Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and developer of real property in Brevard County, Florida. Petitioner applied to DER for a development permit to construct three wooden docks and retain an existing wooden dock on its property. The docks were designed to provide a total of 58 mooring slips. On March 13, 1983, the Department issued an Intent to Deny the requested permit, On March 10, 1983, Petitioner filed a petition for a formal 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing on DER's intent to deny the permit application. DER's Intent to Deny asserted DER jurisdiction under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-4.28 and 17- 4.29, Florida Administrative Code. DER contends that the construction of the proposed docks was to be conducted in areas within DER jurisdiction under Rules 17-4.28(2) and 17- 4.29(1). Additionally, DER asserted that the proposed project was located in Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting, and that dredging in those areas was prohibited by Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department recognizes the special value and importance of Class II waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish. Therefore, it shall be the department's policy to deny applications for permits for certifications for dredging or filling activities in Class II waters, except where the applicant has submitted a plan of procedure which will adequately protect the project area and areas in the vicinity of the project from significant damage. The department shall not issue a permit for dredging or filling directly in areas approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. . . . The parties have stipulated, and the record otherwise established, that Petitioner is substantially affected by Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), which is challenged in this proceeding, by virtue of the fact that DER asserts that rule as a grounds for denying the requested permit. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact concerning whether the driving of pilings for the construction of the dock constitutes "dredging", so as to invoke the prohibition against such activities contained in Rule 17-4.28(8)(a). It is specifically determined that these facts are irrelevant to the issue to be determined in this cause, as will more fully hereinafter appear.
The Issue Whether Respondent, The MG Herring Group, Inc. (MG Herring), was an employer of Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as Manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as Manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group) operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager, and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Background On July 7, 1989, respondent, Florida Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission), duly noticed proposed rule 46-31.002 in volume 15, number 27, of the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice also advised all interested persons that a public hearing would be held on August 3, 1989, before the Commission on the proposed rule. On August 3-4, 1989, the Commission held a public hearing at which time it considered the proposed rule. During the course of this hearing, the Commission approved the proposed rule with certain changes. These changes, as well as the complete rule text, were duly noticed in volume 15, number 35, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on September 1, 1989. Petitioner, Concerned Shrimpers of America, Inc., Florida Chapter, by petition filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 28, 1989, timely challenged the proposed rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioner and Intervenors Petitioner has, pursuant to stipulation of the parties, standing to contest the validity of the proposed rule. Intervenor, Center for Marine Conservation, Inc., is, pursuant to stipulation of the parties: ... a non profit environmental protection and education organization incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia and authorized to do business in Florida. It has in excess of 7,000 members throughout the state. Its major purpose is the protection of marine wildlife for this and future generations, including sea turtles, for the benefit of the species, the corporation and its members... Members of the organization observe, study and photograph sea turtles for educational and recreational purposes and their demise or decline from the failure to require the use of TED's will severely hamper and diminish these activities to their detriment. The organization and its members are further concerned with the total marine ecosystem that could be severely damaged should top order predators such as the sea turtle become extinct or their populations be severely diminished.... Intervenor, Florida Audubon Society, is, pursuant to stipulation of the parties: ... a non profit Florida corporation with over 35,000 members within the state whose main purpose is to protect Florida's natural outdoor environment and wildlife, including the marine environment and sea turtles, for the benefit of the organization and its members. The members of the organization observe, study and photograph sea turtles for educational and recreational purposes and their demise or decline from the failure to require the use of TED's will severely hamper and diminish these activities to their detriment. The organization and its members are further concerned with the total marine ecosystem that could be severely damaged should top order predators such as the sea turtle become extinct or their populations be severely diminished.... Intervenor, Greenpeace-U.S.A., is, pursuant to stipulation of the parties: ...headquartered in Washington, D.C., [and] is the United States office of Greenpeace, an international environmental organization with offices in over twenty countries and