The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the amendments to the Manatee County Comprehensive Plan (Manatee Plan) adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Manatee County via Ordinance No. 13-10 on December 5, 2013, are “in compliance,” as defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Katie Pierola is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mrs. Pierola made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Greg Geraldson is a resident and landowner in Manatee County. Mr. Geraldson made timely objections and comments to Manatee County on the 2013 Amendments. Manatee County is a political subdivision of the State and has adopted the Manatee Plan, which it amends from time to time pursuant to section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. Robinson Farms is a Florida corporation doing business in Manatee County and owning real property in the County. It owns the property affected by the 2013 Amendments. The 2013 Amendments The 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map of the Manatee Plan to change the future land use classification of approximately 20 acres of land owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The land is described by metes and bounds in Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 13-10. It is located on the north side of 9th Avenue Northwest, about 600 feet east of 99th Street. The RES-1 classification allows one dwelling unit per acre (du/a). The RES-3 classification allows up to three du/a. The General Introduction chapter of the Manatee Plan, Section D – Special Plan Interpretation Provisions, would be amended to add the following new text: D.5.16 Ordinance 13-10 (ROBINSON FARMS PLAN AMENDMENT) The 20± acre property identified as the Robinson Farms Plan Amendment and designated RES-3 on the Future Land Use Map pursuant to Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 shall be limited to a maximum of thirty eight (38) residential units. Coastal Evacuation Area and Coastal High Hazard Area All 20 acres of the Robinson Farms property is within the Coastal Evacuation Area (CEA). The CEA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The evacuation Level A for a Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional evacuation study applicable to Manatee County, as updated on a periodic basis. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.2.2.4.2, which addresses the purposes of the CEA, states in part: To limit population in the Category 1 hurricane evacuation area requiring evacuation during storm events. To limit the amount of infrastructure, both private and public, within the CEA Overlay District and thereby limit magnitude of public loss and involvement in mitigating for loss of private infrastructure to Manatee County residents. To, through exercise of the police power, increase the degree of protection to public and private property, and to protect the lives of residents within the CEA, and reduce the risk of exposing lives or property to storm damage. All but 4.68 acres is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The CHHA is defined in the Manatee Plan as: The geographic area below the Category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model, pursuant to applicable law, as updated on a periodic basis. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.2, which addresses the purposes of the CHHA, repeats the same purposes that are set forth above for the CEA. Relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies Goal 4.3 of the Coastal Element of the Manatee Plan is: Protection of the Residents and Property Within the Coastal Planning Area from the Physical and Economic Effects of Natural Disasters Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 states: Limit development type, density and intensity within the Coastal Planning Area and direct population and development to areas outside the Coastal High Hazard Area to mitigate the potential negative impacts of natural hazards in the area. Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 states: Direct population concentrations away from the Coastal Evacuation Area FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CEA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal Evacuation Area. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) states, in part: The area designated under the CEA Overlay District on the Future Land Use Map shall also be subject to all goals, objectives and policies for any land use category overlaid by the CHHA District, except where policies associated with the CEA Overlay conflict with such goals, objectives and policies. In this event, policies associated with the CHHA Overlay District shall override other goals, objectives and policies. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which addresses development restrictions in the CHHA, states: Prohibit any amendment to the Future Land Use Map which would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay District. FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a) states that, in the event of a conflict between CHHA policies and other policies in the Manatee Plan, the CHHA policies shall override. Data and Analysis Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments are not based on best available data and analysis as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2). However, that rule was repealed in 2011. Section 163.3177(1)(f) requires that plan amendments be based on “relevant and appropriate data and analysis.” This section explains: To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. Petitioners contend that the proposed reclassification of the Robinson Farms property from RES-1 to RES-3 does not react appropriately to the data which show the Robinson Farms property lies within the CEA and CHHA. However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is not the mapping of the CEA and CHHA that creates a conflict with the 2013 Amendments. The conflict is created by the policies which address future land uses in the CEA and CHHA. Internal Consistency Petitioners contend that the 2013 Amendments make the Manatee Plan internally inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 which require “population concentrations” to be directed away from the Coastal Evacuation Area. No evidence was presented by Petitioners or by Manatee County on the County’s interpretation of the term “population concentrations.” However, FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. Therefore, assuming as we must that the Manatee Plan is internally consistent, it follows that “population concentrations” in Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 means any increase in residential density. Because the 2013 Amendments increase residential density in the CEA, they are inconsistent with this objective and policy. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CEA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CEA. Because the 2013 Amendments would amend the Future Land Use Map to increase allowable residential density on a site within the CHHA they are inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a), which prohibits any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would increase allowable residential density on sites within the CHHA. Competing Policies Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that there are other policies in the Manatee Plan, such as those that discourage urban sprawl and encourage infill in the Urban Core Area, which the County must weigh along with the policies discussed above. The County contends that it weighed these conflicting policies and reached a fairly debatable determination that the 2013 Amendments are consistent with the Manatee Plan. Contradicting this argument are FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.4(a) and FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.4(a), which state that the CEA and CHHA policies shall override any conflicting goals, objectives, and policies in the Manatee Plan. Urban sprawl, infill, and other policies of the Manatee Plan cannot be invoked to avoid the specific prohibitions in FLUE Policies 2.2.2.4.5(a) and 2.2.2.5.5(a) against any amendment to the Future Land Use Map that would result in an increase in allowable residential density on sites within the CEA and CHHA. Density Offsets Manatee County and Robinson Farms argue that the County’s reduction in dwelling units in other parts of the CHHA over the past several years is a valid consideration in determining whether an increase in residential density on the Robinson Farms property is permissible despite the prohibition in FLUE Policy 2.2.2.5.5(a). In support of their argument, they cite Department of Community Affairs v. Leeward Yacht Club, LLC, DOAH Case No. 06-0049GM, 2006 WL 2497934 (Nov. 16, 2006). However, the Leeward Yacht Club case involved the comprehensive plan of Lee County, which did not prohibit increases in residential density in the CHHA. In