STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARTIN LUTHER KING ECONOMIC ) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-4537RU

) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ) AFFAIRS, )

)

Respondent, )

) NEW WASHINGTON HEIGHTS )

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT )

CORPORATION, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-4538RU

) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ) AFFAIRS, )

)

Respondent, )

) WYNWOOD COMMUNITY ) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-4539RU

) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ) AFFAIRS, )

)

Respondent, )

) MIAMI BEACH COMMUNITY ) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ) INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-4666RU

) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ) AFFAIRS, )

)

Respondent, )

)

ALLAPATTAH BUSINESS ) DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INC.,)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 92-4851RU

) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ) AFFAIRS, )

)

Respondent, )

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a formal hearing in this case on August 17, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES 1/

For Petitioners: Sam Mason

Martin Luther King Economic Development Corporation, Inc. 6116 NW 7th Avenue

Miami, FL 3312

Jackie Bell and Sam Foster

New Washington Heights Community Development Corporation, Inc.

1600 NW 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33136

William Rios

Wynwood Community Development Corporation, Inc.

225 NE 34th Street, Suite 209 Miami, FL 33137

Denis Russ

Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, Inc.

205 Drexel Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33139

For Respondent: G. Steven Pfeiffer, Esquire and

Barbara Jo Finer, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Department's decision to fund for the 1992-93 fiscal year only those Community Development Corporations ("CDCs") which qualified for three year

administrative grants under the Community Development Corporations' Support and Assistance Program ("CDCSAP") is an agency statement that constitutes a rule and, if so, whether rulemaking to more definitely establish the number of CDCs that would be funded was either practicable or feasible.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On or about July 21-23, 1992, Petitioner's Martin Luther King Economic Development Corporation, Inc., New Washington Heights Community Development Corporation, Inc., Wynwood Community Development Corporation, Inc., Miami Beach Community Development Corporation, Inc., and Allapattah Business Development Authority, Inc., were notified by telephone by the Department's staff that they would not be awarded administrative grants for the 1992-93 fiscal year under the CDCSAP. Letters to Petitioners dated August 12, 1922, served as formal notification that they would not receive grants and further advised them of their administrative hearing rights.

On July 27, 28 and 30, 1992, Petitioners filed identical petitions with the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") requesting an administrative determination that the Department's decision was an agency rule and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it had not been promulgated in accordance with Sections 120.54, Florida Statutes. At the time of filing their petitions, Petitioners had not been formally notified of the Department's decision with respect to the award of grants, however, they had been informed of the forthcoming decision and therefore initiated these proceedings.

The proceedings were assigned to the undersigned to conduct a formal hearing and an order was entered granting the Department's request to consolidate the proceedings.

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of James S. Fox, Rosa Morgan, Lynn Ekholm, and Julia Johnson. Mr. Fox was tendered and accepted as an expert in the field of planning. Mr. Fox and Mrs. Morgan were accepted as experts with regard to the administration of the CDCSAP. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Fox, Ms. Morgan and Sam Mason. The Department offered sixteen exhibits which were received in evidence at the hearing.

The Department has submitted a proposed final order which is substantially adopted in this final order. Proposed findings not adopted are the subject of specific rulings in an Appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department administers the CDCSAP Act (the "act"). The Florida legislature makes annual appropriations to fund the CDCSAP. These funds are used to finance activities of qualified CDCs.

   
   

2. CDCs are community-based organizations which, in concert with state and local governments and private enterprise, facilitate or financially support revenue-generating business for the purpose of community economic development, redevelopment, preservation, restoration and revitalization. To this end, the Department's line staff person for the CDC program, James Fox, who is a planner employed by the Department, reviews applications, gives technical assistance workshops on rules and gives statewide speeches to CDC programs and at their annual meetings. Fox is familiar with the community development corporations statewide and the activities of each CDC program. He has been instrumental in assisting local entities prepare applications to become CDCs to include filing

   their non-profit corporate status with the Secretary of State. He has authored a pamphlet for the Department which has been distributed to entities desirous of achieving CDC status entitled "How to become a CDC". (Respondent's Exhibit 1). This pamphlet is widely utilized by entities seeking CDC status and provides all of the basic information needed to become a CDC.

