The Issue Whether the application of the Biscayne Bay Pilots' Association for an increase in the pilotage rates for the Port of Miami should be granted in whole or in part or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following facts, which are deemed admitted: The Cargo Carriers Association is a Florida not-for- profit corporation with its principal office in Miami, Florida. The purpose of the Cargo Carriers Association is to promote, advance, and secure laws, rules, and regulations concerning vessels utilizing the navigable waters of the State of Florida, in particular the Port of Miami and Port Everglades, in order that the waters, harbors, and ports of the state and the environment and property of all persons be protected to the fullest possible extent consistent with sound financial principles. A substantial number of the members of the Cargo Carriers Association are affected by the rates of pilotage currently set for the Port of Miami, inasmuch as they are required by Florida law, Chapter 310, Florida Statutes, to utilize and compensate the Port of Miami pilots whose rates are established by the Board, and they are, in fact, utilizing and compensating pilots in accordance with the rates established for the Port of Miami. Accordingly, the Cargo Carriers Association is substantially affected by and has standing to maintain this challenge to the Board's Decision dated March 9, 2000. The Board is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 310.151, Florida Statutes, which is invested with the authority and responsibility to determine the rates of pilotage at the various ports of Florida, including the Port of Miami. Section 310.151, Florida Statutes (2000). The Pilots' Association is an association of harbor pilots that is treated as a partnership for tax purposes and that performs the pilotage services at the Port of Miami. The offices of the Pilots' Association and its affiliate, Biscayne Bay Pilots, Inc., are located in Miami, Florida. In October 1999, the Pilots' Association submitted to the Board an application for an increase in the pilotage rates for the Port of Miami. On October 28, 1999, the Investigative Committee for the Board convened a fact-finding public hearing on the Pilots' Association's application in Miami, Florida, at which numerous interested persons provided comments and testimony, both for and against the Pilots' Association's requested rate increase. On November 29, 1999, the Pilots' Association submitted to the Board a version of its application that, in its words, "has been edited to correct scrivener's errors." On December 9, 1999, the Investigative Committee for the Board completed its review and investigation of the Pilots' Association's application and presented its written findings to the Board as required by Rule 61E13-2.007(4), Florida Administrative Code. On January 21, 2000, the Board met in Miami, Florida, to review the rate increase application of the Pilots' Association and heard comments and testimony from persons who supported or opposed the application in whole or in part. At the conclusion of this meeting, the Board preliminarily determined to grant the Pilots' Association's application in part with a phased-in increase in rates. The Board's written decision was filed with the agency's clerk on March 9, 2000. The Cargo Carriers Association timely filed its petition for a proceeding under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1999). The Pilots' Association requested in its application a 10 percent increase in the rate for draft charges, for tonnage charges, for shifting or anchoring charges, and for minimum fees, effective immediately, with an additional increase of 5 percent in these rates and fees six months after the effective date of the initial increase. The requested increase would result in a total 15.5 percent increase in pilotage rates and minimum fees at the Port of Miami. The Board hired an Investigative Committee composed of two consultants, one a Certified Public Accountant and the other a retired Coast Guard officer, to examine the Pilots' Association's application in light of the statutory factors set forth in Section 310.151(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (1999). The Investigative Committee held a public hearing in which it received testimony from interested parties. The Investigative Committee Report was presented to the Board at the public hearing on January 21, 2000. The Board included in its written Decision findings of fact and comments with respect to each of the criteria set forth in Section 310.151(5), Florida Statutes (1999), 3/ an analysis and statement of its decision to approve an increase in the pilotage rates at the Port of Miami, and an order specifying the approved increases. The Board stated its intention to grant the Pilots' Association's application in part and to increase the rates of pilotage at the Port of Miami 3 1/2 percent for draft charges, tonnage charges, shifting or anchoring charges, and the minimum fees, effective on the date of its order, 4/ with an additional 3 percent rate increase in each of the charges effective 12 months from the effective date of the first increase and another 3 percent increase in each of the charges effective 24 months after the effective date of the first increase. This increase is 63.16 percent of the increase requested by the Pilots' Association. The public interest in having qualified pilots available to respond promptly to vessels needing their service. Section 310.151(5)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2000). 5/ In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at page 11 of the report. 6/ The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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 Decision with respect to this criterion. 7/ 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 (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 12 and 13 of the report, with the following modification to the depreciation adjustment included in the calculation of the pilots' total compensation if the requested rate increase were approved in toto and the resulting modification in the projected "adjusted (all inclusive) income per pilot": The depreciation adjustment projected for the year 2000 was decreased from $6500.00 to $1600.00, resulting in an adjusted (all inclusive) income per pilot for the year 2000 of $340,800.00; the depreciation adjustment projected for the year 2001 was decreased from $6500.00 to $4800.00, resulting in an adjusted (all inclusive) income per pilot for the year 2001 of $340,000.00. The Investigative Committee Report included in the computation of average net pilot income the value of health and retirement benefits, pension valuation, and discretionary costs such as political contributions, lobbying expenses, and business promotion expenses. The Investigative Committee identified the actual total pilot compensation for pilots at the Port of Miami, including adjustments for pension valuation and discretionary costs but not for depreciation, as $308,200.00 for 1998, and it projected the total pilot compensation for 1999, 2000, and 2001, without a rate increase, as $288,200.00, $296,200.00, and $290,200.00, respectively. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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. Since 1993, the Pilots' Association has tried to maintain a roster of 18 active pilots at the Port of Miami, although this number has fluctuated from time to time. Currently, there are 17 pilots and one deputy at the Port of Miami. Excluding adjustments for pension valuation and discretionary costs, compensation in 1997 and 1998 for pilots at the Port of Miami was $281,000.00 and $278,000.00, respectively; compensation at Port Everglades was $329,000.00 and $344,000.00, respectively; compensation at the Port of Palm Beach was $154,000.00 and $230,000.00, respectively; and compensation at the Port of Jacksonville was $250,000.00 and $254,000.00, respectively. Because of the exclusions noted above, these amounts understate actual compensation. Compensation for the Port of Miami pilots increased 38.4 percent between 1989 and 1996. In 1989, pilot income at the Port of Miami was $203,000.00, and, in 1990, it was $181,000.00. The pilots received an effective 32 percent rate increase as a result of a 26 percent rate increase in 1992 and a 5 percent rate increase in 1993, and gross pilotage revenue increased 72 percent between 1989 and 1996, an increase primarily attributable to an increase in the number of larger vessels using the port. As a result of the revenue increase, pilot income rose to over $281,000.00 in 1997. In addition to piloting, the pilots at the Port of Miami carry out the duties of Harbor Master, which involve coordinating all of the ship traffic in the port. The pilots receive no additional compensation for this service. Reasonable operating expenses of pilots. Section 310.151(5)(b)3., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 13 through 16 of the report. In the report, the Investigative Committee found that, with the exception of the costs associated with the Pilots' Association's retirement plan, the operating expenses included in the Pilots' Association's application were reasonable. The Investigative Committee Report included a detailed discussion of the Pilots' Association's retirement plan. The retirement plan of the Pilots' Association is a non-qualified plan under the Internal Revenue Code and is unfunded and, therefore, contingent on the future operations at the Port of Miami. The plan is in the form of a consulting agreement between the Pilots' Association and its retirees, pursuant to which each pilot who reaches 55 years of age and completes 20 years of service as a full-time active pilot, and who agrees to act in the best interests of the Pilots' Association, is eligible to be paid up to 50 percent of an active pilot's income, provided that the aggregate amount paid to retirees may not exceed 20 percent of the annual total gross pilotage revenue. The payments are to be made from future pilotage revenue. The total costs associated with retired pilot compensation and benefits (equity buy-outs, surviving spouse accrual, and health insurance) included in the Investigative Committee Report for 1998 were $2,093,086.00, of which $1.4 million was attributable to payments to 11 retirees for consulting services. The Investigative Committee questioned the reasonableness of this operating expense at page 16 of its report, although it noted that there are similar plans in other Florida ports. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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. In 1998, payments to the five retired pilots at Port Everglades totaled $962,714.00. The retirement plan for the Port Everglades pilots has the same limits as the plan for the pilots at the Port of Miami: A Port Everglades retiree's benefit is limited to 50 percent of the income of an active pilot, and the aggregate benefits paid to Port Everglades retirees may not exceed 20 percent of the pilots' annual gross revenue. The plan at Port Canaveral limits the aggregate benefits paid to retirees to 33 1/3 percent of gross annual revenue; the limitation at the Port of Jacksonville for current retirees is 28 percent of gross annual revenue and 22 percent for new retirees. There are no aggregate limits on the amounts paid to retirees at the ports in Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia. Pilotage rates in other ports. Section 310.151(5)(b)4., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings of the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 16 and 17 of the report, and stated its intention to confine its comparative rate analysis to ports in Florida and the southeastern seaboard. It was noted in the Investigative Committee Report that, in 1998, the Port of Miami was ranked the seventh highest of 12 Florida ports with respect to the cost for piloting both a standard large and a standard small vessel and the eighth highest out of the 12 Florida ports in the amount of revenue per handle. 8/ As part of its comparison of pilotage rates in other ports, the Investigative Committee included in its report a chart based on 1998 data setting out the number of handles in each of the 12 Florida ports surveyed, together with 1998 revenue, average handle time, number of pilots, revenue per handle, and revenue per handle hour for each of the 12 ports. In 1998, the Port of Miami had 8,909 handles, revenue of $8,433.539.00, average handle time of 2.0 hours, 18 pilots, revenue per handle of $947.00, and revenue per handle hour of $473.00. Based on 1998 data, Port Everglades, the port closest geographically to the Port of Miami, had 10,168 handles, revenue of $6,899,006.00, average handle time of 1.9 hours, 16 pilots, revenue per handle of $679.00, and revenue per handle hour of $357.00. In its Decision, the Board recognized that pilotage rates cannot be considered in a vacuum and that a rate increase or decrease is not justified simply because a rate is comparatively low or high. Rather, the Board found that consideration must be given to the size and number of vessels using the port, the time required to service the vessels, and the characteristics of the port that impact positively or negatively on the gross revenue and net income derived from the rate structure. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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. The Investigative Committee determined that Port Everglades was the closest and most relevant competitive port to the Port of Miami. The Port of Miami handles primarily cruise ships, excluding daily cruise ships, and container cargo vessels. Port Everglades handles both container cargo vessels and vessels containing bulk and neo-bulk products such as petroleum, cement, steel, and lumber, as well as a mix of large cruise ships and smaller, daily cruise ships. Port Everglades is one of the largest petroleum ports in the southeastern United States. The Port of Miami handles fewer but generally larger vessels than Port Everglades. The distance between the sea buoy 9/ and the turning basin where the pilots turn and dock cruise ships in the Port of Miami is approximately six miles; the distance between the sea buoy and the turning basin where the pilots turn and dock cruise ships in Port Everglades is approximately two miles. In Port Everglades, the distance from the sea buoy to the channel is short, so that there is little room to position the vessel properly for entry into the channel. The channel is, however, straight. In the Port of Miami, there is a 40-degree turn mid- channel. Currently, Port Everglades has 16 pilots and two deputies. A comparison of the pilotage rates in the Port of Miami and in Port Everglades shows that, without considering the rate increase proposed by the Board, the current draft rate in the Port of Miami is 38 percent higher than that in Port Everglades and the current tonnage rate is 7.5 percent higher in the Port of Miami than in Port Everglades. With the Board's proposed rate increase, the draft rate at the Port of Miami is roughly 40 percent higher than that at Port Everglades, and the tonnage rate is roughly 16 percent higher. Without a rate increase, total pilotage fees at the Port of Miami are 18 percent higher for small vessels and 14 percent higher for large vessels than the total pilotage fees at Port Everglades. Using the cruise ship Enchantment of the Seas as an example, without the rate increase, pilotage fees are $5,700.00 per trip in and out of the Port of Miami, or $260,000.00 annually; with the Board's proposed rate increase, pilotage fees are $6,270.00 per trip, or $326,000.00 annually. In contrast, the pilotage fees for the Enchantment of the Seas at Port Everglades are $5,150.00 per trip in and out of the port, or $268,000.00 annually. 10/ 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 (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at page 18 of the report. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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 Decision with respect to this criterion. 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. Section 310.151(5)(b)6., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 18 and 19 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee recognized that the Board, in the Port Everglades case, concluded in its Final Order that the profession most comparable to that of a port pilot is that of a captain of a large United States-flagged vessel. The Investigative Committee further recognized that the Board, in the Port Everglades case, concluded that pilot compensation should be equal to or greater than $203,000.00, represented by the Investigative Committee in its report as the annualized compensation of a "U.S. master." The Investigative Committee found, further, that the skills, risks, and working conditions of a ship's captain and a pilot are considerably different in that a pilot must have a wider range of technical skills to pilot a variety of vessels of different sizes; a pilot assumes more physical risks because of the need to board and disembark each vessel; a pilot is constantly in a stressful situation while piloting a vessel into port; and a pilot is a private businessman rather than an employee and must face all of the attendant risks and obligations. In its Decision, the Board established the "floor" compensation for pilots at approximately $200,000.00 to $220,000.00, which represents the wage of the highest-paid ship's master on a United States-flagged ship. 11/ The Investigative Committee found in its report that the amount of compensation above the floor established by the Board depends on several factors, including the size of the ships calling on the port, the difficulty of the port, the cost of living in the surrounding community, and pilot compensation in other United States ports. Finally, the Board expressly recognized in its Decision that, unlike ships' masters, pilots are not employees of a corporation but are independent businessmen, with all of the financial risks that status implies. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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. 12/ The education and training of a pilot and a ship's master is, in many cases, the same. A ship's master operating on the high seas, however, has the responsibility for the ship's well-being 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the course of the voyage. The scope of responsibility of a ship's master requires a wider array of skills than those of a pilot; he or she must make judgments regarding matters extending beyond the navigation of the ship. The ship's master is responsible for the ship's crew and, if the ship is a cruise ship, for the welfare of the passengers, and he or she must deal with the hazards of the ship catching fire, disease onboard, and a variety of other matters requiring non-technical skills. A ship's master must have navigational skills and must be knowledgeable about many ports throughout the world and many weather systems. Even when a ship is being piloted into port, the ship's master retains the ultimate responsibility for the ship, and the ship's master will sometimes dock the ship once the pilot has brought it to the docking area. Pilots are licensed to operate in a particular port, and they must have an intimate knowledge of that port. Because pilots must handle almost every vessel calling at the Port of Miami, they must be familiar with the peculiarities of numerous types and sizes of vessels, and they must continually take courses to keep up with the changing technology used on new vessels. Consequently, the knowledge and skills required of a pilot are more specialized and more narrowly focused than those required of a ship's master. When a vessel