Findings Of Fact On July 6, 1981, the Applicant submitted to the Department of Banking and Finance (Department) an application pursuant to Section 658.19, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), for authority to organize a corporation for the purpose of conducting a general banking business to be located at 1000 Massey Boulevard, unincorporated Palm City, Martin County, Florida. Notice of receipt of the application was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on December 11, 1981. Protests and requests for hearing were filed by American Bank of Martin County (American), Central Savings and Loan Association (Central), Florida National Bank of Martin County (Florida National), and First National Bank and Trust Company of Stuart (First National) on or before December 30, 1981. On September 27, 1982, Florida National withdrew its protest. Publication of the Notice of Hearing in this cause appeared in The Stuart News on October 1, 1982. A hearing was held in this cause on October 19 through 20, 1982, in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. The pronosed bank will occupy 3,300 square feet of an existing single- story structure located at the west end of the Villa Plaza Shopping Center fronting on Massey Boulevard, also known as Martin Downs Building. The proposed bank will have visibility and access to Massey Boulevard and also to First Street along the rear (south side) of the Villa Plaza Shopping Center, through use of the ingress and egress facilities of the shopping center. (View by Hearing Officer) The site has facilities for three drive-in lanes. The plan of the proposed bank will include a teller line, lobby area, private offices, teller work area, coupon booth area, vault, restrooms and an employee lounge. Adequate parking facilities already exist and there is room for expansion. (T. 48-50; View by Hearing Officer) The facility is adequate to handle the projected business of the bank for a reasonable period of time and is of such a nature to warrant customer confidence in the security, stability and permanence of the bank. The Applicant intends to lease the facilities from R&S Equities, a Florida partnership whose partners are John C. Robinson and Woodrow J. Smoak. The lease terms include a five year term with annual rent of $36,000 payable in monthly installments of $3,000. The lease also provides for renewal options every five years for a maximum of thirty (30) years with specified annual rental payments to be used during each of the five year terms. Applicant anticipates an investment of $174,500 in fixed assets, including $49,500 for leasehold improvements and $125,000 for furniture, fixtures and bank machinery. Temporary quarters for the bank are not anticipated as the existing structure is ready and the planned improvements can be completed quickly. Applicant has no plans to purchase or lease any land, buildings, improvements to be made thereon, or equipment, furniture, or fixtures to be installed therein, from a director, officer or stockholder who owns 5 percent or more of the capital stock of the Applicant or any controlled company of any officer, director or stockholder. The Applicant's primary service area incorporates portions of the City of Stuart, unincorporated Martin County and a portion of unincorporated Martin County known as Palm City. The PSA is a "bedroom community" with shopping, recreational and public school facilities. Included within the PSA are U.S. Census Enumeration Districts 11, 12, 32, 33, 61, 65, 66, 67 and a portion of 10. The PSA's northern, eastern, southern and western boundaries are the St. Lucie County/Martin County Line (along with the St. Lucie River and Frazier Creek), Colorado Avenue (State Road 76), Indian Street, extended to Florida's Turnpike, and Florida's Turnpike respectively, and are located 2.4 road miles, 0.9 miles, 1.8 miles and 2.5 miles respectively from the proposed site. The south fork of the St. Lucie River runs north and south through the eastern protion of the PSA. The Palm City Bridge, a modern fixed span bridge, crosses the river and connects the larger portion of the PSA west of the river with the eastern portion and the City of Stuart. The bridge's western end is approximately 0.2 miles from the Applicant's proposed site. The delineation of the boundaries of the PSA took into consideration the locations of the offices of existing financial institutions, along with the other economic and demographic factors. The ability of PSA residents to reach the proposed site in a convenient and timely manner was likewise a factor considered in delineating the boundaries of the PSA. The northern boundary of the PSA, consisting primarily of the St. Lucie County/Martin County Line, presents a logical and political northern boundary. The eastern boundary, Colorado Avenue, is a major north/south thoroughfare chosen primarily because of its proximity to existing financial institutions. The southern boundary, Indian Street, extended to the Florida Turnpike and the western boundary, the Florida Turnpike, were chosen because they are areas beyond which population concentrations are limited. Also, Florida's Turnpike is a significant man-made barrier. There are no other significant natural or man-made barriers which would restrict the flow of traffic within the PSA. The PSA's major north/south arteries are 18th Avenue, Mapp Road, Palm City Avenue and Colorado Avenue. The PSA's primary east/west arteries are Highway 714, Massey Boulevard, a/k/a Martin Downs Boulevard and Murphy Road. The 1970-1980 population trends for the City of Stuart, Martin County, the State of Florida, and the Applicant's designated PSA were considered. This data was provided by the Applicant and the Department from census data and from data published by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The PSA population grew from 3,300 in 1970 to 6,350 in 1980 for an average annual increase of 9.2 percent. The City of Stuart grew from 4,820 in 1970 to 9,467 in 1980 for an average annual increase of 9.6 percent. The population of Martin County went from 28,035 in 1970 to 64,014 in 1980 for an average annual increase of 12.8 percent. Over the same ten year period, Florida's population increased an average of 4.4 percent annually from 6,791,418 to 9,746,324. The BEBR projected 1983 Martin County population at 70,600 by its low projection, at 74,600 by its medium projection and at 75,300 by its high projection. For Florida's 1983 population, the BEBR estimated 10,352,200 as its low projection, 10,595,100 as its medium projection and 10,757,200 as its high projection. The average annual 1980-1983 population growth rate projections for Martin County are 3.43 percent, 5.20 percent and 5.88 percent as calculated from the low, medium and high 1983 projections respectively. For Florida, tide average annual 1980-1983 population growth rate projections are 2.07 percent, 2.90 percent and 3.46 percent as calculated for the low, medium and high projections respectively. See "Data Source Packet" of Department's Official File (DSP). One hundred percent of the County's 1970-1980 population growth resulted from immigration, a proportion above the state's 91.97 percent. (DPS) Over the 1970-1979 period, the Martin County population aged somewhat, with the population proportion below age 15 having decreased from 23.8 percent to 18.6 percent; the population proportion within the working age group (15 to 64) increased from 54.9 percent to 56.3 percent; and the population aged 65 years and above increased from 21.3 percent to 25.1 percent. Florida population during the same period decreased from 25.8 percent to 20.4 percent for the group below age 15; increased from 59.6 percent to 61.9 percent in the working age group and increased from 14.6 percent to 17.7 percent for those 65 and over. (DPS) In April, 1980, the Martin County population was older than the Florida population. Martin County's population under age 15 was 16.4 percent; with 59.1 percent in the working age group; and 24.5 percent over age 65. In April, 1980, 19.3 percent of Florida's population was below age 15; 63.4 percent were in the working age group; and 17.3 percent were aged 65 or over. With a higher percentage of people over age 15, there is a relatively higher number of people in Martin County of an age to utilize banking services than exists on the average statewide. The rate of growth in the number of households in Martin County exceeded the rate of growth in the State of Florida during the 1970-1980 period. The BEBR estimated the number of Martin County households in 1980 at 25,863, having reflected at 155.5 percent increase above the 1970 level of 10,122 households. The number of state households increased 63.8 percent during the same period from 2,284,786 to 3,841,356. County and state average household sizes declined 11.8 percent and 12.1 percent, respectively, over the 1970-1980 period with the Martin County average household size having declined from 2.72 to 2.40 persons, and the state average declined from 2.90 to 2.55 persons. Statewide unemployment rates have significantly exceeded those of Martin County for all periods since 1974. During 1975, Florida's 10.7 percent unemployed rate exceeded Martin County's 8.7 percent rate. In 1976, Florida's 9 percent unemployment rate exceeded the 7.7 percent rate in Martin County. Florida's 8.2 percent unemployment rate exceeded the Martin County 6.9 percent rate in 1977. In 1978, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.6 percent which was also well above the 5.5 percent rate in Martin County. In 1979, the margin was even larger with Florida's unemployment rate at 6 percent and Martin County's unemployment rate at 4.8 percent. The margin continued to grow in 1980 with the Florida unemployment rate still at 6 percent but the Martin County unemployment rate having dropped to 4.4 percent. In 1981, Florida and Martin County's unemployment rates were 6.8 percent and 5.6 percent respectively. In 1981, the Florida unemployment rate remained well above the unemployment rate in Martin County. (T. 181) Between 1979 and 1981, average household effective buying income (HEBI) in Martin County grew from $16,339 to $20,119. In 1979, Florida HEBI was $18,613 and in 1981, was $21,301. The increase between 1979 and 1981 was much more significant in Martin County than in the State of Florida overall. HEBI increased 23.1 percent or $3,780 in Martin County while increasing only 14.4 percent or $2,688 in Florida between 1979 and 1981. Net income figures show an even more significant increase in Martin County. Between 1979 and 1981, net income in Martin County increased 73.3 percent from $336,574,000 to $583,448,00. During the same period, net income in Florida increased by only 34.2 percent from $63,889,652,000 to $85,768,756,000. Per capita personal income data (PPI) formulated for the state and county by the United States Department of Commerce, and reprinted by the University of Florida, was in evidence and considered. This data appears in the following table: YEAR 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Martin Co. 3861 4258 4773 5246 5363 Florida 3693 4007 4461 4988 5341 YEAR 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Martin Co. 5834 6437 7215 8094 9178 Florida 5634 6094 6733 7591 8521 PPI level in Martin County exceeded Florida PPI levels throughout the 1970-1979 period. Between 1975 and 1979, PPI in Martin County increased by $3,344 or 57.3 percent while per capita income in the State of Florida increased by only $2,887 or 51.2 percent. In addition, PPI in Martin County in 1979 exceeded the statewide figure by 7.7 percent. The Applicant submitted data on estimated retail sales in Martin County and Florida for 1975 through 1981. At the time the application was filed, the latest available figures were for 1979. Between 1979 and 1981, estimated retail sales increased 32.3 percent in Martin County while the State of Florida increased by only 28 percent. Five operating commercial bank offices are located in or within one mile of the PSA. Florida National operates a branch office 0.8 miles northeast of the proposed opened 0.2 miles west of the proposed site. The two branches are the only bank offices in the PSA. The following three bank offices are located within one mile of the PSA: Florida National's main office, operating 2.7 miles northeast of the proposed site; First National's main office, operating 2.1 miles northeast of the proposed site; and First National's branch office, operating 1.8 miles northeast of the proposed site. These five bank offices are operated by only two bank institutions, neither of which is a state chartered institution nor has its main office in the PSA. Florida National, the only bank operating in the PSA, withdrew its protest to this application. Seven savings and loan association (association) facilities were cited as operating in or within one mile of the PSA. These seven association facilities include two main offices in operation and five association branch offices. Two offices operate within the PSA: Harbor Federal Savings and Loan Association (formerly First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Ft. Pierce) operates a branch office 0.9 miles northeast of the proposed site. First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Martin County operates a branch office 0.9 miles northeast of the pronosed site.. The following facilities are within one mile of the PSA: Citizens Federal Savings and Loan Association operates a branch office 2.2 miles northeast of the proposed site; Community Federal Savings and Loan Association operates a branch office 2.7 miles northeast of the proposed site; First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Martin County has its home office 2.2 miles northeast of the proposed site; Home Federal Savings and Loan Association has a branch office 2.1 miles northeast of the proposed site; and the recently opened main office of Central Savings and Loan Association is one mile northeast of the proposed site. A period's inflation is most commonly estimated by the period's corresponding change in the consumer price index, which is the only method of record in this proceeding. Each month, changes in the consumer price index from the previous month and for the previous 12 months are published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. For the year ending September 30, 1981, the rate of inflation was 11.0 percent. For the year ending December 31, 1981, the rate of inflation was 8.9 percent. For the year ending March 31, 1982, the rate of inflation was 6.8 percent. (DSP) Only one bank office (a branch office) was in operation within the PSA in March, 1982. During the year ending March 31, 1982, the Florida National Bank of Martin County branch office within the PSA increased its total deposits from $12,638,000 to $16,307,000 or an increase of 29 percent, a rate more than four times that of the 6.8 percent rate of inflation that existed during the year ending March, 1982. Data is also available for the bank offices operating within one mile of the PSA. The main office of First National increased its total deposits during the period of March, 1981, to March, 1982, from $149,296,000 to $153,845,000 for a yearly increase of 3.0 percent. The branch office of First National close to the PSA increased deposits during the same period from $3,144,000 to $3,587,000 or an increase of 14.1 percent. The Florida National main office had a decrease in deposits from $89,806,000 to $3,587,000 or a loss of 2.0 percent during the year ending March 31, 1982. Total Martin County deposits for the period increased from $402,666,000 to $423,762,000 or a 5.2 percent increase. During the period from March 31, 1981, to March 31, 1982, bank deposits within the State of Florida increased from $41,478,327,000 to $43,933,129,000 or an increase of approximately 5.9 percent. In summation, the rate of growth in deposits within the PSA exceeded the rate of growth in deposits in Martin County and the rate of deposit growth was bore than four times greater than the rate of inflation for the same period. For the period between September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1981, the savings and loan association offices operating in the PSA showed increases in the volume of savings accounts as