Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, respondent, Ahmad Enterprises, Inc., held alcoholic beverage license number 23-10516, series 2-APS, for the premises known as Lucilles Market (the "premises"), located at 9300 N.W. 17th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. Ibrahim M. Ahmad is the respondent's sole corporate officer. In January 1992, Detective Hladky of the Metro-Dade Police Department and U.S.D.A. Special Agent Carol Bennett began an undercover investigation of the premises. Such investigation was predicated on information Special Agent Bennett had received from a confidential informant (CI) which indicated that persons associated with Lucilles Market were purchasing U.S.D.A. Food Coupons for cash and at less than their face value. On January 13, 1992, Special Agent Bennett gave the CI four U.S.D.A. Food Coupon Books, having an aggregate face value of $245.00, for the purpose of attempting to sell such books to persons inside the licensed premises. The CI then entered the licensed premises, met with Ibrahim M. Ahmad, and sold him the four coupon books for the $125.00 Mr. Ahmad offered. Pertinent to Mr. Ahmad's knowledge of the impropriety of his conduct, it is observed that on this occasion Mr. Ahmad inquired of the CI as to whether or not he worked for the police department before he would consummate the transaction. On January 21, 1992, Special Agent Bennett gave the CI six U.S.D.A. Food Coupon Books, having an aggregate face value of $360.00, for the purpose of attempting to sell such books to persons inside the licensed premises. When the CI entered the licensed premises, he again met with Mr. Ahmad, and sold him the six coupon books for the $200.00 Mr. Ahmad offered. Special Agent Bennett recovered 100 percent of the food coupons, which were clearly marked "non-transferable," through the Federal Reserve Bank. Each coupon involved in the aforesaid transaction had been deposited to the account of Ahmad Enterprises, Inc., at America First Bank, Miami, Florida, which reflects that respondent was reimbursed the full face value of the coupons by U.S.D.A. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered revoking respondent's alcoholic beverage license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of December 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of December 1992.
Findings Of Fact Dunya Safford is a resident of Gadsden County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that he was admitted to the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital on December 30, 1977, in an emergency medical condition, and that the treatment performed by the hospital was of an emergency nature. The parties have further stipulated that the Tallahassee Memorial Hospital is a regional referral hospital within the meaning of 154.304(4), Florida Statutes (1977). Dunya Safford, then less than one year old, was admitted to the hospital on December 30, 1977 and discharged on January 4, 1978. Dunya is the child of David and Carrie Safford. The total bill for services rendered by the hospital was $1,816.30. The hospital submitted a bill to Gadsden County in the amount of $633.95 for the services. This latter amount is the portion of the bill which can be billed to the county of residence in accordance with the Florida Health Care Responsibility Act. Gadsden County has refused to pay the bill, contending that the patient was not indigent. The patient has not paid the bill. The patient's parents have a total of eight children. One of the children married and moved out of the household prior to the patient's hospitalization. Another of the children is Mrs. Safford's child, but not Mr. Safford's child, although Mr. Safford has taken responsibility for complete support of the child. During the six months prior to the hospitalization, Mrs. Safford had no income. Mr. Safford had approximate average weekly income of $95 in his employment as an agricultural worker. The Saffords were, during that period, food stamp recipients. They received $2,552 in food stamps, and paid $669 for them. They thus received net food stamp benefits of $2,178, or an average of $363 per month.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a closely held corporation owned and operated by Salvatore Studiale and his family, including his wife, Celia, their son Jack Studiale and their daughter, Caroline Greenlaw. Respondent owns and operates Tropical Acres Steak House, a restaurant located in Broward County, Florida. Respondent erected a sign in 1975 in Broward County ninety feet north of Griffin Road adjacent to I-95 that is the subject of this proceeding. In a 1976 proceeding involving the same parties to this proceeding, Petitioner cited the same sign that is the subject of these proceedings for having been erected without certain permits in violations of Sections 479.02, 470.07(1), and 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (1975). Thereafter the case was referred to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and assigned DOAH Case No. 76-473. A formal administrative hearing was held in Case No. 76- 473 by a DOAH Hearing Officer who entered a Recommended Order. The following findings of fact, taken from the Recommended Order entered in Case No. 76-473, are consistent with the evidence presented before me and are hereby adopted as my findings of fact: In July, 1975, Salvatore Studiale and his wife Celia purchased certain real estate located between Interstate Highway I-95 and Griffin Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On August 1, 1975, Salvatore Studiale, President of Respondent Corporation, and his wife, leased the property to Respondent. A variance for the erection of the sign was required from Broward County and this was approved on the condition that frontage of the property be deeded to the county. This was done on December 8, 1975. The property deeded to Broward County was of a value of approximately $18,000. Subsequently, Respondent had a sign erected which read "Tropical Acres Steaks [and] Seafood 1/2 