The Issue Are test results skewed by the use of sample bottles containing residue from earlier samples?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services took unleaded gasoline samples from the Union Service Station No. 166191 located on US Highway 29 North in Century, Florida. The petroleum products provided this station were supplied by Northrop Oil Company, Inc., whose president is James W. Ash. The Department analyzed the samples taken in its mobile laboratory. The unleaded gasoline samples were found to have an elevated End Point, i.e. the maximum boiling point allowed by the rules of the Department for unleaded gasoline, which is 437 degrees Fahrenheit. Sample No. 1 had an End Point of 482 degrees Fahrenheit, and Sample No. 2 had an End Point of 464 degrees Fahrenheit. 4 The elevated End Point means that the samples contained contaminants in excess of the amounts permitted by the Department's rules. A Stop Sale Notice was issued by the Department. A bond of $1,000 was paid by Petitioner in lieu of confiscation of the remaining unleaded gasoline and as a precedent for the formal hearing. Petitioner requested and received a formal hearing. It was agreed that the contaminant did not contain lead and was most probably diesel fuel or kerosene. Mr. Ash testified concerning deliveries to the station in question and other deliveries made by the same truck. On the Monday the samples were taken, the gasoline transport delivered unleaded gasoline to Davis' Grocery, the Union Service Station, and Ross', in that order. The Department also tested the unleaded gasoline at Davis' and Ross' but found no contaminants in their unleaded gasoline tanks. On the preceding Friday, the truck delivered unleaded gasoline to the Union Service Station and two Alabama stations. The Alabama authorities checked the unleaded gasoline at those stations and found no contaminants; however, Mr. Ash did not know how much additional gasoline had been delivered to those stations before their testing. The Union Service Station in question keeps its unleaded gasoline tanks locked, and its diesel fuel tank is located on the opposite side of the station. Petitioner uses separate trucks to deliver diesel fuel and gasoline and does not mix loads. It would have been highly unlikely that the diesel truck driver and the station's operators would have permitted the introduction of diesel fuel into the unleaded gasoline storage tanks. The percentage of contaminant necessary to raise the End Point the amount it was raised in this instance would have been three to five percent of the total volume. The sample bottles used by the Department are approximately the size of a quart milk bottle. The inspector separates the bottles he uses to take diesel fuel samples from those he uses to take gasoline samples. He stores the bottles upside dawn. This was the procedure he followed in taking the samples involved in this case. Tests conducted by the Department to determine the effects of residue in sample bottles indicated that the residue from earlier samples is an insignificant factor in elevating the End Point test results. An inverted sample bottle could not retain the three-to-five percent of the bottle's total volume necessary to raise the test, results of the samples in question approximately 40 degrees Fahrenheit. The contaminant was not introduced into the samples from the bottles used to take the samples. The Department calculated that 570 gallons of contaminated unleaded gasoline were sold at $1.40 per gallon.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends release of the contaminated fuel in question and return of the $1,000 bond by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services upon payment by Petitioner to the Department of $722.84. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 30th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James W. Ash, President Northrop Oil Company, Inc. c/o Union Service Station US Highway 29 North Century, Florida 32535 Leslie McLeod, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: In January, 1990, the Respondent filed an application for credit with the Petitioner. The terms and conditions of the credit application provided: "All written 'Terms and Conditions of Sale' on invoices, statements, contracts or other written agreements must be observed and performed as stated." Further, the application provided: Payment of all amounts due shall be made not later than 30 days from the billing date. Amounts in default will be subject to a SERVICE CHARGE of 1 1/2 % per month (18 % Per Annum) on the unpaid balance. Failure to make payment within terms will result in cancellation of credit. Following acceptance of that application, Respondent sought to purchase sod from Petitioner's LaBelle sod farm. Invoices issued by Petitioner to Respondent at the time of the delivery of the sod provided that the amounts owed would be payable upon receipt of invoice. Further, the printed invoice required the purchaser to make claims within 24 hours of delivery or pick up. The invoices reiterated