The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Gables Engineering, is required to obtain a surface water management permit for its property known as the G-Bar-E Ranch in Okeechobee County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and documentary evidence received, the following relevant facts are found: The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation of the State of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Cables Engineering, Inc., owns property known as the G- Bar-E Ranch which is located in Okeechobee County, Florida. The property is located at the confluence of Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. Otter Creek flows into Taylor Creek which flows offsite into Lake Okeechobee. On August 28, 1986, the District issued an Administrative Complaint and Order which ordered Gables to obtain a surface water management permit pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes for the surface water management system on the G-Bar-E Ranch. Gables refused and requested an administrative hearing on the Complaint and Order. Don Dillard is a Vice President of Gables and has overall responsibility for operating the Ranch. He has been employed by Gables for nine years. Gables has in its employ a ranch manager who remains on site. Until recently, Gables operated the property as a cattle ranch. A portion of its herd was sold to a former ranch manager who also remains on site. Alvin Castro is a civil engineer employed by the District as an area engineer which includes the area of Okeechobee County. Mr. Castro conducted a site inspection on the G-Bar-E Ranch on January 6, 1987. The inspection documented that there are two pond systems on the subject property and eleven hydraulic connections from the subject property to Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. One pond system, identified as pond system No. 2, is located in the mid-western area of the ranch east of Taylor Creek. It consists of three main ponds which are interconnected in a chain with hydraulic control structures and outfall ditches. The ponds were at one time natural ponds but have been deepened and improved to provide a water source for cattle and to store and convey water. A water control structure is located at the western end of each of the three ponds. The structures are aligned and installed to convey water from the upstream ponds to the downstream ponds. The control structures are culvert riser type. A culvert is a man-made conduit that conveys water to a point and allows it to flow. A riser is a half-section of a culvert or pipe welded perpendicular to the outfall culvert. Its main function is to serve as a support structure for weirs or flashboards, which regulate the upstream stages in a ditch. It allows water, as its flows over the spillway or weir, to be collected and directed to the outfall pipe or culvert. Mr. Castro observed water flowing, at the time of inspection, through all three outfall ditches to the south and westward from the pond system to a hammock area. The ponds have been cleaned of vegetation and the culverts and risers have been maintained by Respondent. One culvert riser structure conveys water from Pond 1 to Pond 2 which consist of a 96-inch riser and a 60-inch culvert, approximately 50 to 60 feet long. At the time of the inspection, water was being discharged through the control structure to an outfall ditch that connects Pond 1 to Pond 2. The outfall ditch is a man-made ditch. A second control structure connects Pond 2 to Pond 3 and interconnecting ditches consisting of a 96-inch ditch riser with a 60-inch culvert in place to hydraulically connect Ponds 2 and 3. The control structure allows water to flow underneath a private road to Pond 3. Mr. Castro observed water flowing from Pond 2 to Pond 3 at the time of his inspection. In the absence of the culvert, the pond system would run together as a large pond. The culverts alter the natural water storage capacity and drainage arrangement on the G-Bar-E Ranch. The third controlled structure is located on the southwest end of Pond It consists of a 96-inch riser on a 60-inch culvert and a sheet pile weir. At the time of his inspection, Castro observed that there was flow of water from the control structure and Pond 3 through the outfall ditch to a hammock wetland area to the southwest. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 1-6). The other pond systems, identified as pond system 1, is located in the northern portion of the property near the east bank of Taylor Creek. It consists of three main ponds ranging in size of one to five acres. One pond is connected to an outfall ditch to the southwest through a twenty-four inch culvert which runs underneath an existing grass road. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was conveying water from the pond westward into a vegetated area. The other two ponds are connected to each other via a 12-inch culvert underneath an existing grass road. The ditch is about three to five feet wide. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, there was flow of water between the two ponds. The downstream pond has an open connection (no control structure) to a ditch, which ultimately discharges to Taylor Creek. At the time of the inspection, water flow was observed (by Castro) in the ditch and was being discharged from pond 6 to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 11-14) The ditches in the pond system are prismatic; fairly uniform in cross section top width, depth and bottom width, with a straight alignment which indicates that they are man-made. The pond system is well-maintained by Respondent and free of vegetation. (TR, 21). There are four ditch structural connections from the G- Bar-E Ranch to Otter Creek. The easternmost structure consists of a 24-inch riser with a 15- inch culvert. It serves to convey stormwater from an upstream ditch system on the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek and thereafter, offsite. There was flow to the structure to Otter Creek at the time of Mr. Castro's inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 7). The second structure is located westward from the first. It consists of a 20-inch riser and a 13-inch culvert. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 8). The third structure is located westward from the second. It consists of a 32-inch riser and a 16-inch culvert. Discharge of water from the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek through the third structure was observed by Mr. Castro during his inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 9). The fourth structure is located westward from the third, consisting of a 36-inch riser and a 24-inch culvert. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 10). There are several manmade hydraulic connections to Taylor Creek on the G-Bar-E Ranch. On the eastbank of the Creek, the northernmost, identified as Ditch A, is a straight channel. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was discharging water from the G-Bar-E property to Taylor Creek by means of a 36- inch riser and a 30-inch culvert. The discharge served to drain the G-Bar-E property. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 15-16). The next ditch south is a prismatic channel with a straight alignment and uniform cross section, connected to Taylor Creek by a 46-inch riser and a 36-inch culvert. At the time of Mr. Castro's inspection, it was discharging water from the G-Bar E property to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 19-22). The headwaters of the ditch is a hammock wetland area at its upstream reach. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 19-22). The next ditch south is connected to Taylor Creek via a hydraulic control structure consisting of a 42-inch riser and a 30-inch culvert. The structure has at least one flashboard, which is a temporary barrier affixed to the slots on the riser and used to hold and regulate upstream water levels and to increase or decrease the storage capacity. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 24-25) The ditch drains a hammock area in the interior of the G-Bar-E property which lies to the northeast. It controls water from the upper end of the G-Bar-E property. On the westbank of Taylor Creek, the northernmost connection is an open connection to Taylor Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, sheet 1; Petitioner's Exhibit 2, photo 17). South of that connection is another ditch with an open connection to Taylor Creek. To the South is another open channel connection to Taylor Creek which has a non-functional control structure at the downstream end. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photo 23). The existing system of ponds and ditches on the G-Bar-E Ranch will collect, convey and can regulate upstream storage and flow rates to Taylor Creek and Otter Creek. In 1963 Gables conveyed to Okeechobee County a permanent easement along Taylor Creek. The Taylor Creek easement runs through the G-Bar-E property, roughly from the northeast corner to the southeasternmost corner. The easement to Okeechobee County covers about 150 feet on each side of Taylor Creek through the property. The purpose of the easement, as stated on the face of the document, is for the construction necessary to improve the Taylor Creek channel including widening, deepening, straightening, spoil placement and spoil disposition, installation of drip and pipe drop spillways; for operation and maintenance of the channel; and for the flowage of water through the channel, spillways, and pipe drop spillways. The grantor (Gables) reserved the right to use the easement land at any time, in any manner and for any purpose not inconsistent with the full use and enjoyment thereof by Okeechobee County. A small portion of the ditches on the G-Bar-E Ranch which connect to Taylor Creek and the control structures in those ditches lie within the area covered by the easement granted to Okeechobee County (approximately 150 feet). However, the major portion of the ditches all lie outside the easement granted to Okeechobee County. (TR 63-64; Respondent's Exhibit 4). The ditches serve to drain the G-Bar-E property into Taylor Creek and benefit the G-Bar-E Ranch property. This use is consistent with and permitted by the county's easement. The ditches and structures serve the purpose of draining the property and facilitating the flow of water to Taylor Creek. Mr. Dillard testified that Gables Engineering has not constructed, repaired or maintained any of the ditches during his nine year tenure with the company. (TR 67). However, no evidence was presented to indicate that the ditches or structures were constructed by Okeechobee County pursuant to the easement or that they benefit Okeechobee County rather than Respondent. In 1966 and 1967, Respondent granted to Okeechobee County a permanent easement along Otter Creek and Bimeny canal, which run roughly from east to west near the northern boundary of the property. The easement is for construction necessary to improve Otter and Bimeny Creek including widening, deepening, straightening, spoil placement and disposition, installation of drop and pipe drop spillways; for operation and maintenance of the channel and the flow of water to the channel, spillways and pipe drop spillways. Gables Engineering, Inc. reserved the right to install pipe drop inlets, retain, impound and regulate the flow of water into Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal lying within the Grantor's land, provided they are installed in conformance with sound engineering practice. Respondent reserved the right to use the easement property at any time and for any purpose not inconsistent with its use by Okeechobee County. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). Four control structures lie within the easement area along Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal. A small portion of the ditches from the G-Bar-E Ranch property leading to the control structure lie within the easement area. There is no record evidence to establish that the control structure, which facilitates the flow of water to Otter Creek and Bimeny Canal, is maintained by Okeechobee County or in any way serve the purposes of the easement to Okeechobee County. It is unclear who actually constructed the structures. The structures serve to convey water from the G-Bar-E property to Otter Creek. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, photos 7 and 9). This appears consistent with and expressly permitted by the easement granted to Okeechobee County. In 1964 Gables Engineering granted Okeechobee County a bridge and access road easement which consists of an existing graded road forty feet in width running from State Road 15 to the west boundary of Taylor Creek. The easement is for purposes in conjunction with the construction, maintenance and operation of an access road and bridge across Taylor Creek. The access road and bridge across Taylor Creek do not presently exist. The road easement crosses over a culvert between two of the ponds in pond system 2. However the pond system itself, including the outfall structure and ditch at the western end of the system, lie outside the easement. The easement also crosses a culvert in pond system 1, but the remainder of the pond system lie outside the easement. (TR 63-64). The ponds, control structures and ditches on the G-Bar- E Ranch serve to drain the property internally and to Otter Creek and Taylor Creek. One pond system drains water into a hammock area to the southwest. This system consist of three ponds with control structures between each pond and an outfall ditch at the southwestern end of the system. The other pond system drains water to wetland areas and to Taylor Creek. It consists of three ponds, control structures and outfall ditches to a wetland area and to a ditch leading to Taylor Creek. While Respondent maintains that the culverts were installed for the purpose of allowing vehicular access between the southern and northern areas of the Ranch, the credible evidence reveals that the control structures primary purpose is to drain the property and control the flow of water throughout the system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner, South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Gables Engineering, to file an application to obtain a surface water management permit to operate works on the G Bar-E Ranch pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes and that an initial application be submitted to obtain a surface water management permit within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order in this case. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarah Nall, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert W. Stewart, Esquire Corrigan, Zelman & Bander, P.A. Rivergate Plaza, Suite 200 444 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's certification as a minority business enterprise should be revoked, as proposed by Petitioner in its letter dated December 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Civil Construction Technologies, Inc. (CCT), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing earthwork, clearing, canal excavation, and erosion control services for prime contractors. The firm was incorporated on April 6, 2000, and until November 2001, it was located at 1132 Northeast 48th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. The business was then relocated to 3100 Northwest Boca Raton Boulevard, Boca Raton, Florida. The sole owner and shareholder is Bonnie S. Cramer, a female who qualifies as a minority under the Supplier Diversity & Outreach Program (Program) codified in Part VI, Chapter 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code. That Program is administered by Petitioner, South Florida Water Management District (District). CCT's application for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE) was filed with the District on December 12, 2000, and was approved on December 15, 2000, in the areas of earthwork, clearing, canal excavation, and erosion control. The certification expires on December 15, 2003. Although the District had "some concerns" regarding Ms. Cramer's knowledge of the business during its review of the application, it gave her "the benefit of the doubt on the application because she had worked in the industry." On August 22, 2001, the District held a "partnering" meeting for all contractors, including CCT, on a pump station project awarded to Beers Stanska, Inc. (the Beers project). CCT was represented at the meeting by Ronald J. Coddington (Ron Coddington), a non-minority professional engineer who had worked on other District projects in the past and owns an earthwork company. Coddington's attendance on behalf of a minority contractor raised suspicions on the part of a District contract administrator, Jessica Flathmann, who also attended the meeting. Ms. Flathmann, who is now on active duty with the military, prepared a short note the same date requesting that the District's compliance section "[p]lease check out [CCT's] information (minority status) with state on-line info." The "state on-line info" refers to the Department of State's web site for Florida corporations. A subsequent name search under the Department of State's corporation records revealed that since at least 1987 Ms. Cramer had been an officer and/or director in a number of other corporations, including Team Land Holdings, Inc. (vice- president, secretary, treasurer, and 50 percent owner), Team Environmental Resources, Inc. (owner, president, vice- president, and secretary-treasurer), Team Land Development, Inc. (treasurer), Team Offshore Services, Inc. (secretary- treasurer), Team Marine Services, Inc. (director and secretary-treasurer), and R.J. Coddington and Associates, P.A. (vice-president). Except for Team Environmental Resources, Inc., Ron Coddington was a principal in, and owner of, all of the other corporations. Because Ms. Cramer had failed to acknowledge a relationship with any other firms on her application, the District decided to conduct an investigation concerning CCT's eligibility for MBE status. Based on a site visit to Ms. Cramer's office, and an interview with her, the District determined that decertification proceedings were appropriate. By letter dated December 20, 2001, as later clarified during discovery, the District alleged that CCT made a material misrepresentation on its original application for certification in violation of Rule 40E-7.653(2), Florida Administrative Code; that CCT "shared resources with a non-minority person or business in the same or an associated field" in violation of Rule 40E- 7.653(6)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code; and that CCT's owner, Ms. Cramer, "does not possess the knowledge and technical expertise to manage the day-to-day activities of her firm." Respondent denies all allegations. It also suggests that the District's real purpose in revoking the certification is because of animosity between certain District personnel and Ron Coddington, with whom Ms. Cramer has had a personal relationship and is now engaged to marry. Material Mispresentation The District first alleges that Petitioner made a material mispresentation on its application for certification by answering Question 20 in the negative. That question reads as follows: ARE ANY OWNERS, PARTNERS OR PRINCIPALS OF YOUR COMPANY AFFILIATED WITH ANY OTHER FIRM(S) AS EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS, OR DIRECTORS? If Yes, please list below, attach a written explanation of the business relationship and provide a financial statement for the affiliate firm(s). Ms. Cramer answered Question 20 "No." At the end of the application, she executed a lengthy affidavit acknowledging that all of the statements contained in the application were "true, accurate and complete." When the question was answered, Ms. Cramer was a vice-president, secretary, treasurer, and part-owner of Team Land Holdings, Inc., a corporation which owned the building listed as the business address for CCT and two corporations in which Ron Coddington was a principal. As to Team Environmental Services, Inc. and Team Land Development, Inc., however, the parties disagree on Ms. Cramer's status in those corporations at the time the application was filed. The other corporations are not in issue since they are no longer active or Ms. Cramer has resigned as an officer, director, or employee. Ms. Cramer was president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer of Team Environmental Services, Inc. and filed the paperwork to incorporate the business. She indicated that the corporation "never did any business," had no income, closed its books in either April or August 2000, and filed its final tax return for calendar year 2000. Even so, Ms. Cramer continued to file annual reports with the Secretary of State for two more years after the corporation allegedly closed its books, and she did not file Articles of Dissolution for the corporation until April 2002, or just before her deposition in this case was taken. Given these circumstances, it is found that Ms. Cramer was still affiliated with an active corporation at the time she filed her application, and this information should have been disclosed. Beginning in 1987 and continuing until May 2000, Ms. Cramer was a director, officer, and employee of Team Land Development, Inc., a firm engaged in the earthwork business and owned by Ron Coddington. However, Ms. Cramer submitted into evidence a letter to Ron Coddington dated May 10, 2000, tendering her resignation as an officer and director. The authenticity of that letter was not challenged. She also testified that she resigned as an employee around March 2000. While the record shows that Ms. Cramer prepared and filed the annual report for the company in 2001, or after she had resigned as an employee, she explained that she was simply helping out by doing some "extra accounting" for the firm even though she was no longer on the payroll. In light of these circumstances, there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Cramer was affiliated with Team Land Development, Inc. at the time she submitted her application for certification, and thus she was not required to disclose her relationship with that entity. One of the purposes of Question 20 is to determine if an applicant has a parent company, affiliates, or subsidiaries. This information is then used by the District to determine whether the applicant has true management and control over the business or whether another entity has actual control over the applicant. The information is also used to determine whether the applicant meets the size standards for MBEs when combined with the affiliates. This is important because District regulations establish certain size thresholds (in terms of net assets and number of employees) which an applicant cannot exceed. It can be inferred from the evidence that for these reasons, the District considers the information in Question 20 to be material since the information is essential in order to properly review a MBE application. Ms. Cramer, who signed the application, suggested that Question 20 was ambiguous and unclear. However, Ms. Cramer never sought guidance from District personnel to clear up any confusion she might have, nor did she read the MBE rule itself. Rather, she interpreted the question as requiring an affirmative response only if she was affiliated with another firm involved "in [a] similar or same field" as CCT. Because the two corporations in which she was then affiliated did not provide the same or similar services as CCT, she responded in the negative. Question 20 is clear and unambiguous. It simply requires an applicant to identify any other corporation or entity in which the applicant is affiliated. The question does not mention, or even suggest, that an affirmative answer is required only if the other entity is in the same or similar field as the applicant's business. Respondent's contention that the question was ambiguous and susceptible to more than one interpretation has been rejected. The only remaining issue is whether the omitted information was "material" so as to constitute a ground for revocation of the certification. As noted above, the District considers the information derived from Question 20 to be material since that information is necessary to carry out its responsibility of determining an applicant's eligibility. Therefore, the failure by Ms. Cramer to disclose her relationship with two corporations was a material omission, as alleged in the letter of December 20, 2001. Did CCT share resources with a non-MBE? Petitioner next alleges that CCT shared resources with a non-minority person or business which is in the same field of operations in violation of Rule 40E-7.653(6)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. Those provisions require that the minority owner demonstrate its independence and that the business does not share common ownership, directors, or facilities with a non-minority person or business in the same or related field of operations. Ron Coddington is the owner of Team Land Development, Inc. (TDI), an earthmoving company which performed contract work for the District until January 2002, and for whom CCT was a subcontractor on two District projects. TDI's business address was 1132 Northeast 48th Street, Pompano Beach, which is the same address used by CCT until November 2001. In addition, R.J. Coddington & Associates, Inc., an engineering firm owned by Ron Coddington, also listed that street address as its business address for the years 2000 and 2001. That firm provides engineering services through Mr. Coddington's professional engineering license. Thus, the three corporations shared the same address from April 2000 (when CCT was incorporated) until November 2001. A small office building is located at 1132 Northeast 48th Street and is owned by Team Land Holdings, Inc., a company in which Ron Coddington and Ms. Cramer each owns 50 percent of the stock. The exact configuration of the offices within the building is not clear although Ms. Cramer testified that the building once had three separate "suites," each with a separate entrance, and that CCT occupied an office in the back of the building with a conference table that was used for all CCT meetings. However, when District investigators visited the building for an interview with Ms. Cramer in October 2001, they entered a common entrance, met her in a "front" office area, and were not invited into a separate office in the back of the building. Likewise, when they interviewed Ron Coddington during the course of this proceeding, he also met them in the same front area and did not invite them into a separate office. Respondent contended that the three firms only shared a fax machine and a kitchen area used primarily for storage purposes. Even so, the more clear and convincing evidence supports a finding that three corporations, including at least one engaged in the same business as CCT, were sharing facilities, as prohibited by the rule. Therefore, it is found that from December 2000 when it was first certified, and until November 2001, CCT shared facilities (offices) with a non-MBE business (Team Land Development, Inc.) which was engaged in the same business (earthmoving) as CCT. Did Ms. Cramer possess the knowledge and experience to operate her business? Finally, the District alleges that Ms. Cramer "does not possess the knowledge and technical expertise to manage the day-to-day activities of her firm," as required by Rule 40E-7.653(5)(c)4., Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that Ms. Cramer have "managerial and technical capability, knowledge, training, education and experience required to make decisions regarding that particular type of work." To support this allegation, the District relies upon a report prepared by the District's Inspector-General on December 6, 2001; the results of an interview with Ms. Cramer conducted in January 2002 by a professional engineer; and the deposition of Ms. Cramer taken during the spring of 2002 in preparation for the final hearing. Ms. Cramer's background is in accounting and bookkeeping. She is not an engineer. Indeed, on her personal income tax return for the year 2000, she listed her occupation as an accountant. She also admits that she is not an expert in earthmoving, nor does she have experience working at job sites overseeing that type of work. According to the resume attached to her application, and before CCT was incorporated, Ms. Cramer was employed in the following positions, some of which were apparently part- time: (1) bank teller and branch manager of a bank (1972- 1981); (2) bookkeeper for an upholstery firm (1981-1998); owner of a music store (1982-1985); accounting assistant for a general contractor (1985-1987); accounting assistant to a certified public accountant (1987-1998); and treasurer of Team Land Development, Inc. (1987-1999). The same resume represents that CCT's "typical work" includes canal excavation, erosion control and dewatering, and wetland construction. It also indicates that the firm provides "earthwork and construction solutions for prime contractors," as well as "skilled, knowledgeable personnel providing a variety of earthwork, erosion control and site environmental mitigation services." In issuing its proposed agency action, the District relied in part upon an investigation conducted by Mr. Sooker, a certified public accountant in its Inspector-General's Office. Mr. Sooker performed an on-site "audit" of CCT on October 30 and 31, 2001. The audit included an interview with Ms. Cramer and the examination of various documentation related to the business. In his report, Mr. Sooker concluded that CCT did not meet eligibility standards for a MBE for several reasons, including an opinion that Ms. Cramer "d[id] not possess the background, experience, and technical expertise to manage and control job site work activities." After the letter of December 20, 2001, was issued, Ms. Cramer requested a meeting with the District to demonstrate that she had the necessary experience to manage the day-to-day operations of an earthmoving company. The meeting was held in January 2002. At that time, a District professional engineer, Mr. Weldon, who has extensive experience in earthmoving, posed a series of questions to Ms. Cramer regarding her knowledge of that business. While Respondent contends that Mr. Weldon's interview was flawed in many respects, it is found that the interview was a reasonable and appropriate way in which to test Ms. Cramer's qualifications to operate an earthmoving business. In response to many of the questions, Ms. Cramer simply stated that she would rely on her foreman and project manager to resolve the issues raised by the engineer. As to the remaining inquiries, she failed to demonstrate any technical expertise in the area. Thus, the meeting reconfirmed the District's preliminary conclusion (found in Mr. Sooker's report) regarding Ms. Cramer's lack of technical expertise in the area for which CCT was certified. During a deposition taken prior to hearing, Ms. Cramer was also asked a series of questions pertaining to earthmoving to ascertain the degree of experience and competence that she possessed. Again, Ms. Cramer failed to demonstrate that she had the requisite experience necessary to manage her business. For example, Ms. Cramer was unfamiliar with the term "shrinkage," a term commonly used in the business; she could not describe a method for estimating canal excavation or factors necessary to make that estimate; she could not state what type of equipment would be used if the material being excavated had dense sand, weak limestone, or cemented shells; she was unaware that soil borings would indicate the presence of rock in the material being excavated; and she could not describe the process for excavating and constructing a berm "with haul that would affect equipment collection." An experienced person in the field of earthmoving would be expected to correctly answer most, if not all, of these inquiries. Thus, Ms. Cramer did not demonstrate any level of experience or firsthand knowledge in operating an earthwork company. While she was able to respond more accurately to some of these same questions at the final hearing, the undersigned assumed that she could do so only because the intervening time between the deposition and final hearing allowed her to consult with experts and prepare her answers. In addition, Ms. Cramer acknowledged that she has never been a project manager for any construction job, including those that CCT has contracted to perform; she has never operated any heavy equipment; she has never personally prepared job estimates involving plans and specifications by herself; she cannot read construction plans and specifications; she has not negotiated any contracts for CCT; and she has never attended any meetings that the District has held for the Beers project. On the Beers project, in which CCT is a subcontractor for the prime contractor, notices of safety violations by CCT employees are sent to Ron Coddington's attention, and the first subcontract agreement between Beers and CCT was also sent to his attention. In fact, in correspondence to CCT, the Beers office manager for the project assumed that Ron Coddington was president of the firm. At the same time, Ms. Cramer relies heavily on her foremen and Ron Coddington (who serves as a $1,600.00 per week consultant) to deal with all technical aspects of her business and to answer questions regarding the Beers project. She further acknowledged that she has delegated a number of tasks on the Beers project to Ron Coddington, such as providing