95-005135 Ron Cochran, Broward County Sheriff vs. Division Of Retirement Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, July 30, 1998.

Summary: Five school crossing guards were employees of Petitioner until 10/1/93 and Intervenor from 10/1/93 until 1/97. Both Petitioner and Intervenor required to pay employer contributions and interest to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, )

) Case No. 95-5135

Respondent, )

)

and )

)

CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES, )

)

Intervenor. )

________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

on February 24, 25, and 27, 1997, and August 20, 1997, at Fort

Lauderdale, Florida, 1 before Errol H. Powell, a duly designated

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire

Christopher J. Whitelock, Esquire

Whitelock, Rodriguez & Williams, P.A.

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 601

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

For Respondent: Robert B. Button, Esquire

Division of Retirement

2639-D North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560

For Intervenor: James C. Brady, Esquire

Brady & Coker

1318 Southeast 2nd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for determination is whether five persons employed

as School Crossing Guards and working within the geographical

boundaries of the City of Lauderdale Lakes were employees of the

Petitioner and whether the five persons should have been enrolled

in the Florida Retirement System at the time of their employment

retroactive to as early as July 1, 1979.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated August 9, 1995, the Division of Retirement

(Respondent) reiterated to the Broward County Sheriff

(Petitioner) that the Respondent had previously notified the

Petitioner by letter dated July 13, 1994, that school crossing

guards assigned to the City of Lauderdale Lakes were determined

by the Respondent to be employees of the Petitioner.

Furthermore, the Respondent notified the Petitioner by the letter

dated August 9, 1995, that the same school crossing guards should

have been enrolled in the Florida Retirement System at the time

of their employment retroactive to as early as July 1, 1979. By

Petition for Formal Hearing, the Petitioner disputed the

Respondent's determination and requested a formal hearing. On

October 25, 1995, this matter was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings. By Order dated November 29, 1995, this

matter was scheduled for formal hearing to be held on April 15-

19, 1996. By Order dated January 12, 1996, the City of

Lauderdale Lakes (City) was allowed to intervene.

Numerous discovery motions were considered in this matter.

The formal hearing was continued and rescheduled numerous times.

The hearing was eventually held on February 24, 25, and 27, 1997,

but was not completed because of the necessity to continue the

testimony of one of Respondent's witnesses due to an emergency.

On August 20, 1997, the formal hearing was completed.

At hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of four

witnesses and entered 60 exhibits into evidence, 2 with five being

deposition testimony. Regarding one of Petitioner's exhibits,

Exhibit 15, Petitioner offered into evidence the uniform worn by

the school crossing guards. It was agreed that a photograph of

the uniform, instead of the actual uniform, would be admitted.

However, Petitioner has not, as yet, submitted the photograph,

which has been admitted into evidence, to the undersigned.

Also, at hearing, Respondent presented the testimony of six

witnesses and entered 14 exhibits into evidence. 3 The City

presented the testimony of two witnesses and entered 7 exhibits

into evidence. 4

A transcript of the formal hearing was ordered. At the

request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing

submissions was set for more than 10 days following the filing of

the transcript. An extension of time was granted for the filing

of post-hearing submissions. The parties filed post-hearing

submissions which have been duly considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The five school crossing guards in question are Michael

Cagnetto, Louis Goldberg, Kathy Heidinger, Morris Popkin, and

Frances Young. The school crossing guards worked within the

geographical boundaries of the City of Lauderdale Lakes (City).

2. The Broward County Sheriff (Petitioner) and the Division

of Retirement (Respondent) stipulate that the five school

crossing guards are employees. In its agency action letter,

Respondent maintains that the five school crossing guards are

employees of the Petitioner. Petitioner maintains that the five

school crossing guards are employees of the City.

3. The City does not join in the stipulation. The City

maintains that, if the five school crossing guards are employees,

they are not employees of the City.

4. No party presented evidence or suggested that the five

school crossing guards are employees of the Broward County School

Board, the Department of Transportation, or any other

governmental agency.

