Findings Of Fact The Declaration of Condominium for Oaks of Broward was filed by Margen, a Florida Partnership, in May, 1974 in the Public Records of Broward County and with the Petitioner. All documents required to be filed by Margen with Petitioner were filed and the fees paid. Simultaneously a recreational lease was filed of property adjacent to the condominium in which Barnett Bank of Hollywood was named as Trustee and Lessor, and The Oaks Condominium Association, Inc. of Broward as Lessee. Between May 1974 and early 1976 Margen sold to individuals 39 condominium units at Oaks of Broward. In early 1976, Housing Investment Corporation, mortgagee, began foreclosure proceedings which resulted in title to all of the Oaks condominium property, except for the 39 units previously sold, being taken by The Oaks of Broward, Inc., Respondent. Thereby Respondent became successor in title to the previously unsold 75 units in the building and to the position of the Lessor on the long-term recreational lease. On or about August 1977, Respondent offered for sale the 75 condominium units pursuant to prospectus admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2. In addition thereto and as part of the sales effort Respondent executed and recorded the Declaration Waiving Rents, a copy of which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit Neither of these documents was filed with Petitioner. The 75 units owned by Respondent were sold with the recreational lease rents waived. Pursuant to the terms of the recreational lease the original 39 buyers pay $20 per month, either to the Association or directly to the Lessor. This lease is a net/net lease, which means the Lessor performs no services except to provide the premises themselves. The Condominium Association is responsible for and pays all maintenance, taxes, upkeep and expenses for the operation of the Recreation Area. All condominium units, the original 39 as well as the remaining 75, pay to the Association, as part of the common expenses, their pro rate share of those operating expenses. It is this disparate treatment of the two groups of unit owners with respect to the recreational lease rent payment of $20 per month that is one subject of Petitioner's request for a cease and desist order. The second subject of the Petition for a cease and desist order is Petitioner's contention that Respondent is a Developer and is required to file documents and pay a $10 filing fee for each of the 75 condominiums sold, regardless of whether fees for these 75 units were paid by Respondent's predecessor in title.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether state use tax is due and payable on transactions wherein the taxpayer rented mobile homes to persons for use as private residences (which the lessees were required to maintain, repair, and insure), pursuant to leases under which the lessee would acquire title to his home upon payment in full of the total rent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order withdrawing the tax assessment against Park Place. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 25th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Royal Arms Villas Condominium, Inc., discriminated against Petitioners, Eric and Nora Gross, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are a married couple, living in a rental home at 209 Yorkshire Court, Naples, Florida (rental unit). Petitioners have two children and two grandchildren; however, none of these relatives live in Petitioners’ rental unit. Mr. Gross was diagnosed with stage four hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2002. Mr. Gross has been in remission since 2003. Mr. Gross was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration in 2003. Petitioners have lived in this rental unit since August 2006. A Florida residential lease agreement with the property owners, Joan and Charles Forton, was entered on August 8, 2006.3/ This lease was for a 12-month period, from September 1, 2006, through August 31, 2007. At the end of this period, the lease became a month-to-month lease and continued for years without anyone commenting on it. In 2012, Respondent inquired about a dog that was seen with Petitioners. After providing supporting documentation to Respondent, Petitioners were allowed to keep Mr. Gross’ service dog, Evie. Respondent is a Florida not-for-profit corporation. There are 62 units, and the owner of each unit owns a 1/62 individual share in the common elements. Since its inception, Respondent has, through its members (property owners), approved its articles of incorporation, bylaws, and related condominium powers, and amended its declaration of condominium in accordance with Florida law. Ms. Orrino is currently vice-president of Respondent’s Board of Directors (Board). Ms. Orrino has been on the Board since 2009 and has served in every executive position, including Board president. Ms. Orrino owns two condominiums within Respondent’s domain, but does not reside in either. In 2012 or 2013, Respondent experienced a severe financial crisis, and a new property management company was engaged. This company brought to the attention of Respondent’s Board that it had not been approving leases as required by its Declaration of Condominium.4/ As a result of this information, the Board became more pro-active in its responsibilities, and required all renters to submit a lease each year for the Board’s approval. Petitioners felt they were being singled out by Respondent to provide a new lease. The timing of Respondent’s request made it appear as if Respondent was unhappy about Petitioners keeping Evie. Petitioners then filed a grievance with HUD.5/ HUD enlisted the Commission to handle the grievance, and Mr. Burkes served as the Commission’s facilitator between Petitioners and Respondent. On October 24, 2013, Petitioners executed a Conciliation Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent and the Commission. The terms of the Agreement include: NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed between the parties as follows: Respondent agrees: To grant Complainants’ request for a reasonable accommodation to keep Eric Gross’s emotional support/service dog (known as “Evie”) in the condominium unit even though it exceeds the height and weight limits for dogs in the community. That their sole remedy for Complainants’ breach of the provisions contained in subparagraphs (a) through (g) below, in addition to the attorney’s fees and costs provision of paragraph 10 of this Agreement, shall be the removal of the Complainants’ dog. Complainants agree: That they will not permit the dog to be on common areas of the association property, except to transport the dog into or out of Complainants’ vehicle, to and from Complainants’ unit, and to take the dog through the backyard of the unit to walk it across the street off association property. That if the dog is outside of the condominium unit, they will at all times keep the dog on a leash and will at all times maintain control of the dog. That if their dog accidentally defecates on association property, they will immediately collect and dispose of the waste. That they are personally responsible and liable for any accidents or damages/injuries done by the dog and that they will indemnify and hold the Respondent harmless and defend Respondent for such claims that may or may not arise against Respondent. That they will not allow the dog to be a nuisance in the community or disrupt the peaceful enjoyment of other residents. A nuisance will specifically include, but is not limited to, loud barking and any show of aggressive behavior, including, but not limited to, aggressive barking, growling or showing of teeth regardless of whether the dog is inside or outside of the unit. That they will abide by all community rules and regulations of Respondent with which all residents are required to comply, including but not limited to submitting to the required pre-lease/lease renewal interview, and completing a lease renewal application and providing his updated information to Respondents and submitting to Respondent a newly executed lease compliant with Florida law and the Declaration of Condominium. The pre-lease/lease renewal interview will be conducted at Complainants’ unit at a time and date agreeable to the parties but not to exceed 30 days from the date of this agreement. If Complainants’ current dog “Evie” should die or otherwise cease to reside in the unit, Complainants agree to replace the dog, if at all, with a dog that is in full compliance with the association’s Declaration of Condominium or Rules and regulations in force at that time and will allow the dog to be inspected by Respondent for approval. Respondent agrees to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that their policies, performance and conduct shall continue to demonstrate a firm commitment to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Sections 760.20-37, Florida Statutes, (2012), and the Civil Rights Act of the United States (42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982 and 3601 et.seq). [sic] Respondent agrees that it, its Board members, employees, agents and representatives shall continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which provides that Respondents shall not make, print or publish any notice, statement of advertisement with respect to the rental or sale of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondent also agrees to continue to comply with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by The Fair Housing Act, which prohibits Respondents from maintaining, implementing and effectuating, directly or indirectly, any policy or practice, which causes any discrimination or restriction on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability or familial status. Respondents also agree to continue to comply with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute a judgment on the part of the Commission that Respondents did nor did not violate the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, Section 760.20-37, Florida Statutes (2011). The Commission does not waive its rights to process any additional complaints against the Respondent, including a complaint filed by a member of the Commission. It is understood that this Agreement does not constitute an admission on the part of the Respondent that they violated the Fair Housing Act of 1983, as amended, or Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Complainants agree to waive and release and do hereby waive and release Respondent from any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Respondent, with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in this complaint under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Respondent’s performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The Commission agrees that it will cease processing the above-mentioned Complaint filed by Complainants and shall dismiss with prejudice said complaint based upon the terms of this Agreement. Respondent agrees to waive and release any and all claims, including claims for court costs and attorney fees, against Complainants with respect to any matters which were or might have been alleged in the complaint filed with the Commission or with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and agree not to institute a lawsuit based on the issues alleged in these complaints under any applicable ordinance or statute in any court of appropriate jurisdiction as of the date of this Agreement. Said waiver and release are subject to Complainants’ performance of the premises and representations contained herein. The parties agree in any action to interpret or enforce this agreement the prevailing party is entitled to the recovery from the non-prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including attorney’s fees and costs of any appeal. FURTHER, the Parties hereby agree that: This Agreement may be used as evidence in any judicial, administrative or other forum in which any of the parties allege a breach of this Agreement. Execution of this Agreement may be via facsimile, scanned copy (emailed), or copies reproduced and shall be treated as an original. This Conciliation Agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Conciliation Agreement to be duly executed on the last applicable date, the term of the agreement being from the last applicable date below for so long as any of the rights or obligations described here in continue to exist. Eric Gross and Nora Gross signed the Agreement on October 24, 2013. Ms. Orrino, as President of Respondent, signed the Agreement on September 9. The Commission’s facilitator, Mr. Burkes, signed the Agreement on October 24. The Commission’s housing manager, Regina Owens, signed the Agreement on October 30, and its executive director, Michelle Wilson, signed the Agreement on November 4. The effective date of the Agreement is November 4, the last day it was signed by a party, and the clock started running for compliance. Petitioners failed to abide by the Agreement in the following ways: Petitioners failed to submit an updated lease agreement that conformed to Respondent’s rules and regulations. Petitioners failed to submit to the required pre- lease/lease renewal interview within 30 days of signing the Agreement. Petitioners failed to complete a lease renewal application. Petitioners failed to provide updated information to Respondent. It is abundantly clear that Eric Gross and Ms. Orrino do not get along. However, that personal interaction does not excuse non-compliance with an Agreement that the parties voluntarily entered. Each party to the Agreement had obligations to perform. Respondent attempted to assist Petitioners with their compliance by extending the time in which to comply, and at one point, waving the interview requirement. Petitioners simply failed to comply with the Agreement. Petitioners failed to present any credible evidence that other residents in the community were treated differently. Mr. Gross insisted that the Agreement had sections that Petitioners did not agree to. Mr. Burkes was unable to shed any light on the Agreement or the alleged improprieties that Mr. Gross so adamantly insisted were present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of March, 2015.