The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the respective Administrative Complaints, and, if so, whether Petitioner should impose against Respondent an administrative fine, penalty, and survey fee.
Findings Of Fact DOAH Case No. 13-2011: Failure to Properly Train, Supervise, and Perform CPR Pine Tree Manor is licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration to operate a 24-bed assisted living facility. The facility's license number is 8317, and it expires on November 13, 2014. On February 12, 2013, the date of the incident that provides the basis for the instant action, Aurelia Cristobal was employed as a staff member at the facility operated by Pine Tree Manor. Spanish is Ms. Cristobal's native language, and her ability to speak English is very limited. Brent Sparks, the owner and administrator at Pine Tree Manor, acknowledged, when interviewed as part of the post-incident investigation, that Ms. Cristobal struggles at times with English, especially when under stress. Mr. Sparks was aware of Ms. Cristobal's limitations with English prior to February 12, 2013. Within a few days of B.Y.'s death, Ms. Cristobal left the United States and is believed to be currently living in Mexico. Ms. Cristobal did not testify during the final hearing. For the period June 15, 2011, through June 15, 2013, Ms. Cristobal was certified by the American Safety & Health Institute in the areas of automated external defibrillation (AED), cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and basic first aid. In the spring of 2011, Ms. Cristobal received training from Pine Tree Manor in the areas of facility emergency procedures and do not resuscitate (DNR) orders. Pine Tree Manor's written emergency procedures provide, in part, as follows: In all emergencies, it is important to remain calm and display a sense of control. Upsetting our residents will only induce undue stress. DIAL "911" EMERGENCY in the following cases: A medical emergency such as serious injuries or life threatening incidences. Fires Bodily harm to staff or residents such as terrorism, robbery, inclement weather. Call the administrator if there is any question concerning injury or illness, a resident is missing, security of facility is in doubt, or inspectors enter the facility. In the case of any significant changes or emergency, call the family, guardian and a health care provider. Also, contact the administrator. In cases of non-emergency need for transportation to the hospital or emergency room, call SUNSTAR AMBULANCE SERVICE @ 530-1234. In all cases, use common sense and remain calm, and remember to contact the administrator if in doubt. Pine Tree Manor's policy regarding DNR orders provides that: In the event a resident with a signed DNR experiences cardiopulmonary arrest, our policy is for staff trained in CPR/AED to withhold resuscitative treatment. Staff will report to the administrator immediately and in turn notify [the] resident's medical providers and resident representative. For example, staff on duty shall call 911 to report the condition, or if on Hospice [place] a call to (727) 586-4432, the Lavender Team Patient Leader. B.Y. became a resident of Pine Tree Manor on or about December 23, 2010. B.Y. did not execute a DNR directive. On February 12, 2013, between the hours of approximately 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Ms. Cristobal was the only employee on site at Pine Tree Manor. According to J.M., who on February 12, 2013, was a resident at Pine Tree Manor, B.Y. entered a common area of the facility where J.M. and other residents were located. J.M. advised that B.Y. sat on the sofa, and started watching television. While on the sofa, B.Y. stopped breathing. The evidence is inconclusive as to how long B.Y. was incapacitated before others learned of her condition. Although it is not clear from the testimony how Ms. Cristobal was informed of B.Y.'s peril, she did, at some point, learn that B.Y. was incapacitated and was experiencing a medical emergency. After learning of B.Y.'s situation, Ms. Cristobal, according to J.M., became nervous and "didn't know what to do." In fact, Ms. Cristobal was so nervous that she did not call 911, she did not check B.Y. for a pulse, and she did not perform CPR on B.Y. Ms. Cristobal did, however, make several attempts to contact Mr. Sparks. Ms. Cristobal eventually reached Mr. Sparks and advised him of the situation with B.Y. The evidence does not reveal how long B.Y. remained incapacitated before Ms. Cristobal was able to speak with Mr. Sparks. When Mr. Sparks received the call from Ms. Cristobal, he was at his residence in Hillsborough County. Pine Tree Manor is located in Pinellas County. Because Mr. Sparks was in Hillsborough County when he received the call from Ms. Cristobal, he was not able to call 911 and be immediately connected to an emergency operator in Pinellas County. Understanding this limitation, Mr. Sparks called the non-emergency number for the Pinellas County Sheriff's office, who, in turn, contacted the 911 operator and informed them of the emergency. In the course of discussing the emergency situation with Ms. Cristobal, Mr. Sparks learned that she had not called 911. Knowing the emergency nature of the situation and the fact that he could not call Pinellas County 911 directly, Mr. Sparks should have directed Ms. Cristobal to call 911, since she was located in Pinellas County, but he did not. Mr. Sparks should have also instructed Ms. Cristobal to start CPR on B.Y., but he did not. According to the Pinellas County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Patient Care Report for B.Y., the 911 call was received by the 911 dispatcher at 6:11 p.m. and an EMS unit was dispatched to Pine Tree Manor at 6:12 p.m. The EMS unit arrived at the facility at 6:15 p.m. and commenced treating B.Y. at 6:16 p.m. EMS personnel worked for nearly 30 minutes to revive B.Y., but their efforts were unsuccessful. Richard Sherman (EMT Sherman) is a firefighter and paramedic for the Pinellas Suncoast Fire District. EMT Sherman was the first paramedic to arrive at Pine Tree Manor on the day in question. Upon arrival at the facility, EMT Sherman attempted to enter through the facility's main door, but could not gain immediate entry because the door was locked. EMT Sherman rang the doorbell and knocked on the door in an attempt to gain entry into the facility. Resident J.M. opened the door, and EMT Sherman entered the facility. Upon entry, EMT Sherman noticed that B.Y. was unresponsive on the sofa. He also observed at the same time that there were several residents in B.Y.'s immediate area and that there was no staff present. When EMT Sherman arrived, Ms. Cristobal was in another part of the facility assisting a resident who had become upset because the resident was having difficulty satisfying her toileting needs. Approximately a minute after EMT Sherman started resuscitation efforts on B.Y., Ms. Cristobal appeared in the area where B.Y. was located. Because Ms. Cristobal was wearing scrubs, EMT Sherman correctly identified her as a facility employee. EMT Sherman asked Ms. Cristobal if she knew anything about B.Y. and the circumstances surrounding her collapse. Ms. Cristobal did not respond to EMT Sherman's questions. EMT Sherman testified that Ms. Cristobal, after not responding to his questions, simply "looked at [him] and then turned and walked away" towards the main doors of the facility. While continuing to attempt to resuscitate B.Y., EMT Sherman noticed that Ms. Cristobal appeared to be locking the doors that he had just entered. EMT Sherman instructed Ms. Cristobal several times to not lock the doors because more emergency personnel would soon be arriving. Apparently not understanding EMT Sherman's directives, Mr. Cristobal locked the doors. A few minutes later, district fire chief John Mortellite arrived at the facility. EMT Sherman, while continuing to work on B.Y., heard District Chief Mortellite banging on the locked main doors in an effort to gain entry to the facility. A resident eventually unlocked the doors, and District Chief Mortellite entered the building. When asked why Ms. Cristobal would call him in an emergency situation and not 911, Mr. Sparks explained that it was Ms. Cristobal's practice to always call him in an emergency and that he would, in turn, manage the situation. Mr. Sparks, by allowing Ms. Cristobal "to always call him" in emergency situations instead of 911, created an alternative practice that was directly contrary to the facility's written policy which clearly directs employees to "DIAL '911'" when confronted with a medical emergency. Ms. Cristobal was, therefore, not properly trained. Mr. Sparks, by establishing and, indeed, encouraging a practice that shielded Ms. Cristobal from directly communicating with 911, placed B.Y. in a position where there was an unacceptable delay, though not precisely quantifiable, in contacting emergency personnel on her behalf. In a life or death situation such as that experienced by B.Y., every second matters because, as noted by EMT Sherman, "the longer the delay [in receiving medical treatment] the less probability of a positive outcome." When EMT Sherman arrived at Pine Tree Manor, he was completely unaware of the fact that the only employee on site spoke little, if any English. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that Mr. Sparks failed to inform either the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office or the 911 operator of Ms. Cristobal's limitations with the English language. By Ms. Cristobal's not calling 911, and Mr. Sparks' not disclosing to the 911 operator that the only employee on site had limited English language skills, decedent B.Y. was placed in the unenviable position of having EMT Sherman's attention divided between resuscitation efforts and worrying about whether Ms. Cristobal was able to comply with his instructions. EMT Sherman testified that Pinellas County EMS, including 911 operators, has protocols in place for dealing with individuals that may not speak English. Had either Mr. Sparks disclosed to the 911 operator Ms. Cristobal's language limitations or had Ms. Cristobal herself called 911, protocols could have been implemented by emergency personnel that would have triggered certain safeguards designed to ensure that Ms. Cristobal's language limitations did not interfere with the delivery of emergency services to B.Y. DOAH Case No. 13-2397: Failure to Remain Generally Aware of the Whereabouts of Resident Most recently, R.D., on September 27, 2010, became a resident of Pine Tree Manor. A demographic data information survey was prepared as part of R.D.'s new resident intake process. R.D.'s intake data showed that he was independent in the areas of ambulation, bathing, dressing, toileting, eating, and transferring. R.D. was identified as needing supervision when performing tasks related to personal grooming. It was also noted that R.D. suffered from anxiety and panic attacks. According to R.D.'s brother Tom, R.D. was under the care of a psychiatrist for many years and "suffered from debilitating panic attacks." When suffering a panic attack, R.D. would often lay on the ground or floor, most often in a fetal position, and remain in this position until help arrived. As a part of the new resident intake process, R.D. was assessed for his risk of elopement. The assessment revealed that R.D. was not at risk for elopement and that he was free to "come and go [from the facility] as he pleases" and that he needed to "sign out" whenever leaving the facility. By correspondence dated March 14, 2011, the administration of Pine Tree Manor reminded R.D. that he needed to adhere to the facility's resident sign-out procedure whenever leaving from and returning to the facility. Approximately ten months after reminding R.D. of the facility's sign-out procedure, Mr. Sparks, on January 2, 2012, updated R.D.'s risk assessment form and again noted thereon that R.D. "may come and go as he pleases" and he "[n]eeds to remember to sign out" when leaving the facility. On May 23, 2012, R.D. was evaluated by a physician and it was noted, in part, that R.D. could function independently in the areas of ambulation, bathing, dressing, eating, grooming, toileting, and transferring. As for certain self-care tasks, the evaluating physician noted that R.D. needed assistance with preparing his meals, shopping, and handling his personal and financial affairs. It was also noted that R.D. needed daily oversight with respect to observing his well-being and whereabouts and reminding him about important tasks. The evaluating physician also noted that R.D. needed help with taking his medication.1/ The evaluation was acknowledged by Mr. Sparks as having been received on May 25, 2012. R.D.'s most recent itemization of his medications shows that on October 10, 2012, he was prescribed Clonazepam and Buspirone. The Clonazepam was administered three times a day at 8:00 a.m., noon, and 8:00 p.m. The Buspirone was administered four times a day at 8:00 a.m., noon, 5:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m. These medications are often prescribed for anxiety, however, R.D.'s medications listing form does not expressly denote why the drugs were prescribed. At 7:58 a.m., on November 10, 2012, an ambulance from the Pinellas County EMS was dispatched to Pine Tree Manor. When the EMS unit arrived at 8:00 a.m., R.D. was found "on the ground or floor" and was complaining of feeling anxious. While being treated by EMS, R.D. took his 8:00 a.m. dose of Clonazepam and was transported to "Largo Med." Less than 24 hours later, EMS, at 4:29 a.m., on November 11, 2012, was dispatched to 13098 Walsingham Road, because R.D. was again complaining of feeling anxious. This location is apparently near Pine Tree Manor, as the EMS Patient Care Report for this service call notes that R.D. "walked to [the] store." Following the evaluation by EMS, R.D. was again transported to "Largo Med." At 12:24 p.m., on November 18, 2012, EMS was dispatched to a location near Pine Tree Manor where R.D. was found "lying supine on [the] sidewalk." According to the EMS report, R.D. advised that he became lightheaded and fell to the ground. R.D. did not complain of any other symptoms and was transported to a medical facility in Largo for further evaluation. At 1:27 p.m., on November 25, 2012, EMS was dispatched to a 7-11 store near Pine Tree Manor. Upon arrival at the store, EMS personnel found R.D. and, when questioned, he advised that he was again feeling anxious. Per R.D.'s specific request, as noted on the EMS report, he was transferred to St. Anthony's Hospital in St. Petersburg. On November 28, 2012, Mr. Sparks made an entry into R.D.'s file and noted that a neurosurgeon evaluated R.D.'s shunt on that date in an attempt to determine if a malfunction was the cause of R.D.'s panic attacks. Mr. Sparks noted in the record that the doctor advised that the shunt was working properly and that the shunt was ruled out as the "cause of [R.D.'s] panic attacks." As of November 28, 2012, Mr. Sparks was aware that R.D. had recently complained of experiencing panic attacks and that the cause of the same had not yet been determined. It was not confirmed, although it was certainly believed by Mr. Sparks, that R.D. was manipulating medical personnel at local treatment facilities for the purpose of securing medication beyond that prescribed by his regular treating physicians. This belief by Mr. Sparks is reasonable especially in light of R.D.'s request to EMS personnel on November 25, 2012, that he was to be transported to a medical facility other than "Largo Med" for treatment related to his feelings of anxiety.2/ R.D.'s medication record for December 4, 2012, shows that he was given his prescribed medication for the 8:00 a.m. dispensing time. Soon after receiving his medication, R.D. left Pine Tree Manor for the purpose of visiting his local congressman's office. According to the survey notes from the investigation related hereto, the congressman's office is located approximately two miles from Pine Tree Manor. Although it cannot be confirmed, it reasonably appears that R.D. walked to the congressman's office. R.D. did not sign out of the facility when he left Pine Tree Manor on the morning of December 4, 2012. R.D. did, however, inform facility staff that he was going to the congressman's office to discuss an issue.3/ Security video from the building where the congressman's office is located established that R.D. arrived at the congressman's office at 9:50 a.m. At approximately 10:45 a.m., a representative from the congressman's office called Pine Tree Manor and informed them that R.D. was ready to return to the facility. The person receiving the message from the congressman's office contacted Mr. Sparks and informed him that R.D. was requesting a ride back to Pine Tree Manor from the congressman's office. Mr. Sparks was assisting another resident at a local hospital when he received the request to transport R.D. and was, therefore, unable to transport R.D. from the congressman's office. Pine Tree Manor had no obligation to provide transportation services to R.D. Surveillance video from the building where the congressman's office is located confirmed that R.D. exited the building on December 4, 2012, at approximately 10:50 a.m. R.D.'s body was found on December 12, 2012. It is not known what happened to R.D. between the time he left the congressman's office and when his body was eventually discovered.4/ When Mr. Sparks returned to Pine Tree Manor on December 4, 2012, he was advised by staff that R.D. had not returned from the congressman's office. According to the posted work schedule for December 4, 2012, Mr. Sparks worked from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. When Mr. Sparks left Pine Tree Manor on December 4, 2012, R.D. had not returned. Mr. Sparks, upon leaving the facility for the day, instructed staff (Aurelia Cristobal) to call him when R.D. returned. Ms. Cristobal's shift ended at 8:00 p.m. Pine Tree Manor employee Laura Munoz worked from 7:00 p.m. on December 4, 2012, to 7:00 a.m. on December 5, 2012. Ms. Munoz was not responsible for assisting R.D. with his medication, so it is unlikely that she would have known that R.D. missed receiving his medication prior to her arrival at work. Because Mr. Sparks left Pine Tree Manor on December 4, 2012, before Ms. Munoz arrived for work, he called Ms. Munoz after her shift started (precise time unknown) and requested that she call him upon R.D.'s return. There were no instructions given to Ms. Munoz by Mr. Sparks as to what she should do if R.D. did not return by some time certain. On December 4, 2012, Mr. Sparks knew that R.D. had never spent the night away from Pine Tree Manor without someone at the facility knowing R.D.'s whereabouts and that R.D. had never gone unaccounted for a period greater than 12 hours. On December 5, 2012, Mr. Sparks' scheduled work time was from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Prior to reporting to the facility on the morning of December 5, 2012, Mr. Sparks learned that R.D. had not returned to his room during the night shift. The exact time is not known when Mr. Sparks acquired this information, but it was likely sometime around 6:30 a.m. After learning that R.D. was still unaccounted for, Mr. Sparks immediately began canvassing the area near Pine Tree Manor. Around this same time, Mr. Sparks contacted R.D.'s brother and apprised him of the situation. At approximately noon on December 5, 2012, Mr. Sparks contacted the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office and reported R.D. missing. Pine Tree Manor has an elopement and missing residents policy that provides, in part, as follows: Residents may come and go as they please and shall not be detained unless family/resident representative and administrator agree supervision is required. A resident leaving the facility should either sign out by the front door or inform a staff member of their departure and provide an estimated time of return. The staff person should sign the resident out and notify other staff on duty. . . . If a resident . . . is deemed missing, staff shall immediately search the entire facility inside and around the facility grounds. . . . Whenever a resident is not found within the facility or its premises, the Administrator will: Notify the resident's representative. Notify the County Sheriff's Department by calling 911. Provide staff and searching parties with information and photo I. D. Instruct the staff to search inside the facility and the premises, the adjacent residential properties to the facility, up and down 131st Street, 102nd Avenue and the cross streets.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration: Enter in Agency Case No. 2013002572 (DOAH Case No. 13-2397) a final order finding that Respondent, Pine Tree Manor, Inc., d/b/a/ Pine Tree Manor, committed a Class II violation and assessing an administrative fine of $5,000.00 and a survey fee of $500.00. Enter in Agency Case No. 2013004620 (DOAH Case No. 13-2011) a final order finding that Respondent, Pine Tree Manor, Inc., d/b/a/ Pine Tree Manor, committed a Class I violation and assessing an administrative fine of $8,000.00. It is also RECOMMENDED that the final order not revoke Respondent's license to operate an assisted living facility in the State of Florida, but, instead, suspend Respondent's license for a period of 60 days.7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence and testimony adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Proposed District will be located in an unincorporated area of central Palm Beach County within the boundaries set forth in the Amended Petition. It will encompass approximately 9,450 acres of land, including the 2,300 acre impoundment area that the State of Florida has an option to purchase. Irving Cowan, individually and as Trustee, Adrian R. Chapman, as Trustee of the A.R. Chapman Palm Beach Groves Trust, Marvin S. Savin and Elaine S. Savin, as general partners of Savin Groves, a Florida general partnership, and Petitioner, a Florida limited partnership, presently own 100 percent of the land to be included within the Proposed District. The property within the District is designated in the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element as either Agricultural Production or Rural Residential The land within the Proposed District is located entirely within the boundaries of an inactive unit of development of the ITWCD. Consequently, the owners of the land neither pay taxes to, nor receive benefits from, the ITWCD. Most of the land is currently used for growing citrus fruit. Those areas which do not have citrus groves are used to support grove operations. It is the present intent of the landowners to continue to use the land for such agricultural purposes. The purposes and functions of the ITWCD and the Proposed District will be significantly different. The ITWCD is primarily concerned with providing drainage to an urbanizing, residential area with a "one By contrast, the Proposed District will operate a "two-way" drainage and irrigation system designed for the benefit of active agricultural production. The ITWCD and the Proposed District will be able to operate independently within their respective areas of responsibility. The creation of the Proposed District will have no adverse impact upon the ITWCD. On July 27, 1992, the Board of Supervisors of the ITWCD unanimously adopted a Resolution in support of the establishment of the Proposed District. The existing infrastructure within the Proposed District consists of roadways, drainage and irrigation facilities, pumping stations, and culverts connecting with the L District. There are no existing water mains or existing sewer facilities. Among the potential improvements to the existing infrastructure which could be undertaken by the Proposed District are the construction of central pumping stations to replace the many individual pumps operated by the several property owners within the Proposed District, and the replacement of the outfall structures into the L-8 canal. In addition, the Proposed District could engage in roadway construction and surfacing of the main fruit hauling routes within the District. 4/ The Proposed District provides the best possible mechanism for financing and implementing these improvements. Of the various alternatives in providing infrastructure services for the community, a community development district is superior to any other alternative, including a municipal service taxing unit, the County or a homeowners' association. This is because neither the County nor a municipal service taxing unit would be as responsive to the Proposed District's landowners as would be the Proposed District and because a homeowners' association would be hindered by reason of its inability to issue bonds or effectively collect property assessments. Centralized ownership, management and control of the Proposed District's infrastructure is more efficient and less costly than the current arrangement. Consequently, the establishment of the Proposed District will increase the likelihood that the land within its boundaries will continue to be used for agricultural purposes. The District will be empowered to issue bonds, levy ad valorem taxes and special assessments, and impose user fees and charges. To defray the costs of operation and maintenance of the infrastructure, the District will utilize a variety of taxes, assessments and user charges tailored to the service involved so as to minimize costs while insuring that only those who receive the benefits from a facility pay the costs involved. Ultimate Findings All statements contained in the Amended Petition, including those contained in the economic impact statement, are true and correct. The creation of the District is not inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the State Comprehensive Plan or of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. The land within the Proposed District is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as a functional interrelated community. The Proposed District is the best alternative for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the District. The community development services and facilities of the Proposed District will not be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. The area that will be served by the Proposed District is amenable to separate special-district government.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that FLWAC enter a final order granting Petitioner's Amended Petition to establish the Cypress Grove Community Development District by rulemaking pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 16th day of June, 1993.
