STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, )
)
Petitioner, )
) FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, CITY OF ) LARGO, TOWN OF LANTANA and CITY OF ) PALATKA, )
)
Petitioners/Intervenors, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-2637
) 95-4110
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT ) SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, )
)
Respondent, )
) MICHAEL J. MOORE and RICHARD )
FEINBERG, on behalf of themselves ) and all others similarly situated, ) RUSSELL M. RIZZO, )
)
Respondents/Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On June 12, 1996, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Tallahassee, Florida, before Richard Hixson, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Mirella Murphy James, Esquire
Post Office Box 2842
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
For Intervenor David E. Ramba, Esquire Florida League Jane C. Hayman, Esquire of Cities, 201 West Park Avenue
Inc.: Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Intervenor Lawrence P. Stevenson, Esquire City of Largo: HOLLAND and KNIGHT
315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Intervenor James W. Linn, Esquire
Town of LEWIS, LONGMAN and WALKER, P.A.
Lantana: Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Intervenor John F. Dickinson, Esquire City of Richard L. Ruth, Esquire
Palatka: CORBIN, DICKINSON, DUVALL and KITCHEN
Post Office Box 41566 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
For Respondent: Robert B. Button, Esquire
Division of Retirement
Cedars Executive Center, Building D 2839 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
For Intervenors Ronald J. Cohen, Esquire Moore and KLAUSNER and COHEN, P.A. Feinberg: 6565 Taft Street, Suite 200
Hollywood, Florida 33024
For Intervenor Scott R. Christiansen, Esquire Rizzo: CHRISTIANSEN and DEHNER, P.A.
2975 Bee Ridge Road, Suite C Sarasota, Florida 34239
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in these cases relate to the criteria required of municipal pension plans to qualify for state premium tax monies . Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, provide for pension plans for firefighters and police officers, and authorize two types of pension plans. "Chapter plans" are created by state law, and "local law plans" are created either by special act of the Legislature or by municipal ordinance. In a series of cases, various municipalities and the LEAGUE OF CITIES have challenged the DIVISION OF RETIREMENT's application of statutory criteria to local law plans. On April 11, 1996, a Final Order was entered in Case No. 95-5089RU finding that the DIVISION's policies in this regard violated Section 120.535, Florida Statutes.
The Final Order in case No. 96-5089RU is on appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. On August 6, 1996, a Final Order was entered in consolidated Cases Nos. 96-2724RX, 96-2725RX, 96-2871RU, and 96-2874RU, finding that the DIVISION's
policies violated Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Specifically, the issues in these cases now under consideration, are 1) whether the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG is entitled to premium tax monies for the 1994 and 1995 calendar years; 2) whether the DIVISION OF RETIREMENT has met the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes, and demonstrated that the application of the statutory criteria to local law plans is within the scope of delegated legislative authority; 3) whether the DIVISION's promulgation of proposed rules on July 12, 1996, justifies the DIVISION's withholding of the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG's premium tax monies for calendar years 1994 and 1995; and, 4) whether the DIVISION has acted in bad faith, thereby entitling the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG to an award of attorneys fees and costs in this case.
The gist of the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG's Petitions is that the DIVISION is attempting by non-rule policy to impose the same requirements relating to terms, conditions, and benefits on local law plans that the DIVISION requires of chapter plans. Specifically, the alleged non-rule policies of the DIVISION of which the CITY complains are: 1) the definition of "credited service"; 2) the definition of "average final compensation"; 3) the disallowance of a Social
Security offset; 4) the interpretation of "disability retirement"; 5) the requirement that all of the CITY's pension plans be in compliance in order to receive state funds; 6) the release of funds to other municipalities not found in compliance; 7) the failure to enforce Rule 60Z-1.004, Florida Administrative Code, which defines "credited service;" and, 8) the application to other municipalities of a declaratory statement issued to the City of Boca Raton.
As indicated above, and set forth more fully below, the requirements imposed by the DIVISION OF RETIREMENT for local law plans to receive premium tax monies have been the subject of extensive litigation. In rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, the court in City of Orlando v. State Department of Insurance, 528 So.2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) stated:
Chapters 175 and 185 create a purely voluntary program whereby municipalities may receive state- collected taxes, imposed on property and casualty insurance premiums, with which to fund retirement programs for local police and fire fighters. In exchange for receipt of these funds, the legislature has established certain criteria under which the funds must be operated and managed.
Id. at 469.
The dispute in these cases again focuses on determining what criteria the legislature has established for the operation and management of such local pension plans in order to establish whether a local plan complies with the statute for purposes of receiving premium tax monies.
Petitioner, CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, and Intervenor, CITIES, take the position that Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, has made non-rule policy statements (which are now promulgated as proposed rules), and required compliance therewith, which go beyond the criteria established by the legislature for participation in the program. Petitioner contends that such statements are "rules" under Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, that these "rules" violate Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, and that the DIVISION is prohibited from applying these policies as justification for withholding premium tax monies.
Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, takes the position that the policy statements have now been promulgated as proposed rules, that the DIVISION has complied with Section 120.535(5), Florida Statutes, and is authorized to apply the policies of the proposed rules to withhold premium tax monies. The DIVISION further contends that the policy statements (now proposed rules) merely apply the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, as intended by the legislature, and therefore the DIVISION has demonstrated pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes, that the policy statements are within delegated legislative authority.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On April 6, 1995, the DIVISION notified the CITY that premium insurance excise tax funds for its police officers pension under Chapter 185, Florida Statutes, were being withheld for calendar year 1994. The CITY filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, in DOAH Case No. 95-2637. Police Officer RUSSELL M. RIZZO intervened on behalf of the DIVISION in that case.
On July 21, 1995, the DIVISION notified the CITY that premium insurance tax funds for its fire fighters pension under Chapter 175, Florida Statutes, were being withheld for calendar year 1994. The CITY filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which is pending in DOAH Case No. 95-4110. Firefighters, MICHAEL J. MOORE and RICHARD FEINBERG intervened on behalf of the DIVISION in that case. Cases Nos. 95-2637 and 95-4110, were thereafter consolidated for hearing.
On October 19, 1995, the CITY in DOAH Case No. 95-5089 filed a Petition pursuant to Sections 120.535 and 120.56, Florida Statutes, challenging the DIVISION's alleged non-rule policy statements which formed the basis for the withholding of the CITY's 1994 premium tax funds. On November 30, 1995, all three cases were consolidated for hearing. The final hearing was held January 11, 1996. In accordance with the agreement of the parties at hearing, and for purposes of proceeding on the Section 120.535 petition, Cases Nos. 95-2637 and 95-4110 were bifurcated at that time.
The FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES and the CITY OF LARGO intervened on behalf of the Petitioner in the 120.535 proceeding, Case No. 95-5089. Additionally, municipal firefighters, Michael Moore and Richard Feinberg, intervened on behalf of the Respondent in Case No. 95-5089. At hearing on January 11, 1996, the parties stipulated to the evidentiary record. The CITY also presented the testimony of two witnesses, Trela White and Irene Bankhardt. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Section 120.57 actions, Cases Nos. 95-2637 and 95-4110, which are now under consideration, were bifurcated from the Section
120.535 case, and placed in abeyance pending resolution of Case No. 95-5089.
Subsequent to the entry of the Final Order in case No. 95-5089RU, and the conclusion of the 1996 session of the Florida legislature, Cases Nos. 95-2637 and 95-4110 were scheduled for final hearing, which was held on June 12, 1996. At hearing, Motions to Intervene filed by the CITY OF PALATKA and the TOWN OF LANTANA were granted. Specific issues raised by PALATKA, LANTANA and LARGO were the subject of the Final Order in Cases Nos. 96-2724RX, 962725RX, 96-2871RU and 96-2874RU, and LARGO has filed a separate Section 120.57 claim pending in Case No. 96-3007. The parties also stipulated to the record as received in Case No. 95-5089. Additionally, the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG presented Exhibits 76-81 which were received.
A transcript of the hearing was filed July 3, 1996. Respondent, the DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, filed its Proposed Recommended Order on July 19, 1996. Intervenors Moore and Feinberg filed their Proposed Recommended Order on July 24, 1996. Intervenor Rizzo filed his Proposed Recommended Order July 25, 1996. Petitioner CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG filed its Proposed Recommended Order July 25, 1996. Explicit rulings on the proposed findings are set forth in the Appendix to the Recommended Order in cases Nos. 95-2637 and 95-4110.
On August 2, 1996, the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG filed a Motion Objecting to Purported Agency Action. The DIVISION OF RETIREMENT filed its response to the Motion on August 9, 1996. Intervenors filed their response to the Motion on August 16, 1996. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's Motion Objecting to Purported Agency Action is DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
To the extent relevant, the Findings of Fact in the Final Order in case No.
95-5089RU are adopted and incorporated by reference.
Parties
Petitioner, the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG (CITY), is a municipality of the State of Florida which participates in the voluntary program to receive state- collected taxes imposed on property and casualty insurance (premium tax monies) with which to fund retirement programs for its municipal fire fighters and police under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, respectively.
Intervenors, CITY OF LARGO, CITY OF PALATKA and the TOWN OF LANTANA, also are State of Florida municipalities participating in such local plans for fire fighters and police. LARGO, PALATKA and LANTANA have had their premium tax monies withheld by the DIVISION for the 1995 calendar year. Intervenor, FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, represents municipalities voluntarily participating in distribution of Chapter 175 and 185 premium tax monies to fund retirement plans for firefighters and police officers.
Respondent, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT (DIVISION), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the statutory duty to administer the voluntary program by which municipalities receive state-collected taxes imposed on property and casualty insurance (premium tax monies) with which to fund local plans under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. Prior to 1993, the Florida Department of Insurance was the responsible state agency to administer Chapters
175 and 185, Florida Statutes.
Intervenors, MICHAEL MOORE and RICHARD FEINBERG are municipal fire fighters with the CITY and have standing to intervene in this proceeding. Intervenor, RUSSELL M. RIZZO, is a municipal police officer with the CITY and has standing to intervene in this proceeding.
History
Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, relating to pension plans for fire fighters and police, authorize two types of retirement or pension plans. One type is called "chapter plans" and the other is known as "local law plans." Chapter plans are created under state law, and the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, control the plans' terms, conditions and benefits. Local law plans are purely voluntary and are created either by special act of the Legislature or by municipal ordinance. The special act or municipal ordinance contain the provisions relating to the terms, conditions, and benefits of the local law retirement plan. Both chapter plans and local law plans receive funds from the state-collected premium tax on property and casualty insurance.
