04-000692RP Gold Coast School Of Construction, Inc., And Douglas L. Gamester vs. Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Wednesday, June 30, 2004.

Summary: Petitioner had standing to challenge net-worth rule as applicable to trades for which Petitioner offered pre-licensing courses. Petitioner proved existing and prior net-worth rules for these trades modified, enlarged, and contravened the law implemented.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GOLD COAST SCHOOL OF )

CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND DOUGLAS )

L. GAMESTER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 0692RP

)

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND )

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, )

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING )

BOARD, )

)

Respondent. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing in

Tallahassee, Florida, on April 5, 2 004.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Timothy P. Atkinson

Segundo J. Fernandez

Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A.

Post Office Box 1110

Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Diane L. Guillemette

Lee Ann Gustafson

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Suite PL - 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

STATEMENT O F THE ISSUES

The issues are whether the existing and proposed provisions

of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 15.005, as identified

in the next paragraph, are invalid exercises of delegated

legislative authority.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Petition for Administrative Determination of the

Invalidity of an Existing Rule and Proposed Rule filed

February 27, 2004, Petitioners challenged existing Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 15.005(3)(a) and changes to this

rule proposed by Respondent on February 6, 2004, in Florida

Administrative Weekly , Volume 30, Number 6. Florida

Administrative Code Rule 60G4 - 15.005(3)(a) imposes net - worth

requirements upon persons seeking certification as contractors.

As amended, Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 15.003(3) (a)

would raise the net - worth requirements imposed on general and

building contractors from $20,000 each to $80,000 and $40,000,

respectively, and would raise the net - worth requirements imposed

on other contractors by lesser amounts.

The petition allege s that Petitioner Gold Coast School of

Construction, Inc., is a school for individuals seeking to

become certified or registered contractors. The petition

alleges that the proposed increases in net worth will adversely

affect Gold Coast's substantial inte rests by reducing the

student pool due to the reduced number of students who will be

able to meet the increased net - worth requirements.

The petition alleges that Petitioner Douglas L. Gamester

has applied to Respondent for his general contractor's

certifi cate. The petition alleges that Mr. Gamester has already

passed the required examination and is substantially affected by

the proposed rule because he will be unable to meet the

increased net - worth requirements.

The petition alleges that the existing and proposed rule

provisions are invalid because Respondent has exceeded its grant

of rulemaking authority; the existing and proposed rule

provisions enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific

provisions of law implemented; and the proposed rule is

arbitrary or capricious. (At the hearing, Petitioners withdrew

their allegations that the existing and proposed rule provisions

impose regulatory costs that could be reduced by the adoption of

less costly alternatives that would accomplish substantially the

statut ory objectives.)

The petition also requests reasonable costs and attorneys'

fees, pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes.

At the hearing, Petitioners called four witnesses and

offered into evidence four exhibits: Petitioners Exhibits 1 - 4.

R espondent called two witnesses and offered into evidence no

exhibits. All exhibits were admitted.

The court reporter filed the transcript on April 20, 2004.

The parties filed their proposed final orders on April 30, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petition er Gold Coast School of Construction, Inc.

(Gold Coast), engages in the business of offering courses to

individuals who seek to become certified or registered

contractors in Florida. Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses

for prospective general contracto rs, building contractors,

residential contractors, Class A air conditioning contractors,

Class B air conditioning contractors, Class C air conditioning

contractors, and roofing contractors. Enrollment in these

classes ranges from 200 - 600 students annually .

2. For the trades in which Gold Coast offers prelicensing

courses, Gold Coast is substantially affected by the proposed

rule, which would substantially raise the net - worth requirements

imposed on prospective contractors, reduce the number of persons

who could qualify for certification, and reduce the number of

persons who would enroll in Gold Coast's prelicensing courses.

3. Petitioner Douglas L. Gamester (Gamester) has passed

the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Respondent)

examination for ce rtification as a general contractor. After he

filed his rule challenge, Respondent granted him a general

contractor's certificate and approved his qualification of a

business entity. Gamester is not substantially affected by the

rule or proposed changes to the rule. Although Gamester may, in

the future, attempt to obtain other contracting certificates in

other trades, any finding of such plans at present would be

based entirely on speculation.

4. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 15.005 provides:

6 1G4 - 15.005 Requirements for Certification

and Registration.

In order that the Board may carry out its

statutory duty to investigate the financial

responsibility, credit, and business

reputation of a new applicant for

certification or registration or a ch ange of

status of a certification or registration,

an applicant shall be required to forward

the following to the Department for a review

by the Board:

(1) A credit report from any nationally

recognized credit agency as defined in

subsections 61G4 - 12. 011(13) and (14), F.A.C.