Mile". Investigation by Petitioner's representatives in the Spring of 1976 revealed that no state permit had been applied for prior to erection of the sign and that no permit tag was affixed thereto. The premises of the business establishment advertised in Respondent's sign is located at a place other than the property on which the sign was erected. In early June, 1976, Respondent changed the copy on its sign to delete the words "1/2 Mile" and substitute therefor the word "Lessee". The Hearing Officer in Case 76-473 concluded that the subject sign was exempt from Petitioner's permitting requirements: ... because Section 479.16(11)1/ excepts from the provisions of Chapter 479 "Signs or notices erected or maintained upon property giving the name of the owner, lessee or occupant of the premises". The copy on the sign that reads "Tropical Acres Steaks Seafoods" (sic) adequately reflects the name of the lessee of the property. In fact, since the alleged violation was noted, Respondent has even added the word "Lessee" to the copy on the sign. It is concluded that Respondent properly falls with the exception stated above. The Hearing Officer in Case No. 76-473 recommended that "the allegations against Respondent be dismissed". Thereafter on August 12, 1976, Petitioner entered a Final Order in Case 76-473 which found that the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Order were correct and adopted the Recommended Order as its Final Order. The site of the subject sign had been the location of a gasoline service station before the Studiales purchased the property. When the sign was erected, the site was located in unincorporated Broward County. In July 1990 the site was annexed so that at the time of the formal hearing the sign was located within an incorporated municipality. In 1978, Respondent's sign was damaged by a wind storm. With Petitioner's approval, the sign was restored. On June 13, 1991, Petitioner's investigators inspected the subject sign. At an undetermined time between 1978 and June 13, 1991, a strip was attached to the supporting posts beneath the main faces of the sign so that two additional sign faces, one facing north and the other south, were created. The message that was placed on each face of this smaller sign was "1/2 Mile West" together with directional arrows. This addition was for the purpose of directing traffic to Respondent's restaurant, which was located 1/2 mile west of the sign. The directional message on each face of the smaller sign was removed prior to the formal hearing that was held in this proceeding. No permit for the sign has been applied for by Respondent or the Studiales and no permit has been given by Petitioner. Petitioner does not charge any permit fee for a sign unless a permit has been issued. There was a dispute as to whether Respondent had been charged and had paid annual fees for the subject sign. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that in 1986 and 1987 Respondent received billings from Petitioner for the subject sign as a result of computer error and that Respondent paid those billings. It is clear, however, that the Studiales were aware that no permit had ever been issued for this sign and that they relied on the determination made in Case 76-473 that the sign was exempt from permitting. Respondent has attempted to establish that it has placed great reliance in making its business plans on Petitioner's representations and assurances that the subject sign was a legal structure. Although it is clear that the subject sign is important to Respondent's business because it serves to direct customers to the restaurant location, Petitioner's delay in challenging the legality of the sign has not prejudiced Respondent. Respondent has been benefitted by the continued existence of the subject sign. The size of the sign exceeds 10 square feet. On June 20, 1991, Petitioner issued a notice of alleged violation of Sections 479.07(1), 479.105, and 479.07(9)(a)1, Florida Statutes (1991), for the subject sign, based on its determinations that the sign was not exempt from pertinent permitting requirements, that it did not have a permit, and that it was improperly spaced.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that the status of Respondent's sign is "nonconforming" and which rejects Petitioner's contention that the sign is illegal. DONE AND ORDERED this 2 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 2 day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Forrest and Charles Joseph, trading as C. Joseph Grocery, hold alcoholic beverage license No. 26-28, Series 2- APS. The licensed premises is located at 3323 Evergreen Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida. The charges herein arose from a public assistance fraud investigation conducted by the State Attorney, Fourth Judicial Circuit. "Confidential informants" were utilized on February 17 and 26, 1981, to exchange United States Department of Agriculture food stamps for cash with the owners or employees of C. Joseph Grocery. The transactions took place on the licensed premises. On February 17, 1981, a confidential informant, Dennis Rawlins, entered the licensed premises with 3265 in food stamps which he turned over to Respondents' employee, Jordan. Upon receiving the food stamps, Jordan approached Charles Joseph, Jr., who was then supervising the store. Joseph gave Jordan $150 for the stamps. Jordan kept $50 for himself and gave the remaining $100 to Rawlins in exchange for the food-stamps. On February 26, 1981, a confidential informant, Ronald Wampler, entered the licensed premises with $300 in food stamps which he traded for $100 cash. Wampler received the cash in exchange for the food stamps from a person he knew from previous visits to the store as Charles Joseph, Sr. Wampler represented the stamps as stolen property to this buyer.