approximately two and one-half million supporters worldwide. Greenpeace- U.S.A has more than one million supporters in this country, including over 60,000 who live in the State of Florida. Greenpeace- U.S.A. has two offices in Florida, located in Ft. Lauderdale and Jacksonville Beach.... On behalf of its members and threatened and endangered species, Greenpeace-U.S.A. places special emphasis on the preservation of marine species and the marine environment and has worked extensively for the protection of threatened and endangered marine animals. The sea turtle campaign is one of the principal campaigns of the organization.... For the past five years, Greenpeace-U.S.A. has operated the Beach Patrol Project. The Project seeks to maintain protected nesting areas for threatened and endangered sea turtles in the coastal areas of the southern United States. Based in the Jacksonville Beach office, the Project places approximately 250 Greenpeace-U.S.A. volunteers on Florida beaches every year. The Beach Patrol Project has also contributed to the conservation effort in its documentation and identification of species of sea turtles which have been stranded and washed ashore.... Intervenor, Florida League of Anglers, Inc., is a party of unknown capacity, origin, or interest. No evidence was presented on its behalf to demonstrate that its substantial interests would be affected by the proposed rule. The proposed rule The proposed rule at issue in this case prohibits the use of any trawl (net) in state waters that does not have a qualified turtle excluder device (TED) installed therein, as well as the possession aboard any vessel in state waters of a trawl rigged for fishing that does not have a qualified TED installed in it. Excepted from the rule, under specified conditions, are test nets, roller frame trawls, trawls used for experimentation purposes authorized by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and trawls operated on the inside waters of the state. The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect sea turtles from extinction, primarily the endangered Kemp's ridley turtle, by reducing the incidental catch and mortality of sea turtles in shrimp trawls. 1/ Currently, five species of sea turtles occur in state waters. These species are the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas); Atlantic hawksbill turtle (Erelmochelys imbricata imbricata); Atlanta ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), also known as the Kemp's ridley; Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); and Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Persuasive proof demonstrates that the incidental catch and drowning of sea turtles by shrimp trawls is a significant source of mortality for the species, and that absent the elimination of that mortality factor the green turtle, hawksbill turtle, Kemp's ridley turtle, leatherback turtle, and loggerhead turtle are threatened with extinction. 2/ Use of the TEDs mandated by the proposed rule will substantially reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles by shrimp trawls, and thereby eliminate shrimp trawls as a significant source of mortality for the species. Currently, the proposed rule permits the use of any one of six TEDs approved by the NMFS, which have demonstrated a turtle exclusion rate of at least 97 percent. The rule also permits the use of any TED that may subsequently be approved by the NMFS as demonstrating a turtle exclusion rate of at least 97 percent. 3/ The rule challenge In challenging the proposed rule, petitioner does not question the need for the rule to protect the sea turtles from extinction, nor the effectiveness of the TED to eliminate a significant threat to the survival of the species. Rather, petitioner contends that: (1) the Commission exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, which will be discussed in the conclusions of law, infra; (2) that the Commission materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in section 120.54 by failing to notify the Small and Minority Business Advocate, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, and the Division of Economic Development of the Department of Commerce at least 21 days prior to the public hearing on the proposed rule, as well as by failing to prepare an adequate economic impact statement; and, (3) that the proposed rule contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented because the Commission failed to consider the "best information available" concerning the sociological implications of the proposed rule on shrimp fisherman, and because the proposed rule is inconsistent with the federal regulations regarding the mandatory use of TEDs. Notice regrading the impact of the proposed rule on small business Section 120.54(3)(b), Florida Statutes, mandates that where, as here, the proposed rule will affect small business, that "the agency shall send written notice of such rule to the Small and Minority Business Advocate, the Minority Business Enterprise Assistance Office, and the Division of Economic Development of the Department of Commerce not less than 21 days prior to the intended action." Here, the proof demonstrates that the Commission held its public hearing on the proposed rule, and approved it, on August 3-4, 1989, but that it did not provide written notice to the previously mentioned agencies until July 21, 1989, a date less than 21 days before the public hearing. While the Commission failed to accord the named agencies with the minimum 21-day notice mandated by section 120.54(3)(b), the proof fails to demonstrate that such failure constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rule making procedures. Here, the agencies never objected to the inadequacy of the notice; the agencies have never requested an opportunity to present evidence and argument or to offer alternatives regarding the impact of the proposed rule on small business; and