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed real estate salesman with license number 0364554. On or about August 13, 1982, Richard J. and Gav Greco entered into a lease purchase agreement with James C. and Phyllis Waid for residential property located at 1685 Markham Woods Road, Longwood, Florida. The purchase price of the Waid property was $190,000 towards which the Grecos made a $10,000 non-refundable deposit and agreed to pay a monthly rental of $1000. On or about November 14, 1982, the Grecos executed an Agreement with Respondent and his wife by which the Grecos assigned all rights and privileges relating to the lease and purchase of the residence at 1685 Markham Woods Road to the Alvarados. The consideration to be given for this Agreement was a payment of $10,000 by the Alvarados to the Grecos, with $5000 payable upon signing of the Agreement and $5000 payable within six months. The Alvarados, as assignees, agreed to abide by all provisions of the lease purchase agreement and were to make their first $1000 monthly lease payment to the Waids on December 4, 1982. Respondent gave Richard J. Greco a check in the amount of $5000 dated November 14, 1982 and requested that he hold the check for a couple of days before depositing it. Greco complied with the request, but was advised on December 3, 1982 that Respondent's $5000 check had been returned unused by Respondent's bank due to the fact that Respondent's account had been closed. Respondent has never paid the Grecos any part of the $10,000 due them under the assignment executed November 14, 1982. Respondent made no monthly lease payments on the property to the Waids. By letter dated February 25, 1983, James C. Waid notified the Grecos and the Alvarados that the lease purchase agreement was in default and that the $10,000 deposit paid by the Grecos was being forfeited because the rent was in arrears. The Grecos paid the Waids an additional $4000 on March 1, 1983, which represented the unpaid lease payments, for a general release from all obligations under the lease purchase agreement. Respondent and his wife executed a promissory note on March 1, 1983 whereby they agreed to pay the Grecos $10,000 on or before March 16, 1983, but no payments have ever been made pursuant to this promissory note. The Grecos brought suit against Respondent and his wife for damages arising out of this transaction, and obtained a Final Judgment on June 30, 1983 in Case No. 83-1191-CA-03-P, Circuit Court in and for Seminole County, in the amount of $15,101.28. The Grecos have not been able to execute this Final Judgment and therefore no payments on this judgment have been made to them by the Respondent or his wife. At the time of this transaction, the Alvarados were family friends of the Grecos. Richard J. Greco entered into this transaction with Respondent primarily because of the personal acquaintance and not because Respondent was a licensed real estate salesman. However, Greco knew that Respondent was licensed and therefore assumed that he was a man of integrity who would deal fairly with him in this real estate transaction.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a Period of one (1) Year. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Hartmann, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson St. Orlando, Fl. 32802 Ignacio J. Alvarado 5166 Glasgow Avenue Orlando, Fl. 32819 Harold Huff Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Fl. 32802 Salvatore A. Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Fl. 32301
The Issue The two issues raised in this proceeding are: (1) whether the basis and reason Respondent, Vestcor Companies, d/b/a Madalyn Landings (Vestcor), terminated Petitioner, Carlos Gomez's (Petitioner), employment on June 28, 2002, was in retaliation for Petitioner's protected conduct during his normal course of employment; and (2) whether Vestcor committed unlawful housing practice by permitting Vestcor employees without families to reside on its property, Madalyn Landing Apartments, without paying rent, while requiring Vestcor employees with families to pay rent in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, and Chapter 760.23, Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness while testifying, exhibits offered in support of and in opposition to the respective position of the parties received in evidence, stipulations of the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2002), and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: Petitioner filed charges of housing discrimination against Vestcor with the Commission on August 30, 2002. Petitioner alleged that Vestcor discriminated against him based on his familial status and his June 28, 2002, termination was in retaliation for filing the charge of discrimination. Vestcor denied the allegations and contended that Petitioner's termination was for cause. Additionally, Vestcor maintained Petitioner relinquished his claim of retaliation before the final hearing; and under oath during his deposition, asserted he would not pursue a claim for retaliation. Petitioner was permitted to proffer evidence of retaliation because Vestcor terminated his employment. The Commission's Notice was issued on January 7, 2005. The parties agree that Petitioner was hired by Vestcor on June 25, 2001, as a leasing consultant agent for Madalyn Landing Apartments located in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner's job responsibilities as a leasing consultant agent included showing the property, leasing the property (apartment units), and assisting with tenant relations by responding to concerns and questions, and preparing and following up on maintenance orders. Petitioner had access to keys to all apartments on site. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was, as was all of Vestcor employees, given a copy of Vestcor's Employee Handbook. This handbook is required reading for each employee for personal information and familiarity with company policies and procedures, to include the company requirement that each employee personally telephone and speak with his/her supervisor when the employee, for whatever reason, could not appear at work as scheduled, which is a basis and cause for termination. The parties agree that Vestcor's handbook, among other things, contains company policies regarding equal employment; prohibition against unlawful conduct and appropriate workplace conduct; procedures for handling employee problems and complaints associated with their employment; and procedures for reporting illness or absences from work, which include personal notification to supervisors, and not messages left on the answering service. Failure to comply with employment reporting polices may result in progressive disciplinary action. The parties agree that employee benefits were also contained in the handbook. One such employee benefit, at issue in this proceeding, is the live-on-site benefit. The live-on- site benefit first requires eligible employees to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, and be a full-time employee. The eligible employee must pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the live-on-site unit. Rent-free, live-on-site benefits are available only to employees who occupy the positions of (1) site community managers, (2) maintenance supervisors, and (3) courtesy officers. These individuals received a free two-bedroom, two-bathroom apartment at the apartment complex in which they work as part of their employment compensation package. The rent-free, live-on-site benefit is not available for Vestcor's leasing consultant agent employees, such as Petitioner. On or about July 3, 2001, Petitioner entered into a lease agreement with Vestcor to move into Apartment No. 202-24 located at Madalyn Landing Apartments. The lease agreement ended on January 31, 2002. The lease agreement set forth terms that Petitioner was to receive a $50.00 monthly rental concession, which became effective on September 3, 2001. Although he was eligible for the 25-percent monthly rental concession, to have given Petitioner the full 25 percent of his monthly rental cost would have over-qualified Petitioner based upon Madalyn Landing Apartment's tax credit property status. Petitioner and Vestcor agreed he would receive a $50.00 monthly rental concession, thereby qualifying him as a resident on the property. Petitioner understood and accepted the fact that he did not qualify for rent-free, live-on-site benefits because of his employment status as a leasing consultant agent. Petitioner understood and accepted Vestcor's $50.00 monthly rental concession because of his employment status as a leasing consultant agent. The rental concession meant Petitioner's regular monthly rental would be reduced by $50.00 each month. On September 1, 2001, Henry Oliver was hired by Vestcor as a maintenance technician. Maintenance technicians do not qualify for rent-free, live-on-site benefits. At the time of his hire, Mr. Oliver did not live on site. As with other employees, to become eligible for the standard 25-percent monthly rental concession benefits, Mr. Oliver was required to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, be a full-time employee, and pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the unit. On November 13, 2001, Michael Gomez, the brother of Petitioner (Mr. Gomez), commenced his employment with Vestcor as a groundskeeper. Groundskeepers did not meet the qualifications for rent-free, live-on-site benefits. At the time of his hire, Mr. Gomez did not live on site. As with other employees, to become eligible for the standard 25-percent monthly rental concession benefits, Mr. Gomez was required to complete a 90-day orientation period, meet the rental criteria for a tax credit property, be a full-time employee, and pay all applicable security deposits and utility expenses for the unit. On November 21, 2001, 81 days after his hire, Mr. Oliver commenced his lease application process to reside in Apartment No. 203-44 at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Mr. Oliver's leasing consultant agent was Petitioner in this cause. Like other eligible Vestcor employees and as a part of the lease application process, Mr. Oliver completed all required paperwork, which included, but not limited to, completing a credit check, employment verification, and income test to ensure that he was qualified to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Fifteen days later, on November 28, 2001, Mr. Gomez commenced his lease application process to reside in Apartment No. 206-24 at Madalyn Landing Apartments. As part of the leasing process, Mr. Gomez, as other eligible Vestcor employees who intend to reside on Vestcor property, completed all necessary paperwork including, but not limited to, a credit check and employment verification and income test to ensure he was qualified to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments. Included in the paperwork was a list of rental criteria requiring Mr. Gomez to execute a lease agreement to obligate himself to pay the required rent payment, consent to a credit check, pay an application fee and required security deposit, and agree not to take possession of an apartment until all supporting paperwork was completed and approved. Mr. Gomez's leasing consultant was Petitioner. On December 28, 2001, Petitioner signed a Notice to Vacate Apartment No. 206-24, effective February 1, 2002. The Notice to Vacate was placed in Vestcor's office files. Petitioner's reasons for vacating his apartment stated he "needed a yard, garage, more space, a big family room, and some privacy." Thirty-four days later, February 1, 2002, Mr. Gomez moved into Apartment No. 206-24 at Madalyn Landing Apartments without the approval or knowledge of Vestcor management. On January 9, 2002, a "Corrective Action Notice" was placed in Petitioner's employee file by his supervisor, Genea Closs. The notice cited two violations of Vestcor's policies and procedures. Specifically, his supervisor noted Petitioner did not collect administration fees from two unidentified rental units, and he had taken an unidentified resident's rental check home with him, rather than directly to the office as required by policy. As a direct result of those policy violations, Ms. Closs placed Petitioner on 180 days' probation and instructed him to re-read all Vestcor employees' handbook and manuals. Petitioner acknowledged receiving and understanding the warning. At the time she took the above action against Petitioner, there is no evidence that Ms. Closs had knowledge of Petitioner's past or present efforts to gather statements and other information from Mr. Gomez and/or Mr. Oliver in anticipation and preparation for his subsequent filing of claims of discrimination against Vestcor. Also, on January 9, 2002, Petitioner was notified that his brother, Mr. Gomez, did not qualify to reside at Madalyn Landing Apartments because of insufficient credit. Further, Petitioner was advised that should Mr. Gomez wish to continue with the application process, he would need a co-signer on his lease agreement or pay an additional security deposit. Mr. Gomez produced an unidentified co-signer, who also completed a lease application. On January 30, 2002, the lease application submitted by Mr. Gomez's co-signor was denied. As a result of the denial of Mr. Gomez's co-signor lease application, Vestcor did not approve Mr. Gomez's lease application. When he was made aware that his co-signor's application was denied and of management's request for him to pay an additional security deposit, as was previously agreed, Mr. Gomez refused to pay the additional security deposit. As a direct result of his refusal, his lease application was never approved, and he was not authorized by Vestcor to move into any Madalyn Landing's rental apartment units. At some unspecified time thereafter, Vestcor's management became aware that Mr. Gomez had moved into Apartment No. 206-24, even though he was never approved or authorized to move into an on site apartment. Vestcor's management ordered Mr. Gomez to remove his belongings from Apartment No. 206-24. Subsequent to the removal order, Mr. Gomez moved his belongings from Apartment No. 206-24 into Apartment No. 103-20. Mr. Gomez's move into Apartment No. 103-20, as was his move into Apartment No. 206-04, was without approval and/or authorization from Vestcor's management. Upon learning that his belonging had been placed in Apartment No. 103-20, Mr. Gomez was again instructed by management to remove his belongings. After he failed and refused to move his belongings from Apartment No. 103-20, Vestcor's management entered the apartment and gathered and discarded Mr. Gomez's belongings. As a leasing contract agent, Petitioner had access to keys to all vacant apartments. His brother, Mr. Gomez, who was a groundskeeper, did not have access to keys to any apartment, save the one he occupied. Any apartment occupied by Ms. Gomez after his Notice to Vacate Apartment No. 103-20 was without the knowledge or approval of Vestcor and in