Findings Of Fact The Board of Pilot Commissioners, Respondent, is charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed state pilots and certified deputy pilots in the State of Florida. Respondent is also charged with the responsibility and given the authority to license state pilots in various ports in Florida including the Port of Tampa. Section 310.061, Florida Statutes, provides, inter alia, that there shall not be more than 22 licensed state pilots for Tampa Bay. The number of deputy pilots which may be certified by Respondent is not specified by statute. Respondent may certify as many as necessary to meet the demand for pilot services. Currently, there are 20 licensed state pilots for Tampa Bay and four certified deputy pilots. No applications for pilot or deputy pilot for Tampa Bay have been accepted by Respondent for at least the past two years. Captain Gary Murphy applied to take the state pilot examination in 1980 and was qualified to do so. He is still on Respondent's mailing list to be notified when applications for Tampa will next be accepted. Captain Murphy is a member of TRICO. Respondent does not accept applications for state pilot positions in any port, including Tampa Bay, nor is an examination administered until Respondent has first declared an opening or openings for state pilots for the particular port. TRICO was founded by Captain David Rabren to provide piloting and shipping services on Tampa Bay. The other Petitioners signed membership agreements with TRICO. TRICO began operations January 1, 1984, and is an association of pilots who contract with the ship owners to provide certain piloting services in Tampa Bay. These include docking and undocking vessels and other piloting services on vessels these pilots are legally entitled to pilot. Only Captain Rabren of TRICO is a licensed state pilot for Tampa Bay and authorized to pilot foreign ships into and out of the port. Captains Murphy, Cropper, and Farrell all hold first-class pilots licenses issued by the U. S. Coast Guard for Tampa Bay and they all meet the statutory criteria for experience needed to sit for the Tampa Bay state pilot examination. If the proposed rule becomes effective, none of these Petitioners will be qualified to sit for the state pilot licensing examination. By Chapter 84-185, Laws of Florida, Section 310.071 was amended by extensive modification of Subsection (1)(b) and renumbering Subsection (2) to Subsection (3). Section 310.071, Florida Statutes, establishes the qualifications of applicants for licensure as state pilots and certification for deputy pilots. Following the effective date of Chapter 84-185 of October 1, 1984, Respondent issued proposed Rule 21SS-5.125, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Willie Daniels violated sections 489.129(1)(d) and (e) F.S., as alleged in the administrative complaint, by willful violation of a local building code and aiding and abetting an unlicensed person to evade any provision of Chapter 489. At the hearing the material facts were uncontroverted.
Findings Of Fact Willie F. Daniels is now, and was at all times relevant, licensed as a roofing contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. He holds license #RC 0027954 and does business as "Daniels Roofing', a sole proprietorship. He has been doing roofing in the Orlando, Florida area since 1954. Willie Daniels first met Thomas Dahlman when Dahlman came to his house trying to sell windows. Dahlman told him that he did all kinds of work, including windows, roofing and painting. Later Dahlman called him and said he had a roofing job that he wanted Daniels to do and that he would take him out to the house. The house belonged to Chris Correa and was located at 4421 Sebastian Way, in Orlando. Dahlman bought the materials for the job and Willie Daniels provided a day and a half labor on the roof. He was paid approximately $600.00 by Dahlman. Chris Correa was initially contacted by an agent for Thomas Dahlman who was trying to sell solar heating devices. When she told him she really needed a new roof, he said his boss could arrange that. Dahlman arranged for her loan to pay for the roof and arranged for the labor to be done by Willie Daniels. Chris Correa paid Thomas Dahlman $3,000 for the roof. About three days after the roof was completed, on February 18, 1986, she signed a contract for the roof work with Dahlman Enterprises, Inc. The contract is signed Thomas Dahlman and by Ms. Correa. Willie Daniels was not a party to the contract. The City of Orlando has adopted the Standard Building Code, including the following provision relating to permit applications: Section 105 - Application for Permit - When Required Any owner, authorized agent, or contractor who desires to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, ... or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the Building Official and obtain the required permit therefor. * * * No permit was applied for or obtained for the roofing job on Chris Correa's house. Willie Daniels assumed Thomas Dahlman was a licensed contractor because Dahlman told him he was in the business of doing roofing, painting, installing windows and similar work. He did not ask Dahlman if he was licensed. Dalhman was, in fact, not a licensed contractor.