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondents guilty of allegations contained in Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint and suspend alcoholic beverage license No. 26-28, Series 2-APS, for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lacy Mahon, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles A. Nuzum, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Fred Burke, Jr. He was an existing employee of a juvenile detention facility in Jacksonville, Florida in 1978, when Respondent assumed responsibility for operation of the facility. Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent in the position of detention careworker class I, until notified of his demotion and reassignment to other duties on May 25, 1989. Respondent's demotion and reassignment of Petitioner followed Petitioner's refusal to work overtime on two occasions. On each of these occasions, Petitioner cited his cardiac condition as the basis for his refusal. All detention care workers in the facility are subject to mandatory overtime policy requirements which provide that overtime may be required if there is a need for additional supervisory coverage of clients. Prior to taking the demotion and reassignment action, Respondent sought an independent medical evaluation of Petitioner's ability to perform the duties of the position of detention careworker class I. Respondent required Petitioner to report to a family care physician who declined to make a medical judgement regarding Petitioner's health. Instead, the physician suggested that Respondent obtain the opinion of the cardiologist who had treated Petitioner for his heart condition in 1987. On May 4, 1989, that cardiologist offered his opinion as to Petitioner's health. Specifically, the doctor, who had seen Petitioner as recently as February 1989, noted that Petitioner's health deficiencies dictated that he work no more than eight hours per day; that he refrain from strenuous activity; that he not break-up fights; and that he not carry clients out of the facility in the event of fire. The specific work prohibitions noted by the cardiologist are all job tasks that an individual assigned to a detention careworker position, may be expected to perform. Upon the expiration of a required notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner to the position of cashier in the food stamp office. The position requires no overtime work and is less stressful. Petitioner is generally permitted to sit in the course of performing his duties. Following his reassignment, Petitioner continued to enjoy his same salary, although the cashier position occupied a lower pay grade than his previous position. Two other employees were alleged by Petitioner to have received favored treatment from Respondent. These employees, both female, did receive evaluations for the period ending in 1989 which indicated that their work performance exceeded required standards. While the evaluations made the other two employees eligible for merit incentive pay increases, neither employee ever received such an increase or any other pecuniary benefit. Petitioner, whose evaluation reflects that he achieved required work standards, did not receive disparate treatment from that accorded the two female employees by Respondent. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-166, Respondent's transfer to the position of food stamp cashier was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's sex or handicap. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1991, 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 11th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5278 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-18. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Petitioner's proposed finding consisted of nine unnumbered paragraphs. Those paragraphs have been numbered one through nine, respectively, and are addressed as follows: 1.-7. Adopted in substance. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Further, one female employee had always been employed in the "lighter duty" situation of the control room. The other female employee was placed in a telephone receptionist position. Notably, no creditable evidence was presented that either of these employees refused to work overtime, or that they were not put on the "bubble list." COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Travis, Jr., Esq. 16 North Adams Street Quincy, FL 32351 Scott D. Leemis, Esq. Assistant District Legal Counsel P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Does Petitioner, Target, have standing to challenge proposed rule 61A-3.055, Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant (proposed rule or proposed restaurant rule), (Case No. 19- 4913RP)? Does Petitioner, Walmart, have standing to challenge the proposed restaurant rule (Case No. 19-4688RP)? Does Intervenor, ABC, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Does Intervenor, FISA, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Does Intervenor, Publix, have standing to participate in these challenges to the proposed rule? Is the proposed restaurant rule an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2019)?1/
Findings Of Fact Parties Division The Legislature has charged the Division with administration of Florida's Alcoholic Beverage and Tobacco Laws, including Chapters 562 through 568, Florida Statutes, known collectively as the "Beverage Law." 561.01(6), Fla. Stat. This charge includes licensing and regulation, as well as enforcement of the governing laws and rules. Title XXIV of the Florida Statutes governs sale of alcoholic beverages and tobacco. It includes chapters regulating beer (chapter 563), wine (chapter 564), and liquor (chapter 565). Among other things, these similarly structured chapters impose license fees, with the amounts determined by the population size of the county where the business is located. Section 565.02 creates fee categories for "vendors who are permitted to sell any alcoholic beverages regardless of alcoholic content." Section 565.02(1)(b)-(f) establishes the license fees based upon county population for licenses for places of business where consumption on premises is permitted. These are referred to as "COP" licenses. A number preceding COP, such as 4COP, indicates the county population range and therefore license fee amount for a particular license holder. Section 565.045, Florida Statutes, also permits COP license holders to sell sealed containers of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises (packaged goods). Walmart Walmart is a multinational corporation. It owns subsidiaries that own and operate retail stores, warehouse clubs, and an e-commerce website operated under the "Walmart" brand. Walmart does not own or operate stores. It holds them through wholly owned subsidiaries. For instance, Walmart is the parent company of its wholly owned subsidiary Wal-Mart East. Stores of Walmart subsidiaries have three primary formats. They are Supercenters, Discount Stores, and Neighborhood Markets. The record is silent about the nature and degree of day- to-day control, policy control, and marketing control that Walmart exercises or has authority to exercise over the subsidiaries. It is also silent about the nature and structure of the fiscal relationship between Walmart and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Walmart does not have a license issued by the Division pursuant to section 565.02(1)(b)-(f). Walmart has not applied for a license from the Division issued under section 565.02(1)(b)-(f). The record does not prove that Walmart intends to apply for a COP license. Wal-Mart East Wal-Mart East owns and operates "Walmart" branded stores at approximately 337 Florida locations. They include approximately 231 "Supercenters," nine "Discount Stores," and 97 "Neighborhood Markets." All of these stores sell food items. Depending on the store category, the items may include baked goods, deli sandwiches, hot meals, party trays, and to-go food items, such as buckets of fried chicken and pre-made salads. The areas adjacent to the departments of Wal-Mart East that sell food do not have seats and tables for diners. There are some benches, but not tables, scattered around inside the stores. None of the stores holds a license from the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants or the Florida Department of Health. They hold "retail food store" or "food establishment" licenses from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. In his deposition, Tyler Abrehamsen, assistant manager for Wal-Mart East Store #705 in Mt. Dora (Store 705), aptly described Walmart as "more than just a store." Walmart sells "anything you can think of from sporting goods to deli to candy." A Supercenter sells, among other things, general merchandise, golf balls, fishing gear, socks, motor oil, ammunition, groceries, deli goods, electronics, home furnishings, groceries, and hot food. Supercenters may house specialty shops such as banks, hair and nail salons, restaurants, or vision centers. Walmart Supercenters offer 142,000 items for sale. Many house McDonalds or Subway restaurants. Discount Stores are smaller than Supercenters. They sell electronics, clothing, toys, home furnishings, health and beauty aids, hardware, and more. Discount Stores offer about 120,000 items. A Neighborhood Market is smaller than a Discount Store. Neighborhood Markets sell fresh produce, meat and dairy products, bakery and deli items, household supplies, health and beauty aids and pharmacy products. Walmart Neighborhood Markets offer about 29,000 items. Store 705 is a Supercenter. The store holds a food permit issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services under Chapter 500 to operate as a retail food store or food establishment. There are four picnic tables with seating in a pavilion outside the store. Some benches, but not tables, are scattered around the store. Store 705 holds a 2APS license permitting beer and wine package sales only. Wal-Mart East applied to the Division to change the license to a COP license. The Division processed the application and issued Store 705 a temporary license on May 13, 2019. Two days later the Division advised Store 705 that it issued the temporary license erroneously and that the license was void. Shortly afterwards a Division employee recovered the license from Store 705. On June 7, 2019, the Division issued its Notice of Intent to Deny License, relying in part on section 565.045.3/ Section 565.045, which the proposed rule implements, prohibits issuing a COP license to a place of business that sells items not "customarily sold in a restaurant." The floor plan Store 705 provided with its COP license application does not delineate an area for serving and consuming alcoholic beverages. When asked about plans to serve alcohol by the drink, the Wal-Mart East representative testified, "However, I'm not suggesting that in the future at some point we wouldn't be interested in selling drinks by the glass at Store 705." The witness went on to say, "What I'm saying today is I don't know if there are future plans and I don't think that we're prepared to say one way or another whether this would be our plan for this location for eternity." (TR. Vol. 1, p. 161) Wal-Mart East only plans to sell alcohol by the container at Store 705. If issued a COP license, however, it would be permitted to sell alcohol by the drink. Lake County Property Appraiser records identify the land use of Store 705 as "Warehouse Store." There is no evidence about the significance of this, how the categorization is determined, or what purpose it serves. Several credit card companies categorize Wal-Mart East stores as "grocery stores" and "supermarkets" or discount stores. There is no evidence about the significance of these categorizations, their meaning, how the categorization is determined, or for what purpose the categorizations are applied. The lack of relevant information about how and why the property appraiser and credit card companies determine these categorizations make them meaningless for any determination of whether Wal-Mart East stores are restaurants. Wal-Mart East leases space within Store 705 to a separate entity doing business as Wayback Burgers. Wayback Burgers has a kitchen, a service counter, a fountain drink dispenser, and seats and tables for dining. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants issued the owner of Wayback Burgers, under the authority of Chapter 509, a license titled "Seating Food Service License." The definitions section of Chapter 509 does not contain a definition for "Seating Food Service." The license does not identify the physical area covered by the license, although it refers to 22 seats. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants inspects only the area identified by signage, seating, food preparation area, and service area when inspecting Wayback Burgers. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants does not license the rest of Store 705 or any other Wal-Mart East store in Florida. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued Store 705 an Annual Food Permit denominated as for Food Entity Number: 33995. The license does not describe the physical area to which it applies. A January 4, 2019, document titled Food Safety Inspection Report for Store 705 lists "111/Supermarket" in a field of the report titled Food Entity Type/Description. The record does not explain the designation. The Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Food Inspection, Division of Food Safety, maintains a food inspection data base of permitted entities. That list identifies Store 705 as a supermarket. The Department of Agriculture often must decide whether it should license an establishment serving food or if the Division of Hotels and Restaurants should issue the license. The Department regulates food establishments and retail food stores. It does not have authority over food service establishments. Sometimes the Department consults with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants to determine what a business should be licensed as. When a vendor like McDonald's or Subway is located in a Walmart store the agriculture department bases its licensing category decision on ownership. If the store owns the McDonald's or Subway, the Department will license it. If a separate entity owns and operates the McDonald's or Subway, the department looks to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants to license it. Target The parties stipulated that Target is an upscale discount retailer that provides high quality, on-trend merchandise at attractive prices in clean, spacious, and guest- friendly stores. Target owns and operates approximately 126 general merchandise stores in Florida. Target does not hold a license issued by the Division under section 565.02(1)(b)-(f). The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services licenses all Target locations in Florida as retail food stores or food establishments under chapter 500. The licenses are for the entire store, including the food service portions discussed below. No Target store holds a license from the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The Florida Department of Health does not license any Target stores as food service establishments. Target sells beer and wine by the container in 124 of its Florida stores. At three store locations, Target sells beer, wine, and liquor from a separate liquor store with a separate entrance. Target operates Starbucks and Pizza Hut facilities under licensing agreements within 118 of its stores. Coffee, espresso, banana bread, chocolate chip cookies, ham and cheese croissants, oatmeal, and biscotti are representative examples of food sold at Target Starbucks. Target Pizza Huts typically sell carbonated drinks, smoothies, pretzels, popcorn, hot dogs, pizzas, chicken wings, and french fries. Some Target stores also have a Target Café selling limited food and beverage items. Target stores also sell items such as packaged, pre- made salads, fruit, and frozen meals. "Super Target" stores have delis, which sell cooked items like chicken fingers and rotisserie chicken. The cafés, Starbucks, and Pizza Huts occupy separate areas within the larger Target stores. They have their own cash registers. Customers may pay for retail items from the store at those cash registers. The inventory of all Target stores is subject to daily change. Location, geography, supply, and other factors affect a store's inventory. Target stores sell a gamut of items. They include groceries, frozen foods, furniture, rugs, garden tools, clothing, toys, sporting goods, health products, beauty products, electronics, office supplies, kitchen appliances, diapers, pet food, cell phones, and luggage. A Target store in Delray Beach has applied to the Division to change its beer and wine package license to a COP license. Target seeks the COP license in order to make package sales of liquor. Like the Walmart representative, Target's representative refused to state whether Target planned to offer alcohol by the drink at any of its stores. If it held a COP license, the store would be permitted to sell alcohol by the drink. ABC ABC stores retail alcoholic beverages in Florida. The stores hold a number of alcoholic beverage licenses issued by the Division. ABC holds 25 4COP licenses issued by the Division. In his deposition, the ABC corporate representative testified that he "would not be able to answer" if the proposed rule would have any impact on ABC. His testimony, however, proved that ABC stores seek clear guidance about what they can and cannot sell. Also, the proposed rule imposes limits upon what ABC stores can sell that the invalidated rule and the statute alone do not impose. FISA FISA is an independent association of alcoholic beverage retailers. It has 206 members. The Division licenses and regulates FISA's members. ABC is a FISA member. Including ABC, FISA members hold 61 4COP licenses. There is no evidence proving that any FISA member intends to apply for a COP license. Only the FISA members holding COP licenses would be affected by the proposed rule. This is not a substantial number of members. The other 145 members hold 3PS licenses (package sales) which the proposed rule does not affect. Neither the officers, the governing board, nor the members of FISA