Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a Tampa Bay pilot. On the morning of January 6, 1982, Respondent boarded the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 to pilot the ship into Tampa Bay. Although the Administrative Complaint alleges the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 was outbound from Tampa, the evidence was undisputed that the ship was inbound and the grounding occurred while the pilot was changing course to the right while attempting to go from Cut F channel into the Gadsden Cut channel some 80 degrees to the right of Cut F. The allegation that the ship was outbound is not material to the charge of negligence and will be disregarded. Exhibit 5, a copy of a section of the chart of Tampa Bay where the grounding occurred, does not clearly show the name of this channel, but the transcript (p. 27) indicates it is Gadsden Cut channel. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 proceeded northward at half speed up Tampa Bay without incident from the time Respondent boarded until Tampa Bay Lighted Bouy 6F was abeam to starboard at 0600, and Respondent ordered 20 degrees starboard rudder. At this time the wind was light (about 5 knots) and the current was near slack water and negligible. Leaving Cut F inbound, Cut G leads westward some 85 degrees to the west (or left) of the Cut F heading and Gadsden Cut channel leads some 80 degrees to the right of Cut F heading. The course change of about 80 degrees to the right from Cut F to the Gadsden Cut channel can be made in two steps or in a gradual turn, as a large area is included in these channels at this intersection (Exhibit 5). Shortly after ordering 20 degrees right rudder, Respondent realized the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 was not turning as fast as necessary to enter Gadsden Cut channel and he ordered the rudder increased to right full. Shortly thereafter, at 0603, Respondent ordered the engines ahead full expecting the thrust from the propellers to increase his rate of turn. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 continued to swing slowly to the right and moved well north of the intended course. At 0604 Respondent ordered the engines stopped and shortly thereafter, at 0604.5, he ordered the engines full astern. By this time the ship was aground in 22 feet of water. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 is a 10,596 gross tonnage, twin-screw, single- rudder vessel equipped with a bow thruster. On 6 January 1982 she was drawing 23 feet forward and aft. Respondent's testimony that the bow thruster is not very effective at speeds in excess of three knots was not rebutted nor was his testimony that he was aware the ship was equipped with a bow thruster. Respondent had piloted the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 several times (five or six) before January 6, 1982. On the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 the single rudder is located in the center line of the ship between the two propellers. This is the normal configuration for a twin-screw, single-rudder ship. On such a ship an increase in the thrust from the propellers will not provide the turning force on a rudder that is generated when the rudder is mounted directly behind the propeller, as is customary on a single-screw ship or a twin-screw, twin-rudder ship. However, the location of the propellers on a twin-screw ship are such that a turning moment on the ship is generated if only one propeller is used and a greater turning moment may be generated by having one propeller in the ahead position and the other propeller backing. When the S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 was sluggish in turning to the right from Cut F, the turning moment could have been increased (and the turning circle reduced) by stopping the starboard propeller. Had the starboard propeller been backed, the turning moment would have been increased even more and the turning circle reduced accordingly. Increasing the speed from half to full on a single-rudder, twin-screw ship will not change the turning circle at a given rudder angle absent significant wind and current factors. Since neither wind nor current was significant in this incident, the increase in speed from one-half to full served only to add speed to the ship without affecting its track. Since the ship was already well north of the entrance to Gadsden Cut when the full ahead command was given, the increase in speed served only to advance the time the vessel grounded. The S.S. VERA CRUZ-1 grounded at 0605 on a soft mud to silt bottom and remained there until 0904 shortly after tugs had attached lines and began to pull.
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of his race in terminating his employment as a glass bottom boat captain at Silver Springs? Whether Emma Hawkins should be allowed to intervene? If so, whether respondent discriminated against intervenor on account of her race in failing to promote and ultimately in discharging her?
Findings Of Fact On January 1, 1989, FLAC acquired Silver Springs and Wild Waters, an adjacent tourist attraction dating to 1977 or 1978. In or near Ocala, Florida, both properties had belonged to Florida Leisure Acquisitions, Inc., who had acquired them from American Broadcasting Company some five years earlier, in a "leveraged buyout." FLAC also acquired Weeki Wachee in 1989. T.449. Thomas Cavanaugh, who started as a vice-president and general manager in 1973, survived both changes in ownership, and had effective control over a unified personnel system until his departure in 1990. As late as 1973, everybody who worked at Silver Springs as a glass bottom boat captain was black. When FLAC acquired Silver Springs, five of twelve glass bottom boat captains were black. At the time of petitioner's discharge on June 21, 1989, seven of the boat captains were black. The number had fallen to three by November of 1990. Hiring Patterns Most of the jobs at Silver Springs require little or no skill, and this has been true at all pertinent times. Boat captains needed only to be able to deliver a spiel or learn a script and handle a boat. Maintenance and food service positions were predominantly unskilled. In all these areas, there were also some positions for managers or supervisors. Between December 7, 1987, and May 6, 1991, inclusive, respondent or its predecessor hired 104 boat captains or guides, and offered jobs as boat captains or guides to 20 others who did not accept. None of those who refused offers and only one who accepted was black. Nine of 520 persons who applied for these positions during this time period were black. In late 1989 and early 1990, blacks applying for other positions at Silver Springs comprised a significantly higher proportion of the applicants for these other positions. In the early part of 1990, blacks accounted for 6.95 percent of applicants for all jobs at Silver Springs, up from the latter part of the year before. Treating the population between 15 and 64 as a proxy for the civilian labor force, the civilian labor force in the area was, according to 1980 census data, 14.7 percent black, a percentage that had fallen by 1990 to 12.7 percent. Blacks comprised 11.1 percent of the Marion County population 15 and older in 1990, and 16.8 percent of those who found work through the Florida State Employment Service in the period from July of 1990 through June of 1991. A labor economist called by petitioner testified that the discrepancy between the percentage of blacks in the flow of applicants for work as boat captains or guides and the percentage of blacks in the work force in Marion County permitted an inference "that there is . . . probably some barrier to entry for individuals to apply," Fresen Deposition, p. 21, for those positions. The same witness was also willing to speculate, id. at 54, that the discrepancy between the percentage of blacks in the flow of applicants for boat captain or guide positions and the percentage of blacks in the flow of applicants for other positions at Silver Springs "may be . . . [attributable to t]he channelling of applicants for navigational positions into other positions." Id. at 55. Respondent attributed the conceded decline in black applicants for work at Silver Springs to better opportunities increasingly available elsewhere in Marion County, including positions at a Martin-Marietta plant with 1800 employees, at Certified Grocers with 800 employees, at Energy One and at Federal Motors, each with 1100 employees in the community, and at a K-Mart Distribution Center with two or three hundred employees. T.440-1. Glass Bottom Boats For several years, perhaps since 1957, U.S. Coast Guard regulations have required that passengers on glass bottom boats at Silver Springs be told about life jackets on board, and boat captains have been responsible for doing this, before setting out. Otherwise, until a few years ago, each glass bottom boat captain had broad discretion about what he did or did not say to passengers on board. On July 1, 1957, when petitioner David Faison, who is black, began work for one of respondent's predecessors in interest as a glass bottom boat captain (or driver), each captain was required to compose a talk to deliver to glass bottom boat passengers. As a new recruit, Mr. Faison read the book "Eternal Springs" and rode with other captains, before leading his own boat tours, pointing out flora and fauna and sharing information about the springs. An Easter Outing Jim Schorr, then FLAC's new chief executive officer, took his family for their first ride on a glass bottom boat at Silver Springs on Easter Day 1989. They "went down on the glass bottom boat dock, and they took the first boat that was available and that happened to be Riley Williams' boat." T.526. Afterwards Thomas Cavanaugh summoned Riley Williams, a black boat captain with more than 30 years' experience, and Michael Jacobs, respondent's director of operations, to his office. "Riley, what happened? What happened with your trip, Riley?" he asked. "We just talked to Jim Schorr. He said it was a terrible trip." T.526. Surprised and visibly shaken, Mr. Williams reported that "Mr. Schorr even told me my trip was good," (T.527) but allowed that he had been nervous. Mr. Cavanaugh told him to take the afternoon off and said, "Riley, we're going to go ahead - we're going to help all the drivers. We're going to hire a drama coach, and it will help everybody out." Id. Standardization David London, the new drama coach, prepared the first version of a script the boat captains were asked to commit to memory, or at least to follow closely as a guide when giving tours. As requested, petitioner, along with other boat captains, made suggestions for improving the script. T.251, 521. At a meeting on or after May 2, 1989, a revised script was distributed to assembled boat captains, and Mr. Schorr announced "that he wanted them to learn the script, and if they chose not to learn the script, that they could find work elsewhere." T.484. No deadline was given. T.44, 429. Whether petitioner Faison was in attendance is unclear. T.294. Riley Williams now works on the grounds at Silver Springs, landscaping and gardening. His pay is no less than if he had remained a boat captain. He asked for a transfer because he felt he "really wasn't coming up to par of what they wanted . . . [from boat captains] and the time was closing in " T. 581. Dockmaster A black man, Willie Barr began as a glass bottom boat captain at Silver Springs in 1974. Except for a hiatus that began in 1980 and ended in 1981, he continued in respondent's employ (or that of a predecessor in interest) until November 18, 1989, when he retired as dockmaster, a salaried position he first assumed in 1982. As dockmaster, Mr. Barr reported directly to Mike Jacobs, the white man who worked as respondent's director of operations. Mr. Barr had overall responsibility for both jungle cruise and glass bottom boats; and particular responsibility for scheduling glass bottom boat captains' work and for maintenance of the glass bottom boats. A separate maintenance department actually did the work. He also piloted, loaded, unloaded and tied up glass bottom boats. Mr. Barr retired at age 52 at least partly because of high blood pressure, a malady of which both he and Mr. Jacobs had become aware in early 1989. T.299, 481. During the months before he stepped down, Mr. Barr came to Mr. Jacobs on several occasions, and told him "about the stress he was under at the boat dock, the problems he was having with the drivers, a new company taking over and all the changes that were taking place." T.481. In May of 1989, Mr. Jacobs asked Mr. Utz, a decorated Navy veteran who had worked at Silver Springs longer than Mr. Barr, "to give Willie a hand." T.371, 481-2. At the time of this request, Mr. Utz, who is white, was "at the jungle cruise most of the time running the jungle cruise operation," (T.298) as lead or "manager of the jungle cruise." T.368. Mr. Barr viewed Mr. Utz, before May of 1989, as his assistant, as did every glass bottom boat captain who testified on this point. But management witnesses insisted that Mr. Utz's position "at the jungle cruise" was equal in rank to that of glass bottom boat dockmaster, the position Mr. Barr held. T.472. Although Mr. Utz worked for an hourly wage before (and, initially, after) the change in May of 1989, Mr. Utz's remuneration exceeded Mr. Barr's salary significantly. In addition to supervising jungle cruises, Mr. Utz trained boat captain recruits. Respondent gave Mr. Utz no pay raise in May of 1989, when his broader responsibilities seemed to most to entail greater authority. The company's chief executive officer acknowledged that a change in the pecking order occurred. T.455. Mr. Barr began reporting to Mr. Utz in May of 1989. T.275. On May 7, 1989, Mike Sentman took over as lead for jungle cruise operations. Response to Petitioner's First Set of Interrogatories, No. 16. Glass bottom boat drivers considered Mr. Barr their supervisor before, but not after, the time Mr. Utz undertook his new role in glass bottom boat operations. T.42, 53- 4, 57. Ultimately Mr. Utz assumed a new title, supervisor of boat operations (T.295, 372), and filled a newly created position, which respondent never advertised, even to other employees. He continued to train all new boat captains before they took a test the U.S. Coast Guard required, drawing on his long experience with boat handling. Only in January of 1990, after Mr. Barr had retired, however, did Mr. Utz acquire his present title and become a salaried employee. T.372. We Are Not "Edutained" On Tuesday, June 20, 1989, the day David Faison returned from a two- week vacation, David London rode on his boat and listened to what petitioner said to the tourists. Unfavorably impressed, he told Donald Utz afterwards, "Wow, that was terrible. That was the wors[t] yet." T.378. That afternoon Donald Utz and Michael Jacobs sent Robert Sinkler, Jr., at the time employed in respondent's "Edutainment" program, on a boat ride with petitioner, with instructions to videotape petitioner's performance. Virtually without interruption, petitioner (who mistook Mr. Sinkler for a tourist) was videotaped for the duration of the trip. Received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, the videotape records petitioner's remarks, delivered in a sometimes unintelligible singsong. They bear scant resemblance to the prescribed script, and include no reference to life jackets. On other occasions, however, petitioner did advise passengers of the life preservers on board. T. 278. David Faison was asked the next day to join Messrs. Jacobs and Utz, in viewing at least a portion of the videotape. In the discussion that followed, petitioner, who was said to be good-natured ordinarily, expressed resentment at having to use the script, which Mr. Jacobs took as a refusal to do so. Petitioner is "a person that would tell you what he thought." T.451. He terminated petitioner's employment on the spot, although Mr. Faison was generally seen by his superiors in the organization as not the type of person to be insubordinate. T.450-451. The day Mr. Faison was discharged Willie Barr, the dockmaster, asked to see the videotape, after he learned from other boat captains that petitioner had been sent home. Mr. Barr watched part of it in the company of Don Utz, who told Mr. Barr that petitioner had been discharged for failure to use the assigned script. T.295. Mr. Utz "didn't really indicate that" (T.295) respondent had refused to use the script. Before petitioner's discharge, Mr. Utz had told Virginia Phillips that he did not know how the black boat captains were going to do because they were difficult to understand. T.51. He also told her he did not want her going to "that area of the city," (T.47) which she took to mean the black residential area. She had recently travelled there when she drove a black boat captain, Alphonso Sears, home. Insubordination was (and remains) a recognized ground for dismissal. T.293, 303. But a white glass bottom boat captain was not dismissed despite refusing to be "cross-trained" as a boat captain for two of the three other rides offered by FLAC, even though he had originally been told that "cross training" for all three was mandatory. T.108. The white employee did train as a boat captain for one of the three other rides. He was told, three weeks before the hearing, that training for the other two was not required. T.109. Another boat driver, Virginia Ferguson, testified that she "was told recently all boat drivers needed to be cross-trained" (T.175) to act as guides on all four rides. T. 176. A second white boat driver also refused cross- training with impunity. T.420. But nobody else was shown to have insisted on giving the glass bottom boat tour his own way, without using the prescribed script. Respondent's newly installed chief executive officer had personally decided and publicly announced that all glass bottom drivers were to use the script. Recruitment Efforts Four times petitioner tried unsuccessfully to get in to see Mr. Cavanaugh in an effort to regain the job he had held for more than three decades. At hearing, Mr. Cavanaugh characterized his failure to talk to petitioner about his discharge as an "error" (T.452) that he attributed to the emotional drain of having himself to terminate the employment of so many people he had worked with for a long time. David Faison was one of approximately twenty employees FLAC discharged in 1989, most of whom were managers. "The new management was making a sweep." T.449. Like his brother David, Roosevelt Faison has worked as a boat captain at Silver Springs for many years. He began on May 4, 1956, and worked full-time until 1989, when he chose to cut back to two days a week. An average or above average employee (T.276), his evaluations have been consistently "good" or "excellent." In May of 1989, he told Anne Dansby, a white woman who worked for respondent that "the few blacks . . . [still employed] felt like they w[ere] not really wanted in the park." T.125. She apparently relayed the substance of this conversation to Tom Cavanaugh, who later brought up the subject with Mr. Roosevelt Faison, agreeing that the number of black employees had dropped. Mr. Cavanaugh told Mr. Roosevelt Faison that he "was dead on the money, but it wasn't done intentionally." T.126.36. On the third or fourth day after his arrival at Silver Springs, Thomas Cavanaugh ordered an end to racially segregated bathrooms at Silver Springs. He personally included a sledge hammer in an attack on a urinal reserved, until its destruction, for the use of black men. Within months of his arrival, he "retired" the white supervisor of glass bottom boats and replaced him with a long-time black employee. He sought to recruit black employees through the school system and enlisting the assistance of black community leaders. These efforts antedated his discussion of the situation with Roosevelt Faison, and intensified after their discussion. Lay-Off On a Monday in July of 1989, when Mr. Roosevelt Faison reported to work, he found a note with his paycheck, which said, "Roosevelt, you are off until notified to come back to work." T.127. When he spoke to Ms. Dansby about the note, she called Mike Jacobs, but he was reportedly too busy to talk to Mr. Roosevelt. Ms. Dansby then called Mr. Utz, who did speak to Mr. Roosevelt Faison, first telling him, "It's just slow business, and we're just cutting back," (T.129) then referring him to Willie Barr, who was not at work that day. The next day, when Roosevelt Faison spoke to Mr. Barr by telephone, Mr. Barr rescinded the lay-off. Although he had not recommended the lay-off, (T.277) Mr. Barr had written the note to Mr. Faison ("on Roosevelt's time card" T.305) at Mr. Utz's behest. T.307. Mr. Roosevelt Faison did not work that week, but he was paid for a half day (presumably because he had come in Monday.) He resumed working his wonted Mondays and Tuesdays the following week. McCants Charlie McCants, who is black, went to work for respondent or a predecessor in interest in 1959 in the deer park, feeding and otherwise taking care of the animals there. He also mended fences and did other maintenance, until his transfer in 1985 to the wildlife section of the attraction. There he did much the same thing, although for different animals, among them giraffes, to whom he had to give shots. He was paid the same thing in the wildlife section as he was making in the deer park before the transfer, although he never supervised anybody in the wildlife section, as he once did for a while in the deer park, without actually holding a supervisor's position. He and Bill White, who is white, were relocated at the same time. Management felt they had both become too often hard to find in the deer park. Emma Hawkins Emma Hawkins began work at Silver Springs in the food and beverage department in May of 1974. In September of 1976, she resigned to go to junior college, but she returned to her job in November of 1977, and was promoted the following month to lead. She was promoted a second time -- to unit coordinator -- in March of 1979, and a third time -- to supervisor -- in August of the same year. She viewed her transfer in February of 1990 to the food and beverage department at Wild Waters as a fourth promotion. T.185, 198. She did not, however, receive every promotion for which she applied. She was passed over in favor of another black person for a job "managing the warehouse," (T.188, 489) and lost out, again to another black applicant, when she applied for an administrative position in the front office. T.188, 489. In January of 1989, she received the last in a series of merit pay raises. More than once, she applied unsuccessfully to become assistant manager of the food and beverage department. The last time she applied to be assistant manager of the food and beverage was the spring of 1989. T.188. The position remained open until Shari Wynkoop, a white woman who had not previously worked at Silver Springs, began as assistant manager of the food and beverage department on June 28, 1990. T.479. At the time of her transfer to Wild Waters, Ms. Hawkins had charge of a restaurant at Silver Springs, The Outback, where she supervised some 20 employees, more in the summertime. T.299-301. At Wild Waters, she had responsibility for five food facilities and up to 50 employees. Id. She had "charge of hiring, firing, inventory purchasing, schedules, supervising, cooking, [and] cash control." T.186. At least after the transfer, many of the assistant manager's duties devolved on Ms. Hawkins, until Ms. Wynkoop took over. A few months before the transfer, Robert Santillana, the food and beverage director, had given Ms. Hawkins a written reprimand because Tina Balboni, whom she supervised, had been permitted to work with "NO HAT, SCARF OR NAME TAG." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. On a "CAST MEMBER COUNSELING FORM," Mr. Santillana warned that another such dereliction would result in further counseling. Id. Money Bags The Wild Waters operations manager's morning routine included a trip from Silver Springs to Wild Waters with locked bags full of cash for the various Wild Waters cash registers. He put the money bags needed for the operations Ms. Hawkins supervised in a milk crate in his office. She usually took the crate herself from there to her office in the back of the Surf's Up restaurant, before distributing the money to cashiers. Ms. Hawkins had a door lock installed -- there was none when she started at Wild Waters -- but she did not always lock her office door. An electronic timing device for one of the water slides at Wild Waters was located in her office, and the operations manager needed access to reset the timer. She spent a certain amount of time out of her office but in close proximity. Ms. Hawkins was told on her return (after two days off) to work on or about August 10, 1990, that $98.16 had not been accounted for on or about the evening of August 8, 1990, and that a cashier had quit the day after the loss was discovered. She relayed this information to Mr. Santillana, who did not seem particularly concerned at the time. But Mr. Santillana gave her a written reprimand when, sometime within a few days of August 8, 1990, approximately $400 was taken from an unlocked money bag a cashier left in her unlocked office, in violation of prescribed procedure and apparently without Ms. Hawkins' knowledge. This loss occurred on a Friday. Mr. Santillana, who did not learn of it until the following Monday, was angry that Ms. Hawkins had not succeeded in reaching him over the weekend. She had standing instructions to report major losses to him as soon as possible. On August 16, 1990, he and Ms. Wynkoop went to Ms. Hawkins' office and found it unlocked. Nobody was in the office, but a milk crate full of money bags was in plain sight. He went straight to the front of the restaurant and asked Ms. Hawkins to come to his office the following day. Later he wrote a memorandum, memorializing his findings on August 16, 1990, recounting the loss a week or so before of $98.16, and terminating her employment. August 16, 1990, was the last day Ms. Hawkins' worked for respondent. Ms. Hawkins was not the first to lose a job with respondent for (apparent) failure to abide by prescribed cash handling procedures. On occasion employees were discharged for a single (apparent) breach of such procedures. Ms. Hawkins (who had not yet clocked in when Mr. Santillana accosted her on the morning of August 16, 1990) noticed that a trusted employee had a good view of her office door, but did not bother to check whether it was locked, before going to help elsewhere in the facility, where she was needed.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order denying the petition for relief. That FCHR enter a final order denying the petition to intervene. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1-10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 32, the first two sentences of No. 33, Nos. 34, 35, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65, 69- 74, 77-82, 84, 86, 87, 90-93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 105-112, 115, 116, 117, 120-124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138 and 139 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11, the CEO was Jim Schorr. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 26, 28-31, 59-62, 66, 67, 68, 76, 83, 85, 88, 89, 94, 102, 103, 104, 118, 119, 126, 128, 135, 136, 140, 143 and 144 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 19, the weight of the evidence established that petitioner did not give the warning on June 20, 1989. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 23, 36, 37, 96, 97, 101, 125 and 142, the witnesses testified as reported. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact No. 27, the last sentence, of No. 33, Nos. 75, 113 and 141 have been rejected as unsupported by the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 36-56, the case has been decided on the assumption, pro hac vice, that race discrimination did take place at some point. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 114, the transfer occurred in February. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 137, she had not been performing as assistant manager for ten years. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1 through 5 pertain to the procedural posture of the case, apart from evidence adduced at final hearing. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 6-8, 12-15, 17-20, the first sentence of No. 21, Nos. 25, 27, 28, 31-34, 36, 37, 39-47, 49-56, 60, 61, 62, 64, 67, 69-75 and 76 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9, 10 and 11, it is not clear whether Faison was present and heard Mr. Schorr's remarks, or that he was ever told of any deadline. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 16, it is not clear whether FLAC intended not to hide the fact that one of its employees was videotaping petitioner. With respect to the last sentence of paragraph No. 21 and Nos. 22, 23 and 24, petitioner was fired for perceived refusal to use the script, whether or not he had time enough to learn it. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 26, 29, 30, 35, 38, 48, 58, 63, 77, 78 and 79 pertain to subordinate matters. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 57 is interally inconsistent. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 59, it is unnecessary to decide this question in order to decide the case. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 65, the position was filled on June 28, 1990. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 66, see paragraphs 46-51 the findings of fact. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 67, the evidence was in equipoise on the question of where Ms. Hawkins was when the loss was discovered. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary C. O'Rourke P. Kent Spriggs Spriggs and Johnson West College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Loren E. Levy Bruce Kaster Cove, Green and Kaster P.O. Box 2720 Ocala, FL 32678 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Lewis E. Shelley 117 S. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations, Respondent was a licensed pilot in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0000025. On January 15, 1986, Respondent boarded the ship Act 5 as her state pilot for approaching an intended berth at Port Everglades. The Act 5 was over 700 feet long, had a single handed screw, a single rudder and was equipped with bow thrusters. The ship drew 34 feet at her stern on the date in question. The ship had a bulbous bow which protruded outwardly under the forward waterline. A tugboat, the Captain Nelson, captained by John A. Cummings was beside the Act 5 to assist in the berthing maneuver. The approach to Port Everglades is negotiated through a narrow canal. Vessels seeking berth proceed through the canal, past a jetties area, and into a turning basin. Once inside the basin a turn is required in order to bring a ship parallel to the intended berth. On January 15, 1986, the Act 5 was to be berthed at a location on pier 3 identified as berth 17. In order to approach berth 17 a sweeping turn to port must be made. On that date the Captain Nelson was positioned off the starboard bow during the Act 5's swing to port. Once this swing had been initiated, the Respondent ordered the tug to proceed to the port stern quarter. It was intended that the tug would assist to breast the ship beside the docking area. After the tug had begun its trip from starboard bow to stern, Respondent realized that the ship's swing would not be sufficient to bring her parallel to the dock. Accordingly, the Respondent ordered the tug to hook up and to pull at full throttle to slow the ship and bring her parallel. Additionally, since it was apparent the ship might collide with the dock, the despondent ordered the Act 5 to reverse at full throttle. Despite the corrective efforts, the Act 5 did not swing sufficiently to port and her bulbous bow struck the underplatting of the dock at berth 17. The platting cracked and the fill behind it washed out. When the fill washed out, the road built on top collapsed and the dock eroded. Approximately sixty feet of dock surface was destroyed. Unpredictable surface and subsurface currents in Port Everglades very dramatically affect docking procedures. The tides, which are repetitive, also affect docking maneuvers. Given the fluctuating tides and currents within the Port Everglades turning basin, it is not uncommon for a ship's handling to be predictable. Given the tide and current conditions known to Respondent on the date at issue, the collision was unpredictable and unforeseeable by a reasonably prudent pilot. Given the times and speeds noted in the Act 5's "bell book," the Respondent approached the intended berth under prevailing standards used by other pilots at Port Everglades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pilot Commissioners enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's, DPR/Board of Pilot Commissioners, proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, the times and speeds noted in the Act 5's bell book are estimates which are within a reasonable range for approaching berth at Port Everglades. Distances are in unsubstantiated estimates and should not suggest Respondent used excessive speed. Three witnesses testified the ship approached at a reasonable rate. Such direct evidence controls over speculative estimates. Accordingly, paragraph 4 is rejected. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are accepted. Paragraphs 7 and 8 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 9, the cause of the collision is unknown. The ship did not swing to port sufficiently to become parallel to the dock. This lack of swing, coupled with the forward movement of the ship, resulted in the collision. As to why the ship did not continue its swing is speculative. Surface tides and currents as well as subsurface currents interfere with docking maneuvers and may have inhibited the swing. With regard to paragraph 10, the tides and currents noted were only surface ones. The subsurface currents which run deeper and which might effect a ship the size and draw of the Act 5 were not measured or charted. With that clarification, paragraph 10 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 11, it logically follows that Respondent's unforeseeable encounter would then serve as a warning to pilots involved in future docking procedures. That such pilots have benefitted from Respondent's incident does not suggest Respondent should have prejudged the problems. Accordingly, paragraph 11 is rejected as immaterial, irrelevant, and unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's proposed finding of fact: Paragraphs 1-51 are accepted. Paragraph 52 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 53 is rejected a unnecessary, irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraphs 54-58 are rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial, or argumentative. Paragraphs 59-62 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 63 and 64, the Act 5 did collide with the underplatting at berth 17. The impact was felt by the tug Captain. Whether the dock was poorly maintained (and should have withstood the impact) or whether the fenders should have absorbed the shock is speculative but the touching was established. However, such touching was not caused by excessive speed or conduct falling below acceptable standards of safe pilotage. With that clarification, the paragraphs 63 and 64 are accepted. Paragraph 65 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Margaret Mathews, Esquire One Tampa City Center Suite 2600 201 N. Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent has been a licensed pilot in the State of Florida, with license number 000050, and has operated as a pilot on Tampa Bay. Respondent received his state license in 1971, and also holds a federal license to serve as: Master of freight and towing vessels of not more than 1000 gross tons upon oceans; master of uninspected motor vessels of not more than 300 gross tons upon oceans; . . . first class pilot of steam and motor vessels of any gross tons upon Tampa and Hillsborough Bays to Tampa and Port Tampa, Florida, including Alafia River. . . . Count I On January 9, 1984, Respondent served as pilot aboard the foreign registered vessel Pennsylvania Rainbow as it sailed outbound from the International Minerals and Chemical Dock. The Pennsylvania Rainbow has a gross tonnage of 13,962, is 527.3 feet long and 81.4 feet wide. During the course of his pilotage duties, Respondent made a radio transmission substantially as follows: "Security, Security--Trico 1 outbound with Trico 3 and 4." Respondent is Trico 1, and Trico 3 and 4 are other members of Tampa Tri-County Pilots Association who do not have state pilot or deputy pilot licenses and who Respondent has sought to designate as "apprentice pilots." After the initial security call by Respondent, both Trico 3 and 4 also gave security calls aboard the Pennsylvania Rainbow. These security calls were overheard by licensed pilots on Tampa Bay who were approximately 15 miles away at the time and were concerned that persons without state licenses were being allowed to pilot the Pennsylvania Rainbow since the custom on Tampa Bay is that the person handling the vessel is usually the one who makes radio transmissions. At no time did the licensed pilots who testified actually see Trico 3 or 4 piloting the vessel. The foreign registered vessel Golden Laurel sailed inbound on January 22, 1984 to the loading berth at I.S. Joseph Company in Port Tampa with Respondent as pilot and Captain Tu Ting Kuo as master. The Golden Laurel has a gross tonnage of 29,729, and is 738.1 feet long and 105.6 feet wide. Respondent was accompanied by at least one unlicensed person whom he had sought to designate as an "apprentice." The unlicensed person was allowed to give commands which Respondent would overrule if such commands were not correct. Respondent remained on the bridge at all times in the immediate vicinity of the quarter- master and did correct the orders given by the unlicensed person on several occasions. The foreign registered vessel Trade Unity was inbound to the loading berth at I.S. Joseph Company on February 20, 1984 with Respondent as pilot, accompanied by an unlicensed person. The Trade Unity has a gross tonnage of 35,897 and is 770.14 feet long and 105.3 feet wide. With the permission of the master, Respondent allowed the unlicensed person to handle the Trade Unity in order to gain experience and practice. The unlicensed person gave commands which Respondent would overrule if necessary. On four occasions in June and July, 1984, Respondent served as pilot aboard the foreign registered vessel Marcona Conveyor as it arrived at and departed from Port Tampa. The Marcona Conveyor has a gross tonnage of 32,607, is 831.2 feet long and 106.2 feet wide. According to the master of the vessel, Capt. Charles D. Paden, Respondent permitted unlicensed persons to give commands for routine maneuvers of the vessel. Respondent would stand by on the bridge and intercede if necessary. Respondent permitted unlicensed persons to practice "piloting" by giving commands for the handling of the Golden Laurel, Trade Unity and Marcona Conveyor, but he contends that he remained on the bridge at all times, "acknowledged" or approved all such commands and overruled incorrect commands when necessary. Respondent also allowed unlicensed persons to practice radio transmissions and give security calls aboard the Pennsylvania Rainbow. His practice was to obtain the permission of the ship's master before allowing unlicensed persons to practice, and to introduce the unlicensed persons, whom he referred to as "apprentices," to the master. Respondent told the masters that he was the pilot of the vessel and would remain in control, while his "apprentices" practiced, by acknowledging their commands and interceding to change their commands whenever necessary. There is no approved apprenticeship program for pilots in Florida and Respondent's "apprentices" held no form of state authorization to practice or perform piloting. Respondent's practice of allowing unlicensed persons to gain hands-on ship handling experience by making radio transmissions and giving commands added an additional person to the normal chain-of-command on these foreign vessels, thereby increasing the risk of operation by increasing the potential for problems in communication. This is particularly significant with the non- English speaking crews on these foreign ships. Count II On February 28, 1984 Respondent piloted the foreign registered vessel Atropos Island in a shift from Gardinier Wharf in the Alafia River to Gadsden Anchorage. The Atropos Island has a gross tonnage of 10,019 and is 479.14 feet long and 75.08 feet wide. At the time it left the Gardinier dock, the ship was fully ballasted but had a forward draft of only 4 to 5 feet, a midship's draft of 8 to 9 feet, and an aft draft of 13 feet 9 inches. The propeller was half out of the water, with the upper half of the hub showing. After taking on cargo the loaded draft of the ship on leaving Tampa Bay was 31 feet. The weather on the morning of February 28, 1984 was overcast with winds out of the northwest at 20 to 30 miles per hour, with gusts to 40 miles per hour. Upon his arrival at the Atropos Island, Respondent monitored the weather broadcast, classified the vessel and waited for the ship to take on maximum ballast. He ordered three tugs to assist the Atropos Island in turning around in the Gardinier turning basin. It took twenty- five minutes for the vessel to complete its turn and begin to transit the Alafia River Channel. After completing the turn the tugs were ordered to release some of their lines. The Atropos Island did not go aground in the turning basin, although the vessel was blown toward the south bank of the basin by the winds to the extent that the tug Hillsborough, with a draft of 12 to 13 feet, could not get between the Atropos Island and the bank to push the vessel away from the bank. The tugs then put additional lines up to the vessel and pulled her into the middle of the turning basin. In transiting the Alafia River Channel, Respondent used a "crabbing" maneuver and this transit took approximately 1 1/2 hours, rather than the normal time of 20 minutes, due to this maneuver, the weather conditions, and Respondent's desire to await the assistance of larger tugs which he had ordered. "Crabbing" was described as a common piloting maneuver, particularly with vessels in light condition in a narrow channel such as the Alafia River Channel which is only 200 feet wide and approximately 2.8 miles long. When crabbing a vessel proceeding westerly through a channel with the wind out of the north- northwest, one tug would be on the starboard bow, the weather side of the vessel. As the vessel's stern begins to drag down, causing the vessel to go broadside, the pilot would put the rudder left, decrease the vessel speed and back the tug. The tug then acts like a spring line to pull the vessel up into a position almost parallel to the channel, at which point the pilot would slow the vessel and order the tug to stop backing. The maneuver would be repeated each time the wind caused the vessel to go off course in the channel. The evidence presented does not support the charge that the Atropos Island was grounded several times while proceeding down the Alafia River Channel. After considering all of the evidence presented, it appears that this crabbing maneuver used by Respondent was misinterpreted by the tug captains and by those who overheard radio transmissions by Respondent, which may have been "excited" due to the bad weather and difficult conditions in the channel during this transit. Significantly, the shipping agent for the Atropos Island testified that he discussed this transit