Findings Of Fact V.M.P. Corporation operates a facility known as Stud's Pub in Jacksonville, Florida. Vincent M. Paul owns the facility and the corporation. The facility is on lots that were platted prior to 1972. Respondent is the statutory entity with authority for granting variances for onsite sewage disposal systems regulated by Respondent pursuant to provisions of Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991) specifically provides: The department may grant variances in hardship cases which may be less restrictive than the provisions specified in this section. A variance may not be granted pursuant to this section until the department is satisfied that: The hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant; No reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage; and The discharge from the individual sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. Where soil conditions, water table elevation, and setback provisions are determined by the department to be satisfactory, special consideration shall be given to those lots platted prior to 1972. Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, is the portion of the rule which is the subject of this proceeding and, in pertinent part, reads as follows: Upon consideration of the merits of each application and the recommendations of the review board, the Deputy Secretary for Health or his designee has discretionary authority to either grant a variance as requested, grant a provisional variance or deny the variance request. A variance may be granted to relieve or prevent excessive hardship only in cases involving minor deviation from established standards when it is clearly shown that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, where no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of sewage and where proper use of the onsite sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant, any persons using or living on the property, or other members of the public. An applicant must also show that the granting of a variance will not significantly degrade ground or surface waters. Variances shall only be granted to the permit applicant and are not transferable to other persons unless specifically authorized by the department as a stipulation of the variance approval. . . . (emphasis added). The rule also tracks the language of Section 381.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), and requires that "special consideration" be given to those lots platted prior to 1972 in those instances where soil conditions, water table elevation and setback provisions are deemed by Respondent to be "satisfactory." While minor amendments to the rule were made March 17, 1992, the substantive content of Rule 10D-6.045(3), Florida Administrative Code, has remained virtually unchanged since February 5, 1985. Two adjective modifiers in the rule, the terms "minor" and "excessive" which respectively modify the terms "deviation" and "hardship", have not been formally defined by Respondent in the rule. Respondent's rationale for this failure, as professed in the testimony of Respondent's policy representative at the final hearing, was to permit Respondent's review board maximum freedom to evaluate and consider the merit of each application for variance on an individual basis within the statutory authority of Section 385.0065(8)(a), Florida Statutes, i.e., variances may be recommended by the board where the hardship is not intentionally caused by the applicant, where no reasonable alternatives exist and where no evidence of adverse effect upon public health or ground and surface waters is demonstrated.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the stipulation of facts contained in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, the following relevant facts are found: STANDING The Florida Waterworks Association (FWA) is comprised of fifty water and/or sewer companies, forty-four of which are regulated by the PSC. The subject matter of the challenged rules is within the FWA's general scope of interest and activity on behalf of its members. The eight named petitioners, five of which are FWA members, are all regulated by the PSC. Several of the utility members of the FWA have applications pending before the PSC for changes in rates, service availability and the issuance of new certificates. Statistics compiled from Annual Reports filed with the PSC by members of the FWA and the three non-member petitioners reveal that eight utilities have CIAC in levels exceeding 75 percent and thirty-one have less than 55 percent CIAC, through it was not established whether these companies were operating at designed capacity. The intervenor Florida Home Builders Association (FHBA) is a statewide organization representing the building industry in Florida. Some 54 percent of residential building in Florida is performed by members of the FHBA. Numerous members of local homebuilder associations are serviced by water and sewer utilities regulated by the PSC, and many members own and operate water and sewer companies regulated by the PSC. The PSC staff presently reviews the service availability policy and charges for compliance with maximum and minimum CIAC levels in applications for rate increases and for original certificates. If a utility is found to be not in compliance with the minimum and maximum guidelines and declines to voluntarily come within the guidelines, the matter may be referred to the Commissioners for review. The maximum and minimum CIAC requirements have been applied by the PSC to utilities which have not specifically requested a change in service availability charges or policies. CIAC--Definition (Proposed Rule 25-30.513(3)) (4) CIAC is defined by statute as including any amount or item of money, services, or property received by a utility, from any person or governmental agency, any portion of which is provided at no cost to the utility, which represents a donation or contribution to the capital of the utility, and which is utilized to offset the acquisition, improvement, or construction costs of the utility property, facilities, or equipment used to provide utility services to the public. Section 367.081(2) Florida Statutes. The challenged proposed rule utilizes the same definition, but substitutes the words "addition or transfer" for "donation or contribution." Proposed Rule 25-30.513(3). Within the water and sewer industry, the term "addition" generally means an increase in plant and a "transfer" can be a transfer of property for which a utility itself might pay. On the other hand, the words "contribution or donation" generally mean property, money or services with no liability on the utility's part. By substituting the words "addition or transfer" for "donation or contribution," it was the intention of the PSC to clarify the latter two words and not to change the statutory definition of CIAC. Inasmuch as the words "donate or contribute" have a connotation of being a gift or something voluntarily given to a charity, the words "addition or transfer" to the capital of a utility, when qualified by the prior words "at no cost to the utility" more clearly characterize CIAC. CIAC is given to obtain service. It is not necessarily voluntarily given. GUIDELINES (Proposed Rule 25-30.58) The challenged proposed guideline rule (Rule 25-30.58) sets a limit on the amount of CIAC in the amount of 75 percent of the total original cost, net of accumulated depreciation, of the utility's facilities and plant when they are at their designed capacity. While a specific minimum percentage figure for CIAC is not stated in the proposed rule, the minimum amount of CIAC is not to be less than the percentage of the facilities and plant represented by the water transmission and distribution lines and the sewage collection systems. In other words, the percentage of the utility plant represented by the water transmission and distribution system and/or the sewage collection system is the guideline for the minimum percentage of CIAC under the proposed rules. For the average Florida water and sewer company, this minimum CIAC level will be approximately 55 percent for water systems and approximately 65 percent for sewer systems. A utility may be exempt by the PSC from compliance with these minimum and maximum guidelines in cases of "unusual hardship or unreasonable difficulty" and where it is shown that it is not in the best interests of the customers to require compliance. A utility may earn a fair rate of return only on its own investment. Since CIAC is contributed or donated, it is excluded from the rate base of a utility. The utility is not entitled to earn a return on the value of its CIAC, nor is a regulated utility entitled to collect a depreciation expense on CIAC. CIAC is virtually synonymous with service availability charges. The acceptance of CIAC by a utility is beneficial to both the utility and the customer. It is a cost-free source of capital for the utility and, because it is not included as a part of the utility's rate base, it reduces the long-run monthly or periodic cost of utility service to the customer. Excessive amounts of CIAC can be detrimental to the operation of a utility in two respects. First, since CIAC is not included in rate base, the utility may not earn a return on the amount it receives from CIAC. Thus, if the utility faces an increase in operating and maintenance expenses, and it is heavily financed by CIAC, it may find itself in a cash-flow crisis with no income to cover increased expenses. The absence of a rate of return on rate base leaves the utility more vulnerable to the negative effects of operating attrition. Such a cash-flow problem could affect the utility's ability to provide adequate service and could cause abandonment of the plant. A second negative effect of very high levels of CIAC, and consequently very low levels of owner investment, is that the owners, with no opportunity to earn a return on the system, may lose their incentive and commitment to maintain and operate the system in a quality, cost-efficient manner. The appropriate maximum level of CIAC, and the consequent appropriate level of owner investment, was the subject of a study and recommendation made by Theodore Barry and Associates, a consulting firm hired by the PSC. Based upon discussions with members of the industry, a review of PSC statistics and records, and a simulation of the effects of a 10 percent increase in unreimbursed costs on a utility, it was recommended that a minimum owner investment level of 20 percent to 25 percent would be appropriate to maintain quality of service and to alleviate the effects of operating attrition. While there is evidence that very high levels of CIAC may have contributed to the abandonment of two small utilities in Florida, there is no concrete statistical data from existing utilities which conclusively illustrates that a high level of CIAC, by itself, adversely affects owner incentive or quality of service or which supports the direct relationship between higher invested capital and greater efficiency. There are other methods to prevent operating attrition from diminishing funds necessary for the operation of a water and/or sewer utility. Other means of increasing the cash flow of a utility include indexing adjustments, provisions for the "pass through" of increases in taxes and purchased electricity, water or sewer services, the allowance of depreciation on CIAC and the allowance of a management fee on CIAC. As noted above, the minimum level of CIAC established as a guideline in the proposed rule is not a stated percentage figure but is, instead, the amount of plant represented by the utility's transmission, distribution and/or collection system. The rationale for a minimum level of CIAC based upon the distribution or collection system is that these systems have a longer useful life than the treatment facilities and that the customer or developer should bear the costs of these systems since they primarily determine the location and consequent costs of the distribution and collection lines. Numerous factors affect the decision as to the appropriate capital structure and management of water and sewer companies in Florida. These include the geology of the area, the size of the plant, the size and configuration of the service area, usage patterns, population densities, the degree of applicable environmental or governmental regulation, operation and maintenance expenses and the authorized rate of return on investment. Also, levels of investment and CIAC may vary over the life cycle of a single water or sewer utility. For these reasons, a specified numerical CIAC percentage requirement for every regulated water and sewer utility would be unreasonable, and a range is preferable. If every utility were required, without exception, to maintain a maximum level of CIAC in the amount of 75 percent and a minimum level in the amount of 55 percent (water) or 65 percent (sewer), various problems could be encountered. For example, there may be occasions where the minimum required level of CIAC exceeds the authorized maximum level. This could occur if the utility were connected to a regional facility and a portion of its plant is no longer in use. Utilities which have more than 75 percent of their total capital involved in water distribution and sewer collection lines do exist. Another problem could result where the utility already has 25 percent owner investment and additional funds are needed to replace or repair contributed property. If the owner could obtain borrowed money, he would not be permitted to earn a return on this money. Also, if a utility system is 100 percent "built out," its CIAC level will gradually diminish and, if there are no more customers, a small utility would have no means of increasing its level of CIAC. As noted above, the proposed rule which sets guidelines for minimum and maximum CIAC levels also provides an exemption for utilities where it is illustrated that compliance would introduce an unusual hardship or unreasonable difficulty and that compliance would not be in the best interest of the customers of the utility. IMPUTATION (Rule 25-30.57) Challenged proposed rule 25-30.57 provides for the imputation of CIAC in cases where the actual amount of CIAC has not been recorded on the utility's books and the utility does not submit competent substantial evidence as to the amount of CIAC it has received. In such cases, the amount imputed will be the amount of plant costs charged to the cost of land sales for tax purposes, if available, or the proportion of the cost of the facilities and plant attributable to the water transmission and distribution system and the sewage collection system. Again, the proposed rule provides for the waiver of imputation where there is unusual hardship or unreasonable difficulty and where such imputation would not be in the best interest of the utility's customers. Water and sewer utilities regulated by the PSC are required to keep records according to the NARUC Uniform Systems of Accounts. The NARUC system requires the recording of CIAC, and records kept according to that system will satisfy the requirements of the proposed rule. Also, almost all utilities have records which establish rate base. Since rate base is investment, the remaining plant and facilities would be CIAC. Almost all regulated water and sewer utilities in Florida accept CIAC. If CIAC were imputed to a utility which previously claimed little or no amounts of CIAC, its rate base and revenues would be reduced. Likewise, if CIAC were the sole source of plant acquisition, the rule would impute investment where there was none. APPLICABILITY (Rule 25-30.51) The challenged proposed rules become applicable to a utility when the utility files for a change in its service availability policy or charges or when the PSC initiates a show cause proceeding to require the utility to change such policy or charges. The rules are not applicable to policies implemented or contracts entered into prior to the effective date of the rules. All regulated water and sewer utilities are presently required to have their rates, charges and service availability policies on file with the PSC. Absent an approved change in the tariff on file with the PSC, a utility is required to follow what is outlined in the tariff on file. REPEAL OF PRIOR RULES AND DELETION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS (PSC Order No. 11006 and Rule 25-30.53(3)(b) and 25-30.545(3)(b) The PSC's repeal of prior existing Rules 25-10.120 through 25-10.144, in connection with the wording of the applicability section of the challenged proposed rules, has the effect of leaving those utilities which have not filed for a change in their service availability charges or policy or which have not had a show cause proceeding instituted against them with no rules relating to service availability charges and conditions. The original draft of the proposed rules authorized the collection of costs of compliance with an ordinance, regulation or other specification of a public authority and the collection of costs of relocating facilities after a determination of final grades of a right-of-way. These provisions were deleted in the final revision to the proposed rules. (Rule 25-30.53 (3)(b) and (e) and Rule 25-30.545(3)(b)) The deletion of these provisions does not necessarily preclude recovery of such costs. Specific areas of recovery were not enumerated in the proposed rules because such an enumeration would carry the inference that other costs associated with compliance with ordinances or regulations, extension of services or relocations of plant could not be collected. To be consistent with the remaining proposed rules, it must be determined whether the customer or the utility bore certain costs and the ratios of investment and CIAC to total plant must be considered. The cause of the cost does not determine the party which initially pays the cost. COMPLAINTS AND DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENTS (Rules 25-30.54(4) and 25-30.585) Proposed Rule 25-30.54(4) authorizes an applicant for extension of service to file a complaint with the PSC if it believes that the charges required by a utility are unreasonable. No competent substantial evidence was offered by the petitioners or intervenor in support of the claim in their petition that this proposed rule is discriminatory in favor of developers or an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The PSC is statutorily charged with the responsibility to investigate agreements or proposals for conditions and charges to be made by a utility for service availability. Section 367.101(1), Florida Statutes. As presently proposed, Rule 25-30.585 makes reference to a Rule 25- 30.11. No such rule exists. Prior to the renumbering, the rule containing the guidelines for designing service availability policy (Rule 25-30.50) was numbered 25-30.11. Petitioners' complaints regarding the vagueness of the terms "basic principles" and "potential impact" of Rule 25-30.585 were not supported by competent substantial evidence. ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT The Economic Impact Statement (EIS), as revised, prepared for the challenged proposed rules notes that the implementation of the proposed rules will involve the cost of reviewing information to determine compliance with the new CIAC guidelines and the cost of show cause proceedings requiring new service availability policies of those companies not compliance. Inasmuch as the PSC presently has the responsibility of reviewing service availability policies and charges, it is anticipated that existing resources of the PSC will be sufficient to implement the proposed rules. The EIS notes the economic effect upon the water and sewer industry of the proposed rules relating to applicability of the rules and the "grandfather" provision, the reporting of original cost information, the limitations on the minimum and maximum CIAC levels, the imputation of CIAC and further notes that the impact upon the industry will be mitigated by the waiver and/or exemption provisions in cases of undue hardship. The economic effect of the proposed rules upon potential new entrants into the industry are also recognized. The EIS makes reference to the economic costs and benefits of the proposed rules' CIAC requirements upon existing customers and new customers. While specific dollar figures are not provided in the EIS, the Statement notes the overall economic effects of the minimum and maximum CIAC guidelines upon the industry and customers of water and sewer utilities. The proposed rules' impact on competition and employment is addressed in the EIS. It is estimated that, inasmuch as entry into the industry would be restricted to those companies which can finance at least 25 percent of the required investment, competition in the industry will be decreased. Because of the restrictions upon wells and/or septic tanks in some areas, it is noted that housing development in those areas could be limited if no water and sewer company desires to enter the market. It is further concluded that the smaller utilities may be more financially stable as a result of the rules. The EIS notes that the proposed rules would have "no apparent direct effect on employment." In preparing the EIS, the PSC relied upon data collected as a part of the Theodore Barry & Associates (TB&A) study of the water and sewer industry in Florida and additional data collected from annual reports on file with the PSC. In its statement of methodology, it was recognized that the data utilized was limited in scope and duration. The TB&A study does contain several statistical errors and the statistics included therein do not conclusively establish a numerical relationship between the level of CIAC and the viability or efficiency of a utility. Other reasons for problems within the water and sewer industry are noted in the study. The TB&A study, while referenced in the EIS, is not a part of the EIS and is not the EIS. It is logical to assume that if housing development is limited in certain areas, competition and costs for existing housing may be increased and employment in the housing industry may be affected. These effects are more in the nature of "ripple," rather than "direct," effects of the proposed rules. No evidence was presented by the petitioners or intervenor to establish that the economic impact upon the PSC or upon persons directly affected by the proposed rules was different than that estimated by the EIS, that the petitioners or intervenor were prejudiced by any alleged omission or inadequacy in the Statement or that the PSC did not fully consider the economic factors and impact of the proposed rules.
The Issue Whether a septic tank permit, should be granted for lot 2, Whispering Oaks Subdivision. More specifically, does the' requirement of no more than four lots per acre require a minimum lot size of 1/4 acre? In the alternative, must the subject lot be grouped with three contiguous lots to determine whether the density requirement is met? If a permit should be denied, is a variance appropriate under HRS' rules and the circumstances of the case?
Findings Of Fact The essential facts in this case are uncontroverted. Ben F. Ward is the President and sole stockholder of Ben Ward, Incorporated. His business for over eighteen years has been real estate, construction and development. He has built over 300 homes and is familiar with the procedures for developing a subdivision, including obtaining septic tank permits. In 1979, Ben Ward purchased the property now designated Whispering Oaks Subdivision, located in the City of Oviedo, Seminole County, Florida. The property contains approximately six acres, net. That is, the paved right of ways have been disregarded. There are no streams, lakes or other bodies of surface water on the property. Ward subdivided his property into 26 lots, two of which, lots number 12 and 17, are dedicated for recreational use and will not have homes. Some of the lots are less than 1/4 acre; others are more. Lot number 2 has 9,137 square feet, 1,753 square feet less than 1/4 acre. As a condition of plat approval, the City of Oviedo required Ward to obtain approval from the Seminole County Health Department. Val Roberts was the county health officer with whom Ward consulted. A process was devised for "borrowing" acreage from lots of over 1/4 acre to meet the minimum requirements for lots less than 1/4 acre. In other words, it was determined that the total net acreage in the subdivision would be considered in computing the four lots per acre minimum. The plat was approved and was recorded in 1980. Between 1981 and 1987, 19 residences were built and septic tank permits were obtained. There is city water service in the subdivision. In 1985, Ward sold 16 lots to the Erie Land Company, a partnership comprised of Mary Ellen Hines and her husband. In reliance on the arrangement worked out with the health department, Ward assured ELC that the lots were buildable. He remained trustee of the property. On February 26, 1987, the Seminole County Health Department (HRS) denied Ward's application for a septic tank permit for lot number 2, including a 3-bedroom, 2-1/2-bath home, comprising 2100 square feet. The denial letter cites rule 10D-6.46(7)(b), F.A.C., and says "Four lots grouped together lack approximately 3000 square feet of meeting the required lot size...". The letter provides the procedure for petition for a variance to Rule 10D-6, F.A.C. Ward applied for the variance, and its approval was recommended by a vote of 3-2 by the HRS Review Group for Individual Sewage Disposal. The recommendation was denied by the HRS State Health Officer, E. Charlton Prather, M.D. in a letter dated May 7, 1987 which states, in pertinent part: Grouping of lots to determine whether the subdivision meets the four lot per acre requirement must be done in a logical manner to maximize the homogenous dissemination of sewage effluent or prevent a concentration of sewage effluent in a small or limited area. Once a specific area is utilized in calculating sewage flow dispersal for a group of lots, that area cannot be further used for another lot or group of lots. Lot number 2 meets all requirements of HRS for septic tanks, with the exception of the density methodology. Ward surveyed the homes built and occupied for approximately a year and found that the subdivision as a whole is about 60% of allowable capacity. Ms. Haynes has lived on lot number 22 for six years and has never had septic tank problems. She holds an inactive real estate license, and before purchasing the property found the subdivision high and dry and well-developed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the application for septic tank permit for lot 2, Whispering Oaks subdivision, be GRANTED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 18th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of February, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben F. Ward, Jr. Ben Ward Agency, Inc. P. O. Box 670 Oviedo, Florida 32765 John A. Baldwin, Esquire Baldwin & Baum 7100 S. Highway 17-92 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire HRS District 7 Legal Counsel 400 W. Robinson St., Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns a parcel of land in Palm Beach, County on which is housed Petitioner's paving and landscapping business and which is zoned for industrial use. Petitioner intends to install a manufactured building for use as an office. To provide sewage treatment for the bathroom of the office, Petitioner had a septic tank designed and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was its variance request. As a result of a complaint, Petitioner was inspected in August, 1988, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Both inspections yielded citiations for soil contamination by oil and other hazardous waste. Petitioner represented that most of the infractions had been rectified by the date of the hearing in this matter and pledged full cooperation with the County and State rules. To oversee the operation of the business and assure that no further problems arose, Petitioner decided to establish its office on site. The closest sewage treatment plant is at full capacity and does not intend to provide service to the parcel in the near future. The adjoining properties are serviced by septic tanks. As such, the proof did not demonstrate that alternative methods of waste disposal were available to the site However, as part of its business operation, Petitioner does minor repair of its equipment on site and may include oil changes and other such services. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater and intends to use the proposed septic tank for office use only, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of its equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Further, the proof failed to demonstrate that the septic tank would be protected from use by those who handled the hazardous waste. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner and the proof failed to demonstrate reasonable alternatives of waste disposal, the potential for an adverse affect of the operation to the groundwater is great. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions or whether the property was platted prior to 1972. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Hattie Parker 160 Toneypenna Drive Jupiter, Florida 33468 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit or the grant of a variance from the rule by which that permit application was denied so as to be authorized to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank system) for his property near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida within the purview of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Desmond Harbroe, owns real property in Dixie County, Florida consisting of a lot described as lot 28 of Riverbend Estates. The lot in Riverbend Estates is located at "Hinton's Landing" on the west bank of the Suwannee River. The lot itself is located approximately 1500 feet west of the shoreline of the Suwannee River on a connected canal. The canal is characterized by high banks at the location of the lot and the lot is one of the highest lots in the subdivision, with overstory vegetation consisting of large pines and live oaks. The lot is gently sloping and characterized by well- drained soil consisting of sand down to a depth of 72 inches (a "slight limited" soil). The lot is approximately one and one quarter acres in size and was purchased May 29, 1976. The Petitioner contemplates constructing a single family residence on the lot and it does not presently contain an OSDS. The proposed residence would consist of a two bedroom dwelling with a heated or cooled area of approximately 1200 square feet. A dwelling of this size and type is equated in the standards in the Department's rules with production of 450 gallons per days (GPD) of sewage flow. Although no specific evidence of expected sewage is of record, there is no dispute regarding that figure. Herbert H. Raker is a registered land surveyor located at Box 626, Cross City, Florida 32628. Mr. Raker surveyed the subject lot and established a benchmark elevation of 13.72 feet above main sea level (MSL). That benchmark is six inches above the actual ground or grade level at the location of the benchmark. The site of the proposed installation itself is at an elevation of 13.22 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the subject property is 15 feet above MSL. That elevation was established through data supplied by the Suwannee River Water Management District to the Petitioner and submitted to the Department in the application process. That information and the document upon which it is predicated is hearsay, but was not objected to at hearing and, in any event, constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule in the category of government records, compilations and reports for purposes of Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes, and is, thus, admissable and accepted by the Hearing Officer. The subject property purchased by the Petitioner was for building a single family residence as described above. On December 12, 1989 the Petitioner received a letter from the Suwannee River Water Management District advising that there was no objection by the District to filling the lot in order to bring the surface grade level of that property to a sufficient height so as to comport with the "two year flood" elevation. The critical elevation in relation to the rules at issue however is the ten-year flood elevation. This advice from the Water Management District does not address the issue of filling the lot to bring it up to a level so that the bottom of the subject drain fill proposed would be above the ten-year flood elevation and thus comport with the rules at issue. In this connection, the property is located within the ten year flood plain based upon the evidence establishing that flood plain level to be at IS feet above MSL. The property is also located within the "regulatory floodway" of the Suwannee River. This is a geographical area closer in proximity to the actual free flowing portion of the river than is the boundary of the ten-year flood elevation demarcated area. The rule cited below provides that mounded systems requiring a placement of fill material, or construction above grade, will not be authorized in the regulatory floodway unless there is certification by registered engineers that the placement of fill or the structure placed would not increase the water surface elevation of the "base flood". That certification must be substantiated by data and the method of calculation used by the engineer must be provided. Here there is only a two and one half foot difference between the grade level of the property involved at the site of the proposed installation and the 15 foot ten-year flood elevation. Thus, as Mr. Harbroe indicates, given the overall size of his lot, it would be possible to fill the property to the proper grade level so that the bottom of the drain field trenches, when installed in the resulting mound, would be above the ten- year flood elevation. The Petitioner however supplied no detailed information about how such an alternative system might be installed and operate and, most particularly, did not supply the requisite engineering certification and information which might show that the installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the base flood. This might have been done, for instance, by establishing that a sufficient volume of fill could be removed from his property, elsewhere, to build the requisite mound and thereby not alter the surface elevation of the base flood. Such evidence is lacking in this proceeding however and cannot therefore serve as a basis for a grant of the permit, by means of illustrating an alternative system or approach for treating the sewage effluent which will comport with the rules. Pursuant to the authority of the statutes cited in the conclusions of law below and in related rules, lots platted before 1972 are accorded special consideration in determining whether to grant septic tank system permits (or variances). The Petitioner, however, did not adduce evidence of whether the subdivision known by the name "Riverbend Estates" of which his lot 28 is a part, is a platted subdivision at all, and did not establish that even if it is that it was platted and recorded before 1972. Thus no evidence has been adduced which will justify the special consideration provided for in the authority cited below. The grant of variances from the permitting rules involve the demonstration of hardship as a basic consideration. Hardship involves a demonstration that there is no reasonable means by which an on-site disposal system can be installed which will comply with the permitting rules, that is, impossibility of compliance is the bellwether for demonstration of hardship. It is also provided in the variance statute and rules cited below that the hardship may not be intentionally caused by the action of the applicant for the permit or variance himself. The Petitioner, having the burden of proof here, did not adduce direct evidence to establish that any hardship preventing compliance with the permitting rules was not intentionally caused by the Petitioner. However, the overall tenor of the Petitioner's testimony establishes inferentially, without doubt, that the hardship involving the Petitioner's impossibility of compliance with the permitting rules, given the presently prevailing grade level of his lot and installation site, was caused merely by his purchase of the property. He took no action involving that purchase to place himself in a position where he intentionally could claim a hardship situation and a justification of variance from the permitting rules and thus render himself legally capable of installing the subject system. He merely purchased the lot in good faith with, the intention of using it for a single family dwelling and did not intend by that mere act to place himself in a position to claim a hardship situation and thus circumvent the permitting rules. The similar use of the nearby lots in the subdivision for single family dwellings and which he was aware already had permitted septic tank type on-site disposal systems in place and operating led him to believe he could install a similar system. He was thus an innocent purchaser and did not intentionally create a hardship situation to thereby avoid compliance with permitting rules. In fact, however, the Petitioner has not truly established that he is in a hardship situation, that is, that he can not possibly comply with the permitting rules. This is because, by his own admission, he has sufficient land area on his lot to permit the "mounding" of an on-site disposal system. If this were accomplished it is quite likely that he could comply with the permitting rules and not require a variance, based upon a showing of hardship. The problem with this approach is that the Petitioner's proof fails because he did not adduce the requisite engineering certification and testimony justifying the grant of a permit based upon the building of the lot and mounding of the system. If this were accomplished in the future, it is quite likely that a permit could be granted for this lot. In a like vein, in terms of the variance issue portion of this proceeding, it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage involved nor has it been demonstrated that the discharge from the Petitioner's proposed sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. In this last regard, it although soil conditions prevailing at the proposed installation site and water table elevations beneath the surface of the property are appropriate as that relates to the requisite interval of "slight limited" soil between the bottom of drain field absorption beds and the water table elevation, the fact remains that these trenches or beds are beneath the ten-year flood elevation and thus pose the potential to degrade ground or surface testers. Thus the other requisite elements for establishment of entitlement to a variance from the permitting rules have not been made out by the Petitioner's proof. In fact, the Petitioner's proof establishes that a reasonable alternative may indeed exist for the treatment of the sewage involved with mounding of the system, since his grade elevation is only approximately 2.5 feet below the relevant flood elevation and unrefuted evidence shows that he has sufficient area on his lot to permit the mounding of the system with the requisite adjacent "buffer area". This constitutes a reasonable alternative which may comply with the permitting rules. Unfortunately, however, Petitioner's proof did not include the requisite engineering information and certification so that a recommendation for grant of the permit in the regulatory floodway can be made at this time. Having been denied his permit application on December 19, 1989 the Petitioner on March 5, 1989 applied for the subject variance referenced above. On April l9, 1990 the Petitioner was advised by the Respondent that it was useless to proceed with a variance application and that a formal administrative hearing should be sought before Division of Administrative Hearings instead. This is because of Executive Order 90-14 entered by the Governor, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation in evidence and, specifically, "recommendation #36." That portion of the report in effect recommended that on-site sewage disposal systems within the ten year flood plain area should be prohibited. The Department interpreted the effect of that executive order, incorporating the recommended prohibition from the task force report, to mean that such variances absolutely could not be granted by the Department, hence, its recommendation to the Petitioner and others similarly situated, that they should immediately seek a formal administrative hearing on the question, rather than expend time and expense pursuing the Department's internal variance procedure. The Department has thus in this in similar cases interpreted that executive order to create, and effect, a conclusive presumption that variances can not be granted in any case in which the installation site for the on- site sewage disposal system is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In effect, therefore, it declines to exercise any discretion when confronted with variance request related to lots or property where the installation site for the proposed system occurs beneath the ten-year flood elevation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an on-site sewage disposal permit and denying a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administration Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4170 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but not directly material to resolution of the issues presented for adjudication. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (None submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Desmond Harbroe 4550 N.W. 43rd Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue Should Petitioner's application for variance from the standards for onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, through its local health units, is the agency in the State of Florida responsible for permitting or granting variances from permitting standards set forth in Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code, for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (OSTDS). Sometime around 1970, Petitioner purchased a mobile home park (Park) in Winter Haven, Florida. The Park presently contains 68 spaces for mobile homes, all of which are occupied. The Park is situated due south of Lake Shipp. There are two canals running approximately east and west through the interior of the Park. Another canal borders the Park on the north side. Included with the purchase of the Park was a Sewage Treatment System (STS) which is permitted and regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection and is presently operating at its maximum capacity serving the 68 mobile homes located in the Park. Sometime around 1980, Petitioner purchased a parcel of land (Property) immediately north of, and across a canal (this is the canal that borders the north side of the Park) from, the Park. The Property borders a basin to Lake Shipp. The Property is zoned for mobile home usage and such is the purpose for which Petitioner purchased the Property. Petitioner has designed the Property such that it will accommodate three mobile home lots (Lots numbered 69, 70, and 71) which Petitioner intends to operate as part of the Park. Initially, Petitioner requested approval of the Department of Environmental Protection to connect the new lots to the existing STS. However, since the existing STS was already at capacity, the Department of Environmental Protection denied Petitioner's request to connect the additional three lots to that system. However, the Department of Environmental protection advised Petitioner that it would have no objection to the installation of septic tanks approved by the Department of Health to serve the additional lots. Subsequently, Petitioner proceeded to obtain the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities and a permit from the Department for the installation of septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner was successful in obtaining the necessary approvals from the local governing authorities but was not successful in obtaining a permit for the installation of septic tanks on the Property from the Department. By letter dated July 16, 1997, the Polk County Health Department denied Petitioner's Application for Onsite Sewage Treatment Disposal System Permit for the following reason: "Domestic sewage flow exceeds 10,000 gallons per day." The denial letter also advised Petitioner that she could request a variance through the Variance Review Board or request an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the Department's denial of her application for a permit to install septic tanks on the Property. Petitioner elected to file an application for a variance from Section 381.0065(3)(b), Florida Statutes, with the Variance Review Board. By letter dated August 7, 1997, the Department denied Petitioner's application for variance for the following reasons: The Variance Review and Advisory Committee for the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Program has recommended disapproval of your application for variance in the case of the above reference property. The granting of variances from established standards is for relieving hardships where it can be clearly shown that the public's health will not be impaired and where pollution of groundwater or surface water will not result, where no reasonable alternative exists, and where the hardship was not intentionally caused by the action of the applicant. The advisory committee's recommendation was based on the failure of the information provided to satisfy the committee that the hardship was not caused intentionally by the action of the applicant, no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, or the discharge from the system will not adversely affect the health of the public. I concur with the advisory committee's recommendation and hereby deny your variance request. Subsequently, Petitioner requested and was granted a formal hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the denial of Petitioner's application for a variance. The Petitioner intends to locate the OSTDS on the Property. The tank and drain field for the OSTDS will be located approximately 125 feet from the basin. The City of Winter Haven's Sewage System is not available to the Property. The Park's existing STS does not have adequate capacity to accept the sewage that will be generated by the Property. There is no publicly-owned or investor-owned sewage system capable of being connected to the plumbing of the Property. Petitioner testified that the estimated cost of increasing the capacity of the Park's Sewage System to accommodate service to the three additional lots was $30,000.00 - $40,000.00. However, Petitioner presented no evidence as to how the estimate was determined. The projected daily domestic sewage flow from the Property is less than 1,500 gallons per acre per day. The Property contains 1.78 acres and there will be less than four lots per acre. In a letter dated October 17, 1997, from W. R. Cover, a professional engineer with Cover Engineering, Inc., Mr. Cover expresses the following opinion: The location of these proposed mobile homes is such that a septic system will not cause adverse effects or impacts on the environment or public health. The unit will be located so as not to significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters. There is no reasonable alternative for the treatment of the sewage in view of the fact that it would be an additional financial burden to attempt to connect these units to the existing sewage treatment plant Mr. Cover did not testify at the hearing. However, the letter was received as evidence without objection from the Department. Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to show that: (a) no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage, and (b) the discharge from the Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or the public or significantly degrade groundwater or surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for variance from the requirements of Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes and Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Robert J. Antonello, Esquire Antonello, Fegers and Cea Post Office Box 7692 Winter Haven, Florida 33883-7692 Roland Reis, Esquire Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, 4th Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-0293
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns an undeveloped parcel of land in Palm Beach, County which is zoned industrial and on which he intends to construct a storage building to house and repair farm equipment. To provide sewage treatment at the site, Petitioner had designed an on site sewage disposal system and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was his variance request. The closest public sewage treatment plant to the property is over five miles from the site, and the closest private treatment is approximately three miles from the subject site. Petitioner has no easement to either site if capacity were available and if he chose to connect. However, the proof did not show capacity at either site. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of farm equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Alternative methods of waste disposal are available which would properly dispose of the waste and, yet, protect the groundwater from contamination by hazardous waste. Such systems include certain aerobic treatment units and package plants. The monetary costs of these systems is greater than the septic tank proposal; however, the proof did not demonstrate that the cost was prohibitive or a hardship. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner, the proof failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives of waste disposal and the absence of adverse effect of the operation to the groundwater. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions although a survey of the property dated September 3, 1985, indicates that the subject parcel was not platted. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 6th day of July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee B. Sayler, Esquire 50 South U.S. Highway One Suite 303 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to a permit permitting installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on his property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the vicinity of the Suwannee River and whether he is entitled to seek a variance from the statutes and rules concerning permitting of such systems.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the applicant applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying for and pursuing an OSDS permit application should the applicant, at a later time, be able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent at issue can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE and ENTERED this 21st of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2487 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS-OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. 5-14. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-7. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John K. McPherson, Esquire 22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined, to include a three day suspension without pay, because of the misconduct alleged in the Notification of Suspension issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, William T. Mooney, worked as a laboratory technician for the City of Clearwater's Public Works/Water Pollution Control Division. On April 15, 1993, Doreen Spano, the City's utility lab supervisor, held a meeting of her division personnel at which she identified Iracema Drysdale as the lead worker and, in order to clarify any misconceptions among lab workers as to work deadlines, presented a policy letter for the lab, entitled "New Work Schedule". The schedule set guidelines and deadlines for the daily workload. The memorandum contains inconsistent statements, however. For example, while Ms. Spano indicated both in the memo and at hearing that the instructions therein are merely guidelines, she also used such imperatives as "must" and "will" in the memo. Specifically, the memorandum indicates the daily plant BOD must be in the incubator by 12:00 PM, and the daily plant bacteria must be in the incubator by 12:30 PM. Respondent has worked in this City laboratory for approximately 14 years. During this time he has developed a method of accomplishing his tasks which is described by Ms. Drysdale as less than efficient. She indicates he frequently misses his time deadlines and works at his own pace. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he has always completed his tasks according to the Standard Methods Manual, but, due to the time the samples are received in the lab, could not accomplish both the BOD and the bacteria procedures within the guidelines set in that manual and the Environmental Protection Agency standards manual. Either one or both would be late. This controversy, much of which was made by both sides, is, in reality, only peripherally related to the issue in controversy here which is whether Respondent was insubordinate or not on September 9, 1993. Both Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent signed the memorandum in question here indicating their receipt and understanding of the directions contained therein. Thereafter, on September 9, 1993, Ms. Drysdale entered the lab shortly before the lunch period to find the bacteria procedure not done and Respondent working on the BOD procedure. It appears that the bacteria sample was taken at 6:00 AM on this day and, under EPA guidelines, had to be preserved in the incubator within six hours or the results of the procedure would be invalid and not eligible for reporting to the EPA. When Ms. Drysdale asked Respondent why he was doing the BOD when the bacteria procedure had not been accomplished, he indicated that Ms. Spano's memorandum required the BOD to be done by 12:00 noon and the bacteria not until 12:30 PM. He considered this a directive and indicated he would complete his work consistent therewith. Again, there is a contradiction in the testimony as to the nature of the conversation between Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent. Ms. Drysdale asserts that about noon on the day in question, she suggested to Respondent that he start the bacteria procedure first and then do the BOD procedure. Respondent refused because he believed he had to follow the new work schedule prepared by Ms. Spano. Ms. Drysdale then told him to do the bacteria procedure first and she would assume the responsibility. Respondent still refused and, raising his voice to her, completed the BOD procedure. When he finished that, he did the bacteria procedure but by that time, the sample was too old and had to be discarded. Respondent's recounting of the incident is somewhat different. He claims he was approached by Ms. Drysdale who asked him why he did the bacteria procedure after the BOD procedure. When he pointed out the dictates of the memorandum, she claimed to know nothing about it even though her signature, along with that of Respondent and Mr. Olson, appears on the bottom thereof. Nonetheless, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale said she would check on it. After lunch, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale came back with the Standard Methods book. When he showed her the new work rules, he claims, she admitted she was aware that Ms. Spano had written them. When he asked her what Ms. Spano had said about the situation, she allegedly replied, "Why don't you do it the way I say and if Doreen (Ms. Spano) asks, I'll take the responsibility." Respondent was upset because, he contends, things like this always happen. Respondent, in subsequent testimony, denied ever getting a direct order from Ms. Drysdale or that she indicated she would assume responsibility. On balance, while there is little doubt in Ms. Drysdale's testimony as to what happened, Respondent tells two different stories regarding the conversation. At one point he claims she asked him why he didn't do it her way and that if he did, she'd assume responsibility. At another, he claims she merely asked why he was doing the procedures as he was and made no mention of assuming responsibility. It is clear that Ms. Drysdale wanted the bacteria procedure done first, and while she might not have couched her request in directory language, there can be little doubt she communicated her desires to Respondent, albeit in a perhaps more gentle manner. In any case, she was Respondent's supervisor and he knew it. She wanted the work done as she indicated and her request, made under the authority she had to get the work done as she desired, had the force and effect of a direct order which Respondent disobeyed at his peril. Ms. Spano indicated she discussed not only the appointment of Ms. Drysdale as lead worker at the April 15, 1993 meeting, but also the six hour requirement for specimens. Respondent denies this, but it is found he knew exactly what the requirements were. He claims he has been doing things the way the memorandum calls for ever since it was promulgated and this is not inconsistent with his current position on doing the BOD procedure first. When this incident took place, Mr. Reckenwald, the superintendent of the water and pollution control division, and the overall supervisor of the laboratory operation in question, received a recommendation for discipline, primarily because of Respondent's failure to follow orders. In addition, however, the incident created a problem for the City which has to report to the EPA and other federal agencies. Because of this report requirement, it is imperative the work be done properly. If it is not done properly, the work is worthless and may result in sanction action against the city by federal regulatory agencies. Not the least of concerns, also, is the public health consideration since effluent, the source of samples for both BOD and bacteria procedures, is discharged into the public waterways. On the basis of the above, a recommendations was made that Respondent receive a three day suspension. This is consistent with disciplinary guidelines contained in the City's Guidelines For Disciplinary Action. Respondent appealed the action to the City Manager who reviewed his submittal but nonetheless upheld the disciplinary action proposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the City of Clearwater take final action in this matter to consist of suspension of the Respondent without pay for three days and imposition of 40 disciplinary action points. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of May, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 William T. Mooney 1433 Laura Street Clearwater, Florida 34615 Michael J. Wright City Manager City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