(2) A financial statement, not older than

12 months, which shall contain information

indicating the current assets, current

liabilities, total assets, total

liabilities, and total net worth, and which

shall report all material financial changes

occurring between the date of the financial

statement and the date of the application.

(3) As a prerequisite to issuance of a

certificate, an applicant shall, in addition

to the submissions required in subsections

(1) and (2) above, submit competent,

substantial evidence to the Florida

Construction Industry Licensing Board

demonstrating the following:

(a) Net worth as listed below for the

following categories of contractors:

1. General Contractor, $20,000;

2. B uilding Contractor, $20,000;

3. Residential Contractor, $20,000;

4. Sheet Metal Contractor, $10,000;

5. Roofing Contractor, $10,000;

6. Class A Air Conditioning

Contractor, $10,000;

7. Class B Air Conditioning

Contra ctor, $10,000;

8. Class C Air Conditioning

Contractor, $10,000;

9. Mechanical Contractor, $10,000;

10. Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor,

$10,000;

11. Residential Pool/Spa Contractor,

$10,000;

12. Swimming Pool/Spa Serv icing

Contractor, $2,500;

13. Plumbing Contractor, $10,000;

14. Underground Utility and

Excavation Contractor, $10,000;

15. Solar Contractor, $10,000;

16. Residential Solar Water Heating

Specialty Contractor, $2,500;

17. Specialty Structure Contractor,

$10,000;

18. Pollutant Storage System

Specialty Contractor, $10,000;

19. Gypsum Drywall Specialty

Contractor, $2,500;

20. Gas Line Specialty Contractor,

$10,000; or

21. Glass and Glazing Specialty

Contractor, $10,000.

(b) Possession of either a letter of

credit or a compliance bond established to

reimburse the appropriate parties for

diversion of funds, abandonment, and all

other statutory violations, said instruments

to be issued i n the same license

classification to dollar ratio listed in

paragraph (a), above. The aforementioned

instruments are not to be construed as

performance bonds.

(c) Net worth shall be defined to

require a showing for all contractor

licensure categori es that the applicant has

a minimum of 50 percent (%) of the amount in

cash.

(d) Cash shall be defined to include

a line of credit.

5. On February 6, 2004, Respondent published in the

Florida Administrative Weekly , Volume 30, Number 6, proposed

changes to Florida Administrative Code 61G4 - 15.005(3)(a), so

that the new net - worth requirements would be as follows (new

language is underlined and old language is stricken):

(a) Net worth as listed below for the

following categories of contractors:

1. General Contractor, $ 80,000

20,000 ;

2. Building Contractor, $ 40,000

20,000 ;

3. Residential Contractor, $20,000;

4. Sheet Metal Contractor, $ 20,000

10,000 ;

5. Roofing Contractor, $ 20,000

10,000 ;

6. Class A Air Conditioning

Contractor, $ 20,000 10,000 ;

7. Class B Air Conditioning

Contractor, $ 20,000 10,000 ;

8. Class C Air Conditioning

Contractor, $ 20,000 10,000 ;

9. Mechanical Contractor, $ 20,000

10,000 ;

10. Commercial Pool/Spa Contr actor,

$ 20,000 10,000 ;

11. Residential Pool/Spa Contractor,

$ 20,000 10,000 ;

12. Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing

Contractor, $ 10,000 2,500 ;

13. Plumbing Contractor, $ 20,000

10,000 ;

14. Underground Utility and

Excavation Contracto r, $ 20,000 10,000 ;

15. Solar Contractor, $ 20,000

10,000 ;

16. Residential Solar Water Heating

Specialty Contractor, $ 5,000 2,500 ;

17. Specialty Structure Contractor,

$ 20,000; 10,000 ;

18. Pollutant Storage System

Specialty Con tractor, $ 20,000 ; 10,000 ;

19. Gypsum Drywall Specialty

Contractor, $ 5,000 ; 2,500 ;

20. Gas Line Specialty Contractor,

$ 20,000 10,000 ; or [sic].

6. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, divides

contractors into Division I and Division II. Division I

contractors are general, building, and residential contractors.

Division II contractors are all other contractors.

7. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, defines Division

I contractors as follows:

(a) "General contractor" means a contrac tor

whose services are unlimited as to the type

of work which he or she may do, who may

contract for any activity requiring

licensure under this part, and who may

perform any work requiring licensure under

this part, except as otherwise expressly

provided in s. 489.113.