violation of Vestcor's policies and procedures. Therefore, any period of apartment occupancy by Mr. Gomez was not discriminatory against Petitioner (rent-free and/or reduced rent), but was a direct violation of Vestcor's policies. On February 10, 2002, Mr. Oliver signed a one-year lease agreement with Vestcor. Mr. Oliver's lease agreement reflected a 25-percent employee rental concession. Throughout Mr. Oliver's occupancy of Apartment No. 203-64 and pursuant to his lease agreement duration, Mr. Oliver's rental history reflected his monthly payment of $413.00. There is no evidence that Mr. Oliver lived on site without paying rent or that Vestcor authorized or permitted Mr. Oliver to live on site without paying rent, as alleged by Petitioner. On June 2, 2002, Ms. Closs completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal report. Performance ratings range from a one -- below expectations, to a four -- exceeds expectations. Petitioner received ratings in the categories appraised as follows: Leasing skills -- 4; Administrative skills -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in paperwork, computer updating, and policy adherence; Marketing skills -- 4, with comments that Petitioner had a flair for finding the right markets; Community awareness -- 3, with no comment; Professionalism -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in paperwork reporting; Dependability -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in attendance; Interpersonal skills -- 3, with no comments; Judgment/Decision-making -- 3, with no comments; Quality of Work -- 2, with comments that work lacked accuracy; Initiative -- 4, with no comment; Customer service -- 3, with no comments; Team work -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in the area of resident confidence; Company loyalty -- 2, with comments of improvement needed in adherence to company policy and procedures; and Training and development -- 3, with no comments. Petitioner's Overall rating was 2.5, with comments that there was "room for improvement." On June 27, 2002, while on 180 days' probation that began on January 9, 2002, Petitioner failed to report to work and failed to report his absence to his supervisor, Ms. Closs, by a person-to-person telephone call. This conduct constituted a violation of Vestcor's policy requiring all its employees to personally contact their supervisor when late and/or absent from work and prohibited leaving messages on the community answering service machine. On June 28, 2002, Petitioner reported to work. Ms. Closs, his supervisor, informed Petitioner of his termination of employment with Vestcor for failure to report to work (i.e. job abandonment) and for probation violation, as he had been warned on January 9, 2002, what would happen should a policy violation re-occur. It was after his June 28, 2002, termination that Petitioner began his personal investigation and gathering of information (i.e., interviews and statements from other Vestcor employees) in preparation to file this complaint. Considering the findings favorable to Petitioner, he failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Vestcor, when they terminated his employment on June 28, 2002. Considering the findings of record favorable to Petitioner, he failed to establish a prima facie case of housing and/or rental adjustment discrimination by Vestcor, based upon familial status of himself or any other employer. Petitioner failed to prove Vestcor knowingly and/or intentionally permitted, approved, or allowed either Mr. Gomez or Mr. Oliver to live on site without a completed and approved application followed by appropriate rent adjustments according to their employment status and keeping within the tax credit requirement, while requiring Vestcor employees with families (or different employment status) to pay a different monthly rent in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Petitioner failed to prove his termination on June 28, 2002, was in retaliation for his actions and conduct other than his personal violation, while on probation, of Vestcor's policies and procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Florida Commission on Human Rights enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief alleging discrimination filed by Petitioner, Carlos Gomez. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 29th day of August, 2005.
The Issue Whether or not the actions of the petitioner in amending its lease agreement resulted in increased costs which are reimbursable by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services through an interim rate request.
Findings Of Fact Hallandale is a licensed nursing home facility located in Hallandale, Florida, and at all times material hereto, Hallandale was certified to and was participating in the Florida Medicaid Program. The participation was subject to a standard nursing home provider agreement entered into by the parties. Pursuant to the agreement, Hallandale provides nursing care for Medicaid recipients and receives as payment the recognized rate of Medicaid reimbursement established for Hallandale by HRS in accordance with the applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and guidelines. The agreement may be cancelled by either party after giving thirty (30) days notice. In 1971, Hallandale entered into a lease agreement with the owners of the nursing home facility and began operating the nursing home. The lease called for a payment of $84.00 per month, per bed, had no escalation clause, and would not expire until 1986. At the time the lease was negotiated, the owners had been operating the nursing home themselves at a loss. To avoid bankruptcy or having to sell the property at a loss, the owners leased the property to Hallandale. However, within seven or eight years the owners began to put pressure on Hallandale to renegotiate the lease because the owners did not think they were getting a fair return on their investment. In 1981, the owners and Hallandale entered into negotiations to amend the terms of the lease to provide an increased rental rate and an extension of the lease term. The negotiations were not successful, and finally, by letter dated July 6, 1983, the owners issued the following ultimatum: "Although the lease has a renegotiation clause six months prior to expiration, we must renegotiate the terms and conditions of this lease immediately. The partnership has made a decision that we will definitely not renew or extend your lease unless we can come to some satisfactory arrangement regarding terms and conditions, effective immediately." On December 13, 1983, Hallandale and the owners entered into an amendment to the original lease. The amendment increased the lease payments and extended the lease until August of 1998. The amended lease provided for a minimum rental of $110 per month, per bed, as of September 1, 1983, with increases in the rental every year thereafter. Saul Lerner has been president of Hallandale since 1975 and has been associated with the facility since it was first leased in 1971. Mr. Lerner is an astute businessman who has been involved in a variety of businesses for forty years. He was chiefly responsible for renegotiating the lease with the owners. Although the lease was renegotiated due to the owners' threats to sell the facility, 1/ Mr. Lerner did not merely accede to the owners' demands. There were several offers and counteroffers made before the final agreement was reached, and the renegotiated lease provided for a considerably lower rental rate than that demanded by the owners. Prior to entering into the lease amendment Mr. Lerner consulted with people in the industry, had a MAI appraisal performed, discussed the situation with James Beymer, a real estate broker specializing in nursing home and health related facilities, consulted with his accountants who had been in the health care field for 13 years, and talked with Sebastian Gomez of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Mr. Lerner consulted with his business associates, and the pros and cons of renegotiating the lease were carefully considered. Hallandale's determination to renegotiate the lease in 1983 was a reasonable and prudent business decision. By agreeing to increased rental payments for the three years that remained on the original lease, Hallandale gained an additional 12 years to operate the facility. This permitted Hallandale to project its costs and plan for the future. It could make additions and improvements to the building, buy new equipment, and provide for stability in staffing. On the other hand, had Hallandale refused to renegotiate the lease, it faced an uncertain future. There was a strong possibility that the owners would not be willing to renew the lease when it expired, which would result in Hallandale's losing the equipment and improvements it had put into the building. In addition, the owners were threatening to sell the property, and even though Hallandale had the right of first refusal, it would have had difficulty in obtaining the money required to purchase the property. Further, Hallandale realized that even if the owners would be willing to negotiate a new lease in 1986, Hallandale would not have the same leverage or bargaining power in 1986 as it had in 1983. Hallandale has participated in the Medicaid program continuously since 1971. At the time of the hearing the facility had 142 patients, of which 45 were Medicaid patients. 2/ Hallandale has never refused a Medicaid patient, and some of the patients have been there 8 or 9 years. The Medicaid patients are treated the same as the private patients, to such a degree that no one knows which patients are Medicaid patients. Although the agreement with HRS allows a provider to leave the Medicaid program with 30 days notice, Hallandale has no intention to ever discontinue participation in the Medicaid program. The extended term of the renegotiated lease is not only advantageous to Hallandale, it is also beneficial to Hallandale's patients, including Medicaid patients. It secures continuity of care for the patients and ensures that the patients will not have to be moved to a new facility in 1986. The transfer from one facility to another can be a very traumatic event for an elderly person; some patients have died within weeks of a transfer. Further, the patients benefit immediately because the extended term of the lease allows Hallandale to make improvements to the facility and buy equipment that it would not have been able to do without the security of a long term lease. The lease payments called for by the new lease are not out of line with lease payments made by similar institutions. Mr. Lerner looked at other lease payments being made in the community and found that $110 per bed per month was not an exorbitant amount. James Beymer leased nursing home facilities that were not as nice as the Hallandale facility for $138 per bed per month $166 per bed per month, and $225 per bed per month. Had Hallandale purchased the facility for $3 million, the price asked by the owners, the cost per month per bed would have been over twice the amount of the lease payment. 3/ Lease payments are included in a facility's "fixed costs." The fixed costs also include depreciation, real estate taxes and insurance. The state places a cap on reimbursement rates for fixed costs. In June 1983, prior to the renegotiation of the lease, Hallandale's fixed costs were $4.61 per patient day; under the renegotiated lease, the fixed costs would be $5.16 per patient day. Thus, even with the higher lease payment, the fixed costs are considerably under the state cap of $12.50 per patient day. A provider's reimbursement rate is determined by HRS from a cost report submitted by a provider. The rate is a prospective per diem rate. If, during the prospective period, the provider incurs an increase in costs, the provider has a right to submit an interim rate request to HRS. The Department uses the same principles to determine whether costs submitted in an interim rate request should be allowed as in determining whether costs submitted in a cost report should be allowed. Lease payments are allowable expenses under the Medicaid program subject to the Medicaid cost reimbursement principles. In calculating Hallandale's per diem rate, HRS allowed Hallandale $84 per month lease cost for each Medicaid patient in the facility based on the 1971 lease. Prior to executing the new lease, Hallandale contacted HRS to inquire if the new lease cost would be allowable and was informed that the new costs would probably not be allowable. On November 9, 1983, Hallandale submitted an interim rate request to cover the increased cost of the new lease payments. The interim rate request was procedurally correct. By letter dated May 30, 1984, HRS denied the interim rate request because "...the lease cost was negotiated for investment related reasons and is not related to patient care." On June 25, 1984, Hallandale filed its petition for a formal administrative hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the interim rate increase requested by Hallandale be granted. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 26th day of April, 1985.