The Issue On February 27, 1987, petitioner issued a Notice to Show Cause which alleged that respondent had violated various provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 7D-17 and 7D-23, Florida Administrative Code. On March 20, 1987, respondent served petitioner with a Response to Notice to Show Cause and Request for Formal Hearing. The Notice to Show Cause and response identify the specific violations alleged and issues to be resolved as follows: CHARGE: Respondent, while in control of the association, violated Section 718.116(1)(a) and (8)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), by excusing itself from the payment of its share of common expenses pertaining to assessments on unbuilt developer-owned units in Phase VI and VII of Glenwood Manor by failing to pay assessments on the units until certificates of occupancy were issued; RESPONSE: Respondent denied that it had any liability for assessments on unbuilt developer-owned units in Phases VI and VII of Glenwood Manor Condominiums, and alleged that respondent paid assessments on developer-owned units commencing with the creation of the unit pursuant to Section 718.403, Florida Statutes (1985). CHARGE: Respondent, while in control of the association, violated Section 718.112(2)(k), Florida Statutes (1980 Supp.), Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), and Rule 7D- 23.04(2), Florida Administrative Code (1985), by failing to properly waive or fully fund reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance for the years 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985 and 1986; RESPONSE: Respondent denied that reserve accounts were improperly waived or funded as alleged in the notice, asserting that reserves were properly waived for the years 1981, 1982, and 1984, were not waived for the year 1985, and that respondent was without knowledge as to 1986 because the turnover of the condominium took place prior to the 1986 annual meeting. CHARGE: Respondent, while in control of the association, violated Section 718.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.), and Section 718.112(2)(g), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to adopt budgets and make assessments for the fiscal years 1984, 1985 and 1986 in an amount no less than required to provide funds in advance for payment of all anticipated current operating expenses and all of the unpaid expenses previously incurred, in that respondent loaned the association $8,000 from May 19, 1983 to May 19, 1985, to cover operating expense, with repayment plus interest due after turnover; RESPONSE: Respondent denied that it failed to adopt budgets and make assessments for fiscal years 1984, 1985 and 1986 in amounts sufficient to provide funds in advance for payment of anticipated current operating expenses and for all of the unpaid expenses previously incurred. Respondent alleged that it adopted in good faith budgets which the association estimated would be required to meet these expenses. Respondent admitted loaning money to the association to meet the needs of the association. CHARGE: Respondent failed to follow its plan of phase development as stated in the original declaration of condominium or amend the plan of phase development, in violation of Sections 718.403(1), (2)(b), (6) and 718.110(4), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the original declaration describes Phase IV as containing eight units while the amendment adding Phase IV created only seven units; RESPONSE: Respondent denied that it failed to follow its plan of phase development as stated in the original declaration of condominium in that the Declaration of Condominium provided that the developer would have the option of constructing a swimming pool in Phase IV and that the construction of the pool would require a reduction in the number of units contained in Phase IV from eight to seven. CHARGE: Respondent violated Section 718.104(4)(f), Florida Statutes (1985), by creating a condominium in which the aggregate undivided share in the common elements appurtenant to each unit, stated as a percentage, does not equal the whole, in that Glenwood Manor consists of 55 units with each unit owning a 1/56th share of the common elements. RESPONSE: Respondent denied that it created a condominium in which the aggregate undivided shares in the common elements appurtenant to each unit did not equal the whole, and alleged that any reference to a unit owner owning 1/56th undivided share in the common elements is due to a scrivener's error which respondent would be willing to correct to clarify that each unit owner owns 1/55th undivided share in the common element. CHARGE: Respondent offered 33 condominium units for sale, and entered into purchase contracts in Phase II, III, V, VI and VIII of Glenwood Manor prior to filling the subsequent phase documents with the Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes (Division) on February 5, 1986, in violation of Section 718.502(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), and Rule 7D- 17.03(2), Florida Administrative Code; CHARGE: Respondent closed on 33 units prior to obtaining Division approval on February 10, 1986, of subsequent phase documents for Phases II, III, V, VI and VII, in violation of Section 718.502(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1984 Supp.), and Rule 7D- 17.01(3), Florida Administrative Code; RESPONSE TO (6) AND (7): Respondent admitted that due to the death of one of its attorneys, it inadvertently did not file the subsequent phase documents for Phases II, III, V, VI and VII prior to offering some of those units for sale and closing on the sale, but filed the necessary documents with the Division and obtained the necessary approvals upon realizing that the documents had not been filed. CHARGE: Respondent accepted a deposit on the purchase contract for unit 605, Phase V, without filing a fully executed escrow agreement for Venice Realty, Inc., with the Division, in violation of Rule 7D-17.02(6), Florida Administrative Code. RESPONSE: Respondent admitted that due to confusion between respondent and the realtor involved, Venice Realty, Inc. inadvertently accepted a deposit on a contract for the purchase of Unit 605, Phase VI, but that prior to closing on the unit, respondent directed Venice Realty to transfer the deposit to the proper escrow agent which transfer was accomplished. Respondent requested a formal hearing on the issues thus joined, and on April 9, 1987, this matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings. At the hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of Glen Turnow, a resident of Glenwood Manor Condominium and association board member; Candy McKinney, Examination Specialist with the Bureau of Condominiums; John Benton, Financial Analyst, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes; and Marcel Cloutier, Secretary/Treasurer of Waterside Land Corporation. Petitioner's exhibits 1-8 were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, Petitioner's First Request for Admissions and responses, and petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories, were admitted into evidence as late-filed exhibits. Marcel Cloutier, an officer of Waterside Land Corporation, was accepted as the authorized representative for respondent and testified on respondent's behalf. Respondent did not enter any exhibits into evidence. A prehearing stipulation was submitted by the parties prior to the hearing. No transcript of the hearing has been filed. However, both petitioner and respondent have filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a ruling on each of the proposed findings of fact is included in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all times between October 21, 1981, and February 27, 1987, respondent was the developer, as that term is defined by Section 718.103(14), Florida Statutes (1985), of Glenwood Manor Condominium. Glenwood Manor Condominium is a phased condominium consisting of seven (7) phases with fifty-five (55) units located in Sarasota County, Florida. Between October 21, 1981, and February 17, 1986, respondent was in control of the Board of Directors of Glenwood Manor Owners Association, Inc. (Association). Control of the Board of Directors of the Association was turned over to the unit owners on February 17, 1986. The Declaration of Condominium of Glenwood Manor Condominium was recorded in the public records of Sarasota County, Florida, on October 21, 1981. Paragraph II of the Declaration of Condominium provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Developer does hereby declare the property owned by it and first described above, to be Condominium property under the Condominium Act of the State of Florida, now in force and effect, to be known as: GLENWOOD MANOR CONDOMINIUMS, hereinafter referred to as the CONDOMINIUM??, and does submit said Condominium property to Condominium ownership pursuant to said Act. Developer may, but is not obligated to create additional Phases of Development of GLENWOOD MANOR CONDOMINIUMS ... which said Phases, if any, shall be operated and managed in conjunction with this Condominium through that certain nonprofit corporation known as: GLENWOOD MANOR OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and hereinafter referred to as the "ASSOCIATION." The creation of any such further Phases will merge the common elements of this Condominium with the common elements of such additional Phases. As Developer creates such additional Phases, Developer shall ... record an amendment to this Declaration of Condominium describing the lands and improvements so added and the revised percentage of owner- ship in the common elements of this Condominium as so enlarged. (e.s.) The details of the phase development are set forth on Exhibit B to the Declaration of Condominium, entitled Phase Development Exhibit, which provides as follows: This Condominium is being developed as a Phase Development under Florida Statute 718.403. The first Phase of Development, which is the Phase hereby submitted to Condominium ownership, is designated on the Condominium plat described in paragraph II of the Declaration of Condominium above as Phase I. It consists of 8 Condominium Units numbered 1 through 8. Each Unit owner will own 1/8th of the common elements and share 1/8th of the common expenses and is entitled to 1/8th of common surplus relative to this Condominium. Phase II consists of 8 proposed Condominium Units as depicted on said condominium plat. At such time as Phase II is added to this Condominium by appropriate amendment of this Declaration of Condominium, if that be the case, the two phases shall then and there be considered as merged. Upon such merger each unit shall be vested with a 1/16th ownership of the common elements of said phases as merged, bear 1/16th of the common expenses of the merged phases and be entitled to 1/16th of the common surplus of the merged phases. At such time as Phase III is added to this Condominium by appropriate amendment of this Declaration of Condominium, if that be the case, the three phases shall then and there be considered as merged. Upon such mercer each unit shall be vested with a 1/24th ownership of the common elements of said phases as merged, bear 1/24th of the common expenses of the merged phases and be entitled to 1/24th of the common surplus of the merged phases. At such time as Phase IV is added to this Condominium by appropriate amendment of this Declaration of Condominium, if that be the case, the four phases shall then and there be considered as merged. Upon such merger each unit shall be vested with a 1/32nd ownership of the common expenses of said phases as merged, bear 1/32nd of the common expenses of the merged phases and be entitled to 1/32nd of the common surlus [sic] of the merged phases. At such time as Phase V is added to this Condominium by appropriate amendment of this Declaration of Condominium, if that be the case, the five phases shall then and there be considered as merged. Upon such merger each unit shall be vested with a 1/40th ownership of the common elements of said phases as merged, bear 1/40th of the common expenses of the merged phases and be entitled to 1/40th of the common surplus of the merged phases. At such time as Phase VI is added to this Condominium by appropriate amendment of this Declaration of Condominium, if that be the case, the six phases shall then and there be considered as merged. Upon such merger each unit shall be vested with a 1/48th ownership of the common elements of said phases as merged, bear 1/48th of the common expenses of the merged phases and be entitled to 1/48th of the common surplus of the merged phases. At such time as Phase VII is added to this Condominium by appropriate amendment of this Declaration of Condominium, if that be the case, the seven phases shall then and there be considered as merged. Upon such merger each unit shall be vested with a 1/56th ownership of the common elements of said phases as merged, bear 1/56th of the common expenses of the merged phases and be entitled to 1/56th of the common surplus of the merged phases. (e.s.) The units in Phases II - VII were submitted to condominium ownership pursuant to amendments to the Declaration of Condominium filed in the public records of Sarasota County, Florida, on the following dates: First Amendment Phase II November 16, 1981 Second Amendment Phase III June 10, 1983 Third Amendment Phase IV November 3, 1983 Fourth Amendment Phases V, VI and VII April 5, 1984 Each amendment provided for the merger of the common elements of the new phase with the previous phases, listed all units included in the condominium, and indicated the new share of ownership in and expenses for the common elements of the condominium for each unit. For example, the First Amendment of Declaration of Condominium, which added Phase II, consisting of eight units, to the condominium, which initially consisted of eight units, provided: As a result of the addition of the Phase II lands to the Condominium, as set forth above, each unit of Glenwood Manor, Condominiums as amended heretofore and hereby, shall be vested with a 1/16th owner- ship of the common elements of the merged Phases I and II lands and each unit shall bear a 1/16th share of the common expenses and be entitled to a 1/16th share of the common surplus of said merged phases of development. Both the First and Second Amendments added eight units to the condominium in accordance with the Phase Development Exhibit included in the Declaration of Condominium. However, the Third Amendment, adding Phase IV, added only seven units to the condominium, resulting in a total of 31 units. The Third Amendment correctly stated that each unit "shall be vested with a 1/31st ownership of the common elements of the merged Phases I, II, III and IV lands and each unit shall bear a 1/31st share of the common expenses ..." However, when the Fourth Amendment was filed, adding Phases V, VI and VII, each consisting of eight units, the share of ownership in the common elements for each unit was stated as 1/56th, whereas the total number of units included in the condominium was correctly shown as 55. Each amendment to the Declaration of Condominium ratified and confirmed the declaration and plat "[e]xcept as expressly modified" by the amendment. Unit owner and board member Glen Turnow stated that it was his understanding that he owns 1/55th of the common elements and that each unit owner pays 1/55th of the common expenses at Glenwood Manor; however, he has no documents indicating his ownership interest to be other than 1/56th of the common elements. Although the amendment creating the units in Phases VI and VII was filed on April 5, 1984, respondent paid no monthly assessments on developer-owned units in Phases VI and VII until Certificates of Occupancy were issued for those phases. Certificates of Occupancy for Phases VI and VII of Glenwood Manor were issued on October 25, 1985, and November 13, 1985, respectively. The assessment per unit of the condominium per month was $55 from April, 1984, through August, 1985; as of September, 1985, the assessment increased to $70 per unit. For the developer-owned units in Phases VI and VII from the date of amendment until the certificates of occupancy were filed, the assessments would have been $17,182.65. At 18 percent simple interest computed from the end of the year respondent owed for the assessments to the day before turnover of the association to the owners, interest on the assessments totals $2,029.92. Respondent admitted that it paid no assessments on the units in Phase VI and VII until Certificates of Occupancy were issued. Mr. Cloutier testified that respondent did not pay the assessments because it received legal advice that a unit is not in existence until a certificate of occupancy is issued. However, the first assessment was paid on November 4, 1981, and the certificates of occupancy for the first sixteen units were not issued until December 17, 1981. Mr. Cloutier also testified that respondent relied on language in the Declaration of Condominium which excused it from paying such assessments until the certificates of occupancy were issued. However, respondent did not introduce into evidence the portion of the Declaration on which it relied. Further, the Fourth Amendment to the declaration, which added the units in Phases VI and VII to the condominium, clearly provided that each unit would bear a proportionate share of the "common expenses." In the declaration "assessment" is defined as the "share of the funds required for the payment of common expenses." Respondent admitted that it made no guarantee to unit owners at Glenwood Manor Condominium which would excuse it from payment of assessments on developer-owned units other than pursuant to the provisions of Section 718.116(8)(a)1., Florida Statutes (1985), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (8)(a) No unit owner may be excused from the payment of his share of the common expense of a condominium unless all unit owners are likewise proportionately excused from payment, except ... in the following cases: If the declaration so provides, a developer or other person who owns condominium units offered for sale may be excused from the payment of the share of the common expenses and assessments related to those units for a stated period of time subsequent to the recording of the declaration of condominium. The period must terminate no later than the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the closing of the purchase and sale of the first condominium unit occurs ... The closing of the purchase and sale of the first unit at Glenwood Manor occurred on October 20, 1981. Reserves are monies put aside each month to provide for future replacement or repair of major items. The original budget provided for funding of reserves in the amount of $6.00 per unit per month. Funding of reserves at Glenwood Manor for 1981 was waived at a meeting of unit owners on January 10, 1982; for 1982, on January 10, 1982; for 1983 on January 10, 1983, and for 1984, on August 16, 1985. If the reserves cannot be waived retroactively, the respondent would owe $3,036.55 for reserves that were not properly waived. However, respondent made one deposit to reserves in the amount of $1,800; therefore, respondent's total liability for underfunded reserves would be $1,236.55. Between May 19, 1983, and May 20, 1985, the developer made the following loans to the association: June 19, 1983 $ 500 at 13 percent interest June 3, 1983 $ 500 at 13 percent interest August 6, 1984 $1200 at 12 1/2 percent interest September 7, 1984 $1500 at 12 1/2 percent interest September 28, 1984 $2300 at 12 1/2 percent interest March 2, 1985 $ 600 at 12 1/2 percent interest May 20, 1985 $1400 at 12 percent interest On July 14, 1983, the first two loans were repaid with interest. The loans made from the developer to the association during the years 1983, 1984 and 1985 were necessary to provide operating funds for the association. At a meeting of unit owners on August 25, 1985, it was decided that repayment of these loans would take place after turnover of control of the association to the non-developer owners. On the dates these loans were made, the percentages of units which had been sold by the developer were as follows: August 6, 1984 - 56.4 percent; September 7, 1984 - 56.4 percent; September 28, 1984 - 56.4 percent; March 3, 1985 - 60 percent; and May 20, 1985 - 61.8 percent. If the repayment of the loans were based on the percentage of units owned by the developer vis-a-vis the non- developers on the date of the loan, the developer would owe $2954.80 and the non-developer unit owners would owe $4045.20. Respondent offered 33 condominium units for sale, and entered into purchase contracts for units in Phases II, III, V, VI and VII of Glenwood Manor Condominiums, prior to February 5, 1986. Respondent closed on the sales of 33 units in Phases II, III, V, VI and VII of Glenwood Manor Condominiums prior to February 10, 1986. Respondent first filed subsequent phase documents with the Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes for Phases II, III, V, VI and VII of Glenwood Manor Condominium on February 5, 1986. On August 11, 1985, Venice Realty accepted a deposit from the Days for the purchase of Unit 605 at Glenwood Manor Condominium. Ms. McKinney testified that the Division's records indicated only that the Law Firm of Rosen, Able and Bryant would serve as escrow agent for sales of units at Glenwood Manor Condominium. In its answer to the charges, respondent admitted that Venice Realty was not the proper escrow agent for respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that respondent committed the violations alleged in Charges 1-7, finding that respondent did not commit the violation alleged in Charge 8, and imposing a civil penalty against respondent of Four Thousand, Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($4,250), assessed as follows: For the violations set forth in the first charge, $1,000; for the violations set forth in the second charge, $1,000; for the violations set forth in the third charge, $1,000; for the violations set forth in charges four and five, $750; and for the violations set forth in charges six and seven, $500. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order require that the respondent take the following affirmative action: Within sixty (60) days of the Final Order, file the appropriate documents in the public records of Sarasota County, Florida, indicating that Glenwood Manor Condominium consists of 55 units, and that each unit's share of the common elements, expenses, and surplus is 1/55th. The filing of such amendments shall comply fully with the provisions of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D-17, Florida Administrative Code. Within thirty (30) days of issuance of the Final Order, remit permanently and irretrievably to Glenwood Manor Owners' Association, Inc., the respondent's liability for assessments and reserves in the amount of $19,210.16 for assessments and $1,236.55 for reserves. Accept as full repayment of the loans made by respondent to the association, the sum of $4,045.20. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 4th day of March, 1988.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether a land development regulation adopted as City of Key West Ordinance 98-31, and approved by a Final Order of the Department of Community Affairs, DCA Docket No. DCA98-OR-237, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the City of Key West Area of Critical State Concern set forth in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. All of the Petitioners in Case No. 99-0666GM, except Neal Hirsh and Property Management of Key West, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Abbe Petitioners"), are all involved in the rental of real property in Key West, Monroe County, Florida. No evidence was presented concerning the identity of Mr. Hirsh or Property Management of Key West, Inc. The Abbe Petitioners are involved in the rental of Key West real property as owners or as rental managers of residential properties which are rented to tourists for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month (hereinafter referred to as "Transient Rentals). None of the properties used as Transient Rentals by the Abbe Petitioners constitute the Abbe Petitioners' primary residences. Petitioner in Case No. 99-0667GM, Jerry Coleman, owns residential property located in Key West. Mr. Coleman rents the residential property owned by him to tourists for periods of less than 30 days or one calendar month. Mr. Coleman also resides in Key West. Petitioner in Case No. 99-1081DRI, John F. Rooney, failed to present any evidence in support of his case or his standing. Respondent, the Department of Community Affairs (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with responsibility for, among other things, the approval or rejection of the comprehensive growth management plan, plan amendments, and land development regulations adopted by the City of Key West. Intervenor, the City of Key West (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Consistent with the requirements of Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the City has adopted a comprehensive growth management plan, the City of Key West Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "City's Plan"). The City's Plan became effective in 1993. The City's Plan consists of twelve elements: (a) Land Use; (b) Historic Preservation; (c) Traffic Circulation; (d) Housing; (e) Public Facilities; (f) Coastal Management; (g) Port Facilities; (h) Conservation; (i) Open Space and Recreation; (j) Intergovernmental Coordination; (k) Capital Improvements; and (l) General Monitoring and Review. Data Inventory and Analysis in support of the City's Plan was compiled by the City. The City has been designated as an area of critical state concern (hereinafter referred to as the "City ACSC"), pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes, since 1974. Rule 28-36.001, et seq., Florida Administrative Code. As an area of critical state concern, all comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulations adopted by the City must be reviewed by the Department for consistency with the Principles for Guiding Development (hereinafter referred to as the "Principles"), set out in Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Principles were adopted by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Administration Commission, in February 1984. Intervenors, Henry and Martha duPont, reside at 326 Whitehead Street, Key West, Florida. The duPonts reside in an area known as the "Truman Annex." The properties on both sides of the duPonts' residence are used as Transient Rentals. Key West History and Tourism. The City is located primarily on the southern-most bridged island of the Florida Keys, a chain of islands, or keys, which run in a generally southwesterly direction from the southeastern tip of the Florida peninsula. The City, like the Florida Keys, is bounded on the west by the Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the Atlantic Ocean. The City is connected to the Florida peninsula by a series of bridges which connect the keys. The road which runs the length of the Florida Keys is designated U. S. Highway 1. It is approximately 112 miles from the Florida mainland to the City. Prior to the early 1970s, the two most significant components of the City's economy were commercial fishing and the military. Tourism also played a role, but not to the extent that it does today. Toward the middle and end of the 1970s the military presence in the City was significantly reduced and the fishing industry was on the decline. To replace the fading fishing and the lost military components of the City's economy, the City turned to tourism. The City's efforts began in earnest during the 1980s and have continued through the present. The City is now a major tourist destination. The City's most attractive features include its historic character, especially the area of the City designated as "Old Town," its warm climate, its extensive shoreline, and its water resources, including coral reef systems. Approximately two-thirds of the City's economic base is now associated with tourism. While the City shares many of the characteristics of most tourist-resort destinations, it also features certain unique characteristics not found in other destinations. Those features include its geographic remoteness and its limited size. The island where the City is principally located is only approximately eight square miles. Currently, approximately 6.82 million tourists visit the City annually. Approximately 62 percent, or 4.25 million visitors, stay overnight in the City. Approximately 480,000 tourists, or about 11 percent of the overnight guests, stay in Transient Rentals. Tourism in the City represents, directly and indirectly, approximately 66 percent of the economic base of the City. The City's economy in turn represents approximately half of the economy of Monroe County. Approximately 15,000 of the 23,000 jobs in Monroe County and Key West are associated with the tourist industry. Of those jobs, 54 percent of all retail sales jobs are involved in the tourist industry. Approximately 50 percent of the estimated $187 million of Monroe County-wide personal income comes from the tourist industry. The tourist industry should continue to prosper in the City as long as the natural environmental characteristics of the City (the climate, surrounding waters, and tropical features of the Keys) and the unique historical and "community" character of the City remain vibrant. It is the natural environment, the climate, and local community character in combination with the historical and cultural attractions of the City that create a diverse mix of attractions which make the City a unique vacation destination. The City's mixture of attractions must be served by a mixture of tourist accommodation services, including hotels, motels, guest houses, and Transient Rentals. Those accommodations are currently available. There are approximately 3,768 hotel/motel rooms available in the City. There are also approximately 507 residential properties with 906 units which are licensed as Transient Rentals in the City and approximately 647 unlicensed residential properties used for Transient Rentals. The loss of the availability of unlicensed Transient Rentals will not have a lasting adverse impact on tourism in the City. The City's Plan recognizes the importance of tourism. Objective 1-1.3, "Planning for Industrial Development and Economic Base," of the land use element of the City's Plan provides, in pertinent part, the following: . . . . Tourism is the most significant component of the City of Key West economic base. The City of Key West is a major tourist destination. It's principal attributes are its historic character, warm climate, extensive shoreline, water resources, the coral reef system, abundant water related and water-dependent activities, and the ambiance of Old Town. The historic district contains many old structures which do not comply with the City's size and dimension regulations since many structures pre-date these local regulations. Realizing the significant contribution of Old Town, especially the unique character of its structures and their historic and architectural significance, and realizing the substantial impact of tourism to the economic base, the City shall direct considerable attention to its growth management decisions to maintaining the historic character of Old Town and preserving tourism as a major contributor to the City's economic base. Similarly, the City shall carefully consider supply and demand factors impacting tourism and the local economy to ensure the long term economic stability. The two policies adopted to implement Objective 1-1.3, Policies 1-1.3.1, "Mandatory Planning and Management Framework for Industrial Development," and Policy 1- 1.3.2, "Pursue Nuisance Abatement Standards and Criteria," provide for measures to deal with industrial development and not tourism. Reliance upon Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan by Petitioners' witnesses is misplaced. While the Objective does reflect the importance of tourism in the City, it does not provide any guidance concerning appropriate land uses which may be allowed throughout the City. There is no direction in the Objective concerning land uses which the City must maintain. Land uses are considered and dealt with in other provisions of the City's land use element. Additionally, the reliance upon Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan fails to give adequate weight to other provisions of the Plan. The Historic Significance of the City and "Old Town." The importance of the City's history is recognized throughout the Plan. Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan quoted, supra, points to the City's history and the role it plays in tourism. An area of the City has been designated as the Key West Historic District. The area is described in the Data Inventory and Analysis as the "physical manifestation of the 170 year existence of [the City]." Page 1A-11 of the Data Inventory and Analysis. Objective 1-2.3 of the Future Land Use Map Goal of the City's Plan deals with the importance of the Key West Historic District and an area which is largely located within the historic district known as "Old Town": OBJECTIVE 1-2.3: MANAGING OLD TOWN REDEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. Areas delineated on the Future Land Use Map for historic preservation shall be planned and managed using a regulatory framework designed to preserve the form, function, image, and ambiance of the historic Old Town. The City's Historic Architectural Review Commission (HARC), in addition to the Planning Board, shall review all development proposals within the historic area designated by the National Register of Historic Places. The land development regulations shall be amended upon plan adoption to incorporate design guideline standards recently adopted by HARC. Development in any area of Old Town within and outside the HARC review area may impact the historic significance of Old Town. Any development plans for these areas shall be subjected to site plan review and shall be designed in a manner compatible with historic structures within the vicinity. While Objective 1-2.3 makes reference to the preservation of the "function" of Old Town, the Objective does not require that any particular "land use" which may exist in Old Town be preserved in perpetuity. The Objective and other provisions of the City's Plan addressing the historic significance of the City evidence a concern for the overall character of the area, not particular land uses. That character is described in, and adopted as part of, the Future Land Use Map of the City's Plan. See Policy 1-3.4.1 and Objective 1-3.4 of the City's Plan. Objective 1-1.5 of the Land Use element emphasizes the importance of maintaining and enhancing the appearance of gateway corridors into the City and the "major activiy centers such as Old Town." The Historic Preservation Element of the City's Plan, Chapter 1A, deals with historic resources, structures, and sites. No particular land use of these resources, structures, and sites, other than "housing," is mentioned. Throughout the history of the City, residents have to varying degrees rented their residences or parts of their residences on a short-term basis to tourists and other guests to the City. Most of the rentals involved the rental of portions of a residence while the owner of the property continued to reside in the rest of the property. Monroe County Commissioner Wilhelmina Harvey, Joe Crusoe, Robert Lastres, Vincent Catala, and Olivia Rowe, all long-term residents of the City, all testified about such rentals. The evidence failed to prove, however, that the types of rentals historically undertaken in the City constitute a part of the significant "history" of the City, at least not in the context of the historical significance of the City addressed in the City's Plan. Nor were the historical rentals testified to during hearing of the scale and scope of the rentals that now exist in the City. Additionally, to the extent that Transient Rentals are considered to be part of the significant "history" of the City, nothing in the land development regulation which is the subject of this proceeding absolutely prohibits such rentals. In fact, Transient Rentals of property for which a transient rental license has been obtained are not impacted by the land development regulation. Transient Rentals will, therefore, continue in the City. Nothing in the City's Plan dealing with the historical significance of the City requires that the City allow Transient Rentals of residential property to continue unregulated in the City. Regulation of the extent and location of Transient Rentals in the City does nothing to harm the historical significance of the City. In suggesting that Transient Rentals constitute part of the "history" of the City, and in particular, a part of the history of Old Town, the Abbe Petitioners have relied upon Policy 1-2.3.9, which provides, in part, the following: Policy 1-2.3.9: Retention of Historic Character and All Permanent Single Family Housing Units. The City desires to retain in perpetuity the existing character, density, and intensity of all historic sites and contributing sites within the historic district; and shall protect all the City's permanent single family housing stock citywide which was legally established prior to the adoption of the plan or a legal single family lot of record. Therefore, the City shall protect and preserve these resources against natural disaster, including fire, hurricane, or other natural or man-made disaster, by allowing any permanent single family units within the City, or other structures located on historic sites or contributing sites, which are so damaged to be rebuilt as they previously existed. . . . The reliance upon Policy 1-2.3.9 is misplaced. First, this Policy deals with all permanent single-family housing stock of the City and not just housing used for Transient Rentals. Secondly, the Policy does not provide for the protection of any particular use of single-family housing stock; it provides for the protection of the structures used as single-family housing. It recognizes the unique, historical construction of homes in the City and provides for their continued protection. The Impact of the City's Limited Land Mass and the City's Effort to Control Transient Rentals. As a relatively small island, the City has a limited land area and little opportunity for expansion without significantly altering the traditional character of the City. Because of the limited land area, maintaining adequate housing, including affordable housing, is a significant concern in the City. Residential property in the City has been used by tourists for accommodations for many years, long before the tourist boom now being experienced in the City. Transient uses of residential property were less organized and were less available than they are today, however. Often times, transient uses of residential property consisted of people renting out rooms in their residences to tourists. While the extent to which residential property has been used historically for tourist accommodations was not accurately quantified by the evidence, the evidence did establish that the use of residential property for Transient Rentals has significantly increased since the 1980s. As tourism has increased since the 1980s, there has been an increasing demand for tourist accommodations of all types. This demand for tourist accommodations, especially the demand for Transient Rentals, has adversely impacted the need and demand for residential housing in the City. In an effort to address the problem the Key West City Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "City Commission"), adopted a Growth Management Ordinance in 1985 mandating a ratio of Transient Rentals to residential units for the City. The intent of the 1985 Growth Management Ordinance was to maintain a suitable balance between tourist accommodations and housing for permanent residents of the City. In 1993 the City Commission adopted a dwelling unit allocation ordinance, or the "rate of growth ordinance," which was designed, at least in part, to achieve a balance between the demand for tourist accommodations and the need for permanent housing, including affordable housing. The 1993 rate of growth ordinance was subsequently incorporated into the City's Plan as Objective 1-3.12. Pursuant to the City's Plan, Transient Rentals are not to exceed 25 percent of single family units permitted annually. Note 2 to Policy 1-3.12.3 of the Plan provides that "[t]he number of transient units reflect a preference for preserving housing opportunities for permanent residents as opposed to transient residents since historical trends indicate an erosion of the permanent housing stock which is largely attributed to conversion of permanent housing units to transient housing." The City's Failure to Control Transient Rentals; The "50% Rule." In 1989, the City required that an occupational license be obtained by property owners using their property for both long-term rentals and Transient Rentals. These occupational licenses were not subject to review by the Department for consistency with the City's Plan and land development regulations. Occupational licenses are essentially a revenue raising requirement. The issuance of an occupational license does not constitute a zoning decision or otherwise constitute the approval of a land use. By the time the City adopted the 1993 rate of growth ordinance and the City's Plan, the number of occupational licenses issued for Transient Rentals had already exceeded the allocation of Transient Rentals which are allowable in the City. As a consequence, owners of residential property who desired to use their property for Transient Rental purposes have been unable to obtain an occupational license for such use. The lack of allowable Transient Rentals under the City's Plan did not, however, actually stop individuals from using their property for Transient Rentals. In addition to licensed Transient Rentals, there are approximately 647 unlicensed Transient Rental properties in the City. Properties owned by the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman are among these unlicensed Transient Rentals. The Abbe Petitioners who own Transient Rentals rather than manage them have occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County, but not a Transient Rental occupational license issued by the City. Mr. Coleman has a "nontransient" license issued by the City and occupational licenses issued by the State and Monroe County, but not a Transient Rental occupational license from the City. The number of unlicensed Transient Rental properties in the City has been contributed to, in part, by an interpretation of a former definition of "tourist and transient living accommodations" found in the City's land development regulations. The definition was adopted in 1986. Accommodations meeting this definition were prohibited in a number of zoning districts in the City. Accommodations which did not come within the definition were not prohibited in those districts. The 1986 definition of "tourist and transient living accommodations" (hereinafter referred to as the "Former Transient Definition"), was as follows: Tourist and transient living accommodations. Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days. Pursuant to this definition, any property used "principally" for visitors for less than 28 days constituted a tourist or transient living accommodation. There were some who advocated that the term "principally" meant that a residence had to be used as a 28-day short-term visitor accommodation for at least 50 percent of the year. Pursuant to this definition, any residence used at least 50 percent of the year for 28-day or less rentals is considered to constitute a "tourist and transient living accommodation." Conversely, if a residence was used less than 50 percent of the year for 28-day or less rental the property is not considered to constitute a tourist or transient living accommodation. This interpretation of the Former Transient Definition has been referred to as the "50% Rule." Pursuant to the 50% Rule, the owner of residential property in the City could rent the property for periods of less than 28 days without obtaining an occupational license for the property as long as the property was not rented more than half of the year. This rationale was assumed to apply regardless of where the property was located; even in land use districts where Transient Rentals were prohibited. The developer of Truman Annex, an area formerly owned by the Navy located to the immediate south of Old Town, advocated the 50% Rule in his dealings with the City in the early 1990s. The City's licensing department also issued "non- transient" licenses for residences which met the 50% Rule. Code enforcement citations against owners of residences used as Transient Rentals for less than 50 percent of the year without an occupational license were withdrawn. Despite the foregoing, the evidence at hearing in these cases failed to prove that the 50% Rule became an official "policy" of the City Commission. What the evidence proved was that the City took no action to adopt or reject the 50% Rule as an official position. The City simply failed to take any action to reject the 50% Rule and interpret the definition of tourist and transient living accommodations in a more reasonable manner. Given the City's efforts to limit Transient Rentals through the adoption of the 1985 Growth Management Ordinance, the 1993 rate of growth ordinance, and the City's Plan, it is clear, however, that reliance upon the 50% Rule is not reasonable. See findings of fact 39 through 45 of the Department of Community Affairs and City of Key West's Joint Proposed Recommended Order, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference. Finally, even if the 50% Rule