The Issue Whether the development order issued by the Monroe County Board of Commissioners for the construction of an elementary school on Big Pine Key, Florida, complies with the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, and the Florida Keys Area Protection Act.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department) is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal any development order issued in an area of critical state concern to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County. Monroe County rendered Resolution 482-1992 (hereinafter referred to as the "development order") to the Department on November 3, 1992. Respondents Kitty Wasserman and BHF Corporation are the owners of approximately 11.41 acres of land on Big Pine Key, in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida, (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property"). Respondent Monroe County School Board (hereinafter referred to as "the School Board") has an option to purchase the subject property, and proposes to develop an elementary school on the subject property. The subject property is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, as designated pursuant to Sections 380.05 and 380.0552, Florida Statutes. THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER On November 27, 1991, the School Board applied to Monroe County for a conditional use permit to develop an elementary school on the subject property. On February 27, 1992, the Development Review Committee of Monroe County adopted a resolution that recommended denial of the application. On March 12, 1992, Lorenzo Aghemo, Director of Planning for Monroe County, entered Development Order 06-92, which denied the application. On July 9, 1992, the Monroe County Planning Commission entered Resolution P22-92, which denied the School Board's appeal of Development Order 06-92. On October 7, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County adopted Resolution 482-1992, which reversed the Planning Commission's Resolution P22-92. In a very brief order that contained no findings of fact or explication of rationale that is helpful to this proceeding, the Board of County Commissioners reversed the denial of the application as follows: Based on the principles of comity, this Board will respect the decision of the District School Board acting within the scope of its authority under Article 9, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution, pursuant to Section 235.193, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the appeal of the District School Board of Monroe County is granted and the decision of the Planning Commission is reversed. Resolution 482-1992 constitutes the subject development order. This development order allows the development of a 60,028 square foot elementary school to serve a total of 507 students on the subject property pursuant to schematic drawings referred to as School Board Development Scheme 6. THE PROPOSED SCHOOL The State Board of Education has approved the proposed school site on Big Pine Key. The proposed school would be constructed pursuant to the State Uniform Building Code for Public Educational Facilities as required by Section 235.26(1), Florida Statutes. The Department does not dispute that an additional elementary school is needed to serve the public school students in the Lower Keys. There is only one elementary school, and one middle school, in the 50 miles between Marathon and Key West. Both of those schools are on a single site on Sugarloaf Key. In the absence of any environmental or comprehensive planning factors, Big Pine Key would be a logical place for the construction of a new elementary school since the largest number of students that would be served by such a school live on Big Pine Key. The proposed school would serve about 260 kindergarten through 5th grade students who live on Big Pine Key, as well as about 100 students who live on the neighboring Keys, Torch and Ramrod. Recognizing the need for a new elementary school, the Board began looking for sites on Big Pine Key in late 1988. County planning staff and biologists provided technical support to the Board to assist the Board in locating a site that complied with the County's comprehensive plan and LDRs. County personnel identified 18 possible locations on Big Pine Key, including the subject property. At that time, the County was preparing a Big Pine Key Community Plan, and the site that is the subject of this proceeding was in an area identified by that plan as "Range of Location for New Community Center Including School." A critical element in siting an elementary school is proximity to the students who will attend the school. It is important that elementary schools be sited so that parents have access to, and have a close relationship with, the school in order to be supportive of their children. Ideally, elementary schools should be neighborhood schools, i.e., in the area where the children live. A rule of thumb for elementary students is for the school to be within one-half mile walking distance. Busing should not involve more than a 15 minute ride. The approximately 260 elementary students that live on Big Pine Key presently attend the overcrowded Sugarloaf Elementary School. Because of restrictions on open space, the Board reduced the size of the planned school from 760 students to 507. The Board also clustered all of the buildings on the easternmost part of the property, away from proposed north- south deer corridors. The site plan was redesigned at least six times to provide additional green space, to use pervious concrete to reduce runoff, to provide for a single access road, and to preserve small, fresh water wetlands on the site. The eastern boundary of the proposed site abuts Key Deer Boulevard. The exhibits admitted into evidence that depict Scheme 6 show an access road to the school from U.S. 1. The U.S. 1 access road has been deleted, and the only access to the proposed property would be from Key Deer Boulevard. Construction of the buildings will be concentrated on the eastern side of the parcel. Four buildings are contemplated. The academic building will be in the northeast portion of the tract and will be a two-story building 88' (east to west) x 250' (north to south). The other three buildings will be situated south of the academic building. The art, music, and physical education building will be the westernmost of these three buildings and will be 64' (east to west) x 88' (north to south). The administrative building will be the center of these three buildings and will be 70' (east to west) x 78' (north to south). The kitchen, dining, multipurpose, stage, and custodial building will be the easternmost of these three buildings and will be 112' (east to west) x 88' (north to south). Between the buildings and Key Deer Boulevard will be drive ways and parking areas. Parking and a turn around area is located south of the buildings. The proposed school will include a softball field, which will be available for after-school recreational use. The softball field will be located west of the buildings. It is contemplated that the western portion of the property will remain undeveloped. As will be discussed below, the School Board is willing to dedicate an easement across the western portion of the property (including the Wasserman tract) to be used as a north-south corridor for the movement of Key Deer. THE SITE The subject parcel is within the range and habitat of the Key Deer. The Key Deer is listed as a federal and state endangered species, and is endemic to the Lower Keys. With the exception of an old roadbed that crosses the property, the subject parcel is undisturbed pineland. The subject parcel includes scattered freshwater wetlands, one of which is deep enough to be a permanent source of freshwater. The subject parcel is Key Deer habitat, since it contains food and a permanent source of freshwater, and is freely accessible to the deer. Individual Key Deer have often been observed on the subject parcel. Radio collar tracking and observation of fecal pellets confirm that the Key Deer freely utilize the habitat on the subject parcel. A portion of the subject parcel is designated Suburban Residential (SR) by the Monroe County land use map, and the remainder of the proposed site is designated Suburban Commercial (SC). Public buildings can be constructed on lands designated SR only after obtaining a conditional use permit from Monroe County. For that reason, the School Board is required to obtain a conditional use permit from Monroe County for the construction of the school. Monroe County's comprehensive plan includes a chart entitled "Impact Matrix of Habitat Structure and Function," developed in the late '70s and early '80s, that was translated into a point system called a Habitat Evaluation Index ("HEI"). For pineland habitat, the primary upland habitat on Big Pine Key, there are "high" and "low" quality areas. Eight habitat parameters are evaluated for each pineland parcel, with a maximum score of 3 points per parameter. An HEI of 18-24 indicates high quality; anything below an HEI of 18 is low quality. The proposed Big Pine Key school site has an HEI of 15, making it low quality pineland. The subject parcel is located a few hundred feet north of U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key, and immediately west of Key Deer Boulevard. On the opposite side of Key Deer Boulevard from the subject property is a shopping center that includes a Winn Dixie and a bank. On the opposite side of US 1 is an Eckerds Drug Store, Scotty's Hardware, Ace Hardware, Overseas Lumber Company, a garden center, and a commercial complex. To the north, the site is bounded by a church with classroom buildings, and a one-acre, fenced compound with a water tank owned by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority. Only the western boundary of the site borders a parcel with vegetation on it. The proposed school site consists of two tracts; the 2.5 acre Wasserman tract and the 8.91 acre BHF tract. The Wasserman tract, on the west, is partially fenced. While there was an assertion that the owners of the Wasserman tract had the right to reestablish the integrity of the fence, the evidence established that the fence has gaps in it and that it does not currently impede the movement of Key Deer across the property. The Wasserman tract is high on the US Fish & Wildlife Service's acquisition list as a "Priority 1" parcel for a Key deer movement corridor. The Board has stated its intention, should it acquire the two parcels and build the school, to take down the fences from the Wasserman tract and make the tract perpetually available as a north-south corridor for Key Deer movement. This would make the Wasserman parcel available for Key deer movements. Should the integrity of the fence be reestablished, the removal of that fence and a perpetual easement for use of the tract would be a benefit to the Fish & Wildlife Service's corridor plan for the movement of Key Deer. The School Board has attempted to strike a compromise between siting the school on Big Pine Key and off U.S. 1, keeping it out of prime Key Deer habitat and freshwater wetlands, and locating it where the children are. The School Board considers Big Pine Key to be the best area for the school because of the number of students who live on Big Pine Key. The School Board considers the subject location to be the best potential site for the elementary school on Big Pine Key. This determination was made from an educational viewpoint and based on recommendations from biologists and planners on the County staff. If a school is to be constructed on Big Pine Key, this site is the best that the School Board could locate. The subject site is considered by the School Board to be affordable, with a purchase price, for over 11 acres, at a little over $36,000 per acre. In comparison, another site on Big Pine Key that is located on the South side of U.S. 1 (most of the population of Big Pine Key is North of U.S. 1), would cost $250,000 per acre. The School Board has invested over $100,000 in the planning process, designing site plans, traffic studies, and the like. It is estimated that the School Board will have to spend an additional $70,000 for the planning for another site. The School Board was aware of the environmental concerns surrounding this project at the subject location. The Department did not mislead the School Board into believing that the subject location was considered by the Department to be an acceptable site. There are alternative sites for the elementary school. One of the alternatives for the needed elementary school is to expand the facilities at the existing site on Sugarloaf Key. That site is surrounded by a fresh water wetland. It has both endangered Silver Rice Rats and Key Deer on and near the site. There are serious problems with any attempt to permit a school at the Sugarloaf Key site, and it is likely that environmental concerns and other permitting problems will arise at any alternative site in the Florida Keys. Fresh water wetlands exist on and near the subject parcel. There are about 3,000 square feet of fresh water wetlands on the entire 11.41 acre site. Site plan #6 depicts a fresh water wetland on the southeast corner of the subject tract. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that this fresh water wetland is not on the subject tract, but that it is south of the school site. This wetland is a permanent source of freshwater for Key Deer. The construction of the proposed school will degrade this wetland. The construction will either divert rainwater away from the wetland or it will drain stormwater runoff over asphalt and roadbed into the wetland. The main access road from Key Deer Boulevard shown on development scheme 6 goes through a freshwater wetland on the proposed school site. Construction of the main access road will cause the freshwater wetland to be filled. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LDRS The school will be a "public building" as defined by the pertinent land development regulations. Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan and LDRs were approved by the Department, and the Administration Commission, by Fla. Admin. Rules 9J-14 and 28-29, on July 29, 1986. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan includes a Future Land Use Element and a Terrestrial Wildlife Management Section. Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan contains goals, objectives, and policies. These terms are defined in Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, as follows. 9J-5.003(36) "Goal" means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. 9J-5.003(61) "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress towards a goal. 9J-5.003(68) "Policy" means the way in which programs are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Section 2-103 of the Future Land Use Element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Florida Keys constitute a unique and irreplaceable natural resource of local, regional, state, national, and international value. * * * It is essential, therefore, that the natural environment of Monroe County be conserved, and where appropriate, enhanced and restored. All future actions, both public and private, should be carried out in a way so as to ensure that the essential ingredients of Monroe County character are preserved and protected for existing and future generations. Objectives 1. To manage and control the use of land so that the natural environment of Monroe County is protected. Policies To protect natural, undisturbed lands from significant disturbance. To protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats from human activities that would expose such species to displacement or extinction. To conserve the habitat of endemic species of plants and animals. Section 2-106 of the Future Land Use Element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Key's hammocks and other upland habitats also are critical habitats for a number of plants and animals of special significance, including the Key Largo Wood Rat and Cotton Mouse, the Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly and the diminutive Key Deer. Of the 74 species of plants and animals listed as state or federal threatened and endangered species, 61 use uplands as a critical part of their habitat. These species are important because they bring to the Keys an element of speciality [sic]. The uniqueness of an area is a key factor in its attractiveness, and the continued maintenance of unique Key's species serves the intuitive human need to avoid extinction of species. Objective * * * 2. To protect the habitats of threatened and endangered species. Policies To protect upland areas that serve as habitat for threatened or endangered species Section 2-112 of the Future Land Use Element of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A principal focus of Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan is the capacity of the natural and built environment of the Florida Keys to accommodate future growth and development. At the core of this focus is an understanding that the geophysical characteristics of the Keys limit its future opportunities for economic growth and development. * * * A. Objectives To manage growth within the environmental and economic capabilities of the Florida Keys. To ensure that future development is consistent with the long term functional integrity of the natural resources of the Florida Keys. The Terrestrial Wildlife Management Policies section of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan states that: In order to conserve and wisely manage the Keys' wildlife resources, the County will conscientiously direct its efforts toward the protection and improvement of wildlife habitats throughout the Keys. Development activities which may degrade, destroy, or severely impact productive areas for wildlife will be required to assess possible means and, to the extent practicable, adopt protective measures for abating these impacts on wildlife populations and habitat. Recognizing that each wildlife group has its own requirements and tolerances, the adequacy of protective measures will be evaluated for each individual species occupying the habitat. * * * 1.4 Planning, design, siting and construction of public capital improvements and facilities such as roads, solid waste disposal sites, and utility lines and structures will be carefully regulated to minimize impact on wildlife habitat and movement patterns. The County will exert special protective efforts regarding the preservation of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species as identified by Federal and State agencies and the habitat required to support these species in the coastal zone. Intensive development will be directed away from the habitat of rare, endemic, endangered or threatened species. * * * 2.4 Any major development project, public or private, will be reviewed to assess its impact on wildlife species of special concern in regard to the habitat, breeding, and feeding characteristics of such species. Adequate protective measures will be required to forestall potentially adverse impacts. The Terrestrial Wildlife Management Policies Section of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan also provides that: 4. The County will encourage and support scientific studies related to wildlife management in the Keys and will utilize the recommended management principles in the deliberations concerning the impacts of various land uses upon the wildlife resources of the area. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan designates the following areas as Areas of Particular Concern: Existing wildlife refuges, reserves, and sanctuaries. Known habitats of rare and endangered species as defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Florida Game and Freshwater Commission, or the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Major wildlife intensive use areas such as well developed hammock communities, highly productive coastal tidelands, and mangroves. Big Pine Key, including the proposed school site, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, Little Torch Key, Cudjoe Key, and most of Sugarloaf Key, are within the boundaries of the area authorized for acquisition by the U.S. Government for inclusion in the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed school site is entirely within 1,000 feet of US Highway One, and is 1-1/2 miles south of the southernmost boundary of the Key Deer Refuge. The Department contends that because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service wants to acquire the subject property as part of the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge, the subject property should be considered to be within the administrative boundaries of the Refuge. This contention is rejected because the greater weight of the evidence established that the subject property is not a part of the Refuge and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently exercises no jurisdiction over the subject property. The subject property should be considered an Area of Particular Concern because it is a known habitat of the endangered Key Deer. THE PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT The Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern was designated in order to control the increased growth expected as a result of the construction of new bridges, the expansion of the Florida Keys aqueduct system, and other public facilities. The Florida Keys Area Protection Act requires that all state, regional, and local agencies and units of government coordinate their plans and conduct their programs consistent with the "Principles for Guiding Development". Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Keys Area Protection Act. Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes, provide the "Principles for Guiding Development" in the Florida Keys, including the following pertinent to this proceeding: (c) To protect upland resources . . . freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example . . . pinelands) . . . wildlife, and their habitat. * * * (i) To limit the adverse impacts of public investment on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. * * * (l) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. All state, regional, and local agencies and units of government are directed to conduct their programs consistent with the foregoing Principles for Guiding Development. The availability and proximity of public facilities is desirable for development. The proposed school would make Big Pine Key a more attractive location for residential development. Indeed, the greater weight of the evidence established that the construction of the school on Big Pine Key would encourage development on Big Pine Key. THE KEY DEER The Key deer is listed as a federal and state endangered species. The Key Deer population is presently estimated to be between 250 and 300 animals, down from a high of 400 animals in the late 1970s. The cause of the decline in population is a combination of habitat loss, road kills, dogs, poaching, and other human-deer interactions. The Key Deer population is presently considered to be stable and the herd is considered to be healthy. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted a scientific study related to wildlife management in the Keys entitled the Final Land Protection Plan for the Establishment of Deer Movement Corridors (Feb. 1991). The study provides the following at page 4: Present and future actions to protect the Key Deer must (1) prevent the loss of essential habitat and properly manage all of the remaining protected areas; (2) prevent further fragmentation of the deer population and habitat; and (3) reduce roadkills and other adverse interactions with humans. Folk, Klimstra, Kruer, and Folk (1990), in their special report entitled Key Deer Accessibility to All of Big Pine Key, conclude that in order to maintain a viable herd, measures must be taken to ensure that deer have freedom of movement and access to all areas of Big Pine Key. They recommend the establishment of greenbelt corridors to allow the deer to safely cross U.S. Highway 1. They also recommend the protection of lands north and south of the highway to provide for contiguous corridors. Big Pine Key, including the subject parcel, is a major wildlife intensive use area. The hub of the Key Deer population is on Big Pine Key, with approximately 60 - 70 percent of the Key Deer population concentrated on that island. Although the deer inhabit several other Keys, Big Pine Key is the most important island for the Key Deer population because it is the only island which has permanent year around sources of freshwater in different parts of the island. The Key Deer use virtually all of Big Pine Key as habitat. Development of the proposed school will cause a loss of approximately five acres of Key Deer habitat on the subject parcel, and that loss of habitat will adversely affect the viability of the Key Deer. Location of a school in this area, together with the associated recreation activity, will concentrate daily human activity on Big Pine Key. There will also be a corresponding increase in human-deer interaction and further degradation of the remaining Key Deer habitat near the school. The development of the proposed school will eliminate a portion of the habitat of an endangered species. The freshwater wetland adjacent to the southeastern corner of the subject parcel is a permanent source of freshwater for the Key Deer. The construction of the proposed school will either divert rainwater away from the wetland or it will drain stormwater over asphalt and roadbed into the wetlands. The first option will reduce the size of the freshwater wetland. The second option will degrade the water quality of the wetlands. The development of the school buildings, the parking lot, and the playing field, between the remaining deer habitat and the wetland, will not prevent the Key Deer from using the wetlands that will remain after the construction is completed. The greater weight of the evidence established that the Key Deer will cross paved areas and could locate these wetlands after constuction is completed. The greater weight of the evidence also established, however, that the construction will discourage the Key Deer from using these wetlands. There are very few naturally occurring permanent freshwater sources in the south portion of Big Pine Key, where the proposed school will be located. Removing wetlands from the system, or minimizing access to the wetlands, will create an additional level of stress by making less water available to the deer. Most of the commercial and industrial development on Big Pine Key is concentrated on or immediately adjacent to U.S. 1. This band of commercial and industrial development forms an artificial barrier to deer movement which prevents the deer from gaining access to the diversity of natural foods needed to avoid nutritional deficiencies, and breaks the deer herd into small isolated groups resulting in inbreeding. In order to maintain a viable herd, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that two north-south corridors providing freedom of movement across U.S. 1 are necessary in order to allow the deer freedom of movement to all parts of Big Pine Key and has recommended the establishment of movement corridors as a Key Deer management principle. The western portion of the subject parcel is part of one of the two deer movement corridors recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The construction and use of the proposed school will disrupt the deer movement corridors, and obstruct the free movement of the Key Deer between the north and south portions of Big Pine Key. Because the buildings will be clustered on the easternmost portion of the tract, the development will impede the east and west movement of Key Deer across the property. The east-west corridor is not, however, as significant as the north-south corridor because the commercial development on the east side of Key Deer Boulevard presently impedes that corridor. There is little more that could be done to improve the site plan, or provide more mitigation to protect the habitat of the Key Deer. The School Board has done everything practicable to adopt protective measures for abating the school's impact on the Key Deer population and habitat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Water and Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order which rescinds the subject development order and denies the subject application. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1316DRI The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 21, and 23 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since the open space issue was dismissed. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The described wetland was found to be adjacent to the southeastern corner of the subject property. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17, 18, 22, 24, and 25 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 19 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Monroe County School Board, Kitty Wasserman, and BHF Corporation. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18, 28, and 29 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 8, 10, 12, and 19 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 16, 17, 31, 32, and 42 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20, 23, 26, 27, 30, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 are subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order with the exception of the proposed findings of fact in the last sentence of the paragraph, which are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in sentences 1, 2, 3 and 5 of paragraph are subordinate to the findings made. The remainder of paragraph 22 is rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 24 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences of paragraph 25 are subordinate to the findings made. The remainder of paragraph 25 is rejected as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since the Department clearly is not estopped from challenging the subject project. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 36 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. While there are many other factors that would encourage growth on Big Pine Key, the pertinent issue is whether the construction of this school would encourage growth on Big Pine Key. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 43 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since the open space issue was dismissed. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Jordan, Esquire Lucky T. Osho, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 James S. Mattson, Esquire Andrew Tobin, Esquire Mattson & Tobin Post Office Box 586 Key Largo, Florida 33041-1900 John R. Collins, Esquire Attorney for Monroe County School Board Post Office Box 1788 Key West, Florida 33041-1788 James T. Hendrick, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick Attorney for Monroe County 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 William B. Spottswood, Esquire 500 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 BHF Corporation Post Office Box 285 Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Ms. Kitty Wasserman 3740 Inverrary Drive, Apt. #E-2 Lauderhill, Florida 33319 Greg Smith, Esquire Governor's Legal Office The Capitol, Room 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission 311 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition for Establishment of the Pine Island Community Development District (Petition), dated September 9, 2003. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.1
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether PAM 98-01, a small scale amendment to the future land-use map ("FLUM") of the Lee County Comprehensive Plan (the "Lee County Plan" or the "Plan"), changing the future land-use designation of approximately 9.9 acres of land on Pine Island from Rural to Outlying Suburban, complies with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Petitioners, Barbara Dubin and William Dubin, are residents and property owners on Pine Island in the portion of Lee County affected by PAM 98-01. Ms. Dubin testified that she and her husband timely participated in the adoption process and made their objections before the Lee County Local Planning Agency (the "LPA") and the Board. No evidence was offered to contest Ms. Dubin’s testimony on this point. Therefore, the Dubins are each "affected persons" as that term is used in Sections 163.3184(1)(a) and 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and have standing to file a petition challenging the adoption of PAM 98-01. Ms. Dubin is a member of the Civic Association and knowledgeable regarding its activities. She testified that the Civic Association has been incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation in the State of Florida for at least the past ten years. The purpose of the Civic Association is the preservation and protection of the environment and quality of life of Pine Island. The Civic Association has between 130 and 160 members, all of whom reside on Pine Island. Ms. Dubin testified that the Civic Association owns land and a building on Pine Island, at the intersection of Pine Island Road and Stringfellow Road, near the 9.9-acre parcel that is the subject of PAM 98-01. The Civic Association uses this building for its meetings, conducted monthly for ten months of the year with a break during the summer months. The Civic Association collects member dues within Lee County, and has a bank account in Lee County. It conducts educational activities, monthly meetings, publishes a monthly newsletter containing educational information concerning Pine Island land-use and quality of life issues, and participates in governmental meetings concerning Pine Island. Through members who spoke on its behalf, the Civic Association participated in the adoption process and objected to PAM 98-01 at the LPA hearing and the Board meeting at which the amendment was adopted. The Civic Association is an "affected person" as that term is used in Sections 163.3184(1)(a) and 163.3187(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and has standing to file a petition challenging PAM 98-01. Respondent, Lee County, is the local government whose land-use plan amendment is at issue in this proceeding. Intervenor, Gregory Eagle, is the owner of the real property that is the subject of PAM 98-01, and has standing to participate as a party in this proceeding. Pine Island The Greater Pine Island Area is located in Lee County west of the City of Cape Coral, south of the open waters of Charlotte Harbor, east of Captiva Island, North Captiva Island and Cayo Costa Island, and north of Sanibel Island. The Greater Pine Island Area consists of Pine Island, Little Pine Island, and the historic community of Matlacha, which is located on the Pine Island Road Causeway across the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve between Little Pine Island and the Lee County mainland. The waters surrounding the Greater Pine Island Area are the waters of the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve to the east, San Carlos Bay to the south, the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve to the west, and Charlotte Harbor to the north. Pine Island is a long, narrow, roughly rectangular island, with the long sides running north and south. The island is roughly 16 miles long and two miles wide. Existing communities and residential development on Pine Island are essentially confined to five parts of the island. At the far north end of the island is the fishing community of Bokeelia, where the Dubins live. A golf course sits just south of Bokeelia. A residential development called Pineland is situated on the island’s northwest coast, between Bokeelia and Pine Island Road. At the center of the island, at the junction of Pine Island Road and Stringfellow Road, is the Pine Island Center, which is the main urban area of the island. A residential development called Flamingo Bay is situated between the Pine Island Center and the south end of the island. At the south end of the island is the small fishing village of St. James City. Matlacha is a small historic village that grew up around the Pine Island Causeway, which was built in the early decades of this century to connect Pine Island to the mainland. Lee County has designated parts of Matlacha as an historic district. Lee County statistics indicate a total of 26,393 acres on Pine Island, 13,693 acres of which are reserved for conservation uses. The existing land-uses of the remaining approximately 12,700 acres are as follows: 6,032 acres are vacant or undeveloped; 3,273 acres are used for active and passive agricultural activities; 2,084 acres are used for residential activities, including 822 acres classified as rural; 138 acres are used for commercial activities; 24 acres are used for industrial activities; and 1,148 acres are allocated for public uses. The current permanent population of Pine Island is 10,511 persons, and the seasonal population is 15,900 persons. There are currently 5,954 dwelling units on Pine Island. In 1990, the population of Pine Island was 7,300 persons, and the number of dwelling units was 5,520. The Lee County Plan recognizes and gives priority to property rights previously granted for about 6,800 additional dwelling units in Policy 14.2.2, set forth infra in the discussion of Transportation Need Projections. Lee County Plan In 1984, Lee County adopted its first official FLUM as an integral part of the Lee County Plan. On that initial FLUM, Intervenor’s property was divided into two land-use categories: Urban Community and Rural. The maximum standard density for the Urban Community designation established by the 1984 Plan was six dwelling units per acre (du/ac). Maximum density for the Rural designation was 1 du/ac. In 1985, the Florida Legislature passed the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. In 1987, the Civic Association hired a professional planner to study the Greater Pine Island Area and prepare recommendations that Lee County could incorporate in its 1989 revision of the Lee County Plan, pursuant to the 1985 legislation. In 1988, the Civic Association issued the resulting study, which provided a description of the population, generalized land-use and zoning patterns, historic and archaeological resources, the area’s transportation network, and the availability of public services such as potable water and sewer facilities as of 1987. The "development suitability" of Intervenor’s property was discussed in relation to the listed items as well as hurricane evacuation and the condition of Pine Island and Stringfellow Roads. The study made extensive recommendations to amend the Lee County Plan, and was used by the Civic Association as the basis for initiating amendment PAM/T 88-07 to the Lee County Plan. Lee County staff analyzed and evaluated the recommendations of the study, and incorporated many of them into the 1988/89 update of the Lee County Plan, including what is now Goal 14 relating to Greater Pine Island. As to the property at issue in this proceeding, staff recommended that the land-use category be changed to all Rural. The FLUM was indeed amended to include all of the subject property in the Rural category. William Spikowski, who was the Lee County planner in charge of preparing the 1988/89 update to the Lee County Plan, testified that the intent was to limit most industrial and commercial development on the island to the Pine Island Center, which was given the Urban Community designation allowing the greatest number of mixed and nonresidential uses. Mr. Spikowski testified that the lines around this area were tightly drawn to clearly separate urban from rural uses, with some exceptions where the intensities "stepped down" to recognize existing development. PAM 98-01 Since about 1992, Intervenor has owned 58 acres of vacant land approximately 3/4 of a mile south of the intersection of Pine Island Road and Stringfellow Road. The 9.9-acre property that is the subject of PAM 98-01 is a portion of this 58-acre parcel, and is currently zoned CC and CG, both commercial zoning designations. The 58-acre parcel has been considered for a change in land-use classification three times since 1989, when it was excluded from the adjacent urban center of Pine Island and given a Rural designation. This parcel was the only commercially-zoned property adjacent to the urban center that was excluded from the urban center in 1989. Prior to 1989, as noted above, the subject parcel was designated as Urban Community in the Lee County Plan. The change of the parcel from Urban Community to Rural in 1989 was not challenged at the time it was adopted. On two prior occasions, the Board has considered but not approved proposals that would have returned the full 58-acre parcel to an urban land-use designation; on another occasion, the Board rejected a proposal that would have effectively locked the parcel out of any urban use designation. Greg Stuart, an expert in land-use planning who sits on the LPA, testified that the county’s concern with the earlier proposals was a reluctance to change the entire 58-acre parcel to an urban land-use and thus increase population capacity on the island. PAM 98-01 was in part an attempt to satisfy this concern by proposing a change for a smaller portion of the tract, and to the least intense urban use available. Matt Noble, Lee County’s principal planner, also testified that he believed the smaller area and less intense classification were factors in the Board’s decision to approve PAM 98-01. He added that another factor in the Board's approval of PAM 98-01 was that this property "appears to have been singled out" in the 1988 amendment cycle, in that it was the only commercially-zoned property adjacent to the Pine Island Center not to have been included in the Pine Island Center. Immediately south of the 58 acre parcel is a vacant Rural designated parcel with AG-2 and RM-2 zoning. South of this vacant parcel are three parcels (two Rural designated, one Wetlands designated) owned by the Greater Pine Island Water Association. The Water Association has constructed a reverse osmosis ("RO") plant on one of the Rural parcels. Immediately south of the RO plant site is the Island Acres Subdivision, with a Rural designation. On June 5, 1995, the Board approved a rezoning of this property to RPD, which permits the development of 31 single-family residential dwellings on lots ranging from just over one acre to just over 1/2 acre, the excavation of a 12.23-acre lake, and an 8.55-acre wetland preserve area. As of the submission of the Staff Report on April 13, 1999, the internal roads of Island Acres Subdivision had been constructed but no dwellings had yet been built. Immediately east of Intervenor’s 58-acre parcel are vacant lands designated Rural and Wetlands. To the west is Stringfellow Road, and on the west side of Stringfellow Road is a 134-acre vacant parcel designated Rural. Additional vacant land designated Rural is on the west side of Stringfellow Road. To the north of and abutting Intervenor’s 58-acre parcel is a developed property with a Huntington Bank building. This property is zoned CC and CG, and is split between Urban Community and Rural land-use designations. To the north of the Huntington Bank parcel is a Winn-Dixie Shopping Center, zoned C-1A and located within the Urban Community of Pine Island Center. In summary, while Intervenor’s parcel is the only commercially-zoned property adjacent to the Pine Island Center that does not also have an Urban land-use designation, it is also the case that the only urban or commercial development in the vicinity is to the north of Intervenor’s property, with the exception of the RO plant. Mr. Noble testified that Intervenor’s parcel is served by public services at least to the same extent as the nearby properties included in the Pine Island Center designation. Mr. Noble agreed that the Staff Report’s notation that there is no sewer service available to Intervenor’s property was not a unique characteristic of this property; in fact, there is no central sewer service on Pine Island that property owners at large may tap into. As noted above, there are over 600 acres of land in the Greater Pine Island Area with commercial zoning. This acreage includes vacant land in the Pine Island Center with a current land-use designation of Urban Community, which indicates "a mixture of relatively intense commercial and residential uses," "distinctly urban" but developed at "slightly lower intensities." PAM 98-01 would change the land-use designation of Intervenor’s vacant 9.9-acre parcel from Rural to Outlying Suburban, increasing the permissible residential density from 1 du/ac to 3 du/ac, an increase of 20 dwelling units, assuming the entire parcel is developed residentially. Intervenor’s application proposed 25,000 square feet of commercial development on three acres of the parcel, and 21 dwelling units on the remaining acreage. The Staff Report pointed out, however, that Lee County cannot condition the requested change in land-use designations to limit development potential to this proposed scenario. Therefore, the Staff Report applied the most intensive scenario of retail commercial uses that could occur on the property. At the hearing, Mr. Noble, Lee County’s lead planner on this application, testified that while the staff’s conclusions were based on commercial uses, the residential aspects of the project were also evaluated in the section of the Staff Report dealing with population accommodation. The Staff Report concluded as follows: The subject property has had quite a long history concerning it’s [sic] future land-use designation. The property’s owners have consistently been requesting an increase in density and intensity, while the citizens of Pine Island, just as consistently, have been opposed. This request is the smallest in area to date, with the least intensive increase in density and intensity. The owner argues that, under the current designation, the property is not developable. This contention would appear to be invalid, given the development of the Island Acres subdivision, immediately to the south of the RO plant. Pine Island is a unique place with considerable constraints to development as an urban area. With no increase in land-use designation, the level of service on Pine Island Road and Stringfellow Road will operate below the adopted standard before the year 2020. The thresholds established by Policy 14.2.2 will be exceeded by the year 2005. Limited access and it’s [sic] location in regards to hurricane vulnerability make it difficult to entertain or justify increases in density and/or intensity. There are ample areas currently designated on the island to accommodate the proposed development scenario. The full range of urban services, such as sanitary sewer and mass transit, are not and will not be available to this site. This would be the first land-use amendment on Pine Island since the 1988 Pine Island Land-use Study was incorporated into the Lee Plan. Even though a considerable amount of time has passed since the study’s completion, few changes in the condition of the island have occurred. Staff concludes that there are viable uses allowed on this property. Staff can see no compelling reason to support this proposed land-use amendment. While the impact of ten acres changing from a Rural designation to the Outlying Suburban category, when looked at on a county wide basis, is minimal, the unique circumstances on Pine Island do not support this change. The LPA voted against adoption of PAM 98-01 by a vote of 4-1, with two members (including Mr. Stuart, who worked on the project for Intervenor) abstaining. The LPA adopted the findings of fact set forth in the Staff Report, and added its concern with maintaining the current line of separation between urban and suburban uses. One LPA member did comment that "if there is another shopping center site on Pine Island, it’s probably this property," and in the "long run" there may be a need for another shopping center on Pine Island. The Board voted 3-2 to adopt PAM 98-01, finding that "the request would result in minimal impacts to such services as transportation, public safety, schools, and population accommodation." The petition filed by Petitioners, as amended, raised the following issues of fact and law: Data and Analysis: that PAM 98-01 is unsupported by data and analysis for increased residential and commercial designation on Pine Island and thus is not in compliance with Section 163.3177(8) & (10)(e), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J- 5.005(2), 9J-5.006(2)(b) & (c), and 9J- 5.006(5)(a) & (g), Florida Administrative Code. Coastal Hazard: that PAM 98-01 is not in compliance with Section 163.3178(2), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.006(2), 9J- 5.012(3), and 9J-5.012(3)(b)6., Florida Administrative Code, because it directs population to the known or predictable coastal high hazard area. Land-use Suitability: that PAM 98-01 is unsupported by data and analysis supporting the suitability of land for increased residential density or intensity of commercial development and thus is not in compliance with Section 163.3177(6)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5.006(2), 9J- 5.006(2)(b), and 9J-5.006(5)(a) & (g), Florida Administrative Code. Internally Inconsistent: that PAM 98-01 is internally inconsistent with the following Lee County Plan goals, objectives, and policies: Policy 5.1.2 prohibiting residential development where physical constraints or hazards exist, or requiring the density and design to be adjusted accordingly. Constraints or hazards include flood, storm, or hurricane hazards, and environmental limitations. Goal 14 requiring that the management of growth on Pine Island maintain the island’s unique natural resources and character, and insure that island residents and visitors have a reasonable opportunity to evacuate when a hurricane strike is imminent. Objective 14.1 requiring that Pine Island have no unnecessary loss of native upland vegetation or habitat. Policy 14.2.2, set out in full above, concerning future development regulations to limit future development approvals when traffic reaches certain thresholds. Objective 14.3 requiring that county regulations, policies and discretionary actions to recognize "certain unique characteristics" of Greater Pine Island justifies different treatment of existing and future residential areas than in mainland Lee County. Goal 75 protecting human life and developed property from natural disasters. Objective 75.1 and Policies 75.1.2 and 75.1.4 concerning densities in coastal high hazard areas. Objective 77.2 and Policies 77.2.3 and 77.2.6 concerning protection of natural plant communities. Policy 77.4.4 restricting the use of protected plant and wildlife species habitat to that which is compatible with the requirements of endangered and threatened species and species of special concern. Policy 77.8.1 concerning the protection of gopher tortoise burrows. Goal 79 and Objectives 79.1 and 79.2 concerning evacuation times and shelter capacity. Inconsistent with State Plan: that PAM 98-01 is inconsistent with Section 187.201(7)(b)23, Florida Statutes, which concerns protecting life and property from natural disasters such as hurricanes, and Section 187.201(10)(a), Florida Statutes, which concerns protecting natural habitats and ecological systems. Suitability In 1989, Lee County’s Department of Community Development prepared the Pine Island Commercial Study, in response to a general directive by the Board to develop a means of identifying future commercial sites throughout Lee County, and in direct response to issues emerging from the review of two specific commercial zoning cases on Pine Island. The Commercial Study was initiated to research, analyze, and quantify commercial zoning needs for Pine Island, and then identify suitable locations for potential future development. The Commercial Study concluded that in 1989 there were over 600 acres of commercially-zoned property on Pine Island, and that this acreage was "far in excess of any possible need, even at build-out, of Pine Island." The study went on to say: However, it is recognized that not all the lands currently zoned commercially are in advantageous locations, nor are they in appropriate land-use categories. In fact, properties in locations with strong market demand and good transportation access and suitable lot sizes are relatively limited. The Commercial Study also concluded that much of the land already zoned for commercial use was zoned C-1 and C-1A, "carryover" categories from older Lee County ordinances based on "pyramid" zoning, i.e., they also allowed residential uses. The study found that the most desirable solution to this problem would be to rezone these properties to non-commercial categories, but recognized the prohibitive cost of such a "relatively massive undertaking." It recommended the more practical option of modifying zoning regulations to make it clear that retail commercial uses can only be located within "designated commercial nodes," regardless of their zoning categories. The Commercial Study also concluded that additional retail uses would be needed on Pine Island as the population grows, although current uses were adequate to meet existing needs "until the year 