voted or took any other official action to authorize FISA to intervene in this proceeding. The evidence does not prove that the association is acting as a representative of its members in this proceeding. There is also no evidence, such as the FISA articles of incorporation, by-laws, or other association formation documents, proving the association's general scope of interest and activity or the authority of its President to act on its behalf. The evidence does not prove that participating in this proceeding is within the authority of the President or FISA. FISA President, Chris Knightly, testified in deposition that any change in where liquor could be sold could have an extreme financial impact on small family-owned businesses. But FISA offered no evidence to show the impact on its members or, for that matter, that any FISA members were actually small, family-owned businesses. The President also testified that the impact of the rule on FISA members would be minimal because the non-alcoholic items the stores sold were just conveniences for customers, not significant revenue sources. In light of the President's statement about minimal impact on FISA members and the number of members who hold COP licenses, the record does not prove that the proposed rule would have a substantial effect on FISA or a substantial number of its members. Publix Publix is a supermarket chain in Florida. It also operates a number of liquor stores throughout Florida. Publix holds two 4COP licenses and ten 2COP licenses (beer and wine only) issued by the Division.4/ The proposed rule imposes limits upon what Publix can sell at its 4COP licensed stores that the invalidated rule and the statute alone do not impose. Rulemaking The Division seeks to implement section 565.045. The pertinent parts of the statute provide: Vendors licensed under s. 565.02(1)(b)- (f) shall provide seats for the use of their customers. Such vendors may sell alcoholic beverages by the drink or in sealed containers for consumption on or off the premises where sold. (2)(a) There shall not be sold at such places of business anything other than the beverages permitted, home bar and party supplies and equipment (including but not limited to glassware and party-type foods), cigarettes, and what is customarily sold in a restaurant. The Division, both in the invalid rule and in the proposed rule, seeks to provide clarity about the meaning of "customarily sold in a restaurant" as it is used in the statute. That desire was the reason it adopted the original rule, now invalidated, in 1994. The review by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) back then observed, "Absent explanatory criteria, use of the word 'customarily' vests unbridled discretion in the department." The Division responded: "As mentioned in our meeting, all of proposed rule 61A-3.055 [1994 version] is, in itself, the division's attempt to define the admittedly vague phrase 'items customarily sold in a restaurant', as used in s. 565.045." The invalidated rule provided: 61A-3.055 Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant. As used in Section 565.045, F.S., items customarily sold in a restaurant shall only include the following: Ready to eat appetizer items; or Ready to eat salad items; or Ready to eat entree items; or Ready to eat vegetable items; or Ready to eat dessert items; or Ready to eat fruit items; or Hot or cold beverages. A licensee may petition the division for permission to sell products other than those listed, provided the licensee can show the item is customarily sold in a restaurant. This petition shall be submitted to the director of the division at Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 2601 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020, and must be approved prior to selling or offering the item for sale. For the purpose of consumption on premises regulations set forth in Section 565.045, F.S., items customarily sold in a restaurant shall include services or sales authorized in the "Florida Public Lottery Act", Section 24.122(4), F.S. The Final Order invalidating the earlier rule concluded: A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or necessary facts and is capricious if irrational. Dep't of Health v. Bayfront Med. Ctr., Inc., 134 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Despite the Division representative's best efforts at deposition to avoid answering direct questions, the record proved that restaurants customarily sell at least T-Shirts and branded souvenirs. The Division, through the deposition testimony of its representative, acknowledged this. The record offers no explanation why subsection (1) of the Restaurant Rule does not include these items. Excluding an item that the Division acknowledges is customarily sold in restaurants from a list of items customarily sold in restaurants is illogical. Rule 61A-3.055 is arbitrary and capricious. In 2018, while the challenge to the existing rule in Case No. 18-5116RX was underway, the Division began proceeding to amend rule 61A-3.055. This was a response to the challenges to the existing rule. The Division conducted six public hearings to receive public comment on various proposed amendments to the rule and to solicit input from the public. Petitioners did not participate in the hearings. There is no evidence that Petitioners suggested rule language, such as items to be listed as "customarily sold in a restaurant" or identifying characteristics of items "customarily sold in a restaurant" to the Division. Representatives of Intervenors attended each of the public hearings. There is no evidence that they suggested language for the rule either. During the May 6, 2019, rule development hearing, a representative of the Florida Restaurant and Lodging Association suggested that the Division conduct an investigation, study, or survey to determine what merchandise or services restaurants customarily provide. During the rule development proceedings, the Division did not conduct any investigation, study, or survey to determine what is customarily sold in a