contrast, the Manatee Plan quite plainly prohibits “any amendment” to the Future Land Use Map that would increase residential density in the CHHA. Previous Proceedings These same parties were involved in a dispute regarding an earlier proposed amendment to the Manatee Plan to reclassify property owned by Robinson Farms from RES-1 to RES-3. The 2010 Amendment was different in that it affected 28 acres (which encompasses the 20 acres in the 2013 Amendments). The 2010 Amendment would have increased the residential density on the 28 acres from 28 dwelling units to 105 dwelling units, all in the CEA. It would have added 56 dwelling units to the CHHA. Petitioners challenged the amendment and an evidentiary hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge D.R. Alexander (DOAH Case No. 11-0009GM). On April 13, 2011, Judge Alexander entered a Recommended Order which recommended that the 2010 Amendment be determined not in compliance because: The amendment was not based on relevant and appropriate data because the most current SLOSH model results were not used; The amendment was inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a) which prohibits any increase in residential density in the CEA. The amendment was inconsistent with Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1 and Policy 4.3.1.1 which require that population and development be directed to areas outside the CHHA. The Recommended Order went to the Administration Commission, which ultimately dismissed the case when Manatee County rescinded Ordinance No. 10-02 and the 2010 Amendment. In Manatee County Ordinance No. 11-035, which was the ordinance used to rescind the 2010 Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the 2010 Amendment was internally inconsistent with FLUE Policy 2.2.2.4.5(a), Coastal Element Objective 4.3.1, and Coastal Element Policy 4.3.1.1 because the amendment increased residential density in the CEA and CHHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administration Commission issue a final order determining that the 2013 Amendments adopted by Manatee County Ordinance No. 13-10 are not in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2014, 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 8th day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Minix, Esquire Manatee County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 1000 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Edward Vogler, II, Esquire Vogler Ashton, PLLC 2411-A Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34205-4948 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 Barbara Leighty, Clerk Transportation and Economic Development Policy Unit The Capitol, Room 1801 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Peter Antonacci, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate an assisted living facility should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Orchard Meadows is an assisted living facility (ALF) which is owned by Nathaniel Gallon, and is located in Monticello, Florida. Prior Case and Administrative Fine In a prior case involving AHCA and Nathaniel Gallon, d/b/a Orchard Meadows, AHCA issued a Final Order dated September 27, 2001. The Final Order incorporated by reference a Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties, which read in pertinent part: The Respondent agrees to pay half of the administrative fine imposed, in the amount of seven thousand eight hundred seventy-five ($7,875) dollars, to be paid within sixty (60) days of entry of the Final Order adopting this settlement stipulation agreement. The Respondent agrees to maintain the facility in substantial compliance with all applicable statutes and rules governing assisted living facilities, as determined by the Agency field office manager, for a period of one year from the entry of the Final Order incorporating this settlement stipulation agreement. In the event that the conditions in paragraph 6 and 7 are not met, the following consequences shall result: the remaining seven thousand eight hundred seventy-five ($7,875) dollars outstanding from the administrative fine initially imposed by the Agency in the amount of fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty ($15,750) dollars, shall become due immediately. the Agency shall consider Respondent ineligible for renewal of licensure as an assisted living facility based on the demonstrated inability to comply with requirements of continued licensure. Eula Fogle is the Administrator of Orchard Meadows and has been in that position since May of 2000. According to both Mr. Gallon and Ms. Fogle, Orchard Meadows made efforts to acquire the funds to pay the $7,875.00 administrative fine referenced in paragraph 6 of the stipulation but acknowledge that they were unable to do so within the 60 days following the entry of the Final Order referenced above. However, a few days after the 60-day time period expired, they were able to acquire the funds and Ms. Fogle personally took a check for $7,875.00 to Mr. Rice at AHCA. AHCA did not accept the check but referred Ms. Fogle to the agency's lawyers. Ms. Fogle attempted to get in touch with the appropriate agency lawyer(s) in an effort to pay the fine but was unsuccessful in doing so. License renewal Orchard Meadows first received a license to operate an ALF by AHCA effective December 23, 1994. Orchard Meadows renewed its license and was issued a conditional license from December 23, 1996 through March 22, 1997. Orchard Meadows received a standard license for the period March 23, 1997 through December 22, 1998. On August 18, 1999, AHCA sent a letter to Orchard Meadows enclosing a standard renewal license #AL8362 issued for the period December 23, 1999 to December 22, 2002. Greg Rice is a Government Operations Consultant III in the Assisted Living Licensing Office of AHCA. According to Mr. Rice, ALF licenses are issued for two-year periods. Thus, the license issued from December 23, 1999 until December 22, 2002, was issued in error. On October 25, 1999, AHCA sent another letter to Orchard Meadows with a standard renewal license enclosed. The letter stated that the enclosed license was being issued to correct the dates of the one previously sent. The letter also requested that Orchard Meadows return the license previously issued. The renewal standard license #AL8362 was issued for the period December 23, 1998 until December 22, 2000, which resulted in a two-year licensure period beginning one year prior to the first renewal license and ending two years earlier. On July 31, 2000, AHCA sent a letter to Orchard Meadows notifying Petitioner that the license to operate expired December 22, 2000. The letter instructed Orchard Meadows to complete an enclosed application and return it with the appropriate fee 90 days before the expiration date. The letter further stated that failure to file a renewal application within that time frame will result in a late fee as allowed by law. The return-receipt card was signed by Demetria Poe on August 2, 2000. Ms. Poe is a former employee of Orchard Meadows and did not testify at the hearing. There is no evidence of any correspondence from AHCA to Orchard Meadows regarding the license status between the July 31, 2000 letter and a January 11, 2002 letter, a period of approximately one and one-half years. Despite the position by AHCA that the license expired December 22, 2000, AHCA continued to come to the facility to conduct surveys during the period of time in which AHCA contends that Orchard Meadows was operating without a license. According to Ms. Fogle, AHCA's most recent survey of the facility was conducted four to six months prior to the final hearing date. Mr. Rice's explained why Orchard Meadows was permitted to operate: Q. And even though that renewal was not submitted, they were permitted to continue to operate because they were in litigation; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so, because they were in litigation and because there was a settlement that needed to be complied with, is that the reason that there was no further notice to the facility after the July 2000? A. Yes. On January 11, 2002, AHCA sent a letter to Eula Fogle, Administrator of Orchard Meadows. The letter notified Ms. Fogle that the license to operate Orchard Meadows expired on December 22, 2000, and that no renewal application had been filed nor had the license fee been paid. The letter instructed Ms. Fogle to cease and desist operating Orchard Meadows. Ms. Fogle was surprised to receive the January 11, 2002 letter as the license with the 2002 expiration date was on the wall of the office in Orchard Meadows. According to Ms. Fogle, she was unaware of the July 31, 2000 letter signed for by the former employee, Demetria Poe, or of the license with the expiration date of December 22, 2000, that was issued in 1999. It was her understanding that Orchard Meadows' license was current until December 2002. Orchard Meadows filed a renewal application in early 2002. The record is not clear as to the exact date it was filed. However, Mr. Rice established that it was filed sometime subsequent to the January 11, 2002 letter from AHCA to Orchard Meadows. On February 27, 2002, AHCA issued the subject Notice Of Intent to Deny Orchard Meadows' renewal of their ALF license, which states as follows: Dear Ms. Fogle: It is the decision of this Agency that your renewal application for an assisted living facility (ALF) license be DENIED. The Specific Basis for this determination is: The applicant's failure to submit a completed renewal license application within the specified time frames pursuant to Section 400.414(1)(i), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Section 400.417, F.S. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide proof of liability insurance and failed to pay an outstanding fine in final order status (AHCA Case No's: 02-00-063-ALF, 02-00-004-ALF, 02-00-016-ALF and 02-00-053- ALF). The omitted information was requested by the Agency in a certified letter dated February 4, 2002, received by the applicant on February 6, 2002. The applicant failed to submit the required information to the Agency by February 25, 2002. No proof was presented at hearing describing any omissions request as referenced in the Notice of Intent to Deny. Nonetheless, Orchard Meadows' current liability insurance is with United National Insurance Company with an effective date of March 27, 2002 until March 27, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order requiring Orchard Meadows to pay the $7,875.00 fine and any renewal application fees, including any appropriate late fees, within 30 days of the issuance of the final order. Upon payment of the fine and license fees, Orchard Meadows' license should be renewed. If the fine and license fees are not paid within 30 days of the final order, the renewal application of Orchard Meadows should be denied and Orchard Meadows should cease operations as a licensed assisted living facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 16th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Lee Dougherty, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Leland McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 16th day of March, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondents are developers of land registered with Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 498, Florida Statutes, and were so registered at all times here relevant. In 1979 Respondent Suncoast Highland Corporation, (Suncoast) developer of Shadow Run Subdivision, received numerous complaints from the Shadow Run Homeowners Association (Homeowners) regarding lack of recreation facilities promised by the developer. This led to the execution of an AGREEMENT between Suncoast and Homeowners in which the developer agreed to install certain recreational facilities. This AGREEMENT was not carried out by Suncoast and, after intervention by the Division of Florida Land Sales (Division) a CONSENT ORDER was entered on 22 April 1981. In this CONSENT ORDER Suncoast irrevocably committed itself to complete the promised recreation facilities; agreed to file monthly progress reports with the Division; and, in the event of default by Suncoast, authorized the Division to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. Suncoast did not complete the recreational facilities as promised. On 12 March 1982 an MENDED CONSENT ORDER was entered into between the Division on the one hand and Suncoast, Timber Oaks, Inc. and Kingsland, Inc. on the other, in which it was determined Suncoast had failed to construct the prescribed recreational facilities and Kingsland, Inc. had failed to provide recorded warranty deeds and title insurance policies to purchasers in their registered subdivisions. In this Amended Consent Order Suncoast reaffirmed its commitment to complete the recreational facilities promised to Homeowners no later than June 15, 1982; Timber Oaks, Inc. guaranteed the completion of recreational facilities by Suncoast; and all Respondents agreed to establish and fund on or before March 31, 1982, an Escrow Account under the supervision of the Division in the amount of $95,000 to pay for the completion of the recreational facilities, to pay the costs associated with recording deeds and title insurance, and to pay delinquent real estate taxes. The Amended Consent Order further provided that in the event of default by the developers the Division will immediately be entitled to impose a civil penalty in the amount of $10,000. Respondents have failed to fund the Escrow Account or otherwise comply with the provisions of the Amended Consent Order.
The Issue Petitioner claims that Respondent owes approximately $6,000.00 for the purchase of grass sod. Respondent argues that the funds claimed by Petitioner are for repairs on equipment, not sod, and that its only indebtedness to Petitioner is $6.00, mistakenly omitted from a payment. The issue is whether Petitioner's claim is proper and cognizable under section 604.31, F.S., related to complaints of breach of agreement by a licensed dealer in agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. (Hillside) produces grass sod for sale to landscaping firms and similar customers. Its business address is 1620 East State Road 46, Geneva, Florida. Bill Hatfield Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bill's Landscaping (Hatfield) is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, bonded by Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety. Hatfield's business address is 1116 State Road 434, Winter Springs, Florida. Sometime around April 1989, Hatfield began purchasing sod from Hillside. Hatfield uses a lot of sod in his landscaping business. The arrangement between the parties was that Hillside would charge an extra 1/2 cent a square foot on his price for the sod for the use of heavy equipment (forklifts). Hillside owns twenty-seven such machines and loaned three out to Hatfield. The equipment stayed at Hatfield's job sites and was operated by Hatfield's crew. When the equipment broke down, Hatfield notified Hillside, who had it repaired. At least some of the repair bills were sent to Hatfield, who paid them. Sometime around the end of September 1989, Avery Wisdom complained to Bill Hatfield about what he thought was an excessive amount of repairs on his equipment. He felt Hatfield's workers were rough on the machines. He suggested several alternatives, including pulling the machines off the jobs and letting Hatfield provide his own machines. He also suggested that he could purchase new equipment and let Hatfield pay all its expenses over a period of time, ultimately buying the equipment, in a lease-purchase type of arrangement. Another suggestion was that he would get the equipment overhauled and let Hatfield pay all the repair bills. Suggestions one and two were apparently rejected, and it is not clear that suggestion three was formally accepted. Nothing was put in writing. Hatfield claims now that he offered to pay an additional 1/2 cent per square foot of sod for the use of the equipment. Avery Wisdom claims that he did raise the price of his sod, but that it was an across-the-board price increase for all of his customers due to increased costs of production, and not related to rental. The October 9, 1989 invoice #13290 from Hillside to Bill's Nursery reflects an increase of $2.00 per pallet of Bahia sod and $2.50 per pallet of Floratam sod, or 1/2 cent per square foot increase. Debra Ludewig, the bookkeeper and general office manager for Hatfield, asked Hatfield why the price" went up, and he told her it was for the equipment. Hillside continued to bill Hatfield for repairs on the equipment after October 1989. These repair costs are reflected on invoices to Bill's Landscaping and are backed up by separate special "repair order" forms itemizing each repair bill. The "special repair order" forms were also furnished to Bill's Landscaping. The repairs are listed on the invoices with a date, reference to the "special repair order" (SRO number), and a total cost which is calculated into the purchaser's running total at the bottom of the invoice. Payments were made on a continuing basis by Hatfield in varying amounts, and rarely in an exact amount to correspond to the total on an invoice. That is, Bill's Nursery maintained a running balance of its account with Hillside, sometimes totalling as much as $20,000.00. Each time she made a payment to Hillside, Debra Ludewig wrote the invoice number on the check. Sometimes more than one check would reflect a single invoice number. After October 1989, Debra Ludewig started deducting the repair bill portion of the invoices when she computed her payments to Hillside. She did this on her own initiative, without direction from Hatfield, because she understood that the 1/2 cent price increase was to cover the repairs. She did not question why the repair bills were being sent and were still being included on the invoices; she just deducted