did constitute the legislative intent of the City Commission in adopting the Former Transient Definition, it was eliminated by the City Commission in 1997 by the adoption of City Ordinance 97-20. City Ordinance 97-20 was adopted September 16, 1997, and was approved by Final Order of the Department dated November 19, 1997. The new definition of transient living accommodations adopted by City Ordinance 97-20, and still in effect today, is as follows: SECTION 5-21.2: DEFINITION OF TERMS TRANSIENT LIVING ACCOMMODATIONS. Any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is 1) rented for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less; or which is 2) advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to transients. (Emphasis added). The current definition of transient living accommodations has eliminated the reference to properties "principally" used as a Transient Rental. The new definition includes any residence rented for any period of time, even once a year, as long as the rental is for a period of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. The Former Transient Definition and, consequently, the 50% Rule, was also superceded by the adoption of the City's Plan. The City recognized the foregoing history in the ordinance which is the subject of this proceeding. In rejecting the notion that the City had adopted the 50% Rule as City policy, the City stated the following in the ordinance: . . . . In 1986, the City enacted former zoning code Section 35.24(44) which provided the following definition of a transient living accommodation "Commercially operated housing principally available to short-term visitors for less than twenty-eight (28) days." (This definition shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Former Transient Definition.") Some property owners and developers interpreted the Former Transient Definition to mean that an owner could rent his or her residential dwelling for less than half the year without the dwelling losing its residential status, and therefore without the need for City-issued transient license . . . . This interpretation went unchallenged by the City. . . . . . . . Therefore, the City of Key West intends by these regulations to establish a uniform definition of transient living accommodations, and to halt the use of residences for transient purposes in order to preserve the residential character of neighborhoods. . . . Based upon the foregoing, any reliance by Petitioners in these cases upon the 50% Rule as City policy is rejected. The City's Adoption of Ordinance No. 98-31. During 1997 and 1998 the City conducted workshops and held public meetings to consider and develop an ordinance regulating Transient Rentals. The workshops were conducted by City staff and were attended by representatives of essentially all those interested in the Transient Rental issue. An effort was made to achieve consensus on the issue. During these workshops, the 50% Rule and the history of Transient Rentals in the City were fully considered. In addition to the workshops conducted by the City, the City hired Frank Pallini with PRG, Real Estate Research and Advisory Services, Clearwater, Florida, to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of an ordinance limiting Transient Rentals. The report prepared by Mr. Pallini (hereinafter referred to as the "Pallini Report"), was submitted to the City on August 28, 1998. The Pallini Report and, consequently, the negative economic impact of the ordinance at issue in this proceeding was fully considered by the City when it adopted the ordinance. On June 2, 1998, the City Commission adopted Ordinance 98-16, which amended the definition of "transient living accommodations" in the City's land development regulations. Unlicensed short-term Transient Rentals were expressly prohibited by Ordinance 98-16 with the exception of four specified City land use districts. Those districts, referred to during the hearing as "gated communities," are all single, contiguous zoning district areas of the City with controlled access and which are governed by homeowners' or condominium associations. Truman Annex was one of the four excluded gated communities. Ordinance 98-16 was found by the Department to be inconsistent with the Principles on July 29, 1998, by Final Order DCA98-OR-135. The Department concluded that Ordinance 98- 16 was inconsistent with the Principles because it allowed the use of residential property as Transient Rentals in areas where, according to the Department, such rentals were prohibited under the City's Plan. The City initially challenged the Department's decision, but subsequently withdrew its challenge. The City subsequently repealed Ordinance 98-16. On November 10, 1998, the City adopted Ordinance 98-31 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance"), which is the subject of this proceeding. The Ordinance contains the same provisions, except the exception for gated communities, that had been contained in Ordinance 98-16. The Ordinance is a "land development regulation" as defined in Section 380.031(8), Florida Statutes. It is, therefore, subject to review for consistency with the Principles by the Department. During the process of adopting the Ordinance the City recognized the confusion that the 50% Rule had caused concerning the intent of the City's Plan with regard to Transient Rentals. The City expressly dealt with the 50% Rule and rejected it as policy of the City. In particular, the Ordinance provides that the City's purpose in enacting the Ordinance was to phase out unlicensed transient uses of residential properties in land use zoning districts in which they are not permitted. This goal is accomplished by further modifying the definition of "transient living accommodations" adopted in 1997 in Section 5-21.2 of the City's land development regulations: Sec. 5-21.2 Definition of terms. Transient Living Accommodations. Or Transient Lodging. Any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings, which is 1) rented for a period or periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less; or which is 2) advertised or held out to the public as a place rented to regularly regularly rented to transients. , regardless of the occurrence of an actual rental. Such a short-term rental use of or within a single family dwelling, a two family dwelling or a multi-family dwelling (each also known as a "residential dwelling") shall be deemed a transient living accommodation. (Words struckstruck through were eliminated from the definition and underlined words were added). The Ordinance also adds Section 2-7.21 to the City's land development regulations explaining its action in modifying the definition of transient living accommodations and expressly prohibiting unlicensed Transient Rentals of less than 30 days or one calendar month, whichever is less. The Ordinance does not provide for a complete ban on Transient Rentals. On the contrary, Transient Rentals of properties for which transient occupational licenses have been issued by the City are expressly allowed by the Ordinance. The City estimated that 507 residential properties containing a total of 906 transient units hold such licenses. Under the Ordinance, these units may continue to be used as Transient Rentals. The Department's Review of the Ordinance. On November 24, 1998, the City transmitted a copy of the Ordinance to the Department for approval or rejection pursuant to Section 380.05(6), Florida Statutes. The Department conducted its review of the Ordinance following its customary procedures for review of land development regulations that impact an area of critical state concern. The review included a consideration of Chapter 28-36, Florida Administrative Code, including the Principles, the City's Plan, and the legislative intent of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The Ordinance was directed to Kenneth Metcalf, the person in the Department responsible for supervision of the City ACSC. Mr. Metcalf reviewed the ordinance and assigned it to the Department's Field Office with directions as to which issues the Field Office should address during its review. Following staff review, an evaluation was prepared addressing the Ordinance's consistency with the Principles. The evaluation was reviewed by Mr. Metcalf. After receipt and review of the evaluation, it was discussed at a meeting of Department staff. As a result of the meeting, it was recommended that the Secretary of the Department find the Ordinance consistent with the Principles. On January 5, 1999, the Department entered a Final Order, DCA98-OR-237, finding that the Ordinance was consistent with the Principles. The Department caused notice of the Final Order to published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Petitioners' Challenge to the Ordinance. The Abbe Petitioners, Mr. Coleman and over 200 other owners of property in Truman Annex, and Mr. Rooney all timely filed petitions challenging the Department's Final Order pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to the Department's Final Order approving the Ordinance. The petitions were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Department. The petitions were designated Case Nos. 99-0666GM, 99-0667GM and 99-1081DRI, respectively. Following dismissal of the petitions in all three cases, amended petitions were filed. Mr. Coleman's amended petition, filed on or about June 14, 1999, named Mr. Coleman as the only Petitioner remaining in that case. Standing. The parties stipulated to certain facts relating to the standing of the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman. In addition to stipulating to the facts found, supra, concerning the ownership and use of real property by the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman in the City, it was agreed that the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman have transient occupational licenses issued by the State of Florida and Monroe County for their City real property. The Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman suggested in their proposed orders that it had been stipulated during the hearing that they have standing to initiate, and participate in, this proceeding. A close reading of the stipulation of the parties, however, fails to support this contention. What the Department, City, and the duPonts stipulated to were certain underlying facts; they did not stipulate to the ultimate finding. The Department, City, and duPonts did not stipulate to whether the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman will suffer an immediate injury as a result of the Ordinance. The evidence proved that, the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman do not have the legal right to use their properties as Transient Rentals. Neither a reasonable interpretation of existing land development regulations nor the 50% Rule legalizes such use. As a consequence, the Ordinance cannot have the effect of preventing the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman from using their properties for Transient Rental purposes because that is not a purpose for which they are legally authorized to use the properties anyway. The evidence also proved, however, that the City has allowed the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman to continue to use their properties as Transient Rentals, legally or not, and that, without the City's taking some action, the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman would continue to do so. As a consequence, the Ordinance will have the practical and real effect of preventing the Abbe Petitioners and Mr. Coleman from continuing to use their properties as Transient Rentals, to their economic detriment. The Abbe Petitioners, other than Neal Hirsh and Property Management of Key West, Inc., and Mr. Coleman have proved that they have standing to institute and participate in this proceeding. The duPonts proved that they have standing to participate in this proceeding. The City proved that its substantial interests were determined by the Department's decision in this matter. The City has standing to participate in this proceeding. Mr. Hirsh, Property Management of Key West, Inc., and Mr. Rooney failed to prove that they have standing to institute or participate in this proceeding. The Principles. Rule 28-36.003, Florida Administrative Code, contains the Principles: Strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development; Protection of tidal mangroves and associated shoreline and marine resources and wildlife; Minimize the adverse impacts of development of the quality of water in and around the City of Key West and throughout the Florida Keys; Protection of scenic resources of the City of Key West and promotion of the management of unique, tropical vegetation; Protection of the historical heritage of Key West and the Key West Historical Preservation District; Protection of the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities, Sewage collection and disposal facilities, Solid waste collection and disposal facilities, Key West Naval Air Station, The maintenance and expansion of transportation facilities, and Other utilities, as appropriate; Minimize the adverse impacts of proposed public investments on the natural and environmental resources of the City of Key West; and Protection of the public health, safety, welfare and economy of the City of Key West, and the maintenance of Key West as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles, the Principles should be considered as a whole. No specific provision should be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. The Ordinance has little or no impact on those Principles that relate to the natural resources of, and public facilities in, the City. Those Principles include Rule 28- 36.003(1)(b), (c), (d), (f), and (g), Florida Administrative Code. Those Principles are considered neutral in the determination to be made in these cases. The determination of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the Principles is limited to a balancing of the Principles listed in Rule 28-36.003(1)(a), (e), and (h), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as "Principles A, E, and H," respectively). Principle A: The Ordinance Strengthens the City's Capabilities for Managing Land Use and Development. In order for the Ordinance to be considered as strengthening the City's capabilities for managing land use and development, the Ordinance must be consistent with the City's Plan. The evidence proved that it is. The City's Plan contains various land use districts, all of which have certain allowable and prohibited uses. The districts established in the City's Plan and the relevant prohibition of transient lodgings are as follows: Coastal Low Density Residential Development district: prohibits "transient lodging and guest homes." Single Family Residential Development district: prohibits "transient accommodations" and "transient rental housing." Medium Density Residential Development district: prohibits "transient lodging and guest homes." Mixed Use Residential/Office: prohibits "transient lodging." Limited Commercial Development: Prohibits "transient residential land use activities." Historic High Density Residential Development and Historic Medium Density Residential Development districts: prohibit "transient residential uses, including guest homes, motels, or hotels." Historic Residential Commercial Core 2: prohibits "transient residential uses." Historic Residential/Office district: prohibits "transient lodging or guest houses" unless previously licensed. Conservation, Military, and Public Services districts: prohibit transient uses. The following districts established by the City Plan allow Transient Rentals: Salt Pond Commercial Tourist: allows "motels, [and] limited scale tourist facilities." General Commercial Development: allows "transient lodging including hotels and motels, timesharing or fractional fee residential complexes, and other transient quarters." Mixed Use Planned Redevelopment and Development districts: uses are determined, not by the City's Plan, but the land development regulations and development approvals for these large scale development districts. Historic Residential Commercial Core 1 and 3 districts: allow "transient residential accommodations" and "tourist accommodations." Historic Neighborhood Commercial: allows "transient rental accommodations" in HNC-1 and HNC-3 districts as long as they do not displace permanent resident housing and "transient accommodations" in HNC-2 districts. Historic Commercial Tourist: allows "hotels, motels, and/or transient lodging facilities." The most reasonable interpretation of the restricted and allowable land uses for the land use districts established under the City's Plan is that references to "transient rental accommodations," "transient residential uses," "transient rental housing," and "transient lodging facilities" are intended to include Transient Rentals. One other district is established by the City's Plan which is relevant to this matter: Historic Planned Redevelopment and Development districts (hereinafter referred to as "HPRD" districts). Land uses allowable in an HPRD district are to be established by land development regulations. The only HPRD district in the City is currently the Truman Annex. Truman Annex was being developed at the time the City's Plan was adopted. While the City's Plan provides that the specific requirements for any HPRD district is to be provided by land development regulations, Policy 1-2.3.4 of the City's Plan does provide, among other things, that the regulations are to "[a]void replacement of permanent housing stock with transient lodging." The Ordinance, and its application to Truman Annex, is consistent with this direction of the City's Plan. Truman Annex was developed as a development of regional impact, or "DRI." As a DRI and HPRD district, land uses in Truman Annex are subject to development agreements between the City and the developer of Truman Annex. Those agreements have been amended 12 times. The Truman Annex development agreements allow the development of "housing units," which included both transient and non-transient uses. "Housing units" were further broken down into the following types: "affordable," "hotel transient housing units," "time share transient housing units," and "other residential housing units." "Affordable" and "other residential housing units" are intended to be "residential" development in the context of the Truman Annex development agreements; "hotel transient housing units" and "time share transient housing units" are intended to be Transient Rentals in the context of the Truman Annex development agreements. Given the distinction between "transient" housing units and other uses in the Truman Annex development agreements, no approval of Transient Rentals of "affordable" or "other residential housing units" was contemplated or allowed by the City. The Truman Annex development agreements and the HPRD district land development regulations do not authorize the use of "affordable" or "other residential housing units" in Truman Annex as Transient Rentals. The Ordinance is, therefore, consistent with the Truman Annex development agreements and the HPRD district land development regulations. The Ordinance, if nothing else, clarifies the state of the law with regard to which Transient Rentals are allowed and which are prohibited in the City. The Ordinance eliminates any lingering confusion caused by the failure of the City to reject the 50% Rule in all circumstances and to properly interpret the Former Transient Definition. The suggestion of the Abbe Petitioners that the 50% Rule was adopted as a part of the City's Plan because it existed when the City's Plan was adopted is not supported by the evidence. Again, the 50% Rule was never adopted as the official policy of the City; it simply went unchallenged by the City. In fact, the 50% Rule was allowed to be advanced by some despite the adoption of the City's Plan and its prohibition against Transient Rentals in the land use districts described, supra. Nor does Objective 1-1.3 of the City's Plan support the Petitioners' position in these cases. That Objective does not require that any particular land use be continued in the City. Nor do those provisions of the City's Plan dealing with the historic significance of the City detract from the conclusion that the Ordinance is consistent with the City's Plan. The provisions dealing with the historic significance of the City are concerned with the significance of structures which have been a part of the history of the City's existence. The City's Plan also evidences a desire to preserve historically significant housing, not any particular use of those structures. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal A. Principle E: Protection of the Historic Heritage of the City and the Key West Historical Preservation District. Principle E requires a consideration of significant events in the history of the City, famous visitors and residences of the City throughout its history, the architectural history of the City, and other aspects of the City's character. This conclusion is supported, in part, by Rule 28-36.003(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code: (e) Historic Resource Protection. A management and enforcement plan and ordinance shall be adopted by the City of Key West providing that designs and uses of development reconstruction within the Key West Historical Preservation District shall be compatible with the existing unique architectural styles and shall protect the historical values of the District. The City of Key shall maintain an architectural review board established pursuant to Section 266.207(2), Florida Statutes. . . . . The evidence in these cases proved that the Ordinance will preserve and ensure the preservation of the City's historical significance. It will do so by limiting the destruction of the character and community of the City, as discussed, infra. Principle E does not support a conclusion, as argued by Petitioners, that Transient Rentals have played such a large part in the history of the City that they should not be regulated in the manner the Ordinance provides for. Petitioners' argument also fails because the Ordinance only regulates Transient Rentals, it does not eliminate historical Transient Rental uses. The City's Plan also fails to support Petitioners' argument. The City's Plan does not address, or require, the continuation of "historical" land uses such as Transient Rentals. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, it is concluded that the Ordinance is consistent with Principal E. Principle H: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare and the Economy of the City. Principal H requires a consideration of the public health, safety, and welfare, and the economic viability of the City. These factors are inextricably tied to the tourist industry of the City. Without the tourist industry, the City's economy would likely falter to the detriment of the public health, safety, and welfare. A large part of what makes the City attractive, to tourist and residents alike, is the unique community atmosphere and the historical character of the City. The health of the tourist industry in the City is, in part, caused by the City's vibrant and viable communities. An essential characteristic of that vibrancy is the fabric of the people that inhabit the City and the interactions of those inhabitants among themselves and with tourists. As long as tourists continue to enjoy the unique character of the City, they will continue to enjoy their experience and will continue to come back to the City. If that unique character is significantly diminished or lost, so too will be the tourist industry. A number of factors threaten the quality of the tourist experience in the City and, therefore, the continued viability of the tourist industry. Those factors include the shortage of available and affordable housing, a shortage of labor to serve the tourist industry, crowding, and conflicts between tourist and residents of the City. All of these factors are related and must be adequately addressed in order to protect the economic viability of the City. Left unchecked, tourism in the City will likely be seriously impacted. Tourism requires a large labor force to provide the services which tourist expect. The labor force must provide lodging, food, retail sales, amusements, and other services. Indirect services, such as fire protection, police, and others must be provided for also by the labor force. The labor force necessary to serve a tourist industry must be provided with adequate housing. The ability to meet this need must be balanced with the need to provide adequate accommodations to the tourists who visit a destination. The need to balance these competing interests is an even greater challenge in the City because of the existing shortage of available residential property in the City and the lack of viable measures which can be taken to address the shortage. The City's shortage of residential property is caused by the fact that the supply of available land in the City is so restricted it simply cannot meet the demand. The problem caused by the lack of available land is exacerbated by restrictions on development, including those imposed by the rate of growth ordinance and the City's Historic Architectural Review Commission. Actions of the City's Historic Architectural Review Commission cause increases in the cost of redeveloping property and limits the types of redevelopment that may be pursed. Alternatives, like housing the labor force some distance from a tourist destination and providing transportation to bring the labor force into the destination, cannot be utilized in the City to meet the demand for housing for its labor force. The unavailability of adequate land is a problem throughout the length of the Florida Keys. Tourist are now demanding a variety of accommodations. The national trend has seen a increase in the demand for accommodations other than the traditional hotel or motel. Many tourists desire accommodations that include multiple rooms, including kitchen facilities. Transient Rentals have become increasingly available in order to meet part of this demand. Hotels and motels have also begun to offer efficiency- like units. Transient Rentals have also increased because of 1986 changes in federal income tax laws. Those changes have resulted in more owners of vacation housing turning their properties into Transient Rentals in order to offset the cost of the properties. The availability of Transient Rentals has significantly increased in scope and magnitude over what was historically experienced in the City. In addition to the impact on the types of accommodations desired by tourist and the tax benefits of converting property to Transient Rental use, tourism itself has increased dramatically during the past 30 years, further increasing the demand for tourist accommodations. According to a report on housing in the City known as the "Shimberg Report," from 1990 to 1995 the number of housing units decreased from 12,221 to 11,733, a decrease of 488 units. Despite this decrease, the number of households in the City during the same period increased from 10,424 to 11,298, an increase of 874. Economically, a commercial-type use, such as Transient Rentals, will usually be more profitable than a residential use of the same property. The City has experienced this economic impact. As a result of the higher economic value of using a residence as a Transient Rental, tourist use of residential property have in many cases displaced the residential use of property. The demand for Transient Rentals and the need to provide for housing for the labor force necessary to serve the City's tourist industry involve competing and inconsistent goals. In order to meet the need for Transient Rentals in the City, it has been necessary to convert housing formerly used to house the City's residents, including those who make up the labor force. The resulting decrease in residential housing and the increase in Transient Rentals also result in crowding, with members of the labor force in the City being required to share available space with tourists. Crowding results in unacceptable densities of use and increased user conflict. The resulting decrease in residential housing caused by the increase in Transient Rental use in the City has not only resulted in permanent residents leaving the City's communities, but in their departure from the City and the Florida Keys altogether. In addition to the negative impacts on housing, a tourist destination can become so popular that the very quality of the location is negatively impacted or even destroyed. John Pennekamp State Park, located in the northern part of the Florida Keys, has been so successful at attracting visitors that it has been negatively impacted. Although tourism has not reached a point where it is destroying the unique character of the City, the very thing that attracts many visitors to the City, it has the potential of reaching that stage without adequate planning by the City. Shopping by residents in the "downtown" area of the City has already been displaced by shopping areas located away from Old Town. Dr. Virginia Cronk testified during the hearing of these cases concerning what can happen to a community's identity if tourism becomes too dominate. The City is already showing some signs of the negative impact tourism can have on a community. As more stress from overcrowding is placed on the City's communities, the very base of the City's tourist industry is impacted. Not only will the labor force be moved out, the community atmosphere of communities that is so attractive in the City may be diminished or even destroyed. As in many other tourist destinations, the activities of tourists and permanent residents the City are often incompatible. This is especially true in the City because much of what attracts tourists to the City is associated with the City's residential neighborhoods. Part of the tourist destination of the City is its neighborhoods. The type of visitors attracted to the City over the last decade has changed significantly. Many tourists now come to "party" on Duval Street, often late into the night and the early morning hours. The partying often continues back to, and at, the accommodations that the tourists utilize. Many tourists make every effort to maximize their "fun time" by staying up late and playing hard. Because tourists are on vacation, they are not as concerned about when they go to sleep and when they enjoy the City. They are not required to keep any particular schedule, so they are more at liberty to stay up into the early morning hours. Because tourists are only in the City for a