5. Among the school crossing guards in question, there is

no concensus as to whether they were employees of Petitioner or

of the City.

6. Beginning in February 1977, the City entered into a

series of "service agreements" for the Petitioner to provide

police services to the City. The initial service agreement was

entered into on February 18, 1977 (1977 Service Agreement). The

City did not request Petitioner to provide school crossing guard

service, and the position of school crossing guard was excluded

as a service to be provided to the City under the 1977 Service

Agreement. However, the 1977 Service Agreement provided further

that crossing guard service could be provided upon request from

the City. The 1977 Service Agreement provides in pertinent part:

ARTICLE IV. ADDITIONAL SERVICES

BSO [Broward County Sheriff's office] shall

provide to the CITY, upon the request of the

CITY, which request shall be made by

Resolution of the City Council stating the

necessity therefor, such additional services

as may from time to time, be needed in the

discretion of the CITY, which services shall

include, but not be limited to, crossing-

guard and school safety officers, license

inspection and enforcement and auxiliary

patrols for public events.

4.1 The cost of such services shall be borne

by the CITY and shall be payable in such

amounts and in such a manner as may be

determined by mutual agreement, upon each

occurrence.

* * *

ARTICLE V. EMPLOYMENT REPONSIBILITY

All persons employed by BSO in the

performance of such services, functions and

responsibilities as described and

contemplated herein for the CITY shall be and

remain BSO employees, and no one of such

persons shall be considered in the employ of

the CITY for the purpose of pension benefits,

insurance benefits, civil-service benefits,

compensation and/or any status or right.

Accordingly, the CITY shall not be called

upon to assume any liability for or direct

payment of any salaries, wages, or other

compensation, contributions to pension funds,

insurance premiums, workmen's compensation

funds (Chapter 441, FSA) vacation or

compensatory time, sick leave benefits or any

other amenities of employment to any SO

personnel performing services, duties and

responsibilities hereunder for the benefit of

said CITY and the residents thereof or any

other liabilities whatsoever, unless

otherwise specifically provided herein.

Likewise, unless specifically provided to the

contrary herein, the CITY shall not be liable

for compensation, contribution or indemnity

to BSO or the employees thereof for any

injury or illness, of any kind whatsoever,

arising out of such employment and the

performance of the services, duties and

responsibilities contemplated herein.

7. By Addendum, the 1977 Service Agreement was amended to

include the providing of school crossing guard services. A

resolution was passed on February 22, 1977, and the Addendum was

executed on February 28, 1977. The Addendum provides in

pertinent part:

ARTICLE II CROSSING-GUARD EMPLOYMENT;

RETENTION

BSO does hereby acknowledge that there is

currently employed by and in City six

crossing-guards. BSO shall, on the first day

of March, 1977, employ those crossing-guards

currently in the employ of CITY on the basis

of a nineteen (19) hour work week at the

current hourly rate of pay. Each of such

crossing-guards shall be uniformed in

accordance with BSO directive. CITY shall

reimburse BSO for the employment of each of

such crossing-guards at the rate of Three

Dollars and 82/100 ($3.82) Dollars per hour,

for each hour actually worked, to satisfy the

costs of salary and other expenses incident

to such employment; provided, however, that

each of such crossing-guards shall not be

employed in excess of a nineteen (19) hour

week.

2.1 The CITY does hereby reserve the right

to recommend persons to be employed as

crossing-guards.

2.2 BSO and CITY do each acknowledge that

the crossing-guard service is seasonal in

nature and dependent upon the specific local

needs of the community; therefore, CITY does

hereby reserve the right and BSO does hereby

acquiesce in CITY's right to specify, in

advance, the number of hours to be worked by

the crossing-guards and the crossings which

are to be manned by such crossing-guards;

provided, however, that such CITY

designations shall be made in writing.

The 1977 Addendum provided that crossing-guards would be employed

by Petitioner beginning March 1, 1977.

