Findings Of Fact Respondent, Big "S" Oil Company, operates a gasoline station at 4002 North Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. The station sells gasoline products to the general public. On or about December 9, 1981, a petroleum inspector of Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, took a gasoline sample for analysis of regular gasoline from the Respondent's storage tanks during the course of a routine inspection. This sample was tested in Petitioner's mobile laboratory and was found to have an elevated End Point of 494 degrees Fahrenheit 1/ Department regulations provide that the End Point for leaded gasoline offered for sale in Florida shall not exceed 446 degrees Fahrenheit. A second test conducted in a private laboratory confirmed the initial testing results. On the basis of this information, a stop sale notice on the tank that dispensed the gasoline was issued on December 9, 1981. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Petitioner determined that prior to the issuance of the notice, approximately 1,900 gallons of contaminated gasoline had been sold to the public. A bond of $1,000 was paid by Respondent to Petitioner in lieu of confiscation of the remaining leaded or regular gasoline in the storage tanks (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). The hearing was requested to contest the forfeiture of the bond.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to forfeit the $1,000 bond posted with Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding Respondent, Robert Hoffman, was a member of the Deltona Fire District Commission. He was elected to his office in the Deltona Fire District in November, 1992. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Theresa Cresswell was a dispatcher at the Deltona Fire District. She served as dispatcher for approximately eight years, leaving in January, 1995. On April 30, 1993, Ms. Cresswell filed Complaint No. 93-56 with the Florida Commission on Ethics, alleging that Mr. Hoffman had touched and kissed her on January 20, 1993, and on March 20, 1993. Ms. Cresswell also alleges that in March, 1993, after she had spilled water on her blouse while drinking from the water fountain that Mr. Hoffman said that he liked watching her brush the water off her blouse. JANUARY 20, 1993 INCIDENT In December, 1992, Ms. Cresswell organized a Santa Clause workshop for needy children. Mr. Hoffman had promised to provide candy canes and build the workshop for the event. He failed to keep his promise. As a result, Ms. Cresswell had to purchase the candy. On January 20, 1993, Ms. Cresswell came to the Deltona Fire Station around 9:30 p.m. to pick up some papers relating to her schoolwork. She was not on duty. Mr. Hoffman was at the fire station when she arrived. Ms. Cresswell was upset with Mr. Hoffman for his failure to provide the candy and build the workshop. She approached Mr. Hoffman in the reception area while he was talking to Robert Bell and told Hoffman that she was "pissed off at him." Mr. Hoffman acknowledged that he knew that she was upset and that he was sorry that he did not do what he had promised. Ms. Cresswell alleges that during the conversation Mr. Hoffman came to her, put his hand on her shoulder, leaned against her, kissed her on her cheek and whispered in her ear, "I'm sorry. Do your forgive me?" Ms. Cresswell's allegation that he whispered in her ear was made known for the first time at the formal hearing. Mr. Hoffman asserts that he never touched or kissed Ms. Cresswell on January 20, 1993. Robert Bell, the dispatcher who was on duty when the discussion between Ms. Cresswell and Mr. Hoffman took place, observed the discussion and described Ms. Cresswell as being upset. He did not see Mr. Hoffman kiss Ms. Cresswell on the evening of January 20, 1993. Ms. Cresswell did not tell Mr. Bell that Mr. Hoffman had kissed her. Ms. Cresswell did not make a complaint to anyone about the January 20 incident until March, 1993. Fire Chief Holland had been keeping notes about Mr. Hoffman's activities and he sent those notes to the attorney for the fire district. In those notes, he details a conversation that he had with Ms. Cresswell concerning the January 20, 1993 incident. There is no mention that Mr. Hoffman kissed Ms. Cresswell. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses and having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Mr. Hoffman did not touch or kiss Ms. Cresswell on January 20, 1993. THE WATER FOUNTAIN INCIDENT On March 20, 1993, Mr. Hoffman was attending an all day CPR class at the fire station. Ms. Cresswell was working dispatch on the 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift on that day. Ms. Cresswell alleges that she was drinking at the water fountain located in the hall of the fire station down from the room in which the CPR class was being conducted. She spilled water on her blouse and was brushing the water from her blouse when Mr. Hoffman came up to her and said, "Can I watch you do that? I like to watch you do that." Mr. Hoffman contends that the incident never occurred. There were no witnesses to the alleged incident. Timothy Brown was teaching the CPR class. He remembered Mr. Hoffman as being the only male student in the class on that day. Mr. Brown does not recall Mr. Hoffman leaving the classroom other than at the assigned breaks and at lunchtime. Mr. Brown was near the water fountain several times during the day while he used a nearby copy machine and when he drank from the fountain, but he did not see Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Cresswell together at the water fountain. When Ms. Cresswell complained to Assistant Chief Rogers on March 22, 1993 about the alleged incident of kissing which occurred either on the evening of March 20 or early morning of March 21, she did not mention the water fountain incident which allegedly occurred on March 20, 1993. When Ms. Cresswell's deposition was taken on April 12, 1993, three weeks after the alleged incident, Ms. Cresswell could not recall when the water fountain incident took place. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses and having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that the water fountain incident did not occur and that Mr. Hoffman did not say, "Can I watch you do that? I like to watch you do that." THE MARCH 20-21, 1993 INCIDENT On the evening of March 20, 1993, Ms. Cresswell traded shifts with another dispatcher and reported to work at approximately 11:50 p.m. to work the midnight to 8:00 a.m. shift. Robert Bell was working the dispatch when she arrived. Mr. Hoffman was also at the fire station. Ms. Cresswell put away her purse and made coffee. As part of her duties on the midnight shift, she was responsible for erasing and rewinding the 911 dictaphone tapes. She went to the communications center, which is located adjacent to the reception area, and began to erase the tapes soon after her arrival at the fire station. While she was erasing the tapes, she, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Hoffman began talking about a storm that evening which caused a fire, destroying a local funeral home. During the discussion about the fire, they started to talk about cremation. Ms. Cresswell stated that she did not want to be cremated. Ms. Cresswell alleges that after she made the remark about cremation that Mr. Hoffman came over to her, put his hand on her shoulder, laughed, kissed her on the cheek, and said, "I hear you." At the formal hearing she could not recall whether Mr. Hoffman allegedly kissed her before or after midnight. According to Ms. Cresswell, Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Bell continued to talk about the funeral home after Mr. Hoffman kissed her. Additionally, Ms. Cresswell asserts that after Mr. Bell left the fire station that Mr. Hoffman stayed for approximately one and one half hours. Mr. Hoffman contends that he never touched or kissed Ms. Cresswell as she alleged and that he left the fire station the same time as Mr. Bell. During the conversation concerning the funeral home, Mr. Bell was in and out of the communications center. Mr. Bell did not see Mr. Hoffman kiss Ms. Cresswell as she alleged. Ms. Cresswell did not tell Mr. Bell that Mr. Hoffman had kissed her. Ms. Cresswell did not confront Mr. Hoffman concerning the alleged kiss. Donald Allen Helberg, a firefighter/EMT was present in the dispatch side of the fire station during the late evening and early morning hours of March 20 and 21, 1993, respectively. He saw Ms. Cresswell pull into the parking lot when she came to work the midnight shift. Mr. Helberg recalled Ms. Cresswell joining in the conversation that he, Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Bell were having. He also recalls seeing Mr. Bell head toward the double doors leading to the outside followed by Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Helberg was also leaving at that time to return to the firefighter section of the building. While he was present, Mr. Helberg did not see or hear anything unusual involving Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Cresswell. Sometime after March 21, 1993, Ms. Cresswell called Mr. Helberg and asked him if he remembered being present at the fire station on the night of the alleged incident. Mr. Bell left the fire station approximately ten minutes after midnight. Mr. Hoffman was walking behind Mr. Bell as he walked out the door. Mr. Hoffman was driving a red Jimmy vehicle that night. As Mr. Bell was driving out of the fire station parking lot, he observed a reddish vehicle behind him. The reddish vehicle left the parking lot after Mr. Bell, headed in the opposite direction. Mr. Hoffman lived approximately a mile and a half from the fire station. He arrived home at approximately fifteen minutes after midnight. His wife was up waiting for him when he got home. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses and having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that Mr. Hoffman did not touch or kiss Ms. Cresswell either on the evening of March 20, 1993 or the morning of March 21, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Complaint No. 93-56 against Robert Hoffman. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 12th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5835EC To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact. Stipulated Facts 1. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted. Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 4: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 6-7: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance except as to the occurrence of the water fountain incident. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: The last sentence is rejected as not supported by credible evidence. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted that it is what Ms. Cresswell alleges but rejected as to that is what happened based on the credible evidence. Paragraph 12: The first part of the first sentence is accepted in substance. The last part of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Mr. Bell did not see Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Cresswell the entire time but that does not mean that he wasn't paying attention to them during the time that he did see them. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 13: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Paragraphs 14-15: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 16: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found as to what Ms. Cresswell believed. Rejected as not supported by the evidence as to what Mr. Hoffman believed. Paragraph 17: The first two sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted. Paragraphs 3-5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 6-7: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance as that is what Ms. Cresswell contended. Paragraphs 9-10: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 13: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 15-17: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 18-19: Accepted that it was what Ms. Cresswell contended but rejected as not supported by credible evidence that it was what happened. Paragraph 20: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 21: Accepted to the extent that it is Ms. Cresswell's testimony. Paragraphs 22-25: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 28-30: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 31-33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 34-37: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 38: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The last sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 39: The first sentence is accepted in substance as that was what was alleged. The second sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 40-43: Accepted in substance as that is what was alleged. Paragraph 44: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 45: Accepted in substance as that is what was alleged. Paragraphs 46-47: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 48-49: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 50-51: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 52: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 53-56: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 57: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 58-60: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 61: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 62: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 63: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 64: Accepted in substance as that was what was alleged. Paragraph 65: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 66-67: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 68: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 69-7O: Accepted in substance that the dictaphone equipment is located in the communications center. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 71: Accepted in substance that she made those allegations. Paragraphs 72-74: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 75-76: Rejected as not supported by credible evidence as that was what happened. Paragraph 77: Accepted in substance to the extent that Mr. Bell was not watching Mr. Hoffman and Ms. Cresswell the entire time of the conversation. Paragraphs 78-79: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 80-81: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 82: Accepted to the extent that she did not tell Mr. Bell of the kissing incident; otherwise rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence or unnecessary. Paragraphs 83-84: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 85: The first sentence is accepted to the extent that it is Ms. Cresswell's testimony. The last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 86: Accepted in substance that it was her testimony. Paragraph 87: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 88: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 89: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 90-99: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 100: Accepted to the extent that he saw Bell heading toward the outside door, followed by Hoffman as Helberg was leaving to go to the firefighter side of the building. Paragraphs 101-104: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 105: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 106-107: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 108: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 109-111: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 112-116: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 117: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 118-125: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 126-127: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 128-130: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 131-133: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 134: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 135-137: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 138-155: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 156-262: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 263: Rejected to the extent that it implies that there was a conspiracy. The evidence does not support a conclusion of conspiracy among Mr. Holland, Mr. Rogers, and Ms. Cresswell. Paragraphs 264-288: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 289-290: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Advocate For the Florida Commission on Ethics Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Alan, Dyer, Doppelt, Franjola & Milbrath Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802-3791 Bonnie Williams Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, Esquire General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
The Issue Did Respondent, Kona Properties, LLC, d/b/a Greenleaf Assisted Living, LLC (Greenleaf), violate section 429.26(7), Florida Statutes (2019),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-36.007(1) and, if so, what penalty should be imposed? (Count I) Did Greenleaf violate section 429.176 and 429.52(4) and (5) and rule 59A-36.010? If it did, what penalty should be imposed? (Count II) Did Greenleaf violate rule 59A-36.010(2) and, if so, what penalty should be imposed? (Count III) Should the Agency impose a survey fee upon Greenleaf pursuant to section 429.19(7)? If so, what amount of fee should be imposed? (Count IV) Did Greenleaf commit one or more Class I violations justifying revocation of its license under section 429.14(1)(e)1.? (Count V) Did Greenleaf violate the background screening requirements of sections 408.809, 429.174, and 435.06(2)(a) through (d)? If so, what penalty should be imposed? (Count VI) Did Greenleaf violate rule 59A-35.110 by not making timely adverse incident reports, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed? (Count VII)
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure of ALFs and enforcement of the statutes governing ALFs, codified in chapters 429, part I, and 408, part II, Florida Statutes, as well as the related rules in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 59A-35 and 59A-36. Greenleaf was, at all material times, an ALF in Kissimmee, Florida, operating under the Agency's licensing authority. Greenleaf's license authorized it to operate a 75-bed facility. Greenleaf also held a limited mental health license. This authorized it to care for residents with mental health issues, residents that many facilities will not serve. Greenleaf was required to comply with all applicable statutes and rules. There is no evidence that the Agency has ever imposed sanctions on Greenleaf or determined that it violated statutes or rules. Joann Campbell was the administrator of Greenleaf at all relevant times. Background Screening On February 4, 2019, the Agency conducted a survey of Greenleaf. As part of the survey, the Agency investigator reviewed personnel files. Investigator Pellot asked Greenleaf's Administrator, Joann Campbell, about background screening for Destiny Castleberry. She asked because the paper background screening report in Ms. Castleberry's personnel file indicated that the background screening report was "awaiting privacy policy." Ms. Campbell acknowledged that was what the document said. She went on to advise Ms. Pellot that the employee had passed the background screening 2 The parties' agreement to an extension waived the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.216(1). and was eligible to serve residents. Ms. Campbell immediately printed a current background screening report showing that Ms. Castleberry had passed background screening and was eligible to serve residents. The Agency representative maintains that an employee's file must have a printed copy of a completed background screening. The Agency also maintains that Ms. Pellot reviewed a personnel file for someone named Eric and that the background screening report in his file was out of date. The Agency did not offer the file into evidence. Ms. Pellot could not remember the employee's last name. A different Agency witness said that she looked for Eric, last name unknown, in the Level II Background Screening Clearinghouse and "it told me that his background screening was not valid." The Agency did not offer a printout demonstrating the information stored in the Clearinghouse or offer persuasive evidence that the investigator even searched for the correct name. The testimony was insufficient to prove this employee did not have a current background-screening document.3 Adverse Incident Report Agency Investigator Pellot conducted a complaint survey of Greenleaf on December 30, 2019. Information from this survey is the basis of the charge that Greenleaf did not make a required adverse incident report. Ms. Pellot testified about reports she read of Resident 40 leaving Greenleaf, the staff either being unaware of his departure or thinking he left with family, him falling while not at the facility, and him being taken to a hospital emergency room. The documents she reviewed were reports by individuals who did not testify. The documents were not offered into evidence. Ms. Pellot also testified about the contents of a facility log for Resident 40. (Tr. V. I, p. 144). Her testimony about the interviews of staff and documents she reviewed is 3 The Agency did not offer an explanation why it waited until it issued the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 20-1890 on March 26, 2020, to take action on an alleged violation on February 4, 2019, over a year earlier. hearsay. The statements in the documents themselves are also hearsay.4 Further there is not a record sufficient to establish that the contents of the documents Ms. Pellot described would meet the business records hearsay exception in section 90.803(6), Florida Statutes. The Agency did not offer any of the documents, including the facility log, into evidence. An admission of Greenleaf administrator, Joann Campbell, did establish that Greenleaf had filed a "one-day" adverse incident report about Resident 40 but had not filed a "15-day" adverse incident report. § 