follows: Harbor Federal increased from $12,287,000 to $14,997,000 or a yearly increase of 22.1 percent; First Federal of Martin County (opened in March, 1980) increased from $2,194,000 to $6,033,000 or a total increase of 175.0 percent in one year. Thus, the increase in the two savings and loan offices in the PSA showed a combined one year gain of $6,549,000 or 45.2 percent. In Martin County as a whole, savings increased from September 30, 1980, to September 30, 1981, from $352,735,000 to $381,625,000 or a yearly increase of 8.2 percent. In the State of Florida as a whole, savings during the same period went from $42,560,303,000 to $45,332,969,000 or a yearly increase of only 6.5 percent. In summary, association deposits at offices in the PSA increased at a rate far in excess of those in Martin County as a whole, and in the State of Florida. In addition, the 45.2 percent increase of association deposits in the PSA during the reporting period was more than four times the 11 percent rate of inflation for the year ending September 30, 1981. The Applicant proposes to offer the full range of banking service offered by full-service commercial banks. No deficiencies in the proposed services were established by any Protestant. However, it should also be noted that there are, at present, only two branches of one multi-bank holding company (Florida National) located within the PSA. No other bank is presently represented in the PSA. No bank is headquartered in the PSA, nor is there a facility of a state chartered bank in the PSA. Also, only Florida National Bank and one other banking organization maintain bank offices in or within one mile of the PSA. Consequently, alternative or competitive choices are limited in the PSA and within one mile of its boundaries at the present time. Applicant projected total deposits of $5,000,000, $9,000,000 and $13,000,000 at the end of the proposed banks' first three years of operation respectively. It also projected a $22,381 net operating loss during the proposed bank's first operating year, and pre-tax net operating income levels of $257,715 and $466,208 during the bank's second and third operating years respectively. These deposit and increase projections were formulated under the assumption that the proposed bank would have: $2,750,000 in total time and savings deposits and $2,250,000 in total demand deposits at the end of the first operating year; $5,400,000 in total time and savings deposits and $3,600,000 in total demand deposits at the end of the second operating year; and $8,450,000 in total time and savings deposits and $4,550,000 in total demand deposits at the end of the third operating year. Applicant's projections are conservative, were unrefuted by the Protestants and are likely achievable. The Applicant's testimony and evidence established that there are nine active residential subdivisions in the PSA totaling 6,576 units of which 416 or 6.3 percent were cited as completed. Home prices range from between $65,500 and $580,000. Five areas are planned for single family units accounting for 95 percent of the total units planned. Prices for the single family units range between $75,000 and $580,000, while prices for condominium units range between $65,500 and $87,900. The single family subdivisions are Canoe Creek, Martin Downs, Mid-Rivers, Pipers Landing and Westgate. Utilities are being installed for 70 new lots in the PSA and there are 15 new rental units recently opened and under construction. Extensive testimony was presented about the Martin Downs project located within the PSA. Martin Downs is a 2,400 acre planned residential development which will contain 5,500 residential units. It will also contain two golf courses, racquet club, resort center, retail shopping center, office park, industrial park, government service center, schools, yacht club, parks and a utility plant. Road improvements have already been made in and around Martin Downs. Further, during 1983, major improvements will be made to Martin Downs Boulevard, the major east/west artery through the PSA. These improvements include widening that portion of Martin Downs Boulevard that runs past the proposed site of the Applicant bank. (T. 23-26) Martin Downs will be built in phases with a final population of 12,000 to 13,000 people. (T. 23) The builders of Martin Downs already have approximately $20 million invested in the project. The Crane Creek area of Martin Downs is one of the most exclusive residential sections in the PSA. (View by Hearing Officer) It consists of 346 lots of which approximately 300 are sold and approximately 150 lots are occupied or have homes under construction. The lots sell for $35,000 to $60,000. Homes sell from around $150,000 to $400,000. Crane Creek also contains a championship golf course, clubhouse and racquet club with thirteen tennis courts. (T. 15) Four condominium projects are presently under construction: Country Meadows, Mapletree Villas, The Crossings, and The Townhomes at Poppleton Creek. Prices range between $49,900 and $87,900. These four projects have 306 total units planned of which 60 were completed in October, 1982, and another 72 under construction. Residents living in all of the single family subdivisions cited and at Mapletree Villas and the Crossings must, as a practical matter, pass the Applicant's proposed site on their way to and from the City of Stuart. In addition to the developments cited, there are a large number of existing residences within the PSA. Many of these are located west of the South Fork of the St. Lucie River and these residents must also pass the Applicant's proposed site when going to and from Stuart. (View by Hearing Officer) Commercial activity in the PSA is primarily centered along Massey Boulevard and Mapo Road in close proximity to the subject site. Downtown Stuart lies approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the proposed site. As of May, 1981, 35 businesses were established within one-half mile of the proposed site. In addition, the Monterey Plaza, a large, modern shopping center within one mile of the proposed site, contained 44 businesses in August, 1981. There are 43 businesses within one-half mile of the site. Manufacturing is limited in Martin County. However, the county's largest manufacturer, Grumman Aerospace Corporation, is located at Witham Field, approximately 2.7 miles east of the proposed site. In addition, there are two areas established for industrial development in the PSA itself. One is a planned industrial park to be located in Martin Downs. The other is a ten acre industrial park known as Heritage Square, located at Palm City School Road and State Road 714, approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the proposed site. There are approximately three acres currently developed in the park which opened in 1978. At the time the application was filed, it had 12 tenants, 11 of which are small manufacturing firms. The proposed bank will be capitalized with a total of $1,500,000. The capital will be divided into common capital of $1,000,000, surplus of $300,000, and undivided profits of $200,000. The bank will issue 100,000 shares of stock, with a par value of $10 and a selling price of $15 plus $.50 per share assessed for the Organizational Expense Fund. All 100,000 shares have been subscribed to. The proposed directors have personally subscribed to 30,000 shares as follows: Herbert-Biggs, 5,000 shares; Stephen Frasier, 5,000 shares; Richard Jemison, 5,000 shares; Charles Pope, 5,000 shares; Donald Ricci, 5,000 shares; and Roy Talmo, 5,000 shares. The proposed Board of Directors is composed of six members with diverse business backgrounds, some of whom have had prior banking experience. Herbert Biggs is an 11 year Florida resident living in Jupiter, Florida. Mr. Biggs has a B.S. degree from Mississippi State University and a J.D. from the University of Mississippi. After a short period as a professional basketball player, Mr. Biggs came to Martin County to practice law. He has since left the practice of law to pursue a career as a general contractor and developer. He is currently the president of Suncastle Homes, Inc., a construction and development corporation. Mr. Biggs holds professional licenses as a realtor, general contractor and attorney. Mr. Biggs is a U.S. citizen. Mr. Biggs has a reputation evidencing honesty and integrity and has an employment and business history demonstrating his responsibility in financial affairs. Stephen Frasier is a 12 year resident of Martin County. He holds a B.S. degree from Florida State University and J.D. from the University of Florida. Mr. Frasier served in the Navy as a Flight Officer and is presently a Lieutenant in the Naval Reserve. He served as the Assistant City and County Attorney in Martin County and is presently engaged in the private practice of law in Martin County as a partner in the firm of Frasier and Bateman, P.A. Mr. Frasier is a member of the Civitan Club, the Masonic Temple, the Elks Club, Martin County Bar Association, on the Board of Directors of the Visiting Nurses Association, Florida Bar, on the Board of Directors for the Paradise Ranch for Boys, and is the Chairman of the Board for the Sailfish District of the Boy Scouts of America. (T. 122) Mr. Frasier is a U.S. citizen. (T. 121) Mr. Frasier has a reputation evidencing honesty demonstrating his responsibility in financial affairs. (T. 80, 113; Exs. 1, 5) Richard Jemison has been a Florida resident since 1939, and presently lives in Stuart, Florida. (T. 102; Ex. 1) He has a B.S. degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Florida. (T. 103) Mr. Jemison was in the printing business in St. Petersburg, Florida, for 13 years and is now the president of Seabridge Associates, Inc. (T. 104) He holds licenses as a real estate broker, mortgage broker, and contractor. (T. 103) Mr. Jemison is a member of the Palm City Chamber of Commerce, Stuart Chamber of Commerce and Kiwanis Club. Mr. Jemison has substantial banking experience in that he served on the Board of Directors of the First State Charter Bank in St. Petersburg from 1968 through 1974. (T. 106; Ex. 1) He is a U.S. Citizen. (T. 102) Mr. Jemison has a reputation evidencing honesty and integrity and has an employment and business history demonstrating his responsibility in financial affairs. (T. 83, 115-116; Exs. 1, 4) Charles Pope has lived in Florida since 1951 and presently lives within the PSA of the proposed bank. He received a B.S. degree from the University of Florida and has completed all of the course work for an M.B.A at the Florida Institute of Technology. Mr. Pope has direct banking experience from his past employment with First National Bank and Trust Company of Stuart, Atlantic Bank Corporation, and First American Bank and Trust Company (formerly First American Bank of Palm Beach) Mr. Pope is the president of Charles Pope & Associates, Inc., an investment banking firm. He holds a mortgage brokers license from the State of Florida, is a Certified Commercial Lender and a Certified Review Appraiser. He is a member of the American Bankers Association, American Institute of Banking and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Pope is a citizen of the United States. He has a reputation evidencing honesty and integrity and has an employment and business history demonstrating his responsibility in financial affairs. Donald Ricci has lived in Florida since 1975, and in Martin County for the past five years. After being honorably discharged from the U.S. Air Force, Mr. Ricci was a part owner and general manager of an automobile dealership. Mr. Ricci became interested in the real estate business and worked as the Marketing Director for First Southern Holding Company, the developers of Martin Downs. As Marketing Director, he was in charge of sales and marketing for Martin Downs. Mr. Ricci is a 50 percent partner and manager of Seabridge Associates, Inc., a real estate development firm whose offices are located in the PSA and close to the proposed site of the Applicant bank. Mr. Ricci is a licensed real estate broker and a member of the Palm City Chamber of Commerce and the Stuart/Martin County Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Ricci is a U.S. citizen. He has a reputation evidencing honesty and integrity and has an employment and business history demonstrating his responsibility in financial affairs. Roy W. Talmo has lived in Palm Beach County, Florida, since 1964. He received a B.B.A. and M.B.A from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Talmo has extensive direct banking experience, having been employed as a banker since 1959. Mr. Talmo has been employed by the Continental Bank in Chicago and the First National Bank of St. Petersburg, and is the past Chairman of the Board of Miami National Bank. Mr. Talmo is presently Chairman of the Board of First National Bank and Trust Company in Palm Beach, and has directed its growth from an $11 million bank to its present size of just under $500 million. Mr. Talmo also serves as a Director of First American Bank of Broward County, First City Bank of Dade County, and First State Bank of Broward County. He is a member of the Palm Beach Junior College Foundation, the Palm Beach Festival, and the Tourist Development Committee for Palm Beach County. Mr. Talmo is a U.S. citizen. The Applicant adduced evidence which was not refuted, and which established that Mr. Talmo has a reputation evidencing honesty and integrity and an employment and business history demonstrating his responsibility in financial affairs. As of the date of the final hearing, the Applicant had not selected a President or Chief Executive Officer, nor a Cashier or Operations Officer. The Applicant has selected the name First American Bank of Martin County. There are no Florida financial institutions with a name so similar as to cause confusion with the proposed name. Parenthetically, it should be noted that a cogent discussion and resolution of the issue of "name confusion" is extant in First Bank of Hollywood Beach and Office of the Comptroller vs. American Bank of Hollywood, DOAH Case No. 80-1581, opinion filed May 13, 1981. The Applicant has proven that public convenience and advantage will be served by the approval of the application. The Applicant has proven that local conditions indicate a reasonable promise of successful operation for the new bank. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Gary Williams, Esquire Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Noel Bobko, Esquire Post Office Drawer 2315 Stuart, Florida 33495 James L. S. Bowdish, Esquire Post Office Drawer 24 Stuart, Florida 33494 Walter W. Wood, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING IN RE: Application of First Administrative Proceeding American Bank of No. 83-5-DOB Martin County DOAH No. 82-034 / FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL ORDER Pursuant to Notice, an Administrative Hearing was held before P. Michael Ruff, Hearing Officer, with the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 19 and 20, 1982, in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. The purpose of the hearing was to receive evidence concerning the application of First American Bank of Martin County for authority to open a new bank in Stuart, Martin County, Florida. At the hearing, the parties were represented by counsel: For Applicant, C. Gary Williams, Esquire First American Bank Michael J. Glazer, Esquire of Martin County: Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 For Protestant, Noel Bobko, Esquire American Bank of Post Office Drawer 2315 Martin County: Stuart, Florida 33495 For Protestant, James L. S. Bowdish, Esquire First National Bank & Post Office Drawer 24 Trust Co. of Stuart: Stuart, Florida 33494 For the Department of Walter W. Wood, Esquire Banking and Finance: Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Having fully considered the facts and information contained in the record relating to the application of First American Bank of Martin County for authority to organize a corporation for the purpose of conducting banking business in Stuart, Florida, the Comptroller of the State of Florida, as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, hereby renders the following FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER in the above-styled case.