2000," and that commercial development should be concentrated in the Pine Island Center, with possible convenience store sites at St. James City and Bokeelia. Approximately 236 acres were identified in the Commercial Study as appropriate commercial areas. The Commercial Study stated that this was more than four times the amount needed for 1990 retail and general commercial uses. Mr. Spikowski testified that it is typical for more property to be zoned commercial than is actually needed, because land owners are attempting to maximize the value of their property. He testified that a "slight surplus," in the range of 15 to 25 percent, is appropriate to avoid giving a few land owners a monopoly on future development. The property at issue in this proceeding was not included in the 236 acres deemed appropriate for commercial development. Despite several efforts from 1990 through 1993, no amendment establishing these commercial nodes was ever adopted by the Board. Ultimately, the Civic Association itself withdrew its support for the commercial nodes plan, stating that the plan as proposed would promote commercial strip development and commercial sprawl. In 1993, the Board adopted Policy 14.4.3, which would have required Lee County staff to update the Commercial Study in 1995. However, no such update was ever undertaken, and in 1998 the Board amended the Lee County Plan to delete Policy 14.4.3. The staff report recommending deletion of the policy noted that current demand for commercial sites had been minimal and did not warrant a full scale update of the Commercial Study, and concluded that the 1989 Commercial Study was "still a current document" not in need of an update. The Lee County Plan incorporates a "planning community" concept through an overlay, commonly referred to as the "FLUM 2020 Overlay," that establishes certain acreage allocations for uses that can occur within 20 discrete planning areas before the year 2020. Pine Island is one of these planning areas. The FLUM 2020 Overlay is intended to allocate development throughout the county and prevent excessive development in particular land-use categories beyond the projected need. The FLUM 2020 Overlay allocates development on Pine Island through the year 2020 as follows: Category Allocation (in acres) Intensive Development (for Residential Development) 5 Urban Commercial (for Residential Development) 526 Suburban (for Residential Development) 636 Outlying Suburban (for Residential Development) 466 Rural (for Residential Development) 1,129 Outer Island (for Residential Development) 37 Wetlands (for Residential Development) 88 Commercial 165 Industrial 64 j. Public 1,722 k. Active Agriculture 2,313 l. Passive Agriculture 960 m. Conservation 13,693 n. Vacant 4,586 Total 26,390 Below this list of allocations is a table called "Non Regulatory Allocations," which shows a total of 26,393 acres, slightly different from the total derived above. The "Non Regulatory Allocations" table lists 13,738 acres as conservation lands, leaving 12,700 acres. An additional 4,586 acres are designated "Vacant" in the "Non Regulatory Allocations," but their land-use designation is not identified. The FLUM 2020 Overlay provides for 165 acres of commercial development on Pine Island by the year 2020. Mr. Spikowski testified that Lee County’s database indicated that as of 1997 there were 138 acres developed commercially on Pine Island, leaving a need of 27 acres of vacant land for commercial development before the year 2020. Mr. Noble, the principal planner for Lee County, testified that his conclusion, reflected in the Staff Report, was that there is no need for additional commercial or urban lands on Pine Island, and that approval of PAM 98-01 would cause unnecessary commercial development on Pine Island. He testified that these conclusions were largely based on the findings of the 1989 Commercial Study of Pine Island. Mr. Noble also testified that, despite his conclusion as to the lack of need for commercial development, the FLUM 2020 Overlay allocates sufficient acreage to accommodate the property involved in PAM 98-01 without requiring an amendment to the overlay. Mr. Noble testified that no effort was made to update the findings of the 1989 study, because none was needed. He testified that there has been very little rezoning or development activity on Pine Island since 1989 aside from some clearing for agricultural uses, and therefore the 1989 study represents the best available data. Mr. Spikowski agreed with this assessment, testifying that while the 1989 study is somewhat out of date, it still provides good information on how much commercial development is needed to serve the community. Mr. Spikowski testified that the study still provides more information than exists for other parts of Lee County regarding the relationship between commercial development and commercial zoning. Mr. Noble admitted that the county’s capabilities in collecting and categorizing data have improved since 1989, but did not agree that revising the study would result in improved information, because the county’s zoning information is so inaccurate that one could not rely on the existing land-use data base to update the study. Thus, despite the fact that the county’s data base is now linked to the property appraiser’s records on a parcel by parcel basis, an accurate revision of the study would require verification of each parcel, and the lack of activity on Pine Island indicated to Mr. Noble that such an expenditure of resources was not needed to assess this application. Mr. Noble testified that the staff recommendation against approval was not a statement that approval of PAM 98-01 would be illegal. Mr. Noble also agreed there was a difference between opining that there is no need for more commercial and urban classifications, and holding that more such classifications are not allowed. He attended the meeting at which the Board approved the amendment, and believed the Board understood staff’s presentation and considered all relevant information in arriving at its decision. Mr. Noble testified that the Lee County Plan is currently in compliance with all applicable legal requirements, and he did not think that PAM 98-01 would place the plan out of compliance. Mr. Stuart, Intervenor’s planner, testified that once he began to understand that Lee County staff had concerns with overcommercialization of Pine Island based on the 1989 study, he took a hard look at that data. He testified that the 602 acres of commercial property set out in the Commercial Study did not appear correct "when you look at the map." Mr. Stuart testified that he performed a specific land- use study using the Lee County Division of Planning geographic information system resources. Mr. Stuart began by looking at the 1989 study, and noted that no information was available to show how the county derived the 602-acre figure. The only thing available in the county’s files was a single sheet aggregating the numbers into a total, without explanation of how the constituent numbers were derived. Mr. Spikowski, who was Lee County’s head planner in 1989, testified that the 602-acre figure was calculated "very carefully," but offered no detail to illumine that conclusory statement. Mr. Stuart testified that, though he suspected the total was inflated, he assumed that it was reasonably accurate for purposes of his analysis. Mr. Stuart considered the currently expected population of Pine Island based upon currently available data, the county’s planning conversion ratio of 2.09 persons per household on Pine Island, the county’s conversion ratio adjusting Pine Island’s population for seasonal residents, and then calculated the projected need for commercial development expressed in acres, using the same ratios that Lee County uses in planning for this purpose. Mr. Stuart also developed a computer table, with the assistance of county staff, of all the commercially-zoned property on Pine Island. He then adjusted the output to correct data entry errors and approximated the commercial acreage determined to be available in the 1989 Commercial Study. Mr. Stuart next examined the properties parcel by parcel to delete those commercially-zoned properties that have already been put to non-commercial use, that are wetlands unlikely to be commercially developed, that are in use as public facilities, and those that may not be developed because they are designated with outdated zoning categories that are restricted under the Lee County Land Development Code. This process derived an estimate of the number of commercially-zoned acres on Pine Island that are either in commercial use or are available for commercial use. Mr. Stuart’s analysis concluded that there is actually a deficit on Pine Island of 69 acres of commercially-zoned property that may as a practical matter be put to commercial use, when the projected demand for such property to serve the projected population of Pine Island is taken into account. In summary, it is found that Petitioners failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the increase in residential density and commercial intensity contemplated by PAM 98-01 is not suited to accommodate the population of Pine Island. The most conservative estimate rendered by the data and analysis indicates a need for an additional 27 acres of commercial development. No amendment of the FLUM 2020 Overlay is needed to effect this small-scale FLUM amendment. Mr. Stuart’s analysis is credited to the extent it supports a finding of substantial need. Petitioners offered no competent substantial evidence regarding residential allocations and the lack of any need for additional residential density, and thus failed to overcome the presumption that the Board’s action in adopting PAM 98-01 was correct on this point. Transportation Vehicular access from the mainland to Pine Island is provided solely by way of Pine Island Road, a two-lane road that proceeds over Matlacha Pass, through the Matlacha community, and over Little Pine Island by a series of bridges and causeways. North/south access on Pine Island is by way of Stringfellow Road, a two-lane road that runs from the community of Bokeelia at the north end of Pine Island to the community of St. James City at the south end of Pine Island. William Spikowski, a planner who testified on behalf of Petitioners, stated that widening the narrow, two-lane Pine Island Road to accommodate more traffic would be at best a difficult and expensive proposition. He testified that the right-of-way through most of the Matlacha community is only about 66 feet wide, and the buildings are often located directly adjacent to the right-of-way. He testified that if the right-of- way were widened to 90 feet to accommodate extra lanes, 75 buildings would have to be removed and several other businesses would lose their parking lots. Mr. Spikowski concluded that Pine Island Road is the biggest limitation on the island’s development. The Lee County Plan designates Pine Island Road as a constrained roadway as it passes through Matlacha, due to the narrow right-of-way and scenic, aesthetic, and environmental considerations. Matt Noble, a Lee County planner, testified that there were no improvements scheduled for Pine Island Road for the next three years, and that the road is projected to operate at Level of Service "F" in the year 2020 based on the applicant’s analysis. Level of Service "F" is below the standard adopted by the Lee County Plan. Mr. James Banks, a professional engineer expert in transportation engineering and planning, testified that the predictive methodology employed by county staff, i.e., assuming no road improvements while loading the system with future traffic demands, would result in a Level of Service "F" rating for nearly every major roadway in Lee County for the year 2020. He testified that this was an improper method for reviewing development permits. Mr. Banks testified that the proper method is to look at the roadway’s capacity at the time of the development application to determine whether there is available capacity today. If there is no capacity available, then the developer must devise a way to mitigate the impact, alleviating any degradation below the road’s adopted level of service. The permitting system is "first come, first serve," meaning that if the capacity is available today, then the permit is issued. Mr. Banks testified that there is no data indicating that the capacity of Pine Island Road will be exceeded by the year 2005. The sole hurricane evacuation route from the Greater Pine Island Area is by way of Stringfellow Road to Pine Island Road, then north on Burnt Store Road. Burnt Store Road is also the evacuation route for the City of Cape Coral. Several Pine Island residents testified as to their concerns that any increase in development on the island will further compromise the ability to evacuate the island in the event of a hurricane. There are no hurricane shelters on Pine Island, and no public services on the island during hurricanes. The Lee County Staff Report for PAM 98-01 raised similar concerns, concluding that the applicant is "seeking to increase density thereby increasing the number of persons at risk, impacting evacuation routes and shelter space." At the hearing, Matt Noble, Lee County’s principal planner and the lead planner working on the Staff Report, testified that the quoted statement in the Staff Report assumed that the development on the 9.9-acre parcel would be residential. He further testified that commercial development of the property would have no effect on evacuation times, which are based on the number of residents attempting to leave the island. Mr. Noble’s testimony on this point conflicts somewhat with the Staff Report’s statement that the application was reviewed using the most intensive scenario of retail commercial uses occurring on the property. However, given that the proposed plan amendment could not limit the development that could ultimately be requested on the property, it was not arbitrary for the county staff to consider both residential and commercial uses as potential development scenarios. James Banks, Intervenor’s transportation planning expert, testified that if residential demand on Pine Island exceeds the capacity of commercial development to satisfy it, there would be an increase in traffic on Pine Island Road as residents leave the island to do their basic shopping. Conversely, if enough commercial development occurs on the island to consume the residential demands, the number of off-island trips would be reduced. Mr. Noble agreed that there might be an increase in trips off the island if there were insufficient commercial development to serve the residents on Pine Island. He testified that there is a planning principle supporting integrated and coordinated land-use development, and part of that principle is to capture as many trips as close to residential development as possible to avoid urban sprawl. Mr. Noble testified that the Board considered this principle in its deliberations, and that one Commissioner expressly stated that having additional commercial capacity on Pine Island might improve the transportation flow on Pine Island Road by decreasing the number of trips off the island. Policy 14.2.2 of the Lee County Plan states as follows: In order to recognize and give priority to the property rights previously granted by Lee County for about 6,800 additional dwelling units, the county shall consider for adoption development regulations which address growth on Pine Island and which implement measures to gradually limit future development approvals. The effect of these regulations would be to appropriately reduce certain types of approvals at established thresholds prior to the adopted level-of- service standard being reached, as follows: When traffic on Pine Island Road between Burnt Store Road and Stringfellow Boulevard reaches 810 peak hour, annual average two-way trips, the regulations shall provide restrictions on further rezonings which would increase traffic on Pine Island Road. When traffic on Pine Island Road between Burnt Store Road and Stringfellow Boulevard reaches 910 peak hour, annual average two-way trips, the regulations shall provide restrictions on the further issuance of residential development orders (pursuant to the Development Standards Ordinance), or other measures to maintain the adopted level of service, until improvements can be made in accordance with this plan. Lee County has not actually adopted regulations restricting rezonings and/or development orders based upon the 810/910 peak hour traffic thresholds on Pine Island Road between Burnt Store and Stringfellow Roads. Mr. Noble testified that the main reason for the adoption of Policy 14.2.2 was the county’s concerns regarding hurricane evacuation. He agreed that, even if the prescribed regulations had been adopted, they would restrict rezonings and development orders, not amendments to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Noble testified that the 810 and 910 vehicle limits are not standard calculations derived by the Department of Transportation, and cannot be mathematically derived from any planning model. Mr. Spikowski testified that the 810 and 910 vehicle per hour thresholds were based on roughly 80 percent and 90 percent, respectively, of the level of service proposed by either the Civic Association or Lee County staff at the time of the policy’s adoption. He further testified that the 810 trip per hour threshold has already been reached. James Banks, Intervenor’s expert in transportation planning, agreed with Mr. Noble that the 810 and 910 vehicle limits were essentially arbitrary thresholds adopted by the Board, and further testified that these thresholds are unrelated to the actual capacity of the road. Mr. Banks testified that Lee County’s own Concurrency Management Inventory and Projections indicate that the actual capacity of Pine Island Road between Burnt Store and Stringfellow Roads is 2,170 vehicles per hour at Level of Service "E", and that the road is currently operating at Level of Service "A," the highest designation. Mr. Banks testified that under any possible development scenario involving the parcel at issue in this proceeding, the impact would be no worse than Level of Service "B" for this portion of Pine Island Road, still well below the road's capacity. In summary, Petitioners failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that PAM 98-01 will compromise evacuation of Pine Island in the event of a hurricane, or that the development that might ultimately be allowed pursuant to the Outlying Suburban designation will strain the operating capacity of Pine Island Road in the critical areas described above. Even assuming the additional traffic generated will push trips per hour beyond the 810 threshold and toward the 910 trip per hour threshold, Policy 14.2.2 by its terms places no restrictions on development; rather, it provides that the Board will consider adopting development regulations "to gradually limit future development approvals." Coastal High Hazard Area Closely related to the transportation and evacuation concerns is the issue of development limitations on barrier islands such as Pine Island. Goal 75 of the Lee County Plan and its implementing objectives and policies addresses development in coastal high- hazard areas. Objective 75.1 limits new development on barrier islands to densities that meet required evacuation standards, and states that allowable densities for undeveloped areas within the coastal high hazard areas will be considered for reduction. Mr. Noble testified that other Outlying Suburban lands and proposed residential development on Pine Island have been found to comply with Objective 75.1, but that there have only been a "couple" of such projects due to the sparse development activity on the island. Policy 75.1.2 prohibits rezonings to allow higher densities on barrier and coastal islands if the capacity of critical evacuation routes would be exceeded. Mr. Spikowski conceded that approval of three homes per acre on the seven acres proposed for residential development by Intervenor would not exceed the Lee County Plan’s stated evacuation times, but argued that taking a narrow view of this project in a vacuum is "the antithesis of planning," which calls for a view of the "big picture" rather than the individual project. Policy 75.1.4 states that density reductions for undeveloped areas within the coastal high-hazard areas will be considered, but does not require such reductions. In 1993, the Florida Legislature amended Section 163.3178(2)(h), Florida Statutes, to require that coastal elements of comprehensive plans designate "coastal high-hazard areas," defined as Category One evacuation zones, i.e., areas that must be evacuated for a Category One hurricane. Rule 9J- 5.003(17), Florida Administrative Code, was subsequently amended to reflect the statutory change. Petitioners contend that PAM 98-01 cannot be adopted at this time because the Lee County plan amendments defining the coastal high hazard area have not been finally adopted. Petitioners contend that adoption of PAM 98-01 would violate Rule 9J-5.002(8), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: Effect of Rule Amendments. No amendment to this chapter shall have the effect of causing plans or plan amendments which were adopted prior to the effective date of the amendment to become not in compliance. Minimum criteria contained in any amendment to this chapter shall be addressed in the first subsequent transmitted plan amendment which is directly related to or requires the application of those criteria. Petitioners contend that the quoted rule provision operates to give effect only to such plan amendments dealing with potential "coastal high-hazard areas" as were adopted prior to the amendment of Rule 9J-5.003(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners argue that until the mandated definitions are finally adopted, PAM 98-01 would render the Lee County Plan out of compliance. Petitioners' reading of the quoted rule is strained and not persuasive. They are correct that the first sentence operates to grandfather plan amendments adopted prior to a given rule amendment. The language of the second sentence requires the local government to address rule amendments "in the first subsequent transmitted plan amendment." By its terms, the rule would have the practical effect of prohibiting interim plan amendments dealing with the subject matter of the rule amendments, as urged by Petitioners, because such an interim plan amendment would by definition not be the "first subsequent transmitted amendment." However, the second sentence does not address the situation presented here, of a small-scale plan amendment that is not formally "transmitted" to the Department of Community Affairs for review pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. "Transmittal" of a plan amendment triggers an array of procedural requirements that Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes, is specifically designed to avoid. Petitioners’ argument on this point would effectively tie the small-scale plan amendment process irrevocably to the more cumbersome "large-scale" amendment process each time the Department of Community Affairs chooses to amend Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, in such a way as to require compliant local plan amendments. This would defeat the Legislature’s purpose in disengaging small-scale amendments from many of the formalities of the plan amendment process. In any event, no party to this proceeding seriously contended that the property in question in fact lies outside of the coastal high-hazard area. The Staff Report, while acknowledging that the property is not yet "technically included" in the coastal high-hazard area, expressly treated the property as if it were, applying Goal 75 of the Lee County Plan in its analysis of the project. The Intervenor did not contest this treatment. These findings of fact accept that the subject property lies within the coastal high-hazard area, and that the property was treated by both Lee County staff and the Board as lying within the coastal high-hazard area, rendering moot Petitioners’ procedural arguments regarding the formal adoption of the new statutory definition. In summary, Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that PAM 98-01 does not comply with statutory, rule, or Lee County Plan provisions dealing with development in coastal high-hazard areas. Natural Resources Intervenor’s 9.9 acre parcel, a pine flatwood community dominated by slash pine in the canopy with an understory of saw palmetto and other upland species, contains protected plants and animals. Uniformly distributed over the parcel are 551 beautiful pawpaws, as counted in the survey of the property conducted by Boylan Environmental Consultants on behalf of Intervenor. Petitioners did not dispute this count of the beautiful pawpaws on the site. The beautiful pawpaw has been designated an endangered species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (now called the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). Lee County has designated the beautiful pawpaw as a protected species. Beautiful pawpaws are small plants with deep tubers, and are difficult to relocate. The beautiful pawpaws on the 9.9- acre parcel are currently healthy and viable. Intervenor’s 9.9-acre parcel also contains 10 active, 21 inactive, and 22 abandoned gopher tortoise burrows, as counted by Boylan Environmental Consultants and not disputed by Petitioners. Gopher tortoises are listed as a species of special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and are listed as a protected species by Lee County. Gopher tortoise burrows are also appropriate habitat for indigo snakes and gopher frogs, both of which are listed as protected species by Lee County. Betsie Newton Hiatt, a senior environmental planner with Lee County and an expert in environmental planning, testified that she made a "cursory inspection" of the subject property and observed the beautiful pawpaws and gopher tortoise burrows on the site. She did not actually count the plants or burrows, but testified that she observed enough to consider the counts made by Boylan Environmental Consultants to be accurate. Ms. Hiatt testified that a management plan would be necessary prior to development of the parcel, and that it would be possible to submit a detailed management plan meeting all Lee County Land Development Code requirements for property that has beautiful pawpaws and gopher tortoise burrows and that lies within an Outlying Suburban land-use category. Ms. Hiatt testified that part of her duties is the implementation of Policy 77.2.6 of the Lee County Plan, which requires avoidance of needless destruction of upland vegetation communities through consideration during the site plan review process of alternative layouts of permitted uses. She testified that this policy is implemented in the Lee County Land Development Code through open space and indigenous preservation requirements. She finally testified that it would be possible to meet the open space requirement while developing the parcel at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Hiatt testified that the policy requires that approximately one third of the beautiful pawpaws found on a site be preserved in place, one third may be relocated in preservation areas, and one third may be removed. She testified that the open space requirement for commercial use of a 9.9-acre site would be about three acres, and that about 380 beautiful pawpaws could survive in this area. This would be about 69 percent of the 551 beautiful pawpaws found on the site, slightly more than the requisite two-thirds that must be preserved. Rae Ann Boylan, the expert in environmental land-use planning whose company performed the species survey on the property, testified that allowing the site to lay fallow would be as bad for the beautiful pawpaws as development, because other shrubs would eventually overgrow them without management of the site. Ms. Boylan also testified that a management plan would be required prior to development to accommodate the listed species. She testified that Lee County requires a developer to excavate the tortoises that can be found and place them out of harm’s way. She further noted that Policy 77.8.1 of the Lee County Plan provides for off-site mitigation, if unavoidable conflicts make on-site protection of the tortoises infeasible. Policy 5.1.2 of the Lee County Plan prohibits residential development where physical constraints or hazards exist, including hurricane hazards and environmental limitations. Mr. Noble of Lee County testified that residential development has been approved on Pine Island under this policy, and that the decision whether this policy applies to a given project is made at the time of development or site plan approval. Mr. Spikowski agreed that Policy 5.1.2 is a limitation on development, but argued that now is the time to evaluate the matter. He testified that if there are physical constraints or hazards that should stop approval of additional subdivisions on Pine Island, the county should not wait for the development order stage to draw the line. Mr. Spikowski explained that, as a practical matter, the development order stage consists of arguments about the details of the development, not whether it will occur at all. Mr. Spikowski's testimony is credited as a valid statement of planning philosophy, but not as stating a legal barrier to the Board's decision in this matter. In summary, Petitioners failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that PAM 98-01 by its terms will have any adverse impacts on native upland vegetation, wildlife habitat, natural plant communities, or protected plant and wildlife habitat. Even after PAM 98-01 is enacted, the Lee County Plan provisions protecting all these natural resources will remain in place. Any subsequent development will be required to comply with the provisions of the Lee County Plan and the State Comprehensive Plan establishing protection of the resources. Data and Analysis Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, requires that all elements of a comprehensive plan be based upon data appropriate to the element involved. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part: All goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of the adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. The local government is not required to engage in original data collection, but the data used must be the best available. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(b) and (c), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 9J-5.006(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Future Land-use Element, including the FLUM and amendments thereto, must include an analysis of the amount of land needed in each category of land-use to accommodate the projected population. This analysis must estimate the gross acreage needed by land-use category and their densities and intensities, and describe the methodology used to arrive at those estimates. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that there was sufficient data and analysis to permit the Board to conclude that PAM 98-01 was justified. As found above, even the most conservative estimate of Mr. Spikowski, the expert retained to oppose the amendment, conceded that the data indicated there remains a need for 27 acres of vacant land for commercial development on Pine Island before the year 2020. The Commercial Study relied upon by Petitioners also concedes that much of the property currently zoned for commercial uses is not in fact appropriate for such uses. The evidence establishes that Lee County itself has historically recognized this fact but has declined to expend the resources needed to update the zoning on Pine Island, largely due to the overall paucity of development activity on the island. The evidence in this proceeding establishes that the property at issue is the only commercially-zoned property adjacent to the Pine Island Center that was not included in that center during the 1989 Plan update process, presumably because it was vacant property at the time. Despite all the testimony regarding properties on Pine Island having inappropriate commercial zonings, not one witness suggested that the property at issue should not be zoned commercially. At least one member of the LPA recognized the appropriateness of this property for development "in the long run," but the LPA voted against the amendment to preserve the clear demarcation between urban and rural uses in the current FLUM. However, even Mr. Spikowski conceded that the clear line between urban and rural uses was compromised at the outset to allow for existing uses, and that the FLUM change contemplated by PAM 98-01 would merely add another "blip" to a line on the map that already contains breaks and changes between urban and rural uses. Mr. Spikowski’s argument that PAM 98-01 would create urban sprawl is thus overstated. PAM 98-01 does not designate uses in excess of demonstrated need. It does not appreciably compromise the clear separation between rural and urban uses. It does not discourage or inhibit infill development. In fact, PAM 98-01 could just as plausibly be said to constitute infill in the vicinity of the Pine Island Center; at the very least, it does not leap over undeveloped lands that are available and suitable for development. The subject property lies between commercial uses to the north and a public facility use, the RO plant, to the south. PAM 98-01 does not fail to protect environmentally sensitive habitat, because the beautiful pawpaws and the gopher tortoise burrows on the site will be dealt with as provided in the Lee County Plan during any subsequent development and site planning of the property. Mr. Spikowski’s ultimate opinion that PAM 98-01 is "illegal" is based on his view, also expressed in the Staff Report, that there is "no compelling reason" to adopt the requested amendment. Mr. Spikowski testified that, because Pine Island has an overallocation of commercial land, anyone wishing to add to the total has "a really high burden to show that this is so much better located than the existing land, or [that] other land should be eliminated in favor of this land, and that burden hasn’t been met." As explained in the conclusions of law below, this is not the standard for judging the legality of a small scale development amendment. Mr. Spikowski’s policy disagreement with the Board’s action has been noted and fully considered, but his judgment that PAM 98-01 is "illegal" cannot be credited. In summary, Petitioners failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that PAM 98-01 is not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis as required by Section 163.3177(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5.005(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding small scale development amendment PAM 98-01 to be in compliance. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Timothy Jones, Esquire Assistant County Attorneys Lee County, Florida 2115 Second Street Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Pete Doragh, Esquire Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 60259 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259 Cari L. Roth, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 315 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Steven M. Seibert, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated December 20, 1989; 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, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, the Respondent has held teaching certificate number 390667. That certificate was issued by the Department of Education and covers the areas of driver education, physical education, and kindergarten through eighth grade. Respondent's current teaching certificate expires on June 30, 1991. At all times material to the allegations of the administrative complaint, the Respondent was an annual contract teacher employed by the School Board of Dade County, Florida (Board). Respondent began teaching in the public school system upon employment by the Board in 1986. Prior to that time Respondent had pursued other career options. At the beginning of the 1988/89 school year, Respondent was assigned to West Homestead Elementary School where he taught physical education. Subsequent to an investigation regarding allegations at that school, Respondent was administratively reassigned to teach a half day at Cypress Elementary School. In the mornings, Respondent taught at another school, then he went to Cypress Elementary for the remainder of the day. Prior to assuming his teaching responsibilities at Cypress Elementary in October, 1988, Respondent met with Judith Martin. Ms. Martin, the principal at Cypress Elementary, instructed Respondent that he was not to touch the students assigned to his classes. Ms. Martin advised Respondent that she expected him to exhibit professional conduct and to show respect toward the children. Respondent acknowledged that he understood he was to refrain from improper conduct, and asserted that he was a very good teacher. In January, 1989, Ms. Martin received complaints from female students in Respondent's class that he had inappropriately touched them on the back or arms. When Ms. Martin met with Respondent regarding the allegations and made him aware of the students' discomfort with his conduct, he explained that he is a "touchy" person and that his manner of teaching sometimes required putting his hands on a student but that it was not done in an inappropriate way or intended to make them uncomfortable. At that time, Ms. Martin reminded Respondent that he was not to touch students or to embarrass them. Anette DuQuesne was a sixth grade student in Respondent's class during the 1988/89 school year. On one occasion, Respondent directed Anette to remove her jacket when she did not wish to take it off. The jacket did not interfere with her play and she did not wish to remove it since her shirt was too big and she felt she would be exposed. Respondent insisted that she remove her jacket and told her that there was nothing (referring to her breasts) there to see. The comment was made in front of Anette's classmates and embarrassed and angered her. Mike Quintana, Gievan Rodriguez, and Roger Perez were fourth grade students assigned to Respondent's class during the 1988/89 school year. On one occasion, Respondent directed the students, who were engaged in a tug-of-war, to let go of the rope. When the students continued to pull, Respondent went down the rope separating the students from the rope. To accomplish that separation, Respondent struck Mike, Gievan, and Roger in the chest area with his hands, forearms, or elbows. The students were not seriously injured but were hurt to the point of tears by the blows struck by Respondent. The activity described in paragraph 8 occurred after Respondent had been directed for a second time to refrain from touching students. Respondent presented no credible explanation for why it was necessary to separate the students from the rope in such a manner. Respondent admitted that Gievan (who was crying) approached him regarding the incident and complained about being struck by Respondent's elbow. The physical education grounds at Cypress Elementary are immediately adjacent to a Dade County public park. On one occasion, park employees removed a malalucca tree which was next to the park's tennis courts. A backhoe used to pull the tree stump repeatedly came onto school property and crossed the Cypress track. During the tree removal process, Mr. McCauley, a physical education teacher at Cypress Elementary, observed that students from Respondent's class were running the track in an area dangerously close to the backhoe. Mr. McCauley observed that one of Respondent's students dodge the backhoe at a close range. Mr. McCauley advised Respondent of the problem so that he could take corrective measures. Despite being made aware of the dangerous condition, Respondent allowed and, in fact, directed his students (all of whom were elementary school ages) to continue running the track. Respondent's warning to the students (to be aware of the backhoe and to run further in) was inadequate given their ages and the alternatives available to Respondent. After a second warning from Mr. McCauley, Respondent continued to allow his students to run the track. Subsequently, Mr. McCauley reported the incident to a school administrator. Following an investigation of the allegations against him, school officials removed Respondent from Cypress Elementary in April, 1989. Respondent was given a non-student contact assignment at an area office. When his contract with the Board expired in June, 1989, Respondent was not offered a contract for the following school year. Respondent did not intentionally touch female students to make them feel uncomfortable. However, touchings did occur after Respondent was directed to refrain from such conduct. Respondent maintained that pats on the back or shoulder were done out of praise for something well done and that boys and girls were treated similarly. Since June, 1989, Respondent has been self- employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order suspending the Respondent's teaching certificate for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-1391 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINDS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSION: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that the Respondent struck the students. Whether he did so with his hands or his forearms or elbows is unclear; however, the blows were of a sufficient force to cause the students to cry. Paragraph 6 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 7 through 9 are rejected as recitation of testimony, repetitive, or irrelevant. To the extent that paragraph 10 describes Respondent's admission that he went through the tug-of-war line separating the students off the rope, it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is accepted. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through 15 are accepted. To the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraphs 10 and 11, paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted but is irrelevant. To the extent addressed in findings of fact paragraph 7, paragraphs 21 and 22 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or recitation of testimony. Paragraph 23 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. It is accepted that the children complained about Respondent, but it is not found that Respondent committed the acts complained of with an intention to embarrass or disparage the students nor for some other inappropriate purpose. Paragraphs 24 through 27 are accepted but see findings of fact paragraph It is not found that Respondent actually was touching the students in an inappropriate way or for an inappropriate reason; it is not disputed that the students perceived that Respondent was acting inappropriately. The accuracy of those perceptions has not been established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant. The first two sentences of paragraph 29 are accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The last sentence of paragraph 30 is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are accepted. Paragraph 33 accurately recites Dr. Gray's opinion, but is rejected since the factual basis for that opinion has not been established in total, by clear and convincing evidence. Dr. Gray's opinion has been considered to determine a recommendation since the Commission has established by clear and convincing evidence a violation of law or rule. Paragraph 34 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With the exception of the last sentence which is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen B. Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Martin Schaap, Administrator Professional Practices Services 325 West Gaines Street Room 352 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Craig R. Wilson Suite 315 1201 U.S. Highway 1 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408-3581 William DuFresne DuFRESNE AND BRADLEY 2929 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite One Miami, Florida 33129
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Ann Storck Center, Inc., is a non-profit agency with a volunteer Board of Directors which began in 1956 when Ann Storck opened her first group home in Broward County to assist children with mental retardation. Petitioner serves children and young adults with developmental disabilities by providing preschool, developmental training, prevocational training, and residential services in several intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded (ICF/MR). The individuals served by Petitioner at the Pembroke Pines cluster are within the severe to profound range of mental retardation and have significant secondary disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, autism, and epilepsy. There are medically fragile and developmentally disabled individuals at the Pembroke Pines cluster facility. Several of them are tube fed and have significant seizure problems or renal problems. Other than reimbursement under the Medicaid laws and other funds from government agencies, Petitioner obtains its funds from charitable endeavors such as the operation of a thrift shop six days per week, every week for the past seventeen years, together with numerous other fund raising efforts. Petitioner's budget for providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities is $300,000 to $400,000 in excess of the Medicaid and other government funding which is provided each year. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, which is the subject of the cost report and desk audit involved in this proceeding, Petitioner had a deficit of almost $120,000 dollars at the Pembroke Pines cluster. Petitioner does not have cash reserves. If, in addition to that deficit, Petitioner is required to pay back money to the Department and have a reduced Medicaid reimbursement rate at the present time, Petitioner cannot survive the consequences. Although Petitioner is the provider of all ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster facility, the Department holds the Medicaid provider number. Medicaid cost reports are filed by Petitioner every year, using the Department's provider number. In those cost reports, Petitioner includes cost figures provided to it by the Department for the Department's costs related to the Pembroke Pines cluster facility. The same certified public accountant has been filing the Medicaid cost reports for the Pembroke Pines facility on Petitioner's behalf since 1984. Although he performs the facility's monthly accountings and performs an annual audit, that C.P.A. is not in a position to verify the figures provided to Petitioner by the Department. Accordingly, each year's cost report contains a disclaimer letter from him, and the Department has never raised any concerns regarding that letter. Each year's cost report has been completed in accordance with the Department's directions to Petitioner. Specifically, Petitioner includes all costs of rendering ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster. The Department then uses each June 30 cost report to obtain Medicaid funds from the federal government. Those funds have been paid to the Department and not to Petitioner since the Department considers itself to be the provider of ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster. Prior to 1991, the Department did not reimburse Petitioner pursuant to the Medicaid cost reports filed by Petitioner representing the actual costs which Petitioner had expended in providing ICF/MR services. Rather, the Department established Petitioner's Medicaid per diem reimbursement rate pursuant to a fixed rate contract. By doing so, the Department reimbursed Petitioner for services rendered at a rate less than Petitioner's actual costs and less than the money the Department received from the federal government utilizing Petitioner's cost report. The Department retained those additional monies. Although audit reports were drafted by the Department as far back as 1987 and as far back as for the fiscal 1985 cost report for the Pembroke Pines cluster, the Department held back those audit reports until June of 1991 because the Department had not established procedures for conducting audits of the cluster facilities and had not trained staff to perform those audits until that time. The Department's policies on how to process desk audits, even when finalized in 1991, were never published as a rule, were not generally made available to persons other than the Department employees who attended the training meetings, and were not explained during the final hearing in this cause. In 1989, Petitioner, other providers of ICF/MR services, and a trade association representing ICF/MR providers filed a lawsuit against the Department and against two Department officials in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the manner in which the Department reimbursed providers of ICF/MR services did not comply with federal law. On June 17, 1991, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that a preliminary injunction be entered against the Department. Based on that Report, oral argument, and an independent review of the file, the United States District Judge entered an Order Granting Preliminary Injunction on September 13, 1991. The 17-page Order Granting Preliminary Injunction was both mandatory and prohibitory. It was held that the Department's method of reimbursing operators of cluster facilities such as Petitioner pursuant to a fixed-rate contract rather than pursuant to a reimbursement plan for providers of ICF/MR services violated Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1396(a)(13), known as the Boren Amendment to the Medicaid Act. Pursuant to the Boren Amendment, the Department was required to have established reimbursement rates which are "reasonable and adequate to meet the costs which must be incurred by efficiently and economically operated facilities in order to provide care and services in conformity with applicable state and federal laws, regulations, and quality and safety standards." The federal court ordered the Department to cease reimbursing its cluster providers pursuant to a fixed-rate contract and ordered the Department to formulate a new reimbursement plan which complied with the substantive requirements of the Boren Amendment. The federal court ordered the Department to file its new plan by October 4, 1991, with the rates of reimbursement established under that plan to be retroactive to September 4, 1991. The court specifically held that the Department's argument that it was the provider of ICF/MR services because it held the provider number was ". . .false to the point of absurdity. . . ." The Department responded with an amended reimbursement plan for providers of ICF/MR services effective July 1, 1991. Medicaid is a prospective cost reimbursement system. The reimbursement rate is set prospectively based upon historic data. In Florida there are two rate semesters each year. Therefore, April 1, 1991, would be the first rate period affected by the Department's audit of the Pembroke Pines cluster cost report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990. The Department began its calculations relative to its audit of the Pembroke Pines cost report in approximately February of 1991. The calculations were not completed until June of 1992. The Department's June 12, 1992, letter memorializing the results of the Department's desk audit notified the Department and Petitioner as to the per diem reimbursement rate for the Prembroke Pines cluster facility effective with the April 1, 1991, rate semester; with a recalculation effective July 1, 1991, (the effective date of the new reimbursement plan ordered by the federal court); and with a recalculated rate effective September 1, 1991 (for some unexplained reason). When those rates were calculated and disclosed pursuant to the June 12, 1992, letter some nine months after the federal judge had rejected the Department's position that the Department was the provider of ICF/MR services because it held the provider number, the calculations were done and the reimbursement rate was established as though the Department was the provider of ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster. In conjunction with the Department continuing to maintain that position in spite of the federal injunction against it, the audit letter explaining the audit adjustments and establishing the new reimbursement rates was sent by the Department's Tallahassee office to the Department's Fort Lauderdale office. When the Department's Residential Services Director for District 10 received the audit letter, he contacted the Tallahassee office of the Department. He requested, as he had done on a number of occasions previously, that Petitioner be reimbursed for excess costs above what the Department was allowing or that Petitioner receive an interim rate increase. That renewed request was denied by the Tallahassee office. The Residential Services Director was aware that Petitioner had been losing money operating the Pembroke Pines facility, that Petitioner was not being reimbursed for expenditures above the amount paid under the old fixed-rate contract