The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should revoke or suspend the Respondent's pari-mutuel occupational license for allegedly gambling out of his teller box in violation of F.A.C. Rules 61D-1.031(6) and 61D-1.002(18).
Findings Of Fact On or about July 6, 1994, the Respondent, Edward J. Tomczak, applied for a pari-mutuel occupational license as a teller at Tampa Jai Alai. According to the evidence, a one-year Unrestricted "M2" General license, number 0208239-1084, was issued to the Respondent, and the license is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1995. In the course of working as a teller at Tampa Jai Alai on the evening of August 29, 1994, the Respondent issued himself at least $1,427 of tickets for which he made no payment. In effect, he "borrowed" and used the fronton's money, against fronton policy, to gamble on his own account. As a result of his gambling, the Respondent was $1,427 "short" at the end of the evening. After closing out for the evening, the Respondent reported the $1,427 "short" to his supervisor. The Respondent explained that he was trying to win enough money to pay the claim of a woman whose winning December, 1992, Twin Trifecta ticket was cashed by the Respondent on August 11, 1993, after allegedly being found in the ladies room at Tampa Jai Alai by the Respondent's girlfriend. Notwithstanding the Respondent's attempt to explain his conduct of the previous evening, it was clearly understood between him and his supervisor that the Respondent's conduct on August 29, 1994, was a firing offense and that the Respondent no longer would be permitted to work as a teller at Tampa Jai Alai. (It was not the first time the Respondent reported a substantial "short" that summer. A previous "short" was in the neighborhood of $600-$700.) The next day, the Respondent cashed out his retirement account, repaid Tampa Jai Alai the $1,427 owed, and left. Whether he quit or was fired is unimportant to the issues in this case. A small "short" by a teller is not a firing offense at Tampa Jai Alai. There are many ways in which honest errors in the course of an evening can result in minor (less than $100) "shorts." Tampa Jai Alai's policy is that tellers must repay "shorts" and that "shorts" over $100 must be repaid before the teller can work again at the fronton. But "shorts" of the magnitude of $600-$700, much less $1,427, are considered highly unusual and are cause for concern that they are not the result of honest mistakes but rather of prohibited gambling "out of the box," as the Respondent was doing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order: (1) imposing a $500 fine on the Respondent, Edward J. Tomczak; (2) revoking his license; and (3) declaring him ineligible for relicensure for a period of one year, with relicensure conditioned upon certification by a Florida licensed mental health practitioner that he has been evaluated for possible gambling addiction and either has been found not to be addicted or is being treated for such an addiction. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 22nd day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Helton, Jr. Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Edward J. Tomczak 6401 S. Westshore Blvd., Apt. 716 Tampa, Florida 33616 Royal H. Logan Acting Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's lottery prize is subject to an outstanding debt to any state agency or owing child support collected through a court.
Findings Of Fact On June 16, 1993, petitioner submitted a claim to the Department of Lottery (Lottery) on a Black Jack Instant Ticket she held. Such ticket reflected that petitioner was eligible for a prize of $1,000.00. On June 17, 1993, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) certified to the Lottery that petitioner owed $1,224.00 in Aid to Families with Dependent Children benefit overpayments and $675.00 in Food Stamp benefit overpayments, for a total of $1,899.00. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, the Lottery transmitted the prize amount to the Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). By letter of June 28, 1993, DBF notified petitioner that it was in receipt of her prize from the Lottery and that it intended to apply the entire $1,000.00 toward the unpaid claim owing DHRS. Such letter, likewise, advised petitioner of her right to request a hearing to contest such action. By letter of July 13, 1993, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest DBF's action, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that the only state warrants actually negotiated by petitioner, which represented an overpayment of benefits for Aid to Families with Dependent Children, totalled $612.00. All other state warrants which had been issued to petitioner, and upon which DHRS had initially calculated the debt owing to it from petitioner for overpayments of Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamp benefits, had been returned, unnegotiated, to the state. Accordingly, the total debt shown to be owing DHRS by petitioner was $612.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order applying $612.00 of petitioner's lottery prize of $1,000.00 to satisfy the debt owing DHRS, and remit the balance of $388.00 to petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of October 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra J. Ihasz 1529 61st Trail South West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 15th day of October 1993. Scott C. Wright Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Katrina M. Saggio Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1335 23 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa Warren Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue is whether the word, "internal," in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-14.041(1) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because Respondent exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority or because this word enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the law implemented, in violation of sections 120.56(3) and 120.52(8)(b) and (c). In sum, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge rule 61D-14.041(1) only to the extent that this rule requires that each slot machine contain an internal random number generator.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns the application of Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, to a claim for payment of a $5,000.00 lottery prize where the winning lottery ticket was purchased by two individuals, one of whom has a substantial court-ordered child support arrearage, one of whom does not, and the prize claim form is submitted by the individual who owes child support. The Petitioners contend that only half of the prize should be subject to the outstanding child support debt. The Respondents contend that the entire prize should be subject to the outstanding child support debt. Shortly after the filing of the request for hearing in this case, the Office of the Comptroller filed a Motion To Join Indispensable Parties, by means of which it sought to join the Department of the Lottery and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as parties to this case. Both of the last mentioned agencies agreed to being joined as parties and neither Petitioner objected to the joinder. Accordingly, the Department of the Lottery and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services were joined as parties respondent. At the hearing both Petitioners testified and also offered exhibits. The Respondents presented the testimony of several witnesses and also offered several exhibits. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed ten days within which to submit proposed recommended orders. All parties filed post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact. All proposed findings of fact are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Shortly after the Florida Department of the Lottery began selling lottery tickets, the two Petitioners, Lawrence R. Lindbom and Donald Johnston, began the regular practice of buying lottery tickets together. They agreed that they would make equal contributions to the cost of the lottery tickets and that they would share equally in the proceeds of any lottery prizes resulting from their co-purchased lottery tickets. On January 26, 1988, consistent with the foregoing agreement, Petitioner Lindbom purchased four instant game lottery tickets. Petitioner Johnston had contributed funds to pay half of the cost of the four tickets. Lindbom retained two of the tickets and gave the other two tickets to Johnston. At Johnston's place of employment, Lindbom scratched the two lottery tickets he had retained. One of the two was a $5,000.00 winning ticket. At the suggestion of some third party, Lindbom wrote his name on the winning ticket. He then showed the ticket to Johnston, and the other people present congratulated the two of them on their good fortune. The two Petitioners agreed that Lindbom would submit the ticket for payment in both of their names. On January 27, 1988, Lindbom traveled to the Jacksonville District Office of the Department of the Lottery, where he inquired about filling out a claim form in two names. He also inquired as to whether any money would be deducted from the prize. Upon being advised that only one name could be placed on the claim form and that no money would be deducted from the prize, Petitioner Lindbom called Petitioner Johnston to advise him of what he had been told at the Jacksonville District Office. Johnston told Lindbom to go ahead and file the claim in Lindbom's name and they would split the prize when it was received. Thereupon, Petitioner Lindbom filled out a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form. The information he placed on the claim form included information about the lottery ticket and Lindbom's name, address, telephone number, and social security number. At the bottom of the claim form, Lindbom signed a printed statement reading as follows, in pertinent part. "Under penalty of law, I swear that to the best of my knowledge and belief, the name, address, and social security number correctly identify me as the recipient of this payment." The claim form and winning ticket were submitted to the Tallahassee office of the Department of the Lottery for validation and payment in accordance with that Department's procedures. The Department of the Lottery provided the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services a list of $5,000.00 winners which contained the name of Lawrence Lindbom. DHRS determined from its records that there was an arrearage in child support payments by Lawrence Lindbom in the amount of $12,014.65. On February 1, 1988, DHRS certified the child support arrearage to the Department of the Lottery in accordance with Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1987). On February 5, 1988, the Department of the Lottery forwarded the entire $5,000.00 claimed by Lindbom to the Office of the Comptroller of the State of Florida. On February 8, 1988, the Office of the Comptroller notified Lindbom by certified mail of its intention to apply the entire $5,000.00 prize toward Lindbom's unpaid court-ordered child support, with the result that no payment would be made to Lindbom. Following receipt of the letter from the Office of the Comptroller, Lindbom and Johnston jointly wrote a letter to the Comptroller protesting the proposed disposition of the prize and requesting a hearing. At all times material to this case, the Department of the Lottery had in effect Rule No. 53ER87-43, F.A.C., titled "Procedure for awarding prizes." That rule reads as follows, in pertinent part: (6) Until such time as a name is imprinted or placed upon the back portion of the lottery ticket in the designated area a lottery ticket shall be owned by the physical possessor of such ticket. When a name is placed on the rear of the ticket in the designated place, the person whose name appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled to any prize attributable thereto.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Office of the Comptroller issue a final order in this case providing for payment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the entire $5,000.00 prize originally claimed by Petitioner Lindbom. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-1176 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioners The Petitioners' proposal consisted of a letter in which they assert three specific reasons that entitle them to the relief sought. The factual aspects of those three reasons are addressed below. The legal aspects have been addressed in the conclusions of law. Reason 1. Accepted as finding of fact. Reason 2. Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Reason 3. Rejected as constituting argument rather than facts. Findings proposed by the Respondents The Respondents filed a joint proposed recommended order. The paragraph references which follow are to the paragraphs of the Findings of Fact section of the Respondents' proposed recommended order. Paragraphs 1 and 2) Accepted in substance, with the exception of the implication that the Petitioners were not co- purchasers of the lottery tickets. Paragraph 3: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inconsistent with the evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Omitted as unnecessary procedural details covered by introduction. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. First unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Second unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Accepted. Third unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant. Fourth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: Rejected as irrelevant or subordinate and unnecessary details. Fifth unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 10: First sentence accepted. The reminder is rejected as argument rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence R. Lindbom 3542 Tiara Way, West Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Mr. Donald Johnston 12888 Beaubien Road Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Jo Ann Levin, Esquire Senior Attorney Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue Whether the Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious and thus constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Hialeah, Inc., operates a race track (hereinafter referred to as the "Track") located in Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Respondent. In December, 1981, the Petitioner was granted permission by letter from Bob Smith, then Director of the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, to operate Tel-A-Betting. Robert Rosenburg, Director of the Respondent after Mr. Smith, also approved Tel-A- Betting in a letter to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has continuously operated Tel-A-Betting for more than six years. The Petitioner instituted Tel-A-Betting in reliance on the Respondent's approval of Tel-A-Betting. If approval had not been granted to the Petitioner from the Respondent, the Petitioner would not have established Tel-A-Betting. Tel-A-Betting is a procedure for placing wagers on races at the Petitioner's Track. Persons utilizing this system (hereinafter referred to as "Account Holders"), open an account with the Petitioner by making a deposit of $100.00 or more with the Petitioner and paying a $25.00 fee. The funds deposited with the Petitioner are received and accounted for in accounts maintained at the Track. Once an account is opened, a plastic card which contains, among other information, an account number and an "800," toll-free, telephone number is issued to the Account Holder. Wagers may then be placed with the Petitioner by the Account Holder calling the "800" number and placing a wager with a telephone operator/pari-mutuel clerk located at the Track. The Account Holder identifies himself or herself by giving the operator the account number and a code name designated by the Account Holder when the account is opened. The account number is programmed into a computer to determine whether the Account Holder has sufficient funds in the account to make the wager. If the funds in the account are sufficient to cover the wager, the wager is entered into the computer. If the Account Holder wins the wager, the payoff is entered into his or her account. Calls to place wagers through the Tel-A-Betting program can be made from anywhere in Florida and the person making the call and wager need not be physically present at the Track to make the wager. Wagers taken through Tel-A-Betting are only made on races at the Track. Tel-A-Betting allows the Petitioner to receive wagered funds as part of its pari-mutuel pool from persons located anywhere in the State of Florida. When a wager is made through Tel-A-Betting, the operator/pari-mutuel clerk cannot establish the age or identity of the person placing the wager. The Petitioner is the only race track permit holder in the State of Florida which employs Tel-A-Betting. The Proposed Amendment of Rule 7E-6.007, Florida Administrative Code, if valid, will prohibit the Petitioner from continuing the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any complaints about the use of Tel-A- Betting by minors or any other abuses. No evidence was presented that minors have made, or attempted to make, wagers through the use of Tel-A-Betting. The Respondent has not received any objections to Tel-A-Betting or complaints about unfair competition from other racetrack permit holders.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's lottery prize is subject to an outstanding debt to a state agency.