the 18 percent service charge for past due accounts. From December, 1990, through January 17, 1991, Respondent purchased and accepted in excess of $45,000 worth of sod from the Petitioner. The invoices for those purchases are identified in this record as Petitioner's exhibit 2. From January 30, 1991 until March 4, 1991, Respondent purchased and accepted $4,664.00 worth of sod from the Petitioner. The invoices for those purchases are identified in the record as Petitioner's exhibit 3. In February, 1991, when the Petitioner became concerned about nonpayment for the amounts claimed, contact with the Respondent was made for the purpose of resolving the matter. When those efforts failed to secure payment, the Petitioner instituted action through the Department of Agriculture against the Respondent's bond. The Petitioner claimed $45,080.25 was due for the invoices prior to January 30, 1991. The Petitioner claimed $4,664.00 was owed for the invoices subsequent to January 30, 1991. Subsequent to its claims, Petitioner received payments from the Respondent in the following amounts: $5,000.00 on March 11, 1991; $5,000 on March 26, 1991; and $2,000.00 on April 30, 1991. Applying the total of those payments ($12,000) to the indebtedness on the first claim reduces that amount to $33,080.25. Prior to the claims being filed, Respondent had notified Petitioner that some sod deliveries had been unacceptable because of the quality of the sod or the amount. Respondent claimed the Petitioner had "shorted" the square footage amounts per pallet so that Respondent was being charged for a pallet that did not contain the requisite square footage of sod. On one occasion, in January, 1991, the Petitioner gave Respondent a credit in the amount of $1,173.75 for either refund on poor quality sod or a shortage. The Respondent continued to purchase sod from Petitioner until its credit was no longer accepted by Petitioner, i.e. March 4, 1991. Respondent did not, within 24 hours of receipt of sod, make a claim regarding the quality of the sod or the amount. By letter dated March 14, 1991, the Respondent, through its attorney, advised Petitioner as follows: St. Amour Sod Services, Inc., does not dispute the balance due to you as set forth in your letter and they will pay same in payments that are being determined now. For your information, the balance accrued because of the loss of several of our customers resulting from the poor quality of sod purchased from your firm. Respondent did not timely challenge the quality of the sod accepted, and did not present evidence regarding its alleged poor quality.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that Respondent is indebted to Petitioner in the amounts of $33,080.25 and $4,664.00, with service charge to be computed through the date of the final order; directing Respondent to make payment of the amounts to Petitioner within 15 days following the issuance of the order; and, notifying all parties that if such payment is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from Respondent's surety, Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 91-6388A AND 91-6389A RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or unsupported by the record in this case. With regard to paragraph 5, that portion of the paragraph which states the amount of payments made by Respondent ($12,000) is accepted. Otherwise, rejected as stated in 2. above. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry L. Miller P.O. Box 1966 Orlando, FL 32802 Gary A. Ralph 2272 Airport Rd. South, Ste. 101 Naples, FL 33962 Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Svcs. The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Aetna Casualty & Surety Company Attn: Legal Dept. 151 Farmington Ave. Hartford, CT 06156
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, J. Daniel Methvin, is entitled to the payment of $93,894.82 as proceeds due the Petitioner for fifty loads of potatoes delivered to the Respondent, 0rlowski Produce Co., Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Orlowski Produce Co., Inc., was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products for the period April 20, 1978, to September 24, 1978, which license was issued by the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In connection with its activity in the State of Florida, the Respondent was required to make a surety bond in the amount of $20,000.00 as security for its business transactions with Florida agricultural producers, their agents or representatives for those agricultural products bought from or handled or sold for the Florida agricultural producers, their agents or representatives. The licensure provisions and requirement for bond are set out in the Sections 604.15 through 604.30, Florida Statutes. A copy of the license and bond may be found in the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. All exhibits of that Department will henceforth be referred to as "Department Exhibits." The Petitioner, J. Daniel Methvin, a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida, filed a complaint