is ready to come into the Port of Miami, the pilot is taken to the vessel, which, depending on its size, may be located two-to-three miles east of the sea buoy. The pilot must, therefore, board and disembark from a vessel in open water. A pilot at the Port of Miami must guide vessels, sometimes exceeding 1,000 feet in length, through a 500-foot wide channel cut in rock, make a 40-degree turn, and guide the vessel into the port's turning basin and, ultimately, to its berth. There is little maneuvering room, and the pilot must deal with the ever-changing winds, currents, and tides that affect a vessel's passage to the berthing area. For ships of 1,000 feet or longer, there is adequate but not generous room for maneuvering in the turning basin. The number of large vessels using the Port of Miami has increased since 1989. Piloting large vessels increases the complexity of the pilot's job and increases the potential for an accident, necessarily increasing the amount of stress experienced by pilots routinely bringing such vessels into the Port of Miami. A pilot must direct the crew of a vessel when bringing the vessel into and through the channels leading to the turning basin and from the turning basin to the berths, and his or her success depends on his ability to communicate instructions to crewmembers. This communication is becoming more difficult because crewmembers are recruited from many different countries, including those from Eastern Europe, and they may or may not understand English. The stress experienced by a pilot is significantly increased when he must depend on crewmembers who do not understand English, because disaster could result if the pilot's instructions are not followed precisely. The stress experienced by pilots when they are on the job is much more intense, though of shorter duration, than that experienced by ship's masters. A pilot at the Port of Miami will pilot between six and 18 ships each week and is on-call 24 hours each day while on piloting duty, under conditions that are physically and mentally stressful. The pilots at the Port of Miami are not employees of the Pilots' Association. Rather, the Pilots' Association is operated as a partnership of the pilots, and it is funded from the pilotage revenue at the Port of Miami. There are significant operating expenses deducted from gross pilotage revenue before the pilots are paid. The Pilots' Association owns and maintains a building at the far eastern end of the Port of Miami that houses the pilots' business office and also contains bedrooms, restrooms, a lounge, and a chart room for use by the pilots. The Pilots' Association employs office staff to handle billing and accounting functions. The Pilots' Association owns and operates four pilot boats used to transport pilots to and from vessels arriving at and departing from the Port of Miami, and it employs six full- time boat operators. Replacement costs for the pilot boats exceed $2 million. The pilots must absorb rising fuel costs, which cannot be passed on as a surcharge to those using the port and are also responsible for the costs of maintaining the boats. The pilots provide communications services to the vessels entering the Port of Miami, and the Pilots' Association maintains three Federal Communications Commission licenses, a marine coastal station, a high power UHF repeater, and VHF radios in all of the pilot boats. The pilots have invested approximately $50,000.00 in communications equipment that they make available to the Port of Miami, including a 100-watt VHF long range radio and tower, as well as the UHF repeater, and they also maintain the equipment. In addition, the pilots employ dispatchers who handle the radios. The pilot's income is a function of the volume and size of traffic in and out of the port, and they are, consequently, affected by decisions made by the Port of Miami authorities with respect to services to be provided vessels using the port and with respect to port charges. The financial risks faced by the pilots at the Port of Miami are, for the most part, shared by all independent business owners. However, even though pilots of the Pilots' Association are the only pilots allowed to provide services in the Port of Miami and even though pilotage rates are highly regulated and, to an extent, non-competitive, pilots, unlike most private independent business owners, cannot pass on increases in operating expenses; rather, the pilots must absorb these increases until, and unless, an application for a rate increase is approved. 13/ 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 (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at page 19 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee found that all-inclusive pilot compensation for the pilots at the Port of Miami would increase 8.76 percent if the increase requested by the Pilots' Association were approved by the Board. As a result, the compensation of pilots at the Port of Miami would still be lower than that of the pilots at Port Everglades, but only slightly. The Investigative Committee noted that an opening at any of the four major Florida ports, the Port of Miami, Port Everglades, Tampa, and Jacksonville, draws 20 to 30 applicants from all over the United States. The Investigative Committee observed that, with or without a rate increase, any of these four ports would attract qualified pilots because they are likely to find more attractive compensation and working and living environments than provided by their present situations. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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 Decision with respect to this criterion. Projected changes in vessel traffic. Section 310.151(5)(b)8., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 20 and 21 of the report. The Investigative Committee accepted the estimated handles provided by the Pilots' Association in its application, which reflects an increase from 8,909 handles in 1998, to an estimated 9,200 handles in 1999, 2000, and 2001. The Investigative Committee noted in its report that the number of cruise passengers at the Port of Miami has remained steady since 1991 and that, although the number of handles decreased between 1992 and 1995, there was steady growth in cargo tonnage between 1988 and 1998. Even with the decrease in the number of handles, the average revenue per handle increased from $545.00 in 1990 to $978.00 in 1998, accounting for a 73 percent increase in the gross annual revenue and a 79 percent increase in the average revenue per handle. The Investigative Committee found that the data suggests that the increase in the pilots' average revenue per handle, and, therefore, its gross annual revenue, is more a function of the increase in the size of the vessels calling at the Port of Miami than a function of the 32 percent rate increase in 1992 and 1993. The Investigative Committee found in its report, and the Board recognized in its Decision, that Port Everglades and the Port of Miami have a strong competitive relationship and that a large increase in pilotage rates at the Port of Miami might result in a decision by Maersk Shipping, a large shipping company currently calling at the Port of Miami and at Port Everglades, to consolidate its operations and use Port Everglades rather than the Port of Miami, resulting in a material decrease in the revenue of the Port of Miami pilots. Prior to the rate increase proposed by the Board, Maersk Shipping paid the pilots at the Port of Miami $1.08 million each year in pilotage fees. A change in operations to Port Everglades would result in a decrease in each pilot's annual income of approximately $48,000.00, with a $24,000.00 decrease in each retiree's benefits. 14/ The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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. In choosing ports of call, ship owners, particularly cargo lines, consider many factors, including marketing factors, the availability of berths, the availability of terminal space, the availability of inland transportation, and port congestion, as well as port costs. Port costs, also known as port call expenses, at the Port of Miami are composed of many elements in addition to pilotage fees, such as terminal fees ($8,800.00) 15/ , dockage fees ($3,349.00), wharfage fees ($3,400.00), tug boat fees ($3,009.00), agent fees ($1,500.00), custom and agriculture entry fees ($1,995.00), and harbor fees ($162.00), for a total of $5,570.00; pilotage fees at the Port of Miami for a standard large vessel, according to 1998 data, were $1,085.40, or approximately 15-to-20 percent of port call expenses for a standard large vessel. Therefore, while pilotage fees are a significant part of the mix of port call expenses considered by ship owners in determining whether to call at the Port of Miami, pilots have no control over most of the fees and tariffs comprising port call expenses or over the many other factors that might influence the competitive posture of the Port of Miami vis-à-vis Port Everglades or changes in vessel traffic in the Port of Miami. The Port of Miami consists of Lummus and Dodge Islands, and it is run by the Miami-Dade County Seaport Department. The port rates at the Port of Miami increased approximately 30 percent between 1991 and 1998, generating a revenue increase of approximately 76 percent. Operating expenses increased approximately 44 percent during that time period, but, in general, the port's rate increases have gone primarily to finance improvements in the port's infrastructure and to provide its customers with facilities to accommodate their larger vessels. The port has also received a number of federal and state grants to fund construction programs to improve the port, as well as federal funds for the Port of Miami's dredging program. POMTOC, the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company, recently received approval to raise its gate fee and empty container