(b) "Building contractor" means a

contractor whose services are limited to

construction of commercial buildings and

single - dwelling or multiple - dwelling

residential buildings, which commercial or

residential buildings do not exceed three

s tories in height, and accessory use

structures in connection therewith or a

contractor whose services are limited to

remodeling, repair, or improvement of any

size building if the services do not affect

the structural members of the building.

(c) "Reside ntial contractor" means a

contractor whose services are limited to

construction, remodeling, repair, or

improvement of one - family, two - family, or

three - family residences not exceeding two

habitable stories above no more than one

uninhabitable story and acc essory use

structures in connection therewith.

8. In contrast to building and residential contractors, a

general contractor is unlimited in the scope of work that he or

she may under take, subject to Section 489.113(3), Florida

Statutes, which requires a contractor to subcontract out

electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming

pool, and air conditioning work, unless the contractor is

certified or registered in the particular trade.

9. Building contractors may undertake work on r esidential

or commercial structures not more than three stories high, and

residential contractors may undertake work on limited

residential structures not more than two stories high. Although

Petitioners identify various small jobs that require a general

contractor's certificate or registration, such as the

construction of small communications towers, balcony repairs in

parking garages, and door repairs in high - rise apartments, the

record generally supports the finding that the scope of jobs

undertaken by general contractors is more extensive than the

scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors, and the scope

of jobs undertaken by building contractors is more extensive

than the scope of jobs undertaken by residential contractors.

10. This case involve s one of the requirements imposed on

persons seeking to become certified as contractors in specific

trades. Certification is distinct from registration. Section

489.105(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, defines "certificate" as a

certificate of competency is sued by Respondent and a "certified

contractor" as a contractor who may practice anywhere in the

state. Section 489.105(9) and (10), Florida Statutes, defines

"registration" as registration with Respondent and a "registered

contractor" as a contractor who may practice only in the local

jurisdiction for which the registration is issued.

11. Section 489.115(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits any

person from engaging in the practice of contracting without

first obtaining a certificate or registration in the app ropriate

trade.

12. Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes,

provides:

(b) In addition to the affidavit of

insurance, as a prerequisite to the initial

issuance of a certificate, the applicant

shall furnish a credit report from a

nationally reco gnized credit agency that

reflects the financial responsibility of the

applicant and evidence of financial

responsibility, credit, and business

reputation of either himself or herself or

the business organization he or she desires

to qualify. The board sh all adopt rules

defining financial responsibility based upon

the applicant's credit history, ability to

be bonded, and any history of bankruptcy or

assignment of receivers. Such rules shall

specify the financial responsibility grounds

on which the board m ay refuse to qualify an

applicant for certification.

* * *

(6) An initial applicant shall, along with

the application, and a certificateholder or

registrant shall, upon requesting a change

of status, submit to th e board a credit

report from a nationally recognized credit

agency that reflects the financial

responsibility of the applicant or

certificateholder or registrant. The credit

report required for the initial applicant

shall be considered the minimum evidenc e

necessary to satisfy the board that he or

she is financially responsible to be

certified, has the necessary credit and

business reputation to engage in contracting

in the state, and has the minimum financial

stability necessary to avoid the problem of

fi nancial mismanagement or misconduct. The

board shall, by rule, adopt guidelines for

determination of financial stability

13. Although testimony at the hearing suggested that

"history of bankruptcy" meant an inability to generate

sufficient cash flow to pay debts owed, it is more likely that a

"history of bankruptcy" is a record of filing for bankruptcy.

Like the appointment of a receiver, the filing of a petition for

bankruptcy is an action that is easily detected, as opposed to

the inability to pay deb ts as they matured or the existence of

liabilities in excess of assets -- either of which, for most

natural persons, is difficult to determine, especially

historically.

14. The "credit report" mentioned in Section

489.115(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the "c redit report"

mentioned in Section 489.115(6), Florida Statutes, is the same

credit report. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 12.011(11)

and (12) defines the credit report as follows:

(11) A “credit report from a nationally

recognized credit agency t hat reflects the

financial responsibility of the applicant,

certificateholder or registrant”, shall for

the purposes of Section 489.115(6), F.S.,

mean a credit report that provides full,

accurate, current, and complete information

on the following items in a manner which

allows the Board to determine the credit

worthiness of the applicant:

(a) Payment history;

(b) Credit rating;

(c) Public filings in county, state and

federal courts;

(d) Bankruptcies, business history,

suits, liens, and jud gments, all on a

nationwide basis;

(e) Location of business, number of

years in business;

(f) Social security numbers, if

available, of all corporate officers, owners

and partners, and all federal employer

identification numbers, if available, held

by the applicant or any business entity that

he currently qualifies or is applying to

qualify; and

(g) UCC filings.

