The Issue Whether Respondent Indiana House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003, 61C- 1.004(9)(b), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Whether Respondent Illinois House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61C-1.004(5) and 4A-48.003, Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of hotel establishments pursuant to Section 210.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondents, at all times material to these proceedings, have been licensed or otherwise subject to the Department's jurisdiction. The last known business address of Indiana House is 1114 Indiana Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. The last known business address of Illinois House is 820 Illinois Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. Both Indiana House and Illinois House are transient rooming houses. The tenants pay rent for the rooms they occupy. On January 26, 2001, an inspector for the Department inspected the Indiana House and noted numerous deficiencies, including a lack of a fire alarm system. The inspector returned to Indiana House on May 1, 2001, but was unable to get into the building. She made a call-back inspection on May 22, 2001, and found that certain violations had not been corrected, including the lack of a fire alarm system. On June 5, 2001, the inspector returned to Indiana House. No fire alarm panel had been installed, and the owner, Thomas Griffin, did not have keys to the property so the inspector did not have access to the building. On February 12 and 18, 2002, an inspector for the Department inspected the Indiana House and found the following deficiencies: (1) a gang plug was being used in a bedroom, (2) wires were dangling from a fan light, (3) the air conditioner faceplate was missing, exposing the filters and coils, and (4) no service tag was on the fire extinguisher. A gang plug is an adapter that is put into the electrical outlet on a wall so that more than one electrical plug can be used with that outlet. The gang plug found at Indiana House on the February 12 and 18, 2002, inspections would allow the use of six electrical plugs at one time. On January 26, 2001, an inspector from the Department inspected Illinois House and found that there was no fire alarm system. Another inspection was made on May 1, 2001, and it was noted that the outside door was locked. A call-back inspection was made on May 22, 2001, and no fire alarm had been installed. On June 5, 2001, a call-back inspection was made. The owner of the property stated that he did not have keys to the building; thus, the inspector could not access the premises. The owner advised at the time of the inspection on June 5, 2001, that no fire alarm system had been installed. On February 18, 2002, an inspector for the Department inspected Illinois House and found that none of the bedrooms had smoke detectors. On February 25, 2002, a call-back inspection was made, and a battery operated smoke detector in a bedroom did not work when tested. The Department considers a critical violation to be one that is an immediate health hazard. The failure to have a fire alarm system is a critical violation because the buildings are transient rooming houses and most of the people residing in the buildings at any given time will be strangers to one another. If a fire occurs, the consistent and reliable means of notifying the tenants would be through the use of a fire alarm system. The failure of the smoke detector to work is also a critical violation. If a fire occurs, an inoperable smoke detector will not warn the tenant, and, since no fire alarm has been installed, it is likely that the tenant may not have sufficient warning in time to escape from the fire. Both Illinois House and Indiana House have applied to the Homeless Service Network for a grant to make renovations to the buildings to bring them up to whatever code is necessary in order for the properties to be used as transient housing. When the money becomes available, it is anticipated that the renovations will be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Indiana House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003, 61C- 1.004(9)(b), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a $2,500 fine on Indiana House and requiring the owner of Indiana House to attend a Hospitality Education Program. Finding that Illinois House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003 and 61C- 1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a $1,500 fine on Illinois House and requiring the owner of Illinois House to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 27th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Griffin Indiana House 1221 12th Street St. Cloud, Florida 34769 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Thomas E. Kehoe, d/b/a Kehoe on the Bay, Respondent, was licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Petitioner, to operate the adult congregate living facility (ACLF), Kehoe on the Bay. Kehoe on the Bay serves young adult clients who suffer from drug overdose, mental retardation or alcohol abuse. On November 30, 1988, Richard Brickman, a fire safety specialist for Petitioner, performed a general inspection of Kehoe on the Bay for purposes of re-licensure. Mr. Brickman identified eighteen operating deficiencies which he discussed with Mr. Kehoe and Mr. Lindsey Smith, administrator of Kehoe on the Bay. On December 16, 1988, the Department issued a letter confirming the findings of the re-licensure survey conducted by Mr. Brickman. Enclosed with the letter was a form "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements", which noted the deficiencies, the deadlines for correction, and citations to the administrative rules allegedly violated by the deficiencies. The deficiencies cited by Mr. Brickman appear on pages four through seven of the form and are under the headings ACLF 107-2, ACLF 107-3 and ACLF 107-4. Each of the deficiencies was classified as a class III violation with a civil penalty of $250 each and were to be corrected by December 30, 1988. On December 19, 1988, Mr. Kehoe requested a thirty day extension of the compliance date. The extension was granted on December 21, 1988. On January 31, 1989, Mr. Brickman made a return visit to Kehoe on the Bay and determined that each of the deficiencies, except for the four at issue had been corrected. These deficiencies form the basis of the administrative complaint and are indicated on the administrative complaint as follows: Quarterly fire alarm tests were not conducted and/or documented as required. Quarterly smoke detector inspections and tests were not conducted and/or documented as required. Resident room door closers did not close and latch as required. Seven resident room doors were not self closing. As to deficiencies one and two, existent law, as reasonably interpreted, by the Department requires that the fire alarm and smoke detectors in an ACLF be tested quarterly; that each test be documented in