered on May 18, 1994. The contract administration portion of the examination consisted of 40 questions. The first twenty questions were worth four points each. The remaining twenty questions were worth one point apiece. To pass this portion of the examination, a total of 70 points was needed. Question 21 of this portion of the examination was a multiple choice question which required the candidate to identify factors which, according to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," should be taken into consideration in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. According to the "Building Estimators Reference Book," the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding "depend[s] on many conditions: the type of job to be done, whether interior or exterior; ground conditions; height and width, as well as load to be carried; and length of time it will be in use." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 21 was clearly "B." Petitioner selected answer "A," which included "wire rope block size" as one of the factors needed to be considered in estimating the cost of erecting tubular steel scaffolding. Wire rope block, however, is used in suspended scaffolding, not in tubular steel scaffolding. Petitioner's answer to question 21 therefore was clearly incorrect. Question 31 of the contract administration portion of the May 18, 1994, certification examination was also a multiple choice question. It required the candidate to select the number of days within which, according to the "American Institute of Architects' Document A401" (AIA-A401), a contractor must make a progress payment to a subcontractor following the contractor's receipt of payment from the owner. Section 11.3 of AIA-A401 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he Contractor shall pay the Subcontractor each progress payment within three working days after the Contractor receives payment from the Owner." Accordingly, the correct answer to Question 31 was clearly "B." Petitioner's answer to the question was "C," which was clearly incorrect. Petitioner erroneously based this answer upon Section 4.7 of AIA-A401, 1/ which addresses the subject of "remedies for nonpayment" and does not, unlike Section 11.3 of that document, specify the time frame within which the contractor must pay the subcontractor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the contract administration portion of the certification examination for general contractors for which he sat on May 18, 1994. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October, 1994. STUART M. LERNER 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 19th day of October, 1994.
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent, Mark Craig Fetherman, P.E., should be disciplined for negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case on May 27, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made. Petitioner, Florida Engineers Management Corporation, provides prosecutorial services to the Board of Professional Engineers as authorized by Section 471.038(4), Florida Statutes. The Board of Professional Engineers is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Mark Craig Fetherman, P.E., is a licensed professional engineer holding License No. PE40116. Prior to the instant case, he has not been subject to disciplinary action. Respondent has a bachelor's degree in physics and mechanical engineering and a master's degree in management information systems. Respondent has developed software to calculate windloads for wood and metal trusses. He operates his own company and offers engineering services to others which include performing load calculations for residential homes. Petitioner's expert witness, Wilbur T. Yaxley, P.E., is a civil engineer primarily concerned with building and structure-type work. He has approximately 24 years' engineering experience and has done consulting and forensic work since 1993. This is his first case involving light-gauge metal roof trusses. He has never designed a roof truss. He has never been involved in the manufacture of light-gauge metal trusses. Petitioner's expert witness testified that light-gauge steel trusses are a fairly new process. Light-gauge steel (16, 18, 20 gauge) has become a major structural building material in the last five years. Unlike the wood truss industry, there isn't much published information on light-gauge metal trusses, and what information that is available is not approved or accepted by the Standards Building Code. The Standards Building Code refers to American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) documentation: "The design of structural members cold-formed from carbon or low alloy steel shall conform to AISI Specifications " While Mr. Yaxley is familiar with "finite element analysis" (using computer software to analyze a system or component to see how it reacts under certain loading), he personally does not do finite element analysis. He has not analyzed the truss system in this case as a whole. Respondent had contracted with Marjorie and Art Schiavone to design a residence which included a connected airplane hanger. In addition, Respondent was to "procure steel roof trusses for the residence," specifically, the scope of work included materials, truss manufacture and delivery, and modifications needed due for foundation and/or wall configurations. Art Schiavone (hereinafter "Schiavone") accepted Respondent's plans without objection. Schiavone, who had little building experience, as property owner acted as his own general contractor. Petitioner's expert testified that "Schiavone really thought Mr. Fetherman was supervising his construction." Respondent testified that he was not supervising construction and Petitioner's expert agreed that was not Respondent's role. There was a great deal of personal conflict between Schiavone and Respondent. Schiavone prepared and dated his Complaint to the Board of Professional Engineers on November 16, 1999. He then showed the Complaint to Respondent's partner "to get satisfaction out of Mr. Fetherman." Respondent left the job in mid-December. The Complaint was received by the Board of Professional Engineers on December 28, 1999. Schiavone told Respondent's partner that he would withdraw the Complaint if Respondent would continue as engineer on the job. There is conflict in the testimony of Schiavone and Respondent. I find the testimony of Respondent to be more credible. Some of the roof (and hanger) trusses were damaged when they arrived at the job site. The repair process involved removing the damaged member and replacing it with a new piece of metal. Holes had to be redrilled and screws were replaced. Respondent was not present when some of the trusses were