The Issue The issue is whether General Motors is inadequately represented in the relevant community or territory and whether Collection Chevrolet, Inc., (Collection) should be permitted to relocate as requested in its application.
Findings Of Fact Abraham timely filed with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles its July 6, 1987 letter of protest, which became the initial petition herein. On July 24, 1987, Collection and GM filed a Motion to Dismiss that initial petition. Abraham moved for leave to file an amended Petition. Collection and GM consented to the filing of an amended petition. By Order of August 25, 1987, the undersigned granted the filing of the proposed amendments, which had not been incorporated by Abraham into a fully new petition. Collection and GM addressed these amendments in a Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition, which addressed the new matters raised in the Abraham's amendatory paragraphs. This August 24, 1987 Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition also incorporated Collection's and GM's arguments from heir earlier Motion to Dismiss. Abraham filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 25, 1987 Order, together with Abraham's Amended Petition on September 2, 1987; upon which pleadings oral argument was heard by telephonic conference call. Thereafter, by September 18, 1987 Orders Abraham's Amended Petition filed September 2, 1987, was deemed to be Abraham's duly filed second Amended Petition; GM's and Collection's July 24, 1987 Motion to Dismiss and August 24, 1987 Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition were permitted to stand over against Abraham's September 2, 1987, second Amended Petition; GM and Collection were permitted to file amendments to their motions to dismiss directed specifically to the September 2, 1987 second Amended Petition, which amendments Collection and GM timely filed; and Abraham was permitted to file a response to Collection's and GM's final motions/amendments, which response was filed October 5, 1987. Although untimely by the terms of the September 18, 1987 Order, Abraham's response has also been considered. Collection has applied to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for a license to relocate Collection's GM dealership from its existing location at 9200 N.W. 27th Avenue between 91st and 95th Streets, to a new location on the south side of the Tamiami Trail between N.W. 139th and 143rd Avenues, in Miami, Dade County, Florida. The relocation would result in the distance between applicant Collection and protestant Abraham being more than doubled from 4.4 miles to 9.6 miles. Collection's application is not an initial applications and seeks only a change of physical address. Thus, it is not an application for a new license but an application for relocation. The map attached to the second Amended Petition as Exhibit A contains the legend, "Abraham AGGSA 11" and a line drawn on the map outlining an area of central Dade County, Florida. The western boundary is irregular but is between 87th Avenue and 67th Avenue, centering around the Palmetto Expressway, State Road 826, which is approximately at 78th Avenue. On the north, the boundary is irregular but centers around N.W. 30th Street. The southern and eastern boundaries are irrelevant. In its second Amended Petition, Abraham pleads the map's boundaries as its area of primary responsibility. In its October 5, 1987 Response to the motions to dismiss, Abraham admits there is no dispute of fact regarding the further distance relocation, the existing physical location of Collection, or the proposed physical location of Collection but perversely argues that, "In dispute as well is the area of primary responsibility contractually assigned to Abraham by GM. Abraham has serviced for a number of years, the proposed area into which Collection proposes to move, with the knowledge and consent of GM." GM does not admit that the area designated on the map attached as Exhibit A to Abraham's second Amended Petition has been contractually assigned by GM to Abraham as a primary area of responsibility or by any other designation as alleged by Abraham. However, assuming arguendo for purposes of these motions, that the area specifically pled by Abraham has been so designated, then Collection's proposed new location will be no closer to Abraham's alleged area of responsibility than is Collection's existing location. The existing Collection location north of 91st Street is approximately 61 blocks north of the northern boundary of Abraham's alleged area of responsibility, which is in the vicinity of 30th Street. The proposed relocation of Collection west of 139th Avenue is similarly approximately 61 blocks west of the western boundary of Abraham's alleged area of responsibility, which is in the vicinity of 78th Avenue.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that Abraham's second Amended Petition/protest be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Findings regarding the ITB and its Addendums On or before May 11, 1995, the Department of Transportation issued ITB- DOT-95/96-9002, seeking a contractor to provide Statewide Full Service Repair and Support Under the Classifications of PC Maintenance, LAN Server Maintenance, and Novell LAN Support including All Parts and Labor Required for Inspection, Repair/Replacement of Defective, Missing or Worn parts. The ITB contained, inter alia, the following requirements in sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 regarding technical qualifications: GENERAL Bidders should meet the following minimum qualifications: Have been actively engaged in the type of business being requested for a minimum of two years. Be a certified Novell OEM Dealer, maintaining a certified Novell Support Center, and have at least three (3) certified Novell Engineers. RESPONSIVENESS OF BIDS When submitting the bid, each bidder should submit a written statement (FORM "E"), detailing their qualifications which demonstrate they meet the minimum qualifications contained in Subparagraph 1.5.1.1. Bidders failure to provide the above item(s) will constitute a non-responsive deter- mination. Bids found to be non-responsive shall not be considered. The ITB also contained the following requirements regarding the qualifications of key personnel in section 1.5.3: QUALIFICATIONS OF KEY PERSONNEL Those individuals who will be directly involved in the project should have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. Individuals whose qualifications are presented will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Project Manager. Where State of Florida registration or certification is deemed appropriate, a copy of the registration or certificate should be included in the bid package. Form "E", referred to in the above-referenced portions of the ITB, provided, in pertinent part, the following: When submitting the bid, each vendor must furnish proof that he/she is capable of performing the work described in the attached specifications in a satisfactory manner. * * * The vendor shall provide the State with documented proof that the vendor is a certified Novel OEM dealer, maintains a certified Novell support center, and has at least 10 Certified Novell Engineers. On or about May 9, 1995, Bell Atlantic submitted certain questions to the Department, including the following: Bell Atlantic Business Systems intends to participate in the subject ITB. The following is a list of questions that need further clarification. * * * 2. FORM E: a. What form of documentation is the Department requiring as written proof that vendor is a certified Novell OEM dealer, Novell support center and has ten (10) Certified Novell Engineers? * * * c. Are the ten (10) required CNE's to be located in the state of Florida? In response to the questions raised by Bell Atlantic, the Department issued Addendum #1 to the ITB, which provided, in pertinent part, the following: FORM E Where it reads: The vendor shall provide the State with documented proof that the vendor is a certified Novel OEM dealer, maintains a certified Novell support center, and has at least 10 Certified Novell Engineers. Shall be changed to read as follows: The vendor shall provide the State with documented proof that the vendor is a certified Novell Authorized Service Center (NASC), maintains a certified Novell support center, and has at least 3 Certified Novell Engineers available in the State of Florida. At least one of the Certified Novell Engineer[s] must be available in the Tallahassee area. The terms "available in the State of Florida" and "available in the Tallahassee area" are not defined in the ITB or in the Addendums. Addendum 1 also affected the description of scope of services contained in Exhibit A to the ITB. This description is contained in Section 2.4.4.2, LAN Server Maintenance and Novell LAN Support. As initially issued, this section read: Novell certified personnel must respond within thirty minutes. If deemed necessary by the Department, vendor must dispatch adequately trained personnel to the site of reported problems within one hour of notification. The quoted section was changed by Addendum 1 to read as follows: Novell certified personnel must respond within thirty minutes by telephone. If deemed necessary by the Department, vendor must dispatch adequately trained personnel to the District Office sites (see Attachment A) of reported problem within one hour of notification. Vendor must dispatch adequately trained personnel to all remote locations not listed in Attachment A within four hours of notification. Attachment A, as referenced in this paragraph, identifies DOT district offices and other key offices at 14 locations in nine cities in Florida: Tallahassee, Lake City, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Bartow, Chipley, Deland, Tampa, and Boca Raton. Section 2.4.4.2 does not specify that the "adequately trained personnel" who must be dispatched by the vendor to district office sites within one hour of notification must be CNE's. "Adequately trained personnel" does not necessarily mean CNE's, and CNE's are not necessarily required to perform LAN maintenance. DOT has used non-CNE's to service its LAN's. Section 1.15.1 of the ITB provides that the Department intends to award the subject contract "to the responsible and responsive bidder who bids the lowest cost. " To be responsive, bidders had to complete Form E, as stated in Section 1.5.2 of the ITB. The ITB did not require the bidders to include in the bid the residence addresses of any of the three required CNE's. One of the Departments main reasons for requiring bidders to demonstrate that they had at least three CNE's available in the State of Florida was the Department's belief that a bidder who met that requirement would probably be qualified to perform the subject contract. Facts regarding Kennsco's bid Kennsco submitted the lowest bid of the seven vendors bidding: $163,600.00. Kennsco's bid included the following language in the transmittal letter submitted as part of its bid: Kennsco has read, understands and accepts the terms and conditions of the Department's ITB. Kennsco currently has 4 CNE's, 1 of which is in his final phase of becoming a ECNE. Kennsco is a authorized service center and is a authorized Novell Dealer. In response to the requirements of sections 1.5.1, 1.5.2, and Form E, Kennsco attached to is bid the CNE certificates of the following individuals: Steve Deal Allan Sellers C. Mark Robinson David R. Dremann, Jr. Kennsco did not include any information in its bid regarding where these four individuals lived or worked. Messrs. Deal, Sellers, and Dremann are residents of St. Louis, Missouri, and work out of Kennsco's offices there; Mr. Robinson is no longer employed by Kennsco, but at the time of the submission of Kennsco's response Mr. Robinson was a resident of Minnesota and worked out of Kennsco's offices in that state. On June 14, 1995, the Department posted its decision of intent to award the contract to Kennsco, and Bell Atlantic timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest. On June 26, 1995, Bell Atlantic timely filed its Formal Written Protest regarding the instant ITB alleging, inter alia, that the CNE's whose certificates were attached to Kennsco's bid were not available in Florida and not even one was available in Tallahassee as required by the ITB. Shortly after receipt of Bell Atlantic's Formal Written Protest, a conversation occurred between Mr. Oscar Arenas, of the Department, and Greg Blanc, representative of Kennsco. That conversation resulted in correspondence of June 26, 1995, which provided as follows: As per our telephone conversation on June 26, 1995, regarding the availability of Novell Certified Network Engineers (CNE). Kennsco Engineering Services, Inc. has a minimal of one CNE available to serve the Department of Transportation on-site in Tallahassee within one hour of notice, and has four CNE's that are available to work in any area of Florida. In addition to this Kennsco has two other engineers that will be certified within the next 60 to 90 days, and one of our current engineers is one test away from becoming a ECNE. The names and location of these CNE are as follows: Mr. Mark Hansel - Tallahassee Mr. John Strobel - Tallahassee Mr. Mike Deshazo - Tallahassee, also a Banyan Certified Engineer Mr. Orlando Cone - Orlando The names submitted by Kennsco in its conversation and correspondence of June 26, 1995, (Hansel, Strobel, Deshazo, and Cone) are different from those submitted with the bid documents (Deal, Sellers, Robinson and Dremann). Messrs. Hansel, Strobel, Deshazo and Cone do not work for Kennsco, but work for other companies. Kennsco proposes to arrange for their services through subcontract agreements. Kennsco has never submitted any certificates evidencing the qualifications of Messrs. Hansel, Strobel, Deshazo and Cone. Facts regarding Bell Atlantic's bid Bell Atlantic submitted the second-lowest bid, $301,180.00. Bell Atlantic's bid included the following language as part of its response to the requirements of Form E: Bell Atlantic understands and will comply with the above requirements [the requirements printed on Form E] throughout the contract period. As requested above, we have provided the proof of our capabilities of performing the work described in the ITB document in a satisfactory manner on the following pages. In further response to the requirements of Form E, Bell Atlantic also included the following language in its bid: Bell Atlantic has included herein documented proof that Bell Atlantic a certified Novell Authorized Service Center (NASC), maintains a certified Novell support center, (please reference Exhibit A, letter from Novell Corporation); and has at least 3 Certified Novell Engineers available in the State of Florida. At least one of the Certified Novell Engineers is available in the Tallahassee area, (please reference Exhibit B for the Novell Certificates/letter/Identi- fication Number of certified field engineers.) All Bell Atlantic personnel represented herein, have been actively engaged in the type of business being requested for a minimum of two years. These individuals, who will be directly involved in the project, have demonstrated experience in the areas delineated in the scope of work. These individuals whose qualifications are presented herein will be committed to the project for its duration unless otherwise excepted by the Department's Project Manager. Bell Atlantic also included with its bid four CNE certificates of CNE's available in Florida, at least one of which was also available in the Tallahassee area. Facts regarding other matters After opening the bids, the Department reviewed Kennsco's bid and concluded that it was responsive. Among the factors that influenced the Department's conclusion in this regard was the language in the Kennsco bid reading: "Kennsco has read, understands and accepts the terms and conditions of the Department's ITB." Kennsco's use of CNE's other than those identified in its bid would not affect the price the State would pay for Kennsco's services. The ITB did not prohibit the use of subcontractors, nor did it require that the CNE's who perform services under the contract be employees of the contractor. The CNE's who were to be available in Florida were the only personnel for whom the bidders were required to submit evidence of qualifications.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the bid submitted by the Intervenor Kennsco Engineering Services, Inc., was not responsive to the requirements of ITB-DOT-95/96-9002 and either awarding the subject contract to the lowest responsive bidder or rejecting all bids and readvertising for bids with improved bid specifications. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary summary of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 7 through 16: Accepted in whole or in substance, with some small modifications in the interest of clarity. Paragraph 17: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the dispositive issues in this case. Paragraph 18: Accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. While there was testimony to the effect proposed in this paragraph, that testimony was not persuasive, largely because it is illogical in view of the manner in which the word "available" is used in Addendum #1. Paragraph 7: Rejected as not completely accurate. The Department's witnesses testified to the effect that the Department interpreted the ITB as not requiring the CNE's to reside in Florida at the time the bids were submitted. That interpretation is inconsistent with the plain language of the ITB and Addendum #1. Paragraph 8: Accepted, but with additional facts to put this fact into proper context. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Rejected as either subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 11 through 19: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 20: Rejected as not completely accurate. While Bell Atlantic did not state the addresses of its CNE's, it did state that they were all available in Florida and that one was available in Tallahassee. Paragraphs 21 and 22: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 23 through 31: Accepted in whole or in substance. Paragraph 32: Rejected because it reflects a Department interpretation of the ITB and Addendum #1 that is contrary to the plain language of those documents. Proposed findings submitted by Intervenor: Paragraphs 1 through 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First sentence is accepted in substance. Second and third sentences rejected as argument about the meaning of language in the ITB and Addendum #1. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraphs 5 through 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 10: First three sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as constituting a "non-fact" based on the absence of evidence. (Absence of proof of inability is not evidence of ability.) Paragraph 11: Rejected as a combination of subordinate and unnecessary details and argument. Paragraph 12: First and second sentences rejected as contrary to the language of the ITB and its Addendums. Third and fourth sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details or as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 13: Rejected as argument about subordinate details, some of which argument is inconsistent with the language of the ITB and its Addendums. Paragraph 14: Accepted in part and rejected in part. Accepted that Kennsco's use of other CNE's would not affect the price to the State. However, exempting Kennsco from requirements of the ITB and its Addendums would give Kennsco an advantage over other bidders and would be adverse to the State's interest in maintaining the integrity of the bidding process. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory P. Borgognoni, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, Florida 33131 Thomas H. Duffy, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Attn: Diedre Grubbs, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact CENTRAL FLORIDA's complaint for Unfair Termination in the form of a letter dated July 9, 1986, was filed in triplicate with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor vehicles on July 10, 1986, and alleged as follows: CENTRAL FLORIDA MACK TRUCKS, INC. has two agreements with MACK TRUCK, INC. The first agreement is a Mack Distributor Agreement dated July 1, 1967. The second agreement is a Mack Mid-Liner distributor Agreement dated September 20, 1979. MACK TRUCKS' letter of April 10, 1986, indicates they are "terminating" my agreements. As alleged by Petitioner CENTRAL FLORIDA, Respondent has terminated two Distributor Agreements, the MACK Agreement dated July 1, 1967, and the Mid-Liner Agreement dated September 20, 1979. To the extent the letter/complaint addresses the Mack Distributor Agreement dated July 1, 1967, it should be dismissed upon authority of Yamaha Parts Distributors, Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1975). In Yamaha, the Florida Supreme Court was faced with the unfair termination statute here at issue, Section 320.641 Florida Statutes, and the issue of its applicability to dealer agreements entered into between manufacturers and dealers prior to the effective date of the statute, January 1, 1971. On the basis of Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution, regarding impairment of contracts, the Supreme Court held We hold that Section 320.641, Florida Statutes, applies prospectively to motor vehicles franchise contracts signed after its effective date. Yamaha Parts Distributors, Inc. v. Ehrman, 316 So.2d at 560. Yamaha is unambiguous. Therefore, as to the Mack Distributor Agreement, Section 320.641 does not apply. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, and through it the Division of Administrative Hearings and the undersigned hearing officer, have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the Complaint for Unfair Termination as it addresses the July 1, 1967 Mack Distributor Agreement. This determination was made in an Order entered in DOAH Case No. 86- 2622 on August 28, 1986. Since August 28, 1986, Petitioner has provided a more definite statement as to the Mack Mid-Liner Distributor Agreement which has been determined by the under signed Hearing Officer to be in compliance with her previous order. On October 3, 1986 Respondent moved for severance of the two distributor agreements, which severance was granted by an Corrected Order entered October 27, 1986. That order re-numbered the cause as pertains to the July 1, 1967 Mack Distributor Agreement as DOAH Case No. 86-4136 and retained DOAH Case No. 86-2622 for the cause as it pertains to the Mack Mid-Liner Distributor Agreement. Within its motion, Respondent represented that a recommended order (presumably leading to a final order) be entered at this time. Respondent has shown good cause for granting the relief prayed for. Without such relief, the Mack Distributor agreement hangs in limbo until such time as a recommended order is entered incorporating the August 28, 1986 ruling on the Mack Distributor Agreement and resolving all disputed issues of material fact concerning the Mack Mid-Liner Distributor Agreement is entered (presumably at least 30 days after conclusion of the final formal evidentiary hearing now scheduled to conclude January 6, 1987). Continuation of this situation pending the formal evidentiary hearing on the Mack Mid-Liner Distributor Agreement, typing of transcripts, submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, entry of a recommended order, filing of exceptions, and entry of the agency's final order prejudices Respondent Mack in that Mack is unable to appoint a new distributor in Central Florida.
Recommendation That the Secretary of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order dismissing this cause only as the July 1, 1967 Mack Distributor Agreement. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of October, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald E. Cabaniss, Esquire 11 East Pine Street Post Office Box 1873 Orlando, Florida 32302 Dean Bunch, Esquire 305 South Gadsden Street Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Jeffrey Arnold, Esquire 857 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 2967 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Respondent was the employer of Petitioner and whether Petitioner was terminated from her employment with Respondent because of her race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. In September 1996, Petitioner began her employment with Herndon Oil as a convenience store cashier. Workforce 2000, also known as the Bowles Group, Inc., is a professional employer organization that provides administrative services to business owners including payroll processing, filing and paying taxes, group benefits administration, and assistance with regulatory compliance. Herndon Oil utilized Workforce 2000 to provide these administrative services. At no time did the Bowles Group make any employment decisions on behalf of Herndon Oil. Likewise, at no time did the Bowles Group employ Petitioner. In fact, Herndon Oil made all decisions with regard to Petitioner's employment and was the actual employer of Petitioner. Herndon Oil operates 68 convenience store locations and 12 fast food locations. Pate Weems has been the President of Herndon Oil for the past six years. Bruce Graham was the District Supervisor responsible for operation of several Herndon Oil convenience store locations in the Pensacola, Florida, area. In September 1996, Petitioner was hired to work as a part-time cashier at the Herndon Oil convenience store location on Pensacola Boulevard in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner was hired by location manager, John Malette. In 1996, during the first week of her employment, Petitioner overheard an employee from another location make a derogatory racial comment. The employee who made the comment had no authority over her. Petitioner did not complain about the employee's comment and admitted the comment had nothing to do with her claims in this case. In January 1998, Petitioner was promoted to the position of assistant manager. Petitioner's promotion to the position of assistant manager was approved by Pate Weems. In March 1999, a location manager position became available at Herndon Oil's Pensacola Boulevard location. Petitioner never requested a promotion to the position of location manager. However, it was known by the district supervisor that Petitioner was interested in the position. In any event, Petitioner and Belinda K. Ortiz, a white employee, were considered for the position of location manager in March 1999. Ms. Ortiz was chosen for the promotion to location manager at the Pensacola Boulevard store. Ms. Ortiz was chosen because she had prior experience as a manager and had good skills to get along with employees, customers, and vendors. Such communication and interaction skills are a legitimate and reasonable basis on which to make an employment decision. The evidence did not show that Ms. Ortiz was less qualified than Petitioner for the position of location manager. Bruce Graham made the decision to promote Ms. Ortiz. Pate Weems relied on Mr. Graham's judgment with regard to that decision and approved the Ortiz promotion. Petitioner admitted that Bruce Graham did not discriminate against her based on her race. Petitioner did not receive the promotion in March 1999 because she needed to improve her communication skills and interaction with employees, customers, and vendors. At the time, Herndon Oil wanted Petitioner, who has a very serious and reserved demeanor, to project a friendlier demeanor towards customers and vendors, in particular. Petitioner was told by the district supervisor that if she improved her communication skills and interaction, she would be promoted to a location manager position when the next position became available. Petitioner transferred to the Herndon Oil convenience store located at Mobile Highway in Pensacola, Florida, in March 1999. In June 1999, Petitioner was promoted to the position of location manager at the Mobile Highway convenience store. With input from the district supervisor, Pate Weems approved the decision to promote Petitioner to the location manager position. As a location manager, Petitioner was required to control inventory at her convenience store location. It is the manager's ultimate responsibility to track such inventory. To accomplish inventory control, Herndon Oil requires amounts received to roughly balance with amounts on-hand and amounts sold. To track the inventory, daily counts of cigarettes and weekly counts of beer and fast food should be done by the location manager. Inventory shortages in general groceries are not as controllable by inventory counts. Daily and weekly inventory counts are required to be done by the location manager for any shortage or overage of $200.00 or more in an inventory category. These counts are essential to the location managers' tracking and correcting inventory control problems. Excessive inventory shortages in cigarettes, beer, and fast food indicates that the location manager is not doing the required inventory counts. Sometime after her promotion, Petitioner went on maternity leave. Petitioner returned from maternity leave in December 1999 and continued as location manager at the Mobile Highway location. In January 2000, Petitioner's location was $1,631.00 short in inventory. Bruce Graham spoke with Petitioner regarding this shortage and asked her to do her daily and weekly counts as required. Petitioner did not do her daily and weekly inventory counts as requested. In February 2000, Petitioner's location was $1,758.00 short in inventory. Bruce Graham told the Petitioner once again to do her daily and weekly inventory counts and that future inventory shortages could result in termination of her employment. Petitioner admitted she did not do her daily and weekly counts as requested in February 2000. In March 2000, Petitioner's location was $760.00 over in inventory. Petitioner admitted she did not do her daily and weekly inventory counts in March 2000. The inventory overage at Petitioner's location in March 2000 indicated manipulation of the inventory figures. Manipulation of inventory figures could include withholding invoices to create the appearance of a more favorable inventory and often occurs at the end of the quarter when bonus calculations for the location managers are completed. March 2000 was the end of the quarter for purposes of calculating location manager bonuses. Petitioner denies that she ever withheld any invoices in order to manipulate inventory. However, Genoa Brown, a cashier who worked in Petitioner's location, testified that Petitioner withheld two beer invoices during an inventory audit at her location. Ms. Brown did not testify when the invoices were withheld. Ms. Brown's testimony is more credible on this point. In April 2000, Petitioner's location was $4,984.00 short in inventory. Bruce Graham allowed Petitioner one week to go through her invoices and recalculate the inventory to determine whether a mistake had been made. Petitioner found minor errors in the inventory results for April 2000. However, even with correction of the minor errors, the April shortage still exceeded $4,900.00. As a result of Petitioner's failure to control inventory at her location and perform her weekly and daily inventory counts, her employment was terminated on April 14, 2000. With input from Bruce Graham, Pate Weems made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. Petitioner believes Pate Weems discriminated against her based on her race because other Caucasian employees were not terminated for inventory shortages. Petitioner claims that Frances Rush, Ronnie Winslow and Elsie Miller are the Caucasian employees who had similar or greater inventory shortages and were not terminated. Petitioner testified she had no documentary evidence that any of the subjects for comparison had inventory shortages similar to hers. Petitioner admitted she has no personal knowledge of the specific amounts of the inventory shortages of Ronnie Winslow or Elsie Miller. Petitioner's witness, John Mallette, admitted he had no personal knowledge of the specific amounts of the inventory shortages of any of the alleged subjects of comparison. He believed the shortages were large and, in some instances, as large or larger than Petitioner's shortages. Such belief is insufficient evidence on which to base a finding of similarity or lack of similarity. Frances Rush was a location manager at the Pensacola Boulevard location from June 1999 until November 2000. Bruce Graham was Ms. Rush's immediate supervisor. Ms. Rush was terminated in November 2000 because of inventory shortages in groceries at her store location. Ms. Rush's inventory shortages were less egregious than Petitioner's because her shortages were in groceries and grocery shortages are not as controllable by inventory count. Additionally, Ms. Rush did her daily and weekly counts as required. Moreover, Ms. Rush never had an inventory shortage as high as the inventory shortage that resulted in Petitioner's termination. Ronnie Winslow was a location manager who was going to be terminated for failure to control inventory. There was no evidence showing Mr. Winslow's inventory control problems were similar to Petitioner's. Mr. Winslow requested and was permitted to remain with the company as a part-time cashier. Petitioner never requested to remain with the company in a lesser position at the time of her termination. Had Petitioner so requested, Pate Weems would have allowed Petitioner to remain with the company in a lesser position. Elsie Miller was a location manager who voluntarily resigned in 1997. An Employee Behavioral Notice issued to Ms. Miller, and the only substantive evidence introduced on this point, provides that her inventory shortages, for which she was disciplined, ranged between approximately $350.00 to $1,500.00 Ms. Miller never had inventory shortages in the range of the shortages that resulted in Petitioner's termination. Petitioner admitted she has no personal knowledge of the amounts of Ms. Miller's inventory shortages. In July 1997, Ms. Miller was going to be terminated for failure to control inventory. At Ms. Miller's request, she was permitted to resign instead. Petitioner never asked to resign instead of being terminated. Had she so requested, Pate Weems would have permitted Petitioner to resign instead of being terminated. None of the above subjects of comparison cited by Petitioner were comparable to Petitioner's situation. All either were or were going to be terminated for inventory shortages. In fact, eight out of nine Herndon Oil managers terminated in the past two years as a result of inventory shortages were Caucasian. There was no substantive evidence that Petitioner was terminated because of her race. The clear evidence showed that Petitioner's termination resulted from her failure to control inventory and do her inventory counts. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Katrina Shannon 2805 East Strong Street Pensacola, Florida 32503 Deborah E. Frimmel, Esquire Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler and Krupman Post Office Box 3389 Orlando, Florida 32802-3389
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent's proposed rules 16N- 16.009(3), 16.028, 16.032, 16.033, and 16.034, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Stuart Yacht Club & Marina, Inc., is a 100-slip full service marina located in Stuart, Florida, which offers for sale to the public, local and transient, fuel for their vessels. Petitioner's fueling facilities include a 10,000 gallon capacity diesel fuel tank and a 10,000 gallon capacity gasoline fuel tank, as well as three dispensers of each on its fuel dock. Although rated at 10,000 gallons, petitioner normally only stores a maximum of 6,500 gallons of diesel fuel in such tank, and pumps on average 20,000 gallons of fuel a month. 1/ The vessels that frequent petitioner's marina are primarily pleasure vessels with a fuel capacity under 10,000 gallons; however, the facility will accommodate, and has accommodated, large vessels with a fuel capacity of 10,000 gallons, but has never sold fuel to such vessels. In its four years of operation, its maximum fuel sale was 1,200 gallons to a 70-foot vessel. Petitioner's fuel storage tanks are registered with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), as required by law, and its marine fueling facility meets DER standards. Such facility is routinely inspected by DER for compliance, and it carries the necessary insurance to provide evidence of financial responsibility to clean up fuel spills. On March 6, 1992, the Department of Natural Resources (Department) published notice, inter alia, of proposed rules 16N-16.009(3), 16.028, 16.032, 16.033 and 16.034, in volume 18, number 10, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Essentially, such proposed rules would require a terminal facility, such as petitioner, to obtain a spill prevention and response certificate from the Department, prepare a spill prevention plan, and have available certain equipment which the Department found necessary to clean up a 10,000 gallon fuel spill. By petition filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 26, 1992, petitioner timely challenged the validity of such proposed rules as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The gravamen of petitioner's challenge was its contention that proposed rule 16N-16.028 was vague, that proposed rules 16N-16.009(3), 16.032, 16.033 and 16.034 enlarged, modified or contravened the specific provisions of law implemented, and that the Department materially failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures by failing to adequately address the economic impact of the proposed rules and their effect on small businesses. Proposed Rule 16N-16.009(3) Proposed rule 16N-16.009(3) defines the term "waterfront or offshore facility" for purposes of such rule chapter as follows: (3) "Waterfront or offshore facility" means any structure, group of structures, motor vehicle, rolling stock, pipeline, equipment, or device (other than a vessel) which is used for one or more of the following purposes: exploring for, drilling for, producing, storing, handling, transferring, or processing pollutants, provided such pollutants are transported either over, under, or across any water, estuaries, tidal flats, beaches, or waterfront lands adjoining the seacoast of the state seaward of the department's jurisdictional boundary line as set forth in 16N- 16.028. . . . (Emphasis added) Here, petitioner contends that such definition is at variance from the statutory definition of "terminal facility," and therefore improper. Such contention has merit. Section 376.031(17), Florida Statutes, defines a "terminal facility" as follows: (17) "Terminal facility" means any waterfront or offshore facility of any kind, other than vessels not owned or operated by such facility, and directly associated waterfront or offshore appurtenances including pipelines located on land, including submerged lands, or on or under the surface of any kind of water, which facility and related appurtenances are used or capable of being used for the purpose of drilling for, pumping, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or refining pollutants, including, but not limited to, any such facility and related appurtenances owned or operated by a public utility or a governmental or quasi-governmental body. A vessel shall be considered a terminal facility only in the event of a ship-to-ship transfer of pollutants, and only that vessel going to or coming from the place of transfer and the terminal facility. For the purposes of ss. 376.011-376.21, the term "terminal facility" shall not be construed to include waterfront facilities owned and operated by governmental entities acting as agents of public convenience for operators engaged in the drilling for or pumping, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or refining of pollutants; however, each operator engaged in the drilling for or pumping, storing, handling, transferring, processing, or refining of pollutants through a waterfront facility owned and operated by such a governmental entity shall be construed as a terminal facility. (Emphasis added) Contrary to the statutory definition, the proposed rule omits from its definition of "waterfront or offshore facilities" those facilities used for "pumping" or "refining" pollutants, expands the definition by adding facilities used in "exploring for" pollutants, and exempts from its definition all vessels. Under such circumstances, the proposed rule enlarges, modifies and contravenes the provisions of section 376.031(17), the statute sought to be implemented. Proposed Rule 16N-16.028 Rule 16N-16.002, Florida Administrative Code, consistent with the provisions of Section 376.051(6), Florida Statutes, delineates the responsibility of the Department and DER to respond to pollutant spills as follows: The Department shall be the Lead State Agency in responding to all discharges of pollutants as defined in Rule 16N-16.009(2) which occur in coastal waters of the State seaward of the jurisdictional line delineated in Rule 16N-16.028. The Department of Environmental Regulation shall be the Lead State Agency in responding to all discharges of pollutants not specified in Rule 16N- 16.002(1). (Emphasis added) Proposed Rule 16N-16.028, at issue in this proceeding, purports to delineate the Department's jurisdiction set forth in the foregoing rule provision. Such proposed rule is, however, so vague as to preclude a cartographer or land surveyor from graphically depicting its line, as well as so vague as to preclude those persons subject to the provisions of Sections 276.011 - 376.21, Florida Statutes, and the Department's rules from reliably ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Department. Notably, proposed rule 16N- 16.022, which has not been challenged, provides that: . . . the "person-in-charge" of any terminal facility that suffers a pollutant discharge which enters or threatens to enter waters of the state within the jurisdiction of the department shall, within one hour of discovery of the discharge, notify the Florida Marine Patrol or the United States Coast Guard at the National Response Center. (Emphasis added) The provisions of that rule implement Section 376.12, Florida Statutes, which, at subsection 11, provides that failure to give immediate notice of such discharge to the Department or the Coast Guard constitutes a felony of the third degree. Proposed Rules 16N-16.032 and 16N-16.034 The specific authority for rulemaking identified in the published notice of proposed rules 16N-16.032 and 16N-16.034 is Section 376.07, Florida Statutes. That section provides: The department shall from time to time adopt, amend, repeal, and enforce reasonable rules insofar as they relate to discharge of pollutants into the waters of this state or onto the coasts of this state. * * * The department shall adopt rules including, but not limited to, the following matters: Operation and inspection requirements for spill prevention, abatement, and cleanup capabilities of terminal facilities, vessels, and other matters relating to certification under ss. 376.011 - 376.21. . . . * * * Procedures, methods, means, and equipment to be used by persons subject to regulation by ss. 376.011 - 376.21 in the removal of pollutants. Development and implementation of criteria and plans to meet pollution occurrences of various degrees and kinds. Pertinent to this case, the Department identified the specific statutes implemented by such proposed rules as section 376.07, discussed supra, and section 376.065. The later section provides as follows: Operation of terminal facility without spill prevention and response certificate prohibited; penalty. -- Every owner or operator of a terminal facility shall obtain a spill prevention and response certificate issued by the department. No certificate shall be valid for more than 1 year unless renewed by the department, and certificates shall expire on December 31 annually, subject to such terms and conditions as the department may determine are necessary to carry out the purposes of ss. 376.011- 376.21. Each applicant for a spill prevention and response certificate shall submit information, in a form satisfactory to the department, describing the following: The barrel or other measurement capacity of the terminal facility and the length of the largest vessel docking at or providing service from the terminal facility. All prevention, containment, and removal equipment, including, but not limited to, vehicles, vessels, pumps, skimmers, booms, chemicals, and communication devices to which the facility has access, whether through direct ownership or by contract or membership in an approved discharge cleanup organization. The terms of agreement and the operation plan of any discharge cleanup organization to which the owner or operator of the terminal facility belongs. No person shall operate or cause to be operated a terminal facility without access to minimum containment equipment measuring five times the length of the largest vessel docking at or the largest vessel providing service from the terminal facility, whichever is larger. The containment equipment shall be available to begin deployment on the water within 1 hour after discovery of a spill. Within a reasonable time period, additional cleanup equipment shall be available, either through direct ownership or by contract or membership in an approved cleanup organization, to reasonably clean up 10,000 gallons of pollutants, unless the terminal facility does not store or service vessels having the capacity to carry that quantity as fuel or cargo. Cleanup or containment equipment purchased with state funds shall not count as required equipment under this subsection. The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to terminal facilities which store only motor fuel or service only motor fuel to vessels. The requirements of this subsection shall not apply until January 1, 1992, to land-based terminal facilities with a storage capacity less than 30,000 gallons which store special fuel or service special fuel to vessels. For purposes of this subsection, "motor fuel" means gasoline, gasohol, and other mixtures of gasoline. For purposes of this subsection, "special fuel" means diesel fuel, alcohol, kerosene, or any light fuel, or combination thereof, other than motor fuel . . . Upon a showing of satisfactory containment and cleanup capability required by the department under this section, the applicant shall be issued a spill prevention and response certificate covering the terminal facility and related appurtenances, including vessels as defined in s. 376.031. Proposed Rule 16N-16.032 provides as follows: Terminal Facility Spill Prevention and Response Certificates; Inspections. An owner or operator of a terminal facility shall provide to the department, the information required pursuant to section 376.065, F.S., for the issuance of a spill prevention and response certificate. The department shall inspect each terminal facility requiring a spill prevention and response certificate for the following purposes: Verify the information required to be provided by the applicant under section 376.065(2), F.S. Inspect and verify access to the containment and cleanup equipment under section 376.065(3), F.S. Review and verify the contents of the terminal facility site specific spill contingency plan to ensure it contains the minimum information required pursuant to 16N-16.033. For purposes of preparing a terminal facility spill contingency plan, a reasonable time for having additional cleanup equipment at the location of the discharge shall be presumed to be four hours after initial discovery of the discharge. And, proposed rule 16N-16.034, delineates the specific additional equipment the Department has determined necessary to reasonably clean up a 10,000 gallon pollutant discharge, as required by section 376.065(3). Such rules are facially consistent with the Department's grant of rulemaking authority and the specific provisions of law implemented, and petitioner has presented no persuasive proof to otherwise question such consistency. Moreover, such rules are not vague, and petitioner has not questioned or demonstrated that the specific additional equipment delineated by the Department as necessary to clean up a 10,000 gallon pollutant discharge is not reasonable. 