   
   

3. The act empowers the Department to administer the CDCSAP and authorizes issuance of one and three year administrative grants, planning grants and loans to fund the activities of eligible CDCs. The act requires the Department to monitor expenditures of CDC funds and to provide technical assistance to CDCs. In addition to CDCSAP grants and loans, CDC has also received funding from private foundations and local governments.

   
   

4. The Department has adopted Chapter 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code. That chapter implements the act and establishes regulations and procedures governing the CDCSAP.

   
   

5. CDCs fiercely compete annually for administrative grants when filing their applications with the Department. These grant applications are reviewed by Fox. There are approximately fifty CDCs statewide and they annually submit applications for grants. Once these applications are received, Fox reviews and scores them pursuant to Rule 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code. In so doing, the Department uses three reviewers and the reviews are individually conducted. In reviewing the grant applications, a funding matrix is used. Using the matrix, a score and rank is made for each application. Next, the division director goes over each application and the matter is discussed with the Department's Secretary. Later a letter of intent is given (to either grant or deny the application). The score lists the rank and order and is not an entitlement to funding.

   
   

6. After the applications are reviewed, the Department's senior management lists a "pre-appeal" score and ranking for each applicant.

   
   

7. Once the CDCs are notified in writing of the score and ranking in the pre-appeal scoring matrix, they are also advised that the number and amount of administrative grants awarded will be contingent upon passage of a state budget and appropriation for the fiscal year. Applicants are also advised of rights to pursue an appeal regarding the correctness of the scores pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. (Respondent's Exhibit 3).

   
   

8. If an appeal is initiated, an administrative proceeding is conducted usually under the informal provisions of Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. A hearing officer assigned by the Department conducts a hearing and issues a recommended order. A final order is then entered by the Department's Secretary.

   
   

9. Thereafter, each applicant is assigned a final score and ranking in the matrix which determines funding order priority. The final scores are usually determined prior to adoption of an appropriations act by the legislature. As noted, the final score does not establish whether a particular CDC will be funded.

   
   

10. Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 9B-14.007(3) and 9B- 14.009(11)(a)-(c) provide the parameters within which the Department determines the number, type and amount of administrative grants it will award.

11. When grant applications are submitted and evaluated, the Department is, at the time, unaware of the amount of money available for upcoming grants because the legislature has not passed an appropriations bill for the fiscal year.

    
    

12. Final decision with respect to the number and amount of administrative grants is made after the final appropriation bills and summary statement of intent is transmitted to the Department.

    
    

13. "Proviso language" is passed by the legislature as part of the appropriations bill. It is signed by the governor, has the force of law and is binding on the Department. Legislative statement of intent language is transmitted to the governor at a date after passage of the appropriations act by chairpersons of the House and Senate committees on appropriations. The intent language is the statement of how the legislature, in its considered opinion, thinks the appropriated funds should be spent. It guides the Department regarding use of appropriated funds.

    
    

14. The Department considers and relies on applicable legislative proviso or intent language in deciding its final determination as to number and amount of administrative grants. Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Department follows the statement of intent language in reaching its final funding decision.

    
    

15. Over the years, a pattern has emerged which evidences that the Department carefully considers applicable proviso or statement of intent language. Specifically, from a historical perspective, for the 1983-84 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,175,000 for the CDCSAP but did not include either proviso or legislative statement of intent language. The governor vetoed $200,000.00 of that sum leaving $975,000 to fund the program. The Department awarded administrative grants in varying amounts to 23 CDCs. Subsequently, the legislature amended the statute to allow the Department to fund no more than 18 CDCs. (Respondent's Exhibit 7 and Chapter 84-240, Laws of Florida).

    
    

16. For the 1984-85 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. In accordance with that proviso language, the Department awarded administrative grants of $100,000 each to 16 CDCs.

    
    

17. For the 1985-86 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP but included neither proviso nor statement of intent language. The Department awarded grants of $100,000 to 16 CDCs.

    
    

18. For the 1986-87 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be awarded administrative grants and that a specific CDC be awarded a training grant. Pursuant to that proviso language, the Department awarded administrative grants of $85,000 each to 16 CDCs, and a $40,000 training grant to the specified CDC.

    
    

19. For the 1987-88 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,337,156 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. Pursuant to that proviso language, the Department awarded grants of

    $83,338 each to 15 CDCs. Another $83,338 was divided to provide grants of

    $41,669 each to two eligible CDCs which received identical scores for the last funding slot.

