The Issue The issue is whether Tampa Bay Water's award of a contract to Commerce Controls, Inc. to furnish control panel fabrications for a regional water treatment plant under Contract No. 2001-22 was contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this bid dispute, Petitioner, Universal Precision Industries, Inc. (UPI), contends that Respondent, Tampa Bay Water, acted contrary to competition and in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it proposed to award a contract to Intervenor, Commerce Controls, Inc. (CCI), the lowest responsive bidder. In its petition, UPI alleged that CCI failed to include in its bid documents "catalog cuts and information with complete model number, manufacturer's specifications, and dimension drawings describing the proposed component," as required by the specifications. As further clarified at hearing, UPI alleged that CCI deviated from the specifications in a material respect by submitting a price for a "customized-made panel" instead of a higher costing Hoffman panel (encloser), and by submitting prices for a mix of AC/DC surge protectors rather than 100 percent DC surge protectors. All other allegations in the petition have been abandoned. UPI goes on to contend that by CCI pricing out the two items in this manner, CCI gained a competitive advantage of around $36,000.00 over UPI. Tampa Bay Water is a regional water supply authority created and existing pursuant to Sections 163.01, 373.1962, and 373.1963, Florida Statutes, and an interlocal agreement among Pinellas, Pasco, and Hillsborough Counties and the Cities of Tampa, New Port Richey, and St. Petersburg known as the "Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement Reorganizing the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority," dated June 10, 1998. In all, Tampa Bay Water is responsible for meeting the potable water needs of approximately two million customers. The controversy began on January 8, 2001, when Tampa Bay Water issued an Invitation for Sealed Bids for Contract No. 2001-22 for the fabrication of certain control panels and associated parts for a regional water treatment plant. In paragraph 2 of the Instructions to Bidders, Tampa Bay Water specifically reserved the right "to waive any and all minor irregularities and technicalities." A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on January 23, 2001. Representatives of UPI, CCI, and Intervenor, Tampa Armature Works, Inc. (TAW), attended the conference and later submitted bids. Thereafter, the sealed bids were opened publicly on January 30, 2001. CCI submitted the lowest bid ($469,481.00), TAW the second lowest bid ($486,144.00), while UPI submitted the third lowest bid ($495,000.00). On February 5, 2001, Respondent announced its intention to award the contract to CCI, who submitted the lowest responsive bid. After efforts to informally resolve the dispute were unsuccessful, this action was filed. The bid documents The Instructions to Bidders required that "[q]uotations for services are to be provided on the Bid Schedule included herein." They further provided that "[p]roposals must be provided on the Bid Schedule included with the contract documents." The Bid Schedule form in the bid documents provided fourteen line items to be completed by the bidders: one line each for each of the seven control panels and one line each for the factory acceptance testing on each panel. The Bid Schedule also provided a pre-determined Owner's Allowance and then a "Total Contract Price" line for the fifteen line items. The Instructions to Bidders further required that "[a]ll quotations must reflect delivered cost which includes all packing, handling, shipping charges, taxes, discounts and delivery to Tampa Bay Water." In a section of the "Conditions of the Contract," the following requirements were imposed: The proposal shall include the following: Catalog cuts and information with complete model number, manufacturer's specifications, and dimension drawings describing the proposed components. Total cost to Owner of all components including a separately itemized freight cost to the project site. Per diem costs, expenses included, for supplying an experienced representative to the project site to assist with startup and operator training. Delivery time of all panels following receipt of purchase order. In the same section of the bid documents, under a heading entitled "Qualifications of Bidders," there is found a requirement that "[t]he Unit Control Panels shall be bid in detail, depicting a base unit price per device, utilizing an Excel spreadsheet supplied to the bidder." Finally, the bid documents contained seven spreadsheets, one for each of the panels, which set forth by line item a description of each component, its function, the manufacturer's name and model number, and the quantity required. The last column of each spreadsheet was blank and was titled "Costs." The purpose of a bidder submitting spreadsheets was to ensure that Tampa Bay Water was getting the specific components identified in those spreadsheets. Therefore, Tampa Bay Water wanted to ensure that the bidder was furnishing the parts specified, but it was not concerned with the manner in which a bidder may have priced any particular components. The specifications also called for a number of surge protectors for each of the seven panels. However, they did not specify whether the protectors would be AC or DC, or the number of each. Because there is a significant difference in price between the two, a few days before the bids were to be submitted, a UPI employee, Frank Dressel, made a telephonic inquiry with James L. Hall, an outside consultant who assisted in the preparation of the specifications, seeking clarification. Hall advised Dressel that he should price out his proposal using all DC surge protectors, even though the specifications were not clear on that point, and he was unsure of the exact number of DC surge devices that would ultimately be used. Hall later conveyed this same advice to all bidders before the bids were submitted. CCI's bid proposal CCI's bid proposal did not include the catalog cut sheets (product specification sheets) or the spreadsheets in its proposal. However, CCI provided a cover letter with its proposal which stated that The bid requirements asked for several items, for which there was no line on the bid form. This proposal addition serves to provide the additional information required. The equipment we are providing is the exact model as specified by Tampa Bay Water, therefore, we have not included the catalog cut sheets or major equipment listing with our bid. We can, if necessary, provide the information. Per diem expenses for an electrician for wiring field terminations to the control panels $336.00, based on an 8 hour day. Per diem expenses for a CCI start-up technician would be $900.00, based upon a 40 hour work week. Freight expenses are $7,000.00. After reading the letter, a Tampa Bay Water representative, Joseph Kehoe, "felt comfortable" with that statement and treated it as a representation by CCI that it would supply the exact parts specified by Tampa Bay Water. In an abundance of caution, however, Kehoe sought guidance from his General Counsel regarding the apparent irregularities in the CCI bid, as well as apparent irregularities in the second lowest bid submitted by TAW. The General Counsel advised that the irregularities appeared to be minor and could be waived, but that further clarification could be sought from the bidders with respect to any of the omitted information. Kehoe then sought clarification from CCI regarding the freight charges and delivery schedule. He also requested the spreadsheets and catalog cut sheets previously offered by CCI in its response. By letters dated February 2 and 5, and March 1, 2001, and a "Supplemental Information" submittal containing the spreadsheets and catalog sheets, CCI provided the necessary clarification. That information confirmed the accuracy of the representations in CCI's January 30, 2001, letter, which indicated that CCI would supply all of the required equipment at the price stated in its bid. UPI's concerns According to UPI's chief financial officer, John Sessa, CCI "did not provide pricing or part numbers to indicate that they were supplying" some of the items required by the specifications. More specifically, three of the seven panels required Hoffman enclosures. In reviewing the CCI proposal, Sessa could find no price quote for a Hoffman enclosure, but he did find a manufacturer's quote for a similar enclosure by another manufacturer, Thermal Designs and Manufacturing (TDM). Also, Sessa was unable to determine whether CCI's bid was based on all DC surge protectors. Therefore, Sessa concluded that CCI was not supplying the Hoffman enclosures or the required number of DC surge protectors. By CCI using lower costing parts in pricing out its bid, Sessa contended that CCI had obtained a competitive advantage over UPI. The prices used for CCI's bid were prepared by Karen R. Lawson, a sales engineer in CCI's Plymouth, Michigan office. Lawson gathered her estimates from catalogs and vendors and then submitted them to her supervisor, Jerry Zitterman, who in turn forwarded them to a CCI employee in St. Petersburg, Florida. Because she either gave the vendor an incorrect part number for a Hoffman panel, or there was a substantial lead time in obtaining such a unit, Lawson used a price for a customized panel made by TDM, and not the price for a Hoffman panel. That price, however, was later adjusted upward by more than 25 percent in the bid proposal, presumably to take into account the labor component. In pricing out the surge protectors, Lawson used an average unit price, which was derived by taking "both prices and [using] an average of those numbers." Notwithstanding the manner in which it had priced out the panel and surge protectors, CCI unequivocally agreed that it was obligated to supply all equipment specified by Tampa Bay Water by manufacturer and part number, and that was the intent of its January 30, 2001, letter included in its bid proposal. At the same time, Tampa Bay Water understood that CCI was supplying all of the items specified in the spreadsheets and that CCI would be held to its bid price as to all of the specified components. CCI's failure to supply the spreadsheets and catalog cut sheets at the time the bid proposal was submitted, and its manner of pricing out the required panels and surge protectors, were minor deviations from the specifications, did not give CCI a substantial advantage over other bidders, and did not adversely affect the interests of Tampa Bay Water. This is especially true here since CCI's bid proposal included a letter which indicated that CCI would provide all required equipment at the stated price. Under the terms of the Invitation for Sealed Bids, Tampa Bay Water properly waived the minor irregularities in order to achieve the purpose of securing the lowest responsible bid. UPI's bid proposal There were a number of irregularities in UPI's bid as well. For example, certain items in the spreadsheets had a dash instead of a price in the "Costs" column. UPI's bid proposal also failed to provide any information as to the per diem costs from an experienced representative to assist with start up and operator training. In addition, UPI changed the indicated quantities for each component in the spreadsheets from whatever Tampa Bay Water had specified to a quantity of one. Finally, as to two of the three different size fuses required for each of its panels, UPI's spreadsheet failed to list a price and showed a quantity of zero. A representative of Tampa Bay Water established that had UPI been the lowest bidder, the agency would have sought clarification from the bidder as to the above items in the same manner that it sought clarification from CCI. TAW's bid proposal TAW's bid also omitted the catalog cut sheets and the spreadsheets, and it failed to provide any information as to freight charges, per diem start up expenses, or delivery schedule. Clarification regarding these items would also have been required, had TAW submitted the lowest bid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Tampa Bay Authority enter a final order awarding the contract to CCI, the lowest responsive bidder. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3930 Barrie S. Buenaventura, Esquire Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3930 Dominick J. Graziano, Esquire Bavol, Bush & Sisco, P.A. 100 South Ashley Street, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33602-5311 Richard A. Harrison, Esquire Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, P.A. Post Office Box 2111 Tampa, Florida 33601-2111 Steven D. Marlowe, Esquire Marlowe & McNabb, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33606-4127 Michael M. MacInnis, Treasurer Tampa Armature Works, Inc. 440 South 78th Street Tampa, Florida 33619
The Issue This is a procurement protest. The ultimate issue is whether the Respondent’s award of the "Agreement for the Construction and Operation of a Seawater Desalination Plant and Water Purchase Agreement" ("WPA") to Intervenor, S & W Water, LLC ("S&W") on July 19, 1999, is contrary to Tampa Bay Water's (TBW’s) governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the proposal specifications, or is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Additional issues presented for decision are: (1) whether Petitioner has standing to maintain this protest; and (2) whether, by participating in the procurement process, Petitioner has waived or is estopped from claiming irregularities arising out of that process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that TBW enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Formal Protest. Jurisdiction is reserved for consideration of S&W's request for a determination of improper purpose under Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, if such request is made by motion within 10 days from the issuance of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles W. Pittman, Esquire 400 North Tampa Street Suite 1040 Tampa, Florida 33602 Richard A. Harrison, Esquire John W. Wilcox, Esquire Allen, Dell, Frank & Trinkle, P.A. Post Office Box 2111 Barnett Plaza, Suite 1240 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33601-2111 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3950 John H. Rains, III, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 One Tampa City Center, Suite 2100 Tampa, Florida 33601
The Issue The basic issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to reimbursement from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 5, 1994, the Petitioners entered into a contract with an entity named James Plumbing, Inc., pursuant to which James Plumbing, Inc., agreed to perform specified plumbing work for a two-story duplex the Petitioners were building. The total contract price for the plumbing work was $10,000.00. Article 4 of the contract, titled "Progress Payments," contained the following language: On completion of rough-in plumbing $4,000.00 is due, at top out of all riser pipes and runs for plumbing an additional $4,000.00. The final payment of $2,000.00 to be paid upon final completion and hookup of all plumbing items and approval of same by City of Delray Building Department. A lien release will be required upon final payment by James Plumbing, Inc. Owner's (sic) will furnish lien release to James Plumbing, Inc., for execution. The contract described above also included language to the effect that the work to be performed under the contract would be commenced "as per owner/builder schedule," and the work would be substantially completed in the spring or summer of 1995 "as per schedule of owners." At the time of the signing of the contract described above, and at all other times material to this case, James Plumbing, Inc., was a Florida corporation that had been administratively dissolved by the Florida Department of State. At the time of the signing of the contract described above, and at all other times material to this case, an individual named James West was licensed by the CILB as a "Certified Plumbing Contractor." At the time of the signing of the contract described above, and at all other times material to this case, James West purported to be the "qualifier" for the entity known as James Plumbing, Inc. James West was the original incorporator of the corporation named James Plumbing, Inc. At all times material to this case, James West was the only person who had any ownership interest in, or had any control over the affairs of, the corporation named James Plumbing, Inc. James West, doing business under the name of the defunct corporation named James Plumbing, Inc., finished the "rough-in" in June of 1995 and finished the "top out" in March of 1996. Consistent with the terms of the contract, he was paid $4,000.00 in June of 1995 and he was paid $4,000.00 in March of 1996.1 For several reasons not material to the issues in this case, progress on other aspects of the construction project took longer than expected and in was not until the spring of 1999 that the Petitioners contacted James West to schedule the completion of the plumbing work under the contract signed in December of 1994. As a result of disagreements regarding the scheduling of the plumbing work, by letter dated April 12, 1999, the Petitioners advised James West that they had elected to terminate the plumbing contract dated December 5, 1994. Neither James Plumbing, Inc., nor James West individually ever performed the work that remained to be performed under the contract dated December 5, 1994, after the "top out" that was completed in March of 1996. In order to finish the plumbing work that remained to be done under the contract dated December 5, 1994, the Petitioners hired another plumbing contractor, Lee Wilder Plumbing, Inc. ("Wilder"). During the course of finishing the plumbing work, Wilder discovered that some of the work done by James West was incomplete and that some of the work done by James West had been done improperly and had to be redone. Wilder finished the work that remained to be done under the contract dated December 5, 1994, and also corrected the mistakes in the work that James West had done. For these services the Petitioners paid Wilder a total of $2,967.50. In order to correct the mistakes made by James West, it was also necessary to remove portions of existing interior walls and to then rebuild and paint those portions of the interior walls. This work on the interior walls cost the Petitioners an additional $1,000.00. As a result of the matters described in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, above, the completion of the Petitioners' building was delayed. By reason of the delay, the Petitioners lost rental income in the amount of $4,350.00. The Petitioners filed a civil action in the County Court in Palm Beach County, Florida, against James West seeking to recover compensation for the harm caused by the failure of James West to properly perform his obligations under the contract of December 5, 1994. On September 3, 2002, the Petitioners obtained a final judgment against James West, individually. The judgment was in the total amount of $8,082.35, comprised of the following elements: Plumbing completion and repairs $2,967.50 Demolition and repair of walls $1,000.00 Cost of water heaters2 $400.00 Loss of rental income $4,350.00 Subtotal $8,717.50 Less $2,000.00 set off ($2,000.00) Plus prejudgment interest $1,364.85 Total Judgment $8,082.35 The final judgment includes the following language: Under the contract, work was to be completed by spring or summer, 1995. The Defendant actually finished the top-out installation in 1996 but the project was delayed due to a dispute the Plaintiffs had with the city in regard to paving an alley. The Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant in 1999 to finish the work, however, the Defendant requested additional money which he wanted up front. The Plaintiffs did not mind the additional money but objected to paying up front. They terminated the 1994 contract and hired Lee Wilder Plumbing, Inc., to complete the job of installing the fixtures. In May, 2000, the Plaintiffs discovered there was no hot water. The Defendant refused to come out and check on the problem so Lee Wilder Plumbing, Inc., was called. The evidence showed that cuts had to be made in the walls and floor to find the problem. While the Defendant asserts that the problem was crossed pipes which was easy to correct, he never came out to look at the job site. Instead, the evidence showed that there was a hot water pipe missing, that the two cold water pipes were not connected to anything and a new pipe had to be installed getting hot water to the second floor. The evidence further showed that the Defendant did all of the rough plumbing under the slab and top- out plumbing inside of the walls. Pursuant to F.S. 95.11(3)(c), the Court finds the plumbing defect to be a latent defect. Further, the Court finds that the Defendant is responsible for that latent defect. In addition to damages to correct the latent defect, the Plaintiffs seek damages for the cost of hot water heaters and loss of rent/loss of use for three months delay to correct the plumbing problem. It is well settled that the purpose of damages are (sic) to place the injured party in the position it would have been. Tucker v. John Galt Ins. Agency Corp., 743 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to [re]cover the cost of repairing the latent defect in the amount of $2,967.50 and $1,000.00 for the cost of repairing the walls and floor. Further, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the cost of the water heaters of $400.00 and loss of rental income for one unit at $4,350.00. In addition, the Defendant is entitled to a set off of $2,000.00, as the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the Defendant $10,000.00 for the plumbing work in which they actually paid the Defendant $8,000.00. The measure of damages is the cost to complete contract price because parties already agreed to pay contract price for completed work. American Structural Systems, Inc. v. R. B. Gay Const. Co., Inc., 619 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Measure of damages is contract price diminished only by damages suffered. Fleming v. Urdl's Waterfall Creations, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In addition to the final judgment described above, the Petitioners also received a judgment for costs against James West in the amount of $972.27. The amounts of the final judgment ($8,082.35) and the judgment for costs ($972.27) total $9,054.62. Following the entry of the judgments against James West, the Petitioners made numerous unsuccessful efforts to satisfy the judgment. Despite diligent search and inquiry, the Petitioners were never able to locate any property of James West that could be applied to the satisfaction of the judgments against James West. On or about November 27, 2002, the Petitioners signed a claim form seeking restitution from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Their claim was received by the CILB on or about December 3, 2002. Following consideration of the Petitioners' claim, the CILB voted to deny the claim. An order to that effect was issued and filed on January 28, 2004. In that order the CILB gave the following reasons for its denial of the claim: Upon consideration of the documentation and testimony submitted, it is ORDERED: Claimants filed to satisfy all requirements for payment from the Recovery Fund. There is no evidence in the file to support the amount of actual damages suffered. Section 489.141(2)(c), states that a person is not qualified to make a claim for recovery from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, if such person has suffered damages as the result of making improper payments to a contractor as defined in part I of chapter 713. There is no evidence in the file that the liens filed by subcontractors were valid liens under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes. At the beginning of the final hearing the Respondent stated on the record that it was still relying on the reason set forth in subparagraph a, above, but that it was abandoning the reasons for denial set forth in subparagraphs b and c, above. The Respondent also stated on the record that it was of the view that there were two additional reasons for denying the subject claim. The two additional reasons were described as follows: That the underlying court judgment on which the Petitioners' claim is based is not a judgment based on an act that constitutes a violation of subsections (g), (j), or (k) of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, and That the corporation for which the individual contractor purported to be the qualifier was not licensed at the time of the violations that caused financial harm to the Petitioners. The Petitioners' first notice of the CILB's change in position appears to have been when these two new reasons were stated during the opening moments of the final hearing. In its proposed recommended order the Respondent raises for the first time a third new reason for denying the subject claim. This third new reason is set forth in the underscored portion of the following language from paragraph 28 of the Respondent's proposed recommended order: 29. An asset search indicates that there are no assets from which the judgment can be satisfied. However, James West held at the time of the judgment, and still holds today, an active license. There is no proof that Petitioners exhausted all efforts and demonstrated an inability to collect the judgment as required by Rule 61G4-21.003(2), Florida administrative Code.