writing; and that the written documentation be made available for inspection. Kehoe on the Bay has a more than acceptable fire detection and alarm system which was installed by Mr. Issac Rodriguez of Quality Services Contractors. For approximately five years, Mr. Rodriguez has been performing annual inspections of the system. At the conclusion of each inspection, Mr. Rodriguez places a sticker on the control panel for the system. The control panel is located immediately outside the administrative office at Kehoe on the Bay. In addition to Mr. Rodriguez's tests, Kehoe on the Bay had followed the internal policy of testing the fire detection and alarm system at least once a month. The tests were performed by Mr. Smith or Mr. Carl Anderson, chief of staff at Kehoe on the Bay, but were not documented in written form. If a malfunction occurred and they could not fix it on site, Mr. Rodriguez was called to repair the system. On Mr. Brickman's first visit in November 1988, he requested and did not receive written documentation of the quarterly tests, although Mr. Smith verbally informed him that they had been done. After Mr. Brickman's review, Mr. Smith called Mr. Rodriguez to request an inspection and repair of a malfunction which Mr. Brickman had noted. The malfunction was corrected, and on January 4, 1989, Mr. Rodriguez performed the inspection and placed his sticker on the control panel. When Mr. Brickman returned on January 31, 1989, he again was not provided with documentation of tests performed on either the smoke detectors or the fire alarm. Mr. Brickman is an experienced fire safety inspector, having been employed by the Department for over three years and having worked with the New York City Fire Department for twenty-three years prior to moving to Florida. He is familiar with the inspection stickers used by commercial fire inspecting companies such as Quality Services Contractors. However, Mr. Brickman did not remember seeing the sticker on the panel, even though he had checked the panel during his investigation, and he had passed the panel on his way to the office in which he discussed his observations with Mr. Smith, nor was he shown the sticker on the panel. The sticker, if made available to Mr. Brickman, would have been sufficient to meet the requirement of written documentation of fire alarm and detection devices. In addition, Mr. Brickman would have accepted a copy of an invoice from Mr. Rodriguez as meeting the requirement for written documentation. Mr. Rodriguez is typically late in mailing his invoices. Although he did, in fact, bill Mr. Kehoe for the January 4, 1989 test, the invoice did not arrive until after Mr. Brickman's visit on January 31, 1989. Subsequent to Mr. Rodriguez's inspection of January 4, 1989, Kehoe on the Bay has implemented the documentation procedure suggested by Mr. Brickman at his November 30, 1988 visit and has made quarterly, documented inspections. Mr. Rodriguez inspected the fire detection and alarm devices on January 4, 1989 and placed the sticker on the panel at that time, making the sticker available to Mr. Brickman on his inspection. The oversight of the sticker by Mr. Brickman did not make the sticker unavailable to him. In fact, the first quarterly tests were performed, documented and made available for inspection within the time given for correction of the deficiencies noted on November 30, 1988. As to deficiencies three and four relating to alleged faulty door closures or lack of door closures, the deficiencies noted on the November 30, 1988 visit by Mr. Brickman were repaired prior to Mr. Brickman's return visit. Mr. Kehoe purchased new door closures for the errant doors, and they were installed by Mr. Anderson and Mr. Charles Woods, carpenter at Kehoe on the Bay. When Mr. Brickman returned on January 31, 1989, some of the closures would not latch as required by the Department and some were not operational. However, the clients at Kehoe on the Bay frequently break the door closures. Also, the closures which were installed require adjustment during the first six months of operation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Anderson walk the halls daily and fix the items which they note as broken, including adjusting the door closures. Mr. Brickman's visit was unannounced and, by chance, some of the closures ware not operational when he did his inspection. Kehoe on the Bay has been previously cited by the Department for deficiencies. However, the instant administrative complaint is the first action taken by the Department against the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 9th day of March, 1990.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints, the Respondent, Freed Towers, Ltd., was a business association between June E. Freed and Audley L. Freed, husband and wife, who owned and operated it as an Adult Congregate Living Facility, located at 1029 7th Avenue East, Bradenton, Florida. The facility was licensed for 50 apartments, (100 beds). Petitioner, Department, was and is the state agency responsible for licensing the operation of ACLFs in Florida. On January 10, 1989, Tami J. Smith, a human services program analyst with the Department Office of Licensure and Certification in Tampa, along with a team consisting of a dietitian and a fire inspector, inspected the Respondent's facility located in Bradenton. During the course of the inspection, Ms. Smith noted that Respondent's records on six employees failed to include the statement that the employees were free from disease or other communicable illnesses. Ms. Smith also noted that a portion of the carpet in the dining room was dirty and displayed numerous coffee stains. During the same inspection, another member of the team, Mr. Scharnweber, the fire protection specialist, noted that the quarterly smoke detector inspections and tests had not been conducted or documented; the quarterly fire alarm pull station tests had not been conducted or documented; the automatic sprinkler system had not been inspected or documented quarterly; several portable fire extinguishers had not been inspected within the past year; and the fixed extinguishing system for the protection of cooking equipment in the kitchen did not display a current semiannual inspection tag. The team consisting of Ms. Smith and Mr. Scharnweber returned to the facility on a follow-up inspection on May 1, 1989. At that time Ms. Smith noted that of the six employee records which had previously failed to contain the required health certificate, four had been corrected but two had not. At the same time, she noted that on the May 1 visit, an effort had been made to clean the carpet but it was not done correctly. Because an effort had been made, however, she noted that on the inspection report and indicated that the deficiency was under correction. On July 12, 1989, Ms. Smith returned to the facility for a second follow-up inspection. At that time she noted that one of the previously noted employee files still did not have the required