20. For the 1988-89 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,337,156 for the CDCSAP and included proviso language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. Pursuant to that proviso language, the Department awarded grants of

    $72,380 each to 16 CDCs.

    
    

21. For the 1989-90 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,337,156 for the CDCSAP and included statement of intent language directing that no more than 16 CDCs be funded. The Department awarded grants of $83,572 each to 16 CDCs.

    
    

22. For the 1990-91 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,699,600 for the CDCSAP and included statement of intent language directing that no more than 18 CDCs be funded. The Department followed the statement of intent and awarded grants of $90,564 each to 17 CDCs which scored above the minimum point threshold as set forth in the matrix.

    
    

23. For the 1991-92 funding cycle, the legislature appropriated $1,600,000 for the CDCSAP but included neither proviso nor statement of intent language. The Department awarded grants of $88,888 each to 18 CDCs.

    
    

24. Final scores and ranking does not establish entitlement to funding under the program. The final score establishes whether a CDC is eligible to receive either a one or three year administrative grant depending on the total number of points received. The score also results in ranking of each CDC so that depending upon legislative appropriations and expressions of intent regarding funding, a funding priority is established.

    
    

25. Prior to 1991, the act provided only for the award of one year administrative grants. In 1991, the Florida legislature amended the act to permit the award of multi-year administrative grants and planning grants. (Chapter 91-263, Laws of Florida).

    
    

26. The provisions of the act relative to funding provides:

    
    

    The amount of any administrative grant to a community development corporation in one year shall be any amount up to $100,000. The Department may fund up to 18 Community Development Corporations this year as provided for in the general appropriations act. The Department shall develop a diminishing scale of funding each year based on the annual appropriation to ensure compliance with this section and Section 290.0365. See Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes (1991).

    
    

27. To incorporate the 1991 statutory changes into Rule 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code, the Department initiated rulemaking pursuant to Section

    120.54 in September 1991. Several workshops were held to gain input from CDCs regarding proposed changes to the rule. In addition, a public hearing was held in January 1992 at which the Department received oral and written comments from CDCs regarding the proposed rule challenges. Amendments were adopted and took effect on March 22, 1992. During the rulemaking process, no comment was submitted regarding the proposed changes to Rule 9B-14.009(11).

    
    

28. No party initiated a rule challenge to the proposed amendments pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes.

29. Rule 9B-14.007(3), which was not affected by the 1992 amendments, states in relevant part that "[n]o grant will be awarded for funds exceeding

    $100.000." Respondent's Exhibit 2 at Rule 9B-14.007(3).

    
    

30. Rule 9B-14.009(11), as amended in 1992, now authorizes the award of two types of administrative grants of one and three years duration in addition to planning grants. The pertinent portion of this rule provides:

    
    

    1. A maximum of 18 administrative grants may be awarded in any fiscal year pursuant to Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes.

    2. Applicants which receive a score of 150 or more points will be awarded a three year administrative grant.

    3. Applicants which receive a score of at least 100 points but less than 150 points will be awarded a one year administrative grant.

       
       

31. For the 1992-93 funding cycle, prior to the application deadline and after the amendments to Rule 9B-14 were adopted, public application workshops were held in Tallahassee and Miami. At the workshops, representatives of the Department discussed the recent statutory and rule changes to the CDCSAP as well as the proper way to complete applications.

    
    

32. The application deadline for administrative grants for the 1992-93 grant cycle was April 1, 1992. The Department received 29 timely applications.

    
    

33. When the 1992-93 grant applications were received, evaluated and given tentative scores and rankings, the Department was unaware of the amount of legislative appropriations for the CDCSAP and whether any proviso or statement of intent language would accompany the appropriation.

    
    

34. After the applications were evaluated, the preappeal scores and rankings derived and the applicants were notified of the results, several CDCs including Petitioners appealed their scores. Informal hearings were held during late May 1992. The hearing officer's recommended orders were issued June 25, 1992 followed by the Department's final orders on July 8, 1992.

    
    

35. Thereafter, each applicant was assigned a final score and ranking.

    For the 1992-93 funding cycle, 21 CDCs scored above the 100 point minimum threshold. Of these 21, 12 CDCs scored above 150 points and 9 CDCs scored above

    100 points but less than 150 points.

