Findings Of Fact On July 17, 1981, Petitioner, Epharim Perry, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Madison County, Florida, which is a part of the North Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. Although the application required that applicant furnish a Medical Certification for Cooling Form, he failed to do so. On July 28, 1981, the Department requested the claimant furnish the omitted information in order to complete his application. Because he failed to comply with this request, the application was ultimately denied on August 28, 1981. Applicant is the only member of his household. His total monthly countable income is 8258 which falls within acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. Except for the omitted Form, applicant was otherwise qualified to receive $143 in cooling assistance benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, Epharim Perry, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Epharim Perry Hill Top Apartments, #1003 Madison, Florida 32340 John L. Pearce, Esquire 2639 North Monroe Street - Suite 200A Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact On June 20, 1981, Petitioner, Laverne A. Nolte, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Dade County, Florida, which is a part of the South Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. Respondent reviewed Petitioner's application, and because she receives government assistance for electricity in the private housing project where she resides, determined that Petitioner lives in a household that is partially vulnerable to the rising cost of cooling energy. This means a governmental entity is partially responsible for paying a portion of her energy bill. According to Department regulations, Nolte was entitled to only $75 in energy assistance, and a check was issued to her for that amount. Applicant is the only member of her household. Her total monthly countable income is $238 which falls within acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. Except for living in a partially vulnerable household, Nolte was otherwise qualified to receive $290 in total cooling assistance benefits. Petitioner acknowledged that when her application was filed, she received $12 per month in governmental assistance to offset in part her electric bill. This was subsequently increased to $25 per month in July, 1981. However, she contends this aid is minimal in relation to her actual utility bill, and that it is unfair to cut her cooling assistance benefits to $75 for receiving such a small amount of aid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the request of Petitioner, Laverne A. Nolte, for additional cooling assistance be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of January, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Laverne A. Nolte 1301 Northwest Seventh Street, #212 Miami, Florida 33125 Leonard Helfand, Esquire Suite 1040 401 Northwest Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33128
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for additional low income energy assistance under Section 409.508, Florida Statutes (1980), Home Energy Assistance Program; Rule 10 CER 80-11, Low Income Energy Assistance Program, amended by Rule 10 CER 81-4, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner David Harvey requested a hearing on April 8, 1981. After the required informal conference with a supervisor in Respondent Department Petitioner requested a formal hearing. On January 6, 1981 Harvey, a black male, filed a Household Application for low income energy assistance. No one in his household is a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else applied for the low income energy assistance. He lives alone in Jacksonville, Florida, has an income of $286.50 each month and receives a bill for the use of kerosene for heating purposes. Petitioner was issued a check in he amount of $200.00 to assist him in paying his heating costs for the month of January. The action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and he was promptly paid low income energy assistance Petitioner did not dispute the evidence presented by Respondent, the facts of his residence or income, or the type of fuel used but stated that kerosene was expensive and his primary source of heat. He had expected greater benefits since is bill was large and he is crippled and old. Respondent's witness produced the signed application of Petitioner, a map of the State of Florida depicting our (4) climatic regions and a chart for determining the amount of low income energy assistance heating payments for each of the our (4) regions based on monthly income of the applicant and the type of fuel used for fully vulnerable and partially vulnerable Households. The amount of $200.00 was the correct amount accordance to the chart under the facts provided by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that a final order be entered approving the amount of Low Income Energy Assistance Program benefits allocated to Petitioner David Harvey. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 11th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David Harvey 3138 Bridier Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire Department of HRS 920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Attn: Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of HRS Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for low income energy assistance as provided in Chapter 80-167, Laws of Florida; Rule 10 CER 80-11, amended by Rule 10 CER 81-4.08 through 4.11, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gregg Hilbert requested a hearing on February 24, 1981, and an informal conference with a supervisor in Respondent Department was held. On January 24, 1981 Hilbert, a white male, filed a Household Application for low income energy assistance. No one in his household is a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else has applied for the low income energy assistance. He lived with four (4) other persons and receives a bill for use of liquid propane for heating. By Notice of Application Denial mailed February 20, 1981 Petitioner was informed that he was denied assistance for the reason that he failed to furnish specified information as to the size of his household. Action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and he was promptly notified of the reason for denial of benefits. Petitioner did not include on his application a person living in his household during the month he applied for benefits, and he also failed to furnish verification of his income within the specified deadline of ten (10) working days. He failed to appear at the hearing although he had 14 days notice of the hearing and telephone notice from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that low income energy benefits be denied Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND 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 24th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Gregg Hilbert 169 West King Street St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Paul C. Doyle, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Attn: Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of HRS Building One, Room 406 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Synergy International, Inc. (Respondent or Synergy), should be fined and required to take correction actions based on charges in the Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalties Assessment, DEP OGC File 09-0140 (NOV).
Findings Of Fact Since at least April 30, 2007, Respondent has operated a lighting supply company at 6060 29th Street East, Bradenton, Florida. (Despite Respondent's stipulation to this fact, Respondent presented evidence that the correct mailing address of its business actually is on 28th Street East.) Spent florescent bulbs are universal waste lamps as defined at Rule 62-737.400(5)(b)1. and universal waste as defined at 40 CFR Section 273.9. Respondent has never registered with DEP as a transporter of universal waste bulbs or notified DEP that it was transporting universal waste. Respondent has never accumulated 5,000 kilograms or more of universal waste at one time, nor has Respondent ever treated, disposed of, or recycled universal waste at its facility. DEP inspected Respondent's facility on July 16 and August 6, 2008. On the first inspection, DEP informed Respondent's owner, Matthew Gregg, that the purpose of the inspection was to see if Respondent was following the laws governing spent fluorescent lamps. The inspectors say Mr. Gregg told them that, when Synergy sells fluorescent lamps, its installers bring the spent lamps back to Respondent's premises and that sometimes customers bring spent lamps to Respondent's premises. The inspectors say they asked Mr. Gregg where Respondent stored the spent lamps, and he showed them Respondent's storeroom. They also say they asked Mr. Gregg how long the spent bulbs had been in the storeroom, and he told them "a couple of months." They say he told them that Respondent was in the process of obtaining equipment to recycle the mercury in the spent bulbs. In the storeroom were shelves with cardboard boxes of fluorescent and other lamps and bulbs and other product. The inspectors say Mr. Gregg told him that the spent fluorescent lamps were kept in the boxes on the shelves, some of which were labeled "hazardous waste." From their vantage, the inspectors did not see any labels on any of the boxes saying "Spent Mercury- Containing Lamps for Recycling," "Universal Waste Mercury Lamps," "Waste Mercury Lamps," or "Used Mercury Lamps." They did not turn the boxes around on the shelves and did not look at all surfaces of the boxes. There was no evidence that they told Mr. Gregg they considered the boxes not to be properly labeled. The inspectors also observed fluorescent lamps, including four broken lamps, in a flimsy plastic bag that was torn. They told Mr. Gregg that the broken lamps had to be cleaned up and put in a proper container, not just in a flimsy plastic bag, and properly labeled. In response, Mr. Gregg had an employee who was present working in the storeroom clean up the broken lamps and put them in a proper container. It is not clear from the evidence how the container was labeled. Mr. Gregg contends that the evidence did not prove how long the lamps were in the plastic bag prior to the inspection, or when the four lamps were broken, and that it is possible the storeroom worker was in the process of filling an order while the inspection was ongoing. But it is telling that neither Mr. Gregg nor the storeroom worker mentioned this to the inspectors at the time, as Mr. Gregg himself concedes. For this reason, it is found that the storeroom worker was not in the process of filling an order while the inspection was ongoing, but rather that the plastic bag with the four broken lamps had been there for an extended but unknown period of time prior to the inspection. The inspectors did not see any labels saying "Spent Mercury-Containing Lamps for Recycling," "Universal Waste Mercury Lamps," "Waste Mercury Lamps," or "Used Mercury Lamps" on the premises that day. They did, however, see the following label in the office area: FLUORESCENT LAMP RECYCLE PACKCALL FOR PICK-UP 877-220-5483 WARNING: THIS BOX CONTAINS MERCURY Hg HAZARDOUS MATERIALS On the second