The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether sufficient grounds exists for the Petitioner, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, to terminate Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr.'s employment with the Authority because of the matters alleged in the Letter of Termination dated February 15, 1995.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Authority, was a governmental agency with membership held by Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco Counties and the cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa. It is charged with the responsibility of providing water resource management for its members. In November, 1994, the Respondent, Steve Toler, Jr., then employed for 9 1/2 years by the Authority as a maintenance technician, was under the supervision of Ben Nevel, lead supervisor for his crew and Harry Vogel, the facilities maintenance supervisor at Cypress Creek pump station. Just before Thanksgiving that year, his crew was given the responsibility of removing certain supposedly above ground aluminum pipe belonging to Pinellas County and replacing it with buried PVC pipe on the county's well field on Cross Bar Ranch, owned by Pinellas County. On the last day of the project Respondent was working by himself at the job site doing those things necessary to complete the project. This included removing three aluminum pipes and replacing them with three PVC pipes. In the course of the removal of the aluminum pipe, two pipes were damaged by Respondent because they were buried and he could not see them. When Respondent attempted to bury the three pieces of PVC pipe, he found that he needed some pipe lubricant in order to get them joined and called the pump station to have someone bring it. The lubricant was brought to the site by Mr. Vogel about noon, and the two men talked about the project. According to Mr. Vogel, Respondent made no mention of any damaged pipe nor did Vogel see any damaged pipe while he was at the site. Vogel adamantly denies that he ever, either that day or at any other time, told Respondent that he could throw away damaged pipe. The instructions that Vogel had left with Mr. Nevel for transmittal to the crew was that the removed pipe was to be placed in storage at the north end of the ranch because it belonged to Pinellas County, not to the Authority, and even if the pipe was damaged, the ends might be used for fittings. It is not clear whether Respondent knew the pipe belonged to the county or to the cattle company which had originally owned the ranch. Notwithstanding, Respondent took the two damaged pipes back to the Cypress Creek pumping station where, without speaking to anyone about what he proposed to do, he placed them in the trash dumpster for disposal. The following day, after completing his day's work, Respondent noted that the pipe was still in the dumpster and, without seeking approval from anyone, removed it from the dumpster, placed it in his truck, and that same day, sold it to All American Metal Recycling in Land O'Lakes, Florida, for $29.00 which he kept for his personal use. He collects scrap aluminum and copper in order to sell them. Respondent admits that as an Authority employee, he did not have the authority to take property owned by the Authority or its members for his own use. Ordinarily, he admits, the disposal of Authority-owned property had to be approved. The authority for approval, as contained in the agency's standard operating procedure for disposal of Authority assets, dated February 14, 1994, was the Cypress Creek storekeeper. Though it is not written, the Authority has a policy against employees taking material out of the dumpsters at the Cypress Creek facility. It was Toler's understanding, however, that old, unusable pieces of piping and wood could be thrown away, but equipment and property that had value had to be turned into Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, who would evaluate it for disposal or repair. At no time did Respondent have the authority to make that determination. Mr. Toler admits he was aware of the Authority's policy on the disposal of property as noted in the February 14 SOP, as it had been outlined at no lees than two safety meetings he had attended. He understood that if he threw property away without authority, he could be fired. In fact, he admits, Mr. Vogel had so advised him of that. In the instant case, however, he contends, Mr. Vogel told him on the last day of the project in issue, in response to his inquiry, that he should throw the damaged pipe away. This was, as stated earlier, categorically denied by Mr. Vogel. Respondent also indicates that on the second day of the project, pipe being removed was damaged. That pipe was taken to the north pasture and stacked near other, undamaged pipe. The total amount of aluminum pipe removed in this project consisted of approximate one hundred twenty foot long "sticks". Respondent well knew he could not take and sell the stacked pipe, even that which was damaged. Respondent claims that no one saw him put the damaged pipe into the dumpster. He did not think about the opportunity to salvage the pipe when Mr. Vogel told him to throw it away or even when he brought it back and threw it into the dumpster. It was not until the next day when, after work, he saw the pipe still in the dumpster, that it occurred to him to take it, he claims. Respondent admits he has taken scrap metal and sold it before and claims others have done so, too. When he put this pipe in the dumpster he realized that others might take it, so he was somewhat surprised when it was still there the next day. Respondent also admits he did not tell Mr. Vogel how he had disposed of the pipe at first. Once the situation came under investigation, however, as a result of an inquiry regarding missing pipe from the Cross Bar Ranch project, he did so. He admits that sometime after the day he took and sold the pipe as scrap, but before the investigation was commenced, Mr. Vogel asked him what he had done with the pipe, and Respondent replied he had thrown it away. A few days later, in Vogel's office, when the investigation had begun, Mr. Vogel again asked Respondent what he had done with the pipe, and this time Respondent admitted to scrapping it. In the course of the investigation, Respondent spoke with Mr. Capp, a Cypress Creek engineer, about the allegation. In that conversation, held in Mr. Capp's office while no one else was present, Respondent admitted selling the broken pipe for scrap and advised that Mr. Vogel had told him to throw it away. At that time, he offered to replace the pipe, but his offer was not accepted. Some time later, and prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, he was given a letter by Mr. Capp placing him on administrative leave pending investigation. At that time, Mr. Capp denied knowing what was in the letter. On February 8, 1995 a pre-disciplinary hearing was held with Respondent and counsel present at which time Respondent was given an opportunity to tell his side of the story. At that time, he did not mention any other individuals who had taken scrap from the dumpster, nor had he ever told Mr. Vogel, Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy about that. He claims he does not know of any cases where either Mr. Capp or Mr. Kennedy knew of others taking scrap but not being disciplined. However, Respondent is of the opinion Mr. Vogel knows what is going on but he cannot be sure. As was stated previously, Respondent has taken scrap from the dumpster before and claims Mr. Vogel knew it. Vogel, predictably, denies that. Some time after the pre-disciplinary hearing, after Kennedy received the information regarding the incident as determined therein, he discharged Respondent for several violations of the Authority's personnel rules. These included the removal and sale of the scrap pipe owned by Pinellas County, committing a breach of public trust, and committing a breach of member government trust which was deleterious to the Authority in that, in Kennedy's opinion, it undermined the public's faith and confidence in the Authority's public service responsibilities. Kennedy asserts that the relationship between the Authority and its member governments requires that each cooperate with the other in the mission to supply water to the public. Trust and confidence are essential elements of that relationship. Employees of the Authority and its member governments frequently are in and out of each others' facilities. If