with the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, alleging that the Respondent failed to pay moneys due and owing to the Petitioner for fifty bulk loads of potatoes. This complaint was filed on October 3, 1978, and may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. Following the filing of the complaint and in keeping with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, the Department informed the Respondent that a complaint had been filed by forwarding the notice and complaint by certified mail with a return receipt requested. A copy of the notice of filing a complaint and return receipt may be found as Department's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. The Respondent did not reply to the Methvin complaint, notwithstanding the fact that one of its officials had signed the return receipt request, indicating that it had received the complaint and explanation. In view of the fact that the Respondent had failed to reply to the complaint within the twenty-five days allowed to answer the complaint, and had failed to request a hearing within that twenty-five-day period, the Commissioner of Agriculture, State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, entered an order in favor of the Petitioner. A copy of this order was served on the Respondent by certified mail with a return receipt requested. The Respondent received that order. The order itself nay be found as the Department's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. In the order, the Commissioner of Agriculture makes the following findings of fact: Complainant, J. Daniel Methvin, is an individual whose address is Route 1, Box 104 AB, East Palatka, Florida. Respondent, Orlowski Produce Company, is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 128, Water Mill, New York. At the time of the transactions involved, respondent was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products supported by surety bond in the amount of$20,000.00. Between May 16, 1978 and June 9, 1978, the respondent received 50 loads of bulk potatoes from the complainant. The respondent has furnished the complainant an itemized listing of each load showing the vehicle number, date, quantity, price, deductions and net due. The accounting shows an amount of $96,892.81 as the proceeds due the complainant on the 50 loads of potatoes. There are mathematical errors found in the accounting, to wit; the overall total of the figures shown should be $93,891.81 not $93,892.81; the transaction on May 18 shown as $1,617.51 should be $1,618.51; the entire transaction shown on June 2 as $2,402.75 should be shown as $2,404.76. These errors, when taken into consideration, makes the correct total for the 50 loads of potatoes $96,894.82. The respondent gave the complainant an advance of $3,000 which leaves a net balance of $93,894.82. The complaint was received in this office within nine (9) months from the date of the last transaction. There are no known disputed facts in this matter. The Commissioner of Agriculture also concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent was justly indebted to the Petitioner in the amount of $93,894.82 and for that reason had violated the conditions and provisions of the bond, within the meaning of Subsection 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. After establishing the apparatus for default judgment, the Commissioner of Agriculture afforded the Respondent and others with a material interest in the outcome of the case, one final opportunity to request a hearing before the Commissioner of Agriculture's conclusions of law became binding. The Respondent, in the person of one of its officers, Robert Carpenter, made such a request for a hearing, but having made such a request, elected not to attend the hearing, for reasons that are mare completely detailed through the pleadings filed in this cause. On the date and time scheduled for hearing, alluded to in the introductory statement of this Order, a de novo hearing was conducted. Testimony was offered and that testimony substantiated the findings of fact of the Commissioner of Agriculture in his order of December 7, 1978, except paragraph nine (9). Therefore, those findings of fact reported herein, excepting paragraph nine (9), are adopted as the findings of fact of this Hearing Officer.