inspection, DEP just drove through the parking lot and around to the back of Respondent's premises. They saw the contents of the storeroom on the pavement behind the building. An employee of Respondent (the same employee who cleaned up the broken lamp on the first inspection), told them that the storeroom contents had been removed to allow Synergy to clean out the storeroom that day. The inspectors observed fluorescent lamps standing in and sticking out of the top of boxes on the pavement. Some of them appeared to be spent lamps; some did not appear to be spent lamps. Some of the lamps, both apparently spent and apparently unspent, were "green-tip" lamps, a type of Phillips-brand fluorescent lamp made with less than 0.2 mg per liter (mg/L) of mercury, as measured by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP), which is the "universal waste" threshold. There also are other brands of fluorescent lamps that have a TCLP of less than 0.2 mg/L of mercury. The inspectors could not determine whether particular florescent lamps observed during their "drive-by" inspection had been made with a TCLP of more than or less than 0.2 mg/L of mercury. They did not inspect further or ask any questions about the lamps they saw. It is possible that DEP's inspectors failed to obtain and preserve independent evidence of the TCLP values of the particular florescent lamps being stored at Respondent's facility because they were lulled by Mr. Gregg's initial statements. After Synergy received a warning letter from DEP, Mr. Gregg has maintained that DEP's inspectors misunderstood him during the first inspection. He contends that he did not admit to transporting spent fluorescent lamps and storing them. He contends that, when he told DEP's inspectors that Respondent transports and stores lamps, he meant non-fluorescent lamps and new fluorescent lamps that are stored on the premises and transported to customers. DEP contends that Respondent's more recent position is a fabrication. In response to Mr. Gregg's testimony, DEP called James Jones, who was an installer for Synergy from May to October 2007.3 Mr. Jones testified that Mr. Gregg instructed him and other Synergy installers to transport spent bulbs to Respondent's premises. He testified that he followed those instructions, including on a job in 2007 when he replaced approximately 800-1,000 florescent lamps at a Sav-a-Lot store in Naples. According to Mr. Jones, some of the lamps replaced and brought back to Synergy were so old that the stamped brand logo was worn off. The former installer's testimony conflicted not only with Mr. Gregg's but also with the affidavits of another installer and of an employee of Synergy. The DEP witness attacked the credibility of Mr. Gregg and the affiants, accusing them of bias. However, it is clear that the witness acknowledged, agreed to, and signed Synergy's written policy prohibiting installers from accepting spent lamps from customers. If Mr. Jones was telling the truth, Mr. Gregg and Synergy condoned the violation of the written policy. At the hearing, DEP's expert, Mr. Dregne, testified that at least some of the florescent lamps in Synergy's storeroom on July 16 and outside the storeroom on August 6, 2008, probably met the TCLP threshold for regulation because, based on Mr. Gregg's initial statements to the DEP inspectors and the testimony of former installer, they were a random mix of lamps being taken out of service in July 2008. The length of time a florescent lamp lasts depends on use and other factors. The lamps can last for ten years or more. For about ten years, florescent lamps falling below the TCLP threshold for regulation have been manufactured in the United States. Not all lamps now manufactured in the United States fall below the TCLP threshold for regulation. (Lamps manufactured outside the United States generally do not fall below the TCLP threshold for regulation, but they generally are not sold in the United States.) Based on a preponderance of all the evidence, it is found that Respondent's position since receiving a warning letter from DEP has been a fabrication in that Mr. Gregg actually and truthfully made the statements in Findings 6-7, supra, and that at least some of florescent bulbs in Synergy's storeroom on July 16 and outside the storeroom on August 6, 2008, probably had been made with a TCLP of more than 0.2 mg/L of mercury. Mr. Gregg testified that fluorescent lamps on the premises in plastic bags and any other containers unsuitable for spent fluorescent lamps were not spent lamps but were defective new lamps that were kept in Respondent's storeroom for purposes of processing warranty claims. Mr. Gregg's testimony was consistent with Synergy's written policy (also acknowledged, agreed to, and signed by DEP's witness) that "[d]efective product is to be kept on hand until credit is issued or manufacturer requests return of product." However, it is not relevant whether the florescent lamps were spent or defective new lamps. See Conclusions 20 and 22, infra.