The CITY has operated local law retirement plans for fire fighters and police since 1951. The CITY's police and fire fighter plans were first chartered by special act of the Legislature. The fire fighter charter plan has been closed to new members since approximately 1970. The CITY in 1970 established a supplemental retirement plan for fire fighters which was enacted by CITY ordinance. The CITY's police and fire fighter pension plans are subject to union negotiation, and cannot be unilaterally amended. City of Tallahassee v. Public Employee Relations Commission, 393 So.2d 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In this respect, the CITY may not have the authority to make unilateral changes to its local law plans in order to comply with directives of the DIVISION.
The CITY has voluntarily participated on a continuing basis in the program created under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, whereby the CITY
has received state-collected taxes imposed on property and casualty insurance premiums with which to fund its local plans for fire fighters and police. The CITY has received such funds until calendar year 1994.
In 1986 the Legislature significantly amended Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. See Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida. Chapter 86-41 pertained to municipal fire fighters; Chapter 86-42 pertained to municipal police officers. As indicated above, the constitutionality of these statutes was upheld in City of Orlando v. State Department of Insurance, supra. In section 1. of each act, the Legislature added substantially the same legislative intent language:
Therefore, the Legislature declares that it is a proper and legitimate state purpose to provide a uniform retirement system for the
benefit of fire fighters as hereinafter defined, and intends, in implementing the provisions of
s. 14, Art. X of the State Constitution as they relate to municipal fire fighters' pension trust fund systems and plans, that such retirement systems or plans to be managed, administered, operated, and funded in such manner as to maximize the protection of the fire fighters' pension trust funds. This chapter hereby establishes minimum standards for the operation and funding of municipal fire fighters' pension trust fund systems and plans.
After the enactment of Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida, the Department of Insurance undertook rulemaking to implement the provisions of the acts. The CITY and the LEAGUE challenged the proposed rules under Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Department's proposed rules were upheld by a DOAH Hearing Officer. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the order of the Hearing Officer, and held that the majority of the department's proposed rules were invalid because statutory provisions governing chapter pension plans, which were not made expressly applicable by the Legislature to local fire fighter and police plans, did not preempt municipal power with respect to pension plans. Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Insurance, 540 So.2d 850 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) review denied 545 So.2d 1367 (Fla. 1989), [hereinafter referred to as the "Rules Case"].
In 1988 the CITY and the Department of Insurance engaged in litigation regarding the compliance of the CITY's local law plans with the Department's construction of the statute. This litigation was ultimately settled by the Department's agreement not to withhold the CITY's premium tax funds. During 1990 and 1991, the Department of Insurance also engaged in litigation with numerous other municipalities regarding compliance of local law plans with the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. The Department settled these cases and continued to distribute premium tax funds to these local law plans with the understanding that the disputed issues would be better resolved through rulemaking. The Department of Insurance conducted staff workshops to discuss rulemaking; however, the Department did not thereafter initiate formal rulemaking under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, with regard to promulgation by rule of compliance requirements for local law plans under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes.
In 1993, the Legislature transferred statutory responsibility for the administration of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, from the Department of Insurance to the DIVISION. The legislative transfer effected a transfer of all programs as well as personnel. Since the legislative transfer in 1993, the DIVISION has made a continuous and good faith effort to present these issues to the Legislature for resolution. In this continuing effort to address these issue legislatively, during the 1996 Session, HB 1951 and SB 2484 were introduced. These bills specifically provided legislative clarification of the issues presented in these cases.
Prior to the 1996 Session, the CITY filed its Petition in case No. 95- 5089RU. On April 11, 1996, the Final Order was entered in case. No. 95-5089RU holding that the DIVISION's non-rule policies violated Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. On May 10, 1996, the CITY filed its Notice of Appeal which is pending in the First District Court of Appeal, Case No. 96-1817.
The DIVISION has made a continuing good faith effort to present these issues to the Legislature for resolution. As indicated above, HB 1951 and SB 2484, specifically addressing and clarifying the issues raised in these proceedings, were introduced during the 1996 Session. On April 30, 1996, HB 1951 was passed by the Florida House of Representatives; however, HB 1951 along with SB 2484 died in the Florida Senate on May 4, 1996. The 1996 Florida Legislature failed to enact any legislation addressing or otherwise clarifying the issues raised in these proceedings.
On May 31, 1996, the DIVISION noticed a rules workshop addressing these issues in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On June 12, 1996, the DIVISION disseminated proposed rules. On June 21, 1996, the DIVISION conducted the rules workshop. On July 12, 1996, the DIVISION published proposed rules and amendments, 60Z-1.004, 60Z-1.006, 60Z-1.026, 60Z-1.027, 60Z-1.028, 60Z-2.017, 60Z-2.018, and 60Z-2.019, which address the issues raised in these proceedings. On July 30, 1996, the CITY and the LEAGUE OF CITIES, pursuant to Section 120.54 Florida Statutes, filed Petitions challenging the DIVISION's proposed rules.
The Section 120.54 petitions, cases Nos.96-3560RP and 96-3561RP, are scheduled for hearing August 29, 1996.
On August 6, 1996, the Final Order was entered in consolidated Cases Nos. 96-2724RX, 96-2725RX, 96-2871RU, and 96-2874RU holding that the DIVISION's policies violated Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Stipulated Facts
The following facts verbatim were set forth by the parties in the Prehearing Stipulation:
The DIVISION admits to the authenticity of all documents contained within its files, including, but not limited to, interoffice memoranda, correspondence to and from the DIVISION and/or the Department of Insurance which are contained in the files of the Division, and any correspondence copied to the DIVISION and/or the Department of Insurance which are contained in the files of the DIVISION.
The DIVISION takes the position that Sections 175.032 and 185.02, Florida Statutes, (Definitions), apply to local law plans.
(The) Position of (the agency in) Declaratory Statement DMS-DR-94-18 was issued to the City of Boca Raton pursuant to Section 120.565, Florida Statutes.
It is the position of the DIVISION that a plan containing a mandatory retirement age violates the Older Worker Benefits Protection Act; and that pension plans which violate this federal law are not eligible for distribution of premium tax funds under Sections 175.351 and 185.35, Florida Statutes.
It is the position of the DIVISION that fire fighters disabled from duties of a fireman as defined in Section 175.032, Florida Statutes, are eligible for disability benefits.
The CITY admits that the Social Security offset contained in its supplemental fire pension plans could possibly reduce a fire fighter's pension below two (2) percent for each year of credited service; however, the CITY specifically has no knowledge that this has or will occur.
The CITY admits that Sergeant Rizzo has accrued in excess of thirty- two (32) years of service. The CITY admits that the police pension plan contains a maximum pension plan benefit of sixty (60) percent of the highest pay step of the lowest rank held during the previous three (3) years, which benefit Sgt. Rizzo became eligible for after twenty-five (25) years of active service. The CITY admits after thirty (30) years of service Sgt. Rizzo will retire with a pension benefit equal to less than two (2) percent for each year of active service. The CITY admits that Sgt. Rizzo was permitted to cease all employee contributions to his pension plan after twenty-five (25) years of service.
The 1994 premium taxes are withheld from the CITY by the DIVISION.
Prior to 1994 the DIVISION, or its predecessor agency, the Department of Insurance, have never withheld Chapter 175 or 185 insurance tax premium moneys from the CITY.
The DIVISION has not initiated the rulemaking process with regard to definition of the term "average final compensation" in Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, and there are currently no existing promulgated rules that apply to local law plan definitions for "average final compensation" for the DIVISION.
The DIVISION has not initiated the rulemaking process with regard to definition of the term "average final compensation" in Section 185.35, Florida Statutes, and there are currently no existing promulgated rules that apply to local law plan definitions for "average final compensation" for the DIVISION.
It is the position of the DIVISION that Rule 60Z-1.004, Florida Administrative Code, defining "credited service" contradicts Chapter 185, Florida Statutes, and is not enforced.
It is the position of the DIVISION that all municipal pension plans submitted for review must comply with the non-rule policy at issue in the present case in order to receive Chapter moneys pursuant to Sections 175.351 and 185.35, Florida Statutes.
It is the position of the DIVISION that the pension plans of the City of St. Petersburg do not fulfill the requirements of Section 175.351, Florida Statutes, to qualify for release of state premium tax moneys.
It is the position of the DIVISION that the pension plans of the City of St. Petersburg do not fulfill the requirements of Section 185.35, Florida Statutes, to qualify for release of state premium tax moneys.
It is the position of the DIVISION that the term "credited years of service" as used in Sections 175.351(4) and 185.35(1)(d), Florida Statutes, is to be defined in accordance with the term "aggregate number of years of service" and "aggregate number of years of service with the municipality" under Sections 175.032(1)(a) and 185(1)(b), Florida Statutes, respectively.
It is the position of the DIVISION that it has the authority under Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 60Z, Florida Administrative Code, to withhold Chapter 175 and 185 premium tax money to plans not in compliance with Sections 175.351 and 185.35.
It is the position of the DIVISION that it has the authority to release payment of Chapter 175 and 185 premium tax moneys to plans not in compliance with Sections 175.351 and 185.35, Florida Statutes, provided the municipality is making good faith efforts to bring the violations into compliance.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
To the extent relevant, the Conclusions of Law in the Final Order in consolidated Cases Nos. 96-2724RX, 96-2725RX, 96-2871RU and 96-2874RU are adopted and incorporated by reference.
Section 120.57(1)(b)15 provides:
(15) Each agency statement defined as a rule under s. 120.52 and not adopted by the rule- making procedure provided by s. 120.54 which is relied upon by an agency to determine the substantial interests of a party shall be
subject to de novo review by a hearing officer. A statement shall not enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provision of law implemented or otherwise exceed delegated legislative authority. The statement applied as a result of a proceeding pursuant to this subsection shall be demonstrated to be within the scope of delegated legislative authority.
Recommended and final orders pursuant to this subsection shall provide an explanation of the statement that includes the evidentiary basis which supports the statement applied and a general discussion of the justification for the statement applied.
as:
Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, in pertinent part defines "rule"
(16) ...each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure, or practice require- ments of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule.