Recommendation It is recommended that the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, uphold the claim of the Petitioner, J. Daniel Methvin, against Orlowski Produce Co., Inc., in the amount of $93,894.82, and allow the Petitioner to share in the bond proceeds which the Respondent, Orlowski Produce Co., Inc., has on file with the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Daniel Methvin Route 1, Box 104 AB East Palatka, Florida Leonard Hanser, Esquire 1509 North Military Trail West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about May 28, 1986, Petitioner, T. J. Chastain, was engaged in the business of farming in Punta Gorda, Florida. One of his crops was watermelons. William P. Douberly, Jr., representing himself to be a licensed agricultural dealer, came to him and asked to buy what watermelons he had for sale. Petitioner and Mr. Douberly entered into negotiations for the purchase and Petitioner offered to sell the melons for 5.5 cents per pound. After some deliberation, the parties orally agreed to a sale at 5 cents per pound. Nothing was reduced to writing. The agreement was quite loose and much was left unstated. Costs of freight and other costs incidental to the sale were not mentioned by either party. It was understood, according to Petitioner, that Respondent would provide transport and, in fact, Douberly did contract with a trucker to provide transport of the melons to the ultimate delivery location. Petitioner claims that Mr. Douberly, the only individual with whom he dealt, looked over the watermelons prior to agreeing to the purchase. No conditions or qualifications were placed on the melons by Mr. Douberly and Petitioner contends that a requirement the melons be #1 grade was not stated. Petitioner had his helpers load the truck provided by Mr. Douberly who, according to Petitioner, remained on the scene over the three to four hours it took to put the melons on the truck and, he contends, Douberly saw them being loaded. Mr. Douberly, on the other hand, contends that he observed only the first half of the first truckload being placed on the truck. Thereafter, because he had other things to do, he left and did not return until the next day at which time the original truck was fully loaded as was the second truck he had provided. He contends, therefore, that he saw only one quarter of the entire load placed on the trucks. According to Mr. Chastain, when the first truck was loaded Mr. Douberly asked Petitioner if he wanted to follow the truck to the scale to see how much the load weighed. Mr. Chastain declined, stating that Mr. Douberly should weigh the melons and bring him back the weigh ticket along with payment for the load. He contends that when Mr. Douberly came back that same day with the ticket, he indicated that he wanted another load, alleging that the first load was somewhat overweight and some of the melons had been removed from the truck, to be placed on a second truck as the first part of a second load. Mr. Chastain relates that when the Respondent asked for the second truckload of melons, they engaged in no discussion about any change in the terms of sale. Mr. Chastain assumed that the purchase price would still be 5 cents per pound and the same procedure was to be followed for the second load. Though Respondent was to have paid for the first load after the weight was calculated, Petitioner assumed that when the second load was weighed, the Respondent would come back and pay for both. In fact, Mr. Douberly did not return after the second truck left and did not pay for either load. Numerous attempts to locate him were unsuccessful until ultimately, Mr. Chastain was able to reach him through Douberly's father. Notwithstanding his request for payment, Mr. Chastain did not receive any communication regarding the two loads of melons until some time later when by undated letter from Mr. Douberly, he received a check for slightly over $250.00 in full payment for all the melons. This letter described the condition of the melons at the time they were inspected by a federal inspector and indicated that 43 percent of at least the first shipment was defective in some fashion or another. The letter also indicated that Mr. Chastain was charged freight on both shipments at the rate of 4.4 cents per pound on the good melons sold. The only evidence to show the total weight of the two shipments consists of the letter from Mr. Douberly, Respondent's agent, indicating that the first load weighed 46,250 pounds and that the second weighed 29,990 pounds. This admission of weight by Respondent's agent is dispositive of any issue of the total weight involved and it is found that the total weight of melons shipped was the total of the two, 76,240 pounds. A federal inspection certificate dated June 2, 1986, reflecting an inspection which took place in Joplin, Mo., indicates that the applicant, Millsap Produce, counted 39,500 pounds. This is less than one of Mr. Douberly's load counts and more than the second. Since it cannot be shown which load was involved, or if both were involved in that inspection, as was indicated above, the letter from Mr. Douberly is considered the best evidence of the number of pounds of melons sold by Mr. Chastain to the Respondent. It must be noted that as of the time of the inspection, the refrigeration unit on the truck was inoperative. Returning to the description of the melons inspected by federal officials, the load was described as containing mature, clean, fairly well to well shaped melons. The flesh was described as having a good color with varying percentages of defects such as scars, misshapes, overmaturity, sunburn, and bruises, with 2 percent decay. Notwithstanding this, the melons were graded as meeting quality requirements but not coming up to US Grade #1 standards only because of their