with the captain of the Atropos Island the next day, and the captain stated the vessel did not run aground at any time while Respondent was piloting the vessel. The captain must account to the vessel's owner for all damage to the vessel the next time it is in dry dock and the owner will hold the captain liable for all unreported damage. Thus, it is not likely the captain of a vessel would not report a grounding if he thought one had occurred in order to protect himself from such liability. After completing the transit of the channel, the Atropos Island arrived at the location known as "Hillsborough Cut-C" where Respondent anchored the vessel and awaited larger tugs. The larger tugs, Yvonne St. Phillip and Gloria, arrived to assist the Atropos Island in turning at Cut-C, along with the smaller tugs Hillsborough and Pasco. The wind was still out of the north- northwest and the Atropos Island was heading west into the wind, having dropped its port anchor. Respondent had ordered the Hillsborough to take a position on the port bow of the Atropos Island and had positioned the Pasco on the port stern while they awaited the larger tugs. When the larger tug Yvonne St. Phillip arrived, Respondent ordered it to relieve the Pasco and the second larger tug, Gloria, was positioned on the port bow next to the Hillsborough. The Yvonne St. Phillip was pushing on the stern and the Gloria did not immediately put a line up at the bow. With the larger tug pushing in this manner at the stern, the bow of the Atropos Island began to come around toward the Hillsborough. The captain of the Hillsborough lost track of the location of the Atropos Island's anchor chain and became concerned that the anchor chain might be underneath his tug. The Hillsborough still had a line up to the Atropos Island at the time. There is conflicting testimony whether the Hillsborough's line snapped due to its being stretched tighter and tighter during this maneuver, whether it was severed by the bow of the Atropos Island, or whether Respondent ordered the line cut on purpose in order to release the Hillsborough so it could get out of the way. There is also conflicting testimony whether the Hillsborough was thereafter pushed aground by the Atropos Island or by the Gloria's wheel-wash. The captain of the Hillsborough believes that the Atropos Island pushed him aground. It was clearly established that the Hillsborough went aground at Cut-C and began to list at a 45 degree angle causing its captain great concern for the safety of his crew, and it is also established that its line to the Atropos Island parted. This occurred while the Hillsborough was assisting the Atropos Island at Cut-C. The Pasco later pushed the Hillsborough off ground. Respondent did not file a marine casualty report for any of the events occurring on the morning of February 28, 1984. Although there were winds of up to 40 miles per hour on the morning of February 28, 1984, there was other shipping traffic in the area. The conditions were not so severe as to preclude other vessels from moving, and Respondent checked the weather conditions and fully ballasting the vessel before leaving the dock. The weather did become more severe than forecast, making the maneuvers more difficult, but Respondent reacted to the worsening conditions by slowing his transit of the channel, ordering larger tugs and anchoring for a time at Cut-C.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing a one month suspension and one thousand dollar fine against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Hanlon, Esquire David C. Banker, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 J. Micheal Shea, Esquire Post Office Box 2742 Tampa, Florida 33601 W.B. Ewers, Esquire Post Office Drawer 9008 Coral Springs, Florida 33075 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto George H. McDonald was licensed as a Tampa Bay pilot by the State of Florida and issued license number 0000074. On October 29, 1986, Respondent boarded the vessel, Kalliope II, at berth 223, GATX dock, to undock the vessel and pilot it out of Tampa Bay. Kalliope II is a Liberian registered vessel of some 17,000 gross tons, 584 feet in length, and at the time of departure from berth 223, had a maximum draft of 34 feet, six inches. The Kalliope II was moored starboard side to berth 223, and two tugs were available to assist in the undocking. Prior to undocking, the steering gear was tested and performed satisfactorily. A physical check of the steering engine room was not conducted. The bow of the Kalliope was swung out in a pivot test to insure the bow was not aground. This was accomplished by slacking the bow lines and taking in on the stern lines. A similar pivot to ensure the stern was not aground was not accomplished. In undocking the Kalliope II, Respondent had the tug Tampa on the stern on a hawser and the tug Orange on the port bow. As the vessel cleared the slip, the Orange was cast off and stood by with the Tampa towing the Kalliope II into Cut D Channel. Because of the deep draft of the Kalliope II, Respondent did not use the vessel's engines in this maneuver. The Kalliope II as noted above, is 584 feet long and Cut D Channel is 400 feet wide. In order to keep the stern from striking the west bank of the channel while backing out of berth 223, it is necessary to pivot the vessel to move the stern northward while keeping the bow clear of the docks. While backing away from berth 223, the only control of the movement used was that supplied by the tug Tampa. Twice the captain of the Tampa advised Respondent that the stern of the Kalliope II appeared to be getting too close to the Davis Island seawall just west of Cut D Channel. The first time this information was passed to Respondent, he directed the tug to come ahead slow, and the second time the tug was directed to come ahead full. Thereafter, the Kalliope II was aligned in cut D channel. At this time, Respondent ordered the engines ahead slow and had the Tampa cast off. The weather was not a contributing factor at this time. At no time between 2200 hours, the time the Kalliope II left berth 223, until the Kalliope II was finally aligned with Cut D Channel, did Respondent feel the Kalliope II touch bottom. While proceeding down Tampa Bay, Respondent noticed the helmsman was using 200 rudder to keep the vessel in the channel, and directed one of the ship's crew to check the steering engine room. When this was done, it was discovered that the steering mechanism had suffered considerable damage, and the vessel could no longer be controlled with the steering gear. Tugs were again called, and the Kalliope II was returned to a dock. Underwater divers surveyed the damage to the rudder, and other surveyors checked the damage to the gear in the steering engine room. Examination of the rudder showed heavy damage with the trailing edge of the bottom of the rudder bent some 25 degrees from the top of the rudder. Build up of streaks of clay on the port side of the rudder, with the rudder damage sustained, is indicative of the rudder striking the bank while the ship was backing down. (Exhibit 5) Examination of the steering gear inside the steering engine room revealed the steering equipment had been seriously damaged and was inoperable. The damage was consistent with damage to be expected if a ship struck the edge of the channel with the rudder while backing down. Divers searched the west bank of Cut D Channel in the vicinity of berth 223 and found an impact area opposite and just north of berth 223. The impact area was approximately 40 feet long parallel to the channel with clay substrata welled upwards through the sand and mud giving the appearance of the embankment having been struck by a large heavy force. (Exhibit 6) Damage to the Kalliope II's steering equipment was in excess $100,000. Respondent has been a licensed deputy pilot and pilot in Tampa Bay since 1980, has an excellent record, and this is the first time that charges have been brought against him.
The Issue Whether Broward County should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (the "ERP" or "Permit") to Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., for the construction of five finger piers as sized, configured, located and approved by Broward County's Proposed Permit issued in 2007?
Findings Of Fact The Port Laudania Property Port Laudania is a privately-owned marina basin (the "Marina Basin" or the "Basin") in Broward County. Located just off the Dania Cut-off Canal south of Port Everglades, the Marina Basin is not far from the Atlantic Ocean and the Intra-coastal Waterway that lies along all of Florida's east coast. There are no fixed bridges or other impediments to the passage of large sea-going boats and ships between the Basin and the Atlantic. The Marina Basin is an ideal spot to berth large vessels such as yachts and those used in the ocean-freight shipping business. PBPH owns the submerged lands in the western approximate two-thirds of the Basin as well as adjacent uplands. Together, these submerged lands and uplands constitute the parcel located at 750 N.E. 7th Avenue in the City of Dania (the "PBPH Parcel"). Immediately adjacent is a parcel owned by C-Term, a Florida general partnership. Located at 760 N.E. 7th Avenue in Dania, the uplands at the address and the approximate eastern one-third of the Marine Basin (the part not owned by PBPH) comprise the "C-Term Parcel." The PBPH Parcel and the C-Term Parcel make up the Port Laudania Property. Prior to a conveyance in 1987 that divided the Port Laudania Property into two parcels, the property had been under common ownership. The entire property was owned in fee simple by Dennison Marine, Inc. ("DMI"). Just prior to the division of the property into two parcels, DMI conveyed an easement that would ensure that owners and lessees of both parcels would have unhindered access from the Dania Cut-off Canal to their respective parcels: a Cross-use Easement of Ingress and Egress (the "Cross-use Easement"). The Cross-Use Easement for Ingress and Egress On June 29, 1987, DMI executed the Cross-Use Easement.2/ Earlier, DMI had divided the Port Laudania Property into two parcels (Parcel I and Parcel II in the Cross-use Easement, referred-to in this order mainly as the C-Term Parcel and the PBPH Parcel, respectively) and had entered into an Agreement for Deed and Lease with Port Denison, Inc., for the purchase and sale of one of the two parcels. The transaction subject to the agreement had not yet occurred so that DMI remained the sole owner of the Port Laudania Property on the date the Cross-Use Easement was established. The Cross-Use Easement contains the following: WHEREAS, both Parcel I and Parcel II share an inlet off of Dania cut-off Canal, . . . WHEREAS, it is to the mutual advantage of the present and future owners, tenants, invitees, etc. of both Parcel I and Parcel II that the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposes of ingress and egress; NOW THEREFORE, . . . Denison Marine, Inc., with the consent of Port Denison, Inc., does hereby for itself and its successors and assigns, give and grant to the future owners, tenants and future tenants of all or any portion of the Property, their respective customers, employees, agents, invitees, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across the inlet as described in Composite Exhibit "C" hereto. This non-exclusive easement shall run as a covenant with the land and constitute [sic] an appurtenance thereto. Petitioners' Ex. 1 at 0164-0165. Composite Exhibit "C" of the Cross-Use Easement contains sketches and descriptions of both the "Easterly Portion of the Marina," see id. at 170-171, (the C-Term Parcel) and the "Westerly Portion of the Marina," see id. at 172-173 (the PBPH Parcel.) The descriptions include the entire Basin except for that occupied by the boat lift in the northern end of the Basin.3/ Neither the legal descriptions nor the surveys attached to the Cross-Use Easement depict any finger piers, docks or pilings in the Basin. Under the Cross-Use Easement, the ability of the parties to amend the rights granted therein is governed by the following: This Agreement may be altered, amended or terminated by written document executed by all the then fee simple title holders of all portions of the Property and then record holders of any first mortgages then encumbering any of said lands and recorded in the public records of Broward County, Florida. Petitioners' Ex. 1, second page, BK 1490 PG0165. C-Term has not agreed to amend the Cross-Use Easement to permit construction of the docks contemplated by the 2007 Notice of Intent and Proposed Permit. The rights conferred by the Cross-Use Easement are property rights that govern the use of the Basin. The Basin and the Cut-off Canal The Basin is man-made and frequently referred-to in documents that relate to it as an "inlet" off the Dania Cut-off Canal. Small and medium-sized pleasure crafts, large yachts, mega-yachts,4/ and commercial cargo vessels, some of which are as lengthy as 250 feet regularly pass through The Dania Cut-off Canal in the area of the Basin immediately south of its mouth. Aerial photographs show that the Basin was excavated in the early 1960's. Shortly after excavation, the Port Laudania Property was used as a commercial cargo terminal. Since at least 1967, the Basin has accommodated cargo vessels with lengths up to 250 feet give or take 15 feet. Petitioners' Exhibit 145 is an aerial photograph that shows vessels of approximately 250 feet on both sides of the Basin. For the approximately 250-foot vessel on the east side of the Basin (the C-Term side), the margin of error in measuring the vessels from the aerial is "[p]robably 10 feet, plus or minus." Tr. 1049. G&G has operated numerous vessels in the Basin at lengths of over 200 feet. Of the seven vessels that G&G owned or operated at the time of hearing the maximum length is 234 feet. From April 1999 to March 2006, vessels owned or operated by G&G have struck finger piers or docks on the PBPH side of the Basin "a handful of times." Tr. 893. None of the details of these collisions was produced at hearing. Standard procedure for such incidents would have been to file an internal report or a captain's report, but Mr. Ganoe could not remember whether a report was filed.5/ For his part on the PBPH side of the Basin, Mr. Straub is not aware of any G&G vessels hitting boats moored at the finger piers on the PBPH side of the Basin, indicating that the collisions were not serious. In contrast to evidence that collisions have occurred is evidence from one frequent navigator of the Basin, Jim Steel of Steel Marine Towing. With the exception of the years in college, Mr. Steel has towed vessels in the area of Broward County consistently since 1988 when he began towing with his father at the age of 12. The range in length of the vessels, both commercial and private, that Mr. Steel has towed is from 120 to 250 feet. Mr. Steel has towed hundreds of vessels in and out of the Basin. During those times, he has observed various dock and finger pier configurations. He never collided with the docks on the PBPH side of the Basin with his tugboat or the vessels he towed even when the fifth finger pier was 150 feet long during the time period from 1995-96. Mr. Steel described the Dania Cut-off Canal in the vicinity of the Basin as a congested area with a number of facilities that cater to marine traffic. Large motor yachts (100 feet to 150 feet in length), mega-yachts (longer than 150 feet), commercial vessels (up to 250 feet), smaller pleasure craft as well as other smaller boats comprise the traffic seeking access to facilities along the canal. The facilities include Harbortown Marina across the canal from the Basin, which has some spots for large motor yachts and berths for hundreds of smaller boats up to 90 feet. Facilities in the area that serve mega- yachts are Director's Shipyard, Powell Brothers, and Playboy Marine. In the last five years, new facilities have been opened along the canal for smaller pleasure craft: American Offshore, Dania Beach Club and Dusty's. Mr. Steel described their function, "[t]hey are . . . what you would call rack and stack," (tr. 1562) storing boats sized from 20 to 40 feet pulled in an out of the water and stacked with a forklift. There are eight or nine such facilities west of the Basin. Mr. Steel estimated each of these facilities house at least several hundred boats. Mr. Steel summed up the traffic in the canal: "Some bright sunny days, it is extremely congested, some days it is not as congested, but there's always traffic there." Tr. 1550. 2001: The Delegation Agreement On May 22, 2001, an agreement was entered by three parties. Entitled "Delegation Agreement Among the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The South Florida Water Management District and Broward County" (the "Delegation Agreement"), it delegated to Broward County's EPD "the authority for permitting, compliance, and enforcement on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District programs." Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 1, at 11, 12. "Section 11E. of the Delegation Agreement provides that permits issued by the County under the Delegation Agreement 'shall consolidate in a single document the permit under part IV of Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes, and any required Environmental Resource License' ("ERL") required under Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code of Ordinances ("BCC" or "Code").[']" Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 2, at 12. In April of 2002 or thereabouts, Broward Yachts submitted an after-the-fact application to EPD for an ERP and an Environmental Resource License (the "Dock Application"). "The Dock Application sought approval to install six total docks [finger piers] comprised of five [finger piers composed of] floating docks in the Basin, with lengths ranging from 150 feet to 190 feet, and one dock, in the canal parallel to the seawall, with a length of 240 feet." Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 4, at 12. Although the docks were on the PBPH Parcel of the Port Laudania Property, the application was not PBPH's, the owner; instead it was submitted by Broward Yachts, a PBPH tenant. PBPH and C-Term Tenants From November of 1998 to March of 2005, Broward Yachts, Inc. ("Broward Yachts")6/ leased the PBPH Parcel from PBPH for the purpose of manufacture and sale of private yachts and boat dockage. Broward Yachts sold certain of its assets to Lewis Property Investors, Inc., under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 2, 2005. On March 8, 2005, Lewis Property Investors' assigned its interest in the Asset Purchase Agreement to Broward Marine. Broward Marine is a Florida limited liability company, formerly engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing private yachts and activities that constituted operation of a marina on the PBPH Property. Broward Marine leased the PBPH Property starting in March of 2005. It continued to occupy the property under a lease-purchase option agreement with PBPH until June of 2009. C-Term's Property is the subject of a tenancy with G&G, an ocean-freight shipping company. G&G, therefore, has shared the Marina Basin with Broward Marine in recent years. Broward Marine's Departure In March 2009, Broward Marine signed an early termination of its lease with PBPH caused by Broward Marine's failure to pay rent. Broward Marine has not been a tenant or otherwise in possession of the PBPH Property since approximately November, 2009.7/ The termination of Broward Marine's lease was effective on June 15, 2009. After termination of the Broward Marine lease, the PBPH Property was re-let to Broward Shipyards, Inc., an entity that is not a party to this proceeding. At the time of the termination, Broward Marine's interests in the 2002 Dock Application and a revision of the application in 2003 (the "2003 Revised Application") were assigned to PBPH.8/ In the meantime, PBPH has pursued the application which had its origin in a complaint about the unpermitted structures and a warning notice issued by the County in 2002. See paragraph 35., et seq., below. The application for the license and permit was for floating docks. Floating Docks The floating docks used by Broward Yachts and others on the PBPH side of the Basin generally come in sections of 8-10 feet. They are secured to existing pilings in the Basin by a collar which slides up and down the piling or, as Mr. Lewis put it at hearing, "[t]hey float up and down . . . as the tide comes in and goes out." Tr. 204. The top of the piling emerges from the water and the rest of the piling extends downward generally into the bedrock at the bottom of the Basin. A series of floating docks make up a finger pier. Finger piers, the structures authorized by the Proposed Permit, can be lengthened or shortened by adding or removing floating docks based on business needs.9/ The ability to easily lengthen or shorten a finger pier in response to the business needs of PBPH or its tenants accounts for one of the main evidentiary features in this proceeding: the many finger pier configurations that appear in aerial photographs over the years and, in particular, since 1998 when PBPH came into ownership of the PBPH Parcel. The floating docks have been constructed of wood and Styrofoam. Those that PBPH seeks to install under the Proposed Permit will be "concrete bathtubs," tr. 580, which "work just as well and are a lot more permanent." Id. Structures made of concrete are of much likely to cause damage in the event of a collision with a vessel than are floating docks made of wood and Styrofoam. Warning Notice and 2002 Dock Application On January 22, 2002, the EPD visited the PHPB Property in response to a complaint about unlicensed docks. Julie Mitchell (then known as "Julie Karczyk"), a Natural Resources Specialist with the County was present on the property during the visit to conduct an inspection. In a Case Summary admitted into evidence, Ms. Mitchell documented the visit