Recommendation In view of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioners are entitled to reimbursement from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund in the amount of their final judgment and their cost judgment, for a total reimbursement amount of $9,054.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Deemed Relevant to Be Found Petitioner is the state land planning agency with the duty and responsibility to enforce and administer Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. The Killearn Lakes project is a planned residential community located north of Tallahassee near Bradfordville in Leon County, Florida. A portion of the Killearn Lakes Project, consisting of Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (phase I) is vested from Development of Regional Impact (DRI) review pursuant to Section 380.06(20), Florida Statutes. Petitioner recognized the vested rights for said portion of Killearn Lakes in BLIVR-274-037. The vested portion of Killearn Lakes has never undergone DRI review and is not a subject of this administrative proceeding. The remainder of the Killearn Lakes project, consisting of Units 5 (phases II and III), 6 and 7, is not vested from DRI review. Killearn was the sole owner of the non-vested portion of Killearn Lakes during the original DRI review, and is presently the owner and developer of most of the undeveloped portion of the Killearn Lakes DRI. The county is the local government with the jurisdiction to issue DRI development orders, and is the local government with the primary responsibility for administering DRI development orders for the land covered by the Killearn Lakes DRI development order. On November 14, 1974, Killearn filed a DRI application for development approval (ADA) for the non-vested portion of Killearn Lakes. In March of 1976, the Northwest Florida Planning and Advisory Council, District II, issued its Development of Regional Impact Evaluation for Killearn Lakes, Inc. On March 23, 1976, the county held a public hearing pursuant to Section 380.06(7), Florida Statutes (1975), on the Killearn Lakes ADA. The county commission issued a Development of Regional Impact Development Order approving the Killearn Lakes DRI and rejecting the conditions recommended by the Northwest Florida Planning and Advisory Council. No notice of the adoption of the Killearn Lakes DRI development order was, or has ever been, recorded in the Public Records of Leon County. At the time of the adoption of the Killearn Lakes DRI development order, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, did not require the developer to record a notice of adoption, as is presently required by Section 380.06(15)(f), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), which first became effective in 1980. The county has issued every final local permit for the development that has occurred in the Killearn Lakes DRI. The county has not adopted a document entitled "Amendment to the Killearn Lakes DRI Development Order," and no such amendment to the Killearn Lakes DRI Development Order has been rendered to the Petitioner. Development within the Killearn Lakes DRI has not been completed. Central sewer has not been constructed throughout the developed portion of Killearn Lakes DRI. Other Facts Issuance of the Development Order Preliminary to action taken by the county commission which approved the subject development, the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission met on March 18, 1976. It considered the recommendations of the Northwest Florida Regional Planning and Advisory Council related to the project. The recommendations of the Council were: Approval of the project on a phase by phases [sic] basis with necessary permits being granted after review and evaluation of the completed and proposed phases of development; Close monitoring of the drainage methods throughout each phase of development by the Leon County Engineering Department through on-site inspection; Developer is required to obtain a report from the Florida Games and Fresh Water Fish Commission for submission to the Leon County Commission concerning the evaluation of a lake drawdown project before a permit is granted; Developer must provide more information to the Leon County Commission regarding dredge and fill operation prior to the issuing of a permit for each phase of construction; Before the Leon County Commission issues a permit for each phase of development, a review of the upgrading of the Thoamsville [sic] Highway is required from the Florida Department of Transportation; Developer is required to comply with the following two conditions before a permit can be granted: Place hydrants so that all dwellings are within 1000 feet, and commercial property is within 500 feet. Increase water pressure and supply. A phase by phase review of projected growth of the Killearn Lakes Project and a brief impact analysis of Environmental and Natural Resources, Economy, Public Facilities, Public Transportation Facilities, and Housing in the immediate community and region is required before a permit can be issued to continue the Killearn Lakes project on a phase by phase basis. The successful review and evaluation of the above mentioned modifications prior to issuing each phase construction permit is recommended. The local planning group recommended approval of a development order without acceptance of the conditions suggested by the Northwest Florida Regional Planning Council. As mentioned before in Footnote 1, the county rejected all recommendations by that planning and advisory group. According to the minutes of the March 23, 1976 meeting: Mr. Simpson reported that the Planning Commission had recommended granting the development permit of Killearn Lakes without the application of the recommendations of the Northwest Florida Planning & Advisory Council, Inc. Commissioner Vause moved that the report from the Northwest Florida Planning & Advisory Council, Inc. dated March of 1976, be reflected in the minutes as being received and filed and that the Board follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, Commissioner Marchant seconded the motion. Following very much discussion, Commission Vause amended his motion to adopt the following resolution and to issue a development order as recommended by the Planning Commission, Commissioner Marchant agreed to the amendment and the vote of the Board was unanimous in favor thereof. The Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission in its action of March 18, 1976 had not suggested any substantive changes to the ADA. The County Commission did not vote to modify the ADA by changes to the language in the ADA through additions or deletions to the text of the ADA or requirements set forth in the development order or attachments to the development order. Having rejected the recommendations set out by the Northwest Florida Regional Planning and Advisory Council, and offering no other conditions to control the development order other than those contemplated by statutes or rules pertaining to the issuance of the development order, the terms of the development order became those found within the ADA. Deadline for Development Among the topics discussed in the ADA is the date for completing the project. The ADA identifies the project completion date as 1985. This information is provided in accordance with the questionnaire which the consultant to Killearn answered in preparing the ADA. Having examined the Draft Operating Manual for Developments of Regional Impact which had been prepared by the Division of State Planning, the predecessor agency to the Petitioner, it is inferred that the application format/questionnaire recommended by the Division of State Planning was followed in preparing the ADA. The questionnaire contemplates in a number of instances establishment of a concluding date for the project. The evidence presented at hearing did not show that the county made a conscious decision to require submission of the application in the format set forth in the draft operating manual by the Division of State Planning, rather it acquiesced in that protocol on this occasion. There is no evidence that the Division of State Planning had communicated with the county concerning the use of this questionnaire for preparing an ADA, especially as it might pertain to the policy reasons for setting forth a deadline for project completion. Excepting the questionnaire, the Draft Operating Manual for Developments of Regional Impact prepared by the Division of State Planning was not shown to have been made available to the county or the applicant prior to the submission of the application. In particular, the applicant and county were unfamiliar with Section 2.05c. in its statement that all local development orders issued in response to an ADA should include provisions pertaining to the period of effectiveness of the development order and Section 2.07a.(2) pertaining to expiration of the period of effectiveness of the development order as a factor that may require retriggering of the DRI process. By implication, the county was not carrying forward the policy ideas expressed by the Division of State Planning where it urges local government, in the interest of sound planning principles to include a provision in the development order pertaining to the period of effectiveness of that development order and the statement that at the expiration of that period of effectiveness the development order may require a retriggering of the DRI review process. In the abstract, the questions that were answered in the ADA in response to the format contemplated by the Division of State Planning dealing with a concluding date for the project can be seen as associated with the concept of establishing an expiration date for the development order. The answers do not equate to setting out the expiration date as an incorporated requirement countenanced by this development order. Neither does the development order nor the incorporated ADA remind the developer or its successors in interest that there is a deadline for concluding the project beyond which the development order is no longer effective and the possible requirement for retriggering review of the DRI. Under the circumstances, absent some requirement of law not arising from the development order per se, the statements found within the ADA concerning the projects's concluding date are nothing more than an internal planning device for the benefit of the developer and its successors in interests. As an estimate by the applicant it does not express the perception of local government in issuing the development order and is unenforceable. Statutes and rules in effect at the time that the development order was issued, and it is those statutes and rules which control for reasons discussed in the conclusions of law, did not mandate the establishment of deadlines for completing the project, establishment of a period of effectiveness for the development order or a statement setting out the ramifications for not complying with the deadlines for buildout on the possible consequences of operating beyond the period of effectiveness of a development order. More generally stated Chapter 380, Florida Statutes and the rules of the Division of State Planning in existence when the project was considered did not readily explain the application process. It is not accepted that the county in view of the dialogue which took place between various commissioners and representatives of Killearn on March 23, 1976, took official action to extend the deadline set out in the ADA, but the resulting de facto extension of the buildout deadline beyond the effective date set forth in the ADA is irrelevant. The discussion among the commissioners and with representatives of the developer concerning the project completion was inconclusive, because from a parliamentary viewpoint, the county did not act to restate the ADA and by such restatement set forth a project deadline. The county never precluded further development in the DRI area after 1985 absent further DRI review. It did not have to. No deadline was required by law. No legally binding deadline has been imposed. Therefore development may proceed into the future. Sewer Service At The Inception Another item in dispute concerns the need to provide sewer service in the project area and at what point in time. The development order unequivocally requires a sewage treatment system so that units as they are built are connected to that system contemporaneous with their development. The development order does not allow alternative use of septic tanks until a central sewer system becomes available, if it ever does. The introductory portion of the ADA under the report summary speaks of sewer being provided by Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. Under the environmental assessments portion of the ADA associated with water quality, Paragraph 19.b.(3)(a), which speaks to possible discharges into ground water of liquid waste states: All units will be connected to a central plant as they are developed. This plant will remove 90 percent of the bio-chemical oxygen demand (B.O.D.) and of suspended solids (Chapter 403, Florida Statutes) and discharge to a land via a land disposal system; no surface discharge, (Figure 19-10). The economic assessments, Paragraph 25, discusses sanitary sewers at pages 59 and 61, as follows: a. Cite amount of sewage expected to be generated by the proposed development and source of treatment facility. Amount generated (added to .04 of Phase I): About 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd) in DRI area. Treatment will be accomplished by Talquin Electric Cooperative for Phases I into IV. The collection system will utilize lift stations (Figure 25-1). Will the design of the sewage system insure that all areas of the development have adequate facilities at all stages of the development? Specify. The Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and collection system construction will be phased (Table 2) to accommodate this flow as follows: Now ready to start - .040 mgd S.T.P. (Phase (not in DRI area) 1, Unit 5) Until January 1975 - .450 mgd S.T.P. (Phase II, Units 5 & 6) Until mid-1976 - .900 mgd S.T.P. (Phase III, Unit 5+ apt./Condo. & Comm.) 1978 to mid-1982 - 1.800 mgd S.T.P. (Phase IV) or convert .900 mgd S.T.P. to a lift station and pump to City of Tallahassee Talquin Electric Cooperative has a construction permit from the Department of Pollution Control, and operating permit will be issued when the S.T.P. is built, subject to conditions discussed under "discharge to groundwater". The S.T.P. and land disposal site will be located at the northeast corner of Unit 2. Additional acreage, if needed, can be provided at the adjacent school site (Figure 19-10). How does the development's sewage system relate to the county's sewer and water treatment facilities objectives? During Phase IV this responsibility will shift to the City of Tallahassee. 16/ Killearn Lakes sewage then will be treated at the Tallahassee Northeast Treatment Plant (+ 1984). What assurances will the developer provide that such a system will indeed be completed? Construction? Performance bonds? Agreement with Talquin. 15/ Sewer connection to the City of Tallahassee depends on resolution of differences between the City and Leon County. The City/County Technical Coordinating Committee recently passed resolution urging priority action on this matter. Talquin Electric Cooperative builds and operates many total - utilities packages in the area, including sewer systems. It has been in business as a Rural Electric Cooperative for several decades. In addition, in the environmental assessments section, Paragraph 19.b.(2)(a) at pages 7 and 8 dealing with discharges into surface water of detergents and solvents reference is made to commercial and residential sewer service. Figure 19-4, at page 8, related to land disposal speaks of the temporary land disposal site for sewage effluent. Again the section on economics found at page 49 in the ADA comments that Talquin Electric Cooperative is responsible for all utility installation. Table 1, item 25 discusses sewage and notes that all areas to be served by Talquin Electric will be phased into a regional facility in 1984 to meet county objectives. No exception to this requirement is stated. Paragraph 31.c., at page 71, concerning alternative means of providing sewer states: What alternative power, water, sewer and solid waste disposal sources or mixes were considered and evaluated in selecting this particular site? The City of Tallahassee, Leon County, and Talquin Electric Cooperative are the alternative sources and they were selected through a combination of availability, common practice and cost. Contrary to the opinion of the county, this reference is unambiguous and does not contemplate the use of septic tanks at any time as a possible alternative to sewer service. The statement of availability describes the choice between utilities, not the choice between sewer service and septic tanks. Killearn's Agreement With Talquin Electric The sewer service agreement between Killearn and Talquin Electric Cooperative concerning provision of sewer service commented on in Footnote 15 to the ADA addresses provision of sewer service for the entire project controlled by the development order upon request by Killearn with cost or return of the total cost to be guaranteed by Killearn as recited in the agreement. It makes Killearn responsible for depositing funds with Talquin Electric Cooperative as construction work progresses as may be required by Talquin. Those funds must be sufficient to cover Talquin's and Killearn's "actual direct costs related to the installation of said utilities, including engineering and debt service." Killearn is refunded or credited with one-half of all utility revenue received by Talquin in excess of $5 per month per customer. Those excess customer revenues would be credited first to repay amounts borrowed by Talquin for the installation of utilities to meet debt service. The excess of those revenues would be refunded to Killearn to the extent that Killearn had deposited funds with Talquin Electric for project purposes. The refund to Killearn would include any interest paid by Killearn associated with funding. By the agreement Talquin would borrow funds for the installation of the utilities if it could obtain better rates than were available to Killearn. All the funds borrowed by Talquin are subject to Killearn's guarantee on the repayment of all debt service required and if the aforementioned refunds and credits are insufficient to meet that requirement by Talquin, Killearn agrees to deposit with Talquin the amount of that deficiency which would be counted as a cost to Killearn and subject to some future refund. Killearn had agreed to execute the necessary documents for individual loans if requested to do so by Talquin. The agreement has a duration of 20 years beyond the date of completion of the last utility construction. The agreement allows Talquin to place a sewer service tap fee on lot purchasers in the project area at rates which are normal and competitive. Talquin is to deduct the direct cost of installation related to tap fees with agreement to credit or refund the remainder to Killearn. By the agreement Talquin committed to pay Killearn the cost of any land required by Talquin for sewer treatment facilities. Those purchase costs would be included in the total cost of utilities which required deposits or guarantees from Killearn to Talquin. Nothing in the agreement between Talquin Electric and Killearn spoke to the means by which successor developers would assure that sewers were provided for units developed in the DRI area. The development order in addition to not being subject to recording in the Public Records of Leon County, Florida, based upon its own terms or requirements in law, did not obligate Killearn to advise purchasers of parcels in the DRI area who bought those parcels for development purposes, that the subsequent developer would need to provide sewers in accordance with the development order either through Talquin Electric or an appropriate utility. The failure of the development order to require disclosure is not unexpected given the county's willingness to allow the ADA to serve as the development order. The ADA informs the county of the project features. It is not designed to anticipate development controls, in this instance to set out the process by which the initial developer would alert subsequent developers to the terms of the ADA to include the requirement to provide sewer service. Nonetheless, the permission to develop was granted to Killearn as applicant and to the extent that right to develop was assigned to another developer by conveyance which removed Killearn as the responsible developer, it would be reasonable to expect Killearn to give notice of the existence of the development order and its salient features. The need to provide sewer service as development proceeds is among those features. Transactions and Notice to Subsequent Purchasers What did Killearn tell subsequent purchasers about the requirement to provide sewers? J. T. Williams, Jr., CEO and President of Killearn offered testimony on that subject. Williams identified that he had sold by warranty deed to Holt Robinson the Channel 40 television station property. The notice of violation refers to this property as Ton Realty Partnership. Killearn sold parcels to Dennette Rainey on contracts for deed for areas known as Mallard Bluff and Mallard Point. Parcels between Mallard Point and Mallard Bluff were sold to Perry Bodin on contracts for deed. The sales described occurred between 1979 and 1981. The balance of the project which is in dispute has been developed by Killearn and sewer has been installed in those developed areas that Killearn had not sold or agreed to sell. According to Williams the contracts for deed to Rainey and Bodin included references about central sewer. Unfortunately, copies of the contracts for deed were not presented in the hearing to establish the exact nature of those references and the notice they may have given the purchasers concerning their obligations to arrange for sewer service contemporaneous with development (the building of residences). Williams said that the agreement was to provide sewer at the developer's request, meaning to Rainey and Bodin, pursuant to Killearn's agreement with Talquin Electric. As stated, Talquin Electric has no commitment to provide sewer service to a subsequent developer under the terms of its agreement with Killearn. More importantly the agreement with Killearn requires that the developer provide a substantial deposit before installation of sewer service. It is unclear from the record whether Rainey, Bodin or Robinson understood this. Given the arrangement described at hearing which Williams said that he would make between Talquin Electric and Respondents Kinhega Landing and Kinhega Oaks, as liaison, in which the expectation would be that those two developers would be responsible for funding or deposits to move the work forward, the possibility exists that Rainey, Bodin and Robinson had also been made aware that this funding would be needed to bring about the installation of sewer lines in areas to be developed by those purchasers. By contrast they may have understood Williams' explanation to be that Killearn would arrange for provision of the sewer service in the areas to be developed upon their request without the need for initial funding provided by the subsequent developers. The state of the record does reveal that none of the areas described in the contracts for deed between Killearn and Rainey and Killearn and Bodin have sewer service from a central location. Homes in those areas are served by septic tanks. The property conveyed to Ton Realty Partnership may or may not have sewer service based upon proof in this record. Williams stated that he told his immediate purchasers that there was a DRI on the property and bragged that it would not be necessary for those persons who bought from him to go back through a process of project review. This does not signify that those purchasers were familiar with the