(12) A “nationally recognized credit

agency” shall mean a credit agency that:

(a) Obtains credit information both

within and out side the State of Florida;

(b) Validates, updates, and maintains

the accuracy of credit information obtained;

and

(c) Obtains credit reports from at least

two (2) credit bureaus.

15. The statutory requirement of a credit report focuses

upon an in dividual's creditworthiness, based on his or her use

or abuse of credit and payment history. The closest that these

statutes come to specifying net worth as a criterion of

certification are the requirements of "financial. . .

responsib[ility]" and "the mi nimum financial stability necessary

to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct,"

which is the cause of about 70 percent of all disciplinary

proceedings against contractors. However, these statutory

references guide Respondent in the aut horized use of the credit

report, which does not warrant the imposition of a net - worth

requirement. First, the credit report lacks net - worth

information. Second, the credit report presents a subject's

financial history -- most of which is of no use in esta blishing

the subject's present net worth.

16. In contrast to these provisions in Section

489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, Section 489.1195(1)(d),

Florida Statutes, expressly authorizes Respondent to adopt rules

imposing "net worth" and "cash” re quirements on individuals

seeking to qualify as financially responsible officers (FROs)

for construction businesses. The Legislature clearly evidenced

its ability to require net worth as a condition to certification

as an FRO, which are not involved in th is case, and obviously

elected not to impose as onerous a requirement upon contractors

themselves.

17. Respondent determined the new net - worth requirements

in the proposed rule by two means. Respondent had not changed

the net - worth requirements for Div ision II contractors for 20

years, so Respondent estimated that the effects of inflation

justified the increases set forth in the proposed rule.

Respondent had raised the net - worth requirements for Division I

contractors from $10,000 to $20,000 in 1998. Respondent derived

the new net - worth requirements for general and building

contractors based on estimates of weekly salaries for these

respective contractors, not inflation.

18. The present record contains no evidence of the rate of

inflation during any r elevant period of time, nor any evidence

of average weekly salaries paid by Division I contractors. Nor

does it appear that Respondent considered such data when

determining the new net - worth requirements in the proposed rule.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

19. The D ivision of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter. §§ 120.56 and 120.569

Fla. Stat. (2003).

20. Section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

"Any person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule

may seek an adm inistrative determination of the invalidity of

the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of

delegated legislative authority."

21. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, defines "invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority" as:

(8) "Invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority" means action which

goes beyond the powers, functions, and

duties delegated by the Legislature. A

proposed or existing rule is an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority

if any one of the f ollowing applies:

* * *

(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of

rulemaking authority, citation to which is

required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or

contravenes the specific provisions of law

implemented, citation to which is required

by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

* * *

(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious.

A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported

by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is

capricious if it is adopt ed without thought

or reason or is irrational[.]

A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary

but not sufficient to allow an agency to

adopt a rule; a specific law to be

implemented is also required. An agency may

adopt only rules that implement or inte rpret

the specific powers and duties granted by

the enabling statute. No agency shall have

authority to adopt a rule only because it is

reasonably related to the purpose of the

enabling legislation and is not arbitrary

and capricious or is within the agen cy's

class of powers and duties, nor shall an

agency have the authority to implement

statutory provisions setting forth general

legislative intent or policy. Statutory

language granting rulemaking authority or

generally describing the powers and

functions of an agency shall be construed to

extend no further than implementing or

interpreting the specific powers and duties

conferred by the same statute

22. Section 120.56(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that

hearings in rule challenges shall be de novo , a nd the standard

of proof shall be a preponderance of the evidence. Section

120.56(2), Florida Statutes, provides that, in challenges of

proposed rules, the agency has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence that the rule is not an invalid

exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections

established by the challenger. Section 120.56(3)(a), Florida

Statutes, provides that, in challenges of existing rules, the

challenger has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

evi dence that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

legislative authority.

23. Subject to one limitation, Gold Coast has standing to

challenge the existing and proposed rule provisions. See, e.g. ,

Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiro practic v.

Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic , 682 So. 2d 559 (Fla.

1st DCA 1995) (school had standing to challenge rule requiring

that licensure applicants show that school had certain

accreditation). As noted in Florida Board of Medicine v.