estimates and bid takeoffs; providing on-site project management; preparing project schedules and monthly estimates; making on-site inspections; coordinating on-site surveys and quality control with CCT employees; assuming responsibility for owner and prime contractor conduct on the District pump station projects; and representing CCT at all job coordination meetings. Notwithstanding the above, Respondent contends that the Inspector-General's report dated December 6, 2001, is the primary underpinning for the District's case and that the report is flawed in numerous respects. For example, the Inspector-General's Office has an operations manual which spells out the manner in which investigations shall be conducted. Contrary to specific requirements in the operations manual, Mr. Sooker did not prepare, sign, and file a statement of independence, and he did not maintain and preserve working papers, outlines of questions, and interview notes in the investigative file. These deficiencies were confirmed through the testimony of Respondent's expert, Mr. Kirchenbaum, a certified public accountant, as well as the Inspector-General himself. While Mr. Sooker's investigation admittedly did not fully conform with the operations manual, his conclusions regarding Ms. Cramer's experience were independently verified and reconfirmed through the interview with Ms. Cramer in January 2002 and the answers given by her in the deposition taken in April 2002. Therefore, even if Mr. Sooker's report is ignored, there is other clear and convincing evidence to support the allegations in the letter of December 20, 2001. For the foregoing reasons, it is found that Ms. Cramer does not have managerial and technical capability, knowledge, training, education, and experience required to make decisions regarding the type of business in which she is certified, as alleged in the letter of December 20, 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order revoking the MBE certification of Civil Construction Technologies, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Catherine A. Linton, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire Bradford J. Beilly, P.A. 400 Southeast 18th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316-2820
The Issue Whether Respondent, Russell Spencer, willfully abandoned his employment with Petitioner, South Florida Water Management District, by unauthorized absence and failure to call-in or report to work for a three day period, without extenuating circumstances.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by the District as a title examiner in its Real Estate Division. Respondent felt aggrieved and dissatisfied with his employment as a result of the denial of two promotions, which he believed he was entitled to receive. Most recently, in February, 1985, his application to fill the position of "Director of the Real Estate Division" was denied. (P-4) The Directorship of the Real Estate Division was vacated on January 31, 1985, as a result of the retirement of Jack W. Braun, who had held that position for approximately 12 years. Upon Mr. Braun's retirement, William C. Brannen, Jr., Director of the Land Management Department (which includes the Real Estate Division) assumed the position of Acting Director of the Real Estate Division until a new director could be hired. As Acting Director, he was Respondent's immediate supervisor during the interim period. The District has a long-standing written policy regarding annual leave, which requires prior written authorization from the immediate supervisor. The policy in effect in November 1982 and continuing through February 1985, states: Use of Annual Leave: a. * * * b. The use of annual leave shall require the prior approval of the employee's Supervisor or Division Director. Annual leave requests for more than 30 calendar days shall require prior written approval of the employee's Department Director. (p-10) The District's attendance and leave policy was revised on February 28,n 1985, but not with regard to the use of annual leave. The District developed and utilized a standard form for requesting annual leave. (P-11, P-12) On February 26, 1985, Respondent approached a co- worker, Andrew DuBois, and asked him to forward to Mr. Brannen (Acting Division Director) the following memorandum dated that day: In reference to the above subject matter, I have, at this writing, 200 plus hours of annual leave accrued and I intend to use whatever necessary to retain legal counsel to file suit on my behalf against this District. (P-1) He also asked Mr. DuBois to submit blank time sheets on his behalf. Mr. DuBois declined to become involved because he believed the matter was between Respondent and his supervisor. He did, however, remind Respondent of the need to obtain prior approval for annual leave. Respondent replied that he would not submit a leave request "for legal reasons." (P-34) He then left the District's offices and went home. Upon receipt of Respondent's memorandum, Mr. Brannen consulted with Mark Chapman, Director of the District's Personnel Department, as to the appropriate response. Mr. Chapman advised Mr. Brannen that Respondent was subject to disciplinary action under the District's Corrective Action Policy for taking unauthorized leave. (P-18, Section F.2.; Testimony of Brannen, Chapman Section C.7. of the District's Attendance and Leave Policy) Instead of initiating disciplinary action, Mr. Brannen telephoned Respondent and asked him to meet with him at 1:00 p.m. that day, February 26, 1985, to discuss his use of leave. At 1:00 p.m., Respondent, Mr. Brannen and the District's legal counsel, Thomas Schwartz, met at the District's offices. Mr. Brannen reminded Respondent that he was his acting supervisor and that his prior approval was required before Respondent could use annual leave. In reply to Respondent's expressed desire to seek legal counsel to file suit against the District, attorney Schwartz told him that his reasons for taking leave were immaterial with regard to whether a leave request would be granted. Respondent then asked for five days leave, through March 1, 1985. He completed the required leave forms and they were approved at the meeting. (P-2 Testimony of Brannen, Schwartz) Two days later, Mr. Brannen prepared a memorandum for the files summarizing the February 28, 1985, meeting. The memorandum, a copy of which was sent to Respondent by certified mail on March 1, 1985, and received on March 2, 1985, contains the following statement: We met at the appointed time and I explained to Russ that us of annual leave must have prior approval by me as his acting supervisor. We discussed how long he felt he needed to be on leave. Russ said he needed to be off through March 1, 1985. He filled out leave slips and I approved use of annual leave through March 1. (P-2) On February 28, 1985, Respondent returned to pick up his paycheck. On that date, Mr. Brannen and Mr. Dubois observed that Respondent's desk and office had been emptied of all personal materials and assumed that Respondent did not intend to return to work. (P-34; Testimony of DuBois, Brannen) Respondent's apparent intention not to return to work disturbed Mr. Brannen because there was a significant backlog of title examination work. Due to recruitment procedures it would have taken considerable time to hire a new title examiner, and recruitment could not be initiated until Respondent expressed a definite intention to resign. (Testimony of Brannen) Respondent's leave expired at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, March 1, 1985, but he did not return to work on Monday, March 4, 1985, the next working day. At 8:09 a.m. that date, Respondent telephoned Mr. DuBois, asking him to relay to Mr. Brannen his request for an additional week of annual leave through March 8, 1985. Mr. DuBois immediately relayed the request to Mr. Brannen, who telephoned Respondent at 8:21 a.m. at his residence, but received no answer. (P-3, P-34; Testimony of Brannen, DuBois) Mr. Brannen discussed Respondent's further unauthorized absence with Personnel Director Chapman, who again suggested that he take disciplinary action against Respondent for failure to follow instructions. Mr. Brannen, however again declined to take disciplinary action and instead decided to approve—after-the-fact—Respondent's verbal request for additional annual leave. On March 4, 1985, he mailed a letter to Respondent advising: Although you did not contact me as I instructed you to do, your use of annual leave through 5 p.m., March 8, 1985, is approved. You will be expected to return to work no later than 8 a.m., March 11, 1985. We have a backlog of title work to complete which requires your help; therefore, even though you have accrued annual leave, any further request for its use must be denied at this time. If you do not report to work as instructed you will be placed on an unauthorized leave without pay status until you return to work. After three days on unauthorized leave you'll be considered to have abandoned your job. (e.s.) Respondent received the letter on March 6, 1985. (P-3; R-2) On March 5, 1985, Respondent sent a letter to Stanley Hole, Chairman of the District's Governing Board, expressing dissatisfaction with the denial of certain promotions and alleging that the District had a policy of affording preferential treatment to friends and relatives. Respondent then stated that "I will interpret no reply or an adverse reply as an involuntary termination of 18 years of employment with District." (P-4) Although this direct communication with the Board circumvented the District's grievance procedures, the Executive Director of the District, fowarded a copy of the letter to the members of the Governing Board with a cover memorandum dated March 8, 1985. On that day, the District's Deputy Executive Director, Tilford C. Creel, sent Respondent a certified letter, which stated in relevant part: We do not agree with the general content of your letter and particularly we do not agree that you will be terminated due to "no reply or an adverse reply" to your letters. The authority to terminate employees resides in the executive office and in your case, Mr. Brannen informs me that you have been granted annual leave through Friday, March 8, 1985. He further informed me that the workload in the title examination area is such that we are in great need of your services and cannot extend your leave any further. There is only one other title examiner and the backlog of work continues to increase. Therefore, we will expect you to report to work on Monday, March 11, 1985, as you were adivsed by Mr. Brannen. (e.s.) (P-5; P-9) Respondent, however, failed to report to work on March 11, 1985. Neither did he telephone District officials, prior to or on that date to request an extension of his annual leave. Respondent also failed to report to work or telephone the District on Tuesday, March 12, 1985 or Wednesday, March 13, 1985. He was not ill or incapacitated or otherwise unable to reach a telephone. (Testimony of Brannen, Spencer) On Thursday, March 14, 1985, the District notified Respondent by certified letter that, effective at 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 1985, he was deemed to have abandoned his employment