Findings Of Fact By letter of June 9, 1997, the Department of Education, Office of Student Financial Assistance (Department), notified the Department of the Lottery (Lottery) that Petitioner owed the Department $26,356.28, as of June 9, 1997, as a consequence of outstanding defaulted student loans. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, the Lottery transmitted the prize amount ($24,781.66), less Federal income tax withheld ($6,938.86), to the Department. By letter of June 10, 1997, the Department notified Petitioner that it was in receipt of his prize money, less Federal income tax withheld, and that, since the amount owed the Department exceeded the amount of the prize, it planned to apply the entire sum it had received ($17,842.80) to the outstanding indebtedness. The Department's letter also advised Petitioner of his right to request a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the Department's decision. Petitioner filed a timely request for a formal hearing to contest the Department's decision, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the formal hearing Petitioner had requested. At hearing, the proof demonstrated that Petitioner was the recipient of three student loans, each of which was funded by Centrust Savings Bank (Centrust) and guaranteed by the Department. The first loan (No. 7701) was in the amount of $3,000, which was disbursed on December 19, 1986. The second loan (No. 557720) was in the sum of $5,000, which was disbursed on January 29, 1987. The third loan (No. 631534) was for $5,000; however, only $2,500 was disbursed. That disbursement occurred on November 26, 1987. Petitioner defaulted on the student loans, and Centrust filed a claim with the Department. The Department, as guarantor, paid the lender the amounts due on the loans as follows: A.) On August 12, 1993, the Department paid the claim on Loan No. 557720. At the time, the principal due was $5,021.562 and interest due was $1,942.59, for a total of $6,964.15. B.) Also on August 12, 1993, the Department paid the claim on Loan No. 631534. At the time, the principal due was $2,510.78, and interest due was $971.29, for a total of $3,482.07. C.) Finally, on January 20, 1994, the Department paid the claim on Loan No. 7701. At the time, the principal due was $3,118.28, and interest due was $2,458.40, for a total of $5,576.68. As of June 9, 1997, the date the Department received the proceeds of Petitioner's lottery prize, the balance due on the defaulted loans, with accrued interest, was as follows: Loan No. 7701, $7,842.80; Loan No. 557720, $9,096.52; and Loan No. 631534, $4,548.25. In total, as of June 9, 1997, Petitioner owed the Department $21,487.57, as principal and accrued interest owing on the defaulted loans.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which approves the application of the $17,842.80 of Petitioner's lottery prize the Department received toward the partial satisfaction of the debt owing the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Notice to Show Cause; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Notice to Show Cause, Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz, d/b/a Flor-Lidita Restaurant, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-4636. This license was a 2-COP license which authorized the sale of beer and wine for the premises known as Flor-Lidita Restaurant which is located at 4762 N. W. 183rd Street, Miami, Florida. In July, 1986, the FDLE began an investigation concerning an illegal gambling lottery commonly known as "bolita" which was believed to be operating in connection with the Flor-Lidita Restaurant. The investigation undertaken involved a surveillance of the restaurant together with undercover agents who were used to frequent the restaurant for the purposes of observing activities and placing bets with the restaurant personnel. An individual identified as Rafael Rosquete was determined to be a courier who would enter the restaurant, collect the gambling paraphernalia and returns, and deliver the items to a home located in Broward County. On July 9, 1986, a police officer, Hector Zeno, working undercover in connection with the FDLE, entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant and observed customers writing numbers on bolita slips. Officer Zeno also observed individuals placing bets with the owner, Julio Diaz. In turn, Zeno filled out a bolita slip and placed a $5.00 bet with the owner Julio Diaz. On July 16, 1986, Joyce Dawley and Jacqueline Sirven entered the Flor- Lidita Restaurant and observed customers placing bolita bets with the Respondents, Lida and Julio Diaz. These agents also observed another employee known to them as "Rolando" (later identified as Rolando Nunez) taking bets. Agents Dawley and Sirven placed $5.00 bets with Julio Diaz on this date and received carbon copies of their bolita slips. On July 22, 1986, Zeno returned to the restaurant for the purpose of observing the customers and again placed a $5.00 bet by completing a bolita slip and tendering money to Julio Diaz. During this visit Zeno observed Nunez and Lida Diaz taking money and bolita slips from other customers within the restaurant. On July 23, 1986, Dawley and Sirven returned to the restaurant and again placed two $5.00 bets with Julio Diaz. During this visit the agents observed other individuals inside the licensed premises place bets with Rolando Nunez and Lida Diaz. On July 24, 1986, Dawley and Sirven returned to the Flor-Lidita Restaurant for the purpose of picking up $70.00 in winnings which Agent Dawley was entitled to as a result of the bet she had placed the previous evening. On July 30, 1986, Dawley and Sirven went to the Flor- Lidita Restaurant and again placed two $5.00 bets. This time Lida Diaz took their money and the original bolita slips and gave them carbon copies of their bets. On July 31, 1986, Sirven entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant for the purpose of receiving $70.00 in winnings based on the prior day's bolita bet. On August 6, 1986, Dawley entered the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, received a bolita pad from Rolando Nunez and placed a $5.00 bet with Nunez in the present of Julio Diaz. On this visit Nunez showed Dawley a ledger which contained a list of dates together with numbers which indicated the winning numbers for the dates in question. On August 11, 1986, Dawley went to the Flor-Lidita Restaurant and observed Lida and Julio Diaz receiving bolita bets from persons within the restaurant. Dawley also observed Rolando Nunez taking bets. Dawley placed a $5.00 bet with Nunez on this date. After receiving a search warrant for the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, special agents of the FDLE entered the licensed premises on August 12, 1986 and searched the restaurant. During the search, agents took possession of various items of gambling paraphernalia which included bolita betting slips, Puerto Rican lottery tickets, blank bolita pads, currency and ledger books. Over $40,000 worth of U.S. currency and gambling paraphernalia was confiscated in connection with the police raid on the restaurant and the house in Broward County. In connection with the search of the licensed premises, Joseph Ogonowski seized an open bottle of scotch whiskey which was behind the counter at the restaurant. The scotch was not listed on the menu as a designated ingredient for any of the food items available for purchase at the restaurant. During the period of surveillance of the Flor-Lidita Restaurant, Rosquete was repeatedly observed by FDLE agents. Rosquete would routinely visit the restaurant, obtain items of gambling paraphernalia including betting slips and U.S. currency, and deliver the proceeds from the restaurant to a residence located in Broward County. The gambling activities conducted on the licensed premises were open, frequent, and included the active participation of the Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking license number 23-4636, series 2-COP, held by Respondents, Julio and Lida Diaz, d/b/a Flor-Lidita Restaurant. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4620 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence paragraph 3 is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as speculation. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraphs 6-20 are accepted. With the exception of the last sentence in paragraph 21, which is rejected as speculation, paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraphs 22-23 are accepted. The last two sentences of paragraph 24 are accepted. The first sentence is rejected as argument or a conclusion of law. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1-3 are accepted. Paragraphs 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mr. Ogonowski was qualified to and did identify the substance seized as scotch whiskey. Paragraph 5 is accepted but is unnecessary to the determinations reached by this Recommended Order. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial and unsupported by the record in this cause having previously ruled the adjudications inadmissible. Paragraph 7 is rejected as unsupported by the record in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Rene Valdes 1830 N. W. 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Daniel Bosanko, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue The factual issues in this unadopted-rule challenge relate to whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the state’s gaming laws, has formulated statements of general applicability that have the effect of giving each slot machine licensee the rights (i) to maintain and operate an outdoor live gaming facility for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering activities, wherein slot machine gaming areas could not lawfully be located, so long as its slot machines are housed elsewhere, in an enclosed building; and (ii) to locate slot machine gaming areas in a separate, stand-alone building having no integral systems, structures, or elements, provided the building is located on the same parcel, and on the same side of the street, river, or similar obstacle, as the live gaming facility. If Respondent has developed such a statement or statements, then the ultimate issue is whether such statements meet the statutory definition of an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact PARTIES SCF is a Florida corporation whose principal place of business is located in Marion County. SCF has been in the business of breeding thoroughbred racehorses since 1996. The company also owns racehorses and, as an owner of racing animals, holds a Pari-Mutuel Wagering Business Occupational License, #PBU476648, from the Division. See § 550.105(2), Fla. Stat. As a licensed business owning racing animals, SCF is under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Division. In the three years preceding this action, SCF’s horses won approximately $120 thousand in purses from performing in race meets held at Florida pari-mutuel facilities.1 1 Although SCF is a licensed owner of racing animals, it is not a member of the Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc. (the “FHBPA”), a nonprofit corporation that advocates in support of Florida’s thoroughbred racing industry and represents the interests of the licensed owners and trainers who comprise its membership. This fact is relevant only to the question of whether SCF is precluded from maintaining this action, under the doctrine of administrative finality, by the Final Order entered in a case brought by the FHBPA in 2018 to challenge agency statements, similar to those at issue here, which the association alleged—but ultimately failed to establish—were unadopted Continued on next page... The Division is the state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing Florida’s gaming laws. It licenses and regulates pari-mutuel and slot machine gaming activities in Florida, as well as the professionals and businesses, such as SCF, that supply necessary goods and services to the gaming economy. The only places in Florida, in fact, where SCF’s thoroughbreds can legally perform in races upon which bets may be made are the several permitted pari-mutuel facilities, which are also subject to the Division’s regulatory jurisdiction; such tracks comprise the exclusive medium for live gaming activities. Calder is the holder of a pari-mutuel wagering permit and, in that capacity, owns a track called Calder Race Course, also known as Gulfstream Park West. As a permitholder, Calder must apply for an annual license to conduct pari-mutuel operations. See § 550.0115, Fla. Stat. This annual license gives the permitholder authority to conduct the pari-mutuel wagering activity authorized under its permit on the dates identified in the license. At all times relevant to this case, Calder has held a license to conduct thoroughbred horseracing performances, and SCF-owned horses have raced at Calder Race Course. In addition to its license to conduct pari-mutuel operations, Calder has held, at all times relevant hereto, a license to conduct slot machine gaming. SLOT MACHINE GAMING In 2004, voters approved an amendment to the Florida Constitution, which opened the door to the installation of slot machines at licensed pari- mutuel facilities in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. See Art. X, § 23, Fla. Const. During its next regular session, the legislature enacted chapter 551 to implement the constitutional amendment. Under the original definition of rules. For reasons discussed much later in this Final Order, the undersigned concludes that the previous Final Order, while favorable to the Division on similar issues, is not a bar to SCF’s claims in this proceeding, because SCF was neither a party to the FHBPA case, nor in privity with the FHBPA. “eligible facility” set forth in section 551.102(4), seven pari-mutuel permitholders potentially qualified for slot machine licensure; a later statutory amendment increased that number to eight. A slot machine license may be issued only to a permitted pari-mutuel facility. That is, to become and remain a slot machine licensee, an eligible facility must operate a pari-mutuel facility in accordance with the provisions of chapter 550, Florida Statutes. So, as a condition of initial slot-machine licensure, a permitholder must demonstrate its compliance with chapters 551 and, as applicable, chapter 550. § 551.104(4), Fla. Stat. To renew, which must be done annually, a slot machine licensee must “[c]ontinue to be in compliance with” chapter 551; “[c]ontinue to be in compliance with chapter 550, where applicable[;] and maintain [its] pari-mutuel permit and license in good standing pursuant to the provisions of chapter 550.” Id. In short, slot machine gaming is secondary to pari-mutuel wagering operations because it cannot exist, lawfully, in the absence of such operations. This means, among other things, that an applicant for a slot machine license is required to have a “current live gaming facility,” in which pari- mutuel wagering occurs in the physical presence of real-time races or games, and that a live gaming facility (“LGF”) must be maintained at the permitholder’s pari-mutuel facility during the life of the slot machine license, if issued. See § 551.114(4), Fla. Stat. In 2005, when chapter 551 was enacted, all seven of the facilities initially eligible for slot machine licensure had large existing grandstands or other buildings that created indoor, conditioned spaces; these “conditioned environments,” in other words, were separated from the outdoor elements and conditions (wind, rain, heat, cold, etc.) by sheltering walls and roofs. Simply put, each of these facilities had a building envelope or exterior shell and, thus, each such facility fell within the definition of a “building” under the common usage of that term. It is reasonable to infer, if not presume, that when section 551.114(4) was being written, the legislature, or at least the drafters of the legislation who coined the term “live gaming facility,” had in mind the buildings then currently in use as “live gaming facilities” at the relatively few eligible facilities that would be subject to the law. At the time chapter 551 took effect, moreover, the Division, in fact, considered these buildings to be the permitholders’ LGFs. A slot machine licensee must have a designated slot machine gaming area (“SMGA”) where “slot machine gaming may be conducted in accordance with the provisions of” chapter 551. §§ 551.102(2), 551.114, Fla. Stat. Section 551.114(4) specifies where the licensee is allowed to locate its SMGA: Designated slot machine gaming areas may be located within the current live gaming facility or in an existing building that must be contiguous and connected to the live gaming facility. If a designated slot machine gaming area is to be located in a building that is to be constructed, that new