Conclusions The statutory criteria set forth in Chapter 658, Florida Statutes, which were in effect at the time the application was filed, are the standards which govern this application. Chapter 3C-10, Florida Administrative Code, which was in effect at the time the application was filed, contains the rules under which this application was considered. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051, Florida Administrative Code, when an application for authority to organize and operate a new state bank is filed, it is the applicant's responsibility to prove that the statutory criteria warranting the grant of authority are met. The Department shall conduct an investigation pursuant to Section 658.20, Florida Statutes, which was done in this case, and then approve or deny the application in its discretion. This discretion is neither absolute nor unqualified, but is instead conditioned by a consideration of the criteria listed in Section 658.21, Florida Statutes, wherein it is provided that: The Department shall approve the application if it finds that: Public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the establishment of the proposed state bank or trust company. In determining whether an applicant meets the requirements of this subsection, the department shall consider all materially relevant factors, including: The location and services offered by existing banks, trust companies, trust departments, and trust service offices in the community. The general economic and demographic characteristics of the area. Local conditions indicate reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed state bank or trust company and those banks, trust companies, trust departments, and trust service offices already established in the primary service area. In determining whether an applicant meets the requirements of this subsection, the department shall consider all materially relevant factors, including: Current economic conditions and the growth potential of the area in which the proposed state bank or trust company intends to locate. The growth rate, size, financial strength, and operating characteristics of banks, trust companies, trust departments, and trust service offices in the service area of the proposed bank. The proposed capital structure is in such amount as the department shall deem adequate, but in no case shall the paid-in capital stock be less than $800,000. In addition to the capital required, every state bank or trust company hereafter organized shall establish: A paid-in surplus equal in amount to not less than 20 percent of its paid-in capital; and A fund to be designated as undivided profits equal in amount to not less than five percent of its paid-in capital. The proposed officers have sufficient banking or trust company experience, ability, and standing, and the proposed directors have sufficient business experience, ability and standing, to indicate reasonable promise of successful operation. The name of the proposed state bank or trust company is not so similar as to cause confusion with the name of an existing financial institution. Provision has been made for suitable quarters at the location in the application. If, in the opinion of the Department, any one of the six foregoing criteria has not been met, and cannot be remedied by the Applicant, it cannot approve the application. An Applicant can, however, take corrective action in most circumstances, to meet the criteria set forth in Sections 658.21(3)(4)(5) or (6), Florida Statutes, if any one of these is found to be lacking. For example, if all other statutory criteria are met, the Applicant may increase capital, or make certain changes in the board of directors, or change the name or alter the provisions for suitable banking house quarters, because these factors are, at least to some degree, within its control. It is the Department's policy to allow applicants to make certain changes to meet these criteria if all other criteria are met; to do otherwise would be to subject applicants to unnecessary red tape. However, it is the Department's position that there is little, if anything, that an applicant can do to alter its ability to meet the criteria set forth in Sections 658.21(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, since the applicants cannot easily change the economic and demographic characteristics of an area. Therefore, if either one or both of these criteria are not met, the Department cannot approve the application. For the purposes of applications for authority to organize and operate a bank, Section 658.12(19), Florida Statutes, defines the primary service area (PSA) as: " . . . the smallest geographical area from which a bank draws, or a proposed bank expects to draw, approximately 75 percent of its deposits; the term also means the smallest geographic area from which a trust company or the trust department of a bank or association draws, or a proposed trust company or a proposed trust department of a bank or association expects to draw, approximately 75 percent of the assets value of its fiduciary accounts." The Applicant's PSA which incorporates portions of the City of Stuart, unincorporated Martin County and a portion of unincorporated Martin County known as Palm City appears to have boundaries delineated around a natural market area. The designated boundaries do not unrealistically exclude competing financial institutions or include areas of concentrated population. The Department concludes that a market exists for the Applicant in the PSA and that the Applicant may reasonably expect approximately 75 percent of its business to arise from the PSA. Consequently, the Department deems that the PSA has been realistically delineated and that the criteria set forth in Section 658.12(19), Florida Statutes, for a realistically delineated PSA has been met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that public convenience and advantage will be promoted by the proposed bank's establishment. Therefore, the criterion in Section 658.21(1), Florida Statutes, is met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051(3)(a)(1), Florida Administrative Code, the location and services offered by existing financial institutions in the service area are indicative of the competitive climate of the market. The traffic patterns in the area, as well as the area's general economic and demographic characteristics shall also be considered. Because it is recognized that the establishment of a new bank or trust company anywhere would promote convenience and advantage for at least a few people, substantial convenience and advantage for a significant number of people must be shown; otherwise, a new bank could be justified for every street corner in the state. Clearly such a result was not the legislative intent in regulating entry into the banking industry, nor is it in the public interest. Based upon the facts in the record, the Department has determined that the establishment of the proposed new bank will substantially increase convenience to a significant number of residents and workers of the PSA. The location of the proposed site at a shopping center 0.2 miles from the only bridge from the eastern end of the PSA to the western end makes it convenient to residents, shoppers and commuters. The Department, therefore, concludes that the criteria of public convenience and advantage is met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that local conditions indicate reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed bank and those already established in the area. Therefore, the criterion in Section 658.21(2) Florida Statutes, is met. As set forth in Section 658.21(2)(a) and (b) , Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-10.051(3)(b) , Florida Administrative Code, current economic conditions and, to a lesser extent, the growth potential of the area in which the new bank or trust company proposes to locate are important considerations in determining its probable success. Essential to the concept of banking opportunity is that there does and will exist a significant volume of business for which the bank or trust company can realistically compete. The growth rate, size, financial strength, and operating characteristics of financial institutions in the primary service area are also important indicators of economic conditions and potential business. It is noted that the statutory standard requires that: " . . . local conditions indicate reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed state bank or trust company and those banks . . . already established in the primary service area . . ." Banking involves a public trust. Unlike private enterprise generally, banks operate on the public's capital and therefore, the Legislature has vested in the Comptroller the responsibility of protecting the public interest. Furthermore, the failure of a bank, as opposed to private enterprise generally, may have an unsettling effect on the overall economic welfare of the community, and that is why the Florida Legislature and the United States Congress have imposed stringent requirements for the industry. This Department is responsible for enforcing this legislative standard. Public interest is best served by having a banking system whereby competition is encouraged, where appropriate, yet at the same time, ensuring that the financial resources of the residents of the community are stable and safe. That was the obvious intent of the Legislature in regulating entry into the banking industry. The facts in the record show a significant and growing number of residential developments that are not centrally served by any main office, commercial bank, and no state-chartered banks at present. Thus, a significant number of PSA businesses and residents, especially on the western side of the PSA from the St. Lucie River, can be expected to patronize the proposed bank, insuring that there is a reasonable promise of successful operation. The facts in the record show that the rate of growth in deposits within the PSA exceeded the rate of growth in deposits in Martin County and the rate of deposit growth was more than four times greater than the rate of inflation for the same period. Based upon the above, the Department concludes that local conditions do indicate a reasonable promise of successful operation for the proposed bank and for those financial institutions already established in the area. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the proposed capital structure of the proposed new bank is adequate. Therefore, the criteria of Section 658.21(3) Florida Statutes, is met. Capital should be adequate to enable the new bank or trust company to provide necessary services . . ., including loans of sufficient size, to meet the needs of prospective customers. Capital should be sufficient to purchase, build, or lease a suitable permanent facility complete with equipment. Generally, the initial capital for a new nonmember bank should not be less than $1.0 million in non-metropolitan areas and $1.5 million in metropolitan areas. The capital referred to in the Findings of Fact shall be allocated among capital stock, paid-in surplus, and undivided profits in the ratios set forth in Subsection (3) of Section 658.21, Florida Statutes. The proposed capital accounts of $1.5 million are allocated according to the statutory ratios. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the criteria of Section 658.21(4), Florida Statutes, are met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the organizers, proposed directors, and officers shall have reputations evidencing honesty and integrity. They shall have employment and business histories demonstrating their responsibility In financial affairs. At least one member of a proposed board of directors, other than the chief executive officer, shall have direct banking or trust company experience. In addition, the organizers, proposed directors and officers shall meet the requirements of Section 658.33, Florida Statutes. Officers shall have demonstrated abilities and experience commensurate with the position for which proposed. Members of the initial management group, which includes directors and officers shall require prior approval of the department. Changes of directors or chief executive officer during the first year of operation shall also require prior approval of the department. While it is not necessary that the names of the proposed officers be submitted with an application to organize a new state bank, the chief executive officer and operations officer must be named and approved at least sixty (60) days prior to the bank's opening. The Department concludes that the proposed directors have, as a group, good character, sufficient financial standing and business histories demonstrating ability and experience commensurate with the positions for which they are proposed and at least one proposed director (other than the chief executive officer) has direct banking experience. It should be noted that interlocking directorships involving existing financial institutions competitively near the proposed site of a new institution are discouraged. Such interlocking directorships could possibly restrict competition and create fiduciary problems. The Department concludes that there is no interlock problem in this instance. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that the name of the proposed new bank, First American Bank of Martin County, would not cause confusion with the name of a Florida financial institution. Therefore, the criterion of Section 658.21(5), Florida Statutes, is met. It is the opinion and conclusion of the Department that provisions has been made for suitable banking house quarters in the application's specified area. Therefore, the criterion of Section 658.21(6), Florida Statutes, is met. As set forth in Rule 3C-10.051(3)(f), Florida Administrative Code, permission to open in temporary quarters may be granted, for good cause shown. Under the rules of the Department, the permanent structure of a new bank should contain a minimum of 2,500 square feet, unless the Applicant satisfactorily shows that smaller quarters are justified due to the performance of certain auxiliary services off-premises. In addition, it shall meet the Federal Bank Protection Act requirements and be of sufficient size to handle the projected business for a reasonable period of time. The banking house . . . facility shall be of a nature to warrant customer confidence in the institution's security, stability and permanence. Other pertinent factors include availability to adequate parking, adequate drive-in facility if such is contemplated, and possibilities for expansion. Temporary quarters are not contemplated and Applicant's permanent quarters meet the above standards. Rule 3C-10.051(5), Florida Administrative Code, relating to insider transactions requires that: Any financial arrangement or transaction involving, directly or indirectly, the organizers, directors, officers and shareholders owning 5 percent or more of the stock, or their relatives, their associates or interests must he fair and reasonable, fully disclosed, and comparable to similar arrangements which could have been made with unrelated parties. Whenever any transaction between the proposed bank or trust company and an insider involves the purchase of real property, appraisals of land and improvement thereon shall be made by an independent qualified appraiser, and be dated no earlier than 6 months from the filing date of the application. The Department has determined that there is no insider transaction involving the leasing of the proposed bank's office space. Therefore, the criterion in Rule 3C-10.051(5) Florida Administrative Code, is met. RULING ON PROTESTANTS' EXCEPTIONS Section 120.57(1)(b)12, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: " . . . The agency shall allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions to the report." The Department's procedural Rule 3C-9.11, Florida Administrative Code, Post-Evidentiary Procedures, follows the wording of the statute and provides that "the Department shall allow each party 10 days from the date of the hearing officer's report in which to submit written exceptions thereto pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(h) 12, Florida Statutes." The Department interprets that the word "submit" means that the Department must receive the exceptions by the 10th day in the same manner as when documents are required to be filed by a date certain. See Sonny's Italian Restaurant v. State of Florida, 414 So.2d 1156 at 1157. In Sonny's Italian Restaurant v. State, the Third District Court of Appeal in a per curiam decision affirmed a final agency order upon a holding that: "Any error resulting from the entry of the Final Order on July 2, 1981, prior to receipt of Appellant's exceptions to the recommended order, is not material in light of the fact that the exceptions, dated July 6, 1981, were not filed within the requisite 10-day period of Section 120.57(1)(b)8, Florida Statutes, when measured from either the date the recommended order was entered (June 19), or the date submitted to the agency and parties (June 23)." The wording in Section 120.57(1)(b)8, Florida Statutes, concerning the time for filing of exceptions is identical to that of Section (1)(b)12 concerning the filing of exceptions for applications for a license or merger pursuant to Title XXXVIII. The Report of the Hearing Officer, C. Michael Ruff, in this case was done and entered on April 4, 1983, with a cover letter dated April 5, 1983, and was received by the Department on April 6, 1983. A copy of Protestant American Bank of Martin County's exceptions was received by the Department on April 21, 1983. A copy of Protestant First National Bank and Trust Company of Stuart's exceptions were received by the Department on April 19, 1983. The Department deems that all exceptions were untimely filed since the last day to file exceptions with the Department was April 15, 1983. Nevertheless, it has been determined that the exceptions that were untimely received would not have had any effect on the final outcome of this matter.
The Issue The issue is whether Long Bar Pointe, LLLP's (Long Bar), application for a Mitigation Bank/Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to establish a mitigation bank on a 260.80-acre coastal site located in western Manatee County should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency having concurrent jurisdiction with the water management districts for permitting mitigation banks pursuant to chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to an operating agreement executed by the Department and the water management districts, the Department is responsible for reviewing and taking final agency action on this activity. Long Bar is a Florida limited liability limited partnership registered to do business in the state. Its address is 1651 Whitfield Avenue, Sarasota, Florida. Suncoast has been registered as a nonprofit corporation in Florida since 2012. Its mission is to "protect and restore the Suncoast's waterways through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and environmental education for the benefit of the communities that rely upon these precious coastal resources." Respondents have stipulated that at least 25 members reside within Manatee County. Suncoast's geographical area of interest is the coastal waters of Manatee and Sarasota Counties, including the waterways and coastline in the immediate area of the project site and within the proposed Mitigation Service Area (MSA) of the bank. Suncoast's representative, Mr. Merriam, testified that the organization has more than 800 members residing within Manatee County. However, he does not know the exact number of members who actually use the site or MSA and might reasonably be expected to be affected by the proposed activities. Moreover, he was unaware of what activities the proposed permit actually authorizes that would adversely affect the interests of the members. After learning what activities are authorized by the permit, he admitted they have a beneficial purpose. FISH is an active not-for-profit corporation in good standing since 1991 and has an address at 4515 124th Street West, Cortez, Florida. FISH owns and maintains real property, including coastal land within the village of Cortez. FISH also owns and maintains a wetland restoration/mitigation project known as the "FISH Preserve" property located in Cortez. The mission and goal of FISH includes the protection of the nature and natural resources within Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island located within the MSA. Respondents have stipulated that FISH has at least 25 members who reside in Manatee County. According to a representative of FISH, Mr. Stevely, there are more than 150 members who reside or own property in Manatee County. The number who actually use and enjoy the natural resources located in the bank site and MSA is not known. Mr. Stevely could not explain how the activities authorized by the proposed permit would adversely affect its members. He also admitted that the removal of exotics, planting of native plants, and recording of a conservation easement (the only activities authorized by the permit) may actually benefit his environmental interests. Mr. Stevely asserted that the trimming of mangroves would adversely affect his interests, but the permit, as proposed, does not authorize mangrove impacts. He speculated that the proposed placement of buoys along the shoreline might attract inexperienced boaters to the area, but admitted that good channel marking is one of the best ways to protect seagrasses. Moreover, the installation of buoys requires a separate permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Presumably, a point of entry to contest that action will be provided by the agency. Mr. McClash is a resident of Bradenton who uses the waters in the vicinity of the project site for fishing, crabbing, boating, and wildlife observation. He contends the informational buoys will attract inexperienced boaters to the area, who will harm the seagrasses. He is also concerned that if the application is approved, other ERPs may be issued in the future and their impacts could potentially be offset by the purchase of credits from the Project. The Project Site The property designated to become the mitigation bank is a 260.80-acre site located in western Manatee County, west of El Conquistador Parkway and 75th Street West, and an adjacent unsurveyed portion of Sarasota Bay, an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), Class II Waters. Around half of the site is adjacent to agricultural lands that may be developed with a mixed use residential/commercial project. The other half is contiguous with Sarasota Bay and/or existing conservation lands. The project site has more than two miles of shoreline making it the largest continuous mangrove shoreline along Sarasota Bay. The site is near other properties with high ecological value, such as Emerson Point, Robinson Preserve, Neal Preserve, Tidy Island, Sister Keys, and Legends Bay. All of these properties are conservation lands. Long Bar has a sufficient real property interest to conduct the proposed activities. Based on historical aerial photography, the area encompassing the Project site has remained essentially undeveloped since 1944, with the exception of mosquito ditching that was conducted in the northwestern portion of the property from the 1940s to the 1970s, and agricultural ditching that has occurred adjacent to and within some portions of the site. The site is dissected by four, approximately 30-foot- wide strips of land owned by Manatee Fruit Company (MFC), which are excluded from the credit assessment. However, Long Bar has sufficient ownership interest in the MFC strips of land and will be required to maintain the area free of debris and nuisance and exotic vegetation. The Town of Longboat Key also has a 30-foot-wide easement in the southeastern portion of the site, which will be preserved, enhanced, and maintained similar to the adjacent area of the project site , but is excluded from the credit assessment. The project site consists of privately-owned submerged Sarasota Bay bottomlands that are dominated by seagrasses; mangrove swamps; mangrove hedges; areas of salt marsh/saltern; coastal freshwater herbaceous wetlands; and areas of coastal uplands (maritime hammock). The seagrass areas are dominated by shoal grass with patches of turtle grass in deeper pockets. The mangrove areas are predominately black mangroves, mixed with red mangroves closer to the shoreline and with white mangroves in the more landward mangrove areas. Red mangroves increase in dominance in the vicinity of the mosquito ditches in the northwestern portion of the site, and white mangroves increase in dominance in the formerly disturbed portions of the site. The salt marsh/saltern area is generally open and sandy, but supports some herbaceous vegetation, such as buttonwood, glasswort, and saltwort. The coastal freshwater herbaceous wetlands and much of the coastal uplands are currently dominated by a near monoculture of invasive exotic Brazilian Pepper, though areas of intact maritime hammock remain. Brazilian Pepper is present in the ecotone areas (the transition area between two communities) between the freshwater herbaceous and mangrove swamp assessment areas. There are also spoil mounds within the mangrove swamp assessment areas. Mitigation Bank Permits Section 373.403(19), Florida Statutes, defines a mitigation bank as "a project permitted under Section 373.4136, F.S. undertaken to provide for the withdrawal of mitigation credits to offset adverse impacts authorized" by an ERP issued under Part IV, chapter 373. A mitigation bank permit is a type of ERP. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.301(3). Section 373.4136(1) authorizes the Department and water management districts to require an ERP to establish, implement, and operate a mitigation bank. A bank acts as a repository for wetland mitigation credits that can be used to offset adverse impacts to wetlands that occur as the result of future ERP projects. A bank is designed to "enhance the certainty of mitigation and provide ecological value due to the improved likelihood of environmental success associated with their proper construction, maintenance, and management," often within larger, contiguous, and intact ecosystems. Mitigation banks are intended to "emphasize the restoration and enhancement of degraded ecosystems and the preservation of uplands and wetlands as intact ecosystems." Id. Therefore, the Department and the water management districts are directed to participate in and encourage the establishment of mitigation banks. Id. A mitigation bank is to be awarded a number of mitigation credits by the permitting agency. § 373.4136(4), Fla. Stat. A mitigation credit is a "standard unit of measure which represents the increase in ecological value resulting from restoration, enhancement, preservation, or creation activities." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.200(8). The number of credits must be "based upon the degree of improvement in ecological value expected to result from the establishment and operation of the mitigation bank as determined using a functional assessment methodology." § 373.4136(4), Fla. Stat. In this case, the Department is proposing to issue 18.01 credits. Mitigation Service Area (MSA) Rule 62-342.600 requires the establishment of a MSA for a mitigation bank. An MSA is a geographical area within which adverse impacts may be offset by the bank credits. A single MSA is proposed for the Project, covering both freshwater and saltwater credits. The MSA includes portions of Charlotte, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties within the South Coastal Drainage Basin and portions of the Manatee River Basin west of Interstate 75 and the portion of the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin located west of Interstate 75 and south and west of Interstate 275. Credits are not allowed for use outside the MSA, except as provided for by section 373.4136(6)(d). Criteria for a Mitigation Bank Besides statutory criteria in section 373.4136(1), a maze of Department rules applies to the creation of a mitigation bank. Pertinent to this case, rule 62-342.400 sets forth criteria specifically applicable to a mitigation bank. Rule 62-330.301 sets forth criteria for the issuance of an ERP, while rule 62-330.302 establishes additional ERP criteria that form the basis for the public interest test. In the Joint Pre- hearing Stipulation, Petitioners agree that only the criteria in rule 62-330.301(1)(d) and (f), rule 62-330.302(1)(a)2., 4., and 5., and rule 62-342.400(1)(a)-(f) are at issue. Petitioners also agree that Long Bar has provided reasonable assurance in regards to all requirements of financial responsibility. The Project Long Bar submitted to the Department its application for a permit on September 12, 2016. After additional information was submitted, the application was deemed complete on December 16, 2016. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-342.450. The majority of the site is mangrove swamp and privately owned submerged seagrass bottomlands that are proposed for preservation only. The site also contains areas of coastal freshwater marsh and coastal uplands that are currently degraded by invasive exotic vegetation which will be enhanced through removal of invasive exotic vegetation, planting of desirable vegetation, and implementation of a perpetual management plan. No wetland creation or dredging or filling activities are proposed for the Project. The Project has the potential to generate several credit types, including seagrass, mangrove swamp, mangrove hedge, salt marsh/saltern, and freshwater herbaceous credits. The credit release schedule provides for an initial credit release upon recordation of a conservation easement and establishment of financial assurance mechanisms, followed by a series of potential credit releases based on satisfactory completion of specified mitigation activities, and a final credit release once all success criteria are met. Prior to the release of credits, the site will be preserved by a conservation easement in favor of the Department and Southwest Florida Water Management District. Long Bar will establish financial assurance performance bonds for construction and implementation and perpetual management. Financial assurance is required to ensure the Project reaches success, it remains in compliance, and the perpetual management activities have a dedicated funding source. In addition to protection provided by the conservation easement, Long Bar proposes implementation of a Seagrass Informational Buoy Placement Plan (Plan) in an effort to provide additional protection to the submerged seagrass beds within and in the vicinity of the Project. The Plan contemplates the installation of non-regulatory seagrass information buoys at approximately the three-foot bathymetric contour along the Project site, and which follows the path of the traditional unmarked navigational channel where they can be readily seen. The buoys will inform boaters of the presence of seagrasses surrounding the Project site, which support significant estuarine habitats and can be harmed or destroyed from vessel groundings or prop scarring. Installation of the buoys will provide a significant public benefit in that it should significantly reduce or eliminate prop scars within the seagrass beds along the project site. Good channel marking is one of the best ways to protect seagrasses from prop scarring. There is no credible evidence that signage will attract inexperienced boaters who will damage the seagrasses in the area. The permit does not authorize the installation of the buoys. In order to implement the Plan, Long Bar must apply to the FFWCC for a Uniform Waterways Markers in Florida Waters permit. The Plan must be implemented prior to credit release. No mangrove trimming is authorized by the permit. Pursuant to a Conceptual Mangrove Trimming Plan, attached to the permit as Attachment A, Long Bar has reserved the right to trim approximately 30 percent of the onsite mangrove acreage to a minimum height of 12 feet, as measured from the substrate. No trimming will be allowed within the Project's mangrove swamps that are greater than 500 feet in width from the shoreline, and no trimming can result in fragmentation of the remaining intact mangrove forest into more than four individual fragments. Prior to the initial release of credits, Long Bar must develop and submit a Final Mangrove Trimming Plan and modify the permit to substitute the final plan for the conceptual plan, adjust the assessment area configuration and acreages, and recalculate the total potential mitigation credits. Any mangrove trimming must be conducted by a licensed professional mangrove trimmer and take place under a mangrove trimming permit issued pursuant to section 373.327 that may be issued at some time in the future by the Department if applicable criteria are met. Long Bar's reserved right to conduct limited mangrove trimming was accounted for in the credit scores. Many of the current communities on the site are generally similar to the types of communities that would have been present historically, but have been adversely affected by invasion of nuisance and exotic vegetation, including Brazilian Pepper and Australian Pine. As such, the Project also involves a number of enhancement activities on the site. Approximately 17.35 acres of degraded coastal freshwater marsh will be enhanced by removing invasive exotic vegetation and replanting with appropriate native vegetation. Approximately 13.13 acres of degraded coastal uplands will be enhanced by removing invasive exotic vegetation and replanting with appropriate native vegetation. Approximately 6.44 acres of relatively intact coastal uplands will be enhanced by removing nuisance vines and exotic vegetation. All areas of preserved mangroves and salt marsh/saltern will be treated to remove existing low levels of nuisance and invasive exotic vegetation. Upon implementation and planting, the permit requires Long Bar to conduct "time zero" monitoring to establish a baseline for use in future monitoring events to determine whether success criteria have been achieved. Although the proposed activities are expected to maintain and enhance site conditions in perpetuity, Long Bar will employ other strategies, based on continual evaluation of environmental data collected from the site, to ensure the goals of the Project continue to be met in perpetuity. Long Bar will implement a Security Plan to take all measures necessary to ensure the integrity of the Project is upheld in perpetuity. Large hole 50-inch high hog fencing will be installed at the Project boundary where it interfaces with offsite areas to ensure separation and protection from any future development on adjacent lands. Fencing will act as a barrier to deter trespassing, but will still allow wildlife to move across and into the Project site. Conservation easement signage will also be installed at a minimum of every 300 feet, and at every bank boundary turn along the fence line. The buoy plan is also part of the Security Plan. Long Bar will conduct quarterly inspections of the fencing and signage, as well as Project site lands, and will repair or replace fencing as soon as the need is discovered. Any trash and other debris will be removed during site inspections either by hand or by a method that minimizes disturbances to Project lands. If habitat impacts are discovered during an inspection, adaptive management actions will be implemented. After the Project's final success criteria are met, the Perpetual Management Plan will ensure that the Project is managed by Long Bar in a manner that ensures all permit conditions are maintained. The Perpetual Management Plan includes quarterly inspections of the Project site, including security measures. The Calculation of Credits In 2004, the Department adopted chapter 62-345, the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) rule, which provides a standardized procedure for assessing the functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters, the amount those functions are decreased by a proposed project, and the amount of mitigation necessary to offset that loss. UMAM is the sole means for determining the amount of mitigation credits to be awarded to mitigation banks and applied to Long Bar. When applying UMAM, reasonable scientific judgment must be used. Therefore, even though UMAM is a standardized procedure, UMAM is not a precise assessment, and in the exercise of reasonable scientific judgment, two scientists can arrive at different results. In general terms, the UMAM analysis consists of two parts. Part I is a qualitative characterization of the property, which divides the property into assessment areas. Part II assigns mitigation bank credits to those areas based on scoring criteria established in UMAM. The mitigation proposal was assessed by the Department using UMAM. The Department determined that the Project had the potential to generate a total of 18.01 credits. These credits are differentiated as 7.38 for seagrass-dominated submerged bottomlands, 0.23 for salt marsh/saltern, 7.07 for mangrove swamps, 0.68 for trimmed mangrove hedge, and 2.65 for coastal freshwater marsh. The environmental communities present at the site are subdivided into 47 different assessment areas. The assessment areas were established by Long Bar's expert, Mr. Hoffner, who has worked on the Project since 2014 and has spent hundreds of hours evaluating the site. The assessment areas were generally grouped into seagrass, mangrove, saltwater, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and uplands, and then sub-assessed based on their proximity to different habitats and different activities within the bank. Assessment area boundaries were based upon aerial photography interpretation, the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, habitat map, Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps, site inspections, formal wetlands jurisdiction determination, surveys performed by professional land surveyors, field verification, and reasonable scientific judgment. The record shows that ecotone community boundaries in the environment do not often have distinct lines of demarcation and two adjacent communities can be identified as unique assessment areas and yet have ecotone areas that share characteristics of both communities. For example, Brazilian Pepper is present within the ecotone areas between the mangrove and freshwater marsh assessment areas. The Department's expert, Mr. Rach, verified the boundaries of the bank and assessment areas both in the field and through aerial photographs and descriptions provided by the applicant. Mr. Rach reiterated that the determination of assessment areas is not an exact science and requires the use of scientific judgment. He determined that Long Bar provided sufficient information for each assessment area to be evaluated under the second part of the UMAM analysis and that they provide an appropriate frame of reference to use in the Part II evaluation. While Petitioners' expert, Mr. Hull, disagreed with the assessment area boundaries, he agreed that UMAM is not an exact science. He conceded that he was not sure whether he visited every assessment area on the site, and he was unable to provide an explanation of where he believed each specific boundary should be located. Petitioners did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment areas are in contravention of Department rules. The Department's scoring of the Project was determined by review of the UMAM scores provided by Long Bar, review of available information provided, numerous discussions with Long Bar, and field work. The Department's summary of the credit evaluation for each of the 47 assessment areas is contained in Condition 11 of the permit and is accepted as being the most persuasive on this issue. The actual scores for each assessment area are contained in Exhibit H of the draft permit. While Mr. Hull disagreed with the scoring of the project, the difference between his and Long Bar's numbers are a reflection in the difference in the application of reasonable scientific judgment. Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Department's determination that the project could generate 18.01 credits was incorrect. Petitioners' Objections In their PROs, Petitioners raise three broad objections. First, they contend that no credits should be awarded to Long Bar for seagrasses, or that a much smaller number is appropriate. Second, they contend fewer credits should be awarded for areas where mature mangroves that are 40 to 50 feet in height could be trimmed to 12 feet simply to provide a view for future residents of the adjacent upland residential development conceptually proposed by Long Bar. Finally, they contend the site is bisected by a 100-foot gap that is excluded from the bank because Long Bar intends to allow future access from the planned adjacent upland residential development to the shoreline. They argue that by creating this gap, Long Bar fails to maintain an intact ecosystem. Given these considerations, Suncoast and FISH contend that no more than 4.18 mitigation credits should be awarded, while Mr. McClash argues that the application should be denied. As to the first issue, Petitioners generally contend that in the seagrass areas, the bank is focused on preservation only, and not restoration, and therefore no additional protection or functional lift will be provided for any seagrass assessment areas. To begin with, preservation is a goal expressly included in the UMAM rule, which emphasizes preservation of undegraded areas and restoration of degraded systems over alteration of existing landscapes to create artificial wetlands. The proposed conservation easement increases protection to the wetlands and other surface waters in the site by preventing structures (such as docks or piers) within the seagrass assessment areas. If the site is not preserved, it is likely to be used to access Sarasota Bay from the uplands. As previously found, there will also be enhancement activities in adjacent assessment areas. In short, the steps being proposed by Long Bar provide additional protection to the seagrasses. The UMAM seagrass score is appropriate. As to the second issue, no mangrove trimming is authorized by the permit. Long Bar has, however, reserved the right to modify the permit to trim approximately 30 percent of the onsite mangrove acreage to a minimum height of 12 feet, as measured from the substrate. The potential trimming was properly accounted for in the UMAM scores. If Long Bar chooses not to implement the proposed trimming, it would likely receive more credits. Notably, no trimming can result in fragmentation of the remaining intact mangrove forest into more than four individual fragments. And prior to the release of credits, Long Bar must develop and submit a final mangrove trimming plan and modify the permit, adjust the assessment area configuration and acreages, and recalculate the total potential mitigation credits. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that mangrove trimming affects the Department's assessment of the number of credits to be awarded. Finally, the exclusion of a 100-foot gap from the conservation easement does not diminish the value of the bank as an intact system as a whole. While this area will not be included in the recorded plans, this will not fragment an intact ecosystem. No construction is proposed in the gap, and current Manatee County regulations do not allow for dredging in this area. Therefore, wildlife utilizing the site will be able to continue to utilize the excluded area and traverse the gap, regardless of the lines drawn on a set of plans. The net effect of the Project is to preserve approximately two miles of intact shoreline. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 100-foot wide strip does not affect the overall suitability of the site as a mitigation bank. Petitioners did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the so-called "gap" impacts the number of credits to be awarded. Compliance with Applicable Criteria The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Long Bar has satisfied all criteria in rule 62-330.301 for the issuance of an ERP. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Long Bar has established that the Project is clearly in the public interest, as required by rule 62-330.302(1). The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Long Bar has satisfied all criteria for establishing a mitigation bank, as required by rule 62-342.400.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Mitigation Bank Permit No. 0338349-002 to Long Bar. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph McClash 711 89th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209-9692 (eServed) Ralf Gunars Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney Suite 107 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson, Varn P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Marianna Sarkisyan, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Chris R. Tanner, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson, Varn P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Edward Vogler, II, Esquire Vogler Ashton, PLLC 2411-A Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205-4948 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602-2637