repaired. Similarly, Respondent was not present when some of the roof trusses were modified. Schiavone modified the trusses without the benefit of shop drawings after Respondent left the job. Lisa Connelly, Plans Examiner for the Marion County Building Department, testified that Respondent came to her office and told her that Schiavone had altered the trusses without Respondent's supervision and that Respondent was going to remove himself from the job due to deviations in engineering, in that the trusses were not what Respondent had engineered. Respondent noted 13 construction items which had not been done correctly, at least one-half of which would create problems with the trusses being installed properly. When Schiavone poured the wall lintel, he failed to install connector straps as per plans. Respondent had provided Schiavone detailed drawings showing the location of two connector straps per truss heel. In most instances, as built, there was only one connector strap per truss heel and it was not properly located to fit into the truss heel gusset plate. Petitioner's expert found from 10 to 18 screws in most truss heel gusset plates. Respondent had photograph enlargements (taken for another purpose) which showed 18 screws in each truss heel gusset plate in the particular photographs. These photographs were taken to show transportation damage and would have showed the condition of the trusses before any repair or modifications. The typical wall cross-section drawing shows two connector straps with seven screws per strap. Had there been two connector straps per location, had the connector straps been properly located, and had they been installed into the truss heel connection gusset plate as per plans, there would have been 32 screws per truss heel, which would have exceeded design criteria. It was not Respondent's responsibility to ensure that Schiavone built the structure according to the plans. Respondent's General Summary Sheet specifies 25 self-drilling screws at the heel connection of the hanger truss. Petitioner's expert opines that 54 No. 10 self-drilling screws are needed. Respondent testified that his software calculates the whole truss system, not just the heel connection standing alone, and that instead of shear, the heel connection would be subjected to rotation stress. Respondent calculated varying windloads, safety factors, and the number of screws required for varying windloads and determined that 25 screws would be needed for 120 mph windloads with a 3.5 safety factor; 54 screws with the same general safety factor would allow a 300-320 mph windload. Petitioner's expert opines that both the hanger truss heel connection and the scissors truss would require a heavier gusset plate. He did not, however, calculate forces and loads on the entire truss system. He simply ran calculations on a normal pin-connection truss design. Respondent determined, using his software, that a 20-gauge piece of steel is satisfactory for the gusset plate. Petitioner's expert opines that in the foundation plan, the thickened portion of foundation slab would be for an interior load-bearing wall. Petitioner's expert acknowledges that he is not sure what the loads would be on the interior load-bearing wall. He does know that the bearing point on some of the trusses and the interior load-bearing wall would not match up by 42 inches. But, he testified that he did not know whether this would make a difference or not. The interior load-bearing wall was constructed after the trusses were installed and after Respondent left the job. There is a jog shown in the floor plan for the interior load-bearing wall which is inconsistent with the foundation plan. Respondent testified that the plans were as he intended. He designed the interior load-bearing wall footer to run straight because its easier for the individuals laying the foundation to lay it correctly. More importantly, the trusses are two bearing points trusses, and do not need the interior load-bearing wall. The interior load-bearing wall simply adds to the windload capacity. Respondent acknowledges that on 5 interior trusses, the bearing points do not match up with the interior load- bearing wall, but this is not critical because the trusses are two bearing point trusses and these 5 trusses are interior trusses.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of "negligence" as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 22, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 1st day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Minerva Higgins, Esquire 1770 Fowler Drive Merritt Island, Florida 32952 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered building contractor. The Respondent held license number RB 0047309. In June of 1983, the Respondent, doing business as Gamble's Construction Company, contracted with James B. Sampson, Jr., to construct an open steel shelter on Mr. Sampson's property, the Bull Frog Dairy Farm. The contract called for the payment of $42,052.00 for the construction of the shelter. The shelter measures 108 feet by 150 feet. The shelter consists generally of a tin roof sitting on columns. The sides of the shelter are open. The shelter was to be, and is, used as a feed barn for dairy cows. The Respondent purchased the shelter to be constructed on Mr. Sampson's property from Steel Concepts, a steel manufacturing company in Sparks, Georgia. The Respondent had purchased steel structures from Steel Concepts for several years prior to 1983. The Respondent had not, however, purchased or erected a steel structure of the size and design of the shelter to be erected on Mr. Sampson's property. The steel structure purchased by the Respondent for erection on Mr. Sampson's property was designed by Donald Gibbs, then President of Steel Concepts. Mr. Gibbs was not licensed or trained as an engineer, an architect or a contractor. Mr. Gibbs' design of the steel structure purchased by the Respondent for erection on Mr. Sampson's property was never reviewed by a licensed engineer. The Respondent made no effort to ensure that the design of the steel structure purchased for erection on Mr. Sampson's property had been approved by a licensed engineer. Construction of the shelter began in August, 1983, and was completed in September, 1983. The Respondent first designed and constructed the foundation for the shelter. The foundation consisted of a series of concrete-block piers. The concrete-block piers rested on concrete footers (concrete under the ground). The shelter included twenty-eight vertical columns which were each to be attached to one of the concrete block piers by four nuts and anchor bolts. The anchor bolts were embedded into the piers. The Respondent supervised and assisted several employees in constructing