Whether an agency statement is a rule depends on the effect of the
statement. State Department of Administration v. Harvey, 356 So.2d 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). An agency statement is a rule if the statement "...purports in and of itself to create certain rights and adversely affect others," State Department of Administration v. Stevens, 344 So.2d 290, 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), or if the statement serves "...by its own effect to create rights or require compliance or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law." McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). As determined in Case No. 95-5089, the statements of the DIVISION are "rules" under Section 120.52, Florida Statutes.
The DIVISION has failed to demonstrate that the DIVISION's statements are within the scope of delegated legislative authority as required by Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes. The DIVISION's statements at issue in this case clearly require compliance with the DIVISION's interpretation of Chapters
175 and 185, Florida Statutes, and have the direct and consistent effect of law. Specifically, the DIVISION requires that in order to receive funds, the CITY must adhere to the DIVISION's definition of "credited service" as that term is used in Sections 175.351(4) and 185.35(1)(d), Florida Statutes, to mean "aggregate years of service" or "aggregate years of service with the municipality" as set forth in the definitions sections of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. The DIVISION requires the compliance with its definition of "salary" and also requires that the CITY desist from applying a Social Security and workers compensation offset because of the DIVISION's construction of the two (2) percent per year provision of Sections 175.351(4), and 185.35(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The DIVISION further requires compliance with its construction of disability benefits.
It is apparent that the non-rule statements (now proposed rules) upon which the DIVISION relies to withhold premium tax monies from the CITIES specifically determine the criteria for compliance and are not simply a reiteration of the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes. As Judge Zehmer opined in the Rules Case, Chapter 175 and Chapter 185, Florida Statutes, each provide their own specific and express statutory minimum requirements applicable to local law plans. See Sections 175.351, and 185.35, Florida Statutes. These sections provide the exact statutory criteria for compliance required by the Legislature for local law plans to receive state- collected premium tax funds. Section 175.351(4) provides in pertinent part:
In order for municipalities and special
fire control districts with their own pension plans for firefighters or for firefighters and other employees to participate in the distri- bution of the tax fund established in ss.
175.101-175.121 and 175.131-175.151, their
pension funds must meet each of the following standards:
The plan must be for the purpose of providing retirement and disability income for firefighters or their beneficiaries.
The normal retirement age, if any, must not be more than age 60.
If the plan provides for a stated period of service as a requirement to receive a retire- ment income, that period must not be more than
30 years.
The benefit formula to determine the amount of monthly pension must be equal to at
least 2 percent for each year of the firefighter's credited service, multiplied by his or her average final compensation. However, if current state contributions pursuant to this chapter are not adequate to fund the additional benefits to meet the minimum requirements in this chapter, only increment increases shall be required as state moneys are adequate to provide. Such increments shall be provided as state moneys become available.
Section 185.35(1)(d) provides in pertinent part:
In order for municipalities with their own pension plans for police officers or for police officers and other employees to participate in the distribution of the tax fund established in ss. 185.07, 185.08, and 185.09, their retirement funds must meet each of the following standards:
The plan must be for the purpose of providing retirement and disability income for police officers.
The normal retirement age, if any, must not be higher than age 60.
If the plan provides for a stated period of service as a requirement to receive a retirement income, that period must not be higher than 30 years.
The benefit formula to determine the amount of monthly pension must be equal to at least 2 percent for each year of the police officer's credited service, multiplied by his or her average final compensation. However, if current state contributions pursuant to this chapter are not adequate to fund the additional benefits to meet the minimum requirements in this chapter, only increment increases shall be required as state moneys are adequate to provide. Such increments shall be provided as state moneys become available.
Under the First District Court of Appeal's decision in the Rules Case, the DIVISION's non-rule statements (now proposed rules) which extend the application of other statutory sections not made expressly and specifically applicable by the Legislature to local law plans create additional rights and impose additional requirements which have the direct and consistent effect of law. Accordingly, under the authority cited above, such agency statements are rules under the definition of Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes.
Moreover, under the First District Court of Appeal's decision in the Rules Case, these statements of the DIVISION, which extend the application of other statutory sections of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, to local law plans without the express and specific statutory authority of the Legislature, enlarge, modify and contravene the specific provisions of the law implemented, and constitute an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as defined in Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes. In this respect, the DIVISION contends that the definitional sections of Chapters 175 and 185, should apply to local law plans; however, while the definitional sections by their terms clearly apply within the chapters, the DIVISION cannot cite to a specific and express legislative authority to apply the definitional sections to local law plans under the Rules Case. Absent such legislative expression, the definitional section cannot be implied to apply to local law plans.
The DIVISION continues to take the position that these non-rule statements which interpret the criteria set forth in Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, merely implement the specific legislative intent language to provide minimum standards. As set forth above, the Legislature in enacting Chapters 86-41 and 86-42, Laws of Florida, stated, "(t)his chapter hereby establishes minimum standards for the operation and funding of municipal firefighters' pension trust fund systems and plans." See Section 175.021, Florida Statutes. (Section 185.01, Florida Statutes, contains identical legislative intent language for municipal police officers' pension plans.) The problem with the DIVISION's position in this regard is that the Legislature specifically set minimum standards for local law plans, and the First District Court of Appeal in the Rules Case already rejected the extension of the general provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, to local law plans, absent express and specific legislative authority.
The DIVISION cites several cases for the proposition that an agency's interpretation of the statute it administers is entitled to great weight, and need only be in the range of possible interpretations. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Florida Commission on Human Relations v. Human Development Center, 413 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). See also, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers Compensation v. Bradley, 636 So.2d 802 (Fla 1st DCA 1994). Again, Judge Zehmer in the Rules Case specifically distinguished these principles of law as being inapplicable to the construction of the Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, under these circumstances. Accordingly, the DIVISION's contention that the provisions of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, which are applicable to chapter plans may be reasonably implied to apply to local law plans is not supported by controlling legal authority.
As indicated above, the Final Order in case No. 95-5089RU determined that the DIVISION's non-rule policy statements met the definition of rules and violated Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The question also arose in that case as to the validity of these non-rule statements under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. In this respect the First District Court of Appeal has held
that "...section 120.535 provides the exclusive mechanism for challenging an agency's failure to adopt agency policy as a rule..." Christo v. State Department of Banking and Finance, 649 So.2d 318, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The court in Christo, also stated that "...the exception to this arrangement is where the unpromulgated rule enlarges, modifies or contravenes the specific provisions of the law implemented." Id. at 319. In light of the legislation pending at that time, the Final Order in case No. 95-5089RU did not reach the issues asserted under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. As indicated above, the 1996 Florida Legislature, however, did not enact any legislation addressing or otherwise clarifying these issues, and under the Christo decision it is now appropriate to address these issues pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
In summary, it is clear that the DIVISION's non-rule policies which apply the definitions of "salary" and "aggregate number of years of service" or "aggregate number of years of service with the municipality" as contained in Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, to local law plans meet the definition of rules, that such rules enlarge, modify and contravene the specific statutory authority of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, and accordingly violate the provisions of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
It is clear that the DIVISION's policies of disallowing all Social Security and workers compensation offsets are also rules, that such rules expand, modify and contravene the specific statutory authority of Chapters 175 and 185, Florida Statutes, and accordingly violate the provisions of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. In this respect, the DIVISION has relied upon he decision in City of Miami v. Carter, 105 So.2d 907 (Fla. 1958); however, that decision was entered prior to the 1986 amendments to the statutes, the Court there did not address the issue of legislative intent, and the decision is accordingly inapplicable to these proceedings.
The evidence establishes that the DIVISION has made a continuing good faith effort to present these issues to the Legislature for resolution, and there is no basis to award attorneys fees and costs to the CITY under Section 120.57(1)(b)15, Florida Statutes.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the DIVISION enter a final order releasing the premium tax monies for calendar years 1994 and 1995 to the CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG.
DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
RICHARD HIXSON, 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 27th day of August, 1996.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2637
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.
1.-7 Adopted and incorporated. 8.-30 Rejected as not necessary. 30.-31 Adopted and incorporated.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.
1 Adopted and incorporated. 2.-3 Rejected as not necessary. 4.-5 Adopted and incorporated. 6.-7 Rejected as not necessary.
Intervenor Rizzo's Proposed Findings of Fact.
1.-10 Adopted and incorporated.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Mirella Murphy James, Esquire Michael S. Davis, Esquire City of St. Petersburg
Post Office Box 2842
St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
Robert Button
Division of Retirement
Cedars Executive Center, Building D 2839 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Ronald J. Cohen, Esquire Ronald D. Klausner, Esquire KLAUSNER and COHEN, P.A.
6565 Taft Street, Suite 200
Hollywood, Florida 33024
David E. Ramba, Esquire Jane C. Hayman, Esquire
Florida League of Cities, Inc.
201 West Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Scott R. Christiansen, Esquire CHRISTIANSEN and DEHNER, P.A.
2975 Bee Ridge Road, Suite C Sarasota, Florida 34239
Lawrence P. Stevenson, Esquire HOLLAND and KNIGHT
315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
James W. Linn, Esquire
LEWIS, LONGMAN and WALKER, P.A.
Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
John F. Dickinson, Esquire Richard L. Ruth, Esquire
CORBIN, DICKINSON, DUVALL and KITCHEN
Post Office Box 41566 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the 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 consult with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case concerning their 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.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 24, 1997 | Division of Retirement's Response to City of St. Petersburg's Motion for Interest; Exhibit filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1997 | Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (filed in the First DCA) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 02, 1997 | Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (filed with the First DCA) filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1996 | Files have been returned to the agency sent out. |
| Dec. 09, 1996 | Motion for Extension of Time (filed in the First DCA) filed. |
| Oct. 28, 1996 | Notice of Cross-Appeal filed with the First DCA (by Petitioner) filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1996 | Notice of Appeal filed. (filed by: Robert D. Klausner) |
| Sep. 20, 1996 | (Robert Klausner) Response to Motion to Strike filed. |
| Sep. 20, 1996 | Division of retirement's Motion for Summary Disposition Denying Interest to City of St. Petersburg (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 20, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Sep. 17, 1996 | (Intervenor) Response to Motion to Strike (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 11, 1996 | Cover Letter to R. Button from A. Cole (& Enclosed Exhibits A) filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1996 | Intervenors, Moore and Feinberg's Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Order filed. |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 6/12/96. |
| Aug. 26, 1996 | (City of St. Petersburg) Notice of Filing (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | (From R. Klausner) Response to Motion Objecting to Purported Agency Action filed. |
| Aug. 09, 1996 | Response to City`s Motion Objecting to Purported Agency Action (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 08, 1996 | Order Granting Motion for Enlargement of Time sent out. |
| Aug. 08, 1996 | (City of St. Pete) Notice of Objection (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 07, 1996 | (Intervenors) Motion for Enlargement of Time filed. |
| Aug. 02, 1996 | Notice of Supplement Authority (tagged) filed. |
| Aug. 02, 1996 | Motion Objecting to Purported Agency Action (Petitioner) filed. |
| Jul. 25, 1996 | (Petitioner) Proposed Final Order In Case Nos. 95-2637 and 95-4110 (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 25, 1996 | Intervenor Rizzo's Proposed Hearing Officer's Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 24, 1996 | Intervenors` Moore and Feinberg`s Proposed Hearing Officer`s Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1996 | (Div. of Retirement) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 12, 1996 | Letter to RAH from Robert Button (RE: filing executed stipulation) filed. |
| Jul. 03, 1996 | Notice of Filing; DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript (Volume 1 TAGGED) filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | (Intervenor) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | (Intervenor) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1996 | Letter to Hearing Officer from J. Linn Re: Enclosing St. Petersburg Exhibit 82; Exhibit filed. |
| Jun. 12, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jun. 11, 1996 | (Intervenor) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (From J. Linn) Notice of Appearance of Additional Attorney on Behalf of Intervenor, Town of Lantana filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing of Supplemental Exhibits filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | Joint Stipulation to Hold Over Trial Subpoenas filed. |
| Jun. 10, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for Protective Order to Preclude Agency Head from Testifying filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | (Town of Lantana) Motion to Intervene in Administrative Hearing (& att`d Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing, DOAH #96-2725RX) filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing of Additional Exhibits filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion to Intervene in Administrative Hearing filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | (From M. James) Pretrial Statement filed. |
| May 20, 1996 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| May 17, 1996 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6/12/96; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | (Petitioner) Amended Motion to Set Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 24, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion to Set Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1996 | (Russell Rizzo) Response to Order to Show Cause filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1996 | (M. Moore & R. Feinberg) Response to Order to Show Cause filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | (Petitioners) Response to Order to Show Cause filed. |
| Mar. 28, 1996 | (Respondent) Response to Order to Show Cause (for case no. 95-5089RU)filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1996 | Order to Show Cause sent out. (for DOAH #95-5089RU) |
| Mar. 13, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing; Citations filed. |
| Mar. 12, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion to Strike Motion for Official Recognition of House Bill 1951; Petitioner`s Motion to Strike Motion for Official Recognition Desepio v. City of Coral Springs filed. |
| Mar. 12, 1996 | Joint Memorandum of Law Addressing Evidentiary Questions and Questions of Law of Hearing Officer of Petitioner and Intervenor Florida League of Cities; Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order; Response to Intervenors` Motion for Sanctions; Affidavit filed. |
| Mar. 12, 1996 | Intervenors Moore and Feinberg's Proposed Hearing Officer's Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1996 | Proposed Final Order filed. (for 95-2637) |
| Mar. 05, 1996 | (From R. Button) Motion to Supplement the Record; (2) Motion for Official Recognition; Final Declaratory Judgment (for Case No. 95-5089RU) filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | cc: FAW Rules 4-54 (for Case No. 95-5089RU) filed. |
| Feb. 13, 1996 | Notice of Filing; Volume 1 of 1 (Transcript) filed. |
| Feb. 09, 1996 | Copy of Rules from Florida Administrative Weekly filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1996 | Chapter 60Z-2 Municipal Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund ; Division of Retirement-Municipal Pension Trust Funds Chapter 60Z-1 Municipal Police Officers' Retirement Trust Fund filed. |
| Jan. 26, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Supplementation Petitioner`s Exhibit List in the Joint Pre-Trial Statement to Correspond With Documents Introduced at Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 19, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing filed. |
| Jan. 18, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Filing filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | (Intervenor) Notice of Filing; Deposition of Irene M. Frazier filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1996 | (Intervenor) Motion for Sanctions filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1996 | Division of Retirement Intervenor's Answers to Florida League of Cities Interrogatories and Admissions filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1996 | (Intervenors) Notice of Filing; Deposition of: Irene M. Frazier; Intervenor League and Petitioner`s Motion for Partial Summary Final Order;Motion to Substitute Witness of Intervenor, Florida League of Cities,Inc. in the Joint Pre trial Statement; Inter |
| Jan. 10, 1996 | Intervenor League's Motion to Permit Testimony by Telephone of Certain Witnesses filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | (Intervenors) Motion for Sanctions filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1996 | (Intervenors) Response to Amended Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits; Exhibit List of Intervenors, Moore and Feinberg filed. |
| Jan. 08, 1996 | (Respondent) Acceptance of Prehearing Stipulation; Signed copy of page 25 filed. |
| Jan. 05, 1996 | Joint Pretrial Statement filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1996 | (Respondent) Amended Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits of Petitioner filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion to Strike Certain Exhibits of Petitioner filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1996 | Joint Motion for Enlargement of Time filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1996 | Intervenor League's Response to Intervenors, Moore and Feinberg's Opposition to Intervenor League's Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1996 | (Intervenors) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jan. 02, 1996 | (Intervenors) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | Intervenors Moore and Feinberg's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Petition to Intervene of the City of Largo filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing; Deposition of A. J. McMullian ; Deposition of Patricia Shoemaker ; Deposition of David Jones(Tagged); Motion to Compel Deposition Answers filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | (David E. Ramba) Motion to Expedite Discovery filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | Intervenor's Certificate of Serving Interrogatories and Request for Admissions; Requests for Admissions filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1995 | Order Granting Petition to Intervene sent out. (petition to intervene granted) |
| Dec. 12, 1995 | Intervenors, Michael J. Moore and Richard Feinberg's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the League of Cities' Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1995 | (Plaintiff) Motion to Hold Over Trial Subpoenas; Order Holding Over Trial Subpoenas (for Hearing Officer signature) filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | Order Granting Motion for Consolidation and Continuance sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-2637, 95-4110, 95-5089RU; cases will be heard January 11 and 12, 1996) |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | Case No/s 95-2637, 95-4110: unconsolidated. |
| Nov. 27, 1995 | (Petitioner) Motion in Opposition to a Motion for Consolidated Hearing filed. |
| Nov. 27, 1995 | Respondent Agency`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion In Opposition to Intervenors Motion for Consolidated Hearing filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1995 | (Intervenor) Motion for Consolidation and Motion for Expedited Consideration (With DOAH case no. 95-2637, 95-5089RU) filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | City of St. Petersburg's Answer to Intervenors' Expert Witness Interrogatories; Expert Witness Interrogatories filed. |
| Oct. 26, 1995 | Order Setting Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 01/11/96; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee) |
| Oct. 19, 1995 | (Respondent) Proposed Dates and Venue for Hearing filed. |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | (Intervenors) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (hearing cancelled) |
| Oct. 17, 1995 | City`s Response to the Motions for Continuance; Request for Oral Argument On the Respondent and Intervenor`s Motion to Continue filed. |
| Oct. 10, 1995 | (Intervenor) Notice of Service of Expert Witness Interrogatories filed. |
| Oct. 06, 1995 | Letter to David J. Fischer from A. J. McMullian III Re: Amended Letter of Final Agency Action w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Oct. 06, 1995 | (Mirella Murphy James) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum; Petitioner`s Request to Transfer Venue filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Objection to Intervenor Rizzo`s Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Sep. 28, 1995 | (Joint) Reply to Petitioner`s Response to the Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Sep. 25, 1995 | Order Granting Motion to Intervene as Respondent and on Reconsideration of Order Granting Intervention sent out. (by: Russell M. Rizzo) |
| Sep. 25, 1995 | Order Granting City`s Motion to Amend Petition and Denying Motion for More Definite Statement or Dismissal sent out. |
| Sep. 20, 1995 | Petitioner`s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1995 | Amended Petition for Formal Hearing (for 95-4110); Amended Petition for Formal Hearing (for 95-2637); Response to Respondent`s Motion for More Definite Statement or Dismissal; Motion to Amend Petition; Petitioner`s Response to the Intervenor`s Petition |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Order Granting Intervention sent out. (by: M. Moore & R. Feinberg) |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Order Denying Motion for Protective Order sent out. |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Affidavit filed. (from A. McMullian) |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Cancellation of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Letter to M. James from R. Button (re: response to request for production) filed. |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | Correction of Certificates of Service filed. (from R. Button) |
| Sep. 18, 1995 | (P. Rizzo) Motion to Intervene as Respondent filed. |
| Sep. 14, 1995 | Order Granting Continuance and Consolidating Cases sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-2637, 95-4110; hearing will be held on 10/26/95;9:00am; St. Petersburg) |
| Sep. 13, 1995 | (R. Klausner, R. Cohen) Motion to Expedite Consideration of the Petition for Intervention filed. |
| Sep. 13, 1995 | (R. Klausner, R. Cohen) Petition to Intervene filed. |
| Sep. 12, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Sep. 11, 1995 | (Respondent) Emergency Motion for Protective Order filed. |
| Aug. 29, 1995 | (Joint) Response to Initial Order Motion for Consolidation and Continuance of Related Case (consolidated w/DOAH case nos. 95-4110, 95-2637)filed. |
| Jul. 21, 1995 | Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner filed. |
| Jun. 16, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/20/95; 10:00am; St. Petersburg) |
| Jun. 16, 1995 | (Joint) Response to Initial Order Stipulation w/cover letter filed. |
| Jun. 16, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/20/95; 10:00am; St. Pete) |
| Jun. 01, 1995 | (Joint) Response to Initial Order Stipulation filed. |
| May 25, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| May 24, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Notice of Election to Request Assignment of Hearing Officer; Petition for Formal Hearing; Agency Action letter filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Sep. 18, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Recommended Order | City entitled to premium tax monies for fire fighter and police pension funds. Division of Retirements policies are invalid. |