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On July 31, 1973, petitioner submitted to respondent its application to organize and operate a new banking facility in St. Cloud, Osceola County, Florida. A filing date of August 20, 1973, was assigned by respondent. Accompanying the application was a long and detailed Economic Survey dated June, 1973, containing economic information and statistics pertaining to the City of St. Cloud and its environs. By letter dated October 26, 1973, the management of the Sun Bank of St. Cloud, the only bank existing in St. Cloud, opposed the establishment of petitioner's proposed bank, citing as grounds therefore the present economic conditions and the limited economic growth prospects for the St. Cloud area. By letter dated February 20, 1974, The First National Bank of Kissimmee protested the granting of a charter for any new bank in Osceola County, contending that "additional banks could only dilute the deposits of the existing banks, and this would not be in the areas' interest." An investigation of petitioner's application was conducted by Frank C. Dobson, a state bank examiner for respondent, on February 19, 1974. By a report dated February 22, 1974, Mr. Dobson recommended disapproval of the application on the ground that three of the five factors were considered unfavorable. Mr. Dobson considered the factor of "financial history, condition of the bank, and fixed assets" to be favorable, as well as the factor of "adeqeacy of capital." Considered unfavorable were future earnings prospects," "general character of management" and "convenience and needs of the community." In contrast to the petitioner's original estimate of total deposits in the amount of $10,000,000.00 at the end of its third year of operation, Examiner Dobson projected deposits of only $6,000,000.00 at the end of the third year and therefore concluded that petitioner would not achieve a profitable position. Based upon his observation that the originally proposed chief executive officer, Mr. John J. Jenkins, might possibly he unable to await favorable action on petitioner's application and that the proposed Vice President and Cashier, Mr. Robert J. McTeer, would need supervision and guidance, Mr. Dobson considered the factor of "general character of management" unfavorable. After a brief resume of each of the proposed directors and officers, Dobson concluded that each was considered "satisfactory" with the exception of McTeer, who was considered only "fair." The unfavorable rating on the factor of "convenience and needs of the community" was based upon Dobson's opinion that the proposed site did not appear conducive to convenient service, the existing bank in St. Cloud was completing a new facility which would provide adequate service for its customers and a national bank application was pending. On October 16, 1974, Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., then State Commissioner of Banking, issued his conditional approval order on petitioner's application. This order indicates that a change in location of petitioner's proposed bank was made and that M. Raymond Daniel was designated as president. Mr. Daniel accepted the conditions on October 18, 1974. In January of 1975, present Comptroller Gerald A. Lewis revoked the conditional approval of Mr. Dickinson. An updated economic survey dated April of 1975 was submitted to respondent on behalf of petitioner. An update investigation was conducted by State Bank Examiner Fred H. Brannen, Jr. on May 21, 1975. Mr. Brannen reviewed the file and found as favorable the factors of "financial history, condition of the bank and fixed assets" and "adequacy of capital." Listed as "borderline-favorable" was the factor of "general character of management." Brannen agreed with the projected figures of the original examiner, Mr. Dobson, and thus reported the factor of "future earnings prospects" as unfavorable. Mr. Brannen found the factor of "convenience and needs of the community" to be unfavorable, noting that the proposed site appeared to be somewhat removed from the existing businesses, Sun Bank of St. Cloud had completed its new facility and planned to use its old building as a remote facility and that the proposed national bank was rejected by regulatory authorities. Based upon his examination, Mr. Brannen concurred with the original recommendation of disapproval. On April 1, 1975, the Sun Bank of St. Cloud filed with respondent its application for authority to open a remote facility at 1001 New York Avenue in St. Cloud. A Comptroller's Conference was held in regard to this application on August 8, 1975, and respondent granted approval for the remote facility on or about September 25, 1975. On June 10, 1975, a Comptroller's Conference was held for the purpose of updating and culminating the investigation of petitioner's application. By a supplement dated June, 1975, petitioner presented additional data concerning existing financial institutions in Osceola County and in six other counties with similar populations as Osceola County. No protestants of the application appeared at this conference. On June 20, 1975, respondent received from the Sun Bank of St. Cloud a 37-page booklet containing comments relating to petitioner's application. It was Sun Bank's conclusion that public convenience and advantage would not be promoted by the establishment of petitioner's bank and that local conditions did not assure reasonable promise of successful operation for petitioner and those banks already established in the community. It appears that petitioner has changed the proposed location of its bank several times since submitting its original application. At the Comptroller's Conference on June 10th, the proposed site was described to be at the intersection of New York Avenue with U.S. Highway 192/441 In its Comments regarding petitioner's application, Sun Bank describes the location formerly proposed the intersection of Neptune Road and U.S. Highway 192/441. This is also the site discussed in the reports of both examiners. 13.. In August of 1975, petitioner presented to respondent a Supplemental Summary relevant to petitioner's application versus the Sun Bank's application for authority to open a remote facility in St. Cloud. On November 17, 1975, Comptroller Lewis concluded that petitioner's proposal did not meet the requirements of F.S. s659. 03(2). As grounds therefore, the Comptroller cited the following: ... The primary service area had a 1970 population of 10,000; the applicants estimate that the service area has a current population of 16,000. The proposed bank's site is approximately .4 of a mile from the existing bank in St. Cloud. The proposed bank would not appear to be any more convenient for the residents of St. Cloud than the existing bank. The applicants have made some showing that the proposed bank would have some pro-competitive advantage for the residents of St. Cloud. However, the banks in Kissimmee are accessible by some of the St. Cloud residents. For this reason, the issue of a monopoly in the existing St. Cloud bank is not as compelling as it might otherwise be. On balance, it appears that the public convenience and advantage would be promoted to some extent by the establishment of the proposed bank, although the case is not an overwhelming one. As shown above, the population base of the service area is fairly small and future growth is not expected to be significant. The population of St. Cloud increased by less than 1,000 persons between 1960 and 1970. The existing bank in St. Cloud had total deposits, as of June 30, 1975, of less than $20 million and its total deposits during the last two calendar years increased by less than $4 million. It appears that local conditions do not assure reasonable promise of successful operation of the proposed bank and the existing banks. On the basis of the foregoing, the Comptroller has concluded that, while the first criterion may be met in this case, the second criterion is not met. Therefore, the application is denied. Since the conclusion renders the other four criteria moot, the Comptroller has not reached any conclusions with respect to those other four criteria." Four banks, all members of various statewide holding companies, presently exist in Osceola County. There is one bank, the intervenor herein, in St. Cloud, which bank also has a remote facility in St. Cloud, and there are three banks in Kissimmee, which is eight to ten miles west of St. Cloud. Petitioner's proposed primary service area is defined to be the City of St. Cloud and its environs. Its general service area is defined to be all of Osceola County. Population estimates by witnesses for petitioner and for the intervenor differed. Petitioner estimated the present population of the general service or trade area to be slightly in excess of 41,000, while figures contained in the booklet entitled "Florida Estimates of Population" show Osceola County to have an estimated population of 36,668 as of July 1, 1975. The petitioner estimates the primary service area population to be in excess of 16,000, and this figure was not disputed by the intervenor. In fact, in its application for a remote facility, the intervenor stated that the "Osceola Planning Commission is projecting that the population of the St. Cloud trade area will increase to approximately 45,000 by 1990." As of the 1975 year end, the intervenor Sun Bank, the existing bank In St. Cloud, had total deposits of $21,210,955.50. During the first quarter of 1976, total deposits increased by over $1,600,000.00 at Sun Bank. Over the past five years, deposits at Sun Bank have doubled. The three Kissimmee banks have a combined total of over $40,000,000.00 in deposits. Net profits at the end of 1975 for the existing four banks in the County were as follows: approximately $286,000.00 for the First National Bank of Kissimmee; $216,198.87 for Sun Bank of St. Cloud; $22,359.66 for the Exchange Bank of Osceola; and a figure of minus $56,231.32 for the Flagship Bank of Kissimmee. The Flagship Bank opened in 1974 in a modular unit and moved into a new facility in its second year Using twenty-four factors to measure the economic growth rating of Osceola County, Mr. William C. Payne, a bank marketing consultant, rated said County along with six other counties of similar size. Osceola was rated second, preceded only by Citrus County. The Comparative Figures Report for December 31 1975, as compared with December 31, 1974, shows the following percentages for Osceola County and statewide: OSCEOLA STATEWIDE TOTAL LOANS 12.8+ 4.7- TOTAL TIME DEPOSITS 20.1+ 7.5+ TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS 0.4- 2.0- TOTAL DEPOSITS 10.1+ 3.3+ The presidents of three of the four existing banks appeared and testified as protestants to petitioner's application. The presidents of Flagship and First National in Kissimmee felt that a new bank in St. Cloud would have an adverse effect upon them because they each have a number of customers who are residents of St. Cloud. First National estimates that it has 200 customers from St. Cloud representing approximately $500,000.00 in deposits. Sun Bank recognized than most of petitioner's customers would be derived from Sun's bank, and estimated that probably one million dollars in deposits would be lost to petitioner, thus reducing Sun's profit figures. Sun opened its remote facility in St. Cloud in December of 1975 and First National submitted its application for a remote or branch facility in St. Cloud in January of 1976. Due to financial backing and management expertise and assistance, all three presidents felt that a holding company bank, as opposed to an independent bank, would have a better chance of success in St. Cloud. Flagship pays over $14,000.00 per year as a member of a holding company, while Sun and First National each pay approximately $90,000.00 per year. Sun Bank felt that a certain bank could exist in St. Cloud and that it would, in fact, promote competition. All three presidents noted that 1974 and 1975 were lean years for banking, but that loan demands and total deposits were now increasing. As noted above, petitioner's proposed new bank is to be independently owned and operated at the corner of U.S. Highway 192/441 and New York Avenue in St. Cloud. This downtown intersection provides the only permanent stop light on the main thoroughfare through St. Cloud, and the site provides easy access from either the east/west direction of the main highway or the north/south direction of New York Avenue. It should be noted again that this proposed site is not the same site reviewed by the two state bank examiners in their reports nor by the Sun Bank in its Comments submitted to respondent in June 1975. There was no evidence that the proposed name of petitioner's new bank -- Public Bank of St. Cloud -- would create any conflict or confusion with the name of any other existing bank. There is no evidence in the record that petitioner's proposed capital structure is other than adequate. Its total capitalization is proposed to be $1,000,000.00 and its deposits are estimated to be $7,000,000.00 at the end of the third year of operation. Mr. Payne's updated June, 1976, survey (Exhibit 13) contains drawings and details of petitioner's proposed banking house quarters. The physical structure will promote convenience to customers and the proposed costs are sufficient and reasonable. Security and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation requirements have been met. Petitioner's proposed Board of Directors consists of ten men. Included therein are attorneys, bankers, cattlemen, a physician, a pharmacist, a University of Florida athletic director and those engaged in real estate development and sales. While some directors do not reside in St. Cloud, others have lived there for years, with one director claiming to have some 1,200 blood relatives in the area. Two of the proposed directors, one of which is the proposed chief executive office, has previously been involved with newly chartered banks. At least three of the proposed directors presently serve as directors of other banks in Florida. The proposed president, Mr. Raymond Daniel, will move to St. Cloud and will devote all his time to his duties as president and director. Two of the proposed directors, one of which is the largest shareholder and the other of which is the proposed vice president and cashier, have suits pending against them for considerable amounts of money. One has a judgment against him in the amount of approximately $40,000.00, and the presidents of two banks in Osceola County testified that his reputation in the community as a businessman was not good.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent disapprove petitioner's application to organize and operate a state banking facility in St. Cloud for the reason that petitioner, while showing that it satisfies all other criteria, has failed to illustrate that all its officers and directors possess sufficient ability and standing to assure a reasonable promise of successful operation. It is further recommended that such disapproval be without prejudice to petitioner to file with the respondent, if it so desires, within fifteen days of respondent's final order, an amended list of directors and/or officers and that respondent render a decision upon this criterion within twenty days from the filing thereof. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Clyde M. Taylor TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE, P.A. P.O. Box 1796 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Attorney for Petitioner Mr. Nicholas Yonclas AKERMAN, SENTERFITT & EIDSON Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Attorney for Intervenor Mr. Earl Archer The Comptroller's Office State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Attorney for Respondent ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING PUBLIC BANK OF ST. CLOUD (proposed new bank), Petitioner. vs. CASE NO. 76-088 STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF BANKING, Respondent, SUN BANK OF ST. CLOUD, Intervenor. /
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to preserve and maintain broker records in violation of Section 475.5015, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent committed culpable negligence or breach of trust in any business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular, Section 20.30, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, and the rule promulgated thereto. Respondent is and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. 600642 in accordance with Chapter 475. The last license was issued to Respondent as a broker of Cascade Referral Service, Inc., 2439 Bee Ridge Road, Sarasota, Florida. At all times material, Respondent was the president and registered agent of Knightsbridge Park International (KPI), a corporation under the laws of Florida. At all times material, Respondent was the registered agent of an entity called Knightsbridge Vacation Homes (KVH). Between August 14, 1999, through May 21, 2001, Respondent was an active broker/officer of Knightsbridge Realty, Inc. (KRI). In the Fall of 1999, Sharon Malecki (Malecki), a resident of Wisconsin, met with Respondent's wife, Janet Wilkes, who was vice-president of KPI, to discuss engaging KPI's services in managing Malecki's property in Kissimmee, Florida. On or about February 14, 2000, as a result of this initial contact, Malecki entered into a contract with KPI to manage her property. Respondent signed the contract as president of KPI. The contract required Respondent and KPI to provide general management services to Malecki and to provide a monthly accounting showing all income and expenses for a period of one year commencing on March 1, 2000. The contract also required Malecki to keep a balance of $500 as a "management reserve balance." Respondent and KPI were required to deposit any amounts held in excess of the reserve amount in Malecki's bank account. Implicit in the monthly accounting requirement was that KPI and Respondent would collect the rental proceeds from Malecki's property and remit the proceeds to Malecki. At the same time the parties executed the contract, Malecki sent KPI a check for $500 to be kept in the escrow account for incidental maintenance and repairs of the property. Between August 10, 2000, and August 24, 2000, KPI placed a tenant by the name of "Plant" in Malecki's property and collected $1,214.29 in rent from the tenant. Between August 29, 2000, and September 12, 2000, KPI placed a tenant by the name of "Lusted" in Malecki's property and collected $1,309 in rental income funds from the tenant. The monthly accounting for August of 2000, purports to represent that KPI paid Malecki $616.42 toward the balance owed. Malecki never received this payment. Respondent failed to remit any of the above-referenced funds to Malecki. Respondent sent Malecki a letter dated November 7, 2000, in which he terminated the management contract and promised to send Malecki a final accounting "as soon as possible." On or about January 2, 2001, Respondent sent Malecki a letter, in which he acknowledged that there had been a "major accounting breakdown." In the letter, Respondent promised to make an interim payment within the next week. Subsequent to receipt of the two letters, Malecki made various attempts to obtain an accounting of the rental proceeds due. Respondent never remitted nor accounted for the funds. At all times material, Respondent failed to account for the $500 deposit he held for the benefit of Malecki. In June of 1999, a real estate broker by the name of John Young (Young) referred Isabel Benitez (Benitez) to Respondent after she bought a home through Young. On or about June 23, 1999, Benitez signed a contract with Respondent to manage her property located at 7981 Magnolia Bend Court, Kissimmee, Florida. The contract period was for one year and was renewed for an additional year in June of 2000. Although structured in the form of a lease, there was a clear understanding that KPI and Respondent were performing property management services and were obligated to pay a guaranteed amount to Benitez every month. The contract required Benitez to place a $500 deposit with Respondent and KPI as a "management deposit" to be used for incidental expenses associated with the management of the property. In approximately August of 2000, Benitez stopped receiving monthly payments from KPI. During the latter part of 2000, Benitez made various attempts to contact Respondent to determine the whereabouts of the monies due her. On or about December 14, 2000, Benitez sent Respondent a letter, in which she requested the monies due her under the contract. On or about December 15, 2000, Respondent faxed to Benitez a response to her letter, in which he accepts her termination of the contract and confesses that he had "not been involved in property management matters, let alone accounting aspects " On or about January 2, 2000, Respondent mailed to Benitez a letter informing her that there had been an "accounting breakdown," and promising to make an interim payment within a week. A review of an accounting provided to Benitez, dated February 9, 2001, indicates that Respondent owes Benitez funds in excess of $8,473. At all times material, Respondent has failed to remit the funds due or otherwise account for said funds. Around February of 2001, Thirza Neal (Neal), a resident of Washington, D.C., engaged the services of KRI to manage her property located at 114 Dornock Street, Davenport, Florida. Neal delivered a check for $1,000 to a Chris Turner (Turner), who was an agent of KRI, for the "start-up of utility costs." At some point, Neal decided not to engage the services of KRI, and on March 12, 2001, Neal sent an e-mail to Turner, in which she terminated the management contract and requested a return of her deposit. The above e-mail contains an indication that it was copied to the attention of Respondent. On or about March 26, 2001, Neal sent a certified letter to Respondent demanding a return of the deposit. On or about March 28, 2001, Neal received a letter from a gentleman by the name of B.C. Murphy, referencing her letter to Turner, denying that the check had been deposited into KRI's account and informing Neal that he had purchased KRI during the previous year. Eventually, Neal determined that the bank had inadvertently deposited the check into KVH's account. Neal made several attempts to contact Respondent personally and through his attorney and received no response. Neal was eventually able to obtain a reimbursement from the bank. Respondent neither provided assistance to Neal, nor did he remit the funds on his own accord. At some point later, Petitioner began an investigation and David Guerdan (Guerdan) was assigned to investigate the case. During the course of his investigation, Guerdan conducted interviews of the complaining witnesses and Respondent. On or about September 26, 2001, Guerdan conducted an interview of Respondent. During the course of the interview, Respondent was unable to address the specifics of the complaints. Respondent told Guerdan that he was not involved in the day-to-day operations of the business. He stated that his wife and son actually ran the business and that they had "poor accounting practices, overspent and ran out of the money." During the interview, Respondent could not be specific as to the amounts due each owner. Guerdan was unable to determine whether Respondent paid the funds due to each owner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Florida Real Estate Commission issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 475.25(1)(a) and (e) and Section 475.5015, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; and Impose a fine of $1,000 and suspend Respondent's license for a period of two years and require Respondent to make restitution to his former clients and complete a 45-hour salesperson's post-licensure course, as prescribed by the Florida Real Estate Commission. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. De Costa, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Brian John Wilkes 55 Pacific Close Southampton, England SO143TY Nancy P. Campiglia, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Suite 802, North Orlando, Florida 32801 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Primary Service Area (PSA) The proposed association will be located in the Paddock Plaza adjacent to the Paddock Mall Regional Shopping Center, both of which are currently under construction. The site is in the vicinity of the intersection of Southwest 27th Avenue and State Road 200 in the southwest portion of Marion County. The PSA encompasses the southwestern portion of Marion County, including a part of Ocala which is a concentrated residential community. Beyond the city limits, there are schools, recreational areas, an airport, horse farms, a community college, and light industrial type firms in the surburban area. The proposed site is located in the northeastern part of the PSA. The PSA is in a developmental stage with current plans of residential and commercial development which should make the area the fastest growing sector in Marion County. The home offices of Fidelity Federal Savings and Loan Association and Midstate Federal Savings and Loan Association, and a satellite office of the latter association are located near the northeast boundary of the PSA some three miles from the proposed site. The northern and eastern boundaries of the PSA follow well-defined highways. The southern boundary follows the Marion County line, and the western boundary is drawn due north from the intersection of State Road 200 and the Marion County line. (Testimony of Starke, Exhibit 1) Standards (a) Public convenience and advantage. One commercial banking facility, the main office of Citizens First Bank of Ocala, is located in the northeast corner of the PSA approximately two and one-half miles from the proposed site. It provides full banking services to its customers. Two savings and loan associations have received approval to operate in the PSA. One will be a branch of Midstate Federal Savings and Loan Association which will be located at the Paddock Mall adjacent to the proposed site. The other will be a limited facility of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Mid-Florida (Volusia County) which will he situated approximately 11.3 miles south of the proposed site in a residential community. Neither of these approved institutions have commenced operations. The proposed site is readily accessible from all sectors of the market area. State Road 200 is a primary artery for northeast/southwest travel. Southwest 27th Avenue is a primary north/south thoroughfare. There are numerous other feeder streets which connect with those two roads to bring traffic to the new mall and plaza area. In addition, Interstate Highway 75 intersects State Road 200 approximately one mile southwest of the proposed site. An extension to Southwest 17th Street is currently proposed which would provide direct access from the northeast to the proposed site. The location of the proposed association at a large regional shopping center will provide an opportunity for residents of the PSA to combine shopping and financial business. This will be facilitated through the utilization of a drive-in facility at the site. Ample parking will be provided in the plaza area, and the network of roads in and around the shopping center will facilitate use of the applicant's services. It will provide a convenient location to conduct savings and loan business for residents and businessmen in the southwestern portion of the county without the necessity of traveling to the more congested downtown area of Ocala. The fact that the proposed association will be a home office rather than a branch office will tend to attract a greater number of individuals within the PSA than a satellite office, and undoubtedly will induce persons outside the PSA to use the institution's services. In 1960, the City of Ocala had a population of 13,598. It increased 66.1 percent to 22,583 by 1970. The 1978 city population was estimated to be 32,652, a 44.6 percent increase over 1970. An April 1, 1979 estimate placed the population at 34,034. In 1960, Marion County had a population of 51,616. It increased 33.7 percent to 69,030 in 1970 and was estimated at 102,722 in 1978, an increase of 48.8 percent over 1970. The population was estimated to be 106,852 in April 1979 and is scheduled to reach 164,400 by 1990. It is estimated that the population of the PSA was about 7,700 in 1960 and increased to 10,500 or 36.4 percent by 1970. It is now estimated to be some 17,000 and projected to reach over 19,000 by 1982. This projection is based on the area's recent growth history, current housing developments in the area, and projected growth within Marion County. The 45 to 64 year group of the population of Marion County has shown a modest increase since 1960 from 21 percent to 22.6 percent in 1978. At that time, the state percentage was 22 percent. Those 65 years of age and over in Marion County increased from 10.6 percent in 1960 to 15.7 percent in 1978. This was lower than the statewide average of 17.5 percent in that category. It is anticipated that those 45 years and older will continue to show a steady increase in the future due to the fact that most of the county increase in population has been due to continuing in-migration of retirees. These individuals normally bring cash assets which are available for deposit in savings and loan associations, and they ordinarily would have no prior connection with other banks or savings and loan associations in the immediate area. The per capita personal income in Marion County in 1969 was $2,646 and increased to $5,157 in 1977. Per capita personal income in Florida in 1977 was $6,697. In 1969 the mean family income of residents of Ocala was $9,775, as compared with $8,062 in Marion County and $10,120 throughout the State of Florida. It is estimated that the current mean family income in Ocala is approximately $17,506, as compared to $14,438 in the county and $18,123 in the state. The unemployment rate in Marion County in January 1980 was 6 percent whereas the rate in the State of Florida was 5.2 percent. Residential building permits issued in the City of Ocala in 1975 rose from 156 units for a total of 3.5 million dollars to 511 permits in 1979 for a total of 10.7 million dollars. For Marion County, 872 permits were issued in 1975 for a total of 14.3 million dollars and 1,706 in 1979 for a total of 44.5 million dollars. It is currently estimated that the median value of owner occupied housing units in Ocala is $32,775 and $26,173 in Marion County. Local Conditions There are seven commercial banks with approval to operate a total of 18 offices in Marion County. In June 1975, the commercial banks headquartered in Marion County held combined time and savings deposits of some 104 million dollars and by mid-1979, such deposits totaled over 176 million dollars, an increase of about 69.5 percent. From December 1978 to December 1979, time and savings deposits in those banks rose from 161.4 million dollars to 199.8 million dollars, an increase of 23.8 percent. Total deposits in all Marion County Banks increased from 204.8 million dollars in 1975 to 304.9 million in 1979, a 48.9 percent increase. There are currently 16 savings and loan association offices approved for operation in Marion County. Three of the associations have their home office in Ocala. These are Fidelity Federal, Mid-State, and United Federal of Ocala. Fidelity Federal operates a total of five offices within the county, one of which is not yet open. Mid-State Federal has seven offices approved within the county and its office in the PSA is not as yet open. United Federal, an association which opened in January 1979, has its only office within the county. Both First Family Federal (Lake County) and First Florida Federal Savings and Loan Association (Alachua County) have recently received approval to operate branch offices within Marion County. First Federal of Mid-Florida (Volusia County) has received approval to operate an office in the southern part of the PSA but has not yet opened. In 1975, savings and loan associations headquartered in Marion County reported combined savings of $162,177,000. By the end of June 1979, their combined savings totaled $312,508,000, an increase of 92.7 percent. The combined savings accounts of the three Marion County associations totaled $312,508,000 in midyear 1979, as compared to June, 1975 savings of $162,177,000, representing an increase of $150,331,000 or 92.7 percent, during the subject four-year interval. Mid-State Federal, with an office approved at the Paddock Mall, held June, 1979 savings of $207,770,000, and those accounts represented an increase of $96,475,000, or 86.7 percent, over its savings reported June, 1975. First Federal of Mid-Florida, a Volusia County association with an office approved in the PSA, had June, 1975 savings of $199,843,000, and those savings increased by $150,637,000, or 75.4 percent, to reach a total of $350,480,000 in June, 1979. The smallest savings and loan association in Marion County is United Federal, which opened in 1975. In June, 1975, it reported savings of $6,881,000, and its midyear 1979 statement showed savings of $27,830,000. United Federal, operating only one office in Ocala, had growth in savings of $20,949,000, or 304.5 percent, during the stated interval. In the opinion of the applicant's economic consultant, approval of the applicant's application would not have an adverse effect on the other financial institutions in the area due to the steady growth of the community and anticipated growth in the future. He further is of the opinion that the proposed savings and loan association will be able to successfully operate in the PSA in view of the presence of the Paddock Mall and the general growth of population and business establishments in the area. He feels that the current national economic situation will not have a great impact on a new institution which will be able to obtain variable interest rates. He further sees an advantage to the fact that the proposed association will be the first state chartered capital stock form of organization in Marion County, and that it will provide an opportunity for public purchase of shares in the association. During the first three years of operations, the applicant projects its net profits at $75,648 for the first year, $88,335 for the second, and $103,340 for the third. These amounts were arrived at by including known cost items and estimating various income and expense amounts. The applicant anticipates acquiring accounts from new residents of the PSA and those current residents who may wish to transfer savings accounts from commercial banks in the Ocala area due to convenience and the higher rate of interest paid by savings and loan associations. The applicant does not anticipate the acquisition of a significant number of customers from existing savings and loan associations in the area. It also will look to employees at the new shopping mall who may utilize the conveniently located new institution for savings transactions. The applicant intends to compete vigorously for new business with these individuals and from those who presently do not have accounts in any existing associations. The applicant estimates that the institution will attain savings of five million dollars at the end of the first year, $9,500,000 at the end of the second year, and $14,500,000 at the end of the third year of operation. In arriving at those estimates, consideration was given to past experience of existing association offices in the Ocala area, and that of established associations in similar competitive situations. The eight organizers of the proposed association will also serve as the directors. They represent a diversity of occupations, including businessmen, attorneys, real estate broker, a physician, and a dentist. All but three reside in the Ocala area. All have been residents of Florida for over a year and none has been adjudicated a bankrupt or convicted of a criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust. Their employment and business histories show responsibility in the handling of financial affairs. One of the proposed directors has served as an attorney to a large savings and loan association in Miami Beach, and is a member of the board of directors of Barnett Bank of Miami. Another serves as legal counsel for a local bank in Ocala. The proposed officers of the association have not been named as yet. The proposed association will be capitalized at $2,000,000. This capital will be divided into common capital of $1,000,000 in surplus and reserves of $1,000,000. The association intends to issue 200,000 shares of stock with a par value of $5.00 and the selling price of $10.25, plus a $.25 share organizational expense fund contribution. The proposed directors of the association have subscribed to 25,000 shares each. This is a preliminary stockholder list and it is the intention of those individuals to redistribute the stock to a minimum of 400 persons in accordance with FSLIC requirements. It is the organizers' intention to acquire pledges from 700 persons for the deposit of $1,000,000 in withdrawable savings accounts. It is intended that the majority of the stock will be sold to persons residing in Marion County, and the organizers anticipate no difficulty in this respect. (Testimony of Starke, Hastings, Bitzer, Berman, Casse, Hicks, Williams (Deposition - Exhibit 5), Broad (Deposition - Exhibit 6), Carter, Exhibits 1-3) Name As heretofore found above, the applicant amended its application to change the proposed name to Allstate Savings and Loan Association. Although the descriptive word "Allstate" is not used in the corporate name of any other savings and loan association in this state, the Office of the Comptroller received a letter, dated February 22, 1980, from Allstate Savings and Loan Association, Glendale, California, an affiliate of Sears Roebuck and Company, objecting to the use of the word "Allstate" in that the public may be misled to believe that the proposed association is in some way affiliated with Sears Roebuck and Company. (Testimony of Starke, Exhibit 1) Site and Quarters. As heretofore found, it is the organizers intention to locate the proposed association in the Paddock Plaza, adjacent to the Paddock Mall, a new shopping center to be constructed in Ocala. The applicant has an option to lease 5,000 square feet of space for a period of fifteen years for a rental price of $12.00 per square foot for 2,000 square feet and $10.00 per square foot for 3,000 square feet, plus common area maintenance. The option provides that on the fifth year of tenancy, the total annual rental will be increased by the cost of living as determined by the consumer price index. The leased area will include a two-car drive-in facility. There will be adequate parking at the site. The applicant plans to sublease 2,000 square feet of the leased premises on a short-term basis to reduce operating costs in the initial years of operation. An appraisal of the proposed association quarters establishes that the proposed leased premises are suitable for a savings and loan association and that the lease price compares favorable to current leasing arrangements for similar business property. (Testimony of Starke, Exhibit 1) Proposed Findings of Fact filed by the parties have been fully considered and those findings which have not been adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, or unsupported in fact and are specifically rejected. Some of the proposed findings state conclusions which properly should be considered by the Comptroller. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)(12), Florida Statutes, this REPORT does not include conclusions of law and recommendations. DONE and ENTERED this 25 day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Lyman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Hicks and Randolph Tucker, Esquires Post Office Drawer 1969 Ocala, Florida 32670 Merritt C. Fore, Esquire Post Office Box 1507 Ocala, Florida 32670
The Issue Whether or not Respondents' registration as real estate brokers should be suspended for an alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On or about the middle of March, 1974, Anne Land, a saleswoman for Respondent real estate brokers, met one Timothy B. Howe who had responded to an advertisement in the newspaper concerning the purchase or lease of a home at 185 West Sunrise Avenue, Coral Gable, Florida. After viewing the premises, Mr. Howe decided to lease the property and his attorney prepared a lease in the total sum of $7,200 for one years rent. This proposal was submitted to the owner of the house, Mrs. Joanne Kealy, but upon the advice of counsel, she declined the proposal. Several days later, Howe decided to purchase the home. He signed a standard sales contract, dated March 26, 1974, which provided for a total purchase price of $72,500.00, payable under the following terms: "The sum of $1,800.00 by check hereby deposited in escrow with Magruder Realty, Inc., as escrow agent, in part payment of the purchase price and as a security deposit for the faithful performance of this contract by Purchaser, and the remainder of the purchase price shall be paid as follows: Upon acceptance of this contract the purchaser to deposit with Magruder Realty, Inc., an additional $5,400.00. Purchaser to assume existing mortgage for approx. $38,816.00 with Coral Gables Federal Svgs and Loan Association and the seller to give to the purchaser a second mortgage for balance of approx. $26,500.00 at 8 1/2 percent for 12 years or less with no pre-paid clause penalty..." The contract was signed by Land as witness and also in behalf of the seller and also as an escrow agent of Magruder Realty, Inc. The document was not acknowledged before a notary public (testimony of Lands Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Land contacted the owner who was out of state at the time and asked her to indicate her acceptance of the offer by telegram. The owner did so on March 29, 1974. The evidence is conflicting as to the circumstances surrounding the disposition of the deposit check for $1,800.00. Land testified that she gave the check to Joseph P. Magruder on March 26 or 27 as was her practice in handling deposits, but said nothing about holding the check. Mr. Magruder, on the other hand, testified that at the time she gave him the check, she said Mr. Howe desired the check be held until the total down payment of $7,200.00 was received from a trust account, and that he therefore put the check in the transaction folder and gave the folder back to her to retain. His statement of the reason for not depositing the check in an escrow account immediately is supported by subsequent events and by the fact that the check was not actually deposited until a subsequent date, which was contrary to his normal office practice (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien; Exhibit 2). Subsequent conversations between Land and Howe during the latter part of March and early April were to the effect that Howe's mother was sending funds for the balance of the down payment. On April 4, Land talked to Howe by telephone and he asked for the escrow account number of Magruder Realty, Inc., in order that his mother could send the additional $5,400.00 and/or $7,200.00. Land asked Respondent O'Brien, who was in the office at the time, for the firm's escrow account number and passed it on to Howe. On the same day, Land went on vacation in North Carolina and did not return to the office until April 15th. At that time, Magruder informed her that the additional funds had not been received from Howe and that although he had tried to reach him on the telephone he had been unsuccessful. Because of the difficulty in reaching Howe as to payment of the balance of the down payment, Magruder deposited the $1,800.00 check in his escrow bank account on April 17, 1974. It was not honored by the Howe's bank because Cristina I. Howe, his wife, had issued a stop payment order on the check on April 15. On March 26, 1974, the date the check was drawn, the Howe bank account was overdrawn by 26 (testimony of Land, Magruder, O'Brien, Garcia; Petitioner's Exhibits 2 & 6; Respondent's Exhibit 1). Although Respondents claimed that the Florida Real Estate Commission had disposed of the instant allegation by its letter of censure dated February 10, 1975, which referenced file CD15240, it was determined by the Hearing Officer that this letter involved other transactions and not the one under consideration at the hearing (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5).
The Issue The ultimate issue to be determined in this matter is whether the application filed by Boulevard Bank to establish a branch at Islamorada, Florida, should be approved or denied. The Applicant contends that all of the requirements set out at Section 658.26, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3C-13, Florida Administrative Code, have been met, and that the application should be approved. The Protestant contends that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the public convenience and necessity would be served by the proposed branch.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant, Boulevard Bank, is a full-service, commercial banking institution licensed by the Florida Department of Banking and Finance. Its principal offices are located in Key West, Monroe County, Florida. Boulevard Bank has filed an application with the Department of Banking and Finance to establish a branch banking facility at Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. Boulevard Bank has acquired property for the facility. The property is located on "Old State Road" and is bounded on the north by Matecumbie Street and on the south by Jerome Street. Boulevard Bank has obtained zoning variances that would allow it to construct a branch banking facility on the property. The primary service area of the proposed branch banking facility would be from Mile Marker 87, northeast of the proposed facility, to Channel 5, southwest of the facility. This area is approximately 15 miles long. In keeping with the geography of the Florida Keys, the service area is quite narrow, approximately 0.3 miles at the widest. The service area is characterized by mixed residential and commercial uses. There are approximately 3,000 full-time residents within the service area. There are many people who live in the area on a part-time basis. During the winter months, the population increases dramatically. There are more than 90 stable businesses located within the service area. There are currently two banking institutions located within the service area of the proposed Boulevard Bank branch. The main office of The Islamorada Bank and a branch of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of the Florida Keys are located within close proximity to the location of the proposed branch. The Islamorada Bank is the only full-service, commercial banking institution in the service area. The public convenience and necessity would be served by the opening of an additional full-service banking facility within the service area in that the public would be the beneficiary of the favorable impacts of competition. The Applicant proposes to provide a full range of banking services at the proposed branch. Applicant proposes to stay open at hours and on days that The Islamorada Bank remains closed. Competition can have a favorable impact upon interest that is paid to the bank's depositors and interest rates that are charged by the bank on loans. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that the opening of the proposed branch would in any way damage the fiscal integrity of banking facilities already located within the service area. While the public convenience and necessity would be served by the increased number of facilities and by competition, it does not appear that there has been a dramatic increase in the need for banking services within the service area in recent years. The main office of The Islamorada Bank has not experienced an increase in deposits since 1979. It does not appear that existing banking facilities within the service area are providing inadequate service to residential and business customers. The Applicant is proposing to invest $470,000 in fixed assets, including the cost of land, building, and furniture and equipment to support the proposed branch. The building, which has not yet been constructed, would have dimensions of approximately 30 by 50 feet. The facility would include drive-in banking windows and an automatic teller machine. The Applicant has sufficient capital accounts to support the proposed branch. The Applicant's percentage of capital to total assets exceeds 7.5 percent. The ratio was 7.8 percent on December 31, 1981, and 8.6 percent on June 30, 1982. The operation of the proposed branch would pose no threat to depositors, creditors, or shareholders of the Applicant. Even if the branch operated without a single depositor, the losses to Applicant would not be such as to pose a risk to the integrity of the Applicant, nor to substantially reduce the stockholders' dividends. It is extremely unlikely that the branch would operate without any depositors, and it appears that there is a favorable prospect that the branch would be profitable. The Applicant has sufficient earnings and prospects for earnings to support the expenses of the proposed branch. The Applicant's net profits to assets ratio exceeded 0.5 percent during the past calendar year. For 1981, the Applicant's net profit to total assets ratio was 2.5 percent prior to the payment of federal income taxes, and 1.5 percent after taxes were paid. The Applicant's loans to deposits ratio was 63 percent on December 31, 1981. The Applicant appears to have sufficient management depth to operate the proposed branch without affecting its present services. Applicant proposes to assign Rudy D. Aud as chief operations officer. Mr. Aud is a vice president of the Applicant. He assisted in the establishment of the Applicant's Big Pine Key branch and has operated that facility. The name of the proposed branch would be "Islamorada Branch of Boulevard Bank, Islamorada, Florida." The name would reasonably identify the facility as a branch of the Applicant. The proposed name would not confuse the public either as to the nature of the facility or in relation to other banking facilities. The files of the Department of Banking and Finance, including the Department's confidential file, establish that the Applicant has operated in substantial compliance with applicable laws governing its operations. ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert T. Feldman, Esquire 417 Eaton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Gustave W. Larson, Esquire 9999 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 307, Shoreview Bldg. Miami Shores, Florida 33138 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE DIVISION OF BANKING IN RE: BOULEVARD BANK--Application for authority to establish a branch CASE NO. 82-2623 at Mile Marker 81.4, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. / FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL ORDER Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted in this matter on November 5, 1982, before G. Steven Pfeiffer, with the Division of Administrative Hearings, in Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida. The purpose of the hearing was to receive evidence concerning the application of Boulevard Bank for authority to open a branch at mile marker 81.4, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, Florida. At the hearing, the following appearances were entered: Robert T. Felman, Key West, appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Boulevard Bank; Gustave Larson, Miami Shores, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Protestant, the Islamorada Bank; Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Tallahassee, Florida, appeared on behalf of the Florida Department of Banking and Finance. No exceptions were filed in this case. Having fully considered the facts and information contained in the record relating to the application of Boulevard Bank for authority to open a branch office at mile marker 81.4, U.S. Highway 1, Islamorada, Monroe County, Florida, The Comptroller of the State of Florida, as Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, hereby renders the following FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND FINAL ORDER in the above-styled cause.
The Issue Whether the Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(a) and (i), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The admissions by the Respondent, together with the records introduced at the hearing by the Florida Real Estate Commission show that Respondent was a licensed real estate broker holding license no. 0122293. The Respondent admitted his participation in all the transactions referenced in the administrative complaint. The bank records and other evidence introduced at the hearing show that the Respondent's escrow account maintained at Liberty Bank of Cantonment lacked sufficient funds to pay the bills which Respondent admitted were owed Lawyers Title Insurance Co. in the amount of $44.00. The Respondent testified that he had paid these bills only two days before the instant hearing with a check on his personal bank account. From the Respondent's testimony, it is clear that he failed to maintain sufficiently detailed records to permit him to account for monies in his escrow account in the Liberty Bank of Cantonment and in the bank account which he maintained with the First State Bank in Pensacola, Florida. The closing statements relating to the Netzer/Hayes transaction showed that the Respondent received $1,225.00. His records for this transaction showed checks on his escrow account relating to this transaction in the amount of $1,481.60. Respondent testified that the error in this transaction occurred when he erroneously stubbed one check as relating to the Netzer/Hayes transaction, when in actuality it related to a separate transaction. However, under cross examination the Respondent could not identify the transaction to which this check related. The Respondent admitted depositing the money involved in the Netzer/Hayes transaction to his Cantonment Liberty Bank escrow account. He also admitted that he had made no transfer of funds from the Cantonment bank account to his First State Bank account. The Respondent admitted and the evidence indicates that payments were made at closing from the First State Bank account. The Liberty Bank account records show a balance of less thank $731.00 at all times after 9-30-76. Therefore, insufficient funds were maintained by the Respondent in the Liberty Bank escrow account to satisfy the obligations on the account arising from the Nitzer/Hayes transaction. Furthermore, the Respondent's handling of escrow account at the Liberty Bank in Cantonment was as it related to this transaction was improper The admissions of Respondent and the evidence introduced showed that he was the broker involved in the Suttles/ Kamplain transaction. No evidence was introduced that the Respondent failed to advise Suttles that he initially had accepted a $250.00 note in lieu of cash as an earnest money deposit. The evidence is clear that upon receipt of the money, the Respondent deposited this money to his account in the First State Bank of Pensacola. Although this account was not designated an escrow account, it did bear the designation of a management account. It was not established by substantial and competent evidence that a management account was not an escrow account. The Suttles/Kamplain transaction closed without problem; however, there is no explanation of the disbursement of the $250.00 received as an earnest money deposit in the records of this transaction. Regarding the Suttles/Gordon transaction, it was established that the Respondent was the broker who handled this transaction. No substantial and competent evidence was produced that the Respondent failed to disclose to the Gordons that he did not obtain an initial $100.00 deposit on the transaction. The record is clear that the Respondent did receive a check in the amount of $1,500.00 from Mr. Suttles which the Respondent deposited to his account in the First State Bank. The Gordons did testify that the Respondent was authorized to allow the Suttles to occupy the premises prior to closing. After occupying the property, the Suttles were to make rental payments to be credited to the payment of the mortgage. After moving into the house, Mr. Suttles and his wife began to have domestic problems, and he immediately ceased to make all rental payments upon the property. Mr. Suttles did not advise the Respondent that he was not making payments and did not intend to make further payments on the house. Mr. Suttles did avoid all of Respondents efforts to contact him. The Suttles and the Gordons did execute the closing papers but by the time the papers were executed, Mr. Suttles failure to make the rental payments had caused a deficiency in payment of the mortgage. Because the mortgage was in arrears, the transaction could not close. When the Respondent became aware of the Suttles' separation, he began to make arrangements to have them vacate the Gordon house. However, Respondent failed to keep the Gordons fully advised as to the statuts of this transaction. Further, the check given to the Gordons by Respondent was not honored by the First State Bank of Pensacola because of insufficient funds in the Respondent's account to meet this obligation. The Respondent retained and disbursed portions of the $1,500.00 deposited to the account, although the transaction did not close. Money was disbursed to the Gordons and Respondent took out his commission. Whether Respondent was not entitled to disburse the monies under the contract between Respondent and the Gordons cannot be determined upon the evidence presented. However, it is clear that Suttles was a bona fide purchaser, who after he entered into occupancy, determined that he would not complete the transaction; and under the terms of the contract between the Respondent and the Gordons, the Respondent earned his commission when a purchaser was obtained. It is clear that the Respondent did not keep the Gordons properly advised of the situation regarding the sale of their house to the Suttles; and that the Respondent's check to the Gordons on the First State Bank was not honored because the account was impaired. The evidence and testimony taken as a whole at the hearing shows that Respondent did not keep a running balance of the accounts which he maintained at the Liberty Bank of Cantonment or the First State Bank of Pensacola. The evidence further shows that the Respondent failed to withdraw commissions earned in their total amount subsequent to closings on property, did not pay bills which closing statements indicate he was obligated to pay, permitted inter-bank transfers of funds owed him by banking institutions to his escrow or management account, did not take steps to ensure that the First State account was properly and clearly titled as an escrow account, did not properly annotate withdrawals from his escrow accounts, and failed to maintain money in his escrow account until it was disbursed.
Recommendation The record taken as a whole indicates that the violations for which the Respondent is responsible are the result of his culpable negligence as opposed to any dishonest or fraudulent act. However, the Respondent is so devoid of any knowledge of his responsibilities with regard to monies entrusted to him that he may not safely be permitted to function as a real estate broker. Based upon the foregoing-findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Real Estate Commission revoke the license of Respondent as a registered real estate broker. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Pierce, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 O. E. Adams, Esquire Post Office Box 12217 Pensacola, Florida 32002 ================================================================= AGENCY MEMORANDUM ================================================================= Orlando, Florida November 27, 1978 MEMORANDUM TO: Renata Hendrick, Registration Supervisor FROM: Manuel E. Oliver, Staff Attorney RE: PD 3267 (PD 15776) FREC vs. Ralph D. Villeneuve t/a Don's Realty 122293-1 DOAH Case No. 78-091 Please find enclosed copies of the Final Order filed on April 13, 1978, in the reference case together with the opinion filed on November 2, 1978 by the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, affirming the Commission's Order, as well as a copy of the mandate issued by said Court on November 20, 1978. By virtue of the foregoing, the order of the Commission revoking defendant's registration has become firm and effective in all respects. Please make the necessary annotations in the records for all effects. Manuel E. Oliver Staff Attorney MEO/km Enclosures:* * NOTE: Enclosures noted in this memorandum are not available at the division and therefore not a part of this ACCESS document.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In early January, 1987, the petitioners filed with the respondent their application for authority to organize a state-chartered bank to be located in Sarasota. Notice of receipt of this application was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on January 16, 1987. The application was deemed complete in March or April of 1987. By an "Administrative Notice for Public Formal Hearing" dated September 18, 1987, and received by the Division Of Administrative Hearings on September 22, 1987, the respondent Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Banking, noticed its intent to initiate a formal hearing concerning the issue of whether to grant or deny the application. That proceeding was assigned to the undersigned as the designated Hearing Officer as Case No. 87-4417. As a result of various preliminary motions filed in Case No. 87-4417, the Department was ordered to file a more definite statement of the issues and/or statutory criteria in dispute between the parties and the final hearing was scheduled for December 16 and 17, 1987. In response, the Department filed an "Amended Administrative Notice for Public Formal Hearing," citing as authority therefore, Rule 3C-9.004, Florida Administrative Code. Due to appellate court proceedings, the December 16 and 17, 1987, final hearing was cancelled and rescheduled for the week commencing February 29, 1988. On January 6, 1988, the petitioners filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings its petition for a determination of the invalidity of Rule 3C-9.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, and the final hearing was held on February 5, 1988. The parties agreed that the final hearing in Case No. 87-4417, regarding the merits of the petitioners' application for a bank charter, should be continued pending a resolution of the instant rule-challenge proceeding. While the State of Florida has enjoyed a period of relative economic health in comparison to other regions of the country, in the past three years there have been a growing number of financial institutions experiencing difficulties related primarily to their financial condition and solvency. During this time period, the Department has found it necessary to close seven commercial banks and six savings and loan associations. Accordingly, when applications for new financial institutions are filed, the Department attempts, during the application process, to ensure the probability of success of the proposed institution. This is done through a period of investigation by the Department's trained financial investigators of all the material submitted by applicants, particularly with respect to the individuals who are named as proposed directors and officers. During the course of the Department's investigation, information frequently is discovered which is at some variance with the information contained in the application. To the extent that it is possible to do so, the Department attempts to reconcile any discrepancies between the application contents and the products of its investigation through informal dialogue or correspondence with the applicant. In instances where there may be questions of credibility on the part of the applicant, that type of informal resolution may not be feasible. The procedural processing of bank charter applications is specifically governed by Section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 3C-9, Florida Administrative Code. As pertinent to the issues in this proceeding, those statutory and regulatory provisions require the Department to have published in the Florida Administrative Weekly notice of an application within 21 days of its receipt. Section 120.60(5)(a)1; Florida Statutes; Rule 3C-9.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Within 21 days of publication of notice, "any person may request a hearing.... however, the failure to request a hearing within 21 days of publication of notice shall constitute waiver of any right to a hearing." Section 120.60(5)(a)2, Florida Statutes. Any petition for hearing filed before an application is received or more than 21 days after the publication of notice is void. Rule 3C-9.003, Florida Administrative Code. While all information in support of an application is required to be submitted with the original filing, the Department has the authority to request additional information and ask for the correction of errors or omissions within 30 days of its receipt of the original application. Thereafter, the applicant has 60 days to respond to the Department's request. Rule 3C-9.002(3), Florida Administrative Code. Every application, except for those involving foreign nationals, is required to be approved or denied within 180 days after receipt of either the original application or the timely requested additional information or correction of errors or omissions. Applications not approved or denied within that 180- day period or within 30 days after the conclusion of a public hearing on the application, whichever date is latest, are deemed approved. Section 120.60(5)(c), Florida Statutes. Rule 3C- 9.012(i), Florida Administrative Code. The procedures with regard to financial institutions involving foreign nationals differ in that the Department is required to request that a public hearing be conducted and the 180-day period for approval or denial is extended to a period of one (1) year. Section 120.60(5)(d), Florida Statutes. The statute is silent with respect to the time period within which the Department must request a hearing on applications involving foreign nationals. More often that not, the Department does request additional information from an applicant subsequent to the filing of the initial application. Since the Department has 30 days within which to request this information and the applicant has another 60 days to supply it, the additional information typically is received by the Department long after it has published notice of the application and long after the 21-day point of entry to request a hearing. The challenged rule is contained as a subsection of the rule entitled "Petition for Public Hearing." After providing that petitions for public hearing must be filed within 21 days of publication of notice and that petitions not received within that time are void, subsections (1) and (2) of Rule 3C- 9.004, subsection (3) provides that "The department may initiate a hearing on its own motion, at any time regardless of whether there has been a petition." It was the opinion of the Director of the Division of Banking that the purpose of the challenged rule was to afford the Department the opportunity for a hearing in those instances where information is discovered during the investigation process or where additional information is supplied subsequent to 21 days after publication of notice of the initial application. Generally, the character, credit worthiness and financial responsibility of the organizers, officers or directors of a proposed financial institution is determined toward the end of the application and investigation process, and not within the 21- day period after publication of notice of the initial application. According to the Director, if the Department were unable to request a hearing subsequent to that 21-day period, it would be compelled to request a hearing within that 21-day period every time an application is filed. An employee from the Division of Banking for approximately ten years could recall only one occasion when the Department had requested a hearing after the passage of 21 days from the publication of notice. In that one instance, a foreign national was involved in the application.