with an employee of the State Department of Environmental Protection. The two visitors asked the manager of the property to provide a copy of permits and licenses for the docks on site. If he could not provide them he was advised of the necessity to apply for them. At the time of visit, there were four finger piers composed of floating docks on the PBPH side of the Basin. The four piers protruded into the Basin at an angle similar to the angle of the finger piers shown in the drawings approved by the Proposed Permit. These four docks (from north to south) had lengths of 117, 130, 150 and 150 feet respectively and were each 7.5 feet wide. The northernmost dock was separated from the second dock (the dock immediately to its south) by 52 feet; the second dock was separated from the third by 60 feet; and the third from the fourth by 55 feet. There was also a fifth structure. It may have been a fifth finger pier, but, because of its width which is substantially more than the 7.5 feet, see Petitioners' Ex. 114F (an aerial photograph with a "fly date" of January 2002), it is more likely to have been "work platforms to construct the docks." Tr. 114. Whatever its function, the fifth structure did not protrude into the Basin as far the four others. It was "[r]ight up against the seawall." See id., Petitioners' 125 at 5, and tr. 114. Ms. Mitchell checked the County records and could not locate a license or permit for finger piers or other structures in the Basin. No evidence of a license or permit was provided by either PBPH or any of its tenants. The status of the finger piers and floating docks today remains the same: unlicensed and unpermitted. The County required Broward Yachts as the tenant of the PBPH Property to submit an after-the-fact permit and license application if it wished to keep the structures. Broward Yachts submitted its application for an ERP and Environmental Resource License ("ERL") to the County (the "2002 Dock Application") on April 16, 2002. In the meantime, Broward Yachts installed an additional finger pier in the Basin angled from the seawall just as the four piers observed by Ms. Mitchell. The installation occurred without County authorization. On May 2, 2002, the County issued Warning Notice No. WRN02-0125 (the "Warning Notice"). Directed to both Broward Yachts and PBPH, the Warning Notice contains one count. See Petitioners' Ex. 7. The count reads as follows (bold type in original): Respondent: Broward Yachts, Inc. Respondent: Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. Violated section 27-333(a)(1), BCC, which states: "No person shall conduct or cause to be conducted mangrove alteration, construction, demolition, dredging or filling in regulated aquatic or wetland resources, except in accordance with a currently valid environmental resource license issued by DPEP and all general and specific license conditions therein." By: constructing docks and installing pilings without a valid DPEP Environmental Resource License. Corrective Action: The respondent must apply for an after- the-fact license from the Department for the dock construction and piling installation. The license will not be issued until the respondent obtains a South Florida Water Management District Right-of-Way permit for the pilings located within the Dania Cut-off Canal. Correct within 14 days of this notice. Id. The 2002 Dock Application was filed on April 16, 2002 (prior to the Notice of Warning.) In the meantime and subsequent to the Notice of Warning, the County conducted a review of the 2002 Dock Application. The 2002 Dock Application The 2002 Dock Application was signed by Paul Bichler of Tri County Marine. Mr. Bichler and his company are listed on the application as the "Entity to Receive Permit," see Respondents' Ex. 3 at 3-4, and Bill Thomas of Approved Permit Services, Inc., is listed as the "Agent Authorized to Secure Permit." Id. The owner of the land is shown as Richard Arnold, General Manager of Broward Yachts. Mr. Arnold signed the application in order to give Mr. Thomas the authority to act as the agent of Broward Yachts in securing the permit. There is no mention of PBPH in the application. Part 8 of the 2002 Dock Application requires the applicant to describe in general terms the proposed project, system or activity. Filled in is: "Install Floating Docks!" Id. at 3-5. No other description is offered. The application contains as attachments a map of the site showing the Port Laudania Property and a drawing of Parcel A at the site (the PBPH Parcel.) The drawing shows six finger piers to be installed. Five are attached to the western seawall of the Port Laudania Property at such an angle so that they lie in the Basin in a southwesterly direction (much the same as the four finger piers observed in January of 2002 by Ms. Mitchell). The lengths of the five range from 150 to 190 feet. The fourth and fifth finger piers are proposed to be 180 feet and 155 feet in length, respectively. The sixth pier lies roughly parallel to the southern terminus of the bulkhead on the PBPH Parcel and extends into the mouth of the Basin. Unlike the other five, the sixth structure is not attached to the western seawall. To the south of the bulkhead and with no attachment to the bulkhead, it runs 240 feet in length. At its eastern end, it overlaps the boundary between the Basin and the Dania Cut-off Canal and protrudes into the canal. Id. at 3-9. The drawing also depicts pilings associated with each of the six structures. The floating docks applied for in the 2002 Dock Application were to be made out of Styrofoam and wood. Permitting Criteria/County Review The County's evaluation and processing of the 2002 Dock Application was conducted appropriately pursuant to the Delegation Agreement. Section (1) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.30210/ (the "ERP Additional Conditions Rule") requires an applicant to "provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system" will meet conditions contained in subsections (a) through (d).11/ For systems located in, on, or over surface waters that are not Outstanding Florida Waters, such as the finger piers and floating dock systems proposed by PBPH, reasonable assurances must be provided that the activity "will not be contrary to the public interest [the "Public Interest Test"] . . . as determined by balancing"12/ seven criteria listed in the ERP Additional Conditions Rule: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangerment or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. Of the seven criteria, above, the two deemed most relevant and determinative for the EPD in processing the 2002 Dock Application were 1., and 3., that is, whether the activity will adversely affect public safety, the property of others, and navigation. The County considered the proposed sizes, locations and configuration of the docks as shown in the drawing attached to the application. It had no navigational experts on staff and did not consult with outside navigational experts. Nonetheless, the County considered the nature of the use and whether it would adversely affect safety and navigation. The County also considered an objection to the location of certain pilings and a "future floating pier along the south edge of the basin at Port Laudania." Petitioners' Ex. 8 at 4. The objection had been lodged by the Port Everglades Pilot's Association in a letter dated May 1, 2002: Port Everglades Pilots are responsible for insuring the maximum level of safety of commercial vessels transiting the water of Port Everglades and Port Laudania. * * * I am writing to you in reference to some pilings that have been driven by Broward Marine for what appears to be a future floating pier along the south edge of the basin at Port Laudania in Broward County, Florida. This is the basin that is shared by Broward Marine and G&G Shipping and located within the City of Dania Beach. These pilings are affecting the safe navigation of commercial vessels that have already been using the basin at Port Laudania for many years. Vessels docked at this new pier will pose additional risk to navigation. * * * I would like to go on record stating that the location of these pilings and potential pier is not satisfactory as it hinders the navigation of commercial vessels using the basins at Port Laudania. Id. The letter is signed by Captain James J. Ryan, Managing Pilot for the Port Everglades Pilots' Association. The County acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated August 16, 2002, and informed Broward Yachts' agent that the "application for license is incomplete." Petitioners' Ex. 8. The letter requested prompt submission of the information listed on an attached sheet and warned that failure to submit it within 60 days of the request could result in denial. Two items were found omitted or incomplete in the application. The first was a "South Florida Water Management District right-of-way permit for the pilings located within the Dania Cut-off Canal." Petitioners' Ex. 8 at 2 of 3. The second was a response to the navigation issue posed by the Port Everglades Pilot Association. Id. The County's letter advised that upon a showing of resolution of issues posed by the omissions, the Department would process the application as an ERP since the applicant was allowed by a state administrative rule to apply for an ERP concurrently with an ERL. To that end, the letter requested payment of an additional $700 fee. Id. Four other items were also requested for submission. Five months later, Broward Yachts' agent wrote Ms. Mitchell listing seven responses as "the additional information you requested." Petitioners' Ex. 9. With regard to Item 2, the letter states: 2. I am working with Dan Boyer who is handling the Right of Way permit @ SFWMD, I am also addressing same issue with him, if I can demonstrate that a boat when moored at the proposed dock will not extend more than 25% into the canal, he will recommend to the Board of Governors that the project be approved. I am waiting for a signed and sealed survey to show the exact width of the waterway at this location. Petitioners' Ex. 9. With regard to Item 3, the agent responded, "[c]heck enclosed." The letter did not respond to all the requested information. For example, with regard to requested information concerning the anticipated use of the dock proposed within the Dania Cut-off Canal, whether boats would be moored on both its sides, and the anticipated length and draft of the boats, the agent responded, "I will need to get back to you about this one!" Id. Together with a memorandum dated July 21, 2003, the agent submitted revised drawings for the permit (the "2003 Revised Dock Application" or the "Revision"). The Revision removed any portion of the structures or pilings from the Dania Cut-off Canal in order to avoid the requirement for a SFWMD Right-of-Way Permit. Instead of the six finger piers shown in the 2002 Dock Application, the Revision showed seven. Six were similar to the five that angled into the Basin in a southwesterly direction from where they touched the western seawall. The six piers ranged from 120 feet in length to 150 feet in length. The seventh was similar to the sixth finger pier in the 2002 Dock Application but was depicted as being only 60 feet in length. It no longer protruded into the Dania Cut-off Canal. See Petitioners' Ex. 10 at 2. A memorandum to the file dated August 11, 2003, shows that Ms. Mitchell faxed the drawings in the 2003 Revised Dock Application to the Port Everglade Port Association. The memorandum reported that Captain Ryan responded by saying "he no longer had any objections to the project because the structures had been removed from the ROW [of the Dania Cut-off Canal]." Petitioners' Ex. 11. The memorandum also reported that Captain Ryan stated that there still may be navigational and safety concerns with the proposed pier lengths and locations, and that there may be special circumstances for ships wanting to use the basin such as, navigation during slack tide only, daylight only, and other factors that would exacerbate the concerns. Six weeks or so later, Ms. Mitchell signed a letter from the County. The letter, dated September 29, 2003, advised Broward Yachts that the additional information submitted in response to the January 2002 request had been received. It also advised that the project required an Environmental Resource License (in addition to the ERP) and that the application for such a license had been received. To fully evaluate the project, additional information was needed. This second request for additional information consisted of one item: [1] A Cross Access Agreement (attached), recorded on October 27, 1987, states that "the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposed (sic) of ingress and egress." The Department has received objections from the adjacent property owner that the proposed docks, specifically the most southern 150-foot-long dock, may hinder the navigation of commercial vessels using the basin. Please provide evidence that the proposed docks will not negatively affect the safety and navigation of vessels using the basin. Petitioner's Ex. 12, Completeness Summary, Environmental Resource License Application at 2 of 2, (emphasis added.) The additional information requested was not provided by Broward Yachts or any other party. On October 6, 2003, Ms. Mitchell forwarded a copy of the Cross-use Easement to the County Attorney's Office and asked for it to be reviewed "to confirm that the [easement] pertains to both facilities [the applicant's and G&G's] and that G&G has a basis for their objection." Petitioners' Ex. 13. The objection by G&G was expressed as: "the most southern proposed finger pier will hinder [G&G's] ability to safely navigate their vessels." Id. Attached is a drawing that depicts seven docks. Opinion of the Broward County Attorney's Office In response to Ms. Mitchell's request, an opinion of the Broward County attorney's office was issued on October 31, 2003. The opinion addresses two questions: first, does the Cross-use Easement pertain to both facilities operated by Broward Yachts and G&G; and, second, does G&G have a basis for its objection. Both questions were answered in the affirmative with the following elaboration on the second question: The Easement includes granting a non- exclusive right to the successors of Port Denison, Inc. to use "all or any portion of the Property . . . for ingress and egress over and across the inlet as described in Composite Exhibit C. . ." The Property referred to in Exhibit A includes all of Parcels I and II. Composite Exhibit C is made up of a sketch and legal description of the easement area, with each Parcel having its own description and sketch. The physical structures referred to that limit the easement are the wetface of the bulkhead and the boat hoist structure. The easement rights granted are not similarly limited by reference to docks or piers that may have existed around the time that the easement was granted. This reading of the easement is consistent with the intent of the parties, as clearly reflected in the last "Whereas" clause which reads: " . . . it is to the mutual advantage of the present and future owners, tenants, invitees, etc. that the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposes of ingress and egress." Since G&G Shipping's objection is related to the use of the inlet for ingress and egress with reasonable reference to navigation safety, and G&G Shipping accommodates uses that it does not anticipate will interfere with such activities, its objection to the license application has a basis in its easement rights. While the additional correspondence from Broward Yachts dated October 11, 2003, refers to an undated photo showing floating docks that are asserted to exist "around the time that the agreements were drawn-up for cross access," this photo doesn't control or limit the terms of the Easement, which grants the use of the entire inlet to both parties. Petitioners' Ex. 16 at 1-2. Another RAI On December 16, 2003, the County sent another request for information (RAI) to Broward Yachts (the "December 16, 2003 RAI." The request stated, "[y]our response dated October 14, 2003, does not adequately address the navigational and safety concerns stated in our letter [of September 29, 2003]." Petitioners' Ex. 17. The December 16, 2003, RAI referenced the County attorney's October 31, 2003, Opinion which "concluded that G & G Marine, Inc., does have a legal basis for their objection to the docks." Id. The December 16, 2003, RAI concluded: [T]he Department has not received reasonable assurances that the proposed docks will not negatively affect navigation and safety, nor have we received a response regarding the objections. It is the intent of this letter to inform Broward Yachts, Inc. (applicant) and Mr. Bill Thomas (agent) that the license application will be closed, pursuant to Section 27- 55(d)(4), if all requested information is not provided within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter. Id. Broward Yachts requested an additional 90 days to provide the information. The request was granted. A second request to extend the time for providing the information another 90 days was denied by the County. The County Holds its Position Correspondence dated July 8, 2004, from Larry Zink, Esquire, requested reconsideration of the County's October 31, 2003, Opinion. The County responded in a letter dated July 21, 2004. See Petitioners' Ex. 22. The July 21, 2004, letter refers to "additional information, such as Mr. Denison's Affidavit and references to Florida case law," id. and then concludes: After consideration and based upon the Easement, Broward Yachts' letter of October 11, 2003, [Mr. Zink's] letters of May 5, 2004, May 21, 2004, and July 8, 2004, Mr. Denison's affidavit, Florida law, and G&G Shipping's objections dated November 5, 2003 and April 13, 2004, the conclusion that G&G has a basis for its objection to the Project is still correct . . . . Id. The July 21, 2004, letter addresses Florida Law with regard to the Cross-Use Easement: Florida Law: You have asserted that "[t]he Florida Court's have held that to determine the scope of an easement the Court's attempt to ascertain the intent of the parties in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time the easement was created," referencing the cases of Hillsborough County vs. Kortum and Florida Power Company vs. Silver Lake Homeowners Assn. However, the following more completely summarizes the relevant case law standards: The construction or interpretation of an easement is not evidentiary; it is a matter of law. Hillsborough Co. v. Kortum, 585 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1992). The determination of the extent and nature of an easement granted or reserved in express terms by deed depends upon a proper construction of the language of the instrument, for an examination of all of the material parts thereof, and without consideration of extraneous circumstances. Kotick v. Durrant, 143 Fla. 386, 196 So. 802 (1940). An easement holder has the right to do what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, but the right must not be increased to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time the easement was created. Crutchfield v. F.A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1954). However, rights of the owners of an easement are not absolute and unlimited. The owner of the servient estate may use [the] land, including the easement, in such a way that will not interfere with the easement owner's right of passage. Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). (String citations have been omitted for brevity.) As you may know, the Circuit Courts of Florida have exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions involving title and boundaries of property. See Section 26.012(2)(g), Florida Statutes. Therefore, it is the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court that has jurisdiction and authority to determine the relative title interest rights of Broward Yachts and G&G in relation to the Project. The Office of the County Attorney respectfully declines to act in a role which is the proper jurisdiction of that Court. Within the limited scope of the previous and instant reviews, it is merely apparent that G&G objects to the Project and holds a title interest which, on its face, could be negatively affected by the Project. Therefore, it has a basis for its objection. Id., paragraph 2, at page 2 of 3 (emphasis added.) The County determined that Broward Yachts had not provided reasonable assurances that the Project would not adversely affect safety and navigation and would not violate the Cross-Use Easement. In light of the determination, the County sent a memorandum on July 21, 2004, see Petitioners' Ex. 23, requesting such assurances (the "July 21, 2004, RAI"). The July 21, 2004, RAI recognized that the issue with regard to the Cross-Use Easement was the subject of litigation between Broward Yachts and G&G Marine, but in the meantime requested reasonable assurances with regard to the navigation and safety issues or "have your client amend its application to resolve this concern." Id. As with the December 16, 2003, 10 RAI, the July 21, 2004, RAI was required to be answered in 10 days. The County hoped that a response would provide guidance from a navigational expert that the new docks would not affect the ability of other vessels to come in and out of the Basin. Denial and Petition for Review By the end of January 2005, the ten-day period for submitting additional information relative to the 2003 Revised Dock Application had expired. No information relative to safety and navigation concerns or compliance with the Cross-Use Easement had been submitted. By letter dated January 31, 2005 (the "Application Denial"), the Broward County EPD announced its decision to deny the application based on a lack of "reasonable assurance that the proposed docks will not negatively affect navigation and safety, nor violate the Cross-Use Easement . . . ." See Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 7 at 13. The County's intent in issuing the Application Denial was to deny both the ERL and ERP. The parties stipulated to what happened next: Broward Yachts filed a Petition for Review of Final Administrative Determination, Environmental Resource License Application No. DF03-1121, Environmental Resource Permit Application No. 06-0194386-001 (the "Administrative Review Petition") with EPD on February 7, 2005, challenging the denial of its "license and permit applications." The Administrative Review Petition invoked the procedures of Chapter 27, BCC. Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 8 at 13. The Administrative Review Petition did not invoke the procedures of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to an internal procedure, the Administrative Review Petition was reviewed by the Department Director. After an independent review, the Department Director upheld the denial. That decision was communicated to Broward Yachts in a letter dated March 11, 2005, signed by Eric Myers, Director of the Broward County EPD. See Petitioners' Ex. 41. The March 11, 2005, letter proposed a compromise that related to an aerial photograph taken at roughly the time of the submission of the 2002 Dock Application. The photograph showed four finger piers ranging in length from 130 to 150 feet. The County offered to permit such a configuration if Broward Yachts modified its application. Broward Yachts was apparently unwilling to do so. Broward Marine Involvement The denial of the 2002 Dock Application was directed only to the application filed by Broward Yachts. Likewise, the Administrative Review Petition was filed solely by Broward Yachts. In March of 2005, however, Broward Marine took over the possession and operation of the PBPH Property from Broward Yachts. It also purchased the assets of Broward Yachts, including the 2002 Dock Application and the 2003 Revised Application. Response to the County's Proposal In June of 2005, the County met with representatives of Petitioners to discuss acceptable dock configurations. Petitioners advised that they would accept a configuration consisting of four docks extending into the Basin at a southeasterly angle and that they would be amenable to a fifth dock parallel and immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the PBPH bulkhead. The County presented the proposal to Mr. Zink, counsel for Broward Yachts, Broward Marine and PBPH in a letter dated July 11, 2005. Mr. Zink responded by letter dated July 14, 2005. The letter references: "Broward Yachts, Inc. - Floating Docks" even though at the time the 2002 Dock Application and the 2003 Revised Dock Application had been assigned to Broward Marine. The one paragraph letter reads: I am in receipt of Michael Owens July 11, 2005 letter regarding the above matter. Though my client does not agree the 2002 aerial photos are historically representative of the number of floating docks, Broward Yachts is submitting herewith a revised drawing dated July 13, 2005 which accepts what is proposed in paragraph two (2) of Mr. Ownens July 11, 2005 letter. Petitioners' Ex. 54, (emphasis added.) The revised drawing, that was neither signed nor sealed, was attached to Mr. Zink's letter. It shows five floating docks "ALL 7'6" WIDE," id. at second page, four of which are angled into the Basin in a southeasterly direction, none of which are more than 150 feet in length. It also shows a fifth dock that lies immediately adjacent to the eastern seawall of the bulkhead on the PBPH property so that it does not angle into the Basin at all. It is 200 feet long and stops short of the south end of the bulkhead so as to be well clear of the Dania Cut-off Canal. Mr. Zink's acceptance of the proposal on behalf of Broward Yachts did not, however, lead to a resolution. The County asked for two additional matters: signed and sealed drawings from an engineer and that PBPH, as the owner of the property, become the applicant. PBPH Steps In Through a letter dated October 20, 2005, Mr. Zink agreed to the two additional demands of the County. The letter enclosed "sealed drawings for the above applications." Respondents' Ex. 6. The applications were referenced in the letter as ERL and the ERP for "Broward Yachts - Floating Docks," but the letter stated, "[a]s per your E-mail of August 25, 2005, a Revised Application identifying Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. as the property owner will be submitted to you directly by my client." Id. The signed and sealed drawings that were submitted did not reflect the proposal made by the County and agreed to by Mr. Zink on behalf of his client in July of 2005. The drawings showed one finger pier immediately alongside the western seawall of the bulkhead and five finger piers composed of floating docks that angled into the Basin. The signed and sealed drawings showed six finger piers instead of five and five finger piers that angled into the Basin instead of the four envisioned by the agreement finalized by Mr. Zink's letter on July 14, 2005. In a letter dated November 11, 2005, and received on November 16, 2005, that was characterized by Mr. Zink as "a follow up on my October 20, 2005, letter to [the County]," Petitioner's Ex. 7, Mr. Zink enclosed two documents: "1) Original executed Application on behalf of Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. 2) Drawing prepared by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., depicting the docks." Id. The letter dated November 11, 2005, was not accepted for reasons outlined in an e-mail message from Julie Mitchell to Eric Myers. See Petitioners' Ex. 69. In the wake of the message, the County continued to process the 2003 Revised Dock Application. In a letter dated December 16, 2005, with the same reference line used in his earlier correspondence ("Re: Broward Yachts, Inc. - Floating Docks"), Mr. Zink submitted "(2) Revised Drawings prepared by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., Inc. dated 11/30/05 depicting the five (5) finger piers as per the July 13, 2005, conceptual drawing approved by DPEP." Petitioners' Ex. 75. As represented by Mr. Zink, the drawings matched the configuration proposed by the County in its letter of July 11, 2005. At this point in the series of events initiated by the Notice of Violation in 2002, the parties would have been justified in thinking that an agreement had been reached, that the ERL and ERP could be issued and that all files on the matter of the Broward County EDP could be successfully closed. Mr. Lewis on behalf of Broward Yachts expressed the sentiment at hearing: [I]n the course of that same period, [Mr. Ganoe] was concerned about turning vessels where the fifth dock was. And we put a buoy in the basin where the length of a boat extending beyond that pier would be, he had given us a radius of what he wanted. We had McLaughlin Engineering take that, and I can't remember how many feet that he wanted clear in that area, plotted it on a drawing, went over it with him, thought we had an agreement. Tr. 181 (emphasis added.) Between the County's July 2005 proposal and Mr. Zink's December 16, 2005, letter that appears to have finalized the proposal's acceptance, however, a disruptive event occurred. The event caused destruction in the Basin, halted businesses on both of its sides and stressed the resources of the County: Hurricane Wilma. Hurricane Wilma Hurricane Wilma destroyed most of the docks and pilings in the Basin. In the wake of the destruction, Broward Marine submitted an application to the County for the issuance of a general license (the "General License") to repair and re- install pilings and ramps. The difference between projects that require an ERL, such as the project at issue in this proceeding (which required both an ERL and an ERP), and those that require only a general license was explained by Ms. Mitchell at hearing: "A general license is for smaller projects, specifically for docks where the total overwater area is less than 500 feet . . . ." Tr. 386. A Broward County general license was also distinguished from the ERP at issue in this case. Projects for which the overwater area is less than 1,000 feet are not subject to ERPs. The general license was approved in a letter issued by EPD's Wetlands/Uplands Resources Section: This letter is to inform you that your request for a General License has been granted. General License No. GL- DAN0512-029 authorizes the installation of ten (10) pilings and five (5) floating ramps, adjacent to 750 NE 7th Avenue, in the City of Dania Beach. Respondents' Ex. 9 at 9-2. The General License authorized pilings and ramps only; it did not authorize floating dock structures such as finger piers. The approved project description was attached to the January 6, 2006, letter. It shows the approved project to be pilings installed within the Basin at certain distances from the seawall. For the northernmost four set of pilings the distances range from 115 feet to 150 feet. The distance from the seawall of the fifth set of pilings (the southernmost set that corresponds to the fifth finger pier applied for in the ERP application) is 75 feet, a distance significant to safety and navigability. Notwithstanding that the General License did not authorize finger piers, Broward County installed finger piers in the Basin. The installation of finger piers was done without an ERL or an ERP. When asked why a Notice of Intent was not issued that reflected the parties' putative agreement at the end of 2005, Ms. Mitchell replied, "To be honest, I don't recall because there was so much settlement going on outside of our department with the attorneys, I don't remember exactly why it ended up going [to hearing.]" Tr. 397. The record is unclear as to why a Notice of Intent was not issued. It may have been because of the interruption and destruction of Hurricane Wilma and the confusion it caused when country resources were diverted to other pressing matters. It may have been because of lack of communication between all of the parties and their attorneys. Or, it may have been because of objections from Broward Marine that are referenced in Petitioners' Ex. 69 as to the November 16, 2005, submission of information. The objections are counter to Mr. Zink's letter of December 16, 2005, and inconsistent with Mr. Lewis' recall of having reached an agreement in mid-2005. Whatever the reason, a Notice of Intent for an ERL and an ERP authorizing finger piers and floating docks as referenced in Mr. Zink's December 16, 2005, letter was not issued. In March of 2006, the 2002 Dock Application and the amendment to it in the 2003 Revised Application proceeded to hearing before a Broward County Hearing Examiner because of their denial by the County. The March 2006 Hearing, the Final Order and the Omnibus Order The hearing was held on March 30, 2006. There were two parties to the proceeding: Broward Yachts, Inc., as the Petitioner, and Broward County Environmental Protection Department. Aside from the County, none of the parties to this proceeding13/ (DOAH Case No. 08-1393) were parties to the proceeding before the Hearing Examiner. In his Final Order, the Hearing Examiner described those who participated or were present: At the hearing, the Environmental Protection Department was represented by Michael Owens, Esquire, who presented the testimony of Julie Krawczyk, Natural Resource Specialist II. The Petitioner was represented by Larry Zink, Esquire, who presented the testimony of Glenn Straubb [sic], the President of Palm Beach Holdings, Inc. Also in attendance at the hearing was Steve Ganoe, President of G&G Marine, Inc. ("G&G") Respondents' Ex. 10. The Hearing Examiner entered the Final Order on June 5, 2006. The Final Order found that "these docks, is some shape or form, have existed in this area for over twenty one years and have been used for substantially the same purpose for those years." Id. at 10-2. The order further found "that no competent substantial evidence was presented that would support or warrant the denial of the license and permit sought by the Petitioner [Broward Yachts] to maintain its existing docks." Id. at 10-3. The order concluded, "The administrative decision denying the license/permit to maintain the docks is quashed and the matter is remanded to EPD to take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of this Final Order." Id. The order is based on the following finding: The only relevant standard to this proceeding . . . is . . . whether the docks will adversely affect public safety or welfare or the property of others. No evidence was presented that the docks, which have been in existence since 1985, have ever caused an accident or that they impede G&G's reasonable use of the easement. Moreover, while the EPD does have the right to regulate these docks and the navigable water upon which the docks rest, the easement area is not generally travelled by the public and more or less serves as an entrance to only two businesses, G&G and that of the Petitioner. Id. Broward County filed a motion for reconsideration of the Final Order. G&G filed a motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration as a "nonparty." See Respondents' Ex. 11. Both motions were considered in an order entitled "Omnibus Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Post Hearing Motions." Respondents' Ex. 12. The County's motion was denied. The motion of G&G's was granted in part. The motion was found to request relief not inconsistent with the Final Order. "Specifically, G&G requests that the Final Order prohibit the installation of additional docks and prohibit increasing the size of the existing docks." Id. at 12-2. The Omnibus Order grants the following relief: Petitioner may maintain the five existing docks and repair and replace them, but may not do so in a manner that causes any of the docks to protrude at a greater length or distance into the waterway. Additionally, Petitioner may not construct or maintain any docks other that the five existing docks. Id. at 12-2, 12-3. Neither the Final Order nor the Omnibus Order contains a finding of fact as to the configuration of docks at the time of the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner. There is evidence in the record of this case (DOAH Case No. 08-1393) that the five docks existing on March 30, 2006, were configured consistently with the pilings authorized by the General License, that is, they had lengths beginning with the northernmost dock of 135, 135, 150, 150 and 75 feet, respectively. At the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, moreover, the docks were present in the Basin in approximately the same configuration as existed in March of 2006. The 2006 and the 2007 NOIs On October 23, 2006, the County issued a Notice of Intent (the "2006 Notice of Intent") to issue a combined permit/license for the construction of the five docks ranging from 132 feet to 192 feet in length. The 2006 Notice of Intent was issued solely because the County believed it was required by the Hearing Examiner's Final and Omnibus Orders. See Tr. 405. The configuration of docks authorized by the 2006 Notice of Intent resembled the July 2005 Proposal accepted by Mr. Zink on behalf of Broward Yachts: four docks angled into the Basin in a southwesterly direction with one additional dock parallel and adjacent to the seawall. The County did not conduct any evaluation of its own between the dates of the Hearing Examiner's Final and Omnibus Orders as to whether the configuration authorized by the 2006 Notice of Intent had unacceptable impacts to navigation and safety. The draft permit attached to the 2006 Notice of Intent contains several sets of conditions. DEP General Conditions, Broward County EPD General Conditions and ERP and ERL Specific Conditions ("Specific Conditions"). The Specific Conditions were included under the County's authority to impose conditions necessary to carry out the intent of the ERP and ERL permitting regulations. Specific Condition 18 is "Mooring of vessels with lengths exceeding the length of the permitted structures is prohibited." Respondents' Ex. 13 at 13-17. The purpose of including Specific Condition 18, as testified by Eric Myers, Director of the Broward County EPD at the time the 2006 Notice of Intent was issued, "was to make sure that . . . adequate navigation was maintained within the Basin." Tr. 560. G&G challenged the 2006 Notice of Intent by filing a petition for formal proceedings with EPD seeking a clarification in interpretation with regard to the lengths of vessels to be moored in the PBPH side of the Basin vis- à-vis the length of the permitted structures. Broward Marine also filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings challenging the 2006 NOI. In furtherance of discussions with the County, Broward Marine, by letter dated June 26, 2007, submitted four surveys for consideration by the County. The first purported to show the dock configuration existing after Ms. Mitchell's January 2002 visit but before the submission of the Permit Application; the second purported to show the dock configuration on December 11, 2003; the third showed the dock configurations sought by Broward Marine; and the fourth showed all configurations overlapping. None of the surveys depicted the dock configuration existing on January 22, 2002, the date of the Ms. Mitchell's visit, which was the configuration the County had requested Broward Yachts to submit for approval. The County did not transmit the G&G petition or the Broward Marine petition to DOAH. Instead, on or about August 23, 2007, EPD issued another Notice of Intent to Issue Permit/License (the "2007 NOI") to PBPH. The 2007 NOI identifies the proposed project as the Broward Yachts Marine Facility, with permit No. 06-0194386-001 and License No. DF03-1121 and lists the Permittee/Licensee as "Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc." Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-9. With respect to the factors considered by the County in issuing the 2007 NOI, it provides: The Department reviewed the information presented in the petitions, the Hearing Examiner's Final Orders, and surveys provided by Broward Marine with a letter dated June 25, 2007, and as a result has reformulated the draft permit and agency action. Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-3. The 2007 NOI also referred to an earlier NOI and draft permit issued on August 2, 2007. On August 8, 2007, EPD was notified of typographical errors in the August 2, 2007, NOI. As a result of the typographical errors and other previous errors, the 2007 NOI stated, "this Notice hereby supersedes the October 23, 2006, and August 2, 2007, Notices of Intent to Issue and draft permits/licenses." Id. The Proposed Permit and the draft Environmental Resource License attached to the 2007 NOI allows PBPH to construct five floating finger piers as detailed in a section of the Proposed Permit entitled "PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN," as follows: The proposed project is to construct five (5) floating finger piers in an existing privately-owned marina basin. From north to south, the finger piers shall have the following sizes: (1) 7.5-foot-wide by 122-foot-long pier; (2)7.5-foot-wide by 135.8-foot-long pier; (3) 7.5-foot-wide by 150.5-foot- long pier; (4) 7.5-foot-wide by 150.5- foot-long pier; and (5) 7.5-foot-wide by 152.6-foot-long pier. All five (5) finger piers shall be placed sixty-five (65) feet apart and angled in a southeasterly direction from the existing seawall, as depicted on the attached drawing. The total over-water area of the structures shall be 5,378.25 square feet Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-10. The dock configuration authorized in the Proposed Permit is the same dock plan depicted in Exhibit C to the June 25, 2007, letter from Broward Marine to the County. The County issued the 2007 NOI, revising the dock configuration from what it had authorized in the 2006 NOI, due to objections from Broward Marine that the configuration in the 2006 NOI was not consistent with the Final Order and the Omnibus Order. The Proposed Permit also eliminated Specific Condition 18 that was in the 2006 NOI. It did not impose any restriction or limitation on the length of vessels that may be moored at the proposed finger piers, and PBPH indicated at hearing that it would moor vessels alongside the finger piers whose lengths exceeded the piers.14/ In addition to elimination of Specific Condition 18, there were other significant differences between the 2006 NOI and the 2007 NOI. For example, the 2007 NOI allows all five finger piers to be placed 65 feet apart and angled in a southeasterly direction from the seawall. In contrast, the 2006 NOI provided that the southernmost pier of the five would be placed immediately parallel to the seawall so that it did not jut out at all into the Basin. The 2007 NOI contemplates that the structure of the finger piers would be more permanent. The 2003 Revised Application had sought floating docks, of the type existing at the time made of Styrofoam and wood, as opposed to fixed piers. The concrete pilings and the concrete tub floating docks contemplated by the 2007 NOI are more permanent than the existing wood pilings and the wood and Styrofoam docks. Eric Myers, Director of EPD at the time, signed the 2007 NOI. When he did so on August 26, 2007, he believed that the issues regarding safety and navigation that had been raised by G&G and C-Term had been resolved "based on the advice of staff." Tr. 529. Historical Configuration of Docks in the Basin PBPH contends that the finger pier and dock configuration authorized by the 2007 NOI is consistent with historical lengths and configurations of piers and docks in the Basin. The evidence establishes that the length, number, configuration and locations of docks within the Basin varied greatly over time. As Mr. Straub testified in response to a question about the dock configuration when the property was acquired by PBPH, "Whatever we wanted them to be. It could