Findings Of Fact In the face of resistance to its standing, Petitioner presented no evidence. Accordingly, the record is devoid of any proof that a substantial number of its members are "substantially affected" by the challenged rule, that the subject matter of the rule is within the association's general scope of interest and activity, and that the relief requested is of a type appropriate for a trade association to receive on behalf of its members.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dan Shook, owns residential property within the city limits of Dundee, Florida, and now also owns contiguous property that is adjacent to the right-of-way of on the northbound side of Alternate U.S. Highway 27 in Polk County, Florida, a federal aid primary highway. In prior years, the Respondent's land did not include the contiguous property adjacent to Alternate 27. In those prior years, for 17 consecutive years, the prior owner of the contiguous land maintained on the property an outdoor sign advertising Sunken Gardens in St. Petersburg, Florida, facing the northbound traffic on Alternate 27. When legislation was enacted to regulate outdoor advertising along Florida highways, the Sunken Gardens sign was "grandfathered" as a nonconforming use. Over the years, the Sunken Gardens sign fell into disrepair and, apparently in the summer of 1990, the owner of the sign decided to sell the property and abandon its permit for the location. The Respondent bought the property where the old sign was located. The Respondent was living with his wife in one of the mobile homes they owned on his property. When the Respondent bought the property where the sign was located, he planned to put an additional mobile home on the property. He asked the prior owner to remove the old Sunken Gardens sign. According to the Respondent, about four months passed, and the sign was not removed. On September 26, 1990, the Respondent contacted Sunken Gardens advertising and asked for permission to remove the sign himself, which permission was granted. The Respondent also agreed to physically remove the permit tag from the old sign and return it to Sunken Gardens so that Sunken Gardens could return the permit to the DOT, together with the required affidavit to effect the cancellation and termination of the permit. The Respondent asked for and got a letter of confirmation which stated in part that "Sunken Gardens hereby grants you all rights and ownership to remove, destroy and dispose of" the sign. Neither party intended that the Respondent was being given the right to do anything but to remove the sign from the property so that the Respondent could go forward with his plans to put a mobile home on the property. The Respondent returned the permit tag to Sunken Gardens, as agreed. But before removing the sign, the Respondent changed his mind. He had long been in the business of selling and installing mobile home supplies, accessories and certain home improvements. He operated the business out of his home on the property. But, in order to increase his business and give his wife an additional source of income, he decided to open a mobile home supplies store in downtown Dundee, about a mile away. He decided to, and did, use the serviceable parts of the old Sunken Gardens sign and rebuild and repaint the sign to advertise: "Dan Shook MOBILE HOME SUPPLIES WINDOWS - DOORS - SHUTTERS - SIDING - CARPORTS - FLORIDA ROOMS - SCREEN ROOMS - 1 MI. AHEAD DOWNTOWN DUNDEE." Meanwhile, on or about October 17, 1990, Sunken Gardens submitted to the DOT an affidavit on an official DOT form representing that the tag permit for the old Sunken Gardens sign was being returned to the DOT and that the sign was being removed due to the property changing hands. After receipt of the Sunken Gardens affidavit, the DOT inspected the site to be sure that the sign had been removed, as represented, and found the Respondent's new sign in its place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order sustaining Notice of Violation 1-16-100 and requiring that the Respondent's sign be removed. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Dan Shook 6002 Scenic Highway Dundee, Florida 33838 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Are Rules 3F-5.004(4)(b)1. and 2., Florida Administrative Code, an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The following are the stipulated facts: On or about September 15, 1995, Trinity Memorial Gardens of Lakeland, Inc., a Florida corporation, filed an application to organize a new cemetery company to be located at the Northwest corner of Mall Hill and Griffen Roads in Polk County, Florida. By publication in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 29, 1996, the State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance issued a Notice of Intent to Approve the Application for a New Cemetery Company submitted by Trinity Memorial Gardens of Lakeland, Inc. On April 18, 1996, Lakeland Memorial Gardens, Inc., a licensed Florida cemetery, located at 2126 South Bartow Highway, Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, filed a Petition for Formal Proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the proposed action of the Department to approve the proposed new cemetery. On June 24, 1997, the Florida Cemetery Association, Inc., filed a Petition to Intervene which was granted July 8, 1997. In reviewing an application for a license for a new cemetery, the Department is required to determine whether there is a need for the new cemetery in accordance with requirements of Sections 497.005(28) and 497.201(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3F-5.004(4), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 3F-5.