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on March 14, 1960. At the time of this hearing he was 22 years old. Petitioner moved to Florida from Arkansas in March, 1981, and subsequently applied for and was issued a State certificate as a general contractor in February, 1982. While in Arkansas, Petitioner obtained a license as a master electrician (Exhibit 1) and his company, American Enterprise Electric, was licensed as an electrical contractor (Exhibit 2). The electrical contractors' license was obtained without examination, as Petitioner was doing electrical contracting when the Arkansas licensing law was passed in 1979. Petitioner started working for his father, a general contractor in Arkansas, at an early age and was doing electrical work in his early teens. He took over the electrical end of his father's contracts, prepared bids, supervised, and did most of the electrical wiring on several apartment buildings, office buildings, and single family residences through his late teens. In 1978 Petitioner started his own business as an electrical contractor in Arkansas. He subsequently added air conditioning and electronics work. Operating as Allgood Electric, Petitioner did the electrical work on residences, apartment buildings and office buildings in which others were the general contractor. In his application, Exhibit 4, Petitioner dates 3/30/78 as the start of his electrical contracting company. The last job reported on Exhibit 4 is dated 9/1/80, shortly before Petitioner moved to Florida. From 3/7/78 through 9/1/80 Petitioner lists on Exhibit 4 a total electrical contractor dollar value of $60,000 with two of these jobs accounting for $35,000. Petitioner holds no local license as an electrician or electrical contractor. No evidence was presented of the electrical contracting done by his company in Florida, although he testified he has a qualifying agent to allow his company to do electrical contracting.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent's "core business is building automation systems" that "regulate the . . . energy consuming systems in a building," and it holds itself out as an "energy performance contractor." Respondent has a certification of authority to engage in contracting in Florida in the categories of electrical contracting, mechanical contracting, and general contracting. Respondent does not now have, nor has it ever had, a certification to engage in the practice of engineering in Florida through employees employed by it. Lawrence B. Stoff is now, and has been for the past nine years, an employee of Respondent's, working as a "project manager in the performance contracting field." His "focus" is "evaluating buildings for energy savings opportunities." Mr. Stoff is a Florida-licensed professional engineer, holding Florida P.E. number 46998. Several years ago, Respondent responded to a Request for Proposals (RFP 98-379V) issued by the School Board of Broward County (School Board) seeking proposals for "Energy Management Performance Contracting Services." RFP 98-379V contained the following "introduction" describing the objective of the RFP and the services sought: OBJECTIVE The School Board of Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as "SBBC") is requesting proposals from interested and qualified performance contractors to implement Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) in SBBC facilities. SBBC plans to select the three most qualified contractors to enter into a Guaranteed Energy Savings Contract pursuant to Florida Statutes, Chapter 235.215, Educational Facilities, Energy Efficiency Contracting. The term of the contract shall be a maximum of ten years from date of contract approval by the School Board. Guaranteed energy savings contract may extend beyond the fiscal year in which it became effective; however, the term of the contract shall expire at the end of each fiscal year and will be automatically renewed annually up to 10 years subject to SBBC making sufficient annual appropriations based upon continued realized energy savings. The contract shall stipulate that the agreement does not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of SBBC or a pledge of faith and credit of the District. The successful contractors shall provide a written savings guarantee in accordance with Chapter 489.145, Contracting, Energy Efficiency Contracting. The total program costs, including financed equipment cost, maintenance costs, SBBC project maintenance costs, SBBC Project Management costs, and all other costs, shall be 100 percent (100%) covered by energy savings. SBBC will require the successful proposers to fund a SBBC hired "Project Manager." The successful proposers cannot begin any work including, but not limited to, the pilot project until SBBC receives the funds and hires the "Project Manager." The current annual salary for this position is $66,610 which includes benefits. One third of the annual cost for the "Project Manager" will be provided by each selected contractor. The written guarantee must state that the energy savings will meet or exceed the costs of the ECO's, including cost of the "Project Manager." (i.e. The total costs must be funded out of savings accrued from energy conservation.) SBBC shall make fixed payments to the performance contractor or its assignee for the term of the guaranteed energy savings contract. Such payments shall not exceed the total savings realized under this program for the term of this Agreement. The objective of SBBC in issuing this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to enhance the school district's ongoing energy conservation and management program and to upgrade SBBC facilities through performance contracting. The energy conservation measures may be realized through facility alteration that reduces energy consumption or operating costs including but not limited to all energy conservation measures listed in Chapter 235.215. SCOPE The three selected proposers shall provide SBBC with a comprehensive energy services program including but not limited to: (a) complete energy audits and technical engineering analyses, (b) design and installation of the most cost-effective energy efficient equipment and systems, including enhancements to its existing School Board-wide Andover Controls Corp. based energy management system, (c) training staff on installed