NEWSLETTERS
In this Section...
Current Newsletter
Important Topics
Online Forms
Helpful Links and Information
Seminar Schedule
Past Issues ...
> Spring 2006
> Summer 2005
> Spring 2005
> Summer 2004
> Spring 2004
> Fall 2003
> Summer 2003
> Spring 2003
> Fall 2002
> Summer 2002
> Fall 2001
> Summer 2001
> Spring 2001
> Fall 2000
> Spring 2000
> Fall 1999
> Spring 1999
> Fall 1998
> Spring 1998

In Our Current Issue (Spring 2007)

Printer Friendly Version


Web Site Warning

Our website address was originally www.marlowefirm.com. It has later changed to www.marlowemcnabb.com. When the change was made, anyone going to the original address was redirected to the new address. Due to an oversight we did not renew the marlowefirm domain name. We have now learned to our great dismay that it has been purchased by someone else. We understand that he does this to make people buy it back from him at an inflated price. The worst part is that the old web site has links to porn. We just wanted everyone to know that we have no control over it. We have no intention of buying it back.

To Top


Firm News

We are pleased to welcome our new Administrative Assistant, Sheryl Hatfield to the firm . She is a great addition to the firm. We are also pleased to announce that Tonja Pellegrino has been promoted to Office Manager. This will allow Connie to concentrate on marketing.

To Top


2007 Legislature Preview

The Legislature is now in session. The biggest issue is the property tax revolt that is spreading throughout the state. There are a number of ideas being discussed including increases in the homestead exemption to $50,000, capping of assessments on commercial and investment properties similar to the Save our Home Amendment and limiting city and county taxes. Another option is increasing the sales tax to take the place of some of the reduction in property taxes. It looks certain that something will come out of the session requiring an amendment to the Florida Constitution. A special election likely will be called in late summer to give voters a chance to approve the changes.

To Top


Clarification of Jessica Lunford Act (SB 988)

The Jessica Lunsford Act sets requirements for persons working on school sites where children are present including fingerprinting and background checks. The purpose is to protect the children from sexual predators. This bill is intended to deal with issues that have arisen in the implementation of this Act. Among other things it will require the issuance of special driver’s licenses that will identify those convicted as sexual predators by marking the license with the number of the applicable statute.

If passed, a procedure will be established for fingerprinting and criminal background checks. The contractor will be required to submit an electronic set of fingerprints to the Department of Law Enforcement which will send it to the FBI for processing. The results are then reported to the school district in which access is sought. It will also be entered into a shared data base. These background checks will be performed at least every three years. One fingerprint set and background check would be all that would be required. If the contractor begins work in another school district, that district is only required to verify the results of the previous criminal background check. The school district is not allowed to charge for verifying the criminal background check.

The existing statute forbids those convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude” from working on school grounds where students may be present. This has been subject to wide variations in interpretation. There are reports of instances where a twenty year old DUI conviction was sufficient to deny a worker access to school grounds. This bill replaces “moral turpitude” with a list of specific offenses that would disqualify someone. The disqualifying offenses are sexual offenses, terrorism, murder, kidnapping, incest or child abuse. Any conviction for similar offenses in other jurisdictions will also be a basis for disqualification. A worker convicted of these crimes would not be permitted on school grounds when students are present unless the worker receives a full pardon or has had his or her civil rights restored. The employer will be required to secure an agreement from each employee to inform the employer and the school district within forty-eight (48) hours of any arrest for any of the disqualifying offenses. It will be a third degree felony if an employer allows someone to work on school grounds in violation of this Act.