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a registered sheet metal contractor in the State of Florida. In fact, Respondent qualified in aluminum fabrication and erection. He holds license number RS 0025757. From 1984 through September, 1986, Respondent owned and operated Robinsons Aluminum Products, Inc. The company, which was located in Tampa, sold and erected aluminum screen enclosures. Respondent was the qualifying agent for the company. On August 19, 1986, Margaret Haden entered into a contract with Robinsons Aluminum Products, Inc., signed by Respondent as representative, for the construction of a screen room and slab, roof, and door for the room. The total contract price was $1575. Mrs. Haden paid a $550 deposit by check dated August 21, 1986, and the remainder was due on completion. Shortly after entering into the contract, Respondent prepared drawings and sketches for the job. He then submitted these drawings and sketches to the homeowners' association, whose approval was required before Respondent could obtain a building permit or begin the work. The homeowners' association did not immediately respond to the request for approval. After seven to ten days, Mrs. Haden called Respondent to find out why work had not begun. Respondent called the homeowners' association and learned that they were changing offices and everything was in disarray. Two to three weeks after the date of the contract, Respondent received verbal approval from the homeowners' association, but was unable to get written approval. At about this time, Mrs. Haden fired him, hired a new contractor, and demanded her $550 back. Respondent refused to return the deposit.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0573 Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4. Adopted in substance. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 7-9. Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Benito Tortora 2516 Gresham Drive Orlando, Florida 32807 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 3299-0750
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensing of contractors in Florida and regulating the practice of contracting of all types. Specifically, the Petitioner is responsible for enforcing law which prohibits unlicensed persons from engaging in the business of contracting, or advertising themselves or business organizations as available to engage in contracting, without proper licensure. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida, who has embarked on a business of representing owners who desire to construct residences, acting as the agent of those owners in arranging for materials, labor, subcontractors, and the financing of construction. Upon the decision by the owner to construct a residence, the Respondent engages in drafting plans, to some extent, arranging for subcontractors, overseeing the details of the work and any changes or alterations in the work and plans as the project proceeds. The owner in this arrangement does not obtain workers' compensation coverage for the Respondent, as would be the case if the Respondent was an employee of the owner, nor does the owner withhold F.I.C.A. taxes from monies due the Respondent for his services. The Respondent is not licensed as a contractor in the State of Florida. On May 11, 1995, the Respondent signed a contract (hereinafter the "Kassiris Contract") with owner Gus Kassiris, to oversee the erection and construction of a new residence for Mr. Kassiris. The Respondent was to perform the following duties, pursuant to the Kassiris Contract: to make recommendations as to which subcontractor to hire; to inspect progress and review payments; consultations and solutions on construc- tion project; to engage in manpower tracking and coor- dination of resources; monitoring of contract compliance; to provide punch list services; and to engage in the preparation and de- fense of change orders, as well as cost accounting. The "punch list services" mean that the Respondent was to engage in insuring that no work was left undone or done incorrectly at the end of the project. The Respondent admitted that he conducted all inspections on the project and reviewed all requisitions for payment from the subcontractors. The amount he charged for his services was roughly equivalent to the amount a licensed contractor would charge for similar services. The Kassiris Contract did not meet the conditions for a homeowner's exemption, found in Section 489.103(7), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Kassiris Contract did not provide that the Respondent would work under the supervision of the homeowner. In fact, the Kassiris Contract provided that if the homeowner wanted changes made in the specifications, he could request a change order. The Kassiris Contract also did not provide that the homeowner would deduct F.I.C.A. and withholding taxes from the Respondent's fees or wages, as required in the homeowner's exemption standards. There was no provision requiring that the homeowner provide workers' compensation, as required by the statute, in order to make out the elements of the homeowner's exemption (from the requirement of having a contractor's license). The conditions for exemption from licensure were also not met in the implementation of the Kassiris Contract. Specifically, the homeowner did not act as his own contractor and provide all of the material supervision himself. Although he denies it, in fact, the Respondent negotiated the contracts with the subcontractors and, during the course of performance of the Kassiris Contract, the Respondent approved plan changes for the project, without the involvement or consultation of the owner. The Respondent acted in the capacity of a contractor in the implementation of the contract by overseeing most details of construction of the residence. He performed the on-site inspections, dealt with subcontractors, approved the manner in which work was being performed, approved payment of subcontractors, and, in general, closely managed all details