Florid a Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc. , 808 so. 2d 243, 251

(Fla. 1st DCA 2002), a party may have standing to challenge a

rule that does not regulate the party's profession, per se, but

has a "collateral financial impact on the challenger's

business." See al so Televisual Communications, Inc. v. Florida

Department of Labor and Employment Security , 667 So. 2d 372

(Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Department of Health and Rehabilitative

Services v. Alice P. , 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).

24. The limitation to Gold Co ast's standing is that it may

challenge only those existing and proposed rule provisions that

affect its enrollment in prelicensing courses. As previously

noted, Gold Coast offers such courses only in the Division I

trades and the following Division II tr ades: Class A air

conditioning contractors, Class B air conditioning contractors,

Class C air conditioning contractors, and roofing contractors.

Gold Coast has argued that its enrollment would be affected in

its broader range of continuing education cour ses, but this

argument is based on the mistaken premise that Respondent

imposes the net - worth requirements on contractors seeking to

renew their certificates at the end of the two - year term.

25. Gamester is not substantially affected by the existing

or pr oposed rule provisions.

26. Gold Coast has proved that Florida Administrative Code

Rule 61G4 - 15.005(3)(a) enlarges, modifies, or contravenes

existing law. The statutes provide Respondent with no authority

to impose net - worth requirements on persons seeki ng contractor

certificates.

27. Gold Coast has gone forward with the evidence to

identify its objections to the proposed Florida Administrative

Code Rule 61G4 - 15.005(3)(a) and its proposed new net - worth

requirements. Respondent has failed to prove that the proposed

provisions do not enlarge, modify, or contravene existing law.

Likewise, Respondent has failed to prove that the proposed

provisions are not arbitrary; the increased net worths lack

factual support both as to Division I and Division II

contr actors.

28. Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, provides:

If the court or administrative law judge

declares a proposed rule or portion of a

proposed rule invalid pursuant to s.

120.56(2), a judgment or order shall be

rendered against the agency for r easonable

costs and reasonable attorney's fees, unless

the agency demonstrates that its actions

were substantially justified or special

circumstances exist which would make the

award unjust. An agency's actions are

"substantially justified" if there was a

reasonable basis in law and fact at the time

the actions were taken by the agency. If

the agency prevails in the proceedings, the

court or administrative law judge shall

award reasonable costs and reasonable

attorney's fees against a party if the court

o r administrative law judge determines that

a party participated in the proceedings for

an improper purpose as defined by paragraph

(1)(e). No award of attorney's fees as

provided by this subsection shall exceed

$15,000.

29. If a proposed rule is invali dated, as here, the award

of attorneys' fees and costs under Section 120.595(2), Florida

Statutes, is mandatory, unless Respondent shows that its actions

were substantially justified or special circumstances exist

which would make the award unjust. The Ad ministrative Law Judge

reserves jurisdiction to conduct further proceedings pursuant to

Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes. If the parties are unable

to negotiate an agreement concerning Gold Coast's claim for

attorneys' fees and costs, then Gold Coast may file a request

for an evidentiary hearing on this matter. However, if Gold

Coast fails to file such a request within 120 days of this Final

Order, it shall have waived its right to pursue attorneys' fees

and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Flori da Statutes.

ORDER

It is

ORDERED that Gamester's rule challenge is dismissed for

lack of standing; Gold Coast's rule challenge is sustained and

Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4 - 15.005(3)(a)1, 2, 3, 5, 6,

7, and 8 and proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule

61G4 - 15.005(3)(a)1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are invalidated as

invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; the

remainder of Gold Coast's rule challenge is dismissed for lack

of standing; and the Administrative Law Judge reserves

jurisdict ion over Gold Coast's request for attorneys' fees and

costs, pursuant to Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, for

further proceedings, as described in paragraph 27 above.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2004, 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.do ah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 30th day of June, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Tim Vaccaro, Director

Construction Industry Licensing Board

Northwood Centre

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32 399 - 0792

Leon Biegalski, General Counsel

Department of Business and

Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

Timothy P. Atkinson, Esquire

Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A.

Post Office Box 1110

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1110

Diane L. Guillemette

Office of the Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

James E. Cunningham, President

Mid Florida Utilities & Transportation

Contractors Association, Inc.

231 West Bay Aven ue

Longwood, Florida 32750 - 4125

John K. Moyant, President

Contractors Exam School, Inc.

6750 Pembroke Road

Hollywood, Florida 33023

NOTICE OF RIGHT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this final order is

entitled to judicial revi ew. Review proceedings are governed by

the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are

commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the

agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a

second copy, accompanied by fi ling fees prescribed by law, with

the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the

District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the

party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30

days of rendition of the order to be revie wed.