2/ Proposed Rule 16N-16.033 Proposed rule 16N-16.033 requires an owner or operator of a terminal facility to have a spill contingency plan which, inter alia, details "the methods, means and equipment to be used in the removal of such pollutants in the event of a discharge which enters or threatens to enter waters of the state." Pertinent to this case, the proposed rule, consistent with section 376.065(3), creates a distinction between the contingency plan for terminal facilities with a pollutant storage capacity of less than 10,000 gallons and those with a storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or greater. With regard to the terminal facilities with a storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or greater, their contingency plan must "list all spill containment or cleanup equipment at the terminal facility," provide for "a secondary cleanup response using additional cleanup equipment after initial deployment of containment boom," and detail "the procedure and responsibility for obtaining and transporting the additional cleanup equipment required by 16N-16.034, if the equipment is not stored on site." For terminal facilities with a storage capacity of less than 10,000 gallons, they are not required to provide for the secondary cleanup response or address the availability of the additional cleanup equipment required by proposed rule 16N-16.034. Here, petitioner contends that the secondary cleanup response provisions of the proposed rule conflict with the provisions of Section 376.065(3), Florida Statutes, because they require terminal facilities with a storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or greater, as opposed to terminal facilities servicing vessels with a storage capacity of 10,000 gallons or greater, to comply with the secondary response capacity contemplated by section 376.065(3). Respondent disagrees with petitioner's contention. The gravamen of the dispute between the parties concerning the propriety of the proposed rule is a disagreement as to the interpretation to be accorded the provisions of section 376.065(3) which require a terminal facility to have "additional cleanup equipment" under the following circumstances: . . . Within a reasonable time period, additional cleanup equipment shall be available . . . to reasonably clean up 10,000 gallons of pollutants, unless the terminal facility does not store or service vessels having the capacity to carry that quantity as fuel or cargo. (Emphasis added) Petitioner contends that the foregoing provision refers only to vessel capacity, and would read the exemption to apply where "the terminal facility does not store [vessels] or service vessels having the capacity to carry that quantity [10,000 gallons of pollutants] as fuel or cargo," irrespective of the capacity of the facility. So read, proposed rule 16N-16.033 conflicts with the exemption provided by section 376.065(3). Contrasted with petitioner's contention, the Department interprets such provision to refer to both facility capacity and vessel capacity, and would consider the exemption applicable only if "the terminal facility does not store . . . that quantity as fuel or cargo" and "the terminal facility does not . . . service vessels having the capacity to carry that quantity as fuel or cargo." So interpreted, the proposed rule is consistent with the exception. While petitioner's interpretation may be a permissible interpretation of section 376.065(3), so is the Department's. Moreover, the Department's interpretation is consistent with the definition of "terminal facility," which includes a vessel in the case of a ship-to-ship transfer of pollutants [Section 376.031(17)]; the further provision of section 376.065(3) which delayed application of the "additional cleanup equipment" requirement until January 1, 1992, for "land-based terminal facilities with a storage capacity less than 30,000 gallons which store special fuel or service special fuel to vessels;" the Legislature's recognition that "spills, discharges, and escapes of pollutants occurring as a result of procedures involved in the transfer, storage and transportation of such products pose threats . . . to the environment" [Section 376.021(3)(a)]; and; the Legislature's delegation of authority to the Department to regulate those matters set forth in section 376.07, discussed supra. Under such circumstances, proposed rule 16N-16.033 is not inconsistent with the provisions of section 376.065(3). The economic impact statement Pursuant to the mandate of Section 120.54(2), Florida Statutes, the Department prepared an economic impact statement for the proposed revisions to Chapter 16N-16, Florida Administrative Code. Such economic impact statement provided, in toto, as follows: ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT: The estimated cost to the agency to implement the proposed rules is as follows: Public Meetings Printing $100 Travel 10 people-trips @ $400 $4000 Postage and mailings $250 Public Hearing Printing $500 Travel 3 people-trips @ $400 $1200 Postage and mailings $500 Agency Cost $6550 The estimated first year cost to all affected parties is as follows: Contingency plan preparation 900 @ $250 $2,250,000 Increased fee for terminal facilities 200 @ $250 $50,000 Ensuring equipment availability 900 @ $1500 $1,350,000 (contract, co-op, or purchase) Affected Party Cost $3,650,000 It is not anticipated that these proposed rules will have any impact on small businesses as defined by the Small Business Act of 1985. In estimating the economic impact to affected persons, the Department made three assumptions. First, that it only needed to account for the economic impact of the proposed rules, as opposed to the economic impact of complying with the statutory requirements. Second, that a terminal faced with complying with the rules would choose the most economical means available. Pertinent to this assumption, the statute allows compliance with the "additional cleanup equipment" requirement through direct ownership or by contract or membership in an approved cleanup organization. Third, that a small business would be a facility that had a storage capacity of less than 10,000 gallons of pollutants. The Department's assumption that a small business would be a facility that had a storage capacity of less than 10,000 gallons of pollutants has no rational basis in fact. A small business, as defined by Section 288.703(1), Florida Statutes, is "an independently owned and operated business concern that employs 50 or fewer permanent full-time employees and that has a net worth of not more than $1 million." Here, petitioner was shown to be such an entity notwithstanding a storage capacity of 10,000 gallons of pollutants. Moreover, merely because a facility has a storage capacity of less than 10,000 gallons of pollutants does not, under the Department's interpretation of section 376.065(3), mean it will not be affected if it services vessels with the capacity to carry 10,000 gallons of pollutants as fuel or cargo. In sum, capacity bears no reasonable relationship to whether a terminal is or is not a small business, nor does capacity alone bear any reasonable relationship to whether such business will be financially affected by the matters implemented by the rules. Regarding the economic impacts the Department did assess, which may also affect small businesses, the Department estimated an average cost of $2,500 for contingency plan preparation, $250 as an increased fee for some terminal facilities, and $1,500 to assure the availability of the "additional cleanup equipment." The cost estimate for contingency plan preparation, the propriety of the rule requirements concerning the content of such plans, and the increased fee for some terminal facilities, was not seriously disputed or shown to be unreasonable. The propriety of the Department's estimate of $1,500 to assure the availability of the "additional cleanup equipment" was, however, a subject of dispute. The Department based its estimate of $1,500 to assure the availability of the "additional cleanup equipment" on its assumption that a terminal facility faced with complying with such requirement would choose the most economical means available. As heretofore noted, section 376.065(3) allows a facility to comply with such requirement through direct ownership or by contract or membership in an approved cleanup organization. The estimate derived here was based on the Department's conclusion that the most economical means available would be through contract, and such conclusion, as well as the cost estimate, was not shown to be unreasonable. 3/ In reaching the foregoing conclusion, petitioner's contention that approved cleanup organizations are not yet available to offer contractual services to all terminal facilities in the state and, therefore, some terminal facilities may be required to unite with others to form their own cleanup organization, with the attendant cost of purchasing the equipment, or purchase such equipment themselves, has not been overlooked. However, the requirement that such equipment be available, as well as the methods available for compliance, is a product of legislative mandate, not Department rule. Moreover, the options available in a particular geographic area of the state, or the option selected by a facility, are not matters within the Department's control or shown to be quantifiable. Here, the only direct expense associated with the proposed rule, as opposed to the implementing legislation, occurs as a result of the actual designation of what specific equipment is required to meet the statutory requirement for additional equipment to clean up a 10,000 gallon pollutant discharge. The need for, or propriety of, the equipment designated by the Department was not, however, challenged or otherwise shown to be unreasonable. 4/ Considering the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Department's economic assessment, based on its assumption that facilities would select the least expensive option, was unreasonable. Moreover, absent any demonstration that the Department's rule relating to the specific equipment that must be available to clean up a 10,000 gallon pollutant discharge was unreasonable, it cannot be concluded that the Department's failure to specifically comply with the rule promulgation procedural requirements relating to small businesses adversely affected the correctness or fairness of the rule adoption process where, as here, the requirement that such "additional cleanup equipment" be available was mandated by the Legislature.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing on the Department's Motion, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: In October of 1995, Petitioners, who desired to construct a single-family, concrete dock in the Hillsboro Canal (in Broward County, Florida) for their 171-foot yacht and to perform dredging adjacent to the dock (Project), filed with the Department a Joint Application for Environmental Resource Permit/Authorization to Use State Owned Submerged Lands/Federal Dredge and Fill Permit (Application). In the Application, Petitioners indicated that their mailing address was: c/o Flynn Enterprises 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60611 Flynn Enterprises, Inc., is a business owned by Petitioner Donald Flynn. The Application listed "Jeff Adair, Project Manager" of "Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 N. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309," as the "agent authorized to secure permit" for Petitioners. The application form that Petitioners used to submit their Application contained the following signature page: By signing this application form, I am applying, or I am applying on behalf of the applicant, for the permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above, according to the supporting data and other incidental information filed with this application. I am familiar with the information contained in this application and represent that such information is true, complete and accurate. I understand this is an application and not a permit, and that work prior to approval is a violation. I understand that this application and any permit issued or proprietary authorization issued pursuant thereto, does not relieve me of any obligation for obtaining any other required federal, state, water management district or local permit prior to commencement of construction. I agree, or I agree on behalf of my corporation, to operate and maintain the permitted system unless the permitting agency authorizes transfer of the permit to a responsible operation entity. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430, F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below) Signature of Applicant/Agent Date (Corporate Title if applicable) AN AGENT MAY SIGN ABOVE ONLY IF THE APPLICANT COMPLETES THE FOLLOWING: I hereby designate and authorize the agent listed above to act on my behalf, or on behalf of my corporation, as the agent in the processing of this application for the permit and/or proprietary authorization indicated above; and to furnish, on request, supple- mental information in support of the appli- cation. In addition, I authorize the above- listed agent to bind me, or my corporation, to perform any requirement which may be necessary to procure the permit or authorization indicated above. I understand that knowingly making any false statement or representation in this application is a violation of Section 373.430. F.S. and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001. Typed/Printed Name of Applicant Signature of Applicant Date (Corporate Title if applicable) Please note: The applicant's original signature (not a copy) is required above. PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: I either own the property described in this application or I have legal authority to allow access to the property, and I consent, after receiving prior notification, to any site visit on the property by agents or personnel from the Department of Environ- mental Protection, the Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers necessary for the review and inspection of the proposed project specified in this application. I authorize these agents or personnel to enter the property as many times as may be necessary to make such review and inspection. Further , I agree to provide entry to the project site for such agents or personnel to monitor permitted work if a permit is granted. Typed/Printed Name Signature Date (Corporate Title if applicable) The name "Jeff Adair" appears on the "Name of Applicant (if no Agent is used) or Agent (if one is so authorized below)" line under the first paragraph on the signature page of Petitioners' Application; however, neither Adair's signature, nor any other signature, appears on the signature line under this paragraph. Petitioner Donald Flynn's signature appears on the signature lines under the second (agent designation and authorization) and third (access to property) paragraphs on the page. By letter dated November 17, 1995, the Department informed Petitioners of the following: Preliminary evaluation of your project leads staff to the conclusion that the project as proposed cannot be recommended for approval. While this is not final agency action or notice of intent, it does represent the staff review of your application based on consider- able experience in permitting matters. We are sending you this letter at this stage of the processing to allow you to assess fully the further commitment of financial resources for design dependent on permit issuance. . . . In summary, please revise plans to: (1) reduce the amount of dredging; (2) reduce impacts to natural resources; (3) reduce the size of the dock; (4) reduce encroachment on navigational channel; (5) reduce encroachment on adjacent properties; and (6) after minimization, offer mitigation plans that would address the loss of seagrass in the vicinity (watershed or basin) of the project site. Your application is currently "incomplete" and Final Agency Action will not occur until a reasonable amount of time is allowed for the submittal of a revised plan. A completeness summary has been sent under separate cover, addressing the items that are still outstanding. Staff will continue to process your application in the normal manner; however, I suggest you contact Tim Rach of this office . . . to discuss these possible alternatives regarding your project. The Department's November 17, 1995, letter was addressed to Petitioners "c/o Jeff Adair, Project Manager, Keith and Schnars, P.A., 6500 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-2132," as were subsequent requests for additional information made by the Department and other correspondence from the Department concerning the Project. Adair responded to the Department's requests for additional information and otherwise corresponded and communicated with the Department on behalf of Petitioners. In July of 1996, Adair participated in a telephone conference call during which the Department advised him that, if the Application was not withdrawn, it would be denied. On August 13, 1996, Adair sent the following letter to the Department concerning the Project: Pursuant to our recent discussions pertaining to the proposed mitigation plan and final review and processing of the Flynn Dock application, we have been advised via Mr. Flynn's attorney not to withdraw the application. Therefore, we await the Department's final decision relative to the permittability of this project. As you have indicated, we are anticipating the Depart- ment's response toward the end of this month. In making your decision, we strongly urge you to consider the merits or our innovative and "no risk" mitigation plan. We believe our mitigation plan more than compensates for proposed impacts and provides substantial net benefits to the environment and the research community. In particular, information obtained from our proposed research effort would not only benefit our project, but would also facilitate scientific analysis and review of similar applications and issues. As always, please do not hesitate to call should you have any questions or concerns. On August 19, 1996, the Department sent the following letter to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611," the address that Petitioners had indicated in the Application was their mailing address: We have reviewed the information received on May 31, 1996 for an Environmental Resource Permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The Department has deemed the application complete as of this date. Final action on your application for an Environmental Resource Permit and sovereign[] submerged lands authorization will be taken within 90 days of receipt of your last item of information unless you choose to waive this timeclock. If you have any questions, please contact me at . . . . A copy of this August 19, 1996, letter was sent by the Department to Adair. On August 27, 1996, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial (Notice) in which it announced its preliminary decision to deny Petitioners' Application. The Notice contained the following advisement: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the Department's action may petition for an administrative proceeding (Hearing) in accordance with Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Petitions filed by the permittee and the parties listed below must be filed within 14 days of receipt of this letter. Third party Petitioners shall mail a copy of the petition to the permittee at the address indicated above at the time of filing. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such person may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Section 120.57, F.S. The Petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Office of General Counsel of the Department at 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000: The name, address, and telephone number of each petitioner, the permittee's name and address, the Department Permit File Number and county in which the project is proposed; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Depart- ment's action or proposed action; A statement of how each petitioner's substantial interests are affected by the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of the material facts disputed by petitioner, if any; A statement of facts which petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; A statement of which rules or statutes petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department's action or proposed action; and A statement of the relief sought by petitioner, stating precisely the action petitioner wants the Department to take with respect to the Department's action or proposed action. If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process will constitute a renewed determination of the Department's decision on the application. Accordingly, the Department's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this letter. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any decision of the Department with regard to the permit have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding. The petition must conform to the requirements specified above and be filed (received) within 14 days of receipt of this notice in the Office of General Counsel at the above address of the Department. Failure to petition within the allowed time frame constitutes a waiver of any right such person has to request a hearing under Section 120.57, F.S., and to participate as a party to this proceeding. Any subsequent intervention will only be at the approval of the presiding officer upon motion filed pursuant to Rule 28-5.207, and 60Q-2.010, F.A.C. This Notice constitutes final agency action unless a petition is filed in accordance with the above paragraphs or unless a request for extension of time in which to file a petition is filed within the time specified for filing a petition and conforms to Rule 62-103.070, F.A.C. Upon timely filing of a petition or a request for an extension of time this Notice will not be effective until further Order of the Department. . . . The Notice was mailed (by certified mail, return receipt requested) to Petitioners "c/o Flynn Enterprises, 676 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 4000, Chicago, IL 60611." Although the Notice's certificate of service reflected that a copy of the Notice had been mailed to Adair "before the close of business on AUG 27 1996," in fact, as a result of inadvertence on the part of Department staff, a copy of the Notice had not been mailed to Adair. On September 3, 1996, the Notice sent to Petitioners was received by a Flynn Enterprises, Inc., employee at the address to which it was mailed. The employee executed a return receipt upon receiving the Notice. The Notice was referred to Victor Casini, Esquire, the general counsel of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., on September 4, 1996. Casini set the document aside for filing. He did not believe that there was any immediate action that he or anyone else in the Flynn Enterprises, Inc., office in Chicago needed to take in response to the Notice. Casini noted that Adair's name was listed in the Notice as among those who purportedly had been furnished copies of the Notice. He knew that Adair was handling all matters relating to the permitting of the Project for Petitioners. He therefore assumed that any action that needed to be taken in response to the Notice would be taken by Adair on behalf of Petitioners. Inasmuch as it appeared (from his review of the Notice) that the Department had already furnished Adair with a copy of the Notice, he saw no reason to contact Adair to apprise him of the issuance of the Notice. In taking no action in response to the Notice other than setting it aside for filing, Casini acted reasonably under the circumstances. Adair first learned of the issuance of the Notice during a telephone conversation he had on September 9, 1996, with an employee of Broward County, who mentioned to him, in passing, that the Department had denied Petitioners' Application. 2/ Adair thereupon immediately telephoned the Department to confirm that the Application had been denied. The Department representative to whom he spoke confirmed that the Notice had issued, apologized for the Department's failure to have sent him a copy of the Notice, and promised to rectify the error by sending him a copy of the Notice as soon as possible. Keith Skibicki, the vice president of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., in charge of its day-to-day operations, served as the liaison between Adair and Petitioners. On September 12, 1996, Adair telephoned Skibicki to inquire (for the first time) if Petitioners had received a copy of the Notice. Skibicki, who previously had neither seen nor heard about the Notice, asked around the office and learned that the Notice had been received and was in Casini's files. Skibicki related this information to Adair. Later that same day, September 12, 1996, Adair received the copy of the Notice that the Department had sent him. He then faxed a copy of the Notice to Harry Stewart, Esquire, the Florida attorney who had been retained by Petitioners to assist them in their efforts to obtain favorable action on their Application. Shortly thereafter Adair telephoned Stewart to discuss what they should do in response to the Notice. During their conversation, Stewart expressed the opinion that the 14-day period for filing a petition for an administrative proceeding began to run only upon Adair's receipt of the Notice and that therefore Petitioners had until September 26, 1996, to file their petition. During the two-week period that followed their telephone conversation, Adair and Stewart worked together to prepare such a petition. The petition was filed with the Department on September 26, 1996 (which was 23 days after the Notice had been delivered to the Chicago office of Flynn Enterprises, Inc., but only 14 days after Adair, Petitioners' designated agent in their dealings with the Department, had received a copy of the Notice). The actions taken on behalf of Petitioners in response to the Notice were intended to preserve Petitioners' right to challenge the proposed denial of their Application. At no time was there any knowing and intentional relinquishment of that right.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter an order finding that Petitioners' petition challenging the proposed denial of their Application is not time-barred and remanding the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a Section 120.57(1) hearing on the merits of Petitioners' challenge. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of February, 1997. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1997.
Findings Of Fact In May, 1983, DOT advertised for bids to separately lease the 11 service stations on the Florida Turnpike. Prospective bidders were prequalified before being allowed to submit bids. Bids were to be awarded to the bidder submitting the highest responsible bid and based solely on the amount per gallon to be paid to DOT on each gallon of motor fuel sold at the service plaza. The existing leases were all due to expire and an attempt to get bids in 1982 had been dropped after litigation delayed completion of the bid process. Turnpike prices for motor fuels are regulated somewhat by DOT, in that the Turnpike prices must be comparable to prices at off-Turnpike stations in the vicinity which offer similar services. Those stations selected for comparative prices must be acceptable to the Turnpike station operator and DOT. Equipment at the existing service plazas has been in use for many years and in the bid offering in May, 1983, several new provisions were included, as were many provisions of the expiring leases. To insure competent and qualified service to motorists on the Turnpike, retained lease provisions require the stations to be open 24 hours per day, to provide wrecker service, and to have a mechanic on duty. Few off-Turnpike stations meet these requirements. Accordingly, "comparable" stations within SD miles east-west of the Turnpike and in the vicinity of a specific service plaza may not be readily available. The bid offering provided that these "comparable" stations will be selected by mutual agreement of the parties but makes no provision for settling a dispute between the lessor (DOT) and the lessee. This is significant because another of the lease provisions contained in the bid offering is that the prices at which the service plazas sell fuel must not exceed by more than two cents per gallon the prices at these selected comparable stations. New provisions in this bid offering required the successful bidder to replace all dispensing equipment (gas pumps) with modern equipment, and to provide for sale of motor fuels at self-service pumps. The bid offering contained no specifics as to where the self-service pumps are to be located with respect the existing service islands, whether self-service motor fuels are to be available by credit card or cash only sale, or whether there could be a different price for cash sales than for credit card sales. The bid offering provided that no one entity could be awarded the lease of more than five service stations on the Turnpike, and no bond was required to be posted by any bidder. DOT expected the successful high bidders to submit bids in the vicinity of eight cents per gallon. This was based on DOT's knowledge from surveys taken at frequent intervals over a long period of time, of the price motor fuels was selling bat comparable stations off the Turnpike; of the tank wagon costs of motor fuels to the station operators; of the sales of tires, batteries and accessories historically made by these stations, the profits from which are not included in the lease price; of the uncertainties inherent in the profits engendered by the to-be-offered self-service sales; other changes which increased the field of bidders; and the expected stability of motor fuel prices. When the bids were opened on September 12, 1953, the first, second, and third highest bids received for each of the 11 service plazas are as follows: Service Plaza First Second Third (Number) Highest Highest Highest Bid Bid Bid Snapper Creek (601) 13.51 12.34 5.40 Crocco, Inc. Gus Crocco William Crocco Pompano (611) 14.35 Crocco, Inc. 14.33 Gus Crocco 9.75 William Crocco Pompano (612) 14.33 Crocco, Inc. 12.76 Gus Crocco 9.20 Super Service West Palm Beach (623) 15.67 15.67 11.55 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. William Crocco West Palm Beach (624) 15.67 14.53 11.55 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. William Crocco Ft. Pierce (635) 15.67 14.83 13.90 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. Super Service Ft. Pierce (636) 15.67 14.53 12.40 Gus Crocco Crocco, Inc. WMG, Inc. Ft. Drum (647) 16.20 Super Service 15.67 Gus Crocco 14.53 Crocco, Inc. Canoe Creek (658) 15.67 Gus Crocco 14.90 Super Service 14.53 Crocco, Inc. Turkey Lake (669) 14.34 Gus Crocco 14.20 Super Service 13.43 Crocco, Inc. Okahumpka (670) 14.34 13.25 5.67 Crocco, Inc. Gus Crocco Gulf Oil Although Crocco, Inc., and Gus Crocco were the apparent high bidders for 10 of the 11 Turnpike service station leases, DOT, with only 20 days to award or reject bids, on October 3, 1983, issued a notice of intent to enter into leases with the high bidders. Before such leases could be executed, a petition to protest the award of these bids was filed by parities who are the intervenors herein, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned DOAH Case No. 83-3539. Gus Crocco and William Crocco are brothers, are shareholders in Crocco, Inc., are shareholders in WMG, Inc., and have operated service stations on the Florida Turnpike for the past several years. All entities named in the above sentence submitted bids for Turnpike leases at this offering. Super Service General Partnership, the high bidder for the lease at Ft. Drum service plaza, is composed of a partnership consisting of Ralph Girvin and two other partners. Girvin prepared the bid submitted by Super Service General Partnership which, at 16.02 cents per gallon of motor fuel sold, was the highest bid submitted for any lease. Gus Crocco, Crocco, Inc., William Crocco, and WMG, Inc., submitted the three highest bids for five of the 11 service station leases. During discovery in preparation for the hearing in Case No. 83-3539, it was disclosed that Gus Crocco prepared the bids submitted by Gus Crocco and Crocco, Inc.; that no market survey was taken by Gus Crocco or Ralph Girvin before establishing the selling prices for motor fuels upon which their bids were predicated; that the profit per gallon of motor fuel assumed by Crocco included a rebate from the supplier of approximately six cents per gallon even though no rebate has ever been given at a Turnpike service station for more than a short period of time; the profits to be made per gallon did not take into consideration county taxes that are applicable to some of the service plazas; that existing prices at stations accepted as comparable in the past were much lower than the sale prices which Gus Crocco and Ralph Girvin used to arrive at a bid price; that absent a requirement for the posting of a bond the high bidder could withdraw his bid without financial penalty or liability; that some communication between the Crocco brothers had taken place before the bids were submitted; that Ralph Girvin hand attempted to contact Gus and William Crocco before submitting his bid; that the data upon which Gus Crocco, Crocco, Inc., and Super Service General Partnership based their bids was insufficient to account for all expenses to be incurred; and that there was a high probability that the service station could not provide adequate service to the motorists while paying the price bid for the leases and selling motor fuels at a price comparable to that charged by off-Turnpike stations in the vicinity. This information was passed to DOT. Sam Roddenberry, Turnpike engineer for DOT, is the individual primarily responsible for the operation of the Turnpike in accordance with policies established by DOT. He was the DOT employee primarily responsible for the provisions of the bid proposals and lease, for the award of the lease to the highest qualified bidder, and for the policy changes, including the sale of motor fuel at self-service pumps. After receiving information discovered during trial preparation for Case No. 83-3539, Roddenberry compared Gus Crocco's projected selling price of $1.239 per gallon of regular leaded self-service gasoline with the 1983 average price in Jacksonville of $1.0991; compared the Crocco price estimate for unleaded self-service gasoline of $1.349 per gallon with the Jacksonville price of $1.1789; and the Crocco price estimate of $1.3996 for self-service super unleaded with the Jacksonville price of $1.2997. A similar comparison was made with respect to Super Service General Partnership's bid. These comparisons, the close relationship between the three high bidders at all stations (except for Super Service) and his knowledge that rebates, when given, are good only for short periods of time, led Roddenberry to conclude that all bids should be rejected. On October 1, 1984, Chapter 84-276, Laws of Florida, became effective. This discontinued the high-bid system upon which the bids here involved were solicited and substituted therefor a request for proposal (RFP) system upon which the Department selects the applicant deemed best qualified to satisfy the statutory criteria established by this statute. On June 25, 1984, each of the high bidders was notified by DOT that Respondent intended to withdraw its notice of intent to award leases and that it intended to reject all bids. These bidders at the same time were advised of their right to a Chapter 120.57 hearing, and the petitions for hearing, here involved, followed.
Findings Of Fact The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office is a department of the County government. On or about January 18, 1989, a site evaluation for the County's application, on behalf of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, for an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) at Vandenberg Airport was conducted. A soil profile was prepared showing brown sand from the ground surface down 14 inches, a gray sand down another 2 inches, and a gray clay from 16 inches to 7 feet below the surface. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Survey Book classifies the soils found at Vandenberg Airport as Manatee fine sandy loam, which is now called Chobee 10, and characterizes its permeability as "severe" with a seasonal high water table of from 0 inches at ground surface to 10 inches below the ground surface. By letter dated April 13, 1989, the Department formally denied the County's application due to the poor texture of the Chobee 10 soil and high water table found in the site evaluation, as well as the zoning of the property. This denial letter recognized the applicant's right to apply for a variance. Since the County anticipated denial of its application due to verbal indications from Departmental representatives, the County filed an application for variance with the Department on or about March 29, 1989. A Variance Review Board met and considered the County's variance application, and then recommended approval. However, the variance application was denied by the Department on June 1, 1989, due to the nature of the activities to be conducted on the site, as well as the severe soil conditions on site. The denial of the County's variance request effectively denied its application for this permit. The County has timely sought this review of the Department's denial of its application for a permit for a septic tank and drainfield system at Vandenberg Airport for use by the Sheriff's Department. The parties stipulated that the County's application included the redesign plans and report of its consulting engineers. They further stipulated that the location for which this permit is sought is imperative to the duties of the Sheriff's Department, and there is no alternative to this location without greatly increasing the response time of the Sheriff's Department to emergencies and other calls for service. The Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department has been operating its aviation unit out of a hangar at Vandenberg Airport for several years, and in March, 1989, the County entered into a ten year lease with the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority for approximately 103,126 square feet of land (2.37 acres) located at the Vandenberg Airport for a new hangar for storage and maintenance of aircraft used in conjunction with the services provided by the Sheriff's aviation unit. The site was formerly used for three residences which were served by septic tanks. This lease specifically provides that the County is responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and for securing necessary utility services for the use of this Sheriff's hangar. Thus, the Aviation Authority is not responsible for providing sewage treatment facilities for this site. The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority is not a unit within Hillsborough County government, but is an independent entity established by Special Act. The County has no control or authority over the Aviation Authority's creation of development plans, but the County may approve or disapprove these plans after they have been created by the Aviation Authority and submitted to the County. The Authority's development plans for expansion of Vandenberg Airport provide for runway expansion, taxiways, aprons and parking for aircraft and hangar expansion. As part of this expansion, the Aviation Authority has removed 51 individual septic tanks from homes located on lands which have been acquired, and which now comprise part of Vandenberg Airport. There is no record of any problems with the three residential septic tanks formerly located on this site for 25 to 30 years. The Aviation Authority's plans do not include construction of a sewage treatment plant or providing sewage treatment services in any manner other than with septic tanks, the permits for which must be obtained by its lessees. No centralized wastewater service is available to the proposed Sheriff's hangar at the Vandenberg Airport, and the closest sewer main will be more than 10,000 feet away upon its completion in 1990. The County's five year capital improvement plan does not include extension of this sewer line to the Airport. The location for the Sheriff's hangar is currently zoned SPI-AP-V, which is a special airport district zoning classification created in September, 1989, for Vandenberg Airport. In this zoning district, manufacturing, processing and assembly activities are prohibited. Retail activities are also prohibited, as well as hotels, motels, repair services, physician and dental offices, bus and train terminals, lumberyards, warehouses, publishing and printing, and rental and leasing activities. This district is to be used for public use facilities, wastewater treatment plants and lift stations, aircraft landing fields, airport and airport related activities. "Airport" activities are defined to include fuel storage and transmission facilities, hangars, aircraft service, repair and maintenance facilities. "Airport related" activities are defined as: Uses which are dependent upon proximity to the airport for effective performance, or which provide services to the airport..., including but not limited to airport maintenance facilities and associated administrative offices; sales of new and used aircraft and aircraft parts; sales of aircraft fuels, lubricants, and other aircraft supplies; ... and other airport-related uses compatible with the operation of airports for public and private use. Based upon five soil borings taken at the boundaries of, as well as within, the proposed hangar site, Darrell Hanecki, a geotechnical engineer who was accepted as an expert in engineering, found that the groundwater table was 3 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface in October and November, 1988. The seasonal high groundwater table was estimated to be approximately 12 inches above the existing ground water table at that time, but significant fluctuations in the groundwater level were anticipated due to seasonal variations in rainfall, runoff, and other site specific factors. The borings upon which Hanecki's findings are based were performed in general compliance with accepted procedures for standard field penetration tests. Hanecki concluded that the soil conditions are suitable for the proposed hangar if constructed on a shallow footing foundation with special site preparations. William Fernandez, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering, developed a redesign of the County's septic tank and drainfield in support of its variance request in order to address concerns expressed by the Department's representatives concerning soil conditions on site. It is proposed that the septic tank and drainfield site will be excavated to a depth of 6 feet, and all clays will be removed. The site will then be backfilled with clean materials in order to allow the drainfield to percolate through these clean materials from three mounded drains which will be located in a two foot high mound constructed above the original grade. A pump will be used to lift the effluent from the tank to the drainfield. The septic tank will have a 750 gallon capacity. It is projected that 8 people will use this septic tank each day, and that each person will cause 25 gallons of sewage per day to be deposited in the system, or a total of 160 gallons of sewage per day. Only domestic wastes from the hangar restrooms will go into the system. Oils, greases and other substances used in aircraft maintenance and repair will be separated and carried to a retention pond through a system of trenches. After hearing the testimony of the County's expert witnesses about the surface water management system to be constructed on site, the Department's environmental specialist, Gary Schneider, testified that he was no longer as concerned about the possibility of oils, greases and other hazardous materials getting into the septic tank system. The County has also applied to the Southwest Florida Water Management District for a surface water management permit, and must receive that permit for this proposed hangar at Vandenberg Airport. The Department seeks to rebut the expert testimony offered by the county primarily with the testimony of Robert Blanco, supervisor of the county health department's septic tank permit program, who was neither tendered nor accepted as an expert, as well as a letter from Richard Ford, resource soil scientist with the Soil Conservation Service, dated September 18, 1989, who took one soil boring and concluded that the soil identified was poorly drained to very poorly drained Chobee loamy sand. Ford was not present to testify. Blanco agreed with Ford's conclusion, expressed in his letter, that the seasonal high water table on this site will come to the surface, or within 10 inches of the surface, for 2 to 6 months each year, causing ponding to occur. Based upon the demeanor and qualifications of the witnesses who testified at hearing, it is specifically found that the testimony offered in support of the County's application, and in particular the expert testimony of Hanecki and Fernandez, is more credible and is given greater weight than the testimony offered on behalf of the Department, particularly the testimony of Blanco. Blanco was not qualified or tendered as an expert in any field, and therefore, he was only competent to offer fact testimony. He speculated, without any supporting evidence in the record, that the septic tanks formerly on this site were not built to Code specifications and probably did not work, although there is no evidence of any complaints about these septic tanks during the 25 to 30 years they were in operation. Blanco also insisted that standardized texts describing soil types over large geographic areas are more reliable than actual soil borings on site, although he could not render an expert opinion in this regard. The letter from Ford offered by the Department was not supported by other competent, substantial, credible evidence, and in any event was based upon only one soil boring as opposed to five borings conducted by Hanecki in accordance with generally accepted practices. Therefore, it is found that the groundwater table on this site is 3 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface, and the seasonal high groundwater table is approximately 12 inches above the existing groundwater table, although it does fluctuate. It was undisputed at hearing that the soils on site are Chobee 10, which is poorly to very poorly drained soil, but the County's redesign of the proposed septic tank and drainfield reasonably and adequately accounts for, and accommodates, this condition by excavating to a depth of 6 feet and backfilling with clean materials, and by placing three drains in a mounded drainfield built two feet above the existing ground level. This redesign complies with the requirements and provisions of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order granting the application of Hillsborough County for a permit for an onsite sewage disposal system (septic tank and drainfield) for the Sheriff's Department hangar at Vandenberg Airport. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3776 Rulings on the County's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. 2-7. Adopted in Findings 6, 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Findings 9, 12. 12-13. Adopted in Findings 2, 3. Adopted in Findings 10, 12. Adopted in Findings 3, 5, 10. Adopted in Findings 3, 4. Rulings on the Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 8. 3-4. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 11; Rejected in Finding 12. Rejected in Finding 12 as irrelevant and immaterial since the classification of the soils on site was not disputed at hearing. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Morrison, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 725 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 28-20.110, 28-20.120, and 28-18.210 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. ("FKCC"), is a non-profit Florida corporation whose address is 10800 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050. The primary purpose of FKCC is to "protect the quality of life of the citizens of the Florida Keys." The primary emphasis of the organization involves issues related to the carrying capacity, the limits of the infrastructure, and the environmental qualities of the Florida Keys. Consistent with its purpose, FKCC opposes regulations which it believes will diminish the quality of the natural habitat in Monroe County and the City of Marathon and hinder safe and efficient emergency evacuation. FKCC has been involved in previous Monroe County litigation, including participating as a party to at least two formal administrative challenges to the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Monroe County Comprehensive Plan). Petitioner, Last Stand, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation whose address is Post Office Box 146, Key West, Florida 33041-0146. The primary purpose of Last Stand is to preserve and protect the quality of life in the City of Key West, the Florida Keys, and their environs, with particular emphasis on the natural environment. To that end, Last Stand opposes regulations that it believes diminishes the quality of the natural habitat in the Florida Keys and regulations that hinder safe and efficient emergency evacuation in the Florida Keys. Last Stand is an organizational member of FKCC. Moreover, many individual members of Last Stand are also members of FKCC. A substantial number of members of both FKCC and Last Stand live, work, and/or engage in various recreational activities in the City of Marathon or in nearby areas. For example, a substantial number of members of both of those organizations regularly use and enjoy the nearshore waters of Monroe County for recreational water activities, such as boating, diving, snorkeling, and/or swimming.3 A substantial number of members of both organizations also regularly use and enjoy terrestrial habitats in Monroe County, including the City of Marathon, for recreational activities such as hiking and bird-watching. A substantial number of the members of both FKCC and Last Stand may be adversely affected or impacted by the issues which are in dispute in this proceeding. Moreover, the issues in this proceeding are germane to the purposes of both FKCC and Last Stand. Also, both FKCC and Last Stand regularly represent their members' interests in formal administrative hearings and local commission meetings relative to environmental and growth management issues. Respondent, Administration Commission, consists of the Governor and Cabinet and is empowered to adopt, by rule, any enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys area. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local county government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern ("ACSC"). Respondent, City of Marathon, is a municipality within the Florida Keys ACSC. Intervenor, the DCA, is the state land planning agency responsible for the general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the ACSC program. As the state planning agency, the DCA is authorized to propose changes to local comprehensive plans and land development regulations within an ACSC for adoption by the Administration Commission. Economic Base of Florida Keys Tourism is the economic base of the Florida Keys. Moreover, the basis for the Florida Keys' tourism is a healthy natural environment that supports fishing, diving, water sports, boating, bird-watching habitat, visiting endangered species habitat, and other related activities. History of the Florida Keys ACSC The Florida Keys area is designated as an ACSC and consists of, unincorporated, Monroe County, the City of Layton, the City of Key Colony Beach, the Village of Islamorada, and the City of Marathon. See § 380.0552(3), Fla. Stat. (2004).4 The City of Key West has been separately designated as an ACSC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 28-36. The Florida Keys were originally designated by the Administration Commission in 1975 and re-designated by the Legislature in 1986. The legislative intent section and the Principles for Guiding Development, as set forth in Subsections 380.0552(2) and (7), Florida Statutes, together require an effective land use management system that protects the natural environment and character of the Florida Keys, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, ensures adequate public facility capacity and services, provides adequate affordable housing, supports a sound economic base, protects constitutional property rights, and requires adequate emergency and post- disaster planning to ensure public safety. During the past 20 years, the growth management process has been implemented in essentially two phases. The first phase involved developing, adopting, and implementing the first comprehensive plans and regulations under the new designation. These plans and regulations were adopted by the county and cities in the mid-1980s. The 1986 plan established a growth management system that substantially increased protection of natural resources and began to reduce the over-allocation of density in the Florida Keys. It also achieved the long-term protection of North Key Largo. However, several major problems were not adequately addressed by the 1986 plan, including maintaining evacuation capability, water quality protection, sewage treatment, stormwater treatment, and community character. In addition, although the plan required a focal point plan for Big Pine Key, this planning process did not result in a viable plan that adequately protected the Florida Keys deer. The required open space ratios proved difficult to maintain within habitats once development occurred, resulting in fragmentation of habitat. The second phase involved the planning process undertaken in the early 1990s to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act and to update the plan based on lessons learned in implementing the 1986 plan. In developing, reviewing, and litigating the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the following critical issues emerged involving how to: maintain acceptable hurricane evacuation capability; retrofit existing development and provide new development with adequate wastewater and storm water facilities, including, where appropriate, upgrading of on-site systems; determine the carrying capacity of the Keys to withstand the impacts of additional land development and modify state and local plans, regulations and programs so that the carrying capacity is not exceeded; provide an adequate supply of affordable housing while maintaining acceptable hurricane evacuation and protecting the environment. In 1996, the Administration Commission adopted a rule which included a cap of 255 residential units per year for Monroe County. The rule also adopted a five-year Work Program into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan with the local governments to construct sewage treatment facilities, replace cesspits, and purchase land to protect natural habitat. Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the DCA were required to submit reports to the Administration Commission each year "documenting the degree to which the Work Program objectives for that year [had] been achieved." The rule contemplated that if the local governments did not make "substantial progress" towards accomplishing the tasks of the Work Program, the unit cap for new residential permits would be reduced by at least 20 percent for the following year. The Administration Commission found a lack of "substantial progress" in 1999 and adopted a rule which reduced the annual allocation of residential permits by 20 percent and extended the five-year Work Program to seven years. The Administration Commission found "substantial progress" had been accomplished in 2001 and began rulemaking to restore the permit allocation. However, the rule was challenged, and since the Administration Commission found a lack of "substantial progress" in 2002, the Commission adopted a revised rule which did not restore permits. The Carrying Capacity Study The 1996 Administration Commission rule amended the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to require the completion of a carrying capacity analysis. The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities. The analysis shall be based upon the findings adopted by the Administration Commission on December 12, 1995, or more recent data that may become available in the course of the study, and shall be based upon the benchmarks of, and all adverse impacts to, the Keys land and water natural systems, in addition to the impact of nutrients on marine resources. The carrying capacity analysis shall consider aesthetic, socioeconomic (including sustainable tourism), quality of life and community character issues, including the concentration of population, the amount of open space, diversity of habitats, and species richness. The analysis shall reflect the interconnected nature of the Florida Keys' natural systems, but may consider and analyze the carrying capacity of specific islands or groups of islands and specific ecosystems or habitats, including distinct parts of the Keys' marine system. (Ref. 1991 Stip. Settlement Agreement). Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, GFC, SFWMD, NMS, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS, Army COE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organizations and development interests. The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study ("FKCCS") was completed over a period of six years. Six million dollars was allocated by the DCA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to produce the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan, and the FKCCS. The contractor, URS Corporation, completed the FKCCS and the Carrying Capacity/Impact Assessment Model ("CCIAM"), a separate component to be used in forecasting land use scenarios. A panel of external experts was used to peer review the scope of work. In September 2002, the study was completed. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences ("Council") reviewed the CCIAM and FKCCS and, as a result of its review, adjustments were made to the CCIAM. The Council's review concluded that overall, due to data constraints and other issues in certain portions of the CCIAM, the model proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying capacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future development scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The marine module, the most data- deficient, was subsequently removed from the CCIAM. The FKCCS recommended four main guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys: Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats and species have been severely affected by development and further impacts would only exacerbate an already untenable condition. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental conditions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the wastewater and stormwater master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Florida Keys. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for additional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial ecosystems. Partnership Agreement While preparing the Assessment Report for 2003, the DCA Secretary concluded that the existing policy direction, consisting of imposition of the Work Program by the Administration Commission and reduction of residential permits, due to lack of substantial progress, was not sufficient to solve the problems facing the Florida Keys. The Assessment Report described difficulties and delays in implementing the Work Program. Most of the sewage treatment facilities contemplated by the Work Program were not constructed and valuable upland habitat continued to be developed. On December 16, 2003, the Administration Commission concluded that Monroe County had not made substantial progress and directed the DCA "to determine changes that would be necessary to the comprehensive plan to fully implement the requirements of the Work Program[,] as well as habitat protection provisions." The Administration Commission also accepted the staff recommendation that it "determine substantial progress has been made for the City of Marathon, and that some permits will be provided back to the City of Marathon," the number to be determined at the Administration Commission's January 27, 2004, meeting. The DCA approached the Florida Keys local governments and community-based organizations and proposed a Partnership Agreement to "begin implementation of the Work Program associated with the Florida Keys Protection Act." The DCA Secretary addressed the governing boards of the Florida Keys' local governments concerning the proposed Partnership Agreement. Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada adopted resolutions supporting the partnership proposal. By letter dated February 25, 2004, the DCA Secretary requested that the Governor, as a member of the Administration Commission, authorize the Administration Commission staff to initiate rulemaking to amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon. According to the letter, this action was requested based upon a series of significant commitments made by each of these local governments which addressed issues related to habitat protection, affordable housing, wastewater and stormwater management projects, land acquisition, and nutrient credits. The letter also noted the following: A complete follow-through on these commitments would mean over $410 million would be spent in the coming years to address these issues in the Florida Keys. Habitat protection will be increased, environmentally-sensitive hammock and pinelands would be purchased, new wastewater and stormwater management projects would be initiated, and 230 units of affordable housing would be made available for residents of the Florida Keys. * * * In essence, we have developed proposals that allow additional units primarily for affordable housing in the Florida Keys, but also would ensure the most pressing issues will be jointly addressed by local and state government. Consistent with the February 25, 2004, letter, the Partnership Agreement consists of commitments by the Florida Keys' local governments and several state agencies to address habitat protection, wastewater and stormwater treatment, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation. At its March 9, 2004, meeting, the Administration Commission accepted the DCA's recommendation to initiate rulemaking to implement the Partnership Agreement. The Proposed Rules 29. Proposed Rules 28-18.210, 28-20.110, and 28-20.120 were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 16, 2004.5 According to the published notice, the purpose of Proposed Rule 28-18.210 is to amend Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan to address building permit allocations by increasing the annual residential permitting cap and specifying allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, restoring certain allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, authorizing certain unused rate of growth ordinance allocations to roll forward, and deleting the requirement for nutrient credits upon a date certain. The notice also provides that the Proposed Rule amends the Work Program set forth in Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan to establish Year Eight and Year Nine to address tasks not yet completed in the original Work Program. The published notice states that the purpose of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-20.120 is to amend Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to address building permit allocations by increasing the annual residential permitting cap and specifying allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, restoring certain allocations previously reduced to be targeted for affordable housing, authorizing certain unused rate of growth ordinance allocations to roll forward, and deleting the requirement for nutrient reduction credits upon a date certain. The notice also provides that the proposed rules amend the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to establish Work Program provisions for Year Eight, Year Nine, and Year Ten to address tasks not yet completed in the original Work Program. Finally, the notice states that the Proposed Rule amendments address the adoption of necessary land development regulations. The published notice cites Subsection 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for the Administration Commission's promulgating the Proposed Rules and Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, as the law implemented. Petitioners challenge portions of Proposed Rule 28-18.210, which will amend the Marathon Comprehensive Plan and portions of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-20.120,6 which will amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations on the basis that they constituted invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners contend that the proposed rules should comply with Section 380.0552 and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, should be analyzed for such compliance in this proceeding. Notwithstanding Petitioners contention to the contrary, for the reason stated in paragraph 199 below, Proposed Rules 28-18.210, 28-20.110, and 28-20.120 will be analyzed based on their consistency with Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, because that is the provision which the proposed rules explicitly purport to implement. The published notice does not specify the subsection of Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, that the proposed rules implement. However, the parties agree that the proposed rules must be consistent with Subsection 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, which set forth the Principles for Guiding Development. Restoration/Increase of ROGO Allocations The Comprehensive Plans for Monroe County and the City of Marathon include a Permit Allocation System, under which Monroe County was originally allocated 255 permits per year for new residential units. As noted in paragraph 18 above, in 1999, the Administration Commission determined that substantial progress on the Work Program had not been accomplished and adopted a rule reducing the annual allocation of permits by 20 percent. After the incorporation of the Village of Islamorada and Marathon, and a voluntary reduction by the Village of Islamorada, the current annual allocation of residential development permits is 158 for Monroe County, 24 for Marathon, and 14 for the Village of Islamorada. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(1) amends Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by increasing the annual unit cap of 158 to 197, thereby restoring the original level of permits issued for new residential development under the Rate of Growth Ordinance ("ROGO"). The proposed rule requires that "[e]ach year's ROGO allocation of 197 new units shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 new units per year." Proposed Rule 28-18.210 amends Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan by increasing the maximum number of permits for new residential units from 24 to 30 per year, thereby, restoring the original level of permits per year for new residential development under ROGO. The proposed rule requires that "[e]ach year's ROGO allocation of 30 units shall consist of 24 market rate and 6 affordable units" and that the affordable housing "remain as affordable housing in perpetuity." In addition to restoring the number of permits for new development to the original levels, Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Marathon to restore available permit allocations that were unused in previous years and to allow unused ROGO allocations to be allocated in subsequent years. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 adds a new provision to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, providing that "effective July 12, 2004, 140 ROGO allocations, which represent unused reductions for ROGO Years Nine through 12, and 25 units lost in Year Ten due to lack of nutrient credits, are reallocated to the County exclusively for affordable housing purposes." Proposed Rule 28-18.210 adds a provision to the Marathon Comprehensive Plan that "effective July 12, 2004, 65 ROGO allocations, which represent unused ROGO allocations for ROGO Years 9 through 12, are to be reallocated to the City exclusively for affordable housing." Advancing/Borrowing Nutrient Credits The existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon include a nutrient credit system. According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, nutrient reduction credits are earned when existing treatment systems are upgraded. The amount of nutrient reduction credits earned correlate to the type of treatment system to which an old system is upgraded. Thus, if a treatment system is upgraded to the "best centralized system" or the "advanced wastewater treatment system," Monroe County would earn the most nutrient credits possible. For example, elimination of a cesspit by connection to a centralized advanced wastewater treatment system earns 1.5 nutrient credits, and the elimination of a substandard on-site disposal system by connection to a centralized secondary treatment system earns 0.5 nutrient credits. Under the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon, development permits for new residential development can only be issued if a nutrient reduction credit has been earned. The requirement that adequate nutrient credits be earned prior to issuance of permits is to mitigate for nutrient impacts of new residential development. However, Proposed Rules 28-18.210 and 28-20.110 provide that Monroe County and the City of Marathon will be permitted to "borrow" nutrient credits from the pool of nutrient credits that are anticipated from the construction and/or completing of sewage treatment facilities. The existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon provide that nutrient reduction credits are earned by the construction of the Little Venice system according to the schedules prescribed in the Comprehensive Plans. The schedules in the Comprehensive Plans provide that "213 of the total credits estimated to be available from the full operation of the system shall be earned when the wastewater permit is issued, the design/build contract for the system has been fully executed and construction of the system has commenced." The Comprehensive Plans also provide that all the remaining available credits shall be earned when the construction of the Little Venice System is complete, the collection system lines have been installed, and the final total of credits available from the operation of the systems has been calculated. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Marathon by allowing 213 of the total credits estimated to be available from the full operation of the Little Venice system to be earned, effective July 13, 2003. The proposed rules also provide that when the Little Venice system is completed, "[t]he total credits available shall be reduced by the 213 [credits] advanced in the year 2003." Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by allocating 41 nutrient credits for market rate units and 193 nutrient credits for affordable housing units to Monroe County. The Proposed Rule 28-20.110 provides that the 41 nutrient credits will be subtracted from the nutrient credits subsequently earned from hookups to the Key West Resort Utilities Wastewater Facility ("Key West Resort Utilities"). The 193 nutrient credits will be subtracted from hookups to the Key West Resort Utilities, Bay Point, and Key Largo Wastewater Facilities. Repeal of Nutrient Reduction Provision As described in paragraph 42 above, the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon have mandatory nutrient provisions that require nutrient credits to be earned prior to issuance of a permit for new residential units. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon by repealing the mandatory nutrient credit provisions. Pursuant to the proposed rules, "effective July 13, 2005, no nutrient credits shall be required if the local government has made satisfactory progress as determined by the Administration Commission in meeting the deadlines established by the Work Program as adopted by rule after March 15, 2004." Challenges to Increase/Restoration of Permits, Advancing Nutrient Credits, and Repeal of Nutrient Reduction Provision Petitioners contend that the increase in new residential permits is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it will increase development even though the identified thresholds for growth in the Florida Keys--water quality, terrestrial habitat, and evacuation times-- have been exceeded and will "worsen" the water quality. Petitioners challenge the provision which allows the borrowing or awarding of nutrient credits before wastewater projects are completed as arbitrary and capricious, because it will allow a net increase in the nutrient impacts into the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys and will "worsen" the water quality. Proposed Rules 28-20.110(1) and 28-18.210 increase the number of permits for new residential units from the preceding years. However, the number of permits to be issued under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has not increased. Rather, the permits will be issued in a shorter time frame and without being subject to the previous conditions. Even though increased development could result in an increase in the nutrient impacts into the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys, the adverse effect of such nutrient loading is offset by the adequate treatment of wastewater and stormwater runoff. To address the problem of nutrient loading, the Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 extend the years of the Work Programs and include in those programs tasks, such as construction and completion of wastewater facilities, as well as financing for those projects. Based on the commitments of Monroe County and the City of Marathon in the Partnership Agreement, there is a reasonable expectation that the projects included in the Work Program of the Proposed Rules will be completed. When completed, the wastewater treatment facilities will provide nutrient credits. In anticipation of the completion of the wastewater treatment facilities, Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 restore the annual permits for new residential units to their original levels and allow previous unused ROGO allocations to be allocated. The Proposed Rules provide that the nutrient credits for these allocations will be borrowed from the pool of nutrient credits that are anticipated from the planned construction and completion of wastewater facilities. Petitioners' contention that the repeal of the mandatory nutrient reduction credit provision is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because such repeal allows the water quality to worsen, is inconsistent with the "no net nutrient" provision of the Comprehensive Plans and is unjustified given that the nutrient pollution has increased since the nutrient credit provisions were adopted. Petitioners also contend that the repeal of the nutrient credit provision is arbitrary and capricious because the repeal is effective on a date certain without further action and without regard for whether it is justified. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28.18-210 repeal the mandatory nutrient reduction credit provisions of the Comprehensive Plans, but the condition precedent to the repeal is the Administration Commission's making a determination that Monroe County and the City of Marathon have "made satisfactory progress . . . in meeting deadlines established by the [new] Work Program." This determination must be made prior to the repeal going into effect. Presumably, the tasks in the Work Program for which satisfactory progress must be made are those relevant and reasonably related to and which result in nutrient credits. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the repeal of the mandatory nutrient credit provision does not automatically become effective on the date prescribed in the proposed amendments. Instead, the repeal is contingent on Monroe County's and the City of Marathon's making "satisfactory progress." The term "satisfactory" is not vague as asserted by Petitioners. In the context of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210, "satisfactory" would be given its common and ordinary meaning, which is "sufficient to meet a demand or requirement."7 Annual Reporting Requirement The existing Comprehensive Plans for Monroe County and the City of Marathon provide that "beginning September 30, 2003, and each year thereafter, [the respective local government] Monroe County and the [DCA] shall report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the Work Program objectives have been achieved." Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210, will modify the annual reporting requirements in the Monroe County and Marathon Comprehensive Plans. The proposed amended provision, which is underlined, and the existing provision are as follows: Beginning September 30, 2003, and each year of the work program thereafter, Monroe County and the Department of Community Affairs shall report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the work program objectives for that year have been achieved. The report for years seven and eight shall be combined and provided to the Administration Commission by September 30, 2005. The Commission shall consider the findings and recommendations provided in those reports and shall determine whether substantial progress has been achieved toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program. Petitioners contend that the proposed rules, which delete the requirement for Monroe County and for the City of Marathon to submit the September 2004 progress report to the Administration Commission, are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners assert that by deleting the requirement for the 2004 annual progress report, the proposed rules fail to establish an annual safeguard that is required to ensure that the environmental conditions and infrastructure limitation that the annual Work Program is designed to resolve, do not worsen. The proposed rules delete the requirement that Monroe County and Marathon submit their respective reports in September 2004 and delay submission of that report by a year. The time spent negotiating the Partnership Agreement and the proposed changes to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plans and the Land Development Regulations left little time for Monroe County and the City of Marathon to implement the new Work Programs. Moreover, the DCA and the Administration Commission would have had too short a time period in which to judge whether Monroe County and Marathon had made substantial progress. By combining the reports for Years Seven and Eight of the Work Program, the Administration Commission can expect a meaningful report on Monroe County's and the City of Marathon's progress in implementing their respective Work Programs. Monroe County Work Program Under Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Work Program Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by adding Years Eight, Nine, and Ten to the existing Work Program. Many of the tasks included therein address and are related to wastewater facilities, habitat protection, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation and implement the Partnership Agreement. Year Eight of the Work Program requires that Monroe County and other designated agencies perform the specified tasks and provide, in relevant part, the following: Year Eight (July 13, 2004 through July 12, 2005) Review and revise (as necessary) the Conservation and Natural Areas Map. Initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the Conservation and Natural Areas identified as worthy of protection. Begin public hearings for Conservation and Natural Areas boundaries. Conclude public hearings for the adoption of the amended Conservation and Natural Areas Boundaries. Adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a Conservation and Natural Area. Adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index, and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands. Amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier 1) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the Natural Areas (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County. Develop Land Acquisition and Management Master Plan and address both funding and management strategies. Provide $40 million in financing secured by infrastructure tax for wastewater facilities. Begin construction of wastewater plants or laying of collection lines for Baypoint, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park. Ensure the connection for up to 1,350 EDUs [equivalent development units] at Stock Island to Key West Resort Utilities. Complete the Lower Keys and Key Largo feasibility study. Complete projects identified in the Storm Water Management Master Plan. Evaluate and implement strategies to ensure that affordable housing remains affordable in perpetuity for future generations. Establish a partnership with non-profit organizations in order to construct affordable housing using additional state funds. Identify potential acquisition sites for affordable housing proposals and include in the Land Acquisition Master Plan. Provide up to $10 million in bond financing from the Tourist Impact Tax for acquisition of land for workforce housing and affordable housing sites. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and, thereby, reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. As discussed below, several of the tasks in Year Eight of the Work Program implement parts of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Goal 105 reads: Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite capacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities for residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued ability of the natural and man-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for future generations. Goal 105, also referred to as the "Smart Growth Goal," provides a framework to implement the FKCCS and a 20-year land acquisition program. The initial phase of implementing Goal 105 calls for the drafting and adoption of "Tier Maps" to be used as guidance for the Monroe County's Land Acquisition Program. Pursuant to Policy 105.2.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Tier maps will designate and map properties into one of the following three general categories for purposes of Monroe County's Land Acquisition Program and the smart growth initiatives: Natural Area (Tier I); Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II); and Infill Area (Tier III). Tier I property is property where all or a significant portion of the land is characterized as environmentally sensitive by policies of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and applicable habitat conservation plan. Tier I is to be designated as a Natural Area. New development is to be severely restricted in Tier I. Tier II is any geographic property where scattered groups and fragments of environmentally-sensitive lands, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, may be found and where subdivisions are not predominantly developed. New development is to be discouraged in Tier II, which is to be designated as Transition and Sprawl Area. Tier III is property where a significant portion of land is not characterized as environmentally sensitive, as defined by the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, where existing platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by complete infrastructure facilities, within close proximity to established commercial areas or where a concentration of non-residential uses exist. New development and re-development are to be highly encouraged in Tier III, which is to be designated as Infill Area. Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires Monroe County to "review and revise [as necessary] the Conservation and Natural Areas ["CNA"] Map, vests unbridled discretion to the County to amend the CNA map without adequate standards or criteria." Further, Petitioners assert that Task A does not identify the purpose for which the CNA map is to be used. Based on this assertion, Petitioners contend that Task A is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes law. Task A will assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by requiring Monroe County to review and revise the CNA map. In reviewing Task A, it is clear that the county must adhere to the criteria prescribed in Goal 105 of the existing Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. When Task A is read together with Goal 105 and its related policies, it is clear that the purpose of Task A is to provide guidance for the Monroe County Land Acquisition Program. As a part of the review and revision process, the Partnership Agreement, which Task A implements, provides that the Monroe County staff should prepare the CNA map utilizing Florida Marine Source Resources Institute ADID maps, the most recent aerial photographs, site visits as necessary, and obtain input from DCA and the public. Moreover, when Task A is read with Task B, and other relevant parts of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that a CNA map is to be used to implement Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which is related to land acquisition and "smart growth initiatives." Petitioners assert that Task B, which requires Monroe County to "initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the [CNA] boundaries," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it provides no standards or criteria. Task B is consistent with Policy 105.2.1 of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The Partnership Agreement consistent with Goal 105 provides that Monroe County will identify lands outside the CNA boundaries for acquisition and target for purchase appropriate environmentally-sensitive lands that are contained within upland habitat of two acres or more outside the CNA. Task C requires Monroe County to "begin public hearings for [CNA]." Task D requires Monroe County to conclude the public hearings for adoption of the amended [CNA] boundaries. Petitioners contend that Tasks C and D are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented, because they do not require that an end result be achieved as a result of these public meetings. When the provisions of Task C and Task D are read together, with Goal 105 and the relevant provisions of the Partnership Agreement, it is clear that the end result sought as a result of the public hearings is to receive public comment regarding the identification of lands to be included in the CNA. Furthermore, this is a reasonable meaning of Tasks C and D in light of the well-known purpose of public hearings. Petitioners challenge Task E, which requires Monroe County to "adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a [CNA]." The purpose of the moratorium is to prevent impacts to native habitat until Monroe County adopts permanent regulations and amendments. Petitioners contend that Task E of Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involve the clearing of any portion of an upland hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two acres or more . . . within a [CNA]," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that the criteria for the interim ordinance required fails to protect all hammock and pineland, does not protect enough hammock to ensure that the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys terrestrial habitat to sustain degradation and loss is not exceeded, does not require that the interim protections last until replaced by permanent ones, and does not apply to ROGO-exempt allocations. The criteria for the interim ordinance required by Task E is reasonable and will result in strengthening habitat protection in the areas specified in that provision. The fact that Task E authorizes the adoption of an ordinance that protects less than "all" hammock and pineland, does not make the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious, nor does the proposed rule contravene the law implemented. Petitioners contend that Task F, which requires Monroe County to "[a]dopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index ["HEI"], and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners claim that the standard set forth in Task F, "to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands," is no more specific than is statutory language. Petitioners assert that the proposed rule should specify (1) habitat types, patch sizes and other characteristics of the areas to which regulations will apply, and (2) the exact nature of the regulation (i.e. a prohibition on direct or secondary impacts, the application of negative points or open space rations, etc.) that will be relied upon to guide development away from such areas. Task F requires Monroe County to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to enact the overlay designations requiring Monroe County to implement Policy 105.2.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Task F will implement Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. This task will identify areas to which future development will be directed. Also, the overlay designations will give property owners more certainty with respect to whether they can or cannot develop their property. The requirement in Task F, that the HEI be reviewed or eliminated, is reasonable in light of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The HEI is currently used by Monroe County to evaluate the environmental sensitivity of land and its suitability for development and acquisition. The HEI requires lot-by-lot evaluations, which fail to take into account secondary impact of development and has resulted in the loss of valuable habitat. The Tier System in Goal 105 is designed to move Monroe County away from the existing HEI. Implementation of Goal 105 requires that the existing HEI be eliminated or revised. Task G of Year Eight of the Work Program requires Monroe County to "amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of [CNA] (Tier 1) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the [CNA] (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County." Petitioners contend that Task G is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it fails to permanently protect even that habitat which Monroe County claims is most important to protect, allows the geographic scope of the contemplated rules to be defined in the future without stated criteria or standards, and allows an unnecessary delay in the adoption of protections which the data and legal requirements demonstrate should have been adopted two years earlier. Task G is intended to strengthen protection of habitat by adopting land development regulations to prohibit development in specified areas and to further limit clearing in designated areas. Goal 105, specifically, provides guidance as to the standards that such regulations must follow in Policy 105.2.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners contend that Task K of Year Eight of the Work Program requiring Monroe County to ensure the connection for up to 1,350 units at Stock Island to Key West Resort Utilities, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners charge that the requirement in the proposed rule is vague and could be met by simply connecting one home to the referenced wastewater utility to remedy a documented, serious water quality problem. When the purpose of Task K is considered, the reasonable meaning of the provision is that the task requires that Monroe County connect approximately 1,350 units to the designated facility. Petitioners contend that Task M of Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "complete projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. In support of this contention, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule does not identify the name or number of stormwater projects that are to be completed. Petitioners argue that by referring only to "projects," without specifying the name or number of the projects to be completed, the Proposed Rule may require that only a minimum of two projects be completed. The reasonable interpretation of Task M is that Monroe County is required to complete all the remaining projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan. This meaning is supported by a review of related tasks in the previous years of the Work Program. For example, Year Six of the Work Program required Monroe County and other designated agencies to "initiate construction of selected projects as identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan." Year Seven of the Work Program required that Monroe County and other agencies "continue implementing selected projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan." Petitioners contend that Task P in Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "provide up to $10 million in bond financing from the Tourist Impact Tax for acquisition of land for workforce housing and affordable housing sites," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners claim that Task P sets a vague requirement which could be met by simply providing $1.00 in bond financing to provide a need which the State and Monroe County claim is important enough to justify the permitting increase allowed by Proposed Rules 28-18.210 and 28-20.110. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the requirement to provide $10 million in bond financing could not be met by providing $1.00 in bond financing. The $10 million figure represents the approximate amount of bond financing that will be provided. For the reasons stated above, it is not possible to include an exact amount in this Work Program requirement. The Work Program for Year Nine provides that the following tasks be done between July 13, 2005, through July 12, 2006: In coordination with the Florida Key Aquaduct Authority and Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees. Secure site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Petitioners contend that Task A for Year Nine for the Work Program, which requires that Monroe County, "in coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires that Monroe County only "initiate" the process necessary to obtain the required bond financing, and does not require that the funds be secured and dedicated to actual improvements, delays funding to remedy a critical water quality problem. The reasonable meaning of the provision in Task A, that Monroe County will initiate the process to obtain "80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees," is that Monroe County will take all steps legally necessary to accomplish obtaining the bond financing. Petitioners contend that Task B of Year Nine of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "secure a site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem. Task B reasonably requires that one of the first steps that must be taken prior to constructing any wastewater facility is to secure a site. Irrespective of the need for the wastewater facilities specified in Task B, unless a site is secured, no construction can occur. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(1), which amends Policy of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by adding Year Ten to the Work Program, provides the following: Year Ten (July 13, 2006 through July 12, 2007) Award Contract for design, construction, and operation of lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Begin construction of the lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants. Initiate connections to lower keys and Key Largo wastewater systems. Complete construction and hookups for Bay Point, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park. Obtain $80M in bond financing secured by connection fees Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires Monroe County to award a contract for design, construction, and operation of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem. Petitioners also contend that Task D, which requires that construction and hookups for specified areas be completed, and Task E, which requires Monroe County to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees, are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented. That Tasks A, D, and E are required to be completed in Year Ten of the Work Program, between July 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, is reasonable in view of the steps that must be taken prior to completing the responsibilities provided in those tasks. Petitioners contend that Task B, which requires Monroe County to "begin construction of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park wastewater plants" between July 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that this portion of Proposed Rule 28-20.110 delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem and does not require the completion of construction or the hookup and operation of the necessary facility. Task B of the Work Program, to begin construction of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants, reasonably and logically follows the task in the preceding work year that required Monroe County to secure a site for the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Given this chronology, it is reasonable that Task B does not require that the specified wastewater facilities be completed and fully operational the same year that construction begins. Petitioners contend that Task C of Year Ten of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County and Largo Sewer District to "initiate connections to lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater systems," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners assert that Task C does not require the completion of connections and operation of the system, but requires only the undefined "initiation" of connections. Task C, which requires Monroe County to "initiate connections" to the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities, is not arbitrary and capricious. Given the purpose of this task, this provision reasonably requires Monroe County to begin connecting units to the wastewater facilities. Even without a precise number, the reviewing agencies can evaluate the Work Program for Year Ten, including Task C, and determine if Monroe County has made substantial progress. City of Marathon Work Program Under Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 28-18.210 adds Year Eight and Year Nine to the existing Work Program in Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan. The tasks in the Work Program, many of which implement the Partnership Agreement, include tasks related to the construction of wastewater facilities, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation. Year Eight of the Work Program of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan include, in relevant, part the following tasks: Year Eight (July 12, 2004 through July 12, 2005) Begin construction of wastewater collection lines for Little Venice Phase II by December 2004. Work with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to initiate bond financing for citywide sewer facilities and to develop a schedule of events necessary to initiate process by December 2004. Develop and advertise a Request for Proposal for the design, construction, operation of Marathon Central Wastewater System by December 2004. Obtain necessary bond financing (60% of projected sewer cost) secured by connection fees by December 2004. Award contract for design, construction and operation of Marathon Central Wastewater System by December 2004. By January 2005, identify potential acquisition sites for affordable work force housing. Establish a partnership with non- profit organizations in order to construct affordable housing using additional state funds. Evaluate strategies to increase the time that affordable housing remains affordable; establish a maximum sales price for work force housing and establish a ceiling on down payments that are not subsidized by public programs; and amend comprehensive plan and/or land development regulations. * * * Develop a map or list of real estate numbers of lots containing environmentally sensitive lands in need of acquisition and submit to the Department of Community Affairs by July 2004. Assist the state in land acquisition efforts by establishing a land acquisition advisory committee to prioritize proposed acquisitions by July 2004. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. Year Nine of the Work Program of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan includes in relevant part the following tasks: Year Nine (July 13, 2005 through July 12, 2006) Begin construction of Phase I of Marathon Central Wastewater System by January 2006. Evaluate wastewater master plan and indicate areas, if any, that will not receive central sewer. For any area that will not be served by central sewer, develop a septic tank inspection program and begin implementation of the program by September 2005. * * * E. Develop and implement a Building Permit Allocation System that discourages and limits development in environmentally sensitive areas within the proposed Marathon comprehensive plan by July 2005. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-18.210(1), which establishes the Work Program for Years Eight and Nine, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it fails to adopt regulation and plan changes, or requires same, to protect terrestrial habitat to the extent shown necessary in the Carrying Capacity Study. The mere fact that the proposed Work Plan for Years Eight and Nine of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan does not address habitat protection, does not make those provisions arbitrary or capricious. Neither does it mean that they contravene law. In this case, it reflects that the Work Plan emphasizes other issues relevant to the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan. Siting Utilities and Public Facilities The siting of public facilities in Monroe County is governed by existing Policy 101.12.4 in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. According to that policy, Monroe County requires that an "analyses be undertaken prior to finalizing plans for the siting of any new or significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any existing public facility," and that the analyses include "an assessment of needs, evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected sites and assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources." With regard to the assessment impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources, existing Policy 101.12.4 provides the following: The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach berm areas, units of the coastal barrier resources system, undisturbed uplands (particularly high quality hammock and pinelands), habitats of species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, consistent with 105.2.1 offshore islands, and Conservation Land Protection Areas. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2) amends existing Policy 101.12.4, which deletes the term "Conservation Land Protection Areas" from the category of areas included as environmentally sensitive areas, as quoted above, and replaces it with the term, "Natural Areas (Tier I)." Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2) also adds the following provision to existing Policy 101.12.4. Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly owned land, no new public community or utility facility other than water distribution and sewer collection lines or lift stations, and the existing Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility, shall be allowed within the Natural Areas (Tier I) unless it can be accomplished without clearing of hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this requirement may be made to protect the public health, safety and welfare, if all the following criteria are met: No reasonable alternatives exist to the proposed location; and The proposed location is approved by a super-majority of the Board of County Commissioners. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2), discussed above, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule allows the siting of public facilities in terrestrial habitats (CNA or Tier I) and also allows water distribution and sewer collection lines or lift stations to be built as a matter of right in a CNA or Tier I, contrary to the findings of the Carrying Capacity Study. Petitioners also contend that the provision in the Proposed Rule, discussed above, is vague, because it refers to the term "natural areas," but is intended to mean CNAs. In the recent past, a decision to site a sewage treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive hammock elicited considerable controversy. Ultimately, Monroe County and the DCA agreed that public facilities should not be located on environmentally sensitive land. The proposed change to Policy 101.12.4 strengthens the policy by requiring approval of a super majority of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County Commission) for an exemption. This also adds specificity to the policy and provides more protection for natural areas and, thus, improves protection of environmentally- sensitive habitat. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the term "natural area" is not vague. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan currently includes Goal 105, which describes a detailed land classification system. "Natural Area (Tier I)" represents natural areas that can be targeted for acquisition and is an updated term. On the other hand, the term "Conservation Land Protection Areas" refers to lands targeted for acquisition by federal and state agencies. ROGO Exemption for Public Facilities Both Monroe County and Marathon have a "Rate of Growth Ordinance," also known as ROGO. A site proposed for development is ranked based on the environmental sensitivity of the property and receives negative points for greater environmental sensitivity. A site proposed for development can also receive positive points for such things as providing its own water system or elevation above the minimum flood insurance elevation. Monroe County and the City of Marathon award their annual allocation of development permits to the top-scoring sites. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 will make several modifications to the ROGO point allocation system in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Policy 101.3.4 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides that "public facilities shall be exempted from the requirements of the Permit Allocation System for new non-residential development." The existing policy also provides that certain development activity by enumerated federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations "may be exempted from the Permit Allocation System by the County Commission after review by the Planning Commission upon a finding that such activity will predominantly serve the County's non- transient population." Proposed Rule 28-20.110(3) amends existing Policy 101.3.4 by requiring that the County Commission make an additional finding as a condition of exempting certain development activity by certain federally tax-exempt not-for- profit organizations from the Permit Allocation System. Pursuant to the proposed rule, the County Commission must also find that the "development activity is not planned within an area proposed for acquisition by governmental agencies for the purpose of resource protection." Petitioners contend that the provision of Proposed Rule 28-20.110(3), discussed above, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented in that the development activities of the federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations covered by the proposed rule allows development activity on some environmentally-sensitive areas and is inconsistent with the Carrying Capacity Study. Existing Policy 101.3.4 allows development activity by not-for-profit organizations without a permit allocation because such development does not include overnight accommodations which might impact hurricane evacuation. Since a permit allocation was not necessary, such development was not affected by the negative points awarded for development in an area proposed for acquisition for resource protection. However, some not-for- profit organizations proposed development in environmentally- sensitive areas. The proposed change will prevent ROGO-exempt development on such lands and improve the protection of environmentally-sensitive habitat. Lot Aggregation Existing Policy 101.5.4, of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of lot aggregation and provides that "points shall be assigned to Allocation Applications for proposed dwelling units, which include a voluntary reduction of density permitted as of right within subdivisions (residential units per legally platted, buildable lots) by aggregating vacant, legally platted, buildable lots." This policy sought to reduce density within subdivisions by awarding or assigning positive points to applicants who aggregated two or more contiguous, vacant, legally buildable lots. The existing policy motivated and allowed applicants to purchase any contiguous property in order to be awarded additional points and, thus, increased their chances of receiving an allocation, even if the lots were in areas targeted for public acquisition for resource protection. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4) amends Policy 101.5.4, Subsection 3, by prohibiting the awarding of points to Allocation Applications "for lot aggregation within those areas proposed for acquisition by public agencies for the purpose of resource protection." Petitioners assert that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it fails to adequately protect terrestrial habitat to the extent shown necessary in the Carrying Capacity Study. The basis of Petitioners' assertion is that under Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4), an applicant can get positive points for aggregating habitat, if the area is not proposed for acquisition by public agencies for the purpose of resource protection. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4) will direct applicants seeking to be awarded additional points for "lot aggregation away from areas proposed for acquisition by public agencies for resource protection and, thereby, improve protection of terrestrial habitat. Clearing of Native Vegetation Existing Policy 205.2.7 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides that the "clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the immediate development area." Under the existing policy, an applicant with aggregated lots would demand to clear a portion of both lots, so that a large portion of all of the lots would be cleared. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends existing Policy 205.27.7 by adding the following provision relating to the clearing of vegetation areas where Allocation Applications have received points for lot aggregation: For applications that receive points for lot aggregation under the Permit Allocation System for residential development, clearing of vegetation shall be limited to the open space ratios in Policy 205.2.6 or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. The clearing of vegetation for ROGO applications that receive points for lot aggregation is also addressed in Proposed Rules 28-20.120(4), which adds a new provision, Regulation 9.5-347(e), to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. That new provision is as follows: Section 9.5-347 (e) Lot Aggregation and Clearing: For ROGO applications that receive points for lot aggregation under Section 9.5-122.3 (a)(3), clearing of vegetation shall be limited to the open space ratios in paragraph (b) above or five-thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is less. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rules 28-20.110(b) and 28-20.120(4) are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented, because they do not prohibit clearing of aggregated lots and are inconsistent with the Principles Guiding Development and with the Carrying Capacity Study. Notwithstanding Petitioners' assertions, even though the proposed rules do not prohibit all clearing of native vegetation, they will limit the amount of clearing for applicants who receive a ROGO allocation based upon lot aggregation. Under Proposed Rule 28-20.120(4), the clearing will be limited to an amount necessary to construct a reasonably-sized house. Technical Coordination Letter Proposed Rule 28-20.110(5), which will add a new policy, Policy 101.5.11, to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, provides the following: If not listed in the document "Parcels Not Located in Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Not Subject to FWS Consultation", or involving minor development activity exempted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)", any application for a ROGO or NROGO allocation shall contain a technical coordination letter from the USFWS. The County shall consider the recommendations of the USFWS's technical coordination letter in the issuance of the subject permit, except that if a low-effect habitat conservation plan is required by USFWS, the mitigation requirements of that plan shall be incorporated in the conditions of the permit. As a result of federal litigation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") created a list of "Parcels Not Located in Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Not Subject to FWS Consultation." Monroe County and the DCA have developed the practice of requiring a technical coordination letter from the USFWS for development on parcels that are not on that list or are not otherwise exempt from USFWS review. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(5) incorporates into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan a current practice that resulted from federal litigation. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-120 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1) adds the phrase "species of special concern" to the following terms defined in Section 9.5-120(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulation as shown by the underlining: (1) "Known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species or species of special concern"; (2) "Potential habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" or species of special concern; and (3) Wide-ranging threatened/endangered animal species or species of special concern. This proposed change will conform the land development regulations to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by expanding the list of species that result in negative points under the Permit Allocation System to include "species of special concern." Existing Regulation 9.5-120(b) includes in the definitions of "known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" and "potential habitat of threatened/endangered species" the sentence, "The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of the species unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources." The definition of "wide-ranging threatened/endangered animal species" includes the sentence, "The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of wide-ranging threatened or endangered species unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources."8 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1) amends Section 9.5-120(b) by deleting the phrase, "unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources" from the sentences quoted above. Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1)(a) adds the following provision to the section of Regulation 9.5-120, which defines the term "known habitat of threatened/endangered species or species of special concern": (1) . . . The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of the species. Within areas designated for public acquisition for the purposes of resource protection, any threatened, endangered or species of special concern species observed on site while conducting a habitat evaluation shall be noted on the adopted Threatened and Endangered Species Maps. Such observations noted while conducting a habitat evaluation by County Staff Biologists, consultants certified by the County, conducting habitat evaluations, or state or federal agency representatives conducting field inspections shall also constitute evidence of species. Petitioners contend that the portion of Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1)(a), quoted above, is arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule fails to account for potential observations of "known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" on parcels that are not within "areas designated for public acquisition for purposes of resource protection." Also, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule limits observations of species required to be noted on the adopted threatened and endangered species maps to consultants or scientists on the parcel specifically to conduct an HEI analysis and fails to require field verification of the parcel. Proposed Rule 28.20.120(1)(a) will expand the circumstances in which observations of listed species will cause modification of the adopted threatened and endangered species maps. Under the present land development regulations, Monroe County modified the maps only if a county staff biologist observed a listed species and did not take into account other professional observations. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-122.3 Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations establishes and assigns evaluation criteria and point assignment for applications for proposed dwelling units in Monroe County. The existing regulation requires that negative points be assigned to applications that propose a dwelling unit within a "known habitat of a documented threatened/endangered species" and a "potential habitat of threatened/endangered species." Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2) adds the following language to Section 9.5-122.3.(a)(8),9 as shown by the underlined provisions: Point Assignment: Criteria: -10 An application which proposes a dwelling unit within a known habitat of a threatened/endangered species or a species of special concern. For species of special concern, negative points shall only be applied to areas designated for public acquisition for the purpose of resource protection. -5 An application which proposes a dwelling unit within a potential habitat of a threatened/endangered species or a species of special concern. For species of special concern, negative points shall only be applied to areas designated for public acquisition purposes of resource protection. Regulation 9.5-1223.(a)(8), as amended, adds "species of special concern" to the species covered by the existing regulation. Also, the amended regulation requires that negative points be assigned to applications that propose dwelling units in a habitat of a species of special concern, if the area is designated for public acquisition for purposes of resource protection. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2), which amends Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8), is arbitrary and capricious. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners assert that even though the Proposed Rule increases situations where an application is awarded negative points, it decreases protection of habitat by limiting the negative point award only to habitat of special concern that have been designated for public acquisition. Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2) increases situations in which an application will be awarded negative points by adding "species of special concern" to the species covered by Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8). By awarding negative points as provided in the proposed rule, there is increased protection of habitat for species of special concern. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-336 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(3) amends Section 9.5-336(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations as follows: (b) Review and Amendment: The existing conditions map may be refined to reflect conditions legally in existence on February 28, 1986. Such refinements shall be made pursuant to the procedures for typographical and drafting errors in section 9.5-511(e). The existing conditions map as referenced throughout this chapter is intended only to serve as a general guide to habitat types for the purpose of preliminary determination of regulatory requirements. The county biologist shall make the final determination of habitat type based upon field verification, except that existing conditions that reflect disturbed with hammock shall be classified as a low quality hammock. Unlawful conditions shall not be recognized when determining regulatory requirements. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.120(3) is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it does not protect all habitat. The existing conditions map was prepared in the 1980s. Many of the sites designated on the map as "disturbed with hammock" have re-vegetated since then. The proposed change will protect those sites by requiring clustering away from the hammock and by controlling the amount of allowed clearing. Hurricane Evacuation Monroe County and Marathon face a unique hurricane evacuation challenge. There is only one road out of the Florida Keys, and everyone must use that road to evacuate. For a Category 3 or greater hurricane, all areas of the Florida Keys must be evacuated because of the low elevations, the vulnerability to storm surge, and the logistics of post-disaster recovery. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Marathon Comprehensive Plan currently state that each ". . . shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year 2010." The 24-hour standard was adopted by the Administration Commission at the conclusion of prior litigation over the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The term "hurricane evacuation clearance time" refers to the time that the emergency managers must call the evacuation before the arrival of tropical storm force winds. Hurricane evacuation clearance time includes both the time for citizens to mobilize (i.e., get their affairs in order, shelter their houses, take care of their belongings), and the time to evacuate the vehicles from the roadway. Tropical storm force winds typically arrive eight to 12 hours before the eye of the storm. In order to achieve a 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time, emergency managers must call the evacuation 32 to 36 hours before the arrival of the eye. The DCA contracted with Miller Consulting, Inc., to create a computer model to estimate the actual hurricane evacuation clearance time for the Florida Keys. The Miller model provides the best available data and analysis for estimating the clearance time. The latest run of the Miller model performed by the DCA using 2000 Census data, supplemented with development permit data up to August 2004, provides the best estimate of clearance time. This run of the Miller model estimates a hurricane evacuation time of 23 hours and 56 minutes to reach the beginning of the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike on the mainland, and 24 hours and 48 minutes to reach the hurricane shelter at Florida International University ("FIU"). The beginning of the Florida Turnpike in Florida City is the appropriate endpoint for hurricane evacuation clearance time estimates. Florida City is a point of relative safety outside of the Category 3 vulnerability zone. Florida City is also the point of dispersal for the Florida Keys, where evacuees disperse to any number of destinations, such as South Dade, the FIU shelter, or a hotel in Orlando. The Miller model estimates that if those permit allocations are restored and the annual allocation is increased as described above, the hurricane evacuation clearance time next year will be 24 hours and four minutes. This exceeds the 24-hour standard adopted by the Administration Commission. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 adds the following requirement to Year Eight of the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Policy 101.2.12 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan: "Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes." The Florida Keys' local governments have begun the comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues by convening a workgroup comprised of local government-elected officials and staffed by the DCA. The hurricane workgroup is considering alternative strategies to reduce clearance times, such as constructing an additional outbound lane, using transportation system management to create a temporary outbound lane, updating the assumptions for the Miller model, reducing transient occupancy, or calling the evacuation earlier. The working group must develop a strategy that balances or accommodates development and also addresses hurricane clearance times. The hurricane workgroup must do much more than simply squeeze a few more minutes out of the Miller model. There are currently 13,000 to 14,000 vacant platted lots in the Florida Keys, which must be allowed to develop or must be purchased by government. On average, 3,000 dwelling units generates about one hour of clearance time. As an example, if 8,000 or so lots were purchased for habitat protection, then two more hours of clearance time will be needed to accommodate the remaining 5,000 or 6,000 lots. The hurricane workgroup must develop a strategy to handle the amount of development permitting that can be expected and a program to acquire the balance of the vacant lots. Affordable and Workforce Housing There is an affordable housing crisis in the Florida Keys. The geography of the Florida Keys hinders the ability of working families in the Florida Keys to find affordable housing. Unlike other expensive areas, such as Boca Raton, working families cannot find affordable housing nearby; the nearest area where housing prices are affordable is the mainland in Dade County. From 1999 to 2003, there were 693 allocations for affordable housing units in the Florida Keys. This amount includes all the allocations for affordable housing units for that time period, even those allocations for which affordable housing units were not constructed. The number of affordable housing allocations issued from 1999 to 2003 and the number being issued under the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon, are not sufficient to address the need for affordable housing. The Partnership Agreements recognize and address the affordable housing shortfall by increasing the number of annual affordable housing allocations, restoring residential allocations lost in previous years, and providing funding for the acquisition of land and the construction of workforce housing. As discussed above, Proposed Rule 28-20.110 implements the provisions of the Partnership Agreement by amending the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as follows: increasing the number of annual affordable housing allocations from 32 to 71; (2) reallocating 140 unused allocations to affordable housing; and (3) requiring that the affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Additionally, as specified in paragraph 60, the Work Program in Proposed Rule 28-20.110 requires Monroe County to complete tasks which will be an improvement of the affordable housing situation in Monroe County. As discussed above, Proposed Rule 28-18.210 implements the Partnership Agreement by amending the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan as follows: (1) increases the overall number, though not the percentage, of allocations for affordable housing to six; (2) restoring 65 unused allocations for affordable housing; and (3) requiring that the affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Also, as specified in paragraph 101, Proposed Rule 28-18.210 requires the City of Marathon to complete tasks that will result in improving the affordable housing issues in the City of Marathon. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 only partially address the affordable housing shortage in the Florida Keys. Nonetheless, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will improve the current affordable housing shortage by increasing the number of affordable houses and providing the financial resources to make that more likely to occur. The Principles Guiding Development Subsection 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (2004), provides in relevant part: PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.- -State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development . . . . For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. . . . [T]he following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: 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 the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the 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 manmade 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 Proposed Rules are consistent with the principles, the principles should be considered as a whole. No specific provision should be construed or applied in isolation from other provisions. Ability to Manage Land Use and Development Principle A, set forth in Subsection 380.0552(7)(a), Florida Statutes, is "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." Monroe County and the City of Marathon have evidenced a willingness and commitment to provide the funding required to meet the objectives of the Principles Guiding Development. Both local governments have included in the Proposed Rules tasks which reflect their understanding of the need to provide critical facilities, such as wastewater treatment facilities. While the need for such facilities has previously been acknowledged, the Proposed Rules provide a specific source of revenue to provide the needed facilities. Moreover, with regard to Monroe County, the proposed rules/regulations at issue in this proceeding strengthen the environmental protections measures in the Comprehensive Plans while allowing reasonable development. The proposed rules for Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle A. Environmental Issues Subsections 380.0552(7)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes, are principles which require consideration of the impacts on the environment of the Florida Keys. Principle B is "to protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat." Principle C is "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 is "to limit the adverse impacts of development on the water quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Principle I is "to limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon include amendments to the Work Program which provide significant funding for sewage treatment systems that will enhance the protection of the shoreline and marine resources. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle B. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County improve protection of terrestrial habitat, limit clearing of native vegetation, and provide safeguards to ensure that parcels in threatened and endangered species habitat are protected. The proposed rules of Monroe County are consistent with Principle C. The portions of the Proposed Rules of the City of Marathon that are the subject of this proceeding do not specifically address Principle C. However, the Proposed Rules of the City of Marathon are not inconsistent with Principle C. Accordingly, the proposed rules of the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle C. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys by the funding commitments that will hasten the construction of the sewage treatment facilities. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle E. The Proposed Rules do not encourage any public investment that would have an adverse impact on environmental resources. To the contrary, the Monroe County and the City of Marathon Proposed Rules provide for public investments in waste water improvements that are accelerated. Also, the Monroe County Proposed Rules prevent the construction of public facilities within a hammock area. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle I. Economic Development Principle D in Subsection 380.0552(7)(d), Florida Statutes, is "to ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. The basis of the Florida Keys' economy is tourism, which is attracted by a clean and healthy environment. The increased protection of water quality that should be achieved by the hastened construction of sewage treatment facilities and the improved protection of habitat will strengthen the economy of the Florida Keys and provide the basis for a sound economic development. Also, the Proposed Rules balance environmental protection with property rights. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle D. Historical Character and Heritage Principle F in Subsection 380.0552(7)(f), Florida Statutes, is "to enhance natural and 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 G in Subsection 380.0552(7)(g), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will have little or no impact on the historic character and historical heritage of the Florida Keys. Thus, the Proposed Rules do no harm to either the historic character or historical heritage of Monroe County or the City of Marathon. Public Investments Principle H in Subsection 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major life 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 the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. . . . The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon do nothing to undermine the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness or amortized life of existing major investments. Rather, the Proposed Rules will result in funding and timely construction of the major sewage and disposal facilities that are already contemplated by Monroe County and the City of Marathon's existing Comprehensive Plans. Affordable Housing Principle J in Subsection 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes, is "to make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules include a one-time allocation of 165 permits for affordable housing in Monroe County and 65 permits for affordable housing in Marathon. The Proposed Rules will require all future affordable housing to remain as affordable in perpetuity, rather for a limited time frame. The Propose Rules are consistent with Principle J. Natural or Man-made Disaster and Post-Disaster Relief Principle K in Subsection 380.0552(7)(k), Florida Statutes, is "to provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster or man[-]made disaster and for a post[-]disaster reconstruction plan." The Proposed Rules require officials of Monroe County and the City of Marathon to participate with other Florida Keys' local governments in a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues. The Proposed Rules are consistent with Principle K. Health, Safety, and Welfare of Citizens and Maintenance of Florida Keys as Unique Resource Principle L in Subsection 380.0552(7)(l), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County include provisions that increase protection of upland habitat and require a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications in hammocks and pinelands, revisions to the CNA maps, and amendments to the land development regulations. The Proposed Rules for Monroe County and the City of Marathon will improve the water quality by providing funding for and hastening the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will provide more permit allocations for affordable housing, require Monroe County to approve bond funding for the construction of affordable housing, and provide that all future affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Also, the Proposed Rules require Monroe County and the City of Marathon to participate in a Florida Keys wide analysis and solution to the hurricane evacuation problem. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon further the objective of and are consistent with Principle K. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle L.