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 120, 455 and 457, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings before the Florida Real Estate Commission (FREC) and is authorized to prosecute administrative complaints against licensees within FREC’s jurisdiction. At all times material, Respondent was a licensed Florida real estate broker, license number 684990, under Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker at Florida’s Best Buy Realty & Mortgage Lender, LLC, Post Office Box 551, Winter Park, Florida 32793. On or about February 15, 2007, Respondent entered into a contract to manage the single-family dwelling owned by Jacqueline Danzer. The property is located at 2979 Krista Key Circle, Orlando, Florida 32817 (Subject Property). The agreement was for the period February 15, 2007, until February 15, 2008. Respondent was authorized, under the management agreement, to seek a tenant for the property. Said management agreement authorized Respondent to be compensated at the rate of 10 percent of the rent due during each rental period. On or about March 27, 2007, Respondent negotiated a lease agreement with Veronica Valcarcel to rent the Subject Propery. The tenant applied through the federal Section 8 program, administered by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Division (Agency), for rental assistance in order to rent the Subject Property. Section 8 assists low-income families with their rent. A tenant who qualifies for Section 8 assistance is prohibited from paying more than 40 percent of his or her income for rent and utilities. On April 26, 2007, Respondent, acting on behalf of the landlord for the Subject Property, entered into and signed a “Housing Assistance Payment Contract” or “HAP” contract with the Agency as part of the Section 8 program. The HAP contract provided that for the initial lease term for the Subject Property (for the period April 1, 2007, until March 31, 2008), the initial monthly rent was $1,150 per month. This was determined to be the maximum payment the tenant could pay without exceeding 40 percent of her income. The HAP contract explicitly provides in its terms that “[d]uring the initial lease term, the owner may not raise the rent to tenant.” Respondent knew that he was prohibited from charging more than the monthly rent stated in the HAP contract. Respondent has had experience in the past with other tenants who participated in the Section 8 program. Respondent has previously signed other HAP contracts which contained the same restrictive language. Under the lease contract that the tenant Veronica Valcarcel signed with the property owner Jacqueline Danzer, the monthly rent would be $1,150 per month. The signature page in the lease contract is not the same page on which the monthly rental amount is written. The property owner Jacqueline Danzer asserts that the initials in the lease contract reflecting a monthly rental of $1,150 were not all her initials. Under the terms of the Exclusive Property Management Agreement, Respondent was being compensated at the rate of 10 percent per month after the first month. A monthly rental amount of $1,500 indicates that the property owner would receive a net of $1,350 per month. The property management agreement provided that Respondent would make payments to the property owner by direct deposit. The property management agreement lists a 12-digit bank account number, with the last four digits of “6034,” into which Respondent was to make direct deposits. At the hearing, property owner Jacqueline Danzer testified that she had received payments from Respondent for the Subject Property to her Bank of America savings account, with the account number ending in “6034.” The last four digits of the account number on the Bank of America Statement match the last four digits on the account number found on the Property Management Agreement. According to the Bank of America records, Respondent made the following payments to the property owner: a) $1,550 on May 9, 2007 b) $1,000 on May 9, 2007 c) $850 on June 12, 2007 d) $1,350 on July 11, 2007 e) $1,350 on September 10, 2007 On September 12, 2007, property owner, Jacqueline Danzer went to see Lois Henry, the manager of the Section 8 department for the Agency. During the course of that meeting, Dnazer advised that Respondent was collecting $1,500 a month rent from the tenant instead of $1,150 a month. On September 12, 2007, during the course of a telephone conference with Jacqueline Danzer and Lois Henry, Respondent admitted that he had been collecting $1,500 monthly rent for the Subject Property, retaining a commission of $150 and depositing the balance in Danzer’s account. Respondent denied making an admission during the telephone conference on September 12, 2007. He also denied that he was collecting $1,500 from the tenant, and further denied that he was violating Section 8 regulations. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. The witness Danzer’s testimony is credible. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Housing Assistance Payments Contract. The total amount of investigative costs for the Petitioner for this case, not including attorney’s time, were $874.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission, enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes; Revoking Respondent’s license, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00; and Requiring Respondent pay fees and costs related to the investigation in the amount of $874.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a dealer in heavy construction equipment and has been since its incorporation on August 1, 1946. Among petitioner's competitors are Dewind Machinery Company, Florida Equipment Company of Jacksonville, Florida- Georgia Tractor Company, Inc., Great Southern Equipment Company, Inc., Pilot Equipment Company, Inc., Ring Power Corporation and Joseph L. Rozier Machinery Company. Like its competitors, petitioner frequently leases equipment to its customers, giving them an option to purchase, rather than selling them the equipment outright. Petitioner's exhibit No. 1 reflects one such transaction. On April 19, 1973, petitioner quoted Houdaille Duval Wright Company (Houdaille) a purchase price of twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000.00) plus sale's tax, and monthly rent of fourteen hundred dollars ($1,400.00) plus sales tax on a diesel powered, self-propelled vibratory roller. After negotiations between petitioner and Houdaille, the purchase price dropped to seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000.00), but the monthly rental remained unchanged. Houdaille agreed to lease the vibratory roller from petitioner on these terms. With respect to its option to purchase, Houdaille specified that: 100 percent of all rentals to apply towards purchase price of $17,000.00 less 10 percent discount on remaining outstanding balance at time of purchase. Interest to accrue at a rate 7 1/2 percent simple. Houdaille made lease payments for nine months, totaling twelve thousand six hundred dollars ($12,600.00), before electing to exercise its option to purchase. In calculating the amount of money Houdaille was to pay to close out the transaction, petitioner began by treating the payments Houdaille had made under the lease as if they had been payments made in repayment of a loan, outstanding for the period of the lease, in the amount of seventeen thousand dollars ($17,000.00), at 7 1/2 percent per annum. Petitioner allocated portions of each lease payment to principal and to interest, calculated on the declining principal balance, aggregating eleven thousand nine hundred ten dollars and fifty-four cents ($11,910.54) to principal, and six hundred eighty-nine dollars and fourty-six cents ($689.46) to interest. Petitioner then calculated the 10 percent discount by multiplying one tenth times the difference between the original price ($17,000.00) and the amount aggregated to principal ($11,910.54), which yielded five hundred eight dollars and ninety-five cents ($508.95). This figure was subtracted from the original contract price ($17,000.00) to ascertain the' discounted price ($16,491.05) against which the lease payments were credited in their entirety ($12,600.00), yielding the figure three thousand eight hundred ninety-one dollars and five cents ($3,891.05), on which petitioner calculated 4 percent sales tax. In addition, petitioner required Houdaille, in exercising its option to purchase, to pay six hundred eighty-nine dollars and forty-six cents ($689.46), the aggregate amount of lease payments petitioner had allocated to interest. In every respect pertinent to the dispute between petitioner and respondent, this transaction between petitioner and Houdaille is typical of the transactions on which contested portions of the tax assessments were based. The same is true of petitioner's lease and sale of a truck crane to Poston Bridge & Iron, Inc. (Poston), the transaction reflected in exhibit No. 2 (although petitioner's agreement with Poston did not involve a discount.) The terms of the lease purchase agreement, as stated on respondent's exhibit No. 2, were: Option Price $124,855.00 with 100 percent of paid rentals to apply to purchase price less interest at 8.5 percent simple. After making lease payments totalling twenty-six thousand dollars ($26,000.00), Poston exercised its option to purchase. At this point the lease payments were recast as installment sales payments, portions being allocated to principal and interest accordingly. Respondent collected sales tax on the amount of money Poston paid in exchange for title, after electing to purchase, less the aggregate amount of lease payments petitioner had allocated to interest. Petitioner has been entering into lease purchase agreements of this kind with various customers since 1946 or 1947, and, when customers exercised purchase options, petitioner ordinarily calculated sales tax in the manner it employed in connection with the sale of the vibratory roller to Houdaille, and the truck crane to Poston. In at least one instance, however, petitioner calculated sales tax as 4 percent of all the money a customer, Misener Marine Construction, Inc., paid when exercising its option to purchase a truck crane, including portions of lease payments petitioner had allocated to interest. On the lease payments themselves, petitioner regularly collected 4 percent sales tax which it regularly remitted to respondent. For federal income tax purposes, petitioner treated payments from customers under a lease purchase agreement as lease payments for every tax year in which the option to purchase was not exercised. For the tax year in which the option to purchase was exercised, the lease payments were treated as payments under an installment sale contract, for federal income tax purposes. When respondent audited petitioner's rentals for the period May 1, 1970, to April 30, 1973, and earlier when respondent performed a general audit of petitioner's books for the period July 1, 1959, to February 28, 1962, no mention was mace of petitioner's sales tax treatment of lease purchase agreements under which lessees had exercised purchase options. Before the audit which eventuated in the assessments now in controversy, however, the auditors were given a copy of a letter from L. N. Hansen to Thomas D. Aitken dated December 9, 1974. Mr. Hansen was formerly director of respondent's sales and use tax division. In the fall of 1974, he was one of a group or "board" of respondent's employees who considered questions arising under the tax laws and formulated policy for respondent. His letter to Mr. Aitken, which came in evidence as, petitioner's exhibit No. 5, was written on behalf of respondent after its substance was discussed at a meeting of respondent's policy group. It pertains to lease purchase agreements entered into by Joseph L. Rozier Machinery Co. (Rozier). Mr. Hansen's letter stated that Rozier was "not correct in reducing the taxable sales price by the rental payments and thereafter adding an interest charge which, if it was incurred at all, was incurred prior to the time of sale." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5, p. 1. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stucky's of Eastman, Georgia vs. Department of Transportation, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which appears as an appendix to the order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent abandon the uncollected portions of its deficiency assessments. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 4-8, and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is irrelevant insofar as it differs from petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7, and for that reason has not been adopted where it differs from petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 7. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3 has not been adopted because it is not relevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 9 has not been adopted because what motivated respondent's employees is not relevant and because it was not proven what would have happened "[b]ut for the Hansen letter." Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 11 and 12 have not been adopted because they are irrelevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 13 has not been adopted as such because it is actually a proposed conclusion of law. The first paragraph of respondent's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, except that exercise of the purchase option may be said to relate back to the beginning of the contract. Significantly, respondent proposes as a finding of fact that the "amount termed 'Interest' . . . is payable for the use of the money during the rental/lease period." Paragraphs two through seven, nine and ten of respondent's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. The eighth paragraph of respondent's proposed findings of fact has not been adopted; it is actually a proposed conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel S. Dearing, Esquire Post Office Box 1118 424 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ms. Patricia S. Turner, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997, approved by a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs, DCA Docket No. DCA97-280-FOI-GM, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development set forth in Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1997)?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioners are all involved in the rental of real property in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Petitioner John H. Rathkamp is a resident of the State of Georgia. (Admitted fact). Mr. Rathkamp is the owner of real property located in unincorporated Monroe County described as Lost 6, Block 9, Redfish Lane, Cudjoe Ocean Shores Subdivision, Cudjoe Key (RE #188684000800). At the time of purchase, the property was improved. At all times material to this proceeding, Mr. Rathkamp's property was located in an Improved Subdivision land use district. (Admitted facts). Petitioner Monroe County Vacation Rental Managers, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation doing business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is located at 701 Caroline Street, Key West, Florida. (Admitted facts). Petitioner Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which conducts business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is Post Office Box 4330511, Mile Maker 31, Big Pine Key, Florida. (Admitted facts). Petitioner Marathon Chamber of Commerce is a Florida not-for-profit corporation which conducts business in Monroe County. Its principal place of business is 12222 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. (Admitted facts). Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the approval or rejection of comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes (1997). Intervenor, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (hereinafter referred to as the "County"), is the governing body of Monroe County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Among other things, the County is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and land development regulations for unincorporated Monroe County. Unincorporated Monroe County has been designated as the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (hereinafter referred to as the "Florida Keys ACSC"), pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, since 1979. As an area of critical state concern, all comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the County must be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles"), set out in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. Standing. The parties stipulated that Petitioners are all substantially affected persons as those terms are used in Section 120.569, Florida Statutes (1997). The evidence in this case proved that Petitioners' substantial interests have been determined by the Department's Final Order approving the land development regulation at issue in this case. Petitioners have standing to initiate, and participate in, this proceeding. The evidence also proved that the County's substantial interests were determined by the Department's Final Order. The County has standing to participate in this proceeding. The County's Adoption of Ordinance No. 004-1997. During 1995 the County directed that public hearings be held on the issue of the rental of real estate for short periods of time for vacation purposes in Monroe County. Public hearings were held before the County's Development Review Committee in Marathon, Monroe County, Florida, on July 25, 1995, and December 2, 1995. Public hearings were also held before the County's Planning Commission on the following dates and at the following locations in Monroe County: Date Location March 7, 1996 Marathon March 21, 1996 Key West April 3, 1996 Key Largo April 18, 1996 Marathon April 22, 1996 Duck Key July 15, 1996 Duck Key September 5, 1996 Marathon On November 5, 1996, a referendum was placed on the ballot in Monroe County. The referendum asked the following question: "Should transient rentals of less than 28 days be allowed in (IS) Improved Subdivisions?" This question was answered "yes" by 51% of the citizens who voted on the referendum. Public hearings to consider an ordinance prohibiting certain vacation rentals were held before the County on December 18, 1996 in Marathon and on February 8, 1997, in Key West. On February 3, 1997, the County passed and adopted Ordinance No. 004-1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance applies to lands located in unincorporated Monroe County. (Admitted facts). The Department's Review of the Ordinance. On February 25, 1997, the County transmitted a copy of the Ordinance to the Department for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.05, Florida Statutes. (Admitted fact). On April 25, 1997, the Department caused notice of Proposed Rule 9J-14.006(11), approving the Ordinance, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. (Admitted fact). A challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, to the proposed rule was filed by Petitioners on May 16, 1997. The Department held public hearings in Monroe County on the proposed rule on May 21 and 22, 1997, and June 26, 1997. On May 31, 1997, an amendment to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes, became effective. The amendment changed the procedure for approving or rejecting comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations in areas of critical state concern. Pursuant to the new procedure the Department was required to approve or reject comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations in areas of critical state concern by final order instead of by rule. (Admitted facts). Petitioners in the rule challenge proceeding stipulated that they would not object, procedurally, if the Department elected to withdraw the proposed rule and issue a final order approving or rejecting the Ordinance. (Admitted fact). On November 26, 1997, the Department caused a Final Order entered November 5, 1997, to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 48. The Final Order was accepted into evidence as Joint Exhibit 5. The Final Order contains Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. A copy of the Final Order is attached to this Recommended Order. Pursuant to the Department's Final Order, the Department approved the Ordinance as being consistent with the Principles. (Admitted facts). Studies and Reports. One thing that was made abundantly clear during the formal hearing was that no formal studies were conducted by the County during its consideration and adoption of the Ordinance. Instead, the County relied upon information provided to it during the hearings conducted prior to, and during, the adoption of the Ordinance and the County's knowledge about Monroe County. Another fact made abundantly clear was that the Department also did not undertake any formal studies during its review of the Ordinance. The Department relied upon the its knowledge of Monroe County and information that had been provided to the County, summarized in memorandums. The Principles. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, creates the Principles: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or man-made disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, the Principles must be considered as a whole and no specific provision is to be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. The Principles must also be construed and applied with due consideration to the legislative intent. The legislative intent in promulgating Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, is set out in Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes: LEGISLATIVE INTENT.—It is hereby declared that the intent of the Legislature is: To establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the Florida Keys. To establish a land use management system that conserves and promotes the community character of the Florida Keys. To establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services. To provide for affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. To establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base. To protect the constitutional rights of property owners to own, use, and dispose of their real property. To promote coordination and efficiency among governmental agencies with permitting jurisdiction over land use activities in the Florida Keys. In order for the Ordinance to be consistent with the legislative intent of Section 380.0552(2), Florida Statutes, it must be consistent with the Principles. The Ordinance. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), establishes the land uses which are allowed and prohibited in Monroe County. The Ordinance provides the following "Purpose": The purpose of this ordinance is to further and expressly clarify the existing prohibition on short-term transient rental of dwelling units for less than twenty-eight (28) days in duration in Improved Subdivisions, mobile home districts (which provide affordable housing) and native areas, and to allow tourist housing uses in all other districts and in improved subdivision districts with a newly-created tourist housing subindicator. The Ordinance defines the terms "vacation rentals" as the rental for tenancies of a dwelling unit for less than twenty- eight days. Hotels, motels, and recreational vehicle spaces are specifically excluded from the definition of "vacation rentals." The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and prohibits vacation rentals within those district: Sparsely Settled Residential District; Native Area District; Mainland Native Area District; and Commercial Fishing Residential District. The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and provides that vacation rentals are allowable "if a special vacation rental permit is obtained under the regulations established in Code s9.5-534": Urban Commercial District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use; Urban Residential District; Sub Urban Commercial District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use; Sub Urban Residential District; Sub Urban Residential District (Limited); Destination Resort District; Maritime Industries District. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units; and Mixed Use Districts. Vacation rentals are not allowed, however, in commercial apartments with more than six units located in conjunction with a permitted commercial use. The Ordinance addresses the following land use districts and provides that vacation rentals are prohibited except "in gated communities which have (a) controlled access and (b) a homeowner's or property owners' association that expressly regulates or manages vacation rental uses": Urban Residential-Mobile Home District; URM-L District; and Improved Subdivision Districts. Improved Subdivision Districts (hereinafter referred to as "IS Districts"), are the primary, residential districts in Monroe County. 40 The Ordinance establishes a new district, the Improved Subdivision-Tourist Housing District (hereinafter referred to as the "IS-T District"). Vacation rentals are allowed in IS-T Districts under certain conditions: A map amendment designating a contiguous parcel as IS-T may be approved, provided that the map amendment application (and subsequent building permit applications and special vacation rental permit applications) meet the following standards, criteria and conditions: The IS-T designation is consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and there is no legitimate public purpose for maintaining the existing designation. The IS-T designation allowing vacation rental use does not create additional trips or other adverse traffic impacts within the remainder of the subdivision or within any adjacent IS district: The parcel to be designated IS-T must contain sufficient area to prevent spot zoning of individual parcels (i.e., rezonings should not result in spot-zoned IS-T districts or result in spot-zoned IS districts that are surrounded by IS-T districts). Unless the parcel to be rezoned contains the entire subdivision, there will be a rebuttable presumption that spot-zoning exists, but the Board of County Commissioners may rebut this presumption by making specific findings supported by competent, substantial evidence that: the designation preserves, promotes and maintains the integrity of surrounding residential districts and overall zoning scheme or comprehensive plan for the future use of surrounding lands; does not result in a small area of IS-T within a district that prohibits vacation rentals; the lots or parcels to be designated IS-T are all physically contiguous and adjacent to one another and do not result in a narrow strip or isolate pockets or spots of land that are not designated IS-T, or which prohibit vacation rentals; and the IS-T designation is not placed in a vacuum or a spot on a lot-by-lot basis without regard to neighboring properties, but is a part of an overall area that allows vacation rentals or similar compatible uses. In addition to the requirements contained in Code s.9.5-377 (District Boundaries), an IS-T district shall be separated from any established residential district that does not allow tourist housing or vacation rental uses by no less than a class C bufferyard: Vacation rental use is compatible with established land uses in the immediate vicinity of the parcel to be designated IS- T: and Unless a map amendment is staff-generated (i.e., initiated by Monroe County), an application for a map amendment to IS-T shall be authorized by the property owner(s) of all lots (or parcels) included within the area of the proposed map amendment. The Ordinance provides that vacation rentals are prohibited in Offshore Island Districts unless they "were established (and held valid state public lodging establishment licenses) prior to January 1, 1969." Finally, the Ordinance provides, in part, that the following uses are permitted in Recreational Vehicle Districts: Recreational vehicle spaces. RV spaces are intended for use by traveling recreational vehicles. RV spaces may be leased, rented or occupied by a specific, individual recreational vehicle, for a term of less than twenty-eight days, but placement of a specific, individual Recreational Vehicle (regardless of vehicle type or size) within a particular RV park for occupancies or tenancies of 6 months or more is prohibited. Recreational Vehicles may be stored, but not occupied, for periods of 6 months or greater only in an approved RV storage area (Designated on a site plan approved by the Director of Planning) or in another appropriate district that allows storage of recreational vehicles. . . . Code s9-534 of the Ordinance requires a permit for vacation rentals, except for vacation rentals located within a controlled access, gated-community or within a multifamily building which has 24-hour on-site management or 24-hour on-site supervision. This Code section also provides certain conditions which must be met by vacation rentals, requires that a copy of any permit be provided to surrounding property owners, provides for the circumstances under which a permit may be revoked, provides for certain penalties, and deals with other miscellaneous matters. Code s9-534 is hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order. The Ordinance is a "land development regulation" as defined in Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes. (Admitted fact). Petitioners' Challenge to the Ordinance. On December 16, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a challenge pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to the Department's Final Order approving the Ordinance. (Admitted facts). In addition to alleging that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles, Petitioners also challenged some of the specific findings of fact contained in the Final Order entered by the Department. While the Department has agreed that it has the burden of proving the "validity of the final order," for purposes of Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, the only "final order" which the Department entered in this matter is the final line of the order: "WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Monroe County Ordinance No. 004-1997 is consistent with Section 380.0552(7), F.S., and is hereby approved." Because this is a de novo proceeding, the "facts" and "conclusions of law" the Department reached in taking the "proposed agency action" at issue in this case, are not controlling. Petitioners also alleged that the Ordinance is not "consistent with the legislative intent for designation of unincorporated Monroe County as the Florida Keys ACSC expressed in Section 380.0552(2), F.S." Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, does not specifically require the Department to independently determine whether a land development regulation is consistent with the legislative intent. The Department is only required to determine consistency with the Principles. If a land development regulation is consistent with the Principles, it will also be consistent with the legislative intent. Finally, Petitioners alleged in their Petition that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Plan. This allegation was not included in the Prehearing Stipulation. This issue was, therefore, waived by Petitioners. Even if not considered waived, the issue of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Plan is not an issue which has been properly brought before this forum. The challenge in this case was instituted pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Nowhere in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is the Department required or authorized to review a land development regulation for consistency with a growth management plan. The Department's authority to review a land development regulation for consistency with a growth management plan comes from Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Challenges to Department's decisions under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, must be instituted pursuant to Section 163.3213, Florida Statutes. No such proceeding has been instituted by Petitioners. Petitioners, although not specifically alleged in their petition or the Prehearing Stipulation, presented evidence at hearing and argument in their proposed order concerning what the County and Department knew or did not know, and what they did or did not do, at the time of their respective actions. Because this is a de novo proceeding, such knowledge or actions, do not support a finding that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles unless, in the case of required information, the information is not provided at hearing and, in the case of an action that was not taken, the action was required by rule or statute. The evidence presented at hearing in this case was sufficient to determine consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles. The evidence also failed to prove that the County or the Department failed to take any action required by rule or statute with regard to their respective roles in this matter. Sound Economic Development of Monroe County. Section 380.0552(7)(d), Florida Statutes, includes the following principle: "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development." This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(e), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and sound economic base. Undoubtedly, the evidence in this case proved that the Ordinance will cause a negative impact to the economy of Monroe County. No economic impact study was necessary to prove this fact. Although neither the County nor the Department conducted an economic impact study prior to the County's adoption and the Department's review of the Ordinance, the County and the Department were aware of the fact that there would be a negative economic impact as a result of the Ordinance and took that fact into consideration in carrying out their respective roles. More importantly, there is no requirement in Chapters 120 or 380, Florida Statutes, that an economic impact study be performed prior to adoption of a land development regulation or during the Department's review. Nor is the Department authorized as part of its review pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, to require such a study be conducted by the County. This is a de novo proceeding. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Department in order to meet its burden of proof to present sufficient competent substantial evidence concerning the economic impact of the Ordinance during the formal hearing. Much of the proof was presented by Petitioners. The combined proof of the parties in this case concerning the economic impact of the Ordinance is sufficient to make a determination as to whether the Ordinance is consistent with Principle "d." The economy of Monroe County is primarily dependent upon the tourist industry. The tourist industry in turn is largely dependent on the natural resources of Monroe County. As a consequence, the majority of the Principles provide for a consideration of impacts on the environment of Monroe County. Ultimately, the economic viability of Monroe County depends on its environmental resources. Tourists who vacation in Monroe County generally require lodging while on vacation. Lodging in Monroe County is diverse and includes hotels, motels, camp grounds, RV parks, and rentals of dwellings, including rentals for periods of less than 28 days (rentals of dwellings of less than 28 days are hereinafter referred to as a "Short-Term Rental Property"). There are some tourists who prefer to stay in Short- Term Rental Property over other types of accommodations available in Monroe County. There are even some tourists who may go elsewhere if they are unable to find Short-Term Rental Property in Monroe County. A reduction in available Short-Term Rental Property may also cause some tourists to come to Monroe County during periods during the year when tourism is lower. The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the loss of tourists or the extent to which tourists may come to Monroe County during the off-season if there is a reduction in the available number of Short-Term Rentals Property as a result of the Ordinance. Short-Term Rental Property makes up a significant portion of tourist lodging available throughout Monroe County. Short-Term Rental Property has been a part of the tourist economy of Monroe County for the past twenty to thirty years. Short-Term Rental Property, however, has increased significantly recently as the number of dwellings in Monroe County has increased. The use of properties as Short-Term Rental Property adds to the economy of Monroe County by providing work for a number of businesses in Monroe County. Those businesses include real estate brokers, pool maintenance, lawn maintenance, home repairs, maid/cleaning services, and many of the businesses associated with the tourist industry. Occupancy rates for Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County have been averaging approximately 30% annually. Occupancy occurs primarily during the peak tourist season from December or January through April. To a lesser extent, occupancy is higher in August also. Occupancy rates in Monroe County hotels and motels during the peak season have been approximately 80% to 100%. There is currently a moratorium in the Florida Keys on the construction of hotels and motels. The moratorium is only effective through 2006. The construction of new transient rentals and the conversion of single-family residences to transient rentals are prohibited by the Plan. These measures represent an effort of the County to regulate the influx of tourists into Monroe County and very likely result in an increase of properties used for Short-Term Rental Property to meet the demand for tourist lodging. As a result of the Ordinance's restriction on where Short-Term Rental Property will be allowable in Monroe County, there will be some reduction in the number of Short-Term Rental Properties available to tourist in Monroe County. Petitioners have estimated that there will be a reduction of in excess of 3,000 Short-Term Rental Properties as a result of the Ordinance. This number is based upon the assumption that there are 4,100 Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County, that 76% of those rentals are located in IS districts, and that all 76% of the rentals in IS districts will be lost. The evidence failed to support a finding that such a reduction will occur. First, the Ordinance does not prohibit all Short-Term Rental Property in Monroe County. The use of properties for Short-Term Rental Property is not prohibited in several land use districts listed, supra. Short-Term Rental Property located in the cities of Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Village of Islamorada are also not subject to the Ordinance. There are approximately 12,000 seasonal rental units in incorporated and unincorporated Monroe County. To the extent that the demand for Short-Term Rental Property is not met by properties which are no longer available for use as a Short-Term Rental Property under the Ordinance, some part of that demand will be met by seasonal units not impacted by the Ordinance: those units located in land use districts in which Short-Term Rental Properties are not prohibited and in incorporated areas. The market will react to the market conditions as they change under the Ordinance. Petitioners' expert witness, Charles Ilvento, provided estimates of the losses in revenue and sales tax collections in Monroe County (at a rate of 11.55 per cent) as a result of the Ordinance. Those estimates were that Monroe County would experience $400,235,747.00 to $500,294,683.00 per year in economic losses and $6,262,444.00 per year in sales tax losses. The Department's and County's expert, Dr. Nicholas, estimated that the economic loss from the Ordinance to Monroe County would only be approximately 20 per cent of the loss projected by Mr. Ilvento and would last only two years. Mr. Ilvento also suggested that the losses would be continuing losses. The weight of the evidence failed to support the extent of losses suggested by Mr. Ilvento. First, in making his estimates, Mr. Ilvento relied upon the number of Short-Term Rental Properties Petitioners had estimated would be lost as a result of the Ordinance. Those estimates are too high. See Findings of Fact 68 and 69. Secondly, Mr. Ilvento did not take into account the economic benefit of keeping residential uses of property and the more commercial activities of Short-Term Rental Properties separate as required by the Ordinance. Because of the value of Short-Term Rental Properties, finding property for permanent residents is more difficult. In some areas, the use of residential property for Short-Term Rental Properties can dominate the residential nature of an area to a great enough extent that the residential sector will decline and withdraw. Thirdly, Mr. Ilvento did not take into account the increase in income that would be likely to occur from the sales of properties formerly used as Short-Term Rental Property which Petitioners assert will have to be sold. Fourthly, Petitioners' estimate of the number of properties that will be sold (50%), which Mr. Ilvento relied upon in reaching his estimates, is not reasonable. Petitioners' estimate of the number of Short-Term Rental Properties that will be sold assumes that the owners of those properties will no longer be able to afford them without the rental income they had previously enjoyed from the properties. This assumption is not realistic. It is not realistic to assume that half the owners of Short-Term Rental Properties acquired their property without taking into account the possibility that they would not be able to rent the property. Additionally, it is not reasonable to assume that an owner who is faced with the inability to carry the debt on a property will necessarily elect to sell it rather than rent it on a long-term basis. The evidence also proved that the economy of Monroe County will be benefited to the extent that the Ordinance enhances the availability of affordable housing and reduces adverse impacts to the environment of Monroe County, as discussed, infra. The benefits to the economy as a result of the increase in affordable housing and the reduction of adverse impacts to the environment will not be substantial, however. The weight of the evidence in this case proved that there will be an overall economic loss in Monroe County as a result of the Ordinance. That loss should last approximately two to three years. The amount of the loss projected by Dr. Nicholas is a more reasonable estimate of the loss which will occur. That loss, however, will be substantial. Protection of the Public Health, Safety, and Welfare. Section 380.0552(7)(l), Florida Statues, includes the following principle: "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." The County, in adopting the Ordinance, was primarily exercising its police power to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Monroe County. The County decided to exercise its power by limiting the types of activities allowable in areas designated for residential use. The County's decision was based upon extensive testimony on the negative impacts of Short-Term Rental Property in neighborhoods given at the public hearings conducted by the County. Additionally, the County was aware of the results of the November 5, 1996, referendum vote in which residents of the County voted in favor of prohibiting Short-Term Rental Property in IS districts. Although the testimony concerning the negative impacts of Short-Term Rental Property and the results of the referendum vote relied upon by the County constitutes hearsay, it does corroborate and explain the testimony of Denise Werling, a permanent resident of Monroe County. It is difficult to characterize the rental of Short- Term Rental Property as purely commercial or residential. While Short-Term Rental Property is being used by the people who rent the property as housing, which is in the nature of a residential use, the services they are provided in conjunction with the rental is more in the nature of a commercial enterprise. Therefore, Short-Term Rental Property use is more like the rental of a hotel or motel rental, rather than the a long-term lease of property. Additionally, although there are always exceptions, occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties use the properties for reasons that are different from the uses that occupants of long- term rentals or permanent residents put their properties. As a result of the differences between the uses to which occupants of Short-Term Rental Property and permanent residents put their property, conflicts arise where the two land uses exist side by side. Although Short-Term Rental Properties have been a part of Monroe County for many years, there has been an increase in the number of properties available for use as Short-Term Rental Property in areas which have also increasingly been used as neighborhoods for permanent residents during the past ten years. As a result, the conflicts between occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties and permanent residents have increased. Denise Werling testified as to the types of conflicts she has experienced with a Short-Term Rental Property located next door to her home. Ms. Werling's testimony was illustrative of the types of conflicts which can exist if Short-Term Rental Properties are allowed to exist in areas designated for purely residential uses. The following are the types of problems which are not uncommonly associated with the use of properties as Short-Term Rental Property in residential areas: Short-Term Rental Property may be occupied with excessive numbers of tenants. Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property usually do not have to work because they are on vacation. As a consequence, they usually want to maximize the time they spend enjoying their vacation. As a result, they may stay up later at night and/or get up earlier in the morning than permanent residents. Late- night parties are not limited to weekends. Occupants often have excessive numbers of vehicles, boats, jet skies, RV's, and boat trailers, which they park on residential streets or all over the Short-Term Rental Property. RV's are parked in the driveway, yard, or the street in front of the rental property. When occupied, these RV's can be noisy if they are powered by self-contained generators. Multiple boats may be docked along seawalls behind Short-Term Rental Properties. Ms. Werling has seen as many as six boats parked at one time against the seawall of the Short- Term Rental Property located next to her residence. Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property are unfamiliar with garbage and recycling schedules. As a result, full trash containers and recycle containers, if they are used, are left outside when the occupants leave, even though it may be several days before pickup is scheduled. Pets that are unfamiliar to the neighborhood are left to roam free. Ms. Werling has had dogs from the property next to hers on her property. Occupants of Short-Term Rental Property are strangers to the neighborhood. As a result, they can create a sense on uneasiness to permanent residents. This sense of uneasiness is not only a result of concern for the safety of the permanent residents and their families, but is also caused by the fact that occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties are less likely to adhere to accepted neighborhood practices. They may leave outdoor security lights on all the time. They are less concerned about trespassing onto seawalls and yards of the permanent residents. They are only in the area for a relatively short period of time and, consequently, they are likely to be less considerate of the neighboring permanent residents. Short-Term Rental Property occupants are often less familiar with the waters that surround their Short-Term Rental Property. As a result, they tend to run aground, causing damage to seagrass beds. While they could cause such damage elsewhere if they were staying at a hotel or motel, they at least have hotel and motel personnel that are familiar with the surrounding waters that they can consult before venturing out. Such information is not as readily available at Short-Term Rental Properties. 86 Most of the difficulties associated with Short-Term Rental Properties are not limited to occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. Many are also caused by some permanent residents. Just as there are some Short-Term Rental Property occupants that are inconsiderate to permanent residents, there are permanent residents that are inconsiderate to their neighbors. The degree to which the problems are caused is much higher, however, for occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties than it is for permanent residents. Additionally, it is more likely that permanent residents that cause problems can be effectively dealt with through the enforcement of regulations than occupants of Short- Term Rental Property. Finally, some of the problems are only associated with occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. Efforts to enforce regulations intended to deal with the problems associated with inconsiderate neighbors, such as anti-noise ordinances, have not been successful in eliminating the problems associated with Short-Term Rental Property. Short- Term Rental Property occupants have less reason to be concerned about regulations because they know they will be leaving the community in a short time. Whether they get along with their "neighbors" is not something they are concerned with. Ms. Werling has reported the problems she has experienced with the Short-Term Rental Property located next door to her. The problems, however, persist. Efforts of managers of Short-Term Rental Properties have not eliminated the difficulties associated with Short-Term Rental Property for the same reason that regulations are not effective and because not all owners of Short-Term Rental Property use local managers. Some absentee owners rent the properties themselves and they are not available to handle complaints as they arise. The County, in adopting the Ordinance, was exercising its police power to eliminate the incompatible use of Short-Term Rental Properties in districts intended for use as residential communities. In exercising its police power, the County prohibited Short-Term Rental Property in the most sensitive residential areas and placed restrictions intended to reduce the impacts of Short-Term Rental Properties in areas where Short-Term Rental Properties are allowed under the Ordinance. The County also restricted Short-Term Rental Properties in districts intended to protect the sensitive natural resources of the Florida Keys ACSC. Petitioners' have suggested that, while additional regulation of Short-Term Rental Property may be appropriate and beneficial, to prohibit Short-Term Rental Property in IS districts, given the negative economic impact of such a prohibition, would be detrimental to the overall welfare of Monroe County. Therefore, Petitioners have argued that the Ordinance is not consistent with Principle "l." Petitioners' suggestion does not support a finding that the Ordinance is not consistent with Principle (l), however. Petitioners' suggestion relates to the issue of the balancing of all the Principles, discussed infra. The County's Ability to Manage Land Use and Development. Section 380.0552(7)(a), Florida Statutes, includes the following principle: "To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation." Short-Term Rental Properties have existed throughout the Florida Keys for many years. Many owners of Short-Term Rental Property have obtained an occupational license for their rental business. Prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, the County Attorney and the Monroe County Code Enforcement Board, began to question whether the use of property as Short-Term Rental Property was an allowable land use in certain land districts in Monroe County under existing laws. The fact that some owners of Short-Term Rental Properties obtained occupational licenses from the Monroe County Tax Collector and licenses pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation does not, as Petitioners have argued, support a finding that the use of Short-Term Rental Properties have been an allowable use. An occupational license is, in essence, a method of collecting a tax pursuant to Chapter 205, Florida Statutes, for the operation of a business in a local jurisdiction. The issuance of such a license is not in the nature of a land use decision. Although there was a requirement in the County prior to the adoption of the Ordinance that occupational licenses issued by the Tax Collector be reviewed by the County for consistency with land use requirements, the evidence failed to support a finding that licenses were actually reviewed. Even if they had been, the evidence in this case only proved that the County simply did not give any consideration to whether existing comprehensive plans and land development regulations allow or prohibit the use of property as Short-Term Rental Property in all land use districts of Monroe County. Licenses from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation also do not constitute land use decisions. By taking the actions necessary to consider the problem of Short-Term Rental Properties and in adopting the Ordinance, the County has evidenced the willingness to take responsibility for the issue of whether the use of property for Short-Term Rental Property is allowable, and, if so, in which districts. By adopting the Ordinance, the County has resolved any ambiguity concerning the legality of Short-Term Rental Property. Even if it were clear that the use of Short-Term Rental Property has been allowable throughout Monroe County, the County has still taken steps to strengthen its capability for managing land use and development. The County took on a highly controversial issue, with vocal proponents and opponents, and made a decision as to the future direction of neighborhoods in Monroe County. In so doing, the County also took the actions necessary to actually "manage" Short-Term Rental Properties. The Environmental Issues. 100. Sections 380.0552(7)(b), (c), (e), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes, are Principles which require a consideration of the impacts on the environment of the Florida Keys: Principle "b": "To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat." Principle "c": "To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat." Principle "e": "To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Principle "f": "To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys." Principle "i": "To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys." (This Principle could also be grouped with Section 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes). These Principles are consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the Florida Keys. Part I of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is titled "The Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act of 1972." Section 380.012, Florida Statutes. The legislative purpose for establishing Part I and designating areas of critical state concern was primarily to provide State protection from adverse development impacts on environmentally sensitive areas of the State: Big Cypress Swamp, Green Swamp, Apalachicola Bay, and Monroe County's Florida Keys. All of these areas include environmentally sensitive lands and water bodies. The Ordinance does not specifically deal with environmental issues. The Ordinance involves primarily a balancing of a local government's police power with the economic impact of the exercise of that power. The Ordinance does, however, have some small positive impacts on the environment of Monroe County. Most importantly, the Ordinance does nothing contrary to the legislative intent to protect the Florida Keys ACSC. Monroe County's economic viability depends on the preservation and protection of its natural resources, including the quality of its surrounding waters. Tourism, which is the largest industry in Monroe County, is dependent on Monroe County's natural resources. The tourists who come to Monroe County are, in large part, attracted to Monroe County by its environmental qualities. Unfortunately, tourists are generally the worst abusers of the natural environment of Monroe County. This is true whether a tourist is staying in a motel or a Short-Term Rental Property. Tourists have more free time and, as a consequence, tend to participate in the recreational activities available in Monroe County more frequently and intensely than permanent residents. They simply use the resources more than a permanent resident. For example, in addition to spending more time on the water during good weather, tourists tend to engage in water activities even during inclement weather. Unlike a permanent resident who can wait until the next clear weekend, a vacationer will not necessarily be in Monroe County when the weather clears and therefore, is likely to be on the water at every opportunity. Tourists use the resources of the Florida Keys ACSC throughout their vacation. Unlike permanent residents, who are limited primarily to enjoying the natural environment of the Florida Keys ACSC on weekends and holidays, tourists are free to enjoy the environment everyday they are in Monroe County. In addition to the more frequent and intense use of the resources of Monroe County, tourists also cause harm to the environment because of their lack of knowledge about the Florida Keys ACSC or because they simply don't care. Monroe County's nearshore waters consist of numerous unmarked channels that leave many areas of Monroe County, including many canals of IS Districts. The unmarked channels can be difficult to navigate because of shallow waters typical of the Florida Keys. Navigation through these channels is learned largely from experience. The shallow nearshore waters contain beds of seagrasses that provide an important part of the ecosystem of the Florida Keys. They support juvenile fish and shellfish, which in turn provide feeding stock for birds and larger fish species. Grounding on these seagrass beds causes propeller scaring damage to the seagrasses. Tourists are also not familiar or do not care about limits on the numbers of fish and other marine life that can be caught, the sensitively of coral reefs and other natural resources of the Florida Keys ACSC, or the need to minimize human contact with the Key Deer. As a result, tourist tend to create more harm to most of the environmental features of the Florida Keys ACSC. Tourists that stay in Short-Term Rental Properties located in IS Districts and other land use districts are not significantly different from tourists that stay in other transient rentals available in Monroe County such as hotels or motels in terms of their impacts on the environment. The adverse impacts on the environment from tourists described, supra, are caused by tourists regardless of where they may be staying. Tourists that stay in Short-Term Rental Properties, however, do cause slightly more harm to the environment than other tourists for several reasons. First, a large number of tourists bring their own boats and ski jets with them to Monroe County. Those who stay in Short-Term Rental Properties generally do not operate or store their boats out of commercial marinas or use public boat ramps. As a consequence, it is more difficult to educate them about the adverse impacts they may cause on the environment. Marinas and other commercial locations where boats may be docked provide greater information about the waters of the Florida Keys and are more likely to have adequately marked access channels than Short- Term Rental Properties. Marinas, hotels, and motels also have