short time, they are also less concerned with getting along with their neighbors. They want to have a good time and assume that everyone around them is there for the same reason. Permanent residents of the City are much like permanent residents everywhere. The adults are employed during the day and their children attend school. They go to bed and rise earlier than tourists generally do. Because of the differences in the goals of tourists and permanent residents, inevitable conflicts arise when tourists and residents mix. Unless those conflicts are controlled in the City, permanent residents will be forced out, threatening to end one of the very features that has made the City so attractive to tourists: the unique community atmosphere and historical character of the City. Dr. Cronk explained the different social forces which impact the behavior of tourists and residents. Tourists are simply not subject to the same informal social controls that residents are. As a result, the behavior of tourists often comes into conflict with the behavior normally associated with a true community neighborhood. Because the behavior of tourists is not subject to the same informal social controls as residents, residents must turn increasingly to more formal social controls such as the police and private security forces. These controls often do not work and are more expensive than the informal social controls normally associated with neighborhoods. Witnesses during the hearing of these cases gave examples of clashes between permanent residents and tourists. Those incidents are fully reported in the transcript of the hearing of this matter and are summarized in the proposed orders filed by the Department and City, and the duPonts. The need to resort to more formal social controls, such as the police and private security was also explained by these witnesses. The credible testimony of Ms. Rowe, Margaret Domanski, and Martha duPont accurately describe the types of conflicts the Ordinance is intended to reduce. The impact which the conversion of residential properties to Transient Rentals has on affordable housing in the City is difficult to measure. The Department has suggested that it is significant. Petitioners argue that there is no impact and that, even if there were some impact, affordable housing is not one of the Principles and, therefore, should play no part in the review of the Ordinance. The principles which apply to Monroe County require that Monroe County "make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." Section 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes. This principle is consistent with the legislative intent set out in Section 380.0552(2)(d), Florida Statutes, that a local government provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Florida Keys. The Principles applicable to the City ACSC do not contain a principle specifically requiring that affordable housing be maintained. The lack of a specific requirement concerning affordable housing does not, however, support a conclusion that affordable housing should be ignored when applying the Principles to land development regulations adopted by the City. On the contrary, Principle H is broad enough to require a consideration of affordable housing. After all, any consideration of the "public health . . . welfare, and economy" of the City, necessarily must include a consideration of affordable housing. Without adequate housing for all sectors of the City's population, the public health and welfare of the City cannot be maintained. Nor can the economy of the City survive without adequate housing for all segments of the work force. "Affordable housing" does not mean housing for the poor. "Affordable housing" is defined in terms of the percentage of a household's income spent on housing which is considered "affordable" by very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income persons. What is considered affordable is based upon the median household income of a community's very-low income, low-income, and moderate-income population. The approximate median household income of City residents is $49,000.00. In order for the City to be considered to have adequate "affordable housing," persons making between 80 and 120 percent of the median household income, or $39,000 to $59,000, should be able to afford a house. The average value of a single-family house in the City, however, is $300,000, well above the price affordable to persons with a household income of between $39,000 and $59,000. Because of the disparity between the average price of homes and the low median household income of City residents, an enormous burden is placed on residents to fund any type of housing. As much as 30 percent of residents' income must be spent on housing. The number of residents spending at least 30 percent of their income on housing increased significantly between 1990 and 1995. That number is likely to continue to increase. As the cost of residential property increases, the economic burden on residents for housing continues to increase. The cost of residential property is increasing, and will continue to increase, because of the conversion of residential property to Transient Rentals. If the City takes no action with regard to balancing tourist accommodations, particularly Transient Rentals, and housing for its residents, the ability of residents to afford any housing will continue to be negatively impacted. Even though it is doubtful that the Ordinance will increase the ability of residents to actually own their own home, there is no doubt that their ability to afford any housing will continue to be negatively impacted if Transient Rentals continue to displace the use of property for residential purposes. In adopting the Ordinance, the City recognized the negative impact that tourism is having on the City: . . . the transient use of residential dwellings has had deleterious consequences in the residential neighborhoods of Key West; and . . . the increase in the conversion of residential dwellings to transient use is, in part, responsible for the affordable housing shortage in Key West, a shortage confirmed in a study of the City by the Shimberg Center of the University of Florida . . . The finding concerning affordable housing is consistent with the City's Plan. Objective 3-1.1 and Note 2, Policy 1-3.12.3 of the City's Plan. In adopting the Ordinance, the City took a reasonable step to address the problems associated with tourism. The Ordinance, while causing an initial negative impact to the economy, will promote the protection of residential neighborhoods from unnecessary intrusion, promote affordable housing, and ultimately ensure the continued viability of the tourist economy of the City. By limiting the intrusion of Transient Rentals into most residential neighborhoods in the City, the Ordinance will limit the intrusion of negative tourist activities into those neighborhoods. Those negative impacts testified about by Ms. Rowe, Ms. Domanski, and Ms. duPont will be, in most cases, prevented or at least reduced. The reduction of tourist intrusions into neighborhoods will also ensure that the unique community character of the City remains viable. The Ordinance will go a long way in keeping the charm of the City's neighborhoods intact for tourists and residents both. The Ordinance goes a long way in planning for tourism in the City. Reducing economically competitive uses of property in the City, such as the use of property for Transient Rentals, will ensure that the scarce supply of residential property is not further reduced. Stabilizing the supply of residential property, while not eliminating cost increases, will at least eliminate the increase in housing costs associated with the conversion of residential property to Transient Rental use. Eliminating the unlicensed use of Transient Rentals, which the Ordinance will do, will have the effect of actually returning some residential property to the supply of property available to residents. By prohibiting the use of residential properties as Transient Rentals, the total properties in the City available for housing, including for long-term rentals, for permanent residents, will increase. As supply increases, the demand for all housing, including to a very limited extent affordable housing, will be better met. By reducing the drain on residential properties in the City, the strain on the work force necessary to serve the tourist economy of the City will also be reduced. The City recognized and accepted the fact that the Ordinance will have an initial negative impact on the economy of the City. The Pallini Report was commissioned by, and considered by the City Commission. There will be an immediate reduction in revenues from unlicensed Transient Rentals that comply with the Ordinance and the income associated with providing services to those Transient Rentals. Some tourists who would otherwise select the City as their vacation destination will go elsewhere. Unlicensed Transient Rentals (taxed and untaxed), however, make up no more than ten percent of the total accommodations available in the City. It is estimated that the Ordinance will result in a loss in gross sales of $31 million, a loss in personal income of $9 million, and a loss in City revenues annually of $260,000. It is also estimated that there will be a loss of approximately 500 jobs associated with unlicensed Transient Rentals. These estimates are the "worst case" scenario figures. Actual losses will likely be somewhat less. The losses associated with the Ordinance will, however, not be long-term. Gradually, the tourist industry will adjust to the decrease in tourist accommodations and the negative impact on the economy. Some tourists will adjust the time of year they come to the City, resulting in greater tourist business during traditionally slower times. Persons who experience unemployment as a result of the Ordinance will also very likely find other employment relatively quickly because of the tight labor market in the City. The negative economic impacts to the City caused by the Ordinance should not last longer than three to five years. After that time, the economy will adjust. The overall impact of the Ordinance will be to help balance the need to provide tourist accommodations and the need to protect the charm of the City and the ability of the City to provide a work force. Protection of residential neighborhoods in the City comes within the City's responsibility to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and is a necessary consideration in providing for the economic well- being of the City. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal H. Truman Annex. It has been argued by Mr. Coleman that the application of the Ordinance to the Truman Annex supports a conclusion that the Ordinance is not consistent with the Principles. The evidence failed to support this contention. Truman Annex is located within walking distance of most tourist destinations in the City. The character and atmosphere of Truman Annex makes it an attractive tourist destination in itself. The "Little Whitehouse," a house utilized by President Harry Truman, is located within Truman Annex as is a tourist destination itself. While the Truman Annex is located in an area conducive to use as tourist accommodations, nothing in the City's Plan or land development regulations, the development orders associated with Truman Annex, the historic use of Truman Annex, the public health, safety and welfare, or the continued economic viability of the City depends upon such use. Truman Annex consists of residential housing and tourist accommodations, as well as some commercial facilities. Those activities are, however, largely buffered from each other. Most of the commercial activities are located in the western portion of Truman Annex. The residential housing is located primarily in the eastern portion of Truman Annex. Truman Annex without Transient Rentals constitutes appropriate planning by the developer of Truman Annex and the City. The Ordinance, even when applied to Truman Annex, constitutes an appropriate effort of the City to manage land uses and development. The Ordinance, even when applied to Truman Annex, will protect the historic heritage of Truman Annex and, more importantly, the City. Finally, the evidence proved that the application of the Ordinance to Truman Annex will not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare, or the long-term economy of the City. Consideration of the Principles as a Whole. The evidence in these cases supports a conclusion that the Ordinance has no or little impact on most of the Principles, except Principles A, E, and H. The evidence proved that the Ordinance is neutral with regard to the other Principles. When Principles A, E, and H are considered individually and together, the evidence proved that the Ordinance is consistent with Principles A, E, and H. The Ordinance constitutes an effort of the City to manage land uses and development in the City, consistent with Principal A. The Ordinance will also help to protect the historic heritage of the City by preserving the character of the City's neighborhoods and, as a result, will preserve the tourist industry, consistent with Principal E. Just as clearly, the Ordinance will enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the residents of the City. Finally, the Ordinance is consistent with Principal H because it will benefit the public health, safety, and welfare of the City by protecting neighborhoods from the intrusion of tourists, reducing the impact of the conversion of residential housing for Transient Rentals, and ensuring the continued character of the City. While there will be an initial negative impact on the economy of the City as a result of the Ordinance, ultimately the Ordinance will have a positive impact on the economy of the City due to the positive impact on the City's tourist industry which will result from the regulation of Transient Rentals. Abbey Petitioners' Rule Challenge, Constitutional Issues, and Other Issues. In the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Petition") filed by the Abbe Petitioners, the Abbe Petitioners attempted to challenge pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, portions of the Final Order of the Department as an unpromulgated rule. The Amended Petition was not, however, filed consistent with the requirements of Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. This challenge was required to be filed in a separate petition filed solely with the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the "Division") and not through an amendment to a petition originally filed with the Department which was subsequently filed by the Department with the Division with a request that the Division hear the matter. Additionally, even if the issue were properly before the Division, the evidence in this case failed to prove that the statements in the Final Order have any application other than to the Ordinance. Therefore, those statements are not "agency statements of general applicability." The statements are not, therefore, "rules" as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Abbe Petitioners also raised issues in the Amended Petition other than the consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles. Other than the question of the consistency of the Ordinance with the Principles, the evidence failed to support the Abbe Petitioners' argument that the issues raised in the Amended Petition are relevant to this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order approving City of Key West Ordinance 98-31 as consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development of Rule 28-36.