there was no showing that the Commission's failure to accord the agencies the full 21-day notice impaired their ability to, or influenced their decision not to, participate in the rule making process. In sum, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Commission's failure to accord 21 days notice to the named agencies resulted in any incorrectness or unfairness in the proposed adoption of the rule. The economic impact statement Pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the Commission prepared an economic impact statement for the proposed rule. The economic impact statement was prepared by Robert Palmer, the Commission's economic analyst, an expert in economics. Petitioner challenges the adequacy of the economic impact statement (EIS) prepared for the proposed rule by contesting its accuracy in some respects, its failure in other respects to address the costs to the agency for implementation of the proposed rule, and its failure to address the cost and economic benefit to persons directly affected by the proposed rule. Here, while it is arguable that the Commission's EIS could have been more thorough in some respects, the proof fails to demonstrate any material error that impaired the fairness of the rule making proceeding or the correctness of the Commission's decision to approve the proposed rule. Rather, the proof demonstrates that where errors or omissions occurred in the EIS that the Commission was supplied with the correct information at the public hearing, their impact was of de minimis import, or the costs and benefits were speculative or incapable of estimation. Compliance with statutory standards Pertinent to this case, Section 370.027(1), Florida Statutes, contemplates that the Commission will, in exercising its rule making authority, apply the policy and standards set forth in Section 370.025, Florida Statutes. In this regard, section 370.025 provides: The Legislature hereby declares the policy of the state to be management and preservation of its renewable marine fishery resources, based upon the best available information, emphasizing protection and enhancement of the marine and estuarine environment in such a manner as to provide for optimum sustained benefits and use to all the people of this state for present and future generations. All rules relating to saltwater fisheries adopted by the department pursuant to this chapter or adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission and approved by the Governor and Cabinet as head of the department shall be consistent with the following standards: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best information available, including biological, sociological, economic, and other information deemed relevant by the commission. Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis. When possible and practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit. Conservation and management measures shall assure proper quality control of marine resources that enter commerce. State marine fishery management plans shall be developed to implement management of important marine fishery resources. Conservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges. Federal fishery management plans and fishery management plans of other states or interstate commissions should be considered when developing state marine fishery management plans. Inconsistencies should be avoided unless it is determined that it is in the best interest of the fisheries or residents of this state to be inconsistent. (Emphasis added). Petitioner's final challenge to the validity of the proposed rule is its contention that the Commission's action in approving the proposed rule contravenes the provisions of section 370.025 because the Commission failed to consider the "best information available" concerning the sociological implications of the proposed rule on shrimp fishermen, and because the proposed rule is inconsistent with the federal regulations regarding the mandatory use of TEDs. Petitioner's contentions are not persuasive. First, with regard to petitioner's contention that the proposed rule contravenes section 370.025(2)(h) because it is inconsistent with the federal regulation regarding the mandatory use of TEDs, the proof demonstrates that, due to the presence of sea turtles in state waters all year round, mandating the use of TEDs at only particular times of the year along certain areas of the coast, as the federal regulations do, would not achieve the Commission's preservation goal, and therefore would not be in the best interest of the sea turtles or residents of the state. Therefore, the Commission's action was not inconsistent with section 370.025(2)(h) Second, with regard to petitioner's contention that the proposed rule contravenes section 370.025(2)(b) because it failed to consider the best sociological information available, section 370.025(2)(a) is informative since it mandates that any rule of the Commission be consistent, before all else, with the following standard: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Faced with persuasive proof that the incidental catch and drowning of sea turtles by shrimp trawls was a significant source of mortality for the species, and that absent the elimination of that mortality factor the species inhabiting state waters were threatened with extinction, the Commission reasonably concluded that it had two options to protect the sea turtles: to prohibit shrimp trawling in state waters or mandate the use of TEDs and permit shrimp trawling to continue. 