Certain exemptions are provided:

1. A worker under the direct supervision of a school district employee or contractor who meets the screening requirements. This requires that the worker be within the line of sight of the supervising person at all times.
2. Contractors who have had a level 2 background screening.
3. Law enforcement officers.
4. Workers within a separate and secure site on school grounds that has perimeter fencing. The State Board of Education is to develop uniform specifications for what constitutes a separate and secure site and school districts will be obligated to comply with that specification;
5. Pickup and delivery drivers

To Top


Clarifications to OCIP (HB 843 and SP 1624)

These bills address owner controlled insurance on public projects. They will require maintenance of “completed operations” insurance coverage for the period of the ten period of the Statute of Repose. It establishes the final time bar of lawsuits on a project. The previous provision only required such coverage for five years. These bills also put limits on “stacking” of projects which has been used to get around the minimum project size required for an OCIP.

To Top


Immigration (HB 39, HB 119, SB 1810 and SB 2456)

There are a number of bills filed which would require contractors to comply with the Department of Homeland Security Pilot Program for clearance of prospective employees. This program is intended to verify that employees are legally allowed to work in this country. However, the error rate in the pilot program exceeds 20% and the response time is more than two weeks. This would place an enormous burden on contractors trying to bring employees onboard to get jobs done. These bills willmake these limitations applicable only to public work.

To Top


School Construction Free of Sales Tax (HB 89 and SB 582)

Bills similar to this have been introduced for several years. On public projects, general contractors are often required to allow the public body to make direct purchases of materials and equipment being incorporated into the project. Because the public entity is exempt from sales tax, this reduces the cost of these items. This is a paperwork nightmare for both the general contractor and the public body. This bill would allow the general contractor to make the purchases directly and be exempt from sales tax.

To Top


Crane Operator Certification (HB 1347 and SB 2068)

Primarily as a result of a recent crane accident in Miami, Dade County began looking at a requirement for licensing of crane operators. The crane operators are concerned that other counties will do something similar which would then require qualifying in separate counties. To head this off this bill has been introduced to establish a process for certifying a crane operator on construction projects. It would accept a certification by the National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators or comparable organizations.

To Top


Raising Bond Limit on Public Construction (HB 773 and SB 2090)

At present, any job for a public entity in excess of $200,000 must have a payment and performance bond. This bill would raise that limit to $500,000. These bonds provide protection to both the owner and the subcontractors. This bill is being advanced under the claim that this would allow smaller contractors to perform more work for public bodies. The problem is that it only increases the risk for both the public entity and the subcontractors.

To Top


Regulation of Contractors (HB 971)

This bill would allow establishment of local enforcement boards to discipline state certified contractors. The inevitable result will be variations in enforcement of the statutes regulating contracting. In the present system either the Construction Industry Licensing Board or the Electrical Industry Licensing Board is responsible for the discipline process.

To Top


Net Worth Requirements (HB 404)

Inspectors and Plans Examiners. At the end of the bill there is a provision establishing minimum net worth requirements for registered contractors. The minimum net worth would be $20,000 for Division 1 certificate holders and $10,000 for Division 2 certificate holders. The statute will allow 50% of the financial requirement to be met by completing a fourteen (14) hour financial responsibility course approved by the licensing board.

For a number of years, the licensing boards enforced minimum net worth requirements. A few years ago they raised the minimum net worth requirements substantially and the rule was challenged. An administrative law judge ruled that there was no authority in the statute for requiring any minimum net worth. As a result, that net worth regulation is not being enforced. This bill reestablishes those requirements.

To Top


Construction Lien Law (SB 498)

This bill would forbid the issuance of permits unless a certified copy of the recorded notice of commencement or a notarized statement that the notice of commencement has been recorded is provided along with the application for the building permit. This bill may cause problems with financing. Lenders insist that their mortgages be recorded before the notice of commencement to give them priority status. The parties may still be negotiating the financing on the project when the contractor is ready to pull the permit. The present law requires that there be a notice of commencement recorded before the first inspection, otherwise that inspection would be failed. This seems to be sufficient to encourage the timely recording of notices of commencement. It is not clear what problem this bill is intended to address.

It should always be kept in mind that the legislative process is dynamic. Additional bills may be filed and the ones that are filed likely will be modified in the process.

To Top

 
Site design and hosting by: