STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

1. G. FURNITURE, )

   )

   Petitioner, )

   )

   vs. ) CASE NO. 90-8112

   ) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

   )

   Respondent. )

   )

   
   

   RECOMMENDED ORDER

   
   

   Pursuant to Notice, this cause was heard by Linda M. Rigot, the assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 7, 1991, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

   
   

   APPEARANCES

   
   

   For Petitioner: J. Philip Landsman, Esquire

   Margaret Z. Villella, Esquire Platt, Haas & Landsman, P.A. Broward Financial Centre

   500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1850 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394

   
   

   For Respondent: Charles G. Gardner

   Assistant General Counsel

   Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

   The issue presented is whether Petitioner's claim for certain relocation benefits pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 should be granted.

   
   

   PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

   
   

   Respondent denied Petitioner's claim for certain relocation assistance benefits, and Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing regarding that determination. This matter was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding.

   
   

   Petitioner presented the testimony of Jacquelyn Brown, Charles E. Cawthra, Michael Andrew McGarry, Paula Warmath, and Robert L. Gass, Jr. The Department presented the testimony of Gary Maehl and Terry E. Morris. Additionally, Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-9 and Respondent's Exhibits numbered 1 and 3 were admitted in evidence.

   Both parties submitted post hearing proposed recommended orders. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact can be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Petitioner R. G. Furniture is in the business of manufacturing and selling extruded aluminum patio furniture. Petitioner is owned by Robert L. Gass, Jr., who was also the owner of the real estate which Petitioner occupies as a tenant. For purposes of this administrative proceeding and for purposes of relocation assistance benefits, the parties have stipulated that R. G. Furniture, Medallion Furniture, Mar-Tec Furniture, R. G. Cushion Co., Robert L. Gass, Jr., and all other related entities, corporations, or persons shall be treated as one party so that there will be no duplicity of claims made or of benefits paid.

      
      

   2. The patio furniture, umbrellas, and related items are both sold and manufactured by Petitioner on-site. Straight tubes of aluminum are cut to size, bent into shape, welded, finished, and electrostatically painted. Strapping is then applied, and the furniture is then fitted with custom-made cushions. After this process is completed, the furniture is shipped to the customer or sold on the showroom floor.

      
      

   3. The furniture moves through the system on an overhead conveyor through each stage of the fabrication process. The paint system is extremely complex and critical to the operation of the plant. As the furniture goes through the paint machine, a dry, powdered paint is applied through an electrostatic process which bonds positive and negative charges, after which the dry paint is melted in an oven and cured.

      
      

   4. Gass was the fee owner of the real property on which Petitioner, a company owned by him, operates. On September 3, 1987, the Department notified Gass that his real property was needed for a new highway, I-595 in Broward County, Florida. The project requiring acquisition of the real property and the relocation of Petitioner is a federally-funded highway construction project.

      The September 3, 1987, letter also notified Gass of a prenegotiation meeting.

      
      

   5. Pursuant to a contract with the Department, employees of Kaiser Engineers were responsible for both the acquisition of real property and relocation of personal property of businesses and persons being displaced by the I-595 project. Their duties included advising displacees regarding their rights, negotiating settlements, and approving payment of claims. Some of Kaiser's employees are involved with acquisition (acquiring ownership of real property) and different employees are responsible for relocation assistance (relocating personal property).

      
      

   6. An appraisal of the land and improvements at the manufacturing site was performed on behalf of the Department. The Department's real estate appraiser called in a machinery and equipment appraiser to estimate the then-current replacement cost new, market value in-place, and salvage value of certain "immovable business fixtures and special purpose process systems". That appraisal was performed by Gary Maehl as of December 19, 1987.

   7. The appraisal prepared by Maehl for Kaiser Engineers contained 20 categories/items, consisting primarily of the painting machinery and the assembly line. Although the cover sheet to Maehl's full report is entitled "Immoveable Business Fixtures and Special Purpose Process Systems," there is no evidence that Gass ever saw more of the report than the 3-page listing of the 20 items which was entitled "Inventory."

      
      

   8. The components of the 20 categories/items are all movable. They are either freestanding or are attached to the building by nuts and bolts. Seventeen of the 20 items are easily movable. The component parts of the painting system and assembly line are bolted together. Those parts are bought

      and sold new and used on the open market. Even the freight elevator is movable.

      
      

   9. At all times material hereto, Gass has intended to continue in the furniture manufacturing business at a replacement site. It is not disputed that the painting machinery and assembly line are necessary to the operation of the furniture factory.

      
      

   10. Gass began receiving correspondence and informational packets from Kaiser Engineers regarding various relocation benefits to which he and his businesses would be entitled as eligible displacees. By March 9, 1988, Gass had been notified of his company's eligibility for relocation benefits, and negotiations for the acquisition of his real property had begun.

       
       

   11. Using its standard form Right-Of-Way Purchase Agreement, the Department made a written offer to Gass to acquire his property, one of the largest properties involved in the I-595 project. Gass, through his attorney, rejected that offer. One of Gass' concerns involved the "down time" he would incur in his business if he were required to disassemble, move, reassemble and install his assembly line and painting system process. The disassembly, moving, reassembly, and installation would take from 3 to 6 months, or more, essentially putting him out of business for an extended period of time.

       
       

   12. One of the relocation benefits for which a displaced business may be eligible involves the concept of substitute personal property. Under that concept, a business may purchase new equipment and machinery, such as an assembly line or specialized process, and have it fully installed and operational before relocating the business. At that time, the old machinery and equipment is shut down, and the business moves to the relocation site ready to continue production with its operational replacement equipment. In that manner, a business suffers only the disruption involved in the physical move of its other personal property and its employees. It was important to Gass that he have a replacement assembly line and painting system process operational before moving to the relocation site.

       
       

   13. On August 22, 1988, Gass entered into a Right-Of-Way Purchase Agreement with the Department to which was attached an Addendum required by him. The Addendum was specifically incorporated by reference. The Agreement also required a higher purchase price than the Department's first offer to Gass. Although the Department contends that the Agreement is used only to purchase real property, paragraph III. (c) of the Department's standard form agreement contains the following language: "All personal property included in the purchase price shall be delivered to PURCHASER in the same condition existing as of the date of this agreement."

   14. The Addendum also contained, in part, the following language:

       
       

       1. Seller shall retain title to all movable items and all items of personal property not

          identified as fixtures in the attached Exhibit "A".

          
          

       2. Seller retains his right to relocation benefits under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and PURCHASER agrees to pay said benefits upon receipts [sic] of appropriate application from Seller.

          
          

          Exhibit "A" was the listing of 20 items prepared by appraiser Gary Maehl.

          
          

   15. The total purchase price for the land, improvements thereon, and the

       20 items on the Maehl inventory was $3,985,000. The parties to the Agreement added a footnote to specify that the total purchase price included all costs and attorneys fees in settlement in lieu of condemnation. Terry E. Morris, the land acquisition director of Kaiser Engineers, who personally handled the acquisition of the manufacturing site since the parcel was one of the largest properties involved in the project, designated $477,000 of the purchase price to be for the items listed on the Maehl inventory. This figure represents their depreciated value in-place. Gass netted $88,000 from the transaction.

       
       

   16. Although R. G. Furniture has not yet moved to its replacement site, Gass made application to the Department for relocation benefits to purchase replacement items for the items contained in the Maehl inventory, primarily those items needed to begin assembling and installing a new assembly line and painting system process. The Department's denial of that claim is the subject of this proceeding. Although relocation benefits are usually not payable prior to the relocation, except in cases of justified hardship, the concept of substitute personal property would embody payment prior to relocation, and the parties have stipulated that the issue of eligibility regarding the items listed in the Maehl inventory only is ripe for adjudication.

       
       

   17. The relocation benefit involving substitute personal property is computed using two different formulas. One of those formulas contemplates that the property being replaced will be sold, and the sales price will be deducted from the cost of purchasing and installing the replacement equipment. There is no prohibition against the Department being the purchaser of the property which is being replaced.

       
       

   18. Petitioner is an eligible displacee. It is an on-going business being displaced as a result of a federally-funded highway project.

       
       

   19. All of the items listed in Maehl's inventory are items of personal property. Petitioner is entitled to relocation benefits for substitute personal property for those items.

       
       

   20. At the time of the final hearing in this cause, the cost of substitute items including installation at the replacement site was $752,900. The estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced items, with no allowance for storage, is $494,100.

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   22. The regulations implementing the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, are found in 49 CFR Part 24. Section 24.303 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

       
       

       (a) Eligible costs. Any business or farm operation which qualifies as a displaced person [defined at section 24.2(g)] is entitled to payment for such actual moving and related expenses, as the Agency determines to be reasonable and necessary, including expenses for:

       * * *

       (12) Purchase of substitute personal property. If an item of personal property which is used as part of a business or farm operation is not moved

       but is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site, the displaced person is entitled to payment

       of the lesser of:

       1. The cost of the substitute item, including installation costs at the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale or trade-in of the replaced item; or

       2. The estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item but with no allowance for storage.

       
       

   23. The threshhold issue to determine is whether the items of property listed in the Maehl inventory are items of personal property, as Petitioner contends, or trade fixtures and items of real property, as Respondent contends. Expert real property appraisers and expert machinery and equipment appraisers testified in this proceeding. The one area of agreement among them is that whether a piece of equipment is considered real property or personal property is a "gray area."

       
       

   24. The items listed in Maehl's inventory are all movable, and 17 of the

       20 items are easily movable. They are all freestanding or attached to the building with nuts and bolts. No evidence was offered that they are integral to the building structure; on the other hand, the evidence is undisputed that they are integral to the manufacturing process engaged in by Petitioner. No evidence was offered that Gass intended to permanently affix those items to the building when they were installed, and the evidence is undisputed that Gass has no intention of abandoning the furniture manufacturing business. All of the items are either parts or components of parts which are bought and sold on the open market, either new or used. These criteria are all characteristics of chattels which remain personal property although affixed to real estate. Even one of the questionable items, the freight elevator, has been held by case law to be personal property. Dependable Air Conditioning and Appliances, Inc., v. Office of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner, 400 So.2d 117 (Fla. 4th Dist. 1981). Since the items are personal property, which has been sold to the Department, Petitioner is entitled to relocation benefits for substitute personal property.

   25. Respondent argues that Maehl's report was prepared for Kaiser Engineers and the Department as an appraisal of immovable trade fixtures, i.e., real property. No evidence was offered that the entire report prepared by Maehl was revealed to Petitioner prior to the time that Petitioner and the Department entered into the Right-Of-Way Purchase Agreement. The evidence does indicate that Petitioner was shown only the three pages containing the listing of the 20 items in dispute in this proceeding, entitled inventory, a term usually applied to personal property.

       
       

   26. Respondent further argues that since real property is acquired but personal property is relocated, the fact that the listing of the 20 items was attached to the Right-Of-Way Purchase Agreement whereby the Department acquired title to the real property at the manufacturing site, then a fortiori the items contained in that inventory either are or became real property. Respondent is in error. First, calling something real property does not make it so legally.

       
       

   27. Second, the Right-Of-Way Purchase Agreement does not establish that the items listed in the Maehl inventory were considered by either or both parties to the Agreement to be part of the acquisition of real property. Paragraph III.(c) specifically describes the condition in which the personal property being purchased as part of the Agreement should be kept. The Right-Of- Way Purchase Agreement is ambiguous. In addition to referencing the purchase of personal property by the Department pursuant to the Agreement, the Addendum sets forth that the seller retains title to all movable items and all items of personal property not identified as fixtures in the attached Exhibit "A." As found herein, all items contained in Exhibit "A" are movable items. It is clear that all parties understood that Gass did not retain title to the items listed in Exhibit "A".

       
       

   28. The clear intent of the Uniform Act, of the regulations promulgated thereunder, and the information packets given by the Department to Gass is that a displaced business is to be treated fairly and equitably and is to be made whole as a result of the relocation. As illustrated by the information packets, the Department even bears the cost of printing new business cards and painting company trucks with the address of the replacement site. Since the Department knew as of December 19, 1987, that it would cost Gass, according to the Department's own inventory, $606,150 to purchase replacement machinery and equipment, "designating" $477,000 as the sale price of the items listed in the inventory would make it reasonable for Gass to assume that additional relocation monies would be paid to him at a later time. Further, the fact that the Department designated a certain sum of money to be specifically the sale price of those items undermines the Department's argument that it considered those items to be part of the real estate itself.