them without any notice to Hillside. In the meantime, the invoices kept coming from Hillside, showing the running balance on Hatfield's account. The top of the invoices reflected the prior outstanding balance, then payments since the last invoice, then additional charges for sod, then repair orders (if any), and then the total amount outstanding. It is clear from the invoices maintained by Hillside and provided to Hatfield, that Hillside was applying Hatfield's checks to the total outstanding balance, which balance included any repair bills, as well as sod delivered. On the other hand, the invoice numbers referenced on Hatfield's checks to Hillside substantiate that Ms. Ludewig was unilaterally deducting sums from certain invoices, which sums corresponded to the amounts being charged for repairs. It is not clear that Hillside was aware of the bookkeeping discrepancy, as nothing was said about deducting the repair bills until the parties' relationship came to an end in June 1990. Hatfield found a new sod producer, claiming that a customer complained about the quality of Hillside's sod. The total amount of repairs charged by Hillside to Hatfield between October 1, 1989, and June 1990, was $7150.25, compared to approximately $300,000.00 for sod,. The final invoice from Hillside to Bill's Landscaping reflected a total balance due of $13,872.59. This invoice #14070 is dated June 18, 1990. On June 21, 1990 and June 29, 1990, payments were made by Hatfield in the amounts of $3,000.70 and $4,641.00 respectively. This left a balance due of $6,230.89. Avery Wisdom concedes that this total should be adjusted: an invoice #13256 (9/22/89) charged $4.50 sales tax in error, and invoice #13406 (11/13/89) included a math error in the amount of $206.70. The proper adjusted total is $6,019.69. The last invoice to include repairs to equipment is dated April 16, 1990. After that date, according to invoices dated from April 23, 1990 to June 18, 1990, Hatfield purchased $39,943.98 in sod from Hillside. The most recent $6,019.69, therefore, is not attributable to repairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its final order finding Respondent indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $6,019.69 and requiring payment within fifteen (15) days after the order becomes final as provided in Section 604.21(7), F.S. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery P. Wisdom, President Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. 1620 E. State Road 46 Geneva, FL 32732 Bill Hatfield, President Bill Hatfield Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bills Landscaping 1116 State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Ohio Casualty Insurance Company 136 North Third Street Hamilton, OH 45025 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Senior Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Monticello Nursery Company of Florida, Inc., is a corporation whose address is Post Office Box 190, Monticello, Florida. (Petitioner's Complaint) Respondent, Paul Pent, d/b/a Paul Pent Landscape Company, is located at 1660 Emerson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. At the time of the transactions involved, Respondent was licensed as a dealer in agricultural products under License No. 3531. (Petitioner's Complaint, Order of Department of Agriculture dated November 15, 1985) Corespondent, Transamerica Insurance Company as surety provided bond number 5182-39-34 for Respondent in the amount of $4,750. (Petitioner's Complaint, Order of Department of Agriculture dated November 15, 1985) Petitioner's complaint for $6,159.30 is based upon two invoices for nursery plants: Invoice 1060 in the amount of $2,612.80, and Invoice 1308 in the amount of $6,109.30. From the total of $8,722.10 is deducted "payments and credit" of $2,562.80. (Petitioner's Complaint) The figures on the complaint and the attached invoices accurately reflect the statement of account for the subject transactions. (Testimony of Sandy Mazza) Invoice No. 1060 is for several kinds of nursery plants and is dated 12/31/84. On the invoice the order date is 10/26/84 and the "ship date" is 12/07/84. Whether the sale occurred upon order, shipment or date of invoice is immaterial, as all three dates are more than nine months prior to the filing of the complaint on September 5, 1985. Invoice No. 1308 is for a quantity of crepe myrtle trees and is dated 1/31/85. The order date and "ship date" are both 1/28/85. One invoice supports, and the other conflicts with, the date of 12/31/84, stated on the face of the complaint as the "date of sale". The invoices are competent evidence as supported by the bookkeeper's testimony. The finding in the November 15, 1985 order of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that the sale totaling $6,159.30 was made on September 5, 1985, conflicts with both the complaint and the invoices and is unsupported by any evidence in the record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued requiring Respondent Paul Pent, pay Petitioner $3,546.50. The Final Order should specify that failure to comply will result in a requirement that Transamerica Insurance Company pay said sum to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for distribution to Monticello Nursery. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John C. Cooper, Esquire Douglas, Cooper & Coppins, P.A. 211 East Call Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1674 Mr. Paul Pent Pent Landscape Company 1660 Emerson Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Transamerica Insurance Company 1150 South Olive Street Los Angeles, California 90015 Joe W. Kight, Chief Division of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether, with respect to each application filed, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) review and decision-making process in response to the Request for Applications 2020-201 (RFA) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the RFA.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. The effect is to reduce the amount that the developer must otherwise borrow. Because the total debt is lower, the housing credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the housing credits. The demand for housing credits provided by the federal government exceeds supply. The Competitive Application Process Section 420.507(48) authorizes Florida Housing to allocate housing credits and other funding through requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations, and Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to prescribe the competitive solicitation process. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Applicants for funding request, in their applications, a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally will sell the rights to the future stream of income housing credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount an applicant can receive depends on several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. These are just examples of the factors considered, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Housing credits are made available through a competitive application process that starts with the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is considered to be a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA in this case was issued on August 26, 2020, and responses were due November 5, 2020. The RFA was modified September 11, 2020, and October 12, 2020, but with no change with respect to the response deadline. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $15,275,810 of housing credits to proposed developments in medium-sized counties, and up to an estimated $1,453,730 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 84 applications in response to RFA 2020-201. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board). The Review Committee found 79 applications eligible and five applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 10 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. The federal government enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CCA) in December 2020, and as a result, an additional $3,367,501 in housing credits became available for affordable housing for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, which were impacted by Hurricane Sally. The staff at Florida Housing recommended using the CCA funding to award housing credits to additional highest-ranking eligible applications in qualified disaster areas, subject to the county award tally, regardless of the county size in RFA 2020-201 and developed a chart listing its CCA funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On January 22, 2021, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee and staff for RFA 2020-201. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that day, all of the applicants in RFA 2020-201 were provided notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding, and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Notice was provided by posting on the Florida Housing website two spreadsheets: one listing the Board-approved scoring results in RFA 2020-201; and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the January 22, 2021, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 24 applicants, including The Villages, Pinnacle at Hammock Springs, and Rosemary Place. Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings. All Intervenors have been properly recognized as such. The terms of RFA 2020-201 were not challenged. RFA 2020-201 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is listed in Section 5.A.1. of the RFA, beginning at page 71. Only applications that meet all of the eligibility requirements will be eligible for funding and considered for the funding selection. This challenge does not raise any issues with respect to the point totals awarded to the applicants. The RFA has four funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund five Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a of the RFA, with a preference that three of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(1) of the RFA to be considered submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113, and two of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(2) of the RFA to be considered not submitted in RFA 2019-113. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.5.i of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the geographic Areas of Opportunity/ SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.10.a(1)(d) of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the SunRail Goal outlined in Section Four, A.5.e.(5) of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process, outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal with one exception: If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, the SunRail Goal will also be considered met. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp.75). At page 76 of Joint Exhibit 1, the RFA also sets forth the sorting order to be used when selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal: The highest scoring applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Priority I Medium County Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order. This will then be repeated for Priority II Applications: First, counties of the Applications that (i) qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal in FRA 2019-113 and (ii) were invited to enter credit underwriting will receive lower preference than other Medium Counties competing for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. This affects the following counties: Brevard, Lee, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, and Volusia. The remaining counties will receive higher preference. Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. Next, the RFA sets forth the sorting order for selecting applications to meet the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. It then sets for the sorting order after selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal (LGAO Designation) and Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. The RFA includes a funding test where a) small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding ($1,453,730) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount, and b) medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding ($15,275,810) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount. The RFA outlines a specific County Award Tally based on Priority Levels as follows: Priority I County Award Tally As each Priority I Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. Priority II County Award Tally As each Priority II Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority II Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 78-79) The RFA outlines the selection process at pages 79-81 as follows: Five Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal Applications that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not Awarded The first three Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not awarded, subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this preference is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this preference, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this preference is met. Applications that were not submitted in RFA 2019-113 The next Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were not submitted in 2019-113, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this Goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are not eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this Goal. One Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Two Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal The next two Applications select [sic] for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are no eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this goal. One Application that Qualifies for the SunRail Goal If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal described in a. above or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal described in b. above also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, this Goal will be considered met without selecting an additional Application. If none of the Applications selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization also qualify for the SunRail Goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Priority I Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Priority I Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded Small County Priority II Application can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected, and the remaining Small County Funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Priority I Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority I Applications can meet the Medium County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority II Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Medium County Funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. After the description of the sorting process, the RFA specifies: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or provisions outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 84 applications for RFA 2020-201 were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Fletcher Black Application During the scoring process, Florida Housing determined that the Fletcher Black application was eligible for funding, but ineligible for the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black was not selected for preliminary funding. If Fletcher Black’s application was eligible for the LGAO Designation, it would have been selected for funding. It would have been selected as the second of the three developments selected for the LGAO Priority I applications that qualified for the preference for those development applications submitted in RFA 2019-113, but not awarded as outlined on pages 69-70 of the RFA. Additionally, if Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, then The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs will be displaced from funding. In order to qualify for the LGAO Designation and Goal, applicants must “demonstrate a high level of Local Government interest in the project via an increased amount of Local Government contributions in the form of cash loans and/or cash grants.” The RFA outlines the types and amounts of contributions from Local Governments that will be accepted to meet the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black’s proposed development is in Bay County. Therefore, Fletcher Black would be required to demonstrate a contribution of at least $340,000 to be considered for the LGAO Designation. The RFA at page 67 expressly limits the number of applications from the same government jurisdiction as follows: Limit on the number of Applications within the same jurisdiction A proposed Development may only qualify where a jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) has contributed cash loans and/or cash grants for any proposed Development applying for this RFA in an amount sufficient to qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. A Local Government can only contribute to one Application that qualifies for the Local Government Area of Opportunity Designation, regardless of how the contribution is characterized. Any single jurisdiction may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants to more than one proposed Development applying for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. If multiple Applications demonstrate Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding from the same jurisdiction and those Applications qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, then all such Applications will be deemed ineligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, regardless of the amount of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding or how the contribution is characterized. However, Local Governments may pool contributions to support one Application (i.e., the county and the city may provide contribution to the same Development and each Local Government will submit its own form as an Attachment to the Application). Page 68 of the RFA describes the requirements for demonstrating LGAO funding: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Forms (Form Rev. 07-2019), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution -- Grant” form. The forms must meet the Non-Corporation Funding Proposal Requirements outlined in 10.b.