storage fee 2.7 percent. The Miami-Dade County Seaport Department also increased its harbor fee for large vessels from $195.00 in 1999 to $235.00 in 2000. In addition, the majority of the port's tariff items increased between 1999 and 2000. Competition is very aggressive among the ports along the eastern seaboard of the United States and along the Gulf of Mexico. As one response to the competitive nature of the market, the Port of Miami has, since 1998, entered into volume incentive agreements with several of its largest customers. The purpose of these agreements is to increase the level of activity at the port by offering a reduction in the port's tariff rate, while at the same time having a guaranteed minimum level of revenue for the port. The Port of Miami has entered into volume incentive agreements with Carnival Cruise Lines, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, Seaboard Marine, Maersk, Columbus Lines, and Chilean, and it is in the process of negotiating other such agreements. As a result of the agreements, these lines have brought additional business to the port or have brought new lines to the port. Cost of retirement and medical plans. Section 310.151(5)(b)9., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 22 through 25 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee determined that the estimated cost of the medical plan available to active and retired pilots for 1999, 2000, and 2001 was $8,125.00, $8,235.00, and $8,400.00, respectively, for each active pilot (or a gross for active pilots of $143,000.00, $140,000.00, and $148,000.00, respectively), and $4,636.00, $5,083.00, and $5,083, respectively, for each retiree (or a gross for retirees of $51,000.00, $61,000.00, and $61,000.00, respectively). The Pilots' Association funds both a money purchase pension plan and a 401k plan for all of its employees, after they have completed one year's service. The total annual contribution averages $6,000.00 per employee. Because the pilots are members of a partnership, they are not considered Pilots' Association employees. Their retirement plan is unfunded, and, as noted above, is in the form of a lifetime consulting agreement pursuant to which eligible pilots receive income that is limited to 50 percent of an active pilot's income, with the aggregate payments to retirees capped at 20 percent of the pilots' gross annual revenue. A surviving spouse of a retired pilot is entitled to receive 25 percent of an active pilot's income for life. The equity interests of retiring pilots in the Pilots' Association are also purchased by the Pilots' Association. These benefits result in an aggregate cost to the Pilots' Association of $2,093,086.00 per year. The Investigative Committee valued the pension plan at a conservative $30,000.00 per year, a figure that the Board accepted over objections by the Pilots' Association. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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. Physical risks inherent in piloting. Section 310.151(5)(b)10., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 25 and 26 of the report. The Investigative Committee found that boarding a vessel at sea is the most difficult and dangerous aspect of a pilot's job, and that several pilots were injured between 1996 and 1999. Pilots board vessels in the open sea under many different conditions, with considerable risk, and the pilot often receives minimal support from a vessel's crew. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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 to the extent specifically set forth in the immediately following paragraphs. Even though they may refuse if conditions are unsafe, as a general rule pilots board and disembark from vessels in the open sea, in all kinds of weather, day and night, on rope ladders that are not fixed, that are sometimes not consistent with standards established by the International Maritime Organization, and that are sometimes in poor repair. Whenever possible, the vessels turn to create a lee, or sheltered side, where the pilot can board and disembark from the vessel with less risk, although it is always possible, even in a calm sea, for a cross swell to hit the vessel during boarding or disembarking. Another point at which a pilot is physically at risk is upon moving from the ladder to the deck of the vessel. Many cruise ships have pilot doors low on the side of the vessel to shorten the distance a pilot must ascend or descend a ladder to board and disembark from the ship. Once the pilot is on board the vessel, he is escorted to the bridge, which is accessible only by stairs, sometimes totaling 100 steps in many modern cargo ships. Special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the particular port. Section 310.151(5)(b)11., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 26 and 27 of the report. In its report, the Investigative Committee identified several special characteristics, dangers, and risks of the Port of Miami. It recognized that, due to the velocity and direction of the currents, the proximity of the Gulf Stream presents a variety of challenges to pilots as vessels approach the Outer Bar Channel and that the Gulf Stream, together with northerly winds and a flooding current, make transiting the jetties especially difficult. Because the channel bottom is hard coral from the sea buoy to the berths, it is extremely difficult to handle large, deep-draft vessels to and from the gantry berths, and the current and wind conditions require special handling of these vessels when they dock or turn. In addition, reefs lining the approaches to the Port of Miami are unmarked, and the background light from Miami-Dade County makes it difficult to identify land and navigational marks. Weather can cause hazards to navigation in the Port of Miami, with rapidly changing wind conditions resulting from thunderstorms and with changing tidal conditions resulting from heavy rains. In addition, northwesterly and northeasterly winds cause heavy sets on a flood tide for vessels passing through the jetties. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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 to the extent specifically set forth in the immediately following paragraphs. 16/ The complexity of the waterway poses a high risk to vessels being piloted into the Port of Miami. Waterway complexity at the Port of Miami includes the amount of crossing traffic, turns in the channel, converging traffic from different channels, background lighting, and the large number of small pleasure craft in and around the channels. The hard rock bottom of the channels poses a high risk to vessels being piloted into the Port of Miami. The channel is dredged in a "U" shape, forming a narrow underwater trench through which vessels must pass, and vessels can be seriously damaged if they come into contact with the sides of the trench. Any other factors the board deems relevant in determining a just and reasonable rate. Section 310.151(5)(b)12., Florida Statutes (2000). In its Decision, the Board determined that there were no such factors. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings does not contain any evidence sufficient to form a basis for findings of fact different from, or in addition to, the Board's finding. 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 (2000). In its Decision, the Board accepted the findings in the Investigative Committee Report with regard to this statutory criterion, which facts are found at pages 28 and 29 of the report and in the attachments thereto. In its report, the Investigative Committee found that the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") had increased 17.8 percent since January 1, 1993, the date of the last pilotage rate increase, and 22.9 percent since October 1991, the date of the Pilots' Association's last application for a rate increase. In reaching its conclusion that some increase in pilotage rates at the Port of Miami is justified, the Board noted in its Decision that it considered it compelling that the CPI had increased 17.8 percent since the last rate increase and that pilotage rates at the Port of Miami had not increased for seven years. The record of the hearing held before the Division of Administrative Hearings 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 Decision with respect to this criterion. Taken in its entirety, the evidence presented by the Cargo Carriers Association and the Pilots' Association in this proceeding with respect to the statutory factors set forth in Section 310.1151(5)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes (2000), yielded findings of fact in addition to those found by the Board in its Decision. There was not sufficient credible and persuasive evidence presented by the Cargo Carriers Association to support a finding of fact contrary to the findings of the Board in its Decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pilotage Rate Review Board 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 Biscayne Bay Pilots' Association Pilotage Rate Increase Application in the Port of Miami, filed March 9, 2000, will result in fair, just, and reasonable pilotage rates at the Port of Miami. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 2001.