90.803(18)(e), Fla. Stat. The admission goes only to filing of a report. It did not involve or prove any of the assertions about the facts of the incident, necessary to determine if the incident was one that had to be reported as the Agency advocates. The Agency did not offer the incident report into evidence. Ms. Campbell tried several times to submit a "15-day" adverse incident report. She was unable to because the website that the Agency requires ALFs to use to submit adverse incident reports was malfunctioning. Training Due to a tragic fire, the Agency charged Greenleaf with providing inadequate safety training. Greenleaf has a "Fire Safety Plan," which was in effect at all relevant times. It included the following section. Fire Safety Training A record of monthly fire drills is kept and logged by the Assistant Administrator. The day after each drill a staff meeting will be called and mistakes will be discussed and solutions to problems will be recommended. Training in Fire Control: In-service for staff regarding Fire Safety and Disaster Plans will be done every first Wednesday of each month on the = Use of fire extinguishers, confining and securing areas in case of fire. 4 The undersigned noted the reliance upon hearsay and the limits of its use many times during the hearing. Fire Plan: All personnel should be familiar with the plan by frequent in-service. For new employees, copies of disaster plan will be handed. Unannounced fire drills to be conducted on an ongoing basis. Greenleaf did not provide in-service training regarding Fire Safety and Disaster Plans on the first Wednesday of each month as provided in its fire safety plan. It also did not provide training in use of fire extinguishers on the first Wednesday of each month as provided in one "Annex A" to its fire safety plan. (Ex. 35-15). Similarly, it did not conduct monthly fire drills as provided by another "Annex A" to its fire safety plan. (Ex. 35-11). Greenleaf did, however, provide fire safety and emergency training to its employees. Greenleaf conducted four fire drills per shift per year for its employees, resulting in each employee participating in four drills per year. Employees, including Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio, and residents, participated in the drills. The drills included review of use of a fire extinguisher. The review did not include physically using a fire extinguisher. Verbal and video instruction was provided. Use of a fire extinguisher is one of the first trainings Greenleaf provided new employees. The drills did not specifically address the circumstance of a resident literally catching fire or a resident being covered with flaming fabric. The undersigned recognizes that some employees testified, albeit inconsistently, that they had not been trained. However, other testimony of the same employees about what they did and why indicates that they had received training. For instance Ms. Drybola, when asked what she would have done based on a normal fire drill, responded by saying she would assist a resident with clothes on fire by using a wet or fireproof blanket. When asked if the day's event went like previous fire drills, she responded "no." She did not respond that there had been no fire drills. She also stated, "This time we had a real person," implying that she had been through the procedures before without "a real person." (Tr. V. 3, p. 425). This testimony indicates she had received training. Ms. Drybola also acknowledged receiving emergency training on August 26, 2019. The testimony of Mr. Harman similarly indicates that Greenleaf trained its employees. He said that he had not received training. Yet he said he received verbal instructions on how to respond to an emergency for evacuation. (Tr. V. I, p. 122). He also referred to having had a fire drill two or three months before the incident. (Tr. V. I, p. 127). Mr. Harman also referred to the fire drill training as mandatory. Ms. Terredanio's testimony also supports finding that Greenleaf trained its employees in fire safety and other emergency procedures. The fact that she could describe how to use the fire extinguisher enhanced her credibility and persuasiveness. Furthermore, Ms. Terredanio described other emergency responsibilities and procedures. (Tr. V. IV, pp. 465-468). The employees received training in emergency procedures, including fire safety procedures. The statements of some employees about not receiving training appear to be due to difficulty understanding questions, nervousness, and a lack of clarity in questions about what "training" is. The training was irregular. The Agency did not prove that the training was inadequate. It did not prove what the training consisted of or how frequently it occurred, even though Agency employees knew Greenleaf's plan provided for a training log that could have been offered into evidence. The Agency could have offered personnel files into evidence to demonstrate employees had not received training. The Agency did not do this. In addition, the Agency did not offer testimony from a witness qualified under section 90.702 to offer an opinion about what adequate emergency training would be. The Fire A tragic and fatal fire on January 25, 2020, is the genesis of Case No. 20-1469. The incident was recorded by a video camera facing down a hallway. The 15 minute, 33 second video records events occurring on one section of one hallway in a two-story building. The findings here are based on review of the video recordings and testimony from two employees who worked to save the resident. The recordings and employee testimony are the only direct and persuasive evidence of events. The fire started in room 9 on the first floor. Resident 1, a smoker with lung problems who used an oxygen concentrator, lived in Room 9. That day an oxygen concentrator was in the room. Around 1:25 on the afternoon of January 25, Erin Drybola, who served Greenleaf residents as a caregiver and provided housekeeping services to Greenleaf, heard a fire alarm sounding off. She ran toward the alarm and found a fire in room 9, where Resident 1 was. Smoke began to fill the hallways. The fire sprinklers activated and emergency lights began flashing. Ms. Drybola beckoned for help and entered the room. She found Resident 1 in her wheelchair, beside the bed, engulfed in flames. Ms. Drybola called for Marietta Terredanio to come help. Smoke quickly grew thicker. Another employee in the hall, closer to the lobby, began directing residents toward the lobby exit on the south side of the building. A worker dressed in scrubs also evacuated residents through a west side exit on the dining room end of the hall. A male staff member ran down the hall toward another area of the facility to assist residents with evacuation. Ms. Drybola ran to get a telephone and returned with it, calling as she ran. This took approximately 23 seconds. More residents hastened toward the dining room, west exit area, with encouragement from staff. Ms. Drybola re- entered the room with the fire. Resident 1's wheelchair and a lap blanket or wrap of some sort covering her lower body were burning. Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio tried to extinguish the flames with a blanket, although it was not a "fire blanket." Their efforts failed. Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio moved Resident 1 in the flaming wheelchair from room 9 to the hall because of the danger that the oxygen concentrator posed. At this time, approximately one minute and 27 seconds after the alarm sounded, smoke made it almost impossible to see except the area around the wheelchair illuminated by the fire. Ms. Drybola pushed the wheelchair down the hall to a more open area in front of an elevator. This kept the burning wheelchair and resident from blocking the hall. At this point, the smoke was so thick, only the resident and her wheelchair are visible in the recording. Ms. Terredanio ran to get pitchers of water from the kitchen adjacent to the dining room to pour on the flames. Ms. Drybola did too. These trips resulted in the resident being left alone for brief periods. The resident struggled to leave the wheelchair. Although the video does not have sound, Resident 1's moving lips and heaving chest indicate she was crying or screaming. Ms. Drybola made three trips, each with two pitchers of water. Ms. Terredanio made one trip. Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio substantially extinguished the fire within three minutes and thirty-nine seconds of Ms. Drybola hearing the alarm. Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio directed more residents down the hall toward the dining room exit. Ms. Drybola supported one resident as he walked. Three rooms down from room 9 and on the other side of the hall, a fire extinguisher hung on the wall. Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio did not use the fire extinguisher on Resident 1 because they feared that the chemicals in it were dangerous to a human. Their trainings had not addressed what to do when a person is aflame. A police officer arrived at about 1:29 p.m., four minutes after the alarm sounded. At almost the same time, Ms. Drybola escorted some of the last of the residents visible from the area. The officer pulled charred, still smoking fabric from the back of Resident 1's chair and from Resident 1. He was carrying a fire extinguisher. The officer put down the fire extinguisher. Like Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio, the officer elected to use pitchers of water to extinguish smoldering spots on the wheelchair. Like Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio, he prioritized extinguishing the fire and briefly left Resident 1 alone while he obtained more water. After giving the officer another pitcher of water, Ms. Drybola went to a barely visible area off the lobby to escort two more residents out. Another employee identified one last resident in a room beside the elevator and, along with an officer, directed him out of the area toward the dining room exit. Firefighters did not arrive until the fire was extinguished and police officers were in charge of the scene. At the time the firefighters arrived, at least three officers were tending to Resident 1, managing the scene, and directing the activities of Greenleaf employees. The video records a horrific, chaotic scene: a burning resident struggling in a burning wheelchair and smoke so thick a person could not see past her extended arm. Ms. Drybola and Ms. Terredanio acted bravely and quickly in an effort to save Resident 1 and other residents. They made their best judgment about the risks of using a fire extinguisher, a judgment validated by the officer's election to use water, not his fire extinguisher. While the events described above played out on the first floor, Kevin Harman evacuated residents from the second floor. Mr. Harman was working as cook that afternoon. He had been trained that when the fire alarm sounded the "cook is supposed to go upstairs, going door-to-door, knocking on them, opening them, making sure everybody is out." (Tr. V. I, p. 121) As soon as he heard the alarm, that is what he