(2)(a) above, the qualifying funding must be reflected as a source on the Development Cost Pro Forma, and the applicable form(s) must be provided as Attachment 16 to the Application. Applications are not required to reflect the value (difference between the face amount and the net present value of the payment streams) on any Local Government Verification Forms. Similarly, Section 10.b.(2)(a) of the RFA specifies that, Note: Eligible Local Government financial commitments (i.e., grants and loans) can be considered a source of financing without meeting the requirements above if the Applicant provides a properly completed and executed Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Form 0702019) and/or the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form (Form 07-2019). Fletcher Black submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Grant Form) from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000. Fletcher Black’s Grant Form was executed by Greg Bridnicki, as the Mayor of Panama City and “Approved as to Form and Correctness” by Nevin Zimmerman, City Attorney. Fletcher Black’s request for funding from Panama City was placed on the agenda for the City of Panama City City Commission’s August 25, 2020, meeting, and approved by the City Commission, which authorized Mr. Bridnicki to sign the Grant Form. Fletcher Black had obtained a similar LGAO Form in the previous year using the same established process. Fletcher Black did not submit any documentation in the RFA Application regarding the process used to gain approval of the grant. However, no party identified any requirement in the RFA that such a description must be included in the Application. Fletcher Black cannot be faulted for not supplying something that is not required. Another Applicant, Panama Manor App. No. 2021-074C, submitted a Grant Form from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000 executed by Michael Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s title is listed as the Director of Community Development/CRA/CDBG/SHIP. During the scoring process, Florida Housing’s scorer found that since both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor submitted documentation for the LGAO Designation from the same jurisdiction, the City of Panama City, according to the terms of the RFA, both applications were deemed ineligible for the LGAO Designation. The Grant Form submitted by both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor contains the following instruction regarding who is authorized to sign the form on behalf of the local government: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/ Administrator/ Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. … One of the authorized persons named above may sign this form for certification of state, federal or Local Government funds initially obtained or derived from a Local Government that is directly administered by an intermediary such as a housing finance authority, a community reinvestment corporation, or a state-certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Other signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. To be considered for points, the amount of the contribution stated on this form must be a precise dollar amount and cannot include words such as estimated, up to, maximum, not to exceed, etc. Michael Johnson was not authorized by the City of Panama City to sign the Grant Form. Greg Bridnicki, as Mayor of Panama City, is an authorized signatory. Panama Manor’s request was not submitted to the City Commission for approval. Because the Grant Form was improperly signed, Panama Manor should not, by the terms of the RFA, receive credit for the LGAO Designation. Had Panama Manor’s application received the LGAO Designation, it would not have been selected for funding because its lottery number was too high. Michael Johnson is the Director of Community Development for the City of Panama City. While he is an employee for the City of Panama City, he also performs duties for Bay County through an interlocal agreement between the city and the county. The Grant Form submitted for Panama Manor stated on its face that it was signed on behalf of the City of Panama City, but Mr. Johnson testified that the form was supposed to reflect that it was for Bay County. Mr. Johnson testified that over the last 17 years, he has executed approximately 40 forms for applications for funding from Florida Housing. He acknowledged that there are multiple types of forms that may need signatures from city or county officials to complete a Florida Housing application, such as zoning forms and infrastructure-verification forms, as well as local government contribution forms. Since Florida Housing changed its process to use RFAs in 2013, Mr. Johnson could not recall if he signed the Grant Forms or whether the city manager did. He could not confirm signing a single Grant Form for either the city or the county since 2013. Mr. Johnson believed that he had the authority to sign Grant Forms on behalf of both the city and the county. Mark McQueen, the City of Panama City city manager and Mr. Johnson’s boss, does not share his belief. According to Mr. McQueen, whose testimony is credited, Panama City committed only to the Fletcher Black property, took no official action with respect to Panama Manor’s application, and Mr. Johnson was not authorized to sign the Grant Form committing funds on behalf of the City. When Mr. Johnson realized that the Panama Manor Grant Form stated that it was signed on behalf of Panama City as opposed to Bay County, he called the legal department for Florida Housing to explain the error. He testified that he spoke with several people at Florida Housing, including Jean Salmonson, David Weston, and someone in the multi-family development section. Mr. Johnson was not sure of the dates when these telephone calls were made, but it appears that the telephone calls were after the submission of the applications but before the posting of funding selections. Marissa Button is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs. She testified that Florida Housing is aware of the contention that the form submitted by Panama Manor was signed in error and should have reflected that it was signed on behalf of Bay County. She was also aware that according to Mr. McQueen, Mr. Johnson did not have the authority to sign a Grant Form on behalf of the City of Panama City. She stated: Q. How does that information impact Florida Housing’s scoring decision? A. This --at this juncture it does not impact Florida Housing’s scoring determination as to the Panama Manor or Fletcher Black being designated as LGAO goal. … We take the requirement of the RFA specifically references the – the submission of what – when there’s a submission of multiple applications from the same jurisdiction, and so we, Florida Housing, consider that as of – as of the application deadline what this applicant has submitted is a form executed on behalf of the City of Panama City. To change the designation, which I understand from Mr. Johnson’s testimony it was a mistake, he intended to issue on behalf of Bay County and reflect that, we interpret that to be a – an improper amendment or modification to the application after the application submission. So we do not consider it to change the scoring designation of the – of either the Panama Manor application or the resulting consequence to the Fletcher Black application. * * * Q. Now, Fletcher Black may argue that it’s unfair to treat its application as ineligible for the LGAO designation and goals when the Fletcher Black [application] did not contain an error. What would your response be to that? A. You know, my response is, we score the application in accordance with the terms of the RFA. The applications are responsible for all parts of that – that RFA with regard to their application submission. It’s clear in this RFA that there would be a consequence if other applications were submitted from the same jurisdiction for an LGAO designation. And, unfortunately, that’s the mistake that happened, but the fairness – it is a fair process because we are – we are administering the RFA as it has been, you know – as the terms exist to the public and to the fellow applications that came in for funding. So, I – I do believe it’s unfortunate that that consequence impacts their application; however, it is – it is fair because that’s the consequence