On December 10, 1998, unknown to us and the public at large, City Manager Bonfield, City Attorney Caton and Building Inspections Director Wilkinson requested that the Pensacola Planning Board issue an official memo requesting a new ordinance which included “… Staff also proposes minor changes to the LDC for clarity or interpretation purposes.” This will be important later.
I filed an official complaint against Mr. Wilkinson, as the Pensacola Building Official, with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) and included extensive documentation of his actions which appeared to be in violation of the laws regarding buildings in Pensacola.
Two days before Christmas, December 23, 1998, a notice from the Pensacola Building Inspection Department was placed on our front door downtown. It stated, “1. Please obtain a properly licensed contractor. 2. Please have contractor obtain the required building permit for the required structural repairs. 3. Please do not hang any sheet rock or insulation in all areas where repairs are required.”
I wrote Mr. Wilkinson about this latest demand that I hire a contractor for work and explained that the work did not require a contractor since no structural repairs were needed.
I received a letter from Mr. Wilkinson regarding the events on December 23, 1998. He stated, “There is no insinuation that you were doing work or going to do work without a permit, but rather a notice reminding you to have a building permit obtained prior to concealing this work. This is the same procedure used on all construction projects within the City of Pensacola.”
First of all, we did not start off as a construction project, major or not, as construction is not needed based on the professional property inspection we had hired done before we bought the house. The Official Report stated that all we needed was an upgrade in maintenance which did not involve the Pensacola Building Inspection Department. We were planning to carefully upgrade the maintenance, as suggested.
Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson kept forcing us to go through the Certificate of Occupancy renovation process which is inappropriate as we are not changing occupancy type and, in addition, historic properties were exempt. They were demanding extensive construction in order to strip our property of valuable, precious, historic artifacts which were built specifically for our house in 1883. We wanted to retain these important parts of our property in keeping with its historical value and uniqueness.
Mr. Wilkinson wrote and said we could not continue work on
items not requiring a permit until I hired a contractor. Mr. Wilkinson does not have the authority to
do this since anyone can do work on their property which does not require a
permit – his demand was another bullying tactic and was against construction law.
Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson had forced our business property to sit unused for 6 months at this point.
I contacted Mr. Wilkinson and requested that he issue me a permit as the contractor which was allowed by state law. My husband and I had been co-contractors when building our residence. We easily passed the Bank’s construction loan inspections and finished the project ahead of time and under budget.
Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson had forced our business property to sit unused for 6 months at this point.
I contacted Mr. Wilkinson and requested that he issue me a permit as the contractor which was allowed by state law. My husband and I had been co-contractors when building our residence. We easily passed the Bank’s construction loan inspections and finished the project ahead of time and under budget.
Mr. Wilkinson refused to issue to me a permit as the
contractor. Since I was forced to give
in or our property would continue to sit unused, I sent Mr. Wilkinson a
licensed contractor for a permit. The
contractor was a well-known building contractor from whom I had received an
estimate and I had asked him to obtain a building permit to do the work. Mr. Wilkinson refused him a permit with no
reason given. I then sent Mr. Wilkinson
another licensed contractor I knew slightly for a permit. Again, Mr. Wilkinson refused him a permit
with no reason given.
Mr. Bonfield wrote us several letters, the first dated
December 28, 1998, repeatedly demanding that we undergo the illegal requirement
for a new CO and that we hire a contractor.
Mr. Bonfield said that, “While you have previously been
given some inaccurate information from the Inspections Department, in this case
their determination is correct.”
Instead of “inaccurate information,” as Mr. Bonfield stated,
the Inspections Department demanded that we do things, in violation of
pertinent regulations, which caused us great harm and expense. They bullied, extorted, harassed, trespassed,
and intimidated us with false statements, threats and hysterical antics. Many of these illegal demands appeared to be sadistic in nature.
On December 29, 1998, I wrote Mr. Bonfield again and
reiterated the points I had previously made about their policy being
illegal. I again used the comparison
with presenting a driver’s license to presenting our official current CO.
I wrote, “It has been acknowledged by the City building
inspection office and by the State of Florida Building Commission that there is
a current Certificate of Occupancy on file for our house at 520 N. Spring. This is all that the City License Department
requires. I am requesting a copy of this
and other documents relating to our property.”
I had previously asked for this documentation but City Officials had
refused to give me a copy.
Mr. Bonfield’s answer, by letter dated December 30, 1998,
stated in part: “The license department does confirm new certificate of
occupancy inspections with the Building Department when issuing new or
transferring occupational licenses.”
Pensacola City Manager Bonfield did not send a copy of the current certificate
of occupancy on file or the other documentation I had requested.
