US BANK NATL ASSOC. AS CO TRUSTEE FOR MORTGAGE EQUITY CONVERSION

v.

CITY OF MIAMI

PER CURIAM

This matter comes before this Court on appeal from an order of the City of Miami Unsafe Structures Panel ("Panel"). Appellant owns a one-story structure in the City of Miami. The City of Miami issued two notices to the Appellant regarding its property which the City of Miami Building Department deemed to be in an extreme state of disrepair. The notices warned that the structure would be demolished if it was not repaired. The Panel held an evidentiary hearing and adopted the Building Department's recommendation that the structure be demolished.

Review of an administrative agency decision is governed by a three-part standard of review: (1) whether procedural due process was accorded; (2) whether the essential requirements of the law were observed; and (3) whether the administrative findings and judgment are supported by competent substantial evidence. Haines City City. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995) (citing City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624, 626 (Fla. 1982)). Appellant argues that the essential requirements of the law were not observed and that there was no competent substantial evidence to support the Panel's decision.¹ N 1 In their Initial Brief, Appellant's argument centers on the failure to observe the essential requirements of law. Tangentially, they refer to the lack of competent substantial evidence, [*3] Chapter 10, Article VI, Section 10-101(d) of the City of Miami Code sets out valuation criteria as follows:

(d) Valuation criteria.
(1) If the cost of completion, alteration, repair and/or replacement of an unsafe building or structure or part thereof exceeds 50 percent of its value, such building shall be demolished and removed from the premises. If the cost of completion, alteration, repair and/or replacement of an unsafe building or structure or part thereof does not exceed 50 percent of its value, such building or structure may be repaired and made safe, as provided herein.

(2). For purposes of application of this formula, value shall be the estimated cost to replace the building in kind, excluding depreciation. The estimate shall be derived from multiplying the value of the square footage of construction used by the building department to calculate the applicable permit fee. That estimate shall be broken down on a percentage basis into an estimate of the following critical elements of construction, as applicable: structural, roofing, electrical, plumbing and mechanical, and other building components ("valuation of construction components"). The cost of completion, alteration, repair or replacement shall be estimated by application of the percentage of deterioration found on site for each of the critical elements of construction to the valuation of construction components for the structure, to arrive at an overall estimate cost to repair the affected structure. The appointing authority shall by stating "[T]he Panel failed to consider evidence to support the valuation criteria." Appellant's Initial Brief, at page 2. While most of the argument regarding competent substantial evidence was raised in the Reply Brief, we will consider the passing reference to this issue in the Initial Brief as sufficient to preserve the issue. See Parker-Cyrus v. Justice Admin. Com'n, 160 So. 3d 926, 928 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). (citations omitted) (An argument may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief).

[*4] administrative order provide a form for the application of the formula set forth above for the various types of construction.

Appellant argues that the Panel failed to consider the valuation criteria contained in Section 10-101(d) prior to voting to adopt the Building Department's recommendation. They maintain that the Panel only considered a Case Resume. This Resume was placed before the Panel along with the testimony of a Building Department representative and photo images displayed on a view screen. The Resume indicated that the deterioration of the structure was at 63%, and that the cost of repair ($87,740) exceeded the value of the property ($52,644). Demolition was recommended. Appellant asserts that no other evidence was placed before the Panel.

While a review of a video and the transcript of the hearing confirms that the evidence presented on the video screen was less than contained in the entire case file, we must consider the entire record. Part of that record is the Agenda for the June 4, 2021 Panel meeting (Appendix to Appellee's Brief, Tab 5). The agenda references documents that were a part of the case file, including the Resume, images, notices, and most importantly, calculations. The Calculation Sheet, contained at Tab 7 of the Appendix to Appellee's Answer Brief, included the square footage and construction cost per square foot of the structure, as well as the estimated percentages of deterioration of the property, including the interior, [*5] windows and door, the roof and the entire structure itself. The calculation sheet also indicated a replacement cost of $140,384, a repair cost of $87,740, and a present value of $52,644. The reference to various documents in the agenda signifies that both the Case Resume and Calculation Sheet were part of the record submitted to the panel. The hearing transcript indicates that all documents being presented as digital evidence were moved into and received as evidence. While there may have been no specific reference to the calculation sheet during the hearing, there is nothing to indicate that the Panel did not receive, examine, and consider each of the documents placed into evidence during the hearing.

Indeed, no objection was made during the course of the hearing by Appellant that the City had failed to produce any evidence of the valuation criteria. Parties in administrative proceedings are required to make objections on the record to preserve any error for appellate review. Thus, any argument that the Panel departed from the essential requirements of law was waived. "It is well settled that, in order to obtain appellate review, alleged errors relied upon for reversal must be raised clearly, concisely and separately as points on appeal." Singer v. Borbua, 497 So. 2d 279, 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). See City of Miami v. Cortes, 995 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (finding that property owners waived error by failing to object to evidence and asking to cross-examine witnesses); Clear Channel Communications, Inc. v. City of North Bay Village, 911 So. 2d 188, 190 [*6] (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (affirming appellate division of Circuit Court's decision which held that petitioners failed to preserve their legal challenges for appellate review because they did not make contemporaneous objections before the city commission).

While we are cognizant that during the course of the hearing the City's attorney denied the existence of any "reports," a point which is at the core of Appellant's argument, this does not disprove that the calculation sheet was part of the record. Even if Appellant had not waived the issue of the Panel departing from the essential requirements of law by not considering valuation criteria, we find that both the Calculation Sheet and Case Resume were part of the record. As a result, this Court's decision in Cutting Edge Real Estate Solutions LLC v. City of Miami, Building Department, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 463c (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. Aug. 11, 2020) is directly on point. In Cutting Edge, this Court held that the Unsafe Structures Panel followed the essential requirements of law because it considered the required valuation criteria. Id.

We conclude that the Panel followed the essential requirements of law and that there was substantial competent evidence to support the Panel's decision. As a result, the final decision of the Panel is hereby AFFIRMED.

TRAWICK, WALSH and SANTOVENIA JJ., concur. [*7] COPIES FURNISHED TO COUNSEL

OF RECORD AND TO ANY PARTY

NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL