STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-4591
)
CITY OF PALM BAY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, final hearing in the above-styled case was held on January 20, 1988, in Melbourne, Florida, before Robert E. Meale, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The parties were represented as follows:
For Petitioner: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire
Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
For Respondent: Nicholas Tsamoutales, Esquire
Nicholas Tsamoutales, P.A.
1900 Palm Bay Road Northeast, Suite G Palm Bay, Florida 32905
BACKGROUND
By letter dated September 9, 1987, Petitioner informed Respondent of the functional classification of the roads within Petitioner's District Five, which includes the City of Palm Bay. Petitioner's 1987 Road System Classification Data report accompanied the letter, which stated that all classifications and assignments proposed in the report would become final unless a hearing was requested within 30 days of the date of the letter. The report disclosed that the road segments in question, while unchanged in their classification, would be transferred from the jurisdiction of Brevard County to Respondent.
By letter to Petitioner dated October 1, 1987, Respondent requested a formal hearing on the proper classification of the road segments in question. The ultimate purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Petitioner should assign to Respondent the jurisdiction over the road segments in question.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented two witnesses and offered into evidence three exhibits. Respondent presented one witness and offered into evidence one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted.
Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order. Respondent filed none.
Treatment accorded the proposed findings is detailed in the Appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The road segments in question are located totally within the City of Palm Bay in Brevard County and the Urbanized Area designated by Petitioner as "Cocoa-Melbourne." The segments are: Malabar Road between Minton Road on the west and Interstate 95 on the east; Palm Bay Road between Babcock Street on the west and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard on the east; and Robert J, Conlan Boulevard in its entirety from Palm Bay Road on the southwest to U.S. Route 1 on the northeast.
At all material times, the above-described road segments ("Road Segments") have been classified as Urban Collector Roads and have been under the jurisdiction of Brevard County.
The Palm Bay Road segment in question ("Palm Bay Segment") runs in an east-west direction a distance of approximately 1 1/2 miles. Palm Bay Road lies entirely inside the City of Palm Bay except for a portion of the road running between Minton Road on the west and about one-eighth of a mile west of Babcock Road on the east. This part of Palm Bay Road, which is west of the Palm Bay Segment, marks the boundary between the City of Palm Bay and the unincorporated area of Brevard County. The parties stipulated that the center line of this part of Palm Bay Road constitutes the boundary.
Palm Bay Road west of the Palm Bay Segment is classified as an Urban Collector Road and is assigned to Brevard County. Petitioner does not propose changing this assignment. Babcock Street, which marks the westerly end of the Palm Bay Segment, is classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Road.
Palm Bay Road east of the Palm Bay Segment is classified as an Urban Collector Road entirely within the limits of the City of Palm Bay and assigned to Respondent. Petitioner does not propose changing this assignment and Respondent does not challenge it. Palm Bay Road west of Robert J. Conlan Boulevard is designated by Petitioner as County Road 516. In 1981, Petitioner, in an effort to reflect traffic patterns, re- designated the east end of County Road 516 so that it no longer followed Palm Bay Road (with a couple of turns) to
U.S. 1, but instead turned north and followed Robert J. Conlan Boulevard to its termination at U.S. 1. At the same time, Petitioner designated Palm Bay Road east of Robert J. Conlan Boulevard plus short sections of Main Street and Hickory Avenue as County Road 5070.
Robert J. Conlan Boulevard runs north off Palm Bay Road and then in a northeasterly direction to U.S. 1 for a total distance of 1.7 miles.
The Malabar Road segment in question ("Malabar Segment") runs in an east-west direction a distance of 2.443 miles. The Malabar Segment is part of Malabar Road, which runs east into unincorporated Brevard County. The east end of the Malabar Segment is marked by an interchange at Interstate 95. East of the interchange, Petitioner has classified Malabar Road as an Urban Minor Arterial Road and assigned it to the State of Florida. Malabar Road runs west of Minton Road, but remains within the city limits and terminates at the boundary between the city and the unincorporated area of the county.
Petitioner introduced an Urbanized Area Characteristic Evaluation Points scoresheet for each of the three Road Segments, although the point sheet for the Palm Bay Segment included County Road 5070. Petitioner's expert
witnesses, although lacking any detailed knowledge of the roads and road segments in the subject Urbanized Area, opined that the Road Segments were properly classified as Urban Collector Roads.
Respondent's expert witness was its City Engineer, Harry Lampe. He testified that Palm Bay Road is one of only two east-west arteries serving downtown Palm Bay, which is an extremely fast-growing area whose population center has dramatically shifted westward in the past eight years to a point in the vicinity of Interstate 95. Mr. Lampe testified that specific characteristics of all three Road Segments were undervalued by Petitioner and opined that the Road Segments should be classified as Urban Minor Arterial Roads.
No evidence was presented, however, as to the relative value of the points that either Petitioner or Respondent assigned to any of the Road Segments.
According to Respondent's map, the traffic volume on the greater part of the Palm Bay Segment significantly exceeds the traffic count for the portion of Malabar Road that Petitioner has classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Road. Petitioner offered no traffic count for the Palm Bay Segment. Petitioner's traffic count covered a road segment consisting of the Palm Bay Segment plus the less-traveled County Road 5070. It was never clear if Petitioner's traffic count even reflected traffic conditions on the Palm Bay Segment. The segment of Palm Bay Road between Minton Road and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard and the segment of Malabar Road between U.S. 1 and Interstate 95 are comparable in length, service as the only east-west arteries in the Palm Bay area, and interstate access by way of an interchange. The interchange is under construction at Palm Bay Road--a fact that Petitioner admittedly did not take under consideration. Although there was no evidence as to the number of lanes, divided-or-undivided status, or speed limit of Malabar Road east of Interstate 95, the Palm Bay Segment received the maximum points for lanes and divided status and was in the second highest category as to speed limit. The five characteristic evaluation points it conceivably could lack if the above- described segment of Malabar Road had a higher speed limit were offset by the heavier traffic on the above- described segment of Palm Bay Road.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes
Petitioner 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), 335.04(1)(a), and 335.01, Florida Statutes.
Public roads within Florida generally fall within one of three categories: arterial, collector, or local. Section 334.03, Florida Statutes. These categories of roads are defined relative to each other. An arterial road is a route providing service that is "relatively continuous and of relatively high traffic volume, long average trip length, high operating speed, and high mobility importance." Section 334.03(1), 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. A local road is a route providing service that is "of relatively low average traffic volume, short average trip length or minimal through-traffic movements, and high land access for abutting property." Section 334.03(12), Florida Statutes.
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. The assignment of jurisdiction over minor arterial roads requires analysis of a number of factors. By statute, the state must be assigned jurisdiction over minor arterial roads constituting in mileage not less than a minimum percentage of the public road mileage within the Urbanized Area. Section 334.03(19)(d), Florida Statutes. By rule, the county cannot be assigned jurisdiction over more than, in the case of the Melbourne-Cocoa Urbanized Area, 33 miles of minor arterial roads. Rule 14- 12.016(2)(b)1 and Table 8, Florida Administrative Code.
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.
With respect to Urbanized Areas, the County Road System includes Urban Collector Roads that: are "totally outside incorporated areas" or "extend from the unincorporated area into a municipality . . . [up to] the first full intersection with a road of like or higher functional classification within the municipality . . ." Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)2 and 3, Florida Administrative Code.
With respect to Urbanized Areas, the City Street System consists of "Urban Collector roads totally inside the incorporated area [and] Local roads that are inside the incorporated area." Rule 14-12.016(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
With respect to Urbanized Areas, a special rule provides that, subject to three exceptions not relevant here, the entity with jurisdiction on November 25, 1986, shall retain jurisdiction over "[e]xisting Urban Collector roads that extend from the unincorporated areas into the incorporated areas." Rule 14- 12.016(2)(b)4, Florida Administrative Code.
All roads and road segments receive characteristic evaluation points in accordance with their traffic volume, length, number of lanes, speed limit, and divided or undivided highway status. Function evaluation points are awarded to roads or road segments with certain special functions generally not relevant here. All roads within an Urbanized Area are listed in accordance with their total points. Roads or road segments with the highest number of points are Urban Principal Arterial Roads. Roads or road segments with the next highest number of points are Urban Minor Arterial Roads. Roads or road segments with the next highest number of points are Urban Collector Roads. Roads or road segments with the lowest number of points are Local Roads. Rule 14-12.016(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code.
The points assigned to a road or road segment mean nothing in themselves. In theory, 50 points in a rural area might cause a road to be classified as a rural arterial, while 50 points in a densely populated city might not raise the classification of a road above a local road. The proper
assignments among the state, counties, and municipalities within an Urbanized Area is dependent upon the point scores of all roads and road segments within an Urbanized Area and the point thresholds between the different classifications within that Urbanized Area.
The burden of proof in this case rests with Petitioner, which has the affirmative of the issue whether jurisdiction over the Road Segments should be transferred from Brevard County to Respondent. See, e.g., Florida Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). However, once Petitioner has presented its classifications and they appear to be consistent with applicable statutes and rules, Petitioner has presented a prima facie case and the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to Respondent. In this case, then, Respondent has the burden of proving that the Road Segments should be classified as Urban Minor Arterial Roads, instead of Urban Collector Roads as they are now classified. It is proper that Respondent have the burden at this point because Respondent asserts the affirmative of the issue, which resembles an affirmative defense.
Malabar Road runs from the unincorporated area of the county westerly into the City of Palm Bay, but the portion of the road east of the city limit is an Urban Minor Arterial Road, not an Urban Collector Road. Malabar Road does not run outside the city limits on the west. Robert J. Conlan Boulevard is not a part of Palm Bay Road and, thus, does not run outside the city limits. The Malabar Segment and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard are therefore outside the scope of Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4, which prohibits transfers of jurisdiction of Urban Collector Roads that "extend from the unincorporated areas into the incorporated crated areas." Petitioner has therefore presented a prima facie case for the classification of the Malabar Segment and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard as Urban Collector Roads.
The portion of Palm Bay Road that is north of the centerline is in the unincorporated area of Brevard County. Neither the statutes or the rules cover the possibility of the centerline of a road segment serving as the boundary between the county and the city, for the purpose of determining the applicability of Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4.
On the one hand, no portion of Palm Bay Road "extends" from the unincorporated area of the county into the city; one portion overlaps onto both sides of the boundary line. The present situation does not appear to be within the natural meaning of the rule, which, serving as an exception, must be strictly interpreted against Respondent under normal rules of construction. See, e.g., Pal-Mar Water Management District v. Board of County Commissioners of Martin County, 384 So.2d 232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
On the other hand, as Petitioner points out in its proposed recommended order, there is a presumption of correctness in actions taken by state agencies, at least insofar as an agency's interpretation of its own rules is entitled to great deference. See, e.g., Reedy Creek Improvement District v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Petitioner has assigned Palm Bay Road west of Babcock Street to Brevard County. This road segment, just west of the Palm Bay Segment, is classified as an Urban Collector Road. It is evident that Petitioner has made this assignment based upon its interpretation of Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)3.
Applying to Urban Collector Roads that "extend from the unincorporated area into a municipality," the rule provides that such roads shall be assigned to the county to the "first full intersection with a road of like or higher functional
classification within that municipality." As noted above, the only part of Palm Bay Road outside of the city is that portion north of the centerline between Minton Road and one-eighth of a mile west of Babcock Street. Petitioner obviously has deemed that segment of road to have extended from the unincorporated area into the city, or else there would have been no basis for its assignment to Brevard County. Under the same interpretation of similar language in Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4, which has no provision for intervening intersections, jurisdiction over the Palm Bay Segment should remain within Brevard County.
It is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent also proved that the Palm Bay Segment should properly have been classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Road. Even though Respondent failed to produce direct evidence of the classification thresholds between Urban Collector Roads and Urban Minor Arterial Roads, strong evidence suggests that the Palm Bay Segment should be classified as an Urban Minor Arterial Road, like Malabar Road east of Interstate 95. However, absent proof that Malabar Road east of Interstate 95 received no extraordinary function points, a conclusion to this effect is not supported by the record.
Although Respondent presented evidence supporting its claims that the other Road Segments were improperly classified and tending to show that Petitioner's point assessment of the Road Segments was too low, Respondent did not show that the characteristics of the other two Road Segments were the equivalent of any Urban Minor Arterial Road in the same Urban Area. Respondent's failure to present any direct evidence of the classification threshold between Urban Collector Roads and Urban Minor Arterial Roads in the
Melbourne-Cocoa Urbanized Area is consequently fatal to its claim that Robert J. Conlan Boulevard and the Malabar Segment should be reclassified.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED a Final Order be entered assigning jurisdiction over that portion of Palm Bay Road between Minton Road and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard to Brevard County and assigning jurisdiction over Robert J. Conlan Boulevard and Malabar Road between Minton Road and Interstate 95 to Respondent.
ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ROBERT E. MEALE
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 26th day of February, 1988.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4591
Adopted, except Palm Bay Road proceeds in an easterly direction from Minton Road, not Interstate 95 which is east of Minton Road and except Palm Bay Road intersects with Main Street, not U.S. 1.
Adopted, except for the incomplete fourth sentence and except that Malabar Road is not totally within the city limits of Respondent.
Adopted.
Rejected as unnecessary, except that the experience of Mr. Lampe and his opinion have been duly noted.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Nicholas Tsamoutales, Esquire Nicholas Tsamoutales, P.A.
1900 Palm Bay Road Northeast Suite G
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
Thomas H. Bateman, III Department of Transportation General Counsel
562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Kaye N. Henderson Secretary
Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
CITY OF PALM BAY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-4591
) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The above-styled case was remanded to the undersigned pursuant to the opinion in City of Palm Bay v. Department of Transportation, 541 So. 2d 1295 (F1a. 1st DCA 1989) and the ensuing Order of Remand from the Department of Transportation dated July 3, 1989. By agreement of the parties, the case was presented by stipulation.
APPEARANCES
The parties are represented as follows:
For Petitioner: Leonard A. Carson
John D.C. Newton, II Lu Ann Snider
Carson & Linn, P.A. Mahan Station
1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
For Respondent: Vernon L. Whittier
Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether Respondent should assign jurisdiction over Malabar Road between Minton Road and Interstate 95 to Petitioner.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Recommended Order dated February 26, 1988, the undersigned recommended that Respondent assign jurisdiction over the above-described segment of Malabar Road to Petitioner. By Final Order dated May 26, 1988, Respondent assigned jurisdiction over the road segment to Petitioner.
In City of Palm Bay v. Department of Transportation, 541 So. 2d 1295 (Fla.
1st DCA 1989), the District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the Final Order assigning the above-described segment of Malabar Road to Petitioner.
By Order of Remand dated July 3, 1989, and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 4, 1989, Respondent remanded the case to the undersigned "for additional findings of fact" for the resolution of the following issues:
Whether Malabar Road extends from an unincorporated area into an incorporated area for purposes of determining the applicability of Florida Administrative Code Rules
14-12.016(2)3. or 4.
Whether Minton Road, at its intersection with Malabar Road, is of a "like or higher functional classification within the municipality."
By Notice of Hearing dated September 9, 1989, the final hearing was set for December 27, 1989. By agreement between the parties, instead of a hearing, they filed a Stipulation of Fact on December 26, 1989. By telephone hearing on January 3, 1990, the parties clarified certain of the stipulations Petitioner filed a Motion for Stay on July 13, 1989, on the grounds that it was prosecuting a rule challenge to certain rules applicable to the present case. Respondent filed a Notice of Opposition to Stay on August 4, 1989. On January 16, 1990, Petitioner filed a Motion to Consolidate, which, in the alternative to the stay, sought the consolidation of the above-styled case and the rule challenge, which is DOAH Case No. 89-3735R. Respondent filed on January 26, 1990, a Notice of Opposition to Consolidation and Stay.
The motions for a stay and consolidation are hereby denied. Respondent filed proposed conclusions of law and a recommendation.
Petitioner filed proposed findings of fact, which are all adopted or adopted in substance.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The western terminus of Malabar Road is in unincorporated Brevard County. Proceeding east, the road remains in unincorporated Brevard County until it crosses a drainage canal bridge, which marks the westerly boundary of the city limits of Petitioner. The segment of Malabar Road from its western terminus to the drainage canal bridge is unpaved, under the jurisdiction of Brevard County, and classified as a local road in a rural area.
Proceeding east from the drainage canal bridge, Malabar Road is paved to its eastern terminus. About 2.5 miles east of the drainage canal bridge, Malabar Road intersects with Minton Road. The segment of Malabar Road from the bridge to Minton Road is under the jurisdiction of Petitioner. Immediately west of Minton Road but east of the bridge, Malabar Road is classified as an urban collector and enters what Respondent calls an urbanized area. Minton Road is also an urban collector road at its intersection with Malabar Road.
Proceeding east from Minton Road, Malabar Road travels 2.443 miles to Interstate 95, at which point it is classified as a minor arterial. The segment of Malabar Road from Minton Road to Interstate 95 is under the jurisdiction of Brevard County. However, Respondent proposes to assign to Petitioner this segment, which at all material times, including prior to the proposed assignment to Petitioner, has been classified as an urban collector.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes.
Petitioner is responsible for all roads included in the City Street System. Section 334.03(3). Rule 14-12.016(2)(c)1., Florida Administrative Code, states that the City Street System includes "urban collector roads totally inside the incorporated area." (All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code.)
Brevard County is responsible for all roads included in the County Road System. Section 334.03(6). Rule 14-12.016(2)(b) states that the County Road System includes:
Urban Collector roads totally outside incorporated areas.
Urban Collector roads that extend from the unincorporated area into a municipality shall be the operational and.maintenance responsibility of the county to the first full intersection with a road of like or higher functional classification within the municipality. . . .
Existing Urban Collector roads that extend from the unincorporated areas into the incorporated areas will remain under the jurisdiction of the entity to which they are presently assigned except as follows:
The road is classified to a higher, or lower functional classification; or
The municipal limits are changed
. . . .; or
With mutual agreement between City and County.
In general, Respondent must classify all roads in the state and assign jurisdiction over them to the state, county, or municipality for maintenance and upkeep. Sections 334.044(11), 335.04(1)(a), and 335.01.
Public roads are divided into three categories: arterial, collector, and local. Section 334.03. These categories are defined relative to each other, in descending order, by reference to traffic volume, trip length, and operating speed. The collector is defined as "moderate" in these regards. Section 334.03(4).
The classification of roads within an urbanized area depends upon two factors. One factor is "function," in which "each road" is awarded points if it is designated, for example, an Interstate Route or United States Route or connects an airport or waterport. Rule 14-12.016(1)(a)1.
The other factor is "characteristics," in which "all roads or road segments" are awarded points based on traffic volume, length, number of lanes, speed, and divided or undivided. Rule 14-12.016(1)(a)2.
Each road or road segment is then compared, by total points, to other roads and road segments. Those with the most points are classified as arterials, those with the fewest points are classified as local roads, and those in between are classified as collectors. Rule 14-12.016(1)(b)3.
The scope of the present inquiry has been set by the District Court of Appeal that remanded the case. In City of Palm Bay v. Department of Transportation, 541 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the court found deficient "the findings on whether Malabar Road extends from an unincorporated area into an incorporated area for purposes of determining the applicability of Rules 14- 12.016(2)(b)3. or 4." Thus, the court remanded the case "for further findings of this issue":
If Malabar Road is found to extend, from the west, from an unincorporated part of Brevard County into incorporated Palm Bay, then
because the road in those pertinent portions is an existing Urban Collector under [Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4., transfer of jurisdiction to Palm Bay is in contravention of the Rule unless Minton Road (which marks the west end of the Malabar segment) is a Malabar intersection that has a "like or higher functional classification within the municipality." Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)3.
Malabar Road extends from unincorporated Brevard County on the west into incorporated Palm Bay. It is an existing urban collector at a point immediately west of its intersection with Minton Road, but not west of the city limits where it is unpaved and classified as a local road. Therefore, transfer of jurisdiction over the subject does not contravene Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4.
In any event, Minton Road is of like or higher functional classification within the municipality. Minton Road, which is in the city limits at this point, is of like classification compared to Malabar Road at their intersection. The County's jurisdictional responsibilities for Malabar Road under Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)3. thus could not be extended east of Minton Road.
Petitioner is consequently unable, under either rule, to prevent Respondent from assigning the subject road segment to Petitioner.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order assigning Malabar Road between Minton Road and Interstate 95 to the City of Palm Bay.
DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ROBERT E. MEALE
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1990.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Ben Watt, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel
Department of Transportation
562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450
Leonard A. Carson John D.C. Newton, II Lu Ann Snider
Carson & Linn, P.A.
Mahan Station
1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308
Vernon L. Whittier Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 87-4591
CITY OF PALM BAY,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
The record in this proceeding and the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer have been reviewed. Both parties have filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order which are considered and addressed below. The Recommended
Order is considered correct in both fact and law and is incorporated as a part of this Final Order with the following correction.
The last sentence of paragraph seven of the Findings of Fact is amended to read as follows:
Malabar Segment runs west of Minton Road, but remains within the city limits and terminates at the boundary between the city and the unincorporated area of the county.
When paragraph seven is read in its entirety, it is evident that the hearing officer inadvertently used "Malabar Road" instead of "Malabar Segment."
Respondent's exception to the issue is without merit. The purpose of functionally classifying public roads is to assign each road to the appropriate road system based upon its functional classification. Therefore, the Hearing Officer's connotation of the "ultimate purpose" of hearing as whether the Department should assign the subject roads to the Respondent is not in conflict with the issue as stated in the notice of hearing.
Respondent's exceptions to the Findings of Fact are also without merit.
Respondent's exceptions are premised on the scrivener's error in paragraph seven which is rectified in this Final Order. Additionally, Respondent claims that the Hearing Officer found that Malabar Road east of Interstate 95 was an urban collector road. This assertion is false. In paragraph seven of the Finding of Facts, the Hearing Officer specifically states:
... East of the interchange, Petitioner has classified Malabar Road as an Urban Minor Arterial Road and assigned it to the State of Florida.
Accordingly, Respondent's exceptions, being premised upon misconceptions, are rejected.
Both Petitioner's and Respondent's exceptions to the Conclusions of Law are rejected. The Department agrees with the Hearing Officer that once the Department presents a prima facie case that the subject road segments should be transferred, the burden shifts to the Respondent. The Hearing Officer properly concluded that Respondent did not meet its burden. Respondent's exceptions are nothing more than mere disagreement with this conclusion.
As to Petitioner's second exception, if the propounded interpretation of Fla. Admin. Code Rule 14-12.016(4) were adopted, such rule would become a nullity. Therefore, the Department adopts the Hearing Officer's interpretation of Rule 14-12.016(4) which does not allow for the transfer of jurisdiction to the city of existing urban collector roads extending from the county at the first intervening intersection of the same or higher classification within the municipal limits.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that jurisdiction over Palm Bay Road between Minton Road and Robert J. Conlan Boulevard remain with Brevard County and jurisdiction over Robert J. Conlan Boulevard and Malabar Road between Minton Road and Interstate 95 be transferred to Respondent, City of Palm Bay.
DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of May, 1988.
KAYE N. HENDERSON, P. E.
Secretary
Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Judicial review of agency final order may be pursued in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458, and with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within 30 days of the filing of this Final order with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings. The Notice of Appeal filed with the District Court of Appeal should be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section 35.22(3), Florida Statutes.
COPIES FURNISHED TO:
V. L. WHITTIER, ESQUIRE Department of Transportation Office of the General Counsel Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
ROBERT E. MEALE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
NICHOLAS TSAMOUTALES, ESQUIRE
1900 Palm Bay Road, N.E. Suite G
Palm Bay, Florida 32905
================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
CITY OF PALM BAY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Appellee.
CASE NO. 88-1560
DOAH CASE NO. 87-4591
/ Opinion filed April 11, 1989.
An Appeal from an order of the Department of Transportation.
Albert A. Lagano and Nicholas F. Tsamoutales, of Nicholas F. Tsamoutales, P.A., Palm Bay; and Leonard A. Crson, James C. Adkins, and John D. C. Newton, II, of Carson & Linn, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Maxine F. Ferguson and Thomas H. Bateman, III, General Counsel, Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
SHIVERS, Judge.
The City of Palm Bay (Palm Bay) appeals a Department of Transportation (DOT) final order accepting a Division of Administrative Hearing's recommended order which transferred jurisdiction over Robert J. Conlan Boulevard (Conlan Boulevard) and a segment of Malabar Road (Malabar segment) from Brevard County to the City of Palm Bay. The Department moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We find our jurisdiction appropriately exercised, affirm DOT's disposition regarding Conlan Boulevard and reverse its disposition regarding the Malabar segment and remand for further proceedings.
By letter dated September 9, 1987, DOT notified Palm Bay of all classifications and jurisdictional assignments of roads within Brevard County. Both the Malabar segment and Conlan Boulevard had been classified as Urban Collectors prior to this time and DOT left them classified as such. However, DOT determined that under Fla. Admin. Code Rule 14-12.016, the jurisdiction over these road segments should be with Palm Bay. They were previously the jurisdictional responsibility of Brevard County.
Palm Bay requested and received a Chapter 120 administrative hearing to contest DOT's transfer of jurisdiction. The hearing officer's recommendation, which was ultimately adopted by DOT by final order after some material amendment, approved DOT's original transfer to Palm Bay of jurisdiction over the road segments at issue. Palm Bay filed an appeal and DOT moved for dismissal on the ground that Palm Bay lacked jurisdiction under the dictates of City of Destin v. Department of Transportation, 14 F.L.W. 280 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 27, 1989). We subsequently withdrew that opinion and filed in its stead City of Destin v. Department of Transportation, 14 F.L.W. 711 (Fla. 1st DCA Mar. 16, 1989) wherein we stated:
While Sections 335.O4(1)(b)3. and 335.04(1)(c) do contain specific reference to Chapter 120 review when the parties are unable to agree at the time of transfer upon the condition of the road or the transferee county's ability to financially maintain it, we do not
believe that the entire balance of the administrative process governing the classification and reclassification of roads was intended to thereby be exempt from Chapter 120 review."
Id. at 713. The instant case involves a transfer of jurisdictional responsibility to Palm Bay the upholding of which was based in large part upon a construction of Fla. Admin. Code Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4. The Department's authority for promulgation of that Rule is derived from section 335.04.
Subsection (1)(b)3. of this statute specifically addresses the instant situation whereby a "road for which responsibility is being transferred from the department to a county or municipality...." We therefore find City of Destin guides our determination of the jurisdictional issue raised by DOT. Chapter 120 review was properly taken below and the subject matter of this appeal is properly cognizable by this court.
At issue is the jurisdictional responsibility of Conlan Boulevard which intersects with Palm Bay Road on the south and runs northeasterly to U.S. 1. Conlan Boulevard lies entirely within the incorporated area. Palm Bay Road runs east and west and is also an Urban Collector Road. Neither its classification nor its jurisdiction is at issue. Palm Bay Road and Conlan Boulevard together are also designated County Road 516. A portion of Palm Bay Road running from the intersection with Conlan Boulevard east to U.S. 1 is designated County Road
527 and is not at issue.
Jurisdictional responsibility is also at issue over the Malabar segment running east and west between Minton Road on the west and I-95 on the east. A portion of Malabar Road beginning at I-95 and running east is classified as Urban Minor Arterial and is not at issue. Also at issue is whether Malabar Road extends from the west from unincorporated Brevard County into incorporated Palm Bay.
"The general rule in Florida is that a decision by an administrative body if made within its realm of authority will be upheld if factually correct, absent some compelling circumstance, clear error or an overriding legal basis." City of Hollywood v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 476 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
We examine Rules 14-12.016(2)(b)3. and 4. and 14- 12016(2)(c). 14- 12/016(2) pertains to assignment of jurisdictional responsibility; subsection
(b) pertains to the County Road System; subsection 3. requires counties to have jurisdictional responsibility over "Urban Collector Roads that extend from the unincorporated area into a municipality... to the first full intersection with a road of like or higher functional classification within the municipality." Subsection 4. requires counties to retain jurisdictional responsibility over "[e]ixisting Urban Collector roads that extend from the unincorporated areas into the incorporated areas...." Subsection (2)(c) of this Rule states that the City Street System consists of Urban Collector and Local roads inside the incorporated area.
Palm Bay argues that Malabar Road runs east and west through the City and on both ends terminates in the unincorporated areas of Brevard County. From the east, Malabar Road extends from an unincorporated area east of the segment at issue past I-95 and into the incorporated area, but that eastern segment is classified Urban Minor Arterial and thus subsections 3. and 4. do not apply. It is unclear from the hearing officer's findings of fact whether the western terminus of Malabar Road is within the city limits. The segment at issue lies
between I-95 on the east and Minton Road on the west. The hearing officer found, in paragraph 7 of the findings of fact, that "Malabar Road runs west of Minton Road, but remains within the city limits and terminates at the boundary between the city and the unincorporated area of the county." (emphasis added). Palm Bay filed an exception to this finding stating that "Malabar Road extends from the unincorporated area of the County into the City of Palm Bay, a factor that places Malabar Road squarely within the scope of Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)4., which prohibits the transfer of jurisdiction of urban collector roads that
`extend from the unincorporated reas into the incorporated areas.'" (emphasis added). It appears that Palm Bay was referring to the western area of Malabar Road. In its final order, DOT agreed with the exception and amended the sentence in the findings of fact to read "Malabar Segment" instead of "Malabar Road", but the final order does not adequately address appellant's assertion regarding the existence of a western terminus outside the incorporated area.
In addition, DOT's final order did not address the statement contained in the hearing officer's conclusions of law, paragraph 13, that "Malabar Road does not run outside the city limits on the west." Failure to address this appears to render the final order inconsistent. We ascertain that the findings on whether Malabar Road extends from an unincorporated area into an incorporated area for purposes of determining the applicability of Rules 14-12.016(2)(b)3. or 4. are deficient. We reverse and remand for further findings on this issue. If Malabar Road is found to extend, from the west, from an unincorporated part of Brevard County into incorporated Palm Bay, then because the road in those pertinent portions is an existing Urban Collector under subsection 4., transfer of jurisdiction to Palm Bay is in contravention of the Rule unless Minton Road (which marks the west end of the Malabar segment) is a Malabar intersection that has a "like or higher functional classification within the municipality." Rule 14-12.016(2)(b)3.
As to Conlan Boulevard, it is entirely within the Cite of Palm Bay. Even though Palm Bay Road and Conlan Boulevard are both designated County Road 516, Conlan Boulevard makes a radical change in direction at its intersection with Palm Bay Road. Conlan Boulevard essentially runs north and south and Palm Bay Road runs east and west. Conlan Boulevard fits the definition of an urban street. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 14-12.015(2)(d) defines an urban street as "generally an aggregation of urban segments which comprise an extended transportation corridor. Streets usually terminate only where there is a radical change in direction."
We reverse and remand as to the Malabar segment. We affirm the transfer of jurisdiction of Conlan Boulevard to the City finding competent, substantial evidence to support the transfer. We also affirm the remaining points on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part. BARFIELD, J., CONCURS. ZEHMER, J., CONCURS IN RESULT.
================================================================= SUPPLEMENTAL AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CITY OF PALM BAY,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 87-4591
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION,
Respondent.
/
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL ORDER
By order dated July 3, 1989, the above-styled case was remanded to the Hearing Officer pursuant to the opinion in City of Palm Bay v. Department of Transportation, 541 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order on February 23, 1990 (copy attached). No Exceptions to the Recommended Order have been filed. The Recommended Order is adopted as being correct in both fact and law.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that jurisdiction over Malabar Road between Minton Road and Interstate 95 be transferred to the CITY OF PALM BAY.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of March, 1990.
BEN G. WATTS, P. E.
Secretary
Department of Transportion Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The following information is required by law to be included in all Final Orders:
Judicial review of agency final orders may b pursued in accordance with Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0458, and with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Final Order with the Department's Clerk of Agency Proceedings. The Notice of Appeal filed with the District Court of Appeal should be accompanied by the filing fee specified in Section 35.22(3), Florida Statutes.
COPIES FURNISHED:
ROBERT E. MEALE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
LEONARD A. CARSON JOHN D. C. NEWTON, 11 LU ANN SNIDER
Carson & Linn, P.A.
Mahan Station
1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
VERNON L. WHITTIER
Department of Transportation
506 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 26, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 11, 1989 | Opinion | |
| May 26, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 26, 1988 | Recommended Order | Road jurisdiction assigned to city due to fact that subject segment is separated by segment of equal or higher classification from segment of Road in County |
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. CITY OF WILTON MANORS, 87-004591 (1987)
LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 87-004591 (1987)
BROWARD COUNTY vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 87-004591 (1987)
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vs. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 87-004591 (1987)