if it happens. (T-39-40, 45-46). Panama Manor’s application did not demonstrate local government funding because the Grant Form was not signed by someone with authority to do so. The RFA specifically states that “[o]ther signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed.” Where forms signed by local government officials are challenged, Ms. Button indicated that Florida Housing has in the past relied upon or deferred to local government officials to address the propriety of the forms signed. The issue usually arises with forms related to zoning or other facets encompassed in the Ability to Proceed forms. Here, the credible testimony of local officials is that the Grant Form for Panama Manor was intended to reflect a funding commitment from Bay County and the signator on Panama Manor’s Grant Form was not authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Panama City. It would be contrary to competition if Panama Manor were allowed to amend its application to correct the Grant Form. It is appropriate to disregard Panama Manor’s Grant Form, given the inaccuracies contained therein. If Panama Manor’s application is not selected for the LGAO Designation because of its failure to demonstrate that the City of Panama City is providing local support for Panama Manor’s project, then there is only one application with a valid Grant Form from the City of Panama City, and that is Fletcher Black. Ms. Button testified that it would provide a competitive advantage to Fletcher Black if Fletcher Black were considered for the LGAO Designation. However, she stated that applicants are responsible for all parts of their application submission. Fletcher Black did not make an error in its application and is not requesting that it be amended in any way. It is asking that the application be considered as submitted, just as other applications are considered. Florida Housing’s decision to find Fletcher Black ineligible for the LGAO Designation is clearly erroneous, in light of the clear demonstration that Panama Manor did not demonstrate a local funding commitment from the City of Panama City, and Fletcher Black is the only entity that did so. The Rosemary Place Application Florida Housing deemed the Rosemary Place application to be eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Rosemary Place for funding. One of the requirements for eligibility under the RFA is that applicants demonstrate Site Control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form (Site Control Form). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate Site Control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. The RFA specifies at pages 39-40 that an eligible contract must meet the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant: and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The RFA notifies applicants that Florida Housing’s review of the Site Control documents is limited. At page 40, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. The RFA also requires that, for the purpose of demonstrating Site Control, “documentation must include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” A “scattered site” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(106) as “a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition ‘contiguous’ means touching at a point or along a boundary. …” Rosemary Place submitted a properly completed and executed Site Control Form which was accepted by Florida Housing during its review, scoring, and ranking process. As an attachment to its Site Control Form, Rosemary Place attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Rosemary Place Agreement) between Kyle McDorman as the Seller and RM FL XX Prime, LLC (the applicant entity for Rosemary Place) as the Purchaser. The Rosemary Place Agreement has a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021, and states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The Rosemary Place Application identified the address of the proposed development as “690’ N of intsctn of 331-Bus & Azalea Dr on W side of 331- Bus; within city limits of Freeport, FL (Walton County).” (J-16, page 5). The Development Location Point, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates was correctly identified, and the Rosemary Place Application stated that the proposed development did not consist of scattered sites. Exhibit A of the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies the property as follows: That Thirteen (13.0) Acres situated in the City of Freeport, FL (Distrct 2); Section 10, Township 1S, Range 19, and which is part of Walton County, FL Parcel 10-1S-19-23000-009-0020 which is further described in the land records of Walton County, FL as 210FT SQ FT IN THE SE/C OF THE W1/2 OF THE NE1/4 OF SW1/4 IN SEC 10-1S-19W, 204-184, 1204-279, 2660- 2976, 3084-4417 and which is recorded in that Warranty Deed from Grantor Aaron M and Rachel N Sloan Elkins to Grantee Kyle J. McDorman which Warranty Deed is recorded in the land records of Walton County, FL at Book 3084 and Page Number 4417. The Property is further described and identified as the shaded area denoted with an X in the image below. Based on the Walton County Property Appraiser map, the shaded area denoted with an X is contained within Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000, which is owned by the Seller, Kyle McDorman, as opposed to Parcel No. 10- 1S-19-23000-009-0020. Timshell contends that the shaded area denoted with an X overlaps parcels outside of Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000. Timshell contends that the submitted Site Control documentation submitted by Rosemary Place is not consistent with the requirements of the RFA because of the uncertainty of the property that is actually being purchased and where the proposed Development site is actually located. Timshell also contends that the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement, as written and submitted to Florida Housing, denotes scattered sites which were not disclosed by Rosemary Place in its application. Rosemary Place contends, and Florida Housing agrees, that the shaded area denoted with an X on Exhibit A to the Rosemary Place Agreement sufficiently identifies the property being purchased through the agreement as the Development site. Moreover, the visual depiction of the property is consistent with the written description of the development location in the Rosemary Place Application at J-16, page 5. The Rosemary Place Application does not depict scattered sites. Even assuming that the parcel number included in Exhibit A were part of the purchase reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, an eligible contract may involve the purchase of multiple properties or a larger parcel of property than will be developed. What is most important is that the documents show where the development will be located, which Rosemary Place’s application demonstrates, and that the applicant will have control over the location. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing did not consider the Rosemary Place Application to be proposing a scattered sites development. Rosemary Place affirmatively stated that it was not proposing a scattered sites development; did not list coordinates for scattered sites; and did not identify the location of scattered sites on other forms required by the RFA. Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement contains typographical errors in the written description of the property being sold. Stewart Rutledge, who prepared the Purchase and Sale Agreement, testified credibly that parcel numbers are listed on the Walton County Property Appraiser website, and that to see a particular parcel description, the user clicks on the parcel number he or she wants to see. When preparing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Rutledge mistakenly clicked on the parcel number immediately above the parcel number he wanted, and he did not notice the error. The parcel number reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement references another parcel owned by the seller, Kyle McDorman. Florida Housing considered the typographical error within Exhibit A that results in the listing of the wrong parcel number and property description to be a waivable minor irregularity because the error did not result in the omission of any material information; did not create uncertainty that a term of the RFA was met; and did not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. The same could be said for other typographical error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, such as capitalizing the word “property” when it should not have been. Ms. Button also noted that the RFA does not require applicants to submit a land survey of the proposed development site with its application. The RFA states that Florida Housing reserves the right to waive minor irregularities. A minor irregularity is defined in rule 67-60.008 as: those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Timshell presented the testimony of Stephen Rutan, a professional land surveyor. Mr. Rutan believed that, based on the property description in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the proposed development site overlapped with another parcel not owned by the seller. Mr. Rutan did not perform a professional land survey and admitted that the boundary lines in his informational Exhibit (Timshell Exhibit 4) were not completely accurate. Given that the measurements that Mr. Rutan provided were estimates and not the result of a survey, and the testimony by Mr. Rutledge that the parcel identification was the result of a clerical error, Mr. Rutan’s testimony is given little weight, and does not demonstrate that the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement included in Rosemary Place’s application created any real uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met. Florida Housing’s determination that the error in Rosemary Place’s application was a waivable minor irregularity is not clearly erroneous. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove Florida Housing determined that the Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove Applications were eligible for funding but ineligible for the “submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 Preference.” Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove were not selected for preliminary funding. Within the LGAO Designation and Goal, the RFA contained preferences for funding. One of those preferences was for developments that were submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 (the 2019-113 Preference). In order to qualify for the 2019-113 Preference, an Applicant must meet the following requirements: The question at 11.b.(1) of Exhibit A must reflect confirmation that the Development was submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113; The Application in RFA 2019-113 must have provided a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan or Grant form demonstrating the minimum Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Amount outlined in RFA 2019-113; The Development Location Point and latitude and longitude coordinates for all scattered sites stated at question 5. of Exhibit A for the proposed Development must be located on the same site(s) as the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. These coordinates do not need to be identical to the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. All entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical; and The Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 was not invited to enter credit underwriting. Florida Housing scored Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove as qualifying for all requirements of the 2019-113 Preference except for the requirement that “[a]ll entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical.” (Identical Principals Requirement). The Principals disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form for Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove in RFA 2019- 113 were identical to the Principals disclosed in the applications submitted for RFA 2020-201. The plain language of the RFA only requires that the “entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) be identical.” The plain language of the RFA does not require that the Applicant and Developer entities be identical to those listed in the 2019-113 application. Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove met the requirements for the 2019-113 preference. However, even though Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, they would not be selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. The Villages Florida Housing determined that The Villages Application is eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, The Villages has been preliminarily selected for funding. During scoring, Florida Housing reviewed the Villages’ Zoning Form and determined that it met the requirements of the RFA to demonstrate appropriate zoning. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove alleged in their Petitions that The Villages failed to demonstrate Ability to Proceed and appropriate zoning as required by the terms of the RFA. Prior to hearing, Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove withdrew their challenge to The Villages’ eligibility for funding. However, should Florida Housing determine, as recommended, that Panama Manor’s Grant Form did not demonstrate a funding commitment from Panama City, then Fletcher Black would receive funding as opposed to The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to Case No. 21-0515BID, finding that Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, and awarding funding to Fletcher Black, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting; that with respect to Case Nos. 21-0516BID, 21-0517BID, and 21-0518BID, finding that Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, but are not selected for funding; and with respect to Case No. 21-0520BID, finding that the decision to award funding to Rosemary Place was not clearly erroneous, and the error in its application was a minor waivable irregularity. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Carletta Myers d/b/a Myers’ Nursery filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on October 23, 1996, alleging that Florida Landscape Associates of Palm Harbor, Inc. failed to pay over $5800 for plants purchased between April and August 1996. The issue in this proceeding is whether those monies are owed.
Findings Of Fact Myers’ Nursery (Myers’) is located in Tampa, Florida. It produces agricultural products in the state of Florida. Florida Landscape Associates (Florida Landscape) is a dealer in agricultural products, also located in Tampa, Florida. It purchases plants for its various landscaping projects. For many months prior to April 1996, Myers’ and Florida Landscape had an arrangement in which Florida Landscape, mostly though Anna Borgan, its manager, ordered nursery stock by telephone for pick up later by Florida Landscape’s employees. Upon pick up, the employee generally signed an invoice “received by”. Later, Florida Landscape sent a payment for the products. This arrangement was the same for most of the firms with which Myers’ conducted its business. During 1995, Florida Landscape paid approximately $8,000 for its purchases from Myers’. Florida Landscape continued to order and pick up plants from Myers’ in 1996. However, commencing some time in March 1996, the payments stopped. Between April 1996 and the end of August 1996, Florida Landscape’s unpaid purchases totaled over $6,000. Despite calls and written demands, the invoices remain unpaid. Myers’ filed its complaint with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services on October 23, 1996. By that time some of the unpaid invoices were beyond the six-month’s statutory period for recovery under the agricultural bond program administered by the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services. At the hearing, Myers’ submitted invoices dated from April 24, 1996 through August 23, 1996, reflecting approximately $6,000 of unpaid purchases by Florida Landscape. Without explaining why all of these invoices remain unpaid, Florida Landscape conceded that it owes the money for all but two categories: the invoices that are not signed “received by”, and the invoices that were signed “received by” James (Jim) Derewenko. Throughout the relevant period Jim Derewenko was an employee of Florida Landscape who routinely picked up and signed for nursery stock from Myers’. Sometime around the end of August 1996, Derewenko’s ex-wife told Florida Landscape that he had his own business on the side, in competition with his employer. Anna Borgan and others at Florida Landscape became concerned about Derewenko having diverted to his own customers plants ostensibly ordered by Florida Landscape. According to Anna Borgan, they “just didn’t know” where the plants ended up. On September 10, 1996, Florida Landscape, by John Van Vulpen, its president, sent a letter notifying all of its vendors including Myers’, that, as of August 26, 1996, Jim Derewenko was no longer employed by Florida Landscape and was not authorized to make purchases on behalf of Florida Landscape. The invoices for which Myers’ is claiming payment all precede the letter from Florida Landscape and pre-date Derewenko’s termination on August 26. There is no evidence that Myers’ had any knowledge of Derewenko’s diversion of plants. Most of the invoices for which Myers’ claims payment have been signed by employees of Florida Landscape, including Jim Derewenko. For the invoices with no signature “received by”, it is impossible to determine who picked up the plants. Excluding the unsigned invoices, the total owed by Florida Landscape to Myers’ is $5854.55. This sum includes invoices dated August 21, 1996, and August 23, 1996, included in Petitioner’s exhibit no. 1.