8. Each subsequent Service Agreement through September 30,

1993, in Article V provided in pertinent part:

ARTICLE V. EMPLOYMENT RESPONSIBILITY

All persons employed by BSO in the

performance of such services, functions and

responsibilities as described and

contemplated herein for the CITY shall be and

remain BSO employees, and no one of such

persons shall be considered in the employ of

the CITY for the purpose of pension benefits

. . . .

9. Further, each subsequent Service Agreement through

September 30, 1993, referenced the initial Service Agreement "as

amended" and stated that the City was desirous of continuing to

contract for such service with Petitioner. An inference is drawn

and a finding is made that, considering the 1977 Addendum,

amending the initial Service Agreement, the City's desire of

continuing to contract for such services included crossing guard

services.

10. The Service Agreement, effective October 1, 1993

through September 30, 1997, provided for additional and ancillary

services; however, this Service Agreement did not specifically

provide for school crossing guard services. As in previous

Service Agreements, this Service Agreement provided that

employees performing the duties in the Agreement would be deemed

employees of the Petitioner, but such provision was found at

Article XII in this Service Agreement.

11. From 1977 until the beginning of the 1996 summer school

session of the Broward County schools, Petitioner contacted

school crossing guards to report to work at their various

assigned street intersections. However, for the first day of the

summer session, Petitioner did not contact the crossing guards

and none reported to work. No crossing guards or Petitioner's

deputies were assigned for that first day. Petitioner provided

its deputies to work at the various street intersections. On the

second day of the summer school session, Petitioner provided its

deputies to work at the various street intersections.

12. Soon afterwards, the City assumed responsibility for

providing school crossing guards. The City began recording the

crossing guard's hours of work, contrary to previous years

wherein Petitioner recorded the hours. Also, the City began

distributing the crossing guards' paychecks directly to them, as

opposed to previous years wherein Petitioner had done so.

Furthermore, all supervisory functions were assumed by the City.

13. Through the remainder of the summer school session and

the fall of 1996, the crossing guards were employed by the City.

In January 1997, crossing guard services were provided by a

private company, Alpha Temporary Services (ATS). ATS hired two

of the former crossing guards as employees.

14. Prior to the summer school session of 1996, the school

crossing guards were employed on a continual basis throughout the

school year, with some crossing guards being employed during the

summer school terms as well. All of the crossing guards

performed the same duties under the same conditions. Some of the

crossing guards had worked in their positions for several years,

and at least one had worked in his position for over ten years.

15. The school crossing guards, as did applicants for the

position of school crossing guards, completed the City's

employment application in applying for the position. After

residency for an applicant was established within the City, the

application was submitted to Petitioner's office. Upon receiving

an application, Petitioner interviewed the applicant and

conducted a background investigation. Petitioner, not the City,

was authorized to conduct background investigations. On some

occasions, recommendations and referrals for employment, as a

school crossing guard, were made by a member of the City

Council who was chairperson of the City's Public Safety

Committee.

16. All employment with the City is determined on

recommendation to the City Council from a committee of the City.

The recommendations require approval by the City Council in order

for personnel to be hired and for positions to be filled within

the City. After the City entered into the Service Agreements

with Petitioner, beginning February 18, 1997, the City Council

had not acted on or approved the hiring or the filling of a

position of school crossing guards by the City.

17. The school crossing guards were paid on a per hour

based wage. They reported their hours to Petitioner, which would

determine the amount they were to be paid.

18. However, salary warrants for the school crossing guards

were issued by the City. IRS 1099 forms for non-employees were

prepared by the City, with the City being listed as the employer,

and provided to the crossing guards by the City.

19. The City submitted the salary warrants to Petitioner

which gave them to the school crossing guards. The City's office

and Petitioner's office were in the same building, across the

hall from one another. In order to receive their paychecks, the

crossing guards were required to submit their time sheets, with

an indemnification agreement, to Petitioner. The indemnification

agreement states, among other things, that the crossing guards

were performing their duties as independent contractors and that

they agree to indemnify Petitioner from and against all liability

arising from them performing their duties. The crossing guards

felt that they had no choice but to sign the indemnification

agreements in that the agreements were a condition to receiving

their paychecks.