    
    

36. Each of the Petitioners scored above 100 points but less than 150 points.

    
    

37. In late June 1992, the legislature passed an appropriations act which was signed into law on July 2, 1992. On July 14, the Department received a copy of the appropriations act and the accompanying statement of intent regarding the disbursements of appropriated funds of the CDCSAP.

    
    

38. The Department requested funding of $1,800,000 for the CDCSAP grant and loan program for fiscal year 1992-93. However, the legislature reduced that funding request to $800,000 for the CDCSAP grants and included a statement of intent language directing that those CDCs which received sufficient point scores

    under Rule 9B-14 to qualify for a three year administrative grant be funded. The intent language states:

    
    

    It is the intent of the legislature that funds provided in specific appropriation 293A shall be used to award administrative grants in accordance with the provisions of Section 290.036, Florida Statutes, of equal amounts, to those Community Development Corporations that receive a sufficient point score under the Department of Community Affairs evaluation of FY 1992-93 grant applicants to qualify for a three year administrative grant pursuant to criteria established in Chapter 9B-14.009(11) (b), F.A.C.

    
    

39. In reaching its decision respecting funding, the Department considered whether to follow the statement of intent language and award 12 grants of

    $66,666 each, or instead to award 18 grants at $44,444 each. The Department's Secretary ultimately decided to follow the statement of intent language and award grants of $66,666 each to the 12 CDCs which qualified for three year grants under Rule 9B-14. The action of the Secretary was within the discretion accorded by Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 9B-14.009(11)(a) to award "up to" 18 grants.

    
    

40. The Department has not issued any type of statement which indicates that, in future funding cycles, it will award only three year administrative grants. The Secretary's decision relates only to the 1992-93 fiscal year.

    
    

41. Section 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rules 9B-14.007(3) and 9B- 14.009(11)(a), Florida Administrative Code commands the Department to award between 0 and 18 administrative grants each year, provided no single award exceeds $100,000. Flexibility is given to the Department based on the uncertainties each year surrounding the legislative appropriations process. Due to the vagaries of the appropriations process, it is not practical or feasible for the Department to adopt a rule which requires it to award a specific number of administrative grants annually. Nor is it feasible or practicable for the Department to wait for the appropriations bill to be passed before initiating an order on the number of grants it will award. The Department strives to get the administrative funds to the CDCs expeditiously. At a minimum, rulemaking takes several months and would accordingly substantially delay transferring grant monies to the CDCs.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

42. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.535, Florida Statutes (1991).

    
    

43. Section 290.038(1) of the act expressly delegates to the Department "all the powers necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes or provisions of this act."

    
    

44. The Department has properly adopted, through formal rulemaking procedures, rule Chapter 9B-14, Florida Administrative Code to implement the act.

45. The Secretary's decision to fund for the 1992-93 fiscal year only those CDCs which qualified for three year administrative grants is not a formulation of new agency policy. That decision is a consistent application of the Department's existing rule. The decision of how many CDCs to fund does not fit the definition of a "rule" under Section 120.52(16). Instead, it is an agency "order", not subject to the requirements of Section 120.535.

    
    

46. Section 120.52(16) defines a rule as "each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the organization, procedure or practice requirements of an agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information as specifically required by statute or by an existing rule."

    
    

47. Here, the Secretary's decision is not a statement of general applicability. That decision applies uniquely to the 1992-93 funding cycle. While it affects all CDCs which sought funding this fiscal year in that it determines which will be funded and which will not, it has a discreet temporal limitation. It has no prospect of application to funding decisions in future years. Accordingly, it is an "order" and not a "rule". Florida Department of Commerce v. Matthews Corporation, 358 So.2d 256, 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

    
    

48. The Secretary's decision is not a statement of general applicability "because it is not intended by its own effect to create rights or to require compliance". See, Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Administration Commission,

    588 So.2d 397, 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Nor does it "have the direct and consistent effect of law". See Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Lost Tree Village Corporation, 17 FLW D1481, D1474 (Fla. 1st DCA June 11, 1992), see also McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The act delegates to the Department the discretion to award any number of grants up to a maximum of 18, provided that no single grant exceeds $100,000. It does not create an entitlement to funding. See, for example, Florida Board of Trustees, supra.