did. Mr. Harman went upstairs and started evacuating residents. One resident in a wheelchair had difficulty walking. Mr. Harman started taking the resident down the stairs, step by step in his wheelchair. The resident was anxious, and Mr. Harman feared he would fall. Mr. Harman changed to helping the resident scoot down the stairs on his behind. By the time they got about halfway down the stairs, two officers arrived and took over. They supported the resident walking down the stairs and out the exit. Mr. Harman fulfilled his responsibilities and evacuated the upstairs residents quickly.5 With the exception of fire extinguisher use, Greenleaf employees, visible in the video recording complied with the facility's fire safety plan. It is also important to note that the video records activities on one segment of one hall on one floor of a two-story facility. The only evidence about activities in other parts of the facility is the testimony about Mr. Harman successfully fulfilling his responsibilities. Smoke from the fire quickly obscured visibility in the hall. Moreover, the horrific, extraordinary sight and sound of Resident 1 burning was enough to cause panic in anyone, regardless of training. To the extent there is such a thing as an ordinary emergency, this was no ordinary emergency. Greenleaf took several actions after the fire. It brought in counselors to provide long-term services to residents and employees. It dramatically increased emergency training frequency, especially for fires. Smoking Policies and Practices Greenleaf permitted residents to have and use tobacco products, including cigarettes. Rule 59A-36.007(6)(d) requires an ALF to have rules and procedures that must address the facility's policies about alcohol and tobacco use. This necessarily contemplates ALF residents smoking. Greenleaf had a tobacco policy. But it was not offered into evidence. Greenleaf prohibited smoking inside the building. Gleaning from a resident's tobacco use policy acknowledgement (Ex. 52-15), the policy designated a smoking area, 5 Mr. Harman's testimony presents a good example of the weaknesses and ambiguity of the Agency's evidence. He said that he had no emergency response training. (Tr. V. I, p. 121). Yet in the next sentence he said he "was verbally told what I was supposed to do, but there was no training connected to it." Training would encompass being "verbally told what to do." Training is teaching. No specific method is required. https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/train (last visited November 15, 2020.) Even the Agency's counsel's questions acknowledge verbal instruction as training. ("[Y]ou said that the only training you received was verbal instruction … ." [Tr. V. I, p. 122]). Mr. Harman was able to describe his responsibilities in an emergency. (Tr. V. I, p. 121). And he drew on that training to care for second-floor residents. prohibited smoking in bedrooms or anywhere else inside the building, and required residents to acknowledge that smoking inside the building endangered residents, staffs, and visitors. The policy apparently also provided that a resident would be given a 45-day notice or evicted for violating the smoking policy. Until the fire, Greenleaf permitted residents to keep their cigarettes and lighters in their rooms. Greenleaf employed Jackie Shelton from sometime in June 2019 to about March 31, 2020. Two or three months after she began working at Greenleaf, Ms. Shelton observed signs of residents smoking in the facility. This was no earlier than August 2019 to no later than mid-October 2019. The signs included smelling smoke in a room and seeing cigarette butts in the garbage. She verbally reported the signs of residents smoking in the facility to Ms. Campbell, the facility administrator. Ms. Campbell told Ms. Shelton that she would "look into it." Greenleaf did not have a process for monitoring resident compliance with smoking rules. There is, however, no rule or statute that requires a process. There is also no testimony from an expert qualified under section 90.702 to offer opinions that could support a finding that an ALF should have a policy for monitoring smoking by residents. The Agency maintains that Ms. Campbell knew that Resident 1 smoked in her room. The Agency, however, did not prove this. It offered only hearsay evidence of statements allegedly made by residents to Agency employees. It did not offer testimony from any of the residents. Greenleaf did learn that Resident 2 smoked in the bathroom the day after the fire. It promptly issued a warning and a "45 day notice" of eviction to Resident 2. By the time of the hearing, Greenleaf had not evicted Resident 2 because it could not find a placement for him due to his mental health issues and the limited number of ALFs with mental health licenses. After the fire, Greenleaf changed its smoking practices. It now requires residents to give their smoking materials to staff. Greenleaf staff places the materials in plastic containers kept in the kitchen or medicine room. Residents must ask for them when they wish to smoke. Greenleaf still only permits smoking in a designated outside area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaddrick A. Haston, Esquire 3812 Coconut Palm Drive, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33619 (eServed) Andrew Beau-James Thornquest, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Michael Roscoe, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 545 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shevaun L. Harris, Acting Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Bill Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent erected an outdoor advertising sign along I-4, 10.81 miles east of U.S. 301 and has never applied for or received a permit for this sign. No permit has ever been issued for a sign at this location which is not within an incorporated town or city. The sign advertising Gator Jungle Alligator Farm and an arrow on the sign points to the direction of the alligator farm. The sign is located within 1,500 feet of another sign along I-4 on the same side of the highway facing in the same direction. This sign is also less than 500 feet from the end of the widening of the I-4 at which the entrance ramp to the I-4 ends.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 27, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's sign along U. S. 19 in the vicinity of S. R. 595. The sign had no permit attached, and DOT records revealed no permit has ever been issued for this sign. The sign is visible from U. S. 19. U. S. 19 is a federal aid primary highway.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Southeast Petro Distributors, Inc. (Petitioner or Southeast Petro), is entitled to a refund for taxes paid on its purchases of identified machinery and equipment based upon an exemption in section 212.08(5)(b), Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether Southeast Petro is entitled to statutory interest on the amount of any refund paid, pursuant to section 213.255, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the stipulations of the parties, the following facts are found: Southeast Petro is a fuel distributor that distributes fuel to customers in the Southeastern United States, concentrated mostly in Florida. Southeast Petro does not operate any of the locations to which it delivers fuel, but the operators of many of the locations, like Southeast Petro, are affiliate 1 Petitioner’s Exhibit 22 is for demonstrative purposes only. companies of M&R High Point Holdings, Inc. Summit Shah is the President of Southeast Petro and has been with the company for 22 years. He referred to these affiliate companies as “disregarded entities,” and testified that the companies are part of a family business, with all of the same officers and common ownership under a single federal tax return. Those other than Southeast Petro are referenced in this Recommended Order as affiliate sites. Southeast Petro also delivers fuel to locations in which it has no ownership interest. For these locations, which are referred to as dealer locations, Southeast Petro has entered into Dealer Supply Agreements. Under these agreements, Southeast Petro supplies not only the fuel to the dealers, but equipment to store and dispense the fuel, including gasoline tanks and dispensing pumps. While ownership of the fuel passes to the dealer when it is transferred to the storage tanks, the storage tanks, dispensing pumps, and related equipment remain the property of Southeast Petro. Southeast Petro is required to supply fuel to the dealer as necessary to meet customer demand. Southeast Petro purchases the underground tanks and dispensing pumps for both its affiliate sites and the dealer locations that buy its fuel. Fuel tanks generally last approximately 20 years, and have warranties for 10-20 years, while dispensing pumps last about 10 years, with most warranties lasting for four years. Both the dispensing pumps and the underground storage tanks have a depreciable life of over three years. As the pumps age, they become less efficient and the flow of the gasoline slows. This case involves the replacement of dispensing pumps and a few underground storage tanks at gas stations serviced by Southeast Petro. Most gas stations sell unleaded gasoline with three octane ratings: premium, with a 93 rating; mid-grade, with an 89 rating; and regular unleaded, with an 87 rating. Different vehicles require different fuel octane levels to maximize the performance of the vehicle. For example, a high performance sports car requires premium gas, while a typical sedan runs just fine on regular unleaded gasoline. At one time, an underground tank was required for each kind of fuel. However, within the last approximately 20 years, dispensing pumps have been manufactured with a blender mechanism that allows for the elimination of one storage tank and blends percentages of unleaded and premium fuel to create mid-grade fuel at the dispensing location. With the use of this type of dispensing pump, the need to transport and store mid-grade fuel is eliminated. Reducing the number of tanks required at each location reduces cost of insurance, as well as the cost related to supplying the tanks, and the risk of fuel leaks from the underground tanks. The Department contends that while Southeast Petro is purchasing these dispensing pumps with the blender capability, it is the customer, as opposed to Southeast Petro, that is “making” the mid-grade fuel through his or her selection of mid-grade when making the fuel purchase. However, unless the dispensing pump is equipped with the mechanism that blends the fuel, the customer cannot access mid-grade fuel. On or about May 22, 2017, Southeast Petro filed a DR-26S, Application for Refund – Sales and Use Tax form (application), with the Department, claiming that it was entitled to a refund of $146,846.47 in sales tax paid for dispensing pumps and underground storage tanks it purchased to replace the dispensing pumps and tanks at several locations. The purchases were for dispensing pumps for both affiliated entities and for dealer locations. The