20. Petitioner required the school crossing guards to take

a training course pertaining to their duties as a school crossing

guard. The training was required by Florida law. Petitioner

made all the arrangements for the course, including paying for

the course.

21. All equipment for the school crossing guards, including

hand-held signs and clothing, was provided by Petitioner. The

crossing guards had no out-of-pocket expenses in the performance

of their duties. The uniforms worn by the crossing guards were

provided, without cost to the crossing guards, by the Petitioner.

In the beginning, the uniforms were the same as Petitioner's

officers; but, shortly thereafter, the uniforms were changed and

were similar to those worn by Petitioner's officers.

22. Schedules for the school term and the specific

intersections requiring crossing guards, along with the hours of

work, were provided by the Broward County School Board to the

City. The City communicated the same to Petitioner, and

Petitioner assigned the crossing guards to their intersections

and informed the crossing guards of their hours of work. At

least on one occasion, a crossing guard was given assignments by

a member of the City Council.

23. If a school crossing guard wished to work an

intersection other than the assigned intersection, the crossing

guard was required to obtain permission from Petitioner's office.

24. School crossing guards were not permitted to hire other

crossing guards to perform their duties. If a crossing guard was

unable to perform the assigned duties or was absent from the

assigned post, the crossing guard was required to contact

Petitioner's office which would provide a deputy or a temporary

substitute crossing guard to perform the unavailable or absent

crossing guard's duties.

25. On occasion, Petitioner's deputies observed and

supervised the manner in which the school crossing guards

performed their duties, and instructed the crossing guards to

take corrective action when the deputies determined that such

action was needed. No evidence was presented as to any

disciplinary action, including termination for cause, taken

against a crossing guard by either the City or Petitioner.

26. Respondent performed a routine audit of the City.

After performing the audit, Respondent concluded that the City

was the employer of the school crossing guards. The principal

basis for Respondent's decision was that the City paid the

crossing guards and issued IRS 1099 forms to the crossing guards.

27. Subsequently, based on the Service Agreements and

Addenda, Respondent changed its decision and concluded that

Petitioner, not the City, was the employer. In its agency action

letter, Respondent stated that Petitioner was the employer of the

crossing guards. During these proceedings, Respondent expanded

its decision and concluded further that, if Petitioner was not

the employer, the City was the employer.

28. According to Respondent, who exercises control over the

school crossing guards is the determining factor as to who the

employer is.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

29. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the

parties thereto, pursuant to Section 120.569 and Subsection

120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

30. Pursuant to Subsections 121.051(1) and (2), Florida

Statutes, Petitioner and the City participate in the Florida

Retirement System (FRS). The school crossing guards' coverage

under the FRS is compulsory if they are determined to be

employees in regularly established positions. Rule 60S-1.004(4),

Florida Administrative Code.

31. Section 121.021, Florida Statutes, provides definitions

and provides in pertinent part:

(11) 'Officer or employee' means any person

receiving salary payments for work performed

in a regularly established position . . .

32. A "regularly established position" is defined in Rule

60S-1.004, Florida Administrative Code, and is defined as

follows:

(4) Membership in the Florida Retirement

System shall be compulsory if the employee is

filling a full-time or part-time regularly

established position. An employee filling a

regularly established position shall be

enrolled on the first day of employment, even

if the employee is serving a probationary

period, or working part-time. A position

meeting the definition below shall be

considered a regularly established

position. . . .

* * *

(b) A regularly established position in a

local agency (district school board, county

agency, community college, city or special

district) is an employment position which

will be in existence beyond 6 consecutive

months. . . .

33. Guidelines aiding in the determination as to whether an

individual is an employee or an independent contractor are set

forth at Rule 60S-6.001, Florida Administrative Code, which

provides in pertinent part:

(33) INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR -- Means an

individual who is not subject to the control

and direction of the employer for whom work

is being performed, with respect not only to

what shall be done but to how it shall be

done. If the employer has the right to exert

such control, an employee-employer

relationship exists and the person is an

employee and not an independent contractor.