change from day-to-day and month-to- month." Tr. 582. Aerials taken by Broward County dating back to 1998 demonstrate that the docks in the Basin ranged in number, length and location until 2006 when docks were installed following issuance of the General License. Until 1998, there were many different configurations. Since 2006, the number, lengths, and sizes of the docks have remained fairly consistent to the time of hearing. In the January 2007 Broward County aerial photograph, the five docks (from north to south) have lengths of 151.5, 136, 156, 156 and 88 feet, respectively. These lengths are roughly similar to the piling configuration authorized by the General License.15/ Safety and Navigation16/ The multiplicity of factors that affect navigation in the Dania Cut-off Canal "makes maneuvering extremely tricky" in the canal. Tr. 1574. These same factors affect Basin ingress and egress of G&G vessels and other vessels that have access to the Basin. Wind near the Basin comes from any direction. The predominant wind in the area of the Basin is out of the east/southeast at average speeds of 10-12 knots. From time-to-time, of course, the wind shifts. When cold fronts come through the area, for example, they generally come from the west/northwest and the wind blows mainly from the north. Strongest winds associated with a cold front are usually "anywhere from 20 to 30 knots. Constant winds with a good cold front, usually 15 to 20 knots." Tr. 1260. Direction and strength of wind affects stability and handling capacity of vessels entering and exiting the Basin. The bow of the vessel is affected the most. In the front, it is the narrowest part of the vessel, the least heavy, and has the least draft (depth in the water). Vessels entering and exiting the Basin are affected by leeway defined by Mr. Danti at hearing: "[L]eeway is the physical amount of sideways motion that is going to be activated on a vessel by the wind. It is the amount of side motion created by the wind on a vessel." Tr. 1268-9. Leeway varies depending on a number of factors, among them, the strength and direction of the wind, the angle of the vessel, and its draft. Ocean-freight shipping vessels have different handling characteristics from yachts. The effect of leeway on vessels in the Basin varies from vessel to vessel. Typically, the effect of leeway is greater on G&G vessels than on the PBPH vessels. The current in the Dania Cut-off Canal is 2.0 to 2.5 knots. The current in the canal in the immediate vicinity of the Basin has significant effects on the maneuverability of vessels. Because of the current in the canal, it is advisable for vessels entering and exiting the Basin to perform the majority of turns and other maneuvers in the Basin rather than in the canal. Another factor that makes turning maneuvers by G&G vessels safer in the Basin is boat traffic in the Dania Cut-off Canal. That traffic has increased greatly in recent years, as Mr. Steele testified. Vessels exiting the Basin, furthermore, must yield to vessels in the canal. Boat traffic is not visible to the typical G&G vessel until the vessel has committed to exiting the canal. Once committed, the G&G vessel cannot stop and wait for traffic to pass. It must complete the exit maneuver. It is much better, therefore, for the G&G vessel to turn in the Basin before committing to an exit so that it can emerge bow-first with a better view of canal traffic rather than emerge by backing out. Another factor that makes turning in the Basin safer is the Harbortown Marina, located directly across the canal from the Basin. There is a greater chance for collision the farther the G&G vessels must go into the Dania Cut-off Canal before beginning maneuvers necessary to head out to sea. Vessels will have to go closer to the southern side of the canal, that is, farther into the canal, when emerging from the Basin if they back out and turn in the canal rather than turn in the Basin before heading out toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Basin has a width of 320 feet at the north end and a width of 323 feet at the south end. Mr. Danti fashioned an "Unobstructed Line," depicted on Petitioners Ex. 114A and superimposed on Exhibits 114B through 114"O", fourteen aerial photographs of the Basin taken between 1998 and 2008.17/ The line commences at the north end of the Basin 162' from the Basin's western seawall and runs to the south with two "jogs" to the west before it ends at a projected bulkhead line in the mouth of the Basin just north of the Dania Cut- off Canal. The two jogs run perpendicular to the western seawall; the first, to the tip of the fourth finger pier allowed by the 2007 NOI and the second to a point 59.90 feet east of the western seawall in the approximate middle of the fifth and southernmost finger pier allowed by the 2007 NOI. The part of the Basin to the east of the Unobstructed Line is a navigational safe area (the "Safety Zone") created by Mr. Danti in which it is safe, in his opinion, for G&G vessels to turn and take maneuvers necessary to safely enter and exit the Basin. The Unobstructed Line and the Safety Zone were determined by Mr. Danti in a calculation that took into consideration factors including wind, current and tide, as well as the length, width, draft, maneuverability and handling characteristics of the bulk of G&G vessels and the fact that G&G vessels entering and exiting the Basin need the use of a minimum amount of space in the southern part of the Basin to initiate and complete safe entry and exit navigation maneuvers. Ultimately, the Safety Zone provides a minimum distance for a vessel 190 feet in length determined as half the beam of a vessel18/ from the bow, stern or either side of a vessel to any other vessel, dock, piling or seawall. It does not take into account factors that may require a greater distance such as wind, current and traffic under conditions that are less desirable than the best conditions experienced in the area of the Basin ("Best Conditions"). In order for vessels of the size and character that enter and exit the Basin to do so safely under Best Conditions, no finger piers, docks or moored vessels should protrude from the PBPH side of the Unobstructed Line into the Safety Zone. Under ideal wind, current, and weather conditions, the lengths of the first four finger piers from north to south as authorized by the Proposed Permit will not result in adverse effects to safety and navigation of vessels in and around the Basin. The fifth finger pier, however, is another matter. Authorized to be 152.60 feet in length as depicted in the Proposed Permit, it will protrude by more than 77 feet into the Safety Zone developed by Mr. Danti. Put another way, the fifth finger pier will adversely affect safety and navigation unless it is 75 feet or less in length given its southeasterly angle depicted in the Proposed Permit.19/ The authorized length of the fifth finger pier is not the only navigation and safety issue about which Mr. Danti testified. The length of vessels moored at the finger piers in the Proposed Permit, if too long, can present safety and navigation issues, as well, for G&G's vessels coming in and out of the Basin. With respect to the three northernmost finger piers, moored vessels should not extend past the Unobstructed Line, that is, they should not extend more than 162 feet measured perpendicularly from the Basin's western seawall. With respect to the fourth finger pier, vessels moored there should not extend past the 150.50 feet allowed for the length of the pier as depicted in the Proposed Permit. Similarly, no vessels moored at the fifth finger pier should extend past the end of a longest possible safe fifth finger pier, that is, one that is no more than 75 feet in length at the angle depicted in the 2007 NOI. The adverse affects on safety and navigation caused by the fifth finger pier at the length and as configured in the Proposed Permit would not be alleviated by G&G's use of tugboats to assist vessels entering and exiting the Basin. Tugboats are connected to the vessels they tug by tow lines at the bow and stern of the vessels. Such an arrangement adds approximately 85 feet to a typical G&G vessel of 190 feet, thereby requiring more room in the Basin for maneuvering than the vessel would need under its own power. The use of tugboats would require an even more expansive Safety Zone than was developed by Mr. Danti.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Broward County: modify the Proposed Permit attached to the 2007 Notice of Intent to shorten the length of the fifth finger pier to 75 feet and then issue the permit with the modification; or absent such a modification, deny the issuance of the Proposed Permit as applied for by PBPH. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 14th day of October, 2010.
Findings Of Fact This case is promoted based upon the previously mentioned Administrative Complaint and the Respondent's ensuing request for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed by the Board of Pilot Commissioners pursuant to Chapter 310, Florida Statutes. He holds pilot license No. 0000033. Register has served as a licensed pilot in the St. Johns River in the Port of Jacksonville, Florida, for a period in excess of 20 years. Respondent has piloted ships in and out of the Port of Jacksonville on the St. Johns River approximately 20,000 times. One of the assignments which Captain Register had as a pilot pertained to piloting the outbound vessel Oakland on the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, Florida, on March 19, 1983, commencing approximately 2303 hrs when he received the con of the vessel from the dockingmaster. The Oakland is a C-4 type of vessel or container ship which is approximately 685 feet long and 96 feet wide. At the time of these events in March, 1983, the Oakland was sailing under Registry, bound for a foreign port. The vessel was heavily laden, but not in excess of cargo capacity. The trip out the St. Johns on March 19, 1983, is graphically depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence, which is a chart diagram of the river and adjacent shoreline, together with approximate positions of the Oakland and commands given taken from an interview with the Respondent and from the ship's log. The weather on this occasion was not an inhibiting factor in the navigation of the vessel, in fact the weather was "outstanding," with westerly winds of 8 knots. The steering gear on the vessel had been checked at 2130 hrs the day of the scheduled voyage of March 19, 1983, and was found to be in acceptable working order. No problems had been experienced with the steering from mid- January 1983 through the date of the aforementioned check. When Captain Register took over at 2303 hrs, the master of the vessel and other crew members were on the bridge to assist. In addition, the chief mate was on the bow as lookout. The chief mate, serving as anchor watch on the bow, was in communication with the ship's master via walkie-talkie. Once the vessel had been steadied up in the river, upon command of the Respondent, the vessel proceeded at full ahead and reached the approximate velocity of 10 to 12 knots before 2312 hrs. At 2312 hrs, Respondent ordered half ahead to maneuver in the Long Branch Range portion of the St. Johns. Half ahead represents 6 to 8 knots of speed in the water for the Oakland. At 2314 hrs, the command of slow ahead was given to avoid undue suction related to a vessel in a docking area adjacent to the St. Johns, known as the bulk terminal. When that command was given at 2314 hrs, the Oakland was carrying 6 to 8 knots of speed in the water. Also, at 2314 hrs, the chief mate was told to "stand by" the anchors. This command was given by Captain Fisher, the Oakland's ship's master. In this time frame, 2314 hrs through 2316 hrs, the chief mate had some concern that they might have some trouble maneuvering by the Meton, a vessel moored in the St. Johns ahead of the Oakland as it was proceeding outbound. This vessel was a different ship than that found at the bulk terminal. The chief mate expressed the opinion that it looked like they would probably clear the Meton but it would be a close call. Five to ten seconds later, he told the bridge they weren't going to make it. The bow watch was assisting in this regard in view of the fact that the bow is some 600 feet forward of the bridge where the pilot and master were located. Between 2314 hrs and 2316 hrs, Register gave the command half ahead and the speed of the Oakland at that time was approximately 5 to 6 knots. Register also ordered 20 degrees right rudder to negotiate the Chaseville Turn and avoid the moored vessel Meton, a gasoline tanker. The ship did not respond readily to the 20 degree right rudder and immediately thereafter a hard right rudder command was given by Register. At 2316 hrs, a danger signal was sounded upon instigation of the Respondent. At 2317 hrs, Register ordered full astern with a jingle and the command was given to let go of the anchors. This command was relayed by Fisher to the chief mate on the bow. Additionally, the crew member on the bridge at the helm was responding to commands by Register and Register's commands were being communicated to the engine room through the ship's master. When the command to let go of the anchor was received by the chief mate, he went to the brake wheel to comply with the command. A boatswain was there to assist him. Upon reaching that location, the Oakland was approximately 200 feet away from the Meton, too late for the deployment of the anchors to help avoid a collision and the chief mate abandoned his post and moved away from the bow area without dropping the anchors. At that moment, the two ships were approximately 100 feet apart. In effect, there was not enough time to drop and set the anchor from the time the command was given at 2317 hrs and the time of an eventual collision between the Meton and Oakland. The collision occurred in view of the fact that the efforts to turn away from the Meton and avoid the collision, i.e., the 20 degree right rudder, hard right rudder and full astern were not sufficient to avoid that collision. The collision occurred at 2319 hrs when the Oakland's bow struck the Meton's bow. At the point of impact, the Oakland was proceeding at 2 to 3 knots. Structural damage was caused to the vessels. No indication was given as to any injuries of ship personnel or others. From 2303 hrs through 2319 hrs, the critical period in consideration, ample assistance was afforded to Captain Register by members of the Oakland's crew. After disengaging from the collision, the steering gear was checked by the chief engineer on the Oakland with particular emphasis on the rudder response and no abnormalities were detected. Tests by Coast Guard personnel made at dockside at 0930 hrs on March 21, 1983, and again while the ship was underway on March 24, 1983, did not reveal any abnormalities in the steering gear and response time for operation of the rudder was found to be within acceptable time constraints. The repairs that were made to the "key" involved in the steering mechanism, effective March 18, 1983, and repairs to the telemotor subsequent to the accident were routine and not contributors to the collision between the Oakland and Meton. Captain Register and the master expressed surprise at the inability of the Oakland to maneuver by the Meton without collision. Nonetheless, neither of these witnesses or other persons who gave testimony were able to indicate some mechanical malfunction or outside contributing force which would have led to the eventual collision between the ships. Nor were the other witnesses helpful in this regard, to include pilots Steele and Williamson. In essence, no explanation was given to establish why a ship which was shown to be in good repair, sailing in uneventful weather, should collide with a stationary object, the Meton. Consequently, it is determined that negligent judgment in the operation of the ship on the part of the Respondent led to the collision. The testimony by Captains Fisher, Steele and Williamson as to the conduct of the Respondent in his performance do not excuse his negligence. Instead they speak convincingly to Respondent's efforts to mitigate the results of his error in judgment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Swiss national, who resides in Jamaica. His business in Jamaica involves water sports and vacation tours, primarily for European tourists. Petitioner attended a boat show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in order to locate a suitable boat for entertainment and tour purposes for use by his business in Jamaica. There, he saw The Lady, a vessel being brokered by Anchorline Yacht and Ship Brokerage, Inc., of St. Petersburg, Florida. On February 28, 1980, Petitioner purchased The Lady from Anchorline for $120,000. Prior to that date, a survey was conducted by Wilkinson Company, marine surveyors, and repairs indicated by that survey were completed at South Pasadena Marina, Inc. At the time that Petitioner purchased The Lady from Anchorline, he advised the broker that he was taking the vessel out of the country. Accordingly, the broker required Petitioner to sign an affidavit that Petitioner had read the provisions of Section 212.05, Florida Statutes, and no tax was collected on the sale and purchase of The Lady. As The Lady was journeying from St. Petersburg across the State of Florida to West Palm Beach in order to reach Jamaica, she started taking on water. She was taken to Lantana Boatyard, where another marine survey was conducted. That survey concluded that The Lady was not seaworthy and, therefore, could not be taken to Jamaica at that time. As one of the required repairs, her engines needed to be overhauled by Cummins in Miami. Accordingly, after the repairs to be made at the Lantana Boatyard were completed, The Lady was taken to the Keystone Point Marina in North Miami, Florida, so that the work on her Cummins engines could be undertaken. During this time, Petitioner attempted to register The Lady in Jamaica; however, the Jamaican Government refused to license or register the vessel since she was not in Jamaica but was still physically located within the State of Florida. As a result of discussion between Petitioner and a Mr. Mathews at Anchorline, on September 18, 1980, the Petitioner made application for a Florida boat Certificate of Title at a tag agency. He reported the purchase price as ten dollars and, accordingly, paid forty cents tax on the transaction. Cummins started the repair work necessary on The Lady's engines while she had been docked at the Keystone Point Marina. On occasion, Petitioner has stayed overnight on The Lady for security purposes. He has had a telephone attached to the vessel for his personal use while on board. On January 7, 1981, Respondent Department of Revenue issued a Warrant for Collection of Delinquent Sales and Use Tax against the Petitioner in the total amount of $9,967.37, representing the follows: Tax $4,799.60 Penalty 4,799.60 Interest 350.17 Filing Fee 18.00 $9,967.37 On January 19, 1981, Petitioner made payment to Respondent Department of Revenue in the amount of $5,167.77, which payment was made under protest and which payment represents the amount of tax, interest, and filing fees, but does not include the amount of penalty. Pursuant to its warrant, the Department of Revenue has chained The Lady to the dock at the Keystone Point Marina. Accordingly, the work being performed by Cummins on her engines has not been completed, and no sea trial can be conducted. As stipulated by the parties, since the Petitioner purchased The Lady, she has been under repair and has never left Florida waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered denying Petitioner's claim for a refund, finding the Petitioner liable for a sales tax equal to four percent of the purchase price, together with interest and filing fees, but finding the penalty assessed against Petitioner to be erroneous and therefore invalid. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Lechtman, Esquire 801 N.E. 167th Street, Suite 301 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 John Browdy, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Randy Miller Executive Director Department of Revenue 102 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the application of the Fort Pierce Pilots Association for an increase in the pilotage rates for the Port of Fort Pierce should be granted in whole or in part, or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearings on April 26- 28 and August 23, 2011, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties Petitioner ACL is the largest user of the Port of Fort Pierce (the Port). ACL operates three vessels on a regular "liner" schedule operating six days per week from the Port to a few foreign ports. Approximately 95 percent of the vessel traffic at the Port is generated by these three vessels. ACL is affected by the rates of pilotage set for the Port since it is required by chapter 310, Florida Statutes, to utilize and compensate a state-licensed pilot each time one of its vessels enters or departs the Port. The rates that must be paid by ACL are established by Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Pilotage Rate Review Committee. Accordingly, ACL is substantially affected by and has standing to maintain this challenge to the former Board's preliminary decision set forth in the Notice of Intent. Petitioner IRT owns the terminal at the Port, as well as warehouses, offices and equipment at the Port. The pilotage rate increase preliminarily approved by the Board in the Notice of Intent will make the pilotage rates at the Port higher for the small vessels which can utilize the Port than the rates these same size vessels would pay at the Port of Palm Beach, Port Canaveral and/or Port Everglades. This is significant because IRT competes to attract new business from vessel owners and/or operators whose vessels call on South Florida. Accordingly, IRT is substantially affected by and has standing to maintain this challenge to the Board's preliminary decision set forth in the Notice of Intent. The Pilotage Rate Review Committee (formerly the Pilotage Rate Review Board), Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), is a state agency created by section 310.151, Florida Statutes. It is established as part of the Board of Pilot Commissioners, and consists of seven members. With regard to an application for a change in pilotage rates, the Committee must investigate and determine whether a rate change will result in fair, just and reasonable rates of pilotage pursuant to chapter 310, Florida Statutes, and rules implementing those provisions. The decisions of the Committee however, are made independent of the Board of Pilot Commissioners, and are not appealable to the Board of Pilot Commissioners. Intervenor Fort Pierce Pilots Association (FPPA) is an association of harbor pilots with one member, William Wetzel, LLC. Captain William Wetzel is, in turn, the sole member of William Wetzel, LLC and is the state-licensed pilot for the Port. The FPPA, through Captain Wetzel and occasionally a cross-licensed pilot from the Port of Palm Beach, perform the pilotage services at the Port. The Florida State Pilots Association, Inc. (FSPA) has a business address in Tallahassee, Florida. FSPA is a voluntary organization representing the interests of Florida’s 97 state- licensed harbor pilots, who participate in the FSPA through the 11 local pilot associations that serve Florida’s deepwater ports. The Piloting Profession Chapter 310, Florida Statutes, sets forth a comprehensive body of regulation addressing the practice of piloting in this state. The purpose of such regulation, as elsewhere in the country, is to ensure the efficient movement of maritime commerce while guarding against vessel incidents that could injure persons and property, as well as the state’s economy and environment. From this standpoint, the most dangerous part of any sea voyage for the ship and for the public at large is when the ship is moving into or out of port. In the maritime industry, the crew of a vessel, which is employed by the ship’s owner or operator, is under significant pressure to bring that vessel into and out of port efficiently and without delays. In light of the risks posed if those economic interests were to override public safety, Florida, and every other state with a significant maritime industry, requires vessels to utilize the services of an independent state-licensed pilot. The pilot is a mariner with many years of experience who is thoroughly familiar with every facet of a particular port and who has the skills necessary to maneuver a wide variety of ships. Because the pilot is not employed by the vessel owner, the pilot can exercise independent judgment, free from the pressures normally associated with the ship’s business operations. The value added by the pilot in terms of safety is widely recognized throughout the maritime industry, as evidenced by the fact that even ships calling on U.S. ports for which a pilot is not required by state law, i.e., U.S.-flagged vessels, routinely use the services of the port’s state-licensed pilots. The risks faced by pilots are unique. Pilots are transferred from their pilot boat out at sea onto and off of large moving vessels. Once the pilot boat maneuvers alongside the vessel, the pilot typically boards the ship by stepping from the pilot boat onto a ladder hanging from the ship’s side. Unfortunately, pilots are frequently injured and sometimes killed in the course of this dangerous transfer, particularly in bad weather. One expert in the piloting profession testified that over the course of a 30-year career, a pilot has a one-in-20 chance of being killed in a boarding accident. Once on board, the pilot must familiarize himself or herself with the ship’s navigational equipment, performance characteristics, and mechanical condition. The pilot conducts a conference with the ship’s master, during which the two exchange technical information on the ship, as well as details of the planned passage. If the vessel is fit for the transit, the pilot then “takes the conn,” assuming navigational control of the vessel and directing the ship’s movements by giving verbal commands on steering and engine power to the ship’s crew. The crew will have varying levels of maritime experience and often speak little or no English. The pilot must deal with a wide variety of ships and equipment. The vast majority of ocean-going vessels are flagged in foreign countries rather than the U.S., thus avoiding a great deal of regulation, as well as taxation. Piloting Selection and Training A mariner wanting to become a state pilot in Florida must await an opening declared by the state’s Board of Pilot Commissioners in one or more ports where he or she has an interest in serving. If the mariner is determined to have sufficient experience and qualifications, the next step in the process of deputy pilot selection is successful completion of a very difficult written examination, designed and administered by the State of Florida. This comprehensive two-day examination encompasses International & Inland Rules of the Road, Seamanship & Shiphandling, Federal & State Pilotage Laws, and port-specific Chart Work & Local Knowledge, and requires the candidate to reproduce from memory a complete and accurate chart of the port and its channels. These examinations are extremely difficult, and candidates will have typically spent several months and hundreds of hours in preparation. Only about 20 percent of those who sit for the exam will pass. The examination, however, is not one where the applicant is only required to achieve a minimum score to demonstrate basic competency. Rather, in Florida, the goal of the deputy pilot candidate is to achieve the top score among all candidates taking the exam. This is because the DBPR Secretary will be presented with a list of the top five scores on the exam and will typically appoint as the deputy pilot the person scoring highest. Once the DBPR Secretary has selected a deputy pilot to fill an opening at a Florida port, the deputy is issued a 12-month temporary certificate. The temporary certificate becomes permanent when the deputy has proven suitable in all respects for continued training as a state pilot. Once in receipt of the temporary certificate, the deputy pilot then begins a minimum two-year training program at the port, as approved and monitored by the Board of Pilot Commissioners. Under the supervision of the fully licensed pilots of the port, this training program allows the deputy pilot to initially handle smaller vessels of limited size and tonnage, with gradual increases in size and tonnage over time. While in training, the deputy earns only a portion of what a full pilot would earn. The Board of Pilot Commissioners approves each deputy pilot’s advancement to a higher level in the training program, after thorough review of the records and the recommendations of the local pilots in the port. Some deputy pilots “wash out” of training and fail to complete the program, never becoming pilots. Upon completion of all training, the deputy pilot must pass yet another rigorous exam administered by the state before he or she can be appointed and licensed by DBPR as a full state pilot for the specific port in which the deputy pilot has trained. The Rate Application and Review Process On or about March 30, 2009, the FPPA submitted an application (the Application) to the former Board, requesting an increase in pilotage rates at the Port. The Application sought an increase in the rates of pilotage at the Port over a four- year period, as follows: 157% in year one, 13.9% in year two, 16.7% in year three and 18.7% in year four. The total requested increase from year one to year five was 206%, from a $150.00 minimum fee before the Application, to a $608.00 minimum fee after the final requested year four rate increase. As prescribed by statute and the Committee’s rules, two contract consultants were assigned to be the Investigative Committee. One consultant, Richard Law, is a CPA, and has served as an investigative consultant on pilotage rate proceedings for DBPR for 16 years. The other consultant, Galen Dunton, is a retired Coast Guard commander with 18 years of experience as an investigative consultant for DBPR in pilotage matters. The Investigative Committee made its initial visit to the Port on July 10, 2009. During this process of investigation, several interested persons provided comments in opposition to the requested rate increase. Following the investigation, the Investigative Committee submitted its findings to the former Board on September 8, 2009. The FPPA requested the following pilotage rate increases in its application: Draft Charge $12.50 Year 1 $26.60 Year 2 $30.25 Year 3 $35.20 Year 4 $41.20 (min. of 10 feet) Tonnage $.015 (min. of 1667 GT) $.060 $.0685 $.080 $.098 Total Min. Fee $150.00 $386.00 $439.50 $512.00 $608.00 % Increase 157% 13.9% 16.7% 18.7% On December 11, 2009, at a Board public meeting, a number of interested persons provided comments and testimony in opposition to and in support of, the requested change in rates. Captain Wetzel, as well as representatives of both Petitioners, addressed the Board. The Investigative Committee included in its Report findings and comments relating to each of the criteria enumerated in section 310.151(5), Florida Statutes (2009). The Board reviewed the Investigative Committee’s findings and the statutory criteria and approved the requested rate increase for Year 1 only. The increases requested for Years 2, 3 and 4 were denied. The statutory criteria reviewed by both the Investigative Committee and the Board (now Committee) consisted of the following: (5)(a) In determining whether the requested rate change will result in fair, just, and reasonable rates, the board shall give primary consideration to the public interest in promoting and maintaining efficient, reliable, and safe piloting services. The board shall also give consideration to the following factors: The public interest in having qualified pilots available to respond promptly to vessels needing their service. A determination of the average net income of pilots in the port, including the value of all benefits derived from service as a pilot. For the purposes of this subparagraph, "net income of pilots" refers to total pilotage fees collected in the port, minus reasonable operating expenses, divided by the number of licensed and active state pilots within the ports. Reasonable operating expenses of pilots. Pilotage rates in other ports. The amount of time each pilot spends on actual piloting duty and the amount of time spent on other essential support services. The prevailing compensation available to individuals in other maritime services of comparable professional skill and standing as that sought in pilots, it being recognized that in order to attract to the profession of piloting, and to hold the best and most qualified individuals as pilots, the overall compensation accorded pilots should be equal to or greater than that available to such individuals in comparable maritime employment. The impact rate change may have in individual pilot compensation and whether such change will lead to a shortage of licensed state pilots, certificated deputy pilots, or qualified pilot applicants. Projected changes in vessel traffic. Cost of retirement and medical plans. Physical risks inherent in piloting. Special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the particular port. Any other factors the board deems relevant in determining a just and reasonable rate. The board may take into consideration the consumer price index or any other comparable economic indicator when fixing rates of pilotage; however, because the consumer price index or such other comparable economic indicator is primarily related to net income rather than rates, the board shall not use it as the sole factor in fixing rates of pilotage. § 310.151(5), Fla. Stat. On March 31, 2010, the Board issued a Notice of Intent to approve in part and deny in part the application by FPPA to increase the pilotage rates at the Port. In its decision, the Board determined findings of fact with respect to each of the criteria listed in section 310.151(5), Florida Statutes. In granting the FPPA’s requested rate increase for the first year the Board approved the following charges at the Port, effective May 1, 2010: A draft charge of $26.60 per draft foot, measured up to the next 1/10th foot, with a minimum charge for ten (10) feet; i.e., $266.00; A tonnage charge of $.0600 per Gross Registered Ton (GRT) with a minimum charge for 2000 GRT, i.e., $120.00; Docking/undocking fees are eliminated; Shifting rates are increased as follows: Same Slip - $250.00 Different Slip - $386.00 A towed barge charge of .0300 per GRT with no minimum charge. Pursuant to section 310.151(5)(a), the Committee “shall give primary consideration to the public interest in promoting and maintaining efficient, reliable, and safe piloting services” when dealing with a requested pilotage rate change. However, the Board is also required to consider additional specific factors in determining whether to approve or deny a requested rate change. Statutory Pilotage Rate Review Criteria The public interest in having qualified pilots available to respond promptly to vessels needing their service. (section 310.151(5)(b)1, Florida Statutes) In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on page C-1 of the Investigative Committee Report. Among other things, the Investigative Committee observed with respect to this criterion: The pilots are essential to the safe movement of vessels within the pilotage waters of the State. In addition to their navigation and supervisory skills, they must be knowledgeable of local weather, hazards, silting, speed and direction of currents, and timing and direction of tidal movements. They provide development of safety and operational guidelines for the port operation and participate in the process of port and professional regulations. Petitioners assert that this record does not support a finding that the use of a state-licensed pilot at the Port is "essential" to safety at the port. Petitioners argue that the captains of ACL's three small vessels have more experience entering and exiting the Port than does Captain Wetzel, and that the use of a state-licensed pilot, although mandated by law, does not increase safety for ACL's vessels, the Port, or the public at large. Petitioner's contention in this regard is rejected. As noted above, harbor pilots must not only possess excellent navigational skills, they must also be knowledgeable of a host of constantly-changing variables that affect the safe transit of vessels within their home port. Moreover, even if the current captains of ACL's three vessels have more experience entering and exiting the Port than does Captain Wetzel, there is no assurance that those same captains will continue in the employ of ACL in the future. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion. A determination of the average net income of pilots in the port, including the value of all benefits derived from service as a pilot. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “net income of pilots” refers to total pilotage fees collected in the port, minus reasonable operating expenses, divided by the number of licensed and active state pilots within the ports. (section 310.151(5)(b)2, Florida Statutes) There are approximately 1,200 state-licensed harbor pilots in the United States. The average compensation for a state-licensed pilot nationally is about $400,000.00 per year. However, state regulatory boards do not set pilot compensation, they set pilotage rates. Thus, a pilot’s compensation depends upon how much revenue is generated by the vessel traffic in that port, net of operating expenses. The pilot in a small port like Ft. Pierce would not be expected to make the same amount as a pilot in a larger port, such as Miami or Tampa. In these larger ports, large draft and tonnage vessels generate higher pilotage fees and this revenue supplements the cost of bringing in smaller vessels. In Ft. Pierce, that is not possible because of the physical limitations of the Port, which will not accommodate large vessels. Higher minimum rates therefore have to be set in Ft. Pierce because of the small size of the vessels, and to compensate a Palm Beach pilot (cross-licensed for Ft. Pierce) for making the two-hour plus drive to Ft. Pierce to handle a vessel if the Ft. Pierce pilot is unavailable for some reason. In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee, as reflected on page C-2 of the Investigative Committee Report, as corrected at the public hearing, which set the pilot’s net income for years 2007 and 2008 at $112,800.00 and $92,700.00 respectively. In the "Analysis and Decision" section of the Notice of Intent, the Board also stated: Further, the pilots are charged with maintaining or securing adequate pilot boats, office facilities and equipment, and other equipment and support services necessary for a modern, dependable piloting operation. Although the Pilot currently has an arrangement with the Port’s largest user regarding the use of a converted crew boat, the evidence presented to the Board shows that in some aspects this assignment has been less than satisfactory. The Board opines that an increase in pilotage rates sufficient to permit the Pilot to procure an adequate pilot boat and/or secure such services is warranted. (Notice of Intent, p. 10, 11) Compared to the typical piloting operation in which the pilots in a port provide their own pilot boat to ferry them to and from transiting ships, the Investigative Committee determined that Captain Wetzel’s operating expenses were very low, since ACL had been providing the pilot boat in Ft. Pierce. In its Notice of Intent, the Board approved the first year schedule of rate increases only, specifically noting that the increase was intended in part to address the unsatisfactory pilot boat arrangement between FPPA and ACL: Based upon these findings, the Board determines that the proposed three-year schedule of rate increases sought by the Pilot should not be granted in its entirety at this time. The Board finds that a more modest increase to account for the progressively higher operating costs, inflation, and to permit the Pilot to obtain or secure pilot boat services, will provide fair, just and reasonable rates, and will continue to ensure that sufficient back-up pilots will be available to serve Fort Pierce. Accordingly, the Board approves the requested first-year schedule of increase only. (Notice of Intent, p. 12) The FPPA application projected the pilot boat as an expense of $325,000.00, with annual depreciation of $32,500.00. After the issuance of the Board’s decision in March 2010, granting only the first year of the FPPA’s requested rate increase, circumstances dictated that the FPPA purchase a less expensive pilot boat than the one anticipated in the FPPA rate application.2/ Specifically, when Captain Wetzel began to look for a suitable pilot boat, he was significantly hindered by the pending challenge to the Board’s decision. Pursuant to section 310.151(4)(b), the difference between the old rate and the new rate for each vessel movement was being deposited into an escrow account pending resolution of the Petitioners’ challenge, so the increased cash flow could not be relied upon by a lender to secure the loan necessary to obtain the desired $325,000.00 boat. Captain Wetzel and the Petitioners discussed the possibility of continuing to use the Kacey Lynn (owned by I.R.T) as a pilot boat, but negotiations were unsuccessful. Captain Wetzel then had to obtain his own pilot boat and settle on getting a much less expensive one that will not be as durable or long-lived as necessary. Ultimately, FPPA purchased a temporary pilot boat from Ameracat for about $92,000.00 and it was delivered to Captain Wetzel in mid-May 2010. As noted, the evidence established that the type of pilot boat purchased by Captain Wetzel will have a shorter lifespan than a typical pilot boat, because it will not be able to withstand the banging and pounding that occurs when a pilot boat comes alongside a commercial vessel. In order to purchase the Ameracat pilot boat, Captain Wetzel had to withdraw money from his retirement account so he could pay cash for the boat. Petitioners do not take issue with the Board’s decision that an increase in pilotage rates in Ft. Pierce is warranted so that Captain Wetzel can procure an adequate pilot boat. However, they contend that Captain Wetzel’s decision to purchase a pilot boat that cost significantly less than the one contemplated in the Application results in undue income to Captain Wetzel, which should result in the rates being decreased to reflect reduced expenses, including the boat’s purchase price, maintenance costs and interest expense. As will be discussed in greater detail infra, FPPA’s projected costs as set forth in the Application were accurate at the time submitted. The evidence of record does not support a finding that Captain Wetzel intended to mislead the Board in the projected cost of $325,000.00 for a pilot boat, or that he does not intend to purchase a more durable replacement once the escrowed funds from the approved rate increase are released. Rather, given the circumstances of the administrative challenge to the rate increase, Captain Wetzel acted reasonably and of necessity in purchasing a less expensive, temporary pilot boat. Petitioners' contention that Captain Wetzel’s purchase of a pilot boat costing less than the one projected in his rate application will result in undue income to Captain Wetzel (justifying elimination or reduction in the approved rates) is not supported by the greater weight of evidence in this record, and is rejected. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Reasonable Operating Expenses of Pilots (section 310.151(5)(b)3, Florida Statutes) In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee shown on pages C-2 and C-3 of the Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Prior to the rate increase under challenge in this proceeding, the pilotage rates in effect at the Port were unchanged since their initial adoption in 1980 -– a minimum draft and tonnage charge of $150.00 plus a docking/undocking fee of $60.00, for a total minimum pilotage fee of $210.00. In late 2007, ACL stopped having the pilot perform docking and undocking of ACL’s vessels and discontinued payment of the corresponding $60.00 fee to the pilot, reducing the effective minimum pilotage fee for ACL and most other vessels to $150.00. A rate increase application in 2003 filed by the previous Ft. Pierce pilot was withdrawn, based upon an informal, unwritten agreement that Petitioners would provide an old crew boat formerly used on the Great Lakes (the Kacey Lynn) to ferry the pilot to and from vessels at no cost, dropping the $75.00 fee previously charged to the pilot for each use of the crew boat. At that time, the Port was primarily being served by cross-licensed pilots from other ports, as the permanent pilot in Ft. Pierce was injured and unable to continue working. In light of the circumstances, the cross-licensed pilots were not eager to invest in a pilot boat and other infrastructure, so use of the Kacey Lynn, while not ideally suited for safely transferring the pilot to or from a transiting ship, was a useful accommodation while a new permanent pilot was sought for Ft. Pierce. For non-ACL vessels, IRT billed the owners of some of those vessels from $75.00 up to $150.00 for the use of the Kacey Lynn to ferry the pilot to or from a ship. In the only other Florida port in which the pilots do not provide their own pilot boats, Pensacola, the pilot is ferried to and from transiting ships by a tug company that charges $400.00 per trip. As set forth in its application, FPPA’s projected pilot boat cost of $325,000.00 with $32,500.00 per year depreciation is reasonable, especially when compared to the costs of pilot boats serving other ports. Credible testimony established that a pilot boat in a major port would cost $1.2 million to $2 million, with annual maintenance costs typically at 5% of the purchase price. The pilot association in Jacksonville, Florida, recently spent $1.2 million on a pilot boat, while pilots in Miami purchased a pilot boat several years ago for approximately $600,000.00. More recently, the Miami pilots association rebuilt two of their pilot boats at a cost of approximately $350,000.00. In comparison to the cost of pilot boats in other ports, FPPA’s projected operating costs as set forth in its application are relatively conservative. As noted above, Captain Wetzel's purchase of a temporary pilot boat (with correspondingly lower operating expenses) for use during the pendency of this administrative challenge does not render the projected operating expenses in the application unreasonable. Pilotage Rates in Other Ports (section 310.151(5)(b)4, Florida Statutes In the Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on pages C- 4 through C-7 of the Investigative Committee Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Petitioners assert that Table 4 on page C-6 of the Investigative Committee Report understates the FPPA's revenue per handle hour by overstating the FPPA's average "handle time." "Handle time" is generally defined as the time "that the pilot takes the conn to the time he relinquishes it", i.e., the time that the pilot is actually directing the guidance of the navigation of a vessel. According to Petitioners, the average handle time for pilots operating in the Port is closer to 30 minutes per handle than the 1.5 hours per handle used by the Investigative Committee. When a handle time of 30 minutes per handle is applied, Petitioners argue, the FPPA is currently earning $370.00 per handle hour, rather than the $123.00 per handle hour shown in the Investigative Committee Report.3/ There is evidence in this record that until recently, there has not been a statewide standard for measuring handle times. Although the Board of the Florida State Pilots Association recently adopted a definition, the data appearing in Table 4 of the Investigative Committee Report relies upon older historical data (2007 and 2008), which in some cases may be outdated due to the change in the size of ships using various ports.4/ As such, it would be inappropriate to compare the Ft. Pierce revenue per handle hour using a handle time of 30 minutes without also updating the handle times of the other ports used in the comparison. Approval of the Year 1 rate increase would not create a competitive disadvantage at the Port. The pilotage fee is a very small and relatively insignificant factor in the overall decision on whether to bring a ship into a particular port. In light of the considerable operating costs of a commercial vessel, the $175.00 difference between the new minimum pilotage fee in Ft. Pierce and the lower minimum pilotage fee in Palm Beach (the closest competing port) would not be significant enough to warrant shifting a subject vessel from Ft. Pierce to Palm Beach. The amount of time each pilot spends on actual piloting duty and the amount of time spent on other essential support services. (section 310.151(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes In the Notice of Intent the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on pages C7 and C8 of the Investigative Committee Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or as a supplement to, the facts relied on by the Board in its decision with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. Time spent on actual piloting duty includes handle time, transit time to and from the vessel, and administrative time related to that handle. Time spent on other essential support services generally involve matters pertaining to the port in question, e.g., dealing with the Coast Guard on port security or safety issues, dealing with the Army Corp of Engineers regarding the ship channel, etc. In its Report, the Investigative Committee considered "handle time' to be the time the pilot is actually engaged in traveling to a ship, piloting the ship, and returning to home port, i.e., dock to dock. The Investigative Committee did not attempt to verify the historical data regarding handle time but did utilize a shorter figure of 1.5 hours per handle.5/ No compelling evidence was presented that indicates that this 1.5 hour handle time figure was grossly incorrect. While ACL operates a “liner service” with a published schedule that its ships adhere to most of the time, actual arrival and departure times for ACL ships frequently vary from this schedule. Moreover, the pilot must be available to respond to vessels requiring his assistance 24-hours a day, seven days a week. Although the Petitioners argue that actual handle time might make a part-time job for the Ft. Pierce pilot, it does not matter if it is an hour or two hours, it is still a huge time commitment throughout each week to be available and on call to serve the needs of the port. The Investigative Committee also observed: The schedule varies for each day of the week. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays he must “mobilize” early in the mornings to meet vessels arriving at 7:00 A.M. and then re-mobilize later in the afternoon to handle the 5:00 P.M. departures. Consequently, the two-step mobilizations increase his daily time requirements by an amount greater than the average handle times. The schedule also requires additional standby time between some of the back-to-back handles. (Investigative Committee Report, P. C-7) The prevailing compensation available to individuals in other maritime services of comparable professional skill and standing. (section 310.151(5)(b)5, Florida Statutes) In its Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee, reflected on page C-8 of the Investigative Committee Report, supplemented as follows: As was discussed in the Port Everglades Order, supra, the Board accepts the proposition that the pre-pilot career path is the same for persons who remain as senior bridge officers on American-flagged ships and for those who become pilots. As was noted in the Port Everglades Order, however, pilots are not employees but are rather professional consultants and self-employed business persons who take the risks and accept the benefits of such status. In addition, section 310.151(5)(b)6, F.S., sets the wage rate of “comparable professions” as the floor for pilot income – not the ceiling. As was also noted in the Port Everglades and Tampa Orders, the Board has accepted that the wage rate of senior masters on American-flagged ships varies greatly and, thus, the Board can find no specific number to use as the only acceptable “floor” for pilot compensation. The Board, thus, uses the range of masters’ salaries as a range of “floors” on pilots’ income to be applied depending on the amount of vessel traffic at a port, the characteristics of a port, and the need for pilotage services at a port. Thus, a pilot’s berth at the major ports, such as the Port of Tampa Bay, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville or Palm Beach would be considered as akin to the most prestigious, responsible, and highly paid masters’ berths (Master, Mates and Pilots scale – c. $220,000.00 - $230,000.00 per year) while lesser ports, with correspondingly lesser amounts of traffic and need for pilotage services would have a lower “floor” for income. Nonetheless, the Board also finds that the pilotage rates need to be sufficient to ensure that licensed pilots remain willing and financially able to serve the ports of this State. As reflected in the Report of the Investigative Committee, the current Pilot’s schedule has grown to a full-time position, with no backup pilot available. Thus, the Pilot must rely on cross-licensed pilots from Palm Beach for backup, who currently earn substantially more at their home port. Accordingly, the Board finds that the rates must be increased sufficiently to continue to attract cross-licensed pilots to serve as back up at Fort Pierce, and eventually, if traffic warrants, candidates for a deputy pilot position. (Notice of Intent, pages 7, 8) The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion, except as specifically set forth in the following paragraphs. While background as a master or mate is useful, a pilot must possess superior close-quarter ship handling skills and the ability to handle a wide variety of vessels. Foreign licensed mariners are not allowed to become a pilot in Florida. There was contradictory evidence on the prevailing annual compensation for masters serving on US-flagged ships of comparable skill and standing to Florida state-licensed pilots, ranging from $143,000.00 - $181,000.00 (inclusive of wages and benefits) to $300,000.00 for union personnel. However, it is significant that these are salaried positions that do not require the employee to invest in infrastructure or training, or to directly participate in the economic risks of the business. Petitioners argue that there are other maritime industry positions, in addition to master of a U.S.-flagged vessel, which are comparable in professional skill and standing as that of a Florida state-licensed pilot. Specifically, Petitioners assert that masters and deck officers of inland vessels and U.S.-flagged integrated tug and barge units (ITBs) require a comparable level of professional skill and standing. Petitioners' witness on this issue opined that the master of an "upper end" inland vessel (e.g., jumbo barge) would make a salary ranging from $116,000.00 to $131,000.00, while a deck officer would make less than $100,000.00. Similarly, the annual salary for the master of a "premier" ITB would range from $106,000.00 to $132,000.00, while senior mates would have total compensation of less than $100,000.00. Generally, pilots receive about 50% more in total compensation than masters on US-flagged ships. This disparity is necessary in order to motivate the most desirable professional mariners (a master or chief mate with 10-12 years of experience) to leave their current maritime employment, including giving up valuable pension benefits, to take on the risks of self-employment as a pilot. This career change entails significant physical risks, civil and criminal liability risks in the event of accidents, investment in infrastructure, management of a business, etc. While Petitioner may be correct that masters and deck officers in other maritime industries are generally compensated less than state-licensed pilots, those employees bear none of the risks of self-employment. The pool of professional U.S. mariners qualified to move into the pilot career path is relatively small -– a little over 2,000, and ports across the U.S. compete against each other to attract the best individuals to piloting. Indeed, ports within Florida compete with each other for the best qualified candidates. While large Florida ports historically would have had 20-30 applicants for a pilot opening, the number of applicants for even large ports like Miami and Jacksonville has decreased in the last 4-5 years. Most recently there were only 11 mariners testing for two openings at Jacksonville and eight mariners testing for three openings in Miami. The pilot in a small port like Ft. Pierce would not be expected to receive the same compensation as the master of a large container ship (or a pilot in a large Florida port like Tampa or Miami), but the compensation must still be high enough to attract and retain a qualified pilot and to pay for cross- licensed pilots as back-up. Pilots in the port of Palm Beach, where each of the five pilots recently worked about 600 handles per year (similar to the number of pilot handles in Ft. Pierce), netted annual income of approximately $150,000.00. Even in a best case scenario, Captain Wetzel’s net income would only match those of Palm Beach pilots, and it is more likely that, due to increased expenses, it will still fall below that level even with the approved rate increase. The impact rate change may have in individual pilot compensation and whether such change will lead to a shortage of licensed state pilots, certificated deputy pilots, or qualified pilot applicants. (section 310.151(5)(b)7, Florida Statutes) In the Notice of Intent, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee as reflected on page C-9 of the Investigative Committee Report. The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to this criterion. At the hearing before the former Board, Petitioners disputed the need for any pilotage rate increase to enable the FPPA to purchase and operate its own pilot boat. As of the time of the administrative hearing, the pilot had already purchased a temporary pilot boat, and Petitioners assert that the increase approved by the former Board should be reduced to cover the expenses relating to the pilot boat actually purchased, and operating such boat, but not provide for an increase in net revenue (compensation) to the pilot. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 34-40 above, the Petitioners' contention in this regard is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. In addition, the undersigned notes that the operating expense projections contained in the Application were merely that. . . projections. Moreover, the expense projections, including the $325,000.00 expenditure for a pilot boat, were expressly predicated upon approval of the rate increases requested in the application.6/ Although an applicant must certify that the statements contained in a pilotage rate change application are true and correct when made, expense projections set forth in an application are not binding on the applicant, and the Board (now Committee) has no authority to compel the expenditure of specific funds identified in an application. Given the Board's denial of the requested rate increases (with the exception of Year 1) it was not unreasonable for Captain Wetzel to refrain from making the specific expenditures projected in the application, particularly for a $325,000.00 pilot boat. As noted above, the projections when made were reasonable, but changed circumstances necessitated adjustment of those expenditures. In the Notice of Intent, the Board did not "earmark" a specific portion of the revenue increase for the purchase of a pilot boat, but rather recognized the need for "a modest increase to account for the progressively higher operating costs, inflation, and to permit the Pilot to obtain or secure pilot boat services . . ." (Notice of Intent, p. 12) Projected changes in vessel traffic. (section 310.151(5)(b)8, Florida Statutes) Cost of retirement and medical plans. (section 310.151(5)(b)9, Florida Statutes) Physical risks inherent in piloting. (section 310.151(5)(b)10, Florida Statutes) Special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the particular port. (section 310.151(5)(b)11, Florida Statutes) Any other factors the board deems relevant in determining a just and reasonable rate. (section 310.151(5)(b)12, Florida Statutes) The board may take into consideration the consumer price index or any other comparable economic indicator when fixing rates of pilotage; however, because the consumer price index or such other comparable economic indicator is primarily related to net income rather than rates, the board shall not use it as the sole factor in fixing rates of pilotage. (section 310.151(5)(c), Florida Statutes) The record of the hearing held before DOAH does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the facts relied on by the Board in its Notice of Intent with respect to the criteria set forth in 310.151(5)(b)8-12, and 310.151(5)(c), above. Taken in its entirety, the evidence presented by the Petitioners, Respondent and Intervenors in this proceeding with respect to the statutory factors set forth in section 310.151(5)(b) and (c), yielded findings of fact in addition to those found by the Board in its Notice of Intent. There was not sufficient credible and persuasive evidence presented by the Petitioners to support any findings of fact materially contrary to the findings of the Board in its Notice of Intent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pilotage Rate Review Committee consider the additional facts established by the evidence presented at the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings in determining, in accordance with its interpretation of its statutory mandate, its expertise, and the appropriate policy considerations, whether the decision on the PFFA Pilotage Rate Increase Application in the Port of Ft. Pierce, filed March 30, 2009, will result in fair, just, and reasonable pilotage rates at the Port of Ft. Pierce. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 31st day of January, 2012.
The Issue Whether the vessel ("Imagine") owned by Petitioner, William Hackett ("Petitioner"), is a "derelict vessel" within the meaning of section 823.11, Florida Statutes (2019); and, therefore, subject to the provisions of sections 376.15(3), 823.11, 705.101(3), and 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 4, 2020, Officer Glen Way, a sworn FWC law enforcement officer, was on water patrol in an FWC patrol vessel within the public waters of Key West Harbor in Monroe County, Florida, when he observed a vessel (a 32-foot 1967 Hatteras known as "Imagine") sunken and nearly 90% submerged. There were no persons on board and the vessel looked abandoned. The electrical, propulsion, steering systems, and engines were well under sea water and inoperable. Based on his investigation, Officer Way concluded that the vessel suffered a severe marine casualty, had been discarded as sunk with no intrinsic value, and was derelict. His investigation further revealed that the vessel was owned by Petitioner. On January 8, 2020, Officer Way spoke with Petitioner and explained to him the derelict vessel process. That same day, Officer Way emailed Petitioner an Acknowledgement of Receipt of Documentation Related to A Derelict Vessel Determination. Subsequently, Petitioner had the vessel raised from being sunken and tied to a commercial salvage barge with a crane. Although the vessel was no longer sunk, it had been sunk for over two months and Officer Way observed that no corrective action had been taken by Petitioner to correct the systems. Significantly, Officer Way observed that the vessel’s propulsion and steering systems were still inoperable, the onboard engine was substantially corroded, and marine growth was visible along the waterline of the entire vessel. In addition, windows were boarded up with plywood, blocking the ability to safely navigate or operate the vessel upon the water. Officer Way also observed a 25-horsepower outboard motor affixed to the transom of the vessel. However, Officer Way persuasively and credibly testified that a 25-horsepower outboard motor is insufficient to propel the vessel safely upon the public waters of the State of Florida. In sum, the vessel was still wrecked, junked, substantially dismantled, and derelict. Subsequently, on July 28, 2020, and at 8:30 a.m. on August 13, 2020, Officer Way observed that the vessel was again sunk, inoperable, abandoned, left, wrecked, junked upon the public waters of the State, and derelict. The vessel has no intrinsic value. At the hearing on August 13, 2020, Petitioner candidly acknowledged that the vessel was again sunk and not operational.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner’s vessel, "Imagine," derelict under section 823.11, abandoned under chapter 705, and subject to the provisions of sections 376.15(3), 823.11, 705.101(3), and 705.103. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 28th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Brandy Elaine Elliott, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William Hackett 419 Southard Street Key West, Florida 33040 Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