The Issue Under the standards established by Section 330.30, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-60.05, Florida Administrative Code, the issues presented for resolution are: Whether the site is adequate for the proposed private seaplane base. Whether the proposed seaplane base will conform to minimum standards of safety. Whether safe air traffic patterns can be worked out for the proposed airport and for all existing airports and approved sites in the vicinity.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the witnesses, and the exhibits admitted in evidence at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. On August 24, 1983, Mr. Ruzakowski of 159 San Remo Drive, Venetian Shores Subdivision, Islamorada, Florida, filed an application with attachments with the Department for a private seaplane base license. The application of the proposed private seaplane base to be known as Plantation Key seaplane base proposes that landing and taking off would be in the open water area known as Florida Bay or Cotton Key Basin and that the seaplane would be parked on a ramp at the applicant's home. In order to reach the applicant's waterfront home, the application proposes a taxi route along Snake Creek which connects Florida Bay to the applicant's home. The application had attached to it a letter of zoning approval from the Building and Zoning Department of Monroe County signed by Mr. Joseph E. Bizjak, Assistant Building Official, which letter stated that the ramp on the applicant's property ". . . has never been and is not now in violation of any Monroe County zoning codes." The Department of Transportation has never been notified by the Monroe County Zoning and Building Department of any withdrawal of this zoning approval. Also attached to the application was a letter from Robert Billingsley supervisor of the program development section of the Federal Aviation Administration which stated that the FAA airspace approval for applicant's seaplane was still current and in effect. Mr. Ruzakowski's 1976 application for a seaplane base proposed using Snake Creek as a take-off and landing area. The instant application only proposes to use Snake Creek as a taxi area to and from Mr. Ruzakowski's residence (where he proposes to park the airplane) and the take-off and landing area in Florida Bay. The distance from Mr. Ruzakowski's residence to the take- off and landing area is approximately one mile. Upon receipt by DOT of Mr. Ruzakowski's 1983 application, an on-site feasibility inspection of the site was made by Mr. Steve Gordon of the DOT's Sixth District in Miami, Florida. Mr. Gordon, a District Aviation Engineer, has extensive experience as an airplane pilot and as an airport site inspector. Mr. Gordon conducted an adequate on-site inspection and concluded that the proposed seaplane base appeared to be in compliance with the applicable statutory and rule provisions. Specifically, Mr. Gordon concluded that the take-off and landing operations would be away from the area of the homes in the development, that the ramp on Mr. Ruzakowski's property was adequate for safe approach upon his lot, that his lot was a safe place to park his seaplane, that Snake Creek was wide enough for taxiing the airplane, that the take-off and landing area contained no obstructions or hazards, and that there was no hazard to other airports in the area. Following the inspection, Mr. Gordon wrote to Mr. Ruzakowski and to the DOT officials and advised them that the proposed site was feasible for a private seaplane base under the applicable licensing requirements. Thereafter, the DOT sent notice to approximately 200 addressees advising them of the proposed private seaplane base application, the inspection results, the DOT's intent to issue site approval and advising of a public meeting on the matter. The notice was also published in The Florida Keys Keynoter newspaper on October 13, 1983. Among the addressees notified by mail were adjacent property owners, the Monroe County Building and Zoning Department, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, and the FAA. The Marine Patrol and the Coast Guard were also notified of the public hearing. Neither the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners nor the Monroe County Building and Zoning Department sent a representative to attend the public hearing. Following the public hearing and consideration of all of the objections stated at the public hearing, Mr. Gordon recommended that site approval be granted for the proposed seaplane base. There are other licensed seaplane bases in Florida in which the take- off and landing areas are in open water such as bays and in which seaplanes using the base taxi to and from the parking area in channels used by boats. The airplane owned by Mr. Ruzakowski which he proposes to use at the subject seaplane base is a modified Republic Seabee. The modifications include modifications which make the airplane more maneuverable, quieter, and dependable. When taxiing on the water the pilot of the Seabee has excellent visibility of everything from very close to the airplane to infinity. The airplane is very maneuverable on the water, due in part to the fact that it has both water and air rudders. The airplane can be stopped very quickly on the water because the direction of the propeller thrust can be reversed. The propeller reversal also makes it possible for the airplane to back up while on the water. The airplane can taxi on the water as slowly as 5 miles per hour. Once it reaches the take-off area, the actual take-off run lasts only about 18 or 20 seconds. The airplane is approximately 40 feet wide from wingtip to wingtip. The tip of the airplane propeller is at least four feet above the water. As a result of the excellent visibility from the airplane and the high degree of maneuverability of the airplane, it is easy for the pilot of the airplane to observe and avoid any boats or other objects in the vicinity of the airplane. While operating on the water the airplane is subject to the same navigation rules which apply to boats and ships. The applicant, Mr. Ruzakowski is a 73 year old retired airline pilot. He has between 20,000 and 22,000 hours of flying experience, approximately 75 percent of which was as pilot in command. He has flown a large number of different types of airplanes, including land based airplanes, seaplanes, and amphibians. He has had extensive experience in both single- engine and multi- engine aircraft. In 54 years of flying he has never had an accident. Safety is the main factor in all of his flying. Mr. Ruzakowski is an FAA consultant engineer and does all of the maintenance and repairs on his own airplane. He has invented an improved control system for the Republic Seabee aircraft and has received FAA approval for his invention to he installed on other Republic Seabees. Mr. Ruzakowski appears to be in excellent physical and mental condition; at the hearing he appeared to be strong, agile, and alert. These appearances are confirmed by the fact that he currently holds a valid FAA pilot's license and medical certificate. He has never been denied an FAA medical certificate. His vision is excellent and is perhaps getting better because several years ago his FAA medical certificate required him to keep reading glasses in the aircraft, but his current medical certificate contains no such restriction. Snake Creek is used by a variety of large and small commercial and pleasure boats. The volume of boat traffic varies from day to day and also by time of day. At times there are also swimmers and divers in Snake Creek and in the designated take-off and landing area. However, none of the boat traffic is incompatible with the operation of the applicant's airplane because the visibility from the airplane and the maneuverability of the airplane are such that the pilot of the airplane has as much or more ability to avoid or prevent a collision as does the operator of any of the boats and ships using the waterway.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order approving the issuance of Site Approval Order No. 83-34. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. 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 15th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Miklas Esquire Post Office Box 366 Islamorada, Florida 33036 James Baccus, Esquire Post Office Box 38-1086 Little River Station Miami, Florida 33138 Judy Rice, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 Honorable Paul A. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and to enforce the Florida Yacht and Ship Broker's Act, Chapter 326, Florida Statutes. At times prior to June 21, 1991, Respondent Bongiovi was licensed by Petitioner as a yacht broker. Respondent Bongiovi did not hold any license as a yacht broker at any time after June 21, 1991. Respondent AJB Yachts was not licensed as a yacht broker at any time pertinent to this proceeding. Respondent Bongiovi does business as AJB Yachts or AJB Yacht Sales, Inc. There was no evidence that AJB Yacht Sales, Inc., is legally incorporated. On various dates in September and October 1994, Respondent Bongiovi placed two separate advertisements in the classified ads section of the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Sun-Sentinel newspaper. The first of these ads offered for sale a 41' Hatteras yacht for the sum of $150,000. The second of these advertisements offered for sale a 43" Portofino yacht for the sum of $125,000. Both advertisements contained the Respondent's telephone number, 305-942-7425. On or about May 28, 1993, Respondent, acting as a yacht broker, represented Charles Robbins in the purchase of a 66' Pacemaker yacht named the Sea Cow. The owner of the yacht, Dennis Gaultney, was represented by Mauch Yacht Sales, Inc., the listing broker. As part of the offer made by Mr. Robbins, he gave to Respondent Bongiovi a check in the amount of $33,000 as earnest money. Respondent Bongiovi deposited this money in a bank account at First Union National Bank of Florida, Pompano Beach branch on June 1, 1993. This account is entitled "AJB Yacht Sales, Inc., Escrow Account." Respondent Bongiovi was the sole signatory on this account. Respondent Bongiovi immediately began making withdrawals from this account that were not related to the Robbins transaction. 