4/ Such being the options, very little, if any, sociological information was necessary to support the Commission's conclusions that the mandatory use of TEDs, as opposed to a prohibition on shrimp trawling in state waters, would be the least disruptive management measure to the sociological structure of the shrimp fishing community. While almost irrelevant to the instant case, the proof does, however, demonstrate that the Commission had before it the pertinent sociological information it needed to appreciate the impact of the proposed rule on the shrimp fishery community. Such information included an appreciation of the fact that the shrimping community constitutes a societal segment, or self-contained entity, that is in large measure divorced from society in general; that unique familial relationships exist within the shrimp fishing community; that the mandatory use of TEDs had led to a feeling of uncertainty among shrimp fishermen concerning the continued survival of the industry; and that should shrimp fishermen experience significant losses as a consequence of the mandated use of TEDs that they may be forced from the shrimp fishing business, and their community and family relationships disrupted. Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission's action was consistent with section 370.025(2) (b).
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the amended petition alleges facts sufficient to establish standing and a legal basis for a hearing pursuant to 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact For the purposes of this recommended order the following substantive facts alleged by Petitioner are deemed to accurate: On May 22, 1970, the Department entered into a lease agreement with the City which, for the sum of one dollar per year, leased the right of way to the south approach to the Bakers Haulover Bridge located in Dade County, Florida. According to this lease, the property was to be used as a parking lot and remain open to all members of the motoring public. The property leased to the City was, and is, adjacent to Biscayne Bay. This bay has been designated an aquatic preserve as defined in Section 258.39(11), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is a sport fisherman who for many years has utilized the public right of way leased to the City to gain access to fishing at Bakers Haulover Inlet. On or about July 11, 1987, the City erected a fence on the right of way which blocked Petitioner's access to the water at Haulover Cut. The fence was erected without a permit from the Department. On November 13, 1987, Petitioner and other members of the public, primarily fishermen, met with officials from the Department to complain about the fence and to attempt to reach a compromise. As a result, the City was to apply for an after the fact permit to erect the fence. Petitioner and the other protesting fishermen believed they would be given an opportunity to review and comment upon the permit application. No notice was provided to Petitioner nor any other member of the group regarding the permit application. On December 1, 1987, the Department approved the City's permit for the erection of the fence. Petitioner has not been given an opportunity to respond to the permit application submitted by the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Transportation enter a final order dismissing the amended petition filed by Dan Dawson. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 19th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred W. Van Vonno Suite 1750, Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130-1808 Charles G. Gardner Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, Mail Station 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondents’ decision to award a landscaping maintenance contract to Cornerstone Tree Farm, Inc., is arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Districts are local units of special-purpose government authorized by Chapter 190, Florida Statutes (2008).1 Fishhawk Community Development District was established by Hillsborough County Ordinance No. 96-24, dated September 12, 2006. Fishhawk Community Development District II was established by Hillsborough County Ordinance No. 02-23, dated December 10, 2002. The Districts issued the RFP for landscape maintenance for the common area within the Districts. Addendum No. 1 was issued on June 23, 2008, and included a revised Section IV, which contained the scope of services and “general maintenance conditions/specifications.” Section I of the RFP provides: The purpose of this bid proposal is to arrive at a total lump sum bid amount and to determine the monthly maintenance of the landscaped areas as described in the Scope of Services. All responses must itemize the cost of each of the items described in the Scope of Services in Section IV (break out all costs such as the # of mowing by month and $ value by month etc.). Only those items specifically indicated in the Landscape Services Agreement and Scope of Services documents, shall be included in the bid amount. * * * The scope of work for this bid shall include mulching, planting of annuals, mowing of all grassy areas, trimming of all trees and shrubs, fertilizing and pruning of all landscaping, pest control and disease, weed control, edging, and inspection as outlined in the Landscape Services Agreement and the Scope of Services and the response must include all items described in the scope of work attached and described in Section IV. Section I of the initial RFP provides: Basis of Award/Right to Reject: The owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids, make modifications to the work, and waive any minor informalities or irregularities in Bids as it deems appropriate. The evaluation criteria (Exhibit B) will be used to evaluate the proposals. * * * The Bids will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria in Exhibit B. The bids will be evaluated by the Fishhawk CDD & Fishhawk CDD II Board Members. The District shall select the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in accordance with this Invitation to Bid and the Fishhawk CDD & Fishhawk CDD II Rules of Procedure. Subsection 4.3(2)(f) of the Districts’ Rules of Procedure provide the following concerning contracts for maintenance