condition. Because he inspected only one quarter of the total melon shipment, which he graded as US Grade #1 at the time, Mr. Douberly contends that the Petitioner must have substituted substandard melons for the remaining melons in order to bring the overall grade of the shipment down below standards. He admits that the shipment was picked up from Mr. Chastain's field with the truck parked beside the road, but alleges that since he was not present throughout the entire loading process, Mr. Chastain had the opportunity to bring in substandard melons. Mr. Chastain denies bringing in any other melons and it is found there was no substitution. Mr. Chastain further indicates that nothing was discussed between him and Mr. Douberly regarding the necessity that the entire shipment be #1 grade fruit. He at no time agreed to guarantee the quality of melons and at no time did he agree to be responsible for the cost of transportation if the melons were determined to be of insufficient quality for sale at destination. This was never mentioned. Mr. Chastain pointed out, that in the industry, shipments of produce, where the purchasing broker provides transport, are FOB point of loading sales. No evidence to contradict this was presented by Respondent and it is so found. There were no alternative arrangements made or suggested by the buyer and Mr. Chastain indicated that it is his practice to always sell FOB point of loading. This was a cash sale, according to Chastain, and he expected to be paid by Douberly that night after weighing or, at the latest, the next morning when the second load was weighed. Mr. Douberly contends that the terms of the agreement between him and Mr. Chastain called for him to buy two loads of watermelons at 5 cents per pound pending delivery. The term, "pending delivery", means that the melons were of questionable quality and that Mr. Douberly would pay the grower depending upon how much the melons sold for when delivered. However, this contention is not supportable. It is highly unlikely, and denied by Mr. Chastain, that as grower, he would sell melons for the low price of 5 cents per pound to a buyer who provided the transportation and still agree to assume the risk of spoilage and transportation when he had no control over the method of transport and the time of sale. Mr. Douberly denies having seen the loading of any more than the first half of the first truck. Though he had the opportunity to do so, he did not inspect the melons being placed aboard the trucks nor did he inspect the field. He did, however, examine the first half of the first load, which came out of the same fields and, by his own admission, graded them as US #1. When Mr. Hogan advised Mr. Douberly several days later that there was a problem with the melons, Mr. Douberly claims he tried four or five times while he was still in Petitioner's area, to contact Chastain and left messages for him to call back. Even though, he claims, Mr. Chastain knew where he was staying and had his phone number, no calls were returned. On the other hand, Mr. Chastain indicated he never heard from Mr. Douberly after the second truck was loaded and his efforts to find him to collect his money were unsuccessful. It is unlikely that Mr. Chastain, who had not been paid, would have allowed from May 28 to on or after June 2, some five days or so, to go by without trying to contact his buyer if he knew where he was. More likely, Mr. Douberly was no longer in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture issue a Final Order providing that Petitioner recover from Respondent or its bonding agent, the sum of $3,812.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 30th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Oaks, Esquire 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Gary Hogan Post Office 626 Clarkton, Missouri 63837 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 American State Insurance Company Attn: Bill Kaminski 801 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and the Respondents had a contractual agreement, whereby the Respondents agreed to purchase watermelons from the Petitioners during the 1978 harvest season. The Petitioners were to be compensated for their watermelons by the pound as the melons crossed the scales during loading of the melons onto trucks. The actual price fluctuated based upon the market conditions. The Respondents' employees were responsible for picking and loading the melons. Pete Potenza was in charge of the loading operation for the Respondents. Mr. Potenza advised the Respondents that the price for the watermelons would be two and one-half cents per pound for the medium watermelons and three cents per pound for large ones. At the agreed price, the Petitioners would have been entitled to compensation of $1,197.75 for one load of watermelons, and $1,083.50 for another load. The Respondents compensated them $958.20 and $866.80 for the respective loads. The price paid by the Respondents was less than had been agreed upon. The Petitioners are entitled to $217.50 additional compensation for