building must be contiguous and connected to the live gaming facility. For ease of reference, the term “slot machine building,” or “SMB,” will be used herein to refer to any building besides the LGF in which a licensee optionally locates its SMGA. As the statute makes clear, every SMB, whether previously existing, newly constructed, upgraded, refurbished, retrofitted, or freshly painted, must be “contiguous and connected to” the LGF. This will be called the “CCT Requirement.” THE DIVISION’S INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE Over time as it implemented section 551.114(4), the Division interpreted the text in ways which SCF alleges constitute unadopted rules. The circumstances surrounding the development of these interpretations are interesting, and a good deal of evidence was adduced in this proceeding establishing them, but it is not necessary, for present purposes, to make detailed findings concerning these historical facts. Readers who would like to know more about the events leading to this rule challenge may read the Recommended Order (“Calder RO”) that the undersigned issued in The Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., et al., DOAH Case No. 18-4997, 2019 Fla. Div. Admin. Hear. LEXIS 283 (Fla. DOAH May 24, 2019) (the “License Challenge”). If the undersigned were to make extensive findings of historical fact in this Final Order, such findings would be substantially the same as, if not identical to, the findings set forth in the Calder RO. The primary relevance, to the instant case, of the historical facts relating to the Division’s approvals of SMBs at Calder and another track (Pompano Park/Isle of Capri), respectively, would be to show that, despite the absence of rulemaking or other written evidence of its statutory interpretations, the agency has formulated (but not formally adopted) governing principles for making regulatory decisions—”nonrule policies,” in other words—whose existence and contents can be deduced from the agency’s actions, namely the issuance of slot machine licenses or renewals manifesting underlying determinations that this SMB or that one is compliant, as a matter of ultimate fact, with the provisions of chapter 551, including the CCT Requirement. Recently, however, on February 3, 2020, the Division issued the Calder FO, wherein the agency expressed very clearly not only its understanding of what the relevant words of section 551.114(4) mean (the semantic content), but also what law is made thereby (the legal content). It is, therefore, no longer necessary to deduce the Division’s statutory interpretations from its actions; that these statements exist, and have specific linguistic content, are matters now beyond genuine dispute, the statements having been communicated in writing by the agency itself.2 2 This is what the undersigned meant when he wrote in the Order Regarding Official Recognition that, based on the Calder FO, the Division’s interpretive statements relating to section 551.114(4) “appear to be not genuinely disputable.” In other words, to be clear, the existence and contents of the Division’s interpretive statements are now beyond reasonable Continued on next page... From the Calder FO, the Division’s interpretive statements can be fairly, accurately, and concisely described.3 The first statement of interest dispute, although there might be some relatively insignificant disagreements at the margins regarding the meaning of the agency statements. Independent of all that, the question of whether the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4) is the best interpretation, or even a reasonable one, is sharply disputed. While the correctness of the Division’s interpretive statements is a matter of continued conflict, that particular dispute need not be decided in this proceeding, whose focus, instead, is on whether the statements meet the definition of a rule, a question that has little to do with whether the statements reflect the best, or correct, reading of the statutory text. (A statement that expresses nothing but a literal comprehension of the statutory text, reflecting only such meaning as is readily apparent without reading between or beyond the lines of the codified language, is not a rule by definition; nor, however, is it an “interpretation,” strictly speaking. Such a literal paraphrase could be called “correct,” though, and so, to the extent a decision is required regarding whether a statement adds legal content to the underlying statute’s straightforward semantic content, some consideration must be given to the correctness, in this narrow sense, of the statement at issue.) 3 So that no one can misinterpret what the undersigned is doing here, let it be clear. First, the undersigned is not implying that the Calder FO is itself an unadopted rule. The Calder FO is, of course, an order, which determines the substantial interests of specifically named parties, subject to judicial review. The undersigned is saying, however, because it is indisputably true, that the Calder FO contains statements that communicate—expressly, unambiguously, and in specific language (not by implication or through interpretation)— the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4). In fact, the Calder FO includes a section titled “Interpretation of Section 551.114(4), F.S.” Thus, while the Calder FO is not, per se, an unadopted rule, it is evidence of the Division’s interpretation of a section 551.114(4); indeed, it is convincing evidence thereof. (The agency’s interpretive statements are not hearsay because what makes them relevant is their existence and contents, not the “truth” of the matters asserted. See § 90.801(1)(c), Fla Stat.) Further, the Division’s interpretation of the statute is, obviously, highly relevant because agency statements that interpret law fall within the definition of a rule when, as SCF alleges here, they do so in ways which give the law meaning not readily apparent from the raw semantic content of the statutory text being implemented. It should also be noted that it makes no difference where or how an agency communicates a statement of general applicability that meets the definition of a rule. There is no “final order immunity” that somehow shields statements contained in a final order from examination in a section 120.56(4) proceeding. We are concerned here with three basic questions: (i) does the statement exist; (ii) if so, what is the content of the statement; and (iii) does the statement’s content meet the definition of a rule? The Calder FO persuasively proves both the existence of the statements at issue and the contents of the statements issue. Second, in describing the Division’s interpretive statements, the undersigned is not attempting to summarize the entire Calder FO. Nor is he purposefully adding to, or subtracting from, the agency’s statements. This is not an exercise in straw-man argumentation. To the extent possible, the undersigned is using the agency’s exact words; his intent, again, is to express the Division’s statutory interpretation accurately and fairly. The Calder FO is available for anyone to read, and the undersigned invites everyone who is interested to do just that and decide for him or herself whether the descriptions herein of the Continued on next page... concerns the CCT Requirement. As the undersigned reads the Calder FO, the Division has interpreted the statute to mean that a licensee’s SMB is “contiguous and connected to” its LGF if the SMB and LGF: (i) “share a common boundary,” for which simply “being located on the same piece of property” is sufficient; (ii) are no more than a “short distance” from one another; (iii) are not on opposite sides of “a public roadway, waterway, or any [similar] barrier”; and (iv) are “connected” by a walkway between the two, for which an outdoor sidewalk is sufficient. In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, however, the Division stated that and (iv) “may not be required” in every instance and, thus, are not necessary conditions. In other words, the SMB and LGF might be farther than a “short distance” from each other and still be “contiguous”; and the two structures, if respectively self-contained, might be “connected” other than by a “walkway” between them. Making this correction, the agency statement becomes: A licensee’s SMB is “contiguous and connected to” the LGF if the SMB and LGF: (i) “share a common boundary,” for which “being located on Division’s interpretive statements are accurate and fair. (The Division expressed some minor disagreements with the undersigned’s original descriptions of the agency interpretations at issue, and these disagreements will be addressed in