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, has been in existence since approximately 1975, and was last amended on October 23, 1991. Rule 3F-5.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, for purposes of this proceeding, is a rule proposed and adopted by the Department. In reviewing the application filed by Trinity the Department purported to apply Rule 3F-5.004(4)(b)2., Florida Administrative Code, in making a determination of need on the application filed by Trinity Memorial Gardens of Lakeland, Inc. In 1993, the Florida Legislature defined for the first time the term “community” in Section 497.005(28), Florida Statutes, by passing Chapter 93-339, Laws of Florida. Rule 3F-5.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, has not been amended since the passage of Chapter 93-339, Laws of Florida. The Department of Banking and Finance has not implemented the definition of “community” contained in Rule 3F-5.004(4)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, in a determination of need under Section 497.201(3), Florida Statutes, since the effective date of Chapter 93-339, Laws of Florida. It is the Department’s position that the definition of “community” contained in Section 497.005(28), Florida Statutes, “superseded” or codified the definition of “community” contained in Rule 3F-5.004(4)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code. The Department interprets the requirements of Rule 3F-5.004(4)(b)2., Florida Administrative Code, to mean that only those cemeteries located within a twelve mile radius of a proposed new cemetery will be considered in determining need for a new cemetery. This interpretation by the Department has been utilized since October 18, 1990. In making a determination of need, the Department uses a fifteen-mile radius to determine the projected number of burial spaces needed in the “community” for a period of thirty years. In determining the “adequacy” of existing cemetery facilities under Section 497.201(3), Florida Statutes, the Department uses a twelve-mile radius to determine the number of spaces “available” for a period of thirty years and excludes from consideration all existing licensed or unlicensed cemeteries within a fifteen-mile radius but outside a twelve-mile radius of the proposed new cemetery. Use of twelve-mile radius, as opposed to a fifteen-mile radius, for the examination of the adequacy of existing facilities pursuant to Section 497.201(3), could, and has in the past, caused the exclusion of licensed cemeteries in the area outside of twelve miles but inside of fifteen miles. The Department noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly the following: Notice of Proposed Rules 3D-30.0051, 3D-30.0052, 3D-30.0053, 3D-30.0054, Volume 22, Number 37, September 13, 1996. Notice of Proposed Rule 3D-30.0055, Volume 22, Number 40, 5665, October 4, 1996. Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed Rules No. 3D-30.0051, 3D-30.0052, 3D-30.0053, 3D-30.0054, Volume 23, Number 15, 1900, April 11, 1997. Notice of Change, Rule 3D-30.0055, Volume 23, Number 15, April 11, 1997.
The Issue Is Proposed Rule 3F-5.009, Florida Administrative Code, invalid on the basis that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are found: On March 28, 1997, the Board caused to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 23, Number 13, the text of its proposed rule to be known as Rule 3F-5.009, Florida Administrative Code, which the Board indicated that it intended to adopt. The proposed rule reads: 3F-5009 Regulatory Standards for Evaluating Applications by the Board. When an application for authority to organize and operate a new cemetery company is filed, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet the statutory criteria warranting the grant of authority. The Department shall conduct an investigation pursuant to Section 497.201(2), Florida Statutes, and report its findings to the Board. If in the opinion of the Board, any one of the criteria as set forth in Section 497.201, Florida Statutes, which requires board review and approval has not been met and cannot be remedied by the applicant, the Department cannot approve the application. The applicant shall submit information addressing the following: Capital structure. Capital should be adequate to enable the new cemetery to provide necessary services for cemeteries, including adequate service to the community and adequate care and maintenance of the cemetery. Capital shall be sufficient to purchase a cemetery site of no less than 15 contiguous acres in fee simple unencumbered; to develop at least two (2) acres for burial spaces including paved road from a public roadway; to purchase or lease adequate equipment for the operation and maintenance of the cemetery; and to build or lease suitable facilities to operate the cemetery. An applicant shall demonstrate that it has sufficient capital to sustain its operations until its first projected profitable year. Sufficient capital shall mean that the applicant is able to cover its cumulative losses until projected profitability; provided that in no event may the tangible accounting net worth of the applicant be less than $50,000. The demonstration of sufficient capital shall be made by submittal of a business plan covering every year from inception up to and including its first projected year of profitability and providing: Revenue expectations based on the applicant's projected sources of revenue and projected revenue including number of annual sales and average sales on a unit basis and a demographic analysis of the applicant's projected market which supports this revenue projection; An analysis of the cost incurred to achieve the projected revenues including sales costs, product costs, delivery of service costs, financing of capital requirement cost, care and maintenance costs, the costs of perpetual care (including other sources of funds in the event of shortfalls in the perpetual care funds); and any information required by the Board and reasonably necessary for the Board to make a determination of the applicant's financial stability. Proposed executive officers, directors or principals. The proposed officers, directors or principals shall each submit an executed Historical Sketch, Form DBF-HS-1, effective 4/25/94, which has been incorporated in Rule 3F-5.002, and shall have reputations evidencing honesty and integrity. They shall have employment and business histories demonstrating their responsibility in financial affairs. The fact that a proposed officer, director or principal has been adjudicated bankrupt or has filed for relief under the Federal Bankruptcy Act shall be considered a material factor in the evaluation of responsibility in financial affairs. At least one (1) of the proposed directors or principals, who is not also a proposed officer, shall have had substantial direct experience as an executive officer, director or principal of a cemetery or a certificate holder licensed pursuant to Section 497.405, within 3 years of the date of the application. If in the opinion of the Board the aggregate level of experience represented by the proposed board of directors or principals is not substantial, the Board shall require the addition of other outside directors or principals who have adequate experience. The proposed general manager shall have at least 1 year of direct experience within 7 years of the application as a general manager, director, regulator of a cemetery or similar position having an equivalent level of responsibility for a cemetery. The general manager must have a reputation evidencing honesty and integrity and an employment history demonstrating competent past experience. It is not necessary that the name of the general manager be submitted with the application. However, this individual must be named and have submitted an executed Historical Sketch, Form DBF-HS-1, not later than ninety (90) days prior to applicant's intended opening date. The applicant may not open for business without prior approval of the general manager by the Department. Change of a director, chief executive officer, president, principal or general manager or the addition of any new directors, executive officers through the first two (2) years of operation shall also require approval of the Department and the Board. The Department shall conduct background investigations on the principals, general manager, executive officers, directors, and major shareholders. Any misrepresentations or omission of fact in an application by any person shall be cause for the Department or the Board to deny that person's participation in the application and to the extent such misrepresentation or omission of fact reflect upon their honesty and integrity shall be grounds for denial of the entire application. Specific Authority 497.103, F.S. Law Implemented 497.201, F.S. History - New. Eastlake's petition challenges the proposed rule on the basis that it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Eastlake's challenge is more specifically set out in paragraphs 5 through 8 of the petition which provide: The proposed rule imposes requirements regarding: the nature of the property interest in a cemetery site necessary to obtain a license; the nature of the capital requirements necessary to obtain a license; the information to be submitted regarding the officers of a cemetery company necessary to obtain a license; the level of experience of directors and principals of the proposed cemetery company necessary to obtain a license; the level of experience of the general manager of the proposed cemetery company necessary to obtain a license; which exceed the Board's grant of rulemaking authority, and enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented. The standards established in the proposed rule regarding the "reputations evidencing honesty and integrity" of the proposed officers, directors, principals and general manager, which reputations" may lead the Board to deny a license to engage in the business of a cemetery company are vague, fail to establish adequate standards for the Board's decisions, or vest unbridled discretion in the Board, and are arbitrary or capricious. The standards regarding the ability of the Board to conduct background investigations of the principals, general manager, executive officers, directors and major shareholders, and the extent to which such investigations may allow the Board to deny a license to engage in the business of a cemetery company, exceed the Board's grant of rulemaking authority, and enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. The standards regarding the ability of the Board to conduct background investigations of the principals, general manager, executive officers, directors and major shareholders and the extent to which such investigations may allow the Board to deny a license to engage in the business of a cemetery company are vague, fail to establish adequate standards for the Board's decisions, or vest unbridled discretion in the Board, and are arbitrary or capricious. Eastlake is an applicant to obtain a licenses to operate a cemetery and is the Respondent in a challenge to a Board and Department decision to grant initial approval for that license (Trinity Memorial Cemetery, Inc., et al. v. Board of Funeral and Cemetery Services, Department of Bankina and Finance, Division of Finance and Eastlake Memorial Gardens, Inc., Case No. 96-3938), and thus would be affected by the proposed rule if it goes into effect. Trinity holds a license to operate a cemetery and is a petitioner in Trinity, Case No. 96-3938 in opposition to Eastlake's application and thus would be affected by the proposed rule if it goes into effect. The Association is an industry trade association which has membership of some 109 licensed cemeteries in Florida. Its members would be affected by the proposed rule if it goes in effect insofar: (a) as the proposed rule sets forth standards for entities attempting to become licensed as cemetery companies; and (b) as its membership has a direct interest in promoting the overall quality of the cemetery industry and assuring that the entities that are licensed to provide cemetery services provide such services in a manner so as to enhance the industry as a whole. It was the unrebutted testimony of Diana Evans, Executive Director of the Board that the purpose of the proposed rule was to set standards to guide applicants seeking Board approval of their ability, integrity, financial stability, and experience to operate a cemetery, and to guide the Board in reviewing those criteria.
The Issue The parties would not stipulate to any of the facts. The following factual issues were presented in this case: Whether the Petitioner possesses the requisite ability, experience, and financial stability to operate a cemetery? Whether the Petitioner meets the statutory criteria to be licensed? Whether the Petitioner's application is substantially complete? Whether existing facilities meet the requisite adequacy standard? Whether the trust funds of existing facilities are solvent? Whether the statistical data supports issuance of an additional license (need), and Notwithstanding a lack of need, should the agency issue any additional licenses to foster needed competition? The following legal issues were raised during the hearing: Are the terms of Chapter 85-202, Laws of Florida, applicable to this application? May the Department waive the need criteria of Section 497.006(3), Florida Statutes and issue licenses to promote competition? Should cemetery spaces which are not subject to the act pursuant to Section 497.003(1), Florida Statutes be considered in computing need? Should acreage which is owned by a cemetery company but undedicated to cemetery use be included in computation of need? Legal conclusions on these issues are summarized at the beginning of this Order because they impact consideration of the facts. It is concluded that Chapter 85-202, Laws of Florida, should be applied to the application as the law in effect at the time of hearing and at the time the agency's decision is made. It is also concluded that Section 497.003, Florida Statutes, excepts from the application of Chapter 497 and all rules adopted pursuant to Chapter 497 certain cemeteries and it is inconsistent, therefore, to include spaces in these excepted cemeteries in computing need. In circumstances in which no need exists, the department may approve an application upon proof that an additional cemetery or cemeteries are needed to promote competition pursuant to Section 497.006(3) Florida Statutes. Acreage owned but not dedicated to cemetery purposes should not be computed in need statistics because it is not subject to agency control until its dedication. The parties have submitted posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to the Recommended Order. FINDINGS OF FACT_ The applicant for licensure to operate a cemetery is Memory Park, Inc., a Florida corporation. The operating officers of the corporation are Bill Williams, Annette Williams, his wife, and Bert Brown. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) All three have very significant business experience and have operated state licensed businesses without any complaint. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5, 6 & 7) The applicant's principals have indicated that, as required by law, they would hire an experienced cemetery manager for the period required. The applicant possesses sufficient operating capital assets to insure its financial stability. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and 4.) The Petitioner's application was substantially complete: setting forth the proposed cemetery's exact location, paying all fees required, and demonstrating that the applicant is a legal entity. (See documents filed with the application and staff study.) No evidence was received that any existing licensed cemeteries failed to meet adequacy standards. Only one other licensed cemetery, Serenity Gardens, exists in the service area which is a 15 mile circle drawn around the proposed site. This licensed cemetery meets the existing statutory requirements. Projections of population, deaths and burials in the service-area were introduced and received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1, which also includes a map of the service area and a listing of all cemeteries in the service area. (The accompanying data on acreage and spaces of unlicensed cemeteries was not admitted.) Hearing officer Exhibit 1 shows that there will be 16,182 deaths in the area, and 13,095 burials in the area after cremations and "ship outs" through 2012. Need is computed on a 30 year projection. The existing licensed facility has 18 acres dedicated to cemetery purposes and 15 adjoining acres which are not dedicated. The dedicated acreage has 15,972 unused spaces which includes spaces sold but with no one yet buried in them. The undedicated acreage has 14,954 unused spaces as currently planned. (Hearing Officer Exhibit 1) However, the company could dispose of this undedicated property and use it for purposes without any interference, regulation or control by the agency. There would be a total of 13,095 burials in the 30 years between 1983 and 2012. This is less than the available sites currently in the dedicated acreage at the one licensed cemetery (15,972). There is no need. (Hearing Officer Exhibit 1) Serenity Gardens has cleaned it fences, planned to provide additional services, employed new personnel, and has begun actively advertising since the applicant started the application process. Serenity Gardens had not done so in the past.
Findings Of Fact Under the provisions of Chapter 497, Florida Statutes, the Department is charged with the responsibility and duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of said chapter, which includes the duty to issue licenses, as set forth in Section 497.006, Florida Statutes. On January 2, 1985, Petitioner, a Florida corporation, submitted an Application to Organize a New Cemetery Company (hereinafter First Application) to operate a cemetery in Santa Rosa County, Florida, and paid a $600 application fee. Thereafter, on January 11, 1985, the Department caused to be published a Notice of Cemetery Application with regard to Petitioner in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 2. Said Notice indicated that any interested person could request a hearing within a stated time period. On January 24, 1985, the Department received a petition for hearing from a licensed cemetery, Serenity Gardens of Santa Rosa, Inc. (hereinafter Protestant), which objected to granting Petitioner's First Application for a cemetery license and requested a public hearing be held. The Department granted Protestant's request for a hearing and on February 25, 1985, the Department forwarded said petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings and requested that a Hearing Officer be appointed to hear this matter on behalf of the Department. On March 4, 1985, Hearing Officer Stephen F. Dean was assigned to hear this cause. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Authority to Organize a New Cemetery Company (hereinafter Second Application) on August 23, 1985, which was substantially complete on that date. However, no additional application fees have been paid. An administrative hearing based upon the Second Application was held on August 28-29, 1985, in Pensacola, Florida, and on October 17, lS85, the Hearing Officer entered his Recommended Order to which no exceptions have been filed. In the Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer entered a specific finding of fact that the operating officers of Petitioner are Arnette Williams, Bill Williams and Bert Brown; that all three have very significant business experience and have operated other state licensed businesses without any complaint; and that Petitioner's principals have indicated that they would hire an experienced cemetery manager. The Department accepts this finding of fact. In the Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer entered a specific finding of fact that Petitioner possesses sufficient operating