services: In determining the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, the District Representative may consider, in addition to the factors described in the Invitation or request, the following: The ability and adequacy of the professional personnel employed by each bidder or proposer. The past performance of each bidder or proposer for the District and in other professional employment settings. The willingness of each bidder or proposer to meet time and budget requirements. The geographic location of each bidder or proposer’s headquarters or office in relation to the project. The recent, current, and project workloads of the bidder or proposer. The volume of work previously awarded to each bidder or proposer. Whether the cost components of each bid or proposal are appropriately balanced. Whether the bidder or proposer is a certified minority business enterprise. The Lowest Responsive and Responsible Bid/Proposal shall be accepted; however, the Board shall have the right to reject all bids, either because they are too high or because the Board determines it is in the best interests of the District. Addendum I, included the original advertisement of the RFP, provides the following: The District reserves the right to reject any and all bids with or without cause, award bids in total or in part, to waive technical errors or information, and to select the proposal determined by the District, in its sole discretion to be the proposal most advantageous to the District. It is unclear why the advertisement was issued as an addendum to the RFP. It is clear, however, that based on the Districts’ rules and the provisions of the RFP, the contract was to be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Subsection 1.0(2) of the Districts’ Rules of Procedure provides that “[d]efinitions located within any section of the Rules shall be applicable within all other sections, unless specifically stated to the contrary.” The definitions contained in Sections 4.1(2)(c) and (d) define “responsive bid/proposal” and “lowest responsible bid/proposal” as follows: “Responsive bid/proposal” means a bid or proposal which conforms in all material respects to the specifications and conditions in the invitation to bid or request for proposal and these Rules, and the cost components of which are appropriately balanced. A bid/proposal is not responsive if the person or firm submitting the bid fails to meet any requirement relating to the qualifications, financial stability, or licensing of the bidder. “Lowest Responsible bid/proposal” means, in the sole discretion of the Board, the bid or proposal (i) is submitted by person or firm capable and qualified in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements and with the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance, (ii) is responsive to the invitation to bid or request for proposal as determined by the Board, and (iii) is the lowest cost to the District. Minor variations in the bid may be waived by the Board. Mistakes in arithmetic extension of pricing may be corrected by the Board. Bids may not be modified after the opening. Section 4.5 of the Districts’ Rules of Procedure deals with the procedures for purchasing contractual services and provides that "[a]ll purchases for contractual services (except for maintenance services) may, but are not required to, be made by competitive Invitation to Bid.” Subsections 4.5(2)(d) and (e) of the Districts’ Rules of Procedure define “responsive bid or proposal” and “lowest responsible bid or proposal” as follows: “Responsive bid or proposal” means a bid or proposal which conforms in all material respects to an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal and these Rules, and whose cost components are appropriately balanced. A bid or proposal is not responsive if the person or firm submitting the bid or proposal fails to meet any requirement relating to qualifications, financial stability, or licensing of the bidder or proposer. “Lowest responsible bid or proposal” means, as determined in the sole discretion of the Board, the bid (i) is submitted by a person or firm capable and qualified in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements who has the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance, (ii) is responsive to the Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal as determined by the Board, and (iii) which is for a cost to the District deemed reasonable by the Board. Minor variations in the proposal may be waived by the Board. Mistakes in arithmetic extension of pricing may be corrected by the Board. Bids may not be modified after opening. According to Debby Bayne, who was managing the bid solicitation of the Districts, the definitions of “responsive bid/proposal” and “lowest responsible bid/proposal” contained in Section 4.1 of the Districts’ Rules of Procedure applied to the procurement of maintenance contracts such as the one at issue. The bids were to be evaluated in five areas: personnel, experience, the bidder’s understanding of the scope of work, financial capacity, and price, and each area was assigned points. The RFP provided the following evaluation criteria: Personnel (E.g., skill set and experience of key management and assigned personnel, particularly the project manager; present ability to manage the project; proposed staffing levels, etc. Skill set includes certification, technical training, and experience with similar projects.) 20 Points Experience (E.g., past record and experience of the respondent in similar projects, volume of work previously awarded to the firm; past performance in any other contracts; character; integrity, reputation, references of respondent, skilled labor force assigned, inventory of all equipment and year of equipment, etc.) 25 Points Understanding of Scope of Work Does the proposal demonstrate an understanding of the District’s needs for the services requested? Does it demonstrate clearly the ability to perform these services? Were any suggestions for “best practices” performances included? Do you have additional skilled manpower to provide this service? 