the text above.) Third, relatedly, the undersigned emphatically disclaims any intention of using unfair descriptions of the Calder FO to turn “narrow issues” into “more general” statements having a “broader scope of applicability” than the agency intends. The fact is, however, that there is nothing “fact-specific” about the Division’s interpretation of section 551.114(4), and the Division’s insisting otherwise will not make it so. This point will be discussed further above, but let it be emphasized in this footnote that a statement’s relative applicability is determined based upon the level of generality expressed by the statement’s language, that is, by the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of the semantic content of the text. The more inclusive the statement, the more generally applicable it is. A statement of general applicability, so framed, is not rendered “fact-specific” simply because it has been applied to the facts of a specific case in determining the substantial interests of a particular party. the same piece of property” is sufficient;4 and (ii) are not on opposite sides of “a public roadway, waterway, or any [similar] barrier.”5 What cannot be disputed, bottom line, is that the Division, in its own words, interprets “the plain statutory language” of section 551.114(4) as “contemplat[ing]” that the SMB may be “a stand-alone separate building” from the LGF. See Calder FO at 42. From this interpretation, it follows logically that having structural elements in common with the LGF, or sharing integrated systems therewith (e.g., exterior envelope, HVAC, electric, and plumbing), is not a necessary condition of an SMB’s satisfying the CCT Requirement; that is, even without such integration, the SMB and LGF may be deemed statutorily “contiguous and connected to” each other, according to the Division. The undersigned will call this the “nonintegration principle.” The nonintegration principle is the Division’s seminal insight regarding the meaning of section 551.114(4); if the nonintegration principle were deemed false (incorrect), such determination would guarantee the falsity (incorrectness) of the Division’s statement that “the plain statutory language” of section 551.114(4) “contemplate[s]” that the SMB may be “a stand-alone separate building” from the LGF. This is because, to state the obvious, “a stand-alone separate building” is, by that description, a self- 4 Because it is necessary that all of the permitholder’s pari-mutuel facilities be located on the property “specified in the permit,” see section 550.0115, Florida Statutes, and because slot machines must be located “within the property of the [permitholder’s] facilities,” see sections 551.101 and 551.114(1), part (i) of the agency statement makes “shar[ing] a common boundary” practically a given, and certainly a gimme. 5 It is usually unhelpful to define anything by describing what the thing being defined is not, which entails a process of elimination. Saying that being “contiguous and connected” means being not separated by a public roadway, etc., tells us nothing that we didn’t already know; it is the answer to a question that no one would ask, akin to saying that the CCT Requirement prohibits a permitholder from locating its SMB in a different city or state from the LGF. Like part (i) of the agency statement, part (ii) imposes a “requirement” that is a gimme, if not a given. Taken together, the two parts, (i) and (ii), comprising the agency statement under consideration, come very close to eliminating the CCT Requirement altogether, reducing it to the ineffectual status of “requirement in name only.” As the Division sees it, the CCT Requirement has little practical effect, if any, other than ensuring that the SMB and LGF have the same address, which is already assured. contained structure that is not integrated with another structure. So, the Division’s statement that the statute allows the use of a nonintegrated SMB is true only if SMB/LGF integration is not a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement. In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, the Division states that the Calder FO “does not comment on whether it is ever necessary, to satisfy the [CCT] requirement, that the SMB and LGF ‘have any common structural elements or integrated systems, e.g., exterior envelope, HVAC, lighting, etc.’“ This is trivially true inasmuch as the Calder FO does not specifically describe the nonintegration principle as such. But the point is irrelevant because, as just explained, if section 551.114(4) permits locating an SMGA in a separate, stand-alone building, as the Division maintains, then the nonintegration principle must exist, and it must be true, regardless of whether the Division actually utters the words that communicate the concept. If the Division meant to say more, i.e., to imply that there might be an as-yet unrevealed exception or exceptions to the nonintegration principle, this possibility, whatever else might be said about it,6 does not negate the nonintegration principle itself. This is because the principle does not hold that nonintegration is a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; that is, integration does not guarantee failure. Nor does it hold 6 One thing that can be said if there exists an exception to the nonintegration principle is that an SMB’s “being located on the same piece of property” as the LGF would not be a sufficient condition for finding that the two “share a common boundary,” contrary to what the Division has said elsewhere. If there were an exception, then sometimes (when the exception applies) integration would be required in order for the two structures to share a common boundary and be deemed contiguous to one another. To explain, locating a self- contained SMB on the same piece of property as the LGF guarantees compliance with the “common boundary” requirement—i.e., is a sufficient condition therefor—only if the nonintegration principle has no exceptions. (The undersigned takes for granted that integration would never be required to meet the only other identified requirement, namely that the SMB and LGF not be separated by a public roadway, waterway, or similar barrier, because that condition would be so easily met by putting the two structures on the same side of the street or river.) that nonintegration is a sufficient condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; that is, nonintegration does not guarantee success. Rather, the nonintegration principle holds that integration is not a necessary condition of compliance with the CCT Requirement; or, put another way, that nonintegration is statutorily permissible. Why is this significant? Because if section 551.114(4) literally requires an integrated SMB/LGF in all cases where the SMGA is located outside the current LGF, then the Division’s interpretation of the CCT Requirement is not readily apparent from what is actually stated in the statutory text, even if it might conform to the legislature’s communicative intent,7 which would mean that the agency has declared what the law shall be (a legislative power), as opposed to applying the law as it is (an executive power). And, as we know, an agency is authorized to exercise delegated legislative authority only through formal rulemaking. The second statement concerns the meaning of the term LGF, which the Division defines as being any area, including an “open-aired, unenclosed place” or “space,” from which patrons can “view … and/or [be] within the physical presence of” contests occurring in real time, and at which they may engage in pari-mutuel betting on such contests using equipment designed to facilitate these “live gaming activities.” In its Response in Opposition to the Order Regarding Official Recognition, the Division asserts that the foregoing description of its definition of the term LGF is too narrow, because the Division defines LGF to include the racetrack as well. The undersigned accepts this assertion to be true, and revises his original description accordingly. 