a member government loses trust in an Authority employee, the Authority's ability to efficiently perform its function would be hampered. This is a reasonable and supportable position and it is so found. In the past, the Authority has discharged employees for violating employee rules which reflect adversely on Authority integrity. One was discharged for the improper use of an Authority vehicle, and others have been discharged for violations of the property disposal policy. It would appear that Mr. Toler has not been treated differently than any others who were found to have violated similar policies. Since February, 1944, when the Authority adopted its policy regarding disposal of property, three employees, including Respondent, have removed materials from the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility for their own use. Among these are Mr. Nevel who admits to taking electric wire and three discarded printers. Nothing taken by the others included aluminum pipe, however. Capp, Kennedy and Vogel all deny knowing that employees were taking scrap. Respondent cannot say that any of them did know. Consistent with that philosophy, Mr. Kennedy indicates he would have discharged Respondent for placing the scrap in the dumpster whether or not he sold it. By the same token, he would have discharged Respondent had he taken and sold the pipe, even if he had not placed it in the dumpster. Another incident arose in June, 1995, just prior to the hearing, involving the potential disposal of scrap pipe. Mr. Kennedy learned that a stick of aluminum pipe was in the dumpster at the Cypress Creek facility. The pipe, owned by the Authority, had been placed there by Mr. Rooney, the storekeeper, after Mr. Nevel used the ends to retrofit some piping at the Cross Bar Ranch. When this was discovered, Mr. Kennedy directed the pipe be recovered and held for possible future use or sale. Whereas Respondent contends this action was an attempt at a cover-up, it is more likely the result of an unintentional discard of potentially useful pipe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the East Coast Regional Water Supply Authority deny Respondent's Petition for Relief and Enter a Final Order discharging him effective February 15, 1995. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted but irrelevant to any disputed issue of fact. Accepted. - 8. Accepted. 9. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. - 25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28. Accepted. 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's counsel has identified his Proposed Findings of Fact by letter rather than number. For the sake of consistency in this Order they will be re- identified herein with numbers. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue of fact. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a proper Finding of Fact but more a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Hearing, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 North brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire Battle & Edenfield, P.A. 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 General Manager West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621 Donald D. Conn General Counsel West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 34621
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to a permit permitting installation of an on-site sewage disposal system (OSDS) on his property located in Dixie County, Florida, in the vicinity of the Suwannee River and whether he is entitled to seek a variance from the statutes and rules concerning permitting of such systems.
Findings Of Fact The department hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the applicant applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying for and pursuing an OSDS permit application should the applicant, at a later time, be able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent at issue can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE and ENTERED this 21st of December, 1990 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2487 PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS-OF FACT Accepted. Accepted. 5-14. Accepted. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 1-7. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John K. McPherson, Esquire 22 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, (Board), was the Pinellas County agency responsible for the certification and regulation of construction specialties. Respondent was certified by the Board as an irrigation systems specialty contractor under license C-5997 in force at the time. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Sun City Lawn Irrigation. On or about May 17, 1994, Respondent contracted with William J. Schneider, who resided at 5661 25th Avenue North in St. Petersburg, to install a lawn irrigation system in Mr. Schneider's front lawn. The automatic system was to incorporate 2 zones and was, according to the contract and the testimony of Mr. Schneider, to be connected to Schneider's then existing 1/2 horsepower electric pump which drew water from several wells on his property. Mr. Schneider claims there are four wells. No evidence was introduced to contradict that. On the day the system was installed, Mr. Schneider was not at home. Respondent's employees performed a test of the water capacity on Mr. Schneider's property. At first, the wells produced 10 gpm, which was adequate for the system, but after a few minutes of drawdown, they found that the wells were producing only 4 gpm, along with some air. At that time Mr. Freestone, Respondent's sales manager, spoke with Mrs. Schneider about the situation, advising her there were two options open. One was to install a larger pump and the second was to connect the system to the city water supply. Mrs. Schneider returned to the house, presumably to call Mr. Schneider to get his decision on the matter. He claims she did not reach him. Respondent claims that she thereafter returned with directions to install a water line for connection to the city system. This is completely contrary to what Mr. Schneider had wanted and to what is included in the contract. Mr. Schneider claims he did not want to connect to city water because of the added expense of doing so, and he claims he made this very clear to Respondent's employees at the beginning and at all times thereafter. In any case, the system was installed and was, somehow, connected to the city water system near the place where the water line enters the house. In addition, no backflow preventer was installed to insure against contamination getting into the water system as is required by the building code. Most, if not all, the work on this project was completed by Respondent's son and employee, Scott, who was not present at the hearing. Respondent attempted to introduce an unsworn written statement by Scott Bosworth, but it was not accepted. Scott advised Mr. Schneider, when he returned from work that day, that they had been unable to use his pump and wells. Nonetheless, Mr. Schneider paid Respondent in full for the work for which he had contracted, except for a supplemental charge in the amount of $190.95 for the tie in to the city water and the valves and other items connected therewith. Mr. Schneider claims that he made several calls to Respondent's office in an effort to correct the situation but was unable to reach anyone who could give him satisfaction. However, the evidence indicates that on at least one occasion, Mr. Schneider got through and was called back by Mr. Freestone with whom he discussed the situation and the additional charges. He was subsequently advised by counsel that he did not have to pay the additional sum and did not do so. Some time thereafter, Mr. Schneider was advised by the city that he would be fined because of the illegal installation. He then contacted another irrigation company, run by Mr. Williams, who examined the system and determined that the irrigation system installed by Respondent had been connected to the city water system and that no backflow preventer had been installed. A check with the city's building department revealed that no permit had been procured for this installation. Respondent's license to install irrigation systems does not include authority to connect that system with the public water system. That procedure must be done by a licensed plumber. Respondent and Mr. Freestone, the only individuals in the company who had the authority to arrange with a plumber to make the actual hook up to the city system, both deny that any arrangement was made by them to have the system connected to the city water system. Mr. Schneider arrived home on the day in question to find only Respondent's son, Scott, at work on the project. Scott indicated it would be necessary to move two bushes near the house to facilitate connection of the system with the water supply. Mr. Schneider contracted with Scott to move the bushes and remove them from the premises. Scott moved them but failed to remove them. In light of the fact that Scott was working on the system at the time Mr. Schneider arrived home, and the system was found to be connected to the city system thereafter without anyone else touching it, it must be concluded that the connection was made him. Respondent admits he did not come to the property in question while the system was being installed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Board suspending the license of the Respondent for a period of six months with provision for withholding execution of the suspension for a period of one year conditioned upon such criteria as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Larry J. Bosworth 8901 14th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33716