health certificate, and the carpet was still unsatisfactorily dirty. As a result, she wrote up both deficiencies. Mr. Scharnweber conducted a follow-up inspection in his area on April 28, 1989 and found at that time that no corrective action had been taken. A follow-up conducted at the same time as that done by Ms. Smith on July 12, 1989 indicated the required tag was still not on the cooking equipment, but the other discrepancies had been corrected. When the initial inspection was concluded on January 10, 1989, prior to leaving the facility the inspection team met with the facility operators and went over each of the noted discrepancies, identifying the problem and giving suggestions as to how each could be corrected. They also discussed with the operators an appropriate time for correction and entered into an agreement as to that matter. On January 23, 1989, the Department sent a copy of the inspection report, with proposed correction dates, to the operators and on January 30, 1989, Gary C. Freed, then the Administrator of the facility and the son of the Mr. and Mrs. Freed previously identified, signed and returned to the Department an acknowledgment of receipt of the list of discrepancies and the agreed upon correction dates. The testimony of Ms. Smith and Mr. Scharnweber, as included in the above Findings of Fact, clearly establish that the initially identified deficiencies were not corrected in full consistent with the time frame agreed upon by the parties. The Freeds opened the facility in May, 1988 with their son, Gary, as Administrator. Gary ran it until April, 1989. It was obvious to the Freeds at that time that he was not properly operating it and he was removed as Administrator in April, 1989. At that time, Mrs. Freed took over as Administrator and was certified in that position at the earliest possible time. When Mrs. Freed took over she found the business was unable to afford to hire a trained Administrator and was unable to expend the monies necessary for immediate and full correction of the deficiencies identified by the inspectors. In fact, she recognized there were many discrepancies which needed correction and claims it was overwhelming to anticipate doing all which had to be done in the time frame given. With regard to the medical certificates, Mrs. Freed claims that she made considerable effort to convince her employees to comply with the requirement for proper certification. She states that each employee had a doctor's certificate but those certificates did not contain the required statement that the employee was free of communicable disease. It was only when she threatened to fire any employee who did not provide the appropriate certificate that she was able to secure everyone's compliance. Unfortunately, she missed one. As for the carpet deficiency, she claims the carpet is constantly being cleaned and an effort made to insure it is within compliance. A cleaner is rented periodically, but she admits many of the employees and residents are careless and spill on the rug and that it is impossible to keep the rug in a pristine condition. This argument is not persuasive as justification for the failure to bring the carpet within standards. As licensees and operators, the Freeds are bound to insure that employees meet state requirements and that the facility meets state standards. Mr. Freed claims that when he first took over the facility, even though county fire authorities had inspected and found his fire protection system to be adequate, upon notification by the Department of the need for additional fire extinguishers, he immediately purchased five new ones. With regard to the kitchen equipment, Mr. Freed claims it was of the proper kind and properly installed, and that if any deficiency exists, it was solely in the failure to display the proper tag. This is all that is alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Secretary issue a Final Order as to both consolidated files, assessing a total Administrative Fine of $500.00 against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 21 day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 21 day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 June E. Freed Audley L. Freed Freed Towers 1029 7th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida 34208 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 509.221(1) and (7) and 509.032, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(5), (6), and (13), 61C- 3.001(2), as set out in the Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (DHR) is the State Agency charged with regulating the operation of hotel establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by DHR or otherwise subject to DHR's jurisdiction, pursuant to issued License No. 26-00783. Respondent's last known business address is Clark Apartment and Rooms, 9762 Bayview Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. On February 3, 2003, and again on March 10, 2003, a DHR sanitation and safety specialist, John Phelan, inspected Respondent's premises. On February 3, 2003, the initial inspection, Mr. Phelan was accompanied by his superior, David Futlon. At the February 3, 2003, initial inspection, the following deficiencies were observed by both inspectors and noted for Respondent by Mr. Phelan: No proof was observed that the smoke detectors were interconnected as required by law and as stated by management. The door of a gas oven was held in place by a garden spade. Live roaches were on the floor and climbing the walls around the oven. The inspectors observed a stained mattress and a missing mattress pad on the bed in room They also observed that the second floor bathroom was out- of-order, and that shower curtains and shower stalls were dirty with soap scum. On March 10, 2003, Mr. Phelan returned to Respondent's premises by himself and noted that the foregoing problems/violations remained. According to both inspectors, the most serious violation was that there was no documentation that the smoke detectors were interconnected. This is a critical violation because it could present a potential fire hazard. The next violation that was found to be critical was that there was "a garden spade holding the oven door closed." This was seen as a violation because of the potential for fire. Next down the urgent and critical scale was the presence of live roaches around the oven. The absence of a mattress pad on room 17's mattress and the stain on the mattress were of somewhat less concern. However, these bedding problems are violations because they pose a sanitary issue. The next-ranked violation was that the second floor bathroom was out-of-order. The bathroom also presented a lesser sanitary issue, which was that the shower curtain and shower stall were dirty with soap scum. Based on the foregoing uncorrected deficiencies, Mr. Phelan caused an administrative complaint to be issued against Respondent on March 24, 2003, alleging Respondent's violation of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. Although