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey M. Bell, Esquire Ritter, Chusid, Bivona & Cohen, LLP 7000 West Palmetto Park Road, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Coleman, Esquire Post Office Box 1393 Key West, Florida 33041 John F. Rooney 208-10 Southard Street Key West, Florida 33040 Andrew S. Grayson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Robert Tischenkel, City Attorney City of Key West Post Office Box 1409 Key West, Florida 33041 David J. Audlin, Jr., Esquire Eaton Street Professional Center 524 Eaton Street, Suite 110 Key West, Florida 33040 Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Post Office Box 500252 Marathon, Florida 33050 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Growth Management and Strategic Planning The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Carol A. Licko, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issue for resolution in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause: Failure to deliver to the association a review of financial records for the required period. Section 718.301(4)(c) F.S. (1981). Failure to fund reserves. Section 718.112(2)(k) F.S. (1981). Failure to turn over converter reserves. Section 718.301(4)(d) F.S. (1981). Charging the association $10,000 for management services without documentation of the contract for the services. Section 718.115(1) F.5. (1981). If it is determined that violations occurred, the remaining issue is what corrective action and civil penalties are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Batura Enterprises, Inc. (Batura) is the developer, as defined in Section 718.103(13) F.S., of a residential conversion condominium known as English Park, in Melbourne, Florida. The condominium association for English Park was incorporated on December 2, 1980. The declaration of condominium for English Park was recorded in the public records on January 22, 1981. Turnover of control of the condominium association from control by the developer to control by unit owners other than the developer pursuant to Section 718.301 F.S., occurred on May 31, 1982. (Joint exhibit #1.) A review of financial statements dated January 19, 1983, was delivered to the condominium association. The review covers a ten-month period commencing August 1, 1981, and ending May 31, 1982. (Joint Exhibit #4.) A supplemental turnover review, performed during the course of this litigation and signed on February 7, 1987, covers the period from incorporation of the condominium association on December 2, 1980, through July 31, 1981. (Joint exhibit #6.) The function of the review is to provide an accounting during the time that the developer is responsible for the association, and to insure that assessments are charged and collected. (Testimony of Eric Larsen, C.P.A., qualified without objection as an expert in condominium accounting.) The proposed operating budget included $15,248.00 for an annual reserve account ($1,270 per month). (Joint exhibit *5, p. 83.) Based on this, the reserve account from the creation of the condominium, January 22, 1981, until the date of turnover, May 31, 1982 should have been $20,688.71 (sixteen months and nine days). The "election period" provided in Section 718.116(8)(a) F.S. (1979) is addressed in the Condominium documents, p. 31: F. Common Expenses payable by the Developer. Until the sale of the first Unit in the Condominium, Developer shall be solely responsible for all expenses of the Condominium. Following the first closing, the Unit Owner in whom title shall have been vested shall be responsible for his proportionate share of Common Expenses, based upon his percentage interest in the Common Elements. The Developer shall be excused from payment of the share of the Common Expenses and Assessments relating to the unsold units after the recording of this Declaration for a period of time which shall terminate on the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the closing of the sale of the first unit occurs. The Developer shall pay the portion of expenses incurred during that period which exceeds the amount assessed against other Unit Owners. (Joint Exhibit #5.) The first units were sold in April 1981. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 2). Therefore, the "election period" ended on August 1, 1981. The turnover review does not reflect the existence of the $20,688.71 reserve fund at the time of turnover on May 31, 1982. Instead, it reflects a certificate of deposit in the amount of $18,795.00 that was created as a "reserve for transition operations". This was derived from initial payments made by the owners to the association to provide working capital for the start- up phase. (Joint Exhibit #4., testimony of Philip Batura.) These "initial assessments" are addressed in the condominium documents: G. Initial Assessments. When the initial Board, elected or designated pursuant to these By-laws, takes office, it shall determine the budget as defined in this Section for the period cornencing 30 days after their election or designation and ending on the last day of the fiscal year in which their election or designation occurs. Assessment shall be levied against the Unit Owners during said period as provided in this Article. The Board will levy an "initial assessment" against the initial purchaser at the time he settles on his purchase contract. Such initial assessment shall be in an amount equal to two months regular assessments, and shall be utilized for commencing the business of the Association and providing the necessary working fund for it. In addition, the initial purchaser shall pay the pro-rated portions of the monthly assessments for the remaining balance of the month in which closing takes place. The initial assessment and other assessments herein provided shall be paid by each subsequent purchaser of a Unit; no Unit Owner shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Association for payment of the initial assessment. Developer shall not be liable to pay any initial assessment. (Emphasis added) (Joint Exhibit #5, p. 31.) Based on the above, it is apparent that none of the $18,975.00 was contributed by the developer. Between April 1, 1981, and August 1, 1981, 60 percent of the units were sold. (Testimony of Philip Batura. Joint exhibit #4, attachment C.) Therefore at any given point in time between those dates, at least 40 percent of the units were in the hands of the developer. Between August 1, 1981 and turnover at the end of May 1982, an additional 30 percent of the units were sold, for a total of 90 percent. (Testimony of Philip Batura.) This means a minimum of 10 percent of the units were in the hands of the developer at any point between those dates. While Philip Batura claims that reserves were waived by a majority of members pursuant to Section 718.1l2(2)(k), F.S. (1981), he produced no evidence of that. He admitted that the action is not reflected in association minutes. (Joint Exhibit #1.) Reserves are included in the proposed budget filed with the condominium documents. (Joint Exhibit #5.) Reserves are noted in the supplemental financial review provided by the developer: ENGLISH PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) (SEE ACCOUNTANT'S REVIEW REPORT) JULY 31, 1981. NOTE 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES RESERVES - The Association's policy is to currently fund all expected replacements and major repairs of commonly owned assets. Should restricted funds available to meet future replacements and major repairs prove to be insufficient, the Association's Declaration provides that special assessments may be made against the unit owners. * * * (Joint Exhibit #6.) The purpose for a reserve account is to insure that funds are available in the future for replacements and deferred maintenance on the common elements. (Testimony of Eric Larsen) In addition to the statutorily-required reserves for exterior painting, roof replacement and repaving, the English Park proposed budget includes reserves for the swimming pool and "townhome hot water tanks". According to Philip Batura the budget was not amended prior to turnover. A separate reserve was required at the time of turnover because this was a condominium converted from apartments. (Testimony of Philip Batura) The only converter reserve applicable was a reserve for roofing in the amount of $6,114.00. (Joint exhibit #2, p. 2 of 11.) The Respondent has admitted its failure to turn over this reserve, but claims the obligation is offset by $10,000 in management fees which it asserts the association owes. (Joint Exhibit #1, p. 2 of 6.) Philip Batura is President of Batura Enterprises, Inc. He was elected or designated to the association board of directors at some point prior to turnover and remained on the board at turnover as he still owned some units. He mostly ran the association until the turnover in May 1982. (Testimony of Philip Batura.) Batura claims that there was an oral agreement for management services for $1,000.00 per month, commencing on August 1, 1981, between the association and Batura Enterprises, Inc. He said this was never paid by the association as there was not enough income to cover the costs of operation. The financial review covering the period August 1, 1981 to May 30, 1982, addresses the accrual of a management fee of $10,000, "...per the proposed operating budget which was recorded in the original declaration." (Joint Exhibit #4.) It is unclear where this figure was derived, as the budget does not reflect a $1,000.00 per month expense line item for management services. Included in the condominium documents is a proposed contract between the association and Eussel G. Hurren for management services. Both the fee and the term of the contract are left blank. The contract form that was filed is not signed, nor was a contract with this individual ever signed. (Testimony of Philip Batura.) The Declaration of Condominium permits a contract with a professional managing agent, including the developer. (Joint - Exhibit #5, p. 25.) No competent evidence was adduced by either party that this provision was ever fulfilled.
Recommendation Final hearing in the above-styled action was held on February 10, 1987, in Cocoa, Florida, before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented as follows: For Petitioner: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 For Respondent: James S. Cheney, Esquire Post Office Drawer 10959 Melbourne, Florida 32902-1959
The Issue The issues in this matter concern an Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause, which has been brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent charging various violations of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. Those accusations are more completely described in the conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact The parties in the person of their counsel entered into a written prehearing stipulation, by which certain facts were agreed to. Those facts are as follows: Stipulated Statement of Facts: The Petitioner herein is the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. The Respondent in this matter is Sujac Enterprises, Inc., the developer of a residential condominium known as Ginger Park Condominium located in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Jackson M. Jobe is the president of the developer corporation. Transition from developer control of the condominium association occurred pursuant to Section 718.301, Florida Statutes, on November 1, 1983. Prior to this date, Respondent Sujac Enterprises, Inc., was in control of the condominium association. On April 18, 1983, The Division received a condominium complaint from unit owner, Cynthia A. Doallas, filed against Sujac Enterprises, developer of the Ginger Park Condominium. The Division investigation file was opened on April 20 and this investigation was assigned to Janice Snover, specialist and investigator. The Declaration of Condominium was recorded March 12, 1982. The condominium association was incorporated February 16, 1982. Section 8.4 of the declaration of condominium provides for an assessment guarantee for so long as the developer shall own any condominium units within the condominium. At the time of this stipulation, the developer still owns at least one condominium unit within the condominium. The developer controlled association failed to maintain the accounting records provided by Section 718.111(7)(a), (b), Florida Statutes, during the period beginning with the incorporation of the association through at least March 1983. Accounting records were assembled after March of 1983. Mr. Phillip DiStefano was elected to the board of administration in March of 1983 in accordance with Section 718.301(1) , which provides that when unit owners other than the developer own 15 percent or more of the units, the unit owners other than the developer shall be entitled to elect no less than one-third of the members of the board of administration. Mr. DiStefano was elected by unit owners other than the developer. The developer through its president instituted recall procedures pursuant to the procedure as outlined in Section 718.112(2)(g), Florida Statutes, against board member Phillip DiStefano, by circulating a form entitled "Removal of Director or Directors." Mr. Jobe solicited signatures for the agreement, and further, voted the developer corporation's unsold unit votes in favor of the recall. Mr. DiStefano was recalled, with a sufficient number of unit owners other than the developer voting in favor of recall to approve the recall. The developer controlled condominium association failed to provide to unit owners a financial statement of actual receipts and expenditures for the fiscal/calendar year ending December 21, 1982, within 60 days of the end of the year. This financial statement was, however, provided to unit owners approximately three months after the 60 day time period provided in Section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, had elapsed. The following additional facts are found based upon the presentation made at the final hearing: At the point of the final hearing, the developer still owned a condominium unit within the condominium. The developer had allowed other persons to take charge of the accounting procedures of the condominium association from the inception of the association through March 1983. Those other persons operated on the basis of a checkbook in which check stubs were maintained and deposit slips kept. Some invoices were also maintained. These records, in addition to not being maintained by the developer when the developer was serving as the association in this period through March 1983, were not in accordance with good accounting practices. Moreover, they did not contain an account for each unit, designating the name and current mailing address for the unit owner, with the amount of each assessment, the dates and the amounts in which the assessments came due and the amount paid upon these individual accounts, with the balance due being reflected. As revealed by an audit which the developer had requested of an accountant which it hired, this audit dating from June 7, 1983, there was a deficit in the reserve account on that date. This discovery was made prior to the transfer of the accounting records from the developer to other condominium unit owners. In effect, on June 7, 1983, the reserve account for capital expenditures and maintenance was insufficiently funded. The exact amount of deficit was not shown in the course of the hearing. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the deficit of June 7, 1983, corresponds to the deficit in the reserve account in the amount of $1,186.18, effective December 31, 1983 as found by Petitioner's accountant. Respondent in its efforts to refute responsibility for the reserve deficit has failed to demonstrate, by way of defense, that charges incurred on behalf of other condominium unit owners should reduce the developer's deficit responsibility. This pertains to its reference to prepaid insurance, pest control and construction costs related to a fence. The reserve account for capital expenditures and maintenance is a common expense. The developer, pursuant to Section 8.4 of the declaration of condominium is responsible for the deficit in the reserve account as reflected on June 7, 1983, in keeping with the assessment guarantee set forth in that section. That guarantee continued until the account was tranferred to the other condominium unit owners. Features of the aforementioned guarantee related to responsibility to insure against additional assessments attributable to deficits other than those in the reserve account, i.e. for other forms of common expenses, developer's share, only would occur at the point of sale of the last condominium unit. That contingency had not occurred at the time of the conduct of the final hearing. The developer kept the accounting records from April 1983 until June 1983. Subsequently when the records were turned over to the other condominium unit owners as a part of the transition of association control, the developer failed to have a transitional review conducted by an independent accountant related to financial records of the association.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered which imposes a penalty in the amount of $2,500 for those violations established pertaining to Count I, IV and V and that Counts II and III be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry A. Funk, Esquire 1020 Atlantic Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Respondent, Pebble Springs Condominium Association of Bradenton, Inc., was the condominium association for Pebble Springs Condominium VI in Bradenton, Florida. Matthew Ford is and, at all times relevant to this complaint, was a unit owner at Pebble Springs Condominium VI and a member of the condominium association. Matthew Ford requested to inspect the Respondent's records, hereafter described in paragraph 4 and referred to as Exhibits A and B, which were prepared and provided by the law firm of Becker, Poliakoff and Streitfeld, P.A., to the Respondent as a bill for legal services rendered in the Respondent's suit against Ford. At the time that Ford made his request for Inspection of the Respondent's records pursuant to Section 718.111(7), Florida Statutes, he was the defendant in a circuit court lawsuit in which the Respondent was plaintiff. Said court case is currently on appeal. Joint Exhibits A and B constitute the entirety of said law firm's bill to the Respondent. Joint Exhibit B describes each instance of attorney's service to the Respondent and the amount of time attributed to said service. The parties stipulate that the information contained in the document sought by Ford is the same as that reported in Exhibit B. The data in Exhibit B is reported in four columns, as follows: date, attorney, time, and actions. The information listed under "actions" includes the following listings: (03/14/83) Telephone conversation with bank officers and association officers re unfreezing of association funds. (03/14/83) Preparation for meeting with board members and witnesses; preparation of counterclaim. (03/14/83) Research concerning mandamus and other injunctive relief; preparation of counterclaim. (03/15/83) . . . preparation of counterclaim and motions to strike. (03/16/83) Preparation of counter-claim; . . . filing of counterclaim and coordination of service. (04/06/83) Preparation of motion to dismiss or for more definite statement and motion to strike on behalf of firm and Daniel J. Lobeck. (04/07/83) Memorandum to Alan E. Tannenbaum re Murley contempt of court order. (04/08/83) Receipt and review of motion to dismiss filed on behalf of board by insurance counsel; . . . (04/12/83) Preparation of motion to hold [deleted in exhibit] in contempt. (04/13/53) Correspondence to auto owners; correspondence to [deleted]; amendment of motion for contempt; setting of contempt hearing. (04/15/83) Review of motion to appoint special master and notice of bearing; telephone conference with Alan Tannenbaum re same. (04/18/83) Conference with Daniel J. Lobeck re: motion to appoint receiver. (04/19/83) Preparation of proposed order dismissing motion to appoint special master; research and preparation for hearing on motion; hearing on motion; telephone conferences with clients re hearing and order. Ford's request as to Joint Exhibit B was refused by the Respondent, which did provide him with Joint Exhibit A which states the sum due for legal services together with stated costs and total balance due. The Respondent also provided for Ford's inspection the Respondent's ledgers and checkbooks, which displayed the sums paid each month by the Respondent to the law firm. In the course of the litigation between the Respondent and Ford, Ford sought the production of documents from the Respondent as evidenced by Exhibit C. In the context of the hearing for attorney fees in the litigation between the Respondent and Ford, the Respondent has offered to provide Ford with the information which he had previously sought. During March or April 1983, Ford filed a complaint with the Petitioner alleging that he was being denied access to the Respondent's books and records contrary to Section 718.111(7), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner conducted an investigation of Ford's complaint, which resulted in the issuance by the Petitioner of a Notice to Show Cause to the Respondent issued May 9, 1983. The Respondent requested a formal hearing by petition dated June 1, 1983, which request was granted.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 5th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel J. Lobeck, Esquire 1343 Main Street, Suite 204 Sarasota, Florida 33577 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The following findings of fact are made upon the stipulation of the parties in the Prehearing Stipulation and in the course of the hearing: Respondents are developers of a condominium as defined by Section 718.103(14), Florida Statutes. Respondents are developers of The Somerset, a condominium located in Naples, Florida. The declaration of condominium for The Somerset was recorded in the public records of Collier County on or about August 27, 1979. No turnover review as prescribed by Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), was provided by the developer to the association within 60 days after the date of transfer of control of the association to non-developer unit owners, or has yet been provided to the association. On or about January 29, 1985, unit owners other than the developer had elected a majority of the members of the board of administration for The Somerset condominium. Letters of annual financial reports of actual receipts and expenditures were not furnished to unit owners following the end of the calendar years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. No vote of the unit owners was taken to waive reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance for each of the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and 1984. The following findings of fact are made upon the evidence adduced at hearing. The turnover review and report mandated by Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes, must be prepared by a certified public accountant. Respondents sought the necessary review from the firm of Rogers, Hill and Moon, which had done the association's accounting prior to the turnover. However, Rogers- Hill was unable to perform the review in the required time. Respondents consulted with two other accounting firms, but neither could provide the turnover report. Respondents suggested to the President of the association that they would pay $1,000 to the association in lieu of the turnover report. The association accepted the offer. Respondents paid $1,000 to the association and gave the association all of Respondents' books, ledgers and receipts. Respondents did not promulgate and mail to unit owners proposed budgets of common expenses for the fiscal years 1982, 1983 and 1984. Respondents guaranteed that the assessments for common expenses imposed upon each unit owner would not exceed $75.00 per month from the date of recording the declaration of condominium until the date of turnover of control of the association. There were no meetings of unit owners of The Somerset condominium until time of the turnover. According to the original proposed budget, the items designated as reserve items were roof replacement, resurfacing, and painting. While Respondents maintain that they properly waived the funding of the reserve account for 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, the only evidence offered to support their testimony is the minutes of the annual meeting for each year. However, the credibility of these documents is suspect. The minutes were admittedly all prepared by Respondents in 1985, well after the supposed annual meetings. For the years 1982, 1983 and 1984, David Davis II was a director. His name appears on the minutes as offered by Respondents. Yet, Davis says he did not attend an annual director's meeting in those 3 years. Davis also says that he never attended a director's meeting at which the funding of reserves was waived. In fact, Davis never attended a director's meeting at which a proposed budget was adopted. The minutes are inherently unreliable because they were created much later in time and appear to directly conflict with the testimony of Davis. The minutes are also self-serving. Accordingly, it is found that Respondents did not properly waive the funding of the reserve account for the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984. Respondents never disclosed to the unit owners that reserves were not funded. The reserve liability is $8,890.00, calculated at $8.75 per month per unit in Phase I (eight units) from August 31, 1979, and in Phase II (12 units) from November 13, 1981, plus all twenty units for the first quarter of 1985. The original budget allocates $8.75 of the assessments to reserves and the original documents (Section 8.2) specify that assessments are to be paid quarterly on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. Since the turnover occurred on January 29, 1985, the assessments for the first quarter had already been paid to Respondents. Respondents expended money for reserve-type expenses. Their Exhibit 5 shows reserve-type expenditures totalling $8,164.78. However, certain of these expenditures do not qualify as reserve-type expenses and must be excluded. Specifically, payments of $485.00 to David Chalfant for repairs to leaking windows, of $560.00 to Roy Hutchinson for repairs to doors which rotted out from the rain, and of $470 Bayside Sandblasting to repair steel doors and to sandblast stains on the sidewalk, are not reserve items (roof replacement, resurfacing and painting). Therefore, Respondents established that they paid $6,649.78 for reserve-type expenses. Petitioner argues that other items should be eliminated because they are not reserve-type expenses or because they were paid after turnover. These arguments are rejected and it is found that $6,649.78 for reserve-type expenses is accurate and should be offset against the reserve liability. Respondents owe the Association $2,240.22 in reserve funds. Paragraph 8.3 of the declaration of condominium for The Somerset provides: The Board shall, in accordance with Bylaws of the Association, establish an annual budget in advance for each fiscal year, which shall correspond to the calendar year, which shall estimate all expenses for the forthcoming year required for the proper operation, management and maintenance of the condominium. . . . Upon adoption of each annual budget by the Board, copies thereof shall be delivered to each unit owner, and the assessment for each year shall be based upon such budget. . . The unit owners were not notified of any Board of Directors meeting at which a proposed annual budget would be considered or adopted. Further no unit owner received copies of proposed annual budgets, except for the budget set forth in the prospectus with the original condominium documents. In fact, no formal meeting of the Board was held to adopt an annual budget.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominium and Mobile Homes, enter a Final Order and therein order Respondents to take the following actions: Obtain and furnish to the Association a turnover review as required by Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). Pay to the Association the sum of $2,240.22 for Respondents' liability for reserves. Pay to the Petitioner a civil penalty of $5,000.00, pursuant to Section 718.501(1)(d)4, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 10th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Eden Isles Condominiums are residential condominiums consisting of 7 identical buildings with 52 units in each building. Each building has a separate Declaration of Condominium which declaration is identical with the other 6 Declarations of Condominiums except as to the identification of the condominium. There are 4 swimming pools, parking areas, etc., the expenses for which are shared by the 7 condominiums. The Declarations of Condominiums provide for the percentage of the common ownership and expense associated with each unit in the condominium. The Declarations provide that the affairs of each condominium will be managed by the Eden Isles Condominium Association, Inc., Respondent. Duties of the Association include the preparation of budgets, collection of assessments for expense of maintaining common elements from each unit owner, maintenance of all common elements and generally conducting all of the business dealings associated with the common elements. From the inception of the Association in 1972 a common budget has been prepared for the 7 condominiums which is assessed against unit owners by taking total expenses for the common elements of the 7 buildings, dividing this by 7 and then allocating to each of the 52 unit owners in each building his pro rata share of those expenses. This has the effect of requiring the unit owners housed in Building D to share the cost for the replacement of an elevator in Building P or the replacement of a roof on Building C. The net result of the consolidated budget is to treat the 7 condominiums as one for the purpose of maintaining the common elements. When built and the Declarations of Condominiums recorded, Eden Isles was not a phased development.