pursuant to Section C.7. of the District's Corrective Action Policy for failure to report to work for three consecutive working days. Personnel action was initiated that same date by Mr. Brannon. On March 29, 1985, the District notified Respondent by certified mail of his right to petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, after first pursuing the normal grievance procedures. (P-6, P-7, P-8) Respondent requested a grievance hearing by letter dated April 5, 1985. The hearing was held by the Grievance Review Board on April 17, 1985. The Review Board consisted of two supervisory personnel and two non-supervisory personnel, selected at random by Respondent. After Respondent failed to appear at the hearing, the Board concluded that Respondent had ample notice and opportunity to return to work and that termination of his employment was justified and consistent with District policy and procedure. (P-13) Respondent then appealed the Grievance Review Board determination to the Executive Director, who affirmed it. It was a long-standing District policy that unau- thorized absence from work for three consecutive days would result in termination of employment. On March 14, 1985, the District had in effect an interim written guideline, stating: Any employee who fails to report to work for three (3) consecutive working days without notifying the division office or fails to report to work after a leave of absence has expired or after the leave has been disap- proved, revoked, or cancelled will automati- cally be considered to have resigned his/her employment with the District, barring the supervisors consideration of extenuating circumstances. (P-15,P-18, Section C.7.) This interim guideline was ultimately adopted as a rule, effective April 7, 1985. The District policy in effect prior to the adoption of the interim guideline on February 1, 1985, had a similar provision: Any employee who fails to report to work for three (3) full consecutive working days without notifying the District may be considered to have abandoned the position. (P-15,P-16,P-17) In implementing this long-standing policy, the District routinely terminated the employment of employees who failed to report to work for three consecutive days. The revised (interim and final) policy contains an exception for "extenuating circumstances," which is reasonably interpreted by the District to cover situations where a sudden emergency or physical impairment prevents an employee from reporting to work. In any event, the employee was still expected to telephone the District, except where prevented by a physical impairment. (P- l9,P-20,P-21,P-22, P-23,P-24,P-26 Testimony of Chapman Thomas) The District uniformly requires adherence to attendance and leave regulations throughout its work force. At its West Palm Beach Field Station, which is responsible for maintaining District projects in the West Palm Beach area, em- ployees are routinely given written notices of any lateness in reporting to work, even if only a few minutes. Repeated tardiness or other cumulative infractions of the District's attendance and leave regulations, which do not involve a failure to report to work for three consecutive days, have also resulted in discharge. It is also a common District practice to deny leave requests when work duties require an employee or supervisor to be at work. (P-25, P-27, P-29, P-31; Testimony of Thomas; Chapman) Respondent participated in the development of the revised Corrective Action Policy. Several meetings were held among the employees of his division, wherein the employees were given an opportunity to comment on various aspects of the proposed policy. Copies of the policy were distributed to the employees of his division prior to February 1, 1985, when it became effective as an interim guideline. (Testimony of Chapman; Braun; DuBois) Respondent's acting supervisor, Mr. Brannen, did not act in a retaliatory manner against Respondent in terminating his employment for failure to report to work for three consecutive days. On the contrary, on two prior occasions, Mr. Brannen had refrained from disciplining Respondent for violating the Attendance and Leave Policy. He valued Repondent's capabilities and long-term service to the District, and went to considerable lengths to accommodate him. Respondent was not in any way impeded by Petitioner in his attempt to seek legal counsel. He was able to confer with six attorneys during his leave of absence. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be deemed to have abandoned his employment (by failing to report to work for three consecutive working days, without authorized leave or extenuating circumstances) and his employment be thereby terminated effective 5:00 p.m. on March 13, 1985. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 6th day of December, 1985.
Findings Of Fact By Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed, and it is so found, that the District is a public corporation in Florida under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, F.A.C.. It exists as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach. Respondent James P. McCarthy and his wife, Rebecca, reside at 6017 Southern Road South in West Palm Beach. This property is located within Section 3, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, in Palm Beach County. On December 31, 1991, the District issued a Notice of Violation to the Respondent notifying him that his 2 inch pvc irrigation line, exposed near the top of the bank due to erosion, constituted an encroachment on the District's right-of-way adjacent to Canal 51 at the rear of his property. The line was not removed. On April 9, 1992, the District issued its Second Notice of Violation to Respondent McCarthy assessing a civil penalty in the ultimate amount of $560.00 for the same alleged encroachment, and on April 24, 1992, Mr. McCarthy filed his Petition for Formal Hearing to contest that action. Mr. McCarthy does not contest the fact that the line exists as indicated by the District but debates the allegation that it constitutes an encroachment violation requiring a permit, contending that the District has failed to properly complete the work it promised to do on his property, the completion of which is a condition precedent to the requirement for a permit. The South Florida Water Management District owns a right-of-way located on the south bank adjacent to C-51 canal in West Palm Beach, and the McCarthy's property is adjacent to that right-of-way. They have constructed a 1 1/2 inch PVC lawn irrigation line from the sprinkler system in their backyard beneath and across the District's right-of-way into the canal. According to Douglas Sykes, the District's senior engineering field representative in the area, who inspected the McCarthy's pipe line subsequent to the completion of the Corps' work, the line meets the District's standards and is permittable. All that is required is for McCarthy to make the requisite application and pay the permit fee. On April 17, 1989, the McCarthys and the District entered into a written Settlement Agreement by which both granted deeds to each other for portions of the land adjacent to the canal for the payment of the sum of $11,000.00, plus attorneys fees, to be paid to the McCarthys. This agreement did not, however, address either the slope or grade of the canal bank adjacent to the McCarthy property. The bank slope was to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with their proposed constructions plans. The agreement did, however, call for the McCarthys to obtain an irrigation permit pursuant to District criteria "after completion of construction." The Director of the District's Right-of-Way Division, responsible for the enforcement of the occupancy regulations in the right-of-way, considered the canal complete when the Corps ceased its construction activities and removed its equipment. This was done before September, 1991. The Corps notified its contractor that it accepted the C-51 project as complete on March 20, 1991. Mr. Sykes also inspected the area subsequent to the departure of the Corps' contractor. He found the work to be consistent with the District requirements, though as late as June, 1992, some additional work was being done by the District on property to the east of the McCarthy property. There is some indication that when the District sought permission to cross McCarthy's property line to access that work area, permission was denied. The District crossed McCarthy's property anyway, causing some minor damage. This work has now ceased. The District employee who negotiated the settlement agreement with the McCarthys intended for the term "completion of construction" to mean the moment when the Corps relinquished its control of the right-of-way to the District. This was done on September 4, 1991. Other landowners applied for and received permits for irrigation lines when the Corps' contractor left the site. As McCarthy tells it, in early 1990, after the settlement agreement was signed, the heavy construction was begun on the canal project and the trees were removed. A roadway was put in and the contractor began to install a large earthenware berm on the property. After some of it was done, he stopped the workers and found that the berm should go on another property. It was removed and after that, no other work was done. Mr. McCarthy contends the agreed-upon canal bank was not properly constructed by the Corps. He claims the Corps' contractor left the canal bank without the required grading and in a rough state without sod. This is, supposedly, the only parcel that was not graded properly or sodded. He was left with a 1 1/2 :1 slope - very steep, and he complained about this in writing to the District because it was not what he claims they had all agreed upon. Mr. Shattner, the District's Director of Construction Management, indicates that regardless of what drawing is examined, the slope is no more gentle than 2:1. Throughout 1990 and 1991, Mr. McCarthy alleges, he repeatedly advised the District that it had not lived up to their agreement but never got an answer. The agreement does not define the slope to be used except as it referred to a survey which was supposedly attached to the agreement. Towards the end of 1991, Mrs. McCarthy wrote to Mr. Swartz of the District about the work but received no answer. She then called the office of Mr. Creel, the District Executive Director, to complain. On December 19, 1991, someone called back and agreed to send someone out to look at the berm. No one came, however, and the next contact with the District was the violation letter of December 31, 1991. Mr. McCarthy has repeatedly taken the position with the District that it has not lived up to the terms of its agreement with him and he will not apply for a permit for the line until the construction is completed properly. The current line complained of by the District is temporary and will be destroyed by the corrective construction. The residue of the Corps' work remaining on his property is, he complains, unsafe. It does not conform to either the county code or the District's own manual which calls for a 4:1 ratio.