replacement of some underground storage tanks was also included in the claimed purchases. Dispensing pumps were purchased from Central Industries, Inc.; Guardian Fueling Technologies, LLC; and Sunoco, LLC, and underground storage tanks were purchased from Modern Welding Company of Florida, Inc. In addition to the application, Petitioner provided a power of attorney form, a spreadsheet listing job code, invoice date, invoice number, taxable amount, sales tax, sales tax percentage, and invoice totals for the purchases at issue; and several invoices for purchases of gasoline pumps, tanks, and related hardware necessary for installation. The invoices reflect the different sites to which pumps were installed. At least some portion of the address for the site was included on the invoices, such as the street address, although they did not always identify the cities where the sites were located. The refund period in the application is May 2014 through April 2017. On June 20, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Make Tax Refund Changes. In an attachment to the Notice, the Department stated that the information provided in the request for refund was insufficient, and requested that Petitioner provide an assignment of rights to refund of sales tax form; a plant schematic of the manufacturing facility identifying the location of the equipment included in the refund request; citations to applicable Florida Statutes and administrative rules upon which Petitioner was relying for the request for exemption and refund, along with any documentation (not specified) required to support the exemption/refund request; and information related to the claimed pollution control exemption, which is no longer relevant to these proceedings. The Notice of Intent to Make Refund Changes stated, “If you do not agree with these findings, you may request an informal conference to discuss any factual, statutory, or regulatory issues related to the above refund denial. Your request for informal conference must be made, in writing, to the above referenced office within 30 days of the issuance of this Notice.” It also advised that if the taxpayer did not request an informal hearing within 30 days, a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial would be issued on or about July 20, 2017. The attachment requesting additional documents did not expressly state a deadline for the submission of the documents requested. On July 20, 2017, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Refund Denial for the Refund Claim. The attachment to the Notice of Proposed Refund Denial stated that the request for refund was being denied because the documentation requested in the Notice of Intent to Make Tax Refund Changes had not been provided. Southeast Petro timely protested the Notice of Decision of Refund Denial pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 12-6. Southeast Petro’s Protest letter, dated August 2, 2017, included the documents previously provided to the Department. No plant schematic identifying the equipment included in the refund request was ever provided to the Department, or produced at hearing, because no plant is involved. Instead, Petitioner asserts that each gas station is a fixed site where “manufacturing, processing, compounding, or producing for sale” is taking place. On November 17, 2017, Alan Fulton, who at that time was a tax law specialist for the Department, issued a letter to counsel for Petitioner stating that the documentation to date was not sufficient to support the claim, and that the Department needed, for each transaction/refund amount requested, a properly executed assignment of rights form from each of the selling dealers to which Petitioner asserts was paid in error; the amount of tax requested for each transaction in the refund claim; a clear and concise reconciliation of the invoices/transactions for which Petitioner was seeking a refund; and proof of tax paid to the vendor that reconciles to the refund amount. Mr. Fulton also asked for production records or documents to support the claim that the machinery and equipment purchased is used in a manufacturing process to produce a new product; and a thorough description of the manufacturing process, including the specific machinery used. Mr. Fulton advised that this information, as well as any other documentation that may support the protest, needed to be provided to the Department no later than December 12, 2017. On February 28, 2018, the Department issued a Notice of Decision (NOD) of Refund Denial, in which the Department denied the refund in its entirety. In the NOD, the Department noted that it had requested additional documentation from Petitioner that it did not receive. With respect for the claim under the new or expanding business exemption, the NOD stated in part: By asserting its purchases qualify for tax exemption under s. 212.08(5)(b), F.S., Taxpayer implies its purchases are used to manufacture of process tangible personal property for sale. However, Taxpayer provides no arguments as to how its retail gasoline stations are engaged in manufacturing, processing, compounding, or producing for sale tangible personal property at fixed locations. Additionally, Taxpayer has failed to submit documentation specifically requested, such as properly executed Assignment of Rights to Refund of Sales Tax, an Application for Temporary tax Exemption Permit, form DR-1214; proof of tax paid to vendors; production records supporting Taxpayers contention that the machinery and equipment purchased is used in a manufacturing process to produce a new product; a description of the manufacturing process, including the specific machinery and equipment used; and documentation received from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the projects. Nonetheless, in considering Taxpayer’s assertions of tax exemption, it is reiterated, pursuant to Rule 12A-1.096(1)(d), F.A.C., promulgated to administer s. 212.08(5)(b), F.S., the phrase “manufacture, process, compound, or produce for sale” means the various industrial operations of a business where raw materials will be put through a series of steps to make an item of tangible personal property that will be sold. The gasoline was previously manufactured by a refinery from crude oil. Furthermore, it is the Taxpayer’s customers that operate the gasoline dispensing pumps at the retail stations, and not for the purpose of conducting industrial operations. As such, the Department does not find that Taxpayer is engaged in manufacturing operations at its retail gasoline stations with the dispensing pumps and underground tanks. Instead, it is the Department’s position, as indicated above, the dispensing pumps and underground storage tanks are more properly classified as storage and delivery systems utilized subsequent to the conclusion of the manufacturing process by a refinery. Therefore, these items would not qualify for the exemption from tax provided under s. 212.08(5)(b), F.S., and Rule 12S-1.096, F.A.C. (emphasis in original) On March 21, 2018, Southeast Petro filed a Petition for Reconsideration contesting the Notice of Decision of Refund Denial. With the Petition for Reconsideration, Petitioner provided, along with some other documentation, a schedule of the transactions at issue; the assignment of rights to refund from each of the selling dealers to which sales tax were paid; the corresponding invoices; the application for temporary exemption permit (DR-1214); and an explanation of how the refund amount was computed. On August 22, 2018, the Department issued its Notice of Reconsideration of Refund Denial, fully sustaining its denial of Southeast Petro’s refund claim. In its Notice of Reconsideration of Refund Denial, the Department reiterated its position stated in the NOD, and added the following statement: For both of the exemptions sought by Taxpayer, the Department acknowledges Taxpayer has submitted an Application for Temporary Tax Exemption Permit, form DR-1213, a reconciliation spreadsheet of the refund claimed, proper [sic] executed Assignment of Rights to Refund of Sales Tax, and various invoices for review and consideration. However, this information is not germane to the refund claim, because the dispensing pumps and underground storage tanks are not qualifying industrial machinery and equipment under the provisions of s. 212.051, F.S. and s. 212.08(5)(b), F.S. On October 19, 2018, Southeast Petro filed its Petition for Chapter 120 Hearing, contesting the Notice of Reconsideration. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 6, 2019. Southeast Petro paid sales taxes on the purchases of underground storage tanks and dispensing pumps to the vendors supplying the equipment. Those vendors then provided to Southeast Petro Assignment of Rights to Refund of Sales Tax forms, identifying the amount of tax for which they assigned the rights to Southeast Petro. Central Industries, Inc., sold dispensing pumps to Southeast Petro, and on August 23, 2017, assigned the rights to Southeast Petro for refund of the taxes it collected. The amount assigned for transactions occurring from May 1, 2015, through April 30, 2017, is $52,592.92. Guardian Fueling Technologies, LLC, sold dispensing pumps to Southeast Petro, and on August 23, 2017, assigned the rights to Southeast Petro for refund of taxes it collected. The amount assigned for transactions occurring from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2017, is $41,593.82. Guardian Fueling Technologies, LLC, also executed an assignment of rights for a purchase made in March 2015, where the tax paid was $36,269.31. Sunoco, LLC, sold dispensing pumps to Southeast Petro, and on September 14, 2017, assigned the rights to Southeast Petro for refund of taxes it collected. The amount assigned for transactions occurring from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2017, is $8,953.41. Modern Welding Company of Florida, Inc., sold underground storage tanks to Southeast Petro, and on June 29, 2015, assigned the rights to Southeast Petro for refund of the taxes it collected. The amount assigned for transactions occurring from June 2012 to March 2015 was $16,646.00. It is noted that this assignment covers purchases that extend back past the refund period. When Southeast Petro originally filed its application for a refund, the requested amount was over $146,000. Over the course of the litigation, Southeast Petro withdrew its claim for refund with respect to some of its sites. The relevant information presented to substantiate the refund claim for each location for which a refund is still sought is listed below. With each transaction, the information presented is taken from the records provided, as opposed to the composite spread sheets. Fractions of a gallon have been discarded in the calculations, as they do not affect the percentages reached. Site 21 Site 21 is an affiliate site located at 5230 University Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Guardian Fueling Technologies sold Southeast Petro four Gilbarco dispensing pumps. The invoice dated October 14, 2016, indicates that it was billed to “M&R Enterprises of Brevard/Southeast Petro.” The total amount invoiced was $58,747.76, and the tax paid for the purchase was $3,585.56. The invoice was paid by M&R United, Inc. The invoice includes references to ancillary features, such as a color screen and an HCR card reader for EMV, but the prices for those items are not listed separately. The dispensing pumps were installed by Petroleum Technicians, Inc., on or about December 22, 2016. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 21 sold approximately 675,257 gallons of fuel. In the 12-month period following the installation, from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2018, Site 21 sold approximately 754,287 gallons of fuel, for an increase in sales of 11.7%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to the installation, Site 21 sold 47,891 gallons, as opposed to 63,224 gallons for the identified 12-month period after installation, for an increase in sales of 32%. Site 99 Site 99 is an affiliate site located at 1600 Aurora Road, in Melbourne, Florida. Southeast Petro bought new Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware for Site 99 as part of a bulk purchase from Guardian Fueling Technologies. The four dispensing pumps bought as part of the bulk purchase for Site 99, cost $56,574, with corresponding tax of $3,960.18. The invoice, dated March 24, 2015, is billed to M&R Enterprise of Brevard/Southeast Petro. The dispensing pumps were installed by Petroleum Technicians, Inc., on or about May 24, 2015. In the 12 months prior to installation, Site 99 sold approximately 656,820 gallons of fuel. In a 12-month period following the installation, from August 2015 through July 2016, Site 99 sold approximately 693,009 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 5.51%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, from September 2014, through May 2015, Site 99 sold 16,733 gallons. The records submitted in Petitioner’s Exhibit 33 identifies gasoline sold for the period comprising May through August 2014 on a single page. There is no legend for the types of gasoline sold on this page, and the gas code found in other records corresponding to mid- grade blended gasoline does not appear, so a total for mid-grade fuel sold during the 12-month period cannot be clearly identified. The records are not sufficient to show 12 contiguous months of production or sale of mid-grade fuel. Site 101 Site 101 is an affiliate site located at 6842 Wilson Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Southeast Petro bought four new Gilbarco dispensing pumps from Central Industries. The invoice, dated January 4, 2017, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced is $55,813.49, and the tax paid is $3,157.84. The invoice includes charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and image/ graphics. The dispensing pumps were installed by Petroleum Technicians, Inc., on February 9, 2017. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 101 sold approximately 659,658 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from January through December 2018, Site 101 sold approximately 836,764 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 26.85%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 101 sold 72,575 gallons, as opposed to 86,312 gallons for the period selected, for an increase of 18.93%. Site 122 Site 122 is an affiliate site located at 700 Columbia Boulevard in Titusville, Florida. Central Industries, Inc., sold Southeast Petro five new Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware. The invoice, dated January 5, 2017, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced is $70,806, and the sales tax paid is $4,006.49. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and image/graphics. The new dispensing pumps were installed by Petroleum Technicians, Inc., on January 19, 2017. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 122 sold approximately 1,208,313 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from February 2017 through January 2018, Site 122 sold approximately 1,310,010 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 8.42%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 122 sold 67,918 gallons, as opposed to 58,940 gallons for the identified 12-month period after installation. As sales of this grade of fuel actually went down, mid-grade fuel did not see an increase of 5%. Site 234 Site 234 is an affiliate site located at 3860 Highway A1A in Melbourne, Florida. Central Industries, Inc., sold Southeast Petro six new Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware. The invoice, dated January 4, 2017, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced is $84,404.90 and the sales tax paid is $4,776.22. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and the Mobil image. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the new dispensing pumps on January 13, 2017. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 234 sold 582,758 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from January through December 2018, Site 234 sold 639,150 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 9.68%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 234 sold 37,702 gallons, as opposed to 43,842 gallons for the post-installation period selected, for an increase in sales of 16.29%. Site 320 Site 320 is an affiliate site located at 4353 West Main Street in Mims, Florida. Central Industries sold Southeast Petro four new dispensing pumps and related hardware for this site. The invoice, dated January 5, 2017, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced is $54,329.49, and the sales tax paid is $3,073.84. Additional hardware was invoiced for this site on January 20, 2017, for $1,484.00, and sales tax paid of $84.00. The total for the combined invoices is $55,813.49, with total sales tax of $3,157.84. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and the BP image. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the new dispensing pumps on January 18, 2017. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 320 sold 1,135,378 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from January through December 2018, Site 320 sold approximately 1,200,945 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 5.77%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 320 sold 33,106 gallons, as opposed to 36,235 gallons for the period selected, for an increase in sales of 9.45%. Site 343 Site 343 is an affiliate site located at 4090 West Midway Road in Fort Pierce, Florida. Central Industries, Inc., sold Southeast Petro six Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware. The invoice, dated January 5, 2017, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced for the six dispensing pumps is $84,404.90, and the sales tax paid is $4,776.22. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and image/graphics. There is a second invoice for Site 343 from Central Industries, Inc., for the purchase of a Gilbarco diesel dispensing pump. However, this pump does not have the blending capability of the other pumps purchased, and Petitioner acknowledges it would not support the criteria for a new and expanding business exemption, so it is not included. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the six dispensing pumps on February 23, 2017. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 343 sold 1,107,473 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from January through December 2018, Site 343 sold 1,289,854 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 16.47%. With respect to the mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 343 sold 47,811 gallons, as opposed to 57,614 gallons for the post-installation period selected, for an increase of 20.5%. Site 346 Site 346 is an affiliate site located at 1595 Island Lane in Orange Park, Florida. Guardian Fueling Technologies sold Southeast Petro eight Gilbarco dispending pumps and related hardware for Site 346. The invoice, dated November 25, 2016, is billed to M&R Enterprises of Brevard/Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced for the eight dispensing pumps is $118,047.12, and the sales tax paid is $7,722.72. The invoice includes references to ancillary features, such as a color screen and an HCR card reader for EMV, but the prices for those items are not listed separately. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the eight new dispensing pumps for Site 346 on December 29, 2016. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 346 sold 1,004,375 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from January through December 2018, Site 346 sold approximately 1,084,628 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 7.99%. With respect to the mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 346 sold 70,508 gallons, as opposed to 84,059 gallons for the selected post-installation period selected, for an increase of 19.22%. Site 349 Site 349 is an affiliate site located at 11555 Bonita Beach Road Southeast, in Bonita Springs, Florida. Guardian Fueling Technologies sold Southeast Petro four Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware for Site 349. The invoice, dated October 14, 2016, is billed to M&R Enterprise of Brevard/Southeast Petro. The total amount invoiced for the four dispensing pumps is $56,928.61, and the sales tax paid is $3,474.53. The invoice includes references to ancillary features, such as a color screen and an HCR card reader for EMV, but the prices for those items are not listed separately. Guardian Fueling Technologies also installed these pumps on November 18, 2016. In the 12 months prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 349 sold 702,975 gallons of fuel. In the selected 12-month period following the installation, from January through December 2018, Site 349 sold approximately 815,819 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 16.05%. With respect to mid-grade blended fuel, in the 12 months prior to installation of the new dispensing pumps, Site 349 sold 66,228 gallons, as compared to 85,116 gallons for the selected post-installation period, for an increase in sales of 28.52%. Site 355 Site 355 is an affiliate site located at 2653 Boggy Creek Road in Kissimmee, Florida. Southeast Petro bought six Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware from Guardian Fueling Technologies as part of a bulk purchase. The invoice, dated March 24, 2015, is billed to M&R Enterprises of Brevard/Southeast Petro. For the pumps and equipment purchased for Site 355, the cost for the pumps (pretax) was $83,738.00, and the sales tax was $5,861.66. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., removed the old pumps and installed the new dispensing pumps on April 27, 2015. For the period from September 1, 2014, through March 31, 2015, Site 355 sold 646,383 gallons of fuel. Only seven months of data is included because Southeast Petro and its affiliated companies did not own the site for a full year before the new pumps were installed, and the gas station was closed before ownership was transferred. No evidence was submitted regarding how long the station was closed prior to purchase. The evidence presented does not provide 12 contiguous months of production or sales records prior to installation of the new equipment. Site 385 Site 385 is an affiliate site located at 420 United States Highway 1, in Vero Beach, Florida. Central Industries, Inc., sold Southeast Petro five new Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware. The invoice, dated October 28, 2016, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total cost of the invoice, including tax, is $69,305.34, and the sales tax paid is $4,457.57. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and Exxon graphics. There is an additional invoice for this site dated October 27, 2016, for hanging hardware. The total of this invoice is $2,176.69, with sales tax paid of $127.00. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the dispensing pumps on March 7, 2017. For the 12-month period prior to installation, Site 385 sold 599,935 gallons of fuel. For the selected 12-month period following the installation, January through December 2018, Site 385 sold 630,265 gallons, for an increase of 5.06%. With respect to the mid-grade blended fuel, for the 12 months prior to installation, Site 385 sold 39,588 gallons, as opposed to 45,098 gallons for the post-installation period selected, for an increase of 13.92%. Site 403 Site 403 is an affiliate site located at 5385 Timuquana Road in Jacksonville, Florida. Central Industries, Inc., sold Southeast Petro four Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware for this location. The invoice, dated January 4, 2017, bills Southeast Petro for the purchase. The total billed is $55,813.49, with sales tax paid of $3,157. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and image/graphics. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the dispensing pumps on March 28, 2017. Southeast Petro’s affiliate owned Site 403 for only nine months prior to the installation of the dispensing pumps by Petroleum Technicians, so Southeast only submitted sales data for the nine months prior to the installation that an affiliate owned the location. Unlike Site 355, it is not clear whether the site was closed prior to the installation of the new pumps or simply changed ownership. For the nine months provided, Site 403 sold a total of 139,319 gallons of fuel. Using an average of gallons sold for that period, it is estimated that a year’s worth of sales would be approximately 185,759 gallons. For the selected post-installation period, January through December 2018, Site 403 sold 395,300 gallons of fuel. However, Petitioner did not provide 12 contiguous months of production or sales records prior to the installation of the new dispensing pumps. With respect to the mid-grade blended fuel, for the nine months the affiliated entity owned Site 403 prior to installation, it sold 11,362 gallons. Twelve contiguous months of records related to mid-grade fuel were not provided. JQ Trading JQ Trading is not an affiliate entity. It is an independent dealer location owned by Mills Chevron, LLC, located at 900 Mills Avenue in Orlando, Florida, to whom Southeast Petro sells fuel and has a dealer supply agreement. Pursuant to that dealer supply agreement, Southeast Petro supplies the pumps and related equipment in addition to delivering fuel to the site. Central Industries, Inc., sold Southeast Petro two new Gilbarco dispensing pumps and related hardware for JQ Trading. The invoice, dated January 5, 2017, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total cost of the invoice is $28,616.41, and the sales tax paid is $1,618.38. Included in the invoice are charges for ancillary items not involved in the blending process, such as speakers, hybrid card readers, and image/graphics. Petroleum Technicians, Inc., installed the dispensing pumps on January 30, 2017. Southeast Petro’s records show no gasoline sales for January 2017. For the 12 months preceding January 2017, JQ Trading sold 270,977 gallons of fuel. For the selected 12-month period following the installation, March 2017 through February 2018, JQ Trading sold 291,177 gallons, for an increase of 7.45%. Petitioner did not submit adequate documentation to determine the amount of mid-grade gasoline sold or the percentage of change. Aahan/Citrus Aahan/Citrus is an independent dealer location owned by Aahan, Inc., and located at 9548 North Citrus Springs Boulevard in Citrus Springs, Florida. Sunoco, LLC, sold Southeast Petro one dispensing pump for this location. The invoice, dated July 15, 2016, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total billed is $12,041.60, and the sales tax paid is $681.60. Southeast Petro acknowledges that it did not submit the invoice for the installation of the dispensing pump, but Mr. Clark, the owner of Petroleum Technicians, testified credibly that he installed the pump. The invoice indicates that the ship date for the dispensing pump was July 15, 2016. Mr. Clark also testified that installation can take place immediately after dispensing pumps are shipped, or as much as six months later, so relying on the ship date as the installation date is unrealistic. In the end, it does not matter, because regardless of when the dispensing pumps were installed, the increase in sales compared to the selected 12-month post- installation period is more than five percent. More specifically, the selected post-installation period is January through December 2018, and during that period, Aahan/Citrus sold 334,546 gallons of fuel. Assuming that the installation occurred within six months of the invoice, consistent with Mr. Clark’s testimony, the pre-installation comparators and the percentage increases are as follows: August 2015 - July 2016: 203,669 gallons, for a 64.26% increase; September 2015 - August 2016: 203,675 gallons, for 64.24% increase; October 2015 - September 2016: 203,960 gallons, for a 64.03% increase; November 2015 - October 2016: 195,340 gallons, for a 71.26% increase; December 2015 - November 2016: 202,772 gallons, for 64.99% increase; or January 2016 -December 2016: 202,779 gallons, for a 64.98% increase. No records were submitted from which the sales of mid-grade blended fuel can be identified or the percentage of increase, if any, can be determined. Snappy Food Mart Snappy Food Mart is an independent dealer location located at 1716 Oceanshore Boulevard in Ormond Beach, Florida. Sunoco, Inc., sold Southeast Petro three Gilbarco dispensing pumps for this location. The invoice, dated November 30, 2015, with a ship date listed as the same day, is billed to Southeast Petro. The total cost of the invoice is $35,189.73, with sales tax paid of $2,147.73. Like Aahan/Citrus, the installation invoice could not be located, although Mr. Clark testified that his company installed the pumps. As noted above, since pumps are sometimes installed up to six months after purchase, using the ship date (or the day after) as the installation date is unrealistic. The total gallons of fuel sold for the selected post-installation period of January through December 2018 is 251,355 gallons. Using the scenarios outlined below, the percentage increase for each is still over five percent. December 2014 – November 2015: 205,142 gallons,, for a 22.53% increase; January 2015 – December 2015: 200,807 gallons, for a 25.17% increase; February 2015 - January 2016: 201,664 gallons, for a 24.64% increase; March 2015 – February 2016: 198,116 gallons, for a 26.87% increase; April 2015 – March 2016: 214,614 gallons, for a 17.12% increase; or May 2015 – April 2016: 212,416 gallons, for an 18.33% increase. No records were submitted from which the sales of mid-grade blended fuel can be identified or the percentage of increase, if any, can be determined. Zack’s Zack’s is an independent dealer location owned by Zack’s Oil Enterprises, LLC, and located at 4201 Southwest 64th Avenue, in Davie, Florida. Southeast Petro purchased four dispensing pumps and related hardware for Zack’s from Sunoco, LLC, at a total cost of $45,444.32, with tax paid of $2,572.32. The invoice, dated October 6, 2014, is billed to Southeast Petro. Unlike other vendors for dispensing pumps, Sunoco issues its invoices after it ships the pumps, so, according to Summit Shah, pumps purchased from Sunoco are sometimes installed prior to the date on the invoice. In this case, the invoice from Petroleum Technicians, Inc., indicates that the dispensing pumps were installed August 24, 2015. Petitioner submitted gasoline sales records from September 2014 forward. The Dealer Supply Agreement for this location was assigned to Southeast Petro in July 2015, shortly before the installation of the new dispensing pumps. For the period beginning September 1, 2014, through August 30, 2015 (with no sales in August 2015), Zack’s sold 697,198 gallons of fuel. For the selected 12-month post-installation period, January through December 2017, Zack’s sold 743,104 gallons of fuel, for an increase of 6.58%. No records were submitted from which the sales of mid-grade blended fuel can be identified or the percentage of increase, if any, can be determined. BAM BAM is also an independent dealer location to whom Southeast Petro supplies fuel, and is located at 500 Highway A1A, in Satellite Beach, Florida. Southeast Petro purchased three dispensing pumps and related hardware for BAM from Sunoco, Inc. The invoice, dated July 1, 2013, is billed to Southeast Petro and lists a total of $35,024.52, with sales tax paid of $1,982.52. However, the assignment of rights from Sunoco, LLC, only covers sales tax paid from May 1, 2015, to April 30, 2017. Without an assignment of rights for the time period when these dispensing pumps were purchased, they cannot form the basis for a refund of the taxes paid. All of the records regarding fuel sold at each location described above were submitted for the purpose of establishing “production.” However, the records do not reflect production of any product, but rather, the volume of sales experienced at each location prior to and after the installation of the new dispensing pumps. While it is clear that overall sales at each location increased more than 5%, sometimes markedly so, the records submitted do not establish changes in production. Moreover, inasmuch as Petitioner is not contending that it “manufactures, processes, compounds or produces” premium or regular unleaded gas, sales records related to these products that Southeast Petro distributes, as opposed to manufacturing, processing, compounding, or producing, cannot establish production increases. Based upon all of the evidence presented, the more persuasive and compelling evidence is that the dispensing pumps provide a valuable improvement in the delivery of fuel to the customer, but are not a part of the production of the fuel itself. Petro also purchased two storage tanks from Modern Welding, for which they paid a total of $95,529.50 and sales tax of $5,454.50. However, unlike the dispensing pumps, storage tanks do not contribute to the “making” of a different octane-rated fuel. The evidence presented indicates that the storage tanks’ primary purpose is to store the gasoline held at each fuel location until the fuel is purchased by a customer. The tanks, like the dispensing pumps, are part of the delivery system for fuel as opposed to its production. Both tanks were installed at locations that were new businesses at the time of installation. Therefore, no prior production records for these locations were submitted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Application for Refund as a new or expanding business be denied, and its Petition for Chapter 120 Hearing be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald J. Donnini, II, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. Trade Center South, Suite 930 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (eServed) Mark S. Hamilton, General Counsel Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed) John Mika, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Plaza Level 01 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Rex D. Ware, Esquire Moffa, Sutton & Donnini, P.A. Suite 330 3500 Financial Plaza Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Paula Antonovna Savchenko, Esquire Moffa Sutton & Donni, P.A. Suite 930 100 West Cypress Creek Road Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 (eServed) James A. Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services acted arbitrarily or capriciously in awarding Lease No. 590:2437 to Edwards-Macy- Brenner's, Inc. Whether said bid was not responsive to the I.T.B. because it provided less than 23,697 square feet + of net square footage measured in accordance with the Standard Method of Space Measurement. BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION Pursuant to the invitation to bid for Lease No. 590:2437, Respondent received bids from PROCACCI FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., EDWARDS-MACY-BRENNER'S, INC. and PARK CENTER PROPERTIES. All bids were deemed responsive. On or before September 13, 1993, the Respondent awarded the Lease to Edwards. On September 16, 1993, the Petitioner filed its Notice of Intent to file a Formal Protest and thereafter filed its Formal Protest on September 23, 1993. On September 30, 1993, the Department notified Edwards-Macy-Brenner that the Award to it had been withdrawn by the Department, stating that the net rentable square footage of the bid was only 22,592 feet. On October 6, 1993, the Department cancelled its recision and gave Notice of Reinstatement of the Award to Edwards-Macy-Brenner's, Inc. This matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer pursuant to Section 120.53(5). A Notice of Referral and Notice to Bidders was served on November 3, 1993. Edwards-Macy- Brenner's, Inc. did not seek to intervene in the proceeding. A formal hearing was held on November 29, 1993 in Tallahassee, Florida. At the formal hearing the parties stipulated to the admissibility of joint Exhibits A, C and D. In addition, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Mary Virginia Goodman, Richard F. Schaffer, Marc Weiner and Philip J. Procacci. Petitioner introduced Exhibits 1 through 5 into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of Jim Birch, Cornell Arterbury and John Stewart. The parties stipulated that Petitioner's bid was responsive but it was second in score after the Edwards-Macy-Brenner's bid. A transcript of the hearing was filed on December 15, 1993 and Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Recommended Order on January 7, 1994. On February 14, 1994, before a recommended order was prepared, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss as moot stating that the property that was the subject of the successful bid was sold to a third party and "...the protestor has become the successful winning bidder by operation of law." On February 16, 1994 a telephone conference was conducted with the hearing officer and counsel for each party. Both Petitioner and Respondent stipulate to the entry of this order determining that the case is moot and that Petitioner is entitled to award of the bid, as lowest and best bidder by operation of law. Moreover, it is further stipulated that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter is final order, consistent with the stipulation of the parties, awarding the bid for lease #590:2437 to Petitioner, Procacci Financial Group, Inc. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: James Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 7 Legal Office South Tower, Suite S827 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert A. Sweetapple, Esquire Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.A. 465 East Palmetto Park Road Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Sanford B. Sheber Park Center Properties I 64 Hannay Lane Glenmont, New York 12077 N. Brenner, President Edwards-Macy-Brenner's, Inc. 3720 Lake Sarah Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1978, a petroleum inspector, David Potter, in carrying out his routine inspection, took a gasoline sample for analysis of unleaded gasoline from the Easy Shopper Store located on U. S. 41 South, Brooksville, Florida. This sample was tested by the state laboratory at Tallahassee, Florida, and on February 17, 1978, the Tallahassee laboratory notified Mr. Potter that the unleaded gasoline was illegal in that in contained .240 grams of lead per gallon, which is in excess of .05 grams per gallon allowable under the Respondent Department's regulation. On the basis of this information, Potter went to the Easy Shopper Store and placed a stop-sale notice on the tank that dispensed unleaded gasoline. On this same date, February 17, 1978, the Petitioner was allowed to deliver 1200 gallons of unleaded gasoline in an effort to reduce the lead content already existing in the tank. Another sample was taken from the tank after the 1200 gallons was added, and it was dispatched for analysis. On February 20, 1978, Potter was notified by Tallahassee laboratory that the lead content in subject tank contained .520 grams per gallon and was therefore illegal. On the basis of this, the Petitioner, James R. Wilkes, was allowed to post a bond in the amount of $507.91 for the value of 834 gallons that was sold by Easy Shopper Store from the last delivery before the first sample and the stop-sale. The Petitioner was then allowed to pump out the illegal unleaded gasoline and put it in a regular tank to be sold as regular gasoline. On March 13, 1973, Mr. Potter sampled the Petitioner's unleaded product at Huey's Service Station located at U. S. 19 South, Inverness, Florida. The unleaded gasoline sample was dispatched to the Tallahassee Laboratory, and the analysis indicated that the lead content was .069 grams per gallon established by the Respondent's Department's regulations. As a result of the analysis of the gasoline sample, Mr. Potter placed a stop-sale against Huey's Service station's unleaded gasoline tank, and the Respondent posted a bond of $206.70 which was the value of the gasoline sold before the stop-sale. Upon the posting of the bond the Petitioner was allowed to pump out the remaining gasoline and refill the tank with a new product. The contaminated product that was recovered by the Petitioner from Huey's Service Station was delivered on February 15, 1978, in the amount of 500 gallons, and on March 1, 1978, in the amount of 300 gallons. On or about March 3, 1978, the Petitioner discovered the cause of the gasoline contamination. He found a leak from the No. 3 compartment to the No. 4 compartment on his delivery truck, which caused the regular gasoline to mix with the unleaded gasoline. Promptly upon discovery of the leaking compartment, the Petitioner had the tank compartments repaired by the Tank Welding & Service Company, Inc., located in Tampa, Florida. There is no dispute as to the facts, and the only connection on the part of Petitioner is that although the gasoline was contaminated it was not an intentional act of the Petitioner, and he feels he should not be penalized in the amount of $507.91 and $206.70 under the circumstances of this case. Respondent contends that Section 525.06, Florida Statutes. does not allow for any discretion on the part of the Respondent in its confiscation of the remaining contaminated gasoline, other than the agreement between participating parties which allowed the Petitioner to post bonds in the amount of $507.91 and $206.70, which is the value of the gasoline Petitioner dispensed to the public at Easy Shopper Store and Huey's Service Station. Respondent contends that most similar incidents are non-intentional.
Recommendation It is recommended that upon payment by the Petitioner of $507.91 and $206.70, respectively, the bond of the Petitioner be cancelled and this case be closed DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of April 1979. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James R. Wilkes, Marketer American Petrofina Company Post Office Box 1042 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Mr. John Whitton Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1981, John Flanagan, a Graduate Chemist and Inspector for the Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (hereafter "Department") took a gasoline sample (R-247) from an unleaded pump identified as 45321" at the June Avenue Service Station, 1109 West U.S. 98, Panama City, Florida. This sample was field tested and then forwarded to the lab in Tallahassee where it was again tested on February 20, 1981 and found to be contaminated with leaded gasoline. (Testimony of Whitton, Flanagan, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1). As a result of the field test the Department issued a stop sale notice to Mr. Al Barry on February 16, 1981. The laboratory analysis showed that the unleaded gasoline sample exceeded the standards established by the American Society of Testing and Materials ("ASTN") for unleaded fuel which were adopted by the Department as Rule 5F-2.01, Florida Administrative Code. The sample in question contained 0.088 gram of lead per gallon and therefore violated Rule 5F-2.01(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, which states that unleaded gasoline may not contain more than 0.05 gram of lead per gallon. 4 The Respondent was permitted to post a $1,000 cash bond in lieu of confiscation in order to secure the release of the remaining 1,600 gallons of illegal gasoline for sale as leaded regular. The Respondent has no knowledge as to how the unleaded gasoline was contaminated. The gasoline was purchased from the Hill Petroleum Company and supplied by the Respondent to the June Avenue Service Station as unleaded gasoline.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Respondent's request for the return of its 1,000 bond which was required to be posted in lieu of confiscation of approximately 1,600 gallons of contaminated unleaded gasoline. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Les McLeod, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Dickens Dickens Oil Company 1706 Maple Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 John Whitton, Chief Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Division of Standards Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