the foundation and erecting the steel structure. The Respondent used all the materials furnished to him by Steel Concepts for the shelter. Although cross bracing was provided for, and attached to, the roof of the shelter, no cross-bracing was provided for use in bracing the columns. Holes for the attachment of cross bracing of the vertical columns were provided in the columns. The Respondent should have known that cross-bracing of the vertical columns was necessary. Therefore, the Respondent should have questioned Steel Concepts about the lack of such bracing or the Respondent should have added cross-bracing on the columns. On January 22, 1987, a wind and rain storm struck the Bull Frog Dairy Farm. The next morning, Mr. Sampson discovered that the shelter erected by the Respondent was listing to the east. The structure was approximately twelve to twenty degrees off vertical. Mr. Sampson arranged for emergency repairs to prevent the shelter from collapsing. The Respondent did not make the emergency repairs because it was Friday and the Respondent had released his employees. The Respondent personally helped, however, with the emergency repairs. The damage caused to the shelter by the storm was caused by the lack of cross-bracing on the columns and the failure to properly tighten approximately one-half of the nuts to the anchor bolts connecting the columns to the piers. The Respondent should have insured that the nuts were properly tightened on the anchor bolts holding the columns to the piers. The Respondent's failure to properly supervise the tightening of the anchor bolts constituted a failure to meet acceptable industry standards of supervision. The Respondent's erection of the shelter was not within acceptable industry standards. The Respondent's failure to insure that cross-bracing was provided or to ask Steel Concepts why no bracing was provided, and the Respondent's failure to insure that all the nuts were properly tightened constituted incompetency. Although there had been erosion of the soil around the shelter, the erosion did not contribute to the damage to the shelter. The possibility of erosion should have been taken into account by the Respondent before constructing the footers and piers. This is the first complaint ever filed against the Respondent. The Respondent attempted to resolve the matter with Mr. Sampson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding that the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department impose a fine of $1,500.00 on the Respondent payable within thirty (30) days from the date of the final order in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5391 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order has been granted and no consideration has been given to the Respondent's proposed recommended order. It has been noted below which of the Department's proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those findings of fact proposed by the Department which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 2 2 and 4. 3 11. 4 5-8. 5 10, 12-13 and 15-16. 6 17-19. 7-10 See 16, 20 and 22-23. These proposed findings of fact are pertinent in determining the weight to be given to the testimony of various witnesses or recite opinions of those witnesses. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 J. Victor Africano, Esquire Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Roger Newbold was employed by Allen Electric Company, Inc., as a laborer working on its contract with the State. Newbold was employed during two different periods. The first time was prior to January 1, 1977, and the second, from March 13, 1977, to May 22, 1977. The addition to the Polk County Correctional Institution was bid in two phases; the first for heavy construction for site preparation, and the second, the actual building construction. Allen Electric Company, - Inc., had a contract from the general contractor during the first phase to install the main electrical distribution facilities on the site. All of this work was not associated with and carried on prior to the commencement of building construction. The heavy construction was in progress during Newbold's first period of employment with Allen Electric Company, Inc. Allen Electric Company was also a subcontractor with Delta Electric Company on the second phase of construction; however, Allen Electric Company did not do any building construction. They subcontracted with Delta to install secondary distribution lines and perimeter fence lighting on the site. See Delta Electric Company contract, late filed exhibit No. 7. Allen Electric Company did not go into the building with their workmen because their contract called for them to stop five (5) feet outside the building with the secondary distribution lines. All work and wiring done from this point into the building was carried on by Delta Electric. Newbold's job during his entire employment with Allen electric was to dig ditches and lay conduit. The conduit runs then were reinforced with concrete poured over reinforcing steel. During his entire employment, he was involved in digging the necessary ditches, setting the reinforcing rods, and pouring the concrete. The rate for heavy construction laborers under wage rate 398-W filed as a portion of late filed exhibit No. 7 was three dollars and thirty-six cents ($3.36) per hour. The wage rate for laborers working on building construction pursuant to wage rate 397-W also filed as a portion of late filed exhibit No. 7 was six dollars and fifteen cents ($6.15) per hour. Wage scale 397-W specifically states that it is applicable to nonresident building construction. All of the skills listed on the wage rate apply specifically to building construction except the general term "laborer." The record shows that the work done by Allen Electric Company, Inc., in the building construction phase was the same type of work undertaken by Allen Electric in the heavy construction phase. In both phases, Newbold was engaged in exactly the same duties. Newbold did not work on building construction but on laying conduit for secondary distribution systems and perimeter lighting systems during the second phase. All of this work took place outside of the building.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer recommends that the claim of Roger Newbold be dismissed by the agency. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Marvin Woods, Esquire 440 S. Florida Avenue Post Office Box AR Lakeland, Florida 33801 David A. Perry, Esquire Corporate Officer Allen Electric Company, Inc. 1271 LaQuinta Drive Orlando, Florida 32809 Mr. Luther J. Moore Administrator of Prevailing Wage Department of Commerce Division of Labor 1321 Executive Center Drive Fast Tallahassee, Florida 32301