20 Points Financial Capacity Demonstration of financial resources and stability as a business entity necessary to implement and execute the services required. If all financial information is not provided, Proposer will earn no more than five (5) points. 5 Points. Price 30 Points Section I of the RFP provides the following for the awarding of points for price: Price--Will be awarded to the Proposer submitting the lowest bid for completing the work for the initial term of the contract. All other proposals will receive a percentage of this amount based upon the difference between that Proposer’s bid and the low bid. Although the RFP provided for the award of points to the bidders based on the evaluation criteria, nowhere in the RFP does it state that the contract will be awarded to the bidder who receives the highest number of points. The RFP did not provide that a bidder had to garner a certain number of points to be considered responsive and responsible. The RFP provided that the contract award would be made to the lowest responsive and responsible bid/proposal. The bidders who were responding to the RFP were required to submit a lump sum price for the work to be performed pursuant to the contract. The lump sum amount was to be set forth on the bid form contained in Section II of the RFP. The bid form also required that the bidders “include an itemized schedule of each monthly service by cost.” Section IV of the RFP provides the following specifications for the planting of annual flowers and the mulching of planting beds and tree rings: Variety and Rotation Schedule: The annual bed plantings of flowers at Fishhawk Ranch shall be maintained with year round color. Seasonal rotations of four (4) different “crops" are required by the Landscape Contractor each year (Approximately 15,000 plants). Plants shall be in 4” pots and planted at 10” on center (tip to tip) in staggered rows throughout the bed area. The owner’s representative and the Contractor shall determine the flower varieties. The annuals are to be contract grown with an approved grower. * * * Mulching: All shrub planting beds and tree rings shall be maintained with a minimum 3” thick layer of medium sized pine bark nuggets as the mulch product. In some areas pine straw is currently used and is allowed; however, pine bark mulch throughout Fishhawk Ranch shall be re-mulched once per year to remove decaying, matted material and allow for fertilizer to penetrate to the shrubs root zone. The new mulch is to be installed in December and January. The specifications for the mulch did not include a specific amount that was to be applied. The contractor was to apply however much mulch it took to maintain a three-inch layer of mulch at all times and to replace the mulch entirely once a year. The RFP did not call for a unit price to be bid for mulch, nor did the RFP require the bidders to state a certain amount of mulch that would be applied. The specifications for the planting of annuals provided the amount of annuals as an estimate. The contractor was to provide sufficient annuals so that four-inch pots of annuals could be planted in the beds on ten-inch centers in staggered rows four times per year. The RFP did not call for a unit price for the annuals. Eight responsive bids were received by the Districts in response to the RFP. Greenbriar and Cornerstone were among the responsive bidders. Both Greenbriar and Cornerstone were determined to be responsible bidders. The lump sum bid by Greenbriar was $664,389.00. In the price itemization required by Section I and the bid form of the RFP, Greenbriar listed the monthly cost of mulch at $2,987.75 for an annual cost for mulching of $35,853.00, representing 918 cubic yards of mulch. Under the itemization for the bedding plants, Greenbriar listed 15,000 annuals per rotation of bedding plants for an annual total cost of $84,140.00. The lump sum bid by Cornerstone was $691,428.27. Cornerstone itemized the annual cost of mulch as $103,125.00, which represented 2,750 cubic yards of mulch. Cornerstone listed the cubic yard price of the mulch as $37.50. Cornerstone listed the annual cost of the bedding plants as $91,000, which represented four rotations of 13,000 annuals at a price of $1.75 per annual. The itemized price for mulch for the other bidders ranged from $46,200.00 to $66,300.00 with the average price of $57,250.00 for the other bidders. Greenbriar's pricing for mulch was more in line with the amount of the other bidders than the pricing of Cornerstone. The proposals were provided to the members of the Board of Supervisors for the Districts. The board members reviewed the proposals and in some cases investigated the experience and references of the bidders. On July 11, 2008, the Districts’ board members met to consider the proposals received in response to the RFP. Some board members were concerned about the wide discrepancy of the price of mulch for Cornerstone and for Greenbriar. A suggestion was made to delete the cost of the mulch in order to compare the eight proposals. The board members were told to evaluate the proposals without considering the cost of the mulch. The only evaluation category that would have been affected by deleting the mulch was price. The board members evaluated the bids without including the cost of mulch, except for at least one board member who did include the cost of mulch in his evaluation. Based on the evaluations, Cornerstone received the highest ranking, and Greenbriar was next in line. The board members voted to award the contract to Cornerstone and authorized the negotiation with Cornerstone for the amount of the mulch. The unit price for mulch listed in Cornerstone’s bid would be included in the contract as well as the unit price included for annuals. Thus, the final amount of the landscape maintenance including mulch would not be known until negotiations were completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the protest of Greenbriar. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 11th day of September, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional compensation for fishing nets that he sold to the State of Florida under the Net Buy-Back Program.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a commercial fisher who is an affected person under the Florida Net Ban, which is set forth in the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 16. Section 370.0805(5), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 1995, establishes the Net Buy-Back Program. The program enables eligible persons previously engaged in the commercial fishing industry to sell fishing nets to the State of Florida. The Legislature appropriated $20 million to the Seafood Workers Economic Assistance Account (the Account) to fund the payments authorized in Section 370.0805, as well as agency expenses in administering the program. Section 370.0805(3)(b) directs Respondent to purchase nets "according to the availability of funds on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the date of receipt of each completed application." By Net Buy-Back Application signed on July 5, 1995, and filed with Respondent at 7:39 am on the same day, Petitioner applied to sell nets to the State of Florida. His application form is completely filled out and shows two saltwater-product license numbers, both for vessels. The application form calls for the applicant to list the "TOTAL NUMBER OF YARDS OF EACH NET TYPE THAT YOU INTEND TO SELL." The form lists five categories of nets: gill (49 meshes or less); gill (50 meshes or more); beach, purse, seine; trawl; and trammel. The former gill net is a shallow-water gill net. The latter gill net is a deepwater gill net. Petitioner listed on his application "maximum allowed." He did not otherwise fill in the blanks as to types or yardage of nets. After checking a data base maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, Respondent found that Petitioner held three saltwater- product licenses. Respondent thus processed Petitioner's application as though he had three licenses, not two. By letter dated August 8, 1995, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was eligible "to receive compensation for 18 nets" and set an appointment for him to turn in the nets on September 14, 1995. A few days prior to September 14, a representative of Respondent telephoned Petitioner and told him that the net buy-back appointment was canceled and Respondent had shut down the program temporarily in order to make changes. The problem was that Respondent had discovered that the Account might be exhausted before Respondent had paid for all of the nets that fishers might lawfully seek to sell to the State. Respondent thus canceled Petitioner's appointment and suspended payment on outstanding vouchers while Respondent considered changes in its administration of the program. The purpose of the Net Buy-Back Program, as provided by Section 370.0805(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was to allow, "[a]ll commercial saltwater products licensees and persons holding a resident commercial fishing license" to apply to Respondent "to receive economic assistance to compensate them for nets rendered illegal or useless by the constitutional limitation on marine net fishing." The emphasis was on economic assistance. Section 370.0805(5)(a) authorizes Respondent to make payments only "in nonnegotiable amounts not intended to reflect the actual value of the nets." Section 370.0805(5)(a) assigns payment amounts of $3500 for beach, purse, or seine nets of at least 600 yards in length; $500 for trawls and shallow-water gill nets of at least 600 yards in length; and $1000 for trammel nets of at least 600 yards in length and deepwater gill nets of at least 600 yards in length. Section 370.0805(5)(a) states that, except for trawls, nets of less than 600 yards in length shall be "valued proportionately." Section 370.0805(5)(c) limits the number of nets that a commercial fisher could sell, based on his annual earnings from the sale of eligible saltwater products. The limits range from four nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average from $2500 to $4999 in earnings, to ten nets, for licensees whose annual earnings average more than $30,000. Respondent relied on another data base from the Department of Environmental Protection to determine the average yearly earnings of applicants. The Department of Environmental Protection maintains records of each licensee's trip tickets, which disclose earnings. The only other limit in the statute as to the type and number of nets to be purchased is that, under Section 370.0805(5)(d), "[n]o licensee may be paid for more than two ... trawls." Respondent reviewed the applications that it received from the initial fishers who filed applications. The purpose of the review was to determine whether the funds in the Account would be sufficient to cover the nets that the State was to be purchasing. Respondent found from the applications that seine nets represented a small percentage of the nets that fishers intended to sell to the State. Relying on this information, Respondent calculated the potential encumbrance of $6.5 million on the Account, based on an average payment that reflected the absence of a significant number of the most expensive seine nets. Applying liberal eligibility criteria, such as calculating the number of nets that each applicant could sell based on the number of licenses that he held, Respondent raised its estimate of the potential encumbrance to $8.775 million. But in recalculating the potential encumbrance on the Account, Respondent still assumed that the average payment