       
       

   29. It is assumed that the parties to the Right-Of-Way Purchase Agreement had some reason for including in the Addendum specific language that Gass was retaining his right to relocation benefits and that the Department would pay such benefits upon receipt of appropriate application. Since both parties agree that acquisition of real property and relocation of personal property are separate activities, it is reasonable to assume, as Gass contends, that that provision was inserted in the contract to make sure he was not giving up any of his relocation benefits by selling certain of his machinery and equipment to the Department. That provision is also consistent with Gass' position that he was selling certain machinery and equipment to the Department because he would be purchasing substitute machinery and equipment in order to have an operating

       assembly line and painting system in place prior to his actual relocation and that the Department would pay him the additional appropriate relocation benefits when he applied for them rather than at the time of the actual relocation.

       
       

   30. Petitioner introduced evidence that the cost of replacing the equipment in June of 1991 is $752,900. The cost of replacing the equipment as of December, 1987, according to the Department's evidence, was $606,150. The law is clear that the figure to be used is the cost calculated at the time of the relocation and not the cost calculated at the time of the taking of the real property. Malone v. Division of Administration, State of Florida Department of Transportation, 438 So.2d 857 (Fla. 3rd Dist. 1983).

       
       

   31. The Department offered no evidence as to the current cost involved in the relocation of the 20 items in dispute. Petitioner's cost estimates involved costs for more than just the 20 items in dispute in this proceeding. Only the first two categories of Petitioner's estimates are involved in this proceeding. These appear under the categories entitled "Major Equipment (AKA Business Trade Fixtures)" and "Major Process Systems to Equipment" on Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. The regulation concerning substitute personal property provides that Petitioner is entitled to payment of the lesser of the cost of the substitute items including installation at the replacement site minus any proceeds from the sale of the replaced items ($752,900 - $477,000 = $275,900) or the cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced items with no allowance for storage ($494,100). Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to payment of $275,900 as computed under the first part of the formula.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner entitled to

relocation benefits for substitute personal property and paying Petitioner the sum of $275,900 as partial payment of the relocation benefits to which Petitioner is entitled.

DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida.

LINDA M. RIGOT

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

1. Petitioner's second through fourth, eleventh, and twelfth unnumbered paragraphs have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

2. Petitioner's first, fifth through tenth, and thirteenth through eighteenth unnumbered paragraphs have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony.

3. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order.

4. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, and 24 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law, argument of counsel, or recitation of the testimony.

5. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 17, 18, 21, and 22 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of credible evidence in this cause.

6. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 16 and 25 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ben G. Watts, Secretary

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, M.S. #58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner

Charles G. Gardner Assistant General Counsel

Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. #58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

J. Philip Landsman, Esquire Margaret Z. Villella, Esquire Platt, Haas & Landsman, P.A. Broward Financial Centre

500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1850 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

R. G. FURNITURE,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 90-8112

DOT CASE NO. 90-0309

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

R. G. Furniture (hereinafter Petitioner), filed a claim regarding relocation benefits with the Florida Department of Transp ortation (hereinafter Department). Upon the Department's notice of intent to deny the benefits requested, the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

A hearing was held in this matter on June 7, 1991, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, before a duly assigned Hearing Officer, Linda M. Rigot, of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order (copy attached) on September 12, 1991. The Department filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's recommendation in that Petitioner is entitled to relocation benefits for substitute property only when and if said expenses are actually incurred.

Upon a review of the record in its entirety, the following findings are made. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law are adopted except as specifically set out herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Findings of Fact 1-15 contained in the Recommended Order are hereby adopted and incorporated as if specifically set out herein.

Finding of Fact 16 of the Recommended Order is modified as follows

16. Although R. G. Furniture has not yet moved to its replacement site, Robert L. Gass, Jr. made application to the Department for relocation benefits to purchase replacement items for the items contained in the Maehl inventory, primarily those items needed to begin assembling and installing a new assembly line and painting system process. The Department's denial of that claim is the subject of this proceeding.

The parties have stipulated that the issue of eligibility regarding the items listed in the Maehl inventory only is ripe for adjudication.

