STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-1046

) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, ) JEFFERSON COUNTY, FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William E. Williams, held a public hearing in this cause on June 9, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: T. Buckingham Bird, Esquire

Post Office Box 247 Monticello, Florida 32344

By Petition filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 9, 1980, Respondent, Board of County Commissioners of Jefferson County, Florida ("Respondent") challenges the decision of Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"), functionally classifying State Road 59 in Jefferson County as a "rural collector" and further contesting whether that roadway meets required standards of maintenance.

By Joint Motion for Continuance filed September 12, 1980, the parties requested that this matter be held in abeyance pending settlement negotiations. Subsequently, by motion dated January 28, 1981, the parties requested that this matter be set for hearing.

Final hearing was scheduled for June 8, 1981, by Amended Notice of Hearing dated April 21, 1981.

At the final hearing, DOT called Steve Fregger and W. T. Fulford as its witnesses. DOT offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 8 and 10 through 12, which were received into evidence. Respondent called Chester Henson, Allen Potter, Butler Walker, Walt Edwards and Joseph Sullivan as its witnesses.

Respondent offered Respondent's Exhibits A through F, which were received into evidence.

At the conclusion of the final hearing, the parties waived the requirement of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, that a recommended order be entered in this cause within thirty (30) days from conclusion of the hearing.

Both Petitioner and Respondent have offered Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for consideration by the Hearing Officer in this cause. To the extent that those Proposed Findings of Fact are not included in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either being irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding or as not having been supported by evidence of record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. DOT has been mandated by the Florida Legislature to functionally classify all roads located in the state in order to effect transfers from the state road system to local government of all roads not intended to be included in the state highway system after July 1, 1982. As will be hereinafter discussed in the Conclusions of Law section of this order, the basic functional categories established by the Legislature include "arterial," "collector" and "local" roads which, in turn, may be subdivided into "major" or "minor" levels, as well as "rural" and "urban" categories. After July 1, 1982, the Legislature has directed that the state highway system consist of only the interstate highway system, all rural arterial routes, all urban principal arterial routes, and those urban minor arterial routes on the existing primary road system as of July 1, 1977.

   
   

2. The dispute in this case concerns the accuracy of DOT's classification of State Road 59 in Jefferson County as a "rural collector," as against Respondent's contention that State Road 59 should be classified as an "arterial" and, therefore, maintained in the state highway system.

   
   

3. State Road 59 in Jefferson County is approximately 26 miles long, with its southern terminus located at U.S. 98, and its northern terminus immediately south of U.S. 90 at the Leon County line. In its 26-mile length, State Road 59 passes through two communities, each with a population of less than 1,000, and the aforementioned three U.S. highways and an interstate highway, each of which is functionally classified as an "arterial." The condition of State Road 59, as well as its jurisdictional history, is more easily understood if discussed in segmented fashion. The roadway in question is rather easily divisible into the four following segments:

   
   

   1. Interstate 10 north to the Leon County line, immediately south of

      U.S. 90 (approximately three miles in length)

   2. Interstate 10 south to U.S. 27 (approximately five miles in length);

   3. U.S. 27 south to State Road 259 at Wacissa (approximately four miles in length) and

   4. State Road 259 at Wacissa south to

      U.S. 98 (approximately 14 miles in length).

      
      

4. That section of State Road 59 from State Road 259 at Wacissa south to

   U.S. 98 is not a matter of contention in this proceeding insofar as resurfacing

   requirements are concerned, since DOT intends to resurface that portion of the roadway prior to transfer to Jefferson County.

   
   

5. In arriving at the proper functional classification for a roadway, it appears that the DOT's primary objective consideration is relative average daily traffic counts. The Department has recorded history traffic counts since 1969 from literally tens of thousands of traffic sites throughout the state. These counts are performed in a regular routine manner as labor and equipment permit. Evidence introduced at final hearing shows locations of traffic count sites in Leon, Jefferson and Madison counties, and establishes a traffic count history at each of the many traffic count sites in those three counties. In this regard, it must be initially recognized that completely different characteristics attach to vehicular traffic volumes in various areas of the state. For example, even a "minor collector" in an urban area will often have counts substantially higher than a "minor arterial" in a rural area. "Collector" roads located in North Florida are likely to have significantly less traffic volume than "collector" roads in South Florida. In Jefferson County and surrounding areas "collector" roads generally have an average daily traffic volume of from 200 to 1,000 cars per day. A "minor arterial" in this geographic area generally has a traffic volume of between 500 to 6,000 vehicles per day, while a "major arterial" customarily has traffic volume ranging from 2,000 to 16,000 vehicles per day. State Road 59 in Jefferson County in 1975 had an average daily traffic ranging from 261 to 582 vehicles per day. In 1977 the average daily traffic volume had risen to from 523 to 965 vehicles per day, and in 1980 traffic counts established an average daily traffic of from 515 to 970 vehicles per day. These average daily traffic counts place State Road 59 clearly within the range of rural collectors in Jefferson and surrounding counties.

   
   

6. In addition to traffic counts, DOT in determining that State Road 59 should be classified as a "rural collector" as opposed to an "arterial" considered the length of trips, the purpose of trips, the speed of vehicles and the relationship of State Road 59 to other roads in Jefferson County and surrounding counties. Personnel of the Department's Central Office and District Office made inspections, and also gathered information from public hearings, a study of the state highway system, consultations with county officials and an examination of state and county records. By virtue of the relatively unpopulated area in which this section of State Road 59 is located, and further in view of the fact that in its relatively short 26-mile length it intersects four highways which are classified as "arterial" roads, the record in this proceeding clearly establishes that the primary purpose served by State Road 59 is to distribute traffic between local and arterial roads. Further, because of its relatively short length and the unpopulated nature of the area in which it is located, neither trip length nor operating speed appear to be particularly important factors in properly classifying this roadway.

   
   

7. As previously indicated, the Department has agreed to resurface that portion of State Road 59 in Jefferson County from the point where it intersects State Road 259 in Wacissa south to its intersection with U.S. 98. The section of State Road 59 in Jefferson County from Interstate 10 north to U.S. 90 has been recently resurfaced and is presently in good condition. The section of State Road 59 from Interstate 10 south to U.S. 27 was resurfaced in 1978. However, the Interstate 10 to U.S. 27 segment of State Road 59, in addition to the U.S. 27 to State Road 259 section of State Road 59 has shown some recent deterioration which, it is clear from the record in this proceeding, is due to heavy truck traffic. Apparently most of this heavy truck traffic originates in Taylor County, Florida, enters State Road 59 at its intersection with U.S. 98 and proceeds north on State Road 59 into Leon County and ultimately into the

   state of Georgia. The volume of heavy truck traffic on State Road 59 is due at least in part to a weight restriction ordinance passed within the last two years by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners which has the effect of channeling heavily loaded trucks onto State Road 59 and away from roads currently in the county road system. Notwithstanding these effects, however, it appears that these two sections of State Road 59 are in a physical condition at least equal to contemporary roads of like age and existing functional classification within Jefferson County and surrounding counties. There is no competent evidence of record in this proceeding which would establish that either of these two sections of roadway qualify for resurfacing under any measurement of pavement conditions utilized by the Department.

   
   

8. The parties to this proceeding have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been included in this Recommended Order, they have been rejected as either not having been supported by the evidence or as not having been relevant to the issue in this proceeding.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

9. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. Section 335.04(1), Florida Statutes, provides, in part, as follows:

    
    

    No later than October 1, 1977, (the Department of Transportation) shall adopt, pursuant to chapter 120, a plan based upon functional classification of roads and shall begin to implement an orderly phase-in of such plan by no later than January 1, 1978. All transfers of responsibility between the state and

    local governments required by the said plan shall be completed no later than July 1, 1982. Any road for which responsibility is being transferred from

    the department to counties and municipali- ties shall be brought to a physical con- dition commensurate with contemporary roads of like age and existing functional classi- fication within the county or city. How- ever, if said road has not been resurfaced within 12 years prior to the date of the proposed transfer, or if the condition of said road, when analyzed in accordance with the standards of measurement of pavement conditions utilized by the department as of January 1, 1977, indicates the need for resurfacing, and if the county requests a resurfacing, the road shall be resurfaced prior to transfer. If the county and department are unable to agree on the need for resurfacing, the county shall have the right to administrative and judicial review

    as provided in chapter 120.... (Emphasis added.)

11. Section 334.03(22), Florida Statutes, provides that:

    
    

    The state highway system shall consist of the following:

    1. The interstate system;

    2. All rural arterial routes and their extensions into and through urban areas;

    3. All urban principal arterial routes; and

    4. Those urban minor arterial routes on the existing primary road system as of July 1, 1977. (Emphasis added.)

       
       

12. Section 334.03(23), Florida Statutes, includes within the definition of "county road system":

    
    

    ". . . .all collector roads in the unin- corporated areas and all extensions of such collector roads-into and through any unin- corporated areas, all local roads in the unincorporated areas, and all urban minor arterials not in the state highway system." (Emphasis added.)

    
    

13. Section 334.03(14), Florida Statutes, defines the term "functional classification" as:

    
    

    The assignment of roads into systems according to the character of service they provide in relation to the total road net- work. Basic functional categories include arterial, collector, and local roads which may be subdivided into principal, major,

    or minor levels. Those levels may be addition- ally divided into rural and urban categories.

    
    

14. Section 334.03(15), Florida Statutes, defines "arterial road" as:

    
    

    A route providing service which is relatively continuous and of relatively high traffic volume, long average trip length, high operating speed, and high mobility importance. In addition, all United States numbered highways shall be arterial roads.

    
    

15. Section 334.03(16); Florida Statutes, defines "collector road" as: 16.

    
    

    A route providing service which is of relatively moderate average traffic volume, moderately average trip length, and moderately average operating speed. These routes also collect and distribute traffic between local roads and arterial roads and serve as a

    linkage between land access and mobility needs.

    
    

16. Section 334.03(21), Florida Statutes, defines "urban minor arterial roads" as:

    
    

    Routes which generally interconnect with, and augment, urban principal arterial routes and provide service to trips of shorter length and a lower level of travel mobility. Minor arterial routes include all arterials not classified as principal and contain facilities that place more emphasis on land access than the higher system.

    
    

17. Section 14-12.05, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. Prior to transferring any road,

       the department shall establish the condition of such road as to (a) its year of last resur- facing, and (b) its current condition as determined by the system of measurement

       in use by the department as of January 1, 1977.

    2. Any road scheduled to be trans- ferred from the state highway system shall, prior to its transfer, be resurfaced if the jurisdiction to which responsibility for the road is being transferred requests that the road be resurfaced, and

       1. it has been at least 12 years since the road was last resurfaced, or

       2. it has been less than 12 years since the road was last resurfaced and the standard use by the department as of January 1, 1977 to determine the need to resurface roads indicates a need for resur- facing. If, in accordance with the above criteria, it has been decided that a road is to be resurfaced, the department shall

          determine the extent of resurfacing required.

    3. Notwithstanding the resurfacing requirements contained in 14-12.05(2), no road shall be transferred to a county or a municipality, without its consent, which is not in a general physical condition at

    least commensurate with contemporary roads of like age and existing functional classifica- tion within the respective jurisdiction,

    such condition to be determined by the depart- ment.

    
    

18. It is concluded, as a matter of law, that State Road 59 in Jefferson County meets the criteria for functional classification as a "rural collector," and further that the physical condition of that roadway from the Leon County

line south to State Road 259 at Wacissa is presently sufficient to meet requirements for transfer from the state to the county road system.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation functionally classifying State Road 59 in Jefferson County as a rural collector" and transferring jurisdiction over said roadway to Respondent.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.

WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1982.

COPIES FURNISHED:

T. Buckingham Bird, Esquire Post Office Box 247 Monticello, Florida 32344

Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Allen Potter, District Engineer Florida Department of Transportation Post Office Box 607

Chipley, Florida 32428

Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 80-001046

Orders for Case No: 80-001046