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's water supply system that supplies water to residents of Cypress Knee Cove comes under the jurisdiction of the Respondent and, if so, is the level of Ethylene dibromide (EDB) in the water supplied by Petitioner an imminent hazard to the residents of Cypress Knee Cove.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner George T. Donaldson owns and operates Cypress Knee Cove Mobile Home Park (Park) a residential mobile home park located at 3300 Canal Road, Lake Wales, Polk County, Florida. Petitioner owns and operates a water system providing piped water for consumption and use by the residents of the Park. The water system uses a groundwater source and can have up to 32 connections. The water system is presently connected to 27 mobile homes. Of those 27 mobile homes, one is vacant, 11 are used year-round, 15 are used seasonally. Of those being used seasonally, four are being used six months or more out of the year. Nineteen residents live in the 11 mobile homes used year-round and eight residents live in the four mobile homes 6 months or more out of the year. There are a total of 46 residents living in the Park during the year. The balance of the residents live in the Park less than 6 months out of the year. All of the mobile homes at the Park are permanently mounted and remain on the lots year-round. Twenty-five of the mobile homes in the Park are privately owned by residents of the Park and are available for year-round occupancy by the owner. Sampling for EDB from Petitioner's water system at the Park are done by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Polk County Health Unity (PCHU) on March 14, 1984 and the samples analyzed by the University of Florida (UF) for EDB. The UF reported EDB concentration of 0.02756 ppb. No samples of water from Petitioner's water system at the Park were collected by PCHU for testing for EDB from March 14, 1984 and until April 4, 1988. The PCHU began sampling Petitioner's water system at the Park again in April, 1988 and submitting those samples to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) state certified laboratory in Jacksonville, Florida for analysis. The following are the results of those tests: Date of Sampling EDB Level April 4, 1988 below detectable level of 0.02 ppb - BDL August 17, 1988 0.17 ppb October 5, 1988 unconfirmed positive- resample November 7, 1988 0.058 ppb November 22, 1988 BDL-analytical problem- resample December 1, 1988 BDL January 4, 1989 0.062 ppb *January 18, 1989 0.070 ppb July 26, 1990 0.058 ppb *split sample with P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates, a private state certified laboratory (PELA), analyzed samples taken from Petitioner's water system at the Park. The following are the results of those samples: Date of Sampling EDB Level August 23, 1988 BDL October 12, 1988 BDL *January 18, 1989 0.12 ppb **January 18, 1989 BDL *split sample with HRS **Revised report of January 18, 1989 split sample with HRS The Sun Air water system is owned and operated by Polk County and potable water for the Park is immediately available from this water system. The cost of connection to Polk County's Sun Air water system for residents in this area is covered under the state of Florida's EDB grant program. However, since the mobile homes do not have individual meters from Petitioner's water system, the grant will only pay for one hook-up. A water line from Sun Air runs along Canal Road beside the Park and is available for immediate connection. Although the hook-up is paid for by the grant, Polk County would charge for the water furnished to the Park. Sun Air water system was sampled in May, 1986 and again in July, 1990. The 1986 sample was analyzed by PELA and the level of EDB was BDL. The 1990 sample was analyzed by HRS and the EDB level was also BDL. An alternative method of treating EDB contamination at the Park would be the installation of a carbon filter system which cost approximately $3,000.00. Fluctuations in the EDB level may be due to the nature of EDB and the local hydrology. Should Petitioner hook-up to the Sun Air water system, his present well may be used for irrigation or watering lawns. There was no evidence adduced at the hearing concerning the allegation of cost in Count III.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order directing Petitioner to connect to the available and approved Polk County water system or install a treatment system necessary for the reduction of EDB below the established MCL and placing appropriate and reasonable time schedule for commencing and completing either alternative and other conditions deemed appropriate and reasonable under the circumstances. It is further Recommended that Count II be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner The first clause of the first sentence of proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in Finding of Fact 1, the balance of sentence one is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of proposed Finding of Fact 1 is not material. The first clause of the first sentence of proposed Finding of Fact 2 is not supported by substantial competence evidence in the record. The balance of proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Proposed Finding of Fact 4 adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 15. While the undersigned is aware that cost is a concern to the Petitioner, it is not a necessary Finding of Fact to reach a conclusion. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 7, respectively. 7. Not material. 8.-10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6 and 4, respectively. 11.-14. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. 15.-16. Unnecessary. 17.-18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 19. Adopted In Findings of Fact 9 and 10. 20.-22. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 24.-25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 27.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 31.-32. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12 and 13. 35.-38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 15, 16 and 17, respectively. 39.-43. Not material or necessary. 44. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esq. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 George T. Donaldson 3300 Canal Road Lake Wales, FL 33853 Dale W. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be required to obtain a current operating permit for his aerobic treatment unit and have a $500.00 fine imposed for violating an agency rule for the reason cited in the Citation for Violation issued by Petitioner on December 1, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this dispute, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), has alleged that Respondent, Dr. Anthony Massaro, a retired public health physician, failed to obtain an annual operating permit for an aerobic treatment unit (ATU) located at his residence at 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. The Flagler County Health Department (Health Department) is charged with the responsibility of issuing such permits. That department is under the direction and control of Petitioner. While Respondent readily admits that he failed to obtain a permit, he contends that he was misled by the Health Department when he first installed an ATU at his residence; the Health Department is not enforcing the law regarding ATUs and thus another system would be more appropriate; and the law, as he interprets it, allows him to install another type of on-site sewage disposal unit on his property. Respondent purchased his property in Flagler County in 1997. The property is located in Ocean View Estates Subdivision (subdivision), which has an Urban Single-Family Residential District (R-1b) zoning classification under the Flagler County Land Development Code (Code). Section 3.03.05A of the Code requires that owners within the R-1b classification use "public or community water and sewer facilities," but makes an exception for "[s]mall R-1b subdivisions, fifty (50) lots or less, utilizing a public community water system," in which case residents "may utilize Class I aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems." Further, "[t]he use of individual onsite sewage disposal systems must be consistent with adopted county policies and standards." Because the subdivision has 50 lots or less, and public or private sewer facilities were not available in the area, the subdivision's Plat Agreement recorded in 1995 provided that "[i]ndividual aerobic onsite sewage disposal systems are to be permitted and constructed as each lot is developed." Another type of onsite sewage disposal system is the anerobic system, which has a septic tank and larger drainfield, is far less expensive, but does not conform with "county policies and standards" in this locale. Thus, this type of system requires a variance from the zoning regulations before one can be installed in the subdivision. Even so, Respondent says "all" of his neighbors have installed such a system. Because of the Plat Agreement, the zoning restriction, the difficulty in obtaining a variance, and the lack of a sewer line, Respondent had no choice except to use an ATU system for his residence. This meant that he had to apply for a permit from the Health Department. Once a permit is obtained and an ATU installed, the owner must renew his operating permit annually at a cost of $150.00, and he must enter into a maintenance agreement with a licensed contractor. The $150.00 fee is used to defray the costs incurred by the Health Department in making quarterly inspections and performing annual sampling and laboratory analysis of effluent. The record does not reflect precisely when a sewer line became operational across the street from Respondent's property, but the sewer project was accepted "for service" in April 1998, or before Respondent's ATU was installed in August 1998. Had Respondent known this, he would have obviously chosen that option rather than an ATU. The evidence reflects that in November 1997 Respondent made application for an ATU with the Health Department, a permit was issued in December 1997, and the system was installed and approved in August and September 1998, respectively. In early April 1998, the Health Department was advised by the private utility company that it would accept new sewer connections in a service area that included Respondent's home. However, Health Department representatives made no mention of this to Respondent since they were under the impression that he desired to use the ATU option, they do not normally "counsel" applicants on onsite sewage disposal system options, and Respondent had made no inquiry. Disclosure of this fact would have saved Respondent considerable money (and grief) in the long run; unfortunately, however, while good public relations would dictate otherwise, the Health Department had no legal obligation to do anything other than process the pending application. Likewise, it has no obligation in law to now pay the costs for Respondent to hook up to the line because of its non-disclosure. Respondent has now invested more than $5,000.00 in his ATU. This type of system is operated by a compressor in Respondent's garage, which must be run 24 hours per day, and is very noisy. Because of this, Respondent understandably wishes to change to an anerobic system, which has a traditional septic tank, larger drainfield, no unsightly "mound" in the yard, no annual permits, and is far cheaper than an ATU. Also, it does not require a noisy motor to sustain operations. However, this type of system is prohibited by the Code except where a variance from Flagler County (County) has been obtained. It appears to be unlikely that Respondent can obtain a variance from the County. Because Respondent's property is so low in relation to the sewer line, to achieve the proper gravity, he must install a lift station and pay a connection fee, both totaling $3,540.00, before hooking up to the sewer system. Given these costs, and the considerable investment he already has in an ATU, Respondent does not consider this to be a viable alternative. Respondent pointed out that, despite the requirement that they do so, many ATU owners in the County are not running their systems 24-hours per day because of the noise from the compressor. He also pointed out that the Health Department has consistently found numerous violations of such systems during its inspections. He further asserted that while the $150.00 annual fee is to defray certain sampling and laboratory analysis costs associated with inspecting ATUs, the Health Department has done neither on his ATU. Finally, Respondent pointed out that prior to 1999 the regulations were enforced by sampling the compliance of a very small percentage of total ATU systems (ten percent), rather than all systems, in the County. Given these considerations, Respondent concludes that ATUs are the least effective way to treat sewage, and that existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. Assuming these allegations to be true, and they were not seriously disputed, they are legitimate concerns. However, until the law is changed, they do not constitute a lawful basis for allowing Respondent to switch to an anerobic system. Respondent further contended that under his interpretation of the general law, which was not fully understood by the undersigned, he is not required to use an ATU. But local zoning regulations clearly require that he do so, and until the state or local regulations are changed or waived, he cannot use an anerobic system. Finally, Respondent has cooperated with the Department throughout this process. With his lengthy public health background, Respondent initiated this action with good intentions, seeking to point out the flaws in the ATU systems, and to remedy a problem which none of his neighbors apparently have. Given these considerations, a civil penalty should not be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order sustaining the charge in the Citation for Violation and requiring that Respondent obtain an annual permit for his ATU. A civil penalty is not warranted. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Charlene J. Petersen, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Dr. Anthony Massaro 3402 North Oceanside Boulevard Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Amy M. Jones, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Are Petitioner’s outside water supply connections in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should Petitioner be assessed an administrative fine for such violation?