The Division has adopted the following

factors as guidelines to aid in determining

whether an individual is an employee or an

independent contractor. The weight given

each factor is not always the same and varies

depending on the particular situation.

1. INSTRUCTIONS: An employee must comply

with instructions from his employer about

when, where, and how to work. The

instructions may be oral or may be in the

form of manuals or written procedures which

show how the desired result is to be

accomplished. Even if no actual instructions

are given, the control factor is present if

the employer has the right to give

instructions.

2. TRAINING: An employee is trained to

perform services in a particular manner.

This is relevant when the skills and

experience which would be used as an

independent contractor were gained as a

result of previous employment. Independent

contractors ordinarily use their own methods

and receive no training from the purchasers

of their services.

3. INTEGRATION: An employee's services are

integrated into the business operations

because the services are critical and

essential to the success or continuation of

an agency's progress/operation. This shows

that the employee is subject to direction and

control.

4. SERVICES RENDERED PERSONALLY: An

employee renders services personally. This

shows that the employer is interested in the

methods as well as the results. Lack of

employer control may be indicated when a

person has the right to hire a substitute

without the employer's knowledge or approval.

5. HIRING ASSISTANTS: An employee works for

an employer who hires, supervises, and pays

assistants. An independent contractor hires,

supervises, and pays assistants under a

contract that requires him or her to provide

materials and labor and to be responsible

only for the result.

6. CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP: An employee has

a continuing relationship with an employer.

A continuing relationship may exist where

work is performed at frequently recurring,

although irregular intervals.

7. SET HOURS OF WORK: An employee usually

has set hours of work established by an

employer. An independent contractor is the

master of his or her own time and works on

his own schedule.

8. FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME WORK: An employee

may work either full-time or part-time for an

employer. Full-time does not necessarily

mean an 8-hour day or a 5 or 6-day week. Its

meanings may vary with the intent of the

parties, the nature of the occupation and

customs in the locality. These conditions

should be considered in defining "full-time."

An independent contractor can work when and

for whom he or she chooses.

9. WORK DONE ON PREMISES: An employee works

on the premises of an employer, or works on a

route or at a location designated by an

employer. The performance of work on the

employer's premises is not controlling in

itself; however, it does imply that the

employer has control over the employee. Work

performed off the employer's premises does

indicate some freedom from control; however,

it does not in itself mean the worker is not

an employee.

10. ORDER OR SEQUENCE OF SERVICES: An

employee generally performs services in the

order or sequence set by an employer. This

shows that the employee is subject to

direction and control of the employer.

11. REPORTS: An employee submits oral or

written reports to an employer. This shows

that the employee must account to the

employer for his or her actions.

12. PAYMENTS: An employee is usually paid

by the hour, week, or month. An independent

contractor is paid periodically (usually a

percent of the total payment) by the job or

on a straight commission.

13. EXPENSES: An employee's business and/or

travel expenses are paid by an employer.

This shows that the employer is in a position

to control expenses, and, therefore, the

employee is subject to regulations and

control.

14. TOOLS AND MATERIALS: An employee is

furnished significant tools, materials, and

other equipment by an employer. An

independent contractor usually provides his

own tools, material, etc.

15. INVESTMENT: An employee is usually

furnished the necessary facilities. An

independent contractor has a significant

investment in the facilities he or she uses

in performing services for someone else.

16. PROFIT OR LOSS: An employee performs

the services for an agreed upon wage and is

not in a position to realize a profit or

suffer a loss as a result of his services.

An independent contractor can make a profit

or suffer loss. Profit or loss implies the

use of capital by the individual in an

independent business of his own.

17. WORKS FOR MORE THAN ONE PERSON OR FIRM:

An employee usually works for one

organization. However, a person may work for

a number of people or organizations and still

be an employee of one or all of them. An

independent contractor provides his or her

services to two or more unrelated persons or

firms at the same time.

18. OFFERS SERVICES TO GENERAL PUBLIC: An

independent contractor makes his or her

services available to the general public.

This can be done in a number of ways: Having

his/her own office and assistants, hanging

out a "shingle", holding business licenses,

having listings in business directories and

telephone directories, and advertising in

newspapers, trade journals, etc.

19. RIGHT TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT: An

employee can be fired by an employer. An

independent contractor cannot be fired so

long as he or she produces a result that

meets the specifications of the contract. An

independent contractor can be terminated, but

usually he will be entitled to damages for

expenses incurred, lost profit, etc.

20. RIGHT TO QUIT: An employee can quit his

or her job at any time without incurring

liability. An independent contractor usually

agrees to complete a specific job and is

responsible for its satisfactory completion,

or is legally obligated to make good for

failure to complete it.

34. The evidence has demonstrated that the school crossing

guards were employees in regularly established positions, not

independent contractors. Consequently, their coverage under the

FRS is compulsory.

35. Although payment of wages is a factor which aids in

determining who the employer is, it is not, in and of itself,

conclusive on the question. "Control" is considered the main

factor in determining an employee/employer relationship. Berrier

v. Associated Indemnity Company , 196 So. 188 (Fla. 1940); Patton

Seafood Company v. Glisson , 38 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1949); Gidney Auto

Sales v. Cutchins , 97 So.2d 145 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1957); Crawford v.

Department of Military Affairs , 412 So.2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA

1982).

36. In the case subjudice , the Service Agreements and

Addenda must also be considered. The contractual agreements play

a major role in the determination of control.

37. Taking into consideration the "control" and the

contractual agreements, the evidence has demonstrated that, until

October 1, 1993, the school crossing guards were employees of

Petitioner; and that from October 1, 1993 until January 1997, the

school crossing guards were employees of the City.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final

order:

1. Requiring the Broward County Sheriff's office to pay

employer contributions and interest to the Florida Retirement

Trust Fund, as calculated by the Division of Retirement's Bureau

of Calculations, in accordance with Section 121.071, Florida

Statutes, for Michael Cagnetto, Louis Goldberg, Kathy Heidinger,

Morris Popkin, and Frances Young for each pay period they

received compensation from the date they commenced employment as

school crossing guards until October 1, 1993.

2. Requiring the City of Lauderdale Lakes to pay employer

contributions and interest to the Florida Retirement Trust Fund,

as calculated by the Division of Retirement's Bureau of

Calculations, in accordance with Section 121.071, Florida

Statutes, for Michael Cagnetto, Louis Goldberg, Kathy Heidinger,

Morris Popkin, and Frances Young for each pay period they

received compensation from October 1, 1993, until their

employment with the City of Lauderdale Lakes was terminated.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1998, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

ERROL H. POWELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 30th day of July, 1998.

ENDNOTES

1/ The hearing held on August 20, 1997, was by video

teleconference with the connecting site being Fort Lauderdale.

2/ Petitioner's Exhibit 45 was comprised of four parts, and each

part was entered into evidence as an individual exhibit: Exhibit

45A, 45B, 45C, and 45D.

3/ Respondent's Exhibit 1 was comprised of two parts, and each

part was entered into evidence as an individual exhibit: Exhibit

1A, and Exhibit 1B.

4/ Pursuant to agreement, the City was permitted to late file

exhibits: Exhibit 6, Exhibit 7, and Exhibit 8.

COPIES FURNISHED:

A. J. McMullian, III

Director

Division of Retirement

Cedars Executive Center

Building "C"

2639 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560

Robert B. Button, Esquire

Division of Retirement

2639-D North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560

Charles Whitelock, Esquire

Christopher Whitelock, Esquire

Whitelock, Rodriguez & Williams, P.A.

One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 601

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

James C. Brady, Esquire

Brady & Coker

1318 Southeast 2nd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15

days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to

this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case.