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing the assessment of the currently assessed $560.00 civil penalty against the Respondents herein, James and Rebecca McCarthy, but requiring them to apply within 30 days from the date of that Order for a permit to construct and maintain an irrigation pipeline across the District's right-of way for Canal C-51 at the rear of their property. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Glazier, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 James P. and Rebecca R. McCarthy 6017 Southern Boulevard South West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this licensing dispute, Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), has proposed to deny an application of Petitioner, Everglades Surveying Joint Venture (Everglades), for certification as a minority business enterprise (MBE) under the District's Supplier Diversity & Outreach Program (Program). If the application is approved, Petitioner would be listed on the District's contract solicitation and vendor lists as a minority contractor. In its proposed agency action, as later amended, the District contends that the application should be denied because: the minority owner fails to meet the criteria in Rule 40E-7.653(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code; the documents provided by Petitioner "do not support that the day- to-day operations are controlled by the minority applicant, nor is there evidence that the minority applicant possesses the authority to direct the management and policy of the business"; the minority business does not meet the size standard of a small business as required by Section 288.703, Florida Statutes; and the minority owner does not possess the necessary license to qualify the firm in its area of specialty as required by Rule 40E-7.653(5), Florida Administrative Code. In simpler terms, the District has contended that Petitioner's application is deficient in the areas of "management and control, the size standards[,] and the licensure." Petitioner disputes these allegations and contends that it meets all criteria for certification. As to the remaining requirements for certification in Rule 40E-7.653(4), (7), (8), and (9), Florida Administrative Code, the parties have stipulated that all of these criteria have been satisfied. The Minority Owner's Corporate Structure Ray J. Berryman, an Asian-Pacific American, is the minority owner seeking certification. Mr. Berryman is a professional engineer who has been in the engineering and surveying business for almost forty years. After working with other engineering firms for over a decade, in 1975 he started his own firm in California. At that time, the firm was known as Berryman & Stevenson, but its name was later changed to BSI Consultants, and then to Berryman & Henigar, Inc. The firm provides civil engineering and surveying services to public agencies on the West Coast. In 1994, Mr. Berryman acquired a Florida corporation known as Henigar & Ray, Inc., which was engaged in the business of providing surveying and civil engineering services. Although the company initially operated under the name of Henigar & Ray, Inc., doing business as Berryman & Henigar, in 1998 Mr. Berryman changed its name to Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (BHI), the same name as the California corporation. Mr. Berryman serves as director, chief executive officer, and operating manager of BHI. The firm's headquarters are in Orlando, and it has branch offices in Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Ocala, and West Palm Beach. In March 1994, Mr. Berryman formed a Nevada holding company known as Berryman & Henigar Enterprises (BHE), in which he owns 77.5 percent of the stock and serves as chairman of the board and chief executive officer. BHE owns all of the stock in Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (the California corporation); Berryman & Henigar, Inc. (the Florida corporation); Employment Systems, Inc., a "staff easing company" incorporated in California in 1992; BHE Technical Staffing, a Nevada corporation; and Therapy Network, a Nevada corporation. However, BHE Technical Staffing and Therapy Network are no longer in business. Consolidated financial statements are issued for all of the companies. BHE was formed for the purpose of serving as a vehicle "to allow a relationship to exist" between the Florida and California corporations. After BHE was formed, Mr. Berryman changed the name of both the Florida and California firms (Henigar & Ray, Inc., and BSI Consultants, respectively) to Berryman & Henigar, Inc., one a Florida corporation, the other a California corporation, so that he could have "the strength, if you will, of both companies with a similar name." Except for a few administrative personnel, BHE has no other employees and it performs no professional services. Besides being the owner of BHE and the wholly-owned subsidiaries named above, Mr. Berryman also is a majority owner of at least one affiliated company known as GovPartner, a California firm providing "e-Government solutions for cities, courts, and governmental agencies." Whether Mr. Berryman controls other affiliated companies was not disclosed at hearing. Other MBE Certifications In June 1996, or before the District had a rule on MBE certifications, Henigar & Ray, Inc., doing business as Berryman & Henigar, applied with the District for certification as a MBE to provide civil engineering, surveying, environmental sciences, and construction management services. The application was approved, and a one-year certification was issued. The District then changed from a one-year to a three-year certification, and after an application for recertification was filed in 1997, Henigar & Ray, Inc., was reissued a certification that expired in 2000. By then, the District had adopted a rule which required, among other things, that the minority owner have a professional license in all fields in which the certification was granted. Through what the District calls an "error" or oversight, it failed to note that Mr. Berryman did not hold a professional surveyor's license, and it erroneously continued to certify BHI in the area of surveying. On August 26, 1999, the firm was given "graduated" status, which meant that it was no longer eligible for continued participation in the District's Program as a prime contractor due to the business having a net worth of more than $3 million and/or an average net income of $2 million after federal taxes for the preceding two years. However, the firm could still be counted (as a subcontractor) towards a prime contractor's goal attainment. In November 2000, the firm, then known as BHI, again applied for recertification as a registered vendor. The application was approved on March 1, 2001, for another three-year period, this time in the areas of surveying, civil engineering, and construction management. Whether BHI is still in the graduated status is not known. Besides holding MBE status with the District, BHI has been certified as a MBE with several local governments in Florida, including the City of Tampa, City of Orlando, Tampa Port Authority, and Orange County. Copies of BHI's applications filed with those governmental entities have been made a part of this record. The Joint Venture As an Asian-Pacific American, Mr. Berryman qualifies for minority status. Although not disclosed by the parties, but presumably because BHI has graduated status, and cannot serve as a prime contractor, or because its certification as a MBE in surveying may be taken away, Mr. Berryman desires to become a District MBE through another legal entity and provide surveying services as a prime contractor on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) now being undertaken by the District. Before filing his application, Mr. Berryman considered three options: filing as a corporation, a partnership, or a joint venture. He chose a joint venture since it gives the entity "the ability to have control outside of a corporate board." According to Mr. Berryman, even though the joint venture is theoretically controlled by a control board, under the make-up of the venture established here, that board can only represent "what Berryman & Henigar, Inc. commands and requires it to represent." Mr. Berryman also desired to have other members in the joint venture who would "provide a unique geographical location for projects being performed by [CERP]," and thus enhance its "probability of obtaining work through the District as a minority." To this end, Everglades was formed as a joint venture pursuant to a Joint Venture Agreement (Agreement) executed on October 12, 2001. So that Everglades would have a "formidable surveying company that would be able to win work," its members included BHI; GCY, Inc. (GCY), a Florida corporation providing surveying services; Jeffrey C. Cooner and Associates, Inc. (Cooner), a Florida corporation providing surveying services; and Southern Mapping Technology, Inc. (Southern Mapping), a Florida surveying corporation. According to the Agreement, the ownership of the joint venture is as follows: BHI - 51 percent GCY - 16.33 percent Cooner - 16.33 percent Southern Mapping - 16.33 percent Mr. Berryman opted for BHI to have 51 percent ownership in the joint venture so that he would control the entity. At the same time, however, he desired to give the other participants as much ownership as possible without giving up control. The Agreement establishes a Board of Control (Board) which has the responsibility and authority for the conduct and management of Everglades to approve and execute contracts, formulate and determine the policies of Everglades, approve consultants and subcontractor agreements, approve budgets and schedules, determine the allocation of work among members of Everglades, and decide all other matters necessary to its operations. After the joint venture's formation, five individuals were appointed to the Board: Mark A. Stokes and Steve Sharpe, both BHI employees appointed by Mr. Berryman; George C. Young, Jr., of GCY; Jeffrey C. Cooner of Cooner; and James S. Richmond of Southern Mapping. All members of the Board are non-minorities. In response to the District's proposed denial of the application, in May or June 2002, or six or seven months after it was filed, Mr. Berryman assumed a seat on the Board, replacing Mr. Sharpe.1 However, because of a District policy that no amendments to an application will be considered after the application is filed, the District has not taken into account this change in the Board's membership. Petitioner has not challenged the use of that policy. Paragraph 4.3 of the Agreement provides that the Board "shall reach decisions by simple majority vote of total votes cast. BHI shall cast 51 votes; GCY shall cast 16 votes; Cooner shall cast 16 votes; and Southern Mapping shall cast 16 votes." Thus, BHI has ultimate control over all of Everglades' decisions. At the same time, however, there is nothing in the Agreement which says that the Board must consult with Mr. Berryman, and obtain his approval, before a decision is taken. Rule 40E-7.653(5) Criteria Paragraph (5) of the rule requires, among other things, that the applicant establish that the minority owner "possess[es] the authority to control and exercise dominant control over the management and daily operations of