it was demonstrated at hearing that Mr. Clark, Respondent's principal, had been attempting, between the two inspections, to fix the originally-cited deficiencies, and although some progress at renovation had been made, most problems had not been fully addressed as of the date of the follow-up inspection on March 10, 2003. The credible evidence and testimony as a whole show that Mr. Phelan had recognized that a gas heater which had been cited at the initial inspection had been disconnected by the date of the second inspection and that it was no longer in use at the time of the second inspection. Therefore, the gas heater had been crossed off the notification to Respondent by Mr. Phelan and had not been cited as a violation in the administrative complaint. The stove also had been disconnected prior to the re-inspection. The gas heater and gas stove were disconnected at the same time, so propping the stove door open or closed with a spade had no significance with regard to fire hazard. Like the heater, the stove should have been removed from the premises as a safety precaution, but because Mr. Phelan did not know that the stove had been disconnected when he made his re-inspection, it was cited and included in the administrative complaint. The reason the disconnected stove was still present on the premises was because Respondent was fumigating for roaches by setting off "roach bombs" inside it. The fumigation of the roaches in an area where all other exit holes for them were intentionally sealed had resulted in some dead roaches, but many live roaches had fled into the kitchen in the vicinity of the stove. The live roaches were observed by all the witnesses who saw the kitchen on or about the re-inspection date. The testimony of several witnesses was credible that the upstairs bathroom's sink and tub had been repaired prior to the re-inspection. Mr. Musselwhite recalled credibly that he had screwed the faucet handles back on the tub between the two inspections. However, the testimony of Mr. Musselwhite that he was using the tub and sink upstairs at the time of the re- inspection is not credible. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that the tub and sink upstairs might have been repaired, but they were not actually in working order at the time of the March 10, 2003, re-inspection, because the water had not yet been turned back on. The evidence is clear that plaster board had been installed in the shower by the date of the re-inspection and that this was done to deal with the prior notice concerning discoloration. A dispute among the witnesses as to whether the discoloration on the old shower walls was soap scum, discoloration by scum removers, or mildew cannot be resolved. However, it was proven that, despite several changes of shower curtains between the two inspections, the shower curtains present on the re-inspection date remained covered with soap scum and/or mildew. Respondent admitted that the lack of a mattress pad on the mattress in room 17 on the date of re-inspection was an oversight. It was proven that a mattress from a first floor room had been moved upstairs to room 17. In the opinion of Respondent's witnesses, this constituted, a "new" mattress which was not stained. In this situation, Mr. Phelan's observation of the mattress stain is more credible. On his first inspection, Mr. Phelan told Mr. Clark that in the absence of other documentation, Mr. Clark needed to have the State Fire Marshall inspect Respondent's smoke detectors, in order to provide documentation that they were interconnected. By "interconnectedness" the parties meant that if one smoke detector sounded, then all of the smoke detectors throughout the hotel should also sound. Mr. McGee and Mr. Clark testified that between the two inspections the issue of the smoke detectors had been "looked into" with employees of Home Depot and at the local fire department. Mr. Clark stated that he had contacted the Jacksonville Fire Department, which would not give him any documentation, but its employees agreed to come and inspect his smoke detectors. Mr. Clark testified convincingly that he had purchased and installed smoke detectors from the Home Depot which did not provide written documentation of interconnectedness but which could be tested for interconnectedness by pushing their buttons. He maintained that if the inspector had punched the button on any single smoke detector on the re-inspection date, the interconnectedness of all the smoke detectors would have been demonstrated by their all "going off" at once. The inspectors did not punch the smoke detectors' buttons during the two inspections because they could not reach the buttons, as they had no ladders. Respondent was written-up by DHR on both occasions because written documentation of interconnectedness was not provided and because interconnectedness was not otherwise demonstrated. In other words, Respondent provided neither papers showing interconnectedness nor a physical demonstration of interconnectedness during the second inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, shall enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 509.221(1) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(5) and (6), and 61C-3.001(2), and not guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.004(13); Ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,500.00, due and payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, within 30 days of the final order; Requiring Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program class within 60 days of the date of the final order and provide proof thereof to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants; and Requiring that Respondent pass a re-inspection of its premises within the same 60 days set out in (3), above. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 2004.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's proposed award of four contracts to Intervenor Piper Fire Protection, Inc., is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications, pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether Respondent's identification of Intervenor Interstate Fire Systems, Inc., as the next lowest responsive bidder for one of the contracts is also contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications.