1/ As of June 10, 1993, the balance in this account was $29,575.54. As of June 21, 1993, the balance was $23,570.83. As of June 30, 1993, the balance was $21,554.04. Negotiations for the sale of the Sea Cow continued between the purchaser and the owner until July 20, 1993. The final version of the owner's proposal was a response to the last proposal made by Mr. Robbins and contained several changes to the last offer made by Mr. Robbins, including a change in the price of the vessel and an extension of the closing date to July 22, 1993. These changes were initialed by the owner of the boat, but they were not initialed by Mr. Robbins. Mr. Robbins never received a signed copy of the final proposal from the owner of the Sea Cow. A survey to evaluate the condition of the vessel was conducted and a copy of the inspection report faxed to Respondent Bongiovi by Jan Mauch of Mauch Yacht Sales on June 9, 1993. The transmittal note that accompanied the fax stated the following: "Here is the 'Schedule A' 2/ to go with the contract. After Charlie sees the survey, have him sign this and Acceptance of Vessel on contract and fax back both to me and I'll have Denny sign." Included in the inspection report was the following information: ". . . an engine inspection did not include a detailed mechanical inspection or test of components. A complete engine survey by a qualified mechanic is recommended in all cases." Mr. Robbins thereafter requested that Respondent Bongiovi arrange for an inspection of the vessel's engines before he accepted the vessel. Mr. Robbins never received an inspection report for the engines, he did not obtain his own financing for the vessel, and he never tendered the balance of the purchase price. The transaction involving Mr. Robbins did not timely close because the inspection of the engines were not completed. Because there was a delay in closing the transaction, the owner sold the yacht to another buyer. Neither Mr. Gaultney nor Mauch Yacht Sales demanded a portion of the $33,000 earnest money deposit. Mr. Robbins demanded the return of his money from the Respondent after he learned that the Sea Cow had been sold to another purchaser. Respondent Bongiovi refused to return the deposit and asserted the position that he was entitled to keep all of the deposit as liquidated damages because the transaction had not closed. Respondent Bongiovi relies on Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the form agreement for his contention that he was entitled to retain the $33,000 deposit as liquidated damages. Those provisions are as follows: The purchase of the vessel is subject to survey - seatrial - capt (sic) - inspection showing condition subject to purchasers (sic) sole judgment and approval to be conducted as soon as practicable after execution of this agreement at the option and expense of the PURCHASER. The PURCHASER shall give written acceptance or rejection of the Vessel by June 10, 1993, and if written notification is not received by the BROKER (A.J.B. Yacht Sales) on or before said date, it shall be construed as acceptance of the Vessel by PURCHASER. In the event, after written or construed acceptance of the Vessel, the PURCHASER fails to pay the balance of the purchase price and execute all papers necessary to be executed by him for the completion of his purchase, pursuant to the terms of this contract, on or before July 10, 1993, the sum this date paid shall be retained by A.J.B. Yacht Sales as liquidated and agreed damage and the parties shall be relieved of all obligations under this contract. In paragraph 2 of the agreement executed by Mr. Robbins on May 28, 1993, there was a provision that the offer submitted by Mr. Robbins was withdrawn if not accepted by June 5, 1993. There was no evidence that there was a final and complete agreement sufficient to bind the parties by June 5, 1993, or at any time thereafter. The agreement executed by Mr. Robbins on May 28, 1993, also contained the following provision: In the event that this sale is not consummated by reasons of unsatisfactory survey . . . the deposit shall be returned, providing all expenses incurred by the PURCHASER against the Vessel have been paid, and this agreement shall be null and void. Mr. Robbins verbally notified Respondent Bongiovi that he would require additional testing on the engine before accepting the vessel. Mr. Robbins did not receive the results of those additional tests and learned soon thereafter that the vessel had been sold to another purchaser. Following the failure and refusal of the Respondents to return the deposit, Mr. Robbins sued the Respondents in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, pursuant to the provisions of Sections 772.11 and 812.014, Florida Statutes. Based on the evidence presented, the Circuit Judge in that civil proceeding entered a final judgement for treble damages ($99,000) in favor of Mr. Robbins and against the Respondents based, in part, on the following: . . . On the evidence presented, the Court finds: * * * Plaintiff (Mr. Robbins) gave Defendants (Mr. Bongiovi and his corporation) a check in the amount of $33,000.00 on May 28, 1993, to be held in escrow as a deposit pending accep- tance by the owner of a vessel for the purchase of said motor vessel. Said $33,000.00 was deposited into a bank account owned and/or controlled by Defendants. The owner of the vessel failed to accept Plaintiff's offer within the time provided in the written contract attached to the Amended Complaint; and, therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to return of his $33,000.00 deposit. Plaintiff demanded return of said $33,000.00 deposit, but Defendants failed and refused to return same, which sum has been due with interest since June 5, 1993. Defendants breached the Purchase Agree- ment on June 5, 1993, by failing and refusing to return Plaintiff's deposit of $33,000.00 when the offer to purchase the vessel was not accepted by the owner by that date. Defendants had a fiduciary responsibility to Plaintiff as escrow agents under the Purchase Agreement, and they breached their fiduciary responsibility by failing and refusing to return the $33,000.00 deposit when the offer to purchase the vessel was not accepted by the owner by June 5, 1993. . . .
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order in this proceeding that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law and which imposes an administrative fine jointly and severally against the Respondents in the amount of $10,000 for the violations of Count I and imposes an additional administrative fine jointly and severally against the Respondents in the amount of $10,000 for the violation of Count II. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1995.
Findings Of Fact By application filed with Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pilot Commissioners (Department), April 30, 1985, Petitioner, Kenneth Gassett (Gassett), requested authorization to sit for the August 27, 1985, deputy pilot's examination for the port of Pensacola.* Captain Gassett's application reflected that he was employed by the Alaskan Marine Highway System from December 21, 1981 through June 3, 1982. Although his official discharges only reflect service as a second or third mate, the evidence is clear that Captain Gassett also served as a pilot. During his service with the Alaskan Marine Highway System Captain Gassett accumulated 90 sea days in which he actually piloted a vessel into or out of a deep-water United States port. Captain Gassett's application further reflected that he was employed as a pilot for the Virgin Islands Port Authority, St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands, from January 16, 1984 through April 23, 1985, the date of his application. However, since the documentation he provided to attest to his service in the Virgin Islands was dated April 18, 1985, the Department advised Captain Gassett by letter of June 4, 1985, that: Upon preliminary review of your application, it appears from the sea service presented that you are still serving as a pilot in the USVI. It is recommended that you provide any additional documentation possible to indicate this employment beyond the effective date of April 18, 1985 on the letter previously submitted. By letter of June 10, 1985, Captain Gassett advised the Department that he was still employed as a pilot in the Virgin Islands, enclosed copies of his latest paychecks and personnel statement, and supplied the Department with the name and telephone number of the Director of Personnel, Virgin Islands Port Authority, should it need any further confirmation. At the time of final hearing Captain Gassett was still employed as a pilot for the Virgin Islands Port Authority. During such service he worked a rotating schedule of two weeks on duty and one week off duty. Accordingly, from January 16, 1984 to August 27, 1985, the date of the examination, Captain Gassett could have accumulated a maximum of 393 sea days as a deep water pilot.