The Hearing Officer's characterization of what the "concept of substitute personal property" embodies is not a factual matter, but rather a conclusion of law which is rejected by the Department and discussed more fully below in the Department's Conclusions of Law.

Findings of Fact 17-18 of the Recommended Order are hereby adopted and incorporated as if specifically set out herein.

Finding of Fact 19 of the Recommended Order is modified as follows:

1. All of the items listed in Maehl's inventory are items of personal property.

   
   

   The remainder of this finding by the Hearing Officer is a legal conclusion and is hereby rejected by the Department and discussed more fully below.

   
   

   Finding of Fact 20 of the Recommended Order is hereby adopted.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

   Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the record in its entirety, and all applicable statutes and rules, the following conclusions are made:

   
   

   Section 24.207 of 49 CFR Part 24 provides in part:

   
   

   1. (a) Documentation. Any claim for a relocation payment shall be supported by such documentation as may be reasonably required to support expenses incurred, such as bills, certified prices, appraisals, or other evidence of such expenses.

      * * *

   2. (c) Advance payments. If a person demonstrates the need for an advance relocation payment in order to avoid or reduce a hardship, the Agency shall issue the payment, subject to such safeguards as are appropriate to ensure that the objective of the payment is accomplished.

      * * *

   3. (12) Purchase of substitute personal property. If an item of personal property which is used as part of a business or farm operation is not moved but is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site, the displaced person is entitled to payment of the lesser of:

      
      

      1. The cost of the substitute item, including installation costs at the replacement site, minus any proceeds from the sale of trade-in of the replaced item; or

      2. The estimated cost of moving and reinstalling the replaced item but with no allowance for storage. At the Agency's discretion, the estimated cost for a low cost or uncomplicated move may be based on a single bid or estimate.

In reading the above provisions in conjunction with Section 24.303(12), cited in the Recommended Order, it is clear that a displacee is entitled to relocation payments for purchase of substitute personal property only when an item "is promptly replaced with a substitute item that performs a comparable function at the replacement site," where such claim for payment is "supported by such documentation as may be reasonably required to support expenses incurred, such as bills, certified prices, appraisals, or other evidence of such expenses." (emphasis added) The general rule then is that a displacee is not entitled to payment until the expense is incurred. An exception to that general rule is found in subparagraph (c) above. Once a displacee demonstrates a need for advance payment to avoid a hardship, the Department will make the advance payment subject to adequate assurances that the expense will actually be incurred to replace and install personal property.

Nothing contained in the applicable federal rules and regulations entitles

R. G. Furniture to a lump sum payment or, in essence a blank check, until the Department is provided with documentation "to ensure the objective of the payment is accomplished." The Hearing Officer's conclusion that -the concept of substitute personal property embodies payment prior to relocation" is not supported by the applicable rules and is specifically rejected.

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Petitioner R. G. Furniture is entitled to relocation

payment(s) for substitute personal property in an amount not to exceed $275,900 and that such payment(s) will be made by state warrant payable jointly to R. G. Furniture and the vendor of such replacement property within thirty (30) days of the submission to the Department by Robert L. Gass, Jr., of an invoice which specifically identifies the property being purchased and the corresponding inventory item contained in the Maehl inventory for which the purchased equipment is an intended replacement

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of December, 1991.

BEN G. WATTS

Secretary

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

COPIES FURNISHED:

Linda M. Rigot, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

J. Philip Landsman, Esquire Margaret Z. Villella, Esquire Platt, Haas & Landsman, P.A. Broward Financial Centre

500 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1850 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33394

Charles G. Gardner, Esquire

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

Deborah S. Long

State Relocation Administrator Office of Right of Way

Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION AND MAY BE APPEALED BY PETITIONER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND RULE 9.110, FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 9.110(D), FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, BOTH WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, ACCOMPANIED BY THE APPROPRIATE FILING FEE, AND WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S CLERK OF AGENCY PROCEEDINGS, HAYDON BURNS BUILDING, 605 SUWANNEE STREET, M.S. 58, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0458, WITHIN THIRTY

(30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THIS ORDER.

Docket for Case No: 90-008112

Orders for Case No: 90-008112