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 2002, Respondent issued an invitation to bid under the bid title, "Life Safety Equipment Inspection, Maintenance & Repair Services" (ITB). ITB Section 6.1 provides that Respondent will award a contract to the "responsive, responsible bidder" with the lowest bid; thus, the ITB does not contain business criteria on which responsive bids of responsible bidders are evaluated. ITB Section 2.1 states: "Life Safety Equipment inspection, maintenance and repair services have, in the past, been procured by the individual institution or facility or handled in-house." Electing to centralize the procurement of these services, Respondent "has decided to competitively bid for life safety equipment inspection services by region." ITB Section 2.3 discloses that Respondent intends to contract with a single vendor in each geographical region. ITB Section 2.2 states: The successful bidder/contractor shall provide Life Safety Equipment inspection, maintenance and repair services for the following items . . .: Annual Fire Alarm System inspection, testing, repair and maintenance. Fire Extinguisher six (6) year recharge and maintenance, twelve (12) year recharge and hydrostatic testing, and fire extinguisher replacement. Semi-Annual Kitchen Fire Suppression Systems testing, inspection and maintenance. Annual Sprinkler Systems inspection, repair and maintenance. Kitchen Exhaust Hood Cleaning on an as- needed basis with a minimum of twice annually. ITB Section 3.1.1 states that the selected contractor shall provide "Life Safety Equipment inspection, maintenance and repair services on the following equipment: Fire Alarm Systems, Kitchen Fire Suppression Systems, Sprinkler Systems and Kitchen Hoods." Section 3.1.1 requires that the "Contractor shall be licensed" under Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. ITB Section 3.7.3 states: "The Contractor's staff shall be fully trained and certified to perform the inspection, maintenance and repair of the equipment specified in this ITB. Acceptable proof of certification shall be in accordance with Chapter 633, Florida Statutes." Chapter 633, Florida Statutes, enumerates the responsibilities of the State Fire Marshall, Department of Insurance. In general, the State Fire Marshall has complete licensing and disciplinary jurisdiction over commercial suppliers of the activities described in subparagraphs 2-4 of paragraph 3, above. Under Section 633.70(1), the State Fire Marshall has nonexclusive jurisdiction over certain violations by alarm system contractors (as used in this recommended order, "alarm system contractors" shall include electrical contractors authorized to perform alarm system services). Although not addressed by the ITB, except possibly the first sentence of Section 3.7.3, alarm system contractors are under the licensing and disciplinary jurisdiction of the Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, pursuant to, respectively, Sections 489.511 and 489.533(2), Florida Statutes. Licensing and disciplinary jurisdiction for the cleaning of kitchen exhaust hood systems in correctional institutions is unclear, but Respondent's Rule 33-20.4003(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code, adopts Rule 64E-11.008(4), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that kitchen ventilation systems comply with applicable fire prevention systems. In contrast to ITB Section 3, which describes the scope of services, ITB Section 4 sets forth the provisions governing the procurement process. ITB Section 4.3.6 states: "The Department will reject any and all bids not meeting mandatory responsiveness requirements. In addition, the Department will reject any and all bids containing material deviations." ITB Section 4.3.6.1 defines "mandatory responsiveness requirements" as "[t]erms, conditions or requirements that must be met by the bidder/contractor to be responsive to this ITB. These responsiveness requirements are mandatory. Failure to meet these responsiveness requirements will cause rejection of a bid." ITB Section 4.3.6.2 defines "material deviations" as: The Department has established certain requirements with respect to bids to be submitted by bidder/contractor. The use of shall, must or will (except to indicate simple futurity) in this ITB indicates a requirement or condition which may not be waived by the Department. A deviation is material if, in the Department's sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this ITB's requirements, provides an advantage to one bidder over other bidders, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items or services bid, or on the cost to the Department. Material deviations cannot be waived and shall be the basis for rejection of a bid. ITB Section 4.3.6.3 defines "minor irregularities" as: A variation from the ITB terms and conditions which does not affect the price of the bid or give the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other bidders or does not adversely impact the interests of the Department. ITB Section 4.3.9 states: All bidders planning to submit a bid must submit a letter stateing this intent by the date and time specified in the "Calendar of Events" (Section 4.2). This letter may be e-mailed, mailed, faxed or hand delivered; however, the bidder should confirm receipt of the notice of intent in order to ensure continued receipt of procurement materials. Section 4.3.10 adds that Respondent will mail addenda to the ITB "only to those bidders submitting a Letter of Intent to Bid." ITB Section 5.1 identifies four "mandatory responsiveness requirements." Section 5.1.1 requires the bidder to supply an original and one copy of the bid. Section 5.1.2 requires a duly authorized person to sign the supplemental bid sheets. Section 5.1.3 requires the bidder to sign and deliver an acknowledgement of contractual services. Section 5.1.4 requires the bidder to sign an acknowledged certification of six conditions: "business/corporate experience," "authority to legally bind the bidder," "acceptance of terms and conditions," "statement of no involvement," "nondiscrimination statement," and "unauthorized employment of alien workers statement." ITB Section 5.1.4.1 details the requirements of the "business/corporate experience" certification: A statement certifying that the bidder/contractor has business/corporate experience of at least three (3) years relevant to the provision of life safety equipment services as defined herein, within the last five (5) years. The reference in Section 5.1.4.1 to "life safety equipment services as defined herein" is not to an explicit definition of such services in the ITB. A restatement of Section 5.1.4.1 in the attachments omits "as defined herein." ITB Section 1.6 defines "Life Safety Equipment Inspection, Maintenance and Repair Services" as: "The inspection, maintenance and repair of fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, sprinkler systems and the cleaning of kitchen exhaust hoods." Petitioner and Intervenors timely submitted bids. Petitioner and Intervenor Piper Fire Protection, Inc. (Piper), submitted bids for all four geographical regions into which Respondent divided Florida. Intervenor Interstate Fire Systems, Inc. (Interstate), submitted a bid only for one geographical region. Petitioner and Piper timely submitted letters of intent to bid, but Interstate never submitted such a letter. Determining that Petitioner and Intervenors' bids were all responsive, Respondent selected Piper's bids for all four geographical regions as the lowest bids. Petitioner submitted the second-lowest bid for three regions and, for the fourth region, Petitioner submitted the third-lowest