system, and that Petitioner supplemented its reimbursement from the Department through fund raising activities by necessity. Since he, as part of his duties, attended admission and discharge meetings, attended licensure surveys, and had been involved with physical plant repairs and maintenance to the Pembroke Pines facility since 1987, he was familiar with the excellent survey reports which Petitioner receives regarding its operation of the facility, was familiar with Petitioner's excellent quality of care, and with Petitioner's efficient manner of providing services. The desk audit contained one positive adjustment. It increased Petitioner's operating expenses by $29,841. The reason for that positive adjustment was that the Department had provided to Petitioner an incorrect figure for the Department's costs related to the facility during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990. That positive adjustment is a correct figure and increases the total allowable operating expenses for the Pembroke Pines cluster facility for the fiscal year to $1,619,888. Each cost item within the total allowable operating expenses of $1,619,888 is a reasonable, necessary, and ordinary cost incurred and expended for the operation of the Pembroke Pines cluster facility in an efficient and economical manner. The audit letter contained 9 negative adjustments for a total negative adjustment of $50,979. Each of those 9 negative adjustments is incorrect and is without basis. Each negative adjustment simply reduces the total cost in that particular category by an arbitrary percentage, and none of those negative adjustments is in accordance with the reimbursement plan governing providers of ICF/MR services. The erroneous negative adjustments made during the desk audit of the June 30, 1990, cost report resulted in a Medicaid reimbursement per diem rate of $184.91 for the rate period effective April 1, 1991, for level 8 and level 9 patients, which are the most severely disabled patients and are the only types of patients who receive ICF/MR services at the Pembroke Pines cluster facility. That per diem rate is incorrect. The correct Medicaid reimbursement per diem rate based upon proper auditing procedures and based upon the reimbursement rate plan is $191.36. Those proper auditing procedures include, for example, using the reimbursement plan in effect at the time the rates are to be calculated, something not done by the Department which used the reimbursement plan effective July 1, 1991, to compute the rates effective April 1, 1991. The errors made in the desk audit of the June 30, 1990, cost report are still causing Petitioner to be underpaid for its ICF/MR services. The June 30, 1990, cost report determines the base rate, for example, for the October 1, 1992, rate semester, during which semester the final hearing in this cause was conducted. The Department has been reimbursing Petitioner during the October 1, 1992, rate semester using a per diem rate of $212.05 rather than the correct figure of $216.12 per day per patient. The erroneous negative adjustments made during the desk audit were caused by the Department's use of the fixed-price contract rather than the ICF/MR rate plan to establish Petitioner's reimbursement rate. The desk audit report itself refers to the 9 negative adjustments as being contract adjustments. Further, the person who performed the audit testified at the final hearing that although all of the expenses would have been allowed under the published rate plan, without the negative adjustments, the audit was performed pursuant to instructions given to her by other Department employees to make adjustments pursuant to the fixed-rate contract because the per diem rate was to be established based on the Department's total costs as a District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Finding the positive audit adjustment to have been properly made; Finding the negative audit adjustments to have been improperly made; Determining the total allowable operating expenses for the Pembroke Pines cluster facility for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, to be $1,619,888; Establishing the reimbursement rate for the facility's level 8 and level 9 care for the April 1, 1991, rate semester to be $191.36 per patient per day; Establishing the reimbursement rate for the facility's level 8 and level 9 care for the October 1, 1992, rate semester to be $216.12; and Recalculating the reimbursement rate for the other rate semesters subsequent to April 1, 1991, in accordance with this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 16th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered A, C, D, F-O, Q, R, T- W, Y-AH, AK, AN, AQ, AR, AT-AW, AZ, BC-BE, BG-BI, BM, BP-BS, BU-BX, BZ, CA, CC- CF, CH-CJ, CM-CO, CQ, and CS-DA have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered B, E, P, S, X, AM, AO, AS, AX, BF, BJ, BL, BO, BY, CG, CK, CL, CR, and DC-DE have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered AY, BA, BB, and CP have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered AI, AJ, BN, BT, and DB have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered AL, AP, BK, and CB have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 10, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 9, and 11 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 12, 14-20, 24, and have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7, 8, and 21-23 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban & Weinger, P.A. Second Floor 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33133 Karel Baarslag, Esquire HRS Medicaid Office Building Six, Room 234 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Gerretson is the owner of Lot 2, Block 2, Sea View Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. 1/ On January 11, 1984, Gerretson applied to Monroe County for a land clearing permit. The permit, as requested, would have permitted him to clear his lot of vegetation in the area proposed for his house, driveway and septic tank. 2/ Gerretson's application was denied, as was his appeal to the Monroe County Board of Adjustment; however, on October 16, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (Monroe County), by resolution, reversed the decision of the Board of Adjustment. The Department, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, filed a timely appeal with the Adjudicatory Commission. The subject property The Sea View Subdivision is sparsely developed, and its lands are in a natural state except for the existence of two roads. The subdivision is bounded on the north by Port Pine Heights, an established subdivision; on the east and south by lands belonging to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the National Key Deer Refuge; and on the west by Pine Channel. The Sea View Subdivision is itself within the boundaries of the Key Deer Refuge. Gerretson's lot is located at the southern extreme of the subdivision; abutting the lands belonging to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Government) and the northern limit of Watson Hammock, a unique natural area containing endemic, rare and endangered plant and animal species. Separating the Government's property from Gerretson's, is an unnamed 25' wide platted, but non-existent road. 3/ Currently, the closest vehicular access to Gerretson's property is by a fire break on the Government's land. This fire break is separated from Gerretson's lot by an area of natural vegetation approximately 70' in width. To access Gerretson's property from the subdivision would require that the lands dedicated for "no name road" be cleared of native vegetation a distance of 100'- 200' to the closest existing road. There are no plans, however, to construct "no name road." 4/ Gerretson's property is typical of the surrounding area, and characteristic of an old and well established pineland community. Vegetation includes endangered, threatened, and protected species such as South Florida Slash Pine, Key Cassia, Ladder Brake Fern, Thatch Palm, Cabbage Palm, and Silver Palm. Applicable development regulations Gerretsons' property is located in that portion of Monroe County designated as an area of critical state concern. Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes. As such, development must be consistent with Chapters 27F-8 and 27F- 9, Florida Administrative Code, as well as Monroe County's comprehensive plan. Pertinent to these proceedings are Rule 27F-8.03(5), Florida Administrative Code, the coastal zone protection and conservation element of Monroe County's comprehensive plan, and Sections 18-16 through 18-25 of the Monroe County Code. 5/ Rule 27F-8.03(5), Florida Administrative Code provides: Third Objective: Protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife and their habitat. Guidelines: * * * 5. Prohibit any significant disturbance, including but not limited to land clearing and excavation, of established habitats for documented resident populations of endangered species . . . Monroe County's comprehensive plan, the coastal zone protection and conservation element, dealing with natural vegetative resources and terrestrial wildlife resources provides: NATURAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. Land clearing will be restricted to site area being prepared for immediate construction. If the construction cannot begin within reasonable time, the cleared area will be replanted with ground cover. In areas where temporary removal of vegetation is necessary during construction, replanting of ground cover will be carried out as soon as possible. The unique and endangered status of the hardwood hammock community; and the critical role of the pineland in providing the only living habitat for the Key Deer will be recognized add given due consideration in developing future land use regulations. Development in and adjacent to hardwood hammock and pineland areas will be carefully regulated so as to maintain normal drainage patterns and the ecological balance of the entire area. Outstanding, rare, and unique communities of hardwood hammock and pineland will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. * * * The existing county ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. The County will seek assistance from and cooperate with the appropriate State and Federal agencies in developing and enforcing regulations designed to protect rare, threatened and/or endangered plant species from development, vandalism, tree poaching, and plant thefts. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT POLICIES In order to conserve and wisely manage the Keys' wildlife resources, the County will conscientiously direct its efforts toward the protection and improvement of wildlife habitats throughout the Keys. Development activities which may degrade, destroy, or severely impact productive areas for wildlife will be required to assess possible means and, to the extent practicable, adopt protective measures for abating these impacts on wildlife populations and habitat. Recognizing that each wildlife group has its own requirements and tolerances, the adequacy of protective measures will be evaluated for each individual species occupying the habitat. Improvement of habitat through encouragement of native vegetation which would give desirable species the best chance to flourish will be supported and encouraged. Planning, design, siting, and construction of public capital improvements and facilities such as roads, solid waste disposal sites, and utility lines and structures will be carefully regulated to minimize impact on wildlife habitat and movement patterns. The County will exert special protective efforts regarding the preservation of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species as identified by Federal and State agencies and the habitat required to support these species in the coastal zone. Intensive development will be directed away from the habitat of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species. * * * 7. Introduction as pets of those exotic animal species which may represent a potential danger to the native wildlife will be discouraged. Pertinent to this proceeding, the Monroe County Code (Code) provides: Section 18-18 Land clearing permit . . . It shall be unlawful and an offense against the county for any person . . . to clear . . . any land located within the unincorporated areas of the county without having first applied for and obtained a land clearing permit from the building department . . . * * * (c) Review and approval of development site plans which results in the issuance of a development order shall constitute compliance with the requirements of this section. In such cases the land clearing permit will be issued in conjunction with the building permit. * * * Section 18-19 Same-Application . . . Any person requesting a land clearing permit shall file an application with the county building department on a form provided by such department. Such application shall contain the following information: * * * A map of the natural vegetative communities found on and adjacent to the site, prepared by a qualified biologist, naturalist, landscape architect or other professional with a working knowledge of the native vegetation of the Florida Keys . . . With projects that are five (5) acres or more in size, the vegetation map does not have to identify the location of individual trees An overall site plan of the land for which the permit is requested, indicating the shape and dimensions of said land, the purposes for which clearing is requested, and the steps taken to minimize effects of clearing on surrounding vegetation and water bodies. A site plan analysis prepared by a qualified individual, as described above . . . shall be included. Prior to the issuance of a land clearing permit, the building department shall field check the proposed clearing site and shall verify on the application that the facts contained therein, relative to the location and description of vegetation, are factually correct. * * * Section 18-21. Same - Approval. After an application for a land clearing permit has been filed and verified, the building department and the planning and zoning department shall review and consider what effects such removal of vegetation will have upon the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality on and adjacent to the proposed site. Upon finding that such removal of natural vegetation will not adversely affect the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality adjacent to the proposed site, the permit shall be approved, approved subject to modification or specified conditions, or denied . . . Areas of concern Gerretson's property and the surrounding refuge area are prime habitat for the Key Deer. 6/ The Key Deer is listed as a threatened species by the State of Florida and endangered by the Federal Government. 7/ Currently, the Key Deer population is on the decline from a once stable population of about 400 to a current population of about 250. 8/ This decline is directly attributable to loss of habitat and the consequent adverse impacts of human presence, such as increased automobile traffic, large domesticated dogs, and loss of wildness in the deer. While the proposed clearing of Gerretson's lot would, in and of itself, probably not significantly impact the Key Deer or its habitat, the fact that he has no road access to his property will require the continuous crossing of adjacent natural habitat and significantly expand the sphere of human impact on the deer. Additionally, the purpose of Gerretson's lot clearing cannot be ignored in analyzing the ultimate impacts of his proposal. The purpose of Gerretson's permit is to allow the construction of a single family residence on his lot. Gerretson's lot is located at the southern extreme of Sea View Subdivision, and his home would be the first built in the area. The construction of this house alone, with its consequent human presence, would adversely impact the Key Deer and its habitat. Considering the precedential nature of Gerretsons' construction, the cumulative impact from the project on the deer would be significantly greater. 9/ Notwithstanding the evident adverse impacts, Gerretson failed to offer any plan to mitigate the impacts of the proposed land clearing and construction on the Key Deer population. Gerretsons' proposal would also displace endemic, protected, threatened and endangered plant species in the area of the proposed house, driveway and septic tank. To support his application, Gerretson submitted a vegetation survey by a "qualified person." The survey does not, however, "map" the natural vegetation by locating individual species but, rather, divides Gerretson's lot into four quadrants and lists the vegetation found in each quadrant. While there is no dispute that the survey accurately lists the vegetation to be found in each quadrant, the survey is of little or no value in identifying the significant vegetation that will be displaced by construction, analyzing the site to determine the least disruptive site layout, or developing an adequate transplanting or revegetation scheme. In sum, Gerretson's vegetation survey fails to comply with the letter or spirit of the Monroe County Code. 10/ At hearing, Gerretson averred that he would transplant any endangered or threatened species, and would limit his fill activity to that required for the septic tank system. 11/ He failed, however, to identify the species that would be impacted or offer any plan for transplantation or revegetation that could be evaluated for its likelihood of success. In sum, Gerretson failed to offer any viable plan to mitigate the impacts of his proposal on endemic, protected, threatened and endangered plant species. The Department also asserts that the subject permit should not issue because Gerretson's property does not abut an existing road. Section 19-135, Monroe County Code, provides: No building or structure shall be erected on a parcel of land which does not abut a public or private road having a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. The fact that "no name road" does not exist would preclude Gerretson, absent variance from the Monroe County Code, from securing a building permit to construct his residence. While the subject permit is a land clearing permit and not a building permit, there is no rational basis to grant a clearing permit to construct a house if the house cannot be built. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to condition the issuance of a land clearing permit on the issuance of a building permit.
The Issue The issue is whether Pinewood Estates Assisted Living Facility’s (“Pinewood” or “Petitioner”) application for renewal of its assisted living facility (“ALF”) license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with licensing of ALFs in Florida pursuant to the authority in chapters 408, part II, and 429, part I, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 58A-5. These relevant chapters charge the Agency with evaluating ALFs to determine their degree of compliance with established rules regulating the licensure of and operation of such facilities. At all times relevant, Pinewood was a licensed ALF located in Melbourne, Florida, operating a six-bed ALF under license number 12678. Pinewood’s license also includes limited nursing services, limited mental health (“LMH”), and extended congregate care licenses. The Agency conducts inspections, commonly called surveys, of licensed providers and applicants for licensure to determine the provider or applicant’s compliance with the state’s regulatory scheme governing such facilities. AHCA’s surveys include taking a tour of the facility, reviewing resident records, reviewing the staff files, directly observing the residents, observing the staff’s interaction with the residents, interviewing the facility’s staff, interviewing the residents and their families, observing the dining experience, observing medication pass, observing the activities of the residents during the day, observing the physical plant, conducting an exit interview when possible, and documenting the survey findings. There are different types of surveys. There are initial licensure surveys, relicensure biennial surveys, complaint surveys, monitoring surveys, and revisits, which follow all of the other types. Pursuant to section 408.813(2), the Agency must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established by law for facility operations are not met. Deficiencies must be categorized as either Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV, or unclassified deficiencies. In general, the class correlates to the nature and severity of the deficiency. A Class I poses an imminent threat to the residents; a Class II constitutes direct harm; a Class III poses potential or indirect harm to the residents; a Class IV concerns minor violations; and unclassified violations are those that do not fit in the other categories. Normally, when the Agency cites a provider with a Class III violation, it allows 30 days for the provider to correct the deficient practice, unless an alternative time is given. The deficiency must be corrected within 30 days after the facility receives notice of the deficiency. This correction is verified by a revisit survey conducted after the 30 days have elapsed. Correction of a deficiency means not finding the deficient practice during a revisit survey. The Agency conducted a biennial relicensure survey on April 27, 2017, at Pinewood. The Agency cited Pinewood with ten Class III deficiencies related to the following tags or deficiencies: Tag A008, admissions - health assessment; Tag A052, assistance with self-administration; Tag A054, medication records; Tag A078, staffing standards; Tag A084, training – assist with self-administration; Tag A085, training – nutrition and food service; Tag A090, training - Do Not Resuscitate Orders (“DNRO”); Tag A160, records – facility; Tag A167, resident contracts; and Tag AL243, LMH training. Lorraine Henry is the supervisor of the ALF unit for the Orlando office and was in charge of all the surveys conducted at Pinewood. She reviewed and approved all of the deficiencies or tags cited in the surveys and approved the classifications given to each deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A008, for Pinewood’s failure meet the standards related to admissions and health assessments, pursuant to section 429.26(4)-(6) and rule 58A-5.0181(2). Pinewood was required to ensure that the AHCA Health Assessment Form 1823 (“Health Assessment”) was completed entirely by the health care provider for all residents. Pinewood was missing a completed Health Assessment for Resident 4. On page 2, question 4, under “Status,” which asks if the resident “poses a danger to self or others,” was left blank and not answered. On page 4, question B, “Does individual need help with taking his or her medications?” was left blank and not answered. In addition, the type of assistance with medications required was not marked in the appropriate box. This deficiency poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because the facility cannot register changes in a resident’s health unless it has a completed Health Assessment. Because of this indirect threat, it was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A052, a violation because Pinewood failed to meet the standards of assistance with self-administration, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(3). Assistance with self-administration of medication requires trained staff to open the medication container; read the label aloud to the resident; provide the resident with the medication; observe the resident self-administer the medication; and then document that the medication was provided in the resident’s Medical Observation Record (“MOR”). During this survey, Agency personnel observed Pinewood’s employee, Carmeleta Smith, fail to read the label aloud in front of the resident or to inform the resident which medication the resident was taking during the medication pass procedure. This deficiency poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because it increases the likelihood of medication errors, and it was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A054 due to Pinewood’s failure to meet the standards of medication records pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(5). Pinewood is required to ensure that the MOR contains all of the required information and that the MOR is updated each time the medication is given. The MOR for Resident 5 failed to include the route of the medication for the 21 medications listed for that resident. The entry for Ocutive did not contain the strength or the route of the medication. Moreover, Agency personnel observed Ms. Smith’s failure to immediately sign the MOR after a medication was given to Resident 4. Also, the MOR for Resident 4 did not reflect that the morning medications had been signed as having been given in the morning for 15 of the resident’s medications. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because it increases the likelihood of medication errors and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A085 for its failure to meet the standards of training for nutrition and food service, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0191(6). Pinewood is required to ensure that the person responsible for the facility’s food service received the annual two hours of continuing education. Peter Fellows, as the person responsible for food service, did not have the required two hours of continuing education in 2017. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because it could cause food borne illnesses to spread to the residents, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A090 for Pinewood’s failure to meet the 12 standards of training as to DNRO, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0191(11). Pinewood is required to ensure that the staff must receive at least one hour of training in the facility’s policies and procedures regarding DNRO within 30 days of employment. Pinewood’s employee, Sharon McFall, had not received in-service training on the facility’s policies and procedures regarding DNRO within 30 days of hire. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential risk to residents because in case of an emergency situation where a resident stops breathing, the staff has to understand the facility’s DNRO procedures and the steps that need to be taken; and, therefore, was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A160 for Pinewood’s failure to meet the standards of facility records, including admission and discharge records pursuant to rule 58A-5.024(1), which requires Pinewood to maintain accurate admission and discharge logs. Pinewood’s admission and discharge log did not include the name and date of admission for Resident 2. AHCA personnel observed Sherine Wright, the legal assistant for the administrator, and purportedly a contract employee of Pinewood, adding Resident 2’s information to the admission and discharge log after they were already residing in the facility. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because the facility would be unaware as to the residents who are actually residing in the facility, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A167 for its failure to meet the standards of resident contracts, pursuant to rule 58A-5.024, which requires Pinewood to maintain completed resident contracts in the residents’ files. Resident 4’s resident contract failed to include the following required provisions: the facility’s refund policy that must conform to section 429.24(3), a 45-day notice of discharge, a 30-day advance notice of rate of increase, and that residents must have a health assessment upon admission and then every three years thereafter or after a significant change in the resident’s health. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because it exposes the residents to potential financial abuse because the residents would not know their rights when they are discharged or when the rates are being increased. The deficient practice was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. Finally, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag AL243 for Pinewood’s failure to meet the standards regarding the LMH training pursuant to section 429.075(1) and rule 58A-5.0191(8). Having elected to maintain a LMH license, Pinewood is required to ensure that the administrator, managers, and staff complete a minimum of six hours of specialized training in working with individuals with mental health diagnosis within six months of employment. Carmeleta Smith did not have the required minimum of six hours of specialized training even though she had been employed at the facility for 16 months. This requirement remains in place whether a LMH resident is present at the facility or not, so long as the facility elects to hold a LMH license. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because without the training, the staff will not be properly trained to care for LMH residents, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. Throughout the duration of the relicensure survey, the Agency surveyors were routinely denied full access to facility records, resident files, and areas of the facility by the self- declared representative of Pinewood’s administrator and contract employee, Sherine Wright. Ms. Wright interfered with the Agency’s survey process by restricting access to documents and alerting residents that family interviews would be taking place. Ms. Robin Williams, an Agency surveyor, told Ms. Wright that she was interfering with the survey process, but Ms. Wright continued to control the survey process and continued to give Ms. Williams pieces of paper she said were pulled from files, rather than providing the surveyor with access to the complete files. Ms. Williams also observed Ms. Wright assisting a resident who was returning to the facility with a family member and observed her talking to the family member and helping the resident settle back into her bedroom. Ms. Smith was at the facility at that time, yet she did not assist the resident. It was Ms. Wright who assisted the resident and the family member to settle the resident back into her bedroom. Based upon their observations, she considered Ms. Wright to be staff working at Pinewood. Subsequent to the biennial relicensure survey, the Agency conducted an unannounced monitoring visit in conjunction with a complaint survey (#2017003680) on May 8 through 15, 2017. As a result of this survey, the Agency cited Pinewood with one Class III violation, Tag A190, as to Administrative Enforcement; and with one unclassified violation, Tag CZ814, as to background screening. Lorraine Henry, as the ALF supervisor for the Orlando field office, reviewed and approved the tags or deficiencies cited in this survey and their classifications. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag CZ814 for failure to meet the standards of background screening pursuant to section 435.12(2)(b)-(d), Florida Statutes, requiring that the facility ensure that all its employees had completed a Level II background screening. During the complaint investigation, Ms. Wright denied that she was a staff person of Pinewood to a senior Agency surveyor, Victor Kruppenbacher. However, because of his observations, Mr. Kruppenbacher considered Ms. Wright to be a staff member working at the facility. Ms. Wright was the person who greeted him, and was the person who called the Administrator, Mr. Fellows, on the phone when questions arose concerning access to files or to Pinewood residents. Mr. Kruppenbacher further observed Ms. Wright interacting with the residents and providing guidance and direction to the residents. Mr. Kruppenbacher observed a resident asking Ms. Wright a question, after which she put her arms around the resident and guided the resident into the resident’s bedroom. Ms. Wright was very familiar with the resident population, called residents by their names, and answered the residents’ questions. Ms. Wright clearly appeared to control the operations at the facility; and had access to the residents, their belongings, and their areas of the facility. Therefore, she was required to have a Level 2 background screening according to Florida law, which she did not have. This deficient practice was properly classified as an unclassified violation, since it did not fall within the four classes of violations, yet exhibited a failure to follow the law regarding ALF staff members. The Agency also cited Pinewood with Tag A190, for failure to meet the standards of Administrative Enforcement pursuant to section 429.075(6) and rule 58A-5.033(1) and (2). The facility may not restrict the Agency’s surveyors from accessing and copying the facility’s records including the employee files, the facility’s records, and the residents’ files. The facility may not restrict the Agency’s surveyors from conducting interviews with the facility staff or with the residents. Once again, Ms. Wright interfered with the survey process. She would not let the other staff member on site, Ms. Smith, answer any of his questions, which left Ms. Wright, the non-licensed person on-site, as the only one who answered any of the surveyor’s questions. She would not let the surveyor speak to the residents and would not provide him with the records he requested, including the residents’ records and the staffing schedule. She refused to allow the surveyor into all of the rooms within the licensed facility and would not identify a person working in the facility, about whom he inquired. She refused to let the surveyor speak with Mr. Fellows after she called him on the phone. At the beginning of the survey, Ms. Wright denied Mr. Kruppenbacher access to an unlicensed property contiguous to the facility and tried to deny him access to the licensed facility. Ms. Wright refused to allow a worker, who was working in the office in the facility, to provide her name to the surveyor. Ms. Wright refused to identify herself to the surveyor and would only state that she was Mr. Fellows’ business partner. Ms. Smith, the staff member present, identified her as Sherine Wright. At 2:00 p.m., Ms. Wright contacted the facility’s administrator, Mr. Fellows, by telephone, but would not allow the surveyor to speak with Mr. Fellows. This deficiency poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because the Agency is unable to get a clear picture of how the facility is being operated and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. On August 1, 10, and 11, 2017, the Agency conducted multiple revisits (revisit survey dated August 11, 2017, CGOJ12) to the relicensure survey of April 27, 2017. As a result, the Agency cited Pinewood with nine uncorrected Class III violations for the following tags: Tag A008, admissions and health assessment; Tag A054, medication records; Tag A078, staffing standards; Tag A084, training with assist with self- administration of meds; Tag A085, training as to nutrition and food service; Tag A090, training on DNRO; Tag A160, records as to the facility; Tag A167, resident contracts; Tag AL243, LMH training. These deficient practice tags all remained uncorrected from the original survey of April 27, 2017. Pinewood was only able to demonstrate that it had corrected the practice cited in Tag A052, which was cleared by the Agency as corrected. The deficiencies and the classifications were reviewed and approved by the Agency’s regional ALF supervisor, Lorraine Henry. During the revisit, Mr. Kruppenbacher was accompanied by two other surveyors, Vera Standifer and Krystal Hinson. During this relicensure survey, Pinewood’s alleged contracted employee, Ms. Wright, was not cooperative and would not provide the surveyors with the documentation they requested, for the third consecutive survey event. Ms. Wright would not provide AHCA personnel with the staff files, claiming they were privileged legal office documents from the law office of Peter Fellows. During the revisit survey, the Agency once again cited Pinewood with Tag A008 for failure to meet the standards of the admissions and health assessments. The Agency surveyors requested the file of each current resident, including the Health Assessments. The records given by Pinewood’s staff showed that Resident 1 was admitted on September 1, 2016; Resident 2 was admitted on March 23, 2017; Resident 3 was admitted on December 6, 2016; Resident 4 was admitted on March 1, 2016; and Resident 5 was admitted on January 15, 2016. Resident 1’s Health Assessment was not provided by the facility. Residents 2, 3, and 4’s Health Assessments did not include a signed and completed Section 3 related to “Services offered or arranged by the facility for the resident.” Further, Resident 5’s Health Assessment, completed on January 15, 2016, noted that the resident had a PEG tube. (A PEG tube is a percutaneous endoscopic medical procedure in which a tube is passed into the patient’s stomach through the abdominal wall most commonly to provide a means of feeding when oral intake is not adequate.) On August 10, 2017, Resident 5 no longer had a PEG tube, but the resident’s file did not contain an updated Health Assessment documenting the removal of the PEG tube. Ms. Hinson interviewed Resident 5, who stated that the PEG tube had been removed months earlier. The resident should have had an updated Health Assessment reflecting the removal of the PEG tube because this is considered a change of circumstances requiring an updated Health Assessment. There was no updated Health Assessment to show what the current risk factors would be for this resident. Moreover, the medical certification on Resident 5’s Health Assessment was incomplete because the name of the examiner was not printed; the signature of the medical examiner was illegible; there was no medical license number and no address or phone number for the examiner; and no date for the examination. Section 3 of the Health Assessment was not completed by the facility or signed by the facility. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential risk to residents and was properly classified as an uncorrected Class III deficiency. The Agency again cited Pinewood with Tag A054 for failure to meet the standards of medication records. The Agency’s surveyors requested resident records, including the MORs from Pinewood’s employee, Ms. Smith. Pinewood’s other employee, Ms. Wright, would not give full access to the MORs and would only hand the surveyors some of the records from the MOR book that she determined the Agency could see instead of the entire MOR book, which is what the surveyors requested. The surveyors were only able to review the MORs from August 1 through August 10, 2017, instead of two months of MORs that were requested and customarily reviewed. The Agency was able to determine that Resident 3’s MORs were left blank for the dosage of two medications for various days: the dosage of Donepezil on August 9, 2017, at 9:00 p.m., and the dosage of Clonazepam for August 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Additionally, the MORs were not provided for Resident 4. The MORs for Resident 5 were left blank for the dosage of Loratadine from August 1 through 10, 2017, and for Oxycodone for August 9, 2017. This deficiency constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents and Tag A054 was properly classified as an uncorrected Class III deficiency. During the same revisit surveys on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017, the Agency again cited Pinewood with Tag A167 as to records and resident contracts, and requested all of the resident files. Resident 1’s file was not provided to the surveyors; therefore, the surveyors were not able to review the resident’s contract. Resident 3’s resident contract was signed by someone other than Resident 3, but the file did not contain a power of attorney for Resident 3. Resident 4’s resident contract was never provided to the surveyors so they were not able to review it. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents and was properly classified as an uncorrected Class III deficiency. The Agency conducted a complaint survey on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017 (survey dated August 11, 2017, USQF11), and cited Pinewood with two Class III violations for Tag A055 related to medication storage and disposal, and for Tag A057 for medication over-the-counter (“OTC”). Lorraine Henry, the ALF supervisor, again reviewed the proposed deficiencies and the classifications and approved them. Pinewood violated Tag A055 as to storage and disposal of medication pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(6), which required the facility to ensure that the medications be centrally stored and kept in a locked cabinet or a locked cart at all times. On August 17, 2017, Mr. Kruppenbacher observed that the medication cart was left unlocked and accessible to residents. Pinewood’s failure to keep medications in a locked cabinet or cart posed an indirect or potential risk to residents because a resident could have easily taken and ingested a medication from the unlocked cart. This deficient practice was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency also cited Pinewood with Tag A057 related to medication OTC, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(8), which required Pinewood to ensure that OTC products be labeled with the resident’s name and the manufacturer’s label. Mr. Kruppenbacher performed an inventory of the centrally-stored medication cart and found five unlabeled OTC medications stored in the medication cart which did not contain the name of a resident. This deficient practice posed an indirect for potential threat to residents, because any resident could have ingested one of the medications from the unlocked cart, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. AHCA conducted an unannounced complaint survey on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017 (survey dated August 11, 2017, EN1W11), which resulted in Pinewood being cited for the following: Tag A077, related to staffing standards as to administrators as a Class II; Tag A161, related to staff records as a Class III; Tag A162, related to resident records as a Class III; and Tag CZ816, as to background screening and the compliance attestation as an unclassified violation. Ms. Henry personally wrote Tag A077 and approved the other three tags and their classifications. During the unannounced complaint survey on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A077 for failure to meet the requirements of staffing standards as to administrators pursuant to section 429.176 and rule 58A-5.019(1), which requires that the facility be under the supervision of an administrator, who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility, including the management of all staff and all persons who have access to the residents and their living areas and belongings; and who must ensure that the staff are qualified to work in the facility and have documentation of an eligible Level 2 background screening, annual documentation of being free from symptoms of communicable disease, and documentation of all of the required training. Pinewood must also maintain and provide complete resident records for all of the residents. On August 10, 2017, the surveyors’ observations led them to conclude that Ms. Wright was in control of the day-to-day operation of the facility. Ms. Wright provided all of the answers when questions were asked concerning the operation of the facility. Ms. Wright would not allow staff to answer questions without her input. She controlled what information the surveyors were allowed to review and what documents were provided to the surveyors. Ms. Wright would not allow the staff at the facility to access records, employee files, or resident records. The staff schedule provided to the surveyors by Ms. Wright revealed that “Sharon” (a/k/a Sherine) Wright was listed as the administrator. As such, Ms. Wright was required to have a Level 2 background screening. Pinewood provided no evidence that Ms. Wright had proper training, background screening results, or CORE certification to be the administrator of an ALF. Mr. Fellows, the listed Administrator according to facility filings with the Agency, was not present at the facility on August 1, 10, or 11, 2017, while the Agency survey was being conducted. On August 10, 2017, the surveyors requested the employee files and resident records from Pinewood’s staff member Ms. Smith. The facility failed to provide the employee files. After the request to Ms. Smith, Ms. Wright stated that the surveyors would not be allowed to review the employee files because they are privileged legal office records. On August 10, 2017, the facility’s information on the background screening indicated that Pinewood staff member Sharon McFall was listed as an employee on the background clearinghouse database. The staff schedule, which covered the period from August 1 through 12, 2017, documented Ms. McFall as working at the facility. Ms. Smith admitted that Ms. McFall works at the facility. The Agency’s background screening website showed that Ms. McFall was hired on November 1, 2015, and that her background screening had expired on March 25, 2017, almost five months prior to this visit. On August 10, 2017, Ms. Wright stated that the surveyors would not be allowed to review the employee files because they are legal documents. Pinewood refused to allow the surveyors to review the employees’ files; failed to have an eligible Level 2 background screening for Ms. McFall, as well as for Ms. Wright, who was in charge of the day-to-day operations; failed to provide access to the resident file for one resident; and provided an incomplete file for another resident. Taken together, these events posed a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the residents. Without access to this information, the Agency is unable to determine exactly what is happening with the residents, and to determine if the facility is operating according to Florida’s applicable statutes and rules governing ALFs. Moreover, anyone who has direct access to the residents, to their personal belongings, and to their rooms, must have a Level 2 background screening. Tag A077 was properly classified as a Class II deficiency. During the same unannounced complaint survey of August 1, 10, and 11, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A161, related to staff records pursuant to section 429.275(2) and rule 58A-5.024(2). Pinewood was required to maintain personnel records for each staff member, which include, at a minimum, documentation of compliance with Level 2 background screening; documentation of compliance with all of the required training and continuing education requirements; and a copy of all licenses or certifications for all staff. As discussed at length above, Ms. Wright told the surveyors that they would not be allowed to review the employee files because they were legal documents from the legal office of Mr. Fellows. No employee files were provided to the surveyors on any of the August survey dates. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential threat to the residents because the surveyors were not able to verify whether the staff has the required training to carry out their duties and the required documentation, such as Level 2 background screenings. This tag was properly cited as a Class III deficiency. During the same unannounced complaint survey of August 1, 10, and 11, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A162, related to resident records, pursuant to rule 58A-5.024(3). Pinewood was required to maintain each resident’s records, which must contain, among other things, a Health Assessment; a copy of the resident’s contract; documentation of the appointment of a health care surrogate, health care proxy, guardian, or a power of attorney; and the resident’s DNRO. On August 10, 2017, the surveyors requested all of the resident files from Ms. Smith. Resident 1’s file was not provided. Resident 5’s file did not contain an updated Health Assessment reflecting when the PEG tube had been removed, as detailed in paragraph 23 above. Pinewood’s failure to maintain the resident files and current Health Assessments poses an indirect or potential threat to residents and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. During the same unannounced complaint survey of August 1, 10, and 11, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag CZ816 related to background screening and compliance with attestation to section 408.809(2)(a)–(c). Pinewood was required to ensure that its staff members received a Level 2 background screening every five years. As documented above, Pinewood did not have a current background screen on file for employee Sharon McFall. Pinewood also refused to provide a background screening result for contracted employee Ms. Wright. Pinewood’s failure to have current Level 2 background screenings for its staff was properly labeled an unclassified violation. The Agency conducted an unannounced monitoring visit related to the complaint investigation (#2017003680) regarding unlicensed activity at Pinewood on August 1, 10, 11, and 15, 2017 (survey dated August 15, 2017, TYOU12), and cited Pinewood with Tag A190 for administrative enforcement for one Class II deficiency, and Tag CZ814 for background screening clearinghouse for one unclassified violation. During this monitoring visit, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A190 for administrative enforcement pursuant to section 429.075(6) and rule 58A-5.033(1), (2), and (3)(b) as a Class II violation. Pinewood is required to cooperate with Agency personnel during surveys, complaint investigations, monitoring visits, license applications and renewal procedures, and other activities to ensure compliance with chapters 408, part II, and 429, part I; and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 58A-5 and 59A-35. During this survey, Mr. Kruppenbacher was interviewing Ms. Smith when Ms. Wright interrupted the interview and stated that she was the legal representative of Mr. Fellows’ law firm and his legal representative. When Mr. Kruppenbacher asked Ms. Wright if she worked at the facility, she would not answer. Mr. Kruppenbacher asked Ms. Wright the correct spelling of her name, at which time she walked out of the interview. At 11:40 a.m., Mr. Kruppenbacher was again interviewing Ms. Smith when Ms. Wright interrupted the interview. Mr. Kruppenbacher had asked Ms. Smith to provide him with MORs for review. Ms. Wright removed the MORs from the medication cart and stated that she would give the surveyors what they needed to see. While Ms. Wright was pulling MORs from the notebook, Mr. Kruppenbacher took a second notebook that was on the medication cart. Ms. Wright grabbed the notebook from him and would not let him see it, stating that this was something that the Agency did not need to see. On August 10, 2017, Mr. Kruppenbacher asked the staff for a second time to provide access to the employee files. Ms. Wright then stated that the surveyors would not be allowed to review the employee files because they are legal office records. No employee files were provided to the surveyors despite multiple requests, both written and oral. On August 10, 2017, Mr. Kruppenbacher requested to see the background screening for staffer F, Thomas Weaver, from Ms. Wright. Mr. Weaver was listed on the staff schedule provided to the surveyors that same day, and he was observed driving Pinewood’s residents to an activity. Ms. Wright said that he was only the maintenance man and did not need a background screening. Later, AHCA surveyors requested that Ms. Wright provide the file for Resident 1, but the file was never provided. At 3:00 p.m., a surveyor was attempting to interview Resident 3, and Ms. Wright stopped the surveyor from speaking to the resident. On August 10, 2017, at 3:15 p.m., during an attempted exit interview, Mr. Kruppenbacher asked Ms. Wright if her name was pronounced “Sharon” Wright or “Sherine” Wright. Ms. Wright refused to tell him whether her first name was Sherine or Sharon and demanded that he leave the facility immediately. The identity of Sherine Wright, who also calls herself Sharon, has been a constant problem during all of the surveys. The undersigned expressed an interest during the hearing in having Ms. Wright testify, since she seemed to be a central figure throughout the survey process. Neither Ms. Wright nor any employee of Pinewood (except the Administrator, Mr. Fellows) testified at the hearing concerning the issues raised and deficiencies found by AHCA surveyors. The Agency had subpoenaed Ms. Wright to testify at hearing, yet she neither appeared nor gave an excuse for not appearing. The surveyors testified to Ms. Wright giving her name as both Sherine and Sharon at different times. Regardless of how she identified herself, the credible evidence supports that there was only one Ms. Wright present at the various surveys conducted by AHCA. Ms. Wright lives on the property where Pinewood is located, in the “back” house, which is about 30 feet behind the ALF. Ms. Wright is the owner of record of the property at 4405 Pinewood Road, Melbourne, Florida 32034, where Pinewood is located. After the surveys at issue were conducted, the Agency discovered that Sherine Wright has been convicted of a second degree felony for exploitation of an elderly person in the amount of $20,000 to under $100,000, pursuant to section 825.103, Florida Statutes, in Broward County, Florida, Case No. 01-4230CF10B. The conviction includes the special condition that Ms. Wright should not be employed or have any financial involvement with the elderly (status over 60). This second degree felony conviction is a disqualifying offense under section 435.04, which means that Ms. Wright could never receive an eligible Level 2 background screening allowing her to work at Pinewood or any licensed facility serving the elderly. From the eye witness testimony of several of the AHCA surveyors on different occasions, Ms. Wright had access to residents’ rooms, their living areas, and, presumably, their personal belongings. One surveyor, Kristal Hinson, observed Ms. Wright entering residents’ rooms on August 10, 2017. Another, Vera Standifer, observed the same behavior by Ms. Wright. At the April 27, 2017, visit, surveyor Robin Williams saw Ms. Wright take a resident to her room and help her settle in. Mr. Kruppenbacher observed Ms. Wright with her arm around a resident, walking him to his room. Ms. Wright clearly had access to files, to resident records, and to staff records. She was observed having access to residents’ medications and the medications chart. Despite these observations by AHCA surveyors, Mr. Fellows testified that Ms. Wright was merely a contract employee of Pinewood who had no access to residents, their belongings, or their private living spaces. The overwhelming evidence in this matter support AHCA’s surveyors on Ms. Wright’s involvement with resident care. Other than Mr. Fellows’ testimony on this issue, no evidence was presented by Pinewood to support a contrary view. Not only did Ms. Wright have access to all aspects of the residents’ lives and the facility’s files, but she was forcefully obstructionist whenever any surveyor made reasonable requests for files and records that are required by state law and rules to be kept by the facility. She was neither a licensed professional in any aspect of resident care nor was she an attorney, yet she repeatedly refused to cooperate with even the most basic requests from the surveyors, often claiming some unspecified legal privilege concerning the documents. She only added to the surveyors’ personal observations leading to findings that significant violations occurred. After all, how can a surveyor confirm the existence of required records when the only identified, non-licensed person present at the surveys refused them access, often, as she said to the surveyors, because the requested documents were somehow “legally protected” with her being some sort of representative of Mr. Fellows’ law firm? They were “legally protected,” but only from unlicensed Pinewood personnel who had no business seeing them, not from AHCA surveyors with every right to examine all facility records, especially on a relicensure survey. The surveyors had every justification for believing Ms. Wright was involved in the day-to-day operations of the facility. Moreover, when the surveyors were on site, she was the one who contacted the absent Mr. Fellows by telephone to inform him as to what was transpiring. Yet Mr. Fellows never asked to speak with the surveyors when called during their visits, nor did he direct Ms. Wright to cooperate with their reasonable requests. Each of the surveyors frankly testified that they believed Ms. Wright worked for Mr. Fellows or was his business partner. They were each justified in citing the facility for its complete failure to cooperate throughout the survey process. From at least April 27 to August 11, 2017, Pinewood had an individual working at the facility and running its day-to-day operations with a second degree felony conviction for exploitation of the elderly, a disqualifying offense. Having such a person working at Pinewood poses a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the residents because this is a person who, as a matter of law, is forbidden to work with the residents of an ALF because her criminal history places the residents’ health and welfare at serious and direct risk of harm. This deficient practice is a serious offense that was properly classified as a Class II violation. During the exit interview, the surveyors informed the facility that it had failed to provide the employee files, the MORs notebook, the August 2017 MOR for Resident 4, the resident file for Resident 1, and the dates of birth for apparent staffers Ms. Wright and Mr. Weaver, as well as background screenings for Ms. Wright. Pinewood failed to cooperate with the survey process, to allow the surveyors to conduct a private interview with Resident 3, to provide requested employee records, to provide Resident 1’s file, and to provide the complete MORs. These facts, along with the failure to have Ms. Wright identify herself, and to provide the dates of birth for Mr. Weaver and herself pose a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the clients because the Agency cannot determine whether Pinewood is following the applicable state rules and statutes; and, therefore, the Agency cannot ensure the safety of the residents. Tag A190 was correctly classified as a Class II deficiency. To add to the lack of control by Mr. Fellows as the nominal administrator of Pinewood, interviews with non-facility nursing personnel further supported the lack of institutional control demanded of facilities that care for the elderly. One local nurse interviewed by Mr. Kruppenbacher said she was uncomfortable working at the facility because the facility required her to provide nursing care in the bathroom, and required a staff person to be present in the bathroom when the care was being provided. This negated any privacy rights of the resident under that nurse’s care. Pinewood failed to provide a safe environment, and to keep certain residents free from verbal abuse and neglect. Its failure to allow residents to be treated with respect and consideration for personal dignity and privacy, along with the failure to provide a 45-day notice before discharging Resident 6 over an insurance issue, posed a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of that resident. This supports that Tag A030 was properly classified as a Class II deficiency. During the licensure period, Pinewood committed 30 deficiencies, including nine uncorrected Class III deficiencies, three Class II violations, and three unclassified violations involving background screening. All of these demonstrate that Pinewood did not meet the minimum licensure standards to maintain licensure, and was never in compliance with the requirements set out in the authorizing statutes and applicable rules during the surveys conducted at the ALF. During this period, Pinewood did not pass a single biennial survey, a revisit survey, a complaint survey, or monitoring surveys, thus never demonstrating regulatory compliance. Pinewood’s willingness to operate in regulatory noncompliance in addition to allowing a person with a disqualifying offense, and who should have been prohibited from working at an ALF, to operate the facility, and to allow non- background screened employees to provide care and services to residents poses a direct and indirect threat to the health and safety of Pinewood’s residents. Therefore, upholding the Agency’s denial of licensure renewal is the only way to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of Petitioner’s residents. At the hearing, Mr. Fellows submitted exhibits, which he testified he sent to the Agency by facsimile or by mail sometime after April 27, 2017, in an attempt to correct the deficiencies cited in the April 27, 2017, survey. However, Mr. Fellows does not know or remember the dates when the documents were mailed or faxed or who sent them. The Agency objected to Petitioner’s exhibits on the grounds of authenticity. Without any testimony from agents or employees of Pinewood, it is impossible to determine whether these documents were prepared in the normal course of resident care; whether they were completed well after the actual care, if any, had been provided; or are even responsive to the deficiencies alleged in the NOI issued by AHCA. Therefore, they are entitled to little, if any weight, for purposes of this Recommended Order. Mr. Fellows testified that the Agency is required to do a desk review of documents he allegedly faxed to AHCA’s regional office. He claims the documents offered clear up any and all issues raised by the Agency in its NOI. However, without authentication as to the timeliness and thoroughness of the documentation as responsive to the violations found by AHCA, these documents are hearsay, unsupported by evidence as to their authenticity by anyone in a position to know when, how, and upon what basis they were created. The undersigned cannot rely upon the faxed documentation, even if it did address some of the principal issues raised by the Agency, as evidence of compliance. The most honest statement made by Mr. Fellows was that he probably got in “over his head” concerning his venture of trying to run an ALF. He was rarely present at the facility during the many months the surveys were taking place. During this time, he was practicing law in Miami, far from the day-to- day operations of Pinewood. Administrators are not supposed to run facilities as absentees, having no other licensed administrative staff present. Moreover, he never had a licensed assistant administrator or other professional present to speak to the surveyors on his behalf. The Agency was justified in making all of its findings in the series of seven surveys in 2017.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order upholding the Agency’s decision to deny Pinewood’s application for relicensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Lourdes A. Naranjo, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Andrew Beau-James Thornquest, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Peter Fellows Pinewood Estates Assisted Living Facility 4055 Pinewood Road Melbourne, Florida 32934 (eServed) Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Justin Senior, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), (g) and (j), Florida Statutes (2010),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Ferrier holds Florida Educator’s Certificate 864022, covering the areas of educational leadership, elementary education, and middle grades integrated curriculum, which is valid through June 30, 2012. At all times pertinent to this case, Mr. Ferrier was employed as a teacher at either Pinellas Park Middle School (Pinellas Park) or Seminole Middle School (Seminole) in the Pinellas County School District (School District). Petitioner, Dr. Eric Smith, at all times pertinent to this case, is acting as the Florida Commissioner of Education, pursuant to his authority in section 1012.796(6). Mr. Ferrier began teaching at Pinellas Park in the 2006- 2007 school year. The record shows by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Ferrier’s performance during the three school years, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, was characterized by a lack of organization, failure to effectively communicate with parents and students, failure to provide students with grades and collect school work, and discord. Ms. Gorman, an assistant principal for Pinellas Park, was Mr. Ferrier’s immediate supervisor. She evaluated Mr. Ferrier’s performance for the three years that he taught at Pinellas Park. Ms. Gorman’s first evaluation of Mr. Ferrier for the 2006-2007 school year shows that he earned a score of "1" which indicates Mr. Ferrier was satisfactory. A rating less than level "1" is deemed unsatisfactory. Further, the 2006-2007 evaluation shows that Ms. Gorman expected Mr. Ferrier to make progress in 11 out of 23 areas she assessed in the evaluation. The evaluation form contained 25 areas for assessment. Mr. Ferrier’s evaluation shows that Ms. Gorman left two assessment areas blank. For the 2007-2008 school year, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier at a level "2" with progress expected in 10 of the 25 areas assessed. Mr. Ferrier’s 2007-2008 evaluation showed that he was satisfactory. For the 2008-2009 school year, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting the minimum expectations for teaching. Out of the 25 measured categories, Ms. Gorman rated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting expectation in 17 categories. Mr. Ferrier failed to meet expectations for subject knowledge; instructional method; respect for students, parents, and colleagues; engaging students; and use of technology in the classroom. Mr. Ferrier’s tenure at Pinellas Park was also characterized by repeated failures to answer calls made by parents, disorganization, poor attendance at meetings, arriving to school and classes late, and not acting as a professional in dealing with colleagues. Ms. Witcher, the Pinellas Park principal, provided credible testimony showing Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization and propensity for arriving late to school. For example, in the 2008-2009 school year, on the first day of school for returning teachers, Mr. Ferrier arrived at noon as opposed to 8:30 a.m. When asked by Ms. Witcher why he was late, Mr. Ferrier explained that he did not know that school began on that date. Mr. Ferrier’s tardiness was indicative of his behavior. Ms. Witcher clearly testified that on a "few occasions during the first and second year . . . he was so tardy, I had to go down and open the classroom door, let the kids in and wait for him." The record clearly also shows that Mr. Ferrier failed to be responsive to parent concerns about their children. Ms. Northcutt, the guidance counselor for Pinellas Park, provided credible testimony showing that Mr. Ferrier failed to return parent phone calls, failed to attend parent-teacher meetings, and, if Mr. Ferrier did attend the meeting, he was disorganized and unprepared. The frequency of parents calling Ms. Northcutt to ask Mr. Ferrier to contact them became so great that she "felt almost like a personal secretary to Mr. Ferrier," asking him to return phone calls. In addition to being unresponsive to phone calls, the record clearly shows, through Ms. Northcutt’s testimony and e-mails admitted into evidence, that Mr. Ferrier either failed to show up for parent-teacher conferences, or was late and unprepared if he did attend the conference. Parents would contact Ms. Northcutt in her capacity as the guidance counselor because the parents had concerns about Mr. Ferrier’s teaching and grading. Mr. Ferrier would routinely fail to timely enter grades of assignments into the computer system so that parents could check their child’s progress. The record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier lacked insight into his professional shortcomings. The record clearly showed that Mr. Ferrier was offered assistance to help him become an organized and effective teacher, but failed to avail himself of the assistance. Further, Mr. Ferrier objected to Ms. Witcher’s direction that he not coach the volleyball team and concentrate on teaching. In response to this directive, Mr. Ferrier encouraged parents of the volleyball players to contact Ms. Witcher to change her decision. The record also shows that, during Mr. Ferrier’s tenure at Pinellas Park, he did not act as a professional in dealing with colleagues. This finding is based on the events concerning Mr. Ferrier’s placement on administrative leave while the School District investigated him for bullying a co-worker, and his subsequent action after returning from administrative leave. Ms. Northcutt credibly testified that, based on Mr. Ferrier’s repeated failures to either attend parent-teacher conferences or be on time for them, she began to document these actions and inform Ms. Witcher. At one parent-teacher conference, Ms. Northcutt noted that Mr. Ferrier arrived late, although the parents had not yet arrived. Mr. Ferrier told Ms. Northcutt to note that he had arrived on time, which she replied that he was still late. Two other teachers, who were to attend the conference, also arrived late. One of the teachers had permission due to a conflict, and the other teacher arrived after attending another conference. Mr. Ferrier demanded that Ms. Northcutt report the two teachers as late. Ms. Northcutt credibly testified that she felt threatened and intimidated by Mr. Ferrier’s confrontational behavior. She reported the incident to Ms. Witcher, who referred the incident to the School District, and an investigation was begun. The School District placed Mr. Ferrier on administrative leave, and Ms. Witcher informed Mr. Ferrier that he was to leave the campus quietly. As Mr. Ferrier was leaving the campus, he told everyone that he encountered that he was accused of bullying and that he would return. Ms. Witcher felt that Mr. Ferrier’s actions were divisive and sought to undermine her new administration at the school. When Mr. Ferrier returned to the school from the administrative leave, Mr. Lott, the School District’s administrator for the Office of Professional Standards, informed Mr. Ferrier to be very careful in his interactions with Ms. Northcutt. Within two days of his return, Mr. Ferrier sent all of the Pinellas Park personnel an e-mail stating that he had been wrongly accused of bullying and that he had been exonerated. Mr. Lott found this action to be inappropriate and a continuation of Mr. Ferrier’s efforts to bully Ms. Northcutt. Consequently, based on this action, Mr. Ferrier received a written reprimand and was involuntarily transferred from Pinellas Park to Seminole. The purpose of transferring Mr. Ferrier to Seminole was to provide him with a fresh start. Unfortunately, the record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier’s short tenure at Seminole was again characterized by ineffective teaching, lack of knowledge of materials he was expected to teach, lack of communication with parents, tardiness, and failure to follow directions to become an effective teacher. Mr. Lechner, the principal at Seminole, assigned Mr. Ferrier to teach regular science classes and three advanced honor science classes. The parents at Seminole are actively involved in their children’s education. Thus, many of Mr. Ferrier’s short-comings were quickly brought to the attention of Mr. Lechner. The record shows that Mr. Lechner was pro-active in assessing Mr. Ferrier’s teaching, offering Mr. Ferrier assistance to become an effective teacher, and ultimately removing Mr. Ferrier from the classroom. The record clearly shows that Mr. Ferrier failed to carry out his duties as a teacher. Specifically, the evidence clearly showed the following instances: Mr. Ferrier was disorganized in the classroom. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization in the classroom was apparent from the very beginning of his tenure at Seminole. During an open house for parents, Mr. Ferrier, in addressing parents of honor students, did not have a syllabus for the class, pointed out text books that he stated the class probably would not use, and discussed at length discipline issues with the parents. The record shows, however, that honor students typically did not cause discipline problems. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization quickly led students to becoming frustrated in the classroom and parents complaining to Mr. Lechner. Further, this disorganization was reflected in Mr. Ferrier’s losing assignments, failing to properly log grades into the school computer system so that parents could access the grades, and losing test results. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization in the classroom was further documented by Mr. Lechner, who placed Mr. Ferrier on a Professional Service Contract Probation for 90 days during the school year, beginning on September 28, 2009. Mr. Lechner conducted personal observations of Mr. Ferrier’s instruction and found it disorganized, confusing, and resulting in students becoming frustrated. Mr. Lechner gave Mr. Ferrier specific instructions on how to improve his teaching, but Mr. Ferrier failed to follow the instructions. Mr. Ferrier continued to be tardy to class and miss important faculty meetings. The record shows through Mr. Lechner’s testimony that Mr. Ferrier missed the teachers’ mandatory first professional learning community meeting. Although Mr. Lechner could not remember the reason that Mr. Ferrier gave for missing the meeting, Mr. Lechner testified that Mr. Ferrier "always had an excuse." Based on Mr. Lechner’s answer, it was clear that Mr. Ferrier made excuses for his failures, as opposed to acknowledging his mistakes. The record further showed that Mr. Ferrier’s tardiness often would extend into the day. The testimony showed that Mr. Ferrier would leave campus and return from lunch 15 minutes late, thus, delaying instruction. As a result of Mr. Ferrier’s habitual tardiness, Mr. Lechner required Mr. Ferrier to use a sign-in and sign-out log. Mr. Ferrier used ineffective instructional methods and did not have a grasp of the material that he was to teach. The parents and students, who testified, were unanimous in their consensus that Mr. Ferrier failed to teach anything. Mr. Ferrier’s failure to teach resulted in one student having to "steal" one of the text books that Mr. Ferrier was not using and teach herself physical science. Further, the testimony was clear that, after Mr. Ferrier was relieved of his teaching duties, the students had to "cram" a year’s worth of science into half a school year. In essence, Mr. Ferrier cheated the students out of an education. The conclusion that Mr. Ferrier used ineffective instructional methods and did not have a grasp of the material that he was to teach is supported by the testimony of Ms. Lamy and Mr. Lechner. The record clearly showed that Mr. Ferrier used "bell work" for a significant period of the teaching time. "Bell work" was defined as work given to students for the first few minutes of class to engage them immediately. Ms. Lamy, who was the School District’s supervisor for secondary science, conducted an in-classroom observation of Mr. Ferrier’s teaching at Seminole. Ms. Lamy noted that Mr. Ferrier used "bell work" for almost the entire class time. As a result, Mr. Ferrier did not teach. Further, Ms. Lamy observed that Mr. Ferrier did not have control of his class and did not have an adequate lesson plan. Based on her observations, Ms. Lamy made recommendations for Mr. Ferrier on handling the classroom and preparing lesson plans. Unfortunately, the record shows that Mr. Ferrier did not take full advantage of the help being offered to him. Mr. Lechner’s testimony also provided examples from classroom observations that demonstrated Mr. Ferrier’s poor instructional methods and lack of understanding of the material he was supposed to teach. For example, Mr. Lechner described a laboratory experiment conducted by Mr. Ferrier. Mr. Ferrier attempted to conduct an experiment demonstrating how an object could change physical states by melting a candy bar. During the experiment, Mr. Ferrier did not use safety gloves when attempting to melt the chocolate bar. Because the chocolate bar did not melt quickly, Mr. Ferrier left the experiment and never came back to it or the concept behind the experiment. According to Mr. Lechner, Mr. Ferrier modeled poor safety for the students by not using safety gloves and leaving the flame on the candy bar while he moved to another subject, and Mr. Ferrier did not teach the concept behind the experiment. The record showed that Mr. Ferrier would use ineffective methods to teach, such as relying on videos. In one instance, Mr. Ferrier used videos of Michael Jackson and throwing a wadded-up piece of paper in order to demonstrate motion. Finally, in December 2009, during an observation, Mr. Lechner observed Mr. Ferrier teach the students a wrong formula concerning distance over time, which was not corrected until the error was pointed out by a student. Mr. Ferrier did not manage work assignments and tests and failed to properly record grades. The record shows that students would turn in work, but the work would not be graded or posted into the school’s computer system so that parents and students could access the information. Further, parents and students complained to Mr. Lechner about erroneous grades, missing grades or assignments, or no grades for tests that had been completed, as well as grades which were either excessively high or excessively low. Mr. Ferrier failed to respond to parental inquiries and was unprepared and untimely when attending parent-teacher meetings. One parent testified about attending a parent-teacher conference, with Mr. Lechner, where Mr. Ferrier failed to show up. Mr. Ferrier’s disorganization resulted in him failing to turn students’ answer sheets for mandatory progress monitoring tests into the district office. As Ms. Lamy explained, the state required school districts to turn in students’ answer sheets from the test to the Department by December 15, 2010. When the School District started receiving feedback from the tests, Ms. Lamy learned that Mr. Ferrier had not turned in the answer sheets. Subsequently, Mr. Ferrier turned in the answer sheets on or near January 6, 2011. Based on Mr. Ferrier’s actions, the School District was not in compliance with the state-ordered mandate. On January 19, 2011, after the 90-day probation period, Mr. Lechner evaluated Mr. Ferrier as not meeting the minimum expectations for teaching. Mr. Ferrier did not meet expectations in 23 of 25 categories, including the areas of subject knowledge, instructional methods, respect for students and parents, engaging students, use of technology, classroom discipline, and organization. Further, Mr. Lechner noted, based on his observations, that Mr. Ferrier continued to be disorganized, his directions were not clear, he was causing confusion, and he was returning papers to students without feedback. The record shows that well into the 90-day probation Mr. Ferrier finally sought assistance, at the insistence of Mr. Lechner, from the Professional Development and Improvement Network to help him become a better teacher. Unfortunately, the record shows that Mr. Ferrier’s teaching ability did not improve and that he continued with many of the same problems that he had at Pinellas Park. The record shows that Mr. Ferrier has no prior disciplinary history with the Florida Education Practices Commission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Ferrier violated sections 1012.795(1)(c), 1012.795(1)(g), and 1012.795(1)(j) and rules 6B-1.006(3)(a) and that Mr. Ferrier’s educator’s certificate be revoked for two years followed by a period of three years’ probation under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2012.