ECOs, (d) monitoring of energy costs, (e) power quality services, (f) financing for the project, and (g) a written energy guarantee that total program costs shall be 100 percent (100%) covered by program energy savings. The proposed agreement shall not constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of SBBC, nor is it a pledge of the faith and credit of SBBC. Respondent was subsequently selected, in accordance with the procedures set forth in RFP 98-379V, as one of the "qualified performance contractors to implement Energy Conservation Opportunities (ECOs) in SBBC facilities." On or about July 20, 2001, Respondent and the School Board entered into an Energy Audit Agreement, pursuant to which Respondent was to perform an energy audit and prepare a detailed report regarding Miramar High School to determine the feasibility of entering into an energy performance-based contract. The Energy Audit Agreement contained the following introductory clauses: Whereas, SBBC has issued a Request for Proposals, RFP 98-379V (RFP) and issued an Addendum thereto collectively referred to as "RFP" and made a part hereof by reference, to identify qualified energy performance contractors for energy performance-based contracts; and Whereas, the Company submitted a response to the RFP [which is made a part hereof by reference and is referred to as "Proposal"] and participated in a competitive evaluation procedure designed to identify qualified energy performance contractors; and Whereas, SBBC has selected the Company as a qualified energy performance contractor; and Whereas, SBBC is responsible for the operation, management and maintenance of facilities identified in the scope of this project, also listed in Attachment "A"; and Whereas, a comprehensive Investment Grade Energy Audit (hereafter referred to as the "Energy Audit") and a detailed Engineering and Economic Report (hereafter referred to as "Report") must be performed at the Facilities in order to determine the feasibility of entering into an energy performance-based contract to provide for the installation and implementation of Energy Conservation Measures (hereafter referred to as "ECMs") at the Facilities; and Whereas, Energy Performance Contracting (hereafter referred to as "EPC") is a generic term used to refer to an energy performance-based contract; and Whereas, Energy Services Agreement (hereafter referred to as "ESA") means the contract document governing an energy performance-based contract under Section 235.215, Florida Statutes; and Whereas, if the ECMs recommended by the Company are determined to be feasible by SBBC, and if the amount of energy savings can be reasonably ascertained and guaranteed in an amount sufficient to cover all costs associated with an energy performance contracting project at the Facilities as further defined in Article 1, Section F, the Parties intend to negotiate an ESA under which the Company would design, procure, install, implement, maintain and monitor such energy conservation measures at the Facilities. Article 1 of the Energy Audit Agreement described the "Scope of Investment Grade Energy Audit and Report." Its prefatory paragraph read as follows: For each of the Facilities listed in Attachment A, the Company will perform an Energy Audit and prepare a detailed Report which specifically identifies the improvements in energy consumption recommended for installation or implementation at each Facility. The Report shall contain detailed projections of Energy and Utility Savings to be obtained at the Facilities as a result of the installation of the recommended ECMs. The savings calculations must utilize assumptions, projections and baselines which best represent the true value of future Energy and Utility Savings for the Facilities, i.e.: utilize accurate marginal cost for each unit of savings at the time the audit is performed; documented material and adjustments to the baseline to reflect current conditions at the Facilities compared to the historic base period resulting from scheduled new construction and remodeling projects to be implemented by SBBC and listed in the Adopted District Facilities Work Program for Fiscal Years 1999-2000 to 2004-2005; calculations which account for the interactive effects of the recommended ECMs. The Report shall describe the Company's plan for installation or implementation of the ECMs in the Facilities, including all anticipated Associated Costs with such installation and implementation. The primary purpose of the Report is to provide engineering and economic basis for negotiating an ESA between SBBC and the Company; however, SBBC shall be under no obligation to negotiate such a contract. Section G of Article 1 of the Energy Audit Agreement addressed the "Report Content and Acceptance Procedure," and provided, in pertinent part, that, "[i]n accordance with Florida Statute, the report shall be signed by a Florida Registered Professional Engineer." Article 2 of the Energy Audit Agreement read as follows: Energy Services Agreement The Parties intend to negotiate an ESA under which the Company would design, install and implement energy conservation measures agreed to by the Parties and provide certain maintenance and monitoring services. The Company shall be obligated to enter into an ESA on the basis of the Report, provided SBBC proceeds with the development of the ESA in a timeframe which allows the ESA to be finalized within the timeframe specified in Article 1, Section G(3). However, nothing in this Agreement should be construed as an obligation on the part of the SBBC to execute an ESA. The terms and provisions of such an ESA shall be set forth in a separate agreement. Pursuant to its normal