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is permitted by the Department in accordance with Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, to operate the Peace River Campground, (Campground) which is a Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (182 spaces) and a Mobile Home (MH) Park (15 spaces), annual permit number 14-010-97. The Campground’s water is supplied by a community public water utility company. Each RV and MH space has an outside water tap as required by Chapter 10D-26, Florida Administrative Code. Many of the outside water taps do not have a backflow or back-siphonage prevention device installed on them. On February 6, 1997, the Department conducted a routine inspection of the campground and determined that the campground was in violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the required backflow or back-siphonage prevention. The citation required Petitioner to install backflow or back-siphonage prevention by February 28, 1997, the next scheduled inspection date. On February 28, 1997, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the Campground’s water system and determined that the alleged violation had not been corrected. Petitioner disagreed with the Department’s determination that the Campground’s water system was not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water system designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. On February 28, 1997, the Department issued a citation of violation (citation) to Petitioner alleging a violation of Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to have the Campground’s water supply connection designed or constructed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage. The Campground’s water connections at each RV and MH site have water taps which are above ground and have standard water shut-off valves. The Campground’s water system has good water pressure of approximate 70-100 pounds pressure per square inch (psi). The Campground’s outside water taps are neither constructed nor designed to prevent backflow or back-siphonage in the event the water pressure drops to a point which would allow backflow or back-siphonage, such as if the water main feeding the Campground’s water system broke. If the water pressure in the Campground’s water system should drop allowing backflow or back-siphonage, hazardous material could possible be injected in the water system. Although there has never been a recorded incident of backflow or back-siphonage into the Campground’s water system, without the some type of backflow or back-siphonage preventer being installed there remains a potential for this to happen. The Campground’s outside water connections would not prevent backflow or back-siphonage under certain conditions and are not in compliance with Rule 10D-26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There are six basic types of devices that are recognized by the Environmental Protection Agency and the engineering profession which prevent backflow and back-siphonage. These devices are: (a) air gaps; (b) barometric loops; (c) vacuum breakers--both atmospheric and pressure type; (d) double check with intermediate atmospheric vent; (e) double check valve assembler; and (f) reduced pressure principle devices. The Department does not mandate which device the Petitioner must install, only that a proper device be installed which will prevent backflow or back-siphonage. A hose bib vacuum breaker such as Department’s Exhibit 3 provide the minimum protection against backflow or back-siphonage and is considered acceptable for compliance with Rule 10D- 26.120(2) and (3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $150.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Martin Scott, Esquire Department of Health Post Office Box 60085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 George Lempenau, pro se Peace River Campground 2998 Northwest Highway 70 Arcadia, Florida 34266 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a waste water treatment facility at Polynesian Village Mobile Home Park, owns the land at this village, leases these lots to mobile home owners, and provides them with waste water treatment. He was last issued an operating permit on January 18, 1983, by Petitioner. Respondent posted an Operational Bond (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $7,500 with Northwestern National Insurance Company as surety to faithfully operate the treatment facility and comply with all Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner. Englewood Water District, petitioner, was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in Chapter 59-931, Florida Statutes, and is given authority in Section 4 thereof to regulate use of sewers, fix rates, enjoin or otherwise prevent violations of the act or any regulation adopted by Petitioner pursuant to the act, and to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the act. Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner promulgated Waste Water Treatment Facilities Design, Construction and Operation Regulations dated June 19, 1980, and revised April 28, 1983. During an inspection of Respondent's waste water treatment facility on October 17, 1983, leaching was observed at both the north and south drain fields with effluent from the system rising to the surface. Samples of this effluent when tested showed a fecal coliform count of 2800/100 ml. The basic level of disinfectant shall result in not more than 200 fecal coliform values per 100 ml of effluent sample (Rule 17-6.060(1)(b)3a, F.A.C.). Following this test, Notice of Violation (Exhibit 4) was served on Respondent. No action was taken by Respondent to correct this condition and on January 6, 1984, a Citation (Exhibit 5) was issued to Respondent scheduling a hearing for January 26, 1984. Following the issuance of that Citation frequent inspections of the facility were conducted by employees of Respondent to ascertain if steps were being taken by Respondent to correct the deficiencies. Additionally, inspections were made by inspectors from Sarasota County Pollution Control. Inspections were conducted January 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 31; February 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29; and March 2, 5, 8, and 9, 1984. These inspections revealed what appears to be a "blow-out" in the south drain field where effluent bubbles to the surface and flows onto the adjacent streets and propert (Exhibits 9 and 11). Effluent tested from this source had fecal coliform counts as high as 9440/100 ml. During one of these inspections effluent from the treatment plant was being discharged directly onto the road to a drainage ditch adjacent to the plant (Exhibit 8). The coliform count of a sample taken from this ditch was 13500/100 ml. Respondent was issued a second Citation on March 2, 1984, and this hearing was held on the violations alleged in that Citation, to wit: creating a public nuisance and leaching from drain field. Respondent contends that he is dealing with the Sarasota County Engineer to correct the problems and, after failing in his attempt to get the county to provide drainage from his property, he is now in the process of installing drain pipes. Respondent contends that the natural drainage of surface waters from his land to adjacent land was stopped by development on the adjacent land and the heavy rains this winter has saturated his land and inhibited percolation in the drain fields. Accordingly, the effluent from his plant could not be absorbed by the drain field. Respondent also contends that the drain field worked fine for several years before the drainage problem arose and believes it will again work well when the drainage situation is corrected.
The Issue The issues for consideration in these cases concern whether the Petitioners are entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit, or the grant of a variance from the permitting requirements embodied in the statutes and rules cited herein, so as to authorize installation of an OSDS for property they own near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida. See, Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are the owners of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, in close proximity to the Suwanee River, more particularly described as Lots 22 and 37, High Point Suwanee Riverfront Estates, a subdivision platted and recorded in 1983. Lot 22 is approximately 150 feet by 127 feet by 121 feet, and Lot 37 is approximately 100 feet by 175 feet by 176 feet in dimension. The lots were purchased on September 22, 1987 and December 10, 1987, respectively. The parties have stipulated that evidence and factual testimony adduced in this proceeding shall apply equally to the circumstance of both lots since they are in close proximity to each other and have similar elevations and other site characteristics. Accordingly, these Findings of Fact will be based upon that stipulated, combined evidence; and all Findings of Fact will apply to both lots, except as to elevation figures peculiar to each lot and as otherwise noted in these Findings of Fact. The Petitioners purchased Lot 22 for $14,995.00 and Lot 37 for $12,500.00. They were purchased in September and December of 1987, respectively. The Petitioners purchased them with the intent of holding them for investment and building a retirement-type home on one of the lots. On March 22, 1990, the Petitioners applied for an OSDS permit for the lots in question. The new systems applied for would be for a frame-type "stilt home", which would contain three bedrooms and a heated and cooled area of 1,232 