contract with Talquin Electric which is spoken to under Footnote 15 to the ADA. In a more general sense, the record does not indicate that the immediate purchasers read the ADA. Again, they would not have been aware of the development order and its terms by resort to the Public Records in Leon County, Florida. In addition to Robinson, Killearn gave warranty deeds to other purchasers of parcels within the DRI. Killearn sold the parcel known as Mallard Bluff to Olin Mannheimer while under contract for deed to Rainey. The warranty deed under those circumstances went directly to Olin Mannheimer as developer. The terms of the warranty deed were not identified in the record nor any explanation made of Mannheimer's awareness of the requirement for sewers if he had an impression of that requirement. Williams established that Rainey developed Mallard Point. As Williams describes, for the property between Mallard Point and Mallard Bluff that had been sold to Perry Bodin in which the parcels known as Kinhega Landing and Kinhega Oaks are found, together with Kinhega Estates and the Kinhega Lodge, title was released per warranty deed as acreage was paid off. Except for the last parcel within the Bodin contract for deed with Killearn, that parcel being associated with Kinhega Landing group of Respondents (Southern Heritage Development, Inc., Seay Enterprises, Inc. and Jimmy Boynton Realty, Inc.), Killearn gave warranty deeds directly to persons who purchased property that had been identified under the contract for deed between Bodin and Killearn. Killearn conveyed the Kinhega Landing parcel to Bodin by warranty deed. The terms of that warranty deed were not identified in the record. Killearn conveyed by warranty deed that property known as Kinhega Oaks. That conveyance was subject to restrictions, reservations, covenants and easements of record, if any. The conveyance to the Kinhega Oaks group of Respondents (Stephen John Stoutamire, Lewis Hill, Sr. and Lewis Hall, Jr.) took place on May 19, 1989. Kinhega Landing, Kinhega Oaks and Other Particulars The Kinhega Landing purchase by the present Respondents was based upon a deposit and receipt contract for sale and purchase between Bodin and his wife and James Jarrett followed by a warranty deed from Bodin and his wife to the Kinhega Landing group. No explanation is made concerning Jarrett's understanding of the need to provide sewers. The warranty deed to the Kinhega Landing group of Respondents was executed December 13, 1989, and refers to restrictions, easements, and reservations and covenants that are of record, if any. As with other conveyances and throughout the history of this project no reference to the development order could be found by a search of the Public Records. Neither does the deposit and receipt contract for sale and purchase identify the existence of the development order for the edification of the Kinhega Landing group. Killearn had no direct dealing with purchasers of property contemplated within the agreement for deed between Killearn and Bodin other than the act of preparing and delivering a warranty deed to the Kinhega Oaks group and others similarly situated who took title directly from Killearn based upon the agreement for deed between Killearn and Bodin. To the extent that the agreement for deed with Bodin may have informed the reader that Killearn had disclosed the nature of the requirement for provision of sewer as set forth in the development order, no indication was given in the record that someone other than Killearn may have then made the Kinhega Oaks and Kinhega Landing groups mindful of that caveat or that Bodin or someone that he was affiliated with otherwise disclosed the need to provide sewers for the parcels to be developed by the Kinhega Oaks and Kinhega Landing groups. Bodin is not named as a Respondent nor was he called as a witness in this hearing to explain his position in these matters. Likewise Rainey, Mannheimer and Jarrett are not parties nor were they called as witnesses. In that a warranty deed was given directly from Killearn to Kinhega Oaks, opportunity was presented by that conveyance for Killearn to have alerted the Kinhega Oaks group concerning the DRI and its terms, even if seen from Williams' viewpoint as principally being a favor to Bodin to avoid tax implications of a transfer from Bodin and thus to the Kinhega Oaks group. Although this opportunity was presented to Killearn to describe the existence of the requirements for sewer set out in the development order when making a direct conveyance to the Kinhega Oaks group, the warranty deed did not reveal that information and no discussion was entered into with Kinhega Oaks concerning any aspects of the purchase beyond the conveyance itself. Williams asserts in his testimony in further explanation of the events that Bodin would be responsible for arranging the furnishing of sewer to the Kinhega Landing group, but that Killearn would voluntarily arrange for that sewer service as a matter of a favor, not a matter of contract. This would be upon provision of the payment of 30 per cent of cost of the installation by Kinhega Landing to Talquin Electric. At hearing Williams offered to make a similar arrangement for the Kinhega Oaks group as Williams described as having been done for Rainey under his contract with Killearn, a contract not presented at hearing. Again, this contemplates that Kinhega Oaks would pay 30 per cent of the total costs and that Killearn would get all rebates that pertained for coverage of interest and carrying costs during the rebate period. Notwithstanding Killearn's offer to make these arrangements with Talquin Electric to provide sewer for the benefit of the subsequent developers, those arrangements have not been made. Nothing in the record establishes or suggests that the Kinhega Oaks group and the Kinhega Landing groups were aware of the existence of the development order and its requirement for installation of sewer contemporaneous with development when they purchased their parcels. Had they understood that requirement was incumbent upon them, they would not have undertaken the purchases and incurred debt obligations which they now are experiencing difficulties meeting, in part due to the possible outcome here which could prohibit development absent the contemporaneous installation of sewers. Petitioner argues that no authority exists to allow septic tanks at individual lot sites as an interim condition prior to sewer lines being made available in the areas undergoing development by Kinhega Oaks and Kinhega Landing. This is contrary to the attitude expressed by the county in granting preliminary plats to the two developers and individual permits for septic tank installation until sewer is made available, if that eventuality occurs. Raymond Richard Yates, Jr. testified. He is President of Southern Heritage Development Inc. and together with Jimmy Boynton Realty, Inc. and Seay Enterprises, Inc. owns the property known as Kinhega Landing. Those individuals became involved with the property through contacts between Yates and Jarrett. As alluded to, Jarrett did not tell Yates that the property was subject to the development order and its requirements for provision of sewer. At the inception of their dealings the Kinhega Landing group intended to substitute for Jarrett and his contract and to purchase the property if plat approval could be gained. The record is not clear about Jarrett's position with Bodin and Killearn beyond the previously described deposit and receipt contract for sale and purchase Bodin to Jarrett. The Kinhega Landing group arranged to have a search made of the Public Records of Leon County to discover any easement, development orders and/or restrictions affecting the property in question effective through December 13, 1989. That report of April 22, 1991, did not reveal the existence of the development order. On November 16, 1989, the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission voted to approve the preliminary plat for Kinhega Landing subject to conditions. This was in accordance with the county ordinance on recording subdivision plats that became effective in 1984. (Other developers in the area of Lake Iamonia within the DRI as described had undertaken development before passage of the ordinance.) Among those conditions was the requirement for mound type septic tank systems in lieu of ordinary septic tank systems where subsurface conditions would require the mounded approach. Another condition required that the Kinhega Estates Home Owners Association's covenants and restrictions would apply. A condition was established that homeowners would be required to hook up to a central sewer system if and when it became available. The Kinhega Landing group paid $240,000 for the land or an amount approximating that cost with a fee of $30,000 paid to Jarrett for the assignment of the contract. The Kinhega Landing group obtained a loan for $425,000 to develop the land. In furtherance of the project roads have been installed, clearing has been done and some holding facilities for stormwater runoff put in place. Other permits for development have been acquired to include environmental permits from the county and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. After plat approval and purchase, the Kinhega Landing group first discovered that the property was subject to the development order. In addition to the prohibition against the use of septic tanks contemplated by the notice of violation, the county has told the Kinhega Landing group that they may not proceed with development. At present the property in question, which is 29.71 acres with 44 lots and a unit density of 1.65 units per acre lies dormant. No septic tanks have been installed as this developer had anticipated doing. Yates testified that he is not in a financial position to address the sewer requirements in an instance where deposit money would have to be made available for that activity. His other partners have decided they no longer wish to participate and Yates is in jeopardy with his financing institution. On April 20, 1989, the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Commission voted to approve the preliminary plat for Kinhega Oaks. That parcel has an acreage of 11.87, with 15 lots of a unit density of 1.4 per acre. The preliminary plat has the same conditions that have been described for Kinhega Landing. Kinhega Oaks is owned by Stephen John Stoutamire, Lewis Hill, Sr. and Lewis Hill, Jr. The property was purchased through a real estate agency known as Rae Roeder Realty in the person of Bob Cole. The Kinhega Oaks group did not deal with Perry Bodin directly or anyone other than the realtor. The Kinhega Oaks group bought the property for purposes of development of single-family residential lots of approximately one-half acre size. Improvements intended to be installed included a county maintained road. They did not intend to install a central sewer system. The project contemplated the use of septic tanks. In furtherance of the project the purchasers paid approximately $100,000 and had site evaluations done on two lots that were in the most sensitive area of the project near Lake Iamonia. An engineering firm was hired to gain that preliminary plat approval. Title work was done. Closing on the property was contingent upon activities by the engineering firm, soil samples and title insurance. For the two lots which were the most sensitive in terms of use of septic tanks, soil studies were done and the necessary approvals were gained for the use of septic tanks. In purchasing the property, the Kinhega Oaks group relied upon the conditions for development which were set out in the preliminary plat, including allowances for septic tanks to be used on an interim basis. If the preliminary plat had not been approved, the Kinhega Oaks group would not have purchased the property, nor would they have purchased the property if they had been aware of the existence of the development order. They would not have developed if the studies related to the use of septic tanks had been adverse. Since the purchase of the property, a road has been built, and water service and underground electric service has been provided. A concrete ditch has also been put in place and sod. Approximately $40,000.00 has been expended on improvements. In pursing the project, necessary permits have been obtained. The closest available central sewer is approximately one mile away. To install the sewer system, it would be necessary to tear up the road and lay the sewer line in the middle and T-off on the sides and re-pave the road. Five lots have been sold in the subdivision. Two houses have been constructed and one is underway. All of those houses have septic tanks. The Kinhega Oaks purchasers became aware of the existence of the development order after making improvements and selling the five lots. The Kinhega Oaks group first became aware of the development order when served with a notice of violation. Under the orders for corrective action and the development order, the Kinhega Oaks group and the Kinhega Landing group are confronted with a requirement to provide sewer service within a year of a final order, if Petitioner's position is sustained. The Kinhega Oaks group understands that limits have been imposed on the installation of septic tanks. Had it realized that it would become necessary to place the sewer lines, it would not have purchased the property. If required to make the corrections that are contemplated by the Petitioner, Stephen Stoutamire on behalf of the Kinhega Oaks group, testified that he would "go broke". The County: Application of The Development Order Martin Patrick Black, the present Chief of Land Use Administration for the county, testified. He has held that position since December, 1989. He concedes that the ADA does not mention septic tanks. The person who was principally responsible for considering the applications for plat approval from Kinhega Landing and Kinhega Oaks is Wade Pitt, a planner for the county. He knew of the existence of the development order from when he was initially employed in 1983. He testified that Mallard Bluff, Mallard Point and Kinhega Estates existed before the subdivision regulations were passed in 1984 and did not need to obtain plat approval as was necessary with Kinhega Landing and Kinhega Oaks. This did not excuse development without provision of sewer service. When he reviewed the subject requests for preliminary plat approval after the ordinance was enacted, he referred to the development order and ADA, in addition to the county subdivision regulations. On the issue of sewage disposal, he concluded that the ADA stated that central sewer would be provided by phases in the DRI; however, provision of central sewer was predicated on availability. Given that central sewer was not available at the time that the plat approval was considered, he decided that septic tanks were an acceptable alternative to the installation of sewer until sanitary sewer became available. In effect, he believed septic tanks were an available and appropriate interim measure until sewer became available. His perceptions led to the above described conditions on wastewater treatment which were placed in the preliminary plat approval for both Kinhega Landing and Kinhega Oaks. His interpretation is erroneous. His position, as adopted by the county in the preliminary plat approvals, is incorrect in a setting in which the requirements announced in the development order/ADA are not fairly debatable. There is no allowance for septic tanks as an interim response, especially not when the contingency in the plat approvals is for provision of sewer only when it becomes available, if at all. This is as contrasted with the absolute requirement of sewer service at the project inception, when development commences, found in the development order. The record is devoid of any statement that someone other than the subsequent developers would make the necessary financial contribution to bring about sewer service in those areas which were not developed by Killearn. It appears unlikely that sewer service will become available in substitution for septic tanks under the present circumstances. To the extent that the applicant in responding to the questionnaire which formed the basis of the application considered alternative methods for wastewater treatment, those alternatives did not include septic tanks. The statement of how Killearn would respond to wastewater treatment did not set forth septic tanks as the means, even as an interim measure. For the county to perceive that the ADA/development order would allow septic tanks as an interim condition is contrary to reason and in contravention of the development order which it issued. More About Covenants and Restrictions On November 29, 1979, certain Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions for that portion of the DRI known as Mallard Point were recorded in the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. They are in substance the same as those associated with Kinhega Estates, Unit I, as recorded on December 21, 1982, and those for Kinhega Lodge recorded on February 23, 1987. All were recorded by Killearn as the developer and signed by J. T. Williams, as President of Killearn. The restrictive covenants by Killearn executed in 1979, 1982 and 1987 call for single-family residential development in an area of the DRI which was approved for condominium development. Kinhega Landing and Kinhega Oaks per the terms of the preliminary plats received by those developers must abide by the Kinhega Estates Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. Pursuant to the definitional section in that document, the term "improvements" includes sewers. Under Article IX, having to do with the preservation of the natural environment, lakes, and Green Areas at Section 5, the developer, Killearn, reserves the right for itself and successors and assigns to go over and around the ground to erect and maintain and use sewers and for other suitable equipment for conveyance and use of sewers in the Green Areas. Right is reserved to locate pumping stations and treatment plants in the Green Areas; however, the rights which may be exercised by the developer and any licensee of the developer, also referred to as the company, shall not be considered as an obligation of the company to provide or maintain the utility, in this dispute, the sewer service. In Section 9 of Article IX, further mention is made of the idea that the granting of the easement in no way places a burden of affirmative action on the developer, and the developer is not bound to make any of the improvements noted or to extend service of any kind. Article XVIII speaks specifically of sewage disposal where it says: "No individual sewage disposal system shall be permitted on any site unless such system is designed, located and constructed in accordance with the requirements, standards and recommendations of the State of Florida's Department of Pollution Control. Approval of such system as installed shall be obtained from such department or departments." These provisions fail to mandate the requirements for provision of sewer service by the original developer or subsequent developers. They also allow septic tanks in contravention of the development order. Other Departures Given the proposed stipulations in law among the parties in which consideration of the factual significance of those other departures from the terms of the development order is not anticipated, intricate treatment of those matters is not undertaken to examine the significance of these deviations from the development order. It suffices to say that the following improvements: the golf course known as Golden Eagle, the single-family residences in the vicinity of Lake Iamonia in lieu of the condominiums identified in the ADA, a school site under the ADA which has been converted to single-family residences in Golden Eagle Units 1 and 3, and the Television 40 site developed by Ton Realty Partnership in an area approved for a single-family residential development or a school site depart from the terms of the development order. Forgiveness Petitioner has not named individual lot owners who purchased property prior to the notice of violation as Respondents.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which: Requires Killearn to: comply with the requirements of the stipulation requiring an amendment to the development order incorporating the reduction in density from condominiums to single-family residences in the area bordering Lake Iamonia; the elimination of a school site in an area of residential development; the construction of a golf course and the construction of a television station in an area designated for a school site or alternatively for single-family residential development. provide written notice in all it sells for development by others after the date of the final order that a development order exists and that all new development must have contemporaneous sewer service, and if Killearn intends to broker the contract between Killearn and Talquin Electric as a means of meeting the central sewer requirement the purchaser must be made aware that Talquin Electric must be paid a deposit from the subsequent developer before Talquin Electric will undertake the project. record the development order/ADA and its amendments in the Public Records of Leon County, Florida. Requires the County to: amend the development order pursuant to the stipulation between the county and Killearn described at I.A. refrain from issuing any permits which would allow development in the DRI area not served by a central sewer, excepting those situations set forth in the conclusions of law. In those instances development permits could be issued to successors in interest. In the exceptional cases the permit should provide that the lot owner will be required to connect to a central sewer system when made available. faithfully fulfill the terms of its development order. dismisses the notice of violation against Kinhega Landing, Kinhega Oaks and Ton Realty Partnership. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On September 13, 1977, SFWMD advised Coquina by letter that "[a]t its September 8, 1977 meeting the Governing Board of this District gave Conceptual Approval of [Coquina's] surface water management plan . . . subject to the four special conditions found on page 15 of the District's staff report. . . [and an] additional special condition Joint exhibit No. 5. The first special condition found on page 15 of the District's staff report requires that complete construction plans be submitted, including "supporting calculations for all design elements not already submitted and any other plans necessary to assure adherence to the concept plan." Joint exhibit No. 2, page 15. The plan approved by SFWMD is designed to lower the water table in a 22 square mile area northwest of Lake Okeechobee in Okeechobee County. In its natural state, the land lies under water for part of the year. The corporate owner of the land has plans to subdivide it and sell residential lots, beginning with the four contiguous sections as to which the present application for a construction permit has been made. These four sections (phase I) lie north and south of each other in the western portion of the larger tract. The proposed construction would consist of digging ditches or swales paralleling existing and planned roads; building intersecting collector swales running north and south; installing ditch checks where swales intersect; dredging a retention pond into which the collector swales could empty at the south end of the phase I tract; digging an outfill ditch to channel water leaving the retention area for Ash Slough; and erecting a weir, between the retention area and the slough. Culverts through the weir would be equipped "with standard flash board risers in which the water level is regulated by stop logs which can be added or removed," Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 10, and the culverts would ordinarily serve as the route by which water from the retention area would reach Ash Slough. Under extremely wet conditions, however, water from the retention area could overflow the weir. The intervening petitioners own land on Ash Slough downstream from the retention area and adjacent to the southern boundary of the phase I tract. No formal studies of the likely effects of the proposed construction downstream were undertaken by Coquina or by SFWMD in evaluating Coquina's application. The surface water management plan given conceptual approval by SFWMD provides: The quantity of runoff flowing to the south through existing sloughs will be controlled to protect the downstream areas against flooding whereas at the present there is no control. The amount flowing to the existing sloughs to the south during the 25 yr. design storm will be limited to the amount flowing to those sloughs before any development takes place. Lesser storms will be more completely retained on the property. Controlled discharge will be provided from retention areas to the existing sloughs for the purpose of nourishing these streams. Coquina's exhibit No. 1, p. 1. (Emphasis supplied) Since no records of the amount of discharge to Ash Slough "before any development" are in existence, certain assumptions and estimates were made. One such assumption on which the application for construction permit proceeds is that the phase I tract all drains to the south, in its present state. In fact, some of the water now leaving the phase I tract travels in a westerly direction and never enters Ash Slough, at least under some weather conditions. If the proposed construction is accomplished, the phase I tract would all drain to the south through Ash Slough. As things now stand, a significant amount of water leaves the phase I tract by evapotranspiration. If the water table were lowered two and a half feet, which is what Coquina proposes, less water would leave the phase I tract by evapotranspiration, leaving more water to flow over the ground. In estimating the quantity of the anticipated discharge to Ash Slough, if the proposed construction takes place, it is necessary to take into account drainage onto the phase I tract from adjoining lands. Coquina has failed to furnish plans and supporting calculations sufficient to insure that the proposed construction will not increase the amount of flow to Ash Slough during the 25 year design storm. Increased flow to Ash Slough would aggravate downstream landowners' drainage problems, unless the slough could handle the additional flow, a question which the application does not address. The foregoing findings of fact should be read in conjunction with the statement required by Stuckey's of Eastman, Georgia v. Department of Transportation, 34O So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), which is attached as an appendix to the recommended order.