restaurant. The Division did not examine a sampling of establishments that it considered restaurants to determine what is customarily sold in restaurants. The Division did not use any of the data collected in 50,000 inspections each year to perform any studies, surveys, or analyses of what is customarily sold in restaurants or by COP license holders. It only sought comment from the restaurant industry and Division licensees through the public hearing process.5/ As required by law, the Division submitted various iterations of the proposed rule to JAPC for review. For each version of the proposed rule that it reviewed, JAPC observed that the rule appeared to be overly restrictive and that it may be arbitrary and capricious. On August 16, 2019, the Division published the final version of the proposed amended rule in Volume 45, Issue Number 160 of the Florida Administrative Register. It states: 61A-3.055 Items Customarily Sold in a Restaurant. As used in section 565.045, Florida Statutes, items customarily sold in a restaurant shall only include the following: Food cooked or prepared on the licensed premises; or Hot or cold beverages; or Souvenirs bearing the name, logo, trade name, trademark, or location of the licensed vendor operating the licensed premises; or Gift cards or certificates pertaining to the licensed premises. For the purpose of consumption on premises regulations set forth in section 565.045, Florida Statutes, items customarily sold in a restaurant shall include services or sales authorized in the "Florida Public Lottery Act", section 24.122(4), Florida Statutes. The Division explains the wording of section (1)(c) of the proposed rule as being based on the conclusion " the record proved that restaurants customarily sell at least T-Shirts and branded souvenirs" in the Final Order invalidating the original rule. It also removed from the original rule language permitting a licensee to petition the Division to show an unlisted item is customarily sold at a restaurant. This change is also a reaction to the Final Order. As of the day of the hearing, the Division, in the person of its Deputy Director, could not state what a "restaurant" was. The Deputy Director testified: "The Department [Division] doesn't take a position on what is or isn't a restaurant in this instance [applying the proposed rule]. We didn't define it, so we don't have a position." (Tr. Vol. 1, p. 45). As of the hearing date, the Deputy Director for the Division could not state whether Walmart is a restaurant. (Tr. Vol. I, p. 84). On October 26, 2018, testifying in the earlier rule challenge, Thomas Philpot, the then Director of the Division and acting Deputy Secretary for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, similarly said that the Division had no formal policy or procedure for deciding if a business was a restaurant. (Ex. 30, p.48). A clear definition of "restaurant" is the necessary predicate to determining what is customarily sold in a restaurant. Throughout the rule development and through the hearing, the Division did not have a clear definition of restaurant. The Division's representative testified that "[t]he Division does not have a definition that it can cite to either in statute or in rule for the term restaurant." (Ex. 20, p. 62). The Division's Proposed Final Order seems to take the position that a "restaurant" is either a public food service establishment licensed by the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants or a restaurant as defined in authoritative dictionaries. None of the parties, including the Division, offered results from any survey, study, or investigation, of either a statistically significant random sample or survey of all "restaurants," however they may be delineated, to determine what "restaurants" customarily sell.6/ Much of the evidence revolved around the theory advanced by Target and Wal-Mart East that because they offer areas where customers can purchase prepared food; because vendors like McDonalds, Pizza Hut, or Starbucks sell food in sections where the consumer can pay for the food and sit down to consume it; or because the stores sell deli and baked goods that could be consumed at the store; that Target stores and Walmart stores are restaurants. From that, Wal-Mart East and Target reason that everything they sell including toys, clothes, stereos, cleaning supplies, pet food, electronics, books, and sporting goods are items commonly sold at restaurants. The Division concentrated its presentation on countering that theory. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants licenses approximately 56,000 businesses as "public food service establishments." It refers to these businesses as "restaurants." Assuming the 463 Walmart-East and Target stores are also considered restaurants, adding them to 56,000 results in approximately 56,463 "restaurants" in the State of Florida. The combined Target and Walmart facilities would be .82 percent of the total number of Florida "restaurants." This does not establish that what Wal-Mart East stores and Target stores sell is what restaurants customarily sell. Wal-Mart East offered the testimony of John Harris, who worked 28 years for the Division. He served as Director of the Division and served as Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. At the direction of counsel for Walmart and Wal-Mart East, Mr. Harris visited nine Florida establishments to view the premises and identify items sold at the establishments. Eight of the establishments hold current COP licenses. One is a Cracker Barrel restaurant. Mr. Harris' testimony proved that the items listed below were for sale at the selected establishments identified. None are listed as customarily sold at a restaurant in the proposed rule: Biltmore Hotel (holds a 4COP license): clothing, jewelry, sports attire, golf clubs, over-the-counter medications, art, golf clubs, golf club bags, tennis equipment, and skin treatments. Buster's Beer & Bait (holds a 4COP License): cigars and fish bait. CMX movie theater in Tallahassee, Florida (holds a 4COP