capital assets to insure its financial stability. The Department accepts this finding of fact. In Findings of Fact number three, the Hearing Officer concluded that the Petitioner had paid "all fees required." The Department respectfully takes exception to this factual finding because, subsequent to the filing of the First Application and prior to the filing of the Second Application, Chapter 85-202, Laws of Florida, came into effect and amended Section 494.006(2), Florida Statutes, to increase the application fee from $600 to $5,000. However, as noted in paragraph 2 herein, only a S600 application fee has been paid to date. The Hearing Officer further found that the criteria of the new law was to be applied to the application. The proposed cemetery site contains approximately 30 contiguous acres. The Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order entered a specific finding to the effect that Protestant is the only other licensed cemetery that exists in the service area which is a 15 mile circle drawn around the proposed site. The Department accepts this finding and also finds that the trust funds of that cemetery are solvent. Projections of population, deaths and burials in the service area together with a map of the service area and a listing of all cemeteries in the service area were introduced and received at the hearing. (The accompanying data on acreage and spaces of unlicensed cemeteries was not admitted into evidence by the Hearing Officer.) In paragraph 5, the Hearing Officer further concluded, "Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 shows that there will be 16,182 deaths in the area, and 13,095 burials in the area after cremations and 'ship outs' through [the year] 2012. Need is computed on a 30 year projection." The Department respectfully notes that the projected deaths and burials referred to by the Hearing Officer are those of Santa Rosa County. Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 shows that there are 9,039 projected deaths in the service area and 7,314 projected burials through 2012. The Hearing Officer in paragraph 6 of the Findings of Fact concluded: The existing licensed facility has 18 acres dedicated to cemetery purposes and 15 adjoining acres which are not dedicated. The dedicated acreage has 15,972 unused spaces which includes spaces sold but with no one yet buried in them. The undedicated acreage has 14,954 unused spaces as currently planned. (Hearing Officer Exhibit 1). However, the company could dispose of the] undedicated property and use it for purposes without any interference, regulation or control by the agency. A review of the evidence shows that the Annual Report of Cemetery of Protestant represents that said cemetery has 33 total acres with only 18 acres noted as being dedicated. Accordingly, there is a basis for the Hearing Officer's finding. However, the plat of Protestant with regard to the remaining 15 acres has dedicated such 15 acres for cemetery use and the plat thereof has been approved by and filed with the local county officials. This being the case, as discussed in paragraph 17b, it is a matter of state law whether Protestant has effectuated a proper dedication. However, the Department does agree with the Hearing Officer's statement as to the number of unused space in the respective portions of Protestant. The total projected burials in the service area is less than the unused spaces in the 18 acre area of Protestant and is less than the unused spaces in the total acreage of Protestant. Accordingly, there is no need for a cemetery in the service area. Petitioner has already had a positive impact on competition in the service area, because the Hearing Officer in his Recommended Order entered a specific finding to the effect that Protestant has cleaned its fences, planned to provide additional services, employed new personnel and has begun actively advertising since the application process was started. Protestant had not done so in the past. The Department accepts this finding.
Recommendation Having found the applicants qualified and that the proposed facility has already fostered, promoted and encouraged competition, it is recommended the license be issued although there is no need for the service area. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1985. APPENDIX A Only one set of "Proposed Findings" was submitted. These unpaginated, unnumbered proposals submitted by Petitioner were read and considered. In the entire eight pages there is only one finding of fact. In the first paragraph of the portion addressing Competition, the proposal states, "Serenity Gardens is the only licensed perpetual care facility in the community where the Petitioner has proposed its cemetery." This was addressed in paragraph 4 of the Recommended Order's Findings. The remaining verbage in the proposal is argument and, therefore, is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr. 119 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Alan H. Rosenbloum 417 Canterbury Lane Gulf Breeze, FL 32561 Paul C. Stadler The Capitol Suite 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 Charles Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