7 The legislature might have intended, for example, to communicate meaning beyond the plain semantic content of the statutory text, whose full linguistic content thus could not be understood without an appreciation of pragmatic considerations, such as programmatic goals, arguably better known to the agency than to the citizenry. If so, the necessary and proper, lawful agency response would be to take quasi legislative action and adopt a rule. The track, of course, is the “field of play” for live horse racing performances, analogous to the three-walled court (or cancha) on which jai alai players perform. Clearly, there can be no LGF without a track or cancha; this practically goes without saying. Including the live performance site, definitionally, as an element of the LGF, however, is inconsequential to this case because neither a track nor a cancha, by itself, could constitute an LGF; there must be something to accommodate patrons, who obviously cannot watch, or place wagers on, live contests while sitting or standing upon the track or jai alai court. The relevant question in this case is whether the statute literally requires that something to entail conditioned space within an enclosed building shell.8 Reduced to its undisputed essentials, the Division’s position is that while an LGF may be an enclosed building, it needn’t necessarily be. An open- air, unenclosed place or space will suffice, if properly equipped to facilitate wagering. It is this “open-air option” to which SCF objects as the instantiation of a policy that exceeds the raw semantic meaning of the term LGF and thus constitutes an unadopted rule. SCF alleges that the Division has formulated a third unadopted rule, extrinsic to the Calder FO, which is not interpretive in nature but rather is a prescriptive statement to the effect that certain ultimate facts are conclusively determinable as a matter of law if the basic facts are undisputed. To the point, SCF contends that the Division has decided that, if a hearing is requested to determine whether an SMB satisfies the CCT Requirement, the proceeding will be governed by section 120.57(2) unless the objective facts on 8 At times, the Division appears to imply that the LGF comprises entire pari-mutuel complex, so desirous is the agency to get across the idea that the term LGF must be read expansively. While warning of the dangers of defining LGF too narrowly, the Division seems unconcerned about the opposite problem, namely reading LGF so broadly that the term ceases to have relevant meaning. If the LGF is everything on the permitted premises, then it is nothing specifically identifiable. For the LGF to have discernible boundaries—a necessary condition of contiguity with another structure, by the way—there must be a limiting principle or Continued on next page... the ground are genuinely disputed. SCF contends that the Division is using this “gatekeeper mechanism” to deny SCF (and another party) the formal hearings they have requested, pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), to challenge the renewal of Calder’s slot machine license, based on allegations that Calder does not have a statutorily compliant LGF and that its SMB fails to meet the CCT Requirement. The Division has not published a notice of rulemaking under section 120.54(3)(a) relating either to the open-air option, the nonintegration principle, or the gatekeeper mechanism. Nor has the Division presented evidence or argument on the feasibility or practicability of adopting any of these alleged statements of general applicability as a de jure rule. THE DIVISION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALLEGED UNADOPTED RULES As mentioned above, the historical facts giving rise to the agency interpretations at issue are not only, for the most part, undisputed, but also, more importantly, largely irrelevant for purposes of determining the merits of this action under section 120.56(4). The Division’s implementation of the alleged unadopted rules does have some bearing, however, on the question of SCF’s standing, which is a hotly contested issue in this case. Therefore, an abridged history follows. Of the eight pari-mutuel facilities eligible for slot machine licensure, only Pompano Park/Isle of Capri (“PPI”) and Calder have chosen the option contained in section 551.114(4) to erect a new building in which to locate their respective SMGAs. All of the other eligible permitholders opted to locate their SMGAs within their current LGFs; these were buildings, enclosing conditioned environments, not open-air places exposed to the elements. Because Broward County satisfied the local referendum requirement before Miami-Dade County did, PPI’s application for slot machine licensure was the principles to delimit the definitional scope. The Division has been reluctant to commit to such limiting principles. first to require the Division’s decision as to whether an SMB that was to be constructed would meet the CCT Requirement. The physical configuration of PPI’s SMB, as planned and built, was not “contiguous” to its existing LGF under any ordinary understanding of the word “contiguous,” which denotes actual contact along a common boundary; the buildings were in “reasonably” close proximity, but they did not communicate in the sense of opening into each other. Nor was PPI’s SMB “connected to” its LGF in accord with the image that readily comes to mind when thinking about how two contiguous structures would be connected to each other. The two separate, stand-alone buildings were “connected,” not physically, through any sort of direct contact, but figuratively, by basic transport infrastructure—i.e., a covered walkway between them.9 This apparent departure from the plain meaning of section 551.114(4) resulted from the Division’s desire to give the eligible permitholders some “leeway” in satisfying the strict statutory requirement that an SMB be “contiguous and connected to” the current LGF, according to David Roberts, who headed the Division from 2001 through 2009, and who was involved in making the decision.10 After Miami-Dade County satisfied the local referendum requirement in 2009, Calder applied for its initial slot machine license. Because Calder, 9 They were connected, that is to say, in the same way Tallahassee is connected to Jacksonville via Interstate 10. 10 On October 17, 2019, the agency head of DOAH began systematically reviewing every final order and recommended order prior to, and as a prerequisite of, its issuance. Pursuant to this review, the director makes written “comments and suggested edits” on some, but not all, orders. Although the presiding officer is not required to accept the director’s suggested edits, he is not given the option of declining the director’s review. As a result, the undersigned received two comments, one on the paragraph above and the other on paragraph 30 of this Final Order, which are, at least arguably, “relative to the merits,” and hence which are, or might be, ex parte communications prohibited by section 120.66(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (no “ex parte communication relative to the merits” shall be made to the presiding officer by “[a]n agency head,” among others). Erring on the side of caution and disclosure, the undersigned hereby places on the record the director’s comment concerning paragraph 24: “This is the crux of Continued on next page... like PPI, intended to place its SMGA in a self-contained casino, which would be newly constructed, Calder sought and received the Division’s permission to build a separate, stand-alone SMB pursuant to the same informal policy that had relaxed the strict CCT Requirement for PPI. The Division’s issuance to Calder of its initial slot machine license manifested the Division’s determination that Calder’s SMB and LGF, as initially configured after construction of the new SMB, were compliant with all of the statutory requirements for slot machine gaming licensure, including the CCT Requirement. In 2016, Calder demolished its grandstand building; as of this hearing, Calder has not replaced its former LGF with a new building of any kind. The demolition of the grandstand was one of several actions taken in furtherance of a business decision by Calder to distance itself from live racing activities at Calder Race Course. Other actions included slashing the number of annual performances during the race meet, from an average of 250 performances per year to 40 performances per year; the entry into a contract with Gulfstream Park to operate and manage Calder’s abbreviated race meet; and a reduction in the number of stalls available for the stabling and training of racehorses. There is an ongoing dispute as to whether Calder, without an enclosed building for live gaming, has a legally sufficient LGF. See License Challenge. What is not disputed is that Calder lacks an LGF capable of housing an SMGA in compliance with chapter 551, because an SMGA must be housed in a building. Calder’s “LGF,” such as it is, currently consists of open-air viewing areas where patrons can watch, and place wagers on, live races. The primary viewing area is located in front of the final stretch of the racetrack, at a spot called the “apron.” There are some outdoor seats and tiki huts on the apron, and, during the race meet, Calder erects