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are fact are determined: In this examination for licensure challenge, petitioner, Mason L. Flint, contends that he is entitled to a higher score on the March 1994 deputy pilot examination for the Port of Jacksonville. The examination is administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Pilot Commissioners (Board). Although the original petition challenged the grade in twelve respects, petitioner now contends that only two items are in issue, item 21 relating to the local knowledge part of the examination, and item 270 relating to the aids to navigation part of the examination. Both are true-false questions. Unlike the more than fifty other professional licensure examinations administered by the DBPR, the seven-part pilot examination requires a candidate to achieve a minimum passing grade on each part, but candidates doing so then compete with each other for vacant positions. In other words, if only one position at a particular port is open, the candidate achieving the highest score above the minimum passing grade is the only candidate receiving a license. In this case, three deputy pilot positions were available at the Port of Jacksonville, and thus the candidates having the three highest scores among those exceeding the minimum passing grade would be given a license. Petitioner finished sixth on the original grading, but after having his examination regraded by the Board prior to hearing, he was ranked number four. By this challenge, he seeks to have his grade changed on items 21 and 270 so as to raise his ranking to number three. In order to preserve the confidentiality of Item 21 for future examinations, it is suffice to say that the item required a response of true or false concerning limitations on vessels leaving the Talleyrand Docks in Jacksonville, Florida. The examination answer key shows true as the correct response. In preparing all questions pertaining to local knowledge, including item 21, the Board's consultant used the U. S. Coast Pilot, a compilation of operational guidelines governing the movement of vessels in the St. Johns River (and Port of Jacksonville). The specific source of authority for item 21 was paragraph (16) on page 153 of the 1993 edition of the U. S. Coast Pilot. That paragraph reads in pertinent part as follows: (16) Outbound vessels: Vessels with a draft of over 23 (sic) feet sailing between Main Street Bridge to, and including, U. S. Gypsum Co. Pier, shall get underway after 1-1/2 hours after flood current with a cut off time at the beginning of ebb current . . . Because Talleyrand Docks lies between the Main Street Bridge and the U. S. Gypsum Company Pier, this paragraph has application to vessels leaving those docks. The 1993 version of the U. S. Coast Pilot contained a typographical error. Rather than "23" feet, the guidelines should have read "32" feet. To correct this error, paragraph (16) was revised in mid-March 1994, or the same month the examination was given, to provide that any vessel drawing more than 32 feet would be subject to the above movement restrictions. However, candidates were advised that only revisions to the U. S. Coast Pilot through January 1, 1994, would be included in the March 1994 examination. Besides the limitation described in paragraph (16), two other paragraphs on the same page of the U. S. Coast Pilot made reference to the correct 32 foot limitation. In addition, the Guidelines of Vessel Movements on St. Johns River, which form the basis for the data in the U. S. Coast Pilot, used the correct 32 foot limitation. Candidates familiar with those provisions should have been on notice that a typographical error existed in paragraph (16). Although the Board's suggested response is arguably correct, the more persuasive evidence shows that the statement in item 21 was confusing and unclear due to the typographical error in the U. S. Coast Pilot and the conflicting provisions on the same page of the source material. Thus, item 21 does not reliably measure the specified area of competency. Under these circumstances, a candidate should be given credit for either a true or false response, or alternatively, the question should be discarded in calculating a candidate's final score. Accordingly, petitioner's grade should be adjusted in this respect. Petitioner has also contended that only a false response is correct since the question implies that a restriction exists because of its use of the words "up to the beginning of ebb current." The evidence shows, however, that a candidate could reasonably reject that suggested implication and properly make a true response. Item 270 requires a true or false response to a statement regarding identifying marks or buoys marking a channel. The item identifies a set of conditions and then states that such a marking "could" properly be made. The examination answer key shows true as the correct response. The primary source of authority for item 270 is 33 CFR 62.43. According to that federal regulation, buoys marking the side of a channel (lateral aids) are always a solid color, and all solid color buoys marking a channel are numbered. The regulation goes on to provide that, in addition to a number, all solid color numbered buoys may also carry a letter suffix to aid in their identification, or to indicate their purpose. They cannot, however, be identified by letter only, but only by number and letter. Because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows that the question, as stated on the examination, clearly suggests that only a letter could be used for identification of a sidemark buoy, the correct response should be false. Therefore, petitioner should be given credit for his answer. The record is not altogether clear as to how changing petitioner's overall grade will impact his ranking. According to the DBPR psychometrician who is in charge of the pilot examination development, both petitioner and the third ranked candidate gave the same response on one of the challenged questions. On the other item, the two gave different responses, but if either response is deemed to be a correct response, it would have no bearing on their overall ranking. The pychometrician added that if an item is challenged and credit given to the protesting candidate, the answer key is changed and all candidates' scores are adjusted to reflect the change in the answer key.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board regrading petitioner's examination consistent with the above findings and conclusions. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5327 Petitioner: 1-2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4-5. Rejected as being unnecessary. 6-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 14-27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3-8. 28-39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9-11. Respondent: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Rejected. See finding of fact 11. Note: Where a proposed findings has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejcted as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordiante, not supported by the evidence, or cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Mason L. Flint 1605 Brookside Circle East Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Susan J. Foster, Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0773
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Department of Financial Services, properly denied the application for firefighter certification filed by the Petitioner, Christopher Dinapoli.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. Candidates for such certification are required to complete a Minimum Standards Course and to pass a two-part test that includes a written portion and a practical skills examination. A candidate is permitted to take the test twice before being required to re-take the Minimum Standards Course and re-apply for certification. The practical skills examination, administered by the Florida State Fire College (Fire College) under the Division of the State Fire Marshall, includes four components: self- contained breathing apparatus, hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. Field representatives of the Fire College observe and score the candidate's performance in the practical skills examination. On February 16, 2010, the Petitioner took the practical skills examination at the Sarasota County Technical Institute and received a grade of "fail" on the hose operation and ladder operation components. The Petitioner's failure to pass the two components was documented by the Fire College field representative by notations on the Petitioner's score sheet. The Petitioner asserts that the assignment of the "fail" grade on February 16, 2010, was erroneous. The field representative who observed the Petitioner on February 16, 2010, testified that the Petitioner failed to extend the ladder properly. The field representative's testimony was clear and persuasive and has been credited. On March 25, 2010, the Petitioner retook the hose operation and ladder operation components at the Fire College. The Petitioner received a grade of "pass" on the hose operation component and a grade of "fail" on the ladder operation component. Successful completion of the ladder operation component requires a candidate to fully extend the ladder at the correct position and to complete the operation (including retrieval and positioning of the ladder) in a time not exceeding two minutes and 20 seconds (2:20). The Petitioner's failure to pass the ladder operation component was documented by the Fire College field representative by notation on the Petitioner's score sheet. The Petitioner asserts that the assignment of the "fail" grade on March 25, 2010, was erroneous. The field representative who observed the Petitioner on March 25, 2010, testified at the hearing that the Petitioner exceeded the 2:20 time allotted for completion of the ladder operation. The field representative's testimony as to the administration of the test lacked clarity and was not persuasive. The March 25, 2010, score sheet for the ladder operation portion of the test was altered at some point after the completion of the test process. The time recorded on the score sheet was initially marked as "2:00," and a "3" was subsequently written over the "2." The field representative's testimony about the circumstances of the alteration lacked clarity sufficient to establish that either notation was reliable. Additionally, the candidate identification number within the Petitioner's score sheet package was stated inconsistently. The cover sheet of the Petitioner's score sheet package identified the Petitioner as Candidate No. 4, but the "4" was crossed out and a handwritten "3" was written on the cover sheet. The candidate number on the Petitioner's score sheet was handwritten as Candidate No. 3. The Petitioner asserted that he successfully completed the ladder operation within the allotted time on March 25, 2010, and offered anecdotal testimony in support of the assertion. No other timing device was utilized during the ladder operation test, as the Respondent prohibits any use of timing devices by persons other than the field representative administering the test. While it is reasonable to presume that, given the level of training by all participants in the testing process, a difference of 60 seconds in test completion time would be perceptible, the Petitioner's anecdotal evidence was insufficient to establish that the ladder operation test was completed within the allotted time. There was no credible evidence, other than as stated herein, that the Respondent failed to comply with the procedures adopted by rule that govern the certification process.