the business." The District contends that Mr. Berryman does not exercise such control since he does not sit on the Board, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Sharpe, both non-minorities, are the individuals who actually cast votes on behalf of BHI, and nothing in the Agreement requires Mr. Stokes and Mr. Sharpe to consult with Mr. Berryman before they make a decision. In reality, Mr. Berryman has absolute control over all of the decisions made by Mr. Stokes, who occupies one of the two BHI seats on the Board. This was confirmed by Mr. Stokes at the hearing and was not contradicted. Even if Mr. Sharpe (who has been replaced by Mr. Berryman) were still on the Board, he would be subject to the same constraints. This is because Mr. Berryman has made it clear that he would quickly replace any BHI Board member who did not vote in accordance with his wishes. Since BHI (and Mr. Berryman) effectively controls the joint venture through 51 percent of the Board's voting power, it is found that the minority owner exercises dominant control over the management and daily operations of the joint venture, as contemplated by the rule. Rule 40E-7.653(6) Criteria Subparagraphs (6)(c) and (d) of the rule require that the applicant establish that "the net worth of the business concern, together with its affiliates, does not exceed five (5) million [dollars]," and that it "employs two- hundred (200) or fewer permanent, full-time employees," respectively. In determining the net worth, the same rule provides that the District shall "consider the most recent federal tax returns or annual financial statements for the business." After concerns were raised by the District over BHI's net worth and number of permanent employees, BHI filed a letter with the District on April 2, 2002, indicating that it had 118 full-time employees and a negative net worth of $1,460,176.00. On June 6, 2002, its counsel also filed an affidavit by BHE's Controller, together with consolidated financial reports for the year ending March 29, 2002, reflecting a negative net worth of $1,293,435 for BHE and all of its subsidiaries, including BHI. Counsel also provided an affidavit by the BHE Benefits Coordinator listing 96 full-time BHI employees as of May 17, 2002. In separate documents submitted earlier by the other joint venture participants, the net worth and number of permanent, full-time employees of each of those participants were as follows: GCY - $553,000.00 and 25 employees as of November 30, 2001; Cooner - $300,000.00 and 8 employees as of December 31, 2001; and Southern Mapping - $527,000.00 and 6 employees as of December 31, 2001. While the fiscal years of the participants are not identical, collectively these figures produce a total positive net worth of all Everglades members (including BHE, the parent of BHI) of $86,565.00 and less than 200 full-time employees at or about the date the application was filed. Despite this showing by Everglades that it met the net worth and size thresholds for a MBE, over the past two years BHI has made a number of filings with the District and other governmental entities which caused the District to doubt the veracity of the numbers submitted by Everglades and to ultimately deny the application. For example, in its application for recertification filed with the District in November 2000, BHI reflected that it then had a positive net worth of $1,013,790.00 and 305 full-time employees. In a Statement of Intent to Perform as a MBE Subcontractor dated October 23, 2001, BHI indicated that its net worth was $1,012,979.00 and that it employed 102 permanent employees. Almost identical numbers were shown in other filings made with the District on November 1, 2001, April 18, 2002, May 24, 2002, and May 31, 2002. However, in a Statement of Intent to Perform as a MBE Subcontractor executed by a BHI corporate officer (Mr. Stokes) on June 18, 2002, and filed with the District, the net worth of BHI was shown as $4,106,000.00 and the number of permanent, full-time employees was given as 350. Assuming these latter figures are accurate, Everglades would have a total net worth exceeding $5 million and more than 200 full-time, permanent employees, both of which exceed the thresholds permitted by the rule. In addition, on April 3, 2000, BHI filed certification documents with Orange County reflecting that it had 305 full-time employees and a positive net worth of $123,415.00. Identical figures were reflected in a filing made with the City of Tampa on April 3, 2002. In contrast, in a MBE certification filing made with the City of Orlando on May 20, 2002, which included net worth and number of employees for the latest three-year period, BHI represented that it had 97 employees in the years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and that its net worth for those years was a negative $898,676.00, a negative $1,376,645.00, and a negative $1,586,216.00, respectively. To add to the confusion, in an undated document filed with the City of Tampa, BHI indicated that it had 345 full-time employees and 35 part-time employees. However, in a June 12, 2002, filing with the Tampa Port Authority, BHI indicated that it had 116 full-time employees and a negative net worth of $1,586,216.00. Mr. Berryman conceded that the different filings were "embarrassing" and confusing, and he attributed them to mistakes by careless or untrained in-house personnel. As to the document reflecting a net worth of BHI in excess of $4 million, it was established that a secretary erroneously filled out the document and Mr. Stokes hurriedly signed it without verifying the numbers. Mr. Berryman also maintained that the numbers submitted by BHI to the District in the April 2, 2002, letter, as supported by the financial reports and affidavits filed on June 6, 2002, are the most accurate reflection of its net worth and number of employees. This assertion is accepted since all of the filings over the years (except the one on June 18, 2002) have consistently indicated that the net worth of BHI is far less than the $5 million threshold. Moreover, the more credible evidence supports a finding that the number of permanent, full-time employees of BHI and the other joint venture participants is less than 200. Based on these considerations, it is found that Everglades meets the net worth and employee thresholds prescribed by the rule. Professional Licensure Requirement Rule 40E-7.653(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the minority owner (Mr. Berryman) seeking certification "be the license holder, or the professional license holder" in the specialty for which certification is sought. Here, Everglades seeks to provide surveying services. The application filed with the District identified five BHI individuals who had professional surveying licenses which authorized the work, all non-minorities. Mr. Berryman was not identified as being one of them. The rule itself is clear and unambiguous and requires no interpretation. Since its adoption in late 1996, the District has consistently construed it to mean just what it says -- that in order for a minority owner to be certified, the owner must have a professional license in the area being certified. This interpretation of the rule was not shown to be unreasonable or clearly erroneous. Therefore, because Everglades intends to provide surveying services, Mr. Berryman, as the minority owner, must hold a surveyor's license under Chapter 472, Florida Statutes, in order to qualify as a MBE. While it is true that Mr. Berryman is a registered professional engineer (under Chapter 471, Florida Statutes) in the State of Florida (as well as 3 other states), and he can perform almost all of the surveying services under his engineering license,2 he does not hold a Florida surveyor's license, as required by the rule. While this result may seem unfair and based on highly technical grounds, it is consistent with the plain requirements of the rule.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of Everglades Surveying Joint Venture for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of September, 2002.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioners are entitled to an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The District is a public corporation in the state of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Petitioner, London Creek Associates, is a Florida general partnership with the address 4545 Pleasant Hill Road, Suite 205, Kissimmee, Florida 34759. The Petitioner, Louis Fischer, is a general partner of London Creek Associates who resides on the property which is the subject of this case. The subject property is commonly known as London Creek Ranch. The subject property is located in Sections 1, 6, and 7, Township 28 South, Range 29 East, Polk County, Florida. The subject property is located within the geographic boundaries of the District's jurisdictional territory. The subject property is owned in fee simple by London Creek Associates. At all times material to the allegations of this case, London Creek Associates has been such owner. In October, 1989, acting in his own behalf and on behalf of London Creek Associates, Louis Fischer contracted with a road excavator to build a road through the subject property. The location of the road was selected as the route which would require the least amount of clearing and the crossing of the least amount of water or swamps. That route was to connect an existing right- of-way and was to traverse the subject property ending at or near the residence occupied by Mr. Fischer. The road was approximately two miles long, tied into a preexisting road for a portion of its length, and crossed about 2000 feet of wetlands. Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any engineering studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction. Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any hydrologic studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction. Prior to the construction of the road, neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates nor anyone associated with the construction project conducted any hydraulic studies regarding the road or the ditching associated with its construction. In constructing the road, materials were excavated from along the sides of the route and placed along the roadbed in order to elevate the road above natural grade. As a result, a series of ditches were created along the sides of the road. Additionally, fill material was brought in from off-site and was used to raise the road above the natural grade. Some of the fill material for the road construction was taken from wetland areas located on the subject property. A portion of the road and ditches were constructed through wetlands on the subject property. The construction of the road altered the topography of the subject property by creating a road at an elevated grade above the natural grade. During the construction of the road, a borrow pit in a wetland area was dug. That pit has since been filled. During the construction of the road, wetland areas were cleared in order to align the road. The road was completed in March, 1990. Petitioners, Louis Fischer and/or London Creek Associates, are responsible for all acts associated with the construction of the road. Prior to the construction of the road across Petitioner's property, neither Louis Fischer nor London Creek Associates applied for, or received, a surface water management permit from the District. On March 20, 1990, the District issued a notice of violation to Louis Fischer regarding the subject road. On August 6, 1990, the District issued an administrative complaint and order 90-29 regarding the subject road. On August 23, 1990, pursuant to the notice of rights attached to order 90-29, London Creek Associates filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, objecting to the administrative complaint and requested a formal hearing. London Creek Associates' position has been that it is exempt from permitting by virtue of Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, which grants agricultural exemptions. On February 25, 1991, the FOTH were granted leave to intervene in order to participate in these proceedings. Certain "works" constructed by London Creek Associates on the subject property are hydrologically connected to wetlands. The road which is at issue in this case is between 12 and 14 feet wide and is elevated above natural grade from 2 to 3 feet. Exact measurements of the road's elevation have not been performed. However, it is sufficient to say that the road will not likely become submerged by normal rainfall events. Three 36 inch concrete culverts, two 12 inch corrugated pipe culverts, and one 18 inch corrugated pipe culvert have been installed to provide drainage under the road. These culverts allow water to overflow ditches from one side of the road to the other side of the road. Thus, the road only temporarily dams water flow. Louis Fischer is the managing partner of London Creek Associates and as such controls the day-to-day operations of that partnership. Mr. Fischer manages London Creek Ranch and oversees its cattle and timber enterprises. Prior to the construction of the road and, in anticipation of future timber cuts, London Creek Ranch has engaged in silviculture activities on the subject property. The road grade and construction will assure that timber vehicles will have access to the property and will be able to remove large loads without fear of impasse. It is expected that the partnership will continue to derive a portion of its income from timber as it has in the past. Prior to the construction of the road and, in anticipation of future efforts, London Creek Ranch has been used for cattle grazing. Cattle grazing leases have generated income to the partnership and it is expected that they will continue to do so in the future. The road grade and construction will assure that cattle trailers will have access to the property during all seasons. At all times material to the allegations of this case, London Creek Ranch has received an agricultural use classification from the Polk County Property Appraiser's Office. That classification entitles the subject property to be assessed ad valorem taxes as an agricultural concern. At all times material to this case, the subject property has been used for agricultural and silvicultural purposes. No other use, inconsistent with agricultural and silvicultural use, has been proposed for the subject parcel. Residences occupied by Mr. Fischer and the ranch foreman are consistent with its agricultural use. The construction of the road which is at issue will assure that the agricultural and silvicultural activities of the Petitioners will not be foiled by inadequate access. The road at issue is consistent with the practice of the uses to which it is being employed. While it may be superior to some "cattle trails," the road is not so improved as to suggest its use is inconsistent with its intended utilization. Further, the construction of the road was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Surface waters are only temporarily impounded or obstructed by the road. The culverts and ditching associated with the road operate to maintain the natural surface water flows through the area. FOTH is a Florida corporation whose members hunt, fish, and recreate on the properties adjacent to the London Creek Ranch. The FOTH membership is concerned about the preservation of the London Creek areas and oppose development of those properties. FOTH's incorporation and its opposition to the road constructed by the Petitioners coincided with one another. The District has promulgated no rules or has adopted no written policies interpreting Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting the Petitioners' exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as it does not make sense. Paragraphs 7 through 32 are accepted. With the deletion of the words "guaranteed legal" which are irrelevant, Paragraph 33 is accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as irrelevant. The Petitioners or any entity claiming an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes, are not required to show that the access claimed is the only access to the property or that another access is less desirable. With the deletion of the word "sole" paragraph 35 is accepted. Paragraphs 36 through 42 are accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is accepted. Paragraphs 45 and 46, including its subparts, are accepted. Paragraph 47 is rejected as argumentative and irrelevant. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of the evidence. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "fill" as it is used before the word "road," paragraphs 6 through 11 are accepted. The District has identified the road in this case as a "fill road" but it is for the purposes of all applicable statutes or rules or policies articulated herein a "road." It is not disputed that fill materials were placed on the roadbed to elevate the road surface above the natural grade. Semantics aside, the road is a road. "Fill" is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the law applicable to this case. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of "fill" (see comment above), paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 15 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 18 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill" as indicated above. Paragraph 19 is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 21 is rejected as argument, recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22 is rejected as recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence. With regard to paragraph 23, it is accepted that neither Mr. Fischer nor London Creek Associates owns cattle and that their cattle efforts stem from allowing others to graze on the ranch lands; otherwise rejected as argumentative, irrelevant, or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 24, it is accepted that Petitioners have received revenues from cattle and timber efforts otherwise the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 25 is rejected as irrelevant. The second sentence of paragraph 25 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 26 is accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 28 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill." Paragraph 29 is accepted. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is accepted. Paragraph 32 is rejected as irrelevant. With the deletion of the word "fill," paragraphs 33 through 35 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 36 is rejected as irreevant. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 39 is rejected as irrelevant or argumentative. Paragraph 40 is rejected as recitation of testimony or irrelevant. Paragraph 41 is rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraph 42 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The road in dispute may be more passable than "cattle trails" or less improved roads but its use is not inconsistent with agricultural and silvicultural purposes. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 44 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant. It is accepted that the road in dispute provides access to both Mr. Fischer's and his foreman's homes. That it also provides access for bona fide agricultural and silvicultural purposes is why it does not require a permit. Paragraph 46 is accepted. With the exception of the last sentence, paragraph 47 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant. It is not disputed that the road is above the natural grade. Paragraph 49 is accepted with the deletion of the word "fill." Paragraph 50 is rejected as argumentative or attempt to recite testimony. In the alternative the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant as to whether the road has been used for timber harvesting since future harvesting will require the road. Paragraph 51 is rejected as irrelevant. The issue in this case is whether the road was constructed for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Paragraph 52 is accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as irrelevant or a statement of fact contrary to the weight of the credible evidence presented. It has not been disputed, however, that the Petitioners sought to construct a road that would be passable during all seasons for the purposes expressed herein. Paragraph 54 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence or a recitation of testimony not fact. Paragraph 55 is accepted to the extent that it suggests surface waters flowed across this parcel in the areas where the road was constructed and that further the culverts assure that the flow remains the same as prior to the road. Otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 56 is accepted. Paragraph 57 is rejected as argumentative, comment on testimony or irrelevant; see comment re: paragraph 55. Paragraph 58 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 59 it is accepted that Mr. Ady correctly described the location and size/number of culverts; otherwise, rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 61 is accepted. Paragraph 62 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence or irrelevant given the promulgated rules, policies and applicable statutes in effect at the times material to this case. Paragraph 63 is rejected as comment, recitation of testimony or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 64 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 65 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and argumentative. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE INTERVENOR: The findings of fact submitted by FOTH mirror those submitted by the District and have been addressed above. Those paragraphs not previously considered are identified below. The first sentence of paragraph 45 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 46 is accepted. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 50 is accepted. Paragraphs 51 and 52 are accepted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 John J. Fumero Associate Attorney South Florida Water Management District 3303 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Landers & Parsons Post Office Box 271 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Carl W. Hartley, Jr. HARTLEY & WALL Suite 2810, Sun Bank Tower 200 S. Orange Avenue Post Office Box 2168 Orlando, Florida 32802