feet, which equates to a 350-450 gallons per day sewage flow under the standards contained in the Respondent's rules. Hubert H. Raker, a certified, land surveyor of Cross City, Florida, performed a survey on the property, shown by Petitioners' Exhibit NO. 1 in evidence. That survey establishes a benchmark elevation for Lot 22 of 11.79 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"). That benchmark is actually six inches above the grade level elevation of the property at the benchmark location. Lot 37 was established to have a benchmark elevation of 12.25 feet above MSL, also six inches above the actual grade level of the lot at the benchmark elevation site. The site of the proposed installation of the OSDS has an elevation of 11.19 feet above MSL, as to Lot 22, and 11.75 feet above MSL, as to Lot 37. The ground water level, at the time the site evaluation was made by the Respondent's representative, was 60 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 22 and 54 inches below the surface of the grade for Lot 37. The wet season water table for both lots was shown, by "mottling" existing in the soil beneath the surface of the lots, to be 54 inches below `:he surface of both lots. The soil type for both lots, starting with six inches below the surface, is of a "slight limited" soil characteristic and is fine sand down to approximately 48 inches and from 48 inches to 72 inches, consists of "loamy-sand". Such soils are well adapted to OSDS installation and operation. The property was shown, by the Respondent's own Composite Exhibit NO. 2 in evidence, to not be subject to frequent flooding. The property is, however, as to both lots, beneath the ten-year flood elevation established by the Suwanee River Water Management District's calculations and admitted into evidence in this proceeding as a part of Respondent's Composite Exhibit NO. 2. The ten-year flood elevation for both lots was shown to be 15 feet above MSL. Thus the surface elevation of both lots is somewhat below the 15-foot, ten-year flood elevation. The bottom of the drain-field or absorption-bed trenches, if the systems were installed on the lots, would be a greater distance beneath the ten- year flood elevation. Thus, the property is located within the ten-year flood elevation of the Suwanee River and is also located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwanee River. Other properties and lots in the immediate proximity of the Petitioners' two lots are equipped with OSDS's, including a number of "mounded systems", involving the placement of septic tanks and drain fields in elevated earthen mounds in order to elevate them above the ten-year flood elevation. Petitioner, John W. Holian, testified in a general way that such a system might be feasible and advisable in his situation, as well as the possibility of installing an aerobic septic tank treatment and disposal system, involving the injection of air into the septic tanks so that aerobic, (as opposed to anaerobic), bacteria could perform the sewage treatment function, which typically perform the function better than does a conventional anaerobic system. Petitioner Holian, did not offer any detailed testimony or evidence which would explain and establish how such a system could work without endangering the health of the Petitioners or members of the general public, if placed on the lots in question below the ten-year flood elevation, nor if or how such a system would protect against degradation of the ground or surface waters involved in the proximity" of the sites. If the system were mounded above the ten-year flood elevation, the Petitioners did not establish, through proper engineering testimony and other evidence generated by a registered engineer, that the use of the fill for the earthen mound for such a system would not raise the level of the "base flood." In summary, although the Petitioners suggested such a mounded system or an aerobic system or such a system possibly used in combination, the Petitioners did not go beyond suggesting an alternative and did not offer evidence which could establish that such an alternative would be a reasonable operationally feasible one and would adequately protect the ground or surface waters and the members of the general public from health hazards associated with sewage effluent. See, Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code. On May 1, 1990, the Respondent, by letter, advised the Petitioners that they should pursue a formal administrative proceeding upon the initial denial of their OSDS permit application and advised them that an application for a variance from the requirements of Rule 10D-6.47(6), Florida Administrative Code, regarding the ten-year flood elevation problem at issue, should not be pursued but rather, the formal hearing process before the Division of Administrative Hearings should be employed by the Petitioners. The Respondent asserts, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten year flood elevation was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioners apparently took-that advice because no variance application was filed. It is noted, somewhat parenthetically, however, that in terms of the requirements for the establishment of a right to a variance, the Petitioners have not shown that no reasonable alternatives exist to a standard subterranean septic tank and drain field OSDS, (such as those alternatives referenced in the paragraph next above, which efficacy was, nonetheless, not established by the Petitioners). Neither did the Petitioners establish, in terms of the variance requirements in the authority referenced below, that the installation of an OSDS would not have an adverse effect on the public's health or the quality of the ground or surface waters involved at the sites. Because these two necessary elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a variance, through hardship, were not proven by the Petitioners, the elements of proof necessary to establish the right to a hardship variance have not been made out by the Petitioners and one could not be granted under the proof of record in this proceeding, even had the Petitioners made formal application for such a variance. That is not to say, however, that with proper preparation and presentation of evidence, entitlement to a variance could not be established in the future.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3109 AND 90-3445 The Petitioners filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-9. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John W. Holian 466 South Lake Triplet Drive Casselberry, Florida Frances S. Childers, Esquire Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 N.E. 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
The Issue Whether the objections of the City of Pembroke Pines and the Green Meadows Civic Association to South Broward Utility, Inc.'s, proposal to extend its water and sewer service area should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact South Broward Utility, Inc. (South Broward), is a corporation engaged in the business of providing water and wastewater service to the public in Broward County, Florida. That business is subject to regulation by the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC). South Broward's water and wastewater treatment facilities are located in the Town of Davie, and it currently provides water and sewer services to residents of that municipality. Included within the area of the Town of Davie currently served by South Broward are the lands bordered on the north by Sterling Road, the south by Sheridan Street, and the west by Dykes Road (S.W. 160th Avenue). On February 4, 11, and 18, 1989, South Broward published a notice of extension in the Florida Lauderdale News/Sun-Sentinel, a daily newspaper of general circulation published in Broward County, Florida, in accordance with Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. The notice provided that South Broward would file an application with the PSC pursuant to Section 367.061, Florida Statutes, to amend its certificates of public convenience and necessity to allow South Broward to provide water and sewer service to the east half of Section 5, Township 51 South, Range 40 East, Broward County, Florida. Such area may commonly be described as those lands lying immediately west of Dykes Road to S.W. 166th Avenue, and from Stirling Road on the north to Sheridan Street on the south. On February 24, 1989, South Broward mailed a copy of the aforementioned notice to all local, county and state governmental agencies and all other persons required by Section 367.041(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-30.030(2), Florida Administrative Code. Objections to the notice were filed with the PSC by the City of Pembroke Pines (Pembroke Pines) and the Green Meadows Civic Association (Green Meadows). In its objection, Pembroke Pines contended that it had invested over 30 million dollars to expand its municipal water and sewer service west to the Conversation Area from Sheridan Street on the north to Pembroke Road on the south, that this expansion project was anticipated to provide water and sewer service for its existing municipal boundaries as well as the area proposed to be served by South Broward, that it was preparing an annexation report for the proposed area, and that if South Broward's application were approved it would be precluded from servicing its own residents should annexation occur. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that Pembroke Pines had expanded its municipal water and sewer service such that its water and wastewater treatment plants and related facilities have adequate present capacity to meet the current and anticipated future water and wastewater needs in the disputed service area. The Pembroke Pines water lines are currently located on the south side of Sheridan Street, which street forms the southerly boundary of the disputed service area. Its wastewater treatment lines are, however, located approximately one and one-half miles south of Sheridan Street and would require several months and considerable expense to extend them to the disputed service area. Notably, however, no proof was offered that Pembroke Pines had any current intention to annex the disputed service area, or that it had otherwise evidenced any intent to, or taken any action to, provide service to the area. Green Meadows is an association of residents of this area of unincorporated Broward County, some of whom reside within the service area in dispute. The gravamen of Green Meadows' objection is its concern that sewer lines for a centralized sewer system would leak into its member's ground water supply, and that the increase in population density caused by a centralized water and sewer system would adversely affect the area's ecosystem. Neither Green Meadows nor Pembroke Pines contended, however, that the subject extension of service would violate any land use plan, zoning ordinance or other state or local law, and no credible proof was offered that, if built consistent with existent law, the sewer lines would adversely impact the ground water supply or ecosystem. Until recently, all of the lands lying in the disputed service area were located in unincorporated Broward County. However, in September 1988 a parcel of approximately 15 acres which abutted Dykes Road was annexed into the Town of Davie, and in May 1989 a parcel of approximately 80 acres, which abutted the previously annexed parcel on the east, Sterling Road on the north, and S.W. 166th Avenue on the west, was annexed into the Town of Davie. These lands comprise approximately 30 percent of the lands within the disputed service area, and it is the desire of the Town of Davie that water and sewer service to such lands be provided by South Broward. To date, South Broward has entered into a developer's agreement with the owner of the 80-acre parcel to provide such services, and is in the process of executing such an agreement with the owner of the 15-acre parcel. Pembroke Pines does not object to South Broward's expansion into these areas. As to the remaining acreage within the proposed service area, the owners of the vast majority of those lands have expressed a preference for South Broward to provide water and sewer service to their properties, and South Broward has expressed its desire and ability to provide such services. South Broward's water plant has an existing capacity of 500,000 gallons per day (GPD), and has sufficient capacity to address the current need for water service in the proposed area. Upon completion of its current expansion, which is anticipated in October 1989, South Broward's water plant will have a capacity of 1,250,000 GPD, and adequate capacity to address any future demand for water service in the proposed area. South Broward's wastewater treatment plant, with a capacity of 500,000 GPD, currently has sufficient capacity to satisfy the present and future demand for such services in the proposed area. An expansion of that plant is expected to be in service by 1991, which will double the plant's capacity and provide additional capacity. Currently, South Broward has water and sewer lines adequate to serve the proposed area in place, and located under Dykes Road at the eastern edge of the service area. Such lines are adequate to meet all present and anticipated future needs for such service in the area, and the water lines are adequate to provide fire protection to the area. South Broward has the present financial, managerial, operational, and technical ability to provide the present and anticipated needs for water and wastewater service in the proposed area, and the public interest will be best served by the extension of South Broward's water and wastewater systems to that area. Such expansion will not be in competition with or a duplication of any other system in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the objections filed by Pembroke Pines and Green Meadows be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August 1989. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 1988. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact filed by South Broward are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraph 5. 5-10. Addressed in paragraph 9. 11-14. Addressed in paragraphs 10-13. 15 & 16. Addressed in paragraphs 6 and 7. Addressed in paragraph 13. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 8. 20 & 21. Addressed in paragraph 13. The proposed findings of fact filed by the PSC are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 3, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the conclusions of law. Addressed in paragraph 8. 6-12. Addressed in paragraphs 9-13. Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 9. Addressed in paragraph 8. Addressed in paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Mitchell S. Kraft, Esquire Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 32308 Deborah Simone, President Green Meadows Civic Association 5831 S.W. 162nd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33331 James L. Ade, Esquire Martin, Ade, Birchfiled & Mickler, P.A. 3000 Independent Square Post Office Box 59 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Randy Frier, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Mr. Steve Tribble, Director Records and Reporting Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870 Susan Clark General Counsel Public Service Commission Room 116 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0870
Findings Of Fact S. A. Williams Corporation (Williams) is a Florida corporation which has its principal place of business in Florida, has a net worth of less than two million dollars, has fewer than 25 employees, and was the prevailing party in the initial proceedings. Williams has operated a construction and demolition landfill in Hernando County since prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances by the county, and its use of the land for this purpose was grandfathered. Subsequently, William sought to comply with certain conditions established by the County for expanding the landfill site. These improvements necessitated construction of a basin to retain surface water. On April 6, 1993, William applied for a surface water drainage permit from the Southwest Water Management District. On June 16, 1993, the District gave notice of its intent to issue the surface water drainage permit to Williams. On May 26, 1993, while Williams' application was pending with the Water Management District, the County revoked the zoning of Williams to operate a construction and demolition landfill site. Williams sought and obtained an injunction against the County to prevent it from revoking its zoning, and the County appealed the Circuit Court's order enjoining the revocation of the zoning. The Hernando County Commission was advised by their attorney on May 10, 1993, that the County might desire to challenge the issuance of permits by the Water Management District or the Department of Environmental