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny Coquina's application for construction permit. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 APPENDIX Paragraph one of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except that the evidence did not demonstrate that downstream landowners would in fact be harmed. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six and seven of intervening Bass petitioners' proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph one of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact has been adopted, in substance, insofar as relevant, except for the date of the application. Paragraphs two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and thirteen of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, insofar as relevant. Paragraph ten of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact stated a conclusion of law, in part. While "testimony was presented that the construction of Phase I would have no substantial adverse affect [sic] on surrounding properties," the evidence as a whole did not establish this fact. Paragraphs eleven and twelve of respondent Coquina's proposed findings of fact have not been adopted because they were not established by the evidence, except for subparagraph eleven (f), which was proven. COPIES FURNISHED: John Henry Wheeler, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Robert Birenbaum, President Viking Communities Corporation (Coquina Water Management District) 123 Northeast 70 Street Miami, Florida 33138 Kyle S. Van Landingham, Esquire County Attorney Okeechobee County Courthouse Okeechobee, Florida 33472 Andrew B. Jackson, Esquire J.C. Bass & Bass Ranch, Inc. Post Office Box 488 Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Emerson Allsworth, Esquire 1177 Southeast Third Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Mr. Bob Wittenberg Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dr. Patrick M. McCaffrey Kissimmee Coordinating Council 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Stansbury Central Florida Regional Planning Council Post Office Box 2089 Bartow, Florida 33830
The Issue Whether the proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 28-20.110, 28-20.120, and 28-18.210 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. ("FKCC"), is a non-profit Florida corporation whose address is 10800 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida 33050. The primary purpose of FKCC is to "protect the quality of life of the citizens of the Florida Keys." The primary emphasis of the organization involves issues related to the carrying capacity, the limits of the infrastructure, and the environmental qualities of the Florida Keys. Consistent with its purpose, FKCC opposes regulations which it believes will diminish the quality of the natural habitat in Monroe County and the City of Marathon and hinder safe and efficient emergency evacuation. FKCC has been involved in previous Monroe County litigation, including participating as a party to at least two formal administrative challenges to the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Monroe County Comprehensive Plan). Petitioner, Last Stand, Inc., is a non-profit Florida corporation whose address is Post Office Box 146, Key West, Florida 33041-0146. The primary purpose of Last Stand is to preserve and protect the quality of life in the City of Key West, the Florida Keys, and their environs, with particular emphasis on the natural environment. To that end, Last Stand opposes regulations that it believes diminishes the quality of the natural habitat in the Florida Keys and regulations that hinder safe and efficient emergency evacuation in the Florida Keys. Last Stand is an organizational member of FKCC. Moreover, many individual members of Last Stand are also members of FKCC. A substantial number of members of both FKCC and Last Stand live, work, and/or engage in various recreational activities in the City of Marathon or in nearby areas. For example, a substantial number of members of both of those organizations regularly use and enjoy the nearshore waters of Monroe County for recreational water activities, such as boating, diving, snorkeling, and/or swimming.3 A substantial number of members of both organizations also regularly use and enjoy terrestrial habitats in Monroe County, including the City of Marathon, for recreational activities such as hiking and bird-watching. A substantial number of the members of both FKCC and Last Stand may be adversely affected or impacted by the issues which are in dispute in this proceeding. Moreover, the issues in this proceeding are germane to the purposes of both FKCC and Last Stand. Also, both FKCC and Last Stand regularly represent their members' interests in formal administrative hearings and local commission meetings relative to environmental and growth management issues. Respondent, Administration Commission, consists of the Governor and Cabinet and is empowered to adopt, by rule, any enactment, amendment, or rescission of a land development regulation or element of a local comprehensive plan in the Florida Keys area. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local county government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern ("ACSC"). Respondent, City of Marathon, is a municipality within the Florida Keys ACSC. Intervenor, the DCA, is the state land planning agency responsible for the general supervision of the administration and enforcement of the ACSC program. As the state planning agency, the DCA is authorized to propose changes to local comprehensive plans and land development regulations within an ACSC for adoption by the Administration Commission. Economic Base of Florida Keys Tourism is the economic base of the Florida Keys. Moreover, the basis for the Florida Keys' tourism is a healthy natural environment that supports fishing, diving, water sports, boating, bird-watching habitat, visiting endangered species habitat, and other related activities. History of the Florida Keys ACSC The Florida Keys area is designated as an ACSC and consists of, unincorporated, Monroe County, the City of Layton, the City of Key Colony Beach, the Village of Islamorada, and the City of Marathon. See § 380.0552(3), Fla. Stat. (2004).4 The City of Key West has been separately designated as an ACSC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 28-36. The Florida Keys were originally designated by the Administration Commission in 1975 and re-designated by the Legislature in 1986. The legislative intent section and the Principles for Guiding Development, as set forth in Subsections 380.0552(2) and (7), Florida Statutes, together require an effective land use management system that protects the natural environment and character of the Florida Keys, maintains acceptable water quality conditions, ensures adequate public facility capacity and services, provides adequate affordable housing, supports a sound economic base, protects constitutional property rights, and requires adequate emergency and post- disaster planning to ensure public safety. During the past 20 years, the growth management process has been implemented in essentially two phases. The first phase involved developing, adopting, and implementing the first comprehensive plans and regulations under the new designation. These plans and regulations were adopted by the county and cities in the mid-1980s. The 1986 plan established a growth management system that substantially increased protection of natural resources and began to reduce the over-allocation of density in the Florida Keys. It also achieved the long-term protection of North Key Largo. However, several major problems were not adequately addressed by the 1986 plan, including maintaining evacuation capability, water quality protection, sewage treatment, stormwater treatment, and community character. In addition, although the plan required a focal point plan for Big Pine Key, this planning process did not result in a viable plan that adequately protected the Florida Keys deer. The required open space ratios proved difficult to maintain within habitats once development occurred, resulting in fragmentation of habitat. The second phase involved the planning process undertaken in the early 1990s to meet the requirements of the Growth Management Act and to update the plan based on lessons learned in implementing the 1986 plan. In developing, reviewing, and litigating the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the following critical issues emerged involving how to: maintain acceptable hurricane evacuation capability; retrofit existing development and provide new development with adequate wastewater and storm water facilities, including, where appropriate, upgrading of on-site systems; determine the carrying capacity of the Keys to withstand the impacts of additional land development and modify state and local plans, regulations and programs so that the carrying capacity is not exceeded; provide an adequate supply of affordable housing while maintaining acceptable hurricane evacuation and protecting the environment. In 1996, the Administration Commission adopted a rule which included a cap of 255 residential units per year for Monroe County. The rule also adopted a five-year Work Program into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan with the local governments to construct sewage treatment facilities, replace cesspits, and purchase land to protect natural habitat. Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the DCA were required to submit reports to the Administration Commission each year "documenting the degree to which the Work Program objectives for that year [had] been achieved." The rule contemplated that if the local governments did not make "substantial progress" towards accomplishing the tasks of the Work Program, the unit cap for new residential permits would be reduced by at least 20 percent for the following year. The Administration Commission found a lack of "substantial progress" in 1999 and adopted a rule which reduced the annual allocation of residential permits by 20 percent and extended the five-year Work Program to seven years. The Administration Commission found "substantial progress" had been accomplished in 2001 and began rulemaking to restore the permit allocation. However, the rule was challenged, and since the Administration Commission found a lack of "substantial progress" in 2002, the Commission adopted a revised rule which did not restore permits. The Carrying Capacity Study The 1996 Administration Commission rule amended the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to require the completion of a carrying capacity analysis. The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities. The analysis shall be based upon the findings adopted by the Administration Commission on December 12, 1995, or more recent data that may become available in the course of the study, and shall be based upon the benchmarks of, and all adverse impacts to, the Keys land and water natural systems, in addition to the impact of nutrients on marine resources. The carrying capacity analysis shall consider aesthetic, socioeconomic (including sustainable tourism), quality of life and community character issues, including the concentration of population, the amount of open space, diversity of habitats, and species richness. The analysis shall reflect the interconnected nature of the Florida Keys' natural systems, but may consider and analyze the carrying capacity of specific islands or groups of islands and specific ecosystems or habitats, including distinct parts of the Keys' marine system. (Ref. 1991 Stip. Settlement Agreement). Agencies: County, DCA, DEP, DOH, DOT, GFC, SFWMD, NMS, SFRPC, EPA, USFWS, Army COE, and other interested parties to include representatives of environmental organizations and development interests. The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study ("FKCCS") was completed over a period of six years. Six million dollars was allocated by the DCA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to produce the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, the Stormwater Management Plan, and the FKCCS. The contractor, URS Corporation, completed the FKCCS and the Carrying Capacity/Impact Assessment Model ("CCIAM"), a separate component to be used in forecasting land use scenarios. A panel of external experts was used to peer review the scope of work. In September 2002, the study was completed. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences ("Council") reviewed the CCIAM and FKCCS and, as a result of its review, adjustments were made to the CCIAM. The Council's review concluded that overall, due to data constraints and other issues in certain portions of the CCIAM, the model proved insufficient to develop a comprehensive carrying capacity framework that would allow for undisputable determinations of whether future development scenarios fall within the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys. The marine module, the most data- deficient, was subsequently removed from the CCIAM. The FKCCS recommended four main guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys: Prevent encroachment into native habitat. A wealth of evidence shows that terrestrial habitats and species have been severely affected by development and further impacts would only exacerbate an already untenable condition. Continue and intensify existing programs. Many initiatives to improve environmental conditions and quality of life exist in the Florida Keys. They include land acquisition programs, the wastewater and stormwater master plans, ongoing research and management activities in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and restoration efforts throughout the Florida Keys. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. Opportunities for additional growth with small, potentially acceptable, additional environmental impacts may occur in areas ripe for redevelopment or already disturbed. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Habitat management efforts in the Keys could increase to effectively preserve and improve the ecological values of remaining terrestrial ecosystems. Partnership Agreement While preparing the Assessment Report for 2003, the DCA Secretary concluded that the existing policy direction, consisting of imposition of the Work Program by the Administration Commission and reduction of residential permits, due to lack of substantial progress, was not sufficient to solve the problems facing the Florida Keys. The Assessment Report described difficulties and delays in implementing the Work Program. Most of the sewage treatment facilities contemplated by the Work Program were not constructed and valuable upland habitat continued to be developed. On December 16, 2003, the Administration Commission concluded that Monroe County had not made substantial progress and directed the DCA "to determine changes that would be necessary to the comprehensive plan to fully implement the requirements of the Work Program[,] as well as habitat protection provisions." The Administration Commission also accepted the staff recommendation that it "determine substantial progress has been made for the City of Marathon, and that some permits will be provided back to the City of Marathon," the number to be determined at the Administration Commission's January 27, 2004, meeting. The DCA approached the Florida Keys local governments and community-based organizations and proposed a Partnership Agreement to "begin implementation of the Work Program associated with the Florida Keys Protection Act." The DCA Secretary addressed the governing boards of the Florida Keys' local governments concerning the proposed Partnership Agreement. Monroe County, the City of Marathon, and the Village of Islamorada adopted resolutions supporting the partnership proposal. By letter dated February 25, 2004, the DCA Secretary requested that the Governor, as a member of the Administration Commission, authorize the Administration Commission staff to initiate rulemaking to amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon. According to the letter, this action was requested based upon a series of significant commitments made by each of these local governments which addressed issues related to habitat protection, affordable housing, wastewater and stormwater management projects, land acquisition, and nutrient credits. The letter also noted the following: A complete follow-through on these commitments would mean over $410 million would be spent in the coming years to address these issues in the Florida Keys. Habitat protection will be increased, environmentally-sensitive hammock and pinelands would be purchased, new wastewater and stormwater management projects would be initiated, and 230 units of affordable housing would be made available for residents of the Florida Keys. * * * In essence, we have developed proposals that allow additional units primarily for affordable housing in the Florida Keys, but also would ensure the most pressing issues will be jointly addressed by local and state government. Consistent with the February 25, 2004, letter, the Partnership Agreement consists of commitments by the Florida Keys' local governments and several state agencies to address habitat protection, wastewater and stormwater treatment, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation. At its March 9, 2004, meeting, the Administration Commission accepted the DCA's recommendation to initiate rulemaking to implement the Partnership Agreement. The Proposed Rules 29. Proposed Rules 28-18.210, 28-20.110, and 28-20.120 were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 16, 2004.5 According to the published notice, the purpose of Proposed Rule 28-18.210 is to amend Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan to address building permit allocations by increasing the annual residential permitting cap and specifying allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, restoring certain allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, authorizing certain unused rate of growth ordinance allocations to roll forward, and deleting the requirement for nutrient credits upon a date certain. The notice also provides that the Proposed Rule amends the Work Program set forth in Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan to establish Year Eight and Year Nine to address tasks not yet completed in the original Work Program. The published notice states that the purpose of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-20.120 is to amend Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to address building permit allocations by increasing the annual residential permitting cap and specifying allocations authorized for market rate and affordable housing, restoring certain allocations previously reduced to be targeted for affordable housing, authorizing certain unused rate of growth ordinance allocations to roll forward, and deleting the requirement for nutrient reduction credits upon a date certain. The notice also provides that the proposed rules amend the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to establish Work Program provisions for Year Eight, Year Nine, and Year Ten to address tasks not yet completed in the original Work Program. Finally, the notice states that the Proposed Rule amendments address the adoption of necessary land development regulations. The published notice cites Subsection 380.0552(9), Florida Statutes, as the specific authority for the Administration Commission's promulgating the Proposed Rules and Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, as the law implemented. Petitioners challenge portions of Proposed Rule 28-18.210, which will amend the Marathon Comprehensive Plan and portions of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-20.120,6 which will amend the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Regulations on the basis that they constituted invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners contend that the proposed rules should comply with Section 380.0552 and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, should be analyzed for such compliance in this proceeding. Notwithstanding Petitioners contention to the contrary, for the reason stated in paragraph 199 below, Proposed Rules 28-18.210, 28-20.110, and 28-20.120 will be analyzed based on their consistency with Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, because that is the provision which the proposed rules explicitly purport to implement. The published notice does not specify the subsection of Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, that the proposed rules implement. However, the parties agree that the proposed rules must be consistent with Subsection 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, which set forth the Principles for Guiding Development. Restoration/Increase of ROGO Allocations The Comprehensive Plans for Monroe County and the City of Marathon include a Permit Allocation System, under which Monroe County was originally allocated 255 permits per year for new residential units. As noted in paragraph 18 above, in 1999, the Administration Commission determined that substantial progress on the Work Program had not been accomplished and adopted a rule reducing the annual allocation of permits by 20 percent. After the incorporation of the Village of Islamorada and Marathon, and a voluntary reduction by the Village of Islamorada, the current annual allocation of residential development permits is 158 for Monroe County, 24 for Marathon, and 14 for the Village of Islamorada. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(1) amends Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by increasing the annual unit cap of 158 to 197, thereby restoring the original level of permits issued for new residential development under the Rate of Growth Ordinance ("ROGO"). The proposed rule requires that "[e]ach year's ROGO allocation of 197 new units shall be split with a minimum of 71 units allocated for affordable housing in perpetuity and market rate allocations not to exceed 126 new units per year." Proposed Rule 28-18.210 amends Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan by increasing the maximum number of permits for new residential units from 24 to 30 per year, thereby, restoring the original level of permits per year for new residential development under ROGO. The proposed rule requires that "[e]ach year's ROGO allocation of 30 units shall consist of 24 market rate and 6 affordable units" and that the affordable housing "remain as affordable housing in perpetuity." In addition to restoring the number of permits for new development to the original levels, Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Marathon to restore available permit allocations that were unused in previous years and to allow unused ROGO allocations to be allocated in subsequent years. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 adds a new provision to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, providing that "effective July 12, 2004, 140 ROGO allocations, which represent unused reductions for ROGO Years Nine through 12, and 25 units lost in Year Ten due to lack of nutrient credits, are reallocated to the County exclusively for affordable housing purposes." Proposed Rule 28-18.210 adds a provision to the Marathon Comprehensive Plan that "effective July 12, 2004, 65 ROGO allocations, which represent unused ROGO allocations for ROGO Years 9 through 12, are to be reallocated to the City exclusively for affordable housing." Advancing/Borrowing Nutrient Credits The existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon include a nutrient credit system. According to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, nutrient reduction credits are earned when existing treatment systems are upgraded. The amount of nutrient reduction credits earned correlate to the type of treatment system to which an old system is upgraded. Thus, if a treatment system is upgraded to the "best centralized system" or the "advanced wastewater treatment system," Monroe County would earn the most nutrient credits possible. For example, elimination of a cesspit by connection to a centralized advanced wastewater treatment system earns 1.5 nutrient credits, and the elimination of a substandard on-site disposal system by connection to a centralized secondary treatment system earns 0.5 nutrient credits. Under the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon, development permits for new residential development can only be issued if a nutrient reduction credit has been earned. The requirement that adequate nutrient credits be earned prior to issuance of permits is to mitigate for nutrient impacts of new residential development. However, Proposed Rules 28-18.210 and 28-20.110 provide that Monroe County and the City of Marathon will be permitted to "borrow" nutrient credits from the pool of nutrient credits that are anticipated from the construction and/or completing of sewage treatment facilities. The existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon provide that nutrient reduction credits are earned by the construction of the Little Venice system according to the schedules prescribed in the Comprehensive Plans. The schedules in the Comprehensive Plans provide that "213 of the total credits estimated to be available from the full operation of the system shall be earned when the wastewater permit is issued, the design/build contract for the system has been fully executed and construction of the system has commenced." The Comprehensive Plans also provide that all the remaining available credits shall be earned when the construction of the Little Venice System is complete, the collection system lines have been installed, and the final total of credits available from the operation of the systems has been calculated. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Marathon by allowing 213 of the total credits estimated to be available from the full operation of the Little Venice system to be earned, effective July 13, 2003. The proposed rules also provide that when the Little Venice system is completed, "[t]he total credits available shall be reduced by the 213 [credits] advanced in the year 2003." Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by allocating 41 nutrient credits for market rate units and 193 nutrient credits for affordable housing units to Monroe County. The Proposed Rule 28-20.110 provides that the 41 nutrient credits will be subtracted from the nutrient credits subsequently earned from hookups to the Key West Resort Utilities Wastewater Facility ("Key West Resort Utilities"). The 193 nutrient credits will be subtracted from hookups to the Key West Resort Utilities, Bay Point, and Key Largo Wastewater Facilities. Repeal of Nutrient Reduction Provision As described in paragraph 42 above, the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon have mandatory nutrient provisions that require nutrient credits to be earned prior to issuance of a permit for new residential units. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 amend the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon by repealing the mandatory nutrient credit provisions. Pursuant to the proposed rules, "effective July 13, 2005, no nutrient credits shall be required if the local government has made satisfactory progress as determined by the Administration Commission in meeting the deadlines established by the Work Program as adopted by rule after March 15, 2004." Challenges to Increase/Restoration of Permits, Advancing Nutrient Credits, and Repeal of Nutrient Reduction Provision Petitioners contend that the increase in new residential permits is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it will increase development even though the identified thresholds for growth in the Florida Keys--water quality, terrestrial habitat, and evacuation times-- have been exceeded and will "worsen" the water quality. Petitioners challenge the provision which allows the borrowing or awarding of nutrient credits before wastewater projects are completed as arbitrary and capricious, because it will allow a net increase in the nutrient impacts into the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys and will "worsen" the water quality. Proposed Rules 28-20.110(1) and 28-18.210 increase the number of permits for new residential units from the preceding years. However, the number of permits to be issued under the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan has not increased. Rather, the permits will be issued in a shorter time frame and without being subject to the previous conditions. Even though increased development could result in an increase in the nutrient impacts into the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys, the adverse effect of such nutrient loading is offset by the adequate treatment of wastewater and stormwater runoff. To address the problem of nutrient loading, the Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 extend the years of the Work Programs and include in those programs tasks, such as construction and completion of wastewater facilities, as well as financing for those projects. Based on the commitments of Monroe County and the City of Marathon in the Partnership Agreement, there is a reasonable expectation that the projects included in the Work Program of the Proposed Rules will be completed. When completed, the wastewater treatment facilities will provide nutrient credits. In anticipation of the completion of the wastewater treatment facilities, Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 restore the annual permits for new residential units to their original levels and allow previous unused ROGO allocations to be allocated. The Proposed Rules provide that the nutrient credits for these allocations will be borrowed from the pool of nutrient credits that are anticipated from the planned construction and completion of wastewater facilities. Petitioners' contention that the repeal of the mandatory nutrient reduction credit provision is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because such repeal allows the water quality to worsen, is inconsistent with the "no net nutrient" provision of the Comprehensive Plans and is unjustified given that the nutrient pollution has increased since the nutrient credit provisions were adopted. Petitioners also contend that the repeal of the nutrient credit provision is arbitrary and capricious because the repeal is effective on a date certain without further action and without regard for whether it is justified. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28.18-210 repeal the mandatory nutrient reduction credit provisions of the Comprehensive Plans, but the condition precedent to the repeal is the Administration Commission's making a determination that Monroe County and the City of Marathon have "made satisfactory progress . . . in meeting deadlines established by the [new] Work Program." This determination must be made prior to the repeal going into effect. Presumably, the tasks in the Work Program for which satisfactory progress must be made are those relevant and reasonably related to and which result in nutrient credits. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the repeal of the mandatory nutrient credit provision does not automatically become effective on the date prescribed in the proposed amendments. Instead, the repeal is contingent on Monroe County's and the City of Marathon's making "satisfactory progress." The term "satisfactory" is not vague as asserted by Petitioners. In the context of Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210, "satisfactory" would be given its common and ordinary meaning, which is "sufficient to meet a demand or requirement."7 Annual Reporting Requirement The existing Comprehensive Plans for Monroe County and the City of Marathon provide that "beginning September 30, 2003, and each year thereafter, [the respective local government] Monroe County and the [DCA] shall report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the Work Program objectives have been achieved." Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210, will modify the annual reporting requirements in the Monroe County and Marathon Comprehensive Plans. The proposed amended provision, which is underlined, and the existing provision are as follows: Beginning September 30, 2003, and each year of the work program thereafter, Monroe County and the Department of Community Affairs shall report to the Administration Commission documenting the degree to which the work program objectives for that year have been achieved. The report for years seven and eight shall be combined and provided to the Administration Commission by September 30, 2005. The Commission shall consider the findings and recommendations provided in those reports and shall determine whether substantial progress has been achieved toward accomplishing the tasks of the work program. Petitioners contend that the proposed rules, which delete the requirement for Monroe County and for the City of Marathon to submit the September 2004 progress report to the Administration Commission, are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners assert that by deleting the requirement for the 2004 annual progress report, the proposed rules fail to establish an annual safeguard that is required to ensure that the environmental conditions and infrastructure limitation that the annual Work Program is designed to resolve, do not worsen. The proposed rules delete the requirement that Monroe County and Marathon submit their respective reports in September 2004 and delay submission of that report by a year. The time spent negotiating the Partnership Agreement and the proposed changes to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plans and the Land Development Regulations left little time for Monroe County and the City of Marathon to implement the new Work Programs. Moreover, the DCA and the Administration Commission would have had too short a time period in which to judge whether Monroe County and Marathon had made substantial progress. By combining the reports for Years Seven and Eight of the Work Program, the Administration Commission can expect a meaningful report on Monroe County's and the City of Marathon's progress in implementing their respective Work Programs. Monroe County Work Program Under Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends the Work Program Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by adding Years Eight, Nine, and Ten to the existing Work Program. Many of the tasks included therein address and are related to wastewater facilities, habitat protection, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation and implement the Partnership Agreement. Year Eight of the Work Program requires that Monroe County and other designated agencies perform the specified tasks and provide, in relevant part, the following: Year Eight (July 13, 2004 through July 12, 2005) Review and revise (as necessary) the Conservation and Natural Areas Map. Initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the Conservation and Natural Areas identified as worthy of protection. Begin public hearings for Conservation and Natural Areas boundaries. Conclude public hearings for the adoption of the amended Conservation and Natural Areas Boundaries. Adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a Conservation and Natural Area. Adopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index, and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands. Amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of Conservation and Natural Areas (Tier 1) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the Natural Areas (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County. Develop Land Acquisition and Management Master Plan and address both funding and management strategies. Provide $40 million in financing secured by infrastructure tax for wastewater facilities. Begin construction of wastewater plants or laying of collection lines for Baypoint, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park. Ensure the connection for up to 1,350 EDUs [equivalent development units] at Stock Island to Key West Resort Utilities. Complete the Lower Keys and Key Largo feasibility study. Complete projects identified in the Storm Water Management Master Plan. Evaluate and implement strategies to ensure that affordable housing remains affordable in perpetuity for future generations. Establish a partnership with non-profit organizations in order to construct affordable housing using additional state funds. Identify potential acquisition sites for affordable housing proposals and include in the Land Acquisition Master Plan. Provide up to $10 million in bond financing from the Tourist Impact Tax for acquisition of land for workforce housing and affordable housing sites. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and, thereby, reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. As discussed below, several of the tasks in Year Eight of the Work Program implement parts of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Goal 105 reads: Monroe County shall undertake a comprehensive land acquisition program and smart growth initiatives in conjunction with its Livable CommuniKeys Program in a manner that recognizes the finite capacity for new development in the Florida Keys by providing economic and housing opportunities for residents without compromising the biodiversity of the natural environment and the continued ability of the natural and man-made systems to sustain livable communities in the Florida Keys for future generations. Goal 105, also referred to as the "Smart Growth Goal," provides a framework to implement the FKCCS and a 20-year land acquisition program. The initial phase of implementing Goal 105 calls for the drafting and adoption of "Tier Maps" to be used as guidance for the Monroe County's Land Acquisition Program. Pursuant to Policy 105.2.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Tier maps will designate and map properties into one of the following three general categories for purposes of Monroe County's Land Acquisition Program and the smart growth initiatives: Natural Area (Tier I); Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II); and Infill Area (Tier III). Tier I property is property where all or a significant portion of the land is characterized as environmentally sensitive by policies of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and applicable habitat conservation plan. Tier I is to be designated as a Natural Area. New development is to be severely restricted in Tier I. Tier II is any geographic property where scattered groups and fragments of environmentally-sensitive lands, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, may be found and where subdivisions are not predominantly developed. New development is to be discouraged in Tier II, which is to be designated as Transition and Sprawl Area. Tier III is property where a significant portion of land is not characterized as environmentally sensitive, as defined by the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, where existing platted subdivisions are substantially developed, served by complete infrastructure facilities, within close proximity to established commercial areas or where a concentration of non-residential uses exist. New development and re-development are to be highly encouraged in Tier III, which is to be designated as Infill Area. Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires Monroe County to "review and revise [as necessary] the Conservation and Natural Areas ["CNA"] Map, vests unbridled discretion to the County to amend the CNA map without adequate standards or criteria." Further, Petitioners assert that Task A does not identify the purpose for which the CNA map is to be used. Based on this assertion, Petitioners contend that Task A is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes law. Task A will assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by requiring Monroe County to review and revise the CNA map. In reviewing Task A, it is clear that the county must adhere to the criteria prescribed in Goal 105 of the existing Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. When Task A is read together with Goal 105 and its related policies, it is clear that the purpose of Task A is to provide guidance for the Monroe County Land Acquisition Program. As a part of the review and revision process, the Partnership Agreement, which Task A implements, provides that the Monroe County staff should prepare the CNA map utilizing Florida Marine Source Resources Institute ADID maps, the most recent aerial photographs, site visits as necessary, and obtain input from DCA and the public. Moreover, when Task A is read with Task B, and other relevant parts of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, it is clear that a CNA map is to be used to implement Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which is related to land acquisition and "smart growth initiatives." Petitioners assert that Task B, which requires Monroe County to "initiate acquisition strategy for lands identified outside the [CNA] boundaries," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it provides no standards or criteria. Task B is consistent with Policy 105.2.1 of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The Partnership Agreement consistent with Goal 105 provides that Monroe County will identify lands outside the CNA boundaries for acquisition and target for purchase appropriate environmentally-sensitive lands that are contained within upland habitat of two acres or more outside the CNA. Task C requires Monroe County to "begin public hearings for [CNA]." Task D requires Monroe County to conclude the public hearings for adoption of the amended [CNA] boundaries. Petitioners contend that Tasks C and D are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented, because they do not require that an end result be achieved as a result of these public meetings. When the provisions of Task C and Task D are read together, with Goal 105 and the relevant provisions of the Partnership Agreement, it is clear that the end result sought as a result of the public hearings is to receive public comment regarding the identification of lands to be included in the CNA. Furthermore, this is a reasonable meaning of Tasks C and D in light of the well-known purpose of public hearings. Petitioners challenge Task E, which requires Monroe County to "adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involves the clearing of any portion of an upland tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two or more acres in size located within a [CNA]." The purpose of the moratorium is to prevent impacts to native habitat until Monroe County adopts permanent regulations and amendments. Petitioners contend that Task E of Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "adopt an ordinance to implement a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications that involve the clearing of any portion of an upland hardwood hammock or pinelands habitat contained in a tropical hardwood hammock or pinelands patch of two acres or more . . . within a [CNA]," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that the criteria for the interim ordinance required fails to protect all hammock and pineland, does not protect enough hammock to ensure that the carrying capacity of the Florida Keys terrestrial habitat to sustain degradation and loss is not exceeded, does not require that the interim protections last until replaced by permanent ones, and does not apply to ROGO-exempt allocations. The criteria for the interim ordinance required by Task E is reasonable and will result in strengthening habitat protection in the areas specified in that provision. The fact that Task E authorizes the adoption of an ordinance that protects less than "all" hammock and pineland, does not make the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious, nor does the proposed rule contravene the law implemented. Petitioners contend that Task F, which requires Monroe County to "[a]dopt amendments to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations to enact overlay designations, and eliminate or revise the Habitat Evaluation Index ["HEI"], and modify the ROGO/NROGO system to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners claim that the standard set forth in Task F, "to guide development away from environmentally sensitive lands," is no more specific than is statutory language. Petitioners assert that the proposed rule should specify (1) habitat types, patch sizes and other characteristics of the areas to which regulations will apply, and (2) the exact nature of the regulation (i.e. a prohibition on direct or secondary impacts, the application of negative points or open space rations, etc.) that will be relied upon to guide development away from such areas. Task F requires Monroe County to adopt amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to enact the overlay designations requiring Monroe County to implement Policy 105.2.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Task F will implement Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. This task will identify areas to which future development will be directed. Also, the overlay designations will give property owners more certainty with respect to whether they can or cannot develop their property. The requirement in Task F, that the HEI be reviewed or eliminated, is reasonable in light of Goal 105 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The HEI is currently used by Monroe County to evaluate the environmental sensitivity of land and its suitability for development and acquisition. The HEI requires lot-by-lot evaluations, which fail to take into account secondary impact of development and has resulted in the loss of valuable habitat. The Tier System in Goal 105 is designed to move Monroe County away from the existing HEI. Implementation of Goal 105 requires that the existing HEI be eliminated or revised. Task G of Year Eight of the Work Program requires Monroe County to "amend land development regulations to prohibit the designation of [CNA] (Tier 1) as a receiver site for ROGO exempt development from sender sites; and to further limit clearing of upland native habitat that may occur in the [CNA] (Tier I) and the Transition and Sprawl Reduction Area (Tier II) upon designation by the County." Petitioners contend that Task G is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it fails to permanently protect even that habitat which Monroe County claims is most important to protect, allows the geographic scope of the contemplated rules to be defined in the future without stated criteria or standards, and allows an unnecessary delay in the adoption of protections which the data and legal requirements demonstrate should have been adopted two years earlier. Task G is intended to strengthen protection of habitat by adopting land development regulations to prohibit development in specified areas and to further limit clearing in designated areas. Goal 105, specifically, provides guidance as to the standards that such regulations must follow in Policy 105.2.