of the contracting effort. Practically, the only involvement the owner had, other than being present on the site frequently, was that the owner actually wrote the checks to pay the subcontractors and delivered them to the Respondent, who, in turn, delivered them to the subcontractors. The owner obtained the building permit at the commencement of the project. The Respondent advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation, on or about June 25, 1995, that he offered services for hire as a construction consultant and for project management. On or about June 27, 1995, he entered into a contract with Paul and Valerie Stamper (hereinafter the "Stamper Contract"). The Respondent was thus charged with overseeing the erection and construction of a residence located at Lot 15 of Laurel Oak Estates Subdivision in Citrus County, Florida. He acted in the capacity of a contractor in the negotiation and formulation of this contract. According to the Stamper Contract, the Respondent's responsibilities were to include the following: make recommendations as to which subcon- tractor to hire; conduct progress inspections and payment reviews; consult concerning construction problems and arrive at solutions; engage in manpower and tracking and coor- dination of resources; monitor contract compliance; provide "punch list" services; prepare and defend any change orders; engage in cost accounting. The terms of the Stamper Contract indicate that the residence to be constructed was to be purveyed to the owner, rather than a case of the owner being the contractor actually creating the product. In order for the above- referenced exemption to apply, the homeowner must be the party functioning as a contractor on his own behalf. It is noteworthy in this regard that the Stampers gave the Respondent a $3,000.00 deposit. The Stampers later decided that they did not wish to proceed with the contract and requested return of that deposit. The Respondent refused to return the deposit money, although acknowledging that the Stamper Contract was no longer in effect. In his letter to the Stampers, responding to their request for return of the deposit, he proposed, instead, that they continue to proceed with the contract and the construction of the residence, which the Stampers no longer wished to own and occupy, in order that they could sell it. The intention to construct a residence for sale to another party directly belies the possibility that the homeowner can be his own contractor, constructing a residence for his own use in compliance with the homeowner-exemption law. It shows an intention to engage in contracting by the Respondent. The existence of facts supporting this exemption is also belied because the Respondent, in his contract with the Stampers, did not contract to have F.I.C.A. or income taxes withheld from any paychecks due him from the Stampers, nor did the Stampers contract to provide workers' compensation coverage for the Respondent. The contract also did not provide that the owners, the Stampers, would act as their own contractors and provide all material supervision themselves. In fact, the Respondent was to provide supervision. The Petitioner is responsible for enforcing the prohibition against unlicensed contracting in order to protect the public. There are frequent problems with unlicensed contractors in Florida in terms of their competence to provide quality work and their willingness to do so, as well as outright fraud and harm to the public. The contracts which unlicensed contractors enter into are illegal and unenforceable. Homeowners who contract with unlicensed contractors are not eligible for recovery under the Construction Industry Licensing Recovery Fund. On July 2, 1995, the Respondent again advertised in the Citrus County Chronicle, advertising himself as available to manage the construction of residences. Based upon this notice and other information, the Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to the Respondent, ordering him to cease and desist the unlicensed practice of contracting. The Respondent contends that he is not a contractor and that he is, instead, a project manager or consultant and, therefore, not governed by the statutory provision authorizing the Notice to Cease and Desist.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1996, in 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 23rd day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-4534 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. 10. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. 11-14. Accepted. 15. Rejected, as being irrelevant. 16-17. Accepted. 18. Accepted, except for the next to the last sentence, which constitutes a conclusion of law. 19-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. 22-31. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the unrefuted evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law, but to the extent it might be a proposed finding of fact, as not in accord with unrefuted evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not representative of the unrefuted evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not itself being dispositive of material issues. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not being materially dispositive. Rejected, as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as, in part, being a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 10-12. Rejected, as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Bass, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Mr. Mark P. Stanish 6041 Town Court Springhill, FL 34606 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the violations alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate building contracting. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C058340 in 1996. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. McKinney owned and resided in a house (the House) in Opa Locka, Florida. Ms. McKinney’s mother, Mattie P. Mathis, also lived in the House. In 2001, Ms. McKinney solicited bids for an addition she wanted to put on the House. Ms. McKinney and her mother, Ms. Mathis, planned to pay for the addition with life insurance proceeds on the life of Ms. Mathis’s deceased daughter (Ms. McKinney’s sister). On the recommendation of a colleague at her work, Ms. McKinney asked Willie Muse, Jr., to bid on the work. Based on the bids she received, Ms. McKinney hired Mr. Muse to construct the addition to the House. Ms. McKinney told Mr. Muse that she wanted all work to comply with all applicable permitting requirements and laws. Mr. Muse represented to Ms. McKinney that he would get the necessary building permits and that the work would comply with all applicable laws. On July 18, 2001, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis entered into a written contract with Mr. Muse whereby Mr. Muse agreed to construct the addition for the sum of $45,000.00. Mr. Muse has never been licensed as a general contractor in Florida. Ms. McKinney thought Mr. Muse was a licensed contractor and would not have entered into a contract with him if she had known that he was not licensed. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis paid Mr. Muse the following amounts on the following dates: $6,000.00 on July 20, 2001; $7,500.00 on October 10, 2001; and $13,500.00 on November 2, 2001; for a total of $27,000.00. On or about August 21, 2001, Mr. Muse brought to Ms. McKinney a building permit application form for her to sign. The application form had been filled out before Mr. Muse presented it to Ms. McKinney. Respondent was not present when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Respondent’s name, signature, and contractor’s license number appeared on the application form when Mr. Muse presented the form to Ms. McKinney. Ms. McKinney signed the form on August 21, 2001. Ms. McKinney saw Respondent’s name for the first time when she read the building permit application form. Prior to that time, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had never known or heard of Respondent. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent knew that Mr. Muse was not a licensed contractor. Mr. Muse submitted the building permit application form to the Miami-Dade County Building Department (Building Department), which issued a building permit for the work on the House on October 5, 2001. Mr. Muse commenced working on the House in October 2001, but he never finished. After he received the payment in November 2001, Mr. Muse stopped working on the House for an extended period of time. During that time, Ms. McKinney attempted on several occasions to persuade Mr. Muse to resume work on the House. Prior to stopping work on the House, Mr. Muse removed a portion of the roof of the existing structure, which exposed the interior of the House to the elements. That exposure resulted in extensive damages to the House, including the collapse of the kitchen ceiling from water intrusion. By letter dated April 15, 2002, the Building Department advised Ms. McKinney that her building permit would expire in approximately 30 days. That letter prompted Ms. McKinney to contact the Building Department, where she was told that Respondent was her contractor, not Mr. Muse. Ms. McKinney secured information (from the face of the building permit) that enabled her to contact Respondent’s mother.3 That contact resulted in two meetings between Ms. McKinney and Respondent towards the end of April 2002. During the first meeting, Ms. McKinney related to Respondent the history of the project, including the amounts that had been paid to Mr. Muse. She also showed him the work that had been done and the damages that had occurred. During the second meeting, Mr. Muse was in attendance. Ms. McKinney, Ms. Mathis, and Respondent reached a verbal understanding that was not reduced to writing. They agreed that Respondent would finish the work on the House for the unpaid balance of the contract price $45,000.00 less $27,000.00 paid to Mr. Muse, which equals $18,000.00.4 The parties agreed that Respondent would pay for labor and that Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would pay material suppliers directly and receive credit toward the contract price for such payments. The parties contemplated that Mr. Muse would perform most of the labor because of the monies he had already received. On the basis of the verbal contract, Respondent resumed the work on the House. On June 12, 2002, Respondent presented a draw request for $3,500.00 for electrical, plumbing, and roofing work that had been performed. Ms. Mathis wrote Respondent a check in the amount of $3,500.00 for that work. Ms. McKinney was opposed to paying Respondent the sum of $3,500.00 because she believed he had not completed the work for which he was billing. Ms. Mathis paid that sum despite Ms. McKinney’s opposition. At some undetermined time following June 12, 2002, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Mr. Muse working on the House. Respondent then asked to be paid in advance for work to be done on the House because he would have to pay his laborers. Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis would not agree to payment in advance. In July 2002, the project was not complete and Respondent’s progress on the work on the House became unsatisfactory to Ms. McKinney. On October 14, 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a complaint against Respondent with Petitioner, claiming, among other things, that Respondent had abandoned the project. Her complaint alleged that work ended on the project in July 2002. At some undetermined time between June and October 2002, Ms. McKinney filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, which resulted in criminal misdemeanor charges being filed against him in Miami-Dade County Court. After she filed the criminal complaint against Mr. Muse, Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she wanted to wait to proceed with the project until she knew what was going to happen with her criminal complaint. In the criminal proceeding, the Court ordered Mr. Muse on April 11, 2003, to pay restitution to Ms. McKinney in the amount of $16,008.04, payable in monthly installments of $300.00. On March 2, 2004, the Court reduced the amount of restitution to $4,000.00, payable in monthly installments of $50.00 beginning April 1, 2004. As of the date of the final hearing in this proceeding, Mr. Muse had paid Ms. McKinney restitution in the total amount of $750.00. As part of the criminal proceeding, Respondent was asked to give his opinion as to the value of the work completed by Mr. Muse and his estimated cost of completing the work. Respondent valued the work completed by Mr. Muse at $14,073.75 (labor and materials). Respondent estimated that it would cost $22,200.00 to complete the project. Both estimates were dated March 23, 2003. On October 1, 2003, Theodore R. Gay, Assistant General Counsel for Petitioner wrote Ms. McKinney the following letter pertaining to the complaint she had filed in October 2002: The Legal Department has evaluated your complaint against the above named contractor [Respondent]. After reviewing the evidence gathered during the investigation of the referenced matter, we have determined that in accordance with the rules and policies of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, this case is appropriately closed with the issuance of a Letter of Caution to the contractor. Because this case has been dismissed without a finding of probable cause, the file will remain confidential and exempt from the public records. On January 6, 2004, Ms. McKinney wrote Mr. Gay a letter that provided, in part, as follows: This letter is a request to re-open the case [against Respondent] because as prior conversation (sic) when I spoke to you in late August 2003 or early September 2003, I informed you that Mr. Jones told me that he would help me as much as possible to complete the construction on my property. Since your letter that stated you didn’t find any error on Mr. Jones’ behalf, I have not heard or seen him since October 2003, nor has any work been performed on my property. . . . Respondent came back to the House after October 2003 and talked to Ms. McKinney about the work. Ms. McKinney told him that she would pay up to a total of $45,000.00 for the work, but that she would not pay above that figure. Because of the estimate Respondent provided in the criminal proceeding dated March 23, 2003, Ms. McKinney believed that Respondent wanted $22,0000.00 to complete the work. However, Respondent never told her that he would not complete the work for a sum equal to $45,000.00 less the sums that had already been paid. Ms. McKinney would not pay Respondent for work until after the work was completed. After Mr. Gay’s letter dismissing the complaint that Ms. McKinney had filed, Respondent did no further work on the House, but he did have further conversations about the project. Ms. McKinney and Respondent could not agree on payment terms for Respondent to complete the project. Ms. McKinney testified that she did not fire Respondent. However, it is clear that she would not let Mr. Muse do further work on her house and she would not pay Respondent until after the work had been done. Ms. McKinney changed the terms of her verbal contract with Respondent by prohibiting Mr. Muse from working on the project. In November 2003, Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis had an argument over the money that had been spent on the house. Ms. McKinney talked to Respondent about his helping her obtain a mortgage on the house to pay for the balance of the work on the House. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she did not want Respondent to ask her mother for any more money. Ms. McKinney told Respondent that she would use him as the contractor to complete the work if she obtained the financing. Ms. McKinney was unable to get the financing due to the condition of the House. The permits obtained by Respondent are still valid. Ms. McKinney has hired various workers on her own in an effort to complete the work on the House. As of the final hearing, the work on the House had not been completed. As of May 19, 2005, Petitioner’s costs of investigation and prosecution of this case, excluding costs associated with attorney time, totaled $920.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order that adopts the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth in this Recommended Order. It is further recommended that the Final Order: Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and impose against him an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; Find Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, but impose no additional administrative fine for that violation; Find Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint; Order that Respondent be jointly and severally liable to Ms. McKinney and Ms. Mathis with Mr. Muse for restitution in the amount of $4,000.00, minus $750.00 paid by Mr. Muse; and Order Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution of this matter in the amount of $920.