bid; Interstate submitted the second-lowest bid for this region. Petitioner timely submitted its notice of intent to protest and written protest. Petitioner and Intervenors have standing to participate in this case. Petitioner contends that Piper's bid, which includes an executed certificate of business/corporate experience, was not responsive because Piper lacked the requisite business/corporate experience. Petitioner contends that Interstate's bid was not responsive because Interstate failed to submit a letter of intent to bid. For three of the last five years, Piper presents the requisite experience only in sprinkler systems, not in fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, or kitchen fire suppression systems. By contrast, Petitioner, which has been in the fire- safety business for over a century, has the requisite experience in all of these items. As used in ITB Section 5.1.4.1, the "provision of life safety services as defined herein" requires consideration of the definition, at ITB Section 1.6, of "life safety equipment inspection, maintenance and repair services" as the "inspection, maintenance and repair of fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, sprinkler systems and the cleaning of kitchen exhaust hoods." Obviously, Section 1.6 applies the activities of inspecting, maintaining, and repairing only to fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, and sprinkler systems. Not only does it not make sense to inspect, maintain, and repair the "cleaning of kitchen exhaust hoods," but ITB Section 3.1.6 limits the scope of work for kitchen exhaust systems to cleaning. The scope of services for kitchen exhaust hoods is thus considerably narrower than the scope of services for the other items. Kitchen exhaust hoods differ from the other items in another important respect. Although, among these items, only the kitchen exhaust hood is a significant source of fire, the licensing regime imposed on the inspecting, maintaining, and repairing of the other items is considerably more elaborate than the licensing scheme imposed upon the cleaning of kitchen exhaust hoods--likely due to the relative degrees of difficulty involved in the two sets of tasks. As confirmed by the testimony of its witness responsible for preparing the ITB, Respondent did not intend to allow a bidder with three-of-the-last-five years' experience in cleaning kitchen exhaust hoods to satisfy this responsiveness criterion solely on the basis of this experience. A close reading of the ITB supports this intention. As noted above, the language of the ITB and common sense justify different treatment for the cleaning of kitchen exhaust hoods than for the inspecting, maintaining, and repairing of the fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, and sprinkler systems. Perhaps most importantly, the responsiveness criterion addresses only life safety equipment. Fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, and sprinkler systems are examples of equipment whose sole purpose is life safety. The purpose of a kitchen exhaust hood is not life safety, but kitchen ventilation. A clean kitchen exhaust hood eliminates a source of fire, but is not, in itself, a form a life safety equipment. The heading of Section 1.6 describes the inspecting, maintaining, and repairing of fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, and sprinkler systems; the cleaning of kitchen exhaust hoods appears to have been an addition--perhaps a late one--by someone who gave little thought to the effect of this apparently innocuous clause on the grammar or title of Section 1.6 and, thus, the meaning of Section 5.1.4.1. Even though the ITB precludes a bidder's reliance on cleaning kitchen exhaust hoods to meet the criterion of business/corporate experience, the more difficult question remains whether a bidder must present experience across the entire range of remaining items, or whether a bidder may present experience limited to one or fewer than all of the remaining items. As noted above, by regulatory regimes, a line of possible demarcation exists between fire alarm systems, on the one hand, and fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, and sprinkler systems, on the other hand. Additionally, the fire-alarm system is a detection system, and the remaining items are fire-fighting devices or systems. However, Piper's sole qualifying experience is in one of the fire-fighting systems, so this case does not directly raise the question of the sufficiency of otherwise-qualifying experience in only a fire-detection system. Section 5.1.4.1 speaks in a general tone. First, the actual requirement is in services--the services here are inspecting, maintaining, and repairing. Second, the extent of the qualifying experience is left open. During the qualifying three years, the bidder needs only "experience." The ITB does not require exclusive experience, nor does it require even substantial experience. Arguably, part-time experience would suffice. Third, the ITB does not qualify the kind of "life safety equipment" for which service experience is required. Given the tone of the relatively relaxed responsiveness requirement, the Administrative Law Judge chooses "any" rather than "all" as a fairer word to precede "life safety equipment." (The close linkage among inspecting, maintaining, and repairing, as compared to the loose linkage among fire alarm systems, fire extinguishers, kitchen fire suppression systems, and sprinkler systems, strongly suggests that the meaningful distinction is not among the types of services, but rather among the types of equipment receiving services.) The fairest reading of the ITB thus allows a bidder to satisfy the responsiveness criterion with qualifying experience in only sprinkler systems, as Piper has done. Although it is unnecessary to address the contention regarding Interstate, the requirement of filing a letter of intent to bid was clearly to assure that the prospective bidder would receive copies of bid materials, such as addenda. The testimony of Petitioner's witness that Petitioner's "knowledge" that Interstate, a strong competitor, was not going to submit a bid allowed Petitioner more latitude in setting a price is outweighed by the evidence of the purpose of this requirement, as set forth in the ITB and the deposition testimony of one of Respondent's witness, as well as the lower bid of Piper.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Corrections enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Petitioner and awarding the contract to Piper. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 7th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Moore, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563 Don O'Lone, Business Manager Piper Fire Protection, Inc. Post office Box 9005 Largo, Florida 33771 Susan P. Stephens, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Karen D. Walker, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael A. Wester Interstate Fire System, Inc. 1451 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the licenses of two public lodging establishments and against an individual alleged to have operated a public lodging establishment without a license, on the basis of allegations set forth in three separate Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent Fountain View Hotel (Fountain View) was a public lodging establishment, license number 60-00163-H, located at 5617 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Lawrence Joseph Vavala (Inspector Vavala) was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist (Inspector). Catherine Driscoll (Supervisor Driscoll) was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Supervisor. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala inspected the Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging service rules, all of which he marked on his lodging service inspection report of April 17, 2000. On April 17, 2000, when Inspector Vavala performed an inspection on Fountain View, he observed that the smoke detectors were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4 in the front building. This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed that there were no portable fire extinguishers installed in the back building on either landing on either floor. Further, there was no fire extinguisher on the first floor, bottom landing, in the front building. In public lodging establishments, fire extinguishers are required to be within 75 feet of potential fire hazards. There was a fire extinguisher in the hallway on the second floor, but it had not been inspected since September 1994. Fire extinguishers are required to be inspected annually. These violations are critical in that they endanger the lives and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed evidence of rodent droppings in the water heater room on the south side of the building and cockroaches in the kitchen cabinets of Apartment 4. These are critical violations in that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. During his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed electrical wiring in disrepair in Apartments 3 and 4. Wires were hung through a window out to the back porch, simply hanging by cord and socket. These are critical violations in that someone could be injured by the wiring. Further, in being exposed to the outside elements, it could cause shortage and fire. These are critical violations in that they endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed that the cooking stove was inoperable in Apartment 4 and the air conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. This is a critical violation because tenants may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. Inspector Vavala also observed that the air conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed the locks were inoperable on the kitchen door to the outside stairway in Apartment 3. This is a critical violation in that if the door could not be locked, an intruder could enter the premises and take property or physically harm an individual inside the apartment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed a broken window at the front door of the front apartment; the ceiling on top of the stairwell in the front of the building had a hole through the roof; a hole was in the stucco on the west side of the front building; a window was in disrepair on the west side of the front building; windows were boarded up on the west side of the building; stucco was missing on the south side of the front building; a window was broken on the lower floor of the front building on the south side; a window was in disrepair, and one window was broken on the lower floor of the front building on the east side; stucco was cracked on the north side of the exterior wall of the back building; the door frame was rotting at Apartment 6 in the back building; a window was broken on the north side of the back building at Apartment 6; there were holes in the wall and ceiling of the water heater room on the south side of the back building; a window was broken on the south side of the back building on the second floor; and the cross face on the west side of the front building and on the east side of the front building was not enclosed. Further, he observed excessive debris outside apartments around the building, a broken soda machine on the north side of the back building was falling over, and the refrigeration units in it could contaminate the ground water; he observed a rusting LP gas tank from a barbecue which, when left outside, will rust through the tank and release the gas in the air, which would endanger the health and welfare of persons in the area; there were cars lying around and the oil from those could contaminate the ground water. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 4, Inspector Vavala observed kitchen cabinets in disrepair; tile was chipped, broken, and missing on the kitchen floor; there was a hole in the wall of the living area; the window operating assembly was in disrepair allowing the windows to either remain in a stuck open or stuck closed position; the clamps no longer worked on the window; the wood framing around a window air conditioner was rotting and had a hole below it; the plaster was cracked and chipping in the bathroom; there was a hole in the wall above the tub in the shower stall; a hole was in the wall behind the toilet in the bathroom; and the carpet was stained and unclean in the living area. The poor condition of the kitchen cabinets, the holes in the wall of the living room and bathroom, and the broken, chipped and missing tile could harbor rodents and bugs and nesting vermin. The rotting frame and hole in the wall underneath could allow the air conditioner, which was located on the second floor, to fall and endanger lives of persons beneath the window. Further, the hole in the wall allowed pests and vermin to enter the apartment. The window operating assembly which would not allow the windows to open was dangerous should there be a fire or other disaster blocking other exits to the apartment. The window operating assembly, which would not allow the windows to close, allows the outside elements to enter the apartment during inclement weather causing further deterioration to the apartments and personal belongings of tenants. The cracked and chipped plaster in the bathroom would not allow adequate cleaning which contributes to poor sanitation. The dirty carpet in the living area could be harboring insects, mold and mildew. The violations observed in Apartment 4 affect the health and safety of its tenants. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 3, Inspector Vavala observed the ceiling stained in the back bedroom, reflecting leaking water damage; the ceiling plaster cracked in the back bedroom; broken and missing tiles in the kitchen, exposing plywood; kitchen cabinets that were in disrepair; an inoperative assembly in a shower stall window; all the window operating assemblies in the middle bedroom in disrepair; a closet door in disrepair in the middle bedroom; a sink was falling off the wall in the bathroom; there was a hole in the wall under the toilet in the bathroom; and backflow prevention was not provided on exterior hose bins. The violations observed in Apartment 4 endangered the health and safety of its tenants. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala observed that the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999, and 2000. On May 2, 2000, an Administrative Complaint was issued against the Respondent Fountain View Hotel which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-185 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2949 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. On April 8, 1999, one year prior to the violations enumerated in paragraphs 5 through 15 above, Supervisor Driscoll and Inspector Paul Landmann, inspected the same Fountain View Hotel described above. Numerous violations observed during the April 8, 1999, inspection were still not corrected on April 17, 2000. On February 23, 2000, Supervisor Driscoll made a follow-up inspection of the same Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging service rules, all of which she marked on the lodging service inspection report of February 23, 2000. On April 8, 1999, the Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Joseph Sansalone d/b/a Fountain View Hotel (Sansalone) which was docketed as Case No. 2-99-79 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-3040 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. At all times material hereto, Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments (Lamplighter) was a public lodging establishment, license number 60-00167-H, located at 433 40th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala, observed that there were no fire extinguishers located anywhere on the premises. This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed rodent droppings in an upstairs apartment in the back building and in the storage shed adjacent to the back building. This is a critical violation in that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that there was no cover on the wall socket at the top of the stairs in the front building, and that cover plates were missing on the electrical sockets on the outside receptacle on the outside of the front area. This violation is critical because the health and safety of children are endangered because children could stick their fingers in the outlets and be electrocuted. Further Inspector Vavala observed a soda machine plugged into an outlet on the outside which was exposed to the elements, which could also be a potential danger to the health and welfare of persons in the vicinity. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that the stairway in the rear of the building and the back building on the east side was in disrepair. These are critical violations because it would not be safe to evacuate the rear building from the stairwells, in case of fire or other emergency. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed windows broken on the first and second floors of the front building on the south side; broken windows on the first and second floor of the front building on the east side; a broken window on the lower floor of the front building on the north side; a broken window on the door to the downstairs apartment in the back building; and a broken window on the east side of the back building on the second floor. These are violations because there is sharp glass exposed and no protection from the outside against vermin or the elements. He also observed stucco falling off the exterior wall of the front building on the north side; doors falling off the storage shed at the back of the building, adjacent to the living establishment, which harbored vermin; and a hole in the roof of the storage shed attached to the back of the building. The crawl space under the front building on the south side and under the front building on the north side was not enclosed; screens were ripped on the north side of the front building on the first floor and on the west side of the front building, which would allow insects to enter the establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed a second floor hurricane shutter broken in the down position. This broken shutter would not allow evacuation through the window in case of fire or other emergency. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed a door missing at the upstairs apartment on the back building, and the ceiling was falling in the kitchen and family room in an upstairs back apartment. The apartment appeared to be unoccupied; however, it would endanger the health and welfare of the tenants if it was occupied. Further, the missing door would allow children playing in the area to enter the apartment where the ceiling is falling, which could result in serious injury to a child. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed an excessive amount of debris in and around the premises, including a refrigerator in an unused condition that still had the door attached which could be a hazard to children that lived in the establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed inoperable kitchen appliances located in the upstairs back building. These are critical violations because individuals may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed that lighting was not provided in the hallway staircase in the front building. This is a critical violation because the unlighted area endangers the health and safety of tenants of the establishment. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala also observed that the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999, and 2000. On May 2, 2000, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-186 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2950 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, located at 433 40th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, and the Fountain View Hotel, located at 516 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, are owned by Americorp Mortgage Co., Inc., whose president is Joseph D. Sansalone.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent Fountain View Hotel is guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Fountain View Hotel consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation of its license. Concluding that the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments is guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation of its license. Concluding that the Respondent Joseph Sansalone is guilty of operating a public lodging establishment at the premises of the Fountain View Hotel during April of 1999 without a then-current license for that establishment, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Joseph Sansalone consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 18th day of January, 2001.