a collapsible canopy tent, your most defensible finding.” Any party desiring to rebut this communication shall be allowed to do so in accordance with section 120.66(2). which, despite the absence of walls, provides a bit of shelter for wagering machines, video screens, and, of course, patrons, for whom additional outdoor seating is provided. The casino is at least 100 yards from the temporary “big tent.” It is possible to walk from the casino to the big tent, and return, on a concrete walkway, but the walkway is only partially covered, which means, when it rains, that patrons cannot go back and forth between the SMB and the “LGF” without getting wet. The walls of the SMB do not touch or abut the areas where patrons can view the live horse races and place bets. Indeed, a patron can walk into the main entrance of the casino, play the slot machines, and then leave, without once seeing, or being within a football field’s length of, an area that allows the viewing of live horse racing. At the time of the hearing, Gulfstream Park’s general manager was William Badgett. (Gulfstream Park, recall, operates Calder’s race meet pursuant to contract.) Mr. Badgett testified as follows regarding the decline in attendance and wagering after the demolition of Calder’s grandstand: [W]hat I’ve seen is—it’s, pretty much, in black and white. The numbers over the year—year to year to year[—]have declined mostly because this is the best that we can offer at the facility without building a permanent structure. … When it rains the water comes down the hill and people just leave. And what I’ve seen from the owners is they’ll come to watch a race. After the race they’ll leave. … [I]t has declined year to year to year in the handle and the amount of people that we see there. When asked whether, based upon his many years of experience in the horseracing industry as a trainer and as a track manager, he believed that the lack of a grandstand and of any protection from the elements has negatively affected the amount of live handle at the race meets at Calder Race Course, Mr. Badgett answered, “Yes, absolutely.” Describing the experience of watching a race at ground level on the apron, Mr. Badgett testified: What we do is we put televisions in the tent because it’s not as—You, more or less, have to walk down the apron if you want to see it live. There’s a structure in the middle of the—of the in-field, which is the tote board, which doesn’t work anymore. So, it’s a little bit of an obstruction. You can see [the race], but you’re better off watching it on television. The undersigned credits Mr. Badgett’s testimony on these points. DETERMINATIONS OF ULTIMATE FACT It is determined as a matter of ultimate fact that both the open-air option and the nonintegration principle have the effect of law because the Division, if unchecked, intends consistently to follow them in carrying out its responsibilities to administer chapters 550 and 551 generally, and section 551.114(4) specifically. Each statement creates rights (in the form of expanded locational options for SMBs and architectural options for LGFs) that are exercisable by slot machine licensees.11 While directly regulating the physical plant of a permitted pari-mutuel facility, these statements collaterally regulate live gaming licensees, including businesses owing racing animals such as SCF, whose licensed occupations require access to, and the use of, the permitholders’ LGFs and other pari-mutuel facilities. From the perspective of a licensed racehorse owner, the LGF (which it neither owns nor controls) is the environment for its audience, the spectators whose money (wagered on races) helps fund the purses and awards that compensate the licensee for its services. A law that allows an LGF to be an open-air place as opposed to a climate controlled 11 The undersigned hereby places on the record the director’s comment regarding paragraph 30: “Finding the agency’s future intent as a matter of fact is troubling.” Any party desiring to rebut this communication shall be allowed to do so in accordance with section 120.66(2). Continued on next page... building is detrimental to the interests of a business licensee whose success in a pari-mutuel occupation depends upon the continued presence of a large, paying audience, for the obvious reasons that an open-air place is unlikely to be as comfortable, or as amenity-rich, as a building; and, taken together, less comfort and fewer amenities, relatively speaking, are more likely to discourage potential customers from showing up.12 Similarly, the nonintegration principle negatively affects the interests of live gaming licensees such as SCF because it allows the permitholder literally to draw patrons away from the live gaming activities upon which the live gaming licensees depend, to a “nearby,” but physically separate and independent, SMB. The relative draw of the SMB, moreover, which must be an enclosed building, is enhanced if the LGF, pursuant to the open-air option, does not afford patrons a conditioned environment. That is, when the nonintegration principle works in tandem with the open-air option at the same pari-mutuel facility, the result is even more disadvantageous to live gaming licensees, because the disequilibrium in patron comfort, as between slot machine players and live game spectators, ratchets up as the LGF becomes more stripped-down. The bottom line is that the nonintegration principle and the open-air option are unadopted rules because, in the Division’s hands, they create legally protected opportunities for permitholders to design, configure, and construct their physical plants, in ways that predictably and substantially affect live gaming licensees. 12 The undersigned regards this as self-evident. Common, everyday experience informs the undersigned—who doubts that any reasonable person can genuinely deny—that an enclosed, dry, heated or cooled environment, separated from the outdoors, where a spectator can sit and watch a race without being exposed to direct sunlight, wind, or insects, is more attractive to potential customers, in the main, than an open-air place where the spectator might be uncomfortably hot or cold, windswept, and bitten by mosquitoes; thus, a building is a relatively stronger draw. Continued on next page... The gatekeeper mechanism, in contrast, while perhaps having some of the characteristics of a general principle, is primarily a quasi-judicial ruling, operative only in the context of a quasi-judicial administrative proceeding, and lacking any broad regulatory effect. While such a ruling plainly affects the interests of the party or parties to the particular proceeding, it is judicially reviewable without the mediation of yet another administrative proceeding (unlike an intended regulatory decision, which becomes final unless a hearing is requested).13 To be sure, the question of whether an agency statement to the effect that “formal hearings shall not be granted if the historical facts are undisputed, leaving for determination only the ultimate fact of compliance” (whose level of generality is somewhat higher than the gatekeeper mechanism at issue) could be deemed an unadopted rule is fairly debatable. Yet, even that apparently rule-like statement, which arguably “describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency,”14 would be actionable only as an interlocutory order in a quasi-judicial proceeding, because only such a proceeding would give the agency an opportunity to use the statement. It is hard, therefore, to distinguish between 13 In other words, if a party disagrees with the agency’s decision under section 120.569(2)(a) to deny the party’s request for a formal hearing, that party does not need to request another administrative hearing to contest the decision. The agency’s decision to deny a formal hearing and proceed under section 120.57(2) is a nonfinal order, which may be immediately appealed under section 120.68(1)(b), see United States Service Industries-Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 383 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), or reviewed on plenary appeal from an adverse final order, see Spuza v. Department of Health, 838 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). If the agency refuses to discharge its duty under section 120.569(2)(a), mandamus will lie. See Cmty. Health Charities v. Dep’t of Mgmt. Servs., 961 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 14 See § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. (definition of “rule”). “policy” and “reversible error” in this instance.15 Ultimately, the undersigned determines that the gatekeeper mechanism is not a rule by definition.