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 10th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, David E. Rabren was licensed as a Tampa Bay state pilot and was president of the Tricounty Pilot's Association (TRICO). At the time the movement of the OCEAN LORD occurred, there was only one state licensed pilot who was a member of TRICO. That was David E. Rabren. Other members held only federally issued pilot's licenses. Prior to the movement of the VOMAR, a second state licensed pilot joined TRICO. At present, there are four licensed state pilots and one deputy pilot associated with TRICO. The vessel OCEAN LORD arrived in Tampa Bay February 18, 1986, and was piloted by Captain Rabren to its berth at C. F. Industries (CFI). After taking on cargo, the OCEAN LORD was moved the same date to Gadsden Anchorage. During this move, Captain Murphy, a federally licensed, but not state licensed, pilot was on board. Captain Murphy is associated with TRICO. On February 21, 1986, the OCEAN LORD was moved from Gadsden Anchorage to the CSX Transportation dock at Rockport. Again, Captain Murphy was the pilot. On September 21, 1986, the vessel VOMAR was moved from Rockport to a dock at Big Bend with Captain Murphy as the pilot. Anita Rabren determined that the movement could be accomplished with a federally licensed pilot on board. On October 5, 1986, the vessel ASPEN, an American flag vessel, arrived at Tampa Bay, and the ship's agent requested TRICO provide a pilot. Due to a misunderstanding of the agent's statement that the ASPEN was coming from the west coast, Anita Rabren assumed this was from the west coast of the United States. Actually, the ASPEN's last port of call was in Korea. Had the vessel come from a west coast of the United States port, the voyage would have been a coastwise trip, and a federally licensed pilot would be required. A federally licensed pilot was assigned to pilot the ASPEN. The last port of call of the ASPEN was ascertained after the pilotages up Tampa Bay commenced, and the fact that an improperly licensed pilot was used was reported forthwith. TRICO paid a double pilot fee to the Tampa Bay Pilot's Association. Tampa Port Authority has jurisdiction over all of Hillsborough County and establishes rules and regulations for that area. They do not regulate pilotage of vessels. Many of the terminals in Hillsborough County are owned by the Port Authority, but some are privately owned such as Big Bend and Rockport, both of which are in the port of Tampa. The Port Authority controls the allocation of berths at all terminals owned by the Port Authority, but does not control the berths at privately owned terminals. The CFI terminal is owned by the Port Authority who establishes wharfage rates and docking rates at this terminal. The berths at Rockport and Big Bend are privately owned, and tariff rates are not set by the Port Authority. CSX Transportation owns a dock at Rockport where phosphate is loaded onto vessels. No wharfage or dockage charge is levied, but such charges are included in charges for the commodity loaded. Ships can clear customs at any of the terminals above noted. The Big Bend facility is under the jurisdiction of Gulf Coast Transit Company. Vessels bring coal to Big Bend for use by Tampa Electric Company. The AGRICO terminal at Big Bend is used for loading phosphate rock. All of these privately owned terminals are licensed by the Tampa Port Authority to whom they pay a fee and submit reports of their activities. The Tampa Port Authority charges a fee to vessels who load or unload cargo at the Gadsden Anchorage which is also in the port of Tampa. Section 310.002(4), Florida Statutes, defines "port" to mean, any place in the state in which vessels enter and depart. For Tampa Bay, this section lists Tampa, Port Tampa, Port Manatee, St. Petersburg and Clearwater as ports. Of those listed ports, Tampa and Port Tampa are in Hillsborough County and come under the jurisdiction of the Tampa Port Authority. No evidence was submitted showing the areas encompassed by the Port of Tampa and Port Tampa. The Port of Tampa's Terminal and Facilities Map (Exhibit 5) showing the port facilities at Tampa, Florida, does not show the facilities at Port Tampa; it shows only those facilities on the east side of the Tampa peninsula, and does not reach as far south as Big Bend. Presumably, if there are only two ports in Hillsborough County that portion of Hillsborough County west of the Tampa peninsula would comprise Port Tampa, and that portion of Hillsborough County east and south of the Tampa peninsula would comprise the Port of Tampa. If so, all of the movements here complained of occurred in the Port of Tampa. Exhibit 5 supports this conclusion. Finally, no credible evidence was presented that Respondent assigned a federally licensed, but not a state licensed, pilot to the OCEAN LORD, VOMAR and ASPEN as alleged, except Exhibit 3 which states the assignment of a federally licensed pilot to the Aspen was due to an error on the part of Captain Rabren. The direct testimony presented in this regard is that Anita Rabren assigned federally licensed pilots to those ships. Further, this determination that use of a federally licensed pilot for those movements of foreign flag vessels within the Port of Tampa was proper was made by Anita Rabren after receiving legal advice regarding the in-port movements of foreign flag vessels that can be piloted by a federally licensed pilot.