the first load, and $239.55 additional compensation for the second load. The Petitioners are entitled to total additional compensation in the amount of $457.05. There was no dispute as to the quality of the Petitioners' melons. The Respondents picked several loads of melons from the Petitioners subsequent to those which were disputed. Mr. Potenza advised the Petitioners that they would receive additional compensation, but they have not. The Respondents are licensed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as an agricultural commodity dealer. The Respondents have filed a $20,000.00 bond with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that the Petitioners are entitled to $457.05 in additional compensation for agricultural goods which they sold to the Respondents and requiring the Respondents to pay this sum to the Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32304 William F. York, Esq. GILMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HANRAHAN Ten Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 J. Victor Africano, Esq. P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, FL 32060 Joseph Pellegrino, President A. Pellegrino & Sons, Inc. 24 New England Produce Center Chelsea, MA 02150 E. G. Musleh, Esq. P. O. Box 924 Ocala, FL 32670
The Issue The issue is whether the claims of $98,935.20 and $19,147.70, filed by Petitioner under the Agricultural Bond and License Law, are valid. §§ 604.15 - 604.34, Fla. Stat. (2008).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a producer of agricultural products located in Plant City, Florida. At all material times, American Growers has been a dealer in agricultural products. Respondent Lincoln General Insurance Company, as surety, issued a bond to American Growers, as principal. American Growers is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("DACS"). Between December 16, 2008, and February 4, 2009, Petitioner sold strawberries to American Growers, each sale being accompanied by a Passing and Bill of Lading. Petitioner sent an Invoice for each shipment, and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. Partial payments have been made on some of the invoices, and as of the date of this Recommended Order, the amount that remains unpaid by American Growers to Petitioner is $117,982.90, comprising: Invoice No. Invoice Date Amount Balance Due 103894 12/16/08 $7,419.00 $1,296.00 103952 12/22/08 $18,370.80 $1,944.00 103953 12/23/08 $3,123.60 $648.00 193955 12/26/08 $8,164.80 $1,728.00 103984 12/28/08 $28,764.40 $28,764.40 104076 12/31/08 $17,236.80 $17,236.80 104077 1/5/09 $17,658.00 $17,658.00 104189 1/5/09 $1,320.90 $1,320.90 104386 1/20/09 $16,480.80 $16,480.80 104517 1/29/09 $17,449.20 $17,449.20 104496 2/4/09 $13,456.80 $13,456.80 TOTAL $117,982.90
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Respondent, American Growers, Inc., and/or its surety, Respondent, Lincoln General Insurance Company, to pay Petitioner, Crown Harvest Produce Sales, LLC, the total amount of $117,982.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 18th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capital, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Glenn Thomason, President American Growers, Inc. 14888 Horseshoe Trace Wellington, Florida 33414 Katy Koestner Esquivel, Esquire Meuers Law Firm, P.L. 5395 Park Central Court Naples, Florida 34109 Renee Herder Surety Bond Claims Lincoln General Insurance Company 4902 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 155 Tampa, Florida 33634 Glenn C. Thomason, Registered Agent American Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1207 Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
The Issue Whether Respondent is in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated October 30, 1991.
Findings Of Fact BEI's composting facility is a potential source of water and air pollution and to operate the facility, BEI requires a permit issued by DER. The original permit issued to DER for this facility expired on June 1, 1991 and has not been renewed. Although its permit had expired, BEI was allowed to continue to operate while informal proceedings were ongoing between BEI and DER. When these informal proceedings were terminated by DER on May 20, 1992, further operation of this composting facility was in violation of Chapter 403.707(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-709.