STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 87-4388

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, William R. Cave, held a formal hearing in the above- styled case on April 19, 1988, in Tavares, Florida. The issue for determination is whether jurisdiction over Main Street in Leesburg, Florida beginning at a junction of County Road (CR) 468 and State Road (SR) 44 on the west side of the city and ending at the junction of SR 44 on the east side of the city should be transferred from the City of Leesburg to Petitioner, Lake County, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sandford A. Minkoff, Esquire

1150 East Highway 441

Tavares, Florida 32778

For Respondent: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire

Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building

605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 BACKGROUND

By letter dated August 4, 1987, and received by the Petitioner on August 5, 1987, Respondent informed Petitioner of the functional classification of the roads and the assignment of the roads to the State Highway System, County Road System and City Street System, which stated that all classifications and assignments proposed would become final unless a hearing was requested within 30 days of the date of the letter. The map and road description attached to the letter indicated that the Respondent proposed a change in classification of Main Street in Leesburg, Florida from urban collector to minor arterial and a transfer of jurisdiction from the City of Leesburg to Lake County, Florida as a result of this change in classification. There were other classifications which Lake County objected to but prior to the hearing an agreement was reached in regard to the other classifications with the condition that Petitioner would not be precluded from challenging such classifications if the roads in question were not improved in accordance with the statute prior to the transfer.

By letter dated September 3, 1987, and received by Respondent on September 4, 1987, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on the classification of the roads in question.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Jim Stivender, Jr.

Petitioner's exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Dale Cartlon, Lawrence Taylor, Gabriel B. Jones and Stephen Fregger. Respondent's exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 were received into evidence.

The parties submitted post-hearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made as reflected in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found:

1. The segment of road in question is located entirely within the City of Leesburg, Florida. The segment in question, Main Street, begins at a junction of CR 468 and SR 44 and heads in an easterly direction, is intersected about midpoint by SR 25 (US 27), then continues easterly to a junction with SR 44 on the east edge of the city, a distance of 3.670 miles.

   
   

2. SR 25 in the urban limits of the city and where it is intersected by Main Street is classified as an urban principal arterial.

   
   

3. SR 44 at the western and eastern terminus of Main Street is classified as an urban minor arterial.

   
   

4. The Respondent evaluated the entire length of Main Street (3.670 miles) as one segment rather than two segments, one east of SR 25 and one west of SR 25.

   
   

5. Main Street is bounded by SR 44, a road of higher classification than the present classification of Main Street, an urban collector, and of equal classification to the proposed classification of Main Street, a minor arterial.

   
   

6. The traffic flow on Main Street is a continuous flow and is not significantly interrupted by the intersection of SR 25.

   
   

7. Before evaluating Main Street under the criteria of a minor arterial the Respondent, using a method similar to the method for minor arterial classification but designed for urban collector classification, evaluated Main Street as an urban collector and calculated a System Attribute Score (SAS) of 90 which indicated a higher classification. This calculation resulted in Main Street being evaluated as a minor arterial.

   
   

8. Respondent, in determining the functional classification of Main Street, utilized the criteria set out in Rule 14-12.015, Florida Administrative Code and scored Main Street on 5 attributes: (1) Average Daily Traffic (ADT), minimum 4,000; (2) Speed (lowest posted), minimum 35 mph; (3) Traffic Signals, minimum 3; (4) Street Length, minimum 3.5 miles; and (5) Lanes, minimum 3, with each attribute receiving a score of 1 if it met the minimum level set forth in Rule 14-12.015, Table Number 3, Florida Administrative Code.

9. For the ADT attribute, Respondent utilized an ADT figure of 8,581, an average of 3 figures furnished verbally to the Respondent by the City Engineer. These ADT figures were not collected in accordance with Rule 14-12.017, Florida Administrative Code, as required by Rule 14-12.015(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code nor certified as required by that same rule.

   
   

10. The Respondent was not certain of when, where or how the ADT figures furnished by the City Engineer were obtained, but the Respondent was of the opinion that the figures were obtained from a segment of Main Street east of SR 25, mainly in the heart of the City of Leesburg, Florida.

    
    

11. The Respondent did not collect Average Daily Traffic (ADT) figures for Main Street.

    
    

12. The Respondent used 40 miles per hour (mph) for speed attribute, but the lowest posted speed on Main Street was less than 35 mph.

    
    

13. For the traffic signal attribute, the Respondent used 4 but there was credible evidence that 6 traffic signals were located on the 3.670 miles of Main Street.

    
    

14. The Respondent used 2 lanes for the lanes attribute and there was no dispute as to the number of lanes.

    
    

15. For the length attribute, the Respondent used 3.670 miles and there was no dispute as to the length.

    
    

16. The Respondent assigned a score of 1 to each of the attributes, with the exception of lanes which was assigned a score of zero, for a total score of

    4 which when multiplied by the system element coefficient of 15, found in Part II-Small Urban Area System Elements and Coefficients, Table 4, Arterial to Arterial, as required by Rule 14-12.015(3), Florida Administrative Code, equals a SAS of 60. However, since the Respondent relied on invalid ADT figures and on incorrect speed limit the correct SAS would be 30 which required the Respondent to classify Main Street as a minor arterial.

    
    

17. In 1982, the City of Leesburg, Florida contemplated an urban renewal project which would involve Main Street and therefore requested the Respondent to reroute that segment of SR 44 within the city (what is currently known as Main Street was then SR 44) so that Main Street could become a city street. Public hearings were held on the rerouting of SR 44 and there were no objections. However, before rerouting SR 44 the Respondent required the Petitioner to pass a resolution stating that it did not object to the rerouting or to removing those segments of CR 468 and CR 33 involved in the rerouting from the County Road System and transferring those segments of CR 468 and CR 33 to the State Road System.

    
    

18. The resolution was adopted by the county, but there was no indication, other than that Main Street would become a city street, that the County was acting on a representation by the Respondent that Main Street would always remain classified as a city street and under the jurisdiction of the City of Leesburg.

    
    

19. Although the Petitioner expended funds on CR 468 and CR 33 prior to transferring them to the State Road System, there was no evidence that the Respondent required this expenditure prior to the transfer of the roads or that because of this expenditure, or for any other reason, the Respondent represented

    to the Petitioner that Main Street would always remain classified a city street and under the jurisdiction of the City of Leesburg.

    
    

20. There was no evidence that the Petitioner relied on Main Street being transferred to the jurisdiction of the City of Leesburg to make any expenditure of funds for the improvement of CR 468 and CR 33 or for the expenditure any other funds.

    
    

21. Main Street does not meet the minimum attribute level for classifications as an urban principal arterial in a small urban area.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

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

    
    

23. The Respondent has the responsibility to classify functionally all roads within the state and assign jurisdiction over said roads to the state, a county, or a municipality. Sections 334.044(11), 335.01, and 335.04(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

    
    

24. Public roads within Florida generally fall within one of three general categories: arterial, collector, or local which are defined in Seation 334.03(1)(4) and (12), Florida Statutes, and "may be subdivided into principal, major, or minor levels" which "may be additionally divided into rural and urban categories." Section 334.03(8), Florida Statutes. Urban minor arterial roads are routes "which generally interconnect with, and augment, urban principal arterial routes and provide service to trips of shorter length and lower level of travel mobility." Urban minor arterial roads also "include all arterials not classified as principal and contain facilities that place more emphasis on land access than the higher system." Section 334.03(26), Florida Statutes. A collector road is a route providing service that is "of relatively moderate average traffic volume, moderately average trip length, and moderately average operating speed." A collector road also "collects and distributes traffic between local roads or arterial roads and serves as a linkage between land access and mobility needs." Section 334.03(4), Florida Statutes.

    
    

25. A county is responsible for all roads within the County Road System, which consists of "all collector roads in the unincorporated areas and all extensions of such collector roads into and through any incorporated areas, all local roads in the unincorporated areas, and all urban minor arterial roads not in the State Highway System." Section 334.03(6), Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. A municipality is responsible for all roads within the City Street System, which consists of "all local roads within that municipality, and all collector roads inside that municipality, which are not in the county road system." Section 334.03(3), Florida Statutes.

    
    

27. All roads and road segments within the small urban areas receive characteristic evaluation points, SAS, in accordance with their traffic volume, length, number of lanes, speed limit, and traffic signals. Section 14-12.015, Table 3 and 4, Florida Administrative Code. All roads within a small urban area are listed in accordance with their SAS. In a small urban area, roads or road segments with the highest SAS determined in accordance with Section 14- 12.015(3), Florida Administrative Code are classified as urban principal arterial with the next highest SAS classified as urban minor arterial and the

    lowest SAS classified as urban collector. Section 14-12.015(1)(a), Table 5, Florida Administrative Code.

    
    

28. In performing Minimum Attribute evaluations in a small urban area, the "urban segment is a portion of an urban street (or an entire urban street) which is being evaluated" and "is generally bounded by intersections with higher classification urban streets (or equal classification streets if the street does not terminate at a higher classification street) which is the portion to be tested for all attributes except Street Length." For the attribute street length, "the length used for scoring is the urban street" as defined in Section 14-12.015(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code, which defines an urban street to be "generally an aggregation of urban segments which comprise an extended transportation corridor" which "usually terminates only where there is a radical change in direction," and "may comprise a number of segments with differing functional classifications." It also provides that the urban street definition is only utilized for street length attribute in the urban Minimum Attribute evaluation.

    
    

29. The burden of proof in this case rests with the Respondent, which has the affirmative of the issue whether jurisdiction over Main Street in Leesburg, Florida beginning at a junction of CR 468 and SR 44 on the west side of the city and ending at the junction of SR 44 on the east edge of the city should be transferred from the City of Leesburg, Florida to the Petitioner, Lake County, Florida. Balino v. Dept. of HRS, 348 So.2d (1 DCA Fla. 1977). However, once Respondent has presented its classification of Main Street and it appears to be consistent with applicable statutes and rules, Respondent has presented a prima facie case and the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to Petitioner to show that Main Street should remain classified as an urban collector within the city or, in the alternative, show that the Respondent is estopped from changing the classification of Main Street, notwithstanding its responsibilities under Section 335.04, Florida Statutes.

    
    

30. It is evident that Respondent's decision to consider the length of Main Street (3.670 miles) as an urban segment rather than considering it as two segments, one east of SR 25 and one west of SR 25, was based on its interpretation of "urban minor arterial roads" as defined in Section 334.03(26), Florida Statutes and its interpretation of "urban segment" and "urban street" as defined in Rule 14-12.015(2)(b) and (d), Florida Administrative Code. There is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the Respondent's decision in this regard and the Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to prove otherwise.

    
    

31. Considering Main Street as one segment, the Respondent has properly applied the criteria of Rule 14-12.015, Florida Administrative Code in classifying Main Street as a urban minor arterial, notwithstanding the use of invalid ADT figures and an incorrect speed limit by the Respondent. Reducing the attribute score of both the ADT and the speed limit to zero, the total attribute score would be 2 and when multiplied by the system element coefficient of 15 derived from Table 4 would result in a System Attribute Score of 30 which would qualify Main Street as a urban minor arterial in a small urban area under Table 3 which is a higher classification than urban collector in a small urban area. Main Street having passed the System Attribute Score for urban minor arterial, the evaluation terminates pursuant to Rule 14-12.015(1)(a)4., Florida Administrative Code. There is no validity to Petitioner's contention that upon Main Street "passing" the System Attribute Score for urban collector, there was no authority for Respondent to evaluate Main Street in the next highest category. Rule 14-12.015(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code.

32. Petitioner argues that the Respondent in rerouting SR 44 around Leesburg, Florida made a representation to the Petitioner that Main Street was to be classified as a city street and would never be under the jurisdiction of the Petitioner even though there may be a change in classification. Only in rare instances and under exceptional circumstances is estoppel applied against the state, and in order to demonstrate estoppel, the following elements must be shown: (1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to later- asserted position; (2) reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel, caused by the representation and reliance. State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d

397 (Fla. 1981). Although the Respondent did advise Petitioner that Main Street would become a "city street," there was no evidence that Respondent made a representation to the Petitioner that Main Street would always remain a "city street" regardless of its change in classification. Additionally, there was no showing that Petitioner relied on any representation by the Respondent in regard to rerouting of SR 44 and Main Street becoming a "city street" to its detriment.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is,

RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Department of Transportation enter a Final Order assigning jurisdiction over Main Street in Leesburg, Florida beginning at a junction of CR 468 and SR 44 and moving in an easterly direction to a junction with SR 44 on the east edge of the City of Leesburg, Florida to Petitioner.

Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

WILLIAM R. CAVE

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1988.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4388

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case.

Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner

1. Adopted in Finding of Fact l.

2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4.

3-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9.

7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but clarified.

8-9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 13 respectively.

10-11. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant to any determination in this case.

12-14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17.

1. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant to any determination in this case.

2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 but clarified.

3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18 except that reclassification of Main Street was not the subject of the resolution.

Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent

1. The first 2 sentences are rejected as immaterial or irrelevant to any determination in this case. The third sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record in that Main Street was located entirely within the city limits of Leesburg. The fourth, sixth, and seventh sentence are adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 8, and 12, respectively.

   The fifth sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 6. The eighth and ninth sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 13. The tenth sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 15.

2. The first 2 sentences are rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this case. The third sentence is adopted in Finding of Fact 5. The fourth and fifth sentences are adopted in Finding of Fact 16.

3. The first 6 sentences are rejected as not being material or relevant to any determination in this case. The balance of paragraph 3 is adopted in Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 but clarified.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sanford A. Minkoff, Esquire 1150 East Highway 441

Tavares, Florida 32778

Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458

Docket for Case No: 87-004388

Orders for Case No: 87-004388