    
    

49. The funding decision was made within the parameters of the governing statutes and the Department's own rule, both of which expressly accord the Secretary considerable discretion in deciding the number of grants to award. It is axiomatic that the Department is to be accorded wide discretion in the exercise of its lawful rulemaking authority. Department of Professional, Board of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Likewise, the Department's construction of a statute it administers is entitled to great weight and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Department of Insurance v. Southeast Volusia Hospital District, 438 So.2d 815, 820 (Fla. 1983). Moreover, the Department's interpretation of the statute need not be the only interpretation; "it need only be within the range of possible interpretations." See Durrani, supra. The Department's interpretation of Section 290.036(3) is reasonable and will not be overturned.

    
    

50. Additionally, the Department has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence that, since 1984, it has consistently complied with the expressions of legislative intent as to the disbursement of appropriated funds unless extraordinary circumstances existed. The Department's long-standing practice in this regard is entitled to deference. See State ex. rel. Biscayne Kennel Club

    v. Board of Business Regulation, 276 So.2d 823, 828 (Fla. 1973).

    
    

51. Petitioner's contend that Subsection (c) of Rule 9B-14.009(11) is mandatory focusing solely upon the language "will be awarded" contained therein. However, this Subsection must be read in pari materia with Subsections (a) and

    (b). Petitioners interpretation would have required the Department to award more than the maximum number of grants authorized. For the 1992-93 funding year, 21 CDCs scored above 100 points and were eligible for either one or three year administrative grants. Both Sections 290.036(3), Florida Statutes and Rule 9B-14.009(11)(a) clearly prohibit the award of grants to all 21 CDCs. The Petitioners reasoning is therefore flawed and contrary to the guiding statutes and rules.

    
    

52. Petitioners' interpretation will leave the Department with limited ability to determine the amount of the grants and will preclude the exercise of discretion as to the number of grants it is authorized to fund. Section 290.036(3) evinces a legislative intent allowing sufficient flexibility by the Department to award any number of grants, up to 18, in the administration of the CDCSAP.

    
    

53. Moreover, even if the Department's 1992-93 funding decision could be arguably considered a rule, it would not be feasible or practicable for the Department to draft Rule 9B-14.009(11) more narrowly. Specifically, Section 120.535(1)(a)(2) states that rulemaking will be presumed feasible unless the agency provides that "related matters are not sufficiently resolved to enable the agency to address a statement by rulemaking". Further, Section 120.535(1)(b)(1) states that rulemaking will be presumed practicable unless the agency provides that "detail or precision in the establishment of principles, criteria or standards for agency decision is not reasonable under the circumstances." As noted, each year the Department is unaware of how much money will be appropriated for upcoming grants. Likewise, the Department is unaware of the guidance the legislature might provide regarding the proviso or statement of intent language. Because of such uncertainties, the Department is unable to provide a more precise format for determining the number of grants which would be awarded each year. Nor is it feasible or practicable for the Department to initiate rulemaking each year on the number of grants to be awarded as such would cause substantial delays in disbursing funds to CDCs. Accordingly, the rule is flexible enough to allow the Department to administer the CDCSAP, but is as detailed as possible given the need to disburse funds quickly and the uncertainties regarding appropriations.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED that:

The decision of the Department of Community Affairs to fund for the 1992-93 fiscal year only those Community Development Corporations which qualified for three year administrative grants under the Community Development Corporation's support and assistance program is not a rule under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes 1991 but constitutes an order.

DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

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 3rd day of November, 1992.

ENDNOTES

No appearance was entered on behalf of Petitioner Allapattah Business Development.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Sam Mason

Martin Luther King Economic Development Corporation, Inc.

6116 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127

Jackie Bell Sam Foster

New Washington Heights Community Development Corporation, Inc.

1600 NW 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33136

William Rios

Wynwood Community Development Corporation, Inc.

225 NE 34th Street, Suite 209 Miami, FL 33137

Denis Russ

Miami beach Community Development Corporation, Inc.

205 Drexel Avenue Miami Beach, FL 33139

G. Steven Pfeiffer Barbara Jo Finer

Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

Linda Loomis Shelley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 92-004537RU

Orders for Case No: 92-004537RU