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. On at least two occasions while this composting facility was in operation, the air around the facility was polluted by foul odors. During the period following the expiration of BEI's license, BEI failed to submit monthly operating reports and did not conduct quarterly samplings and testing of the compost and submit the testing to DER as required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the DER enter a Final Order finding that BEI has violated Section 403.161(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on each of five counts; and that BEI should immediately cease operation of its solid waste facility, volume reduction plant, until and unless it obtains an appropriate and valid permit from DER and in that regard, BEI shall: Immediately cease acceptance of all materials on the property. In the event that Respondent does not receive a permit from the Department to resume operations at the facility, within 90 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall remove all solid waste from the property to an approved solid waste management facility and provide the Department written documentation of its disposal within 30 days of removal. In the event that Respondent does receive a permit from the Department to resume operation at the facility, Respondent shall remain in strict compliance with all terms and conditions of such permit. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall, if it has not already done so, provide the following to the Department: All records of testing and monitoring conducted on the compost material since January 1, 1990, including daily reports on the temperature and moisture content of compost material, and any testing of compost material conducted prior to distribution. All records documenting application rates of stillage, manure, and leachate to the compost withdrows since January 1, 1990. All records, documenting distribution of composted or mulch material, including amount of compost or mulch material delivered, date of delivery, specific destination of compost or mulch, and intended use of compost or mulch material delivered, since January 1, 1990. All records documenting amount of yard trash received at the facility since January 1, 1990. Within 30 days of execution of the Final Order, Respondent shall make payment to the Department for costs and expenses in the amount of $500.00. Payment shall be made by, cashier's check or money order to the "State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation". Payment, specifying Office of General Counsel Case No. 91-2006, shall be sent by certified mail to Administrator, Division of Waste Management, Department of Environmental Regulation, 3804 Coconut Palm Drive, Tampa, Florida 33619. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 16th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Howard C. Batt, Esquire 611 Druid Road East Suite 712 Clearwater, Florida 34616 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Ken Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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 Homestead Pole Bean Cooperative, Inc., is owed $10,475.35 for agricultural products ordered by and delivered to Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Homestead is an agent for producers of Florida-grown agricultural products. Mo-Bo is a dealer in such products in the normal course of its business and is bonded by Armor. During the period from December 2, 1994, until January 9, 1995, Mo-Bo ordered green beans and squash from Homestead. In accordance with the longstanding practice of Homestead when doing business with Mo-Bo, the orders were accepted by telephone and the items were loaded onto trucks sent by Mo-Bo to Homestead's warehouse. Homestead sent the following invoices to Mo-Bo for agricultural products order by and delivered to Mo-Bo: December 6, 1994 Invoice Number 75636 $2,590.00 December 15, 1994 Invoice Number 75895 5,253.85 December 21, 1994 Invoice Number 75994 200.00 January 2, 1995 Invoice Number 76161 576.00 January 5, 1995 Invoice Number 76232 (109.00) January 12, 1995 Invoice Number 76348 1,332.00 January 12, 1995 Invoice Number 76349 632.50 TOTAL $10,475.35 The invoice amounts were adjusted by Homestead to account for credits given for products which were unsatisfactory, and payment was due twenty days from the date of each invoice. Despite repeated demands, Mo-Bo has not paid any of the amounts reflected in these invoices. As of September 6, 1995, the date of the formal hearing, $10,475.35 remained due and owing to Homestead.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order ordering Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., to pay $10,475.35 to Homestead Pole Bean Cooperative, Inc., and, if Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., does not pay this amount, ordering Armor Insurance Company to pay this amount, up to its maximum liability under its bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles W. Nelson, Jr., Comptroller Homestead Pole Bean Cooperative, Inc. 26000 South Dixie Highway Post Office Box 2248 Naranja, Florida 33032 Charles D. Barnard, Esquire 200 Southeast 6th Street Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mark J. Albrechta, Esquire Armor Insurance Company Legal Department Post Office Box 15250 Tampa, Florida 33684-5250 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioners approximately $2,642.69 for one truck load of watermelons provided by Petitioners at the instigation of Respondents' agent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are producers of agricultural products, watermelons; and Respondent F.H. Dicks Company (FHD), is a dealer of such products in the course of its