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners contend that Task K of Year Eight of the Work Program requiring Monroe County to ensure the connection for up to 1,350 units at Stock Island to Key West Resort Utilities, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners charge that the requirement in the proposed rule is vague and could be met by simply connecting one home to the referenced wastewater utility to remedy a documented, serious water quality problem. When the purpose of Task K is considered, the reasonable meaning of the provision is that the task requires that Monroe County connect approximately 1,350 units to the designated facility. Petitioners contend that Task M of Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "complete projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. In support of this contention, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule does not identify the name or number of stormwater projects that are to be completed. Petitioners argue that by referring only to "projects," without specifying the name or number of the projects to be completed, the Proposed Rule may require that only a minimum of two projects be completed. The reasonable interpretation of Task M is that Monroe County is required to complete all the remaining projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan. This meaning is supported by a review of related tasks in the previous years of the Work Program. For example, Year Six of the Work Program required Monroe County and other designated agencies to "initiate construction of selected projects as identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan." Year Seven of the Work Program required that Monroe County and other agencies "continue implementing selected projects identified in the Stormwater Management Master Plan." Petitioners contend that Task P in Year Eight of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "provide up to $10 million in bond financing from the Tourist Impact Tax for acquisition of land for workforce housing and affordable housing sites," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners claim that Task P sets a vague requirement which could be met by simply providing $1.00 in bond financing to provide a need which the State and Monroe County claim is important enough to justify the permitting increase allowed by Proposed Rules 28-18.210 and 28-20.110. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the requirement to provide $10 million in bond financing could not be met by providing $1.00 in bond financing. The $10 million figure represents the approximate amount of bond financing that will be provided. For the reasons stated above, it is not possible to include an exact amount in this Work Program requirement. The Work Program for Year Nine provides that the following tasks be done between July 13, 2005, through July 12, 2006: In coordination with the Florida Key Aquaduct Authority and Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees. Secure site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Petitioners contend that Task A for Year Nine for the Work Program, which requires that Monroe County, "in coordination with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and the Key Largo Sewer District, initiate the process to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires that Monroe County only "initiate" the process necessary to obtain the required bond financing, and does not require that the funds be secured and dedicated to actual improvements, delays funding to remedy a critical water quality problem. The reasonable meaning of the provision in Task A, that Monroe County will initiate the process to obtain "80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees," is that Monroe County will take all steps legally necessary to accomplish obtaining the bond financing. Petitioners contend that Task B of Year Nine of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County to "secure a site for lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem. Task B reasonably requires that one of the first steps that must be taken prior to constructing any wastewater facility is to secure a site. Irrespective of the need for the wastewater facilities specified in Task B, unless a site is secured, no construction can occur. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(1), which amends Policy of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by adding Year Ten to the Work Program, provides the following: Year Ten (July 13, 2006 through July 12, 2007) Award Contract for design, construction, and operation of lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Begin construction of the lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants. Initiate connections to lower keys and Key Largo wastewater systems. Complete construction and hookups for Bay Point, Conch Key and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park. Obtain $80M in bond financing secured by connection fees Petitioners contend that Task A, which requires Monroe County to award a contract for design, construction, and operation of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem. Petitioners also contend that Task D, which requires that construction and hookups for specified areas be completed, and Task E, which requires Monroe County to obtain $80 million in bond financing secured by connection fees, are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented. That Tasks A, D, and E are required to be completed in Year Ten of the Work Program, between July 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, is reasonable in view of the steps that must be taken prior to completing the responsibilities provided in those tasks. Petitioners contend that Task B, which requires Monroe County to "begin construction of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo Trailer Village/Key Largo Park wastewater plants" between July 13, 2006, and July 12, 2007, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that this portion of Proposed Rule 28-20.110 delays an important remedy to a critical water quality problem and does not require the completion of construction or the hookup and operation of the necessary facility. Task B of the Work Program, to begin construction of the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater plants, reasonably and logically follows the task in the preceding work year that required Monroe County to secure a site for the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities. Given this chronology, it is reasonable that Task B does not require that the specified wastewater facilities be completed and fully operational the same year that construction begins. Petitioners contend that Task C of Year Ten of the Work Program, which requires Monroe County and Largo Sewer District to "initiate connections to lower Keys and Key Largo wastewater systems," is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners assert that Task C does not require the completion of connections and operation of the system, but requires only the undefined "initiation" of connections. Task C, which requires Monroe County to "initiate connections" to the lower Florida Keys and Key Largo wastewater facilities, is not arbitrary and capricious. Given the purpose of this task, this provision reasonably requires Monroe County to begin connecting units to the wastewater facilities. Even without a precise number, the reviewing agencies can evaluate the Work Program for Year Ten, including Task C, and determine if Monroe County has made substantial progress. City of Marathon Work Program Under Proposed Rules Proposed Rule 28-18.210 adds Year Eight and Year Nine to the existing Work Program in Policy 101.2.14 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan. The tasks in the Work Program, many of which implement the Partnership Agreement, include tasks related to the construction of wastewater facilities, affordable housing, and hurricane evacuation. Year Eight of the Work Program of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan include, in relevant, part the following tasks: Year Eight (July 12, 2004 through July 12, 2005) Begin construction of wastewater collection lines for Little Venice Phase II by December 2004. Work with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to initiate bond financing for citywide sewer facilities and to develop a schedule of events necessary to initiate process by December 2004. Develop and advertise a Request for Proposal for the design, construction, operation of Marathon Central Wastewater System by December 2004. Obtain necessary bond financing (60% of projected sewer cost) secured by connection fees by December 2004. Award contract for design, construction and operation of Marathon Central Wastewater System by December 2004. By January 2005, identify potential acquisition sites for affordable work force housing. Establish a partnership with non- profit organizations in order to construct affordable housing using additional state funds. Evaluate strategies to increase the time that affordable housing remains affordable; establish a maximum sales price for work force housing and establish a ceiling on down payments that are not subsidized by public programs; and amend comprehensive plan and/or land development regulations. * * * Develop a map or list of real estate numbers of lots containing environmentally sensitive lands in need of acquisition and submit to the Department of Community Affairs by July 2004. Assist the state in land acquisition efforts by establishing a land acquisition advisory committee to prioritize proposed acquisitions by July 2004. Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes. Year Nine of the Work Program of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan includes in relevant part the following tasks: Year Nine (July 13, 2005 through July 12, 2006) Begin construction of Phase I of Marathon Central Wastewater System by January 2006. Evaluate wastewater master plan and indicate areas, if any, that will not receive central sewer. For any area that will not be served by central sewer, develop a septic tank inspection program and begin implementation of the program by September 2005. * * * E. Develop and implement a Building Permit Allocation System that discourages and limits development in environmentally sensitive areas within the proposed Marathon comprehensive plan by July 2005. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-18.210(1), which establishes the Work Program for Years Eight and Nine, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented, because it fails to adopt regulation and plan changes, or requires same, to protect terrestrial habitat to the extent shown necessary in the Carrying Capacity Study. The mere fact that the proposed Work Plan for Years Eight and Nine of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan does not address habitat protection, does not make those provisions arbitrary or capricious. Neither does it mean that they contravene law. In this case, it reflects that the Work Plan emphasizes other issues relevant to the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan. Siting Utilities and Public Facilities The siting of public facilities in Monroe County is governed by existing Policy 101.12.4 in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. According to that policy, Monroe County requires that an "analyses be undertaken prior to finalizing plans for the siting of any new or significant expansion (greater than 25 percent) of any existing public facility," and that the analyses include "an assessment of needs, evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for the selected sites and assessment of direct and secondary impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources." With regard to the assessment impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources, existing Policy 101.12.4 provides the following: The assessment of impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources will evaluate the extent to which the proposed public facility involves public expenditures in the coastal high hazard area and within environmentally sensitive areas, including disturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, undisturbed beach berm areas, units of the coastal barrier resources system, undisturbed uplands (particularly high quality hammock and pinelands), habitats of species considered to be threatened or endangered by the state and/or federal governments, consistent with 105.2.1 offshore islands, and Conservation Land Protection Areas. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2) amends existing Policy 101.12.4, which deletes the term "Conservation Land Protection Areas" from the category of areas included as environmentally sensitive areas, as quoted above, and replaces it with the term, "Natural Areas (Tier I)." Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2) also adds the following provision to existing Policy 101.12.4. Except for passive recreational facilities on publicly owned land, no new public community or utility facility other than water distribution and sewer collection lines or lift stations, and the existing Key Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility, shall be allowed within the Natural Areas (Tier I) unless it can be accomplished without clearing of hammock or pinelands. Exceptions to this requirement may be made to protect the public health, safety and welfare, if all the following criteria are met: No reasonable alternatives exist to the proposed location; and The proposed location is approved by a super-majority of the Board of County Commissioners. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.110(2), discussed above, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented. Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule allows the siting of public facilities in terrestrial habitats (CNA or Tier I) and also allows water distribution and sewer collection lines or lift stations to be built as a matter of right in a CNA or Tier I, contrary to the findings of the Carrying Capacity Study. Petitioners also contend that the provision in the Proposed Rule, discussed above, is vague, because it refers to the term "natural areas," but is intended to mean CNAs. In the recent past, a decision to site a sewage treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive hammock elicited considerable controversy. Ultimately, Monroe County and the DCA agreed that public facilities should not be located on environmentally sensitive land. The proposed change to Policy 101.12.4 strengthens the policy by requiring approval of a super majority of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (County Commission) for an exemption. This also adds specificity to the policy and provides more protection for natural areas and, thus, improves protection of environmentally- sensitive habitat. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the term "natural area" is not vague. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan currently includes Goal 105, which describes a detailed land classification system. "Natural Area (Tier I)" represents natural areas that can be targeted for acquisition and is an updated term. On the other hand, the term "Conservation Land Protection Areas" refers to lands targeted for acquisition by federal and state agencies. ROGO Exemption for Public Facilities Both Monroe County and Marathon have a "Rate of Growth Ordinance," also known as ROGO. A site proposed for development is ranked based on the environmental sensitivity of the property and receives negative points for greater environmental sensitivity. A site proposed for development can also receive positive points for such things as providing its own water system or elevation above the minimum flood insurance elevation. Monroe County and the City of Marathon award their annual allocation of development permits to the top-scoring sites. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 will make several modifications to the ROGO point allocation system in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Existing Policy 101.3.4 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides that "public facilities shall be exempted from the requirements of the Permit Allocation System for new non-residential development." The existing policy also provides that certain development activity by enumerated federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations "may be exempted from the Permit Allocation System by the County Commission after review by the Planning Commission upon a finding that such activity will predominantly serve the County's non- transient population." Proposed Rule 28-20.110(3) amends existing Policy 101.3.4 by requiring that the County Commission make an additional finding as a condition of exempting certain development activity by certain federally tax-exempt not-for- profit organizations from the Permit Allocation System. Pursuant to the proposed rule, the County Commission must also find that the "development activity is not planned within an area proposed for acquisition by governmental agencies for the purpose of resource protection." Petitioners contend that the provision of Proposed Rule 28-20.110(3), discussed above, is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented in that the development activities of the federally tax-exempt, not-for-profit organizations covered by the proposed rule allows development activity on some environmentally-sensitive areas and is inconsistent with the Carrying Capacity Study. Existing Policy 101.3.4 allows development activity by not-for-profit organizations without a permit allocation because such development does not include overnight accommodations which might impact hurricane evacuation. Since a permit allocation was not necessary, such development was not affected by the negative points awarded for development in an area proposed for acquisition for resource protection. However, some not-for- profit organizations proposed development in environmentally- sensitive areas. The proposed change will prevent ROGO-exempt development on such lands and improve the protection of environmentally-sensitive habitat. Lot Aggregation Existing Policy 101.5.4, of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan addresses the issue of lot aggregation and provides that "points shall be assigned to Allocation Applications for proposed dwelling units, which include a voluntary reduction of density permitted as of right within subdivisions (residential units per legally platted, buildable lots) by aggregating vacant, legally platted, buildable lots." This policy sought to reduce density within subdivisions by awarding or assigning positive points to applicants who aggregated two or more contiguous, vacant, legally buildable lots. The existing policy motivated and allowed applicants to purchase any contiguous property in order to be awarded additional points and, thus, increased their chances of receiving an allocation, even if the lots were in areas targeted for public acquisition for resource protection. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4) amends Policy 101.5.4, Subsection 3, by prohibiting the awarding of points to Allocation Applications "for lot aggregation within those areas proposed for acquisition by public agencies for the purpose of resource protection." Petitioners assert that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it fails to adequately protect terrestrial habitat to the extent shown necessary in the Carrying Capacity Study. The basis of Petitioners' assertion is that under Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4), an applicant can get positive points for aggregating habitat, if the area is not proposed for acquisition by public agencies for the purpose of resource protection. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(4) will direct applicants seeking to be awarded additional points for "lot aggregation away from areas proposed for acquisition by public agencies for resource protection and, thereby, improve protection of terrestrial habitat. Clearing of Native Vegetation Existing Policy 205.2.7 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides that the "clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the immediate development area." Under the existing policy, an applicant with aggregated lots would demand to clear a portion of both lots, so that a large portion of all of the lots would be cleared. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 amends existing Policy 205.27.7 by adding the following provision relating to the clearing of vegetation areas where Allocation Applications have received points for lot aggregation: For applications that receive points for lot aggregation under the Permit Allocation System for residential development, clearing of vegetation shall be limited to the open space ratios in Policy 205.2.6 or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. The clearing of vegetation for ROGO applications that receive points for lot aggregation is also addressed in Proposed Rules 28-20.120(4), which adds a new provision, Regulation 9.5-347(e), to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. That new provision is as follows: Section 9.5-347 (e) Lot Aggregation and Clearing: For ROGO applications that receive points for lot aggregation under Section 9.5-122.3 (a)(3), clearing of vegetation shall be limited to the open space ratios in paragraph (b) above or five-thousand (5,000) square feet, whichever is less. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rules 28-20.110(b) and 28-20.120(4) are arbitrary and capricious and contravene the law implemented, because they do not prohibit clearing of aggregated lots and are inconsistent with the Principles Guiding Development and with the Carrying Capacity Study. Notwithstanding Petitioners' assertions, even though the proposed rules do not prohibit all clearing of native vegetation, they will limit the amount of clearing for applicants who receive a ROGO allocation based upon lot aggregation. Under Proposed Rule 28-20.120(4), the clearing will be limited to an amount necessary to construct a reasonably-sized house. Technical Coordination Letter Proposed Rule 28-20.110(5), which will add a new policy, Policy 101.5.11, to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, provides the following: If not listed in the document "Parcels Not Located in Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Not Subject to FWS Consultation", or involving minor development activity exempted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)", any application for a ROGO or NROGO allocation shall contain a technical coordination letter from the USFWS. The County shall consider the recommendations of the USFWS's technical coordination letter in the issuance of the subject permit, except that if a low-effect habitat conservation plan is required by USFWS, the mitigation requirements of that plan shall be incorporated in the conditions of the permit. As a result of federal litigation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") created a list of "Parcels Not Located in Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat and Not Subject to FWS Consultation." Monroe County and the DCA have developed the practice of requiring a technical coordination letter from the USFWS for development on parcels that are not on that list or are not otherwise exempt from USFWS review. Proposed Rule 28-20.110(5) incorporates into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan a current practice that resulted from federal litigation. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-120 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1) adds the phrase "species of special concern" to the following terms defined in Section 9.5-120(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulation as shown by the underlining: (1) "Known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species or species of special concern"; (2) "Potential habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" or species of special concern; and (3) Wide-ranging threatened/endangered animal species or species of special concern. This proposed change will conform the land development regulations to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by expanding the list of species that result in negative points under the Permit Allocation System to include "species of special concern." Existing Regulation 9.5-120(b) includes in the definitions of "known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" and "potential habitat of threatened/endangered species" the sentence, "The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of the species unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources." The definition of "wide-ranging threatened/endangered animal species" includes the sentence, "The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of wide-ranging threatened or endangered species unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources."8 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1) amends Section 9.5-120(b) by deleting the phrase, "unless determined otherwise by the director of environmental resources" from the sentences quoted above. Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1)(a) adds the following provision to the section of Regulation 9.5-120, which defines the term "known habitat of threatened/endangered species or species of special concern": (1) . . . The county's threatened and endangered species maps shall constitute prima facie evidence of the species. Within areas designated for public acquisition for the purposes of resource protection, any threatened, endangered or species of special concern species observed on site while conducting a habitat evaluation shall be noted on the adopted Threatened and Endangered Species Maps. Such observations noted while conducting a habitat evaluation by County Staff Biologists, consultants certified by the County, conducting habitat evaluations, or state or federal agency representatives conducting field inspections shall also constitute evidence of species. Petitioners contend that the portion of Proposed Rule 28-20.120(1)(a), quoted above, is arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule fails to account for potential observations of "known habitat of threatened/endangered animal species" on parcels that are not within "areas designated for public acquisition for purposes of resource protection." Also, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rule limits observations of species required to be noted on the adopted threatened and endangered species maps to consultants or scientists on the parcel specifically to conduct an HEI analysis and fails to require field verification of the parcel. Proposed Rule 28.20.120(1)(a) will expand the circumstances in which observations of listed species will cause modification of the adopted threatened and endangered species maps. Under the present land development regulations, Monroe County modified the maps only if a county staff biologist observed a listed species and did not take into account other professional observations. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-122.3 Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations establishes and assigns evaluation criteria and point assignment for applications for proposed dwelling units in Monroe County. The existing regulation requires that negative points be assigned to applications that propose a dwelling unit within a "known habitat of a documented threatened/endangered species" and a "potential habitat of threatened/endangered species." Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2) adds the following language to Section 9.5-122.3.(a)(8),9 as shown by the underlined provisions: Point Assignment: Criteria: -10 An application which proposes a dwelling unit within a known habitat of a threatened/endangered species or a species of special concern. For species of special concern, negative points shall only be applied to areas designated for public acquisition for the purpose of resource protection. -5 An application which proposes a dwelling unit within a potential habitat of a threatened/endangered species or a species of special concern. For species of special concern, negative points shall only be applied to areas designated for public acquisition purposes of resource protection. Regulation 9.5-1223.(a)(8), as amended, adds "species of special concern" to the species covered by the existing regulation. Also, the amended regulation requires that negative points be assigned to applications that propose dwelling units in a habitat of a species of special concern, if the area is designated for public acquisition for purposes of resource protection. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2), which amends Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8), is arbitrary and capricious. As a basis for this contention, Petitioners assert that even though the Proposed Rule increases situations where an application is awarded negative points, it decreases protection of habitat by limiting the negative point award only to habitat of special concern that have been designated for public acquisition. Proposed Rule 28-20.120(2) increases situations in which an application will be awarded negative points by adding "species of special concern" to the species covered by Regulation 9.5-122.3(a)(8). By awarding negative points as provided in the proposed rule, there is increased protection of habitat for species of special concern. Monroe County Land Development Regulation 9.5-336 Proposed Rule 28-20.120(3) amends Section 9.5-336(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations as follows: (b) Review and Amendment: The existing conditions map may be refined to reflect conditions legally in existence on February 28, 1986. Such refinements shall be made pursuant to the procedures for typographical and drafting errors in section 9.5-511(e). The existing conditions map as referenced throughout this chapter is intended only to serve as a general guide to habitat types for the purpose of preliminary determination of regulatory requirements. The county biologist shall make the final determination of habitat type based upon field verification, except that existing conditions that reflect disturbed with hammock shall be classified as a low quality hammock. Unlawful conditions shall not be recognized when determining regulatory requirements. Petitioners contend that Proposed Rule 28-20.120(3) is arbitrary and capricious and contravenes the law implemented because it does not protect all habitat. The existing conditions map was prepared in the 1980s. Many of the sites designated on the map as "disturbed with hammock" have re-vegetated since then. The proposed change will protect those sites by requiring clustering away from the hammock and by controlling the amount of allowed clearing. Hurricane Evacuation Monroe County and Marathon face a unique hurricane evacuation challenge. There is only one road out of the Florida Keys, and everyone must use that road to evacuate. For a Category 3 or greater hurricane, all areas of the Florida Keys must be evacuated because of the low elevations, the vulnerability to storm surge, and the logistics of post-disaster recovery. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Marathon Comprehensive Plan currently state that each ". . . shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year 2010." The 24-hour standard was adopted by the Administration Commission at the conclusion of prior litigation over the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The term "hurricane evacuation clearance time" refers to the time that the emergency managers must call the evacuation before the arrival of tropical storm force winds. Hurricane evacuation clearance time includes both the time for citizens to mobilize (i.e., get their affairs in order, shelter their houses, take care of their belongings), and the time to evacuate the vehicles from the roadway. Tropical storm force winds typically arrive eight to 12 hours before the eye of the storm. In order to achieve a 24-hour hurricane evacuation clearance time, emergency managers must call the evacuation 32 to 36 hours before the arrival of the eye. The DCA contracted with Miller Consulting, Inc., to create a computer model to estimate the actual hurricane evacuation clearance time for the Florida Keys. The Miller model provides the best available data and analysis for estimating the clearance time. The latest run of the Miller model performed by the DCA using 2000 Census data, supplemented with development permit data up to August 2004, provides the best estimate of clearance time. This run of the Miller model estimates a hurricane evacuation time of 23 hours and 56 minutes to reach the beginning of the Homestead Extension of the Florida Turnpike on the mainland, and 24 hours and 48 minutes to reach the hurricane shelter at Florida International University ("FIU"). The beginning of the Florida Turnpike in Florida City is the appropriate endpoint for hurricane evacuation clearance time estimates. Florida City is a point of relative safety outside of the Category 3 vulnerability zone. Florida City is also the point of dispersal for the Florida Keys, where evacuees disperse to any number of destinations, such as South Dade, the FIU shelter, or a hotel in Orlando. The Miller model estimates that if those permit allocations are restored and the annual allocation is increased as described above, the hurricane evacuation clearance time next year will be 24 hours and four minutes. This exceeds the 24-hour standard adopted by the Administration Commission. Proposed Rule 28-20.110 adds the following requirement to Year Eight of the Work Program in Policy 101.2.13 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Policy 101.2.12 of the Marathon Comprehensive Plan: "Complete a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues in the Florida Keys and develop strategies to reduce actual hurricane clearance times and thereby reduce potential loss of life from hurricanes." The Florida Keys' local governments have begun the comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues by convening a workgroup comprised of local government-elected officials and staffed by the DCA. The hurricane workgroup is considering alternative strategies to reduce clearance times, such as constructing an additional outbound lane, using transportation system management to create a temporary outbound lane, updating the assumptions for the Miller model, reducing transient occupancy, or calling the evacuation earlier. The working group must develop a strategy that balances or accommodates development and also addresses hurricane clearance times. The hurricane workgroup must do much more than simply squeeze a few more minutes out of the Miller model. There are currently 13,000 to 14,000 vacant platted lots in the Florida Keys, which must be allowed to develop or must be purchased by government. On average, 3,000 dwelling units generates about one hour of clearance time. As an example, if 8,000 or so lots were purchased for habitat protection, then two more hours of clearance time will be needed to accommodate the remaining 5,000 or 6,000 lots. The hurricane workgroup must develop a strategy to handle the amount of development permitting that can be expected and a program to acquire the balance of the vacant lots. Affordable and Workforce Housing There is an affordable housing crisis in the Florida Keys. The geography of the Florida Keys hinders the ability of working families in the Florida Keys to find affordable housing. Unlike other expensive areas, such as Boca Raton, working families cannot find affordable housing nearby; the nearest area where housing prices are affordable is the mainland in Dade County. From 1999 to 2003, there were 693 allocations for affordable housing units in the Florida Keys. This amount includes all the allocations for affordable housing units for that time period, even those allocations for which affordable housing units were not constructed. The number of affordable housing allocations issued from 1999 to 2003 and the number being issued under the existing Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon, are not sufficient to address the need for affordable housing. The Partnership Agreements recognize and address the affordable housing shortfall by increasing the number of annual affordable housing allocations, restoring residential allocations lost in previous years, and providing funding for the acquisition of land and the construction of workforce housing. As discussed above, Proposed Rule 28-20.110 implements the provisions of the Partnership Agreement by amending the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as follows: increasing the number of annual affordable housing allocations from 32 to 71; (2) reallocating 140 unused allocations to affordable housing; and (3) requiring that the affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Additionally, as specified in paragraph 60, the Work Program in Proposed Rule 28-20.110 requires Monroe County to complete tasks which will be an improvement of the affordable housing situation in Monroe County. As discussed above, Proposed Rule 28-18.210 implements the Partnership Agreement by amending the City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan as follows: (1) increases the overall number, though not the percentage, of allocations for affordable housing to six; (2) restoring 65 unused allocations for affordable housing; and (3) requiring that the affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Also, as specified in paragraph 101, Proposed Rule 28-18.210 requires the City of Marathon to complete tasks that will result in improving the affordable housing issues in the City of Marathon. Proposed Rules 28-20.110 and 28-18.210 only partially address the affordable housing shortage in the Florida Keys. Nonetheless, the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will improve the current affordable housing shortage by increasing the number of affordable houses and providing the financial resources to make that more likely to occur. The Principles Guiding Development Subsection 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (2004), provides in relevant part: PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT.- -State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development . . . . For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. . . . [T]he following shall be the principles with which any plan amendments must be consistent: To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation. To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. In determining whether the Proposed Rules are consistent with the principles, the principles should be considered as a whole. No specific provision should be construed or applied in isolation from other provisions. Ability to Manage Land Use and Development Principle A, set forth in Subsection 380.0552(7)(a), Florida Statutes, is "to strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the continuation of the area of critical state concern designation." Monroe County and the City of Marathon have evidenced a willingness and commitment to provide the funding required to meet the objectives of the Principles Guiding Development. Both local governments have included in the Proposed Rules tasks which reflect their understanding of the need to provide critical facilities, such as wastewater treatment facilities. While the need for such facilities has previously been acknowledged, the Proposed Rules provide a specific source of revenue to provide the needed facilities. Moreover, with regard to Monroe County, the proposed rules/regulations at issue in this proceeding strengthen the environmental protections measures in the Comprehensive Plans while allowing reasonable development. The proposed rules for Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle A. Environmental Issues Subsections 380.0552(7)(b), (c), and (e), Florida Statutes, are principles which require consideration of the impacts on the environment of the Florida Keys. Principle B is "to protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife and their habitat." Principle C is "to protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife and their habitat." Principle E is "to limit the adverse impacts of development on the water quality of water throughout the Florida Keys." Principle I is "to limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon include amendments to the Work Program which provide significant funding for sewage treatment systems that will enhance the protection of the shoreline and marine resources. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle B. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County improve protection of terrestrial habitat, limit clearing of native vegetation, and provide safeguards to ensure that parcels in threatened and endangered species habitat are protected. The proposed rules of Monroe County are consistent with Principle C. The portions of the Proposed Rules of the City of Marathon that are the subject of this proceeding do not specifically address Principle C. However, the Proposed Rules of the City of Marathon are not inconsistent with Principle C. Accordingly, the proposed rules of the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle C. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys by the funding commitments that will hasten the construction of the sewage treatment facilities. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle E. The Proposed Rules do not encourage any public investment that would have an adverse impact on environmental resources. To the contrary, the Monroe County and the City of Marathon Proposed Rules provide for public investments in waste water improvements that are accelerated. Also, the Monroe County Proposed Rules prevent the construction of public facilities within a hammock area. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle I. Economic Development Principle D in Subsection 380.0552(7)(d), Florida Statutes, is "to ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. The basis of the Florida Keys' economy is tourism, which is attracted by a clean and healthy environment. The increased protection of water quality that should be achieved by the hastened construction of sewage treatment facilities and the improved protection of habitat will strengthen the economy of the Florida Keys and provide the basis for a sound economic development. Also, the Proposed Rules balance environmental protection with property rights. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle D. Historical Character and Heritage Principle F in Subsection 380.0552(7)(f), Florida Statutes, is "to enhance natural and scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys." Principle G in Subsection 380.0552(7)(g), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will have little or no impact on the historic character and historical heritage of the Florida Keys. Thus, the Proposed Rules do no harm to either the historic character or historical heritage of Monroe County or the City of Marathon. Public Investments Principle H in Subsection 380.0552(7)(h), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major life investments," including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection and disposal facilities; Solid waste collection and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. . . . The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon do nothing to undermine the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness or amortized life of existing major investments. Rather, the Proposed Rules will result in funding and timely construction of the major sewage and disposal facilities that are already contemplated by Monroe County and the City of Marathon's existing Comprehensive Plans. Affordable Housing Principle J in Subsection 380.0552(7)(j), Florida Statutes, is "to make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys." The Proposed Rules include a one-time allocation of 165 permits for affordable housing in Monroe County and 65 permits for affordable housing in Marathon. The Proposed Rules will require all future affordable housing to remain as affordable in perpetuity, rather for a limited time frame. The Propose Rules are consistent with Principle J. Natural or Man-made Disaster and Post-Disaster Relief Principle K in Subsection 380.0552(7)(k), Florida Statutes, is "to provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster or man[-]made disaster and for a post[-]disaster reconstruction plan." The Proposed Rules require officials of Monroe County and the City of Marathon to participate with other Florida Keys' local governments in a comprehensive analysis of hurricane evacuation issues. The Proposed Rules are consistent with Principle K. Health, Safety, and Welfare of Citizens and Maintenance of Florida Keys as Unique Resource Principle L in Subsection 380.0552(7)(l), Florida Statutes, is "to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." The Proposed Rules of Monroe County include provisions that increase protection of upland habitat and require a moratorium on ROGO/NROGO applications in hammocks and pinelands, revisions to the CNA maps, and amendments to the land development regulations. The Proposed Rules for Monroe County and the City of Marathon will improve the water quality by providing funding for and hastening the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon will provide more permit allocations for affordable housing, require Monroe County to approve bond funding for the construction of affordable housing, and provide that all future affordable housing remain affordable in perpetuity. Also, the Proposed Rules require Monroe County and the City of Marathon to participate in a Florida Keys wide analysis and solution to the hurricane evacuation problem. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon further the objective of and are consistent with Principle K. The Proposed Rules of Monroe County and the City of Marathon are consistent with Principle L.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether the Respondent, Thomas B. Mahon, violated state regulations related to the operation, maintenance, and supervision of domestic wastewater treatment facilities ("WWTFs") and potable water systems ("PWSs"), as alleged by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") and, if so, whether his wastewater treatment and drinking water operator licenses should be suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a dual-licensed, Class C WWTF and PWS operator. The Department issued Respondent a wastewater license on February 1, 1986. The license was renewed on April 30, 2009. The Department issued Respondent a drinking water license on May 1, 1987. The drinking water license was also renewed on April 30, 2009. Respondent was contracted to operate and maintain nine WWTFs located in Hillsborough and Pasco Counties.1/ Respondent was contracted to operate and maintain eight PWSs located in Pasco County. The effect of the Order which deemed as admitted all matters in the Department's request for admissions is to establish all the allegations of the complaint as facts in evidence, except for the allegation of falsification of records, which allegation the Department withdrew. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-602.650(3) requires that operators maintain an operation and maintenance log book ("O&M log") for each WWTF and PWS and to keep the O&M log on site for inspection. On one Department inspection in 2009, Respondent failed to have the O&M log on site at one of the WWTFs that he operated and maintained. On 15 Department inspections in 2010, Respondent failed to have the O&M log on site for inspection at several WWTFs and PWSs that he operated and maintained. Rule 62-601.300(1) requires WWTF operators to monitor the operation of the WWTFs and to submit monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports ("DMRs") to the permitee and to the Department. In 2010, there were 25 times when Respondent failed to timely submit DMRs. Rule 62-555.350(12)(b) requires PWS operators to monitor the operations of the PWS and to timely submit monthly operating reports ("MORs") to the water supplier and to the Department. In 2010, there were 20 times when Respondent failed to timely submit MORs. In addition to recordkeeping and reporting duties, operators of WWTFs are required to perform responsible and effective on-site operation, supervision, and maintenance of the facility. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-602.650(1). The WWTFs for which Respondent had responsibility were sometimes operating out of compliance with Department rules and standard operating practices. For example, at different times at different WWTFs, the nitrate limit was exceeded, the surface of the clarifier was covered with solids, there were solids at the bottom of the chlorine contact chamber, the annual average fecal coliform limit was exceeded, the maximum fecal coliform maximum limit was exceeded, there was excessive foam and scum on clarifier’s surface, the lift station warning system was not operational, the calibration for meters had expired, there was accumulated sludge in the percolation pond, the blower’s air filter was dirty and overdue for replacement, facility upsets were not reported, the stilling well was full of dried solids, the pump drive belt was cracked, air diffusers were clogged or broken, the lift station’s audible and visual alarms were inoperable, and solids were discharging over the clarified weir. These conditions are not consistent with standard operating practices for WWTFs. The Department did not claim nor present evidence to show that these conditions have resulted in harm to public health or safety or to the environment. Respondent's expert witness acknowledged that Respondent was not good with "paperwork," but said that the operating problems described in paragraph 8, above, are common to all small WWTFs. The Department presented no testimony to rebut that statement. Respondent asserted that he is a victim of selective enforcement by the Department. However, because neither party presented evidence to show how frequently the described problems occur for most licensed WWTF operators or that the Department does not seek similar disciplinary action against other operators with similar numbers of noncompliance issues, the record does not support Respondent's claim of selective enforcement. In April 2007, the Department and Respondent entered into a consent order regarding Respondent's failure to submit DMRs for several WWTFs and for failure to perform responsible and effective on-site management and supervision of WWTFs for which he was the operator. Respondent was placed on one-year probation. The consent order included a provision that failure to comply with all WWTF operator duties set forth in rule 62-602.650 "will result in a minimum penalty of two year suspension" of Respondent's wastewater license. With the exception of one residential development, Respondent is no longer under contract with owners of WWTFs and PWSs to provide operation and maintenance services. He is now an employee of a facility management company which contracts with owners to provide such services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a Final Order that requires Respondent pay an administrative fine of $2,000 to be paid to the Department within 60 days, places Respondent on probation for two years, during which time Respondent is prohibited from entering into any new oral or written contracts to provide operator services to owners of WWTFs and PWSs, and requires Respondent to deliver a copy of the Final Order to his employer so that the employer is made aware of the problems for which the disciplinary action was taken. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 30th day of December 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc. (Laniger), is entitled to the renewal of its domestic wastewater facility permit that was denied by Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2005),1 and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Laniger is a Florida corporation that owns and operates the WWTP that is the subject of this case, located at 1662 Northeast Dixie Highway, Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida. The WWTP is referred to in the Department permit documents as the Beacon 21 WWTP. The WWTP Laniger acquired the WWTP in 1988 in a foreclosure action. At that time, the WWTP was in a "dilapidated" condition and was operating under a consent order with the Department. After acquiring the WWTP, Laniger brought it into compliance with the Department's requirements. Laniger's WWTP is commonly referred to as a "package plant."2 The WWTP's treatment processes are extended aeration, chlorination, and effluent disposal to percolation ponds. The WWTP does not have a direct discharge to surface water. It was permitted to treat 99,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Its average daily flow during the past year was about 56,000 gallons. The east side of the WWTP site is adjacent to Warner Creek. On the north side of the WWTP site, an earthen berm separates the WWTP's percolation ponds from a drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Warner Creek is a tributary to the St. Lucie River. The St. Lucie River is part of the Indian River Lagoon System. The Indian River Lagoon Act In 1989, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the South Florida Water Management District jointly produced a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon System ("the lagoon system"). For the purpose of the planning effort, the lagoon system was defined as composed of Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River Lagoon, and Banana River Lagoon. It extends from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County, a distance of 155 miles. The SWIM Plan identified high levels of nutrients as a major problem affecting water quality in the lagoon system. Domestic wastewater was identified as the major source of the nutrients. The SWIM Plan designated 12 problem areas within the lagoon system and targeted these areas for "research, restoration and conservation projects under the SWIM programs." Department Exhibit 2 at 11-13. Neither Warner Creek nor the area of the St. Lucie River that Warner Creeks flows into is within any of the 12 problem areas identified in the SWIM Plan. With regard to package plants, the SWIM Plan stated: There are numerous, privately operated, "package" domestic WWTPs which discharge indirectly or directly to the lagoon. These facilities are a continual threat to water quality because of intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon from effluent containment areas, or overflow to the lagoon during storm events. Additionally, because of the large number of "package" plants and the lack of enforcement staff, these facilities are not inspected or monitored as regularly as they should be. Where possible, such plants should be phased out and replaced with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. Department Exhibit 2 at 64. In 1990, the Legislature passed the Indian River Lagoon Act, Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida. Section 1 of the Act defined the Indian River Lagoon System as including the same water bodies as described in the SWIM Plan, and their tributaries. Section 4 of the Act provided: Before July 1, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation shall identify areas served by package sewage treatment plants which are considered a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System. In response to this legislative directive, the Department issued a report in July 1991, entitled "Indian River Lagoon System: Water Quality Threats from Package Wastewater Treatment Plants." The 1991 report found 322 package plants operating within the lagoon system and identified 155 plants as threats to water quality. The 1991 report described the criteria the Department used to determine which package plants were threats: Facilities that have direct discharges to the system were considered threats. Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal; systems located within 100 feet of the shoreline or within 100 feet of any canal or drainage ditch that discharges or may discharge to the lagoon system during wet periods were considered threats. * * * Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal systems located more than 100 feet from surface water bodies in the system were evaluated case-by-case based on [operating history, inspection reports, level of treatment, and facility reliability]. Laniger's package plant was listed in the 1991 report as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system because it was within 100 feet of Warner Creek and the drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Laniger's WWTP was not determined to be a threat based on its wastewater treatment performance. There was no evidence presented that Laniger's WWTP had ever had intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon system from effluent containment areas, or overflow during storm events. Those were the concerns related to package plants that were described in the SWIM Plan and the Department's 1991 report. Laniger's WWTP was not determined to be a threat based on evidence that it was causing or contributing to excess nutrients in Warner Creek or in that part of the St. Lucie River nearest to Laniger's WWTP. No evidence was presented that there are excess nutrients in Warner Creek or in that part of the St. Lucie River nearest to Laniger's WWTP. The Department's 1991 report concluded that the solution for package plants threats was to eliminate the package plants and connect their wastewater flow to centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. To date, over 90 of the 155 package plants identified in the Department's 1991 report as threats to the water quality of the lagoon system have been connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment systems. The 1999 Permit and Administrative Order On August 26, 1999, the Department issued Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit No. FLA013879 to Laniger for the operation of its WWTP. Attached to and incorporated into Laniger's 1999 permit was Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. The administrative order indicates it was issued pursuant to Section 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes. That statute pertains to discharges that "will not meet permit conditions or applicable statutes and rules" and requires that the permit for such a discharge be accompanied by an order establishing a schedule for achieving compliance. The administrative order contains a finding that the Beacon 21 WWTP is a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system and that the WWTP "has not provided reasonable assurance . . . that operation of the facility will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code." The cited rule provides that "land application projects shall not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in surface waters." The administrative order required Laniger to connect its WWTP to a centralized wastewater collection and treatment [facility] "within 150 days of its availability . . . or provide reasonable assurance in accordance with Chapter 620.320(1) of the Florida Administrative Code that continued operation of the wastewater facility is not a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System." As a result of an unrelated enforcement action taken by the Department against Martin County, and in lieu of a monetary penalty, Martin County agreed to extend a force main from its centralized sewage collection and treatment facility so that the Laniger WWTP could be connected. The extension of the force main was completed in April 2003. On April 10, 2003, the Department notified Laniger by letter that a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system "is now available for the connection of Beacon 21." In the notification letter, the Department reminded Laniger of the requirement of the administrative order to connect within 150 days of availability. On May 9, 2003, Laniger's attorney responded, stating that the administrative order allowed Laniger, as an alternative to connecting to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment system, to provide reasonable assurance that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system, and Laniger had provided such reasonable assurance. Laniger's attorney also stated, "due to the location of Martin County's wastewater facilities, such facilities are not available as that term is defined in the [administrative] order." On September 29, 2003, the Department issued a warning letter to Laniger for failure to connect to the Martin County force main and for not providing reasonable assurance that the WWTP will not cause pollution in contravention of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Department took no further formal action until it issued the NOV in August 2005. Laniger's challenge of the NOV was consolidated with this permit case. The Permit Renewal Application In an "enforcement meeting" between Laniger and the Department prior to the expiration of 1999 permit, the Department told Laniger that it would not renew Laniger's WWTP permit. Later, when Laniger filed its permit renewal application, the Department offered to send the application back so Laniger would not "waste" the filing fee, because the Department knew it was not going to approve the application. Laniger submitted its permit renewal application to the Department on February 15, 2005. The Department considered Laniger's permit application to be complete, but proceeded to prepare the Notice of Denial without any technical review of the application. The Department denied the application on April 6, 2005. The Department's Notice of Permit Denial stated that the permit was denied because Laniger had not connected to the available centralized wastewater collection and treatment system nor provided reasonable assurance that the WWTP "is not impacting water quality within the Indian River Lagoon System." The record evidence showed that the "reasonable assurance" that would have been necessary to satisfy the Department was more than the reasonable assurance the Department usually requires for package plants, and more than the Department would have required if Laniger's WWTP was 100 feet from Warner Creek. Competent substantial evidence was presented that Laniger's WWTP is capable of being operated in accordance with the statutes and rules of Department generally applicable to package wastewater treatment plants. Laniger's 1999 permit expired on August 25, 2004. Laniger has operated the plant continuously since the permit expired. Whether the Martin County Facility is Available As discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, it is concluded that the Department did not have authority to require Laniger to connect the WWTP to the Martin County force main or to require assurance beyond the reasonable assurance generally required for package treatment plants in order to obtain a permit. However, because considerable evidence and argument was directed to whether the force main was available, that issue will be addressed here. The Martin County force main was not extended to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site. The force main terminates approximately 150 feet north of the Laniger WWTP site and is separated from the WWTP site by a railroad and railroad right-of-way. Laniger presented undisputed evidence that the cost to connect to the Martin County force main would be approximately $490,000 and that cost was prohibitively high, given the relatively small number of households served by the WWTP. The Laniger WWTP is subject to rate regulation by the Public Service Commission (PSC). Laniger presented evidence suggesting that connection to the Martin County force main would result in rates that would not be approved by the PSC. The evidence was speculative and not competent to support a finding regarding PSC action. The evidence does show, however, that PSC rate regulation was not a factor that the Department considered when it determined that the Martin County force main was available. There is no Department rule that defines when a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility is "available." The determination that the Martin County force main was available to Laniger was made informally by members of the Department's compliance staff in the Department's St. Lucie office. Mr. Thiel testified that he considered the force main to be available because it was "in close proximity" to Laniger's WWTP. However, Mr. Thiel admitted that there is a difference of opinion within DEP as to when a facility is available and reasonable persons could disagree about whether a facility was available. Mr. Thiel thought that the cost to connect is a factor to be considered in determining whether a facility is available, but another Department employee did not think cost should be considered. There was no evidence that the Department took into account Laniger's cost to connect in determining that the Martin County force main was available. The Department simply assumed that the Martin County force main was close enough to the Laniger WWTP site that the cost to Laniger would not be prohibitive. In addition, the Department was aware of other package plants that had connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities that were the same distance or a greater from the package plant, and the Department did not hear from the owners of the package plants that the costs were prohibitive. Timothy Powell of the Department stated that force mains are usually made available by extending the force main so that it is "abutting the property as much as possible." He also stated that he assumed that Martin County would extend its force main under the railroad and to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site after Laniger agreed to connect. However, there was no evidence to show that this is Martin County's intent, and the Department did not tell Laniger that Laniger did not have to connect to the force main unless Martin County brought the line to the boundary of the WWTP site. If the Department had authority to require Laniger to connect to the Martin County force main when it became available, and in the absence of any rule criteria to determine when a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility is available, the determination would have to be based on reasonableness. Reasonableness in this context must take into account the cost of the connection. Cost is the inherent reason that Laniger was not required to connect to the Martin County centralized sewage collection and treatment facility without regard to whether the facility was available. Laniger showed that the cost of connecting to the force main is unreasonably high due to the need to construct a line beneath the railroad. Therefore, Laniger proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Martin County force main is not available.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order granting Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc., a renewal of its wastewater treatment plant operating permit. The permit should contain the same conditions as were contained in the 1999 permit, with the exception of those conditions derived from Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 19th day of September, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: On January 9, 2004, Petitioner, who resides in Baker County, Florida, filed his application with the District requesting that he be allowed to sit for the water well contractor examination. The requirements for qualification to take the examination are set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300. Relevant to this controversy is the requirement that an applicant present "satisfactory proof of two years experience in the water well construction business." This requirement is normally met by the applicant providing a list of at least ten water well jobs he has completed during a consecutive 24-month period (together with their locations, major use, and approximate depth and diameter), the name and address of the owner of the well, and the approximate date the activity took place. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.300(6)(a). If the work has been completed in Florida, the applicant is also required to submit copies of completion reports for each of the ten wells. Id. Completion reports are filed by the contractor with the District within thirty days after the work is completed. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-3.411. Finally, the applicant must submit letters from three persons attesting to the length of time the applicant has been working in the water well construction business as a major activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-531.600(6)(a). Alternatively, an applicant may present "satisfactory proof of equivalent experience," which may be accepted by the District "on a individual basis." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 531.300(6)(b). While this option has rarely, if ever, been used by any applicant, at hearing the District suggested that this provision would allow an applicant to submit other credible documentary evidence, such as affidavits, attesting to the applicant's equivalent experience. Mr. Julian C. Varnes, Jr., a District water resource representative III, is in charge of reviewing water well contractor applications in four northeast Florida counties, including Baker County. Mr. Varnes reviewed Petitioner's application and concluded that he had failed to submit proof of two years' experience in the water well contracting business or satisfactory proof of equivalent experience, as required by the rule. In this case, Petitioner submitted ten completion reports with his application, but none of the reports indicated that he had been involved on those projects, and Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he could not recall if he was even present on the job site. This is probably because the reports related to jobs performed between November 10, 1982, and July 31, 1985, by his father, a licensed water well contractor, when Petitioner was less than fifteen years old. In addition, the reports submitted by Petitioner covered work performed over a 32-month period, rather than over a 24-month period, as required by the rule, and some of the reports did not have the complete address of the location of the well. By letter dated February 4, 2004, the District advised Petitioner that his application was deficient because he had failed to submit the information required in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-531.300(1)(b) and (6) relative to experience. The letter advised Petitioner that he must submit an "acceptable list of ten wells together with their completion reports, for wells that [he had] constructed, repaired, or abandoned, with completion dates distributed over a consecutive 24-month time period." Further telephonic discussions between Petitioner and District personnel concerning the request for additional information occurred on March 25 and 29, 2004, but they did not resolve the District's concerns. On June 15, 2004, the District staff again notified Petitioner in writing that he must submit the requested information within 30 days or his application would be denied. When no response was received from Petitioner, on July 27, 2004, the staff issued a Technical Staff Report recommending that the application be denied because of Petitioner's failure to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 531.300(1)(b) and (6). On August 23, 2004, a Notice of Staff Intent to Recommend Denial of Water Well Contractor Application No. 7300 and Notice of Rights was issued by the District. Petitioner's request for a hearing was then filed. After his first request for a hearing was dismissed, on November 18, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended request for a hearing. In that request, he alleged that the District was "not capable of locating completion reports filed by [Petitioner] and/or his father"; that the experience of he and his father was well known to two District staffers; that he had purchased a well drilling company from another individual and operated under the seller's license for over a year; that he is entitled to licensure because he has satisfactory equivalent experience; and that his father has paid all outstanding fines previously imposed by the District. As relief, Petitioner has requested that he be allowed to take the contractor's examination. At hearing, Petitioner explained that his father was in the water well contracting business for twenty years, and that beginning in 1983, when he was thirteen years old, he had helped his father on "hundreds of jobs" until his father's retirement in 1994. However, Petitioner cannot recall the names and addresses of customers who were serviced by his father's business, which is necessary in order for the District to retrieve completion reports presumably filed by his father. Because of the large number of completion reports filed by contractors throughout its multi-county jurisdiction, in order to retrieve one, the District must have the following information: the year the job was completed, the county in which the job was performed, and the address (township and range) of the well's owner. Petitioner is unable to provide this information.1 In addition, Petitioner stated that he had purchased a water well contractor's business (from Tim Johnson) shortly after his father retired in 1994 and that he operated the business under Mr. Johnson's license for a little more than a year. Although Petitioner produced no documentation concerning jobs he may have performed under Mr. Johnson's license, even if he had, that work would still constitute less than 24 consecutive months of experience, as required by the rule. Petitioner further asserted that Mr. Varnes, who oversees the water well contractors in Baker County, personally "knows" that he is an experienced well driller (having gained such experience through working for his father for many years) and that he possesses the skills necessary to take the examination. However, Mr. Varnes did not agree with this assertion. Finally, Petitioner asked that he be allowed to take the examination, which would be the best indicator of whether he possesses the necessary knowledge to be a contractor. He also pointed out that each completed project must be inspected by a District employee, and that such inspections would verify and ensure that his work is satisfactory. However, the rules require that before the examination can be taken, certain requirements must be met. Petitioner has not satisfied those requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to sit for the water well contractor examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2005.