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services issue a final order invalidating the results of the March 25, 2010, ladder operation test administered to the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner one opportunity to re-take the ladder operation test. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Guy E. Burnette, Jr., Esquire 3020 North Shannon Lakes Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 James Bruce Culpepper, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, David E. Rabren was licensed as a Tampa Bay state pilot and was president of the Tricounty Pilot's Association (TRICO). At the time the movement of the OCEAN LORD occurred, there was only one state licensed pilot who was a member of TRICO. That was David E. Rabren. Other members held only federally issued pilot's licenses. Prior to the movement of the VOMAR, a second state licensed pilot joined TRICO. At present, there are four licensed state pilots and one deputy pilot associated with TRICO. The vessel OCEAN LORD arrived in Tampa Bay February 18, 1986, and was piloted by Captain Rabren to its berth at C. F. Industries (CFI). After taking on cargo, the OCEAN LORD was moved the same date to Gadsden Anchorage. During this move, Captain Murphy, a federally licensed, but not state licensed, pilot was on board. Captain Murphy is associated with TRICO. On February 21, 1986, the OCEAN LORD was moved from Gadsden Anchorage to the CSX Transportation dock at Rockport. Again, Captain Murphy was the pilot. On September 21, 1986, the vessel VOMAR was moved from Rockport to a dock at Big Bend with Captain Murphy as the pilot. Anita Rabren determined that the movement could be accomplished with a federally licensed pilot on board. On October 5, 1986, the vessel ASPEN, an American flag vessel, arrived at Tampa Bay, and the ship's agent requested TRICO provide a pilot. Due to a misunderstanding of the agent's statement that the ASPEN was coming from the west coast, Anita Rabren assumed this was from the west coast of the United States. Actually, the ASPEN's last port of call was in Korea. Had the vessel come from a west coast of the United States port, the voyage would have been a coastwise trip, and a federally licensed pilot would be required. A federally licensed pilot was assigned to pilot the ASPEN. The last port of call of the ASPEN was ascertained after the pilotages up Tampa Bay commenced, and the fact that an improperly licensed pilot was used was reported forthwith. TRICO paid a double pilot fee to the Tampa Bay Pilot's Association. Tampa Port Authority has jurisdiction over all of Hillsborough County and establishes rules and regulations for that area. They do not regulate pilotage of vessels. Many of the terminals in Hillsborough County are owned by the Port Authority, but some are privately owned such as Big Bend and Rockport, both of which are in the port of Tampa. The Port Authority controls the allocation of berths at all terminals owned by the Port Authority, but does not control the berths at privately owned terminals. The CFI terminal is owned by the Port Authority who establishes wharfage rates and docking rates at this terminal. The berths at Rockport and Big Bend are privately owned, and tariff rates are not set by the Port Authority. CSX Transportation owns a dock at Rockport where phosphate is loaded onto vessels. No wharfage or dockage charge is levied, but such charges are included in charges for the commodity loaded. Ships can clear customs at any of the terminals above noted. The Big Bend facility is under the jurisdiction of Gulf Coast Transit Company. Vessels bring coal to Big Bend for use by Tampa Electric Company. The AGRICO terminal at Big Bend is used for loading phosphate rock. All of these privately owned terminals are licensed by the Tampa Port Authority to whom they pay a fee and submit reports of their activities. The Tampa Port Authority charges a fee to vessels who load or unload cargo at the Gadsden Anchorage which is also in the port of Tampa. Section 310.002(4), Florida Statutes, defines "port" to mean, any place in the state in which vessels enter and depart. For Tampa Bay, this section lists Tampa, Port Tampa, Port Manatee, St. Petersburg and Clearwater as ports. Of those listed ports, Tampa and Port Tampa are in Hillsborough County and come under the jurisdiction of the Tampa Port Authority. No evidence was submitted showing the areas encompassed by the Port of Tampa and Port Tampa. The Port of Tampa's Terminal and Facilities Map (Exhibit 5) showing the port facilities at Tampa, Florida, does not show the facilities at Port Tampa; it shows only those facilities on the east side of the Tampa peninsula, and does not reach as far south as Big Bend. Presumably, if there are only two ports in Hillsborough County that portion of Hillsborough County west of the Tampa peninsula would comprise Port Tampa, and that portion of Hillsborough County east and south of the Tampa peninsula would comprise the Port of Tampa. If so, all of the movements here complained of occurred in the Port of Tampa. Exhibit 5 supports this conclusion. Finally, no credible evidence was presented that Respondent assigned a federally licensed, but not a state licensed, pilot to the OCEAN LORD, VOMAR and ASPEN as alleged, except Exhibit 3 which states the assignment of a federally licensed pilot to the Aspen was due to an error on the part of Captain Rabren. The direct testimony presented in this regard is that Anita Rabren assigned federally licensed pilots to those ships. Further, this determination that use of a federally licensed pilot for those movements of foreign flag vessels within the Port of Tampa was proper was made by Anita Rabren after receiving legal advice regarding the in-port movements of foreign flag vessels that can be piloted by a federally licensed pilot.
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on May 20, 2011, and included four components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn scores of at least 70 on each section. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder at all times, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. A failure to finish the tasks within the allotted time results in an automatic failure and a score of zero, even if the examinee performs each of the 15 skills successfully.2/ Although Petitioner achieved perfect scores of 100 on the ladder operation and fireground skills components, he was unable to achieve scores of 70 or higher on the SCBA or hose portions of the practical examination. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.3/ Petitioner's retest was administered on September 22, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College. On that occasion, Petitioner passed the SCBA and hose portions——the sections that he failed during his previous attempt——with scores of 85. Interestingly, however, the Department's field notes indicate that Petitioner exceeded the ladder evaluation's maximum permitted time by 32 seconds, a performance 58 seconds slower than his recorded time just four months earlier, when he achieved a perfect score. The field notes further reflect that Petitioner committed no errors in connection with the 15 ladder skills and that his failing score was entirely attributable to the examiner's conclusion that the time limit had been exceeded. During the final hearing, Respondent called Thomas Johnson, the field representative for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that administered Petitioner's retest, who testified that he timed the ladder examination with a stopwatch, and that Petitioner did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time period. Significantly, however, the Department elicited no detail from Mr. Thomas with respect to the causes——e.g., loss of ladder control, tripping, fumbling, etc.——of Petitioner's purported failure to complete the evaluation within the allotted time.4/ In contrast, Petitioner testified that although he was not permitted to bring a timekeeping device to the examination (the Department forbids examinees from doing so), he is confident that he completed the ladder retest within the prescribed time limit: Mr. Saintilmond: All right. On the date of the retest, I was taking the ladder examination. I've gone through the evolution. I did not fumble around. I did not take any time. I went through the exam as trained. No fumbling around, no waiting, no nothing. And I believe that I completed the evolution on time. And I passed the examination before. I've done it several times. But on this particular day, on my retake, I know I went through this evolution and I passed it with no fumbling around. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 12. Notwithstanding the anecdotal nature of Petitioner's evidence, his description of the evaluation, which was credible and adequately detailed, carries significant persuasive force in light of his perfect completion of the same ladder examination—— with 26 seconds to spare——just four months before the retest. The undersigned therefore accepts Petitioner's version of the events and finds that he did not exceed the maximum time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds during the September 22, 2011, retention examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order granting Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 17th day of May, 2012.