normal business activity. Respondent South Carolina Insurance Company is the bonding agent for Respondent FHD pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioners generally deal on a cash basis with customers, unless the customer is someone with an established business relationship with Petitioners. Even then, the period that a customer is permitted credit is very limited, normally not exceeding two or three weeks. Two or three days before May 17, 1989, Wiley Bennet, an employee of an individual named Tom Killmon, approached Petitioners regarding the purchase of a quantity of watermelons for certain parties represented by Killmon's business. On May 17, 1989, Bennet called Greg Long and ordered a trailer load of watermelons on behalf of FHD. The unwritten agreement or understanding between the parties was that the melons were to be U.S. number 1 grade and medium in size. Further, a price of eight cents per pound was agreed upon by Bennet and Long. Bennet sent a truck to Petitioners' loading area where it was loaded and returned. Subsequently, the truck was weighed to determine the poundage of melons loaded. The shipment weighed only approximately 3,800 pounds and the parties determined that more melons should be loaded. The truck returned to Petitioners' loading area at approximately 5 p.m. on May 17, 1989, and more melons were added to the load. The truck was weighed again to determine the amount of the shipment. The total load weighed 45,880 pounds. Pursuant to his normal method of doing business and his previous discussion with Bennet, Long expected payment for the total poundage of 45,880 pounds on the evening of May 17, 1989, at the time the final weight of the shipment was determined. Further, although he was familiar with FHD, he was not accustomed to doing business with FHD through the agency of Killmon. He followed the truck to the weight scales where he offered Bennet the opportunity to examine the load, but Bennet declined. When the matter of payment for the load was broached, Bennet stated he did not have a check at the time, but that payment would be forthcoming in "a day or so." As explained by Bennet at the final hearing, he made this statement to Long because he thought the load of melons would be accepted on delivery and money to pay Long would become available. Bennet's statement to Long that he did not have a check with which to make payment corroborates Long's testimony that the agreement between the parties contemplated payment upon completion of loading and weighing of the truck prior to departure of the shipment to its ultimate destination. Petitioners did not intend to "ride the load in" and receive payment after delivery of the melons to FHD's customer. The truck, loaded with watermelons departed,carrying the melons to a customer of FHD located in Hickory Hill, North Carolina. The melons arrived at that destination approximately 36 hours after departure from the loading area on May 17, 1989. Upon arrival in North Carolina on May 19, 1989, a federal fruit and vegetable inspection revealed that the load of melons was 28 percent out of grade. Further, six percent of the load was damaged as the result of bruising. FHD's intended customer refused to accept the truckload of fruit. The melons were then transported to FHD's facility in Barnwell, South Carolina. After disposing of those melons that were damaged, approximately 8,750 pounds in weight, FHD sold the remaining 1,750 melons to a peddler. After paying transportation and inspection costs from the proceeds of that sale, FHD sent Long a check on May 28, 1989, in the amount of $694.60. On June 7, 1989, Long sent an invoice to FHD requesting further payment in the amount of $2,642.69. This amount reflected a deduction by Long for the 28 percent of the load of melons determined to have been "out of grade" as a result of the inspection, but apparently does not reflect the payment of $694.60 already made by FHD. FHD did not pay Long the additional invoice amount. Long subsequently initiated this proceeding by filing Petitioners' claim in the amount of $3,670.40 on July 25, 1989. That claim was amended by Long on August 31, 1989, to reflect the amount invoiced to FHD, $2,642.69. Testimony at the final hearing establishes that the melons in this instance were subjected to extensive damage and bruising as a result of the handling accorded the fruit in the process of inspection in North Carolina. As stated in testimony of F.H. Dicks IV, a load of melons, after inspection, "is about ready for the dump."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondents to pay Petitioners the sum of $2,642.72 minus any of this amount which may have been previously paid by FHD to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg Long Quave-Long Farms P.O. Box 1074 Haines City, FL 33945 F.H. Dicks III F.H. Dicks IV P.O. Box 175 Barnwell, SC 29201 South Carolina Insurance Company 1501 Lady Street Columbia, SC 29201 Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Mallory Horne General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650