practice, Respondent contracted with an engineering firm, Engineering Matrix, Inc., to prepare the audit report. The audit report Engineering Matrix prepared "was not accepted favorably by the [School Board, which] requested that it be reworked by [Respondent's] staff with whom [the School Board] was familiar." Respondent complied with the School Board's request. It had Mr. Stoff "rework" the report. Respondent provided the School Board with an audit report, dated August 27, 2002, that incorporated the revisions Mr. Stoff had made (Revised Technical Audit Report). The Revised Technical Audit Report was essentially "a proposal of energy conservation measures [at Miramar High School] that would result in energy savings if implemented." Its "general scope and content [were] fairly typical" of the "reports that [were] issued by [Respondent] under Section 235.215," Florida Statutes. The Revised Technical Audit Report contained the following Energy Consultant Certification signed by Mr. Stoff: As the Energy Consultant and a Florida registered engineer responsible for preparing this report, I hereby certify that: This Study and Report has been performed in accordance with the most current accepted energy practices and procedures. The members of the Audit Team are qualified to perform the analysis, investigations, and duties assigned to them for the purpose of fulfilling the intent of the report. This Study has thoroughly examined this building for the purpose of identifying the opportunities which exist for reducing energy consumption. The data, recommendations and analysis contained in this Report have been performed using standard engineering practices and to the best of my knowledge are correct. Mr. Stoff signed the Revised Technical Audit Report as a professional engineer, using his Florida P.E. number. The Revised Technical Audit Report served as the basis for negotiations between Respondent and the School Board that ultimately lead to an Energy Services Agreement between them, as contemplated by the Energy Audit Agreement. Respondent was paid somewhere between $650,000 to $800,000 in connection with the work it performed at Miramar High School pursuant to its agreement with School Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is fully eligible to receive benefits under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. The only issue is as to the amount of benefits she is entitled to receive. On her application, the Petitioner stated that she had been receiving a twenty-dollar stipend from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development to assist her with her utilities payment. After December, 1980, the Petitioner ceased receiving the stipend, and since that date she has not received it. She receives no other assistance on her utility bills. The Petitioner has outstanding electric utility bills of over $500.00. She is no able to pay this bill, and her electricity has been off for approximately two months. The Petitioner's total income is $175.00 per month which she receives as an AFDC Payment.
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 51 and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73. ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 2nd day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Nina L. Simpson, filed an application for low income home energy assistance with respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), on December 10, 1983. The application reflected that Simpson lives with her husband and seven children and had a mailing address at Post Office Box 232, Lehigh Acres, Florida. She used a mailing address instead of her street address (Balfour Terrace, Sunnybrook Farms) because she lived in a distant unincorporated area somewhere between Lehigh Acres and Fort Myers, and her mail was frequently misplaced until she took a post office box. The application was received by HRS on December 13, 1983. The application was later reviewed by an unidentified HRS worker who found the application complete except for the fact that Simpson gave a mailing address instead of her street address. Accordingly, the worker mailed Simpson an HRS SES 2009 Form apparently around January 12, 1984 requesting the following additional information: I need your residence address. Please call us at the office as soon as possible or send me back this letter with the information. The request also stated that the information had to be filed no later than January 26, 1984, or the application would be denied. Simpson never received the request for information. She attributed this to an apparent mix-up in the mail or an error on the part of HRS since she received during this time Medicaid notices for two other individuals sent to her by error from the local HRS office. Had she received the request, she would have promptly supplied the information. The only correspondence she received from HRS was a notice of denial mailed to her on February 8, 1984. That prompted the instant proceeding. Except for the failure to give a street address on her application, Simpson was qualified to receive a $97 home energy assistance payment. Although Simpson was entitled to an interview with an HRS supervisor prior to the formal hearing as required by Rule 10C-29.17(4), Florida Administrative Code, in an effort to amicably resolve this matter, she was not afforded such an interview.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Nina L. Simpson for low income home energy assistance be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nina Simpson P.O. Box 232 Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 Anthony N. Deluccia, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906