knowledgeable individuals available to answer questions concerning the surrounding waters, a service not available to Short-Term Rental Property occupants. Prohibiting Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts will reduce the number of inexperienced boaters using the numerous canals of IS Districts to access the waters of Monroe County. Secondly, tourists that occupy Short-Term Rental Properties are more likely to cause harm to the Key Deer and other sensitive natural resources due to the proximity of their Short-Term Rental Property to the Key Deer and other resources. Key Deer inhabit the Florida Keys primarily on Big Pine Key. The Key Deer is an endangered species. Properties located on Big Pine Key and in other areas where Key Deer are found are used for Short-Term Vacation Rental Properties. Adverse impacts on the Key Deer result from their interaction with humans, through feeding, automobile deaths, and dogs that chase the Key Deer. While all tourists have impacts on the Key Deer due to their interaction with the them, the location of Short-Term Rental Property within the Key Deer habitat, especially areas located away from the main highway corridor of the Florida Keys, U.S. Highway 1, increases the amount of interaction between those tourists who occupy those Short-Term Rental Properties and the Key Deer. Tourists staying in IS Districts on Big Pine Key, especially those in Port Pine Heights at the north end of the Key, feed the Deer more because they are there more often, and cause more traffic problems because of the drive required to get to their rental property. Principle "e" requires that land development regulations limit the adverse impacts of development on water quality. There are public health concerns associated with untreated or improperly treated sewage, including viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Throughout most of the Florida Keys ACSC, septic tanks are used to dispose of sewage. Many of the septic tanks were installed years ago and do not meet today's standards for septic tanks. The size of a septic tank that must be installed depends on what the property will be used for. For single family residences, it is assumed that 100 gallons per day of sewage will be disposed of. Hotels are also assumed to create the same amount per room, while resorts, camps, and cottages are assumed to produce 200 gallons per day. Establishments with self-service laundries are assumed to produce 750 gallons per day. The use of Short-Term Rental Properties is somewhere between the use of single-family residence, hotels, resorts, and establishments with self-service laundries because of the similarity in how tourists in Short-Term Rental Properties and occupants of other transient locations live. Additionally, Short-Term Rental Properties are often occupied with more persons than would normally be found in a single-family residence. Although some septic tanks are designed with even more capacity than may be required by rules, not all septic tanks are designed to handle the increased use that occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties can cause. As a consequence, there is at least the potential for adverse consequences to the water of the Florida Keys ACSC to the extent that Short-Term Rental Properties are not better regulated by the County. Through the Ordinance, the County is attempting to ensure that the potential harm from the over use of septic tanks in Monroe County is regulated. The Ordinance limits the number of occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties. The Ordinance also requires that applicants for vacation rental permits submit a report from the Department of Health verifying compliance with existing septic tank or on-site sewage disposal system regulations. The Ordinance has no direct impact on Principle (i) and some parts of the other environmental Principles. The Ordinance is not, however, inconsistent with any of the Principles which deal with the environment. Community Character and Historical Heritage of the Florida Keys. Section 380.0552(7)(f), Florida Statutes, provides for a consideration of the "community character" of the Florida Keys, in addition to environmental considerations. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(b), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes the community character of the Florida Keys. Section 380.0552(7)(g), Florida Statutes, includes the following Principle: "To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." Although the evidence proved that the vacation rental of single-family residences has been a part of the character and historical heritage of the Florida Keys for many years, the problem being dealt with by the County through the Ordinance has not. The Ordinance does nothing to harm the community character or historical heritage of Monroe County. Public Investments. Section 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes, requires that "the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments be protected, including the following investments: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(c), Florida Statutes, that a local government establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the Ordinance has any impact, positive or negative, on "existing and proposed major public investments " Affordable Housing. Section 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes, provides the following Principle: "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." This Principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(d), Florida Statutes, that a local government provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. There is a significant problem finding housing in Monroe County. It is especially difficult finding housing affordable to lower income residents. The shortage of housing has been caused by the lack of available developable land and restrictions on development, including those imposed by the Rate of Growth Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as "ROGO"). ROGO limits the number of new permanent residential units which may be constructed in the Florida Keys to 255 per year. Because of the restrictions on available new housing in Monroe County, prices for residential property have increased over the years. Currently, most 2 to 3 bedroom properties used as Short-Term Rental Properties are selling for $200,000.00 to $300,000.00. These properties do not come under the definition of "affordable housing" for lower income residents. "Affordable housing" is defined in terms of housing which can be afforded by very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. Homes that costs over $200,000.00 do not constitute "affordable housing" as defined in the County's Land Development Regulations. The market for homes selling for over $200,000.00 in Monroe County is not high. Therefore, to the extent that properties located in IS Districts that are currently used as Short-Term Rental Properties are placed on the market, there will not be a direct increase in housing for very-low income, low- income, or moderate-income persons. Many of the Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County are second homes that are used only part of the year by the owners and are used as Short-Term Rental Properties the rest of the year. Some Short-Term Rental Properties are properties that have been purchased for investment purposes and/or with the intent of using the properties as the owners' permanent residence upon retirement. As a result, these properties are not available for use by permanent residents. Regardless of their costs, with a limited number of new residential properties allowed under ROGO, the use of new properties as Short-Term Rental Properties necessarily reduces the overall availability of housing in Monroe County. The restriction caused in the overall housing market in Monroe County can reasonably be expected to also negatively impact the availability of affordable housing. Potential revenues to property owners from Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts are higher then the potential revenues from long-term rentals to permanent residents. Consequently, as more property owners in IS Districts are attracted to using their properties as Short-Term Rental Properties, there is a reduction in the amount of housing available for long-term rentals. Therefore, the use of properties in IS Districts as Short-Term Rental Properties decreases the supply of long-term rentals available for residents of Monroe County. By prohibiting the use of properties in IS Districts as Short-Term Rental Properties, the total properties in Monroe County available for housing, including for long-term rentals, for permanent residents, will increase. As supply increases demand for all housing, including an affordable housing to some small extent, will be better met. There is a demand for long-term rentals in Monroe County. Two to three bedroom homes located in IS Districts can easily be rented for $1,000.00 to $1,500.00 per month. Some segment of the permanent population of Monroe County could afford such rentals if they were available, freeing up less expensive housing. Additionally, some absentee owners are able to purchase more expensive property because of their ability to rent the property as Short-Term Rental Property and apply the rental income to meet a higher mortgage payment. As a result, the real estate market in Monroe County builds more expensive homes to meet the demand. To the extent that this market for higher priced homes is reduced by the Ordinance, the allocation of ROGO residential units may be used for less expensive housing. The overall impact on the increase in available housing for permanent residents of Monroe County as a result of prohibiting Short-Term Rental Properties in IS Districts will generally "trickle" down throughout the entire housing market and benefit the availability of affordable housing. Natural or Manmade Disaster and Post-Disaster Relief. Section 380.0552(7)(k), Florida Statutes, provides the following Principle: "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan." Hurricane evacuation in Monroe County is a difficult problem because of the low elevations in the Florida Keys and the lack of evacuation routes. Through most of the Florida Keys, there is only one evacuation road: U.S. Highway 1. The County has adopted, and put in place, hurricane evacuation plans for Monroe County. Estimated hurricane evacuation times for Monroe County determine the extent to which growth can be allowed in the future. The estimated hurricane evacuation time for Monroe County is determined by a ROGO hurricane evacuation model. The model takes into account seasonal residents, hotel/motel residents, transient rental occupants, and permanent residents. Petitioners presented evidence in an effort to show that the reduction in Short-Term Rental Properties will cause the calculation under the ROGO hurricane evacuation model to be inaccurate. The evidence failed to support such a finding. The evidence failed to prove how occupants of Short- Term Rental Properties are treated for purposes of the hurricane evacuation model. Testimony that they are included as seasonal occupants was not credible. Even if occupants of Short-Term Rental Properties are considered seasonal occupants for hurricane evacuation purposes, it does not necessarily mean that the Ordinance is inconsistent with Principle "k." It would only mean that the results of the hurricane evacuation model need to be revised. Rather than hampering hurricane evacuation efforts in Monroe County, the Ordinance should have a beneficial impact by giving the County more accurate information about the actual number of Short-Term Rental Properties in Monroe County. Consideration of the Principles as a Whole. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statues, specifically provides that the Principles are to be "construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions." The evidence in this case supports a conclusion that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles, except Principles "d" and "l." To the extent that there is any impact on the other Principles, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent. This finding, however, is not dispositive of this case. Ultimately, the question of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is dependent upon an evaluation of the consistency of the Ordinance with Principles "d" and "l." Clearly, the Ordinance will have a short-term negative impact on the economy of Monroe County. Just as clearly, the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of Monroe County. When the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, is taken into account, it is clear that this is not the type of land use decision the State is most concerned with. Because the Ordinance does essentially no harm to the natural environment and waters of the Florida Keys ACSC, the State's interest in the Florida Keys ACSC is protected. The issue is essentially a local one. Consequently, some deference should be afforded the County to make this difficult choice. Given the purpose of the Department's involvement in this matter, the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, the County's effort in considering the issues, and the evidence presented in this proceeding, it is concluded that the County's effort to protect the public safety, health, and welfare is sufficient to overcome any harm to the economy. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, considered as a whole.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a Final Order approving Monroe County Ordinance 004-1997 as consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly B. Plante, Esquire Kenneth J. Plante, Esquire Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Gray, Harris and Robinson, P.A. 225 South Adams, Suite 250 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey Bell, Esquire Herzfeld & Rubin 5310 North West 33rd Avenue, Suite 102 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Kathleen R. Fowler, Assistant General Counsel Sherry Spiers, Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Hugh J. Morgan, Esquire Karen K. Cabanas, Esquire Morgan & Brookes 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 James T. Hendrick Monroe County Attorney 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 James F. Murley, Secretary Department of Community Affairs Suite 100 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Stephanie Gehres Kruer, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs Suite 325-A 2555 Shummard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