license): movie tickets. Cracker Barrel (does not hold a COP license): apparel, hats, toys, stuffed animals, audio books, books, musical instruments, rocking chairs, hand lotions, jewelry, quilts, small tools, and cooking utensils. Neiman Marcus department store in Coral Gables, Florida (holds a 4COP license): jewelry, watches, sunglasses, handbags, clothing, shoes, wallets, pens, luggage, and fine china. Nordstrom department store in Coral Gables, Florida (holds a 4COP license): items similar to those for sale in the Neiman Marcus department store, makeup, grills, record players, and baby strollers. PGA National Hotel and Golf Resort (holds a 4COP license): clothing, shoes, cosmetics, spa services, haircuts, golf clubs, and golf attire. Saks Fifth Avenue (holds a 4COP license): items similar to those sold at the Neiman Marcus department store. Slater's Goods & Provisions (holds a 4COP license): razor blades, lip balm, prepackaged food items, cleaning supplies, aluminum foil, canned goods, and batteries. Daytona Speedway (holds a 4COP license issued for this location to Americrown Services): golf clubs, T-shirts, other clothing items, key chains, tires, specialized motorcycle mufflers, and event tickets. For each of the identified COP licensees, the identified items were for sale in areas for which there was free passage to and from areas where alcohol is stored or sold. Mr. Harris did not use his experience and expertise to identify the establishments as representative of COP license holders. Mr. Harris was not attempting to inspect a random, representative sample of Florida restaurants. A party's attorney selected the locations. There was no expert testimony establishing the validity of Mr. Harris' ad hoc survey. Mr. Harris also did not know which parts of the premises the COP licenses of the places that he visited covered. The evidence did not prove that the establishments were a representative sample of anything. In addition, Mr. Harris is not an objective or impartial witness. Mr. Harris is an advocate for Walmart and Target. He wants the proposed rule to be invalidated. Mr. Harris also represents Target as a lobbyist. There is no evidence that the sample size of nine is significant or representative of all COP license holders. All the exercise proves is that the Division has allowed establishments that contain areas holding COP licenses to sell a variety of items that the Division's proposed rule and the invalidated rule would not permit. The small number of establishments, the witness's allegiance, and the fact that the establishments were selected for use in this proceeding make the evidence wholly unpersuasive.
The Issue The issues are whether the Petitioner, Alice P. Whitehead, is indebted to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) for $1,362 and whether her lottery winnings should be withheld and applied to the debt.
Findings Of Fact On February 12, 1993, Whitehead submitted a claim to the Lottery based on a Play-4 ticket she held for a Lotto drawing. The ticket reflected that she was eligible for a prize of $2,500. DHRS certified to the Lottery that Whitehead owed the State $1,362.00. That sum represents an overpayment of food stamps and AFDC benefits to Petitioner. Pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, the Lottery transmitted the prize to DBF. By letter dated March 12, 1993, DBF notified Whitehead that it was in receipt of her prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply $1,362.00 of the award toward the unpaid food stamp and AFDC debt. Enclosed with the letter was State of Florida warrant number 2057985 in the amount of $1,138.00 payable to Whitehead. That warrant was partial payment of the lottery prize and represented the difference between the amount of the prize and the amount of the food stamp and AFDC debt that DHRS had certified as being due. In a letter received by DBF on March 31, 1993, Petitioner indicated she was unaware of any indebtedness to the state and requested a hearing. A referral was made to the Overpayment/Overissuance, Fraud and Recoupment Unit on June 23, 1980, for an overpayment of AFDC and an overissuance of food stamps to Whitehead. Additionally, a referral was made to the Overpayment/ Overissuance, Fraud and Recoupment Unit on October 30, 1979, for an overissuance of food stamps. Whitehead was notified of the overpayment of AFDC benefits and of the overissuance of food stamp benefits via notices dated August 27, 1980, and January 9, 1980. Whitehead was overissued food stamps in the amount of $750.00, and she received an overpayment of AFDC benefits in the amount of $623.00. Whitehead has paid $20 toward the original debt. The current balance due to DHRS on this debt is $750 for the food stamp overissuance and $612.00 for the AFDC overpayment for a total amount of $1,362.00. Whitehead does not dispute that she owes a debt to DHRS, but she does not want to pay it because she is unemployed and is caring for her 83-year-old mother, a victim of Alzheimer's disease. She says she has no income.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a Final Order and therein: Confirm the debt of Alice P. Whitehead to Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in the amount of $1,362.00. Withhold $1,362.00 from Whitehead's lottery winnings. Transmit that $1,362.00 to Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in satisfaction of Whitehead's debt. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 19th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2662 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-8(1-8). COPIES FURNISHED: Alice P. Whitehead, Pro Se 510 West 19th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Scott C. Wright Assistant General Counsel James C. Agazie Certified Legal Intern Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Katrina M. Saggio Economic Services Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 466 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Laura P. Gaffney Senior Attorney Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-4011