Regulation to Williams to prevent Williams from proceeding with its operation during the appeal of the injunction. At a meeting on June 24, 1993, before the County challenged issuance of the permit, the Water Management District staff advised the County Attorney and a member of the County Commission, who were attending the presentation in their official capacity, that there would be no adverse drainage impacts to any property owned by the County, its rights-of-way, or any property of any citizen of the county because the drainage would be retained on Williams' property by a close basin system large enough to retain surface water drainage on the property during a 100 year storm. Subsequent to this meeting and prior to filing its petition challenging issuance of the permit, the County did not bring to the attention of the Water Management District any concerns to be resolved between the District, Williams, and the County over adverse drainage impacts to County property or rights-of-way. 7 On June 30, 1993, Hernando County filed a petition in the original proceeding challenging the issuance by Southwest Water Management District to Williams of a surface water drainage permit. That petition alleged two grounds for standing: (1) that the County was substantially affected because of adverse impacts to county property and the rights-of-way to county roads, and (2) that the County had standing to challenge the issuance of the permit under its general police powers. The County Engineer was not asked by the County Attorney to review the drainage impacts of the surface water drainage permit prior to filing the challenge, and did not review the District's file until after his first deposition on October 22, 1993. After reviewing the information, to include a new survey of the berm contours, furnished to the Water Management District by Williams, the County Engineer determined that there were no adverse drainage impacts off site. The County Engineer's opinion that there were no adverse impacts to County property was known by the County Attorney prior to the formal hearing in Case Number 93-4212 on November 16, 1993. At the formal hearing on November 16, 1993, in Case Number 93-4212, Williams moved to dismiss the petition filed by Hernando County for lack of standing on the basis that the County was not substantially effected by the Water Management District's decision to issue a surface water drainage permit to Williams. The County receded from its allegation of damage to County property and rights-of-way at the commencement of the hearing, but asserted standing on the basis of its general police powers. The County specifically denied at the formal hearing acting in a representative capacity in the manner of an association in behalf of the county's citizens. After hearing the argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the undersigned hearing officer recommended that the County's petition be dismissed. At the conclusion of the hearing, Williams moved for the award of attorney's fees and expenses from the County after argument on the motion to dismiss the County's petition. Thereafter, Williams filed a written motion for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The Hearing Officer retained jurisdiction to consider the Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses when the recommended order was entered. The Water Management District adopted the Recommended Order in its Final Order dated December 20, 1993, and the County appealed the District's Final Order which was affirmed per curiam without opinion in Hernando County v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 647 So. 2d 124, (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The instant case was established to consider William's motion which is treated as a collateral fact finding proceeding. The style of the original case was retained to prevent confusion. An evidentiary hearing on the motion for attorney's fees was held on May 10, 1995 which revealed the following facts. During the work-up period prior to notice of intent to issue the permit, the county's engineer and environmental specialist did not raise issues regarding drainage, contours, wetlands, and wildlife. (Tx-220). Although the County Attorney and one of its commissioners had been advised by the District that there would be no impact to County property or rights-of-way, the County Engineer was not asked to investigate whether the drainage from the proposed project would remain on the site as stated in the application and as concluded by the staff of the Water Management District prior to the County challenging the issuance of the permit. (Tx-198,199) The County Engineer looked at the Water Management District's file on the issuance of the permit only after the County had filed its challenge. (Tx-209). The County Engineer had expressed concerns to the District staff about suspected changes in the topography on the site. (Tx-208). When the Water Management District was made aware of the County engineer's concerns, a new survey was conducted which resolved the County engineer's concerns about changes in topography on the site, and revealed that the tops of the berms were as high or higher than represented in the application. The results of this new survey was shared with County Engineer prior to the original hearing. (Tx-208,211-219). The County's environmental specialist did not review the complete file on the Williams' permit application until within two weeks of the original formal hearing, well after the challenge was filed. (Tx-161). The environmental specialist had no basis to question the validity of the number of acres of wetlands stated in the second permit. (Tx-176). The environmental specialist did not have any personal knowledge regarding the flora or fauna on the site because she had never been on the site, and her information was based solely on material provided to her by individuals living in the vicinity of the site. (Tx-176,180-181). She did not have authority to enter on the site because the County had no enforcement authority over endangered species. When the county's concerns about endangered species on the site were voiced, an on site inspection was conducted by the District. The District staff found no endangered species, or evidence of endangered species, or persons who had seen them on the site. The District staff's findings were shared with the County prior to the original hearing. (Tx-220.) Williams incurred attorney fees and expenses responding to the challenge of the County to issuance of the surface water drainage permit. The expenses incurred by Williams were primarily in response to the County's allegations of adverse impacts to County property. However, it is impossible to reasonably separate the expenses incurred by Williams responding to the allegations of off-site impacts from those related to standing based upon general police power. The County's assertion of general regulatory authority was primarily a legal argument which was addressed by the District's staff. Williams sought no fees for the appeal which was litigated principally by the District and County. By agreement of the parties the evidence on the amount of attorney fees and rate were submitted by affidavit without agreement regarding the facts asserted in the affidavits. The rate charged by counsel for Williams of $195/hour was a reasonable rate for the type of service provided in the geographic area in which it was provided considering the skill and experience of counsel. The number of hours billed through preparation of the post hearing briefs in the original formal hearing in this case, 160.25 hours, was not excessive given the number of depositions taken, the motions hearings which were held, and the legal and factual issues raised. The Williams' affidavits of attorney's fees and expenses are as follows: Attorney fees thru original hearing: $31,248.75 Estimate of costs related to preparation and service of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses: $ 1,560.00 Teleconference charges on motion to compel: $ 127.73 Outside copying expense: $ 8.73 Expert Witness fee: $ 1,277.90 Court Reporter fees for depositions & transcripts: $ 1,692.45 Expert fees on Motion for Attorney Fee and expenses: $ 788.00 24. The attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs incurred by Williams in the hearing on attorney fees May 10, 1995 of $3,894.81 are reasonable. Williams incurred an expense of $1,019.00 for publication of the transcript in the almost seven hour hearing.