per net would not be affected by a significant number of seines. Respondent began receiving nets in early August, 1995. Through the first three weeks of August, Respondent purchased seine nets at the relatively low rate that it had anticipated. After this point, fishers started turning in much larger numbers of seine nets than they had listed in their applications. During this first phase of the program, Respondent paid fishers for whatever types of nets they presented at their net buy-back appointment. Respondent paid a fisher entitled to sell six nets for seine nets if he turned in seine nets, even though he had listed only gill nets on his application. This policy jeopardized the solvency of the Account because the payments to fishers turning in all seine nets were much greater than the figures that Respondent had used in calculating the potential encumbrance on the Account. From the fishers' perspective, the program acquired an element of chance, as applicants with earlier appointment times-which did not necessarily correspond with earlier-filed applications-netted fine catches of economic assistance at the expense of their counterparts, upon whom destiny had bestowed later appointment times. By late August, the applicants began turning in seine nets in large numbers, so that Respondent was purchasing nearly all seine nets. Before long, Respondent was purchasing nothing but seines. After a brief period of trying to stay the course, Respondent decided on September 6, 1995, that it had to take action or else the Account would be exhausted before the State had purchased all of the nets listed on the applications. Respondent immediately suspended the program and developed new criteria to apply to all persons not yet paid for their nets. As of September 6 (retroactive to August 28), Respondent began the second phase of the Net Buy-Back Program. In this phase, Respondent paid for seine nets, but only up to the greater of the number of seines shown on the application or the number of seines based on past use of seines. Respondent determined the latter figure from the trip tickets, which also contained information as to types of catch, from which Respondent could infer the type of net used. As in the first phase, Respondent continued to insist the fishers turn in seines if they were being paid for seines. Petitioner's application lists no seine nets. But his application put Respondent on notice that Petitioner sought to sell as many nets, as at high a value, as the law would permit. This would mean seine nets. And based on his possession of three licenses, this would mean 18 seine nets, given Petitioner's earnings during the relevant period. Petitioner claimed that he turned in seine nets. If turned in during the first or second phase of the program, Respondent would have treated these nets as seine nets. But these nets were turned in during what became the third phase of the Net Buy-Buyback Program. After canceling Petitioner's net buy-back appointment, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter, setting another net buy-back appointment for October 2. The letter states that Respondent would purchase a total of 18 nets, but none could be a seine net. Dissatisfied with the effects of the restrictions introduced by the second phase of the program, Respondent added a third phase by promulgating an emergency rule defining "seine nets," effective October 2, 1995. This third phase, which did not change Respondent's policy of paying for the greater number of seines as shown on the application or the trip tickets, restricted the kinds of nets that fishermen could turn in as seine nets. Rule 38BER95-1 provides that, for the purpose of "the implementation of the Net Buy-Back Program" described in Section 370.0805(5): "Gill net" means a wall of netting suspended vertically in the water, with floats across the upper margin and weights along the bottom margin which captures fish by entangling them in the meshes, usually by the gills. Any net offered for the net buy-back program that consists of at least fifty-one percent (51 percent) gill net, shall be considered a gill net. "Seine" means a small-meshed net suspended vertically in the water, with floats along the top margin and weights along the bottom margin, which encloses and concentrates fish, and does not entangle them in the meshes. No net offered for the net buy-back program shall be considered a seine if the wings are composed of entangling mesh. * * * THIS RULE SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON BEING FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. Effective Date: October 2, 1995 Under the emergency rule, Respondent's nets were not seines, but were gill nets because they were at least 51 percent, by area, gill net.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order directing payment from the Account to Petitioner of the difference between the amount he has already received and the amount he would have received had all 18 of the nets that he delivered to Respondent been valued as seine nets. ENTERED on October 4, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this October 4, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Secretary Douglas L. Jamerson Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Charles L. Wilson, pro se 9210 West Robson Tampa, Florida 33615 Louise T. Sadler Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307, Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Jan Sevastakis, Post Office Box 23575, Mandarin, Florida 32217, for a permit to use a 60-foot trawl net with 1 1/2 inch bar measure mesh (3-inch stretched mesh net) to capture marine species of commercial value on the St. Johns River and adjacent areas be GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jan Sevastakis Post Office Box 23575 Mandarin, Florida 32217 Paulette Armstead, Esquire Suite 1003, Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