I answered, by letter dated January 2, 1999, reiterating the
points I had made in my previous letter and ended with:
“I have contacted
the researchers for the SBC, other cities in Florida, some counties in Florida
and the State Codes Office where the SBC is used as the authority for building
construction and inspections. No other
city or county in Florida has interpreted the SBC as Pensacola has interpreted
in as a basis to illegally allow the Pensacola Building Inspection Department
to far outstrip their authorized duties and responsibilities.”
I wrote more letters to Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson, asking
that they obey the relevant regulations and, again, asking for a copy of the
documentation for our property, specifically a copy of the current certificate
of occupancy.
Mr. Bonfield and Mr. Wilkinson refused my repeated requests that
they operate in accordance with existing laws, instituted by our elected
officials. The State Attorney, Mr.
Golden, also refused to stop the apparent illegal/criminal actions against
us. The DBPR had not answered my report
of apparent illegal/criminal actions on the part of Mr. Wilkinson. I finally wrote Florida Governor Jeb Bush on
January 8, 1999, which reads in part:
“We are asking your help in straightening out a problem my
husband and I are having with the Pensacola City Manager and the Pensacola Building
Inspection Office. We have exhausted all
local channels in solving this problem.”
I included extensive documentation such as I have shown above.
On January 8, 1999, I also wrote the Florida Commission on
Ethics and our state representative, DeeDee Ritchie, explaining the situation
and sending support documentation.
On January 11, 1999, I received a letter from Mr. Wilkinson
where he stated: “Enclosed you will find copies of all the records we have on
file for this building. You will note
that the last certificate of occupancy was dated March 6, 1992. There are other certificates of occupancy
included, all of which are for previous business.”
I presented the Certificate of Occupancy for March 6, 1992,
to Mr. Muldoon, in compliance with the City Ordinance, and asked for an
occupational license. Mr. Muldoon of the
licensing department denied me a City occupational license because my CO was
dated 1992 and issued to the previous owner.
This was not a valid reason to deny me an occupational
license as the City Ordinance required that a copy of the current Certificate
of Occupancy on file in the Building Inspections Department be presented to Mr.
Muldoon (his Department). Certificates
of Occupancy are good for the life of the house as long as there is no change
in the occupancy type. There had been no
change in the occupancy type.
Soon after, on one of the many occasions Mr. Wilkinson was
“inspecting” our property, I asked why he would not accept the building contractors
I had sent to get a building permit, after he had denied me a permit as the
contractor. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he refused me a
permit as he only issued permits to contractors. Mr. Wilkinson then stated that I had selected
Building Contractors and that a Commercial Contractor was required to work on
our building. I knew this was a false
statement since I was familiar with three types of contractors: Residential Contractors – only allowed to build
single family residences, Building Contractors – allowed to build anything
under three stories, and General Contractors – allowed to build anything.
I again brought to Mr. Wilkinson’s attention that the City
Ordinance did not include instructions on commercial property, only on family residences,
so County and State regulations must be followed for commercial property. I pointed out, again, that County and State
regulations allowed the property owner to be the contractor under certain
criteria and that I met that criteria.
Mr. Wilkinson again said that a Commercial Contractor was
required to work on commercial buildings.
Mr. Wilkinson said that the best Commercial Contractor in Escambia
County was in our house right then helping the painter, Mr. McFatter, and other
people on the job. He said that this
Commercial Contractor had restored many historic properties and did a fantastic
job. Mr. Wilkinson recommended that I
hire this contractor if I wanted a permit issued for our building. Mr. Wilkinson made it clear that I had to
hire his contractor or I would never get the use of our property. I asked who this Commercial Contractor was
and Mr. Wilkinson said he was Mr. Douglas Eugene Miller. He called Mr. Miller over and introduced him.
My husband and I were desperate at this point as we wanted
to use our property especially since we were paying the mortgage every month
and City Officials, illegally, would not
let us use our business property for income.
I agreed to hire Mr. Miller so we could finish our house if,
when I called the Escambia County Contractor Competency Board he was a licensed
contractor and that he had no complaints against him.
After Mr. Wilkinson left, Mr. Miller brought Mr. McFatter,
the painter, over and said that he would like Mr. McFatter to be my agent between
us for the project to handle the invoices and checks and relay any
messages. Although Mr. Miller’s request
seemed strange to me, I reluctantly accepted as this appeared to be the only
way to save our beautiful vulnerable historic building, finish the maintenance
updating and allow us to open our business and go to work.
I called the Escambia County Contractor Competency Board and
they said that Mr. Miller was a licensed contractor, bonded and insured, and
that he had no complaints against him.
At this point, I agreed.
On January 13, 1999, Mr. Miller had no problem getting a building permit from Mr. Wilkinson. Mr. Miller’s building permit stated “interior work only” until the Architectural Review Board approved.
© Copyright – All rights reserved – Pensacola Newsletter
---------