Findings Of Fact Santa Cruz Marketing, Inc., d/b/a SMI (hereinafter referred to as SMI), a Delaware corporation, is located at Suite 29, 1280 South Powerline Road, Pompano Beach, Florida 33069. Although SMI began operating as a business in Florida in December of 1988, it was not authorized to do business in Florida until December of 1991. At all times material hereto, Edward Winders has been the president/secretary, Jim Winders has been the vice president/treasurer, and Cecil Butler has been the general manager for SMI. Edward Winders and Jim Winders each own 50% of the stock of SMI. Cecil Butler has no ownership interest in SMI and is simply a salaried employee. Edward Winders and Jim Winders are responsible for the day-to-day operation of the business. Although Cecil Butler has some unidentified level of supervisory responsibility over some of the other employees, no evidence was offered that he in any way participates in management decisions regarding the operation of the business itself. SMI advertises by placing ads in newspapers throughout the United States. Its ad reads as follows: "Easy credit card, cash advance, $5000 credit line, no credit check! Call 1-800-347-0773." SMI's business operations consist of the following units: the origination department, the customer service department, the clerical section, and the shipping section. When a call is placed using the toll-free number, that telephone call is answered by an account representative in the origination department. A written script called a credit card presentation is utilized by the account representative. The account representatives do not deviate from that script. The account representative obtains basic information from the caller, gives a brief program description, and then causes to be sent a packet of information called the first mailer to the caller. The script utilized by the account representative, however, does not tell the account representative how to answer questions from the callers. No evidence was offered as to any procedures SMI may have in place for assuring the correctness of answers given to callers' questions. The credit card presentation script tells the caller that he or she has reached the "easy credit card division," advises the caller that "our credit card offers a $5,000 line of credit which includes cash advance availability, now our major credit cards are also available regardless of credit history!", advises the caller that there are no annual fees and that the lifetime membership is a "one time processing fee," advises the caller that he or she is participating in a "limited membership drive," and advises the caller that "all the information on our credit card will be in your package along with our customer service number." The first mailer greets the "prospective member," refers to SMI's credit card program, encloses a pre-approved application, sets forth the amount of SMI's "lifetime membership fee," encloses a "100% money-back guarantee certificate," encourages the recipient to return his or her application and membership fee within 10 days, and promises a $100 gift certificate usable on the charge balance. The lifetime membership fee is $75 if paid by money order or cashier's check and $85 if paid by personal check or C.O.D. No further information is given regarding the details of SMI's "credit card program." An enclosure in the first mailer is a one-page sheet entitled "Special Notice." It features a facsimile of a Visa card and a facsimile of a MasterCard card. The short text includes the following language: Mail today and receive all these privileges. *CASH ADVANCES *VISA CARD AVAILABLE *MASTERCARD AVAILABLE *$100.00 MERCHANDISE CERTIFICATE *ADD POSITIVE INFORMATION ON YOUR CREDIT REPORT HAPPY SHOPPING!!!! The enclosed return envelope is directed to Santa Cruz Marketing, Inc. The line underneath that states that the envelope is going to "SMI Card Distribution Center." If the recipient does not immediately comply, a second mailer is sent five days later. The enclosures are the same as in the first mailer. The "dear prospective member" letter is different and is "just a friendly reminder that we have not received your lifetime membership fee for your pre-approved $5,000 credit card." It encourages the recipient to "take advantage of this unique credit card offer!" and advises the recipient that if the recipient's deadline has already expired, then a call should be placed to SMI's customer service department at a non-toll-free number. After the recipient submits the pre-approved application and pays the membership fee, he or she then receives the membership package. That package begins with a letter greeting the "new card member" and contains the following introductory paragraph: Welcome to the wonderful world of home shopping with your SMI credit card. As a preferred card member, you are offered the opportunity to purchase merchandise from our fantastic color catalogues filled with a wide variety of items. Attached to the letter is an SMI credit card. That letter is the first advice given by SMI to its new "lifetime member" that he or she has paid $75 to join a home shopping club. The letter further advises the recipient that purchasing merchandise from SMI's catalogues will "enable you to establish that A+ credit rating you have always desired, but which may have been denied to you in the past." The letter further advises that SMI will submit monthly statements to the member and that the member can then pay 10% of the balance (with a minimum payment of $15) or the balance can be paid in full. The letter also advises that the new member will pay no interest charges on his or her purchases, "but please remember in order to help you establish your A+ credit rating, your payments must be made on time." The membership packet also contains two merchandise catalogues, an order form, and a price list. According to the price list and the terms of SMI's home shopping program, two prices are available to an SMI member. For each item, the member may pay a specified cash price and a specified shipping charge. Alternatively, the member can pay a credit price, which is higher than the cash price. If the member chooses to purchase the item on credit, the member will pay the higher price as follows: the member includes with his or her order form a specified portion of the credit price as a down payment on the item, with the balance of the credit price being charged to the member's charge account. The member paying the higher credit price will also pay the specified shipping charge. The promised $100 merchandise certificate is included in the membership packet. The certificate specifies that it can only be applied to the credit portion of an order after the down payment for that order is paid and that the certificate is void after 30 days from the date on which the membership was issued. The membership packet includes, for the first time, a description of SMI's cash advance program. The description of that cash advance program begins as follows: Once you have established a sufficient credit record with SMI, you will be extended 'cash advance privileges'. Simply prove your credit worthiness by shopping with your SMI credit card. All you have to do is, charge and pay for at least $500.00 of purchases of your unpaid balance. Once you have done that, you have qualified for a cash advance of $250.00. CASH ADVANCES OFFERS Immediate cash No interest charge Low monthly payments No processing fee Cash advances up to $2,500.00 According to the program, a cash advance of $2,500 would only be available if a member had charged and paid for $5,000 worth of purchases. The flyer also recites that the $100 merchandise certificate does not apply to cash advances. The next flyer contained in the membership packet is entitled "Qualify for a Visa or MasterCard." That flyer features facsimiles of both a MasterCard and a Visa card. The description of that portion of SMI's program begins as follows: Simply prove your credit worthiness by using your SMI Credit card. Just charge and pay for at least $750.00 of your unpaid balance. It's as simple as that! Once you have established a sufficient credit record, you will be sent a 'GOOD CREDIT REFERENCE LETTER' that you can use when applying for credit elsewhere. Plus, you will receive a 'MAJORITY APPROVED' application for a visa or mastercard with 'NO SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIRED.' UNSECURED - NO SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIRED (WE WILL DO IT FOR YOU) A $380.00 IMMEDIATE CREDIT LINE CASH ADVANCES COMPETITIVE INTEREST RATES ONE TIME PROCESSING CHARGE ONLY $35.00 ANNUAL CHARGE MAJORITY APPROVED WE ARE SO SURE THAT YOU WILL BE APPROVED THAT WE WILL SEND YOU A 'CASHIERS CHECK FOR $380.00' IF YOU DO NOT QUALIFY. The flyer points out that the $100 merchandise certificate does not apply to this part of the program. Another flyer contained in the membership packet explains a second way in which a member can qualify for a Visa or MasterCard as follows: New Collateralized Credit Card Program You Can Now Obtain a Major Bank Credit Card even though you may have previously been turned down! Under the 'collateralized credit card program' the member may obtain a secured major bank credit card which 'requires a security deposit equal to your initial credit limits.' If the member returns the coupon requesting details, SMI provides the name of another company, Access Credit Card Company, which company would charge an additional fee to provide the member with an application from New Era Bank. If the member followed that procedure, he or she would most likely obtain a Visa or MasterCard bank card from New Era Bank with a credit limit equal to the amount of money the member was willing to deposit in New Era Bank since that bank approves the majority of such applications. The membership packet contains three additional flyers. The first one relates to the SMI jewelry catalogue and explains that most gold items are sold by weight at current gold market prices, that prices fluctuate daily with the market, and that the member should check with SMI's ordering department by phone to receive current market prices. The second flyer gives the member information on joining the Select Coupon Club by paying a membership fee of $19.95 and receiving coupons for use at the supermarket. The third flyer describes a program whereby the member can pay $14.95 postage and handling and receive a Hotel Express Membership Directory and membership discount at participating hotels and resorts. A customer cannot obtain an SMI credit card prior to payment of the $75 membership fee. A customer cannot obtain credit for purchasing products from SMI's catalogues prior to payment of the membership fee. The SMI catalogues, received after payment of the fee, are not available to the general public. The customer is not informed prior to paying the membership fee, either during telephone conversations with SMI account representatives or from the first two mailers, that the credit card which the customer would receive can only be used to purchase goods from the two SMI catalogues. Although prospective members are advised in the first and second mailers that Visa and MasterCard cards are available, they are not told how they can obtain such cards until after they have paid their fee. Until after payment of the fee, they are not told that they can obtain a secured, i.e., a fully collateralized bank card by depositing in that bank monies equivalent to the credit limit then extended to them by the bank. Customers are not told prior to the payment of their membership fee, either by SMI account representatives during telephone conversations or in the first or second mailers, that the obtaining of a secured Visa or MasterCard card from New Era Bank will also require the payment of a processing fee and will carry a minimum $500 deposit requirement. Until after payment of the fee, they are not told that the alternative is to charge and pay for $750 worth of merchandise from SMI's two catalogues (not including the amount paid as a down payment on each item purchased) which amounts to $850 worth of charged merchandise if the customer uses the $100 gift certificate, in exchange for SMI then giving the customer a letter saying the customer is a good credit risk, which the customer can then present in applying for credit elsewhere. No evidence was offered that any other organization considers SMI's letter of recommendation meaningful. Prior to the payment of the fee, the prospective member is not advised that the cash advances which he or she would become entitled to receive are limited to an amount of one-half of the total balance the member has paid on the member's SMI charge account balance. No member has received a cash advance from SMI. No members have obtained a Visa or MasterCard card by charging and then paying for $750 worth of products from SMI's catalogues. Other than those documents previously described, no other documents, contracts, or statements are provided by SMI to prospective members or members. SMI purchases the products found in its catalogues at the distributorship cost, a lower price than members pay for the products when they purchase from SMI. As of July 1, 1991, SMI had 12,567 members. By the time of the final hearing in this cause, SMI had over fifteen thousand members. Eighty-four members had purchased items from the SMI catalogues. Petitioner received a consumer complaint regarding SMI in February of 1990. On June 28, 1990, Petitioner served on SMI a subpoena requesting that SMI provide to Petitioner the following information: Name of surety bonding company, location of surety bond and copy of surety bond; location and account number of Florida escrow account, proof of account; copy of information statement and consumer contract. SMI was unable to respond to the subpoena by providing that information because it did not have those items. SMI did respond to the subpoena, however, by providing copies of its advertising and the materials used in its mailers and membership packages. SMI further obtained a bond pursuant to Petitioner's direction to do so. In a series of letters from SMI's attorney to Petitioner, SMI submitted revised advertising and revised informational documents requesting Petitioner's approval of the revisions to bring SMI in compliance with the Department's requirements. The Department failed to respond to SMI's requests. Rather, on March 21, 1991, the Department served on Jim Winders and Cecil Butler an Administrative Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties, alleging that Jim Winders and Cecil Butler were operating as a credit service organization without fully complying with Chapter 817, Florida Statutes. Jim Winders and Cecil Butler timely requested a formal hearing, and this cause was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. While this administrative proceeding was pending, on July 1, 1991, the activities of loan brokers became regulated, and responsibility therefor was assigned to the Department. On August 12, 1991, the Department filed its Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties which included the allegations in the original Administrative Complaint, named SMI as a Respondent for the first time, added allegations that the three Respondents were operating as loan brokers, and further added allegations that the three Respondents were operating as retail sellers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered Finding Respondents SMI and Jim Winders guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties as described in this Recommended Order; Finding Respondent Cecil Butler not guilty of the allegations contained within the Amended Complaint for Entry of a Cease and Desist Order and Imposing Penalties; Ordering Respondent SMI to cease and desist from violations of the statutes regulating the operation of credit service organizations, loan brokers, and retail sellers; Ordering Respondent Jim Winders to cease and desist from violations of the statutes regulating the operation of credit services organizations and loan brokers; Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent SMI in the sum of $90,000 to be paid by a date certain; and Imposing an administrative fine against Respondent Jim Winders in the sum of $6,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-30, 34-46, 56, 57, 59- 66, 71-83, 85-89, and 91 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 31, 32, 95, and 96 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 33 and 97 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 84, 90, 92-94, and 111 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 47-55, 58, and 67-70 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 98-106 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 107-110 have been rejected as not being supported by any competent evidence in this cause. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 4-11 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Respondents' proposed findings of fact numbered 12-19 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bridget L. Ryan, Esquire Richard Bisbee, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Jan Peter Weiss, Esquire Parkway Plaza-Suite 21 1280 South Powerline Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
